Voting for Bush = stupid

[MystyGlyttyr]

You know, I've seen so many people, on TV, on the Internet, in books and everywhere bashing Bush, calling him horrible names, and all that, and that pisses me off, but that's their deal, not mine. But aside from that, then most begin implying that people who voted for the man are morons and idiots, and frankly, I'm sick to hell of it.

I did vote for him. Not the first time around, but the second time, I did.

I don't agree with him 100%. No one agrees with anyone else every day all day all the time. I think he has some policies that are downright asinine. But that being said, I agree with his policies a hell of a lot more than I agreed with Al Gore or John Kerry or Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama or Ralph Nader or WHOEVER. He was the best bet for my belief system so he's who I chose.

I'm not going into my belief system because it's unimportant. I could state it and within minutes, I'd get people throwing study after newsreel after rumor after scare-tactic at me trying to convince me of their side, when the truth is I've probably already seen it. I listen to Rush Limbaugh and I watch Fox News, but I also watch MSNBC and read books by Michael Moore. I've examined both extremes and whatever middle ground I can find. I've chased the science where applicable, and I sat down alone and decided how I felt on all the issues.

I chose my beliefs on my own, without religion forcing it on me, without being convinced by some renegade media, without anything but my own gut feelings and my own research.

So the fact that people think my voting based on my own brainpower makes me a moron just because I picked a candidate they don't like is FUCKING IGNORANT.

I don't CARE if you don't like the President. I really don't, I promise. It irritates me to no end to listen to him being bashed, but I can accept that, especially if you actually have a real reason to dislike him and aren't just doing it because it's "the thing to do". It's just when MY intelligence, and more importantly, my CHARACTER gets called into question based on who I picked in a politician, then I get just a little bit provoked.

I don't go around calling people who voted for Kerry or Clinton stupid, even though I don't like their candidate or agree with their policies. The fact that because it's BUSH that's involved seems to suddenly make it okay just infuriates me.

(I'm not pointing at anyone in particular, this is something I've observed several places, but this is the only place I can actually mention it and expect rational discussion.)

[Pedersen]

To provide some possible explanation:

Bush is perceived by many as the most criminal president this country has had since Nixon (at least). That means that anybody under the age of 40 wouldn't even know the previous most criminal.

There are some who view him as the most criminal president ever. This means that they are unable to imagine someone having ever been more criminal in their actions while in the Oval Office.

Of those who see him that way, a fairly significant portion of the USA has disliked him since before the 2000 election.

Another (not necessarily disjoint) significant portion of the USA has felt that he is a criminal of the highest order since before the 2004 election, and believe that it was plainly visible before that election just how criminal the man was.

So, the people who are bashing Bush voters are really saying something to the effect of "Congratulations. You have just voted into office a man guilty of more crimes than I am able to list. Even with my having tried to do so repeatedly before the 2004 election, and you failed to listen. How could you not see the crimes?"

I'll not discuss my feelings on him, nor on people who voted for him. I will only say that I didn't vote at all, and don't foresee myself doing so until such time as it actually can make a difference. I'm in a state that has traditionally voted one way (which way doesn't even matter). It's done so by a large majority for over 20 years. My vote does not matter (I either vote in their direction, which makes no difference, since they already vote that way, or I vote against them, and get ignored).

Anyway, back to the topic at hand: They believe him to be a criminal. They believe his criminality is obvious to anybody that cares to look. Therefore, they wonder why anybody would have voted for him.

Take that for what you will.

[DarthRetard]

No offense pedersen, but there are two statements in your post that bug the shit out of me.

First, if a significant portion didn't like him before the 2000 election, it must not have been significant enough to keep him from getting elected.

Second, I discount anyone's opinion who didn't vote because "it won't make a difference." That's a cop-out in true form, and it's the reason we have such a shitty voter turn-out every year, and it's the reason things get fucked up in government when we don't take responsibility.

Cop-out statements like this are the TRUE problem:

"It won't matter, they won't listen." Well, try, then we'll see.

"My vote doesn't count." In an election like 2000, it just may have, especially when we get to choose who we want.

"Politicians won't listen." If you motivate them, and influence them, they will, Martin Luther King, Jr. knew it, the Suffrage Movement knew it, etc. We have a right to petition for a reason.

If you don't like the current system, change it, do what you can to MAKE your vote count. Make your voice heard. Don't just say "I'm not voting because it doesn't matter." If I were in a third-world country without rights like that, I'd be right inclined to think you were insane.

[Pedersen]

No offense pedersen, but there are two statements in your post that bug the shit out of me.

None taken. I know that my point of view on this bugs most people. Oh well.

First, if a significant portion didn't like him before the 2000 election, it must not have been significant enough to keep him from getting elected.

I really do get tired of hearing these sorts of arguments, so I'm only going to bother with this once.

Per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000), the popular election elected Al Gore, with 48.38% of the vote. Bush received 47.87% of the vote. Bush won the electoral votes, though, (271 to 266), which is why he became President). To break down popular vote number, Gore received 50,999,897 votes, while Bush received 50,456,002 votes. This means that, of
105,417,258 votes cast (with nearly 4,000,000 votes being cast for other candidates), 50,999,897 people disliked Bush enough to vote against him.

Not enough to prevent him winning the electoral vote, to be sure, but that's still a pretty significant chunk of the country, don't you think?

Second, I discount anyone's opinion who didn't vote because "it won't make a difference." That's a cop-out in true form, and it's the reason we have such a shitty voter turn-out every year, and it's the reason things get fucked up in government when we don't take responsibility.


No, sorry, this is a mathematical certainty. My vote does not matter.

For points of reference, please see the following links for all presidential elections that have occurred for the time I've been alive. I've included summaries from each one that shows the Presidential voting election results from NJ (the state I currently live in). The first column is the democratic result, followed by percentage for democratic, followed by the republican, and then the republican percentage:


1972 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1972) NEW JERSEY 1,102,211 36.8 1,845,502 61.6
1976 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1976) NEW JERSEY 1,444,653 47.9 1,509,688 50.1
1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1980) NEW JERSEY 1,147,364 38.6 1,546,557 52.0
1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1984) NEW JERSEY 1,261,323 39.2 1,933,630 60.1
1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1988) NEW JERSEY 1,320,352 43.1 1,743,192 56.9
1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992) NEW JERSEY 1,436,206 43.3 1,356,865 40.9
1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996) NEW JERSEY 1,652,329 53.7 1,103,078 35.9
2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000) NEW JERSEY 1,284,173 40.3 1,788,850 56.1
2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004) NEW JERSEY 1,911,430 52.9 1,670,003 46.2


Take a look at those numbers. This state is overwhelmingly likely to vote for McCain this fall. And by a minimum vote of 100,000 people. More likely, they will vote for McCain by a margin of around 500,000.

Is it possible that this state will vote Democratic this fall? Yes, of course, but it's very unlikely. In fact, if you follow the trends back far enough, you have to find a wartime Democratic president to find this state reliably voting Democratic (with Bill Clinton being the notable exception). Outside of that? It votes Republican the majority of the time.

So, two scenarios occur, here's the outcomes:

1. I walk into the booth, and vote Republican. The state votes Republican by a margin of some 500,000 people. My vote did not matter.
2. I walk into the booth, and vote Democratic. The state votes Republican by a margin of some 500,000 people. I stood in line for an ungodly length of time for no better reason than I could. My vote did not matter.

Oh, but what if the state votes Democratic, I hear you say? Swap the names around in those two scenarios, and tell me what's different.

Mathematically speaking, my vote does not matter. My chances of winning the lottery are greater than the chances of my vote actually making a difference with the way this state votes.

Finally, in comes the real problem: I don't believe that any of the candidates represent my views. Republicans want to control what happens in my bedroom. Democrats want to control how I think. Both of them want the contents of my wallet to do so.

I want a candidate that will just leave me alone. I don't want more social programs. I want what we have to be fixed. I don't want more taxes. I want what we have to be spent better.

And nobody gives me that. So, I should go in and vote for the lesser of two evils? Why not cast a vote for Cthulhu? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? They won't represent me, either.

No, what I want is something that will never be allowed, because it will allow votes to actually matter: Give me the option of putting in a binding vote for "None of the above". If "None of the above" wins the election, a new election is held and the previous candidates are barred from running.

"My vote doesn't count." In an election like 2000, it just may have, especially when we get to choose who we want.

In specific states, your vote mattered in 2000. NJ wasn't one of them. With the way it votes, it likely never will be.

"Politicians won't listen." If you motivate them, and influence them, they will, Martin Luther King, Jr. knew it, the Suffrage Movement knew it, etc. We have a right to petition for a reason.

If you don't like the current system, change it, do what you can to MAKE your vote count. Make your voice heard. Don't just say "I'm not voting because it doesn't matter." If I were in a third-world country without rights like that, I'd be right inclined to think you were insane.

Great, I'll hit the campaign trail tomorrow. Wait, one small problem: My public speaking skills are not going to motivate anybody to do anything but sleep.

Another small problem: The issues I care about are viewed as unimportant by around 90% of the people in this country, and nothing I say will change that (and yes, I have tried. When I'm unable to even persuade people close to me that these issues matter, it's a pretty hard sell to make me believe that others will think it important).

And yet another small issue: I have some pieces of my past that I would prefer to keep buried in the past. If I make myself a public figure, those pieces will become public in fairly short order. Since I don't want them public, I have no choice but to avoid the public eye.

So, no, my vote doesn't matter, and it will not matter.

As for the people in third world countries? They need to learn to pay attention to the math, as do the people in this country. One person among millions does not matter, no matter how much people might like to think otherwise.

The difference between me, them, and you? Unlike them, I've realized that my vote does not matter. And without major change (change that will not be allowed, because it could actually start denying career politicians jobs), my vote will not matter in future.

[DarthRetard]

I do realize that Gore was elected by popular vote, believe me, I understand the issue it caused in 2000, I live in the county that had the issue of the "hanging chads".

I understand that mathematically, it may not matter, but on a philosophical standpoint, it just seems like a futile way to look at things. I respect your opinion though.

On topic, I understand exactly what you mean Mysty. I get grilled because of the way i vote or my stance, and it's just plain rude.

[Boozy]

I don't think everyone who voted for Bush is stupid. Just ill-informed.

No one with a firm understanding of current events, economics, and geopolitics would have voted for him in 2004.

[Pedersen]

No one with a firm understanding of current events, economics, and geopolitics and thinks that the direction the world is going in is a bad one would have voted for him in 2004.

There, fixed that for you.

You might not like it, but it's entirely possible that some people like the direction the world has taken. Have to account for that.

[Boozy]

You're right, I forgot to factor in those who are just complete douchebags.

[machinest]

Some of the problem is that we see citizenship and voting in a different light than the writers of the Constitution . Where they saw themselves as citizens of their state which was a member of the United States we are more likely to see our selves as Americans who live in a certain state .Unfortunately the voting system especially for the President is geared to reflect an importance of states as entities that we no longer perceive them as having.

[Pedersen]

You're right, I forgot to factor in those who are just complete douchebags.

The jerk side of me must now congratulate you, Boozy. Depending on which comment of yours that Mysty chooses to read, you have now called her either uninformed or a douchebag.

[Zyanya]

The jerk side of me must now congratulate you, Boozy. Depending on which comment of yours that Mysty chooses to read, you have now called her either uninformed or a douchebag.

Frankly, anyone who thinks what Bush has done to this country is somehow a good thing is one or the other.

I miss living in a country where the bill of rights meant something and the government wasn't committing and justifying human rights abuses.

[Amethyst Hunter]

It's just when MY intelligence, and more importantly, my CHARACTER gets called into question based on who I picked in a politician, then I get just a little bit provoked.


*takes a long, deep breath*

I will state this right now and get it out of the way:

I fucking loathe Bush.

I think that "man" - and I use the term VERY loosely - is a misogynist warmongering ignorant greedy religion-abusive scumbag who deserves *at the very least* a lifetime hard prison term for all the shit he's done. (Ditto for his cronies) "Piece of shit", is, in fact, the NICEST thing I can think of to say about him. Frankly, he DESERVES every bit of misery that comes his way as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I don't necessarily think that people - all people, anyway - who voted for him are stupid. I think it was a stupid decision to have voted for him (because hey, we all do dumb things every now and then, as the commercial goes) - but I don't think the person him/herself is stupid. If that makes any sense.

[Rapscallion]

Keep it to the issue, folks, not the personalities of other posters.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

Some of the problem is that we see citizenship and voting in a different light than the writers of the Constitution . Where they saw themselves as citizens of their state which was a member of the United States we are more likely to see our selves as Americans who live in a certain state .Unfortunately the voting system especially for the President is geared to reflect an importance of states as entities that we no longer perceive them as having.

Probably quite the opposite, really. The founding fathers were probably more like today's Libertarians than the two main parties, in that they were very strongly for states' rights, a fairly weak central government, and a strong agrarian way of life. We really didn't get a stronger federal government until Lincoln came in to prevent states from seceding.

I never liked Bush, there was something about him that I just didn't trust in 2000. His ratings were going south after his first election. The only reason he got to be a 2 term president is simply because of 9/11 and his ability to play off people's fears.
While I recognize he's not the worst president we've ever had, he's probably right up there with the worst, especially since the middle part of last century, even including Nixon and to a lesser extent, Johnson. At least Nixon and Johnson had better foreign policies than Bush has.

[Boozy]

The jerk side of me must now congratulate you, Boozy. Depending on which comment of yours that Mysty chooses to read, you have now called her either uninformed or a douchebag.

:(

I definitely wasn't calling Mysty a douchebag. I like and respect Mysty, and I hope she knows that. I'm very sorry if anyone took offense.

I should have taken the time to clarify my position earlier. Here goes:

The Bush administration serves the interests of the greedy rich. These are the jackasses who like the direction the world is going in because it puts more money in their pockets. War, pain, pestilence - its all good, as long as the cash keeps rolling in.

People who sell their souls like this are undeniable douchebags.

Most Americans, however, are good people. So to get around that pesky "democracy" issue, Bush and company needed to find a way to get normal, peace-loving Americans to vote for them. And they did so through a campaign of misinformation and fear. Hence my belief that the average Bush voter was ill-informed.

I hope that clears things up.

[ebonyknight]

People who sell their souls like this are undeniable douchebags.

Most Americans, however, are good people. So to get around that pesky "democracy" issue, Bush and company needed to find a way to get normal, peace-loving Americans to vote for them. And they did so through a campaign of misinformation and fear. Hence my belief that the average Bush voter was ill-informed.

I hope that clears things up.

I don't see how anyone can't see a coincidence in the number of Terror alerts there were in the year prior to the 2K4 election and then there has been only 1 (in response to the London bombing) in the 4 years since!!!!!

If that isn't a clear cut example, I don't know what else could be said.

I personally believe in give me liberty or give me death. When the sniper shootings went on in this area. I didn't curtail my outdoor smoking habit (while others smoked in the garage and I stood alone), I didn't duck around the gas pumps. I didn't change my routine at all. I work at a place where we have had several reports of people stepping off the metro taking pictures of my workplace and immediately getting back on. I live with the possibility of OK City happening, daily. Do I quit my job? No.

I sincerely believe that life is a gift, not a right. I would (and have) given up my security for freedom.

IMHO, this is something that the Bush voters (that I was specifically speaking of) couldn't appreciate, because they have never really lived with the threat of danger.

[DesignFox]

Seriously, living in the US, I don't think we've ever really lived with the threat of danger.

We have had a few tragedies here or there, but our country is not torn apart by war. We do not have to worry that when we leave our houses, some terrorist nutjob is going to kidnap us...or shoot us...or whatever simply because we don't follow the tenets of that group. We don't have to live in fear of car bombs, mass destruction and suicide bombers. We just don't have the problems that certain countries are having.

Take a look at some of the African countries and what's been happening with guerilla warfare. Look at the Middle East and tell me that isn't the hugest mess you've ever seen. What about Sarajevo? What about WWII- war torn Germany?

We are a very lucky people. We haven't had bombs rained down on our homes before. We've had what...1 major terrorist attack in the last 8 years? (I'm not saying it wasn't tragic...it certainly was...and close to home for me, too)

The only people who maybe know what it's like to fear are the people who made it through WWI and WWII. THEY lived through war shortages and air raid drills. THEY had to make sacrifices. And you know what? They didn't let it stop their daily lives.

We shouldn't put our lives on hold because we had one major attack thrown at us by a handful of zealous shitheads. Trust me, if I ever am on a plane and some piece of shit asshole comes at me with a box cutter, you can bet I'll punch his fucking face in. Most Americans aren't going to sit idly by and let people do whatever they want. We're not afraid. We've learned our lesson- or should have.

What a waste of life to be burrowing for safety- especially when we have little to nothing to fear.

My BF and I made fun of those terrorist ratings like there was no tomorrow. "What color are we today, dear? Day-Glow Orange? What does that mean, I shouldn't take transit today?" :rolleyes:

Either way this election goes, I'll be having a bye-bye Bush party on inaugeration day.

[blas87]

I believe every adult American has the right to vote for whomever he/she wants. He/She should be able to vote in privacy and not be chastized for whom he/she votes for.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to shove them down other people's throats...

My mom voted for Bush. I think it was a stupid thing to do....but she had every right to do it. No can tell you who or who not to vote for.

[DarthRetard]

I sincerely believe that life is a gift, not a right. I would (and have) given up my security for freedom.




Life is an inherent right that all men(and women, too) were born with. It's in the Lockean social contract.

However, we should never have to sacrifice freedom for security. We haven't had to in the past, and there's no real damned reason now. The administration is using fear as means of herding us into dangerous legislation like cows to the slaughter.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." - Ben Franklin.

I support President Bush to the best of my ability, not his policies, but I try to support the man because I believe in dissent without hate. Yes, we Bush voters were misled, sad to say, because it destroys the integrity of our vote and at first glance can make us look like ignorant jackasses.

Boozy, I have to say that one of the many reasons Bush voters were uninformed was because he flat out fucking lied during campaigning. There were numerous times in debates with Gore in which he discussed how an interventionist foreign policy or a war in the middle east would bring us down in so many ways.

It's really easy for us to say it was a stupid thing to vote for him NOW, but back then, it was a different time, a different context, and a different situation, with different words being said.

[AFPheonix]

And yet you'd support someone who you admit flat out lied to you? There is no reason to support him, period.
I do hate liars. He's not exception. I strongly disliked him when he was voted in originally, rolled my eyes as he said asinine things until 9/11, and then hoped that he was up for the job at that point.
I had a glimmer of hope as I heard him talk that day, but it was quickly extinguished when he started his war drum for Iraq. Yes, he and Cheney lied. But you know what? A lot of those lies were pretty easily debunked. Hell, even the Daily Show caught some good whoppers before the 2004 elections, and they're not even a legitimate news organization.
We can blame the media, although a lot of media WERE getting the stories out that he was bad news if anyone would bother to listen. We can blame Bush himself for lying, but like I said, a little digging caught some pretty blatant surface lies.
People who voted for Bush, especially those in 2004 really have no one to blame if they're unhappy with his administration but themselves. The information was available.
I'll admit that I didn't like Kerry all that well either, although he got a bad deal from conservative press (swiftboat veterans for lying out our asses, anyone?) But I still would have happily taken a term of him over a term of Bush again.

[Boozy]

Boozy, I have to say that one of the many reasons Bush voters were uninformed was because he flat out fucking lied during campaigning. There were numerous times in debates with Gore in which he discussed how an interventionist foreign policy or a war in the middle east would bring us down in so many ways.

I said that anyone who voted for him in 2004 was uninformed. By 2004, I think most voters should have realized that he was corrupt and dishonest.

I still disagreed with him in 2000, and I would not have voted for him then if I'd been an American. But it wasn't as clear then as it was 4 years later.

[ebonyknight]

More fuel for the fire.

Bush's sacrifice for our soldiers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/13/bush-i-gave-up-golf-for-t_n_101595.html


As violence in Iraq continues -- clashes today left 11 dead and 19 injured -- President Bush has for the first time revealed the great sacrifice he's made for the sake of our soldiers: he's given up golf.

From an interview with Politico and Yahoo News:

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."


Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization's high commissioner for human rights.

"I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life," he said. "I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, 'It's just not worth it anymore to do.'"

Well at least it's better than Condi Rice buying shoes while her home state drowned. :rolleyes:

[ebonyknight]

Life is an inherent right that all men(and women, too) were born with. It's in the Lockean social contract.


So who do I sue or complain to when I lose that right? And does this right extend to animals as well?

My point being that if you get killed, you have no recourse whether you have a "right" to live or not. I guess this is an abstract vs. reality argument.

But I guess I am digressing.

[DarthRetard]

EK, read our Declaration of Independence. It's well within our duty to defend our rights, and when those rights are violated, and when the contract is broken, we are well within our rights as human beings, not just Americans, to rise up and change it.

AFP, I support him as a person because I believe in the inherent desire of all men to be good, despite our many shortcomings. He's my Commander-In-Chief, and I'll support the next one that comes in, no matter how much we disagree or how much they lie, because we have to work together to preserve this nation I and others try to defend.

Boozy, I see now. Yes, Not even I was on his side in 04, I couldn't vote either way (age), but I certainly was a Howard Dean guy myself.

I'm not ashamed of my beliefs, and I don't hold a grudge against any of you who may think I'm an idiot. (Well....I used to be republican, but hey, even Hillary campagined for Goldwater!)

I'm thankful we can have discussions like this and not be persecuted for our beliefs. Let's try to bring back what America is supposed to hold sacred.

[protege]

We can't put all the blame on Bush for Iraq. What about *Congress* who voted to give him the war authority? Shouldn't they (including one John Kerry, "I voted for the war before I voted against it?") take some of the blame?

Also, we must consider another thing; even though it was well-known that Bush wanted to go after Saddam... most of that could have been stopped. However, at the time, given Iraq's suspicious behavior concerning possible WMDs or nuke programs, was it any surprise that we thought they existed? At the time, quite a bit of intelligence hinted at it. However, once it came out that there weren't any WMDs, the calls for war should have stopped. It didn't though--couldn't Congress have put their collective feet down?

I too don't think the US has really had the threat of danger. I mean, both WWI, II, Korea, Vietnam, et al didn't really harm us (our civilians) all that much. Except for the Lusitania (WWI) and Pearl Harbor, that is. For the most part, the wars we've come through those unscathed. Contrast that with Europe and Japan...

As for the terror ratings, consider those a knee-jerk reaction. They simply provided the *illusion* of security, and were largely ignored. I don't know about you all, but I'm not about to change the way I do things because some fanatic *might* attack us. If we spend all our lives worrying about whether or not some asshole is going to do something...the asshole has already won. Sorry, but I have other things to worry about--if the kitties have food, I have enough to meet my bills, etc.

On voting for him, I think that too many people remembered the Clinton years for all the wrong reasons. (I'm not trying to attack Clinton here, folks.) They might not have liked the sex scandals, Whitewater, the fact that his Balanced Budget Act drove several hospitals into bankruptcy, etc. and felt that Kerry might (not would) have perpetuated the same things. Plus, they might not have liked the drama surrounding his military service.

[IDrinkaRum]

I voted for Bush in 2004. Didn't get excited about the Democrat party (still am not excited by the Democrat party for many, many reasons).

Protege has an interesting point - Congress did help in this too. Hillary Clinton voting for the war, Kerry also.

Now, the Democrats are more worried about the anti-War kook groups than anything real Americans have to say.

I vote Republican. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I'm a conservative (not ashamed of that neither). I used to be a Liberal Democrat. I voted for Clinton both times. Actually, I would have voted for McCain if he'd been the Presidential candidate back in 2000. But he wasn't, we got Bush, and then after his election, we got 9/11.

Sure Bush wanted to go after Saddam. Congress could have crippled his effort. Congress could be crippling Bush's efforts even more now, but they're not. Is it because of their political ambitions? They either approve or not approve whatever Bush wants, then they go "See!? Bush is ineffective. <insert Democratic Candidate here> will be much better."

Of course there are lies in Government. It's been going on since the beginning of Government. American democracy and it's falsehoods and "stupid" policies is hardly the first government to be corrupt or unpopular or goes out of its way to make its citizens feel inferior (for whatever reason) and it won't be the last either.

[Boozy]

I'm not seeing much defense of Bush. Its more, 'Yeah, he's a right dick, but so are the Democrats."

That's a sad state of affairs.

[DesignFox]

Yea, Boozy. Things are in a right sorry state over here.

[Greenday]

The whole party system is a load of crap in my opinion. I'm glad to see more moderates who think for themselves coming out. The problem is, there are more blind idiots who vote for a party without giving a crap about the issues. There is a difference for voting for a group because you agree with their policies than agreeing with them just because you think you have to pick one or the other. Our choices for president have generally sucked and we definitely got screwed over in the 2004 election. Both candidates sucked.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Congress did help in this too. Hillary Clinton voting for the war, Kerry also.


Ah, but at the time, Congress was *controlled* by Republicans. Particularly the kind inclined to kiss Bush's ass by giving him carte blanche.

As for Clinton and Kerry, I doubt either of them honestly supported the war; most likely they voted for its funding because to deny funds for the troops would have been seen as anti-American. So either way, they lose: vote no, you're seen as against the troops. Vote yes, and you're accused of being a warmonger.

Besides, at least Clinton and Kerry *admit* they screwed up. That's a helluva lot more than we'll ever see from Bush & Co.

[Seshat]

I will only say that I didn't vote at all, and don't foresee myself doing so until such time as it actually can make a difference. I'm in a state that has traditionally voted one way (which way doesn't even matter). It's done so by a large majority for over 20 years.

Actually, you can do something effective in such a situation. You can use your vote to make your electorate one step closer to a marginal electorate. (Electorate, state, whatever you guys call your electoral divisions.)

Okay - it's not an easy thing to achieve. It takes a lot of people who are willing to go ahead and vote despite being in a traditional 'safe' seat. But if you can do it, it's well worth it.

Being marginal - as in, one that can go to either party with a small change in voting trends - brings an awful lot of benefits. Politicans pay attention to you.

Plus, of course, your vote matters.

Spread the word: make your local electorate a marginal one! Bring back choice!


(This has been an unpaid announcement on behalf of the Marginal Electorates Party. Seshat speaking.)



(For those who don't know: Aussie political messages have to have that sort of declaration-of-interests in them. So to the other Aussies here, that was probably funny. Probably. Maybe?)

[Pedersen]

It takes a lot of people who are willing to go ahead and vote despite being in a traditional 'safe' seat. But if you can do it, it's well worth it.

True. Now, I just have to get about 500,000 people to agree with me, which equals roughly 1/5 of the average total voter turnout.

So, between now and the election, I have to persuade 500,000 people to vote against the direction they would normally vote.

While I'm dreaming, I want a pony.

Plus, of course, your vote matters.

You want to see voter turnout skyrocket? It's easy: Of the people who don't vote, a major portion of them don't vote because (like me) they know their vote does not matter. I don't have numbers, just anecdotal evidence to back up that statement.

I nearly never hear "Oh, I don't have time to vote". I almost always hear "I disagree with all of them, and it's going to the same candidate who my state would always vote for, so why bother?"

If you would like to see voter turnout skyrocket, make the votes matter. Give us a "None Of The Above", and make it binding. If "None Of The Above" wins, a new election is held requiring new candidates.

I guarantee a much larger turnout for the next election. A huge segment of the population exists that doesn't want any of these candidates to win, because they are all bad choices. These people will show up in droves specifically to vote against all of them.

Personal speculation? Voter turnout will at least double.

Of course, since this method would allow voters to specifically say no, rather than forcing them to choose the lesser of all evils, this method will not be made into law.

This would give voting power back to everybody. It would actually mean something.

Again, though, while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.

[Boozy]

The only reason your vote doesn't matter is because you choose not to use it.

[ebonyknight]

EK, read our Declaration of Independence. It's well within our duty to defend our rights, and when those rights are violated, and when the contract is broken, we are well within our rights as human beings, not just Americans, to rise up and change it.

*sigh*

And you believe I haven't read it because????

I tried to let this go, because I obviously have some kind of talent pissing people off with a "formal" debate style. I have this thing about people "proving" their points. So sue me.


Are you willing to prove to me that you have a "right" to life? Are you willing to debate an abstract idea against the real world? If so, let's pursue this. If not, don't get mad at me and tell me things about your life I really don't want to know.

So, what do you say?

Tell me, if my right to life is violated (and I am dead) who do I complain to to get my life back and defend my "right" to life?????

[ebonyknight]

We can't put all the blame on Bush for Iraq. What about *Congress* who voted to give him the war authority? Shouldn't they (including one John Kerry, "I voted for the war before I voted against it?") take some of the blame?

As has been shown by history, politicians will do what they think will get them re-elected. Bush is the commander-in-chief. He has the expressed duty to protect and defend the constitution of the US.

Congressmen take the oath to SUPPORT and defend the Constitution. Not quite the same commitment. Not surprising since they don't have the same responsibility.

Also, we must consider another thing; even though it was well-known that Bush wanted to go after Saddam... most of that could have been stopped. However, at the time, given Iraq's suspicious behavior concerning possible WMDs or nuke programs, was it any surprise that we thought they existed? At the time, quite a bit of intelligence hinted at it. However, once it came out that there weren't any WMDs, the calls for war should have stopped. It didn't though--couldn't Congress have put their collective feet down?

As I said be for they decided to do what was best for their own careers and to support the Constitution by supporting the President in his decision. Until 2006, the Congress had a Republican majority. The one's who questioned him, were patriots in my opinion. The others did what their office (and party) required. The President was required to make these decisions, not the Congress. You can't tell me that if it wasn't for the President, Congress would have decided to override the President and declare war on Iraq (which is Congress's right).

I knew when Powell showed us the picture of an "Iraqi terror training base" that he was pulling my leg, when he was speaking to the UN. Even Clinton had no compunction about firing a cruise missile at suspected terrorist bases. Do you expect me to believe that cowboy Bush restrained himself long enough to get a picture of the base? It was shown that this was not an accurate picture. I realized that night, that Powell's argument just didn't make sense. Am I smarter than all of Congress? They did what they had to do to retain power. Evidence since and BEFORE proves that Bush intended to remove Saddam. You want it in black and white? Read Bush at War. He states that he intended regime change in Iraq BEFORE he got elected.

As for the terror ratings, consider those a knee-jerk reaction. They simply provided the *illusion* of security, and were largely ignored.


Ignored? It got them re-elected in my opinion. I have heard plenty of stories of older Americans who believed that they were sacrificing Liberty for security and then regretted their decision based on Bush's later actions.


On voting for him, I think that too many people remembered the Clinton years for all the wrong reasons. (I'm not trying to attack Clinton here, folks.) They might not have liked the sex scandals, Whitewater, the fact that his Balanced Budget Act drove several hospitals into bankruptcy, etc. and felt that Kerry might (not would) have perpetuated the same things. Plus, they might not have liked the drama surrounding his military service.

I don't understand Clinton's relevance here.

The way he balanced he budget was to take money from Social Security (which isn't counted in the budget) and applied it to the deficit. He robbed Peter to pay Paul. He got a blow job in office. What he didn't do, was to plunge the country into war and then bankrupt the country and mortagage it to foreign interests.

[Pedersen]

The only reason your vote doesn't matter is because you choose not to use it.

Perhaps you missed my explanation (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?p=7729#post7729)? It's not at the level of being a formal mathematical proof, I admit that. But it does explain in pretty black and white terms why my one, singular vote is absolutely 100% irrelevant in the state in which I live.

If I lived in a state that could vote either way, I would vote.

If I lived in a state where I could say "None of the above", and make it stick, I would vote.

Instead, with the state I live in, my vote is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether I choose to vote or not.

At least I'm honest about it.

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm not seeing much defense of Bush. Its more, 'Yeah, he's a right dick, but so are the Democrats."

That's a sad state of affairs.


fine you want someone to defend him-I'll be your lightning rod of hate

On May 25, President Bush signed a spending bill that, among other things, amended the FLSA to increase the federal minimum wage in three steps: to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.-----the last raise in federal minimum wage was back in 1996.


from Human rights watch (http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iraq)

this is why I don't believe in the "this war is about oil" BS-meaning oh since the WMDs didn't exist we should let the genocide continue-and yes there was a genocide-just like germany in WWII-just not on as large of a scale yet.....


Jawhar Namiq Salem, the speaker of the Kurdistan National Assembly in Irbil, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on March 10, 1999 urging a U.N. investigation of the "ethnic cleansing" policies of the Iraqi government.

The U.N. special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq, in his February 1999 report to the U.N. Economic and Social Council, reported having received the names and background information regarding more than 200 prisoners executed between October and December 1998, making a total of some 2,500 executed since the last months of 1997. Human Rights Watch received reports of more than 600 detainees who were reportedly executed in the first four months of 1999, many by name and date of execution. None of these reported executions appeared to follow from any judicial due process.



this is from 1992

At least 105 Shi'a clerics, some of them very elderly, were rounded up in Najaf and Kerbala after the March 1991 uprising. They were not seen again by friends or relatives; nor did the government respond to enquiries from abroad as to their safety
(this was done because of their religious affiliation-so the next time I hear any religious group whine about "being persecuted"-these people are(presumed)dead, at the least they have been incarcerated since 1991-simply due to religion)

Based on the rough estimates of Iraqi human rights organizations located abroad as well as information from opposition political parties, the total number of persons being detained without charge was estimated conservatively by Middle East Watch at 10,000 to 12,000. The majority were probably Shi'a men, detained on the grounds of their beliefs, and not because of any specific crimes. However, an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 Kurds-men, women and children-taken into government custody during the Anfal military operations, in 1988, and not seen again also remained to be accounted for. Most are believed to have been executed.


this is from 1993

Human Rights Watch´s comprehensive report “Genocide in Iraq - The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds,” originally published in July 1993, details the systematic and deliberate murder of at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The killings occurred between February and September 1988. “Genocide in Iraq” shows that the Kurdish victims were targeted on the basis of their ethnicity.



if you didn't know about the genocide in Iraq that has been stopped now-now you do.

and this (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/03/22/iraq12900_txt.htm) is from the wall street journal in 2002

[CancelMyService]

Don't forget that genocide in Iraq came from the post Gulf War promise of George HW Bush that we'd back up the Kurds if they rose up against Saddam. They did, we didn't, and well....we found the results when the mass graves were uncovered.

Personally, I don't blame Bush voters. The GOP has done a remarkable job in getting people to vote against their own interests to the point where you have to be in awe of it. I mean getting lower-middle class folks struggling to make ends meet vote in the party of Big Business is quite a feat.

[Amethyst Hunter]

this is why I don't believe in the "this war is about oil" BS-
if you didn't know about the genocide in Iraq that has been stopped now-now you do.

Nope, the genocide hasn't stopped. It's moving right along, now that we have al-Sadr to take Saddam's place. Al-Sadr is Saddam Part II...maybe even worse. That so-called 'truce'? That was him consolidating his power in the interim and killing off everybody in his circle who wasn't completely loyal to him. He's openly said he's declaring total war on *any*one who supports US troops, and as for the troops themselves...yeah.

Don't believe the war's not about oil, eh? One word - no, actually, I'll give you two: Halliburton and Blackwater. I wonder why these two corporations - at least one of whom Cheney has serious stakes in - are raking in the profits like mad and none of the 'little people' that were promised money aren't getting any?

Blackwater is even scarier (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/23/82357/4096), given that there are reports that this bunch not only counts dominionists, foreign mercenaries and hardcore criminals in its ranks, but also may literally have been given carte blanche to rape and murder (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4489251) at will both abroad and during the crisis of New Orleans; when news of alleged Blackwater misdeeds surfaced people - foreign and domestic - wanted them out, gone, like yesterday. Not surprisingly, this didn't happen. These guys get paid more than our own soldiers, who are the ones doing the vast majority of the ass-busting work and getting little help in return from their own government.

Hell, John McCain all but admitted himself (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-mccain3-2008may03,0,3614973.story) that the war was a front for global hegemony.

And it was well-known even before Bush stole his first election that he was planning to take out Saddam, one way or another. He had a hate-on for Saddam the size of friggin' Texas, in no small part because of Saddam's failed attempt to get rid of Bush I. I find it very curious that once his fate was decided there was a rush to execute him despite our supposed stance against the death penalty in general (don't get me wrong, I think Saddam deserved to dance on the end of that rope and then some for all the evil he brought to the world, and I sure won't waste any tears on him) - he could have been a wellspring of information concerning his dirty dealings with the government. It looked more to me like he was killed to shut him up and keep him from ever talking.

So you add up the vengeance and the greed, and throw in 9/11 which offers up the perfect excuse to justify the war in Iraq, and there you have it. (If Iraq was such a Super Terrorist Haven at that point in time, how come the overwhelming majority of the 9/11 scumbags were *Saudi* in origin? Oh, wait, the Saudis are our Best Friends! NOT. I'm sure it'll come as no surprise whatsoever that the Bushes have closer-than-normal ties with the Saudi royals...)

I had no problem with the war in Afghanistan when that started, because hey - that's where the scumbags were at the time. But when the war drums started pounding for Iraq, that made me go WTF. There was NO solid proof that Iraq was a threat to us; it's been shown that the "evidence" they used was either fake or incomplete. Now what we have is al-Qaida streaming in to take advantage of the chaos, and their numbers are growing where previously there weren't any problems. And Afghanistan is slipping back into chaos, being that we've shunted our attention from them to the Iraq disaster, and the scumbags are regrouping there as well. Way to spread democracy and peace.

Now the war drums are focusing on Iran - DESPITE, again, the lack of concrete proof that they are a threat. Their government is a problem, yes, and I don't believe that the hardcore nuts over there are being totally honest with us about some of their programs and their reputed backing of Syrian-based smugglers supplying insurgents with weaponry - but I also don't believe that the entire country is as Pure Evil as it's being made out to be. (Iranian citizens, as a general whole, are very friendly and hospitable towards Americans. It's only the US *government* that they don't like.) And, how convenient - Iran just so happens to be sitting on top of some sizeable oil and natural gas reserves, both of which have been courted by our two biggest competitors Russia and China, and it controls a key access port through which most of the Western world's oil supplies are shipped!

In contrast, we know *as fact* that North Korea has:

- WMDs
- Batshit crazy ruthless dictators
- A record of dishonesty on their weapons programs and staving off inspections at nearly every turn
- A close proximity to a strategic location of importance (South Korea)
- A history of doing some pretty nasty shit, including genocide (I would count starving your own people to death a genocide)

Yet somehow we don't seem very inclined to want to rush right over there and Liberate The People/Fight Teh War On Terrah. Could it be, perhaps, that North Korea doesn't have anything worth getting our mitts on, no known way to be exploited? The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven there.

Ask yourself who's benefiting the most from all this mess. It sure as hell isn't the Iraqi citizens, and it sure as hell isn't the US citizens.

[AFPheonix]

Perhaps you missed my explanation (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?p=7729#post7729)? It's not at the level of being a formal mathematical proof, I admit that. But it does explain in pretty black and white terms why my one, singular vote is absolutely 100% irrelevant in the state in which I live.

If I lived in a state that could vote either way, I would vote.

If I lived in a state where I could say "None of the above", and make it stick, I would vote.

Instead, with the state I live in, my vote is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether I choose to vote or not.

At least I'm honest about it.

I read your previous post, and I also read where at least anecdotally you admitted that quite a chunk of the people not voting are doing so because they think they don't matter. Now, if that larger chunk decided to say "fuck it, I'm voting for who I want regardless of who gets in", don't you think that might push the margins a little closer to where you'd like them?

[DarthRetard]

*sigh*

And you believe I haven't read it because????

I tried to let this go, because I obviously have some kind of talent pissing people off with a "formal" debate style. I have this thing about people "proving" their points. So sue me.


Are you willing to prove to me that you have a "right" to life? Are you willing to debate an abstract idea against the real world? If so, let's pursue this. If not, don't get mad at me and tell me things about your life I really don't want to know.

So, what do you say?

Tell me, if my right to life is violated (and I am dead) who do I complain to to get my life back and defend my "right" to life?????

Alright, look, I didn't mean for you take that as an insult, as opposed to just a reminder that it's something we based our desire for independence on, first of all. Second, I don't have a formal debating style, argumentation is argumentation, and I don't type like I speak, believe me. Thirdly? It's a farking debate/discussion forum, so I thought points were meant to be proven, or otherwise left uncontested and thus voided by lack of support.

As for the the rights to life, liberty, and property, as Locke states it, and as it pertains to you or I, it is our sovereign duty as individuals to protect and maintain our rights as they belong to us. Life, Liberty, and Property go hand in hand, and we don't just defend one or the other, we defend all. Bear with me here.

Liberty is a part of our life, and how we live. When our liberty/property is threatened, so is our livelihood.

I mean simply that if your life is threatened, you defend it. Why do we have a murder trial? That person denied the other his/her right to life.

Martin Luther King, Jr. protested the violation of his rights as a human being, as did our founding fathers when this nation was formed. That's how the social contract works. We submit to government in the agreement of sorts that they protect our rights inherent to us. The government doesn't GIVE us those rights, nor can they absolve us of them. Those rights are OURS, and it is up to us to maintain and defend them.

[ebonyknight]

Dude. Let's drop it. I didn't think you insulted me and it's really irrelevant to the discussion. No hard feelings.

[ebonyknight]

On May 25, President Bush signed a spending bill that, among other things, amended the FLSA to increase the federal minimum wage in three steps: to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.-----the last raise in federal minimum wage was back in 1996.

Do you know what the ramifications were of that? Quite a few small businesses went under because of this. They couldn't afford (when cumulated together) what amounted to a massive increase in employee pay. Of those that didn't go under, lots of people lost their jobs for the same reason. An increase in pay is only good if you keep your job.

Now with the increase in food prices, the problem for the small business owner (for restaurants in particular) has compounded the problem. In order to keep their businesses running owners no longer offer free condiments or larger portion sizes. While they acknowledge that food prices are a major problem, the increase in minimum wage initiated the cutbacks.

Now what I do give him credit for is the tax cuts. I thought it absolutely mad to cut taxes during a war, but damned if it didn't work. :eek: Unfortunately, that is the only thing I believe he has gotten right.

War for oil? I am not going to touch that. Despite everything that has happened, despite the reasons for the war LITERALLY changing weekly, people were/are going to believe what they want. Frankly, I believe that some people just couldn't believe (not you in particular) that they were hoodwinked, so they come up with any excuse to give Bush a pass.

This is especially true of the Conservative pundits (Hannity, Limbaugh, etc). They rail on and on about inequities in the government and how the country is going downhill and morals are gone, etc, etc. Yet somehow forget that the country has been (except for the last year and a half) COMPLETELY in republican hands since the turn of the century. The hypocrisy boggles my mind.

[IDrinkaRum]

If we were able to mine for oil in our own country (or in countries that are friendly to us), we wouldn't have to be dependent upon the oil supplied by unfriendly/want to kill us countries.

The minimum wage needed to be raised. Yes, there was some fall out with the mom & pop shops, but sometimes some sacrifices need to be made in helping the economy & the people of the country. And small business owners are always complaining whenever the minimum wage is raised, so to say Bush is responsible for the fall of so many small businesses is ludicrous. 1996 would have been Clinton's fault for small businesses going out of business.

Also, with the minimum wage increase, it helps some people to get off of supplemental government help. Not all, heck not even half, but some. But then again, I think we need to get rid of welfare completely and other supplemental programs that put a drain on our resources (it wasn't until the Democrats & the Great Depression & the New Deal acts that created Social Security & Welfare and other stuff). Before all those programs, people either failed or succeeded based on their merits & their abilities.

Why yes, I am a conservative, why do you ask? :D

Bush has been better than other politicians and worse than others. Can we really say he's the worst? What if Gore had won the 2000 election? Would we have gone to war? Would 9/11 have happened? We don't know. And don't forget: Al-Quida tried to bomb the Twin Towers during Clinton's administration. They don't hate just a specific US President, they hate America for what it stands for: Freedom. Freedom of our citizens to believe what they want, do what they want (within reason of course) and to vote for whomever they want to represent them. We can raise and fall on our own merits. If we don't like something, we can change it. We have different religions living side-by-side (fragilely).

I think that's what everyone is forgetting. Bush is a good man, he's intelligent (yes, I do believe that, I have been known to turn a phrase oddly, mispronounce certain words, but does that make me stupid? So why does it make President Bush stupid?)

Again, just my 2 cents.

[ebonyknight]

The minimum wage needed to be raised. Yes, there was some fall out with the mom & pop shops, but sometimes some sacrifices need to be made in helping the economy & the people of the country. And small business owners are always complaining whenever the minimum wage is raised, so to say Bush is responsible for the fall of so many small businesses is ludicrous. 1996 would have been Clinton's fault for small businesses going out of business.



True, but because Bush has not tended the needs of THIS country, inflation on all fronts HAS caused these small businesses to go under. Not just because of the wage increase.

Bush is the ultimate anti-conservative. He literally spends like we can print all the money we want (definition of inflation, anyone?). While we cut programs (yes a lot are unnecessary, but a lot are), like eduction to continue the war, our country continues to suffer, while we help another. There has been NO fiscal common sense employed by Bush. At every turn (with the exception noted) his plan has been to spend away the problems of the world, and YET, "conservative" pundits still give him a pass.

He has to date only vetoed 1 spending bill. Where are his "conservative" roots? For every reason the conservative pundits hated on McCain, Bush has done during his Presidency, yet no bad words for him. Now it appears that we are going to get Bush 2.0 elected to office. Do we not learn????

It's quite maddening.

[Boozy]

this is why I don't believe in the "this war is about oil" BS-meaning oh since the WMDs didn't exist we should let the genocide continue-and yes there was a genocide-just like germany in WWII-just not on as large of a scale yet.

If the US gave a damn about preventing genocide, they would have put boots on the ground in Darfur, where over 100,000 people have been killed. Or in Rwanda, where the genocide killed 800,000.

But those places don't have shit, do they? Iraq has oil, baby!

And don't forget: Al-Quida tried to bomb the Twin Towers during Clinton's administration.

Of course, they failed at that time. Probably because the Clinton administration didn't ignore intelligence briefs entitled, "Al Qaeda determined to attack the US."

[IDrinkaRum]

Of course, they failed at that time. Probably because the Clinton administration didn't ignore intelligence briefs entitled, "Al Qaeda determined to attack the US."

Perhaps, but the biggest being was all those Clinton analysts & non-Clinton analysts going on TV and saying that Al Qaeda was stupid for using trucks filled with explosives. Of course that wouldn't do much damage. What they should have done was fly planes into the Twin Towers and that would most definitely bring them down.

Took them about 5 years, but it worked, didn't it? We gave them the idea to work out 9/11. I really believe that no matter who was in the White House on 9/11/01 they'd have flown the planes into the Twin Towers.

[ebonyknight]

Perhaps, but the biggest being was all those Clinton analysts & non-Clinton analysts going on TV and saying that Al Qaeda was stupid for using trucks filled with explosives. Of course that wouldn't do much damage. What they should have done was fly planes into the Twin Towers and that would most definitely bring them down.

Took them about 5 years, but it worked, didn't it? We gave them the idea to work out 9/11. I really believe that no matter who was in the White House on 9/11/01 they'd have flown the planes into the Twin Towers.

But the Millennium attacks were thwarted under him. Most people point to this as the 9/11 that didn't happen.

It happened on Bush's watch, does that make him responsible? I don't know, but I know that I am tired of people (conservative pundits, usually) saying that Clinton allowed 9/11 to happen, yet give Bush no responsibility when it happened under his watch.

Yes, he only had been in office a short time, BUT he had expressly ignored Clinton's advice to start paying more attention to middle east terrorism. Bush was convinced at that time that we needed to go back to a cold war strategy vs. Russia and China. In fact, the very day of 9/11, Condi Rice (NSA at that time) was going to give a speech saying as much.

Bush has made some very bad blunders. Does it make him the worst? I believe so, but I haven't lived under most of the administrations in this country. I remember the Reagan years. People disliked Reagan as almost as much as we dislike Bush today. He was a doddering old buffoon, who didn't know his right shoe from his left. He slashed programs that lots of people depended on.

Yet today, he is lauded as one of the great American Presidents. Perhaps the same will happen for Bush. *shrug*

[DarthRetard]

Dude. Let's drop it. I didn't think you insulted me and it's really irrelevant to the discussion. No hard feelings.

We can drop it, that's fine, but it's not entirely irrelevant to the discussion, young padawan(sorry, couldn't help myself.)

The current administration, and even Congress, continues to be allowed to jeopardize the very rights which we founded this country on, and put ourselves on the brink of annihilation for at one point.

Congress gave the President power to declare war. ONLY Congress can declare war, we don't want that power in ANY one man's hands, whether it's Bush or Gandhi, it doesn't matter, that kind of power is dangerous.

Fear has become this government's tool for pushing legislation that pretends to protect but only slowly destroys and eats away at our civil liberties one by one.

Yes, guys, I try to do what I can to support my President, because he is my President and Commander-In-Chief, after all. However, I support my COUNTRY and what we stand for above all else, including myself. I admit, I was fooled by President Bush, and I wanted him in in 2004 because I thought Kerry was too indecisive. I didn't not like the guy, just thought we needed someone who would make a decision and stick to it, no matter how unpopular or wrong it may be.

That's where Congress fucked up. By passing the War resolution, supporting an interventionist foreign policy that drags us down into entangling alliances that strain our military and weaken our defenses, and by passing things like the Patriot Act, Congress has slowly taken steps to rid us of our sacred rights, and I'll be the first to admit that I was deceived by my government, but after having my eyes opened, I'll fight (morally) against any man, regardless of party, who tries to absolve us of our most inherent rights as men.

[ebonyknight]

We can drop it, that's fine, but it's not entirely irrelevant to the discussion, young padawan(sorry, couldn't help myself.)

How was our little aside on the "right" to life, relevant? :confused:

The current administration, and even Congress, continues to be allowed to jeopardize the very rights which we founded this country on, and put ourselves on the brink of annihilation for at one point.

Congress gave the President power to declare war. ONLY Congress can declare war, we don't want that power in ANY one man's hands, whether it's Bush or Gandhi, it doesn't matter, that kind of power is dangerous.

Fear has become this government's tool for pushing legislation that pretends to protect but only slowly destroys and eats away at our civil liberties one by one.

The system only works if there is an honest effort put into it. Bush pushed for the Patriot act to be passed and didn't provide Congress any copies to read. The morons passed it anyway. The bogus speech to the UN that Powell knew wasn't completely accurate, the faulty intelligence, the list goes on and on. An obvious comedy of errors and deceptions. Any system that provides garbage in, will get garbage out. Does "ignorance" absolve all involved?

That's where Congress fucked up. By passing the War resolution, supporting an interventionist foreign policy that drags us down into entangling alliances that strain our military and weaken our defenses, and by passing things like the Patriot Act, Congress has slowly taken steps to rid us of our sacred rights, and I'll be the first to admit that I was deceived by my government, but after having my eyes opened, I'll fight (morally) against any man, regardless of party, who tries to absolve us of our most inherent rights as men.

I don't know what to say. You want to hold Congress accountable, but want to excuse yourself from the same responsibility (voting for Bush?). Again, garbage in, garbage out. If we can put the blame on Congress for doing these asinine things, then why doesn't the blame also fall on the voters who put all of them and Bush in office in the first place???

But it's good to see that I am not the only one that sees our freedoms being eroded. It gives me hope that the country can turn around. It's annoying as hell when the first thing you get when these points are made are that "oh noez, we are losing our freedoms!!!" :rolleyes:

[DarthRetard]

First of all, I wasn't old enough to vote in EITHER of the last two Presidential Elections. I'm turning 20 tomorrow. :-) K? Second, I'm not absolving myself of anything. It's a government representative of the people, so we put him in office, we're responsible, that's why we get to change our mind every four years. Yes? Yes.

That's why every vote matters. Sorry if I was a little unclear in what I meant in that aspect, EK.

[DesignFox]

The minimum wage needed to be raised. Yes, there was some fall out with the mom & pop shops, but sometimes some sacrifices need to be made in helping the economy & the people of the country.

Also, with the minimum wage increase, it helps some people to get off of supplemental government help. Not all, heck not even half, but some. But then again, I think we need to get rid of welfare completely and other supplemental programs that put a drain on our resources (it wasn't until the Democrats & the Great Depression & the New Deal acts that created Social Security & Welfare and other stuff). Before all those programs, people either failed or succeeded based on their merits & their abilities.

In my experience, the mom and pops pay far more than "the man." I have a much higher salary and better benefits working for Joe Schmo than I ever did working for the big companies I previously worked for. I also have vacation/sick time, better working conditions and better hours. Just my personal experience. I don't see minimum wage hurting mom and pop so much as Big and Rich Incorporated, simply because Mom and Pop paid their employees better to begin with...Big and Rich don't like having to pay- it cuts into their bottom line.

Getting rid of Welfare and letting people sort themselves out seems like a grand idea and all...but you don't live in my area. Poor people are desperate people. If not given access to at least basic necessities, you can bet we'll have a lot more problems with violence on our hands.

I don't need the less fortunate in my area thinking the only way they can get by is by breaking into my home or robbing me on the street.

Let them have their government stipend if it keeps them out of trouble.

(and that's NOT to say that EVERYONE is like this- but let's face it- if you couldn't put food on the table for YOUR children, what would you do?)

I'd rather not see people forced to choose between obeying the law, or starving in the streets. We don't need our children starving and dying of disease.

Yes, some people abuse the assistance programs. But there are also a lot of good people out there who just need a hand. A lot of those people eventually pull themselves out of needing that assistance. Let's not punish them by making things harder.

[ebonyknight]

First of all, I wasn't old enough to vote in EITHER of the last two Presidential Elections. I'm turning 20 tomorrow. :-) K? Second, I'm not absolving myself of anything. It's a government representative of the people, so we put him in office, we're responsible, that's why we get to change our mind every four years. Yes? Yes.

That's why every vote matters. Sorry if I was a little unclear in what I meant in that aspect, EK.

You are wise beyond your years, old padawan. ;)

[DarthRetard]

Ha ha ha. "Old padawan" has definitely become a favorite term for today, thank you. Mind if I borrow it?

[IDrinkaRum]

DesignFox - People steal all the time. They claim to be doing it for the good of their families, but how can they be doing it for the good of their families if they get caught and wind up in jail?

The mom & pop I work at on Saturdays has nothing for their employees (full or part time). Fortunately it doesn't affect me as I'm married & on my husband's insurance. It sucks for the others though.

All the corporations I worked for (Roy Rogers, Booz Allen Hamilton, Veridian, etc.) had really great benefits and pay. And I was a "lowly" Administrative Assistant except for Roy Rogers, I was a full-time cashier/front end person.

We should really expand the "Get off of Welfare" act and stick to it.

Also, we really need Government to take a step back. I don't want Big Government coming in and telling me what to do/what to say/etc. Less Government is better. Be there for us when we absolutely need it, but otherwise, step back. Don't legislate our entire lives. Sheesh. That's just ridiculous.

[DesignFox]

We should really expand the "Get off of Welfare" act and stick to it.

Also, we really need Government to take a step back. I don't want Big Government coming in and telling me what to do/what to say/etc. Less Government is better. Be there for us when we absolutely need it, but otherwise, step back. Don't legislate our entire lives. Sheesh. That's just ridiculous.

This I'll agree with. I don't think the government should take over everything in our lives. We certainly shouldn't be "nannied" and "coddled."

I would love to see the system tuned better so people CAN get off of welfare and stay off of it. I don't think the system as is is perfect. But tearing out all those programs would be highly detrimental to the people who genuinely need them and are trying.

Again, I'd rather help out my fellow man, maybe (unfortunately) support a few slackers, and keep honest men from turning to stealing.

If your daughter was hungry, you wouldn't think about, what happens if mommy goes to jail (or maybe YOU would, but others might not) you'd figure out a way to feed your daughter- you'd do whatever it took.

I don't believe public assistance programs are that huge a burden.

And I've known people who have needed those programs. When it came to feeding her kid, my friend would have been up shit's creek without foodstamps. She could barely afford to keep the roof over her head, or maintain her car so she could get to and from work. She was stretched to her limit. Without that assistance, who knows what state she, or her child, would have been in. And she worked really hard, but she did come off of the food stamps. And I don't begrudge her one penny of my tax payer money that went to it.

You are very lucky to be on your husband's health plan. Not everyone is as lucky as you to have a husband who supports them. My friend's husband was a total jerkwad who walked out on her and her son. He was a deadbeat dad who never paid the child support. People like her shouldn't be punished for coming up on dire times.

And, at least in my great state of New Jersey, minimum wage is hardly a living wage. You can't pay rent on 7 bucks an hour in my area. Fast food hires at about 8 an hour...most mall jobs pay 7-8 an hour and only hire part time (effectively denying their employees health care coverage).

I'm happy for you that things are going well, Rum. But it isn't the same in all places. It isn't the same for all people. I'd hate to see an infant die in it's mother's arms because I'm too good to give up a small portion of my paycheck towards helping her get milk in her child's belly. Not all people on welfare, foodstamps, or other assistance programs are fucked-up assholes.

[IDrinkaRum]

I'm not saying all people on the welfare system are money grubbing assholes. But a fair amount of them are.

And before Welfare, what did people who are like your friend do? I'm pretty sure they didn't all let their kids starve to death and I'm pretty sure they didn't all steal to feed their families.

Where I live, there has been a mass exodus of illegal immigrants getting out of my county because of the crack down on illegals. That has made more work available for others out there, but places are still looking for people to work. Sure they're not the greatest, but if it was just me and my daughter, I'd get whatever job I could find. But that's just me.

[Zyanya]

I don't believe public assistance programs are that huge a burden.




They aren't. The 'welfare' that is an actual burden to the economy is the corporate welfare, where whoever is in office hands boatloads of money to the failing businesses of their cronies.

[rahmota]

And before Welfare, what did people who are like your friend do? I'm pretty sure they didn't all let their kids starve to death and I'm pretty sure they didn't all steal to feed their families.

What they did was have friends and families to help them. their community church or the community in general would help out in a communal show of assistence. Either that or yes the child died, the person turned to crime of one sort or another. You didnt think a lot of the prostitutes in the old west turned to that profession for the health and glamour?

As you can tell from my you are in charge thread on social woes I'm not a fan of capitalism as it is based on selfish desires and how much a person can get for themselves and screw the rest of the world. Pre ghosts Ebenzer scrooge would be quite proud of the way things are nowadays.

[CancelMyService]

As someone who has had to turn to various programs in the past (unemployment) and as someone who has a parent who's very existence on the planet is because of programs (Social Security Disability and Medicare), I really wish people wouldn't base their views of such programs on what right wing radio and/or TV personalities say.

Are there people abusing and cheating the system? Of course, there's no way there wouldn't be on programs that big. However if you've ever tried to apply for something like welfare (and yes, I'm not ashamed to say I have) you'd know it's not like anyone can walk off the street and leave with stacks of gub'mint money. I was actually turned down for it despite making less than poverty level. People abusing the programs isn't a sign these programs need blown up, its a sign that people will lie and falsify information to steal from the government. If someone is embezzling money from a company, do people say "well obviously the company needs to be shut down and privatized since it's wasting all that money"? Of course not.

We need to have a social safety net to temporarily help those who have fallen on hard times or need a boost to get out of their situations. Rabid Conservatives tend to hate these programs since not only is everything from the Government inherently evil (F you Ronnie for making that a meme in politics), they also seem to hate anything that cuts poor folks a break as they seem to think being poor is something that you can just stop if you weren't so lazy with your free checks and cheese wheels. Didn't MLK say how can you pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you can't afford boots?

As was stated previously, all the social programs you can think of don't make a drop in the bucket compared to all the corporate welfare that companies get and the GOP wholeheartedly approves of. That pretty much sums up the philosophy of the party, IMO. Give business all the breaks it wants and then some, but don't dare spend any government money on the individual.

[Amethyst Hunter]

And don't forget: Al-Quida tried to bomb the Twin Towers during Clinton's administration. They don't hate just a specific US President, they hate America for what it stands for: Freedom.

That's too easy a generalization. They don't just hate this country because of our freedoms (although that is one aspect of it; their nutjobs and ours are really no different - the only thing stopping ours from doing the kind of terrorism they'd really like to do is our justice system (which is one of many things being systematically undermined by dominionism, fyi). And even that is no guarantee, as evidenced by disasters like Oklahoma City 13 years ago.

The nuts over there hate Westerners because of the Western world's long history of meddling in their lands. We undermine their governments and install our puppets, and then wonder why the fundamentalism surges. It's because the puppets ignore the citizenry, and when the citizenry gets desperate, they turn to anything to help them cope. Unfortunately, more often than not the coping mechanism turns out to be terrorism. People who are otherwise all right get brainwashed into believing that all Westerners are Satanic (literally) and that the only way they'll ever know any real peace and joy is to either kill or be killed for "the glory of God." A few of them don't even necessarily *want* to become jihadists or whatever, but, much like our street gangs over here, they aren't given any choice in the matter: either you join up, or you'll pay dearly one way or another.

If we're lucky, we can retrain some of these people to realize that this is the wrong way to go about changing things...but, sadly, often the nuttery is too deeply ingrained - a lot of them are raised from childhood into believing that their only purpose in life is to kill as many People Who Are Not Like Us as they can. These fools have been fighting *each other* for *centuries*; sometimes I wonder if they even remember what they're fighting for, the hate and the ignorance and prejudice is so deeply rooted.

Understand that I am NOT in any way defending terrorism. I have zero sympathy for those that commit atrocities against innocent people, anger or no. Terrorism is crossing a certain line. I do think, however, that if we addressed the root cause of the problem in a constructive manner rather than just carpet-bombing everything in sight (excepting those times when violence is necessary/justifiable), we'd see a lot less of this crap snowballing. It's too easy to say that "they hate America because we're free." If that were wholly the case, they'd be turning on their own dictators instead of directing their ugliness at innocent people who have nothing to do with the state of another's affairs.

Bush is a good man, he's intelligent

No he isn't, and no he's not.

Good men don't follow in their father's footsteps when said father spouts such rubbish like atheists should not be considered American citizens by his definition. (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/no-i_don-t_know_that_atheists_should_be/207975.html) You (generic you) might think that your religion is The Only One True Way, but that doesn't give you the right to stomp it on others who don't believe as you do.

Good and intelligent men don't start wars that we know we're going to lose even before we begin, and they certainly don't do it on falsified or incomplete evidence. Good men don't go around gleefully saber-rattling and snarking at other countries when our goals would be better achieved through discussion and working together instead of threats.

Intelligent men would have read their frickin' history and remember that *France* and *England* are two of our oldest allies, *not* Israel, which has only been around for 60 years (unless you count the nomadic existence before the state was officially formed). Oh, but wait - France doesn't count, I guess, since they dared to oppose us when we were getting ready to barge into Iraq. After all, if a country disagrees with us on something as monumental as *war*, it just means that they're a bunch of chickenshits and couldn't possibly know what they're talking about *despite* having the hard experience of going through centuries of continental turmoil of their own. Right? Maybe we'd better give that 'ol Statue of Liberty back...

Good men don't lie, which Bush has been shown to do *repeatedly.* (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/roane040908.htm)

Good and intelligent men don't promote ignorance (abstinence-only curriculum) in place of knowledge, and they don't promote ideology in place of solid science. And they don't stick their cronies into positions of power (FDA tinkering, Attorney General, Supreme Court Justices, etc.) where that ignorance and ideology is likely to spread.

Good men don't cover for their cronies when said cronies rat out their fellow citizens in a case of national security, which I do believe is considered high treason. (Valerie Plume case) Good men don't rig elections to sneak into power. Good men don't sit around with their thumbs up their asses during a national crisis (which Bush did - twice, even! - once during 9/11 and once during Hurricane Katrina).

Good and intelligent men do not do any of these things. Period.

Bush has proven himself to be unworthy of his office and unworthy of any decent respect whatsoever. Part of the reason he's so despised is because the people who see him for what he is look at their friends, their family, anyone they know who supports him, and they can't help but wonder: "if you support someone who does these horrible things, would YOU do the same to me if you could?"

That's why the misassumption of "voting for Bush = stupid person" has spread (and it doesn't help that there ARE people out there who will blindly vote a particular way because someone - a preacher, an elder, etc. - told them to).

[Zyanya]

Bush is a good man, he's intelligent (yes, I do believe that, I have been known to turn a phrase oddly, mispronounce certain words, but does that make me stupid? So why does it make President Bush stupid?)

Again, just my 2 cents.

That is most assuredly NOT why I think he is stupid. Among his most recent stupidities, I think he is stupid because he seems to honestly believe the families of dead soldiers are honored he quit playing golf so they didn't have to see him golfing on TV.

Moreover, I think he is an idiot because he cultivates the persona of an idiot. Since he is flubbing his speeches and making up new words, his stupidity takes on a veneer of affability. It's not much different than Bill Engvalls 'I'm a guy' routine. It's to garner sympathy. "Hey, you wouldn't laugh at a retard would you? That would be cruel, Bush can't help the mistakes he makes!" It is an act to absolve himself of responsibility for the very real (and stupid) decisions he made, such as bombing Iraq and lying to the American public.

After all, he didn't 'lie', he just 'misunderstood' and 'misinterpreted' the information, cause he's not bright ya know.

And of course, half the American population has below average intelligence, and Bush comes off as one of them. They don't understand those elitist arguments against Bush's positions, they get far to technical and force you to look at situations logically. "Those condescending elitists just have it out for the guy, ya know? We got to stick together against those stuck-up brainiacs."

And because Bush comes off as stupid, they have low expectations of him. He can't be expected to broker peace, it's enough that he can tie his own shoelaces. " Quit picking on the guy! He is the president and you should respect him! It's treason to call the president a moron!"

He is stupid because he cultivates stupidity out of laziness. Why should he bother to study foreign policy? Nobody expects him to know it anyway! And that way when he does actually know something, everyone is just so dang proud that it doesn't matter that he screws everything up. It means he doesn't need to evaluate his decisions. He won't debate anything because that forces him to put forth mental effort. He leaps to conclusions based on what he personally believes, even when the evidence says otherwise. He is a man of action after all!

He has contempt for knowledge and equates learning with snobbery. We elected someone who got a C-average in the easy courses at college. He is a lazy little boy who never outgrew his need for attention and flailing efforts to compete in arenas he was unqualified in.

That is why Bush is neither a good man, nor an intelligent one.

[DesignFox]

For the welfare thing, I think Rahmota, Cancel and Zyanya brought up some additional good points.

Additionally, I'm sorry. I didn't want to elect a man who is of average intelligence to run the country.

Granted, straight A's aren't the end all...but they are a pretty good indication of someone's dedication to their work. Very few college courses give you an A by sleeping- and if you could sleep through the class and get an A, what the hell does it say about you if you acheived anything less?

I don't agree with his party politics, I don't agree with the rule by fear, and I cringe whenever the man opens his mouth. (Hey Pope Benedict, "awesome speech" man) *palm to forehead*

For crying out loud, he interrupted everything to address the nation over the "right for gays to marry." um...did we REALLY need to address the nation about that? Like it was a natural disaster or an announcement of war? Shows where his and his party's priorities stand...

[ebonyknight]

That's too easy a generalization. They don't just hate this country because of our freedoms (although that is one aspect of it; their nutjobs and ours are really no different - the only thing stopping ours from doing the kind of terrorism they'd really like to do is our justice system (which is one of many things being systematically undermined by dominionism, fyi). And even that is no guarantee, as evidenced by disasters like Oklahoma City 13 years ago.

The nuts over there hate Westerners because of the Western world's long history of meddling in their lands. We undermine their governments and install our puppets, and then wonder why the fundamentalism surges. It's because the puppets ignore the citizenry, and when the citizenry gets desperate, they turn to anything to help them cope. Unfortunately, more often than not the coping mechanism turns out to be terrorism. People who are otherwise all right get brainwashed into believing that all Westerners are Satanic (literally) and that the only way they'll ever know any real peace and joy is to either kill or be killed for "the glory of God." A few of them don't even necessarily *want* to become jihadists or whatever, but, much like our street gangs over here, they aren't given any choice in the matter: either you join up, or you'll pay dearly one way or another.

Quoted for Truth. I hate that line as well, that they hate us for our freedoms. That is such propaganda and against common sense thinking.

Did we deserve 9/11? That's a debate for another time (I ain't gonna open that can of worms), but it is crystal clear that we have not been even-handed in our treatment of the middle east. We deal with oppressive regimes that mistreat their people, it shouldn't be any wonder why they are upset with us.

Prime example being Saudi-Arabia.

[IDrinkaRum]

And when we decide not to interfere, we are hated. Where does it end? Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

We've got to make up our minds. We either want to be the world's babysitter, or we sit back, watch our own interests and let the rest of the world go to he!! in a handbasket.

Please don't chastise the United States Government (President & both Houses) for going to war. We were attacked on our own turf. We had people die because Al-Qaeda has a problem with us. Hindsight is always 20/20. The pundits who now decry the use of force in our enemy's land were the ones who called for the heads of our enemies on silver platters.

America is a great country. We have people both good and bad who are running and have run this country. Every President has been hated since George Washington.

And I'm still waiting for all those celebrities who said they'd move out of the country to move if Bush was elected.

[Boozy]

Please don't chastise the United States Government (President & both Houses) for going to war. We were attacked on our own turf. We had people die because Al-Qaeda has a problem with us.

There was absolutely no connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Seriously, this should be common knowledge by now. :(

(Edited to add: I assume that you weren't speaking about the Afghanistan campaign.)

[IDrinkaRum]

I'm just saying that President Bush wasn't the only one who was gung-ho for the war at the beginning. It's easy for Clinton & Kerry and Joe Schmo from a street in Kokomo, to say now, "Oh yeah, the war is stupid and if I knew then what I know now, I'd never have voted/supported/put up with it."

I'm conservative. I'm a Republican. People might hate (or at least strongly dislike) me for my stances. I can be persuaded (to a point) about something, but sometimes (wrong or right) war is a necessary evil. Sure we went after Saddam when Osama wasn't entangled with him. We did it bassackwards. Saddam needed to be removed. Osama needed to be removed. Osama should have been found and destroyed first and the Saddam.

I just say, we pull out of the war right now. Turn a deaf ear to those we were helping when they ask us for help, because hey, we don't really need to do anything more. We'll vote for a man who would talk openly and honestly to our enemies and who would declare war (at the drop of a hat) on our "friends".

Isolation does have its good points.

[Amethyst Hunter]

And when we decide not to interfere, we are hated. Where does it end? Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

That depends on what we choose to get involved with. Humanitarian aid during a major disaster (quakes, for example) is one thing, sticking our noses into a centuries-old rivalry is another. In that case, there's really nothing we can do except offer basic humanitarian aid (medical, food, that sort of thing) to the survivors on both sides, and avoid the politics like the plague.

Isolation is neither a practical nor a wholly achievable goal in this day and age. With so much of the global economy depending on social interactions now, we need to find that balance between protecting our own interests and stepping back to allow others to handle their own affairs unless they specifically ask us to intervene (which is subject to our own scrutiny so that we don't get bogged down in petty stuff).

Please don't chastise the United States Government (President & both Houses) for going to war. We were attacked on our own turf. We had people die because Al-Qaeda has a problem with us. Hindsight is always 20/20. The pundits who now decry the use of force in our enemy's land were the ones who called for the heads of our enemies on silver platters.

There's a difference between a war that has justifiable cause and a war that's just plain insanity.

As I stated earlier, I had no problem with the operations in Afghanistan, because *at the time* that was where the enemies were primarily based. Had we kept our attention focused squarely on that area, we might well have nailed bin Laden's worthless ass by now.

But we didn't. No sooner had we established ourselves in Afghanistan than we turned our collective eye on Iraq. And as Boozy said, there was NO - I repeat, NO - evidence that Iraq was involved in any way in 9/11. Our so-called "president" deliberately ignored that proof (or lack thereof) and the advice of seasoned people who knew what they were talking about, and was hellbent on plowing into there whether people wanted it or not. He acted like a spoiled little brat who throws a temper tantrum when he's not immediately given what he wants - witness his snotty little "I've got a mandate and I'm going to spend it!" comment right after his crew managed to trick people into letting them back in for a second round in 2004.

I have absolutely no problem with the government tracking down terrorist scumbags and dealing with them in a permanent manner. I have a HUGE problem when that same government decides to charge off on their own crusade when there is little to no concrete proof that certain areas and certain peoples are truly our "enemies." Thanks to their fuckups in Iraq, we now have a fertile recruitment ground for more al-Qaidas when before there wasn't, and our international reputation is in shreds. We had a HUGE outpouring of sympathy and kindness from nations the world over (including, FYI, Iran! - there were candlelight vigils in Tehran the night of 9/11), and Bush totally squandered it.

It's not only a right but a duty of the American people to call their government on bullshit when it's committed. The war in Iraq is teeming with bullshit, and it's our own citizens - domestic and military - and the innocents overseas, who are paying the price for this government's stupidity.

America is a great country. We have people both good and bad who are running and have run this country. Every President has been hated since George Washington.

All true counts; however, I daresay that not even Washington was as despised as Bush is, and with good reason. Probably the only two ex-Prez's I can think of who would rival Bush in public hatred are Nixon and Reagan (both of whom deserved it too).

Saddam needed to be removed. Osama needed to be removed. Osama should have been found and destroyed first and the Saddam.

Actually, we should have dealt with Saddam during the first Gulf War. We had the opportunity and we had plenty of cause; but, as usual, we failed to follow through and wound up with more mess later.

[AFPheonix]

Actually, we should have dealt with Saddam during the first Gulf War. We had the opportunity and we had plenty of cause; but, as usual, we failed to follow through and wound up with more mess later.

I think Bush Sr. had it mostly right by leaving him in there. He knew that balance must be kept in that region and that Saddam was an excellent check to Iran. Now that he's gone, power in the region is very much out of whack. Give the old guy credit, he's far savvier on foreign policy than his son.
Now, had the UN kept up their part of the bargain and not had issues with corruption in the oil for food program, this might be a different story today.

[IDrinkaRum]

Even when we're giving humanitarian aid during major world disasters, we're criticized. We're not "giving enough". Even if we're the only major country helping out! Where are the other countries? They want to sit back and let us take over. They're never happy.

I was being a bit sarcastic about being isolationists.

I might be a little confused about the hatred for Reagan. Where I live, and with whom I've been friends, Reagan was a well liked man (except by my Dad's mom & stepfather).

[BlaqueKatt]

Don't believe the war's not about oil, eh? One word - no, actually, I'll give you two: Halliburton and Blackwater. I wonder why these two corporations - at least one of whom Cheney has serious stakes in

Cheney's stock dividends were set up to be donated to charity before he ever took office(not required at all-and we were not at war)-which is why if you see his public tax returns he donated over half of his income to charity-mostly to inner city schools for scholorships.-he is not profiting.



Yet somehow we don't seem very inclined to want to rush right over there and Liberate The People/Fight Teh War On Terrah. Could it be, perhaps, that North Korea doesn't have anything worth getting our mitts on, no known way to be exploited? The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven there.

maybe you forget we already did that-it was a stalemate that would've turned into vietnam had we not pulled out(my stepfather fought in that war)-there was even a TV show about it-it was called M.A.S.H.
Politicians don't like not winning(Korea was considered a loss-Desert storm was a win)looks bad on the resume.

[protege]

Actually, M*A*S*H* was set during the Korean War--the last episode hints at sending troops into Vietnam. However, the producers said that the series was about war in general. BTW, technically the Korean War is still going on--there was never a peace treaty to end the war.

I agree though--if Saddam was going to be taken out, it should have happened during the *first* Gulf War. However, that would probably have ended up with the same mess now, with Iran and Syria (both of whom have supported terrorism) vying to unstabilize the region.

As for bin Laden, I hope that asshole is caught and executed for 9/11. (Some of you know that I knew people who were killed on 9/1--one of the planes landed right in their office.) However, if that asshole is executed, too many of his followers will see him as a martyr, and it might actually make them stronger. As such, I think that death is too good for him. He should be forced to suffer as much as possible, for as long as possible.

[Slytovhand]

(This has been an unpaid announcement on behalf of the Marginal Electorates Party. Seshat speaking.)



(For those who don't know: Aussie political messages have to have that sort of declaration-of-interests in them. So to the other Aussies here, that was probably funny. Probably. Maybe?)

I smiled :D Probably a good party to be in as well :p

Pedersen...in Oz there is a political movement called Get Up which I am a part of (the lazy part :p). It is pretty much all online, apart from the locals who do things like letterbox drops etc. Now... there are about 250K ppl who are a part of it. They did a letterbox drop to all the voters in the (now) Ex-Prime Minister's electorate... he lost his seat. IIRC, he's the first PM to lose his seat - and in a landslide - in ages!

Your stats from page 1 gave me a figure of 100 Million votes or so. I just did a google, and the US has a population of around 300 Million... what are the other 200 Million doing? Choosing not to vote because they think it won't count??

I like the idea of the "none of the above" vote (and would also be a fantastic party name... so if you want to make a difference, create a party, and have it put on the electoral form for people to vote for :D).

Even if you don't, surely the electoral commision would note the number of intentional informal votes??? That just might give those 2 parties something to think about... 100million intentionally informal votes??

Oh - and although things are a bit different here (ok... a lot different), we did have a Green Party which held the balance of power in our Senate for quite a while. 1 man had the power to approve or deny ALL things that went for approval! And so, with an effective 5% or so of the overall vote - he pretty much had absolute power. (fortunately, he also has a fair sense of ethics!)


/part 1

Slyt

[Slytovhand]

Part II

(I'm doing this in parts, cos there's 3 different points I want to put across...)

As per Mysty's OP...

I have a question for Y'alls...

Why did you vote the way you did?

(there's no facetiousness in that question, nor any particular agenda... I am actually wondering).

I presume that there are actually people who are 'stupid' who will vote a particular way. There are those who vote a particular way for particular reasons, and not look too far into the actual politics (usually just following a particular party and general reasons). People will also vote for what they see as best for themselves. And lastly, there are those who will really go into the pros and cons of everything and make a very informed decision (ie.. no preconceived ideas).

So... why have those on here voted the way they have? I presume the people on here are the intelligent lot, so... what are the actual reasons? And this also assumes, the vote for, as against the vote against someone...

Which really should come down to a matter of priorities I suppose.....

[Slytovhand]

III

Last one.. and this relates to particular things brought up.

No - I don't think the US is a target because of it's 'freedoms'. As someone mentioned - if that's what it was about, they'd rise up against thier own governments. Also - Aus, NZ, UK, most of Europe etc would be blown to hell!

If we look at history, the US has become a target to certain organisations and peoples because of its interferences in their local political arrangements - usually only because of some economics. In Afghanistan, the US was actively trying to organise things to its way ... an oil pipeline which the local regime (the Taliban.. whom the previous US governments helped fund to fight the Russians...) decided to decline.

(Willing to take a stack of flack here....) I personally don't believe that the Twin Towers terrorist attack was as black and white-ly Al-Qaeda as has been reported. I do think the invasion of Afghanistan was staged and planned... well before those 2 planes hit those towers, and those innocent people were killed. Too much doesn't add up for my liking. Yep... I know I'm probably in the minority here, but there you go. Certainly, the 'official report' that eventually came out sounds way too dodgey, and then to go and let everyone off the hook???? Uh-huh!


"Damned if you do, and damned if you don't"??

No... How about doing things in co-operation with the UN?? Instead of walking into a country under a pretext, how about putting those US troops in White with a Blue armband?? Let them actually be peace-keepers, instead of ousting governments who choose not to be capitalistic? How about not installing political heads of state who will go and execute it's populace?

(A quick look at Wiki under Saddam Hussein suggests a strong US government connection in the early part of his rule - and especially in getting him to power in the first place... and the first decade or so things were pretty good! Then things soured... as they do.)

Of course - I do think the UN needs to get it's act together as well, and not have such a back foot. But - does it have the 'right' to tell a nation how it should treat it's people... (I, personally, am for the 'human basic rights are more important than your 'elected' government'...how would that go if the UN didn't like the US government :p). That being said, and assumed, the UN (with a stack of US forces in white and blue) 'should' walk into ...Darfur, Burma, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Sarajevo, ... oh.. how about China??

So it's not really about 'whatever we do', it's about co-operating on the world stage, and acting in concert... and being honest up front!

Oh.. and in that vein from above... if a government (any government), via its various military and intelligence efforts, actively attempts to oust an elected government using force of arms, then it has effectively declared war on that country. Bush is not alone in having done that throughout the years of humanity. So, in declaring that war (or not actually 'declaring it', but presupposing it...), any form of attack against it is an act of war, and therefore not an act of 'terrorism'. And, given prior activities of the US in various countries, the US is actually at war with quite a few countries at the moment...

(please please please... I'm trying to UNDERSTAND, not CONDONE here...ok??3500 US civilians died in those attacks... tens of thousands have died in countries across the planet due to US intervention. NEITHER is acceptable!)

(and for now... I'm also staying away from the religious bits as well)


Slyt

[ebonyknight]

I agree though--if Saddam was going to be taken out, it should have happened during the *first* Gulf War. However, that would probably have ended up with the same mess now, with Iran and Syria (both of whom have supported terrorism) vying to unstabilize the region.

As for bin Laden, I hope that asshole is caught and executed for 9/11. (Some of you know that I knew people who were killed on 9/1--one of the planes landed right in their office.) However, if that asshole is executed, too many of his followers will see him as a martyr, and it might actually make them stronger. As such, I think that death is too good for him. He should be forced to suffer as much as possible, for as long as possible.

I also agree that Saddam should have been taken out during the First Gulf War. I was completely behind the first one. The second one I was one of the vocal minority against it from the beginning (talk about being accused of being unpatriotic).

The problem was though, that his coalition would have fallen apart. The Arab portion had only agreed to have Saddam removed from Saudi Arabia, not to be overthrown. This is one reason why he urged the Kurds to rebel, because he hoped that they could overthrow him themselves. If he had gone in , he would have gone in with a fractured alliance and we would have what we have today.

Ironically enough, Daddy Bush told baby Bush this and to NOT go into Iraq and baby Bush ignored him. :D

The problem with Bin Laden is that he has been straight forward about his plans all the time. Before 9/11, he had an interview with a British reporter (I forget his name) and in his interview he flat out told the world that he was going to attack (that interview was probably IMO behind the PDB "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US"). He also told them how he was going to win. By drawing the United States into a conflict in that would bleed the US dry as he did with the USSR. He WANTED us to attack a middle east nation and Bush gave him EXACTLY what he asked for.

I really wonder what passes for Intelligence in this country these days. Will they catch him. I really don't know. Seeing as he has evaded us for seven years, I doubt it.

[MadMike]

(talk about being accused of being unpatriotic).


That's what always bothered me from the beginning -- right after 9/11 happened, everyone was so shaken up and determined to stand behind the president, that if you dared to disagree with him, or even question anything, you were branded "unpatriotic", "a traitor", or even "a terrorist." I didn't start out disliking Bush. I don't like politicians in general, but I'll give any of them a chance. I still remember when I started to lose faith in him: It was when he made the statement that you were "either with us, or with the terrorists."

That just gave me a really bad feeling, along with the "unpatriotic" label if you disagreed. Funny, I thought that questioning the government was what we were supposed to do, not let it do anything and everything it wants unchecked.

I've also been against this war from the start. I had no problems with us going into Afghanistan, assuming that they were right about Bin Laden being the one behind the 9/11 attacks. But then Bush started going on and on about Saddam and Iraq, and I'm like "WTF?" It felt like Bush was just looking for any flimsy excuse to go into Iraq, and as time went by, it was obvious to me that it was going to happen no matter what.

I would never call anyone stupid for voting for Bush. However, while I can usually see both sides of an argument, I just can't see the other side of this one. I can not see how anyone could possibly think that this poor excuse for a human is doing a good job. A neverending war, out of control oil prices, out of control government, an overall shitty economy -- 1/20/09 simply can not come soon enough for me.

[Rapscallion]

I still remember when I started to lose faith in him: It was when he made the statement that you were "either with us, or with the terrorists."


Shades of McCarthy there.

Rapscallion

[lordlundar]

Shades of McCarthy there.

Rapscallion

Shades? When Canada refused to go to Iraq at his behest, I seriously thought we were going to be named a member of the Axis of Evil!

[Slytovhand]

Had to....:D

Axis of Not So Evil (http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/axis.shtml)

[Boozy]

I've proclaimed Canada as a member of the Axis of Awesome.

No other countries have joined yet, and our own Prime Minister is not answering my letters, but it's a totally legitimate Axis.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I've proclaimed Canada as a member of the Axis of Awesome.

If I hadn't *hearted* Canada before, I absolutely do now. :D

[Girly]

Why did you vote the way you did?

Because there was no way on this earth that I was going to vote for Kerry. I don't care who ran against him, I would have voted for them.

For everyone that thinks I am "stupid" for voting for one person over another, it's ok. I know the difference between intellect, and a difference of opinion and values, and that's all that really matters to me.

[Zyanya]

Candidates in 2004

George W. Bush
John Kerry
Ralph Nader
Michael Peroutka
Gary Nolan
Walt Brown

Sorry, that is not a good excuse to vote for Bush. There were other options.

[DesignFox]

Slyt, that article is absolutely hysterical.

I think I pretty much answered why I voted the way I did through my reasons of not liking Bush.

I don't like his politics. He's anti-choice, anti-little guy, and trigger happy.

I think he's of average intelligence at best...then he speaks and I think he's downright stupid. If the guy can't put a sentence together, how the hell can he run a country?

I did a bunch of research the first time around- I don't remember all of the reasons why I voted the way I did...but I looked at all 3 of the major contenders. Bush, Gore and Nader. I listened to all three parties and all their crazy promises, and picked from there. I voted for the candidate I felt would best represent all the things I felt were important.

the second time around, I didn't need to do research to know that I wanted Bush OUT. I researched anyway...I needed to make sure I wasn't compromising my values altogether... but just about anybody would have been better than HIM again (in my opinion).

And, like others that are on here, I supported my country during 9/11. I didn't criticize the president...I was impressed he stepped it up at first...then he started spouting all this Iraq crap... and it was like *palm to forehead.*

He is an embarrassment. January 20, 2009 will be time for celebration.

[Girly]

Candidates in 2004

George W. Bush
John Kerry
Ralph Nader
Michael Peroutka
Gary Nolan
Walt Brown

Sorry, that is not a good excuse to vote for Bush. There were other options.

A good excuse? How about I wanted to? Is that better? I could have written in Christopher Walken, too, I suppose.

I guess it comes down to thinking someone is stupid for voting for whoever it is they vote for is kind of 'stupid' itself. I have many friends that believe every word Michael Moore spits out of his mouth. That doesn't mean I think they are stupid, it means we believe in different things, and we don't talk about politics with each other. My mom LOVES Coulter. I think she's pretty vile and disgusting, myself, and do not agree with everything she says. Should I think my mom is stupid, as well?

The first time I voted for Bush, when he was running against Gore, I said many of the same things people are saying about Bush, but with Gore's name in his place. I personally think the man is an idiot. I wouldn't believe anything that man said to me, even if I saw exactly what he just said with my own eyes. That doesn't mean I think anyone that voted for him is stupid though. That would just show how stupid I am myself :)

[AFPheonix]

A good excuse? How about I wanted to? Is that better? I could have written in Christopher Walken, too, I suppose.



So you support the stuff he's pulled in the last 2 terms?

You essentially affirm that you approve of the decisions he's made when you put a checkmark next to his name.

[Girly]

So you support the stuff he's pulled in the last 2 terms?

You essentially affirm that you approve of the decisions he's made when you put a checkmark next to his name.

I voted for him, didn't I? You won't ever agree 100% with who you vote for. I happen to agree more with his platform than the other guys. I do not approve of every decision he's ever made, no. But that doesn't mean I think he's stupid. You disagree with everyone at some point or another.

[Zyanya]

I happen to agree more with his platform than the other guys.

So explain to us then, on what points did you actually agree with him?

Or what points did you specifically disagree with Kerry on?


From my point of view, there is absolutely NOTHING Bush stands for that wasn't A) also represented by other candidates AND B) anywhere near worth getting into the quagmire that is Iraq.

And while Iraq alone was worth kicking him out of office, I also felt that no one should be president that would take away from the constitution for no reason (Patriot Act) and no one should be president that supports re institutionalizing segregation (Family Protection Act).

Even without Iraq, there was nothing that outweighed those points. I would have voted Bush over Peroutka, but it may have come down to a coin-flip there.

[IDrinkaRum]

I voted for Bush because I stood for the war (I still do). General Patreaus(sp?) is pulling troops out of Iraq, not because we're going to surrender or not staying to help those who are supporting us over there, but because we're making such a dent against the enemy, not many of our troops are needed anymore.

And what's the difference between giving up our rights to keep our country free than giving up our rights so the government can hold our hands, wipe our noses & bottoms and give us free kool-aid to drink so we can think government sponsored programs (like welfare and "free" healthcare) are great and wonderful.

Most people I've talked to think the President is stupid because of his accent. Southern accents, I suppose, aren't intelligent sounding. If Bush said the same things without that accent of his, would he still be stupid?

And don't get me started on some of the things that Obama has said that if a Republican (any of them) said, the media would be all over them like ticks on a hound dog; calling them ignorant and/or stupid.

Do not be rude & snarky to someone who says they are for the President. I'm still for the President and I consider myself intelligent. And this is coming from someone who only voted Democrat for the longest time. Not because the Democrats were bigger and better but because they were the party I was affiliated with. There is not one President in history who hasn't done something that has made the citizens of the U.S. mad. Lincoln got us into a Civil War. I doubt that made him popular. And because the north won & the south had to return to the union and the south had to obey the law of the land, he was assassinated. There are those who say Kennedy was assassinated because he wouldn't bring us into Vietnam. LBJ did. And if the Senate & House both thought Bush wasn't doing his job correctly, they could have tried, during either his first or second term, to impeach and remove him. There are enough people now in both houses to do so, aren't there? And besides, that sounds what a lot of the people in this thread want: Bush to be impeached and removed from office. Clinton was impeached, but not removed. Nixon was. President Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's Vice President) was acquitted of impeachment offenses by one vote.

Let this issue rest now, I think. I can see where this thread can lead to some hurt feelings (especially for those on President Bush's side). So the majority of people don't like President Bush. Who cares? Who cares if there are people out there who still like President Bush? It's a moot point as we'll be voting for a new President anyway in a few month's time as it is.

[Zyanya]

I voted for Bush because I stood for the war (I still do).

Why?

We've been given five-thousand reasons why we supposedly went. Which do you support?

The vast majority of the original reasons were flat-out lies. So I am curious as to what your reason for supporting the war is?

The non-existent improvements in Iraq? The rise in terrorist activity? The replacing Saddam with someone just as megalo-manic?

And what's the difference between giving up our rights to keep our country free than giving up our rights so the government can hold our hands, wipe our noses & bottoms and give us free kool-aid to drink so we can think government sponsored programs (like welfare and "free" healthcare) are great and wonderful.

Which of my constitutional rights do I give up for welfare and/or healthcare?

Most people I've talked to think the President is stupid because of his accent. Southern accents, I suppose, aren't intelligent sounding. If Bush said the same things without that accent of his, would he still be stupid?

I have already addressed why I think he is stupid, and it's not his mispronunciations or his fake accent.

And if the Senate & House both thought Bush wasn't doing his job correctly, they could have tried, during either his first or second term, to impeach and remove him.

Attempts were made.

[IDrinkaRum]

#1. I believe the Iraqi people (those who are not in charge, the poor, the sick, the beaten & downtrodden) were the ones who needed us there. Saddam Hussein did need to be removed. We accomplished something. Something is better than nothing.

#2. How about the right to be a free thinking individual? A nanny state is not something we need. We don't need the government to come in and give us everything and we forget that we can be an enterprising sort of people.

#3. President Bush is from Texas. Texans have accents. Trust me. Both of my Uncles who were not born in Texas, but lived in Texas for about 20 years, have Texas accents. They are genuine. I lived in Omaha, Nebraska for 5 years, I have a Midwestern accent, that sometimes pops up in conversation. That is not fake.

#4. Attempts were made. However, the attempts were not successful. If I can remember, no actual articles of impeachment were successfully drawn up and voted upon. I stand by my assertion: If President Bush were truly as horrible a President as people think he was/is, the impeachment would have found a way to the top of the priority list.

[AFPheonix]

Bush is not from Texas. He was born and raised in Connecticut. He was a transplant there later. He's a blueblood through and through, as much as he'd like us all to think he's a hick.

As for impeachment, Nixon was impeached but resigned before he was forcibly removed. Not that impeachment means an automatic dismissal from office, it's more of an official rebuke.
Clinton was impeached over politics. Now, if he'd gone a different route, say one that he refused to tell the court anything about this business or even copped to it and told them to fuck off, as it was a matter between him and his wife, he wouldn't have opened up a loophole where they could get him for "lying" on the stand. Also, look at the differences between the Congresses at the time of Clinton's impeachment and the one we have now. The one then was overwhelmingly Republican and could do whatever they wished at that point. The one in Bush's first term was the same way. They sure weren't going to bite the hand of the party leadership. The newer congress doesn't have enough of a Democratic majority to get past Republican blockades of new articles of impeachment.

The Iraqi people needed far better planning and a much less ham-handed way to remove Saddam from power that would not have disturbed the power balance in the region and would have allowed them to keep better control over their country. The way the world handled Slobodan Milosovich was much more graceful. What we did by our ourselves in Iraq has been nothing but a forehead slapper.

I'm not sure why Iraqi poor, sick and downtrodden are more important than American sick, poor and downtrodden. A national healthcare system move us more towards a meritocracy if everyone had the same basic platform to start with. Not to mention the fact that we'd be unburdening small business owners and larger businesses from having to nanny our asses. Somebody's gonna nanny us, it may as well be someone we can vote out of office and doesn't hold our paychecks over our heads.

[Boozy]

#1. I believe the Iraqi people (those who are not in charge, the poor, the sick, the beaten & downtrodden) were the ones who needed us there. Saddam Hussein did need to be removed. We accomplished something. Something is better than nothing.

600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a direct result of the US invasion. The GAO and numerous polls of the Iraqi people have consistently indicated that they are worse off now than they were before the invasion and occupation. Homes have been destroyed, basic services such as electricity and water is now unavailable in many parts of the country, their economy is in the dumps, crime and corruption are rampant, and they have no more freedom under their occupiers than they did under Saddam.

The Iraqis simply cannot afford any more of America's "compassion".

[DarthRetard]

The blame for Iraq doesn't start with America, if you know your history well enough, and I'm sure you do Boozy, as I know you're very well-read and intelligent. Not that we've helped anything, really, I'll admit.

Zyanya, I'd like you to get off Girly's back for voting the way she did. You can never tell what a politician will or won't do once they get in office, and often times it has to do with people they surround too. That was kind of the whole point of this thread, was that Mysty didn't like people jumping on Bush voters' backs. We don't really appreciate it, and we don't blast you for voting however you did.

You think when people voted for Nixon they knew he was going to pull Watergate? No, I really don't think so. So we may have made a mistake in voting for Bush the first time, ok. We made a huge one by putting him back in the second time, but only because we wanted consistencyin that current policy, to, or so we thought, minimize the chance of fucking up. Great, ok.

So now here we are four years later, and we get to choose again, how wonderful is that?

As for War Policy? Obama wants to pull all our troops out immediately, and I haven't heard much else otherwise from him as far as how we'd recover from that, in terms of domestic Iraqi affairs.

I'm not going to defend myself for voting for Bush, I shouldn't have to. I can change my mind, as we all can, and try to make things better for the future. That's the best we can do.

[Boozy]

Zyanya, I'd like you to get off Girly's back for voting the way she did....

I'm not going to defend myself for voting for Bush, I shouldn't have to..

If you don't want people challenging your political views and the way you vote, I would suggest not posting said views and voting record on a debate forum.

[DarthRetard]

Ah, let me clarify that. I thought this specific thread was more along the lines of explaining why we voted the way did, and that maybe challenging them could happen in a different thread? I just thought that was the point of the OP. If not, then, my apologies.

Either way, I could give two shits if someone wants to challenge my views, I know why I vote and think the way I do, and I have no problem answering it.

[Girly]

If you don't want people challenging your political views and the way you vote, I would suggest not posting said views and voting record on a debate forum.

I don't really care what people say or don't say about the way I voted. I also have no qualms in posting or otherwise letting people know who I voted for. I was overall agreeing with Mysty's original post where she said:

I don't go around calling people who voted for Kerry or Clinton stupid, even though I don't like their candidate or agree with their policies. The fact that because it's BUSH that's involved seems to suddenly make it okay just infuriates me.

And I agree with her that it's now the "cool" thing to do, and everyone is "ok" with it, so that must mean the act in itself is alright. I'm pretty sure that we can find plenty to debate about other than this. I am not, and will not get into Bush's politics, what he has/has not voted for, what he has/has not done that I agree/disagree with. It's the simple fact that some people think that I am "stupid" for voting for him that is irritating. Like I've said before, we all had our own reasons for voting for whoever we voted for, and just because we may not agree, it does not mean either party is "stupid".

[Boozy]

Ah, let me clarify that. I thought this specific thread was more along the lines of explaining why we voted the way did, and that maybe challenging them could happen in a different thread?

Meh. You know how threads drift. Maybe some members find it annoying, but I've found the most enlightening discussions here have been because of our willingness to get a little off topic.

You certainly don't have to defend your views if you don't want. You're free to say what you think and just walk away. But we can't criticize members for asking follow-up questions, as long as they are respectful.

[the_std]

Like I've said before, we all had our own reasons for voting for whoever we voted for, and just because we may not agree, it does not mean either party is "stupid".

I'm not sure if you meant "party" as "political party", or the people who have voted, but, while I agree that bashing people for having different opinions than your own is not right, a political party can be stupid.

[DesignFox]

For the record, I don't think Bush is stupid because he has an accent. I don't think anyone here said that.

I've listened to the man speak. My opinion has nothing to do with his accent.

Rum- Welfare and public assistance (I'll say again) are public insurance. I don't want my fellows who are on welfare or foodstamps to suddenly have to go without. That could be very bad for my well-being- not just theirs. Given a choice between starvation and stealing, many people would steal to feed their families. I like that our government has given people incentive to stay honest and do better for themselves.

If I'm not mistaken, in another thread, did you not mention that you qualified for some sort of assistance for your daughter? What would you do if that program suddenly became unavailable to you? What if it had never been available to you in the first place? (I'm not picking on you, just bringing up a point- My memory could be bad and I could be wrong...)

Anyway. I won't say that a person is stupid for voting one way or another. But I still can't help but wonder WHY anyone voted for Bush to start with, let alone helped re-elect him.

Sometimes, I think my friends and I should have moved to Canada like we pretended we would...;)

[Zyanya]

#1. I believe the Iraqi people (those who are not in charge, the poor, the sick, the beaten & downtrodden) were the ones who needed us there. Saddam Hussein did need to be removed. We accomplished something. Something is better than nothing.

What is this 'something' we accomplished?

#2. How about the right to be a free thinking individual? A nanny state is not something we need. We don't need the government to come in and give us everything and we forget that we can be an enterprising sort of people.

Agreed. That is precisely WHY I voted against Bush. I don't need someone to tell me Atheists aren't American because they don't believe in God, I don't need someone to tell me two dear friends have no right to love each other because the bible said so, and I certainly don't need someone telling me that I have no right to birth control. And as a small business owner, I want someone in office who has compassion for small business instead of only multi-million dollar enterprises that should be able to stand on their own and obey ethical laws.

Zyanya, I'd like you to get off Girly's back for voting the way she did. You can never tell what a politician will or won't do once they get in office, and often times it has to do with people they surround too.

Funny, seems Bush has done pretty much everything it was said he would. I wrote a post shortly after 9-11 predicting that we would A) invade Iraq without a decent plan and get bogged down with no hope of escape, B) end up with a massive national debt partly because of it, C) get something similar to the Patriot act, and D) end up with concentration camps (Guatanamo Bay). I was called a traitor when I made that post. Well golly gee wiz, damned if I wasn't right on all counts. The evidence was all there way back then for how we'd end up. I'm still shocked at how many people willfully ignored the evidence and continue to cling to the lies and half-truths to justify the terrible decisions made by the government of this nation.

If Girly is old enough to vote, she is considered an adult. That means she should be able to stand for and support her opinions. She chose to participate in this thread. I think most people who voted for Bush did so because they were willfully ignorant. I am willing to reconsider that if they can give me rational, logical reasons that are supported by evidence. Thus I am challenging her reasons to discover whether they originate in 'this is my genuine and reasoned belief' or 'this is what I was told to believe by my party so I do and so there'.

The blame for Iraq doesn't start with America, if you know your history well enough, and I'm sure you do Boozy, as I know you're very well-read and intelligent. Not that we've helped anything, really, I'll admit.

Actually, if you know your history, it really does. We created Saddam, armed him, gave him a huge playground and encouraged him to be a bully. Convinced him he was the biggest dog around and would not be called to account for his actions. Even when he was committing genocide on his own people with the weapons we were giving him. Then he went after Kuwait and suddenly we got all self-righteous and how dare he!

Seriously, who DIDN'T see that coming?

[Amethyst Hunter]

Funny, seems Bush has done pretty much everything it was said he would. I wrote a post shortly after 9-11 predicting that we would A) invade Iraq without a decent plan and get bogged down with no hope of escape, B) end up with a massive national debt partly because of it, C) get something similar to the Patriot act, and D) end up with concentration camps (Guatanamo Bay). I was called a traitor when I made that post. Well golly gee wiz, damned if I wasn't right on all counts.

I called it back in 2000 when some self-righteous teenager started in on me about How Much Better Our Savior Bush Will Be From The Satanic Clinton, and I flat-out told him "hell no I don't want that scumbag in office; he gets in and we're going to have another war." And this was BEFORE 9/11, and BEFORE I started learning about the horrors of Dominionism. It's scary to realize how instinctively I knew there would be bad trouble.

Even so, I was willing to give him a chance...and then 9/11 happened and we started finding out about all his dirty little deeds - did you know that on his very first day in office, his first official act as Prez was to reinstate Reagan's Global Gag Rule, which cuts off all funding to family planning centers worldwide which so much as mention the dreaded A-word? He made it clear he was declaring war on women, and he hasn't disappointed since. Hell, he's pretty much declared war on everybody, and these past 8 years prove it.

[IDrinkaRum]

At least Bush has declared war on our enemies. Barack Obama would have no qualms about invading the nations that are friendly to us. Obama also has no qualms about actually going into hostile countries and opening a dialog with them. WTF? How is that a good thing? Especially the invading/going to war with friendly nations? Where is everyone's self-righteous anger on that? Bush might not be a "smart man", but at least he knows his enemies from his friends.

[AFPheonix]

I'm not sure where the "invading our friends" thing is coming from. Care to share a credible link on that?
As for opening a dialogue with "enemies", hell yeah, dialogue away. How exactly do you think we got the Sunnis on our side in Iraq? How do you think a lot of decent deals have been made throughout history? Obviously our attempt at not talking to various groups has worked oh-so-well in Syria, Lebanon, and with the Palestinians to name a few.

[IDrinkaRum]

AFP - He has said he will invade Pakistan. Pakistan is a friendly country to us. Did I mishear him when he said that? Did I misunderstand? Did he mean a different Pakistan that he wants to invade to search for Al Qaeda? I thought the Democrats liked Al Qaeda. They keep Bush busy while the Democrats smear our President.

Sure, talking to our enemies is good. But Barack wants to basically go to any enemy nation, open dialog and then invite them back to the States for more meetings, more concessions, more groveling, etc.

[Slytovhand]

At least Bush has declared war on our enemies.

I'll debate that point!

Recall that Hussein got into power because of US backing... via the CIA.

Recall the it was the US government that armed the Taliban to fight the Soviets.

The (various) US governments has toppled democratically elected governments the world over, to increase its personal interests.

And there are plenty of other examples to use.

The US government (of both colours) has made enemies... not just 'declared war' on them.

Some (if not most) would not have been enemies if the US gov't had chosen to stay out of their affairs, in trying to bring 'freedom' to those lands (read... extended capitalism and secured economic interests).

Sure, you can try to use the argument that the US is actively trying to help various nations' people who are under oppression...but if you look at pretty much all of the areas the US has invaded, or helped to invade, there is always an economic interest there. As against, all those countries where there is oppression that barely rates a mention. If the gov't was as altruistic as they want to make themselves out to be, Burma would have been invaded years ago


Oh - as for this thread looking to be going OT... does it really matter? The debate has started here, may as well keep going here... for fear of repetition. This is a debating forum... let's debate ... but keep smiling :D


Slyt

[IDrinkaRum]

Slyt - Thank you for pointing out that both Democrats & Republicans have made "stupid" mistakes in the past and present to make the U.S. hated. Al Qaeda didn't just as soon as Bush was elected decide to bomb the World Trade Towers.

As I've said before, this country isn't perfect. The Presidents (both Democratic & Republican) aren't perfect. But I'm pretty sure there have been people throughout timme who have questioned the intelligence of the President (especially during war time). Was Lincoln hated? Heck yes. Even though FDR was beloved of the States trying to dig the States out of the Depression (even though the Democrats at the time had imposed such high taxes for items coming to the States and leaving the States that meant nothing was coming or going out of the States as commerce and the people in the States were too poor to afford the stuff, thereby making it impossible for companies to make more product and to hire more people to make said product), I'm pretty sure there were people out there that thought we shouldn't have been part of World War II.

How about the Vietnam war? We have books, movies, documentaries which detail everything we did and didn't do right (which they lean more to what we didn't do right). And please, as a friendly reminder, if you see war veterans anytime in the near future, please no spitting on them. :)

[Boozy]

AFP - He has said he will invade Pakistan. Pakistan is a friendly country to us. Did I mishear him when he said that?

You misunderstood. There is fairly credible evidence that your dear "friend" Pakistan is harbouring Al-Qaeda terrorist cells. (For the record, so is your other best buddy, Saudi Arabia.) If that intelligence becomes unquestionable, the US must be prepared to strike against those targets, with or without Musharraf's approval. This would not be a full-scale invasion. Here's the quote from Obama:
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

I'm a pacifist, but this seems fair to me. He actually wants to go after the criminals that attacked you while keeping US imperialism and civilian casualties to a minimum. Unlike Bush, he has no interest in invading some country with no WMD's and no connection to 9/11 whatsoever.

I thought the Democrats liked Al Qaeda. They keep Bush busy while the Democrats smear our President.

Which right-wing shock jock is spouting that one?

Sure, talking to our enemies is good. But Barack wants to basically go to any enemy nation, open dialog and then invite them back to the States for more meetings, more concessions, more groveling, etc.

Are you referring to Cuba here? Because frankly, it's about time America stop behaving like a whiny little toddler about that whole thing. The US has embassies in far worse dictatorships than Cuba, and that doesn't seem to bother the Republicans much at all. Probably because those places have stuff they want.

[Rapscallion]

Sure, talking to our enemies is good. But Barack wants to basically go to any enemy nation, open dialog and then invite them back to the States for more meetings, more concessions, more groveling, etc.

Such was said about the UK government talking to the IRA. Only through genuine talks with an intent to solving problems can you stop the atrocities. Kill the leaders and they become martyrs. There are unpalatable aspects, but at some point someone has to begin talking.

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

At least Bush has declared war on our enemies. Barack Obama would have no qualms about invading the nations that are friendly to us. Obama also has no qualms about actually going into hostile countries and opening a dialog with them. WTF? How is that a good thing? Especially the invading/going to war with friendly nations? Where is everyone's self-righteous anger on that? Bush might not be a "smart man", but at least he knows his enemies from his friends.


How is trying to find a peaceful resolution a bad thing? Why do you automatically assume it means we are going to grovel? Remember, the sanctions against Iraq were working, they had NO weapons of mass destruction.

What peaceful nation does Obama want to go to war with? What were his actual words regarding this issue? Not what were you told he said, what did he actually say and in what context?

I thought the Democrats liked Al Qaeda. They keep Bush busy while the Democrats smear our President.

Comments like this do not help your case here, they in fact are so ridiculous that they serve to prove our original statement.

And please, as a friendly reminder, if you see war veterans anytime in the near future, please no spitting on them.

That was an uncalled for little attempt at flame-baiting.

[IDrinkaRum]

Actually, no, the reminder to not spit on our veterans was not an attempt at flame-baiting. I have read reports in my local newspaper that some veterans have been treated with little to no respect. Where I'm at, the wounded soldiers are sent. I'm just reminding everyone not do be disrespectful towards them. My mom's father was in the Marines during WWII and was wounded. He got out, got married, had 2 children with his wife & was re-drafted when the Korean War started. He went into the Air Force as an officer (he got a college degree between WWII and Korea) and stayed in for 26 years. My father was Air Force for 23 years. I have great respect for the military. When they come into my store either active or retired, I always make a point of thanking them for their service.

As for the crack about the Democrats liking Al Qaeda. I said it with tongue firmly implanted in cheek. However, with both Clinton & Obama declaring that if they become President, the first thing they'd do is withdraw the troops, one has to make the assumption that not only do they not like the war (which Clinton did vote for before declaring it as a terrible idea and then declaring her intent to run for President, and not only did Clinton vote for it, but several key Democrats did too) but they must like the chaos the troop withdrawal would bring, thereby weakening the progress we've made so far, and allowing an ever worse dictator to take over. If that happens, the jihad against Americans would be even worse.

[Zyanya]

Actually, no, the reminder to not spit on our veterans was not an attempt at flame-baiting. I have read reports in my local newspaper that some veterans have been treated with little to no respect.

Where?

As for the crack about the Democrats liking Al Qaeda. I said it with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.

I'm not so sure of that.

However, with both Clinton & Obama declaring that if they become President, the first thing they'd do is withdraw the troops, one has to make the assumption that not only do they not like the war (which Clinton did vote for before declaring it as a terrible idea and then declaring her intent to run for President, and not only did Clinton vote for it, but several key Democrats did too) but they must like the chaos the troop withdrawal would bring, thereby weakening the progress we've made so far, and allowing an ever worse dictator to take over. If that happens, the jihad against Americans would be even worse.

Wilfull ignorance gets annoying very fast. Perhaps you should actually research what their withdrawal plans actually are before spouting off this nonsense. I provided you with a link and a more accurate picture in the other thread.

[Boozy]

...but they must like the chaos the troop withdrawal would bring, thereby weakening the progress we've made so far, and allowing an ever worse dictator to take over.

Worst case scenario is probably Muqtada al-Sadr, who has risen to prominence as a direct result of all the dicking around the US has done in Iraq.

The rise of the Mahdi Army should be the crown jewel in the list of embarrassments for this administration. But its not; Americans don't really pay attention to Iraqi politics. You'll hear a lot of people say they "support the war", but they have no clue what the hell they're supporting.

[aniwahya]

Denigrating people who voted for someone you think they shouldn't have voted for is stupid in my opinion. Personally I am more upset about people who don't vote at all, and I can't even speak civilly about people who don't vote and then harp on people who voted for someone they wouldn't vote for (if they had voted that is).

I view voting as trying to choose the lesser of two (or more) evils. What has always struck me as strange is that president's are held accountable for the things that happen in their term, even though the effects of a presidents term don't start effecting things like the economy until after their term is over. I believe the problems we are having with our economy area direct effect of the decisions Clinton made while in office, yet people hold Bush responsible for it.

[ebonyknight]

I view voting as trying to choose the lesser of two (or more) evils. What has always struck me as strange is that president's are held accountable for the things that happen in their term, even though the effects of a presidents term don't start effecting things like the economy until after their term is over. I believe the problems we are having with our economy area direct effect of the decisions Clinton made while in office, yet people hold Bush responsible for it.

Wow...just wow. We spend 2 billion per week, on Iraq and the economic problems are Clinton's fault?

I just don't know what to say to that.

[Slytovhand]

but they must like the chaos the troop withdrawal would bring, thereby weakening the progress we've made so far, and allowing an ever worse dictator to take over. If that happens, the jihad against Americans would be even worse.

No... that just says that they have a different set of priorities. And the presumption that the jihad would be worse needs corroborating.

What has always struck me as strange is that president's are held accountable for the things that happen in their term, even though the effects of a presidents term don't start effecting things like the economy until after their term is over. I believe the problems we are having with our economy area direct effect of the decisions Clinton made while in office, yet people hold Bush responsible for it.

No Ebony, I see the validity in that.

Yes, you're right about the billions being spent on it, but usually the long-term effects won't be seen for some. But... that also means that sometimes it won't be Clinton's stuff anyway...

Besides - although people want to name the specific president at fault, it's really the 'fault' of those who voted them in :D


Slyt


(and that's also why we have compulsory voting in Aus :D)

[ebonyknight]

No Ebony, I see the validity in that.

Yes, you're right about the billions being spent on it, but usually the long-term effects won't be seen for some. But... that also means that sometimes it won't be Clinton's stuff anyway...


Normally that is true. But not in this case. That is what makes this thread topic so controversial.

We've spent almost a half a trillion dollars in Iraq over the past 5 years. Also this President (until recently) never met a spending bill he didn't like.

I am sorry, but putting this current economic crisis solely on Clinton, is idiotic. About his only contribution is not increasing our oil refining capacity. That is partially responsible, but little else.

[Slytovhand]

Normally that is true. But not in this case. That is what makes this thread topic so controversial.

We've spent almost a half a trillion dollars in Iraq over the past 5 years. Also this President (until recently) never met a spending bill he didn't like.

I am sorry, but putting this current economic crisis solely on Clinton, is idiotic. About his only contribution is not increasing our oil refining capacity. That is partially responsible, but little else.

No no.. you're cool. I was merely generalising.

To be clearer, I should have said that I agree with about all but the last line of Aniwahya's paragraph...(I didn't take enough note of that last sentence... my bad).

More specifically... I pretty much knew that Jnr was going to be bad because I saw what Snr did to the world...perhaps that's one of his long-term policies coming home to roost?? Although... we could go further back to the original helping of Saddam to power.

[aniwahya]

Wow...just wow. We spend 2 billion per week, on Iraq and the economic problems are Clinton's fault?

I just don't know what to say to that.

I was tired when I posted so I didn't express myself as well as I thought I did.

I do beleive that some of the problems we have been experiencing since Bush took office are a direct result of previous administrations. The Clinton administration, for instance, enacted free trade policies that I think we are just feeling the fallout from. Lead coated toys you say? Shocking!
What I am trying to say, is that America is a fickle bitch, who based on political peer pressure commends people for merely being in office, and vilifies others for likewise being in office, when things that would have happened anyway take place. I am tired of blind; tired of seeing people jump on the bush hating bandwagon just to be with the "in" crowd (I am not referring to a specific, or non specific, poster on this board, but rather people in general).
Specifically what burns me up are people who call people stupid solely based on the candidate they voted for. Especially, when as, I said above, they simply jump on the bandwagon they feel is least likely to make them look bad. Then, depending on whether their candidate won or lost, they spend the next 4 - 8 years commending of vilifying the President for things, economic or environmental, that happen(ed) during their term that took longer than one presidential term of office to form.

"We've spent almost a half a trillion dollars in Iraq over the past 5 years. Also this President (until recently) never met a spending bill he didn't like."

I agree that this contributes to our declining economy, but I do not feel that it is solely responsible for the state of the US economy. That is what I was trying to say, but was not clear about. Rephrasing the sentence that everyone has their knickers in a twist over, to be more in line with my beliefs:
I believe the problems we are having with our economy are directly effected by the decisions and policies enacted by the Clinton presidency and the presidencies preceding even him, Yet people hold Bush solely accountable for things that he contributed too during his term of office, but was not responsible for setting in motion in the first place.

[AFPheonix]

On the other hand, free trade has contributed to a lot of the growth our economy has experienced and will continue to do so. Yes, it also forces our economy to grow and to change, and we need to examine other parts of how our government oversees companies engaging in free trade, but overall it's been a good thing. Ask any economist and they will tell you the same thing.

[aniwahya]

Unless that economist happens to live in China, of course. Oh, and it probably has nothing to do with the US trade deficit with China comprising 20% of our total trade deficit. Or the fact that our economy has been bleeding jobs for low to middle class workers, since cheaper labor costs in China and reduced costs of moving operations there and then shipping goods back to the US is more affordable since the PNTR.

[AFPheonix]

China isn't a particularly good example because they're not necessarily engaging in free trade back with us, as they have a fixed value on their currency amongst other limits on their trade.
Also, while some jobs are lost to other countries, we also create others in response to new companies that move into our country, as well as protecting other jobs that would have been lost due to higher prices by only "buying American". Yes, it's going to be bumpy for awhile as other economies catch up. This is actually one reason why I favor a single government health care plan: it takes the pressure off companies both large and small to take care of their older workers, leaving them better equipped to innovate and move with the market.

[Boozy]

Canada gets a lot of foreign investors setting up shop here because of our health care. It saves them a bundle on health insurance premiums, and its more palatable for us taxpayers because it benefits everyone. Better than corporate tax breaks.