How could anyone vote for George W. Bush?

[quote name='E-Z-B']I think I'm missing something here. If you invested 4+ years of your life, and probably about over $60,000 to get an education in CS, how is that having something "handed to you"? After all that blood and sweat for a degree, wouldn't you expect opportunities to use that degree? Am I now expecting too much to want to get a job in my field that I trained for, or am I just whinning, and should spend another 4+ years in a new field that will likely disappear under the Republican control.

What happens when ALL jobs but retail and healthcare are sent overseas? Say all defense, satellite, optics, hardware, construction, manufacturing, steel, systems work, ... EVERYTHING but wal-mart and restaurants. The government now faces a shrinking tax base and America suffers.

I think it's time we outsourced the president's job.[/quote]

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Am I expecting too much for you to investigate whether or not there will be a job market requiring whatever skills you're learning by the time you're finished? Why do you think you see so many people who have jobs in areas that have ZERO relation to what they went to school for? Adaptability means a lot in a free market, especially where employment is concerned.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='E-Z-B']I think I'm missing something here. If you invested 4+ years of your life, and probably about over $60,000 to get an education in CS, how is that having something "handed to you"? After all that blood and sweat for a degree, wouldn't you expect opportunities to use that degree? Am I now expecting too much to want to get a job in my field that I trained for, or am I just whinning, and should spend another 4+ years in a new field that will likely disappear under the Republican control.

What happens when ALL jobs but retail and healthcare are sent overseas? Say all defense, satellite, optics, hardware, construction, manufacturing, steel, systems work, ... EVERYTHING but wal-mart and restaurants. The government now faces a shrinking tax base and America suffers.

I think it's time we outsourced the president's job.[/quote]

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Am I expecting too much for you to investigate whether or not there will be a job market requiring whatever skills you're learning by the time you're finished? Why do you think you see so many people who have jobs in areas that have ZERO relation to what they went to school for? Adaptability means a lot in a free market, especially where employment is concerned.[/quote]

How were CS majors expected to know in the late 90s that their jobs would be outsourced today? And if this trend continues, what's the incentive for ANYONE to go to college if that means their won't be a job for them when they graduate. The result is the greater gap between the lower and upper class, and disappearance of the middle class. Go Bush!
 
Way to push the class warfare, Karl Marx.

If you get into the technology field, you absolutely MUST expect change. Not just in what you work with, but how you do that work, who you work for, where you work, and what you'll need to continue working. I've seen that happen too. It's a shame this isn't pushed in IT/CS education today. The most successful IT personnell are the ones that ADAPT. I've watched more than one colleague leave the field because they refused to update their skills. The guy who had the job I currently occupy was one of them.

And what are all these outsourced jobs that CS majors could have taken? Help desk jobs? You can teach a monkey to do read scripts. Plus those will be back in the US soon. Call a help line with a problem if you don't believe me. When consumers get disgusted enough with Apu and Akhbar's lack of english skills, the companies employing them will wise up.

Programming jobs will have the same thing happen to them. I'm already hearing about how shoddy the Indian and Chinese work has become. Chinese work also has the 'benefit' of little or no copyright protection while in China. The only way these jobs will stay out of the country is if their quality improves. That costs money. And that negates their whole purpose, to save money.

Yes, it looks scary now. But what are you going to do? Tell corporations "you can't hire foreign workers." If the corporations were going to move those jobs, they are already cut, regardless of whether or not they get foreign replacments. This move also pisses off the rest of the world, something the anti-Bush crowd holds against the current administration.

There WILL be jobs outsourced, no matter what the government decides. It would be nice if we could hold all the jobs and wealth in our country, but we can't. The world is too small now and everyone else is catching up fast.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']Way to push the class warfare, Karl Marx.

If you get into the technology field, you absolutely MUST expect change. Not just in what you work with, but how you do that work, who you work for, where you work, and what you'll need to continue working. I've seen that happen too. It's a shame this isn't pushed in IT/CS education today. The most successful IT personnell are the ones that ADAPT. I've watched more than one colleague leave the field because they refused to update their skills. The guy who had the job I currently occupy was one of them.

And what are all these outsourced jobs that CS majors could have taken? Help desk jobs? You can teach a monkey to do read scripts. Plus those will be back in the US soon. Call a help line with a problem if you don't believe me. When consumers get disgusted enough with Apu and Akhbar's lack of english skills, the companies employing them will wise up.

Programming jobs will have the same thing happen to them. I'm already hearing about how shoddy the Indian and Chinese work has become. Chinese work also has the 'benefit' of little or no copyright protection while in China. The only way these jobs will stay out of the country is if their quality improves. That costs money. And that negates their whole purpose, to save money.

Yes, it looks scary now. But what are you going to do? Tell corporations "you can't hire foreign workers." If the corporations were going to move those jobs, they are already cut, regardless of whether or not they get foreign replacments. This move also pisses off the rest of the world, something the anti-Bush crowd holds against the current administration.

There WILL be jobs outsourced, no matter what the government decides. It would be nice if we could hold all the jobs and wealth in our country, but we can't. The world is too small now and everyone else is catching up fast.[/quote]

THat's a heck of an adaptation going from having a IT job to training your foreign replacement to working at wal-mart.

Hey, until I see proof that the Bush administration's policies are working, and that the economy is improving, and that by outsourcing it's really creating more jobs THAT WERE AT LEAST AS GOOD FOR AMERICANS AS THEIR OLD JOB, then I will be a believer. But the fact is that the economy is still in the crapper, and unemployment levels still remain high. Something's obviously not working here.
 
[quote name='Valkryst']I'd much rather have an independant financed by his own money (no private investors) as president then a repub or demo.

But as it stands now, no independant is going to win.[/quote]

Not only can no independent win, any independent candidate will only HURT the other candidate who he is most closely aligned with. (Ross Perot hurts the Republicans, Ralph Nader hurts the democrats.) This is because we don't have proportional representation (like more efficient democracies such as Britain). We're using an out-dated method of winner-take-all elections and as long as that remains the case, a third party will never be viable. That is what Ralph Nader doesn't seem to understand. Either that or he's simply a sell-out at this point.


[quote name='jeffreyjrose']Politics are crazy; there is no such thing as an honest politician.[/quote]

[quote name='italianstallion']Heres is a fact, all political figures are crooded, lying, money grubing, theifs.[/quote]

Yes and no.

Almost all politcians we have in office are liars and money grubbers, but that doesn't mean their aren't some politcians (or people with political ambitions) who aren't genuine. The reason we won't have a President who has our best interests at heart in 2004, regardless of who is elected, is simple: Corporations. The media is corporate owned and they have become the gatekeepers. When they see a politcian they cannot exert any influence over they do one of two things. Either give him no press at all (Dennis Kucinich) or give him only bad press (Howard Dean). That is precisely what happened 4 months ago. They saw that Howard Dean was doing well, they shot him down, and now who's our candidate? Someone they CAN exert influence over, because he is already more beholden to the powers that be.

If you want honest government, we need to get the money out of politics. Until that happens, theres no point in cheering for either candidate. You must simply decide, reluctantly, who you think will do less damage to our country. In this upcoming election, it's not really a difficult choice. The answer to that question, is indeed, ANYBODY BUT BUSH.


Which leads me to the surprising number of DITTO-HEADS on this board....

I am ASHAMED and EMBARRASED that there are this many FOOLS who I share a favorite hobby with. I don't care if you're a brain-dead Rush/Hannity listener or you're some naive punk who's drank the Ayn Rand/Libertarian "free market" koolaid. The only thing that you can know for certain is that YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING. You're a bunch of ignorant kids who live in bubble and you let other people do your thinking for you.

A wise man once said "Democracy does not ensure good government, it simply ensures that people get the government they deserve." You think things are bad now? Just wait until this group of thugs (that tells Too Stupid To Be President Bush what to do) gets re-elected. Just wait and see how they handle things once they no longer have to worry about getting re-elected.

If Bush wins in 04, the (infinitely stupid) people of the United States will indeed deserve whats coming to them.


George "Dubya" Bush's Record : http://www.tilenut.com/yo/BUSH_record.html

How The Florida Election Was Stolen : http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

The Whole Sad Story Of How The US CREATED Saddam Hussein : http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
 
[quote name='Hereticked']
If Bush wins in 04, the (infinitely stupid) people of the United States will indeed deserve whats coming to them.[/quote]

Unless 49% of us vote for Kerry so the United States doesn't crash into a spiral downfall, but then the majority of votes is still for Bush so he'll win anyways, and yet all Americans deserve what's coming to them from GWB?
 
[quote name='chosen1s'][quote name='joeposh'][quote name='chosen1s'][quote name='coffman']I find it amusing that the Republicans were calling foul when the Democrats were accusing Bush of dodging the draft by entering the national guard and possibly not serving all of his time, yet they feel it is ok to question whether or not Kerry earned his purple hearts in Vietnam. This cartoon sums it all up:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/analysis/toons/2004/04/22/mitchell/index.html[/quote]

The problem with Kerry's purple heart is not whether or not he "deserved" it, the problem is that he claimed several times that the records are all available to the public. Then, when a reporter went to do some fact-checking (believe it or not, he actually wanted to check for facts) he found that the records are sealed and not available.

The question is "What is Kerry hiding and why did he lie?" -- Not "is the purple heart ligitimate?"[/quote]

How can this administration criticize anyone for not laying it on the table though? They're the most secretive administration since Nixon, they refuse to declassify memos and briefings that legally should be avliable to the public under the freedom of information act.

Every newsconference and speech is rehersed for days in advance and the journalists asking the questions are handpicked. They withhold pictures of soldiers funerals/caskets to avoid bad poll numbers. They refuse to admit mistakes... ever... they just distribute the blame elsewhere (FBI or CIA for the most part) or pretend that no mistake was made to begin with, even in the most obvious blunders. I dunno about you, but I'd rather have someone in office that can admit when he's made a mistake and change positions on an issue than someone who is so stubborn that he maintains his position no matter what the reality of the situation may be.[/quote]

Um, I guess it was Bush then who wrote the story about the records that Kerry claimed were available not being available? You're blaming Bush for the results of what Kerry did to himself, and you have already conceded my point. The administration didn't have anything to do with this, it was led by a reporter who was checking facts.

You can make as many excuses as you want for Kerry's flip-flopping. Clearly you will accept any actions by the man regardless of how disconcerting they are and use the excuse that "at least it's different than what the Bush administration is doing". If Bush couldn't seem to make up his mind about anything, I don't think you would be so quick to attribute it to "honesty" and "non-prepared speeches". At least be intellectually honest with yourself and admit that you have already made up your mind who you like and who you hate and you are searching for ways to make the facts support your feelings rather than allowing facts to shape your decisions.[/quote]

Yes I have chosen a side, and I've allowed the facts to guide me to that decision. You've choosen a side, but you've been more selective with your vision. When the RNC goes after Kerry's military record in such an insidious way, I see hypocricy because they're the same ones to rail the dems on national tv about even insinuating that Bush didn't serve his country properly. Plus as we've seen Kerry released the documents, which is more than Bush has ever done (a few attendence cards don't quite cut it).
 
[quote name='Medium_Pimpin'][quote name='mcwilliams132']Let's bring this back to a CHEAPASSGAMER theme.

If you like having more money in your pockets (or the pockets of your parents) to buy more games...Vote Republican - Tax Cuts! If you're truely a cheap ass you don't want your hard earned dollars going off to pay for someone else's lazy ass...YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR MONEY TO BUY MORE GAMES...

And don't give me the lame ass excuse of "tax cuts for the wealthy" schtick that ALL you numb-brain, know nothings spew. If you pay taxes...you get a tax cut...period. Don't pay taxes? No tax refund...if you don't pay in...you don't get back. The tax system isn't a hand-out system.

Vote Bush if you want more of your own money in your hands to buy more games!

Kerry want to take YOUR MONEY so he can go buy games for lazy asses that that don't work for it![/quote]


We get a $300 tax cut, and go from a budget surplus to a 500+ Billion Debt a year (and growing) to pass along to our kids. Sounds like a fair trade to me. That money isnt real anyways.


And seriously folks: John Ashcroft? I wouldnt give this guy the time of day, he should be on a street corner somewhere begging for change.[/quote]

what the hell do you care about government surpluses? IF there is a surplus...that's money the government took from you...interest free by the way.

What does the government surplus do for YOU...why do you care?
 
A government surplus would idealy be used to pay down debt. In turn, that would mean less money that the government has to pay in interest on its obligations. We get nothing in return for interest payments in the form of additional services or lower taxes.

However, there is a need for a national debt the question is what is the correct level.

CTL
 
[quote name='"E-Z-B"']THat's a heck of an adaptation going from having a IT job to training your foreign replacement to working at wal-mart.[\quote]

That's a heck of a one track mind you have if you get one job and intend to stay there forever. Especially in IT.

One reason you have so many grumbling IT people is because they absolutely refuse to go into another field. They would rather remain unemployed instead of taking any other job, yes even a Wal-Mart job, temporarily to keep some sort of cash flow going. It's unrealistic to expect your perfect job to just fall into your lap. I can speak from experience, as I've seen several people do it. Haven't seen it in other lines of work, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[quote name='E-Z-B']Hey, until I see proof that the Bush administration's policies are working, and that the economy is improving, and that by outsourcing it's really creating more jobs THAT WERE AT LEAST AS GOOD FOR AMERICANS AS THEIR OLD JOB, then I will be a believer. But the fact is that the economy is still in the crapper, and unemployment levels still remain high. Something's obviously not working here.[/quote]

Yeah ok. Myself, my personal income has increased at least 60% and sometimes as much as 80% each year Bush has been in office. That damn evil Bush and his evil economy!

I don't give Bush or any other enitity associated with the government any credit for my increased income. I give credit only to myself for working damn hard and persevering. If my income had gone down, I sure as hell wouldn't be laying the blame elsewhere either. The 'bad economy' is a myth. Check the news sometime...I can't turn on the radio or browse the web news without seeing how some economic indicator is up, unemployment is down, revenues higher than predicted, etc. Even personally, I don't know of anyone who has been laid off recently. Every person I know is either comfortably employed or is moving to a new, better, higher-paying job.

When I get even a whiff of bad news, economic or employment wise, I'll let you know.
 
[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']Unless 49% of us vote for Kerry so the United States doesn't crash into a spiral downfall, but then the majority of votes is still for Bush so he'll win anyways, and yet all Americans deserve what's coming to them from GWB?[/quote]

The reason we're in this situation to begin with is apathy. Stupidity, ignorance and most of all apathy. If people were more informed and more people voted, Dubya would never have gotten into office in the first place.

We have a responsibility to educate people instead of just sitting back and letting douchebags like this guy promote widespread disinformation :

HANNITY.jpg


Apathy doesn't accomplish anything. We have to get politically active.
 
[quote name='Hereticked'][quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']Unless 49% of us vote for Kerry so the United States doesn't crash into a spiral downfall, but then the majority of votes is still for Bush so he'll win anyways, and yet all Americans deserve what's coming to them from GWB?[/quote]

The reason we're in this situation to begin with is apathy. Stupidity, ignorance and most of all apathy. If people were more informed and more people voted, Dubya would never have gotten into office in the first place.

We have a responsibility to educate people instead of just sitting back and letting douchebags like this guy promote widespread disinformation :

HANNITY.jpg


Any statistical analysis of the people who have 'not voted" in a presidential election over the last 40 years has confirmed the same person would have won in all but one, maybe two instances.

More to the point people should get more involved in state elections. As the Feds have properly cut funding to the states, the states with their bloated budgets have increased taxes to make up the shortfall.

The problem isn't "idiot Bush" the problem is idiot spending.

CTL

Apathy doesn't accomplish anything. We have to get politically active.[/quote]
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Any statistical analysis of the people who have 'not voted" in a presidential election over the last 40 years has confirmed the same person would have won in all but one, maybe two instances.[/quote]

[quote name='Hereticked']If people were more informed and more people voted[/quote]

The first part of the statement is the more important part really.


[quote name='CTLesq']The problem isn't "idiot Bush" the problem is idiot spending.[/quote]

Even though his administration is doing more of that "idiot spending" than any administration in history?

You forgot that part.
 
[quote name='Hereticked']
Even though his administration is doing more of that "idiot spending" than any administration in history?

You forgot that part.[/quote]

Look to the Constitution, which branch of government controls the purse strings?

Is it the executive, legislative or judicial?

I don't disagree spending is out of control, even when properly measured a percentage of GNP compared to past years which is the true measure of how screwed we are.

CTL
 
[quote name='Hereticked'][quote name='CTLesq']Any statistical analysis of the people who have 'not voted" in a presidential election over the last 40 years has confirmed the same person would have won in all but one, maybe two instances.[/quote]

[quote name='Hereticked']If people were more informed and more people voted[/quote]

The first part of the statement is the more important part really.


[/quote]

If people were more informed?

More people are informed in 2004 than in any time in history. That argument is very hollow.

If people, don't care, good, it means my vote counts that much more.

If they can't be interested in ensuring their own well being why should I?

CTL
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
quiz.gif


Another repost? Oh, yeah![/quote]

Oh my! That bastard Kerry reported his buddies for war crimes instead of keeping it a dirty little secret.

I will definitely vote for Bush now!
 
[quote name='"Quackzilla']

Oh my! That bastard Kerry reported his buddies for war crimes instead of keeping it a dirty little secret.

I will definitely vote for Bush now![/quote]

Lets look at what he said.

From Today's NY Post:

THE SLANDER THAT MADE JOHN KERRY A STAR

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 23, 2004 -- Thirty-three years ago today, a young, unknown political activist named John F. Kerry sat down before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and unleashed a bitter verbal broadside against the war in Vietnam - and, with particularly harsh invective, against the young Americans who were fighting it.

Kerry charged that U.S. soldiers routinely committed the most gruesome of atrocities - "not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

The allegations electrified Washington - and made Kerry a national celebrity.

But the charges were slanderous lies.

"John Kerry's 1971 testimony slandered an entire generation of soldiers," writes military historian Mackubin Thomas Owens, who led a Marine infantry platoon into combat in Vietnam.

"He said in essence that his fellow veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course - indeed, that it was American policy to commit such atrocities," Owens writes.

The libel served Kerry well, though.


The better part of a half-century has passed; the nation is once again at war - and the junior senator from Massachusetts now stands as the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.

Surely it is no coincidence that now - after all these years - John F. Kerry is trying to rewrite the dialogue that attended his first moments in the national spotlight.

On "Meet the Press" last weekend, Kerry maintained that while his "words were honest," they were nonetheless "a little bit over the top."

No regrets.

No contrition.

And, certainly, no apology.

"A little bit over the top"?

Well, here's what the then-national spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War had to say on April 23, 1971:

"[U.S. servicemen] had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
Indeed, he charged, "[Americans] are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free-fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners - all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam."

Did these things really happen the way John Kerry said they did - routinely, as a matter of national policy?

In Oliver Stone movies, maybe.

Yes, some American soldiers committed atrocities. (Though even those crimes paled in comparison to those repeatedly perpetrated by the Vietcong, as an integral part of a decades-long terror campaign meant to coerce South Vietnamese support for the Communist side.)

But even as harsh a critic of U.S. policy as Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, has said that the men involved in the war's most notorious event, the My Lai massacre, knew that the killing there was "out of the ordinary. That is why [the soldiers] tried to hide the event."

But that's not what John Kerry told the Senate.

Kerry agreed with Jane Fonda, who declared - during a protest at which Kerry was the featured speaker - that "My Lai was not an isolated incident but rather a way of life for many of our military."

Kerry, to be entirely fair, didn't actually fashion his charges from whole cloth.

He took them from accounts included in the "Winter Soldier Investigation," a fabrication purportedly based on testimony from, in Kerry's words, "over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans."

That was odious nonsense.

"Winter Soldier" was, in fact, a set-up organized by a JFK-conspiracy theorist, the fabulist Mark Lane.

And it was quickly exposed as a lie by journalists James Reston and Neil Sheehan - themselves harsh critics of U.S. policy - who discovered that many of its supposed eyewitnesses never even served in Vietnam.

To date, John Kerry has never disavowed the Winter Soldier Investigation - or apologized for his role in propagating its notorious falsehoods.

Kerry has tried to explain away his slanderous charges by suggesting they were spontaneous - prompted by the heat of his anger over the war.

But it is now known that Kerry's speech was in fact carefully crafted by Adam Walinsky, a one-time Robert Kennedy aide and speechwriter - who also coached Kerry in how to deliver it for maximum emotional impact.

That is, for utmost political effect.

John Kerry, you see, had carefully planned a political career - and decided to use the war as his signature issue.

The year before he appeared before Congress, he'd entered a congressional race in Massachusetts. And he would exploit his sudden notoriety to move up the electoral ladder until he reached the Senate in 1985.

There are many ironies in Kerry's career, not the least of which being the fact that he's now running for president as the champion of the very same warriors he so viciously slandered 33 years ago.

Sen. Kerry can't bring himself to apologize for calling the men he purports to represent war criminals.

But he doesn't hesitate to hit them up for money.

"Most Americans are not familiar with John Kerry's Vietnam record," reads a current campaign solicitation that complains about "the Bush smear campaign in the press."

"Help us fight back by contributing [money]. And if you're a veteran . . . join Veterans for Kerry right now."

Not so fast.

As Mackubin Thomas Owens wrote in National Review, "What Kerry did after leaving the Navy constituted a breach of trust with his fellow veterans - because, to protest the war, he cast aspersions upon their conduct."

Insists Owens: "He should apologize."

Indeed he should.

*****

Quakzilla: Your comment indicting all America soldiers in committing war crimes is as unfounded as it is sickening.

Pat Tillman is looking at you with contempt right now.

And I am sure you have no idea who he is.

CTL
 
Did I say all?
No. I didn't use any reference to quantity.

Bush has a good record, though. He visited the base every time he had a dental appointment.



Btw, know whats funny?

Because I live in a primarily Republican area my vote doesn't count, thanks to that silly old electoral system.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Did I say all?
No. I didn't use any reference to quantity.

Bush has a good record, though. He visited the base every time he had a dental appointment.[/quote]

No, you didn't. You left it open and implied every single last one of them.

Really? You think Bush needed Tri-Care? You even know what Tri-Care is without doing a google search?

Go back to playing RPGs. You have offered nothing of value.

CTL
 
I mean the only records of him ever being near the base is his dental appointments and records.

And maybe he just did it to make a record...
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Because I live in a primarily Republican area my vote doesn't count, thanks to that silly old electoral system.[/quote]

Join the club. That 'silly old' electoral system means that my area will still probably wind up being for Kerry, even though you couldn't pay me enough to vote for him. We won't discuss the correlation between my locality's voting habits and their love of welfare and entitlements.
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Hereticked'][quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']Unless 49% of us vote for Kerry so the United States doesn't crash into a spiral downfall, but then the majority of votes is still for Bush so he'll win anyways, and yet all Americans deserve what's coming to them from GWB?[/quote]

The reason we're in this situation to begin with is apathy. Stupidity, ignorance and most of all apathy. If people were more informed and more people voted, Dubya would never have gotten into office in the first place.

We have a responsibility to educate people instead of just sitting back and letting douchebags like this guy promote widespread disinformation :

HANNITY.jpg


Any statistical analysis of the people who have 'not voted" in a presidential election over the last 40 years has confirmed the same person would have won in all but one, maybe two instances.

More to the point people should get more involved in state elections. As the Feds have properly cut funding to the states, the states with their bloated budgets have increased taxes to make up the shortfall.

The problem isn't "idiot Bush" the problem is idiot spending.

CTL

Apathy doesn't accomplish anything. We have to get politically active.[/quote][/quote]

The reason we're in this situation to begin with is because at first, people really didn't know what George W. Bush would do with the US. He had made many promises, broken most of them, kept a few, and made our budget spiral downward so far it will take possibly decades to restore the damage he's done. Granted, the war and 9/11 played a massive part in doing this, but all the hype he produced on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq turned out to be complete bullshit. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Now that people know what he's like, I certainly hope they won't vote for Bush again. All the Kerry voters are just simply saying that they are voting for him to keep Bush out. And people voting for Bush are re-electing him to keep Kerry out.
What we need is another candidate so that people can vote for who they really WANT, not just to prevent someone else from getting into office.
But saying that All americans deserve the punishments that Bush will no doubt put us through in the next 4 years if he's re-elected is ignorant, because not all americans voted for him in the first place, and as many as possible who are aware of the situation are voting to keep him out of office.
 
There is alot to correct here.

[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']The reason we're in this situation to begin with is because at first, people really didn't know what George W. Bush would do with the US. He had made many promises, broken most of them, kept a few, [/quote]

I would like you to cite some. While you do eventually conceede 9/11 was the single most defining momemnt of his presidency you give it very little weight in considering what plans he might have had to modify from his campaign.


[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']and made our budget spiral downward so far it will take possibly decades to restore the damage he's done. [/quote]

If you consider what the deficeit was under Reagan and Bush I, most people thought we would never grow out of it. Then bam, the late 1990's.

[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']Granted, the war and 9/11 played a massive part in doing this, but all the hype he produced on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq turned out to be complete bullshit. [/quote]

Just like the UN imposed 12 years of sanctions and Clinton used WMD as justification to cruise missle Iraq? That the result turned out that weapons didn't turn up, when the burden was on Hussein to prove they no longer possessed them does not change that in a post 9/11 world the US can't play to find out after the fact if there were or where not weapons.

[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Now that people know what he's like, I certainly hope they won't vote for Bush again. All the Kerry voters are just simply saying that they are voting for him to keep Bush out. And people voting for Bush are re-electing him to keep Kerry out.[/quote]

And that is why I will vote the way I will. For all the talk about Bush spending Kerry, if Congress goes along with him, will spend just as much and tax me to extinction.

[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']What we need is another candidate so that people can vote for who they really WANT, not just to prevent someone else from getting into office.[/quote]

Its a touching thought but not realistic.

[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']But saying that All americans deserve the punishments that Bush will no doubt put us through in the next 4 years if he's re-elected is ignorant, because not all americans voted for him in the first place, and as many as possible who are aware of the situation are voting to keep him out of office.[/quote]

This last statement made no sense.

CTL
 
I would like you to cite some. While you do eventually conceede 9/11 was the single most defining momemnt of his presidency you give it very little weight in considering what plans he might have had to modify from his campaign.
Click to expand...
I was not saying that Bush was making wrong decisions about his campaign and how he handled with the 9/11 attack. Many presidents would be seriously stressed out and would not know what to do and he handled it I think just fine. Setting up extra protection, making America more aware of attacks (because we have not had an attack like that since Pearl Harbor 1941), etc etc. What I was saying is the way he had caused this economy to go into a massive budget deficit.

If you consider what the deficeit was under Reagan and Bush I, most people thought we would never grow out of it. Then bam, the late 1990's
Click to expand...
.
i'm sorry, I meant to say at LEAST a decade. Currently we are owing at least hundreds of billions of dollars, and that number is still counting because Bush is too ignorant to send our troops back and save what we have left because it's clearly obvious that we're winning this war.

Just like the UN imposed 12 years of sanctions and Clinton used WMD as justification to cruise missle Iraq? That the result turned out that weapons didn't turn up, when the burden was on Hussein to prove they no longer possessed them does not change that in a post 9/11 world the US can't play to find out after the fact if there were or where not weapons.
Click to expand...

And that is why I will vote the way I will. For all the talk about Bush spending Kerry, if Congress goes along with him, will spend just as much and tax me to extinction.
Click to expand...
I'm glad that some americans are still voting for who they want, because the fact is i was merely pointing out that most that are voting are voting against someone in office right now, not actually for them. So if either wins, It's not like they were actually voted FOR, just the opposite against.

Its a touching thought but not realistic.
Click to expand...
That's why I was saying that what we need is something like that. Perhaps I didn't clarify enough that it may never happen, but it's a good suggestion which could probably save our country.

This last statement made no sense.
Click to expand...
Here, let me try to rephrase this for you in a way you can understand.
This statement was not made for you, it was made for the person who had said before that All americans are deserving of Bush's re-election in office if he is voted in, which is ignorant because not all the americans had voted for Bush in the first place. There is still controversy floating around for who was really elected President in the first place, Gore or Bush.

Please, I'm not much of a political debater and I don't want to start this into a flame-fest. People can have their opinions about politics how they want, but what I'm saying is
I vote against both of them.
 
There is still controversy floating around for who was really elected President in the first place, Gore or Bush.
Click to expand...

There is no contoversy, just a refusal by the left to accept the TRUTH, and a campaign to demean Bush's presidency.

Hanging chads elected clinton so why were they an issue with Bush? I am sure that if Gore would have won all of the black people would have not been "disenfranchised".

To put it simply Gore was a sore loser, crybaby who was so sure that he would win on the coattails of Clinton that he was driven into a state of denial after he lost.
 
No, there would be no reason to flame you. We are all entitled to our own opinions on these matters.

This statement was not made for you, it was made for the person who had said before that All americans are deserving of Bush's re-election in office if he is voted in, which is ignorant because not all the americans had voted for Bush in the first place. There is still controversy floating around for who was really elected President in the first place, Gore or Bush.
Click to expand...

I understand your point more fully now.

As for if Bush actually won, any number of national newspapers NYT/LATimes, et al. ran through every concievable scenario in Florida - Bush won ever one.

Only people who are bitter about Bush's win continue to maintain there is any discrepancy.

CTL
 
Recounting the votes until they come out in your favor is not a new political tactic. I know this because a family member in politics did the exact same thing. They didn't have enough votes to win, took it to court and got recounts until they did. I use 'they' to protect the not-so-innocent.

Gore tried the same thing. Every count showed Bush winning. Gore wanted the recount until it swung into his favor.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Look to the Constitution, which branch of government controls the purse strings?

Is it the executive, legislative or judicial?[/quote]

Don't be coy.

If you're paying attention, than you know proper checks and balances are not being exercised and that the executive branch has more power today than it perhaps ever has. What this Administration asks for, it gets.


[quote name='CTLesq']If people were more informed?

More people are informed in 2004 than in any time in history. That argument is very hollow.

If people, don't care, good, it means my vote counts that much more.

If they can't be interested in ensuring their own well being why should I?[/quote]

No, your response is what's hollow.

More people are watching cable news and listening to ditto-head talk radio than ever, that doesn't mean they're informed. In most cases they're being disinformed.

And just listen to what you're saying... you don't CARE that apathy has become the norm or that people are tricked into voting against their own interests and/or becoming so sick of all the lies that they don't vote at all? Doesn't sound to me like what the founders of this nation had in mind. And they certainly wouldn't have just sat on their asses and said "Oh, well, let them eat cake."


[quote name='CTLesq']
[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']What we need is another candidate so that people can vote for who they really WANT, not just to prevent someone else from getting into office.[/quote]

Its a touching thought but not realistic.[/quote]

Bingo.


[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']But saying that All americans deserve the punishments that Bush will no doubt put us through in the next 4 years if he's re-elected is ignorant, because not all americans voted for him in the first place, and as many as possible who are aware of the situation are voting to keep him out of office.[/quote]

No, it's really not.

If we, as a people, have become so stupid that a majority of us will re-elect a group of THUGS that are systemtically destroying our nation with atrocious foreign and fiscal policy, then ROME DOES INDEED DESERVE TO BURN.
 
If we, as a people, have become so stupid that a majority of us will re-elect a group of THUGS that are systemtically destroying our nation with atrocious foreign and fiscal policy
Click to expand...

I bet the nation wouldn't be stupid and uninformed if they would have elected a democrat. :roll:
 
You [PsyClerk] just made that up on the sport because you blindly support Republicans and will lie to cover anything they do wrong.

Moron.
 
[quote name='Hereticked']ROME DOES INDEED DESERVE TO BURN.[/quote]

I always love the US-Roman Empire comparisons. It adds such a dramatic flair!

Of course, it makes the person who uses it look foolish, but hey, style over substance, right?
 
[quote name='Hereticked']Don't be coy.[/quote]

Why not? Its fun.

[quote name='Hereticked']If you're paying attention, than you know proper checks and balances are not being exercised and that the executive branch has more power today than it perhaps ever has. What this Administration asks for, it gets.[/quote]

And its an abuse because? I was unaware in order to avoid "abuse" Congress, which is the same party as the President must vote against him?


[quote name='Hereticked']
No, your response is what's hollow.

More people are watching cable news and listening to ditto-head talk radio than ever, that doesn't mean they're informed. In most cases they're being disinformed.[/quote]

Oh, really? Because YOU don't agree with what the pundits are saying? I don't agree with what they are saying, but I am not foolish enough to think because I may disagree with them, that they are any less entitled to push their agenda.

[quote name='Hereticked']And just listen to what you're saying... you don't CARE that apathy has become the norm or that people are tricked into voting against their own interests and/or becoming so sick of all the lies that they don't vote at all? [/quote]

FYI, I am 31. I have voted in every possible election I have ever been eligble for. I don't care that other people don't give a crap because those people don't share my own self interest.

People are being tricked into voting against their self interest? I would like to see the numbers on that empty rhetoric.

[quote name='Hereticked']Doesn't sound to me like what the founders of this nation had in mind. And they certainly wouldn't have just sat on their asses and said "Oh, well, let them eat cake."[/quote]

The founding fathers would agree people have just as much right NOT to vote as they have TO vote.


[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']If we, as a people, have become so stupid that a majority of us will re-elect a group of THUGS that are systemtically destroying our nation with atrocious foreign and fiscal policy, then ROME DOES INDEED DESERVE TO BURN.[/quote]

Nice opinion, thanks for stating it as fact. Here is my opinion. You are wrong.

CTL
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']You [PsyClerk] just made that up on the sport because you blindly support Republicans and will lie to cover anything they do wrong.

Moron.[/quote]

Sounds exactly like you. Ironic.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
If we, as a people, have become so stupid that a majority of us will re-elect a group of THUGS that are systemtically destroying our nation with atrocious foreign and fiscal policy
Click to expand...

I bet the nation wouldn't be stupid and uninformed if they would have elected a democrat. :roll:[/quote]


If that's the best response you can come up with, I think I know why you're a Bush supporter.

Furthermore, I never implied anything like that. In case you couldn't tell, I'm not exactly thrilled with my candidate.

But when you have the choice of "Beholden to Corporations" and "Beholden to Corporations AND destroying the country through their sheer stupidity".......... it's not really that tough a decision.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']You [PsyClerk] just made that up on the sport because you blindly support Republicans and will lie to cover anything they do wrong.

Moron.[/quote]

Yes, everything that proves you wrong CANNOT be right.

I don't blindly support Republicans. I'm more Libertarian leaning.

Welcome to the real world, bitch. Bend over and brace yourself.
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Hereticked']Don't be coy.[/quote]

Why not? Its fun.

[quote name='Hereticked']If you're paying attention, than you know proper checks and balances are not being exercised and that the executive branch has more power today than it perhaps ever has. What this Administration asks for, it gets.[/quote]

And its an abuse because? I was unaware in order to avoid "abuse" Congress, which is the same party as the President must vote against him?


[quote name='Hereticked']
No, your response is what's hollow.

More people are watching cable news and listening to ditto-head talk radio than ever, that doesn't mean they're informed. In most cases they're being disinformed.[/quote]

Oh, really? Because YOU don't agree with what the pundits are saying? I don't agree with what they are saying, but I am not foolish enough to think because I may disagree with them, that they are any less entitled to push their agenda.

[quote name='Hereticked']And just listen to what you're saying... you don't CARE that apathy has become the norm or that people are tricked into voting against their own interests and/or becoming so sick of all the lies that they don't vote at all? [/quote]

FYI, I am 31. I have voted in every possible election I have ever been eligble for. I don't care that other people don't give a crap because those people don't share my own self interest.

People are being tricked into voting against their self interest? I would like to see the numbers on that empty rhetoric.

[quote name='Hereticked']Doesn't sound to me like what the founders of this nation had in mind. And they certainly wouldn't have just sat on their asses and said "Oh, well, let them eat cake."[/quote]

The founding fathers would agree people have just as much right NOT to vote as they have TO vote.


[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']If we, as a people, have become so stupid that a majority of us will re-elect a group of THUGS that are systemtically destroying our nation with atrocious foreign and fiscal policy, then ROME DOES INDEED DESERVE TO BURN.[/quote]

Nice opinion, thanks for stating it as fact. Here is my opinion. You are wrong.

CTL[/quote]

For the last quote, bud, it was not ME who stated that, but Hereticked ^ if you can clearly quote correctly. And again, I don't want to be a part of a political flaming war debate.

I'm not saying that I still think there's controversy in the recount, I'm simply saying that SOME people think it's an incorrect recount for who initially won the election.
Please, don't blame everything on me and put me into this.
 
I like how Kerry says he will take back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I wonder how Kerry's wife will react to that. I believe this is how the conversation would go between Kerry and his wife.

"John honey, do you know how much tax I will have to pay on my $550 million?"
"Baby you know I won’t raise taxes for the wealthy. I just said that to get elected."
"You don't want me to be unhappy."
"I know how you are with your money. You didn't even let me use any of your money for my presidential campaign."
.......
 
[quote name='spoo']I like how Kerry says he will take back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I wonder how Kerry's wife will react to that. I believe this is how the conversation would go between Kerry and his wife.

"John honey, do you know how much tax I will have to pay on my $550 million?"
"Baby you know I won’t raise taxes for the wealthy. I just said that to get elected."
"You don't want me to be unhappy."
"I know how you are with your money. You didn't even let me use any of your money for my presidential campaign."
.......[/quote]

The way Kerry defines wealthy its going to screw virtually everyone.

200K isn't what it used to be.

CTL
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']I always love the US-Roman Empire comparisons. It adds such a dramatic flair!

Of course, it makes the person who uses it look foolish, but hey, style over substance, right?[/quote]

You know what REALLY makes a person look foolish? When they take irrelevent and opinionated pot shots at people because they're incapable of actually debating.


[quote name='CTLesq']And its an abuse because? I was unaware in order to avoid "abuse" Congress, which is the same party as the President must vote against him?[/quote]

Fair point. The corruption is equally as prevelant in congress as it is in the administration, and they roll over much too easily, that's their responsibility of course.... to actually study the issues rather than just go with the party line. But cmon... are you telling me you don't think this administration has dirt on a good number of these congressmen and senators?


[quote name='CTLesq']Oh, really? Because YOU don't agree with what the pundits are saying?[/quote]

No, because they don't present the whole story or they just outright lie.


[quote name='CTLesq']People are being tricked into voting against their self interest? I would like to see the numbers on that empty rhetoric.[/quote]

Well if you know it's so "empty", I guess that means you just assume it can't or doesn't happen....

That's quite a delusion you live in.


[quote name='CTLesq']The founding fathers would agree people have just as much right NOT to vote as they have TO vote.[/quote]

Sure. But they wouldn't agree that corporations have the right to influence both politicians and the way the news is reported to the point that it has made society completely disfunctional and people so jaded that theyve lost all faith in their country and its system of governance.


[quote name='CTLesq']
Nice opinion, thanks for stating it as fact. Here is my opinion. You are wrong.[/quote]

Thanks for misinterpreting my statement as a fact when it very clearly was just my opinion.

Thanks for your opinion. I'll go wipe my ass with it now.
 
[quote name='spoo']I like how Kerry says he will take back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I wonder how Kerry's wife will react to that. I believe this is how the conversation would go between Kerry and his wife.

"John honey, do you know how much tax I will have to pay on my $550 million?"
"Baby you know I won?t raise taxes for the wealthy. I just said that to get elected."
"You don't want me to be unhappy."
"I know how you are with your money. You didn't even let me use any of your money for my presidential campaign."
.......[/quote]

That sounds bout right.
 
We are merely exchanging long protein strings. If you can think of a simpler way, I'd like to hear it.

:)

If only there were a simpler way for the US to get all its issues resolved...
 
So, so angry.

[quote name='Hereticked']Fair point. The corruption is equally as prevelant in congress as it is in the administration, and they roll over much too easily, that's their responsibility of course.... to actually study the issues rather than just go with the party line. But cmon... are you telling me you don't think this administration has dirt on a good number of these congressmen and senators?[/quote]

I think the Republicans are enjoying controlling both sides of government for the first time in 50 some odd years.

Roll over? When they share the same views and beliefs? Again you want constriction for the sake of constriction.

[quote name='Hereticked']No, because they don't present the whole story or they just outright lie.[/quote]

I'd like to see where they have "lied". I was unaware that Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or NBC had to present excuplatory evidence to their positions. This isn't court.


[quote name='Hereticked']Well if you know it's so "empty", I guess that means you just assume it can't or doesn't happen....[/quote]

Well if you can't provide any evidence of it, can I come to any other conclusion?

[quote name='Hereticked']That's quite a delusion you live in.[/quote]

No, I just value preserving my own way of life - even at the expense of yours and don't apologize for it.


[quote name='Hereticked']Sure. But they wouldn't agree that corporations have the right to influence both politicians and the way the news is reported to the point that it has made society completely disfunctional and people so jaded that theyve lost all faith in their country and its system of governance.[/quote]

Three different issues:

1. Corporations are no different than people. Their right to pursue their own agenda is an absolute right.
2. Consolidation of news - you blame Bush for that? How far a field are you going to go to blame him for everything? I don't like Bush, but I at least understand he isn't the seed of evil.
3. If people lose faith its because they are idiots. Thats not my fault. I am delighted when people don't vote - it increases my infleunce.

[quote name='Hereticked']Thanks for misinterpreting my statement as a fact when it very clearly was just my opinion.

Thanks for your opinion. I'll go wipe my ass with it now.[/quote]

Very mature. Enjoy your day.

CTL
 
[quote name='magilacudy']We are merely exchanging long protein strings. If you can think of a simpler way, I'd like to hear it.

:)

[/quote]

Heh. Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For Kodos!
 
So, so blind.

[quote name='CTLesq']Roll over? When they share the same views and beliefs?[/quote]

Generalization and you know it. No two congressmen or senators share the exact same beliefs and values. Some of them don't even have the beliefs they advertise. But they vote for bills they dont necessarily agree with, too often, for favors later or services already rendered.

[quote name='Hereticked']I'd like to see where they have "lied". I was unaware that Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or NBC had to present excuplatory evidence to their positions. This isn't court.[/quote]

No, it's not court. But it isn't the job of the media to distort, put their own spin on things, or to blatantly misinform. Their job is to report the news, the whole truth, nothing more. That isn't being done.

Idealistic in this day and age? Maybe. But the only reason is seems so is because of the dumbing down of expectations and the jadedness which I spoke of before.


[quote name='Hereticked']No, I just value preserving my own way of life - even at the expense of yours and don't apologize for it.[/quote]

Your way of life is going to end whether you win or lose. But I'm one of the people who's going to make sure you don't.


[quote name='CTLesq']1. Corporations are no different than people. Their right to pursue their own agenda is an absolute right.[/quote]

WRONG.

Corporations are not like people, they are entities created at the leisure of we the people and we decide the rules that govern them. We create the infrastucture and markets that they use to profit, we decide how and when they can operate. And if they are harming our society in any way, we have the right to destroy them.


[quote name='CTLesq']2. Consolidation of news - you blame Bush for that? How far a field are you going to go to blame him for everything?[/quote]

Don't put words in my mouth, i am not laying the blame for that SQUARELY on this administration/congress. However they DID just pass a law allowing for the further growth of the already huge media companies, if you recall.


[quote name='CTLesq']I don't like Bush, but I at least understand he isn't the seed of evil.[/quote]

Bush isn't evil, he's simply stupid and worthless. He's a puppet controlled by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Wolfowitz. If you're naive to that, you don't understand ANYTHING thats going on.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='chosen1s'][quote name='coffman']I find it amusing that the Republicans were calling foul when the Democrats were accusing Bush of dodging the draft by entering the national guard and possibly not serving all of his time, yet they feel it is ok to question whether or not Kerry earned his purple hearts in Vietnam. This cartoon sums it all up:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/analysis/toons/2004/04/22/mitchell/index.html[/quote]

The problem with Kerry's purple heart is not whether or not he "deserved" it, the problem is that he claimed several times that the records are all available to the public. Then, when a reporter went to do some fact-checking (believe it or not, he actually wanted to check for facts) he found that the records are sealed and not available.

The question is "What is Kerry hiding and why did he lie?" -- Not "is the purple heart ligitimate?"[/quote]


The answer is Kerry is hiding nothing since he released everything, which is more than Bush has done.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4790712/[/quote]

My point exactly. He claimed they were released and they weren't. Then he continued to claim they were available when in reality he is keeping them hidden. He is a liar and the public deserves to know what he is hiding. It has nothing to do with his purple heart. I'm sure it is well-deserved. But he is intentionally lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top