Why should I vote for Bush?...
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I sure as hell won't vote for Bush! Mainly because I can't vote in the US.. Oh ho ho, but what if Bush was running for government office in Sweden (if he could)?;P Brad Jennings I like pancakes!
I probably wouldn't vote for him or any other party (in Sweden you vote for parties, not individuals. we don't have a president, just an inbred king which has no real power). I've voted "null votes" everytime since I loathe and dispise all lying sons and daughters of bitches. They are all crooks, and they're all out to get my money. 95% serious -- Berlin rules.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: To answer your question, because he isn't one of the morons you're quoting and is interested in the safety and well being of our citizens. That happens to be the reason why, never having done so before, I contribute both to the Bush campaign war chest (and, yes - I meant to say war chest) and to the RNC. See, this is were the fine line, gets thinner. I want to believe you, I almost need to believe you, but there is one huge problem with this your statement. There is so much evidence that goes against the administration "protecting us". http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm[^] I have done research myself on daddy Bush and traced a money trail that the CIA funded Iraq. I have done a timeline on the first Iraq war and how it just happened to take part right during Neil Bush's court case, and remember what the media did with the OJ Simpson case right before hand? The founding fathers new governments evolve into corruption and stressed the intellectuals to "watch" it and take care of it, the problem is it might be too late, the Commission of Presidential Debates is proof that the system is being manipulated. There is new proof poppng up everyday. Either way, if I am wrong or not, the country is ignoring the ideology that has made this country great to live in. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.JoeSox wrote: Either way, if I am wrong or not, the country is ignoring the ideology that has made this country great to live in. If you feel that way than I presume you also exclude any Democrat from your list of possible alternatives to Bush? Not only do they ignore the principles the country was founded on, they are going out of their way to eradicate those principles.
-
"...The grand strategy authorises the US to carry out preventive war: preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term "preventive" is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the supreme crime that was condemned at Nuremberg. That was understood by those with some concern for their country. As the US invaded Iraq, the historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote that Bush's grand strategy was "alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at the time of Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American president [Franklin D Roosevelt] said it would, lives in infamy". It was no surprise, added Schlesinger, that "the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the US after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism" and the belief that Bush was "a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein" (4)..." http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=4030[^] "...The administration recently projected deficits of more than $450 billion this year and $475 billion next year — numbers that don't even factor in money borrowed from Social Security (news - web sites) and other trust funds, Stenholm said. "Budget deficits place a drag on the economy and our living standards now and in the future," Stenholm said. "Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) has repeatedly warned that deficits undercut the ability of the economy to grow in a way that reduces unemployment and increases the wages of American workers." The economy has lost 3.2 million private-sector jobs since Bush came to office in 2001, and unemployment has risen from 4.1 percent to 6.2 percent, he said...." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=1278&e=2&u=/ap/20030809/ap_on_go_co/democrats_economy[^] I tried looking for somet
He is not a Democrat.
-
I'm not voting for Bush. My plan for election year is to watch what kindof candidates are running against him and decide if it's worth voting or not. If I see a candidate that I really like I'm voting for him/her but if it seems like I'm voting for the lesser of two evils again, I'll leave the decision up to somebody else. Brad Jennings I like pancakes!
Brad Jennings wrote: but if it seems like I'm voting for the lesser of two evils again, I'll leave the decision up to somebody else. There are plenty of other candidates there to vote for that fits your ideals. here is something I just wrote: "45.3 percent of registered voters, 91.8 million people , did not vote for the Presidency in 2000. Add that to the 56.8 million USA citizens not registered and we end up with 148.6 million people who did not see a need to vote for one reason or another. So let’s just say they all said, “My vote doesn’t count”. The problem with this is when 148.6 people say “My vote doesn’t count”, it does. The 2000 Presidential popular vote was only won by 543,895 votes . That’s plenty of votes left over for the voters who say “I don’t like the two candidates, so why should I vote?” That 148.6 million people possibly could have voted for a third party candidate and that candidate would have won! So no matter what the Commission of Presidential Debates states every Presidential election year , it is possible for a third party candidate to win the Presidency of the United States of America and should be included in the nationally televised debates. " Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
He is not a Democrat.
Stan Shannon wrote: He is not a Democrat. :laugh: but a Democrat is not a Libertarian;) Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
JoeSox wrote: Either way, if I am wrong or not, the country is ignoring the ideology that has made this country great to live in. If you feel that way than I presume you also exclude any Democrat from your list of possible alternatives to Bush? Not only do they ignore the principles the country was founded on, they are going out of their way to eradicate those principles.
Stan Shannon wrote: If you feel that way than I presume you also exclude any Democrat from your list of possible alternatives to Bush? This point and time of this country, it doesn't need a Democrat or Republican. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
Mike Gaskey wrote: the correction to deficit problems is reduced spending on social programs. and so, the question, again: why vote for Bush? he's set all-time spending records. he's up 18% (i think) over Clinton right now, with no sign of slowing down . in fact, he'll probably start spending more, as he spendsswings towards the middle for the election. -c CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: Bush? he's set all-time spending records. he's up 18% (i think) over Clinton right now, Chris, you and I both know that the President does not spend. Recommend, yes. Promise, yes. Spend, no. That is the responsibility of the Congress, which can and from time to time does ignore recommendations and promises made by the President. Mike
-
"...The grand strategy authorises the US to carry out preventive war: preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term "preventive" is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the supreme crime that was condemned at Nuremberg. That was understood by those with some concern for their country. As the US invaded Iraq, the historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote that Bush's grand strategy was "alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at the time of Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American president [Franklin D Roosevelt] said it would, lives in infamy". It was no surprise, added Schlesinger, that "the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the US after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism" and the belief that Bush was "a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein" (4)..." http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=4030[^] "...The administration recently projected deficits of more than $450 billion this year and $475 billion next year — numbers that don't even factor in money borrowed from Social Security (news - web sites) and other trust funds, Stenholm said. "Budget deficits place a drag on the economy and our living standards now and in the future," Stenholm said. "Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) has repeatedly warned that deficits undercut the ability of the economy to grow in a way that reduces unemployment and increases the wages of American workers." The economy has lost 3.2 million private-sector jobs since Bush came to office in 2001, and unemployment has risen from 4.1 percent to 6.2 percent, he said...." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=1278&e=2&u=/ap/20030809/ap_on_go_co/democrats_economy[^] I tried looking for somet
Why did you waste all that effort. You had no intentions of voting for him anyway, no matter what he has or hasn't done. Be honest. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Bush? he's set all-time spending records. he's up 18% (i think) over Clinton right now, Chris, you and I both know that the President does not spend. Recommend, yes. Promise, yes. Spend, no. That is the responsibility of the Congress, which can and from time to time does ignore recommendations and promises made by the President. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: Chris, you and I both know that the President does not spend. but first, he wrote: With the welfare state initiated by FDR, and fanned into flames by LBJ so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? right. that's what i thought. -c CheeseWeasle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: He is not a Democrat. :laugh: but a Democrat is not a Libertarian;) Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.That's true, but I would argue that the Libertarian philosophy is as diametrically opposed to our founding principles as anything the Democrats or Rebublicans are pushing for. So they (as a party) are not a viable option either to those of us who still believe in those founding principles.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Chris, you and I both know that the President does not spend. but first, he wrote: With the welfare state initiated by FDR, and fanned into flames by LBJ so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? right. that's what i thought. -c CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? Exactly. LBJ and FDR both enjoyed hugh democratic majorities in Congress. They took advantage of that majority and pushed through an overtly socialistic agenda - which has virtually crippled us as a society. They didn't spend the money, but they are repsonsible for the programs that the bulk of our national debt goes to pay for.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Chris, you and I both know that the President does not spend. but first, he wrote: With the welfare state initiated by FDR, and fanned into flames by LBJ so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? right. that's what i thought. -c CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? Yes, LBJ especially was a master at pushing agendas through Congress. Kennedy, a pretty decent President for the amount of time in office, had a social agenda that he had difficulty making happen. LBJ was able to push it through to take "our" eyes off of what was happening in 'Nam. Mike
-
Why did you waste all that effort. You had no intentions of voting for him anyway, no matter what he has or hasn't done. Be honest. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
Gary Kirkham wrote: Why did you waste all that effort. You had no intentions of voting for him anyway, no matter what he has or hasn't done. Be honest. Honestly, I wanted Bush supports to give me a reason to vote for him. So far I see no logical reason to. no BS Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
That's true, but I would argue that the Libertarian philosophy is as diametrically opposed to our founding principles as anything the Democrats or Rebublicans are pushing for. So they (as a party) are not a viable option either to those of us who still believe in those founding principles.
Stan Shannon wrote: That's true, but I would argue that the Libertarian philosophy is as diametrically opposed to our founding principles as anything the Democrats or Rebublicans are pushing for. So they (as a party) are not a viable option either to those of us who still believe in those founding principles. Yes, but the Libertarian Party is the largest of any other third party. They have the best chance of getting this country back to those ideals. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
Chris Losinger wrote: so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? Exactly. LBJ and FDR both enjoyed hugh democratic majorities in Congress. They took advantage of that majority and pushed through an overtly socialistic agenda - which has virtually crippled us as a society. They didn't spend the money, but they are repsonsible for the programs that the bulk of our national debt goes to pay for.
right. and again, GWB isn't responsible for spending increases, even though he also has the majority in both houses. but democratic presidents are. i understand, you don't have to say it again. CheeseWeasle
-
Chris Losinger wrote: so, we can blame LBJ and FDR, but not GWB ? Yes, LBJ especially was a master at pushing agendas through Congress. Kennedy, a pretty decent President for the amount of time in office, had a social agenda that he had difficulty making happen. LBJ was able to push it through to take "our" eyes off of what was happening in 'Nam. Mike
right. GWB is not responsible for anything that happens under his watch, even though he has majorities in Congress and could presumably pass whatever he wants. But Democratic presidents are always responsible for everything. as long as we're clear on this. -c CheeseWeasle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: That's true, but I would argue that the Libertarian philosophy is as diametrically opposed to our founding principles as anything the Democrats or Rebublicans are pushing for. So they (as a party) are not a viable option either to those of us who still believe in those founding principles. Yes, but the Libertarian Party is the largest of any other third party. They have the best chance of getting this country back to those ideals. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.JoeSox wrote: Yes, but the Libertarian Party is the largest of any other third party. They have the best chance of getting this country back to those ideals. I don't see how. I suppose my attitude is that there is *no* realistic way of getting back to those values. So, given a choice between the socialistic left (Democrats) and the capitalistic right (Republicans) I choose the lesser of two evils and vote Republican.
-
right. and again, GWB isn't responsible for spending increases, even though he also has the majority in both houses. but democratic presidents are. i understand, you don't have to say it again. CheeseWeasle
A small majority. My biggest problem with Bush is that he *isn't* taking advantage of that majority the way Democratic leaders have in the past. For some reason he seems to still feel obligated to pander to the left even though he doesn't need to. I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR.
-
JoeSox wrote: Yes, but the Libertarian Party is the largest of any other third party. They have the best chance of getting this country back to those ideals. I don't see how. I suppose my attitude is that there is *no* realistic way of getting back to those values. So, given a choice between the socialistic left (Democrats) and the capitalistic right (Republicans) I choose the lesser of two evils and vote Republican.
Stan Shannon wrote: I don't see how. they must be included in the nationally televised debates. Which the CPD will not let them in because they are a threat to the two-party monopoly. I have done research on this. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
A small majority. My biggest problem with Bush is that he *isn't* taking advantage of that majority the way Democratic leaders have in the past. For some reason he seems to still feel obligated to pander to the left even though he doesn't need to. I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR.
Stan Shannon wrote: I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR. i think the reason he won't do that is because he (or his advisors) know that the vast majority of the public likes the programs FDR and LBJ created, and that cutting them would be a guarantee of a single term for him and every congressional Republican. CheeseWeasle