Voting for Bush

  • statik
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 51
  • Loc: california

Post 3+ Months Ago

did you vote or have voted for bush?

I think bush shouldn't have won the election.
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • musik
  • Legend
  • Super Moderator
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6893
  • Loc: up a tree

Post 3+ Months Ago

It is funny because a lot of people I speak to say they voted against Bush, same as every Aussie I speak to says they voted against Howard. Either they are telling fibs or I just meet a lot of like minded people!
  • Nego
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 697
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bush spends billions every year to defend countries that have their own armies, the money he spends on that could make tuition free for every state school in America, there is a simple solution to every problem America faces, only a fool could think different.
  • BaDD CoDeR
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 313

Post 3+ Months Ago

If "tuition free for every state school in America" that happened, I bet most students would just screw around.
  • jupiter
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 449
  • Loc: is my favourite word after subterfuge

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
the money he spends on that could make tuition free for every state school in America,


But that's not the point. The point is to steal other people's wealth for the fat cats from haliburton et al.

The total amount the US Spends in sending its army to foreign lands is nothing compared to what the multinationals make afterwards..

oil
construction industry
mineral resources
agriculture..

etc etc...



The reason that soldiers are falling in EyeRaq is for corporate interests.
They spill their blood so that these companies can get richer. They are duped into thinking they are fighting a war on Terrorism and protecting their homeland. They have to convince them somehow to do the dirty work so this is a good scary story.
  • Nego
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 697
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

jupiter wrote:
Quote:
the money he spends on that could make tuition free for every state school in America,


But that's not the point. The point is to steal other people's wealth for the fat cats from haliburton et al.

The total amount the US Spends in sending its army to foreign lands is nothing compared to what the multinationals make afterwards..

oil
construction industry
mineral resources
agriculture..


Your right, that is not the point, but it the point Im trying to make. There is a simple solution to every problem we face in America, I even said that, and Im not talking about Iraq, Im talking about Isreal, Saudi Arabie, Russia, China, and Japan.

We can have a democracy, or we can have a government controlled by corporate interests, there is NO compromise there. If you think they are giving away corporate handouts just to get rich or for any greedy purpose, you couldn't be more wrong. The logic behind this is that corporations give jobs, so the government wants to keep jobs, but there is a better way. Corporations have held these jobs hostage, the US government gives away billions of dollars to Walmart in tax breaks so they will stay in America, isn't that odd? A company built on the backs of American workers (who are not aloud to unionize under WALMART) can hold these jobs hostage, and make demands on the government.
  • Hellsbellboy
  • Student
  • Student
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 72
  • Loc: Minnesota

Post 3+ Months Ago

I voted Bush..
  • Nego
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 697
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hellsbellboy wrote:
I voted Bush..


Would be nice if you told us why :D . Personally, I have no prejudices against those who vote Bush, I do against those who vote Kerry.
  • beings
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 539
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

you shouldnt tell people who you voted for.... people sometimes get killed over that (in the past, other countries whatever). Its probably safe online but just as a rule you should keep it your own.
  • BaDD CoDeR
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 313

Post 3+ Months Ago

no one gets killed here for voting.



only for not voting. and then its only kittens. :(
  • Hellsbellboy
  • Student
  • Student
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 72
  • Loc: Minnesota

Post 3+ Months Ago

I voted for Bush cause he's not Kerry.. :D


I voted for Bush cause I think he needs to finish things in the Iraq and that he could protect the USA better, and I don't believe despite all the "plans" Kerry had that he could do so effectively.

I agreed that Social Security needs to be fixed.

I agreed that the tax cuts needed to be made more or less permanent and I didn't trust Kerry to keep to what he was saying about not raising taxes for everyone.

Kerry pandered to everyone and tried to be all things to all people, which didn't inspire a lot of confindence in the man. With Bush more or less, when he says something he does it, or at least as much of it as he can. Since he is one of the branches of Government. At the end of the day they both have their faults and their both far from perfect, but of the two I think Bush is the better man.

On the BBC.com website I think someone there said it best..
He said he asked people to name some good things about each canadiate.. People that were pro-Bush could name about 3 or 4 good things about him.. people that were pro-Kerry could name maybe 1 good thing about Kerry and then they would go into a rant about how bad Bush was. They couldn't even articulate why they were voting for Kerry other then he wasn't Bush.. :roll:
  • fourthring
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 152
  • Loc: San Diego / Beijing

Post 3+ Months Ago

I voted for Kerry. I don't think Bush speaks for the typical american public. Tax cuts for the rich, I mean think about it. Yes, I know a lot of people who are business owners who are well off and voted for bush simply because he would give them the tax cuts and help them in their fortunes. Maybe you are in that bracket as well and that's good for you I suppose.

However if you simply voted for Bush because of Iraq, then you're really drinking the koolaide my friend. Bush has had an agenda for Iraq from day 1. There is no link to Al Queda. Bin Ladin is not in Iraq - he is the one you want to go after. IF Iraq was attacked because of WMD (and now they admit they didn't even know for sure), why didn't the usa go after n. korea when there are obvious, definite blatant examples of nuclear weapons. Or what about Iran? The whole Iraq scheme is one of the biggest lies this administration has produced. It's sickening that over 50% of the country actually believes what he is saying. I don't like to post political views too often, but this is just so depressing.
  • Nego
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 697
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

Isnt it funny how many people think Kerry is anti-war? He voted for the war and he wants to continue to send troops there. Neither candidate will do anything about social security or the defiicit, I fear bush's plan will leave millions of unresponcible Americans without retirment funds. I know I bash Kerry voters a lot, but I also take a negative stance on religious persons voting for Bush because they think he is pro-life, which he is NOT. Considering abortion is legal and he proudly says, "I was the first president to fund stem-cell research.". I you wanted to vote pro-life you should've voted Micheal Peroutka of the constitution party.
  • Cae
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 734

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
Isnt it funny how many people think Kerry is anti-war?

> Kerry voted for the war.
> Kerry voted against providing the support for our troops
> Kerry was opposed the war when he was running against Howard Dean. At the time, he claimed he would pull the troops out within 6 months of being elected.
> After securing the democratic nomination, Kerry supported the war, and claimed that he would provide however much money, and leave the troops there for as long as it took to win.
  • Whatsweirdnow
  • Student
  • Student
  • Whatsweirdnow
  • Posts: 93
  • Loc: Michigan

Post 3+ Months Ago

Ok yes kerry voted for the war. Like i said in another post like this most times someone says So and So candidate voted against/for this There uasually talking about a small tag at the end of the bill. Uasually the rest of the bill is why thery voted for/against it.
  • beings
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 539
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

Of course kerry is pro war ... if he wasnt he wouldnt get any votes.
  • Hellsbellboy
  • Student
  • Student
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 72
  • Loc: Minnesota

Post 3+ Months Ago

fourthring wrote:
I voted for Kerry. I don't think Bush speaks for the typical american public. Tax cuts for the rich, I mean think about it. Yes, I know a lot of people who are business owners who are well off and voted for bush simply because he would give them the tax cuts and help them in their fortunes. Maybe you are in that bracket as well and that's good for you I suppose.

However if you simply voted for Bush because of Iraq, then you're really drinking the koolaide my friend. Bush has had an agenda for Iraq from day 1. There is no link to Al Queda. Bin Ladin is not in Iraq - he is the one you want to go after. IF Iraq was attacked because of WMD (and now they admit they didn't even know for sure), why didn't the usa go after n. korea when there are obvious, definite blatant examples of nuclear weapons. Or what about Iran? The whole Iraq scheme is one of the biggest lies this administration has produced. It's sickening that over 50% of the country actually believes what he is saying. I don't like to post political views too often, but this is just so depressing.


LOL let me tell ya.. I'm far far far away from the "bracket".. but I still got a tax cut.. The reason he gave tax cuts to the "rich" as well as everyone else, is cause they tend to invest that money more.. or buy big ticket items.. So the money goes right back into the Economy.. and it seemed to have worked, cause the recession was the shortest, and the Economy is doing much better and getting better.. if you remember how it was not long after 9/11 it was the cunsumer that was spending with the business either not spending, or not spending and cutting workers.. so the tax cuts gave them a incentive to spend their money.

Personally I think you are the one drinking the "kool aide" Perhaps if you READ my post I stated a few brief reason I choice to vote for Bush. I can really care less about Bin Laden being in Iraq cause I never thought he was there... and as Bin Laden has demonstrated, he can't do anything otherwise he would have.. he wouldn't be sending out Video Tapes, he'd be sending out Suicide bombers if he could do anything.. which shows how effective we have been in hunting down Al Qaeda.. Believe it or not we have a military and a nation that can take on two overt wars at once, and many small wars at the same time. Not just in Afghanistan (which had free elections for the first time since.. well sinec ever :wink: and many "experts" doubted that would be possible ) . The war on Terror is alot more then Al Qaeda.. alot more then Bin Laden, Iraq and Afghanistan.. I know Bin Laden wasn't in Iraq.. And Bush never claimed he was.. so you are a fool if you ever thought so.. Also Bush never said Iraq was involved in 9/11. As Bush stated, Iraq was a gathering threat.. which has been proven thru the Duelfer report . So you can take your rhetoric and DNC talking points elsewhere.. cause it's full of crap.. It's already a known fact that the adminstration didn't lie about WMDs.. were they wrong? yes.. but so was everyone.. such is the nature of Intelligence.. it's never 100%.. Saddam's top Generals all thought he had WMDs, and he wanted others (like Iran) to believe he had them as a deterent, plus he was ready to reconstitue his WMD programs after the UN Sanctions were lifted. The burden of Proof was on Saddam.. after 12 years.. and then after another 14 months it was decided he needed to be taken care of.. And personally I wish we would have done it much sooner.. like after the First Gulf War.. As for not going into North Korea.. or Iran, it's because Bush believes their are other options available.. North Korea's current government isn't known for invading his neighbors (only his dad did).. or for gassing people.. sure they have Nucs (thanks to Bill Clinton) but they don't seem to want to use them on anyone and probably can be negotiate with, funny thing, right after Bush was re-elected, the N. Koreans were ready to go back to multilateral talks, after stalling for months.. Iran's a different matter and we will see how the President decides to handle that... my only guess is because Iran is full of Persians, and *plum* muslims (who don't get along with Arab Sunni Muslims) he wasn't too worried as of yet of them giving WMDs to Al Qaeda..
It's not that 51% of the country believes what Bush is saying.. it's 51% believes he's the right man out of the two for the job. Least try and talk the facts and not getting into rhetoric.... Personally the time for debate about it is over.. Bush won.. get a better canadiate for the 2008 race..
  • Hellsbellboy
  • Student
  • Student
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 72
  • Loc: Minnesota

Post 3+ Months Ago

beings wrote:
Of course kerry is pro war ... if he wasnt he wouldnt get any votes.


I wouldn't say Kerry was "pro" war.. just he knew we had to finish what was started, or we could end up with something a lot worse if we just pulled out. Which I'm not sure how he "planned" to do it.. after insulting most of our current Allies in Iraq.. and after France and Germany said they wouldn't send forces to Iraq.. God knowns what his "plans" for Iraq where..
  • Mas Sehguh
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1853

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hellsbellboy wrote:
The reason he gave tax cuts to the "rich" as well as everyone else, is cause they tend to invest that money more.. or buy big ticket items.. So the money goes right back into the Economy..


This is not true. People with more money spend a smaller proportion of every extra dollar they get than those with less.
  • Hellsbellboy
  • Student
  • Student
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 72
  • Loc: Minnesota

Post 3+ Months Ago

Sam Hughes wrote:
Hellsbellboy wrote:
The reason he gave tax cuts to the "rich" as well as everyone else, is cause they tend to invest that money more.. or buy big ticket items.. So the money goes right back into the Economy..


This is not true. People with more money spend a smaller proportion of every extra dollar they get than those with less.


not businesses and i think "proportion" being the operative word there.. If i have a dollar and I invest .50 cents of it... proportionally different then someone that has $10 bucks and invest 3 bucks of it.
  • Whatsweirdnow
  • Student
  • Student
  • Whatsweirdnow
  • Posts: 93
  • Loc: Michigan

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hellsbellboy wrote:
The reason he gave tax cuts to the "rich" as well as everyone else, is cause they tend to invest that money more.. or buy big ticket items.. So the money goes right back into the Economy..


This is what they do *In theory* and as life has proven most political things in theory always come out oposite in real life. They horde the money for them selfs. Also thats basiclly saying that we shouldnt give money to middle class because there poor and wont buy anything. But by not giving them mone there just always gonna poor. Its a bad cycle.
  • Hellsbellboy
  • Student
  • Student
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 72
  • Loc: Minnesota

Post 3+ Months Ago

Whatsweirdnow wrote:
Hellsbellboy wrote:
The reason he gave tax cuts to the "rich" as well as everyone else, is cause they tend to invest that money more.. or buy big ticket items.. So the money goes right back into the Economy..


This is what they do *In theory* and as life has proven most political things in theory always come out oposite in real life. They horde the money for them selfs. Also thats basiclly saying that we shouldnt give money to middle class because there poor and wont buy anything. But by not giving them mone there just always gonna poor. Its a bad cycle.


They horde the money? it's their money.. they earned it.. It's their money to do what they want to with. all income groups are paying a lowered tax burden this year under the Bush cuts, the "middle class" included. Yes their probably always will be poor.. doesn't mean we take the money from the rich and give it to the poor.. :roll:
  • Nego
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 697
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

As far as Bush's tax cuts go, I do believe it gave the economy a little life, but it would have recovered without it anyway, and the deficit would not be as high. Bush has already admitted that there is a terrible problem with social security, and in attempt to fix it, Bush wants to go back in time were people should set up their own social security funds, that will never be accepted by congress. Ok, so this deficit is about $7,500,000,000,000 in debt, so that works about to about $25,000 of debt to each American, where are we getting money for all these government funded programs if the deficit is rising, and the government is getting less money from the people? I gotta make a post one day detailing this, but I doubt I have enough time to type all this out.

When I had first heard that Bush was leading in the polls, I wasn't amazed, the most impeachable president in history is beating a democratic party, who outspent the republican party, had much more media support, support of the dumbest types of cellebrities, and they finally strangled 3rd party candidates. The democratic party handed their party over to propagandists like Micheal Moore (who deserves NONE of your respect, if you want to to elaborate I will). If you are a democrat and fed up your party, I'd advise you to get into a posistion were u can change it, turn it back into the ideal democrat party, the kind that itroduced social security.
  • Whatsweirdnow
  • Student
  • Student
  • Whatsweirdnow
  • Posts: 93
  • Loc: Michigan

Post 3+ Months Ago

Heh sorry about that that was a miss punctation. I shouldve said that Him voting to war wasnt in that catagory. I was talking about some other bills I heard alot of arguments about. Oh yea about his tax cuts "putting life" in the economy there actually one of the leading problems that caused the deficit.
  • BaDD CoDeR
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 313

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
Ok, so this deficit is about $7,500,000,000,000, so that works about to about $25,000 of debt to each American,

If the US government printed our own money we could get out of debt. Instead we BUY the bills from The Federal Reserve, a privately owned company.

If you look at old bills you will see they say "The United States of America" and they have the US seal. That designated them as property of the US. If you look at modern day bills the saying is replaced with "The Federal Reserve" and the US seal is stamped over which automatically invalidates it. This shows them as property of The Feds.

One of the few people who tried to save Americans from this set-up was John F Kennedy. Apparently, he thought the current system is not in the best interest of the US.
  • Mas Sehguh
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1853

Post 3+ Months Ago

The U.S. government controls the Federal Reserve. It appoints the Reserve's chairmen, which serve 14-year terms (which is a good thing, because it detaches them from political interests).

If we printed more money to pay off the debt, inflation would kill everything, and then it would send our economy into a bad recession (a.k.a. depression, which would then send other economies down.
  • Nego
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 697
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

I said it before and I'll say it again, there is a simple solution to every problem America faces. We should raise taxes on those who can afford it, stop corporate handouts, stop useless military action which costs the US billions of dollars every year, fix the failed war on drugs, which is now just a waste of money with no results, you can go on and on about waste spending, hell, a constuction worker charged the US government $25,000 for a hammer and called it a "multi-functional impact generator".
  • Whatsweirdnow
  • Student
  • Student
  • Whatsweirdnow
  • Posts: 93
  • Loc: Michigan

Post 3+ Months Ago

Nego wrote:
hell, a constuction worker charged the US government $25,000 for a hammer and called it a "multi-functional impact generator".


Hahah man thats funny. Maybe i should do that with my Uni functional Diffusion Water Creator(Mop). But you have a point we should tax the people who can afford to be taxed instaed of taxing the people who cant. You think Nader is running again in 2008? If he could get on one of the debates hed get alot more votes.
  • Nego
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 697
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

Whatsweirdnow wrote:

Hahah man thats funny. Maybe i should do that with my Uni functional Diffusion Water Creator(Mop).

:lol:

I do believe he will, but I can't say for certain. If he gets on the debates it will not be the commission of presidential debates running it, because they will never let them on. The commission of presidential debates was created by the 2 parties and for them because they didn't like the League of Women voters controlling the debates and telling their candidates what they could and could not do. If a commission like the league of women voters control the debates again, I believe Nader will be in the debates, and he will win the debates in a Ross Perot type fashion. I went petittioning for Nader in 2000, 2004, and I will in 2008 if he runs, but it is very hard to get him on the ballot in IL, with sleazy Democrats fabricating insane requirements and using illegal methods of petition validation (Michael Madigan used state employees to go through every petition with a fine tooth comb). Out of the 273 petitions I got only 182 were "valid" under a democratic dominated commission to validate ballots in IL.

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 29 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.