Why Republicans should not vote Bush in 2004 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-25-2004, 12:23 PM   #1
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston,tx,usa
Posts: 645
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Why Republicans should not vote Bush in 2004

Jobs)
1. Nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs lost under him.
2. Lied about recovering job market (forecasts made in 2003 were completely wrong, will not endorse 2004 forecasts)
3. More than 9 million people unemployed.

Bush the Anti-conservative)
1. Big government budget: wants to spend $500 billion+ in 2004
2. Big government control: wants to strip more power from the states by legislating marriage laws on a national level.
3. No-Federally-Funded-Program-Left-Behind: Hasn`t used a single veto in 3 years of office.

Military)
1. Anti-veteran: Veterans to lose billions in benefits because of Bush
2. Anti-reservists: Bush sends reservists to extended period of duty. Reservists then come home to find the company they worked for has moved to Indonesia.
3. Anti-personnel: Would rather spend more on weapons programs than increase pay for soldiers

Bill of Rights)
1. Patriot Act: Will take away freedom of speech. Will take away due process. Will deport your ass.
2. Patriot Act: Need I say more?
__________________

__________________
GibsonExplorer is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 02:50 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:52 PM
there are too many reasons to list

one big reason is this administration is NOT HONEST with the American people.


Quote:
The unseen cost of the war in Iraq
US Politics



Published: 10-Feb-2004
By: Jonathan Miller



The true extent of US casualties in Iraq are still unknown. This has fuelled suspicion that the administration may be hiding the true human cost of the war and its aftermath. Channel Four News has been allowed a rare opportunity to meet some of America's wounded soldiers.



In a dark corner of Andrews Air Force base on the outskirts of Washington DC, America's war-wounded come home.



The human cost of humbling tyrants.



No ceremony, no big welcome.



More than 11,000 medical evacuees have come through Andrews in the past nine months, the Air Force says.



Most, we suspect, from Iraq. But that's 8,000 more than the Pentagon says have been wounded there.



Most of those wounded in action come through the vast Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington.



The American public is, for the most part, unaware that the true casualty count of the war in Iraq may actually be higher than official figures suggest.



The apparent discrepancy is fuelling suspicion that the US government's got something to hide.



There'd been a suicide at the Center the previous week. Another of what the Pentagon terms a "non-hostile" death - in other words, one that won't figure on its list of fatalities,



We were the first foreign TV crew to film at Walter Reed Army Medical Center since the invasion of Iraq one year ago.



One patient, Staff Sergeant Maurice Craft, had his leg blown off in November by a roadside bomb in Baghdad. He'd gone to liberate a land whose people turned out to be hostile. It was a nasty surprise :



"Doing that kind of operation over there, you don't really know who the enemy is. They use cowardly tactics, women and children."



Another patient, Staff Sergeant Roy Mitchell, lost his leg in Afghanistan three months ago:



"The ones that are covered are the KIAs. The “Killed in Action”. I'm not taking anything away from those soldiers. They deserve that coverage. But there is also us. To say we're forgotten, that would be going just a little bit too far to say we're forgotten but I'd say we are the missed soldiers of the army."



Says Sgt Craft, "A lot of people are getting hit. What they are showing are the deaths. They are not showing this here. They have a death toll but they're not showing the number of people being hit and being amputated because of their injuries.



Channel 4 News: "And in you're opinion, the number of wounded in action, the number wounded generally, is quite high?"



"Yes."



Students of modern military history could be forgiven a sense of deja-vu. It was to Walter Reed Medical Center that America's war-wounded from Vietnam were brought.



Numbers-wise, there's still no comparison. 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam; fewer than 600 have been killed in Iraq. But psychologically, Vietnam has a resonance that still shapes politics here.



Come November, President Bush, who never fought in South East Asia, may well be up against Senator John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam vet. Could that be why the dead and wounded return to Washington in the middle of the night with no fanfare?



The images the US government does want us to see depict the return of America’s heroes – such as arrival back at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, of the 101st Airborne division after a year in Iraq.



It was to have been a six-month tour of duty. They are the survivors, the lucky ones.



But when it comes to the wounded, an astonishing situation has arisen: the Pentagon's figures clash wildly with those of the US Army.



The Pentagon lists 2,604 wounded in action and just 408 "non-hostile wounded".



But the Army says many thousands more have been medically evacuated from the conflict zone.



Why the discrepancy? Well, the Pentagon doesn't count as victims soldiers who come back with brain injuries or psychiatric disorders, those hit by friendly fire or those who've crashed in their military vehicles.



You could call them "the missing wounded" of Operation Iraqi Freedom.



Some suspect the government's been deliberately massaging the figures.



According to Steve Robinson, from the National Gulf War Resource Center:



"Information warfare is a tenet of war. It's part of the strategy in war and it's something we employ in Iraq to win to gain the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. And in some cases it looks as if the Department of Defense is employing information warfare back doing this at home by not releasing accurate information or making it difficult to obtain information. That prevents the story from being told or it makes it take longer for the story to be told or it frustrates people to where they don't even try to tell the story."



Steve Robinson is no anti-war liberal. A former Special Forces soldier with 20 years' service, he now briefs Presidents. He believes we're not being told the full story.



"People don't want bad news stories coming out from this war and at every level where I need information, every time I need information from the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans' Affairs, about the injuries of this war, I run unto obstacles. None of this is national security. None of this will cause the collapse of the coalition. It's just information that we need to understand what's happening."



Heath Calhoun, 24, wasn't able to walk off the plane with his brothers from the 101st Airborne. This was how he broke the news from his hospital bed in Mosul to his 21-year-old wife Tiffany : "I called her and I told her she could have the good news or the bad news. I said I've got my legs blown off, but the good news is I'm coming home."



Heath's Humvee crew was hit by a rocket propelled grenade.



"I didn't know what had happened. It hit and I saw a big burst of white powder and than I saw white and went flying into the air. I could see my legs were mucked up and blood coming out of them and I screamed.



He still wears the ID tag of his friend Morgan, who was blown to pieces.



Was it all worthwhile?



"I can't answer that question yet. If Iraq becomes and democracy, yes, but if it all falls apart, I think it will be in vain. We'll have to work that out."



This is a patriotic part of the south. Fort Campbell, headquarters of the 101st Airborne, straddles the state line between Tennessee and Kentucky. There is an awkwardness here when it comes to asking questions about America's adventure in Iraq.



There's a lot to work out and there's a lot going on inside the heads of some of these soldiers.



I went to meet some injured Iraq veterans on the base who'd formed a support group. Not a very macho thing to do, they admitted, but they said they needed to get stuff off their chests.



Pat Collins from New Jersey is 38. He took shrapnel though his neck in Baghdad and is in permanent pain.



"I was injured on patrol in Baghdad. Couple guys ambushed us. I've got nerve damage. A lot of pain. I took a lot of morphine. Readjusting. Getting my life back on track. I'm not going to do what I did before. Time to move on and find something else to do. I'm not going to what it was I did before."



His anger is, in some cases, producing political transformation.



Pat: "I was a Republican ... I'm going to be incredibly active in the Democratic Party once I get out."



And who's his democratic preference, we asked?



Pat: "Kerry."



It was at this point that we were asked to stop filming. Other members of the group had grown uneasy that things had taken a poltical turn.



Says Terry James, a Psychiatric Counsellor : "The only other war I can closely compare this with is Vietnam. When we went to Somalia, Bosnia, Panama, etc. once war was declared over, it was over. But this one is not over even though it' s declared over."



President Bush may have declared major combat operations in Iraq over ten months ago, but fresh planeloads of wounded soldiers continue to fly into Andrews Air Force base every week, unseen by most Americans.



If the US government was to admit to the true human cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the wounded as well as the dead, then how many Americans would support George Bush and his war?






__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 03:18 PM   #3
Acrobat
 
mobonofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 432
Local Time: 05:52 AM
Amen!
__________________
mobonofo is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 03:54 PM   #4
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,443
Local Time: 12:52 AM
sorry... bush wasn't even my first choice in 2000 (twas a mccain man)... but lots would have to change between now and november for me to not vote for him again... and i have a feeling 99% of republicans feel the same way, and a lot of those middle ground voters do too... but eh... i could be wrong
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 08:44 PM   #5
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston,tx,usa
Posts: 645
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Well, the middle group ARE easily swayed, so your assertion that a lot of them will not desert Bush is a little off.

The Republican party has fiercely loyal followers, I understand, but I believe they follow only because they strongly do not want a liberal in power, not because Bush represents the best of conservative ideology. This is what I'm trying to appeal to.

Maybe if you, Headache, would elaborate on how much more need to change before you decide not to vote for Bush, I can offer some facts to convince you that this country really needs a change badly.
__________________
GibsonExplorer is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 08:51 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:52 AM
It's the group in the middle that might change. They don't particularly feel like they *owe* votes to either Republicans or Democrats. Personally I'm supporting Kerry, but then I have always supported the Democrat so I'm a member of the choir. Anything could happen, however. This is American politics.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 09:03 PM   #7
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,443
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Well please offer me some facts because I'm doing just fine myself.

Do I think Kerry could fix the economy? Yes... I believe the economy is cyclical and will continue to rebound no matter who's in the White House.

Do I believe in Gay marriage? No. I think marriage is more of a religous thing than a governmental thing. People who get married by a justice of the peace aren't married "in the eyes of God" according to the Catholic church anyways, so what should they care if gays are allowed to do the same thing? In there eyes, they're still not married, right? I do believe gays should be able to enter into a civil union and thus should be entitled to the same rights and benefits that straight couples who marry get. And if God above truely does exist, then let him decide for himself wether he considers homosexuality to be a sin. The Bible was written by man... not God.

Ok so there's the two hot topics in the news that will probably have a big impact on this year's election... I lean more towards the left on both of them. Now here's the kicker...

Homeland security... of all the candidates out there, the only one I trust is Bush. I support the Patriot Act. I in no way feel my rights have been violated one iota. I have no problems waiting on lines to be searched when I go to Madison Square Garden. I don't mind the extra traffic at the Throgs Neck Bridge because the NYPD and the FBI are conducting random searches. I have no problem with tightening our borders, with fingerprinting visitors to our country. I had to be fingerprinted and have a background check for work. Many people have to go through the same thing. I didn't care at all 'cause I have nothing to hide. So I really don't see what the big deal is for asking visitors to our country to do the same. And if that means that I have to go through the same process if and when I travel to other nations? So be it... I'd see it as nothing more than that country trying to protect it's self.

So there you have it... THAT is why I will vote for George W. Bush in November... 'cause I honestly believe that without these measure that were put into place following 9/11, including the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Advisory System (no relation to the U2 Album Advisory System ), that we would have had at least one other attack on our soil. And I really don't feel like going to anymore funerals. I went to enough of them two falls ago.

So there you go... offer your facts... change my mind.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 09:10 PM   #8
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,443
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by GibsonExplorer
Well, the middle group ARE easily swayed, so your assertion that a lot of them will not desert Bush is a little off.
My assertion is not that they will desert Bush... if they're in the middle, they can't desert anyone. My assertion was that they would be SWAYED, and would be SWAYED to the side of the republicans on the "hot topics" of the day.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 10:35 PM   #9
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston,tx,usa
Posts: 645
Local Time: 12:52 AM
While the economy is cyclical, the jobs market is not, as evident in the fact that the economy has been recovering for some time now without any marked increase in jobs. In fact, it is due to "outsourcing" of manufacturing and IT jobs that the jobs market is slow to recover. We can blame this on trade agreements that Bush and the GOP has supported or initiated. These agreements sparked a rapid evaporation of the job markets as corporations sought out cheap labor in other countries. Bush has not taken any steps to curb this trend. His staff has been heard saying that outsourcing was a good thing.

Middle of the way voters are, in fact, not turned on by the right's policies, especially concerning gay marriages. Bush had to be careful to say that he supports civil unions; this is the only way he can keep the middle from fleeing to the left.

Also, to counter what you said about centrists voting Republican, a great number of Independants (and some Republicans) voted at open Democratic primaries so far.

Recent polls also show that Kerry will beat Bush 54 to 43 percent in a hypothetical election. I'm not rubbing that in, I'm just showing that the support for Bush is not as steadfast as you would like to believe.
__________________
GibsonExplorer is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 11:03 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 10:52 PM
This past week,an interesting, purely imaginative hypothetical thought came to me:

If foreign terrroorists really wanted 3v$h to win again, all they'd have to do is strike again... and we'll see how 3v$h brillantly fight against and capture them to justice... and then, 3v$h would get reeleecteed.

However, if the same terrroorists want to strike America at its most vulnerable state, they'd strike after the noov eleections after a Deemocraatic preez. who's inexperienced with homieland secureety, wins.

dunno. food for thought.
__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 11:13 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
Do I believe in Gay marriage? No. I think marriage is more of a religous thing than a governmental thing. People who get married by a justice of the peace aren't married "in the eyes of God" according to the Catholic church anyways, so what should they care if gays are allowed to do the same thing? In there eyes, they're still not married, right? I do believe gays should be able to enter into a civil union and thus should be entitled to the same rights and benefits that straight couples who marry get. And if God above truely does exist, then let him decide for himself wether he considers homosexuality to be a sin. The Bible was written by man... not God.
Such beautiful hypocrisy. I believe that, if the Catholic Church was consistent, it would advocate a constitutional amendment to ban non-Catholic marriage, since, gay or straight, non-Catholic unions are worthless in the eyes of this entity.

I guess, in spite of your honesty, I don't understand why you've come to your conclusion as is. I think the conclusion is to get government out of marriage altogether, and, thus, make everyone subject to civil unions, regardless of sexuality. Then, let religions decide who they want to marry, as it will be a religious ceremony with no legal standing.

However, I'm not so naive to believe that people could be this civil. :P We are a nation founded by fanatics, and we will die a nation of fanatics.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 11:16 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by GibsonExplorer
While the economy is cyclical, the jobs market is not, as evident in the fact that the economy has been recovering for some time now without any marked increase in jobs. In fact, it is due to "outsourcing" of manufacturing and IT jobs that the jobs market is slow to recover. We can blame this on trade agreements that Bush and the GOP has supported or initiated. These agreements sparked a rapid evaporation of the job markets as corporations sought out cheap labor in other countries. Bush has not taken any steps to curb this trend. His staff has been heard saying that outsourcing was a good thing.

It is true that this is a big problem in our economy, but it cannot be blamed entirely on Bush and the republicans. Clinton was big on NAFTA and Free Trade agreements, all Bush has done has continued this imo. This is something that both parties have been contributing to, because they are both in the pockets of the transnational corporations that profit from this.

(btw, I hate Bush and am very liberal....just so you know cause you're new here. Just cause I'm liberal though doesn't mean that I'm going to turn a blind eye to the crap that the democrats pull and blame it all on the republicans)
__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 11:59 PM   #13
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston,tx,usa
Posts: 645
Local Time: 12:52 AM
ILuvLarry,

I know the NAFTA was a Clinton era initiative and that Democrats had a stake in it too, but it was still a REPUBLICAN initiative. Clinton, being the great centrist that he was, envisioned NAFTA and other trade agreements creating jobs and improving the economy. For a little while, he was right.

But no matter what the Clinton-era Democrats did in support of NAFTA, the new Democratic candidates have taken a stand against unfair trade practices and made that their creed. Bush has not done that and will not do that, partly because much of his support comes from corporations who has shipped millions of jobs overseas.

Therein lies the difference between Democrat and Republican.
__________________
GibsonExplorer is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 12:02 AM   #14
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston,tx,usa
Posts: 645
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quoted Soulful Mofo:
"If foreign terrroorists really wanted 3v$h to win again, all they'd have to do is strike again... and we'll see how 3v$h brillantly fight against and capture them to justice... and then, 3v$h would get reeleecteed.

However, if the same terrroorists want to strike America at its most vulnerable state, they'd strike after the noov eleections after a Deemocraatic preez. who's inexperienced with homieland secureety, wins. "


ummm....what???
__________________
GibsonExplorer is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 12:40 AM   #15
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston,tx,usa
Posts: 645
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Headache,

Your views on Homeland Security do have merit. On the other hand, my views are influenced by all those years of being spoiled by the personal freedoms granted to us by the Bill of Rights. This matter cannot be debated by fact but rather by passion in your beliefs.

However, I do not think you should vote Bush based on homeland security alone. The truth is, a Democratic president would have done something similar, albeit less retarded (I'm letting a little humor slip in, sorry), to increase our security after 9/11.
__________________

__________________
GibsonExplorer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com