Smart Republicans?!??!!? What?!?!?

[bgoy_the_bhoy]

I've heard a lot of talk today about the idiocy of the masses, and how if people actually knew what was going on they'd have voted for Kerry. having an intelligent republican roommate I feel privileged to finally have some understanding about how people in there right mind could vote Bush. I agree that a lot of Bush's votes were from people who

Comments

[freesiayourmind]

The world is better off without Saddam HusseinThis is why I did a research project on US foreign policy on Iraq, to figure out what's going on. Saddam Hussein has been in power since 1979. People say he gassed the Iranians and the Kurds. He certainly did. But while he was gassing the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War, we were giving Iraq aid (not weapons, but intelligence and cars and things for the war) because we were afraid of an Iranian victory. (Our relations with Iraq have been on and off, but Iran has always hated us.) And after the war, when he gassed the Kurds, we did nothing

ammendment

[bgoy_the_bhoy]

to avoid confusion as to my opinions I would like to point out that I made some oversimplifications in this post.

I in no way believe that Bush will do a good job for the economy and security of our country. when I said, "I care more about liberty and the environment than security and the economy, so I voted democrat. my roommate's views are shifted to the other side a bit so he voted republican." I was making reference to bush's favoring of economic viability in his environmental policy, and the patriate act, which trades some freedom in an attempt to increase security.

I would not say that the bush administration is going to do the best job on security and economy, I just know that they are more willing to risk losing some of the environment and our liberty in the attempt. a larger risk than I would want to take.

the point I'm trying to make is that the question isn't "is it good or bad?" it's "is it worth the cost?"

[fhwqhgads]

Evan, thank you for bringing in Civility to my friends page.
And when I speak about Republicans in my livejournal in a manner similar to the one you've addressed, keep in mind I generally mean the ones in power. The Karl Roves, the George Bushes, and the Rupert Murdochs.

[fhwqhgads]

Also, I forgot to link you to the PIPA poll:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html
It shows that the majority, not the entirety, but the majority of Bush supporters are, for a lack of a better word, delusional.

Also, PIPA is a non-partisan, very respectable think-tank, so it's not like Im quoting an anti-Kerry poll from the Heritage Foundation or anything...

[thebookofjoel]

If your roomate were an party republican, I do not see how he could vote for bush. The true values of republicanism are small government, and great personal freedoms. Today's Bush republican hides behind the great ideas of a once great peoples party as a facade to an inner fear. Or, more simply a mis understanding of what it is to be a republican. The Bush administration has overseen the largest increase in government in recent memory, and cut personal freedoms. The tax theroy of the republicans are not even being upheld by Bush. The perverse Bush republicanism relies on bravado and fear as it's main tenents. There is no sound ecomonic reason, neither republican, or libertarian. It's not republicanism, it's bushism. Bush's ecomonic advisor, N. gregory mankiw, who wrote my economics book says that the general assumption is that people will make the decision that is best for their own personal gain. If Bush is creating large deficits, is negatively affecting employment and innefectively releaving tax pressure then the decision would be

[bgoy_the_bhoy]

I agree, but would also argue that the democratic party has similarly strayed from its founding tenants, largely in part to the "anyone-but-bush" way of thinking.

as for the ban on gay marriage, I think there should be a ban on marriage entirely. it's a religious institution and shouldn't be something the state has control over. the problem lies in giving benefits to couples, so I say give everyone civil unions. my personal beef is the limits these states put on civil unions.

[thebookofjoel]

actually, marriage is NOT a religous insitution, it was coopted by the christian church. the christian church therefor, candecide who IT wants to marry, but it has NO RIGHT to say who can get married outside it's sphere of influence, which stops right at the door to the church...or at least it should. and they didn't limit them....the fucking cancelled. then.
(hell not that any homosexual would want to live in those backwater poduk states, but it's the principal).

[bgoy_the_bhoy]

right. what I meant was that IF we are going to say that marraige is a sacred thing between a man and a women, which is the only argument I've heard for banning gay marraige, then the state should have no right marrying anyone. if we ban one, we should likewise ban the other.

[fatandlost]

Must leave country.