Quote:
Originally Posted by high_jinx
first off, i'd like to say that i don't consider myself a dem or a gop. having said that, i can't help but notice and thought i'd point out that whenever i see any arguments coming from republicans, it's always attacking kerry or calling him names. i see a point brought up about bush and the only thing republicans seem to have in response is a counter attack on kerry. on the other hand, when i see something about kerry posted or broadcasted or printed, there are admittedly counter attacks, but there is also quite often an arguement in defense of kerry or a positive point in his favor. so i'd like to hear positive spin about bush from anyone who can provide it in this thread with the following exceptions....
1) i don't want to hear about how bush has kept us safe. sure, there hasn't been a major attack here since 9/11 but 9/11 happened on his watch, and i haven't seen enough evidence to prove that a) he did all he could to stop that from happening, and b)that if anyone else at all had been in office this past term they wouldn't have just the same (if not better after considering the resulting allocation of our countrys money and manpower in the invasion of iraq) track record when it came to the dry spell we've experienced since 9/11. especially considering how focused we've become on terrorism as a country since that day. i also feel that terrorism is a no brainer issue when it comes to priority, so theres no way to convince me that any president would do a better or worse job suppressing and eliminating it.
2)don't use kerry to prove your point(s). like i said, i don't want to here why you think kerry or his party is bad, i want to hear why you think bush is good.
i'd also like this to be a nonpartisan thread. so if any dem's can think of any good things to say about bush or refute any of the glowing posts of republicans, by all means fire away with your thoughts. thanks!
|
Ok, I do not know which Republicans you are talking to, but the Republicans I know do not have to attack Kerry very much because the record speaks for itself. As I recall, Bush was the first to come out with a televised campaign ad, and it was actually just about his record and why he should be president. Not a single attack. Then of course the Democrats started out with attack after attack after attack. The GOP was late in the game with the attack ads. If a bully comes up to you, and starts punching you in the face, do you sit there and take it or fight back? This is the only reason Bush and the GOP came out with attacks. The Democrats have to attack since they have no other means for political gain. The Democrats are very dirty, very manipulative, and not a single attack ad holds water. They have to compare totally unrelated clips to manipulate the audience to believing Bush is unqualified. Fahrenlie 911 is a perfect example. And if you believe Fahrenlie, then you'll believe anything and it would be a waste of time explaining. So I apologize, but I found this comment to be insulting, because Republicans are much more insightful and informed, and therefore do not have to attack.
And thank you for the fine research ARTelevision.