In 2000, because Algore is a liberal and as a conservative, I wanted a president who would appoint conservative judges to the bench, since that is where most social issues are decided today anyway. In 2004, because I believe he is fighting islamofascism in a way closer to how I believe it should be fought than Kerry would have; i.e. I do not believe you can negotiate with islamic terrorists, as their only goal is the imposition of islam on the entire world. I believe that regardless of whether Saddam had or didn't have WMD, he was an evil person who gassed his own people, hated the US, and would support anyone who would attack us. And we now have a base of attack for Iran and Syria. And with the worldwide muslim population growing, we will be in this fight for a long time. Europe is in danger in the next several decades of being overrun and being de-facto controlled by islam. There is already debate in Canada over allowing the imposition of sharia law within communities of muslim Canadian citizens. So-called "moderate" muslims refuse to take care of the radicals themselves, instead, they bury their heads in the sand and accuse us of being islamophobes. Pulling out of Iraq will not stop them from planning attacks on us. It will just free them up and give them time and resources to plot the next 911. And we now need conservative judges more than ever to insure that court cases are decided in a pro-American way, and not hand our enemies court victories that hamstring our warriors. I believe that if the next big terror attack comes, and a member of your family is killed, you will be wishing one of our soldiers was able to use a little force to get a terrorist to talk. With these animals, just asking them politely to tell us what they know doesn't work. And I don't believe that making them wear underwear on their heads, or dumping some water on them is torture. Let's see, humiliation of a terrorist vs the life of an American - I know what I would would choose.
Is this a specific enough answer?
2006-10-30 03:32:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by boonietech 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
I voted for him because he's the only one with the balls to stand up to the worlds @ssholes. If anyone believes someone like Gore or Kerry could handle the middle east better than bush they have their head buried in the sand. War ain't pretty, you have good days and bad days. Just because a couple of thousand GI's lost their lives doesn't mean that the president is or isn't doing a good job over there. That's just the way war goes. It's the nature of the beast. Now, to the @sshole who supposedly toured the middle east with a band and claims the troops don't approve of Bush must have been playing for the Taliban. Almost 100 percent of the US armed services support Bush and love the man. So I don't know what the fvck you are talking about, but you need to get a freakin' clue.
2006-10-30 02:59:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I voted for Bush both times because he most accurately reflects my moral values and Christian principles. I vote primarily based on social issues (i.e. abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.). The Dems are so far to the left that I didn't even give them the time of day. But if they ever become conservative, I certainly would take a look at them. However, I feel the Republicans are starting to move more to the left and I can no longer tell the difference between the two parties. Therefore, I'm more likely to swing my vote to a more conservative Independent party in 2008.
2006-10-30 02:59:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I felt Kerry could not stand up to the world and be strong. He seemed to go with the flow. I also had the feeling he would give away the USA if he needed to. Bush may not be making the right decisions but at least he is not letting us be walked on by other countries. We as citizens do not know all the facts and we really do not need to know them. After all, if I know them, so will the enemy.
2006-10-30 03:27:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by lollylou 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
President George Bush is a great upstanding man. He has kept this country safe from another 9/11. Our economy is booming, he has lowered income taxes, he has crafted the no child left behind program, he has formed a homeland security department and allowed intelligence agencies to work together and share information. People are better off than they ever have been. He would over-haul social security if the libs who want our money were not around. Just think, when your spouse dies, the money one of you has contributed to social security goes to anothers pocket. When you die it goes away. The Bush plan was to make it investment friendly and go to your family - Oh no we cannot allow people to keep what they earned. We'd lose control and power if that were to happen.
In the future President Bush may end up being named one of the greatest Presidents ever!
2006-10-30 02:57:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Faith White 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
I voted in my first pres. election in 1984. I voted for Reagan. Since then my general election votes have all been, not for a particular candidate, but against the jerks that the dems have put on the ballot. In primaries, I supported Jack Kemp in 1988 and Alan Keyes in 2000.
2006-10-30 02:57:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well,
I thought that a "Dick" and a "Bush" would be a conflict in office.
I would N E V E R vote for anything with the name BUSH on it.
Didn't vote for his father, didn't vote for him.
The fact that the man is so illiterate" that I have been very embarrased traveling the world and showing my passport. I am in a band that does Military tours, and the majority of the soldiers in Afghanistan (we toured for a month all over the middle east) DID NOT approve of the President or his ides.
The man has no idea what is going on in his own country.
WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN PEOPLE FIRST!
2006-10-30 02:50:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by SCHNITZEL 1
·
1⤊
3⤋
I didn't vote for him either time either. I didn't like he wasn't supportive of the unions. Many family members of mine work for unions. I also don't like that he was against stem cell research. Plus, I can't stand listening to him talk because it scares me that someone that appears so uneducated can get to be president.
2006-10-30 02:54:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
IMO he was the lesser of the 2 evils.
2006-10-30 02:53:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by parsonsel 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't vote. But Kerry was not strong enough to beat him. Gore wasn't either. Can you resurrect Clinton?
2006-10-30 02:50:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by kam_1261 6
·
0⤊
2⤋