Reason #490 that you shouldn't vote for Bush

Mother Mo · Post by **Mother Mo** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:31 pm

Heavy, Damia.

Potent link.

judas gnb · Post by **judas gnb** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:02 pm

I would vote for somebody else had he ran but my pick is holding off til 2008.At Wrestlemania 20 Jesse "the body" said and i quote. "Maybe its time we put a wrestler in the white house" and you know he's right.But until 2008 i will continue to support our president to the ends of the earth and back cause Kerry is an ass who flip flops like a fish outta water.

junkie christ · Post by **junkie christ** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:33 pm

judas gnb wrote:I would vote for somebody else had he ran but my pick is holding off til 2008.At Wrestlemania 20 Jesse "the body" said and i quote. "Maybe its time we put a wrestler in the white house" and you know he's right.But until 2008 i will continue to support our president to the ends of the earth and back cause Kerry is an ass who flip flops like a fish outta water.

again i say this, these arent intellegent reasons.
these are opinions and massmedia created catchphrase insults
show me concrete reasons.............

gray · Post by **gray** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:27 pm

junkie christ wrote:secular

nonsecular

any reason.

but the people who would use secular reasoning are proving they are brainwashed idiots............and thus disproving that they deserve to exist.

WTF? You can bite my butt buddy. Secular reasoning is exactly the kind of thinking we need in this country. Otherwise you end up with droves and droves of psycho devoted torch bearing nit-wits in Congress. Which is about the sum of it right now.

junkie christ wrote:i want some well thought out answer about why hes a good pick (we all know hes a good PrICK).
never seen one. i wonder when people type up or say shit..when they look back on it if they realize how wrong they are and are afraid to admit or are really that fucking stupid.

A single coherant well thought out reason is what I am asking for. I added secular to the criteria so to prevent offense to the polite Christians on the board. Arguing for or against the guy based on religion just wont carry any weight and will likely end up offending many people.

Judas, you still haven't given a concrete reason for supporting the guy. Discrediting Kerry is not an option. You have to make an arguement based on Shrubby's merits. (Does he have any?)

To illustrate, Kerry will no doubt select a different cabinet and therefore change the structure and direction of the presidential administration. This alone would be an improvement since we already know that the Bush administration is neither honest to or respectful of the international community. Let's try to remember that these are the same guys in the administration when Bush Sr. and Reagan were in the White House. Take a good look at the crap they pulled then and it should be obvious they need to go.

Creepy note, John Negroponte was chosen by the current administration to be U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. For the sake of many Iraqi citizens I can only hope that doesn't last long.

judas gnb · Post by **judas gnb** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:48 pm

well heres the thing at this point im joking cause no matter what i say in favor of bush everybody is dead set in his downfall so why does it matter what i say.....Hell 2008 im running for president vote for me

judas gnb · Post by **judas gnb** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 1:27 am

Ok the more and more I have thought about the more and more it eats at me.So my reasons for Bush as President are as follows.

I truly believe that George W. Bush could be running against the devil right now and the poll numbers would be the same. There is just a polarizing effect with our president. John Kerry is not the answer, but people – or at least the Democrats out there -- don’t care.

First it was the economy; now the economy is roaring so they say it is Iraq. Now Bush has done everything the international community wanted.

He handed sovereignty to the Iraqis, he encouraged NATO and the inept U.N. to get involved. So what can you complain about now? He has answered every argument with solutions.

The U.N. is an inept group. We tried to get them to back up their own resolution, and they wouldn’t do it. We had no choice but to go with those that were willing to defend freedom.

Also, remember that we had intelligence from Russia that Iraq was planning to attack us. You say they hadn’t attacked us yet, OK, after Pearl Harbor why did we attack Germany? North Vietnam never attacked us, yet John F. Kennedy sent our forces in. Korea never attacked, us yet we attacked them. Bosnia never attacked us, yet Bill Clinton attacked them.

Bush has done everything the world community has wanted recently. So the question would be, what do you fault him for now?

The U.N. never wanted to help, yet it passed the resolution against Iraq. I truly believe that President Jacques Chirac (of France) just hates Bush and will do whatever he can to undermine our effort. The problem with Chirac is that his approval rating at home is awful, and he will have a hard time keeping his job. Also, France has a huge Muslim population; this is another example of a politician governing based on polls and not what is best for his country.

Kerry and Bush at home are trying very hard to get the religious vote, especially the Catholic vote; there are 65 million Catholics in the U.S. Bush has been to visit the Pope three times. Kerry has been threatened with refusal of communion for his pro-choice views. So the line between church and state is blurred even further. The Catholic church is getting involved in politics, and the politicians are involving the church. I understand being religious -- over 70 percent of voters say religion is important -- but I believe that they are using religion for political motives.

There ya go I still say that no matter what I type or what i say.I am only one voice in a sea of many.But J Money still loves ya all.
Peace

Nephilim · Post by **Nephilim** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:44 am

Okay, while everyone is entitled to their opinions, reasons, what-have-you for this election, my reasons agains't Bush are few, but they are big ones.

1) The Patriot Act - Yes, let's protect the average US citizen by taking away a whole slew of their rights. No thanks. I believe it was Ben Franklin that said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." If it comes down to having my rights but a little less security, well, I'll take my rights thank you very much.

2) Separation of Church and State - This is one of the basic tenets of the US Constitution. With things like the faith based initiative, and the soon-to-be-voted-on ammendment to the constitution about same-sex marriages, Bush is severely pushing the limits of this tenet. By breaking down the barriers between church and state, this will set a dangerous precedent that can lead to a severe limitation of the freedom of religion. Again, dangerously close to breaking one of the very things this country was based on.

3) Iraq - There is a lot of controversy around this, and I don't want to get into it. I'll just say the whole thing sticks like a hot steaming pile.

Mercurygriffin · Post by **Mercurygriffin** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 1:54 pm

My reason for hateing him is simple. Everyman is created equal, and then you have some ex-coke head that daddy wants to help get into the white house, good thing daddy used to have that job, how hard could it be, an extreamist goes off, dumbass panics and lets his daddys friends (all old white men) kill lots of brown people in a country not even in the same country as the extreamist. I guess not ALL men are created equal.

Serenity · Post by **Serenity** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:54 am

On this topic, I have to agree with BM...
I really dislike (putting it lightly) Bush and his views on anything. Does this man have any views other than the view of his ass because his head is so far up it? Yes I may be all "rah rah women" and always have been but this man belongs in the middle ages were it was legal to beat, rape and kill women and well, just about anyone. The fact that this man is still living in the dark ages is reason enough from him to get the hell out of office.

My vote is obvious...Kerry...
Why? because another 4 years of Bush would be hell...for anyone, especially our economy...do we have an economy?

Mother Mo · Post by **Mother Mo** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:56 pm

Regarding the "flip flop effect" I'd like to point out that changing one's mind as new information is presented, to me is the sign of a truly thoughtful individual. When we find out that we actually had no legitimate reason for invading Iraq because they really had no WMD & our guys knew it, but were bullied by the White House into spinning it the other way, I'd say that's a good time to reevaluate our decision as well as the process by which we arrived at it.

Plus, it's easy to say that he didn't sign off on say, the Laci Peterson law, but what the republican ads don't mention is that the wording of that particular piece of legislature was done so that no pro choice politican ever could. The law gives the unborn fetus the same protection as it's mother (sounds good) so if they are both brutally murdered, the asshole who did gets charged with a double homocide rather just especially aggrivated homocide of the mom. Again, sounds good. Who wouldn't want to see the murderer of mother & child go down as hard as they can be taken down?

But to catagorize the fetus as a murder victim, implies that it is a separate individual under the law. This opens the door & throws out the red carpet for overturning Roe. No self respecting pro choice democrat can do that & remain true to his pro choice constituants.

Always consider the source & try to find out what's been left out of the information that's being thrown at you. I think Kerry, who actually served his country during Vietnam is immensley more qualified to deal with this state of war we are now in & will undoubtedly stay in for quite some time to come. George is still trying to settle his dad's & Dick Cheney's old scores from the first Gulf war. What we in fact have on our hands, is a global conflict with mass amounts of terrorists. We can't hope to ever get a firm grasp of the situation with Tony Blair as our only ally. Bush just doesn't have the diplomacy gene. With him leading the country, we'll only continue to make targets of ourselves, while further isolating our country from friends as well as enemies.

g0dz3lla · Post by **g0dz3lla** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 8:25 pm

Bush's proudest accomplishments in office:

http://home.earthlink.net/~robx/Bush/Bush.html

•I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.
•I attacked and took over 2 countries.
•I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
•I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
•I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions. (Takes a war criminal to know a war criminal..)

I don't see how anyone of sane mind, Republican or Democrat, and excluding those presiding over large corporations, could still vote for him. Oh well, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. People would vote for Satan if they thought he would win.

karmakaze · Post by **karmakaze** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:44 pm

junkie christ wrote:secular

nonsecular

any reason.

but the people who would use secular reasoning are proving they are brainwashed idiots............and thus disproving that they deserve to exist.

bush is non-secular, so i am assuming that you ment non-secular as defined as "brainwashed idiots".

i don't think that being non-secular makes you a brainwashed idiot. granted, that does seem to happen a lot, i do know lots of religious or spiritual people who use non-secular reasoning to govern their life. and they are far from being brainwashed. the difference is, they don't try to push their reasoning on anyone else. on a smaller scale non-secular vs secular reasoning does not matter. you can always just ignore it. because generally it does not affect you. however, when non-secular is taken into secular issues on a larger scale, (such as the government passing laws based on non-secular beliefs) is when you get issues.

if an individual has non-secular beliefs then they should be able govern themselves based on those beliefs. they should not have to pass a law that affects everyone. if they have to pass a law, for them to be able to govern themselves, then they have more of their own issues that they should deal with in a manner that does not piss off people like me.

Mercurygriffin · Post by **Mercurygriffin** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 2:04 pm

karmakaze · Post by **karmakaze** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:09 pm

Mercurygriffin wrote:http://www.consumptionjunction.com/downloads/cj_36661.jpg

LOL!

gray · Post by **gray** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:08 am

Quality Post Mother Mo. You aptly describe some of the probelms with politics today as it is effected by mass media channels. The 'flip-flop effect' is common and to some degree predictable. Therefore the existing media channels and governments can use this predictability to gther votes during a voting year. Due to the long leangth of the campaign trail each contender is able to manipulate the perseption of reality as needed to assure confidence in their vote. Apparently this process only works if A - the contender can consistantly convince people they are correct regardless of the facts and B the campaign process is long enough to 'sleight-of-hand' the fallacies from public view. Case in point when the goverment release an official document regarding say, the president, they will doctor the document and omit incriminating evidence. This is pointed out rather handily in Farenheit 911. This does not mean Moore and his movies are without fault, It is just a very relevant example. I believe/feel (oh no, an opinion) the campaign and election process should be overhauled significantly. Here are things I would change.

1 - Disallow private monetary contributions.
This could be a privacy issue, but I believe the transparency it creates is reasonable. This also helps prevent 'soft-money' donations. I will come back to matter that as well.

2 - Shorten the Campaign Period.
The presentation, advertising, and debate period to a maximum of 3 months. This is ample time to deliver a succinct message regarding the candidate and party platform.

3 - Disallow donations from non-voting entities.
Simply put if you don't have a right to vote you should not be allowed to influence the vote monetarily. Although this sounds harsh it resolves a large number of campaign finance issues. Currently there are no checks in place to prevent a felon from donating money to a campaign. Business owners are able to contribute both as an individual and as a business leader. This effectively creates double representation for these business owners. Most importantly there is no prevention of foreign donations as well. In each of these cases the donor does not have a voting right in our electoral process and therefore has no legal recourse to influence the result of the election. This clause would eliminate both soft-money and offshore donations and improve the validity of the monetary backing of the candidate.

4 - Federal level Elections should be managed by a Federal body.
Due to the Florida election we already know that the current decentralized method of voting record maintenance and management is vulnerable to widespread corruption. More central government is not a great solution so I propose the following hybrid approach. Each State currently has an election commission. For each state the federal government would require a sister election commission employed by the Judicial Branch, and selected by the federal circuit court of that state. These selections should be reviewed and approved by the House and the Senate judicial commities. Members of these commissions would need to be voluntarily permanent. That is the individual can leave the position, but cannot hold the position twice. These individuals can only be removed with a Federal Court Order resulting from a complaint against that commissioner. This level of protection prevents political pressure from deciding the quality of work, but provides for removal in the event of blatant corruption. These sister commissions would then be responsible for standardizing, validating, and protecting the accuracy of the federal ballots. It would also be suitable to rest federal House of Representative redistricting decision on these otherwise neutral parties. Finally the department would require an isolated budget equal to 10percent of the State budget for the corresponding Election commission. This would help to prevent an inflated budget and financial political pandering. In theory the Federal sister commission would piggy back on the State commission as an integrated department with oversight powers.

These are just a few ideas. They would need more fleshing out but I think these steps would be beneficial to the voting process. This could also improve constituent confidence of the voting process, which is direly needed.

Enough for now.

Mercurygriffin · Post by **Mercurygriffin** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 2:21 pm

Zeo · Post by **Zeo** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:18 pm

junkie christ · Post by **junkie christ** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:28 pm

i just reread this thread and realized i confused secular and nonsecular.
i gotta start sleeping more. lol.

Reason #490 that you shouldn't vote for Bush

Possible solutions...