PDA

View Full Version : Bush/Kerry/None



imdeemvp
24th October 2004, 10:00 PM
U.S. elections are coming.....this will only be a forum POLL so please do not reply with flaming comments. Let's behave as educatated humans beings, keep simple people. JUST VOTE. Thanks.

BTW, this thread will close in 30 days.

ilja
24th October 2004, 10:07 PM
I will reply:
I am not an american, but as far as I can see from Europe Kerry isn't a politician, but an Economist. He doesn't look very representative, and he also doesn't seem to be the person, who can lead the USA out of the crisis, that is going on. And to think, that the USA could lead all the soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan and to think, is a bit very naive. They have to lead this all to an end.
Bush has started a lot of things and as far as I know is he deeply involved into a lot of Petrol Companies, but what politician don't...?
So imho he is not that evil, as what he is presented here in Germany.

I don't know anything about the others, so I would vote Bush.

I won't vote here on the poll, because I am not able to vote and this would lead to false results.

//P.S.
For everyone:
As far as I know the Vbulletin DB, it is possible for everyone who has access to the DB to see, what you actually voted. So if you want it to be a secret or are aware of persecution, please don't vote here.

PeTzZz
24th October 2004, 10:15 PM
http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/ :o
Just noted, it's not expected to be flame ...

Dog-One
24th October 2004, 10:21 PM
I'll vote for Mike Badnarik. Whether it's a wasted vote or note, I'm voting for the canidate that best represents my interests. See http://www.lp.org/ and please give me your objections. I'd like to know why the guy doesn't have a snowball's chance in a three alarm fire to win.

imdeemvp
25th October 2004, 12:25 AM
I Was Given Bad Reputation For This Thread.....i Have Permission From Edwi For This Thread! What Is Wrong With You People!? :mad: :mad: :mad:

That is the beauty of this country to be able to speak freely without repression, whoever did it TAKE IT BACK!

Similiar Thread in this forum: http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/topic-26201.html

Optimistic
25th October 2004, 12:57 AM
I don't know who will win, but I hope it is Kerry and I will be voting for him come Tuesday. Aside from the fact that I'm one of those dreaded liberal academics that you hear about on FoxNews, I think that Kerry has a better chance of improving America's image on the world stage and has a much better economic plan. The cowboy turned some of our oldest and most important alies against us and turned the largest surplus our country has ever seen into the largest deficit our country has ever seen.

Random, Unrelated Question: Who is the safest kid on the playground--the strongest kid or the kid with the most friends?

Jman
25th October 2004, 01:14 AM
I'm mostly of Optimistic's opinion. I want a president who realizes that you can't cut taxes and still spend. And one who isn't disliked as much abroad.

There is no wasted vote other than from somebody who didn't vote at all.

woland
25th October 2004, 01:34 AM
I feel it would be unfair for anyone else to have to tidy up the mess left by bush. Maybe things will be in a better state come the next election

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 03:22 AM
That just doen't make sense. Thats like saying America should rewrite its laws to let a president reign indefinitely becuase he makes mistakes. Does anyone else see that as backward?

The problem is I here too many Americans use that argument. Didn't Bush say he doesn't think he did anything wrong in his term, during the debates? What makes you think he is going to correct his deliberate mistakes when he just told you he wouldn't?

crackers
25th October 2004, 04:00 AM
I feel it would be unfair for anyone else to have to tidy up the mess left by bush. Maybe things will be in a better state come the next election
Unfortunately, that comment demonstrates your lack of knowledge in this area. I'm not putting you down, but this is an extremely complicated issue - not only for the US, but for everyone on this planet. REAMS of material has already been written about this time and even more will be written later on, examined and what-iffed to death.

This election has world-wide consequences, good or bad, no matter who is elected. As much as I hate to say it, we are living in a time of historic proportions.

As Keaneu Reeves once said: "Whoa."

sailor
25th October 2004, 04:36 AM
I think ilja reply is on the mark.
We already know what Bush is doing and from what Kerry is saying very little will change on the terrorist front. Kerry is promising an awful lot of things that will require more taxes (yet he won't admit that).
I have to admit that the US econmy is not the rosy picture that is being painted by the republicans, however 911 had a lot to do with that (as a Dept of Human Services caseworker I saw the impact of 911 on small businesses, the hotel industry, the airline industry, tourism...etc).
As crackers said it is far more complex than it appears. Each admistration has an impact on the next and far too often the blame is laid at the wrong persons feet.
Unfortunately Kerry has not really told the american people what he is going to do. Is his so called "plan" is not worth discussing? The Bush administration has made some big mistakes in regards to US economy and I don't hear him saying anything about that either.
I forsee a return to a more balanced government, with the House and Senate having no overwhelming majority by either party.

Bradlis7
25th October 2004, 05:02 AM
If you don't like Kerry, here's something funny.

http://images.radcity.net/5145/792261.mp3

Don't flame me if you like John Kerry please.

imdeemvp
25th October 2004, 06:00 AM
Unfortunately Kerry has not really told the american people what he is going to do.

this is the way we should be able to talk without harrasing one to the other having a good discussion with a good cup of coffee and a bunch of grown people in bowling game or what have you...having a discussion that affects the future of our country is essential we need to reflect how important our vote is and whatever the outcome is being bush or kerry at least we can say we had something to do with it and our voice has heard clear and loud, i do agree with steve in this case kerry has not clearly stated what he is going to do....

when i see kerry i think of a union right away.....promises, more promises, but the truth is the when you are at the table you are there to bargain 50/50 you will get what you promised and the rest well your have to live with it and i dont want kerry to say that once in office he will take a different stand...

on the on other hand i so upset that some imature kid that does not have a life yet and does not know anything about live and learn can easly speak and instead of being constructive just thinks he/she is God and sentences you with bad behavior and creating controversy but the good part is you live by the sword you die by the sword or our most popular saying "what goes around comes around"

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 06:08 AM
I can see it now: the sword slashes imdeemvp's rep -10 ;)

Can you hoestly morally vote for bush and expect things to improve?

imdeemvp
25th October 2004, 06:20 AM
we can just hope that things can improve....i assure one thing this goverment is not as corrupted as others....trust me i dont want to mention them but i come from one them

things are not as bad as people think....the media wants you to think and picture a different scenario just like the shortage of flue shots i can assure this whether you have a flue shot or not you always have a chance of getting the flue and be sick for 7-10 days

who are the ones in line for a flue shot? the elderly! (god bless them) why? because of the media putting fear on them but after the flue season its over the death rate will be the same with a +/- as previous years and there are other medicines to treat the flue too but no the media creates more panic and people fear for their lives. i used this as an anology not to offend anyone.

so you see dont always believe what the media says i work in a hospital with doctors and pharmacist and i know how it is :rolleyes:


I can see it now: the sword slashes imdeemvp's rep -10
i had ewdi's permission before i even started the thread and he said go ahead....

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 06:33 AM
we can just hope that things can improve....i assure one thing this goverment is not as corrupted as others You only think that. Thats what they tell you. Totalitarian governments are visibly corrupt while the American democracy is just not so secretly, yet not publicized, corrupt.

Things are far worse than people think...the government wants you to think and picture a different scenario just like the censorship of war footage. I can assure this whether you have a relative in the service or not you always hear what the government wants allows.

Kerry has promised to stop hidding information from the people. Of course he can only give us so much before they deem it a securoty risk or inconvienient, but its a step in the right direction.

What about the stem research dabte? Bush just doesn't believe in science becuase he is a Christian, and we all know they don't believe in science.

Don't worry about offending people. Its good for them. Maybe it will encourage them to actaully learn something. I don't think the government is worried about offending Saddam or the media or your rights or...

crackers
25th October 2004, 06:44 AM
The only truly encouraging sign I've seen is that an enourmous number of "younger voters" (by that I mean the same as the media - under 25) have registered to vote and intend to exercise their franshise. This shows a society actively engaged with itself and not as slanted towards the older (generally more conservative) generations.

The downside is that it's taken a bit of education - my massage therapist (20 yrs old) thought that you had to PAY to vote! Somebody needs to make those Social Studies courses a bit more engaging... :mad:

imdeemvp
25th October 2004, 06:57 AM
my massage therapist
how come i dont have one of those??? i agree education now is more about diciplinating students....teachers spent more time telling kids how to behave in classrooms and less time educating them, some of my friends are teachers and i hear it all the time

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 07:21 AM
I was just explaining that to a friend. High schools and some colleges don't give you an education. They just prepare you for work: wake up early, don't be late, don't talk back, do what your told, don't question authority. All the necessary steps for comformity.

Sadly Americans are lazy sheep and its hard to keep up with all the biased news.

bamboo_spider
25th October 2004, 07:29 AM
I am not american - but I voted in the poll anyway

But guys bush is bad news - anyone seen farenheit 9/11 if not see if before you decide.
even without that Bush and his cronies is leading not just US but the world into a downword spiral - what he is doing is not lessening terrorism he's going to end up as the biggest benefactor for world terrorism - he gives hope to every wannabe. You have to live in a non US / non european country to get a veiw f what happening.

US friends don't mind but US (the Govt.) is a bully a big one and no one likes bullies esp. when they have their priorities all wrong.

Maybe Kerry won't be any better - but its worth a try some change in perspective , some thing positive might click .

So don't beat around the bush just help beat him.

Hey did I overstate - if so I am sorry.

imdeemvp
25th October 2004, 07:38 AM
But guys bush is bad news - anyone seen farenheit 9/11 if not see if before you decide.
do you actually believe everything you see? made by a hollywood director.....can you smell fiction? misleading? and more.....

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 07:48 AM
Actually, that was a documentary. Granted it was to make money, but you have to realize the media is not against Bush. He's a big business republican, and the media is made up of conglomerates.

I just cannot understand the rational, if it is rational, of voting for Bush.

Ug
25th October 2004, 07:55 AM
do you actually believe everything you see? made by a hollywood director.....can you smell fiction? misleading? and more.....
I highly recommend "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man", it puts things into context with him in particular.

As for the election I think Bush will win. I'm also of what appears to be the controversial opinion outside of the United States in that I would prefer Bush to win. Bush isn't a perfect candidate by any means and I personally detest his protectionist ideas (i.e. his steel tarriffs) but then Kerry has made a lot of protectionist remarks of late. For me the election is a single issue one: that of the War on Terror. I feel that Kerry is going to be complacent and return to the days of Sept 10th whereas Bush (or his advisors if your so inclined) have really grasped the concept of what needs to be done to secure the US. Even if that means ruffling a few feathers to get it done, Bush is obviously a realist. The ends justify the means.

Thats just my opinion.

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 08:05 AM
Bush is obviously a realist. The ends justify the means. You obviously did not watch the presidential debates. Bush is in his own world. He said the ecosystem is at its best now compared to years ago. He said he doesn't think the Partriot Act erodes the people rights and freedoms. He thinks once a decision is made you have to follow it do its bitter end.

I thought the BBC was reporting less biased news than FoxNews :eek:

Kerry isn't stupid. He knows the threat, but he just doesn't think it should be the only think Americans think about. He says he wants to reduce terrorism to a nuisance. Bush said thats not good enough; he want to eliminate it completely. Any realist know that you cannot completely rid the world of terrorism just like you cannot stop any decentralized organization, like p2p.

He thinks he made all the right decisions and would do the same thing again given the chance. Our job is to ensure that he doesn't get that chance.

Ug
25th October 2004, 08:25 AM
You obviously did not watch the presidential debates.
Debates have no where near the significance in the UK as they do in the US. So I can't say I really factored them in, I've seen bits of the first one but wasn't exactly impressed by either of them.

I thought the BBC was reporting less biased news than FoxNews :eek:In the UK the BBC is notoriously biased in a lot of things. Unashamedly anti-Bush and pro-Kerry is just one of those aspects.

StoneBrooks
25th October 2004, 08:31 AM
I am of the opinion that George W. Bush is brilliant at campaigning. The race he had for the position of Govenor of Texas clearly demonstrates this. That is the only reason that I honestly think that he will win this election as well.

Do I think that he has done an exceptional job so far? No.

Do I think that he will be able to repair the damage? No.

Do I think that he should be elected? No.

A number of times GW has been quoted to say that you can't really win the war on terror. The very idea is stupid. Have we won the war on drugs?

The plan to revive the economy with education is a joke. I got an education. My job was shipped overseas. I now make a third of what I made four years ago doing the same thing. Now you want me to spend more money on another education? No thanks. Fix what you broke.

From the very beginning this administration has been laying out who our allies are and who is our enemy. That is not the mentality I like to hear. Everyone is either our ally or potential ally.

I could go on for hours but it's late.

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 08:51 AM
I now make a third of what I made four years ago doing the same thing. Now you want me to spend more money on another education? No thanks. Fix what you broke. We cannot blame the whole economy on the President. Besides, the tech boom wasn't reality. Now everything is being reajusted. Sure people want the grand economy back and a larger return on their education, but The high paying tech jobs are not coming back. Its not Bushes fault. Companies were paying people too much, and realized that it wasn't smart business.

We can, however, blame Bush for supporting stoping overtime pay to all IT workers. Thats a major blow to sys/net/web admins because the nature of the business requires them to be "on call."

Ug
25th October 2004, 09:00 AM
We cannot blame the whole economy on the President. Besides, the tech boom wasn't reality. Now everything is being reajusted. Sure people want the grand economy back and a larger return on their education, but The high paying tech jobs are not coming back. Its not Bushes fault. Companies were paying people too much, and realized that it wasn't smart business.A very sensible point there.

The dot com bubble certainly wasn't reality, it was a piece of hysteria. There were some such as George Soros who did warn at the time that it would all end in tears, but people were too caught up in it.

One thing that Bush did do well in to help revive the economy somewhat was to cut taxes. Although this has contributed significantly to his budget deficit it did provide a breathing space to help get things back on track. You only have to look at Europe in particular places like France and Germany to see how their struggling.

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 09:14 AM
One thing that Bush did do well in to help revive the economy somewhat was to cut taxes. Although this has contributed significantly to his budget deficit it did provide a breathing space to help get things back on track. Now that it's back on track we have to return to they normal tax rate or increase it as America is fighting multiple wars. That is exactly what Kerry proposes. Bush, in his delusion, would rather keeping the tax break or making another one.

War is not supposed to be a clean, convienient pastime. Lives are being lost, large amounts of money is being spent, and they will have to reinstate the draft soon. Bush doesn't talk about that and prefers to censor the media so no one does. Bush is simple out of touch with reality, or he knows that Americans are stupid and want to be told everything is alright.

Dumb Americans think it is unpartiotic to appose a war, like the Vietnam War, and it is under the Patriot Act. Kerry, however, will not hesitate to critisize the government. American needs a leader that will do the right thing, not the most convenient one.

Ug
25th October 2004, 09:38 AM
As for where Bush is going to get the money from to pay for the war I concede that I don't know, and that as much as I'm loathe to agree with you on this point, raising taxes is probably the only viable route.

Lives are most certainly being lost, and thats just the nature of the world today. There is no way we can stop fighting as soon as we do so we go back to September 10th and allow them to win.

As far as I can see patriotism has nothing to do with whether or not the war should be opposed or not.

Ug
25th October 2004, 09:46 AM
Another thought about the "draft". I seem to remember it being categorically denied by Rumsfeld a little while back. You probably won't believe what he says, but I'm going to take him at face value possibly against my better judgement.

Even if there was to be a US draft it would be hard for the UK not to get involved further. We are in a very similar position in many respects to the US. I'm also of the age to be conscripted in any such draft, something which I have no qualms about.

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 10:13 AM
I'm also of the age to be conscripted in any such draft, something which I have no qualms about. You wouldn't mind fighting Bush's War for Oil. I find this war immoral and oppose as much as possible. He as not given the world a valid reason for these wars:
1) The Afghan war was to get oil and Osama. America was attacked by Osama because of American ocupation from when the Soviets invaded. The Americans occupied to get the oil. They got the oil, but did not get Osama, who opposed the infadels.

2) The war on Iraq was completely unwarrented. It was obviously about the oil. The first mission for the troops was to secure the oil fields. Once that was done, they renamed the war "Operation Iraqi freedom." It had nothing to do with WMD or Sadam other than that Bush personally doesn't like Sadam, but a personal grudge is not a valid reason for war.

Sadly, the world is populated with sheep that do whatever they are told. No one has the moral fortitude to stand up for what they believe is right, nor does anyone have the time, energy, and sadly, the will to actually find out what is right.

imdeemvp
25th October 2004, 10:26 AM
2) The war on Iraq was completely unwarrented
kerry voted for it and to me it was a gumble they all took! i just think not enough troops went in to secure the place....then again iraq is not small country

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 10:29 AM
Indeed, Kerry and the rest of the idiots in the US senate voted to give Bush war powers so he can rage wars at his every whim.

I don't think Kerry is the answer to all of the world's problems, just the best available alternative.

imdeemvp
25th October 2004, 10:33 AM
just the best available alternative.
but very questionable and when there is such thing....regret and disappointment may follow.

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 10:39 AM
But we, the world, are already regretting and dissapointed at Bushes decision. Why would we allow him to continue his reign of unchecked terror?

He completely disregarded the UN and is opposed to submitting America to the international courts because he know he will have to answer for his war crimes.

Alas, the sheep follow.

Varkk
25th October 2004, 12:05 PM
It is not so much Bush I dislike, but Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Rove etc.
But not being a US citizen I have no say on the matter.

Ug
25th October 2004, 12:07 PM
There is a big danger in calling Bush's war in Iraq illegal (as illustrated here (http://www.stephenpollard.net/001816.html)) in that by doing so, you are effectively calling for the reinstatement of Saddam Hussein's government with immediate effect.

As for whether or not the war was for oil, I don't mind. If Bush did invade Iraq just for oil (as I doubt) then he overthrew a tyrannical regime in the process which is surely a good thing. Oil is also a strategic resource which the west needs, an ugly reality of modern society.

Returning to the core subject about the election. I have to say that I'm rather dismayed at some parts of the electoral process in the US which is currently in progress. Particularly the voter intimidation by both political parties around polling stations for the early voters in Florida. This is something I'd expect to see in a semi-democracy not in the USA.

Ug
25th October 2004, 12:17 PM
Again backtracking a bit to security. I'm currently reading the Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk) which is Europe's best selling broadsheet. Turning about 4 pages in the US department of Homeland security has taken out a full page advert advertising the new security procedures of foreigners entering the US.

Scary time.

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 01:43 PM
This is something I'd expect to see in a semi-democracy not in the USA. Didn't you know, America isn't a real democracy. The people don't even elect the president. They just vote so everyone sees who they would like to be President.

Reinstating Sadam is not all that bad except that there is already a government in place. It is not ok to just remove sovereign governments because we don't like thier style. We should have let an international body judge him...Oh wiat, we tried that, but Bush disregarded the UN and doesn't want to join the Internation Court - how convenient.

Ug
25th October 2004, 02:00 PM
Didn't you know, America isn't a real democracy. The people don't even elect the president. They just vote so everyone sees who they would like to be President
Yep you have the founding fathers of the US to thank for that. The USA presidential elections are a prime example of an indirect election of a president. Although the college system is more of a formal relic these days.

The founding fathers did it to try and protect the head of the state from the whims of the people. ;)

mugs
25th October 2004, 02:00 PM
As far as the comment that Bush completely ignored the UN...come on, the UN? They are totally worthless. Why should America have to listen to them? I also disagree that the war was fought because of oil, as I dont see us controlling their oil, or the prices going down.

That being said, I was not in favor of the war, even though I support Bush and will vote for him. Once we did go to war, though, you have to stand behind your country. How do you think it looks to the rest of the world when we are not united?
I am very unhappy that all these soldiers have lost their lives, as most are young. I lost my child 3 1/2 years ago (he was 12) and the pain never goes away.

What gets me is that we are spending all this time and MONEY on Iraq, when look at all we could do in this country with the money? Why are we building them schools, and hospitals, etc...what about the homeless here, and the people who cannot afford medications? Plus, really, no other country comes to our aid like we do to them. Whenever there is a flood in Bangladesh, etc we are sending food and medicine, yet hardly any other country helps us. As an American, I feel that the needs of the citizens of America have to come before the needs of others. Maybe that is isolationist, but I think that if we could become healthy, it would protect us from the rest of the world and the terrorists.

Maybe some of my opinions seem contradictory, but I dont beleive in following one party's line. I think there are good and bad ideas in each party. Sure, Kerry, makes great promiseds, but lets face it, he would not be able to deliver. Mostly the President does not have final say. I will say about Bush that right or wrong, he does what he beleives in and risked his whole presidency on the fight against terror. Are we safer now than we were 3 years ago? Maybe not, but the people do not want to do what it takes to be safe, as they complain about their rights.

Ug
25th October 2004, 02:13 PM
Anyway lets return a bit more to the core subject. Who you think will win the election. ;)

mugs
25th October 2004, 02:16 PM
Bush will.

superbnerd
25th October 2004, 02:18 PM
Once we did go to war, though, you have to stand behind your country. How do you think it looks to the rest of the world when we are not united? It would make American look like they actually stand up for what they believe. It would make Americans look like they actually have freedom of speech. It would make Americans look like they are mindless idiots that do what ever the governments wants them to do. You think Bush cares about the US international image? During the dabate he said that doesn't matter. Kerry was the one that is trying to improve our international status.


Why are we building them schools, and hospitals, etc...what about the homeless here, and the people who cannot afford medications? Because American businesses will make millions of dollars on interest from the loans and contracts they make in Iraq.


That being said, I was not in favor of the war, even though I support Bush and will vote for him.That's a morall fallacy. You don't support the unwarrented violent over of the government, which is illegal in American, yet you continue to support the one that led the overthrow even after he said it was the right choice whe it abviously wasn't :confused:

Thats why Bush will get reelcted, Americans are sheep.

Dog-One
25th October 2004, 03:20 PM
Maybe in four years we can all vote for Hillary Clinton and just get it over with. We can have the Socialist States of America and just do what we're told and be happy. In a hundred years or so, some country will come along and liberate us--the initial war will be named Operation City Storm; later to be called Operation Patriot Freedom. All our WMDs and media conglomerates will be surrendered to the occupying forces and a democratic government will be established to control the hostilities. ;)

ewdi
25th October 2004, 03:28 PM
I'm not going to debate who will going to win since you cant really tell right now until the ballot is closed, but i can tell you this, i'm voting for President Bush, now i'm not a republican, but i like a tough president for now.

I wont debate why i will vote for bush, since it's no point to debate it after all, everyone have their mind set (except swing voters) :p however i can tell you this, whoever wins the election, he's still my president :)

Ug
25th October 2004, 04:03 PM
however i can tell you this, whoever wins the election, he's still my president :) Until you move to Japan of course. ;)

mugs
25th October 2004, 04:09 PM
I am not a sheep.

sailor
25th October 2004, 06:20 PM
Actually, that was a documentary

it was not a documentry...it was clips pasted together to create a certain emotional response...I believe it is called propaganda.
BTW..Micheal Moore(self admittedly) has no respect for John Kerry, in fact I think he is only concerned with his own bloated ego.

Far too many folks outside of the US just want to see us fail, that is fine, it is expected. It is a common aspect of human nature to want others to fail (especially when they are lazy, biased, fat assed white people). That being said there is a time when we all grow up and start to see things as they are, not as we believe they are or not as we want to believe they are it is essential for
you as an individual to figure out the truth.

in a nutshell, do the homework, use more than just one newssource, read between the lines, look at history and ask yourself can they do that or is it just to get my vote?

GreyGeek
25th October 2004, 07:15 PM
What? Put up a poll on a very *interesting* US presidential race where the two candidates are POLLS apart and then ask for no flaming? ;)

Where have you been for the last two hundred years of American History? :D

If you think the partiisian pollitics that are taking place in this election cycle are bad, and that's including some idiots vandalising various Rep party headquarters around the country or stealing lawn signs, then consider what went on during the Lincoln presidency. It was estimated that 30% of the Northern's did not like or want the war we now call the "Civil War, which by an order of magnitude sill ranks as the war in which the highest number of combatants were KIA than all other wars combined. They held marches and rallies of protest, sabatoged shipments of supplies going to the battle, refused to pay any taxes they thought would fund the war effort, and the PBS documentary on the subject mentions much more. Lincoln had to endure political cartoons characterizing him as a monkey, insults to his intelligence, his competency, his looks, his policies, his wife, his family, and much more. Prior to that we had had duels in the country side and sword/knife fights in the congress. First fights were barely a mention. Newpapers offices were fireburned. Death threats galore were issued by extremists on all sides. Here are examples from just one state: http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/ohc/h/05/eve/awp.shtml
Even some of the crafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were killed in duels over political differences.

No, to the contrary, this election cycle is very tame considering how rucus past cycles have been. It''s how most views get aired, especially now because of the Internet. And, if another 9/11 occurs, we'll come together side by side to pitch in, just like we did on 9/11. It's how we hammer things out. If you are not family becareful you don't get caught between the hammers!

bob
25th October 2004, 08:14 PM
Now, I'm prohibited by law from expressing my opinion in matters of politics, since being a Judge I might sway voters (yeah, right). However, you might want to check this llink out: http://www.wearabledissent.com/101/floridavote.html BTW, I'm also not allowed to work bingo games.

sailor
25th October 2004, 08:31 PM
heheheh...but you are allowed to promote comsumption of alcohol? :p

bob
25th October 2004, 08:41 PM
Absolutely! They took Bingo away from me, but drinking (in moderation of course) is a Constitutional Right... I think it's in the same section as driving 35 mph in the passing lane....

Psquared
25th October 2004, 08:58 PM
I have no real reason to believe that Kerry will do anything different because he has failed, in my mind, to explain what he will do and how. As far as secrecy and disclosure there is no evidence that any Democrat, except possibly Jimmy Carter, has ever done that on any level significantly different than any Republican. Kerry is no Jimmy Carter. Besides, Iran was taken over by radicals during Jimmy Carter's time in office. Governing effectively requires some secrecy. Protecting America from terrorists requires secrecy. That is just a fact.

If you mean disclosure of conflicts of interest, political contributions and the like I agree. However, neither party has shown much willingness to engage that issue with any real intent to effect material change. I doubt Kerry would do so. It is simply not a mandate.

Now, as to foreign policy, does anyone really think that if John Kerry is elected the Germans and the French will suddenly decide to send their troops and money to contribute to the effort in Iraq? If so, what will they require as conditions to their help? Those are the ONLY significant allies who have withheld their assistance and there are more reasons for that than that they don't like Bush. Will Chirac disclose his government's involvement in the "oil for food" and payoffs received from Saddam Hussein?

As far as economics are concerned cutting spending AND raising taxes during periods of economic weakness is a sure way of stifling the modest economic and job growth cycle we do have.

The 87 billion requested for Afghanistan and Iraq is designed to enhance the development of these countries and their peoples by raising their standard of living. Despite its "dimensions", it is still a small price to pay for safety and ultimate peace. Terrorists breed off the poverty and hopelessness of these countries. Give them hope and freedom and terrorist influences will diminish.

Dog-One
26th October 2004, 02:42 AM
Now, I'm prohibited by law from expressing my opinion in matters of politics, since being a Judge I might sway voters (yeah, right). However, you might want to check this llink out: http://www.wearabledissent.com/101/floridavote.html BTW, I'm also not allowed to work bingo games.

Got another beer handy? I just spilled mine. :D

ewdi
26th October 2004, 03:14 AM
Dont you guys feels excited about the election anymore? :p

Chas.H
26th October 2004, 03:47 AM
My idea is that we all lighten up a little bit. imdeemvp had the right idea whan he asked everyone to just vote and please no flame. I think there is a vBulletin function which allows a poll to be "vote only" without comment. Maybe if that were enabled I wouldn't see the flame and hard feelings that I see in this thread. There are insults flying, rep points being docked and I'll admit it is hard to carry on such a discussion without such feelings. We are a community to help one another with Fedora Linux and related topics. There is a place for such discussion and I can tell you I would jump in the banter in a second and invite people the world over. IMHO this is not the place. Off topic wibble is fine and can be great fun, but I think this has people in such a state.

Shall we move on? ;)

Varkk
26th October 2004, 04:10 AM
Shall we move on? ;)


You mean like moveon.org?

*ducks*
:p

ewdi
26th October 2004, 04:24 AM
hahahha, i really hate to see private party get involved into elaction :p i wish it could be two candidate go at it head to head lol

GreyGeek
26th October 2004, 05:09 AM
Dont you guys feels excited about the election anymore? :p

Well, the first presidential election I voted in was between Johnson and Goldwater.
Johnson said that if I voted for Goldwater there would be war.
I voted for Goldwater.
There was war. (VietNam)
Johnson was right.
:(
Those who listened to the Kennedy-Nixon debates felt, by a wide majority, that Nixon won, but those who watched those same debates on TV felt, like I did, that Kennedy won. Its amazing what some poor lighting, a squint in the eye and some sweat on the upper lip will do to a candidacy. He looked "tricky"! I didn't vote for Kennedy but history (62 Cuban missile crisis) has proven he was the right man for the job at that time. Nixon had his day in the sun while his plumbers were working at night. He was so concerned about spying by the Left/Democrats, and there probably was some, but they couldn't have done any worse to him than he did to himself.

I voted for Carter because I felt, like Johnson did, that Ford played too much football without a helmet. Of all the votes I cast that one came back to haunt me the most. History has proven he was the wrong man for the job at that time. So much hand-ringing, so much 'concern', so little action. You'd think a nuclear engineer would be smarter than that. I had an English professor run a red light and T-bone my car on my wife's side. She had 12 seconds and several hundred feet to stop after the light turned yellow and before it turned red. She made a conscience decision to run the light. Afterward, she repeatedly asked if my wife (not me - she was active on campus as a feminist) was OK. I wished she would have ask that question 12 seconds before she hit our car. Her action reminded me of Carter, except at least she did something. he spent the next 30 years trying to rehabilitate his image by doing Habitat for Humanity volunteer work. With the help of a sympathetic press his image has been 'polished' a bit, and he's probably too old to "lust in his heart" any more.

Carter was replaced, thankfully, by an actor who turned out, to the dismay of the far left, to be a pretty good president, although they consistantly deny it and are constantly attempting to 'deconstruct' history to prove otherwise. (Chomsky's legacy will be reduced to the idea that by twisting words hard enough you can make light seem like dark and evil appear as good... what a terrible waste of a mind.) The visitors at the BlackHills Monument to the Presidents vote on their favorite president and the list has been "Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan" for several years. If nothing else Reagan won the cold war and brought down the USSR by using ideas as weapons, and never had to fire a shot (at the USSR, anyway).

Then came slick-Willie. He was, by far, the luckiest and smoothest talking and most self-centered President I've ever seen, heard or read about. A real likeable guy, as long as he wasn't dating your sister. Who else could have a 12 year affair with a good looking blond, and some other women - with the knowledge of his wife, win the Presidency twice, the first time with a vote count that was 43% of all those voting -- thanks to Ross Perot, inherit a debt of several hundred billion (some say 4.7 trillion), ignore four major terrorist attacks (luckily all were offshore), seduce a 19 year internee old into having oral sex and lie about it when the deed became public, get impeached and dodge the bullet by impressing Bob Kerry with his "meaning of 'is'" arugment, and ride the crest of the Dot.com boom right up to the when the wave started to break? It's an amazing testament to the power of good luck combined with smooth talking! Taxes from that period of profit inflation paid off a large chunk of the national debt.... or maybe the debt evaporated as an issue because the press stopped talking about it while Clinton was in office... ? Clinton and the Democrats, with Rush Limbaugh's help, got NAFTA signed into law but Clinton, luckily, wasn't in office when the full costs and effects of the jobs it shipped abroad became clear. That's when I stopped listening to Limbaugh. He's into conservatism only for the money, the same reason Moore exploits Marxism. Clinton emasculated NOW, which no longer criticises men when they sexually exploit their subordinate female employees. Is NOW even a functioning group anymore? Who knows, but the women on the Left still LOVE Clinton! Amazing. He pees straight up into the air and they call it rain.

And now we have Bush. A nice guy who means what he says and says what he means, even if he can't say it very well. A smooth talker he is not. He couldn't even begin to argue the meaning of 'is', even though he knows what 'is' means. When the dot com became the dot bomb during the first few months of his administration he figured out how to slow down the explosion. While jobs were going off shore bombing came on shore. After 9/11 Bush figured out that the best place to do battle with terrorists was in their lands. Better there home than our home. Who knows, some of the folks over there may appreciate being freed ... but maybe not ... the Democrats don't think it was worth it. Now they are arguing against the war for which they campaigned through most of Clinton's second term and well beyond 9/11 itself. It has only been since the extreme Left fled Dean's sinking ship crawled aboard Kerry's that Kerry begin arguing that the war is a bad thing, a position that is opposite of what he had been saying and about as natural as his sun tan.

At least if Bush gets elected the UN, France, Germany and Russia will know where the US stands on international issues. We won't be letting Lybia and Syria and Cuba cast judgements on us over 'human rights' issues. We won't be letting the "World Court" take precedence over our own judical system, or over our national sovernity. And the UN won't be sending in "observers" to make sure we hold a fair election when they can't seem to be concerned about the fairness of elections in Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Syria, China and other 'one party' states that don't allow meaningful opposition.

I haven't been able to find out what Kerry's "plan" is. He keeps mentioning it, and on occasions gives several brief outlines, but they aren't the same and no one knows what "the plan" is. Now the tax bill for all of his promises is another question. That's easy to figure out. It will require a tax rate of close to 100% to pay for them. Ergo, I'll be voting for Bush. Now, if Bush would only pay a little more attention to the energy crisis (not the phony Global Warming 'crisis' -- water vapor has 7 times the global warming power that CO2 has...) and stop listening so much to the vested interests in the "Oil Business". We should have started 15-20 years ago to achieve energy independence through Solar power, or at least at the beginning of the Clinton presidency. It may be too late. Mmm... I know... I've vote for some Democrats for Congress and the Senate!

Finalzone
26th October 2004, 08:28 AM
An issue that neither dares to debate: foreign policy. I leave the question: was Iraq worth to be invaded despite the fact it didn't have WMD?

Ug
26th October 2004, 09:39 AM
I leave the point. Back to the topic please. :)

imdeemvp
26th October 2004, 10:14 AM
Now, I'm prohibited by law from expressing my opinion in matters of politics, since being a Judge I might sway voters (yeah, right). However, you might want to check this llink out: http://www.wearabledissent.com/101/floridavote.html BTW, I'm also not allowed to work bingo games.
i hope your right to vote has not been revoked from possible dui's :D BTW....cute link!

bob
26th October 2004, 10:43 AM
LOL - Imdeemvp, no matter how many brewski's I have I'm still "sober as a judge".

Ug
26th October 2004, 11:48 AM
And I thought you were supposed to be a pillar of society. ;)

bob
26th October 2004, 01:41 PM
Absolutely! For instance, whenever I'm arrainging a DWI, I believe it's important that I'm more sober than the man/woman in front of me. Kidding aside, yeah we have to keep our public and private personae in line with all aspects of the law and to make sure we appear unbiased in all our public and private actions, which is why we can't work Charity events, participate in political functions or express our opinions in on-going legal cases. However, we CAN argue the benefits of FC over Windoze at the drop of a hat!

Varkk
27th October 2004, 03:37 AM
But what if a Linux vs. Windows case comes up?

dominix
27th October 2004, 03:43 AM
I'm voting for Badnarik. I can't agree with much of anything Bush and Kerry say.

bob
27th October 2004, 03:55 AM
Varkk - if it's a Linux vs. Windows case, I'd first recuse myself (personal bias), then go home, open the fridge and begin my own case.

imdeemvp
27th October 2004, 04:01 AM
I'm voting for Badnarik. I can't agree with much of anything Bush and Kerry say.
did not know he was in the race.....one of the few one's that get media coverage.

dominix
27th October 2004, 12:54 PM
He's on the ballot in 48 states and DC. No he hasn't gotten a lot of news coverage (not from a lack of trying). I've been pushing him a lot locally and a lot of my co-workers and friends really like him when compaired to Bush and Kerry. I don't agree 100% with what he says, but it's close.

You can check him out at:
badnarik.org

And the Libertarian Party at:
lp.org

Ug
27th October 2004, 05:42 PM
Ah liberty. :)

rapaneli
27th October 2004, 09:21 PM
stop the war , that is what people all over the world are saying , George Bush and Kerry are the only that don't agree, i hope that the people in the US realize that it is time to build a left alternative, unfortunatelly linux can't destroy capitalism(it may help though), but people can, vote Nader and give a message to M$'s bosh :) our World (and our os) are not for sale

Ug
28th October 2004, 01:28 AM
rapaneli: your flame baiting.

Back on track please.

luibh
28th October 2004, 03:57 PM
my 2 cents

i will be voting for kerry, but looking at election data from 2000 i think bush will win again. im voting for kerry because i want a job when i graduate. i think kerry will put more money towards research institutions and into environmental research specifically. the only problem with this is, kerry may not. there is no guarantee that this is what will happen, but it is more likely with kerry than bush.

hugo
29th October 2004, 08:12 PM
Here's one for Badnarik. It's funny, as trace my politics back awhile. In college I socialist for about a month (But aren't we all at somepoint?), floundered around as a independent and now I'm a libertarian. I am most happy with what I am now. My advice is to vote for what you believe most, not just be anti the other canidate.

imdeemvp
30th October 2004, 02:57 AM
My advice is to vote for what you believe most, not just be anti the other canidate.
i believe in some one standing up for this country and not some one that after i few months later will flip-flop on us

nekogami
30th October 2004, 05:46 AM
My first post here and I have to pick this thread! :eek:

I voted for Bush.
I did this because I do not want to live in a socialist state, if I did I would go somewhere in europe.
I do not want to work 50+ hours a week and have the government "allow" me to keep less than 20% of MY pay, if that.
I want someone who will stand up and represent the U.S., not bow down and be subserviant to the ineffectual, useless communist body known as the UN.
I voted for Bush because because he is the right man for the job, at the right time.
That is why he will win.

imdeemvp
30th October 2004, 08:52 AM
not bow down and be subserviant to the ineffectual
which is exactly what the opponents offers you do if elected....

Ug
2nd November 2004, 12:07 PM
Polling day kiddies. :)

dominix
2nd November 2004, 03:27 PM
I voted on the way to work this morning.

So that is 1 vote for Badnarik in NC.

hollenjj
2nd November 2004, 07:31 PM
None of the above... VOTE Libertarian! http://badnarik.org/

jcstille
2nd November 2004, 08:51 PM
I just want to throw in my 2 cents.

GO VOTE if you are eligible. There is no reason not to. Let your voice be heard. I had tons of inspiration to go, a little thing I hold in my wallet called a draft card. I won't say either way on any of the candidates, but just go vote, I don't care who for, but you to have a stake in what happens (If you are eligible).

Dog-One
2nd November 2004, 09:00 PM
None of the above... VOTE Libertarian! http://badnarik.org/
Roger that! And I did just a moment ago.

Dog-One
2nd November 2004, 09:06 PM
I just want to throw in my 2 cents.

GO VOTE if you are eligible. There is no reason not to. Let your voice be heard. I had tons of inspiration to go, a little thing I hold in my wallet called a draft card. I won't say either way on any of the candidates, but just go vote, I don't care who for, but you to have a stake in what happens (If you are eligible).My brother is all busted up after surgery over the weekend and he's in line and in great pain, but he's there and he WILL VOTE.

Ug
3rd November 2004, 02:30 AM
So are you all moving to New Hampshire then? ;)

desipher
3rd November 2004, 03:07 AM
Voted today. GO BUSH!!!!!

Shadow Skill
3rd November 2004, 07:09 AM
it's amazing how people can vote to commit suicide...

jzke
3rd November 2004, 07:40 AM
Hmm, I can't vote for two reason's;
I'm under age, and
I don't live in America. But, I would definitely vote Kerry if I could and I hope he get's in. The reason is because he has a much better stance on terrorism, Bush is way to agressive in my eyes. My 2 cents.

Varkk
3rd November 2004, 08:08 AM
Looks like Bush has it.

bob
3rd November 2004, 12:55 PM
Congratulations! While the Presidential race is technically still undecided, the clear winners are the millions more voters who turned out to express their opinions and to prove that democracy is still strong and that the individual still counts. Certainly not everyone I voted for won, but I still feel like a winner for having participated and my only regret is for the negative campaigns that were waged at every level. We know so very little about what is likely to be accomplished in the next term, but, by voting, we DID win the Right To ***** About It!

bob
3rd November 2004, 01:21 PM
My goodness, sensitive vulgairty filter! Change the female dog reference to '"Grouse About It".

Ug
3rd November 2004, 05:33 PM
John Kerry has just conceded defeat to George W. Bush.

Thread Closed.