English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Can't they see bipartisanship is destroying our country?

I always was under the impression that the best candidate should win, and in 2004 i did my part by voting for the best candidate - Bush...

Kerry seemed to unsure of what he wanted to do in office, and to me, at least, seemed like he was just saying what the people wanted to hear...

So where is it written that if you're a "Democrat" you HAVE to hate WHOEVER isn't and vice versa?

How come Kerry was deemed the "better" candidate for the sole reason that he "isn't Bush."

Do these people even FOLLOW politics? or is it just a popularity contest to them?

I remember leading up to the election in '04, Kerry street teams would say, "Help us get Bush out of office!" as their tag line...

Wait...shouldn't i be helping Kerry get INTO office?

The fact that his best asset was that he "WASN'T Bush" was scary to me...and i don't consider myself a con or lib...just American.

And to me, Bush was the better choice.

2006-07-10 08:06:52 · 9 answers · asked by Aidan316 2 in Politics & Government Politics

"People who choose a side before they even understand the issue are f-ing idiots"

great....just f-ing great...

i love it.

2006-07-10 09:28:51 · update #1

hey, miss nursie...

New Orleans screwed new orleans...ok?
The feds gave Mr. Ray Nagin, the mayor, more than 200 million dollars starting i think in 2000 FOR the purpose of building stronger levies.

Mr. Nagin avoided questions as to where the money went, and turned it into an Anti-Bush agenda...convenient...

Iraq was being attacked by the US way before Bush even thought about running...in 1998...by Bill Clinton...who said...and i quote:
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Oh - "While our economy goes to hell and our people die! " you do realize that our economy is ON THE RISE?
Also, the unemployment rate has also gone down EVERY YEAR bush has been in office.

Listen to chris rock.

ignorance...sheesh.

2006-07-10 09:35:35 · update #2

so you're welcome miss nursie...

you're welcome...

2006-07-10 09:36:45 · update #3

i know Kerry's position wasn't all about him not being Bush...

i said it was his STRONGEST...

which is true...

Thats the one thing he couldn't change his stance on...not that he wouldn't have tried...

:)

2006-07-10 09:38:03 · update #4

9 answers

Bush lied in order to attack a country! He is getting thousands of people killed. And all for power and control over the amount of oil to be produced. If they (bush cronies) control oil production they control the price of oil = increased profits. Which is the bottom line. The bush administration doles out no-bid rebuilding contracts to all their buddies (both in Iraq and New Orleans) While our economy goes to hell and our people die!
Yeah sounds like you voted for a great president! THANKS!!!

2006-07-10 08:29:23 · answer #1 · answered by miss_nursie_nurse 4 · 0 0

Because it serves the politicians' purposes. Same reason only 2 parties are allowed to participate in the debates and get government money, even though we actually have dozens of parties on the ballot every 4 years. Each party knows that if they can keep it to a 2 horse race, they have a better chance of winning than if there are dozens of choices. The Dems use fearmongering to make you hate the Repubs, the Repubs do the same thing to get you to hate Dems. Result? People pick a side, and irrationaly hate the other side, just because they are the other side. It keeps getting politicians elected, so why would they ever change anything. Politicians win, we loose.

2006-07-10 08:17:16 · answer #2 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0 0

Bush was the better choice.. when given only those two options. I like Kerry's platform. But I know it's held up with toothpicks and duct tape.

I think Chris Rock said it best when he said... "People who choose a side before they even understand the issue are f-ing idiots"

2006-07-10 08:14:44 · answer #3 · answered by Miss Red 4 · 0 0

I thought Kerry was better because I trusted him more to be able to take in information, process it, and come up with a sound, logical conclusion. That's why I though Kerry was better than someone who relies on bullying tactics to make up for his lack of diplomacy skills.
I thought Kerry was better because I thought his economic policies were better.

If you think the only reason was "Kerry is not Bush" then you weren't paying attention or trying to be thoroughly informed.

2006-07-10 08:29:50 · answer #4 · answered by scott j 3 · 0 0

It is difficult to avoid the lines when one side constantly use the same old lies.

"Bush lied..." He said the same thing as Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc etc. If Bush lied, he got his info from them, so they lied.
"No bid contracts..." So did Clinton, same company. So did many other presidents. You ask for work from the best qualified to do it.

Kerry had a plan. He could do better. That was it. He didn't have a plan except to criticize Bush, to call him names, to belittle him, to mock him. What a little man.

2006-07-10 12:07:05 · answer #5 · answered by RockHunter 7 · 0 0

There you go! But, see, you are assuming that the libs/democrats are logical and care about the truth and they don't. That's why they don't like Joe Lieberman. He's too logical for them. He does what he thinks is logical and right for the country and if it just so happens that Bush is doing that, then he supports him. Lieberman is not anti-Bush; he's pro-country. I know it's hard to understand; I had a hard time, too, when I got on Answers, but they've proven to be illogical and liars every time. Why? I still haven't figured that out yet, but they are.

2006-07-10 08:13:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I agree completely!It should not be about them vs. us it should be who is best suited to the job.I thought Bush was the better choice as well.It wasn't about not wanting a Democrat in office for me.I could care less who their party is.I also thought all Kerry cared about was Bush not winning not himself actually becoming the President of our country!

2006-07-10 08:12:14 · answer #7 · answered by cmeand3 3 · 0 0

a die difficult Democrat and could by no skill ever ever in my life will vote for a republican. i'm the purely democrat in my entire community and that i'm getting yelled at for putting all the democrat canidates examine in my backyard.

2016-12-10 07:30:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It is tearing our country apart. People follow party's even if they don't agree just to stick with their party. Why can't we all just get along lol

2006-07-10 08:10:03 · answer #9 · answered by Josh 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers