Bush

Whatever Democrat they pick

Other

How could anyone vote for bush? it is mainly because of him that the world HATES the USA. Also, he's AN IDIOT!! but unfortunately he will probably win the election, it'll be fixed like the last one (yes, it was fixed read the book "Stupid white men" by micheal moore)
and the sooner Rumsveld is out of the picture, the better

now that both dems and reps have proven themselves to be true idiots, im interested in the independent party (in the last mayoral elections, they scored impressively high). does anybody mind telling me their basic policies etc.

Originally posted by whitewolf
now that both dems and reps have proven themselves to be true idiots, im interested in the independent party (in the last mayoral elections, they scored impressively high). does anybody mind telling me their basic policies etc.


hahahahahahahaha...*cough cough*..hahahahahahahahahaha like they'll ever matter in the final elections.....they won't even show up on the ballet just to save ink...hahahahahahahaha:D

sarge, theres nothing funny there (says smthg doesnt it).i asked for info. who knows i might join and be next president

Ok wolfie calm down...i just think you'll be throwing away your vote by going independent...unless others follow your example and vote for other than idiots....we need Bill back:(

Originally posted by whitewolf
who knows i might join and be next president


Says something doesn't it:rolleyes:

I agree with sargentland, a vote for independant is a lost vote. Usually democrates who are not happy vote independant, all republicans are die hard republicans.....So an independant vote is a vote for Bush.

Originally posted by Flores
I agree with sargentland, a vote for independant is a lost vote. Usually democrates who are not happy vote independant, all republicans are die hard republicans.....So an independant vote is a vote for Bush.
If that is true, then the U.S.A. is no republic or democracy, but a two party dictatorship.

I doubt it though. Ventura ran as an independent and got to the governors house, so it *is* possible.

Maybe at the local elections, things are still a bit clean, but at the presidential elections, it's clearly split in two. Now a days, we are even running the risk of destroying the democratic party. So you have it, it will be a pure dictatorship.

Currently, the party with the loudest voice and clear agenda is the republican. All items of the agenda are wrong and have no basis and will drive this country down the toilet, neverthless, they are items....The democarats have no ideas at the moment, no clear agenda. Their agenda is to criticise the republicans and that's not an agenda. Developing a political agenda is not easy task specially if you have the public and invironmental interest at heart.

Independants are just like the democrats, their only agenda revolves around disputing the other two parties. Still no valid clear path here.....

Stop voting for lawyers and economists and start voting for scientists and you might start to see good clear agendas.

Originally posted by LSatyl
If that is true, then the U.S.A. is no republic or democracy, but a two party dictatorship.

Yes it is !
Your electoral system is based on a one time election (no more elections with the 2 best candidates when there's no absolute majority) and don't use a real universal poll (if the independant had 45% in every state while Republicans had 55% in half of the states and Democrates had 55% in the other half, then they would not be elected).
I don't want to talk about the best system but yours is really a two party one.

About the independants : is it a one-candidate party too ? or is there more than one candidate ?

(I will not give my opinion in the poll as I'm not American, however I would chose Democrates or Independants - it depends on the programs)

Independants come from both sides, left and right, Buchanann perrenially runs as an independant

libertarian...or a good dem candidate...depends..

If you want to "elect" someone who will represent the majority of working people., vote Democrat. A vote for an independent will be , as it was in 2000, a vote for George Bush.

http://www.damnedbigdifference.org/history

Well, that voting pattern scares me...it really scares me.

You, see - we're all basically peers here - so we're like, a segment of the voting population - let's say, the liberal segment. This voting pattern that we've displayed here shows that Bush will win again - unless most of us change our current paradigm.

I was the ballot access chair for a county in Western Pennsylvania for the Green Party during the last election. I'll be the first to admit that I don't want to vote Democrat. However, this time around - that is PRECISELY what I'm going to do.

I think that left-wing, moderate, and middle of the road independents and democrats need to UNITE with one common goal - they've given it to us! We're not all in agreement on any one thing other than that we ALL want him out!

Now if you take every person that didn't vote for Bush, and put all their votes together - he CAN't win again.

Does anyone else see the logic in this? Maybe after we restore our basic civil liberties, then we can get back to supporting independent candidates? Seriously, I know this isn't kosher to say - but I do feel guilty that I helped (inadvertantly) elect Bush.

Well for those rejected enough to vote Bush , I'd say go ahead. It is a democrapcy isn't it? Obviously those who want Bush obiously don't care for the average American, but who's to say that Billionaires aren't average Americans. Bushie and Cheney seem to think so. Why? Becasue they don't assoiciate with the lower castes of American society (-$10 million, damned Rats). Growth in the world's biggest economy has averaged a meagre 1% percent, the stock market has tanked like never before. The Decifit is a disaster unto itself, $350 billion, and only to increase with these ridiculous tax cuts. Asking the government to rasie that already shocking debt level by a trillion dollars. Meanwhile in the international scene single-handingly destroying theh UN, Iraq, and promising "Democrapcy" in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we haven't even seen any elected officials in either (Kazai was not elected). With the Taliban making a comeback in Afghanistan and the Shi'a undercurrent in Iraq civil war looks more and more likely when "democrapcy" happens in Iraq. Withdrawing form Kyoto the corner stone of enviromental treaties, the ICC feeling like she is never to be treated the same as "those other nations". So why does a Canadian care, well isn't it obvious we suffer from every idoitic thing that regime does. I agree that votin independant is voting from republican, they should help the democratic party energize some form of energy. ;)

Let me just remind everyone that only 51.3% of Americans voted for President in 2000. That means that only 25% of Americans voted for Bushy.

If Democrats want to win the next election, all they have to do is vote.

yes, ALL PEOPLE HAVE TO DO IS VOTE! last year, in the most recent gov't textbook, i read that young people vote the least. (goddamnit wheres that book when i need it)

have any of you seen a real poll latly? thats right bush has the backing of nearly 75% of the country. thay have realized that the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq were good and that they were and still are necesary evils. i hate to break it to you nico, but do you really think that the enconomy started to decline just as soon as BUsh took office, do you think that the debt just started to grow as soon as the country found out bush won. no, it started with clinton, it was his doing at the end of his 8 year strech in office that these things started to happen. o yeah by the way i don't know if you have every heard of it before what was it called o yes black tuesday that when the stock market crashed, i do believe we are currently a bit better off right now.

How could anyone vote for bush? it is mainly because of him that the world HATES the USA.

Yes, your completely right. Those Arab guys didn't hate us until Bush got into office. Riiiiight.

I will vote democrat if Joe Liberman doesn't run.

how can you say the arabs didn't hate us before Bush was elected? lets see when was israel created? 1949. and who is israels biggest ally? the united states. so would i be safe to say that our alliance with israel has put us on the top of the arabs countries we hate list. i could be wrong though, maybe because of our strong alliance with israel all thouse arab countries surrounding it who would like to see nothing eles but the end of israel have really grown to like us. o yeah how was it that bombed the world trade centers the first time? right the taliban and let memake sure i'm right, yes they are arab and who was the president at this time, o yeah clinton. but what am i saying that was a peace offering they didn't start hating us until Bush won the election.

AvatarOfWoe,

Stop being a retard. Re-read my post. Notice the "Riiiight" on the end of it. Now pick up on the post. Understand sarcasm, and put the crack pipe down.

/CounslerCoffee

AvatarOfWoe,

but do you really think that the enconomy started to decline just as soon as BUsh took office, do you think that the debt just started to grow as soon as the country found out bush won. no, it started with clinton, it was his doing at the end of his 8 year strech in office that these things started to happen.

The economy started to decline when Americans realized that a moron might become president. Oh, and let's not forget how Bushy was telling everyone that the economy was in a recession in order to try to hype his future tax cuts. I'm sure that didn't help the economy either.

One more thing, if Clinton was really bad for the economy, it wouldn't have taken him eight years to screw it up (just look at how quickly Bushy can do it).

The economy started to decline due to overproduction in 2001.

The US government in 2000 estimated a $5 trillion surplus, the current prediction is $3 trillion deficit. The Tax cut biz is so utterly ridiclous that even the average American doesn't want it. They asked if they want to spend more like the Clinton years of have less taxes, 60+ % said that they would rather have the Clinton economy. (source: Crossfire).

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/taxcut/

Go to this website and do the little "How much will you save" section:

For someone making $30,000-40,000 they save a meagere #323

More than one million $93,000+

Bush's approval rating is just where his fathers was at the end of gulf war 1.

o yes just as soon as Bush took office people decides to stop putting faith into our economy. trends do not happen overnight it takes time for trends in our economy to show and thats just what happened, at the end of clintons term the economy started on a downward trend. it makes absolutly no sense that Bush could kill the economy overnight, your right it did take clinton 8 years to screw this country abd he did a very good job of it. right down to destroying our country's moral compass.

Which way was our moral compass pointing during the Enron, Global Crossing, and World com scandals??

Why won't Dick Cheney reveal any information about the five meetings he had in Washington D.C. with Enron executives??

How many billions of dollars have to be stolen from pension funds and stock holders accounts in order to be the moral equivalent of a BJ??

What is the moral equivalent of being AWOL for one year, as Bush was, from the Texas national Guard??

those are all personal things that i could care less about just like clintons ovaloffice bj was. my problem was that clinton lied while under oath. so what does the most powerful man in the world lying to a grand jury tell the little kids? thats its ok to lie as long as it is saving your image and carrer.
what about clinton's "library" or should i say slush fund which US citizens paided for. or what about the missing white house silverware, and clintons messy whitewater reality deal.

Clinton lied under oath about a blow job and that bothers you?? Gees kid if only life were that simple.

George Bush lied to the nation about his military service, but that is OK huh?

A 40 million dollar republican witch hunt revealed nothing about White Water that was improper on Clinton's part.

The Bush Cheney big oil connections are the worst scandal ever to hit Washington D.C. , but the scenario is so complex that a person who can only comprehend BJ's will never understand them. And that is why they are getting away with it.

Below are a few links to try your reading comprehension skills on. This world is much more complicated than silverware and BJ's.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12525

http://www.freethoughtfirefighters.org/AA_News_RalphReed_Enron_Taliban.htm

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0202a/enroncoverup.html

justiceusa


i figured that with a name like that you would understand that lying while under oath is a very serious offence. since the law of the land a.k.a constitution outlines that lying under oath is pretty bad so yes that really bothers me.

Bush lied to the nation about his military service, well clinton was a draft dogger but i guess since he is the savor of the nation thats ok.

o yeah these scandals that have cause people to bring up talk of impeachment becasue they have rocked the nation.

while we are throwing around uncredable internet sorces here are a few for you.

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Clinton_Scandals/

http://www.bgnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/03/31/3e8858597b03d

http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/scandals.cfm

there you go i put in some .coms and .orgs for ya.

The important thing you will have to accept is that Clinton is long gone. You are free to go on blaming Clinton for Bush's failures, but that has nothing to do with the future of this country and an economy that is hemmoraging jobs.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html

clinton is long gone and we can all thank god and a two term law for that. im not blaming clinton for Bush's failures. so far he hasn't had any except the national security act. Bush is trying to look out for the future of this country. he started a war on terror so that events like 9-11 will not happen again. he invaded iraq freeing the people and ending the reign of a tyrant who can be paralleled to hitler. and now he is proposing a tax cut that will be a stimulus for the economy. i personally don't like bush but hey anythings better than clinton and gore.

"I personally don't like bush but anything is better than Clinton and Gore."
_____________________________________________

I agree with that statement:)

Bush lied to the nation about his military service, well clinton was a draft dogger but i guess since he is the savor of the nation thats ok.

What redeems Clinton is that he opposed the war.

justiceusa

thats the best thing i've heard from you all through this forum.



Voodoo Child

do you really truly think that th war in iraq was bad? can you honestly tell me that you would rather not have invaded?

I'm referring to 'nam, that Clinton was honest and Bush was a liar.

do you really truly think that th war in iraq was bad? can you honestly tell me that you would rather not have invaded?

1)Yes. 2) I would have invaded only after the WI had time to do their job and a majority of the security counsel supported the use of force..

the WI had their time to do inspections, they had years and they were being lead around like dogs by the iraq reigim. and not only that but did you by chance see the iraq people after the war they were happy we got saddam out of power cause he was a tyranical ruler.

you can't say that clinton has any credability cause he lied under oath and if he did that then how do you know when he is telling the truth and when he is lying.

and if i may ask what was clinton honest about and what was Bush lying about?

the WI had their time to do inspections, they had years and they were being lead around like dogs by the iraq reigim.

The WI did not have time to their inspections this time round. Hans Blix didn't think so, nor the rest of the world. They have had only a few months of weapons inspections where they have been backed up by the credible use of force. In some cases they hadn't even provided Iraq with instructions on how to verify the destruction of WMD. And given they were "lead around like dogs" it is quite remarkable that they destroyed 9 tenths of the WMD Saddam had pre-91. That would be 9/10 more than the WMD America has destroyed.

and not only that but did you by chance see the iraq people after the war they were happy we got saddam out of power cause he was a tyranical ruler.

The ends don't always justify the means.

Clinton opposed the Vietnam war and he didn't fight in it, whereas Bush supported the war, but didn't fight in it. Clinton wasn't a hypocrite. Granted he is a big fat liar in other circumstances.

justiceusa,

"I personally don't like bush but anything is better than Clinton and Gore."

I agree with that statement

You've got to be kidding. So if in 2004, it was Bush/Cheney and Clinton/Gore, you would vote for Bush/Cheney?? :bugeye:

I personally think that anyone would be better than our Idiot Emperor. I blame Bush for 9/11 terrorist attacks. If he spent more time at work, and less on vacation, during his first nine months in office, the terrorist attacks could have been prevented (that is, if Bush wanted to prevent them).

what do you mean this time around if you fail time and time again then isn't it time for a new approach to a situation. the only people who can fail and get second chance upon second chance are politicans and their cronies.

so you are saying that goign to war to give freedom and liberty to an oppressed people and topple a dictator is not an acceptable means of riding the world of one mroe threat.

so i am a hypocrit becaus i supported the war in iraq but i didn't fight in it. so sue me.

right the 9-11 attacks could have been stopped if Bush was in office more. well what about clinton he let osama go how many times o yeah 3 but that wouldn't have stopped those attacks.

bush went to war to get rid of the WMD, not liberate the iraqi people. iraq was never a threat to us. that was just overwhelming propaganda, just like saddam is a terrorist buddy of al qaeda. im still waiting to see these WMD. only then can bush even be somewhat justified. that war will never be justified to me though. i believe in international law. it is a good thing. and if bush can have WMD i dont see why no one else can. if it is good enough for the goose it should be good enough for the gander.

Bushie didn't go to war to liberate or to stop pseudo-proliferation in Iraq. He went into Iraq to control the most powerful country in the middle east. Located smack in the middle of the most wealthy region on earth, the oil region. Iraq has always been a grave threat to Israel and to allow a state with a proven oil reserve of 112 billion barrels Bushie wasn't to sit idly by and let Saddam ruin his day. Another major mis-conception is the notion that Saddam supported Al Qaeda. even if the US comes up with "evidence" I won't believe it after the Niger fiassco. Funny it was Bushie's father who gave Iraq the Anthrax!

Reagan and Bushies father's administrations gave Saddam lots of goodies, including the west Nile Virus. What is really scary is that little George's strings are being pulled by the same people, (Rumsfeld Cheney ect) , who advised daddy Bush.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Burns090502/burns090502.html

what do you mean this time around if you fail time and time again then isn't it time for a new approach to a situation.
1) They didn't fail. As I said they rid Iraq of the all but a very small amount of their stockpile. At the moment we are seeing just how small their WMD program was. You've bought into the ludicrous propaganda churned out by the whitehouse. Research the accomplishments of the WI throughout the 90s.

2) As I said, this time was dissimilar to the others because the WI were backed by the use of force. Also, they had far greater powers this time around.

so you are saying that goign to war to give freedom and liberty to an oppressed people and topple a dictator is not an acceptable means of riding the world of one mroe threat.
You're saying we should approve a war because one of its' consequences(a thoroughly incidental one as Nico and Shrubby have pointed out) is good? What about the merits of the action itself? The war was never about freeing the Iraqi people, Bush only started saying this when no one brought the terrorism/WMD story.

I also take issue with the way the war was mongered. If it is as just as you say, then why was it promoted with deception, fraud, plagarism and propaganda?

"one mroe threat."? You mean the threat of Saddam giving weapons they don't have to terrorists that hate him and aren't in contact with him so they can carry out an attack that would assure his own destruction? Is this a plausible scenario?

You could be a hypocrite, but I bet you didn't dodge the draft for this war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,206136,00.html

well that web site was very interesting. i especially like the part that stated "President Clinton's draft evasion" because that is a point that is seldom brought to light in a situation like this. people only want to believe that Bush evaded the draft when clinton also did.

you can't say that war was unnecesary either because as you say yourself the WI found much of the iraq weapons stockpile. but the part they didn't find and never would have is the WMD. although we havn't found great stockpiles of these yet we have found the mobil labs where they can be produced and the storys of top ranking iraq scientists.

this war was not promoted by "deception, fraud, plagarism and propaganda? ". it is proven by the embeded reporters that went along with many military batalions and squadrens. they open a new form of war reporting that let you see exactly what happened ever day. you can't say that these reporters were not showing the truth when you saw extatic iraq civilians and swift tactical operations by the military.

there were very few ecstatic iraqis running around. most didnt welcome the americans at all, rather they wanted them out. and that tearing down of the hussein statue was staged. most of those people were flown in for that. if you see a zoomed out view of that scene, the group is very small and it is surrounded by tanks and US soilders. that war time journalism was under strict control. what we saw was not accurate of what was going on there.

those mobile labs are a load of propaganda. they have not been proven to have anything to do with WMD. it is all speculation. tests have been conducted on them and no WMD evidence has been found. you cannot seriously tell me that with all of our technology we could just lose track of this stock pile of WMD that hussein had. there is satellite surveillance going on constantly. that country is always watched and spies are embedded through out the government. if we knew everything that went on in the soviet union it is hard to believe that we would no nothing about a backwards country like iraq. if there were weapons we would have found them or the government would be in a frenzy searching for them. bush should be deathly afraid that the weapons are missing becuse they could slip into the wrong hands. he doesnt seem to care much though. i wonder why that is...

the problem i have with grouping clinton and bush together as draft dodgers is the fact that bush is devious about his past. he attempted to have his military record purged to hide the fact he was awol for 2 years, he failed or refused numerous physicals, etc. clinton was forthright about his past unlike bush. clinton didnt fight out of principles rather than fear. bush praises war but was afraid to actually fight for his country. im pretty sure that CCR song "fortunate son" was written with people like bush in mind.

but the part they didn't find and never would have is the WMD.
That's the genius of it all. There are weapons there because they <i>didn't</i> find them. This war was written by Joseph Heller. Just because WI didn't verify the destruction of WMD doesn't they still exist or weren't destroyed. I'm not saying that there aren't WMD somewhere, however, my point is the WI were effective and could of been again, esp. given they are backed by the threat of whoop-ass.
you can't say that war was unnecesary either because as you say yourself the WI found much of the iraq weapons stockpile
You're making an unjustified assumption here, that if he has WMD then a war must be initiated. Both the CIA and the MI6 have evaluated any threat of Saddam staging a WMD attack as low.

"deception, fraud, plagarism and propaganda? " refers to the case made for the war. ie. The brit plagarism of a '91 thesis, the Niger plutonium fraud, the suggestion that Al-Q was linked to Saddam and 911 etc., etc.
edit to add:
although we havn't found great stockpiles of these yet we have found the mobil labs where they can be produced and the storys of top ranking iraq scientists. Mobile labs that Hans Blix didn't accept as illegal or even chemical weapons labs. Labs that have no traces of chemical weapons in. Those defecting iraqi scientists are quite likely telling everyone exactly what they want to hear. They are hardly unbiased, hell, they've defected. Given that you only hear the accounts that officials think fit to release to the press, you're probably receiving a severely filtered account of whats going on. Have these scientists delivered anything tangible? So far they haven't shown that Saddam has a can of pepper spray.

I'm sorry to say that I have neither the time or the inclination to read the whole thread. I will, however pass on a little wisdom given to me by my grand mother before the health insurance ran out and we were forced to turn off her ventilator.

It doesn't matter who you vote for, a politician will always win

God bless Grannie.
Dee Cee