A question for Bush supporters only

[summermom]

Please could you say what exactly you like about Bush and why you are glad he is president?
Also, what do you think of his energy and environmental policies?

Anti Bush folks, please, could you refrain from saying what you don't like about him, because I already know that. It's the other side I'm trying to understand.

Thanks!

[Safemommy]

I am not totally a Bush supporter, but there are a couple of things that I seem to sway that way with. And, I'll be the first to admit that I am not REAL up with politics, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I think part of the reason our economy is in such a slump is that the energy prices have risen so high. If we could drill in Alaska, and stop being so dependant on forign oil, it would help our economy as a whole. I don't agree with those that feel the environmental impact is too great.

The second thing that I THINK I agree with Bush on, is thinning the forests in the west to prevent wild fires. The way I understand this is that he wants to thin areas that are overgrown by allowing loggers in. This would create "roads" through some of the dense forests and would help stop the spread of wild fires. When I said I THINK I agree with this, I have to admit that I am slightly confused. I don't think forests should be completely cut down, and I can see the point that some make that remote forests not near homes should be left alone. But, I don't know the specifics on what Bush wants to do. I just think SOMETHING needs to be done pro-active to help prevent such devistating wild fires in an area of the country that is prone to dry weather.

Anyway, those are the two things that I, embarrasingly, agree with him on. Please be nice to me.

[Lucysmama]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Safemommy


I think part of the reason our economy is in such a slump is that the energy prices have risen so high. If we could drill in Alaska, and stop being so dependant on forign oil, it would help our economy as a whole. I don't agree with those that feel the environmental impact is too great.

The second thing that I THINK I agree with Bush on, is thinning the forests in the west to prevent wild fires. The way I understand this is that he wants to thin areas that are overgrown by allowing loggers in. This would create "roads" through some of the dense forests and would help stop the spread of wild fires.

Safemommy-
At the risk or hijaking the thread, which I hope doesn't happen and is not my intention, I have to say there are some major problems with these policies.
1- Energy prices SHOULD rise high. There is a limited amount of resources in the world, and unless we charge more, people are never going to be forced to cut down on their energy consumption, something that needs to be done ASAP. Water, for example, is extremely underpriced for how valuable a commodity it is, and how little of it we have. The same goes for oil.
2- If we open up Alaska's precious land for drilling, the oil will not be available for our consumption for 10 more years. Again, the last thing we need is to make more oil readily available to the American people, who consume an enormous amount relative to the rest of the world's population.
3-About the forest thinning: wildfires are a natural part of the Earth's ecosystem, and it should not be a surprise to anyone that they lose their home when they build in the middle of an area vunerable to frequent fires - just as people on some parts of the nation's coastlines shouldn't be surprised when Hurricanes come and destroy man-made structures. Some areas are prone to flooding, earthquakes, torandoes, etc. This does not mean we should disrupt our earth's natural cycles for our convienence. Some tree species actually depend on fires in order to reproduce. Countless species will be affected by thinning out and logging, and it will be mainly for our convienence... IMO, seems pretty damn selfish of the human race.
Ok no more

:

[steph]

safemommy - this is not a flame, so please don't worry... that said, i do want to share a few things -

the answer to rising energy costs is not to open up alaska or continue our dependence on the middle east, but to develop alternative sustainable energy sources... the biggest challenge there is not that these sourcese are not available, but under-funded and under utilized because the petroleum giants aren't vested in them (yet).

regarding wildfires - yes, they are a fact of life in the west and actually help many aspects of forest life in the big (decades +) picture. and further mr. bush's "thinning" really consists of large-scale clearcutting, which ultimately makes the whole situation worse - loss of species due to lose of habitate, erosion and sediment fill in waterways... not to mention just a big speed-up of the global warming...

ok, hope i'm the last to highjack this thread.... carry on

[Safemommy]

Steph and Katie,

Thanks for adding your input. I also don't want to turn this into a debate over who's policies are best, since the original poster didn't ask for that. I do admit to not knowing ALL the facts on some of these areas, so I'm a little less than knowledgable. I do agree with both of you on a certain scale.

I kind of see environmental issues as a bit of a continuim. On one side you have those darn Republicans (LOL -- I'm only joking...kind of!) who only care about big business. On the opposite side you have the green people (again...just poking fun here!). I am more towards the middle.

I do everything I can to help our planet. Everything from cloth diapering to recycling, to keeping our AC turned off as much as possible in the southesast, to hopefully one day using solar power (we are planning to do this soon!). But, when environmental efforts get in the way of a healthy economy, then I think we've gone too far down the continuim. Yes, we have to preserve our earth for our children, but at the SAME time we have to better our own lives, and sadly that usually requires dollars and jobs.

Anyway, I'm glad you responded because I need to be more knowledgable in this area. Even though I do SOMEWHAT disagree...although, thanks for bringing up alternative uses of energy...I forgot to mention that and I think that should be a very HIGH priority!

Laura

[Ilaria]

In order 'to better our own lives' alternative, long-term, energy resources must be found. Drilling in Alaska and destroying forests are a quick, short-sighted way to postpone this problem for later generations to deal with, while pacifying the oil lobbies.

Please don't take any info from the 'green side' as too biased, or exaggerated, or out there. A little more research will show that the 2 'solutions' the Bush administration supports are far from being solutions.

Sorry OT, and I will respectfully stay away from this thread now.
Peace

[Lucysmama]

Thank you Thank you Thank you, Nursing Mother!!!
It takes guts to voice your opinion in a forum that largely disagrees with you!!!! I sincerely hope no one strings you up by your toes. We're all entitled to our opinions, and it can only help everyone to try and understand one another's points-of-view! Again, thanks for being so open and honest! I may not be a Bush-supporter, but I'm happy to hear from those who are!

[Els' 3 Ones]

How in the world can anyone describe Shrub as "pro-life" ???

[K&JsMaMa]

Nursing Mother...

Ditto what she said....I'll most more when I can come up for air between classes and children....

in the meantime, NM.

[dfoy]

NM,

I'll just respond to one of your issues you listed. EDUCATION. Buch is the WORST education president ever.

If you think he has returned education to the states and local school boards, you are wrong. Ask any educator and they will tell you that we no longer have ANY control at the state level or the local level because of Bush's policies.

"No Child Left Behind" is an unfunded FEDERAL mandate that leaves schools scrambling to make AYP (adequate yearly progress) without any additional resources with the threat of losing their $ if they don't.

Many states already had an accountability process. Kansas has Quality Performance Accreditation. Many schools also have accreditation through NCA, a national process.

The school where I teach, a "Blue Ribbon" school many times over, did not make AYP this year. The sub-groups - students with disabilities and hispanics (those that have Spanish as the language spoken in the home). If we do not bring those 2 groups up to "proficient" by next year, we lose funding.

One quick example:The students with disabilities are forced to take tests meant for those who have the regular curriculum. No longer can we give modified tests to them. A high school student with disabilities which according to their Individual Education Plan, decided upon by a team that includes their parents, might be working on elapsed time, fractions, percents, consumer math. But they will be tested on algebra, geometry and pre-calculus. Makes lots of sense, huh?

That is only one little part of why this legislation sucks. Much more, but I won't get into it.

And Bush's retoric on education is only a piece of misinformation that people are fed and believe to be true.

[Lucky Charm]

NM

[sohj]

Hey, y'all. Just butting in to say that I was really interested in the OP's question and so far there are only two responses that actually answer it.

[summermom]

Can't one ask for a no-debate thread and have that request be honored?

Can't one ask for a no-debate thread and have that request be honored?

How am I ever going to hear what people really think if everybody just jumps in and contradicts, no matter how respectfully.

Pro-Bush folks are a minority here, and I want to hear what they have to say without silencing them or making them defend themselves.

If I wanted to get the standard Republican party line I could go else where for that. The reason I asked here, is because I think AP and natural parenting and departing from mainstream parenting takes a lot of courage and indicates a thinking person. I am interested in the point of view of these thinking people. This is why I am especially interested in pro-Bush AP moms.

Thank you for responding, Safemommy and Nursing Mother, and now will the rest of you please come out of the woodwork and join in?!

[Lucky Charm]

Summermom, I put the "thumbs up" because i believe as NM does, and i could never articulate as well (at least in the political arena).

The only thing i differ on is the Choice issue. I know that Bush is against a womans right to choose, and this i am against, as I am pro choice. yup, i am a staunchly conservative right winger who belives in a womans right to choose.

[jannan]

Admin note: Post removed for editing. ~Cynthia

[gossamer]

My two big reasons for why I support Bush are that he is pro-life in the general understanding of that phrase as in against abortion. Also because he is pro-military/strong defense. As an ex-Army Brat for 13 years and ex-Army wife for 5 years, I am thrilled to see somebody as Commander in Chief that our troops can rely upon and respect.

Gossamer

[Lucky Charm]

jannan, i think you have issues that have nothing to do with Bush.

[Safemommy]

As quoted by jannan: "If you post something that says "bush supporters post here" of course, non-bush supporters will flame them. It is just human nature. "

The reason pro-Bush supporters should feel free to respond here without flame is because of the plea the OP made to NOT turn this into a debate, but rather she was interested to hear the opinions. Not flaming someone who beleives in something you are passionate against takes some real self control and self restraint. There was a LOT posted in this thread that I did not agree with, but I am respecting the wishes of the OP and using self restraint to keep my opinions to myself. If I want to debate a particular issue, I'll start a new "debate" thread.

[summermom]

Oh I give up! Sorry, NM, safemommy, etc. I thought I was starting a flameproof thread. I didn't mean to set you up like this.

[Peppermint]

I'll bite too.

I hadn't seen this until now, and I know flames arise here against pro-lifers, pro-Bushers, and anything not left-wing I accept that. I still hope some can do as Safemommy and summermom have suggested and keep their arguments out of this thread.

I am "supportive" of Bush, on a few things, much of what Nursingmama already meantioned, so I will just say that first and foremost, I vote (and I didn't vote for Bush, but, you don't even want to hear who I did vote for ) for people who are anti-abortion and who vow to do what it takes (peacefully) to rid our nation of legalized abortion. That is always the first thing on my list. If there were a democratic candidate who was pro-life and a republican who was pro-choice, I would vote for the democrat. So, that said, I also agree with NM that I like Bush's education policies, and especially his support of vouchers.

I like his ideas on taxes, I give my tax returns to charities of my choice and I think others should be free to do the same with their money, I believe me giving money directly to charities that help children, and the poor, is far better than watching the government screw up in doling it out.

There are so many issues I care deeply about, but ending abortion comes first for me, so I wish there were more pro-life candidates to choose from. Also, one last note about Bush- and I know this is not a view espoused much on here- I think he is more honest and moral than most other politicians, although no person is perfect and without skeletons.

So, there's one more on activism, what does that make 4 of us? I think all the others have been scared away, or at least that's what many have told me.