NationStates Jolt Archive

...the State of the Union was tonight?

How come, as far as I can see, it wasn't mentioned at all beforehand (here)?

The last few years it's been well advertised in advance

Yeah, I didn’t hear anything about it either.

...the State of the Union was tonight?

How come, as far as I can see, it wasn't mentioned at all beforehand?

The last few years it's been well advertised in advance

I saw the ads for it. and considering how much TV I watch... (very Little)

If you were giving the State of the Union address this year, would you want it advertised? Hell, I'm surprised he showed up at all. All the Constitution requires is a report--not necessarily a speech. He could have scribbled something in a Trapper Keeper and thrown it at Pelosi and that would have counted, I guess.

There was a drinking game thread earlier...but considering what happens to Bush after speeches these days, I don't know that they want to make that big a deal out of this one...

I saw the ads for it. and considering how much TV I watch... (very Little)

Yea, I just added in the "here" bit.

Seriously, last year I remember the build up to it, yet this year IK wouldn't have known had I not just there now looked at the BBC news page.

That's because there was nothing to hear of course. :rolleyes:

I'm waiting for a SotU address that has the pomp and circumstances of a major event, the President is introduced, he walks out as people applaud him and he takes a deep breath and says.

"We're Screwed. Thank you and Goodnight."

Yeah, I didn’t hear anything about it either.

That's because there was nothing to hear of course. :rolleyes:

They'd only advertise the State of the Union if Bush had to sing and Simon Cowell got to insult him.

They'd only advertise the State of the Union if Bush had to sing and Simon Cowell got to insult him.
I might actually watch that.









Okay, probably not.

I think that what's most weird is that last year, when the Republicans where in the majority and when a Republican President was making a speed we heard about it a day or two before on the BBC, yet now that everybody's let it be know how they feel we haven't heard about it...

It's almost like after the elections yous are pretty much resigned to the fact you've said your bit and not you just have to wait and see what the President says in response?

I'm waiting for a SotU address that has the pomp and circumstances of a major event, the President is introduced, he walks out as people applaud him and he takes a deep breath and says.

"We're Screwed. Thank you and Goodnight."

And thats when you awoke from your ectasy overdose....

It was never about not staying the course....never....no way. It was all about "surging" to victory in Iraq. :p

Speech filler:

9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda,

God Bless

And thats when you awoke from your ectasy overdose....

that's probably the only way that'll happen... :(

It was never about not staying the course....never....no way. It was all about "surging" to victory in Iraq. :p

Speech filler:

9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda,

God Bless

And the verdict is incorrect. :D

There was a drinking game thread earlier...but considering what happens to Bush after speeches these days, I don't know that they want to make that big a deal out of this one...

I think he has a very good chance of improving in the polls after his speech. He said some reasonable things that the Dems seemed to like.

I think he has a very good chance of improving in the polls after his speech. He said some reasonable things that the Dems seemed to like.

Indeed.

I didn't see the speech, but reading the transcript, I got to the part regarding alternative energy, and thought to myself..."This was Bush speaking??"

Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, raise the price of oil and do great harm to our economy.

It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power -- by even greater use of clean coal technology ... solar and wind energy ... and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

We have made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies in Washington and the strong response of the market. Now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years -- thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- this is nearly five times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to eight and a half billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but will not eliminate it. So as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must also step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment -- and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

...is that the first time that Bush has publicly acknowledged anything relating to global warming in any shape or form? It seems like it.

I think he has a very good chance of improving in the polls after his speech. He said some reasonable things that the Dems seemed to like.

It would break the recent trend if he does. Of course, the question really is "does anyone believe a word he says anymore?" He could promise every man woman and child a hundred bucks cash and I don't know if it would help his numbers unless the cash actually showed up.

the bit about eliminating riders was awesome, If that goes through then Bush will get a significant boost in my personal ratings, He might even beat out Van Buren for that one.

Indeed.

I didn't see the speech, but reading the transcript, I got to the part regarding alternative energy, and thought to myself..."This was Bush speaking??"



...is that the first time that Bush has publicly acknowledged anything relating to global warming in any shape or form? It seems like it.

He brought it up in his speech last year but he didn't have these proposals. Probably because, with a Republican Congress, they'd be dead on arrival.

Cutting our use of foreign oil by 50% in just ten years. It sounds good but I'm not sure that's can be done.

It's just Jaw Bush running his mouth, who cares?

I started watching it, and it was nice of him to glad hand Pelosi, but I turned it off when he mentioned "democrat majority" or some such other deliberate annoyance.

If he wants to act like a child, he doesn't deserve to be listened to by the grownups.

Ya mean you're wondering where the usual suspects are who have nothing to crow about now that he's been placed in check?

I didn't see the speech, but reading the transcript, I got to the part regarding alternative energy, and thought to myself..."This was Bush speaking??"
Don’t get so excited. Notice how he said “Middle East?” He could have easily just stuck to saying something about sustaining the economy, but instead he (that being his speech writers) couldn’t resist a jab at the brownies he loves to pretend are his enemies in front of the Evangelicals.

And the verdict is incorrect. :D
Incorrect and Bush are synonymous?

Failure (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=failure&btnG=Search&meta=)

Anyone else notice that Jim Webb looked like he was trying to hold back laughter when giving the response? I swear it seemed like that.

It was never about not staying the course....never....no way. It was all about "surging" to victory in Iraq. :p

Speech filler:

9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorists, al Qaeda,

God Bless

Actualy you got 2 too many al Qaeda's but you are close (he used it 10 times)

You can put in one more terrorists though he used that 13 times (though he used terror 22 times including in "terrorists"
The string "9/11" was only used 2 times though (though "11" alone was used 4)

If you were giving the State of the Union address this year, would you want it advertised? Hell, I'm surprised he showed up at all. All the Constitution requires is a report--not necessarily a speech. He could have scribbled something in a Trapper Keeper and thrown it at Pelosi and that would have counted, I guess.

What is a Trapper Keeper?

What is a Trapper Keeper?

You don't know what a Trapper Keeper is? NOOB! :p

http://www.dottyparker.com/blog/images/trapper.jpg

Actualy you got 2 too many al Qaeda's but you are close (he used it 10 times)

You can put in one more terrorists though he used that 13 times (though he used terror 22 times including in "terrorists"
The string "9/11" was only used 2 times though (though "11" alone was used 4)
Afghanistan = 4 times

Osama Bin Laden = once only

Iraq = 34 times

WMD = NONE (surprise, surprise)

I guess Saddam and Iraq posed more of a threat then Osama and Afghanistan?

What is a Trapper Keeper?

Trapper Keeper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapper_Keeper)

It's just Jaw Bush running his mouth, who cares?

I started watching it, and it was nice of him to glad hand Pelosi, but I turned it off when he mentioned "democrat majority" or some such other deliberate annoyance.

If he wants to act like a child, he doesn't deserve to be listened to by the grownups.

Eh... You do realize that there is a democratic majority that is in charge of the House. How is recognizing them the same as being childish?

The independents sure don't have a majority. Neither do the Republicans.

Eh... You do realize that there is a democratic majority that is in charge of the House. How is recognizing them the same as being childish?

The independents sure don't have a majority. Neither do the Republicans.

meh, some people are just never happy.

I'm waiting for a SotU address that has the pomp and circumstances of a major event, the President is introduced, he walks out as people applaud him and he takes a deep breath and says.

"We're Screwed. Thank you and Goodnight."

Heh. I'd love to see that.

Also, it reminds me of this little gem:

While I was at UCLA, D.T.Suzuki (the famous Zen scholar, writer, master, etc) came to visit. They set up the Regents auditorium for him. So we were all there, the audience all excited, and out came the head of the Oriental department. The audience all quited down. The Head introduced "Here is D.T.Suzuki, world class Zen scholar, writer, master, etc..here he is!"

We all sat in silence. This little guy comes out to the mike. Adjusts a pair of Glasses. This is him, we've seen pictures of him before, but he looks smaller and etc. He reaches out and taps the mike.

A hollow ping sounds though the hall. He says "Zen Buddhism, Very hard understand, Thank you" and walks off stage.

The audience went crazy! There was a mad struggle backstage, and then The Head lead Suzuki back out, a couple of the department professors with him. They set up some chairs, sat Suzuki down and asked him questions for an hour so everyone would be satisfied.

But I can still hear his voice "Zen Buddhism, Very hard understand............ "

(Written and contributed by Jonathan Greenlee)
http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Lighter/suzuki.html

...is that the first time that Bush has publicly acknowledged anything relating to global warming in any shape or form? It seems like it.

I was struck by that as well. I don't think it's the first time he's acknowledged anything relating to it in any way shape or form, but it is a change of tune.

Cutting our use of foreign oil by 50% in just ten years. It sounds good but I'm not sure that's can be done.

Agreed. But it's a start.

The "state of the union" speach is truly antiquated anyhow. In the age of the internet and CNN, we all know what the state of the union is before the president says it...

...the State of the Union was tonight?

How come, as far as I can see, it wasn't mentioned at all beforehand (here)?

The last few years it's been well advertised in advance

i heard about it, in advance, on alternative media. ought to tell you something about the nonusefullness of the mainstream.

in truith though, i can't say, what i could stand to listen to of it, was anything worth mentioning.

this time he told mostly the kind of lies people have been telling him for six years they'd rather hear, instead of the kind, for most of that time he's been telling, but there was no sign, that i could see, of actualy bringing real policies in line with any sort of honestly moral responsibility. a few new words, but spoken in the context of the same old bullshit.

=^^=
.../\...

It would break the recent trend if he does. Of course, the question really is "does anyone believe a word he says anymore?" He could promise every man woman and child a hundred bucks cash and I don't know if it would help his numbers unless the cash actually showed up.

Depends if Congress acts on it or not.

Don’t get so excited. Notice how he said “Middle East?” He could have easily just stuck to saying something about sustaining the economy, but instead he (that being his speech writers) couldn’t resist a jab at the brownies he loves to pretend are his enemies in front of the Evangelicals.

Do you always have to call them brownies or are you being sarcastic? Either way, we do have to lower our dependence on Foreign Oil and that was what Bush was saying.

Incorrect and Bush are synonymous?

Failure (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=failure&btnG=Search&meta=)

:rolleyes:

CH, I'm in no mood to actually fight anyone this semester so I'm going to let this slide for once.

my husband turned it off shortly after Bush was talking about his health insurance tax thingy......he said "do you have to do running commentary?" and I said "yeah"

apparently it annoyed him.

I am trying to catch up to what I missed.

my husband turned it off shortly after Bush was talking about his health insurance tax thingy......he said "do you have to do running commentary?" and I said "yeah"

apparently it annoyed him.

I am trying to catch up to what I missed.

now there's a fountain that would never dry up... MST3k the State of the Union! :D

now there's a fountain that would never dry up... MST3k the State of the Union! :D

you know he loved that show......but when I do my own (much better) commentary of movies and presidential addresses, it upsets him :confused:

...the State of the Union was tonight?

How come, as far as I can see, it wasn't mentioned at all beforehand (here)?

The last few years it's been well advertised in advance
Wow, yeah, it completely passed me by. And I am one of the nerds who usually watches that sort of thing.

I guess Bush's team have finally figured out that it's best not to encourage anybody to actually listen to him, because when they do they tend to notice that the Emperor has no clothes...

you know he loved that show......but when I do my own (much better) commentary of movies and presidential addresses, it upsets him :confused:

you probably think up better commentary than he does. :p

The reason it was put out ahead might have something to do with the fact that Bush actually wants to do that stuff.

Reportedly, right he gave the state of the union he started a trip across America to campaign for his energy proposals that he outlined in his speech.

The "state of the union" speach is truly antiquated anyhow. In the age of the internet and CNN, we all know what the state of the union is before the president says it...

Not really. And anyway, it's mandated by the Constitution, Article II, section 3, "[The President] shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

And a little history:

George Washington gave the first state of the union address on January 8, 1790 in New York City, then the provisional U.S. capital. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson discontinued the practice of delivering the address in person, regarding it as too monarchical (similar to the Queen's Speech). Instead, the address was written and then sent to Congress to be read by a clerk until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson re-established the practice despite some initial controversy. However, there have been exceptions to this rule. Presidents during the latter half of the 20th Century have sent written State of the Union addresses. The last President to do this was Jimmy Carter in 1981.[1]

For many years, the speech was referred to as "the President's Annual Message to Congress." The actual term "State of the Union" did not become widely used until after 1935 when Franklin D. Roosevelt began using the phrase.

So while modern communications do give a lot of a pretty good idea of the state of the Union, I think it's good for the President to get up before Congress and the nation at least once a year and tell us what's going on, in his (or perhaps soon, her) point of view.

Not really. And anyway, it's mandated by the Constitution, Article II, section 3, "[The President] shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

And a little history:



So while modern communications do give a lot of a pretty good idea of the state of the Union, I think it's good for the President to get up before Congress and the nation at least once a year and tell us what's going on, in his (or perhaps soon, her) point of view.
But still, there's no requirement that it be a speech with all the pomp and circumstance that surrounds it. And especially considering that this president can't even get the name of the opposition party correct, I think we might be better off if he never stepped in front of a microphone again.

I was going to listen to Ron and Fez, who played the speech and commented on it on radio, but dirty jobs was on and I prefer watching mules hauling lumber to listening to a Bush speech even with two funny radio personalities doing color commentary.

You're right that there's no requirement it be delivered in person, but its gaffs like getting the opposition party's name wrong that are the very reason he should get up there. Otherwise he could hide in the White House and issue proclamations and edicts, written and read by polished lackeys, and never show the People what he's like.

I wrote about this last night on another forum. I think, frankly, that by this point he's not going to say anything new and can only harm what little is left of his reputation by appearing and making speeches to any but the most iehard faithful, so simply handing a report over to the Congress would be a win-win. We don't have to listen to him and he doesn't look like a buffoon.

But still, there's no requirement that it be a speech with all the pomp and circumstance that surrounds it. And especially considering that this president can't even get the name of the opposition party correct, I think we might be better off if he never stepped in front of a microphone again.

You're right that there's no requirement it be delivered in person, but its gaffs like getting the opposition party's name wrong that are the very reason he should get up there. Otherwise he could hide in the White House and issue proclamations and edicts, written and read by polished lackeys, and never show the People what he's like.

I wrote about this last night on another forum. I think, frankly, that by this point he's not going to say anything new and can only harm what little is left of his reputation by appearing and making speeches to any but the most iehard faithful, so simply handing a report over to the Congress would be a win-win. We don't have to listen to him and he doesn't look like a buffoon.

We don't have to listen anyway, and with this President, the more he looks like a buffoon, the better. He and his cronies have done more harm to this nation than almost anyone I can think of.

We don't have to listen anyway, and with this President, the more he looks like a buffoon, the better. He and his cronies have done more harm to this nation than almost anyone I can think of.

James Buchanan did far far more damage than President Bush. As did Nixon.

James Buchanan did far far more damage than President Bush. As did Nixon.

Buchanan? He was inept, but he certainly didn't do the level of damage Bush has done. And at least Nixon had the decency to resign.

Buchanan? He was inept, but he certainly didn't do the level of damage Bush has done. And at least Nixon had the decency to resign.

No he just had the country split around him and he did nothing to prevent it thus leaving Abe Lincoln with a fractured country that resulted into a Civil War. Yea that wasn't as bad as what Bush is doing. Yea right. That is far worse than what Bush is doing.

No he just had the country split around him and he did nothing to prevent it thus leaving Abe Lincoln with a fractured country that resulted into a Civil War. Yea that wasn't as bad as what Bush is doing. Yea right. That is far worse than what Bush is doing.

Buchanan wasn't going to stop that split--that rift was coming no matter who was in office, because there were too many people on both sides who wanted it to happen. Lincoln's election was proof that the fracture that already existed. Jesus Christ--don't they teach even the basics of history anymore?

James Buchanan did far far more damage than President Bush. As did Nixon.

:D I almost mentioned Buchanan, I swear, but then I thought, Nah, too obscure!

I agree with The Nazz, Nixon at least resigned. It's taken Bush six years to grudgingly admit that maybe mistakes were made. Not by him personally, but he'll take responsibility. Right.

But still, there's no requirement that it be a speech with all the pomp and circumstance that surrounds it. And especially considering that this president can't even get the name of the opposition party correct, I think we might be better off if he never stepped in front of a microphone again.
I missed that, what did he call them?

I missed that, what did he call them?

"the Democratic Majority".

Apparently there is supposed to be another party in charge of Congress that opposes Bush. :rolleyes:

Buchanan wasn't going to stop that split--that rift was coming no matter who was in office, because there were too many people on both sides who wanted it to happen. Lincoln's election was proof that the fracture that already existed. Jesus Christ--don't they teach even the basics of history anymore?

Does it matter what they teach if the pupil is unable to learn and understand?

I missed that, what did he call them?

After his feel-good shtick with regard to Pelosi, he immediately called on the "democrat majority," a term his handlers chose deliberately to annoy and aggravate the democrats.

State of the Parallel Universe Union, more like. As time marches on, Bush seems more and more like a figure from some other continuum altogether, hopelessly inadequate to the task of even casually comprehending this world of ours he's bluffing his way through.

James Buchanan did far far more damage than President Bush. As did Nixon.
When are you Busheviks going to throw in the towel?

Your guy is a lame duck and a poor excuse for a President.

Eh... You do realize that there is a democratic majority that is in charge of the House. How is recognizing them the same as being childish?

Read what you said. Then read what you quoted.

You are correct, it is democratic majority. What did the Bush call it, as theperson you are quoting pointed out?

the "democrat majority". Not "democratic majority". democrat majority. The proper name for the party in this context is democratic party. Bush consistantly refered to it as the democrat party, trying to refer to "the opposition" as the party of...well..democracy (the obvious inference is the democratic party being the party of democracy, what the hell is the republican party).

It is petty political manuevering and, I agree, purely childish to refer to the party as "the democrat" party, and not what it is called, and should rightfully be refered to as, the democratic party.

"the Democratic Majority".

Apparently there is supposed to be another party in charge of Congress that opposes Bush. :rolleyes:

no, and do try to keep up.

He called them "the democrat majority", not the democratic majority.

You didnt miss much,wasn't a great speech. On an unrelated note a friend of mine got drunk off his ass because he decided to drink every time Bush said 'terrorist(s)'. Damn did he say terrorist a lot.

Buchanan wasn't going to stop that split--that rift was coming no matter who was in office, because there were too many people on both sides who wanted it to happen. Lincoln's election was proof that the fracture that already existed. Jesus Christ--don't they teach even the basics of history anymore?

No but Buchanan had a chance to stop it and he did not do anything about it. That is what makes him the worst president in American History.

"the Democratic Majority".

Apparently there is supposed to be another party in charge of Congress that opposes Bush. :rolleyes:

Apparently.

Does it matter what they teach if the pupil is unable to learn and understand?

Oh brother. Why don't you go and understand History. I'm getting my Bachelors Degree in the discipline as well as in Government. And I live in the state where Buchanan lives. Ironicly, he was the only President from PA.

After his feel-good shtick with regard to Pelosi, he immediately called on the "democrat majority," a term his handlers chose deliberately to annoy and aggravate the democrats.

*dies of laughter*

It is a Democratic Majority you dunderhead.

Oh brother. Why don't you go and understand History. I'm getting my Bachelors Degree in the discipline as well as in Government. And I live in the state where Buchanan lives. Ironicly, he was the only President from PA.
Then it's really fucking sad that you haven't learned anything. Have you been going to the equivalent of Liberty University or something?
*dies of laughter*

It is a Democratic Majority you dunderhead.
Yeah, except that's not the term Bush used. Maybe if you'd actually read the preceding comments before you posted, you could avoid looking like an idiot.

When are you Busheviks going to throw in the towel?

:rolleyes: Problem with that CH was that I wanted to vote for someone else in 2004. That line is really incorrect when it deals with me.

As for throwing in the towel, I'm not a boxer.

Your guy is a lame duck and a poor excuse for a President.

See above.

no, and do try to keep up.

He called them "the democrat majority", not the democratic majority.

I call bullshit:

Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate — and I congratulate the Democratic majority

Straigt from the transcript.

I call bullshit:

Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate — and I congratulate the Democratic majority

Straigt from the transcript.
I'm looking for the video right now--the speech as released had the words "democratic majority," but Bush actually said "democrat majority." He couldn't help himself--he just had to be a douchebag on the largest stage in the world.

Then it's really fucking sad that you haven't learned anything. Have you been going to the equivalent of Liberty University or something?

I've learned a hell of a lot Nazz. Buchanan sucked as President. He could have prevented war by recognizing what was going on around him. He did absolutely nothing.

Yeah, except that's not the term Bush used. Maybe if you'd actually read the preceding comments before you posted, you could avoid looking like an idiot.

I did and looked at the transcript.

I've learned a hell of a lot Nazz. Buchanan sucked as President. He could have prevented war by recognizing what was going on around him. He did absolutely nothing. Buchanan could have been Jesus Effing Christ and he wouldn't have stopped the Civil War from happening. Buchanan was certainly inept in a number of ways, but that war was going to happen no matter what--too many people in power on both sides wanted it to happen and to suggest that Buchanan could have stopped it by being more aware just shows me that your History degree isn't worth the Cracker Jack box you seem to have gotten it out of.

And if anyone can find the video of the 2007 State of the Union address, will they post a link to it?

:rolleyes: Problem with that CH was that I wanted to vote for someone else in 2004.
So you just voted for Bush anyways? :headbang:

So you just voted for Bush anyways? :headbang:

I did not like Kerry at all. I voted for Bush because at least he stuck to what he believed. Kerry did not on a day to day basis.