DVDizzy Forum

Bush it is.

I think you're all crazy. I am 18 now so I will definately be voting in this election as it is my patriotic right and duty.

But I'm not voting for Bush or Kerry, (I think Kerry looks like the type of man that would hurt small children...)

Voting for them is like trying to decide between the lesser of two evils...

I'm voting 3rd party, that way I can exercise my patriotic right and duty, and I don't have to feel responsable, as I won't be contributing to the corruption of America, I'll just leave that up to all the Republican/Democratic voters...

I'm voting for John Kerry.

I'm a little confused by the poll. The answers don't match with the question lol Anyways, Yes I'll be voting this year. It's my first time. I'll be voting for Kerry.

For people who are still thinking of supporting President Bush, you know, after the systamatic and organised looting of Iraq's mothballed nuclear equipment, thus negating the whole reason for invading Iraq in the first place, look at this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 99OQ11.DTL

In his final debate with Sen. John Kerry on Wednesday night, President Bush reiterated his pledge to cut the nation's record budget deficit in half by the end of one more term in office.

"It requires pro-growth policies that grow our economy and fiscal sanity in the halls of Congress," he declared.

A day later, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, told the halls of Congress that he's taking the extreme step of using government workers' pension money to avoid increased borrowing that would push the Bush administration past a $7.38 trillion debt ceiling.

In a dazzling display of fiscal sanity, Snow said in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee that "it is imperative that the Congress take action to increase the debt limit by mid-November," which would be, as luck would have it, after the Nov. 2 election.

So let's recap: The Bush administration finds itself unable to operate within the boundaries of the highest debt ceiling in U.S. history, so its solution is to get by on other people's money until it can secure approval to run up even more debt.

Not much point in the average Joe's having a few hundred dollars (if that)tax "relief" if they have no pension when they retire. Remember, it's easier to take money out than put back in.

2099net wrote:For people who are still thinking of supporting President Bush, you know, after the systamatic and organised looting of Iraq's mothballed nuclear equipment, thus negating the whole reason for invading Iraq in the first place, look at this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 99OQ11.DTL

In his final debate with Sen. John Kerry on Wednesday night, President Bush reiterated his pledge to cut the nation's record budget deficit in half by the end of one more term in office.

"It requires pro-growth policies that grow our economy and fiscal sanity in the halls of Congress," he declared.

A day later, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, told the halls of Congress that he's taking the extreme step of using government workers' pension money to avoid increased borrowing that would push the Bush administration past a $7.38 trillion debt ceiling.

In a dazzling display of fiscal sanity, Snow said in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee that "it is imperative that the Congress take action to increase the debt limit by mid-November," which would be, as luck would have it, after the Nov. 2 election.

So let's recap: The Bush administration finds itself unable to operate within the boundaries of the highest debt ceiling in U.S. history, so its solution is to get by on other people's money until it can secure approval to run up even more debt.

Not much point in the average Joe's having a few hundred dollars (if that)tax "relief" if they have no pension when they retire. Remember, it's easier to take money out than put back in.

Thanks for the article, Netty, but I don't think that it will do much good since you can't really reason with his followers. Why just today at work I actually heard a woman comment about Kerry: "I could never vote for someone who goes against God!" Just from that statement you can see the mentality and yes it is scary. People are thinking with their hearts, not their heads. They hear Bush say God every other word and say he is religious so they all follow him. In fact there are people who say that he is the only US President who is a Christian!

As far as that budget deficit, I honestly thinks he has no intention of ever paying it back. If he did, why would he run it up that high?

I'm gonna skip all the mud-flinging and debating and simply say yes, I will be voting for Dubya. I would like to add a non-partisan comment though, saying I need my brain removed or I'm uninformed shows your complete lack of maturity, or any kind of democratic tolerance.

That's all.

Ah well aint that always the way it works, "If you think I'm uninformed and call me out on something, you're obviously immature".

{shrugs} No sweat off my back.

But even more common is the failure to recognize that not-so-fine line between legitimate point and blatant insult... and then hiding one's point behind claims of indifference.

-Aaron

I wonder what would be happening if Loomis was here

awallaceunc wrote:But even more common is the failure to recognize that not-so-fine line between legitimate point and blatant insult... and then hiding one's point behind claims of indifference.

-Aaron

Or the fine line between blind loyalty and rational thinking perhaps?

NOBODY! I'm in England so I can't vote in a US election

Ludwig Von Drake wrote:I miss my first election by one day, if only election day was a day latter i would be able to vote

That is a real bummer (unless you would have voted Bush). My first presidential vote was for McGovern in 72 against the criminal Nixon. I couldn't vote in the primaries but turned 18 just a few weeks before the general election.

This year I'll of course be voting for President Kerry. This would make 4 straight elections that the Democrat has won the popular vote & (if the 2000 election had been legit) the Presidency.

A great year for the state of Massachusetts with the Patriots having already won the Super Bowl, the Red Sox in the WS (with a strong chance of winning) & the Massachusetts Senator completing the Trifecta. Life will be great again.

Wonderlicious wrote:NOBODY! I'm in England so I can't vote in a US election

That's ok. If you were a minority living in Florida you couldn't have voted either or if you were lucky enough to get through the roadblocks they set up it probably wouldn't be counted.

Well, I'm too young to vote , but If I could vote I'd vote for Kerry. I've had it up to my head with the Buschs (hence I live in Florida).

Everyone is so quick to put down Bush, because of this, that, and the other. but if you stop and think about it, What has Kerry said or done that makes you trust him? He is supposedly so great, and everyone is quick to point out the problems in the Bush administration, and yet no one here has a valid reason for why they are voting for Kerry. I honestly couldn't vote for someone who says they are going to do something, but keeps the public in the dark as to how he is going to do it. Oh we'll bring our troops home within 6 months, bring in low cost prescription drugs, and blah blah blah... HOW HOW HOW is all I wanna know. Sounds like high school campaign promises to me. GO BUSH!!!

Let me also leave you with this... We know Bush's tricks, do you know what Kerry's are?

MutantEnemy if you want answers to the problems from the Kerry perspective just either buy his book or go to his website where he has detailed analysis of the problems we confront and how we can try to solve these problems. I can't see how even a conservative could support Bush. Look at what he's done to the (previously eliminated) deficit. I thought Conservatives were for smaller government wherease Bush has increased the size of it. Conservatives are against Nation Building. What exactly are we doing in Iraq? Why do almost 90% of even Republicans want the second administration of Bush (shuddering) to look much different from the first? What exactly has he done positively in his 4 year term that deserve him being rehired for another one? If a CEO had his record he would be out of work faster than an Ohio manufacturing job worker. He preys on the fear by upping the terror alert enough to keep the folks in line.

I do understand that Bush does have his plan for the future published also. It's available in the book section at Toys R Us & comes with a free box of 64 Crayola Crayons.

MutantEnemy wrote:Everyone is so quick to put down Bush, because of this, that, and the other. but if you stop and think about it, What has Kerry said or done that makes you trust him? He is supposedly so great, and everyone is quick to point out the problems in the Bush administration, and yet no one here has a valid reason for why they are voting for Kerry. I honestly couldn't vote for someone who says they are going to do something, but keeps the public in the dark as to how he is going to do it. Oh we'll bring our troops home within 6 months, bring in low cost prescription drugs, and blah blah blah... HOW HOW HOW is all I wanna know. Sounds like high school campaign promises to me. GO BUSH!!!

Let me also leave you with this... We know Bush's tricks, do you know what Kerry's are?

Well, I think Kerry does and doesn't have answers. Yes, during the debates he kept saying "I have a plan" without explaining what it was, but those debates were hampered by so many silly rules, especially regarding length of response, that he wouldn't have time to explain any of his plans anyway. No political policy can be summarised in handy soundbites, but that seems all the media is willing to report these days.

But he does definitely have plans. Now, to be honest I'm not sure if all of these plans are viable, and while he does have plans, he doesn't have plans for everything. But nobody is perfect, and it's wrong to think anybody is. How many of Bush's plans have worked? Tax cuts? No. Iraq? No. Energy self-regulation? No.

But Kerry's intentions and plans have been stated and published/transmitted a number of times. It's not my fault if your own American media chooses to ignore them. It seems wrong when the trivial family matters of the latest reality TV "stars" get more coverage. Surely the UK media doesn't report Kerry's election campaign better than America?

I really cannot understand why most people would want to vote for Bush again, but if people look at Bush's record, look at his plans and decide they want to support him, then fair enough. But such people shouldn't mind having facts told to them which they can choose to ignore, counter with or agree with. That's how politics (should) work.

But as for your last sentence, I don't really understand. The list of Bush and Republican "tricks" is almost non-ending. Could anyone actually be worse than Bush? Do you really think a case of "the better the devil you know" is preferable?