fightenmad (1 Viewer)

[Redstateradical]

How come liberals make fun of red state people?

 

[Redstateradical]

that's what I thought...there is no good answer to this question.

 

[Schweddy]

Welcome to Debate Politics.

 

[Pacridge]

Personally I'm alarmed by the division in both directions. I've always registered with "no party affiliation." I tend to vote liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues. During this past election, for numerous reasons, I supported Kerry. One evening, late, while out and about I stopped by a local fast food resturant to see if I could add to my ever increasing wasteline. While standing quitely waiting for my "Big Mac" an older lady, she could have easily been my mother's age and I'm in my 40's, looked at the Kerry lapel pin I was wearing and proclaimed "F**kyou." Then stormed away. This sadly seems to be tone on both sides.

As for why the blues make fun of the reds. I think part of it may be they feel the red state voter based his or her vote on false information. Many polls have shown that a majority of Bush supporters held false beliefs regarding everything from the war in Iraq to world opinion of US policy to US policy itself. And a lot of blue state voters have an opinion that Bush himself is less then intelligent. Which is odd considering the man attended both Harvard and Yale. But if you think he's dumb you must certainly think anyone who voted for him must really be an idiot.

 

[heyjoeo]

Whatever you do, don't misunderestimate [sic] George Bush.

 

[Tasmin]

As for why the blues make fun of the reds. I think part of it may be they feel the red state voter based his or her vote on false information. Many polls have shown that a majority of Bush supporters held false beliefs regarding everything from the war in Iraq to world opinion of US policy to US policy itself. And a lot of blue state voters have an opinion that Bush himself is less then intelligent. Which is odd considering the man attended both Harvard and Yale. But if you think he's dumb you must certainly think anyone who voted for him must really be an idiot.

Please link to the polls and I can read for myself. Polls are the gospel truth, as indicated by early exit polls taken after this most recent election day.

If it is the case that only an idiout would vote for Bush and held false beliefs, then I must be a complete idiot because not only did I vote for his re-election this year, I voted voted for him in 2000 and in his gubernatorial reelection bid in 1998. And had I been living in Texas in 1994, I would have voted for him then.

As far as the red states being made fun of by the liberals, it's an elitist argument. It is nothing more than a bunch of talking heads and self appointed analysts trying to explain away the popular vote just because it didn't go their way. Because, apparently we in the red states are a bunch of backwards gun-totin' religious zealot rednecks who don't know any better. (As a matter of fact, I do own a gun, believe in God, live in a rural area and watch Fox News. :shoot)

 

[Redstateradical]

You know I resent the heck out of liberals telling me that I am "misinformed" and that is why I voted for Bush.If you ask me The New York Times is responsible for misinforming the "fringe" on the East Coast, and The L.A. Times is responsible for the misinformation on the Left Coast.ABC,CBS,NBC don't have much effect on anyone since it's basically inderstood they don't tell the facts, but give opinions based on The headlines in The New York Times.

 

[Pacridge]

Please link to the polls and I can read for myself. Polls are the gospel truth, as indicated by early exit polls taken after this most recent election day.

If it is the case that only an idiout would vote for Bush and held false beliefs, then I must be a complete idiot because not only did I vote for his re-election this year, I voted voted for him in 2000 and in his gubernatorial reelection bid in 1998. And had I been living in Texas in 1994, I would have voted for him then.

As far as the red states being made fun of by the liberals, it's an elitist argument. It is nothing more than a bunch of talking heads and self appointed analysts trying to explain away the popular vote just because it didn't go their way. Because, apparently we in the red states are a bunch of backwards gun-totin' religious zealot rednecks who don't know any better. (As a matter of fact, I do own a gun, believe in God, live in a rural area and watch Fox News. :shoot)

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

Here's a poll, done by a non-partisan group, that looks at the beliefs of Bush supporters and Kerry supporters and then compares those beliefs with the facts. Now please keep in mind I was not saying that I thought people who supported Bush were DUMB. I just don't think they ALL had good information. Which if you get your news from Fox I can completely understand.

BTW: I own a gun and in fact have my FFL (want to buy a gun?), I too believe in God, live in a rural area (less than 300, nearest town of over 2k- 15 miles) and I too watch Fox news- though anymore I only watch it for comedy effect. Well got to go it's Elk season, last days tomorrow.

 

[heyjoeo]

Hate to break it to you, but most Bush supporters do not base their reasons for voting for Bush reasonably. Most of the votes cast were homophobes, gun-owners (Bush sleeps with the NRA), and religious fundamentalists. Sure there are the occasional person who just says "Oh Bush would be a better commander-in-chief." Give me a break. That argument can be blown away in three words: The Iraqi War.

 

[Pacridge]

Hate to break it to you, but most Bush supporters do not base their reasons for voting for Bush reasonably. Most of the votes cast were homophobes, gun-owners (Bush sleeps with the NRA), and religious fundamentalists. Sure there are the occasional person who just says "Oh Bush would be a better commander-in-chief." Give me a break. That argument can be blown away in three words: The Iraqi War.

I'm not sure I agree with your assertions. To say that "Most Bush voters don't base their reasons for voting for Bush reasonably." To me that just doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe I'm just not understanding you. First you mention "homophobes" (I call that group anti-gay) then gun owners and then religous fundamentalists. All of these groups were given clear reasons to vote for Bush by both Bush and Kerry. Kerry clearly supported gay rights where as Bush did not. Kerry was in favor of some stiffer, limited, gun laws and licensing. Bush has always supported the religious right far more then Kerry. So I think the Bush supporter, based on your arguement, did have reasons to vote for Bush.

Now that being said, when it comes to "The occasional person who just says "Oh Bush would be a better commander-in-chief." I believe you hit the nail right on the head. Bush has mishandled this military so badly to me it's unbelievable that anyone could make this arguement. But they do. I hear it all the time on the cable news, in newspapers and in national print magazines. How do you claim you make the country safer when between taking office and Sept. 11, 2001 you held exactly zero anti-terrorism committee meetings? (during his first 6 mos in office Clinton's people managed to hold 14 such committee meetings.) How do you claim you make this country safer by attacking the wrong country? A country that had no terrorist before we attacked and now is nearly over run with them. How do you claim to support the troops while lobbying to cut their pay and benefit packages? Or by cutting the number veterans hospitals and benefits? Or by sending our troops into combat situations without proper gear and equipment? I'm with you on this one- a better Commander-in-Chief: GIVE ME A BREAK!

Then there's the economy. To which Bush and his policies have been brutal. Bush and his people like to tell a tale of being handed a recission. Numbers can be debated but most legimate economist (not the ones trying to cook the books for the GOP) are in agreement that any downward turn didn't start until AFTER he took office. Now granted this wasn't years after he took office but rather months. But it was after, not before like he and his people like to spin it. All and all the economy has been awful during Bush's first four years and there's no reasons to think his policies and tax cuts are "going to start" working any day now. Bush's people try to find bright spots like "home ownership is at an all time high." Guess what, ever since they started keeping whose stats (1962), home ownership numbers have always gone up- never gone down. Population goes up, people build houses= home ownership at an all time high. It's like watching Fox, you see Rupert Murdoch saying "the economy's going strong, it's, it's like it's on steroids or something." I don't know what he's talking about, must be the kind of steriods that make you sick and give you cancer.

Now the enironment...As near as I can tell Bush's Clear Sky's Act can be summed up by saying it clears the sky's of birds.

 

[Schweddy]

*cracks knuckles *

I agree that people did indeed have reasons to vote for Bush. Few people actually wanted to vote for Kerry that did - it was more of 'anything but Bush' syndrome.

How do you claim you make the country safer when between taking office and Sept. 11, 2001 you held exactly zero anti-terrorism committee meetings? (during his first 6 mos in office Clinton's people managed to hold 14 such committee meetings.)

Um can you say Status Quo? They were using the SAME system that Clinton used. Purhaps if BOTH presidents administrations would have gotten off thier tookas then that tragedy would have been avoided. As far as 14 committee meetings, they were effective - right? Bush's administration as far as intelligence is to blame, yes. But, when they do somthing about it - the liberals scream and yell that the patriot act is against thier freedoms. Well, what about the mafia and drug sellers? That same type of system is used on them - are thier freedoms being suppressed as well?

How do you claim you make this country safer by attacking the wrong country? A country that had no terrorist before we attacked and now is nearly over run with them. How do you claim to support the troops while lobbying to cut their pay and benefit packages? Or by cutting the number veterans hospitals and benefits? Or by sending our troops into combat situations without proper gear and equipment? I'm with you on this one- a better Commander-in-Chief: GIVE ME A BREAK!

Can you say SPIN!? Bush, finally did what Clinton said he was going to do and had authorization from 91 to do - get Sadam out. Bush asked for the UN's help - they passed 1441. But, panzys they are, they didn't get off thier arse. Similar to Korea if I recall correctly. So, Bush did what he said he was going to do - get Sadam out. He and everyone else thought that there as WMD's. There wern't. If he relied on bad intelligence, wouldn't the intelligence be just as at fault?

As far as wrong country, I think Afganastan was correct.

Um, Veterans hospitals and disability pay has increased!

Better equipment, I agree. Can't argue here. But, the original 80 million was something like 120 million to begin with. It's not all his fault that Congress wouldn't pay for it.

Then there's the economy.

What about it. Your neck of the woods may be in a crunch, but mine is kickin ass - does that mean that only what you see is real? I am expecting thousands of dollars next year for a bonus to profit.

 

[Pacridge]

Um, Veterans hospitals and disability pay has increased!

Still watching Fox for your News I see...

Here's an article I saved from my local paper. It's from last year but it speaks to the budget cuts that went into effect in 2004 and most certainly did hurt our troops. The lady who wrote it has a father who served in Nam.


The House of Representatives have recently voted on the 2004 budget which will cut funding for veteran's health care and benefit programs by nearly $25 billion over the next ten years. It narrowly passed by a vote of 215 to 212, and came just a day after Congress passed a resolution to "Support Our Troops." How exactly does this vote support our troops? Does leaving our current and future veterans veterans without access to health care and compensation qualify as supporting them?

The Veteran's Administration, plagued by recent budget cuts, has had to resort to charging new veterans entering into its system a yearly fee of $250 in order for them to receive treatment. It is a sad irony that the very people being sent to fight the war are going to have to pay to treat the effects of it.

According to the Veteran's Administration, 28 million veterans are currently using VA benefits. Another 70 million Americans are potential candidates for such programs. This amounts to a quarter of the country's population. Veterans and their families will sadly begin finding that they have no place to turn for their medical treatment as V.A. hospitals across the country face closing their doors. With the budget shrinking, staff will be let go. This could mean the loss of over 19,000 nurses. Without these nurses, this leads to the loss of over 6.6 million outpatient visits. Approximately one out of every two veterans could lose their only source of medical care. That is, if they even realize help is available to them. The Bush Administration recently ordered V.A. medical centers to stop publicizing available benefits to veterans seeking assistance. This follows discontinued enrollments of some eligible veterans for healthcare benefits as of January, 2003.

Bush Administration funding cuts will also prevent veterans from receiving their disability pensions. My father was granted 100% disability six years ago for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder associated with the Vietnam War. He deserves every cent of it. As do all soldiers who are willing to go to war. Under the Bush administration, being granted the ability to receive war related compensation has become a rare privilege, not a right as it should be. Nearly a third of Gulf War veterans, about 209,000 veterans, have submitted claims to to the VA for disability. The backlog of unprocessed claims has reached the astronomical count of 489,297, a number which is unfortunately increasing all of time. There are also currently 500,000 Compensation and Pension cases still pending. Making matters worse, forty percent of Vietnam Veterans are homeless. They went from the jungles of the war to the jungles of the street. Before President Bush decided to declare war, maybe he ought to have considered correcting this situation first. How many current veterans will return home, only to find themselves in the same situation?

 

[LiberalFINGER]

Pac

Numbers can be debated but most legimate economist (not the ones trying to cook the books for the GOP) are in agreement that any downward turn didn't start until AFTER he took office.

I'm going to have to call BS on this one from personal experience.

I rode the wave right ahead of the recession. My first job closed right after I left. I left my second when my pay-check BOUNCED. I watched Xerox stock go in the toilet and a couple months after I left, they closed the center. I then watched JC Penney go into death throws causing store closings and man-power cuts. Everyone in the tech industry had a good idea that everything was going to hell and that was during Clinton's watch.

This isn't some anylist talking. This is real world observations.

I don't like Clinton. That should be no surprise to anyone, but I don't think it was anyones fault. We had way too much riding on faulty business models and money socked away in companies that couldn't really produce anything valueable. The bubble popped and then we had the corperate scandals. It was a hell ride and to be honest with you, I'm very pleased that we've recovered as much as we have while a war is going on.

Joe

Hate to break it to you, but most Bush supporters do not base their reasons for voting for Bush reasonably. Most of the votes cast were homophobes, gun-owners (Bush sleeps with the NRA), and religious fundamentalists. Sure there are the occasional person who just says "Oh Bush would be a better commander-in-chief." Give me a break. That argument can be blown away in three words: The Iraqi War.

I beleive in gay rights. I don't own any guns. I beleif that people need faith, not religion. I went to John Kerry's own website to decide if he was a good commander in cheif.

I voted Bush.

I beleive in these times of turmoil, we need a steady course. I beleive that change should not happen rapidly. I beleived, and still do, that a liberal in the oval office is not what we need at this time.

 

[Pacridge]

*
What about it. Your neck of the woods may be in a crunch, but mine is kickin ass - does that mean that only what you see is real? I am expecting thousands of dollars next year for a bonus to profit.

Some people are doing good, some are even doing better. Myself included, other then having to tighten up to pay for my kids college I'm having a good year. But our version of tightening is taking two weeks in Cancun and two in Key West as opposed to three of each. But there's a lot of people nationwide that have lost their jobs and aren't taking any trips- unless you count the ones to the food bank.

The point is the numbers don't lie and the economy has tanked under Bush. Unemployment was at all time highs. That was at least until millions of unemployed had their benefits run out and now they don't show up on the stats as unemployed. There still out of work, they just don't show up on the stats now. By far, under Bush, more people are hurting worse then any time since WWII. The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing at an alarming rate.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

The point is the numbers don't lie and the economy has tanked under Bush.

You're right. Numbers don't lie, but they don't tell the whole truth either.

The economy was tanking under the Clinton administration. We were in a trend before Bush took office. If Bush was solely responsible for the down-turn, then it would mean that he somehow managed to hose the economy in 3 months. It just can't be done through policy alone.

The economic problems we faced had been developing over months and I dare say years. The problem cannot be logically blamed on one person.

 

[Pacridge]

The economy was tanking under the Clinton administration. We were in a trend before Bush took office. If Bush was solely responsible for the down-turn, then it would mean that he somehow managed to hose the economy in 3 months. It just can't be done through policy alone.

Wow! It was tanking under Clinton? Took eight years and then some did it? That's almost unbelievable.

My point was more to the point Bush and his people people have, in the past who knows what they're saying now? (it changes when the facts are discovered), said we were given a bad economy thats why it's bad. You know things were bad when we got here; then some bad things happend so what do you want?

Well, first of all, things weren't bad when you "got here" second of all you're the first President in history not to create jobs in a time of war and the first since Hoover not to create jobs period. So don't blame the war on a bad economy. You are however the first president to cut taxes during a time of war. In fact in recorded history, you sir, are the first leader to ever cut taxes in the time of war. Huh, maybe you're right and everybody throughout time and history have been wrong. That's right you heard it here first folks, George W. Bush- Brilliant!

 

[Schweddy]

I find it increasingly amazing that Bush is the sole culprit and the fact the World Trade center was attacked with the sole purpose to hurt our economy doesn't seem to come into play.

Who is the real genius?

 

[LiberalFINGER]

Wow! It was tanking under Clinton? Took eight years and then some did it? That's almost unbelievable.

First of all, saying that it took eight years is rediculous is both rediculous to beleive and ludicrous to interpret that it was what I meant.

If you read through my past posts, I made it very clear that the blame does not rest with any one individual and that it was a series of events/trends that brought us into this downturn. These events were spread over an extended period of time and the recession was only blatantly apparent after Bush was elected. We all saw the writing on the wall before the election and if Gore had been elected, we'd all be saying what a lousy economist he was.

Look deeper into the downturn's time line and you will see that I am right.

 

[Pacridge]

First of all, saying that it took eight years is rediculous is both rediculous to beleive and ludicrous to interpret that it was what I meant.

That's true. I apologize for that comment, it was stupid, I said it and shouldn't have. I made that post late and should have just gone to bed.

As for if Gore were President. Who knows what the right would be blaming on him. Personally I tend to believe the right would have latched on to 9/11. It would have been on Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity 24/7 with a mantra of "it happend on your watch." Followed by a steady diet of "you had a PBD that said ben Laden determined to attack in the US and you didn't even hold one committe meeting- you're gone." Those mantras would have filled the air waves of talk radio non-stop until congress impeached Gore.

 

[Schweddy]

As for if Gore were President. Who knows what the right would be blaming on him. Personally I tend to believe the right would have latched on to 9/11. It would have been on Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity 24/7 with a mantra of "it happend on your watch." Followed by a steady diet of "you had a PBD that said ben Laden determined to attack in the US and you didn't even hold one committe meeting- you're gone." Those mantras would have filled the air waves of talk radio non-stop until congress impeached Gore.

I cannot argue with this. Your right, that same blame game would happen on anyones watch.

 

[Pacridge]

I cannot argue with this. Your right, that same blame game would happen on anyones watch.

How has this "blame game" been applied to Bush? When I listen to the radio heads they all seem in agreement that he's a great Commander-in-Chief and has done an excellent job of keeping us safe. I content that if Gore or any Dem. were President we'd have been blitzed, non-stop, with how it happend on his watch, it was directly his fault- therefore he's got to go. This would not have stopped until they got everyone of their listeners to write their congressman and demand that he be impeached.

 

[Pacridge]

As far as wrong country, I think Afganastan was correct.

Couldn't agree with you more Afganastan was the right country. So why in the heck did we divert our attention to Iraq? Why did we send 10,000 troops after bin Laden and over 100,000 after Saddam? Let's say the administration truely believed the "bad" intel. regarding the WMD's. OK, maybe I'm willing to give them that, but let's be completely honest there's a lot people who were trying to tell them they were completely wrong. Still why when they had bin Laden cornered didn't at least finish that job before starting another one? Or how about just sending another, say, 50,000 troops into Afganastan for six months and see if they couldn't come up with the bastard. I mean everyone agrees he's the guy. He's the so called mastermind behind the worst terror attack on US soil ever. Bush made a commitment to the American people in the weeks after the attacks to "get him dead or alive" to "smoke him out" I believed Bush. He let me down.

 

[Pacridge]

Um, Veterans hospitals and disability pay has increased!

QUOTE]

Here's an over view of the proposed 2006 budget and how it effects veterans. It compiled by "The Independent Budget, developed by veterans for veterans. So it might be some what bias in their direction but as near as I can determine the numbers and facts they site are accurate as to what Bush and the GOP wish to propose.

http://www.pva.org/independentbudget/pdf/CI_FY06.pdf

In this you'll find that we're both right. In a sense anyway. Bush has increased the VA budget. So you're right. However his increases have been the smallest increase proposed in over a decade. Clinton, that military hating bastard, made larger increases. You'll also find the number of veterans needing services is increasing "VA has seen a 134 percent increase in the number of veterans seeking health care from 1996 to 2003. Unfortunately, VA health-care funding has increased only 44 percent over the same period." This has caused there to be cuts in services "reports earlier this year, indicated the Office of Management and Budget had requested that VA identify $900 million in cuts in discretionary spending, primarily from health-care funding. Such a cut would likely force the VA to further restrict enrollment of new veterans seeking access to the system and could mean staff cuts, which would result in longer waiting times for veterans." So I'm right.

Personally I would prefer if you were 100% right I were 100% wrong on this one. Sadly this simply is not the case. On May 28th, 2001 President Bush signed Executive Order 13214 forming a presidental task force delegated with the task of improving health for our nations veterans. Other than signing that order I can't find anyhting where Bush has actually done anything to assist our nations veterans. If you know of some great action he or his admin. have or is taking please let me know. I feel ashamed everytime I see reports of uncared for vets or soldiers that have been blown up by road side bombs because they didn't have the proper protection. And we're doing all this so we can give more tax cuts to the wealthy? As near as I can tell it's all part of Bush's "No Billionare left behind" program.

 

[Schweddy]

I have to admit that my response comes from:
a. Speeches by Bush
b. Personal observation (dad)

My dad is a veteran. My dad is a baby boomer. He was shot up pretty bad on the 45th parallel as a marine...etc..

This year, his monthly check (which he qualifies for 100%, but only recieves 1% by requirement) has gone up significantly. The VA clinic, he is not near a large city, has said they have recieved funds for more equipment and people.

I did not get the time today to investigate this like I wanted. But, your source however is excellent. We just started FY 2005. It is pretty sick that the funds would go DOWN.

 

[Argonaut]

Hate to break it to you, but most Bush supporters do not base their reasons for voting for Bush reasonably. Most of the votes cast were homophobes, gun-owners (Bush sleeps with the NRA), and religious fundamentalists. Sure there are the occasional person who just says "Oh Bush would be a better commander-in-chief." Give me a break. That argument can be blown away in three words: The Iraqi War.

Hello everybody. I guess I'll dive right in. I hate to break it to you Joeo (and don't tell anyone else, let the fantasy continue), but your extrememly exaggerated and overly simplistic beliefs regarding the reasons for the President's re-election are in and of themselves one of the reasons for not only the 2004 election results (Republicans hold on to White House and increase majorities in House and Senate), but also for elections in 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996, and 1994 (every year the G.O.P. maintained or gained seats), when the steady and continued decline of the Democrat party began. As long as you (and the rest of the ABB crowd) continue to misunderstand the electorate and loudly and harshly dismiss "most" of your opponents as homophobic, bible-thumping, gunslingers, you will continue to lose national elections. But by all means, don't let me stop you! I could probably expain it to you but information is power and I don't believe in helping the opposition by explaining history and statistics...O.K. then, I'll give you one hint...Keep doing what you've done (dismissing your opponents [all 51% of them] as mean and stupid), and you will keep getting what you've got (loss after loss after loss). :doh

By the way and for what it's worth, I am not a Republican. And I do not believe in a "god" or "gods".
I am Libertarian. Which I suppose we can get into later. Anyway, greetings to you all! :smile:

P.S. A Gold Star to the first poster who guesses the identity of my avatar (hint- it's from a movie).