SHUT UP. You can’t steal from me like that >:(
I’ve been wondering that too. What is the primary argument for Bush? He honestly has less than nothing going for him. How can you support him without just like, flat out LYING? It’s a little late to be saying “No, he didn’t arbitrarily kill thousands of people to satisfy his father’s vendetta!” Is that the kind of person Americans want as their president?
Yes, we’re THAT dumb.So plase don’t hate us, just pity us. And sell us drugs. Our [STRIKE]gods[/STRIKE] celebrities need them to keep their awesome.
Do I dare enter another political thread? Ah, what the hell, here I go.
As I’ve said in an earlier thread, I’m voting for Bush (and I actually can). Although it probably won’t matter because my wonderful state of New York is Kerry happy. I guess I’m doing it because he’s the “lesser of the two evils”, although I don’t entirely agree with Bush’s standpoint on Iraq. I wish he’d get all our troops out of there and leave. The way I look at is “All right George, you got Saddam, now put the damn gun down and come home.”
If you really don’t want Bush to continue killing innocents, then don’t vote for him. You know that Bush will NOT “put down the gun,” and in fact will probably attack other countries for little or no reason, just like the Iraq war.
WE are in charge of the country, and Bush is OUR employee- if you hired someone and they did not only fail to meet expectations, but constantly broke policy and pissed everyone off, would you renew his contract?
I feel sorry for the soldiers that are dying in Iraq, but I feel it was their choice to go into the armed forces. While Kerry promises to not to spend our tax money on military campaigns, I feel he will raise taxes to fulfill his own agenda. I think Kerry’s expenses will outweigh Bush’s. If Bush finishes his trigger happy tirade on terrorism, he’d be a better choice on domestic issues. As I also mentioned in an earlier thread, I just don’t trust democats. Yeah, I know it’s a narrow minded opinion, but that’s how I feel and that’s how I’m going to vote.
The elections will come none too soon…I want to know whether I should start looking for a univeristy to transfer to here, or start packing to move to Europe. >_>
Also, I’m sick of political threads. POLITICAL THREADS SUCK! p:unch::
I feel sorry for the soldiers that are dying in Iraq, but I feel it was their choice to go into the armed forces.
These two phrases do not connect logically. It was their choice to go into the armed forces. So? Does joining the armed forces then imply that they also agreed, or at least had knowledge of deployment in Iraq? I also feel sorry fo the soldiers that are dying in Iraq. They did not make the choice to go to an illegal and senseless war. They did not make the choice to be put in a hostile zone where you murder civilians in a foreign country or be murdered yourself. I suppose they should have expected acts of aggression by the land of the free on another country, all for a lie, when they joined, huh? Got what they deserved?
In the end it all boils down to an “instinct” or “feeling” brewed by baseless propaganda against the other party, because not a single solid reason was stated.
Wonderful.
Note the vague, blanket statements like
While Kerry promises to not to spend our tax money on military campaigns, I feel he will raise taxes to fulfill his own agenda.
I just don’t trust democats.
Those statements say <i>nothing</i> and have no reason to back them up <i>whatsoever</i>. Products of proaganda, folks, whether conscious or subconscious.
I think Kerry’s expenses will outweigh Bush’s … [Bush would] be a better choice on domestic issues.
Bush will “do better on domestic issues” <u>if</u> he finishes his tirade in the middle-east. What guarantees do we have of that? <b>None. Absolutely none</b>. There isn’t even a guarantee that he will do better on domestic issues! “Spend more than Bush”? Spend billions upon billions without waging another war? Why, that’s practically impossible.
<u>If</u> Bush finishes his trigger happy tirade on terrorism
I’d like to draw attention back to this quote because of the word I underlined. Think about its implication. A vote is cast for a candidate based on a <i>hope</i> that he will <i>not continue to do what he’s been doing in office for the last four years</i>.
This is by no means a personal attack on BahamutXero, however. This post isn’t even about Bush or Kerry. Propaganda has effects on everyone, but this is why politics in general is disgusting. People make choices based on impressions instead of rational, informed thoughts.
Your taxes already went up under Bush. Sure, he cut your federal taxes by a small amount, but by giving billions of dollars to the rich, he cut the revenue supply for the government. At the same time, he raised government spending by exorbitant levels; he has approved every single spending bill that has come across his desk. So because he keeps spending more money than he has, the states have had to raise sales and property taxes. If you live in New York, then it might interest you to know that New York put in a <i>retroactive</i> sales tax on stuff you buy online. This April when I was filing my taxes, I was given a choice between paying a completely arbitrary flat fee and actually going back over everything I had bought online in the past year and paying a tax on that. The state is grasping at straws because the federal government didn’t have enough money to help it during the recession, because Bush was so busy with wasteful spending on a war that should never have been started. Bush basically put a few bucks in your hand while simultaneously stealing your wallet out of your back pocket. And while that’s happening, other expenses like health care costs and college tuition are only going up. By contrast, Kerry’s “agenda” is centered on fiscal discipline, reducing the deficit, and balancing the budget.
Bush isn’t going to do this because it is the central distinguishing point of his presidency. It is the only thing that his administration is really passionate about. The neoconservatives don’t even care about domestic issues, outside their blind support for the “Patriot Act.” They’ve been pushing this exact warmongering agenda for over 10 years, ever since Paul Wolfowitz advocated a “dominant military presence” on every continent in 1992; now, these exact same people are actually in positions of power, and if Bush wins a week from now, they might even take over the State Department too (there’s talk of Colin Powell resigning). If they become even more entrenched in the government, why the hell would they suddenly go back on an agenda that they’ve been fiercely advocating for over a decade? If you vote for Bush, you’re essentially saying that you don’t care that he started a war for no reason; that you don’t care that he lied about it; that you don’t care about the casualties we take in Iraq; that you don’t care about the indefinite detention or the secret execution of American citizens; and finally, that you don’t care that Bush wants to start more wars. You’re saying that these issues aren’t important enough to make him lose your vote. In that case, why the hell would Bush ever decide to change his position on those things, if you yourself just basically told him that you don’t care enough about them? Bush has explicitly said time and time again that his plan is to “stay the course.” It’s a major part of his campaign rhetoric. He doesn’t think that he’s made a single mistake in Iraq; more than that, he’s claimed that his foreign policy is approved by god. The neoconservatives have only stepped up their warmongering rhetoric. Why the hell would Bush suddenly abandon a course of action that he thinks (and says) is not only absolutely right, but is actually mandated by god?
Don’t deceive yourself on this point. A vote for Bush is a vote for more wars, and if you’re so worried about your taxes going up, it might behoove you to wonder how Bush is going to pay for all those wars.
So basically, you “feel,” without any real justification, that Democrats might possibly do a bunch of things that you don’t like, so you’re voting for Bush, who already does all of those things and will continue to do them in the future? That doesn’t make sense.
I may be wrong, but hasn’t Bush never exercised his power to veto a bill? Ever? That’s kinda weird going through four years of a presidency. Unheard of even.
Yes. I do go with my parents, but if I actually looked stuff up about it I don’t know who I’d like.
<P align=“center”></p>
I totally agree with you. I made my first statement based on personal exeriences. A friend of mine has been in the Nave for a couple of years now and has been able to come home on several occassions. Now, this friend is a total goofball and really didn’t want to go to college, which lead him to enlisting. However, whenever he does come home, it’s pary city. Then he leaves again and it’s like the end of the world for his mother. His next deployemnt is to Iraq.
My point is that his mother acts like he’s on vacation whenever he’s home and then breaks down whenever he leaves. Now, I can understand her motherly “worrywortitus”, she has to realize that her signed up for the Navy for the next five years and my friend has to realize the consequences of doing so. There hasn’t been any draft or any sort of forced enlistment into the military. Do I feel that it’s fair that you have to fight in a war you don’t want to? Hell, no, look what happened with all the Vietnam draft dodgers. It doesn’t matter if it happens to be a war when you enlist in the miliary, it certainly is dumb luck, but you have to realize the consequeses of you actions.
Second, I agree with you that I don’t have any solid evidence to back up my opinions. Yes, my father is a solid Republican and I share many of his beliefs but not all of them. I suppose Clinton being the first president that I really knew about (because I was old enough to understand basic politics) also made me look down on Democrats. I’m not going into much detail on that but I will say and hopefully agree that he’s got some serious moral issues. He may have been a semi-decent president but having an affair makes the position and the country look bad.
I also would like to mention that almost every sentence in my last post started with the words “I think” or “I believe”. Do I have any proof that these things are going to happen? No, but I don’t think anybody can forsee the future. That’s why we share the belief that propaganda sways people’s opinions. People don’t have crystal balls that will tell us what will happen if we elect this candidate as president and when we see a poster promising what we want, we are persuaded to give our votes.
Cless, I hope I have clarified why I wrote what I did in my last post and I hope there’s no bad blood between us. Politics is such a bloody matter that has caused so many needless confrontations. Thankfully, this was only in a messageboard and not on an actual battlefield.
There’s more involved here than that. When people join the military, their job is to defend their country and its democratic Constitution. That is the purpose of the military. For that reason, sending troops to fight in an unlawful war that is based on lies, for the purpose of turning America from a republic into an empire, is a gross abuse of power.
So Clinton’s affair was a good reason not to vote for Clinton, but Bush’s baseless war is not a good enough reason not to vote for Bush?
No, but when you pick up a heavy object, you don’t need to drop it to know that it will fall to the ground if you do. Furthermore, much of this discussion isn’t about foreseeing the future, it’s about what has already happened.
Your statement is idealistic. Truthfully, many don’t enter the military for that reason. Take my friend for example. He joined because he didn’t really want to got to college, and didn’t really have any idea what he wanted to do for the rest of his life.
While you do have a point, I could not vote in either of the above elections, so it really didn’t matter how I felt.
Again I will mention my beliefs about Democrats. Do I believe in everything Bush does? No, I just hope that he may change. My view is narrow, I admit, but I will stand by it despite that fact.
True, one must judge Bush on his past term as president but what Kerry will do as president if elected is unkown. He is a senator, and he may act similarly as president, but who really knows? Likewise, how would one know if Bush will change for the better? Probability and past actions will be a factor here, but in the end, nobody knows how this election will end.
No, my statement reflects the purpose of the military as described in the oath that all troops have to take. Bush’s war is an abuse of power because it forces the military to go do something that goes against its purpose of defending the country and the Constitution.
No, it matters because you’ve just given Clinton’s affair as a reason for this “distrust” of Democrats that you have. It’s really pretty simple. Either you think that starting a bloody war for no reason is worse than having an affair, or you don’t. If you do, then Bush’s war should incur proportionately more “distrust.” If you don’t, then you really shouldn’t be one to talk about Clinton’s “serious moral issues” in the first place.
Dude, they’re telling you what they’re going to do. Kerry is telling you that he will pursue fiscal discipline, reduce the deficit, try to regain American credibility by getting more help from allies, and follow a policy of gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Bush is telling you that he’s going to “stay the course,” that he’s made no mistakes in Iraq, and that his foreign policy is approved by god. He’s also telling you that he wants to make the “Patriot Act” permanent, and he’s surrounded himself with neoconservative ideologues who want to start more wars. By voting for him, you are basically saying that you don’t disagree enough with any of these points to stop supporting him. It makes absolutely no sense to claim that he will somehow change his policy as a result.
Cless, I hope I have clarified why I wrote what I did in my last post and I hope there’s no bad blood between us. Politics is such a bloody matter that has caused so many needless confrontations. Thankfully, this was only in a messageboard and not on an actual battlefield.
Oh, of course not 
I certainly hope that that post didn’t come off as aggressive upon an individual as opposed to the idea of propagandic influence.
However, you said that you would stand by the vote despite condemning the reasoning behind it as “narrow”. It appears a logical fallacy to me that one would make a decision and at the same time condemn it.
The “Who knows what they’ll do” reasoning would be based on an assumption that both candidates, in fact, say any bullshit that comes into their heads and do not represent their party, their plans, or any of their ideologies at all. Both parties have stated reasonably well their plans for the next four years, “stay the course” and “diplomatic withdrawl”, and it should be rather expected that they’ll at least make an attempt to follow through on those plans.
You live in britian.
Okay, it is true that he had moral issues, no-ones going to deny that, but he didn’t make your country look bad. Seriously, everyone here loves him still, and didn’t actually care about that. His private life has nothing to do with his ability to guide a nation, as demonstated by your countries success during his term of office.
While Bush on the other hand, has managed to turn every country in the world against him and his position, in only four years.
Except his own, which is a formula for chaos.