Recently, President Bush visited the Central Valley(where I live). His visit infuriated me because, it is apparent to me, that his only objective was to gain support for the upcoming election.

President Bush visited a small town called Dinuba in the Central Valley. As was evident on local news programs, Dinuba residents welcomed him with open arms. They were overjoyed that he graced them with his presence. Apparently, many of them are avid supporters of his politics.

What infuriated/concerned me most about this is that the people of Dinuba couldn't see that he is only placating to thier needs and wishes for improvement in our current economy in order to secure his re-election. Haven't they noticed that this has been the only time when he has actually taken an interest in the difficulties that many U.S. citizens are facing? If he is so concerned about our welfare, then why hasn't he done anything to improve our situation up until now...hmmmm...that's a tough one. Maybe it's because he's worried that he won't be re-elected...and with good reason.

That's just my venting. What do you think? I would love to know how you feel about this.

Colleen

Impeach Bush!

Bush is nothing but a Texan cowboy that is rode to office on his daddys name, plus the help of Jedd Bush screwing around with the FL election process. It angers that he goes around the world "helping" or "freeing" countries that have OIL!!!!! The man has no idea of the value of a human life, no just send the military over there. FOR MY OWN SELFISH REASONS, I dont want my brother being sent over into a war that is being paid with american blood for Iraq oil.

Yeah.... I don't know much about politics or anything like that, but aren't all politicians expected to go around to try and win people over and let them know they're in the race? No politician in their right mind is going to admit mistakes they may have made on the job, unless they're mentally ill or just irrational. Bush wouldn't have done the things he did if he thought it was wrong, and whether it was or not, at this point, is just a matter of opinion. Saying that it was an act of selfish imperialism seems to prove that you've given in to left wing propoganda, basing your statements/beliefs on a poor mixture of incomplete logic, intuition and misinformation. Do you honestly believe that Bush intends to annex Iraq for it's oil? At best we'll get a good trading relationship with that country but I think we deserve it, especially after sacrificing troops to make it possible for the people of Iraq to enter the world economy. Don't get me started about the immorality of going to war with Saddam... I just feel better about IRaq now that Saddam has nothing to do with it's governance, and I doubt anyone here would claim otherwise.

Morality of war is a tough subject (one that's hard to argue for), and if that hurt Bush's credibility in world diplomacy then I don't really care; I'm not a huge supporter of his. I just get a little bugged when one person makes an eloquent, coherent statement and the rest of the internet community has to swing with them to the left (or right, depending).

As for voting for the right candidate and being misled by phony, political posturing, I'll say it's up to individuals to do intelligent research or make observations and base their voting decision on logical conclusions based in reality (not on assumptions, however likely they might seem). Hopefully these people will tell others of their honest conclusions, so that they too can make an intelligent decision, and not just vote so a certain candidate/party that they don't like will lose.

Obviously we can't rely on politicians to be completely honest with us, just as we can rely on them to always take the opportunity to stretch any possible advantage they might get (such as the president using the fact that a republican won the governor's seat in California, hoping to improve his chances there later on). We've known for a long time in this country how politicians work and yet we let what they say influence us.

Another problem with democracy is it assumes that 51% of the population can't be wrong. I forget who said that... but the name's not really as important as the message, something people might want to think about.

[This message has been edited by Lectus (edited 10-18-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Lectus (edited 10-18-2003).]

sorry, double post

[This message has been edited by Lectus (edited 10-18-2003).]

Sorry, but I am so grateful that George W is in office and not Al Gore...

Politics sucks in general, but at least I think he's trying to do the right thing.

Just my opinion.

Lectus,
You make some interesting points. I, too, can see both the positive and negatives of the war with Iraq.

Positives: 1.)Certainly the dictatorship type regime that Iraqi citizens were under when Saddam Hussein was in power was a very damaging one.

Negatives: 1.) I don't think that we have any right to tell another country how its government should be structured. I don't believe that Iraq ever asked us to help them to restructure their governmental system. If they did, then please tell me this. 2.) If we truly want to help Iraq to reform its government, I firmly believe that we went about this the wrong way. How is killing millions of innocent Iraqi citizens helping to forward a positive outcome? What message are we sending them when we kill many of them, then send them food to help keep them alive? A mixed message, at best...

I would love to read more about what you think of this war. I don't think it's as black and white as many people seem to think that it is. This is why it's difficult for me to say whether it's really "good" or "bad."

In terms of voting for a presidential candidate simply to return power to one party or another, I don't really believe in that. At this point, I have two Democratic candidates which I really like. One I like more than the other. These candidates are ones that I might potentially vote for because I agree with their platforms/ideas/ideals.

As for the notion that democracy is based on 51% of voters being right, I have never heard this. Please explain... http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/smile.gif


Post Soon,
Colleen

Millions?! At very most it's around 9,000.



[This message has been edited by wisex (edited 10-18-2003).]

Wisex,
Thank you for correcting my death toll numbers. It is probably more like thousands instead of millions. That isn't the issue, however. The issue is that thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens were killed in order to, according to President Bush, establish a more democratic government for the people living in Iraq. This is one of the many places where I take issue.

What are your opinions on the other things that I mentioned in my previous post?


Colleen