sorry to take to long to reply, was out of town at a wedding.
i didn't support bush because we are at war, although his actions since 9/11 have earned him my respect. i supported him because he represents more of what i personally believe than the drivel that kerry was spouting. i do not think that a sovereign nation should have to answer to a corrupt u.n.
instead of saying he supports alternative fuels he runs his ranch on geothermal heat and uses a mote to collect water for his cattle. that says more to me than any words uttered by kerry. people talk about how he refused to sign kyoto, but i wonder if they really looked at it. kyoto allows nations to "trade" and "sell" units of pollution allowences. it puts more restrictions on this country than others. it allows china to continue to produce its pollutants at an alarming rate. if it were truly an enviromental friendly policy then it would be across the board, not just here.
kerry is the one who said he would eliminate terrorism. bush is realistic about it. he knows this will go on for years and years and has said so. just can't buy into kerry's delusion.
third world countries being exploited? see above about kyoto. so-called lesser countries have always been exploited and always will be by someone. it doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change it. but it also shouldn't mean they have special allowences for pollution just because they are poor countries.
i personally do not like clear-cutting. i do not believe they allow the trees to live long enough before harvesting. however, controlled clear cutting prevents many forest fires. clearing out the underbrush helps prevent fires. i truly believe this because i lived in a forested area and we never had problems due to the company's policy of keeping things cleared out. i would like to see the forests left for longer periods before harvesting, but our society consumes way too many wood products for that to happen. as for the mass extinctions...i sort of have to go with darwin's theory on this one. even without our interference there will be species that become extinct. we do what we can to prevent it, but at what point do we have to choose between human and animal? it eventually will happen.
i can only speak for myself and those around me, but, with very few exceptions, we are all better off financially than when we were under clinton. i can definately say for a fact that my medical care, even without insurance of any kind, is 100 times better than when under clinton with insurance. this is due to the fact that drug companies get a tax write-off for providing me with their meds that would otherwise eat up all of my income.
during a time of war constitutional rights can and have been suspended in the past. it didn't make it right then and doesn't make it right now. however, in the name of the greater safety of the public this is done. we hear of the japanese internments during ww2 all the time, but we hardly hear of the german and italian interments of the same time. why? not a minority group. the rights of the minority should not be greater than those of everyone else, they should be equal and that is all.
free speech zones are a joke, but they have been around for years and years. and, yes, they are a violation of rights. loyalty oaths, however, have been a part of this country since its founding (military, public officials, etc).
it's not that we really believe differently, we just have a different view of how to solve the problems. if i believed like your fiancee indicates in his post i would never have come to this forum in the first place, and i certainly wouldn't have stayed around like i have. if my thought process is illogical to him, then so be it. he wouldn't be the first (even those who agree with me cannot follow me all the time). this is the way my brain processes thought. just as he went with what his heart and values indicated, i went with mine.