Reasons to vote for GWB

[rorschach]

I don't get it. He lacks charisma, isn't exactly the brightest President the US ever had, started two major wars, alienated about all the US' traditional allies, made a mess of the economy, gives speeches like a 5th grader, weaseled his way out of serving his country during the Vietnam war and tends to smile like he has just farted (and hopes nobody will notice). Basically the worst parts of Nixon, Ford, Carter & Clinton rolled into one.

So, please, explain to me why anyone would vote for him. Is it because he's a good Christian? Is it because he's a *chuckle* strong leader?
I'm confused... :(

[GreenEarthAl]

1. Meritocracy. Americans are trained from birth that they live in a meritocracy. There are human interest stories on the news as it's ending about some gramma who made great cookies and now has a burgeoning cookie business. The lottery winners are shown with regularity. People believe that by hard work or by luck they are just one or two lucky breaks from being filthy rich. They believe that people who are rich got there through hard work (in truth most of the super wealthy got there through the hard work of their grandfathers), and they believe that their poverty is their own fault. They are told that over and over again, and are encouraged to be openly hostile toward anyone who suggests that the system is designed to lock people in their social classes. Therefore people are in the perfect mindset to defend the rich (because hey, you never know, one day you could be shootin at some food and up from the ground comes....)

Summary: A nation full of poor people that fight for the rights of the rich because they naively believe they'll be joining them.

2. Fear. The American people realize that they are generally a very altruistic people so they have a difficult time envisioning why anyone would dislike them. They will grasp at any reason to explain it. They are presented with the theory that everyone hates them because everyone else is jealous. Everyone envies our liberties and freedoms that we are told over and over again that we have. The idea that we could be as vulnerable to terrorism as the rest of the world is unfathomable. So we embrace the Sharon plan. We'll simply kill everyone that doesn't like us and after we kill enough people we will be safe.

Summary: Folks have a serious disdain for anyone who stands in the way of us killing the people and the children of the people who have to die in order for our people and our children to be safe from them.


That's my interperetation of the strongest two reasons.

[infidel]

If you're into S&M look no further than GW, how could it get more embarrassing and humiliating?

[Señor Stino]

Heh, Green Earth has some good points there, especially the fear thing, I think is sadly true.

but americans dont only believe other people are jalous at them, i think it is partly true, americans are also a proud nation, the way I see it.

aren't there a lot of people who just vote Bush because it is the right thing to, because he is the republican candidate and their father, and their fathers father voted republican ....

[GreenEarthAl]

aren't there a lot of people who just vote Bush because it is the right thing to, because he is the republican candidate and their father, and their fathers father voted republican ....

Yes, that's another main reason. Lots of people will vote for him because he's in the party they've always voted for. Still others vote for "the person who's going to win." For in America we've been lead to believe we have DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM TO CHOOSE, which amounts towo a choice between which way you'd like to harm yourself (slowly or quickly?). There's a horserace mentality (except we won't tolerate more than two horses in the race) and everyone wants to be able to say that they voted for the guy that won, that has become more important than voting for the person that better represents them. That's why there is such interest in polls. The polls tell them who to pick so that they can safely pick the winner and spend the next four years bragging about voting for the winner.

[Señor Stino]

that's frightening :(

[D_Raay]

You are the biggest inch whipper! Bush did not start wars 9-11 did, and Iraq started the first Golf war. Then this Great Nation with others kicked Iraq out of Kuait. Then Iraq refused to obey 12 UN resolutions, and the UN refused to inforce them.

Bush did not hurt the ecomomy, 9-11 did, and the Enron scandal and other scandals did. Bush has helped the economy. If you count all the people who are not self employed there are alot more people working.

Somehow the Democrats seem to think if the government takes more of the poeples money the economy will do better. Bush believes you should have more of your money, because you will spend it one way or another and that will help teh economy. It worked with Reagan and it is working now.
Golf war huh? That would be cool. "Tee it up Saddam, I'm gonna whoop your ass. NOW WATCH ME HIT THS DRIVE".

[Echewta]

The general rise of the radical religious right in this country is amazing. We seem to think that those who strap a bomb to themselves in the name of religion are insane yet we have a group of people controling this country in the name of religion who put on a suit instead of a bomb belt and show up for work in the white house.

[ChrisLove]

Just to add my opinion on Bush impact on the economy (as it was mentioned above). To say that Bush ruined the economy or Bush helped the economy is at this point largely misleading. Economic shocks happen, recessions happen but for the most part their causes are fair too complicated to attribute the the actions of one policymaker or one event. In terms of Economics the big Bush issue is tax cuts.

Tax cuts increase the short term rate of economic growth that is undeniable and they are frequently used in times of recession to ease the impacts of that recession on society. These tax cuts can then be paid for by tax rises during prosperous times. Tax cuts create jobs because people buy more shit etc etc.... essentially the government is lending you the money to buy things on the ground you will pay it back when times are good.

But they also have another short/medium term effect. If everyone has more money in their pockets and everyone starts demanding more goods and services, you are going to get a little inflation. This inflation is to the benefit of the policymakers because it creates some 'artificial jobs' ie unemployment goes down because real wages fall and firms can afford to hire more people.

This effect is however largely counteracted by the Federal Reserve who dont like inflation (for inflation is a bad thing y'all) who will respond by raising interest rates to cool growth. If you follow these things you will know that Greenspan has been slowly but surely raising interest rates over the last couple of months to combat inflation due to tax cuts.

The problem is that raising interest rates slows growth. So you have a worrying situation where the Monetary Policy and Fiscal policy seem to be at odds with each other, Greenspan seems to be encouraging slow steady growth and Bush rapid growth. Bush has an election coming up, Greenspan doesnt so its pretty clear that if someone has not got there eyes on the right prise who it is.

Time will tell whether Bushenomics was successful, chances are that if Bush has screwed it up, it will manifest itself in mediocre growth over the next 5 years or so. My personal feeling is that the tax cuts were about creating jobs in time for this election and have little to do with sustained economic growth. I think the US and therefore most of the world economy will perform sluggishly for a while.

There are also key issues regarding allocation of the tax cuts where there would seem to be serious questions to ask about Bush's policies, but I couldnt really comment on that without doing some research, and I cant be arsed right now yo

[GreenEarthAl]

Nonsense. Much of the economic situation can be directly attributed to the executive branch of our government (you'll remember it as the branch that usurped all of the power from the branches which once held checks and balances powers over it).

The economy was in the shitter well in advance of Sept. 11. The tech bubble had already burst with intensity. Clearly, not George Bush's fault. If anything a lot of it had to do with the year 2000 computer problem no longer existing as a justification for inflated tech budgets and a level of overreporting profits on 10Q reports that were starting to become detectable (so many corporations were cheating on their earnings more and more that even Arthur Anderson couldn't hide it with a straight face anymore). So much of the boom was not Clinton's boom and much of the fall was not Bush's fall it was just wall street lying. Much of the boom was pretend money and the fall was the evaporation of people's pensions into the pretend money alarm going off mid-nightmare.

Now, to some extent several of these corporations were minting pretend money that they could use to buy the government (see Enron: campaign contributions, free planes/travel, facilities, etc.), so in a very real sense a lot of this portion of the economy screwing up was very closely linked to Bush.

Bush didn't cut taxes just in time for these elections, he started on cutting taxes as the first thing he did in office. It was what he was sent there to do. Id there was an annual budget surplus (and there sort-of was at the time) then since the rich people had just bought the government they were entitled to divvy up the surplus among themselves (debt service be damned, our children can pay for it and our parents can eat cake). So after Jim Jeffords passed it through congress (His final act of evil?) he switched to the good side of the force and all of the people were so distracted with that that they forgot about the fact that we had just given away any hope we had of paying off our credit card.

So now fast forward to 9/11. Now the U.S. has the political will of "do anything Bush says. You tell us what to do and we do it," and it took a long time for the zombification to wear off. And in the meantime we were able to spend nearly a trillion dollars on wars of aggression. If you don't think that will fuck up an economy then try this: 1. Max out your credit card. 2. Now go buy a new gar with a machine gun turret and fire bullets into your neighbors house every friday night after you go on a bender.

Reagan's trickle down policy didn't work very well. Supply side (intentionally I think) fails to calculate the greed of the monied class who do not use the newfound money for job creation. Bush's trickle down policy wasn't even designed to work, they don't even do a very good job of pretending like they think it will work anymore. It's smoke and mirrors direct deposit right into the bank accounts of the monied interests where it stays. The only capital that ever makes it out and back into circulation is however much they need to purchase the next election.


(And who can say how long that will even be necessary)

[mcaismyhero]

aren't there a lot of people who just vote Bush because it is the right thing to, because he is the republican candidate and their father, and their fathers father voted republican ....

That's not just a Republican thing though. My mom's side of the family is entirely Democratic and they never vote Republican. Except for my uncle in 2000, I think he liked McCain because he is a Vietnam vet. But anyway, I think that everyone in America just needs to vote for whatever they want-don't do it just because someone is a Republican or because they are the best Democrat running. Americans are such sheep.

[bilbo]

1. Meritocracy. Americans are trained from birth that they live in a meritocracy. There are human interest stories on the news as it's ending about some gramma who made great cookies and now has a burgeoning cookie business. The lottery winners are shown with regularity. People believe that by hard work or by luck they are just one or two lucky breaks from being filthy rich. They believe that people who are rich got there through hard work (in truth most of the super wealthy got there through the hard work of their grandfathers), and they believe that their poverty is their own fault. They are told that over and over again, and are encouraged to be openly hostile toward anyone who suggests that the system is designed to lock people in their social classes. Therefore people are in the perfect mindset to defend the rich (because hey, you never know, one day you could be shootin at some food and up from the ground comes....)

Summary: A nation full of poor people that fight for the rights of the rich because they naively believe they'll be joining them.

2. Fear. The American people realize that they are generally a very altruistic people so they have a difficult time envisioning why anyone would dislike them. They will grasp at any reason to explain it. They are presented with the theory that everyone hates them because everyone else is jealous. Everyone envies our liberties and freedoms that we are told over and over again that we have. The idea that we could be as vulnerable to terrorism as the rest of the world is unfathomable. So we embrace the Sharon plan. We'll simply kill everyone that doesn't like us and after we kill enough people we will be safe.

Summary: Folks have a serious disdain for anyone who stands in the way of us killing the people and the children of the people who have to die in order for our people and our children to be safe from them.


That's my interperetation of the strongest two reasons.


This is an excellent post. (y)

[seamus129]

Why are Americans so ashamed of being a super power. Bush may not be the most articulate but he is true to his covictions are steady. There is 1 in 6 chances of being born in American. Am very lucky to be one of those. One reason to vote for Bush is that we as nation has never change power in a war. I witness the horror on September 911 first hand. One life was that snuffed out was James Raymond Coyle one hero I went to grammar school with, he was on his way from night shift at FDNY, he jump on fire trunk never to see his family again. Only thing I think of his mother telling the neighborhood that James want to be like Luke Skywalker . Well now everyone knows James Raymond Coyle is hero just like all who perished on that horrible day. So the one reason have for my vote going to Bush I will never forget you James Raymond Coyle and all who die. Those cowards will never get another chance to kill innocent babies like Christine Lee Hanson the youngest victum of 911. Bush doctrine of premptions is needed to tell are enemies we will take action. (y)

[bilbo]

One reason to vote for Bush is that we as nation has never change power in a war.

Incorrect.
Lyndon B. Johnson--->Richard M. Nixon

[seamus129]

Johnson never went for 2 term

[seamus129]

Dude I work 59 and seven in nyc near u so come see speak English

[bilbo]

Johnson never went for 2 term

What does that have to do with what you said?

[seamus129]

I was just posting to get into a general talk not some name calling my name is Seamus. So cut the esl talk

[seamus129]

You are a little nasty. My contacts were killing me so sorry for all the typos.

[bilbo]

I was just posting to get into a general talk not some name calling my name is Seamus. So cut the esl talk


What name calling? You posted a false statement, and I corrected you.

[bilbo]

Dude I work 59 and seven in nyc near u so come see speak English


Is that some sort of threat?

[seamus129]

Dude. You hoped English was my second language so give me a break

[bilbo]

Dude. You hoped English was my second language so give me a break

I thought I was being nice since your English is atrocious, and half your posts make little if any sense.
:confused:

[adam_f]

I saw someone said Bush had charisma saracastically. And Kerry is just a big bag of bubbly fun, isn't he?

[EN[i]GMA]

Of course Nader isn't a tower of power when it comes to charisma EITHER. Were screwed if this is some kind of charisma contest. It is isn't it? The news seems to make it out that way.

[Echewta]

I like the idea that Bush is heroic and a rugged outdoor man. Look at me pulling weeds at my ranch.

:confused: :confused:

[seamus129]

True my spelling sucks but i try my best just like W.

[deita]

The general rise of the radical religious right in this country is amazing. We seem to think that those who strap a bomb to themselves in the name of religion are insane yet we have a group of people controling this country in the name of religion who put on a suit instead of a bomb belt and show up for work in the white house.
so true...and so sad

[saz]

Bush doctrine of premptions is needed to tell are enemies we will take action. (y)

Okay....so then it's alright for China to attack Taiwan, North Korea to attack South Korea and Pakistan and India to annihilate one another.

[seamus129]

No you dont want to fight with friends. Do you really believe that China wants to kill us? No they want to sell u everything under the Sun. The world is not falling apart at every turn, but with out the clear idea of what nations face if they thinking of attacking freedom loving people is important no

[Funkaloyd]

And us Kiwis get to invade Australia. I mean, there's a chance that at some unspecified time in the future Australia could maybe perhaps conceivably possibly feasibly attack us. We've got to stop that from happening now! Don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

[saz]

No you dont want to fight with friends. Do you really believe that China wants to kill us? No they want to sell u everything under the Sun. The world is not falling apart at every turn, but with out the clear idea of what nations face if they thinking of attacking freedom loving people is important no

man....I have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about or trying to say. Regardless, you brought up Bush's neo-conservative fascist policy of pre-emptive war. So, what about China then? What if they decide to pre-emptively attack Taiwan? Or how about North Korea attacking South Korea pre-emptively? And Pakistan and India? And stop making presumptions and assumptions about the economic and political motives of the totalitarian-capitalist Chinese government....makes you look like an ass, when you talk out of your ass.

[Bob]

man....I have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about or trying to say. Regardless, you brought up Bush's neo-conservative fascist policy of pre-emptive war. So, what about China then? What if they decide to pre-emptively attack Taiwan? Or how about North Korea attacking South Korea pre-emptively? And Pakistan and India? And stop making presumptions and assumptions about the economic and political motives of the totalitarian-capitalist Chinese government....makes you look like an ass, when you talk out of your ass.

i think he misinterpreted what you were saying, he thought you were suggesting it was ok for us to attack china and taiwan and so on

[bilbo]

Don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud (http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.189.gif)

[seamus129]

No I am not war monger asshole but to think that Bush doctrine just reaffriming Monroe doctrine that USA is supreme power in the Western hemisphere. I am afraid folks we are in holy war no way out. The fact that i I see America blood being spilled is very upseting. I wish that 911 never happened but it did. Guys think if your around 30 years old could you have imagined seeing our soldiers on the street walk around arm to the teeth. Yeah I can honestly say watching the war on TV. It look so simple but it not the Middle East has throw away science and math for religion so suffering 700 years of theocracy then dont want really government.

[beastinotaranie]

i'll give u a reason. just one. that's all i will need to make all u w haters out there shut up. have u or anybody else you know been blown up by a terrorist since 9/11?? i would have to answer that for u and say NO! there has not been a single terrorist attack on u.s. soil since then. for that i will vote bush. human life is more important to me than anything else, not medicare, not little fluffy bunny rabbits, or any other types of that shit.

[bilbo]

i'll give u a reason. just one. that's all i will need to make all u w haters out there shut up. have u or anybody else you know been blown up by a terrorist since 9/11?? i would have to answer that for u and say NO! there has not been a single terrorist attack on u.s. soil since then. for that i will vote bush. human life is more important to me than anything else, not medicare, not little fluffy bunny rabbits, or any other types of that shit.

Awesome comedy
(y)

[Bob]

i'll give u a reason. just one. that's all i will need to make all u w haters out there shut up. have u or anybody else you know been blown up by a terrorist since 9/11?? i would have to answer that for u and say NO! there has not been a single terrorist attack on u.s. soil since then. for that i will vote bush. human life is more important to me than anything else, not medicare, not little fluffy bunny rabbits, or any other types of that shit.

the civilians killed in iraq aren't humans or anything, besides, it's their fault for looking like and being so close to terrorists!

[beastinotaranie]

this is what im talkin about. BUSHBOT?! Some(well most) of you wont even listen. BUSHBOT?! did i say anything false? did i? i didnt think so asswipe!!!!!!!!!!

[BoominShakey]

At least with W, we know what we're getting. While you can certainly argue that we'd be better off without Bush, I haven't seen much convincing argument that we would be any better off with Kerry. I'm sorry, but I've never been big on the "Anyone but <fill in despised politician's name here>." philosophy.

Personally, I find it odd and disturbing that with Kerry having spent 4 months in Vietnam 35 years ago, regardless of the truth of what did or didn't happen during or after his time there, and nearly 20 years as a US Senator, he has chosen to focus his campaign on his 4 months in Vietnam, when his 20 years as a senator should be more relavent. I've heard it claimed that he's been forced by <insert individual/group here> to keep coming back to the Vietnam issue, and I could have seen that to some extent, until he all but completely glossed over his two decades in the senate during his speech at the democratic convention. The fact that he's centering his campaign around his service in vietnam without even addressing his post-war activities back in the states really leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well. If he's that proud of his service, I would think he'd have some backtracking to do on the whole anti-war movement thing. And if he really held/holds the views he expressed when he returned from Vietnam, then it is quite odd that he touts his military service without tempering it with more talk regarding his anti-war views. The whole issue, imho, just lends credibility to the image he's been given as a 'flip-flopper' -- it just reeks of someone trying to play people on both sides of an issue. As a whole, I don't think that Americans are going to fall for that kind of strategy as much as the Kerry camp seems to be banking on. The way he seems to be trying to play both sides of so many issues, not just the whole vietnam/war thing (i.e., can you really believe that human life begins at conception and still be unabashedly pro-choice... they just seem like incompatible viewpoints, or at least ones that deserve a bit more explanation) just says to me that he really doesn't hold the average american citizen in very high regard, that he just doesn't respect the intelligence of the average american citizen. The average person, intelligent or unintelligent, wants to support a candidate that they feel respects them as citizen, and Kerry just doesn't give that impression at all--he can't even do a respectible job of faking it.

Someone or someones behind the scenes in the democratic party seriously screwed the pooch on this one--it just doesn't seem to me like the dems did their homework leading up to this election. I'd bet that there are plenty of people in this country who, like me, are moderate republicans that were watching closely for a "challenger" from the dems that we would be comfortable voting for, and the democratic party failed to deliver, plain and simple. Not only did the dems fail to attract moderates from the other side, it seems like they are managing to push away moderates in their own party. (i.e. Ed Koch, Zell Miller, etc.) So far, the DNC and other democrat/anti-bush groups are handling this election about as well as Judge Ito handled the OJ trial.

On an slightly related note, I also really think that all the celebrities, including the Beasties, "speaking out" during this campaign season is working against Kerry as well, or at least not really helping him all that much. The vast majority of people don't turn to celebrities for political insight--there isn't any group, aside perhaps from politicians themselves, who are further removed from the experiences, stresses and hardships of everyday people. While I'm all for freedom of speech and believing that everyone, celebrites included, are entitled to express a political opinion, I care a hell of a lot more about what my family, friends and neighbors think about politics than about what some larger-than-life musician or hollywood figure thinks. I also find it ironic that so many celebrities who speak out on their political views then turn to whining when the public reacts to their expression in a negative way. Bruce Springsteen (or whoever...) may be free to express his opinion, but I'm just as free to decide whether or not to continue to give him my money based on what I think of what he has said.

[beastinotaranie]

the civilians killed in iraq aren't humans or anything, besides, it's their fault for looking like and being so close to terrorists!
my country is number one on my priority list. i dont know about u? but i care more about the u.s. than iraq. sorry thats the truth and if u dont feel this way maybe u should move. i do care about other people and their countries but when it comes down to it, home is more important than your friend's home.

[beastinotaranie]

Basically it means you are retarded.
great comeback!!! u get 4 cookies.

[beastinotaranie]

At least with W, we know what we're getting. While you can certainly argue that we'd be better off without Bush, I haven't seen much convincing argument that we would be any better off with Kerry. I'm sorry, but I've never been big on the "Anyone but <fill in despised politician's name here>." philosophy.

Personally, I find it odd and disturbing that with Kerry having spent 4 months in Vietnam 35 years ago, regardless of the truth of what did or didn't happen during or after his time there, and nearly 20 years as a US Senator, he has chosen to focus his campaign on his 4 months in Vietnam, when his 20 years as a senator should be more relavent. I've heard it claimed that he's been forced by <insert individual/group here> to keep coming back to the Vietnam issue, and I could have seen that to some extent, until he all but completely glossed over his two decades in the senate during his speech at the democratic convention. The fact that he's centering his campaign around his service in vietnam without even addressing his post-war activities back in the states really leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well. If he's that proud of his service, I would think he'd have some backtracking to do on the whole anti-war movement thing. And if he really held/holds the views he expressed when he returned from Vietnam, then it is quite odd that he touts his military service without tempering it with more talk regarding his anti-war views. The whole issue, imho, just lends credibility to the image he's been given as a 'flip-flopper' -- it just reeks of someone trying to play people on both sides of an issue. As a whole, I don't think that Americans are going to fall for that kind of strategy as much as the Kerry camp seems to be banking on. The way he seems to be trying to play both sides of so many issues, not just the whole vietnam/war thing (i.e., can you really believe that human life begins at conception and still be unabashedly pro-choice... they just seem like incompatible viewpoints, or at least ones that deserve a bit more explanation) just says to me that he really doesn't hold the average american citizen in very high regard, that he just doesn't respect the intelligence of the average american citizen. The average person, intelligent or unintelligent, wants to support a candidate that they feel respects them as citizen, and Kerry just doesn't give that impression at all--he can't even do a respectible job of faking it.

Someone or someones behind the scenes in the democratic party seriously screwed the pooch on this one--it just doesn't seem to me like the dems did their homework leading up to this election. I'd bet that there are plenty of people in this country who, like me, are moderate republicans that were watching closely for a "challenger" from the dems that we would be comfortable voting for, and the democratic party failed to deliver, plain and simple. Not only did the dems fail to attract moderates from the other side, it seems like they are managing to push away moderates in their own party. (i.e. Ed Koch, Zell Miller, etc.) So far, the DNC and other democrat/anti-bush groups are handling this election about as well as Judge Ito handled the OJ trial.

On an slightly related note, I also really think that all the celebrities, including the Beasties, "speaking out" during this campaign season is working against Kerry as well, or at least not really helping him all that much. The vast majority of people don't turn to celebrities for political insight--there isn't any group, aside perhaps from politicians themselves, who are further removed from the experiences, stresses and hardships of everyday people. While I'm all for freedom of speech and believing that everyone, celebrites included, are entitled to express a political opinion, I care a hell of a lot more about what my family, friends and neighbors think about politics than about what some larger-than-life musician or hollywood figure thinks. I also find it ironic that so many celebrities who speak out on their political views then turn to whining when the public reacts to their expression in a negative way. Bruce Springsteen (or whoever...) may be free to express his opinion, but I'm just as free to decide whether or not to continue to give him my money based on what I think of what he has said.
SOMEBODY's still alive and kickin' out there.

[Bob]

my country is number one on my priority list. i dont know about u? but i care more about the u.s. than iraq. sorry thats the truth and if u dont feel this way maybe u should move. i do care about other people and their countries but when it comes down to it, home is more important than your friend's home.

yes, it is the truth that you feel that way. me, i try to have a more worldly perspective. humans are humans no matter where they are, it's a round world last i checked. what makes an american more worthy to live than an iraqi?

[ChrisLove]

my country is number one on my priority list. i dont know about u? but i care more about the u.s. than iraq. sorry thats the truth and if u dont feel this way maybe u should move. i do care about other people and their countries but when it comes down to it, home is more important than your friend's home.


Don't you think that opinion is kind of racist though? It opens up all sorts of problematic ethical dilemmas too with regard to war in Iraq, like how many Iraqi lives is it fair to sacrifice to save one American/Brit or whatever.

[beastinotaranie]

yes, it is the truth that you feel that way. me, i try to have a more worldly perspective. humans are humans no matter where they are, it's a round world last i checked. what makes an american more worthy to live than an iraqi?
i know what u think i think. u know"god bless america and no place else" but i dont believe this at all. i understand every man is equal, but look at it this way. do you love and worry more about your family or your neighbors'?

[saz]

Man, these are just a bunch of pre-teens who know fuck all about geo-politics and current events. They're misinformed opinions are completely irrelevent and only matter in General Beastie Boys Discussion.

[Bob]

i know what u think i think. u know"god bless america and no place else" but i dont believe this at all. i understand every man is equal, but look at it this way. do you love and worry more about your family or your neighbors'?

i didn't say that. i said "it is the truth that you feel that way" in response to whatever you said about what you said (which was just an opinion and doesnt really have a truth value) being the truth. boy you're jumpy

and to answer your question, i value my family, but never at the expense of my neighbors. and if my neighbors kill my family, i don't take it out on the entire block.

[beastinotaranie]

i didn't say that. i said "it is the truth that you feel that way" in response to whatever you said about what you said (which was just an opinion and doesnt really have a truth value) being the truth. boy you're jumpy

and to answer your question, i value my family, but never at the expense of my neighbors. and if my neighbors kill my family, i don't take it out on the entire block.
u still didnt answer it though, do you love your family more or your neighbor's?
and yes i get jumpy at nite. it must be all that crack intake.

[Bob]

I hope you're right about that. America looks like its future is fucked right about now.

i used to post things kinda like that too, back in the day. hell, maybe blighty remembers some of it, he used to piss me right off when i was like that. you know, asking questions that i didn't like the answers to, trying to get me to re-evaluate everything i'd been taught to believe growing up. what the fuck's wrong with you, the west is the best, go to afghanistan hippie!

but then one day, and i don't remember when exactly, i came around and said "well shit, maybe i could be wrong", and now i think i was.

and in a few more years, i could turn around and be an asshat again. life's funny like that

[Bob]

u still didnt answer it though, do you love your family more or your neighbor's?
and yes i get jumpy at nite. it must be all that crack intake.

?

yes i did, i said i value my family more than my neighbors. replace "value" with "love" if you want, the wording's not important. heck, i'll do it now.

i love my family more than my neighbors, but never at the expense of my neighbors. and if my neighbors kill my family i don't take it out on the entire block.

[beastinotaranie]

Man, these are just a bunch of pre-teens who know fuck all about geo-politics and current events. They're misinformed opinions are completely irrelevent and only matter in General Beastie Boys Discussion.
so why are u in here?

[beastinotaranie]

To educate young zit-faced cum stain ignorant dipshits like yourself.

Get back in line with the other sheep over at the General Beastie Boys Discussion, chump.

All praise due to Allah.
fuck u.

[bilbo]

At least with W, we know what we're getting. While you can certainly argue that we'd be better off without Bush, I haven't seen much convincing argument that we would be any better off with Kerry. I'm sorry, but I've never been big on the "Anyone but <fill in despised politician's name here>." philosophy.

Personally, I find it odd and disturbing that with Kerry having spent 4 months in Vietnam 35 years ago, regardless of the truth of what did or didn't happen during or after his time there, and nearly 20 years as a US Senator, he has chosen to focus his campaign on his 4 months in Vietnam, when his 20 years as a senator should be more relavent. I've heard it claimed that he's been forced by <insert individual/group here> to keep coming back to the Vietnam issue, and I could have seen that to some extent, until he all but completely glossed over his two decades in the senate during his speech at the democratic convention. The fact that he's centering his campaign around his service in vietnam without even addressing his post-war activities back in the states really leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well. If he's that proud of his service, I would think he'd have some backtracking to do on the whole anti-war movement thing. And if he really held/holds the views he expressed when he returned from Vietnam, then it is quite odd that he touts his military service without tempering it with more talk regarding his anti-war views. The whole issue, imho, just lends credibility to the image he's been given as a 'flip-flopper' -- it just reeks of someone trying to play people on both sides of an issue. As a whole, I don't think that Americans are going to fall for that kind of strategy as much as the Kerry camp seems to be banking on. The way he seems to be trying to play both sides of so many issues, not just the whole vietnam/war thing (i.e., can you really believe that human life begins at conception and still be unabashedly pro-choice... they just seem like incompatible viewpoints, or at least ones that deserve a bit more explanation) just says to me that he really doesn't hold the average american citizen in very high regard, that he just doesn't respect the intelligence of the average american citizen. The average person, intelligent or unintelligent, wants to support a candidate that they feel respects them as citizen, and Kerry just doesn't give that impression at all--he can't even do a respectible job of faking it.

Someone or someones behind the scenes in the democratic party seriously screwed the pooch on this one--it just doesn't seem to me like the dems did their homework leading up to this election. I'd bet that there are plenty of people in this country who, like me, are moderate republicans that were watching closely for a "challenger" from the dems that we would be comfortable voting for, and the democratic party failed to deliver, plain and simple. Not only did the dems fail to attract moderates from the other side, it seems like they are managing to push away moderates in their own party. (i.e. Ed Koch, Zell Miller, etc.) So far, the DNC and other democrat/anti-bush groups are handling this election about as well as Judge Ito handled the OJ trial.

On an slightly related note, I also really think that all the celebrities, including the Beasties, "speaking out" during this campaign season is working against Kerry as well, or at least not really helping him all that much. The vast majority of people don't turn to celebrities for political insight--there isn't any group, aside perhaps from politicians themselves, who are further removed from the experiences, stresses and hardships of everyday people. While I'm all for freedom of speech and believing that everyone, celebrites included, are entitled to express a political opinion, I care a hell of a lot more about what my family, friends and neighbors think about politics than about what some larger-than-life musician or hollywood figure thinks. I also find it ironic that so many celebrities who speak out on their political views then turn to whining when the public reacts to their expression in a negative way. Bruce Springsteen (or whoever...) may be free to express his opinion, but I'm just as free to decide whether or not to continue to give him my money based on what I think of what he has said.


Kerry was in Vietnam for more than 4 months. He served two tours of duty. If you're going to post(cut-n-paste) shit, try not to lie. :rolleyes:
However, even if your lie was true, it would be 4 months longer than President Codpiece.

[beastinotaranie]

im out. its been good arguing with u guys, i love it.

[BoominShakey]

Kerry was in Vietnam for more than 4 months. He served two tours of duty. If you're going to post(cut-n-paste) shit, try not to lie. :rolleyes:


First of all, find for me where I cut and pasted from. Just because I'm not the only person with a particular view on something doesn't mean I took the idea from someone else. It isn't all that uncommon for multiple people to come to the same conclusion independently.

Secondly, who cares if it was four months, two years, or ten? The point is, he has been a senator for a hell of a lot longer than he was in vietnam, he has been a senator a hell of a lot more recently than he was in vietnam, and his time in the senate is a hell of a lot more relavent to his ability to lead the US than his time in vietnam (especially in light of the fact that he was one of the ones claiming that military service in vietnam wasn't an issue when Clinton was running in '92).

See, this is what I love about dumbasses, on either side of any issue. A comment like this one is just a cop out. I throw out a reason for voting for Bush that isn't based on any particular issue, conspiracy theory, or wildly-exaggerated claim so much as a general impression of the candidates, and that's best response you can give is to tell me I'm wrong about how many months Kerry was in Vietnam? If you have something to say in response to what I said that has some substance, I'd love to hear it, and would be interested to see if it sounded any more or less "cut-n-pasted" than what I posted.

[bilbo]

Secondly, who cares if it was four months, two years, or ten?


Obviously you do since you "posted" the four month lie to begin with.

[BoominShakey]

Ok, so far as I can tell from google searches, Kerry was in the military from '66 to '70, and then in the reserves until '78. While in active service, he served two tours of duty directly related to the Vietnam war, the first from December '67 to June '68, when he was stationed on a guided-missle frigate defending aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin. His second related tour, from December '68 to March '69, was served while actually physically in vietnam.

So tell me, oh wise Bilbo, where you get that Kerry was in Vietnam for more than 4 months?

[bilbo]

Ok, so far as I can tell from google searches, Kerry was in the military from '66 to '70, and then in the reserves until '78. While in active service, he served two tours of duty directly related to the Vietnam war, the first from December '67 to June '68, when he was stationed on a guided-missle frigate defending aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin. His second related tour, from December '68 to March '69, was served while actually physically in vietnam.

So tell me, oh wise Bilbo, where you get that Kerry was in Vietnam for more than 4 months?


You answered your own question in your post, but I'm always willing to help a dumbass out. You do know where the Gulf of Tonkin is?

http://grunt.space.swri.edu/visit/maps/viet1.gif

[BoominShakey]

Little geography lesson for you... Vietnam is a country, countries are generally established on land. A gulf is part of a body of water, countries are generally not established on bodies of water. So, yeah, Kerry was close to Vietnam twice, but he was still only in Vietnam for 4 months, although I'm sure it was still awfully scary when he was in the Gulf of Tonkin, what with the massive naval and air strength of Vietnam to deal with and all.

Once again, however, the exact amount of time Kerry was in Vietnam wasn't even remotely the point of my post. If you had read it with an intelligent mind, you would have caught on to that. And, if you were a good little Kerry clone, wouldn't you be serving your leader better to try to convince me that he's worth voting for, instead of just trying (unsuccessfully) to piss me off?

Here's a challenge for ya: you don't like my reasons for voting for Bush? Let's hear some reasons for voting for Kerry, other than that he isn't Bush, that no one could claim you just "cut-n-pasted" from somewhere else. If you can't manage that, don't waste your time with this thread... I'm moving on to find some intelligent discussion.

[Bob]

if you want to get super-technical kerry was never IN vietnam at all, he only ever walked on top of it. unless he went in a foxhole at some point, then he's briefly been in vietnam

that seems about as relevant as any other part of this argument, ha

[bilbo]

A gulf is part of a body of water, countries are generally not established on bodies of water.

So what you're saying here is that anyone in the Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin during that time period cannot claim they were in Vietnam? Way to shit on some more Veterans. :rolleyes: Does your asinine "foot on the ground theory" apply for the men and women in the Air Force?

Here's a little geography lesson for you sport. A countries borders extend off their coasts, so you aren't even technically correct.

[BoominShakey]

Ok, one more shot at this. I'm going to restate my original post in a simplified manner so that hopefully the actual point of the post will be more obvious to people who seem to have a hard time with big sentences and decide to just argue numbers with me, since 10 months is a whole lifetime compared to four months. Here we go:

So, Kerry was in Vietnam for a relatively short amount of time, and he's been a senator for a relatively long time. So why do we hear so much more, from him and everyone else, about his time in Vietnam than we do about his time in the Senate? I think this is particularly strange since you'd think that his time in the senate would be a lot more relevant to being president than would his time in Vietnam.


Ok, hopefully that was better. Maybe now we can get back to discussing the actual issue instead of debating exactly how long Kerry was "in" Vietnam or the details of geography. Although, somehow, I seriously doubt that any further meaningful discussion will actually happen. Oh well, I tried.

[Bob]

i believe you meant "on" vietnam. here, look at my topographical maps and websites

[BoominShakey]

i believe you meant "on" vietnam. here, look at my topographical maps and websites
(y) Very funny. I laughed hard. :)

[Bob]

just thought i'd lighten the mood, no offense directed to anyone :)

[bilbo]

Ok, hopefully that was better. Maybe now we can get back to discussing the actual issue instead of debating exactly how long Kerry was "in" Vietnam or the details of geography.

See, doesn't it feel good to admit when you were wrong?

Who exactly is talking about Kerry's service? People like you and the Shit Boat Liars? :rolleyes:
I happen to think Kerry's military service is somewhat relevant since Bush has decided to send troops to die in an unecessary elective war.
However, be that as it may, I'd prefer they discuss issues that matter more to me, like health care, the economy, and education. Kerry has challenged Bush to weekly televised debates on these subjects.
Why has Bush declined? Hell, Kerry even upped the ante and said he'd pull all of his ads for the remainder of the campaign, without asking Bush to do the same, if he'd agree to weekly debates. Yet Bush still balks. :rolleyes:

[bilbo]

you don't like my reasons for voting for Bush?

By the way, where are those Bush supporting reasons you talk of? I missed where you listed them. I'd be interested in seeing his list of catastrophic accomplishments. :eek:

[bilbo]

Is this "meaningful discussion" on Bush's accomplishments going to happen anytime soon :confused:

[GreenEarthAl]

How many quasi-literate friends does gmsisko1 have? Does he go to SupportOurTroops.com and beg for help with his debates on here or what?

[Vladimir]

well, GEA, quasi-literate is better than sisko. It's gotten to the point where you have to give people major credit just for constructing a coherent thought.

[DroppinScience]

Incorrect.
Lyndon B. Johnson--->Richard M. Nixon

Also FDR ----> Harry S. Truman

But then again, FDR died before WW2 ended.

Besides, didn't Eisenhower oversee the end of the Korean war anyways?

To say Americans never change Presidents during wars isn't always the case.

[infidel]

So BoominShakey, since GW wasn't a senator for the same time frame as Kerry but was rather in business how about you list his accomplishments?
Any further posts from you don't amount to a pile of shit till you do.

[BoominShakey]

Is this "meaningful discussion" on Bush's accomplishments going to happen anytime soon :confused:
You know, I do actually have things to do that don't involve sitting in front of the computer... (although you'll find it hard to believe given the length of this post...)

If you look, I never said a word about specifically supporting Bush or even implying that I felt like he had a substantial list of accomplishments during his first term in office. The closest thing I came to giving him credit for anything was saying that at least with Bush we know what to expect. It's not particularly fair to start taunting me about Bush's list of "catastrophic accomplishments" when I haven't even suggested that I think that he has had any accomplishments.

The main point of my first post was to say that probably my primary reason for voting for Bush is that I feel like the democratic party (or any other party for that matter) failed to provide a candidate that many of us in the "middle" could be comfortable supporting. Given the wide range and number of issues that should have been able to give a challenging candidate a significant advantage over Bush, I find it pretty remarkable that the best candidate that the democrats could come up with has failed to gain much, if any, statistically significant lead in any major poll at any point so far in the election season. Granted, that probably says more about the political climate among the citizens of the US than it does about either of the candidates--but I still find it pretty amazing that, given all of Bush's vunerabilities, the democrats couldn't come up with a stronger candidate than Kerry.

As for my "Bush supporting reasons" as you put it, I touched on one of the bigger ones in my original post as well when I said that at least with Bush we know what we're getting. Considering the waves of opposition that he's faced, he's remained remarkably consistent in the actions that he has taken. Sure, it is easy for me to feel that way because I, in very general terms, agree with many of his policies, but agree or disagree, I believe that consistency, and the conviction that it implies, is one of the most important qualities a president can have. A president who changed his course of action based on the ebb and flow of public opinion, or based on the tiniest nuances of major issues, would not be an effective leader. I understand that many of the things in Kerry's senate record that are used as "flip flops" aren't quite that simple--but when your voting record shows a lack of consistency on major issues, it says to me that you aren't capable of being a particularly effective government official. Unfortunately, in order to be able to accomplish anything in the type of government in the US today, you have to get to a point where you are willing to accept "minor" defeats in order to consistently support major issues that are important to the people you were elected to represent. While I'm certainly no expert researcher on senatorial politics, very few things that I've seen--from sources on both sides of political issues--suggest to me that Kerry has very much consistency on major issues at all. Furthermore, on any issues on which he has demonstrated consistency in his senate voting record, his position appears to be far too liberal to appeal to genuine moderates in either major political party.

I also happen to agree with Bush's economic policy, particularly with the tax cuts. The "tax cuts for the rich" argument just doesn't do anything for me. The people with the most money pay the most taxes, and are the most likely to be positively affected by reductions in taxes. Regardless of how large or small the impact of the tax cut was on any particular person (it certainly didn't allow me to buy a new BMW, or a new major appliance for that matter), the fact is that, when you look across the whole population, lower taxes means more money in the private sector, and that means more potential for economic growth. There are a number of economic measures that could be used to suggest that the US was heading towards a mild recession long before 9/11, and even if that isn't true, the fact that, following 9/11, the economy in the US is as strong as it is today is really remarkable, and makes me believe that, at least in part, Bush's economic policies have been effective in preventing things from becoming worse than they did. Deficits are, arguably, largely irrelevant in the overall economic climate, and they are always going to be with us, they are just a part of life. The biggest effect that the national debt has is a psychological one, not economic.

I also agree with Bush's proactive stance in the so-called "War on Terror." While I might not always agree with the details of how things have been carried out, I believe that the passive approach to dealing with terrorism over so many decades contribued in large part to the impact that terrorists are able to have on world politics. Regardless of the "cause," terrorism simply can't be allowed to influence politics--"successful" terrorism just breeds more terrorism.

Environmentalism is another issue that I tend to agree with Bush on, although to a much lesser extent than other issues. The fact is, the economy of the US depends to a large extent, on fossil fuels. That's not a good thing, for any number of reasons, but it is still a fact. I agree with Bush's overall policy, which seems to be working towards development of more environmentally friendly technologies, while acknowledging that such development doesn't happen overnight so we need to take steps to sustain existing systems in the meantime. I'm not going to pretend that the environmental issue is a crucial one to me, nor am I going to try to defend Bush's actions on any particular instance related to the environmental issue. I'm just saying that in general, and in principle, I tend to agree with his position on the issue.

[BoominShakey]

But as I said before, the larger issues for me are the reasons why I couldn't bring myself to vote for Kerry, the Vietnam issue being one of them. Notice, though, that I'm not taking the easy "he came back home and turned against his fellow veterans" route regarding Kerry's Vietnam service, although it is certainly reasonable that his postwar activities would be a major issue for many people in the US. My main issue related to Kerry in Vietnam, as I have said like 3 times in this thread already, is the focus he has given his service in Vietnam in light of hs behavior after the war, that he took the position that military service (or lack thereof, or how it may have been avoided) wasn't an issue in a presidential election when Clinton was running in '92, and that his service in the senate is much more relavent to his ability to serve as president than his relatively short military service is. That we hear so much more about Vietnam than we do about his strengths during his time as a senator implies to me that he just doesn't really have strong credentials as a senator to speak about.

Another issue I have with Kerry is his choice of running mate. I don't necessarily have issues with John Edwards--what I take issue with is the fact that Kerry berated Edwards at every opportunity, particularly on his lack of political experience, and now that he's chosen Edwards as his running mate, he touts Edwards' experience as a great asset. Yes, people point out that Bush criticized McCain pretty brutally during the primaries leading up to the '00 election, but a major difference for me there is that Bush didn't turn around and select McCain as his running mate. (Incidentally, I voted for McCain in the '00 primaries, and I'd vote for him for president this year in a heartbeat if he was running). Kerry's abuse of Edwards in the primaries, and his subsequent 180 degree turn in choosing him as running mate says to me that Kerry didn't choose Edwards because he felt that Edwards would make a strong vice president and had the potential to be a strong president should he be put in that position, but that he picked Edwards because he felt that his own election campaign would get the biggest boost by doing so, and he hadn't been able to manage much in the way of improving his position in the campaign on his own.

Like just about any political claim these days, reports of Kerry's flip-flopping are almost certainly overstated. But at the same time, I find it hard to believe that anyone could seriously suggest that there isn't at least room for doubt regarding his consistency in major issues. Following September 11th, Kerry was fairly vocal about his convictions about pursuing a war on terror. Then, during the primaries, he tried to position himself as an "anti-war" candidate, but after that momentum shifted towards Dean, and then as Dean flipped out and found himself out of the race, Kerry shifted back his original viewpoint--and now plenty of people, both on the left and the right, have a hard time pointing towards solid differences between Bush's position on the war on terrorism and the statements that Kerry makes regarding his own position. Another prime example of this has been his position regarding the issue of abortion. Not surprisingly considering he's a democrat, even less so considering how far left he tends to lean, he has held a solidly pro-choice stance on the whole abortion issue throughout the campaign. However, there came a time during which Kerry was striving to gain support among his fellow Catholics, but found that he faced some fairly harsh criticism because of his pro-choice stance. Eventually, he makes the statement that he believes that human life begins at conception, in my opinion in order to quiet the growing oposition from the catholic community because of his pro-choice stance. Whether the abortion issue is even a major one to a person, and regardless of which side of the issue a person stands on, it is quite hard for me to believe that there are many people who wouldn't see the that as two fundamentally incompatible positions. He tries really hard to play both sides of as many issues as he can--the problem being that he just doesn't have the charisma to pull it off well.

I have plenty more reasons for not liking Kerry, just like most people 'round here have plenty for hating Bush. But I think that just about covers the major ones.

You'll note that throughout this post I've used terms like "I believe" and "I think" and that was quite intentional. The simple fact is that the vast majority of the issues that come up during presidential elections, and this one in particular, just aren't cut-and-dry, and they aren't objective issues. Maybe I don't have every bit of fact straight on every issue related to Kerry or to Bush, but I don't really need to--it isn't really about having all the objective details in order--we all have other things in life to worry about besides politics. But I do consider myself a reasonably well informed voter at this point, and try to get information from as wide a variety of sources as possible, and therefore I think I've done my duty as a responsible citizen. But when it comes right down to it, I think most people vote based on which candidate we like more or hate less, and all of the issues and details just feed into forming that abstract impression of the candidates. One of the beautiful things about the US is that we are free to vote based on whatever criteria we decide are important to us, whether it be based on a particular issue or small set of issues, a general impression of one candidate or another, or because our tarot cards told us what to do. That's a hell of a right to have, and also a hell of a responsibility. But it's a damn good one to have.

It'll all be sorted out in November. Should be interesting.

[BoominShakey]

So BoominShakey, since GW wasn't a senator for the same time frame as Kerry but was rather in business how about you list his accomplishments?
Any further posts from you don't amount to a pile of shit till you do.
Sorry, but how is this relavent to the discussion that I was having with Bilbo? We don't elect a president based on comparing lists of accomplishments, things in the real world aren't remotely objective enough for that to be possible. Everyone gets to vote based on whatever the hell criteria that they decide to use, and that's quite a lot of power for the individual citizen to have. (Of course, that power is at least somewhat negated by the whole electoral college thing, but that's a completely different issue.) The point of my original post didn't have anything to do with comparing Kerry's "accomplishments" to Bush's, or even really talking about particular strengths or weaknesses of either of the candidates. To simplify YET AGAIN, all I was saying was that, given that Kerry has been a senator for 20 years, it is kind of surprising how little he talks about the things he has accomplished during that time. The fact that everyone who has replied in here has just turned it around and made it a discussion about Bush suggests to me that none of you can fill in that list of accomplishments for Kerry any better than he has himself. It must be deeply annoying to have to support a candidate based solely on your opposition to the other candidate, as the case must be since no one will even attempt to enlighten me regarding Kerry's accomplishments as senator.

[rorschach]

Three pages worth of replies - and this is what I've learned so far:

(1) People may vote for GWB only because he's the sitting President in critical times
(2) It's okay for the conservatives around here to get all personal, insulting & use profanity (isn't that, according to 'sisko, what liberals do?)
(3) The cut&paste crowd's really annoying (okay, I knew that before)
(4) There are serious gaps & deficiencies in the areas of history, politics & geography around here
(5) For all the talk of "bringing democracy & freedom" to the world, at the end of the day it's okay to basically say "my country comes first" & "pre-emptive strikes are good". That attitude sounds suspiciously like 30's Germany...

Additional questions:
- If you have to be on the ground / in the infantry in order to actually count as having taken part in a war - what's with Air Force pilots? GHW Bush didn't serve during WW2?
- 9/11 started wars? Isn't that like saying that the Great Depression caused WW2 & the Shoah?
- Why are the flaws & f-ups of the current Administration okay? Isn't it the duty of every American, especially people who are politically close to the President, to be critical? (see: "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance")

And: What are the reasons for anyone to vote for Bush/Cheney?

[Ace42]

There is 1 in 6 chances of being born in American. Am very lucky to be one of those.

1 in 22 actually. Don't make up facts, it makes you look like an inbred.

[MoTownFUNK]

Look at the alternative. Kerry

[frisky girl]

1 in 22 actually. Don't make up facts, it makes you look like an inbred.

Too funny!

[Señor Stino]

How many quasi-literate friends does gmsisko1 have? Does he go to SupportOurTroops.com and beg for help with his debates on here or what?

yeah, it is sad, when I first started reading this thread I was excited about all the Bushvoters, finally some counterarguments, ..., I thought

a lot of kids (i sure hope they are kids) come here to post the biggest crap I have ever read and post it as if it contains real arguments

hehe, and Ace, nice going on that 1/22, i too like numbers to be correct

[ChrisLove]

Nonsense. Much of the economic situation can be directly attributed to the executive branch of our government (you'll remember it as the branch that usurped all of the power from the branches which once held checks and balances powers over it).

The economy was in the shitter well in advance of Sept. 11. The tech bubble had already burst with intensity. Clearly, not George Bush's fault. If anything a lot of it had to do with the year 2000 computer problem no longer existing as a justification for inflated tech budgets and a level of overreporting profits on 10Q reports that were starting to become detectable (so many corporations were cheating on their earnings more and more that even Arthur Anderson couldn't hide it with a straight face anymore). So much of the boom was not Clinton's boom and much of the fall was not Bush's fall it was just wall street lying. Much of the boom was pretend money and the fall was the evaporation of people's pensions into the pretend money alarm going off mid-nightmare.

Now, to some extent several of these corporations were minting pretend money that they could use to buy the government (see Enron: campaign contributions, free planes/travel, facilities, etc.), so in a very real sense a lot of this portion of the economy screwing up was very closely linked to Bush.

Bush didn't cut taxes just in time for these elections, he started on cutting taxes as the first thing he did in office. It was what he was sent there to do. Id there was an annual budget surplus (and there sort-of was at the time) then since the rich people had just bought the government they were entitled to divvy up the surplus among themselves (debt service be damned, our children can pay for it and our parents can eat cake). So after Jim Jeffords passed it through congress (His final act of evil?) he switched to the good side of the force and all of the people were so distracted with that that they forgot about the fact that we had just given away any hope we had of paying off our credit card.

So now fast forward to 9/11. Now the U.S. has the political will of "do anything Bush says. You tell us what to do and we do it," and it took a long time for the zombification to wear off. And in the meantime we were able to spend nearly a trillion dollars on wars of aggression. If you don't think that will fuck up an economy then try this: 1. Max out your credit card. 2. Now go buy a new gar with a machine gun turret and fire bullets into your neighbors house every friday night after you go on a bender.

Reagan's trickle down policy didn't work very well. Supply side (intentionally I think) fails to calculate the greed of the monied class who do not use the newfound money for job creation. Bush's trickle down policy wasn't even designed to work, they don't even do a very good job of pretending like they think it will work anymore. It's smoke and mirrors direct deposit right into the bank accounts of the monied interests where it stays. The only capital that ever makes it out and back into circulation is however much they need to purchase the next election.


(And who can say how long that will even be necessary)



Sorry didn’t realise anyone had replied,I just saw this….

Essentially you seem to be disagreeing with me in that you say rather than be for the purpose of achieving vote winning short term economic growth, the Bush tax cuts are designed to divide up the budget surplus among the ‘wealthy ruling classes’ and that the impacts of Bush economic policy are being felt now rather than in the future?

It would seem logical to me thought that these ruling classes have as much an interest, if not more of an interest, in the United States achieving long term growth? It would seem odd to me that they would simply mortgage their own future to make a quick yet substantial buck now?

You may well be right that Bush tax cuts began as soon as he came to power but from what I recall the major tax cuts were in response to the post 9/11 economic downturn, maybe I recall incorrectly.

I am sure you are correct that the tax cuts have been allocated such that the biggest winners Bush’s corporate backers, almost all Bush policies seem to do this but I don’t think I necessarily agree that tax cuts are entirely about these individuals stealing the nations surplus because these are the very people that profit most from sustained economic growth, I would have thought.

The point I was making is that the main impact of Bushenomics lies in the future, and even with the issues you raised that would still seem to be the case, the increasing private and public debt is at the moment probably driving growth (admittedly growth skewed toward ruling classes but hey someone has to build these bombs and tanks, right?) but also pushing up interest rates, this will hurt investment and it will make things harder in the future for Joe Public when the government starts asking for its tax cut money back, ie these things like the war in Iraq and the national debt will hurt most when we stop experiencing the short term benefits (even if those trickle down benefits are minimal) that they create.

You may well have a point that Bush holds responsibility for the whole Enron debacle the following problems on Wall Street and that is definitely something that is having a significant effect on economic performance now.

[bilbo]

If you look, I never said a word about specifically supporting Bush

Huh? :confused: Yes you did.

Here's a challenge for ya: you don't like my reasons for voting for Bush?

Then in the same post were you said never said a word about supporting Bush, you say how you touched on your support of Bush in your original post. :confused:

As for my "Bush supporting reasons" as you put it, I touched on one of the bigger ones in my original post as well when I said that at least with Bush we know what we're getting.

Oops :confused: kind of contradicted yourself in the same response.


It is rather disingenuous of you to reply to a thread titled: Reasons to vote for GWB with an attack on Kerry. Your 4 month lie was just a little wingnut bonus that you got called on. So what do you do when you get called on your canard? You call me names, try to act as though you're smart, and demand I cite reasons why I am voting for Kerry other than it being a vote against Bush. Bases upon your anti-Kerry ramblings, it appears to me that you're voting against Kerry :eek:

[bilbo]

Sorry, but how is this relavent to the discussion that I was having with Bilbo? We don't elect a president based on comparing lists of accomplishments

Yet again in the same response you demand someone cite Kerry's Senatorial accomplishments? :confused:

as the case must be since no one will even attempt to enlighten me regarding Kerry's accomplishments as senator.

You're all over the map fella :D

[bilbo]

The fact that everyone who has replied in here has just turned it around and made it a discussion about Bush .

You did read the title of the thread before you posted, didn't you?
:rolleyes:

[BoominShakey]

You did read the title of the thread before you posted, didn't you?
:rolleyes:
Once again, you've managed to continue to run around in circles without actually responding with anything of substance. As I look through this thread and a couple others, I actually haven't seen you posting much of anything of substance so much as a large number of very short posts commenting positively or negatively on the posts of other people. That doesn't work well for Chris Matthews, and he's on TV. What makes you think it will work for you here?

One of the major points I've tried to make in my posts in this thread is my belief that the democratic party is driving many moderates, myself included, to lean towards voting for Bush (or, Nader for a few), because the democratic party has failed to provide a candidate that appeals to a lot of moderates in both major parties, and who is is in the midst of arguably one of the biggest flop campaigns in recent memory. Kerry makes Al Gore look like Mr. Personality, and one of the biggest criticisms of Gore was his lack of an engaging demeanor.

When I saw that the Beasties' forums had a political forum, I wasn't looking to be "converted" to a liberal point of view any more than I expected to "convert" anyone to my point of view. I just thought that I might be able to find some intelligent discussion on political issues, but I guess I should have known better. It seems to me that people who are either strongly anti-Bush or strongly pro-Kerry would be more interesting in trying to convince people of either the strengths of Kerry or the "evils" of Bush, instead of merely divirting attention away from the issue being discussed, focusing on details that aren't remotely the point of the overall discussion, or accusing the other person of being part of the "cut-n-paste" crowd. Of course, why should anyone expect the followers to be any different than the leader? Maybe if Kerry would stop deflecting the questions that have been raised about his service both in Vietnam and in the Senate and started answering some of them directly, just maybe he'd be able to clear up some of the issues and be able to finally begin to run an effective campaign. But no, he's much too arrogant for that--we're simply supposed to fall in line and believe what he tells us because he's John Kerry, and no one questions John Kerry. Unless that changes, I suspect we're all in for another 4 years of Dubya, like it or not. Personally, I wish that running against an incumbant president in your own political party wasn't such a no-no in politics today. If it wasn't, I'd have been 100% behind John McCain--I believe he'd be an excellent president, and can appeal to moderates in both parties. And it would certainly be refreshing to be able to hear about Vietnam from someone who is a real war hero, which Kerry, even by the most generous standards, certainly is not.

As for me, I'm out of here. Like I said, I was hoping to find some intelligent conversation or debate, and maybe hear something that might lend some credibility to Kerry, or at least to the people who are supporting him. So now's your chance to gloat about turning aside another "Bushie" (which I'm not, though I'm sure I'll be labeled as such) with your witty banter, when really all you've managed to do is to make someone decide that he's going to have to look elsewhere for intelligent discussion. Pathetic, but not really unexpected. Though Zell Miller's speech was easily the best of either convention so far, I'll leave you with a quote from Chaney's speech last night that I'm sure you've all seen by now, but I think pretty well sums it up for a large number of people in the US: "Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. And that makes the whole thing mutual — America sees two John Kerrys."

Thank you, goodnight.

[Echewta]

How Bush is even close to being a moderate is beyond me. He only shows those colors during the election.

Large deficit, military aggresion, and faith based goverment funding? Thats moderate? A guy who says he looks at the Bible first before the Constitution is moderate?

[bilbo]

As for me, I'm out of here.

Why, because you got caught contradicting yourself?

sayonara sucka
:D

[frisky girl]

How Bush is even close to being a moderate is beyond me. He only shows those colors during the election.

Large deficit, military aggresion, and faith based goverment funding? Thats moderate? A guy who says he looks at the Bible first before the Constitution is moderate?

No joke! Bush a MODERATE?!! He's the most extreme president we've ever had. I mean, the guy really believes he's on a mission from God. The direction this country is heading makes me sick. Please, please, please not another four years!

[Echewta]

Vote for Bush or apparenlty the terrorist will come to your house and kill you. Only he can protect you.

[Bob]

september 11th!

[getoutofpolitcs]

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html

[rorschach]

september 11th!
It'll work like this, right? :(

Why is it that I'm asking people to give me reasons to vote for GWB (hey, maybe anyone can come up with a remotely convincing reason) and all I get is Kerry-bashing and Über-patriotism?

[bilbo]

Why is it that I'm asking people to give me reasons to vote for GWB?

His heroic stint in the Air National Guard (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0903-03.htm)

[100% ILL]

His heroic stint in the Air National Guard (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0903-03.htm)


That's old news. Look at the future. Didn't you hear his speech last night? John Kerry practices politics of the past. We need to look toward the future. Our nation has freed not one but two previoulsy opressed countries. We're handing out Democracy and freedom left and right. Before long everybody will be free and they won't hate us anymore. ;)

[ElectricBugaloo]

That's old news. Look at the future. Didn't you hear his speech last night? John Kerry practices politics of the past. We need to look toward the future. Our nation has freed not one but two previoulsy opressed countries. We're handing out Democracy and freedom left and right. Before long everybody will be free and they won't hate us anymore. ;)

Since 1/3 of his speech was about the past, i think that was a bit hypocritical.

[100% ILL]

Since 1/3 of his speech was about the past, i think that was a bit hypocritical.

You're depressing to talk to

[ElectricBugaloo]

why? do you dispute that he spent more time on the invasion of Iraq than any other single subject?

[funkycains]

Don't knock poor dude, he has to be commander in chief of an Army with the budget of a medium sized african country- must be awfully taxing to decide who to piss off each week in the world.

[100% ILL]

The invasion is the past, the rebuilding is ongoing. He spoke of up comming elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's like any topic you start with a common frame of reference in this case the invasion, and then discuss the plan for the future. I didn't get the feeling he was dwelling on the past.

[Echewta]

So we aren't allowed to look at the last 4 years of the job he's going for again? Because its the past? Sweep Iraq under the rug because everything is so great there?

Nice try to follow the line of looking ahead because the past is so difficult to comprehend.

[ElectricBugaloo]

the "frame of reference" then led into a whole eight sentences talking about the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq. He spent more time bragging that we defeated Iraq than on the future. It's very sad.

[bilbo]

Look at the future. Didn't you hear his speech last night? John Kerry practices politics of the past. We need to look toward the future. Our nation has freed not one but two previoulsy opressed countries.


That's fucking funny (!)
His speech was a bunch of generalized gobbly-gook. He stretched the truth on numerous occassions, touted failed initiatives as if they were successes and gave absolutely no clear plan as to how we're going to right this sinking ship.

He has nothing to run on whatsoever :rolleyes:

[100% ILL]

So we aren't allowed to look at the last 4 years of the job he's going for again? Because its the past? Sweep Iraq under the rug because everything is so great there?

Nice try to follow the line of looking ahead because the past is so difficult to comprehend.

I wasn't saying we can't talk about past 4yrs. electricboogaloo was saying that he ( Bush) spent too much time talking about the past.

[ElectricBugaloo]

i don't mind talking about the past--tell us the good things you've done, tell us what you've done to make American lives better. That is what you expect from a sitting President. However, he spent more time talking about making people's lives better in other countries than our own! Who's President is he supposed to be?

[100% ILL]

That's fucking funny (!)
His speech was a bunch of generalized gobbly-gook. He stretched the truth on numerous occassions, touted failed initiatives as if they were sucesses and gave absolutely no clear plan as to how we're going to right this sinking ship.

He has nothing to run on whatsoever :rolleyes:


What sinking ship? sounds to me like you have a pessimistic attitude. It takes time to teach people how to have a free Democratic society when they are used to oppression and violence. And there are of course factions within that try to resist change and/or seize control themselves. This is nothing new. I'm sure ou're an intelligent man surely you can see that the problems in Iraq cannot be fixed overnight and It would be presumtious to assume that John Kerry if elected would somehow make it all go away. He even said himself that he intended to increase the number of special forces, and their mission if nothing else is to indoctrinate and train, developing countries. So even if he is elected he will inherit the same problems that already exist, except he will have to be introduced to all the players and if anything it will take more time to get the ball rolling towards a withdrawl of troops in Iraq

[bilbo]

Iraq-Ishcmack.
Why did we fucking go there in the first place?
This is Bush's fuck-up, not Kerry's.

Since you're a supposed Christian, what would Jesus do?
I think Jesus would puke :mad:

[bilbo]

except he will have to be introduced to all the players


Who, Tony Blair?
I think Blair wants Kerry to defeat Bush.

[100% ILL]

Iraq-Ishcmack.
Why did we fucking go there in the first place?
This is Bush's fuck-up, not Kerry's.

Since you're a supposed Christian, what would Jesus do?
I think Jesus would puke :mad:


Jesus day is not yet come. However the world will unfold as has been prophesied. Jesus came to the earth the first time as an offerring of peace beteween God and man. When he returns the second time it will be to pour out his wrath.
To answer your question is difficult because Jesus doesn't pick sides. However the Jews/Israelites are god's chosen people so in my opinion whoever is allied with Israel would be closer to Jesus.............To sort of answer your question.

[bilbo]

whoever is allied with Israel would be closer to Jesus.............To sort of answer your question.


LOL :p
(n)

[100% ILL]

LOL :p
(n)
:confused:

[Whois]

what makes an american more worthy to live than an iraqi?

God said we is better then all them dirt-people!

:rolleyes:

[D_Raay]

Jesus day is not yet come. However the world will unfold as has been prophesied. Jesus came to the earth the first time as an offerring of peace beteween God and man. When he returns the second time it will be to pour out his wrath.
To answer your question is difficult because Jesus doesn't pick sides. However the Jews/Israelites are god's chosen people so in my opinion whoever is allied with Israel would be closer to Jesus.............To sort of answer your question.
You do realize that the bible says the Jews are to be killed. Unless of course you don't believe in the new testament in which case you don't believe in Jesus to begin with. Know the bible before you start using it.
The thread was WHAT REASON IS THERE TO VOTE FOR BUSH!!!
It's not labeled how to endorse Bush by bashing Kerry or siding with Israel. Give us one legitimate reason to vote for the man that doesn't involve what he may or may not be doing for a FOREIGN COUNTRY! What about all the poor people here (FACT!)? What about all the people without health insurance (FACT!)? What about the alienating of the entire world who could help us greatly in spreading democracy (FACT!)? We are spreading freedom. What a line of hypocritical bullshit! Sudan is where we should be if we are spreading freedom. The truth is we went to Iraq to take their oil because Saddam didn't want to play our games anymore. Saddam didn't abide terrorism which we enable all over the world to perform bloody coup's against any true democracies that may rise up (i.e. Venezuela, Haiti). You know who will ultimately suffer for all this? The American people that's who. The ones who are gleefully ignorant and lining up to consume to line rich old geezers pockets who turn around and show there gratitude by sending a bunch of innocent brainwashed young men and women off to die in a country that they established no reason to invade in the first place! Oh the hypocrisy. These fellows who claim to be men of the bible (i.e W) should be trying to figure out how to build a god proof bunker!

Sorry that this thread really pissed me off, I usually don't ramble so. :D

[ChrisLove]

It'll work like this, right? :(

Why is it that I'm asking people to give me reasons to vote for GWB (hey, maybe anyone can come up with a remotely convincing reason) and all I get is Kerry-bashing and Über-patriotism?


I guess if you are pro-life (or whatever the expression is) or homophobic then Bushs policies on gay marriage and abortion and stuff like that would give you good reason to vote for him.

And the war on terror is a reason to vote for Bush, if you believe that the war on terror is a good thing.

And tax cuts but I dont know what Bush has planned for the future by way of tax cuts nor what the Kerry package is

[Jasonik]

Reasons to vote for GWB
1) To piss of democrats.
2) To piss off europeans.
3) To piss off the UN.
4) To show John Kerry what a lifeless bellweather he is.
5) To strengthen our relations with Nations that have and will deploy military forces.
6) To ramp up military spending for the upcoming/ongoing war on terrorism.
7) To keep inflation low by slowly growing the internal economy, irrespective of world economic trends.
8) To continue to foster economic and political spheres of influence in the Middle East.
9) To promote optimism at home in American policy, rather than pessimism and regret.
10) To allow new security departments to mature with adequate funding and priority.

These are some reasons I consider voting for Bush.
I'm sure I'll be scolded in short order for my 'idiotic' thoughts.

I have reasons for the other candidates as well, and this is by no means reflects my complete view of George Bush.

[100% ILL]

[QUOTE=D_Raay]You do realize that the bible says the Jews are to be killed. Unless of course you don't believe in the new testament in which case you don't believe in Jesus to begin with. Know the bible before you start using it.

Interesting, could you possibly have provided me with a quote or some sort of proof to back up your wild ramblings. The Jews will of course be persecuted the battle of Armageddon will be the culmination of these events. The armies of the world will try to wipe out Israel in the future but they will not succeed.
And he gathered them together in a place called in the Hebrew tounge Armageddon.
Revelations 16:16

[D_Raay]

You are arguing that we should side with the Jews because they are God's chosen people and then you use a quote from the New Testament of which they don't recognize. You are so brilliant. Do you even know why they don't recognize the New Testament? Do you know why "The Passion of the Christ" was so controversial? Jews and Christians=oil and water. So which are you? Jew or Christian?

[100% ILL]

You are arguing that we should side with the Jews because they are God's chosen people and then you use a quote from the New Testament of which they don't recognize. You are so brilliant.

The Jews rejected Christ and are still looking for the Messiah to come. God made a covenant with Israel when he seperated them as a people in Genesis chapter 17. So being true to his word he will not forsake them and allow them to be totally abolished from the earth. He will return and set up a kingdom on the earth for 1,000 yrs. This is prior to the Great Judgment which takes place at the end of Revelation.
Just because the Jews do not recognize the New Testament does not mean that God will not fulfill his promise to them.

[D_Raay]

The Jews rejected Christ and are still looking for the Messiah to come. God made a covenant with Israel when he seperated them as a people in Genesis chapter 17. So being true to his word he will not forsake them and allow them to be totally abolished from the earth. He will return and set up a kingdom on the earth for 1,000 yrs. This is prior to the Great Judgment which takes place at the end of Revelation.
Just because the Jews do not recognize the New Testament does not mean that God will not fulfill his promise to them.
You didn't answer my questions, you just gave me empty rhetoric.

[grabber28]

Reasons to vote for GWB
1) To piss of democrats.
2) To piss off europeans.
3) To piss off the UN.
4) To show John Kerry what a lifeless bellweather he is.
5) To strengthen our relations with Nations that have and will deploy military forces.
6) To ramp up military spending for the upcoming/ongoing war on terrorism.
7) To keep inflation low by slowly growing the internal economy, irrespective of world economic trends.
8) To continue to foster economic and political spheres of influence in the Middle East.
9) To promote optimism at home in American policy, rather than pessimism and regret.
10) To allow new security departments to mature with adequate funding and priority.

These are some reasons I consider voting for Bush.
I'm sure I'll be scolded in short order for my 'idiotic' thoughts.

I have reasons for the other candidates as well, and this is by no means reflects my complete view of George Bush.

And don't forget

11) So the money we earn remains just that...OUR MONEY

[100% ILL]

You didn't answer my questions, you just gave me empty rhetoric.

Oh my apologies sir, I didn't see your question until after I had typed all that empty rhetoric.
I am a Christian. and to clarify it even further I am not a catholic.

[bilbo]

http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

[100% ILL]

http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

That's interesting. I must admit I don't really know much about the National Debt. Who do we owe money to and how would they collect?
I am aware that my ignorance on the subject is profound, and will not ask you to explain it.

[bilbo]

http://brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

[QueenAdrock]

And don't forget

11) So the money we earn remains just that...OUR MONEY

only if you're a super-rich whitey afraid of paying taxes, which is only the upper 2% of america.

[D_Raay]

Oh my apologies sir, I didn't see your question until after I had typed all that empty rhetoric.
I am a Christian. and to clarify it even further I am not a catholic.
I suppose you believe in the whole God, jesus , and the holy spirit thing then?
Something the jews also don't recognize. To be christian is by definition to be christ-like. By your logic, Christ would condone crusading?

[100% ILL]

I suppose you believe in the whole God, jesus , and the holy spirit thing then?
Something the jews also don't recognize. To be christian is by definition to be christ-like. By your logic, Christ would condone crusading?


My only logic was the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee,and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blesssin: and I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee.

[D_Raay]

My only logic was the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee,and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blesssin: and I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee.
But you are a christian. What in the world are you trying to say?

[100% ILL]

But you are a christian. What in the world are you trying to say?

I don't understand what you are asking me. I believe the whole Bible the old and new testament. So whaddaya mean?

[Jasonik]

But you are a christian. What in the world are you trying to say?
Are you implying that the Old Testament doesn't apply to Christians?

[D_Raay]

I don't understand what you are asking me. I believe the whole Bible the old and new testament. So whaddaya mean?
I was asking why you are touting that we should be on Israel's side if you believe in ideals that they do not.

[D_Raay]

Are you implying that the Old Testament doesn't apply to Christians?
Actually I'm not he is.

[100% ILL]

Actually I'm not he is.

You're so confused you're confusing me. When did I say The Old Testament doesn't apply to Christians?

[D_Raay]

You're so confused you're confusing me. When did I say The Old Testament doesn't apply to Christians?
I will ask once more. Why do you believe we should support Israel? They don't have the same belief system as you so I wanted to know why you made the statement before on this thread that we should help the jews because they are "God's chosen people".

[100% ILL]

I will ask once more. Why do you believe we should support Israel? They don't have the same belief system as you so I wanted to know why you made the statement before on this thread that we should help the jews because they are "God's chosen people".

If ye be Christ's then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3:29

God promised Abraham he would increase his seed and make of him a great nation. To the believers in Christ this applies in a spiritual sense
Wherefore thou art no more a servant but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

The Israelites are God's chosen people because it was through them that God became man, Jesus Christ. Believers in Christ claim the promse of eternal life. The Jewish nation rejected Christ but God is faithful in his
promise to preserve them.

Jesus lamented over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Behold your house is left unto you desolate For I say unto you Ye shall not see me henceforth , till ye shall say Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
This implies the judgement in Revelation. So even though they rejected Christ God will preserve them.

k?

[freetibet]

You are the biggest inch whipper! Bush did not start wars 9-11 did, and Iraq started the first Golf war. Then this Great Nation with others kicked Iraq out of Kuait. Then Iraq refused to obey 12 UN resolutions, and the UN refused to inforce them.

Bush did not hurt the ecomomy, 9-11 did, and the Enron scandal and other scandals did. Bush has helped the economy. If you count all the people who are not self employed there are alot more people working.

Somehow the Democrats seem to think if the government takes more of the poeples money the economy will do better. Bush believes you should have more of your money, because you will spend it one way or another and that will help teh economy. It worked with Reagan and it is working now.

Poor English or typing too fast. Good points there though!

VOTE GEORGE BUSH!

[Señor Stino]

Reasons to vote for GWB
1) To piss of democrats.
2) To piss off europeans.
3) To piss off the UN.
4) To show John Kerry what a lifeless bellweather he is.
5) To strengthen our relations with Nations that have and will deploy military forces.
6) To ramp up military spending for the upcoming/ongoing war on terrorism.
7) To keep inflation low by slowly growing the internal economy, irrespective of world economic trends.
8) To continue to foster economic and political spheres of influence in the Middle East.
9) To promote optimism at home in American policy, rather than pessimism and regret.
10) To allow new security departments to mature with adequate funding and priority.
.

hehe, why this stupid list?

1 to 4 are just crap, and 3 is in contradiction with 5
7 is BS, you think the us can deny world economic trends? funny man, i hope you know how great america depends on china and japan, and also on europe (but not in such large numbers)
what's the big advantage about 8, does it make you happier?

6, 8 and 10, I could understand

you shouldn't try and make lists with pro's and con's , just vote for the guy you think will do best, if you're gonna make lists like this, they're always gonna suck.

[freetibet]

How about: because moslems/muslims are our enemies and their world is other than ours???

Thank You for agreeing with me...

[Señor Stino]

How about: because moslems/muslims are our enemies and their world is other than ours???

Thank You for agreeing with me...

morron

[infidel]

morron
If you're going to call someone a moron it makes you look more the moron if you can't spell it right

[Lex Diamonds]

You are 100% right, GEA. :)

I gotta go, BBoys are on Channel 4 (UK).

[freetibet]

How many more people have to die because of moslem fanatics before You finally notice who kills people 'round here?

Doesn't jihad mean 'we are murderers' ?

I know what i 'really' means.

[Siti]

don't vote if u won't (y)

[D_Raay]

Listen if you watched that convention you would not hestitate to vote other than Bush. I don't want to be long winded so I'll pose a question to you. Do you watch the "Daily Show"? If not then watch their week long coverage of the RNC and it is pretty clear who is the desperate party who has resorted to Bringing out the worst in people to keep their campaign alive. They have no platform left. They have done nothing to further this great nation and they don't care. They have money and lots of it and aren't at all shy about using it to procure all the votes they can whether they are truthful or not about it. Lies upon lies upon lies. It's no wonder they are getting caught up in them. If you are an American who truly loves your country then the choice is clear. Kerry in 04.

[infidel]

Unless you want to be killed by terrorists there is no other choice, you must vote bush.

[grabber28]

only if you're a super-rich whitey afraid of paying taxes, which is only the upper 2% of america.

start making some cash and then come talk to me... and, no i am not super-rich OR in the top 2%. AND, i donate to charities. imagine that!

[galbraith6]

GreenEarthAl
(y) (y)
Someone just hit the nail with a hammer.

[beastinotaranie]

Listen if you watched that convention you would not hestitate to vote other than Bush. I don't want to be long winded so I'll pose a question to you. Do you watch the "Daily Show"? If not then watch their week long coverage of the RNC and it is pretty clear who is the desperate party who has resorted to Bringing out the worst in people to keep their campaign alive. They have no platform left. They have done nothing to further this great nation and they don't care. They have money and lots of it and aren't at all shy about using it to procure all the votes they can whether they are truthful or not about it. Lies upon lies upon lies. It's no wonder they are getting caught up in them. If you are an American who truly loves your country then the choice is clear. Kerry in 04.
wait wait wait. your opinions and beliefs come from t.v.? dont get me wrong, i love john(daily show) but i dont take what all they say as truth. i love it when prez's are made fun of. its hilarious! but only to an extent. it is obvious that they are avid dems. just the same as orielly, everything out of his mouth is supporting everything bush does. u(and i) cannot watch these shows and agree with them 100%, because nobody is perfect including prezs.
oh, and about lies upon lies upon lies? u mean kerry right? uh what's the total on those purple hearts he so bravely earned? and what about him throwing accusations at the veterans who obviously deserve better?

[infidel]

and what about him throwing accusations at the veterans who obviously deserve better?
Those accusations are taken out of context. If you read the entire way it really was said Kerry clearly states that they aren't accusations but rather experiences relayed to him in a vets meeting earlier in the week. Don't believe everything you see on TV especially in a political ad.

As for the daily show I find it very truthful, they just a add humor and knock Kerry as well as the bush.

[Bob]

mostly bush though...

at any rate, the daily show isn't a news show and they never claimed to be. it's not meant to provide information, it's meant to provide entertainment about the information. they're definitely biased, but they're allowed to be, it's a comedy show

[Burnout18]

i'll give u a reason. just one. that's all i will need to make all u w haters out there shut up. have u or anybody else you know been blown up by a terrorist since 9/11?? i would have to answer that for u and say NO! there has not been a single terrorist attack on u.s. soil since then. for that i will vote bush. human life is more important to me than anything else, not medicare, not little fluffy bunny rabbits, or any other types of that shit.


This is the exact reason why a lot of Bush supporters say they will vote for him. Just talking too kids my age, registered voters (not pre-teen zit heads) they feel that 9/11's results, lack of terrorism is a good enough reason to vote for Bush. Plus they dont buy the Michael Moore 9/11 Farenhieght stuff. U can't really argue with them either, i start to sound like some of the ppl who post here, u kno tellin them all that bush is a liar ect ect


But, i guess, if you think about it, that really is the only reason to vote for Bush.

PS. lack of terrorism, what about spain? 911 days after 9/11

[bilbo]

Actually terrorism has risen since 911, and that's a fucking FACT you can take to the bank. As far as giving Bush credit for not being hit since 911, if you're going to make that ridiculous argument, then Bush has to accept total blame for 911 happening on his watch. You can't have it both ways :eek: After all, according to the bipartisan 911 commission hand picked by the President Weak and Stupid, the previous administration had thwarted Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida on numerous occassions throughout their time in office. Seems to me we were much safer when we didn't have an idiot in office pissing off the world :rolleyes: but the corporate owned media tells we are, so it must be true.
How about asking the kids in Iraq if they're safer? We're rapidly closing in on 1000 dead Americans. What happened to the chocolates and rose pedals. :confused: Fact of the matter is, we destabilized a oil rich nation for absolutely no reason other than corporate war profiteering, and as a result Iraq has now become a magnet to all kinds of terrorist organizations, whereas they weren't before. Shit, the terrorists don't even have to work very hard to kill Americans now, they're lovin' Bush. What's next? Now that we have sufficiently fucked that up beyond repair, the Halliburton Adminstration is now looking at Iran, and you know what that means cool kids....the draft. :eek:


Now, off to my weekend entertainment activities that don't involve sitting on the computer. Have fun, keep drinking that Kool-Aid, and don't take any wooden nickels.

[IceGargoylle]

where do i start with that hate filled post....maybe tomorrow kiddies, maybe tomorrow.

[D_Raay]

Actually terrorism has risen since 911, and that's a fucking FACT you can take to the bank. As far as giving Bush credit for not being hit since 911, if you're going to make that ridiculous argument, then Bush has to accept total blame for 911 happening on his watch. You can't have it both ways :eek: After all, according to the bipartisan 911 commission hand picked by the President Weak and Stupid, the previous administration had thwarted Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida on numerous occassions throughout their time in office. Seems to me we were much safer when we didn't have an idiot in office pissing off the world :rolleyes: but the corporate owned media tells we are, so it must be true.
How about asking the kids in Iraq if they're safer? We're rapidly closing in on 1000 dead Americans. What happened to the chocolates and rose pedals. :confused: Fact of the matter is, we destabilized a oil rich nation for absolutely no reason other than corporate war profiteering, and as a result Iraq has now become a magnet to all kinds of terrorist organizations, whereas they weren't before. Shit, the terrorists don't even have to work very hard to kill Americans now, they're lovin' Bush. What's next? Now that we have sufficiently fucked that up beyond repair, the Halliburton Adminstration is now looking at Iran, and you know what that means cool kids....the draft. :eek:


Now, off to my weekend entertainment activities that don't involve sitting on the computer. Have fun, keep drinking that Kool-Aid, and don't take any wooden nickels.
I literally couldn't have said it better myself. The only serious liars are the Bushites. The swift boat veterans have been dicredited(not that it matters), and I take offense to calling the Daily Show a non news trying to be funny and left leaning show. Jon Stewart prides himself on being non-partisan. If he is leaning to the left it is because the right made it that way. They use the cover of being a non news show with sarcasm implied. Anyone who votes for Bush is either rich or doesn't have a clue. Type anti-Bush into google and just have a gander what comes up. SOOOOOOOOOOO much bad stuff comes up it's impossible to just disregard it as conspiracy or left wing propaganda. I urge all you Bush voters out there to look up the info. It's all there. And if he loses you will see the wolves descend upon each other trying to save their own hides.

[EN[i]GMA]

Where do you start with that post moron? Try the beggining. You got destroyed.

[D_Raay]

GMA']Where do you start with that post moron? Try the beggining. You got destroyed.
I've been trying to figure this post out but unfortunately I can not. Meaning?

[rorschach]

How about asking the kids in Iraq if they're safer? We're rapidly closing in on 1000 dead Americans. What happened to the chocolates and rose pedals. :confused: Fact of the matter is, we destabilized a oil rich nation for absolutely no reason other than corporate war profiteering, and as a result Iraq has now become a magnet to all kinds of terrorist organizations, whereas they weren't before. Shit, the terrorists don't even have to work very hard to kill Americans now, they're lovin' Bush. What's next? Now that we have sufficiently fucked that up beyond repair, the Halliburton Adminstration is now looking at Iran, and you know what that means cool kids....the draft. :eek:

(y)

BTW - does anyone keep count on those dead people in / from those lesser countries ?

[bilbo]

(y)

BTW - does anyone keep count on those dead people in / from those lesser countries ?

They sort of do, apparently only the UK and US count though.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

[EN[i]GMA]

I was responding to whats his name up the page. He said he didn't know where to start with Bilbo's post, apparently because he thought it innaccurate. He hasn't corrected it yet.

[infidel]

He's got ranching in his genes though

Subject: Little bit of history

Laura Bush, the First Lady, an amateur genealogical researcher, discovered that her husband's great-great uncle, Chadsworth Bush, a fellow lacking in character, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Texas in 1889.

The only known photograph of this rascal shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription: "Chadsworth Bush, horse thief, sent to Texas prison in 1885,escaped 1887,robbed the Texas Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889."

After letting George W.Bush and his staff of professional image consultants peruse the findings, they decided to crop Chadworth's picture, scan it in an enlarged image, and edit it with image-processing software.

The following biographical sketch was sent to the Associated Press: "Chadsworth Bush was a famous rancher in early Texas history. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets, and he was involved in intimate dealings with the Texas railroad. Beginning in 1883,he devoted several years to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889,Chadsworth Bush passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed breaking his neck."

[ASsman]

We still bothering with Bush.

[Jasonik]

He's got ranching in his genes though

Subject: Little bit of history

Laura Bush, the First Lady, an amateur genealogical researcher, discovered that her husband's great-great uncle, Chadsworth Bush, a fellow lacking in character, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Texas in 1889.

The only known photograph of this rascal shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription: "Chadsworth Bush, horse thief, sent to Texas prison in 1885,escaped 1887,robbed the Texas Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889."

After letting George W.Bush and his staff of professional image consultants peruse the findings, they decided to crop Chadworth's picture, scan it in an enlarged image, and edit it with image-processing software.

The following biographical sketch was sent to the Associated Press: "Chadsworth Bush was a famous rancher in early Texas history. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets, and he was involved in intimate dealings with the Texas railroad. Beginning in 1883,he devoted several years to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889,Chadsworth Bush passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed breaking his neck."

Funny! :p

This is a joke right..... or is this serious?

[Jasonik]

Punchline: And thus passed the very first "hanging Chad." (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_remus_rodham.htm#note)

[Bob]

haha

that reminds me of a joke i heard once

a democrat and a republican are having a conversation. the republican says "so why are you a democrat?"

and the dem says "well, my daddy was a democrat, so i am too"

so the repub says "what if your daddy had been a horse thief?"

and the dem says "well, then i suppose i'd be a republican"

of course you could just interchange democrat and republican and it'd be the same joke, which i suppose is appropriate, because that's what's happened with the story you guys mentioned.