Lets vote, for president

Who would you vote for?

  • Bush

    Votes: 7 12.1%
  • Kerry

    Votes: 46 79.3%
  • Ralph Nader

    Votes: 5 8.6%

  • Total voters
    58
I'm not really a Bush advocate, but you have to look at a couple things. He's made some mistakes, but you do have to admit, to make mistakes, you have to do something first in order to make them. How about Bush SR. not finishing the war in Iraq the 1st time and insigting Bin Laden?? Or what about Clinton. Did he make any mistakes?? Oh, of course not. He was too busy screwing around trying to get laid to do anything, untill his 3rd year in office when it was re-election year. The whole terrorist thing has gotten out of hand. At least Bush recognized it and had the balls to try and stop it. Would have been alot easier had prior presidents even attemted something. Would Gore have done that?? Naw. Now going to war with Iraq under the circumstances may have been a mistake. But not when you factor in the fact the job was never finished. If someones talking about you behind your back, you know you're doing something right. There will always be haters in everything. Bush's forein policy definatly needs refined a bit, but I like the fact he has goals and has tried to meet them. There was no empy promises made. He said we would wipe out terrorism, and it would take a long time to accomplish that. Well, the road has only begun. I think Kerry is a smug, arrogant, stuck up rich *****, and if that's who America chooses to be it's figure head, so be it.

I too also believe Bin Laden will miraculously turn up a month before the election.
 
nobody should ever vote for Bush!!!
I don't know about Kerry and Nader,but just don't vote for Bush!!!
hes a warhead! a terrorist!

do you think he would give a damn when some US soldiers got injured or killed in battles?
no,sorry,the soldiers are just tools for him

Bush should stay home,watch NFL and eat pretzels!
 
RaceRyan said:
I'm not really a Bush advocate, but you have to look at a couple things. He's made some mistakes, but you do have to admit, to make mistakes, you have to do something first in order to make them. How about Bush SR. not finishing the war in Iraq the 1st time and insigting Bin Laden?? Or what about Clinton. Did he make any mistakes?? Oh, of course not. He was too busy screwing around trying to get laid to do anything....

I think that :

1) Bush has certainly made more mistakes than past presidents, especially in damaging the US image worldwide (a factor difficult to assess when one lives in the US, but crucial to avoid acts such as 9/11 to happen again. I sincerely believe that 9/11 happened because Bush was elected. So voting for him for being able to cope with it is a rather vicious logic.

2) Kerry hasn't been president yet, so how could you know if he wouldn't do a better job than Dubbya.

3) There are enough capable people in a country like the United States to keep the same person for 2 consecutives terms without giving a chance to the other. That works even for the best presidents. Legislators have somewhat had a similar opinion when they decided to prohibit the same person be be re-elected more than once (but I am even stricter on this).
 
People need to stop putting so much blame on Bush!

I'm not an advocate for Bush, but people need to see that one man does not control the gov't. If you are unhappy with the administration, then you need to look at the "big" picture and also rethink how you vote for your Senators and Representatives. They are the big "crooks"! They make laws, suggest reforms, and have the final say in what the Presdent proposes...and they can be bought! Think about it...... :?
 
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Somebody picked Bush to vote for!

Thats it! Time for a little lesson on our little friend, George W. Bush. (A lot of is from the link http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html posted by Sgt. Pepper)

Federal Deficit/Surplus

In the early 80's and 90's President Reagan and Bush Sr. claimed that supply-side econimics would lead to a boost in the economy that would eliminate the record deficits "in two, maybe three years."

They bleieved that granting tax cuts to the richest would lead to growth and expansion in the economy, but even people in these administrations called these polocies "Trojan Horses" scams to funnel money to the rich.

George Bush Sr. was running a record annual deficit of $290 billion. The United States was in recession and future generations would have to pay the debt.

When Clinton took over in 1992, he reversed the Reagan and Bush formulas, raising taxes on the wealthy and reducing them on the lowest wage earners. Many Republicans predicted the arrival of the Apocalypse, Bob Dole said the economy would collapse, and Newt Gingrich said the world would fall into another Great Depression.

BUT, between 1992 and 2000, the U.S. economy provided the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 18 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. At the time of Clinton's presidency, the U.S. economy was booming with a $236 billion surplus.

BUT!!!, when Bush Jr. gained presidency in 2001, he brought back the economic principles of his father and gave tax cut after tax cut to the rich. In just one term, Bush managed to turn a $236 billion surplus into a $500 billion deficit. The largest in the history of the United States.

While the poor suffered, debt piled up, health care costs skyrocketed, and social security funds would be decimated, the rich grew even wealthier.

Bush defended his policies and blamed the "Clinton recession," Al-Qaeda, and the war in Iraq for his record-high deficit. But who was to really blame for this deficit?

At the end of the Clinton presidency, it was extimated that the ten-year budget projection would yield a $5.6 trillion surplus. In his first days of president, George W. Bush skimmed 1.3 trillion and gave it to the wealthy.

In 2000, when running for president, George W. Bush made a speech where he promised not to touch the $2.5 trillion Clinton had set aside to fix the grave Social Security problems looming in the future. Within the first year of his presidency, he had broken his promise.

And within another year, the entire Social Security "lock box" had been completly depleted and it was apparant that deficits would run in the future.

Bush supporters like to blame national security and defending the United States from terrorists and Saddam Hussein, but according to the figures released by the bipartisian Congressional Budget Office, the cost of his tax cuts were 3 times as great as the cost for war -- including increased spending on homeland security and rebuilding after Septenber 11th.

Bushes second round of tax cuts in 2003 ran up more debts and even Bsuh's former secretary of treasury Paul O'Neil said the money could be better spent and that his tax cuts served as a means for political gain.

In the end, Bush's economic policies left the U.S. with a future that carries $5.6 trillion of extra debt in the next ten years. A turn around of nearly $11 trillion in just one term!

The Estate Tax

The Estate Tax is a tax where people have to pay to recieve an inheritence. A large portion of Bush's tax cuts included the repeal of the Estate tax. Bush emphasized how this $1.3 trillion tax cut targeted middle-class income families and not just the rich. Bush justified the repeal of the Estate Tax by claiming it was causing poor farmers to lose their farms and cited cases where repeal could saved farmers thousands of dollars.

BUT! The Estate Tax is largely only applicable to the millionaires and billionaires. Only the wealthiest 2% of the population with estates worth more than $1.5 million pay any tax.

Elimination of the tax will reduce federal revenue by $982 billion over the next 20 years. All so that the rich can keep their money. Oh, and no poor farmer in the history of the United States has ever had to sell his farm to in order to pay the Estate Tax. In fact, the tax has special exemptions that protect farmers and small businesses from having to pay any Estate Tax.

It was a ridiculous scheme created to mask the billions of dollars that would go back Bush's millionair buddies, business colleages, cabinet members, and cabinet supporters for generations to come.

The Dividend Tax

Another Tax which was repealed by Bush was the Dividend Tax. The Dividend Tax is the tax where when that corporation make money, the government takes away some of that money in taxes, and when the corporation gives out extra profit to its shareholders in the form of dividneds, but since these dividends count as profit some of it is taken away in taxes by the goverment. The same money is taxed twice, so it is called "double taxation."

Bush said that elimination of the tax on investors would stimualte economic growth by creating more incentive for corporations to give out dividends and for investors to buy stock.

But wait, how much money would the guy who pumps your has have tied up in shares of Microsoft? Even for the middle-class who may have money in the stock market, how much is that handful of shares actually doing for them? Not a lot.

So who were these investors that these $300 billion were going to? Of course, the millionaires and billionaires. The only use they would have with the money saved would be to buy up larger percentages of companies, and find clever ways to hide their money in tax shelters.

More on Tax Cuts

The first major tax cuts was had 41% of the $1.3 trillion used go to the top 20% (in terms of income) of the population

In the second rounds of tax cuts in 2003, 71% of the tax cuts went to the pockets of the top 20% of Americans. So 38% of that money went back into the pockets of the top 1% of Americans so that the CEO's, millionaires, and billionaires, of America can get richer.

By giving the top 1% of Americans massive tax cuts, Bush would have those rich and powerful poeple on his side. 1/3 of Americans cannot even afford health care anymore and all Bush can think about is making the rich richer. So far, Bush has spent more money on tax cuts for the rich than on education incentives.

The People and other things

Currently, CEO's of American corporations earn about 500 times more than the average worker does. Also, the average American worker works 9 weeks more per year than Europeans workers do. They recieve little extra pay and less benifits.

The Bush Administration has also lost 1.6 millionjobs, and the only president who has lost more jobs in one term is Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression.

Bush has also caused 3 million more people to live without health care, which makes a total of 40 million people without health care.

There are currently 33 million Americans living in poverty.

30 years of environmental polices destroyed.

The allowing of corporations to exploit the American people (Enron, anyone?)

The approval and use of tax shelters robbing the United States of $70 billion a year (which Kerry has promised to put an end to)

Leaving education initiatives underfunded by $9 billion.

Creating a right-wing Christian agenda affecting women's rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, stem cell research, and privacy.

ALSO - A war started over Weapons of Mass Destruction, which were never found because they never existed.

A lack of planning in the Iraqi occupation that has lead to the deaths of hundreds of troops and at over ten thousand iraqis.

He has also caused the alienation of the international community.

DO THE RIGHT THING AND DO NOT VOTE FOR BUSH
 
I can't vote seeing as I'm Canadian. I don't want Bush to win, but I also don't want what happened in BC to happen in the states. Basically everybody voted against the NDP, because they didn't want them in...and now we're stuck with somebody just as bad --;;
 
senseiman said:
I'm not an American, but if I was I would vote for Kerry. He might not be perfect, but he is a hell of a lot better than Bush. I think Nader is a total dick for running in this election, there is so much at stake and if the world has to put up with another 4 years of Bush thanks to him (lets face it, in addition to the Florida voter fraud one of the Biggest reasons Gore lost was Nader) I think he shoud be shot.

Find it heartwarming to see that nobody has chosen Bush.

Man, people really aren't happy about Nader running. But I think a lot of people that are voting for Nader are sick of this BS 2 party system as I am. I agree that Kerry is the lesser of 2 evils, but I am tired of voting for that, or for dumb vs. dumber. Kerry will have no problems taking away our civil liberties, and I for one am not going to support that. If Nader, or any other 3rd party wasn't a choice, I bet a lot less people would be voting, not taking away votes from Kerry.
 
cross-platform said:
Man, people really aren't happy about Nader running. But I think a lot of people that are voting for Nader are sick of this BS 2 party system as I am. I agree that Kerry is the lesser of 2 evils, but I am tired of voting for that, or for dumb vs. dumber. Kerry will have no problems taking away our civil liberties, and I for one am not going to support that. If Nader, or any other 3rd party wasn't a choice, I bet a lot less people would be voting, not taking away votes from Kerry.

People tend to knock the two party system in the US a lot, but it does have its advantages. I mean, take a look at a lot of the countries with multi-party systems and you'll find that in a lot of them extremist (usually right wing) parties are able to get their foots in the door because the mainstream parties are forced to accept them as members of their coalition governments. Sometimes this can cause serious problems, like in Israel the fringe religious extremists have been able to scuttle so many peace agreements because of their involvement in coalition governments that depended on them for support. They only get 3 or 4 percent of the vote but they have powers way beyond the scope of their popular appeal. Same in a lot of European countries and Japan. Sometimes this is good, the spread of Green parties in Europe hasn't been replicated in the US thanks to the two party system, but in most cases it isn't. If you had some sort of parliamentary form of government in the US, you could expect that a plethora of gun-toting christian wackos would set up their own parties and would probably be able to position themselves to scuttle any piece of legislation they didn't like.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. People blame Bush BECAUSE IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!! He's the one who is "in charge", he's the one who made the decisions, and, without him, America would not be in a pointless war in Iraq. Every time he's been faced with a decision, he's chosen the wrong one. So, who should we blame? Low level politicians, like senators, the voters, the system? Sure, everyone shares the blame to a certain point, but it makes perfect sense that the majority of it would be put on the country's leader. I firmly believe that the last four years would have been a lot better, the world would be more united, America would have better relations with other countries, the people in America would be more prosperous, the world would be SAFER from terrorism, if Bush hadn't won the election. And for that, I BLAME HIM!! :bow:
 
Brooker said:
the world would be SAFER from terrorism if Bush hadn't won the election. And for that, I BLAME HIM!! :bow:

hehe, You should run for the office, I see you winning. :D
 
Dream Time said:
do you think he would give a damn when some US soldiers got injured or killed in battles?
no,sorry,the soldiers are just tools for him

Soilder ARE tools. That's the Job. I'm one. I accept it. That's my job. I'm a tool to perform a job. Soilders die. It sucks, but it's in the job description. If soilders don't accept it, they should suck it up, cause they sure a hell new it when they signed up.
 
senseiman said:
People tend to knock the two party system in the US a lot, but it does have its advantages. I mean, take a look at a lot of the countries with multi-party systems and you'll find that in a lot of them extremist (usually right wing) parties are able to get their foots in the door because the mainstream parties are forced to accept them as members of their coalition governments. Sometimes this can cause serious problems, like in Israel the fringe religious extremists have been able to scuttle so many peace agreements because of their involvement in coalition governments that depended on them for support. They only get 3 or 4 percent of the vote but they have powers way beyond the scope of their popular appeal. Same in a lot of European countries and Japan. Sometimes this is good, the spread of Green parties in Europe hasn't been replicated in the US thanks to the two party system, but in most cases it isn't. If you had some sort of parliamentary form of government in the US, you could expect that a plethora of gun-toting christian wackos would set up their own parties and would probably be able to position themselves to scuttle any piece of legislation they didn't like.

Yea, I see your point, and you are totally right. Hell, gun toting christian wackos already have too much power. But, that is supposed to be the beauty of the U.S, everyone is supposed to have their say, wether they are right or wrong. I don't agree with what the KKK has to say, but they have the right to say what they want, and they should, even if they are unbelievably wrong. The bad side is that the wackos can weasel their policies in, or prevent policies they don't like. I dunno, I guess any way is going to have it's bad points, I just think there needs to be a wider array of people represented in our government.

I guess the point I am trying to make is, I am just tired of the same old thing. 4 years from now, people will be complaining about Kerry taking away their rights, and will vote in the next a-hole that will be just as bad as Kerry and Bush.
 
RaceRyan said:
Soilder ARE tools. That's the Job. I'm one. I accept it. That's my job. I'm a tool to perform a job. Soilders die. It sucks, but it's in the job description. If soilders don't accept it, they should suck it up, cause they sure a hell new it when they signed up.

No, sorry. That is BS. I used to be a soldier myself, but just because you are a tool doesn't mean you have to turn your brain off. A soldier's job is to do what he is told without question, but just because you can't express opinions doesn't mean you can't HAVE them. Soldiers know it is a dangerous job when they sign up, sure, but that doesn't mean that Bush, Rumsfeld and co. have carte blanche to just throw their lives away as if they were nothing. If I was a soldier in Iraq right now, I would be massively pissed off. Soldiers sign up to defend their country, NOT to go needlessly invading other people's countries at the behest of a politician who has lied to them and to the entire nation about the reasons for starting the war. Bush is not a good leader. A good leader cares about his troops, which is something Bush obviously does not do. Certainly troops die from time to time in completing their mission, that can't be helped. But a good leader doesn't send troops out to die on a mission that is both pointless and impossible.
 
cross-platform said:
Yea, I see your point, and you are totally right. Hell, gun toting christian wackos already have too much power. But, that is supposed to be the beauty of the U.S, everyone is supposed to have their say, wether they are right or wrong. I don't agree with what the KKK has to say, but they have the right to say what they want, and they should, even if they are unbelievably wrong.

I don't completely agree here. People like the KKK go against any reason and sound thinking, and they cause injury. I think that they should not be allowed to say what they say and believe what they believe for that very reason.

Also, would it be alright for a schoolteacher to teach that the world is flat? Freedom of speech goes only so far. When you start to spread lies and statements that go against all fact, then you lose your right to free speech. This doesn't mean that no one should have the right to hold controversial beliefs; it just means that they had better have some damn good evidence to support those beliefs.
 
blessed wrote....
hehe, You should run for the office, I see you winning.

Heheh. Thanks. :haihai: I don't think I'd win though. :p

FROM A FORMER SOLDIER. EVERYONE PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY....
senseiman wrote....
Soldiers sign up to defend their country, NOT to go needlessly invading other people's countries at the behest of a politician who has lied to them and to the entire nation about the reasons for starting the war. Bush is not a good leader. A good leader cares about his troops, which is something Bush obviously does not do. Certainly troops die from time to time in completing their mission, that can't be helped. But a good leader doesn't send troops out to die on a mission that is both pointless and impossible.

You just completely summed it up perfectly. Wise words from a free thinker who's been there and knows the score. I think I'm using up all of my reputation points giving them to you.

Bush also went into this endeavor half cocked without a solid plan for what they'd do once they got there. What could be more dangerous than sending soldiers into a situation without considering (or underestimating) the dangers they'd face?

Glenn wrote....
People like the KKK go against any reason and sound thinking, and they cause injury. I think that they should not be allowed to say what they say and believe what they believe for that very reason.

If you truly believe in free speech, you have to protect the speech of people who are saying things you don't like. That is truly the American way, it's just sometimes forgotten. But organizations like the KKK often cross the line by threatening people and that kind of speech is not protected in any amendment.
 
Glenn said:
Also, would it be alright for a schoolteacher to teach that the world is flat? Freedom of speech goes only so far. When you start to spread lies and statements that go against all fact, then you lose your right to free speech.

I totally agree with that. That is why I criticised in another thread the obssession many American have regarding their "rights and freedom" to do whatever pleases them. Freedom of speech is particularily controversial, as it can cause a lot of harm. I will never understand how hurting someone's feeling or insulting or humiliating them is considered a right part of freedom of speech by a substantial number of Americans. And as you said, lying about facts, or spreading racist or hateful views is no more a freedom and should be treated as a crime like anything done physically. It's not because one does not damage something or someone, that the inside is not damaged. I thought that only retarded people or little children couldn't understand that harm is not always visible on the surface or directly in front of you at the instant. That is why I consider education necessary before being able to claim any freedom of speech.

Brooker said:
If you truly believe in free speech, you have to protect the speech of people who are saying things you don't like. That is truly the American way, it's just sometimes forgotten.

That is this "American way" that brings contempt from other countries who have experienced war, hatred and destruction, because of this unmoderated freedom of speech. Always remember that society is made of people of all intellectual and moral conditions, not only good, intelligent or reasonable people. That is why the more educated and reasonable people should play the well-intentioned teacher and tell the less mentally able where their freedom becomes harmful for other - and restrict it if they still don't understand !
 
The teacher scenario is a little silly. Teaching incorrect information has nothing to do with free speech, that's just poor teaching.

So what free speech in America (that isn't already restricted) do you think shouldn't be allowed? Probably a lot of the speech you're objecting to is speech that already isn't allowed, like threats, that sometimes happen and then are dealt with.

I don't see how the voicing of ideas and opinions and the sharing of information could ever be wrong or hurtful. If you don't like what you're hearing, don't listen. If you don't like what's being said and don't want others to hear it, tough.
 
Brooker said:
I don't see how the voicing of ideas and opinions and the sharing of information could ever be wrong or hurtful. If you don't like what you're hearing, don't listen. If you don't like what's being said and don't want others to hear it, tough.

Not necessarily ideas or opinions. If somebody (that you know or not) comes and start insulting you, laughing at you, calling you names, etc. without other reason than provocation, are you going to accept it calmly because the other guy has to right to say whatever he wants ? What if some racist(s) insulted people from some ethnic groups publicly just like that. Shouldn't someone intervene (police, or people around) ? Is everything allowed in the US under the first amendment ? What about slander, diffamation, etc. Are all laws against it unconstitutional because of the freedom of speech granted by this 1st amendment ? Whatever the answer is, I think that many American people give to much importance to the rights their constitution grants them (eg. right to own a gun, freedom of religion), regardless of whether it is harmful to others or not.
 
I'm just trying to figure out since when a senator is a low-level politician. Low-life politicians, yeah, I can see that. But low-level? No.
 
I see Kerry has 84.21% of the poll.

Am I the first to suggest that is a reflection that this is an international forum and non-Americans don't like Bush?

(Not that I intend to imply that all Americans do support Bush)
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 7501 times.

Back
Top