NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are you voting for George Bush.

The GOP gives off the impression that there actually isn't a good reason to vote for Bush, which is why they are so adamant about their smear tactics.

I'm just posting here so I know who to severely pound for selecting "Domestic Issues".

Why are you voting for George Bush.

@#$%^&! Why didn't you make it so that it shows who votes for what?!

The GOP gives off the impression that there actually isn't a good reason to vote for Bush, which is why they are so adamant about their smear tactics.

What about Kerry's smear tactics?

This might have done better as a check more than one box poll. Seeing as how the whole Bush package is an orgasm in a can for most bible-thumping neocons.

The GOP gives off the impression that there actually isn't a good reason to vote for Bush, which is why they are so adamant about their smear tactics.


Lol it can also be said that the DNC only gives off the impression that Kerry is good because he is not bush :) just a fact with this damn election

Well, there is a significant difference, in my opinion, between the attacks.

"Vote for Kerry because Bush is irresponsible with the budget and didn't handle Iraq well."

as opposed to

"Vote for Bush becasue Kerry offers civil rights for gays (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/gaymarriage.htm)."

I mean seriously...

Well, there is a significant difference, in my opinion, between the attacks.

"Vote for Kerry because Bush is irresponsible with the budget and didn't handle Iraq well."

as opposed to

"Vote for Bush becasue Kerry offers civil rights for gays (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/gaymarriage.htm)."

I mean seriously...

I see no difference! A smear campaign is a smear campaign. Both sides have been using smear tactics against the other. That is why I've been muting every single political commercial because I'm tired of both parties attack ads.

Well, there is a significant difference, in my opinion, between the attacks.

"Vote for Kerry because Bush is irresponsible with the budget and didn't handle Iraq well."

as opposed to

"Vote for Bush becasue Kerry offers civil rights for gays (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/gaymarriage.htm)."

I mean seriously...


Not that much one has the opinion on wars other on civil groups ( love how you linked one not the other “smear” campaign, and the fact that you picked an “innocent” one on one side and the other is probably one of the worst on the right)


Sorry tired and not making myself clear but seriously they are both different sides of the same coins

I see no difference! A smear campaign is a smear campaign. Both sides have been using smear tactics against the other. That is why I've been muting every single political commercial because I'm tired of both parties attack ads.


Hear hear!
They are both so much the same
So sickening

What about Kerry's smear tactics?

They are mostly based on facts.

as opposed to

"Vote for Bush becasue Kerry offers civil rights for gays (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/gaymarriage.htm)."

I mean seriously...
And that's one of the more "civilised" smears!

Not that much one has the opinion on wars other on civil groups ( love how you linked one not the other “smear” campaign, and the fact that you picked an “innocent” one on one side and the other is probably one of the worst on the right)


Sorry tired and not making myself clear but seriously they are both different sides of the same coins

Well, I must admit I'm probably not very good at finding some really strong bias against George W. Bush, however, consider Fahrenheit 9/11 an example for the first issue I presented. Anyway, show me some smear tactic that you don't like that the DNC has used, and I can probably find something worse (and less factual) that the GOP has used.

"Vote for Bush becasue Kerry offers civil rights for gays (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/gaymarriage.htm)."

I mean seriously...

That was an attack?! Wow. Just watching that actually made me enthusiastic about voting for Kerry.

All this time I thought I was supporting "the lesser of two evils". Now it turns out that he might actually be tolerant and have a socially progressive agenda. Cool!

Well, I must admit I'm probably not very good at finding some really strong bias against George W. Bush, however, consider Fahrenheit 9/11 an example for the first issue I presented. Anyway, show me some smear tactic that you don't like that the DNC has used, and I can probably find something worse (and less factual) that the GOP has used.


Lol you mistake me im not trying to say the GOB doesn’t do bad … just that both sides have their hands dirty. I agree the GOP is “dirtier” but neither side have “clean” hands.

But because people have their views challenged they tend to get defensive if they are personally challenged and hide behind party lines. Which leads to all the bad things like side attacking side and people refusing to listen to logic

All very silly stuff

Are you saying the the GOP has dirtier hands than the Democrats?
John Kerry and John Edwards attacked Dick Cheneys Lesbian Duaghter and the entire CBS, Bushes record related Scam, Originated high up in the Kerry Campaign!!!! If that isn't dirty Democrat hands, I don't know what is!!

I don't know where I saw it, but a few days ago I saw a story describing the use of negative ads in the campaign. Turns out that bush has used something like 73% negative ads and kerry has used something in the 20 to 30% range. I'm going to try to find it, but if anyone else has seen it, it'd be good to have the link up here.

Edit: found it http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=190.html

1) No one attacked Cheney's daughter.

2) No one said the Democrats have clean hands. We're only saying the Republicans' hands are dirtier.

1) No one attacked Cheney's daughter.

2) No one said the Democrats have clean hands. We're only saying the Republicans' hands are dirtier.

1) Have you ignored the news networks entirely. I'm not American and even I have seen that Cheney's daughter's orientation became a big deal, and was mentioned by Edwards in a debate, and maybe, by Kerry (I haven't actually seen a clip of Kerry mentioning it, but was told second hand).

2) What? Fahrenheit 9/11 was probably the worst attack ad I've seen yet. I say ad, because it didn't present anything remotely approaching and unbiased documentary. It was nothing but was nothing but a massive smear ad against Bush based on half-truths and broad, unsubstantiated assertions, dressing itself up as a documentary.

1) Have you ignored the news networks entirely. I'm not American and even I have seen that Cheney's daughter's orientation became a big deal, and was mentioned by Edwards in a debate, and maybe, by Kerry (I haven't actually seen a clip of Kerry mentioning it, but was told second hand).

2) What? Fahrenheit 9/11 was probably the worst attack ad I've seen yet. I say ad, because it didn't present anything remotely approaching and unbiased documentary. It was nothing but was nothing but a massive smear ad against Bush based on half-truths and broad, unsubstantiated assertions, dressing itself up as a documentary.
1) A statement of the facts is not an attack. And in fact, Edwards and Kerry have both compliment the Cheney family and their treatment of Cheney's daughter, which is quite the opposite. What you're doing now is an example of Republican smearing.

2) That's because you haven't seen this (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com) yet.

Yes, but we all know that anything that comes from Michael Moore is little more than a load of cow dung.

By the way, I suppose you have all ignored that fact that, historically, the Democrats have been found responsible for the majority of cases of voter fraud? Yes, the GOP plays dirty, but to actually claim that they are "dirtier", as I believe someone put it, is really quite foolish.

Honestly, if you think either of these candidates, or either party in general, is going to be honest with you about their intentions, then you have allowed yourself to be sadly misled. Consider, for instance, that Kerry has played upon Bysh's spending, and set himself as a more fiscal leader. However, according to his policies, he will actually be spending a little over 200 billion more than Bush already is, which will be offset by higher taxes. Is that really what you want?

Now, I can't stand either of them, but at least be unbiased enough to recognize the bullshit they feed you.

Yes, but we all know that anything that comes from Michael Moore is little more than a load of cow dung.

By the way, I suppose you have all ignored that fact that, historically, the Democrats have been found responsible for that majority of cases of voter fraud? Yes, the GOP plays dirty, but to actually claim that they are "dirtier", as I believe someone put it, is really quite foolish.



Now, I can't stand either of them, but at least be unbiased enough to recognize the bullshit they feed you.


Sorry I should have made it more clear to those that can’t understand the context the statement was in.

We were pertaining to this current election … and even more specifically advertising.


Sorry I should have made it more clear for you

The GOP has been urging groups like Rock the Vote to stop getting people to register.

Now, I can't stand either of them, but at least be unbiased enough to recognize the bullshit they feed you.
I'm assuming that you're implying that I'm fed bullshit. If you knew me better, you'd find that you're quite mistaken.

They are mostly based on facts.
Nice to see you admit that they are somewhat based on lies.

Nice to see you admit that they are somewhat based on lies.
Which is better than being somewhat based on facts and mostly based on lies.

2) What? Fahrenheit 9/11 was probably the worst attack ad I've seen yet. I say ad, because it didn't present anything remotely approaching and unbiased documentary. It was nothing but was nothing but a massive smear ad against Bush based on half-truths and broad, unsubstantiated assertions, dressing itself up as a documentary.
That was Michael Moore, not the Democrats.

That was Michael Moore, not the Democrats.
That's a terrible argument because I'm pointing out the creator of an anti-Kerry website, not the GOP.

Although, I must also point out that Moore (and Bill Maher for that matter) never vote democrat, but have said they are voted for Kerry this election because they feel that getting Bush out is that important.

I'm not American and can't vote.I admit Bush isn't exactly the best president ever, but if I could I would vote Bush for these reasons:

1) Iraq- Sadaam was a tyrant who butchered his own people, he needed to be stopped. I don't care about WMDs and never did. I think the WMDs were probably just used to gain support from apathetic people. How can we just stand by as a leader butchers his own people? That's immoral. I may not agree with some of the methods or decisions made surrounding the Iraq war (What idiot deceided to disband the Iraqi army?), but at least he had the guts to do what is right. Sadly, politicians with convictions and strength to work on there convictions are sorely lacking. The Middle East is a powder keg waiting to explode (just like the Balkans in the early 1900's). The more stable democracies we have in the area, the better.

2) Space program- Mankind will soon have need to expand. We are running out of room and out of resources, space has both. We should start working on the space program as soon as possible. Bush wants to start with the space program. That is good.

3) Foresight- Bush may not be a genius, but he is looking ahead. He's not just looking at short-sighted solutions and how he'll do in the next poll, but is doing things that are planning for the future (such as Iraq and the space program). I like that.

4) John Kerry- I trust him less than Bush (not that I trust Bush very much). I have watched him a few times and he never seems to have a clear stance and never seems to have any convictions. From what I've seen he just seems to follow whatever he thinks is popular. I will admit though that I may not have seen enough to make this judgement.

5) Bush's detractors- These people tick me off. Their use of pathetic slogans (No Blood for Oil!) and drastic simplifications anger me. Their apathy towards others lack of freedom and their peace at any cost attitude disturbs me. Their petty attacks and comparisons (Bush is Hitler!) annoy me. Their lack of truth is disturbing (this one's mainly directed at Micheal Moore and his followers). I admit the Republicans have fought dirty, but the way Bush's dectractors have acted... Anyway, all other things being equal, I might have sided with Bush solely because of his dectractors.

The GOP has been urging groups like Rock the Vote to stop getting people to register.
Why would anyone want someone to vote who is not even motivated enough to register themself? No vote at all is better than one that is not based on an informed opinion. There is nothing wrong with leaving blanks on a ballot if you are unfamiliar with the issue.

2) That's because you haven't seen this (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com) yet.

Maybe I'm just not offended by that because I:

1) Think gay couples are really cute (except the ones they showed in the flash, who looked more like Nazis)
2) Can clearly see how full of crap there homosexual insinuations are about Kerry and Edwards (and Kennedy)
3) Don't see anything wrong about being socialy progressive or "liberal"


-----
If you want Republican smear campaigns, think the half-truth ads about "flip-flopping on votes", and... well that's all I've seen since I don't watch TV (at all anymore).
The swiftboat campaigns and that flash movie you keep ragging about don't constitute smear campaigns as they aren't endorsed (officially) by the Republican party.

I haven't seen any Democratic smear campaigns, as Fahrenheit (I can spell "Fahrenheit" now! :D) 9/11 isn't endorsed by Kerry (and is certifiable bullshit), and the comments in the debate weren't ads/smears.

As for the debate comment, I was initially shocked, but [anyone] can easily discern the messages he was attempting to convey; homosexuality isn't a choice, and even the vice president disagrees with the president's proposition for a "constitutional" (ha!) ammendment.

Why would anyone want someone to vote who is not even motivated enough to register themself? No vote at all is better than one that is not based on an informed opinion. There is nothing wrong with leaving blanks on a ballot if you are unfamiliar with the issue.
The number one reason that young people don't vote is because they don't really realize the impact that it has on themselves. Rock the Vote is a program designed to motivate young people to register to vote and then educate themselves to make an informed vote. The GOP doesn't like this idea.

1) A statement of the facts is not an attack. And in fact, Edwards and Kerry have both compliment the Cheney family and their treatment of Cheney's daughter, which is quite the opposite. What you're doing now is an example of Republican smearing.

2) That's because you haven't seen this (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com) yet.

1) Maybe your right, but I don't see why they had to bring it up at all. Public figures families should be left alone (Unless they bring themselves into the campaign in a visible and explicit way).

2) A few people on the internet. I bet I can find stuff many times worse on the internet concerning Bush.

Maybe I'm just not offended by that because I:

1) Think gay couples are really cute (except the ones they showed in the flash, who looked more like Nazis)
2) Can clearly see how full of crap there homosexual insinuations are about Kerry and Edwards (and Kennedy)
3) Don't see anything wrong about being socialy progressive or "liberal"


-----
If you want Republican smear campaigns, think the half-truth ads about "flip-flopping on votes", and... well that's all I've seen since I don't watch TV (at all anymore).
The swiftboat campaigns and that flash movie you keep ragging about don't constitute smear campaigns as they aren't endorsed (officially) by the Republican party.

I haven't seen any Democratic smear campaigns, as Fahrenheit (I can spell "Fahrenheit" now! :D) 9/11 isn't endorsed by Kerry (and is certifiable bullshit), and the comments in the debate weren't ads/smears.

As for the debate comment, I was initially shocked, but [anyone] can easily discern the messages he was attempting to convey; homosexuality isn't a choice, and even the vice president disagrees with the president's proposition for a "constitutional" (ha!) ammendment.

I must say I'm a little confused by this post...or actually confused as to why you quoted me then said what you said.

Why would anyone want someone to vote who is not even motivated enough to register themself? No vote at all is better than one that is not based on an informed opinion. There is nothing wrong with leaving blanks on a ballot if you are unfamiliar with the issue.

No, I think the insinuation is that apathetic teens, college, and grad students have developed a pessimistic and jaded view with regards to voting, and though they both see reason for distrust and dislike of both candidates as well as not believe that their votes matter, they usually vote on the Democrat ticket.

1) Maybe your right, but I don't see why they had to bring it up at all. Public figures families should be left alone (Unless they bring themselves into the campaign in a visible and explicit way).

2) A few people on the internet. I bet I can find stuff many times worse on the internet concerning Bush.
1) So...Cheney's hypocrisy can't be brought into light because his daughter isn't as big a part of the campaign as Cheney himself?

2) Then find it and show the anti-Bush propaganda/bias to me. Don't just talk about it.

I must say I'm a little confused by this post...or actually confused as to why you quoted me then said what you said.

can you elaborate? The only reason why I'm doing anything online is because I'm procrastinating severely (as usual).

1) So...Cheney's hypocrisy can't be brought into light because his daughter isn't as big a part of the campaign as Cheney himself?

Cheney DOESN'T support the ammendment to the constitution. He is a real Republican, at least in the sense that he believes the decision should be made by the states.

Personally, I would go even farther as a "real Republican", and remove ALL of the benefits of marriage/having children.

The government shouldn't be rewarding you for "getting married", as probably half of the people (vaguely based on divorce statistics) not only never work out, but also probably aren't basing their marriage/relationships on what's important (i.e. love). Also, it's a waste of tax dollars, that could be going to fund the military/homeland security or education (depending on your views).

1) So...Cheney's hypocrisy can't be brought into light because his daughter isn't as big a part of the campaign as Cheney himself?

2) Then find it and show the anti-Bush propaganda/bias to me. Don't just talk about it.

1) How's it hypocrisy. Those against homosexuality (usually, I know there are some idiot bigots who hate for the fun of hating) don't hate homosexuals, they just believe that homosexual acts are a sin (like adultry, masturbation, fornication, etc). They (usually) have a love the sinner hate the sin attitude. He can be anti-homosexulity and still love his daughter. But that's a different topic and has probably been done to death.

2) Here's one http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html
here's a list of links http://www.linkcrusader.com/anti-bush.htm#BUMPER%20STICKERS
or how about this http://www.anitaroddick.com/weblog/weblogdetail.jsp?title=null&id=831 That should be enough.

can you elaborate? The only reason why I'm doing anything online is because I'm procrastinating severely (as usual).
Uh...you acted as if I was against Kerry or err...whatever I don't know. You didn't understand the implications of my post.

2) Here's one http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html
here's a list of links http://www.linkcrusader.com/anti-bush.htm#BUMPER%20STICKERS
or how about this http://www.anitaroddick.com/weblog/weblogdetail.jsp?title=null&id=831 That should be enough.
The first link is a game. While it's pretty rough on Bush, it doesn't exactly put itself off as serious and informative like this guy (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com) does.

The third link is a list of poems meant to be humorous. Again, the site doesn't put itself off as serious or informative.

The second link is full of links that don't put themselves off as serious or informative except for a section of 25 links collected as a section of "Serious Articles." Of those serious articles, some of them are broken links, some focus on the Democrats and what they need to do (making them quite the opposite of smear ads), some of them are articles put out by the GOP (which shouldn't count as smear tactics of the DNC), but there are a few that are genuine smear tactics, however, I would like for you to do the work and read through them and point out one of them that is as bad or worse then this (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/) site. I'm not interested in reading through all that trash just to find something to help you argue your case.

You didn't say anything about it having to be serious a smear is a smear. But I don't want to waste time ploughing through everything because I got a bus to catch. Sorry.

You didn't say anything about it having to be serious a smear is a smear. But I don't want to waste time ploughing through everything because I got a bus to catch. Sorry.
This site (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/) puts itself forth as honest, serious, and non-biased. A flash cartoon shouldn't be taken seriously.

If I could vote, I would be voting for George Bush because I trust him more in handling the war on terror!

Here is a great example of the difference between the two smear campaigns:

John Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam, and may or may not have earned his medals, (he did according to those he served with). Republicans are still ripping on his war record, and the Swift Boat Veterans never really got discredited.

George Bush signed up for the National Guard to avoid the war, may or may not have gone AWOL, (no evidence truly proves otherwise) and definitely spent most of his service doing non-military activities in another state. Dan Rather almost loses his job, the topic is a nonissue now, and Bush is seen as a strong patriotic man.

Seems kind of lopsided to me.

It's really a mixture of the first three for me. However, without security, all else is futile, as we are reminded in Iraq right now.

That was an attack?! Wow. Just watching that actually made me enthusiastic about voting for Kerry.

All this time I thought I was supporting "the lesser of two evils". Now it turns out that he might actually be tolerant and have a socially progressive agenda. Cool!


why is tolerance allowed for everything except white ,middle-class ,christian opinion?

Well, there is a significant difference, in my opinion, between the attacks.

"Vote for Kerry because Bush is irresponsible with the budget and didn't handle Iraq well."

as opposed to

"Vote for Bush becasue Kerry offers civil rights for gays (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/gaymarriage.htm)."

I mean seriously...

I think the point of that vid was the hypocrisy of him acting conservatively about gay rights in this campaign.

You apparently don't watch very many of the ads if you can say things like this.

Kerry ad: Bush will institute the draft, Bush betrayed America, Bush is profiting off of the war on terrror with haliburton, Bush knew about 9/11 before, Bush has the worst economy ever, Bush is making the world hate us. Bush bla bla bla bla... Conspiracy theories are not valid arguments.

Bush ad: VOTES AND QUOTES

OMG, how dare Bush attack his RECORD?????? That's out of bounds!

Okay, I'm exaggerating, and, yes, both sides distort, but if you're going to compare whose attacks are more slanderous, definitely Kerry.

If I could vote, I would be voting for George Bush because I trust him more in handling the war on terror!

That's exactly why not just anyone is allowed to vote.

The guy has completly screwed up the "war on terror." About the only plan he has that has any hope of working is his plan to institute mandatory health screening in public schools as a hand out to the drug companies. I'm against the principle of such a scheme, but it's hard to argue with its side-effects.

Put everyone on Prozac and the "war on terror" will be won with a single shot. If you're chemically incapable of feeling terror, then no terrorism. Also, if people can't feel fear then they can't be motivated to vote republican.
"John Kerry wants to abolish the army and make Sadam Hussein secretary of the treasury? Thas kewl man, they say he's good with money." :cool:
"John Kerry's gonna make gay marriage mandatory? eh, it'll be nice to have a wife that doesn't mind me cheating." :fluffle:

why is tolerance allowed for everything except white ,middle-class ,christian opinion?

So you are suggesting we be tolerant to religious beliefs that are intolerant?

I am personally very tolerant of Christian views and morals. However, I am intolerant of anyone who discriminates against someone who, by christian terms, is different by the hand of God only.

why is tolerance allowed for everything except white ,middle-class ,christian opinion?
John Kerry is a white Christian last time i checked. So i think you can trust him to tolerate that.

John Kerry is a white Christian last time i checked. So i think you can trust him to tolerate that.

He's a catholic. I doubt he's a Christian.

He's a catholic. I doubt he's a Christian.

...That's a joke, right?

He's a catholic. I doubt he's a Christian.

Please, enough of your internal Christian denomination squabbles... It's...pathetic...really... just so pathetic. I mean, all the magical fantasy crap you want to believe in, fine, and all the hateful and bigoted misconceptions you get from the Bible, fine, but quit with the "he's not Christian".

Who died and made you king? Who says you can say what's "Christian" and what isn't? Only one person died and was made King, and that was Jesus (and Elvis). You have no right to rebuke someone else's interpretation's of the holy word, especially on various trivial subjects which Jesus would obviously have made clear (or God would have put in the 10 commandments) if they were really that important.

As for "allowing tolerance" to bigots/racists/homophobes who claim sanctuary under the term "Christian" "middle class" or "white" (not that I'm very much moved by any of those terms, even though I fall under the latter two), they simply fail to grasp the purpose of America and the fundamental ideal of seperation of church and state.
Your personal and religious (mental delusions, philisophies, whatever) don't matter in a republican institution (you are a Republican, aren't you?) that is created to ensure rights to all individuals, and in a democratic institution, it seems you lose the arguement as well.
I.e. you are the weakest, dumbest, most ignorant link, and though you can whine, bitch, complain, and voice your opinions as much as you want, the state and federal government will not, ney, cannot, allow you to impede upon the rights of others, even if your delusions seem to dictate otherwise.

All of the first four options, plus some others. The only thing i am not happy about is his illegal alien stance.

why is tolerance allowed for everything except white ,middle-class ,christian opinion?

Oooh. Woah is me. However will I be able to mind my own damn business?
Keep your opinions to yourself, thumper. We might have to tolerate them, but we don't have to listen or subscribe to them. Just like you [will] have to tolerate homosexuals, blacks, Jews, (what else do fringe "Christians" hate these days?), (goths? nahh....), etc., but don't have to listen to them.

Oooh. Woah is me. However will I be able to mind my own damn business?
Keep your opinions to yourself, thumper. We might have to tolerate them, but we don't have to listen or subscribe to them. Just like you [will] have to tolerate homosexuals, blacks, Jews, (what else do fringe "Christians" hate these days?), (goths? nahh....), etc., but don't have to listen to them.
BLAH

BLAH

BLAH

...option four...

*bashes MunkeBrain*
Wow. I thought you had some decency, and only just had conservative leanings.
Turns out you like to goosestep...
Guess they were right about you. *sniffle* :(

BLAH

BLAH

BLAH

Liberals are invulnerable to reason and logic. They are vulnerable to firearms, knives, and the bitch slap.

Care to give me some logic so I don't have to brush you off and put you in the Nazi box, reserved for only the lowest of lows?

Here is a great example of the difference between the two smear campaigns:

John Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam, and may or may not have earned his medals, (he did according to those he served with). Republicans are still ripping on his war record, and the Swift Boat Veterans never really got discredited.
George Bush signed up for the National Guard to avoid the war, may or may not have gone AWOL, (no evidence truly proves otherwise) and definitely spent most of his service doing non-military activities in another state. Dan Rather almost loses his job, the topic is a nonissue now, and Bush is seen as a strong patriotic man.

Seems kind of lopsided to me.
The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia notes that Dan Rather almost lost his job not because he spoke out against Bush, but because documents which he presented as authentic turned out to be forgeries. Rather continued to insist that they were not forged, and, once it was determined that they were, claimed that while the documents themself were forged, the information that they contained was valid. If he knew that they were forged, then he violated journalistic ethics by presenting them as true, and deserves to be fired. If he did not, then he still should have taken the time to check them, rather than pouncing on the scoop.

As for why it's a nonissue now, the only hard evidence that has been presented on the subject has been proven a forgery, so until they can find a new source to back their claims up, it becomes all too easy to counter the argument.

Debating politics on this board is pretty worthless, it's just squabling from both sides, and no one is going to change their mind. There is no point.

Debating politics on this board is pretty worthless, it's just squabling from both sides, and no one is going to change their mind. There is no point.

No, but it tells me whose opinions I should respect and whose I shouldn't. Anyone who even hints that Bush has had an overall positive influence on domestic issues has to have some sort of mental problem, or can't keep their personal beliefs (religions, delusions, philosophies, whatever) out of their politics.
To claim Bush has done more good than evil for social and domestic issues is simply incorrect. Not only are the facts clear and evident, but the ill concieved ideologies and motives that dictated the actions leading to those incriminating facts are so abhorant that they are an insult to Republicans, Democrats, and America alike.

On the other issues, I don't have enough information... as they really haven't been my main concern.
Both "sides" have made various claims and accusations, which, given a different president, might not have turned out all that differently, anyways.

What scares me (and deters me from ever taking them seriously again) are the people who assert the Bush has overall had a positive role in our country's environment, education, welfare, health care, or civl rights.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia notes that Dan Rather almost lost his job not because he spoke out against Bush, but because documents which he presented as authentic turned out to be forgeries. Rather continued to insist that they were not forged, and, once it was determined that they were, claimed that while the documents themself were forged, the information that they contained was valid. If he knew that they were forged, then he violated journalistic ethics by presenting them as true, and deserves to be fired. If he did not, then he still should have taken the time to check them, rather than pouncing on the scoop.

As for why it's a nonissue now, the only hard evidence that has been presented on the subject has been proven a forgery, so until they can find a new source to back their claims up, it becomes all too easy to counter the argument.

Rather should be fired. Low life lying sleaze ball. He should know better by now. Yeesh.

1. I'm rich and I like those fat tax cuts. I don't really need the money, but I hate the thought of needy people getting it.

2. I'm a homophobe. If we start letting gays get married, then there won't be anyone for straight people to marry, and it will ruin regular marriage.

3. My company uses Enron-style bookkeeping and we like that the Bush administration won't hold us accountable. (hahah, inadvertent pun, i like it)

4. I'm hoping for a nice pork contract building weapons, rebuilding countries destroyed by those weapons, and supplying drugs to all the war veterans.

5. I want to abolish all those silly social programs that help blacks, women, and other inferiors who want to take OUR good jobs. If they don't want to take the crappy paying jobs, fine, we will hire in India.

6. I like WAR. I like the thought of killing thousands of towel heads and their filthy children and stupid wives. Call it Freedom or Liberty or something nice-sounding so we can pretend we are patriotic. But when it comes right down to it, we need to establish puppet governments so that we can create more consumer markets for our products that don't pass safety tests in the US.

7. Enough with social security, already! I want a plan where those who can afford to invest can retire nicely, and those who can't afford to invest, well, tough titties, they should have worked harder. They can starve to death in their old age. No handouts to those lazy good for nothings who didn't have the sense to screw their fellow man for a buck while they had the chance.

8. But the main reason I am voting for Bush is because he is stoopid, just like me.

1. I'm rich and I like those fat tax cuts. I don't really need the money, but I hate the thought of needy people getting it..
Yeah, I'd trust Kerry on taxes. The man who says the rich should pay higher taxes and then uses every loophole in the book so that he and his billionaire wife only pay a 12% taxrate while the average American pays 20% and the evil Bush pays 30%

2. I'm a homophobe. If we start letting gays get married, then there won't be anyone for straight people to marry, and it will ruin regular marriage..
That's a pretty good arguement, but I say leave it to the states.

3. My company uses Enron-style bookkeeping and we like that the Bush administration won't hold us accountable. (hahah, inadvertent pun, i like it).
I believe Enron was held accountable and there has been a major overhaul in the entire accounting industry to avoid a repeat of that fiasco.

4. I'm hoping for a nice pork contract building weapons, rebuilding countries destroyed by those weapons, and supplying drugs to all the war veterans..
The terrorist bastards attacked us. It was all well and fine for them to march around and kill each other left and right, but once they started slamming planes into building in America, that was it. We had to go over there and clean house. Our military requires weapons, the nations liberated from Islamofascists need rebuilding. So why not give the contracts to American companies? Or would you rather we OUTSOURCED?

5. I want to abolish all those silly social programs that help blacks, women, and other inferiors who want to take OUR good jobs. If they don't want to take the crappy paying jobs, fine, we will hire in India..
The war on poverty has been an abject failure. It's effects were the exact opposite of those intended. Welfare reform, signed by Clinton, was a good start in correcting past mistakes.

6. I like WAR. I like the thought of killing thousands of towel heads and their filthy children and stupid wives. Call it Freedom or Liberty or something nice-sounding so we can pretend we are patriotic. But when it comes right down to it, we need to establish puppet governments so that we can create more consumer markets for our products that don't pass safety tests in the US..
See above. THEY ATTACKED US. Puppet governments, like in France and Germany and Japan?

7. Enough with social security, already! I want a plan where those who can afford to invest can retire nicely, and those who can't afford to invest, well, tough titties, they should have worked harder. They can starve to death in their old age. No handouts to those lazy good for nothings who didn't have the sense to screw their fellow man for a buck while they had the chance..
If nothing is done to reform it, Social Security will go broke. You can bitch and moan and oppose reform all you want. That will only delay the inevitable reforms and make them even more draconian.
8. But the main reason I am voting for Bush is because he is stoopid, just like me.
Speak for yourself, your comments make clear who's "stoopid".

Why do you make the choice "other" when one of the MAIN reasons people have for supporting him is that he's a born-again Christian and if you give them a few days they will point you directly to Bible verses that prove he's the second coming of Christ?
Honestly, isn't this election really about religion?

The terrorist bastards attacked us. It was all well and fine for them to march around and kill each other left and right, but once they started slamming planes into building in America, that was it. We had to go over there and clean house. Our military requires weapons, the nations liberated from Islamofascists need rebuilding. So why not give the contracts to American companies? Or would you rather we OUTSOURCED?
Too bad we arn't attacking the terrorists that attacked us, huh?

See above. THEY ATTACKED US. Puppet governments, like in France and Germany and Japan?
Puppets of WHOM? Or are you just making up lame insults now? Oh, and see above. We arn't killing the terrorists that attacked us.

Please, enough of your internal Christian denomination squabbles... It's...pathetic...really... just so pathetic. I mean, all the magical fantasy crap you want to believe in, fine, and all the hateful and bigoted misconceptions you get from the Bible, fine, but quit with the "he's not Christian".

Who died and made you king? Who says you can say what's "Christian" and what isn't? Only one person died and was made King, and that was Jesus (and Elvis). You have no right to rebuke someone else's interpretation's of the holy word, especially on various trivial subjects which Jesus would obviously have made clear (or God would have put in the 10 commandments) if they were really that important.

As for "allowing tolerance" to bigots/racists/homophobes who claim sanctuary under the term "Christian" "middle class" or "white" (not that I'm very much moved by any of those terms, even though I fall under the latter two), they simply fail to grasp the purpose of America and the fundamental ideal of seperation of church and state.
Your personal and religious (mental delusions, philisophies, whatever) don't matter in a republican institution (you are a Republican, aren't you?) that is created to ensure rights to all individuals, and in a democratic institution, it seems you lose the arguement as well.
I.e. you are the weakest, dumbest, most ignorant link, and though you can whine, bitch, complain, and voice your opinions as much as you want, the state and federal government will not, ney, cannot, allow you to impede upon the rights of others, even if your delusions seem to dictate otherwise.

I said I DOUBT he's a Christian. Stop trying to make Christians look evil.

Who says I can say who's a Christian and not a Christian? I DIDNT. I said I doubt he's a Christian. The Bible says judge by the FRUITS. I am simply using circumstantial evidence to draw a conclusion. I could be wrong, I could be right. I was just stating my opinion based on personal experience. Honestly, for someone who yells at us for intolerance, you sure are intolerand and quick to jump on our opinions.

It is my educated guess that you haven't read the Bible, nor even come CLOSE to understanding it, so don't you dare preach to me about what's in it. Yes, some areas of it are open to interpretation, but most of them aren't. I never impose my beliefs on anyone. Stating my opinion is not shoving religion down your throat. And, frankly, I've had enough of your hateful bashings. Just stop.

Puppets of WHOM? Or are you just making up lame insults now? Oh, and see above. We arn't killing the terrorists that attacked us.
Those are other nations that the US invaded and freed from tyranical governments. The point was that the US doesn't have a history of setting up puppet governments and is not likely to start now.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia notes that Dan Rather almost lost his job not because he spoke out against Bush, but because documents which he presented as authentic turned out to be forgeries. Rather continued to insist that they were not forged, and, once it was determined that they were, claimed that while the documents themself were forged, the information that they contained was valid. If he knew that they were forged, then he violated journalistic ethics by presenting them as true, and deserves to be fired. If he did not, then he still should have taken the time to check them, rather than pouncing on the scoop.

As for why it's a nonissue now, the only hard evidence that has been presented on the subject has been proven a forgery, so until they can find a new source to back their claims up, it becomes all too easy to counter the argument.

See, there are two claims that bother me surrounding the memos. They are:

1) Dan Rather should be fired or worse for what happened.
2) The whole issue is invalid now.

My problem with #1 is that Rather put the story up and stuck with it til it was disproven, then apologized. What happened to the recent Republican push for consistency and sticking by one's story? I think it was handled well enough. They made a poor decision, and when it was foudn false, they apologized. There is no proof that Rather committed some kind of treason in daring to air the story, as if he doctored up the documents himself.

My problem with #2 is that, while the documents were discredited, they had the guy's nonagenarian secretary on, who stated that the information was accurate, but the documents forged. Let's see...that would mean that what was written there was true (which was the real scandal - the info within), though the docs themselves were not. Thusly, why discard their claims outright when they are attested to by one who most certainly would know?

Please, enough of your internal Christian denomination squabbles... It's...pathetic...really... just so pathetic. Ah, and you're the tolerant one. Troll.

John Kerry has said himself he's a Catholic. Unless, once again, what he has said is different from the reality of the situation (He apparently was in Cambodia before he wasn't...or something like that). That means he's not a christian. Not my place to condemn him for it, but it's a fact.

why is tolerance allowed for everything except white ,middle-class ,christian opinion? So true. When christians are discriminated against, it's called tolerance for other beliefs, but when we try to practice our own beliefs it's labelled as intolerance.

I don't think being homosexual is right, but you won't see me going after gays in the street or anything-they can do whatever they want, I don't have to agree with it. That's what everyone seems to not understand.

Where is the "I'm not voting for Bush" option? ;)

I'm voting for Bush simply because the folks who support Kerry on this forum and other internet sites strike me as the biggest bunch of mean-spirited idiots I've ever seen. It must be good to know everything.

I don't know politics. All I know is Bush gets my vote next Tuesday.

I'm voting for Bush simply because the folks who support Kerry on this forum and other internet sites strike me as the biggest bunch of mean-spirited idiots I've ever seen. It must be good to know everything.

Lemme guess - you're one of those who can't hold your own in arguments here, so everyone else is a mean-spirited idiot? If so, I can live with that. Let's check one of your most recent, to Tuesday Heights in the "Just met a Bush/Cheney Supporter" thread:

She left cause she knew she was talking to a liberal dyke. Might as well try reasoning with a rock.

Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would treat you like a twat or, by comparison, would think they know everything.

I don't know politics. All I know is Bush gets my vote next Tuesday.

So, is that Other (ignorance) or Party-Line? See? This is why we needed the option to check multiple boxes...

Actually it means you're a cockmonkey I don't need to answer to. This answer's on the house ;)

Are you even old enough to vote? I mean, really, you get thoroughly dressed down, and not only can you not come up with a witty retort, nor have the good sense to walk away, but you come back with a junior high insult like that which only proves the point I was making?

It's good to know that Bush hasn't yet alienated his base. :lol:

Reason #12 to vote for Not Bush: After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his month-long vacation.

Reason #2 to vote for Not Bush: The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

85. President Bush's top legal adviser wrote a memo to the President
advising him that he can legally authorize torture.

16. The Bush Administration has assigned five times as many agents to
investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's
and Saddam Hussein's money.

25. More than three years after 9/11, just 5 percent of all cargo-including
cargo transported on passenger planes-is screened.

35. The Bush Administration let disgraced Enron CEO Ken Lay -a close friend
of President Bush- help write its energy policy.

40. The Bush Administration turned a $236 billion surplus into a $422
billion deficit.

43. President Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net
loss of jobs-around 800,000-over a four-year term.

47. As major corporate scandals rocked the nation's economy, the Bush
Administration reduced the enforcement of corporate tax law-conducting fewer audits, imposing fewer penalties, pursuing fewer prosecutions and making virtually no effort to prosecute corporate tax crimes.

53. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to increase the maximum
federal scholarship, or Pell Grant, by 50 percent. Instead, each year he has
been in office he has frozen or cut the maximum scholarship amount.

57. The Bush Administration stunted research that could lead to new treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal injuries, heart
disease and muscular dystrophy by placing severe restrictions on the use of federal dollars for embryonic stem-cell research.

63. In a case before the Supreme Court, the Bush Administration sided with
HMOs-arguing that patients shouldn't be allowed to sue HMOs when
they are improperly denied treatment. With the Administration's help, the
HMOs won.

68. One day after President Bush bragged about his efforts to help seniors
afford healthcare, the Administration announced the largest dollar increase
of Medicare premiums in history.

75. Days after 9/11, The Bush Administration told people living near Ground
Zero that the air was safe-even though they knew it wasn't - subjecting hundreds of people to unnecessary, debilitating ailments.

78. The Bush Administration said that even though the weed killer atrazine
was seeping into water supplies-creating, among other bizarre creatures,
hermaphroditic frogs-there was no reason to regulate it.

80. President Bush broke his campaign promise to end the maintenance backlog at national parks. He has provided just 7 percent of the funds needed, according to National Park Service estimates.

82. The Bush Administration ignored pleas from the International Committee
of the Red Cross to stop the abuse of prisoners in US custody.

83. In violation of international law, the Bush Administration hid prisoners
from the Red Cross so the organization couldn't monitor their treatment.

Interesting, yet Predictable.

The total number of people actually registered to vote, and have given a solid reason why they are voting for Bush, that have posted a response:


0.

none.

The closest response was this:

".....I dont know politics, all I know is that Bush gets my vote next Tuesday."

Wich is the absolute WORST exscuse for not wanting to think for yourself , I can think of.

Not ONE of you Bush supporters has actually posted a good reason why you are voting for Bush.
Why do you suppose this is?
Ummm..maybe becuase there ARENT any?

Afghanistan:
Failed. (Osama still at large, AQ still operating in Afgahnistan)
Iraq: Failed. (No peace, No WMD's, and 380 TONS of explosives are now missing.)

Domestic policy:
Failed. (Education is horrible in some states, Shortages of Vaccines,)

Economy:

Failed. Only President since Hoover, to actually LOSE total number of American jobs instead of create them. Surplus long since spent.
Small businesses closing left and right, ETC......

Foreign Policy:

Failed. Iran and N Korea have Nuclear Weapons programs, Rwanda has a Genocide in progress, and Bush has done nothing, Support for U.S is rapidly dwindling. Nations are leaving "Coalition" everyday.


I can't possibly imagine why anyone can actually think Bush should be re-elected.

I'm not saying that to be rude, Im dead serious.
With a track record like that, what on earth makes anyone think that this guy has done, or is doing, a good job?

You didnt add the option below !


.....I am ignorant and afraid cos of the portayal of the world in the media.
.....I have no hope left in my country to do the right thing, so I will vote for the Prez to continue wiping out those foreign nations

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia notes that Dan Rather almost lost his job not because he spoke out against Bush, but because documents which he presented as authentic turned out to be forgeries. Rather continued to insist that they were not forged, and, once it was determined that they were, claimed that while the documents themself were forged, the information that they contained was valid. If he knew that they were forged, then he violated journalistic ethics by presenting them as true, and deserves to be fired. If he did not, then he still should have taken the time to check them, rather than pouncing on the scoop.

As for why it's a nonissue now, the only hard evidence that has been presented on the subject has been proven a forgery, so until they can find a new source to back their claims up, it becomes all too easy to counter the argument.

I agree that Dan Rather made a mistake, a very bad mistake. The repercussions for it were a complete abandoning of the story and Rather almost losing his job.

However, when the soldiers that served with Kerry said he acted heroically and deserved his medals, and the commanding officers admitted he lied when he said Kerry didn't deserve them, the Swift Boat Veterans continued to spout lies and they made a movie about the lies.

My point is, when the anti-Bush propaganda was shown to be false, the liberals acknowledged that it was untrue and Dan Rather apologized. However when the anti-Kerry propaganda was shown to be untrue, the conservatives only stepped up their attacks in order to drown out the truth.

You need an "All of the above" button

Why are you voting for George Bush.
Are you cray? My granddad faught against Nazi Germany (the system, not the German as a person) so I won't vote for our Nazi version.

they both suck. it's pathetic that in the "greatest nation in the world" we have these two bafoons to choose from

Could someone please tell me a couple of things.

1. Why the hell are republican's "attacking" Kerry for trying to give homosexual people civil right's? Isn't America supposed to be something like "The Land Of Suberb Freedom". At least that's what Bush is talking about all the time. And i can't see how is denying civil rights from part of your population freedom?

2.Why the hell are republican's accusing Kerry & Edward's for "attacking Cheney's lesbian daughter". I can't understand how is mentioning that someone is homosexual, even on tv, if it is already publicly known that she is homosexual. Definetely when Kerry & Edward's both mentioned her in a very rather way as far as i know.

Thank you for answer's. And please don't mind my bad english.

one explanation which is pretty close to the way I feel

http://www.yourish.com/archives/2004/oct24-30_2004.html#2004102702

So that Bush will nominate justices to the SCOTUS that will overturn Roe v Wade and end the senseless murder of millions of unborn children. In other words option #4.

So that Bush will nominate justices to the SCOTUS that will overturn Roe v Wade and end the senseless murder of millions of unborn children. In other words option #4.

The Supreme Court will never overturn Roe v Wade.

If Bush could nominate justices to overturn it, then that would be a travesty to every thing this government was built on, as checks and balances would go out the window. One political party would control all three branches.

And if you give your vote to someone based on abortion, when we are at war, under constant threat of terrorists, at a very important time in our economic history, and have foreign relations turning against us, you are the type of voter I don't want voting.

If Bush could nominate justices to overturn it, then that would be a travesty to every thing this government was built on, as checks and balances would go out the window. One political party would control all three branches.
One party controlling all three branches in no way hinders checks and balances. C&B are between the three branches of government, intended to make sure that neither one becomes too powerful - not to make sure that both sides of the spectrum are represented.

I said I DOUBT he's a Christian. Stop trying to make Christians look evil.

Who says I can say who's a Christian and not a Christian? I DIDNT. I said I doubt he's a Christian. The Bible says judge by the FRUITS. I am simply using circumstantial evidence to draw a conclusion. I could be wrong, I could be right. I was just stating my opinion based on personal experience. Honestly, for someone who yells at us for intolerance, you sure are intolerand and quick to jump on our opinions.

It is my educated guess that you haven't read the Bible, nor even come CLOSE to understanding it, so don't you dare preach to me about what's in it. Yes, some areas of it are open to interpretation, but most of them aren't. I never impose my beliefs on anyone. Stating my opinion is not shoving religion down your throat. And, frankly, I've had enough of your hateful bashings. Just stop.
according to what i read on beliefnet, he is very religious and has been his whole life. if being a serious christian is important factor in who to vote for for president, kerry meets the qualification. if being a serious PROTESTANT is important to you, then he doesnt.

One party controlling all three branches in no way hinders checks and balances. C&B are between the three branches of government, intended to make sure that neither one becomes too powerful - not to make sure that both sides of the spectrum are represented.

I agree with you there, but if a majority of the justices are nominated by Bush, and the congress the congress is controlled by Bush lackeys, then doesn't the executive branch become too powerful?

I agree with you there, but if a majority of the justices are nominated by Bush, and the congress the congress is controlled by Bush lackeys, then doesn't the executive branch become too powerful?
The likelihood of the majority of justices being nominated/appointed by Bush is extremely slim, at most 3. You could make a case that the Republicans would dominate Washington (which they would), but Bush would not any more than he does already.

Reason #12 to vote for Not Bush: After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his month-long vacation.

Reason #2 to vote for Not Bush: The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

85. President Bush's top legal adviser wrote a memo to the President
advising him that he can legally authorize torture.

16. The Bush Administration has assigned five times as many agents to
investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's
and Saddam Hussein's money.

25. More than three years after 9/11, just 5 percent of all cargo-including
cargo transported on passenger planes-is screened.

35. The Bush Administration let disgraced Enron CEO Ken Lay -a close friend
of President Bush- help write its energy policy.

40. The Bush Administration turned a $236 billion surplus into a $422
billion deficit.

43. President Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net
loss of jobs-around 800,000-over a four-year term.

47. As major corporate scandals rocked the nation's economy, the Bush
Administration reduced the enforcement of corporate tax law-conducting fewer audits, imposing fewer penalties, pursuing fewer prosecutions and making virtually no effort to prosecute corporate tax crimes.

53. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to increase the maximum
federal scholarship, or Pell Grant, by 50 percent. Instead, each year he has
been in office he has frozen or cut the maximum scholarship amount.

57. The Bush Administration stunted research that could lead to new treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal injuries, heart
disease and muscular dystrophy by placing severe restrictions on the use of federal dollars for embryonic stem-cell research.

63. In a case before the Supreme Court, the Bush Administration sided with
HMOs-arguing that patients shouldn't be allowed to sue HMOs when
they are improperly denied treatment. With the Administration's help, the
HMOs won.

68. One day after President Bush bragged about his efforts to help seniors
afford healthcare, the Administration announced the largest dollar increase
of Medicare premiums in history.

75. Days after 9/11, The Bush Administration told people living near Ground
Zero that the air was safe-even though they knew it wasn't - subjecting hundreds of people to unnecessary, debilitating ailments.

78. The Bush Administration said that even though the weed killer atrazine
was seeping into water supplies-creating, among other bizarre creatures,
hermaphroditic frogs-there was no reason to regulate it.

80. President Bush broke his campaign promise to end the maintenance backlog at national parks. He has provided just 7 percent of the funds needed, according to National Park Service estimates.

82. The Bush Administration ignored pleas from the International Committee
of the Red Cross to stop the abuse of prisoners in US custody.

83. In violation of international law, the Bush Administration hid prisoners
from the Red Cross so the organization couldn't monitor their treatment.

#12. Exactly how many memos does the president get everyday. I'm pretty sure that the President probably get dozens of memos each day, that are multiple pages each. That's on top of all his other duties. He doesn't have enought time to read every single message. And most of his "vacation time" was at his ranch and I would think he was mulling over and reading many of these memos in a comfortable enviroment.

#2 Kerry voted against the bill for more funds for troops, Bush voted for it. It is not the President's job to oversee requisition of military supplies. It is the militaries job. So go to the army beauracracy and complain to them.

#85 There was probably also a memo's to him against using torture. Any top aid can send a memo. What did the president do with the memo is the main question.

#16 Maybe veiwing the finances and economics of a whole country takes more men than a reviewing the finances of two people.

#25 Is that Bush's fault or the Department of Transportations?

#35 Before or after the Enron scandal? If after then it was a bad decision, if before then how was Bush to know.

#40 A deficit when a war occurs, how odd. The Iraq war is the reason for deficit. Any war costs a lot of money and must be accompinied by either: 1) a deficit, 2) higher taxes or 3) drastic cuts to other programs. So the deficit is completely based on someone's position of the Iraq war. If you're for it then the deficit is worthwhile, if you're against it then the deficit is not.

#43 Most of these jopb losses occured in his first year if I remember correctly. There was a recession which was worsened by the 9/11 attacks. The recession would have been Clinton's fault because Bush's policies wouldn't have been in effect yet to cause a recession, and Bush had no control over the attacks.

#47 If this is true than Bush made a bad decision, but considering the crap posted so far, I doubt the accuracy of this claim, and would require some details and some proof.

#53 See # 47

#57 This gets us into a similar debate to the abortion debate. He believes that embryos are living humans with a right to live. So embryonic stem cell research would be immoral as this would require killing many lives. Besides, there are other ways to get stem cells than from embryos.

#63 See #47 As well what were the particulars of the case?

#68 See #47

#75 See #47

#78 Was this chemical strong enough to harm a human? More details please.

#80 Stupid promise. I don't care about national parks. So breaking this promise wouldn't do anything to sway me against him, except maybe in the area of credibility (but I don't trust any politicians so, that's a moot point).

#82 THe rest of the world ignored pleas to stop the abuse of Iraqis by Sadam. Or the minorites in the former Yugoslovia. Which case is this referring to? If it is Abu Gharib, it was stopped and those responsible are being put on trial, a couple have even been sentenced if I remember. If it was Guantonamo, then most of them were terrorists, and didn't deserve protection.

#83 See #82.

First off: Number go in order such as 1, 2, 3, etc. 85 does not come before 16. Learn to count. It is essential.

Second: Most of these were poor arguments with little detail, blaming Bush for things that were not his responsibility and things sometimes out of his control.

Not ONE of you Bush supporters has actually posted a good reason why you are voting for Bush.
Why do you suppose this is?
Ummm..maybe becuase there ARENT any?

Afghanistan:
Failed. (Osama still at large, AQ still operating in Afgahnistan)
Iraq: Failed. (No peace, No WMD's, and 380 TONS of explosives are now missing.)

Domestic policy:
Failed. (Education is horrible in some states, Shortages of Vaccines,)

Economy:

Failed. Only President since Hoover, to actually LOSE total number of American jobs instead of create them. Surplus long since spent.
Small businesses closing left and right, ETC......

Foreign Policy:

Failed. Iran and N Korea have Nuclear Weapons programs, Rwanda has a Genocide in progress, and Bush has done nothing, Support for U.S is rapidly dwindling. Nations are leaving "Coalition" everyday.


I can't possibly imagine why anyone can actually think Bush should be re-elected.

I'm not saying that to be rude, Im dead serious.
With a track record like that, what on earth makes anyone think that this guy has done, or is doing, a good job?

I have (as Evil Kanatia), although I'm not allowed to vote (I'm Canadian). Maybe, it's because they know that narrow-minded leftists will ignore any arguments make in their rabid, irrational hatred for Bush.

Afghanistan: Success. The war was won. Although Osama wasn't captured, his base of support was damaged severely. Democracy is now devloping within Afghanistan.

Iraq: Time will tell. The war was one but insurgents are making it hard to establish a democracy. This will be a long, painful process. WE can not measure success for at least another few years.

Domestic: Education was horrible before Bush got in, it's not his fault. He's trying with his No Child LEft Behind. Only time will tell if that works.

Economy: If I remember correctly, most of the job losses were in the first year during a recession, which was amplified by the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 wasn't Bush's fault, and the recession was Clinton's fault as there wasn't enough time for Bush's policy to come into affect, and they couldn't have caused the recession.

Foreign Policy: Iran and N. Korea do have Nuclear Weapons programs, and there is now no chance that Sadam will pursue one in Iraq. If America had tried to stop Iran/ N. Korea, you would ahve been whining about how Bush failed in this like you do about Iraq and Afghanistan.

The genocide is in the Darfur region in Sudan. THe Rwanada massacre was years ago, during Clinton's administration. CLinton did nothing to stop Rwanda. While sadly Bush has not helped in Sudan, neither has anyone else in the world. And if Bush had tried to help in Sudan you'd be complaining about Bush's imperialistic wars.

US support may be dwindling, but does it matter what France and Germany and a bunch of second-rate states say?

The Supreme Court will never overturn Roe v Wade.

If Bush could nominate justices to overturn it, then that would be a travesty to every thing this government was built on, as checks and balances would go out the window. One political party would control all three branches.

And if you give your vote to someone based on abortion, when we are at war, under constant threat of terrorists, at a very important time in our economic history, and have foreign relations turning against us, you are the type of voter I don't want voting.

Different people have different values. To some the continuous slaughter of thousands of innocents at home is more important than a a small chance of a terrorist attack that might kill a few hundred.

Maybe thousands of human lives are more important than what France or Germany (remember Hitler) or Russia (remember Stalin) thinks.

You are also the type of voter the other person doesn't want voting. It works out well, doesn't it?

Other - Out of the candidates for president he most matched my views of the issues.

Different people have different values. To some the continuous slaughter of thousands of innocents at home is more important than a a small chance of a terrorist attack that might kill a few hundred.

Maybe thousands of human lives are more important than what France or Germany (remember Hitler) or Russia (remember Stalin) thinks.

You are also the type of voter the other person doesn't want voting. It works out well, doesn't it?

I will not argue my stance as an issue of morality. Abortion, killing of innocent fetuses or not it is still not even close to one of the top issues surrounding the presidency.

If we go through a world wide depression because the US govt defaults on rollover loans, or we are hit by a nuclear weopon that wipes out the Northeastern seaboard, or a dirty bomb kills 10000 in New York, if lines are drawn that could trigger WW3, then the abortion issue doesn't seem so important.

I will not argue my stance as an issue of morality. Abortion, killing of innocent fetuses or not it is still not even close to one of the top issues surrounding the presidency.

If we go through a world wide depression because the US govt defaults on rollover loans, or we are hit by a nuclear weopon that wipes out the Northeastern seaboard, or a dirty bomb kills 10000 in New York, if lines are drawn that could trigger WW3, then the abortion issue doesn't seem so important.

Maybe to you, but to others they ahve different priorities.

It's like saying anybody who votes based on ecoomic matters is and idiot because the vote should be based on the enviroment.

Each person has their own priorities and democracies exist so as to best make a compromise between these priorities.

That's exactly why not just anyone is allowed to vote.

I support the war on terror and I voted. I trust Bush on this issue and the polls state that the Majority of Americans do too and most of them, if not all of them, vote. Are you going to say the samething about them? By the way, Formal Dances is my sister.

The guy has completly screwed up the "war on terror." About the only plan he has that has any hope of working is his plan to institute mandatory health screening in public schools as a hand out to the drug companies. I'm against the principle of such a scheme, but it's hard to argue with its side-effects.

How did he screw up the war on terror? Last time I checked the deployment lists (and yes, I know where to get them) we still have people looking for Osama Bin Ladin.

Put everyone on Prozac and the "war on terror" will be won with a single shot. If you're chemically incapable of feeling terror, then no terrorism. Also, if people can't feel fear then they can't be motivated to vote republican.

Sounds like a democrat program, all feel good. Sorry dude, but this will definitely NOT work at all. I say send all the women on PMS over. That'll end the war in a hurry.

"John Kerry wants to abolish the army and make Sadam Hussein secretary of the treasury? Thas kewl man, they say he's good with money." :cool:

Were did this come from?

"John Kerry's gonna make gay marriage mandatory? eh, it'll be nice to have a wife that doesn't mind me cheating." :fluffle:

I don't think it'll be mandatory. For one thing, Congress will never allow it. If he does it via executive order, Kerry would be tossed out on his ear. But alas, it won't matter because Bush will win this election.

I support the war on terror and I voted. I trust Bush on this issue and the polls state that the Majority of Americans do too and most of them, if not all of them, vote. Are you going to say the same thing about them? By the way, Formal Dances is my sister.
You have no idea how much this explains.

You have no idea how much this explains.

Now what is that supposed to mean?

Didn't get a proper answer (i didn't find the answer's from that link), ill just post this again.


Could someone please tell me a couple of things.
1. Why the hell are republican's "attacking" Kerry for trying to give homosexual people civil right's? Isn't America supposed to be something like "The Land Of Suberb Freedom". At least that's what Bush is talking about all the time. And i can't see how is denying civil rights from part of your population freedom?
2.Why the hell are republican's accusing Kerry & Edward's for "attacking Cheney's lesbian daughter". I can't understand how is mentioning that someone is homosexual, even on tv, if it is already publicly known that she is homosexual. Definetely when Kerry & Edward's both mentioned her in a very rather way as far as i know.
Thank you for answer's. And please don't mind my bad english.

He's a catholic. I doubt he's a Christian.
Catholicism is a part of Christianity. You don't have to be a Protestant or Evangelical to be a "real Christian."

I'm voting for Bush simply because the folks who support Kerry on this forum and other internet sites strike me as the biggest bunch of mean-spirited idiots I've ever seen.
It's not the Democrats whose campaign has been 70% smear attacks.

US support may be dwindling, but does it matter what France and Germany and a bunch of second-rate states say?
You don't think that what France, Germany and presumably Canada (since you have less population than FR or GE) say? How unpatriotic of you.

Now what is that supposed to mean?
Well, you two have so much in common--your argumentative styles, your slavish devotion to all things Bush, your unwillingness to consider the possibility that maybe you're only hearing one side of the story and that that side is factually incorrect, and the way you refuse to consider the possibility that you've been misled, even when faced with overwhelming evidence that you've been fed a party line--basically the way the two of you exist firmly in the faith-based rather than the reality-based section of the country.

And if you give your vote to someone based on abortion, when we are at war, under constant threat of terrorists, at a very important time in our economic history, and have foreign relations turning against us, you are the type of voter I don't want voting.

If you give your vote to someone based on economic policy in hopes of affecting the nations economy substatially, then you are not the type of voter I want voting. Surely you know that the economy fluctuates regularly and that the POTUS has little if any real influence on its behavior.

If you base your vote on terrorist attacks, then you are not the type of voter I want voting. In the history of the United States, fewer than 100,000 people have been killed by terrorists, many fewer.

If you base your vote on our foreign relations with nations that would rather serve their own self interest by siding with a brutal dictator that is paying them off than siding with us, then you are not the type of voter I want voting. France and Russia were getting tremendous amounts of money out of Saddam Hussein. On top of that, they were promised some of the richest oil fields in Iraq once the sanctions were lifted. Why on Earth would they side with us in a war against their thuggish benefactor. All of our real allies have supported us and will continue to do so. Austrailia, the UK, and Canada are our core allies. Other nations that stood with us: Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, New Zealand, Ukraine, Spain, the Netherlands, Thailand, Denmark, Honduras, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Japan, Norway, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, Portugal, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, the Philippines, Albania, Georgia, Moldova, Macedonia, Estonia, and Kazakhstan. I for one do not want a president that decides our foreign policy based solely on the monetary interests on other nations.

Abortion, on the other hand, is a critical issue in the United States. Every year, more than a million innocent babies are murdered by their mothers, in many cases without the knowledge and consent of the father. If every foreign terrorist attack in the history of this country was repeated 100 times, it would not amount to the death toll of 1 year of abortions in America. That is why I will never vote for a candidate that is pro-choice, especially when 3 seats are probably going to open up on the SCOTUS.

Ah, and you're the tolerant one. Troll.

John Kerry has said himself he's a Catholic. Unless, once again, what he has said is different from the reality of the situation (He apparently was in Cambodia before he wasn't...or something like that). That means he's not a christian. Not my place to condemn him for it, but it's a fact.

So true. When christians are discriminated against, it's called tolerance for other beliefs, but when we try to practice our own beliefs it's labelled as intolerance.

I don't think being homosexual is right, but you won't see me going after gays in the street or anything-they can do whatever they want, I don't have to agree with it. That's what everyone seems to not understand.

Actually, it's REALLY not fair to say Catholics aren't Christians. Mel Gibson is a Catholic and I'm wholly confident he's a Christian. To be a "Christian", according to the Bible, is not religion, it is someone who has made the choice to believe in God and surrender their life to Him (paraphrased, obviously).

All I was saying, is, based on WHAT I'VE SEEN, Kerry doesn't show very Christ-like (Christian) qualities, and I doubt he is a Christian. I could be wrong. I was just stating my opinion.

Well, you two have so much in common--your argumentative styles, your slavish devotion to all things Bush, your unwillingness to consider the possibility that maybe you're only hearing one side of the story and that that side is factually incorrect, and the way you refuse to consider the possibility that you've been misled, even when faced with overwhelming evidence that you've been fed a party line--basically the way the two of you exist firmly in the faith-based rather than the reality-based section of the country.

Actually I live in the State of Pennsylvania. The way it looks, Kerry will win the state so I'm not surprised.

Now let me check my facts:

1. Kerry opposed Partial Birth Abortion. However, the American Medical Association says that this is the most barbaric thing and that it should be banned.

2. Kerry voted against funding for our forces. Before you yell at me, it DOES NOT matter what he actually voted for. The bill that passed is the one that gets placed on his record. He voted against it. Thus, he voted AGAINST our troops.

3. He voted FOR the war in Iraq and has now said that it was the wrong war at the wrong time and in the Process, pissed off the Polish President and Allawi, 2 key allies.

4. Back to abortion! He is against abortion but yet has voted AGAINST every pro-life bill.

5. He opposed the death penalty for Terrorists and is now saying that he is for it.

6. He is saying that he'll bring Kyoto to the floor of the US Senate. Good Luck in getting it passed in the Senate. After that vote after Clinton signed it that was 95-0, it was never brought to the floor of the Senate. BTW, he voted for this resolution.

These are just some of the things that Kerry has done.

Abortion, on the other hand, is a critical issue in the United States. Every year, more than a million innocent babies are murdered by their mothers...

No, they're not. Abortion is the illegal termination of someone's life. Abortion is legal, hence it is not murder.

Of course, I'd also argue that there is no life terminated, but that's another thread.

Actually, it's REALLY not fair to say Catholics aren't Christians. Mel Gibson is a Catholic and I'm wholly confident he's a Christian. To be a "Christian", according to the Bible, is not religion, it is someone who has made the choice to believe in God and surrender their life to Him (paraphrased, obviously).

Actually, Mel Gibson belongs to the Society of St. Pius X, a sect of traditionalist Catholics who have been declared schismatic by the Vatican. One of their Bishops was excommunicated, and as such, priests ordained under his authority are technically excommunicated in following the movement, which is schismatic and grounds for excommunication. This would also extend to the followers, so being one, Mel Gibson is not a Catholic.

Of course, that doesn't disqualify him as a Christian.

All I was saying, is, based on WHAT I'VE SEEN, Kerry doesn't show very Christ-like (Christian) qualities, and I doubt he is a Christian. I could be wrong. I was just stating my opinion.

And what qualities would you say he's lacking, citing examples?

ha, only 1 person said Iraq! :D

If you give your vote to someone based on economic policy in hopes of affecting the nations economy substatially, then you are not the type of voter I want voting. Surely you know that the economy fluctuates regularly and that the POTUS has little if any real influence on its behavior.

Yes, but the large deficit we are running right now puts us at an extremely high risk for a depression. There is a finance term, hubris, describing a company who takes on a lot of debt in order to grow quickly. However, this company becomes highly leveraged when it does that, and as a result, negative external forces can bankrupt it quickly. That applies for our government, too. If we face another major terrorist attack, we may spiral out of control into a depression.

If you base your vote on terrorist attacks, then you are not the type of voter I want voting. In the history of the United States, fewer than 100,000 people have been killed by terrorists, many fewer.

Recent history has shown that terrorist attacks are much more prevelant today than they have ever been. The next terrorist attack could kill 100,000 people alone.

If you base your vote on our foreign relations with nations that would rather serve their own self interest by siding with a brutal dictator that is paying them off than siding with us, then you are not the type of voter I want voting. France and Russia were getting tremendous amounts of money out of Saddam Hussein. On top of that, they were promised some of the richest oil fields in Iraq once the sanctions were lifted. Why on Earth would they side with us in a war against their thuggish benefactor. All of our real allies have supported us and will continue to do so. Austrailia, the UK, and Canada are our core allies. Other nations that stood with us: Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, New Zealand, Ukraine, Spain, the Netherlands, Thailand, Denmark, Honduras, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Japan, Norway, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, Portugal, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, the Philippines, Albania, Georgia, Moldova, Macedonia, Estonia, and Kazakhstan. I for one do not want a president that decides our foreign policy based solely on the monetary interests on other nations.

We make assloads of money off of plenty of foreign governments, we have dollarization policies with foreign countries who back their currency with our currency, there are countries who use US dollars as their currency.
The key to global relations is compromise and if we end our long standing policy of compromising we lose global relations. I know you don't care whether France, Germany, Russia, and China are with us, but when you consider that those are the most economically powerful nations in Europe and Asia, I think you should realize the importance of a good working relationship.

Abortion, on the other hand, is a critical issue in the United States. Every year, more than a million innocent babies are murdered by their mothers, in many cases without the knowledge and consent of the father. If every foreign terrorist attack in the history of this country was repeated 100 times, it would not amount to the death toll of 1 year of abortions in America. That is why I will never vote for a candidate that is pro-choice, especially when 3 seats are probably going to open up on the SCOTUS.

I'm glad you would use your moral values to govern this country, since everyone obviously shares them.

Yes, but the large deficit we are running right now puts us at an extremely high risk for a depression. There is a finance term, hubris, describing a company who takes on a lot of debt in order to grow quickly. However, this company becomes highly leveraged when it does that, and as a result, negative external forces can bankrupt it quickly. That applies for our government, too. If we face another major terrorist attack, we may spiral out of control into a depression.
I'm not buying that. In relation to our GDP, most countries have more debt, and countries have run in the past with higher levels of debt without going into depressions. If another terorrist attack sends us into a depression it would be due to the damage it does in tourism, travel, and all the other related industries, not some false analogy of companies to countries.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/eco_deb_ext_gdp&int=-1

I flipped my election day coin and it landed with the turd sandwich on the top and the giant douche on the bottom.