The Unrepentant Individual

...just hanging around until Dec 21, 2012


November 9, 2004


The Dumb American

Many of you out there have heard about Britain’s Daily Mirror, and their question. “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?”

I think I’ve got a better question. Why doesn’t the rest of the world understand that we have weighed the evidence, considered our options, and perhaps 59,054,087 intelligent, rational adults decided that reelecting George W. Bush was the best option we had?

In this election, we were faced with one very serious question. All others fell by the wayside. The question: Should we stand up and fight for what we thought was right in this world, or sit back with our “allies” and watch the threat grow? The enemy we are fighting isn’t interested in us leaving them alone. They’re not interested in peaceful coexistence. They’re not interested in diplomacy, in “joining the world community” (except as it suits their interests, i.e. Israel), or in acknowledging free Western culture (except when those freedoms make it easier to attack us). They are interested in nothing less than converting the entire world to fundamental Islam, and by whatever means necessary.

A clear choice. One candidate vowed to do whatever it takes to meet that threat, regardless of what the world thinks. That candidate has a clear conscience, in the thought that he is improving the world. He has a vision of a new world. A world full of countries and people holding the same hope and dreams that we have here in America. He has the understanding that his vision of the world cannot come about under communism, under fundamental Islam, or under any government that values government power over individual freedom. That candidate understood our enemy, and although at times I’ve had problems with his tactics, I can’t begin to fault his vision.

The other candidate truly believed that if he brings a more “sensitive” approach to the war on terror, the terrorists will leave us alone. He sees a world where militant Islam and western idealogy can coexist. He sees nuance where we need clarity. He advocates diplomacy against an enemy that only respects force. He views the American people as the tools to construct his grand vision of utopia; instead of utopia as a collection of free people acting in their own interests. Do I think John Kerry is a bad person? Not at all. Do I think he’s horrifically wrong? Absolutely.

The majority of Americans looked at two people, and two conflicting ideologies. And they made a choice. A clear, real choice. A choice that not only affected presidency, but shifted the balance of power in our House and Senate. Yet we are at a crossroads. We have the mass media proclaiming that Bush won solely on values. We are marginalized by people looking to discredit the election results and take away the President’s mandate. And for those of you who think they are reporting the honest facts, take note. The same people in Britain (and those in America) who think those who voted for Bush are just a bunch of dumb, homophobic, racist, gun-toting uneducated rednecks, will stop at nothing to belittle and neutralize this election. And the reason for that? They refuse to let us believe that we made an sound, informed choice. If they let us think we might actually be right, we might accomplish our agenda over the next four years. And that is something that they can’t accept.

Who voted for Bush? Were we all just led by the Christian Coalition? Are we so hung up on gay marriage making people feel “icky” that we would support a president that we thought would destroy our middle class? Did we think that it would be a good thing to reach out to an international “community” that would like nothing more than sell us out and embarrass us?

I don’t think that it is that simple. 59,054,087 people voted for George W. Bush, and many of them are complex people with complex beliefs. We may have common ground with Bush on some issues, and not always for the same reasons. But each one of those people looked at what Bush stands for, and what Kerry stands for, and made a choice. What type of person voted for Bush? Perhaps deconstructing a Bush voter like me may offer some insight:

I believe life begins at conception, yet my reasons for that belief are completely non-religious.

I believe that one of our highest virtues in life is to do everything in our power to help our fellow man.
I believe that forcing a person, through taxation, to help their fellow man removes all virtue from the act.

I believe that we should try very hard to include and convince the world to share our burdens and our goals.
I believe that if the world doesn’t do so, I am comfortable that America can morally act without their “blessing”.

I believe taxes are too high, and the tax code too complex, because politicians keep trying to buy us off with our own money.
I believe that people who think taxes should be raised should be given the opportunity to give more, if they so choose. If they choose not to, they lose all moral authority to talk about my taxes.

I believe marriage is defined by society and religion, and true meaning to a marriage is held in one person’s heart, not written in our laws or Constitution.
I believe to a government, all “marriages” are actually “civil unions”, because the government can only honor legal contracts, not moral ones.

I believe that all corporate welfare should be ended.
So should all antitrust laws.

I believe we have a Constitution for a reason, and that people keep finding things in there that I can’t see.

My choice at the polls: Vote for someone I agree with halfway, or vote for someone that I disagreed with completely? Bush may not be my ideal candidate, but he’s the best of the bunch.

Who’s a Bush voter? I am.

Does that make me a Dumb American? Probably, so I’ll try not to drool too much next time I’m dining with Jacques Chirac.

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 8:53 pm || Permalink || Comments (16) || Trackback URL || Categories: Uncategorized

16 Comments

  1. *SIGH*

    The problem that I have with your diatribe is that you are basing your opinion on what I believe a single major flaw:

    Iraq posed an imminent threatI would ask for the facts that back up your opinion that Iraq was an imminent threat to the American people. It has been proven that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. It has been proven that there were no substantive links between Al Qaeda, who by all accounts IS an imminent threat to the U.S.

    I’m a business guy. I offer a de-personalized, business point of view of the war in Iraq. Over 1,100 troops have been killed in Iraq and over 8,000 others wounded. That means close to 10,000 Americans have been harmed since this invasion started. Do you honestly believe that Iraq posed a terrorist threat to this country that would cost us that number of wounded and dead had we not gone to war? I, personally, doubt it. As far as I’m concerned, President George W. Bush has killed more Americans by sending them into battle that Saddam ever would have.

    Hey but at least he has conviction and he sure does pray a lot. That’s all that really matters, right?

    Comment by TLM — November 10, 2004 @ 8:51 am
  2. This is to TLM…the so called businessman…

    I bet you are a used car salesmen because your distortion of the facts are amazing. First of all, Irag has been shown to have major links to Al Quaeda. The 9/11 report showed there was a link. It only said there was no information linking IRAQ to 9/11. Iraq has been proven to be a safe harbor and supplier for several terrorist organizations including Al Quaeda. So you are just trying to distort the truth.
    Secondly, Iraq was given 11 years and 14 resolutions to PROVE that they had destroyed the WMDs. This is not the responsibility of the world to go and see, it was made clear that Sadaam Hussein had to PROVE it to us. HE DID NOT. The sanctions were not working as is evident by the “oil for food” scandal that is now being investigated. We gave that regime the opportunity to prove he had nothing…intelligence said he had it…he had not proved it was gone….we did was set forth by the UN resolutions. If you disagree, go read the resolutions. I have, have you?

    Third, Sadaam Hussein committed GENOCIDE on his own people. He has killed over 3 million of his own people. NOT IN WAR, but gased them in their villages. LOOK IT UP! This man gased innocent women and children, used bulldozers to push the piles of bodies into trenches in the desert. Should we have just left him alone? Should we have waited to see, well maybe he’s a good guy underneath it all and won’t give any of the undisposed chemical weopons to terrorists that want to come to the US and kill us. Maybe..

    I think I will take a man with back bone and that prays for us. Because with people that think the way you do,we all need to pray.

    Comment by Anonymous — November 10, 2004 @ 10:18 am
  3. To: Anonymous (and everyone)

    Please keep your comments civil. TLM responded to me in a completely civil manner. You owe him the same courtesy. As a precaution against future comments of that sort, I have turned off the ability to comment anonymously.

    My apologies, but there may be a few growing pains like this. Especially when political debates tend to push people’s buttons.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — November 10, 2004 @ 10:58 am
  4. BW2,
    I agree with the second response in terms of going into Iraq. I think the only big mistake Bush made when going into Iraq was using the “immenent threat” and WMD claims as the main reason to remove Saddam from power.

    I personally would have been satisfied by a statement that said something along the lines of “Saddam Hussein has shown throughout his rule that he intends to and at times does threaten both the security of his own fellow Iraqis and the world at large. In the past decade he has ignored 14 UN resolutions and engaged in illegal activities regarding the oil for food program. His regime must now be brought to an end. That’s what we’re going to do.”

    As far as the rest of the column goes:
    You have made some interesting points showing that a Bush voter like you can see many issues differently than myself and yet come to the same conclusion. Between Bush and Kerry, Bush wasn’t just the best option, he was the only option.

    Regarding your comments on the civil union thing, are you aware that the Ohio constitutional ammendment not only specifically defines marriage as between one man and one woman, but also bans civil unions or any other union intended to imitate a marriage between gay people?

    Comment by jrj — November 10, 2004 @ 2:09 pm
  5. BW2, congratulations on a though provoking blog spot!

    I can’t bring myself to dignify the soundbite driven facts of Anonymous, so I will discuss the rest of Bush’s merits. Let’s talk economics, shall we?

    By the 7th year of Bush’s term as a president it is estimated that there will be $3,800,000,000 in federal deficit due in large part to the Bush Tax Cuts. That equates to almost $38,000 for each family of four. These numbers do not equate to any additional spending, above the initial $120 billion, required to bring stability to Iraq.

    From http://www.bushtax.com:
    As of Feb 2004: For the bottom 60 percent of Americans, the average tax cut was just $304. The median tax cut for all Americans was only $470. In contrast, the average tax cut for those making over $1 million a year was $112,925.

    To pay for his tax program, Bush raided Social Security Trust Funds and made off with $500 billion, eroding our protections for the elderly. Then he borrowed another $500 billion from foreigners, putting our future in their hands. For every $100 you got back in tax cuts, $40 was borrowed from foreigners, $20 was borrowed from Americans, and $40 was taken from Social Security.

    That’s all for now.

    Thanks again for the thought provoking blog!

    Comment by TLM — November 10, 2004 @ 8:09 pm
  6. TLM,
    In the debate over Iraq, there are two main questions to be answered:

    1) Did we have justification for war?
    2) Did the justification we had warrant jeopardizing our troops.

    1) It is obvious that Saddam Hussein was a threat to his own people, his neighbors, Israel, and by proxy to America. From a standpoint of justification, Hussein spent years skirting UN resolutions, interfering with the terms of the *cease-fire*, and I specifically use that term. The fact that he was firing at American and British planes enforcing the no-fly zone is enough to prove that Hussein was violating the terms of the cease-fire, and gives us justification for ending the cease-fire and re-igniting a war with him.

    In addition, it was widely believed by most people (and in my opinion, Saddam himself) that he had WMD. I personally still believe that there is still WMD buried in the desert, and that some that he had was transported to Syria. As some evidence of that, the terrorists who planned to blow up a major chemical bomb in Jordan had to get those chemicals somewhere, and several of them (under duress I’m sure) did confess to training in Iraq. Even if the WMD did not exist, however, the available intelligence overwhelmingly pointed in that direction, and as “Anonymous” said, it was his burden of proof to show that they had been destroyed.

    2) The question of whether the justification provided is enough for us to believe that war is right is a much more difficult question, and for which there are significant arguments on both sides.

    I think that in a post 9/11 world, we need to look at the threat of terrorism in a new light. Specifically, the burden of proof before we will take the fight to an enemy is lower than it was before 9/11.

    I never (nor did the president) use the words “imminent threat”. But we had good reason to believe he had WMD. He had already supported terrorism against our ally, Israel, and in the process was paying $25,000 to families of suicide bombers that killed indiscriminately (including Americans). We knew of his hatred for the US, including the plot to assassinate Bush 41. And it’s not a far cry to think that he would be willing to hand off WMD to terrorists, assuming he believed he could do it without being caught personally.

    In addition, it is my belief that America’s long-term interests are served by working to improve freedom and opportunity in the entire Middle East. We’ve already seen the benefits in Afghanistan, and despite the nasty coverage, we’re making progress in Iraq. That flanks the big baddie, Iran, with two pro-freedom regimes. We’ve already seen Libya back down, and Syria is wetting their pants right now.

    And all this is not even considering the benefits of removing a brutal dictator who terrified his own people. I normally don’t advocate getting involved in humanitarian troubles, but when our national security is involved, it needs to be counted.

    Could we have accomplished this without war? Look at Cuba for an example. We’ve had a successful policy of containment and isolation against Cuba for the past 50 years. And we will until Senor Castro dies of natural causes. Could we have taken the same route in Iraq? Yes, but there is one big difference. Cuba isn’t trying to kill us. Iraq and the terrorists are.

    The question of how serious the threat needs to be before acting militarily is a difficult one. But in the political calculus, we can’t look at only the possibility of a state-sponsored terrorist attack against America. We have to look at the long-term implications of remaking a brutal dictatorship into a democratic, free society, and the benefits of proving to the neighbor tyrants that we mean it when we say we’re serious.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — November 10, 2004 @ 8:16 pm
  7. Taxes is an interesting issue, especially if phrased in the context of Bush vs. Kerry.

    As I said in the original post, I think taxes are too high, as well as the tax code is far too complex.

    But I find it’s only when Republican’s talk about cutting taxes that Democrats start worrying about deficits. I fully support (unlike our president) cutting spending to match these tax cuts. It *REALLY* angers me to see Bush support a $500B medicare prescription drug plan, as well as his expansion of the federal role in education.

    Also note that the economy prefers lower taxes, and a simpler tax code. Increased economic growth leads to an increased tax base while *not* punishing the successful. And if we replaced our tax code wiht something like the Fairtax, we would probably see a vast immediate positive effect on the economy, because we wouldn’t waste so much effort and money trying to comply with a tax code that so complex that the IRS gives bad advice half the time.

    Do I like the deficit? No. But I want to cut spending, while Kerry would likely increase it at a greater pace than Bush would (if allowed, I think a Republican congress would have put a clamp on him from day one).

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — November 10, 2004 @ 8:58 pm
  8. JRJ,
    Yes, I’m aware of the implications of the Ohio gay marriage ban.

    Mark my words though. Within the next 20 years, we’re going to see the current “blue states” start to accept and allow some sort of gay marriage or civil union. Within 20 years after that, it will have swept through the red states as well. And 100 years from now, the Ohio gay marriage amendment will be looked on in the same frame as the Dred Scott case. The march of history will make its way, we’re just in the transitional phase.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — November 10, 2004 @ 11:28 pm
  9. I understand why we went to Iraq. BW2, I think you have put it in context quite well. I don’t necessarily agree with the decision to go, but I can understand how we arrived there.

    But for me personally, it breaks down to one simple fact. The man responsible for the largest number of deaths of American people on American soil since WWII is still out there sending hate videos about the U.S. Meanwhile, our troops are tied up in a war with someone who is really, really bad. I personally think we have the wrong priorities.

    I strongly believe that the reason Bush wanted to invade Iraq is becase a country is easy to conquer and win. Take the dictator out of power and restore power to the people. You can’t do that when fighting terrorists. How do you win? I think Bush considered this when making decisions about our decision to go to war.

    Comment by TLM — November 11, 2004 @ 5:02 am
  10. I wanted to share an anecdote with you about a person who voted for Bush.

    My landlord approaches my roommate on Wednesday, November 3rd and asks her if she has voted today. She responds: “No, I voted yesterday.” “That’s good of you. He says; “I voted by mail.”

    A little puzzled, roommate says: “Now that the election is over, would you mind telling me who you voted for?” He responds: “Well it was a very tough decision and I couldn’t make up my mind. So in the end, I asked myself who would I like to have at my BBQ? I didn’t want to have Kerry over, so I voted for Bush.”

    The British Daily Mirror might have been wrong by accusing 59MM people of being dumb but in regards to my landlord…well…his reasoning is just plain dumb.

    I respect your decision to vote for Bush. You spelled out your reasons, you objectively weighed the issues and your decision was made. In relation to the other 59MM Bush voter, I would wager you are in the minority.

    Comment by SVelocity — November 15, 2004 @ 2:52 pm
  11. Some of this comment is a copy of what I have posted here: theworldaccordingtonomeI cannot comment on internal American issues of administration, such as taxes as I am uninformed, unqualified, and frankly – with no disrespect – uninterested. I will add my two cents, or no-sense, points of view on the more global or human matters. Right now though, I’ll stick to elections and the “War on Terror”.

    Firstly, on voting for G W Bush: In most Political races, as in America, there is usually a choice between ‘Bad’ and ‘Worse’. There is a very simple reason for this: To want to create a career in politics, and then to succeed to that degree, you need to have a certain personality. The defining characteristics would tend to be arrogance, a monsterous ego, a blinkered moral view and drive, a skin as thick as the Great Wall of China, and the ability to kiss the butts of the right people, who are usually self serving fools. This is an odd dicotomy of Master and Servant. One could say a dysfunctional personality would be a huge advantage.

    With this as a starting point for the majority of elected leaders, (Not all, I have met, and read of, some exceptions)it is no doubt that we are constantly choosing the lesser of two evils.

    Tlm is wrong with regard to there being no Saddam/Al Qaeda link. Both were CIA sponsored and sanctioned entities at some time in history. The lesser of many evils in each respect? Someone thought so, or they had great prescience in creating a future for themselves.

    I also would prefer to see the terms “sons and daughters” rather than Troops. De-humanisation is the friend of ambivalence.

    I am not going to dismiss anonymous out of hand, because he is probably the voice of Majorus Americanus Patriotica, and as such is only repeating what he has been taught. It is only through debate and exposure to other points of view that there is any chance of changing his point of view. His reaction, and I am not being patronising, is a microcosm of the greater world, if you don’t understand it, attack it. He is, after all, part of the 60% of Americans that believed one, or all of the fundamental pieces of mis-information used to promote the war, and I quote:

    ‘U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    There’s clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.

    People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.’

    Source:
    Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq warThere are many other sources to this, to go back to first principles is too time consuming for this arena. I will for money, though.

    With regard to the genocide, it is true, but I can name many other examples where there has been no US intervention, sometimes when it may have been due, but I will not get into a circular argument. The UN is there with a purpose, and it should only be through genuine, un-bullied resolution that foreign troops stand on a sovereign states soil. (My opinion)

    Brad, you write with a lot of ownership – I, we, us, our – but there are no references to support what you are saying. (In fact, I would guess that some of the BRAD comments were written by someone else.) This worries me, because to the uninformed it carries authority, and if you’ll excuse the directness, many of your arguments are weak and without any foundation. Your arrogance is naïve, in my opinion. An example: ‘I think that in a post 9/11 world, we need to look at the threat of terrorism in a new light. Specifically, the burden of proof before we will take the fight to an enemy is lower than it was before 9/11.’ Are you going to fight them? Are you going to make that decision? But this comment is off the point.

    ‘America’s long-term interests’ are of no bearing here. My long term interests would be better served if my next door neighbour gave me half his salary on a monthly basis. Let’s invade him.

    It is an unfortunate fact that the might of the American Armed Forces has led to some real problems in understanding the nature of revolution, terrorism and the power of random acts of violence. The immediate reaction has been to use the biggest force. What many don’t see is that this is breeding a huge number of future soldiers for the causes that much of the Middle-Eastern support. 9/11 had a degree of popular support in some Middle Eastern countries due to the experience the population had with the sharp edge of ‘American Imperialism.’ It is all relative.

    Bottom line: We need to debate these issues. We need to understand what is really at stake: The lives of people.

    The only fact that one can rely on: We are all the victims, or products, of our circle of influence and education, and we see things from a relative perspective. (Science, politics and philosophy combine – Einstein’s theory of relativity has an amazing scope of application if we think laterally.)

    You may think I am talking rubbish, but I base my arguments on things I have witnessed first hand, or on first principles that have stood careful examination and testing. (In this case, mainly first hand experience.)

    It is good to see some debate, especially amongst the under 30’s. It gives us hope for the future.
    Visit the link to see more from Brad and others:
    theworldaccordingtonome

    Comment by Prone Ranger — March 8, 2005 @ 3:01 am
  12. Geez, you’re really good at spouting off GOPig lies and propaganda. It pleases the prince of darkness to see the work you’re doing.

    Regardless of the distortions you present on John Kerry, ANYONE could do a better job than Bush has. He has caused more divsion within America, and more isolation of America from the world, than any president ever. He is ruining America.

    Thanks for voting republican. More souls for me.

    Comment by Satan — March 9, 2005 @ 9:52 am
  13. This post has been removed by the author.

    Comment by Satan — March 9, 2005 @ 9:52 am
  14. .

    Free Anonymous Proxies

    69.25.27.209:80
    80.224.16.222:80
    134.39.27.36:80
    213.26.185.228:80
    203.131.80.158:80
    203.144.216.211
    211.101.6.3:8080

    More Free Proxies: Go to http://jeepee.biz/infopage, and get them at “Page1″, “Page2″ and “Page3″

    Good luck!

    jeepee.biz

    Comment by jeepee_biz — October 22, 2005 @ 5:19 pm
  15. mortgage articles for refinance mortgage home loans

    Comment by reverse mortgage article — November 8, 2005 @ 9:37 pm
  16. A

    Comment by equity line — November 28, 2005 @ 10:54 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.