Post here if you are going to support Bush for another presidency . . .

83% Dennis Kucinich!
66% Kerry
58% Sharpton and Dean

A whooping zero for George!

God dammit, I can't see how anyone can support Bush. The man is an ubsessed conservative afraid of liberalism (run for cover, the content homosexuals are invading!).
 
Thank goodness you're too young to vote and Eluminate lives in NY which Bush has no hope of winning.
 
From my side of the Atlantic It seems difficult to understand why anyone would want another term with GW. He has done more to promote anti-americanism over here than any other prez I can remember, even the vile Millhouse Nixon did less damage to your collective reputation.
Even The Republicans seem to agree. Their campaign don't tell me anything about Georges achievements they just do down the other fella.
"He's bad! Vote for me!"
Is that the best they can do?
On the more specific points...
1.We haven't been attacked since Mr. Bush started his campaign against terrorists. True , there have been a few isolated incidents with germs and the like but all and all he's done a very good job under the harshest of conditions.
Click to expand...
You should see the UK industry record of recent Sea Serpent attacks on shipping. Not a one since Tony Bliar came to power!
I hear alien abductions are down too!
I admit America did have that nasty 9/11 thing but what prez allowed that to happen?
So what was ,say, Carters record on terrorism? Suicide bombers all over the place if his soft centered reputation is to be believed.
They tell me that this is a new age but I don't recall the Koran getting a recent rewrite, so whats changed?
2. The economy is looking very good isn't it? The stock market is almost to 11,000 points, the unemployment rate is lower.
Click to expand...
The problem with the US Economy is simply that it's based on America's ability to suck other countries dry. The economy may look good. (Though even in a 'conventional' sense it still looks pretty rough to me) but what happens if the world wakes up and decides to stop working for you? You might even have to pay the going rate for gas and what a shock that would be!

I'll do y'all a deal.
You get rid of George and we'll get rid of Tony, If only we Brits could come up with an alternative:(
Dee Cee
 
"(Look at Schwarzeneggar as governor, doing great so far.) "

he ordered a stop to the same sex marriages. great job (for someone whose fan base is represented by more homosexual males than any other demographic)
 
No matter how good of a job a politician does, they’ll always do something with which you disagree. Considering the debate is about whether gays can get government benefits of dubious value, I don’t consider that a big black mark against Schwarzeneggar. If gays get their way, will you then disagree with the governor who disallows polygamist marriages? By the same logic they should be marriageable too.
 
Last edited:
absolutely. let adults marry or not marry who they will. polygamy is a religious institution and the state must (doesn't but should) keep their distance from anything religious.
but anyway, it was a horribly stupid move both on the political front and for his acting/body building career.
 
The state doesn’t have anything to do with the religious angle of marriage. The state just doles out benefits and collects a different tax rate and otherwise enforces/upholds the financial/legal contract that is marriage. Gays are fighting for the state’s business angle of marriage. If you are really against discrimination then you’ll want the state to get out of the marriage business entirely. Why should they give special consideration to any person in regards to their relationships? That discriminates against single people and others. For example, I, a single person, may wish for my brother or my son to receive my assets tax-free when I die (a benefit married people get with their spouse). But I’m out of luck; the state discriminates against me in favor of the married. If gays get their way there’ll be an even larger group getting special consideration from the state to my detriment. I may not agree with Schwarzenegger’s reason for being against gay marriage, but he is effectively holding the line on discrimination.
 
If gays get their way, will you then disagree with the governor who disallows polygamist marriages? By the same logic they should be marriageable too.
Click to expand...

Ah, the slippery slope. By that logic regular marriage should lead to pig fucking.
 
Small "L" libertarian here. Normally, being a pragmatist dictates that I cast a majority of my votes for Republican candidates, because they've traditionally embodied laissez faire capitalism - one of the tenets that I preach. Recently they've gravitated toward quasi-socialism as much as some of the Democrats out there, so that plus is no more. Add in a small but influential portion of the party being hijacked by the religious right and becoming socially authoritarian (I am very liberal socially) and I have developed a distaste for them that I once harbored only for the Democrats.

My opinion, and that of some other self-described libertarians that I know, is that anyone voting pragmatically as a true conservative would probably vote democrat in this election simply because the reality of such an outcome is a strong republican congress and a democratic executive. The end result of this, of course, being gridlock and the inability of a fiscal liberal like Bush to use his support in congress to spend drastically, drastically broaden the size and scope of government power, and do other things that were massively unpopular with Republicans until they co-opted the practices. The only really viable reason any true conservative ever offers for voting for Bush in my eyes is when they say that they're worried about what kind of judge a democrat might appoint, or some other such ancillary concern. Well if that's your presidential litmus test, then yeah I guess you should vote for Bush. Otherwise, it's all down to the politics of perception.

Of course the larger reality of why all this is and where it's going is what's dictating things. The Democrats spent a long time holding massive power in the senate, sometimes the executive, and elsewhere and shaping America in their vision and people got sick of it over time and voted them out. The Republicans have spent the last 23 years talking about Republican persecution at the hands of those liberals and contemporaries, and over time have managed to turn the legislature Republican, get more Republican judges, get the executive back and even get their own conservative news outlet. The same thing that happened to the democrats will of course now happen to them, it's just a matter of when. The speed of information hasn't changed the process but it has made the pendulum swing faster.

DeeCee said:
From my side of the Atlantic It seems difficult to understand why anyone would want another term with GW. He has done more to promote anti-americanism over here than any other prez I can remember, even the vile Millhouse Nixon did less damage to your collective reputation.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why. Bush's and Clinton's foreign policy are strikingly similar. The principle difference is that Clinton gave Europe a reacharound while he cornholed them. Bush doesn't even bother. The upshot is that at least you know what you're getting with Bush.

Edit: Took that cool little test:
Code: 
Bush - 58%
Nader - 33%
Sharpton (lol) - 25%
Kerry - 25%
Kucinich - 16%
Edwards - 16%
 
Last edited:
to be honest, i never really understood the government involvement in marriage in the first place. i don't know what the benefits are and why they offer them. i mean really, who decides to get married because of benefits? call me crazy. i was raised in a religious home so i guess some of it rubbed off whether i wanted it to or not. marriage is traditionally a religious institution and the government should keep its fat nose out of it. leave it to the churches, etc. to marry who they will. if nonreligious people want committment ceremonies and to call it marriage, that's their business.

p.s. my parents have a civil union because my dad was previously married and the catholic church only allows one. but they wanted to get married and have a family, not to have tax breaks.
 
Dennis Kucinich
71.0
Ralph Nader
64.0
John Kerry
57.0
Al Sharpton
42.0
John Edwards
35.0
George Bush
7.0
 
How does regular marriage lead to pig fucking? It validates the idea of unions. Allowing unions between man and woman opens the door for union between man and pig. To be fair, marriage must be available to those who don't want to fuck pigs out of wedlock or not available to anyone.

The inconsistency is that one form of union is allowed and another prohibited because of society's value judgement, but for some bizarre reason a value judgement can not allow monogamous marriage but prohibit polygamous relationships. Even though value judgements are inherently a priori and need no justification other than to be held.
 
wrong

a pig is incapable of giving its consent
children are incapable of giving their consent
adults of sound mind can give their consent to whatever they choose to
 
SwedishFish said:
to be honest, i never really understood the government involvement in marriage in the first place. i don't know what the benefits are and why they offer them.
Click to expand...

This site, Most Compelling Reasons for Legal Marriage, lists some of the US benefits or has links to them.

The obvious ones are: if you have health insurance, your spouse can usually be signed up too; spouse can’t be compelled to testify against you in court; assets are retained tax-free by surviving spouse; social security pays survivor’s benefits to spouse; both people are automatically legal parents of an adopted child; assets are typically split 50/50 by law in a divorce (this can be a drawback if the workload is split inequitably between the spouses); when a child is born the husband's job is protected if he takes paternity leave.

A big disadvantage is that the spouses are legally joined to each other for all financial transactions. Many marriages end when one spouse discovers that the other has run up large credit card debts.

i mean really, who decides to get married because of benefits?
Click to expand...

You are quaint. I’d say most American women do. They call it financial security.

p.s. my parents have a civil union because my dad was previously married and the catholic church only allows one. but they wanted to get married and have a family, not to have tax breaks.
Click to expand...

Married people in the US often pay higher taxes. When I was hitched we paid enough extra taxes annually to have paid for a week-long Hawaiian vacation. The government thinking is that since you are sharing big-ticket expenses like housing, you have more money to pay in taxes. The higher tax rate is called the marriage penalty.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top