03-11-2004, 04:19 AM
Quote:How lame that you continue to ride along on the "__________'s all America's/Bush's" fault bandwagon. Just fill in the blank on what it is that's bugging you.American here. That's my American flag on the front porch, lit up and waving 24/7.
I don't appreciate you lumping Bush and America together like that. To me, this administration is the most anti-American since... hmmm, ever. Okay, maybe back to WWII, during the internment (sp?) of many Americans only because of their descent.
To me, America is: the Constitution. And I think that currently the biggest threat to the Constitution is: John Ashcroft, for his work against the requirement for warrants. This is a real threat to what America is. As for Bush, he is merely a vandal, wanting to throw on an amendment sanctifying what is basically religious dogma.
But I'll be voting Democratic this year, yet again. Why? Because the Republicans are still giving the modern-day robber barons much more than they need, at the expense of both working class (me, albeit white-collar) and the natural areas that belong to all Americans. I am insulted that he thinks he can buy my vote with an increased refund. Yeah, I can use that extra thou, but I know damn well that I'll be paying that money soon enough, paying for the consequences of a deficit-crazy government. We're already paying, because foreign opinions DO matter-- trade, currency, treaties. You say Bush was focused on internal issues before 9/11, but I recall he had already "unsigned" at least one treaty before then. Will we need to renegotiate all our treaties every time we get a new president? I guess we're "unsigning" the Constitution now. I also remember that pre-9/11 the Bushies had the attitude that it was a privilege for any country to be able to meet with him. Can you get any more arrogant?
But, that's not my core issue. In my state, we have two National Forests that hold what little undeveloped wilderness we have left. The Bush administration has repealed the executive order (by Clinton) that would not have created new roads in these areas. Under the new e.o. rule, not only will we have increased logging (read: deforestation and devastation due to lack of concern for long-term effects) but we'll have 4-wheeling there too. We have plenty of areas to go 4W'ing; we don't need it there. Now, this is just one rule, and one state-- multiply by all the "pro-business", meaning anti-preservation, policies and by all the states and territories, and you can see that I consider this administration to be a Unnatural Catastrophe, unfortunately not the first (Remember Ronnie saying that trees caused pollution?) but so far the greatest.
This administration is short-sighted in at least three major areas-- financial, environmental, and diplomatic. It is willing to run these three areas into the ground for the monetary gain of its most powerful backers.
And to answer the original question, THAT is what I hear about when I've heard Kerry speak. Just being anti-Bush is enough. In fact, it's plenty.
-V
P.S. And don't get me started on the hypocrisy of the Republican party... example they who whined about "draft dodgers" in 1992 and 1996 are supporting someone whose daddy kept him out of danger, getting him a job he often didn't show up for but still drew pay and benefits from... and what about they who scoffed about "not inhaling" after demanding knowledge about drug use? supporting someone who did not only marijuana but some of the harder stuff-- and wasn't there drunk driving in there? Just minor character flaws, eh, when he's gonna save your corporation a few million by loosening environmental requirements...