Ummm....

Feel free to list them when you can think of one....

Not afraid to defend the country.
Is not a socialist.
Is not an environmental extremist.
Supports the 2nd amendment (despite the AW ban)
Will hopefully appoint judges that don't believe in the liberal ideology.
Doesn't believe in the economic policies of the left. (raising taxes is supposed increase prosperity?!)

He's not Michael Moore.

-Zeke

The lack of a negative is not a positive.

Precisely. It was as close as I could get.

-Zeke

He's from TEXAS!

I tried, that's all I could come up with, besides the fact his offspring sure can party...

I don’t have time to really properly address this question right now (perhaps later) because I can’t simply list of a bunch of things I like about Bush. The reason? A lot of the things I count as positive you’d absolutely view as negatives and then we’d be thrust into a discussion of values and how they relate to politics.

What I’d ideally like in a President is someone coming from a similar moral framework as myself who’d make decisions consistent with my belief system. Bush is a lot closer in that regard than most other candidates, though he’s done a lot of things I didn’t like and (more importantly) in ways I thought weren’t good. However, on value issues that are very close to my heart he’s going to land a lot closer to me than just about any Democrat. And those values are what I’d list as positives.

So are these moral/ethical leanings or political leanings that you tend to concur with?

It's not an illegitimate reason. The only positive thing I could come up with about Gore/Lieberman was that their method of governance more closely resembled my own. Otherwise, their platform could easily have been a Republican platform. Oh, that and that Gore wasn't an idiot.

So are these moral/ethical leanings or political leanings that you tend to concur with?

Yes, exactly. In a perfect world I'd like to have both, especially since I worry that a lot of the "moral/ethical" leanings (which I think are so important) are fabricated for image more than driving forces in a leader's life. But it’d be near impossible for me to feel good about voting for someone who believes XYZ when I think XYZ is so wrong that it hurts.

I was actually asking you to choose one, the other, or both.

Oops . I misread your statement. "Moral/Ethical".

Bitt, you should put this on your empeg.

Wow. What a freak he is.

If Dean loses the presidency, he has a good future in wrestling I'd say.

I don't even like Dean all that much, but if you call passion "freaky", i'd take a freak in office anyday over just about anything else.

It's not the passion, it's the ... appetite?

Otherwise, I disagree. I'm sure Paul Wolfowitz is passionate in his hatred for the Arabs and I don't want to see that in office. I'm sure Ashcroft is passionate in his crusade to remove all our civil rights. I'm sure Bush is passionate in his disinterest.

True... i thought about that side after i posted. Maybe "appropriate empassioned anger"? haha.

Gore wasn't an idiot.

Come on now. ok, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt about creating the internet. But wanting to ban internal combustion engines?

I have to ask, and this is in response to FerretBoy's post in the other Bitt thread: what has he done?

I’m going to respond to DiGNAN’s post here, just to try and keep things focused (though clearly both threads are exploring the same waters).

I would like to hear what Bush has done in his term in this regard to warrant your faith in him.

Just for the record, I’ve been trying very hard not to open this particular can of worms, but I fear that it is inevitable so here goes:

Bush is an Evangelical Christian, and I have very little doubt about this. So much so that he was invited to speak at Second Baptist Church in Houston, TX while he was campaigning for presidency (I was a member there at the time). 2nd Baptist is a huge, VERY evangelical church, which is not normally in the habit of bringing just anyone in to speak in the pulpit. I’ll admit I was quite disappointed in what Bush had to say because it was very political, but even at that there was no doubt he shared my core, most important beliefs.

So why would I want an Evangelical Christian in office? Because I can trust his sense of right & wrong are derived from the same source as mine. We might not always come to the same conclusions, but I also don’t have to fear that he’s going to support something I find wildly off base. It is because I trust the source of Bush’s moral compass that I still don’t believe he invaded Iraq to gain oil or finish some vendetta. I also can’t fathom him knowing about 911 and not stopping it if he had the power. Those notions simply don’t jive with what I know of Bush and what drives him.

It seems to me that Bush has made some mistakes. That isn’t surprising. He’s human and in a position of great power, meaning his mistakes carry large consequences. In fact, I think he’s behaved badly, especially about being clear about his reasons for going to war. Because of these things, I’d prefer to put someone else in office. BUT, what I do appreciate about him is that no matter what mistakes he’s made, I believe they come out of an earnest desire to meet the same values that I hold. And I suppose I’d rather be stuck with someone who might make mistakes following what I consider the right path than someone who might do very good following the wrong one.

And truth be told, I could be wrong about Bush. He may just lip service the faith and be using it for political gain. If that’s the case then I really do need to open my eyes. But from what I’ve seen and experienced of the man I feel that I can trust his motives.

Because I can trust his sense of right & wrong are derived from the same source as mine.

This is why I feel strongly that religion in general is very dangerous, then to go dragging it into the whitehouse is simply not acceptable. People crucified Clinton over a stupid moment of weakness that really affected no one but himself and his family, rupublicans spent millions of taxpayer money to prove it. Clinton did a decent job, but because of that stupid Lewinski incident he got labled a piece of trash. Bush has shown clear cut examples of criminal negligence that HAS affected everyone in america, he's lied, he's basically been in my honest opinion the worst president we've ever had, but because his screwups are non sexual people don't care or are unwilling to try and do anything about it. But hey, he's Christian right? He can't be too bad? Right? Better then a Democrat right?

I also can’t fathom him knowing about 911 and not stopping it if he had the power.

His own administration admitted to knowing something was going to happen, for them to say they couldn't imagine using planes as bombs is absolutely retarded. So either the administration is utterly retarded or looking for an excuse to fuel the war in Iraq (as noted before was on the agenda before he entered office). No I'm not saying the administration let it happen to fuel the war. I'm saying it was either that or utter stupidity, either way a clear example of someone that shouldn't have been given the office.

And his niece is a model!



- trs

I would, respectfully, have to say that you're a sucker.

This is why I feel strongly that religion in general is very dangerous

Of course you must know I disagree. I think that religion can be dangerous, but only if misused. Since I think that faith is the ultimate reality, however, a lack of religion is as bad to me as religion misused. Not really something we can debate though, since we just have different starting points.

then to go dragging it into the whitehouse is simply not acceptable.

Well, every politician EVER has dragged something of their moral compass into their position. How else would they be able to make decisions with moral implications? And those decisions will come, because laws necessarily are derived from our sense of right and wrong. Whether a politician’s moral compass comes from religion or some other source, how can it be unacceptable to use it?

Bush has shown clear cut examples of criminal negligence that HAS affected everyone in America

To what “clear cut” criminal negligence are you referring? Perhaps I’ve just not been convinced enough of how evil Bush is. In my mind he’s made some bad choices. He lied and has been a bit dishonest about his true motives for invading Iraq. His dealings with other countries have been pretty crummy and have made the US look bad. Those things are a far cry from this “evil republican” portrait I’m getting from you.

But hey, he's Christian right? He can't be too bad? Right? Better then a Democrat right?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. Checking of a box that says "Christian" does not ensure receiving my vote. I heard Bush talk about his faith and was convinced that he was coming from a similar place as myself. I'm still convinced of this.

However, If I were truly convinced that Bush was this evil person you claim I wouldn’t vote for him. In that case I’d probably stay home from the polls because I can’t see myself voting for any of the Democrat options either, but I wouldn’t vote for someone just because he or she was a Christian.

Clinton did a decent job, but because of that stupid Lewinski incident he got labled a piece of trash. Bush has shown clear cut examples of criminal negligence that HAS affected everyone in america, he's lied,

Although you're of the opinion that Bush has lied I'm assuming of WMD (but you don't say) that is yet to be proven. Bush was acting on the intelligence he was supplied. Clinton, on the other hand lied to the Supreme Court and was disbarred. If he lied about something so trivial what else has he lied about? Don't get me wrong, I do believe a lot of money was wasted on the probe but why didn't Clinton just admit it instead of letting the investigation cost the taxpayers so much money?

One, the investigation was not instigated by that. It was an investigation into the Whitewater scandal, which revealed nothing. The only thing Ken Starr could find was that he got a hummer in the White House. Personally, I could care less. At the same time, that does make him a piece of trash, personally. It, however, does not affect his ability to do his job. But the money was already spent. That was just the only thing that all that spent money revealed.

Honestly, I think the fact that you label it as trivial is disingenuous. It wouldn't be trivial if it was you or your spouse who cheated. I think it's human nature to avoid admitting that. I understand where you're coming from with the ``what else has he lied about'' argument, but I don't think lying about your personal life in order to avoid embarrassment and lying for personal gain have much connection.

His own administration admitted to knowing something was going to happen, for them to say they couldn't imagine using planes as bombs is absolutely retarded.

So, let me get this straight. You actually believe that Bush should have believed the intelligence he was given in regard to 911 although they had not clue whatsoever what was going to happen just "something was going to happen". BUT when his intelligence tells him that Sadam has WMD and intends on using them then he should not do a thing?

So how is the president supposed to know what to believe and what not to believe?

I'd have to agree with the Presidents actions.

No, we think that he manipulates the intelligence into whatever he wants to hear.

I think you're a dumbass. (respectfully, of course)

Also, being presented with ``it's possible to hijack a plane and use it as a bomb'' is obviously a statement of pure fact, whereas ``Iraq has WMDs'' is conjecture masquerading as fact, regardless of whether it is true or not.