PDA

View Full Version : Would you vote for Bush again?



Pages : [1] 2

incognito
03-06-2003, 12:43 PM
Even if you did not vote in the past elections..........I was wondering if you'd be willing to vote for him.......Please I don't want this to turn into a flame war......yes answer "yes" or "no" or "not sure". Educated comments are welcomed.

incognito
03-06-2003, 12:45 PM
The reason why I ask this, is because I want to know how if any this current possibility of a war has changed the minds of people towards having Bush as a president.

Govtcheez
03-06-2003, 12:53 PM
Sure- I'd love to have more bush!

Oh, you meant the president. Nope - didn't vote for him last time, don't plan on voting for him again.

VegasSte
03-06-2003, 12:58 PM
Thankfully we dont have to worry about Bush, just his lapdog Tony Blair (our Prime Minister)!

minesweeper
03-06-2003, 12:59 PM
>>Please I don't want this to turn into a flame war<<

What are the odds?

Anyway, are we non-americans allowed to vote based on the (probably limited and maybe biased) information we were able to obtain at the time of the elections?

Govtcheez
03-06-2003, 01:01 PM
> vote based on the (probably limited and maybe biased) information

You've got just as much info as the rest of us do, then. I'd say vote away, but it's chulo's thread. It's not like he can really stop you.

> Please I don't want this to turn into a flame war......

Sweet, sweet innocent chulo.

Yawgmoth
03-06-2003, 01:08 PM
Not allowed to vote, but if I could, I would vote against him, just like last election.

VegasSte
03-06-2003, 01:08 PM
>You've got just as much info as the rest of us do, then.
Sweet!:D

ygfperson
03-06-2003, 01:29 PM
I wouldn't vote for him (as I wouldn't've in 2000, either). This doesn't mean I don't support what he's doing.

ober
03-06-2003, 01:31 PM
Voted for him the first time and plan on doing it again if they try to put someone with the quality level of Gore up against him again.

ygfperson
03-06-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by ober5861
again if they try to put someone with the quality level of Gore up against him again.
I prayed to the Lord when Gore conceded... I can't imagine any new thought coming from him. However, there are plenty of good democratic canidates out there, imho, so the choice is made better.

Unregd
03-06-2003, 02:13 PM
I definitely will not be voting for George W. Bush in 2004. If the Democrats fail to bring forth a candidate worthy of my vote, I will have to turn to a third party out of frustration. The whole Bush mentality is what gets me most: His hegemonic (imperialist who forgets that all empires fall), pro-big-business (corporate welfare), antiregulation (fewer regulations for public monopolies), trickle-down-theory (his tax cut, especially when the budget is in deficit), anti-religious-diversity (anti-atheist, markedly pro-Christian) attitude is what I really hate about his policies and decisions.

If the Democrats think that agreeing with President Bush and the Republicans on everything they know is not right for the United States and the world is going to win them votes, they are absolutely incorrect. I want a government that can come to some sort of consensus with our allies and curb the aspirations of genocidal, war-threatening regimes (I almost forgot that includes the U.S. at one time) without resorting to all-out war. I want a government that will not determine what religious beliefs I should follow when using the nation's currency or pledging allegiance to the country. I do not want a Democratic candidate who has morphed into some moral conservative Republican, restricting everything in the name of the children. Above all, I do not want to lose the traditional liberties in exchange for some false sense of security; I do not feel comfortable with the government using torture, denial of due process, revocation of citizenship, etc. on suspected terrorists if it means I or anyone else could randomly be accused and locked away somewhere. Honestly, I fear for the future of our country more from what the Republicans are doing in reaction to terrorism than what the terrorists have done or may do in the future.

ober
03-06-2003, 02:29 PM
Please PM me your home address. I'll personally help you pack your stuff and I'll provide a plane/truck/bus/catapult to help you move it and your ass out of the country.

dP munky
03-06-2003, 02:35 PM
i have no clue what i'll do next year, i dont think bush is a bad president, trigger happy maybe, but even thats debateable, i really wish that john mccain would run, he was doin good in 2000 but bush had more money and was able to go longer and in the end got the party nomination. I'd definately vote for mccain but i dont think there's a good chance of him running... otherwise you cant vote republican because their rich money grubbing $$$$$s, and democrats are way to far out there to be of any help, you hear of "right-wing" and "liberals" but how come there arent any centeralists? ya know someone who isnt extreme anything, that has shared beliefs from all over? thats the guy who'd get my vote, but i dont think there's been anyone like that .....well....ever


>>I fear for the future of our country more from what the Republicans are doing in reaction to terrorism than what the terrorists have done or may do in the future.

i couldnt agree w/this guy more, on sept. 10th we still had many MANY freedoms that we dont now because of the police state, Im not comfortable w/the fact that the fbi could come into my house right.....now....and throw me in jail, not tell me why im there, etc. (patriot act of 2001) we've been losing our freedoms ever since "political correctness" took off and then when september 11 came we lost so much more

Iraqi
03-06-2003, 02:44 PM
bush ! ... I'd like to sew his ass.

incognito
03-06-2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by minesweeper
>>Please I don't want this to turn into a flame war<<

What are the odds?

Anyway, are we non-americans allowed to vote based on the (probably limited and maybe biased) information we were able to obtain at the time of the elections?


Yeah I just want the people's opinion........


>>>>You've got just as much info as the rest of us do, then. I'd say vote away, but it's chulo's thread. It's not like he can really stop you.


This is also true :)

incognito
03-06-2003, 04:19 PM
I am not neither a Democrat nor Republican, I just believe in "voting for the right guy at the right time" if you can say that. Example when Bush won I was so furious, I wanted Gore to win so bad back then I was yet of legal voting age. After a while I kind of started liking Bush as a President and it came to a point where I believed that if elections were to be held at that point in time I would vote for Bush instead of Gore. I feel that Bush handled the 911 crisis well. I have just started to have my doubts about him and all this war effort all of the sudden. You hear people saying so much that "it's a petroleum war", that it just sort of makes you think.

no-one
03-06-2003, 05:44 PM
do we have a lot of lefties on this board? hmm.. you tell me.

I voted for him once, and i probably will again.

>people saying so much that "it's a petroleum war", that it just sort of makes you think.

its all propaganda, DONT BUY INTO IT, i will ask you two(now three) questions to settle your mind, and i'll give you some of the answers(there are many more) as well... if you don't believe me look it up.

1. Why didn't we keep the oil in the first gulf war?

A: you figure it out, i like to let the "America wants Iraq's oil" spouters choke on this one them selves.

2. What is France's main interest in no war?

A: OIL!! how ironic...
A: there economy is got take a beating.
A: they have been helping Iraq, and want to keep it quiet.

3. here's another actually, whats russias interest?

A: 8 billion+ in money owed by iraq.
A: they also have been aiding Iraq, and want it kept quiet.

and lastly read my sig.

Don't start a flame war, im just calming elchulo's, qualms.
to any who would flame, do yourself a favor, and research first,
besides that i won't reply to flames.

dP munky
03-06-2003, 06:17 PM
>>"dont start a flame war"
this is a debate :), a group of intelligent individuals discussing current events nothing more
...when it gets outta hand THATs the flame war ex.) youre dumb because youre a big fat poopie head...

>>A: 8 billion+ in money owed by iraq.
>>A: they also have been aiding Iraq, and want it kept quiet.
dont forget, we helped iraq too, some of the chemical weapons they have are curtosy of the good ol' usa (during the iran iraq conflict in the 80's)

>>"...defeated Communism and fascism..."
not on the home front we havent, fascism at least, just look at the neo nazi terrorist organizations in this country that are protected by "free speech"

*ClownPimp*
03-06-2003, 08:56 PM
>A: you figure it out, i like to let the "America wants Iraq's oil" spouters choke on this one them selves

just letting you know I dont fully believe this war is about oil, im just responding for the sake of argument. Although i do believe there is some ulterior motive that we dont know about...

Ill give it a shot. Bush Sr. was in office (I think), maybe he didnt believe oil was worth war. Remember, we didnt go into Iraq looking for war then, we were protecting Kuwait.

Perhaps Bush Sr. wasnt as closely tied to oil as GW is.

Times are different now. We see that our dependence on foreign sources of oil is a serious threat to our well-being and this is an attempt to reduce our dependence.

>I prayed to the Lord when Gore conceded... I can't imagine any new thought coming from him

LOL. and you can imaging one coming from Bush? Perhaps you dont know Gore very well, he is a very intelligent man. Bush on the other hand...

incognito
03-06-2003, 10:16 PM
>>>>.....he is a very intelligent man. Bush on the other hand...


Yeah he invented the internet :) j/k !!!! Sorry I couldn't let it go by hehehehe

You're right though, he is very intelligent. (seriously). I initally wanted him to win the elections.

LightningStrike
03-06-2003, 10:24 PM
I have trouble expressing myself like a normal human being.
LightingStrike

novacain
03-06-2003, 10:29 PM
no-one could you post some links / info on France and Russian aid to Iraq that "they have been helping Iraq, and want to keep it quiet."

"it's a petroleum war"
More a currency war ie US$ v Euro

>>1. Why didn't we keep the oil in the first gulf war?

You do buy most of the amount that Iraq can sell under the UN sanctions. Iraq is the US's 6th biggest supplier or the same amount as could be drilled from the pristine wilderness in Alaska (but only for 40 years).


Main destinations Iraq of exports 2000(d) % of total
US 46.2 (or over 775,000 barrels a day)
Italy 12.2
France 9.6
Spain 8.6

Main origins of Iraq imports 2000(d) % of total
France 22.5
Australia 22 (wheat for oil)
China 5.8
Russia 5.8

itld
03-07-2003, 12:25 AM
howdy,
yes i would.
it's nice to have someone with some balls in the White House.

M.R.

OneStiffRod
03-07-2003, 12:26 AM
Blah Blah Blah, I see some fools are trying to turn this into a flame war. (novacain)

But to get to the point, that I never voted at all and wouldn't have voted for BUSH if I did... but I think he's a good prez now but he's slow and lacks foresight in the domestic front - I LUV his foreign policy tho and am a big fan of it.

I would not vote for him again and I don't think it's right to ask this question over the pre-text of war - as I believe we would be confronting saddam now or in a year or 2 even if we had a Democrat as prez - as this issue must be resolved. Former Prez Clinton supports the pressure on saddam and agrees that it's time to confront him, but he regrets that we aren't able to get a coalition together. As u see it doesn't matter the party whose in power, this war is and has been in the cards for a long time.

I would vote for someone who has a better grasp of domestic policy, who knows about finance and economics, who will begin pushing and funding alternative energy fuelz, and who will KEEP kicking ass at foreign diplomacy just like BUSH.

I generally see myself as independent and not of either party but I see the most promise in a Democrat called "Gen. Wesley Clark" (http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/857148.asp?cp1=1) he's a former NATO general and commander in the KOSOVO war. And guess what all u pansiez - he'd be kicking saddam's ass just the same.

no-one
03-07-2003, 01:53 AM
I did respond, but im gonna let these words stand as the final ones.

my final words on this... on all of this... because im tired of the lies and and the bull$$$$, so tired i don't care anymore. Be stupid, don't think for yourselves, buy into what ever they tell you, and believe it with all your heart cause thats all you've got left.

secondly, i will end saying this,

We'll see what happens, read my sig again, and think about it. its the honest truth, nothing more nothing less, what has changed, nothing, but your desire to see us(the U.S.) fail,for us(the U.S.) to be wrong to be evil to be what you want it to be so badly you can taste it, so you don't like us, so you'd love to see saddam wipe the desert clean with all our troops to smite us and run us into the ground, fine, you keep that attitude, cause someday maybe the next time we won't help, maybe next time we won't come to your aid when you need it, maybe next time we won't be there to take out the next world threat that comes along, then we'll see who the real evil was and is, then we'll see what all these "theories and ideals" come to.

Till then shut-up you have no idea what damage your doing with your flat out wrong ideals and your wild conspiracy theory's, propaganda, and flat out lies. It maybe be to late, but when you see the damage you've done the damage your still doing, when its full weight is on you, you'll beg for someone like Bush who has the backbone and the will, the flat out gumption to act.

do yourself, and all the world a favor, and just shut-up.

My sig incase i ever change it:

"Far from being the great Satan, I would say we are the great protector. The United States rebuilt Europe and Japan after World War II, defeated Communism and fascism and the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead."
- Colin Powell, US Secretary of State.

SourceCode
03-07-2003, 02:20 AM
I don't think I would vote for him If I even did vote. I'm not a very political person, hell I don't even watch the news. However the simple fact that the US is near the point of war is not something that I find appealing. Wether war can be prevented or not I can't say because I don't know all the facts. I do hold the president responsible for this "fear" that he is creating in the American People and of course if a war started, it would be his fault.

dP munky
03-07-2003, 03:10 AM
>>buy into what ever they tell you, and believe it with all your heart cause thats all you've got left.

(this isnt a flame war)there are more than 1 ways to sort a problem out. i agree w/you there are a lot of "bush is out for oil" crapola out there, but you just have to realize that theyre misinformed...or have a different solution to the problem

*ClownPimp*
03-07-2003, 02:14 PM
>as I believe we would be confronting saddam now or in a year or 2 even if we had a Democrat as prez

I am starting to believe that this would be the case. I am all for ridding the world of someone like Saddam. But I dont believe that this is the only reason Bush wants war with Saddam. If it were, he would be much more patient with UN and all the nations that oppose war. Saddam is not an immediate threat to the US (if im wrong, tell me how), so I dont see the problem in making sure there is international consensus before going to war. Going it alone just means we have to bear the full cost of war (as if it would be different any other way) and it makes the US look bad.

Unregd
03-07-2003, 03:24 PM
If this war is not primarily about oil (oil is certainly a consideration as is almost any policy dealing with the Middle East--this goes for the United States, Russia, France, and any other country), President Bush has not been very clear on what exactly it is about other than a vague reference to a possible future threat and presumed connection with today's terrorist organizations, so I think it can only be expected that followers of the far left and anti-Americans worldwide would come to their own conclusions.

To many President Bush looks hypocritical for talking about a war to liberate the Iraqi peoples (Europe drew the map of the Middle East after World War I so it should not be expected to be a good fit) and alleviate the threat of possible weapons of mass destruction (I hate that long phrase) when the president continues to work with other dictators and governments that do not acknowledge most of the human rights and liberties of their citizens.

Furthermore, the president has continued to ignore the much more immediate threat of North Korea. North Korea, from external observation, had finally begun getting along with its neighbors when President Bush infuriated the unpredictable leadership there with his infamous Axis of Evil speech. North Korea is known to posess nuclear capibility and has one of the larging standing armies in the world. The greater threat to the common good of the world, including the United States, is North Korea; and I am afraid that progress with North Korea will not be possible during the rest of Bush's presidency.

Going back to Iraq, a war against Saddam Hussein's government will not achieve President Bush's only stated objective: to prevent further terrorism against the United States. In all likelihood, this war will feed a resurgence of violence and hatred against Americans and the United States in the Islamic community.

It is not that I want to see my country be destroyed--not at all--it's just that President Bush's lack of tact since day one has alienated allies and ruined any chance for a peaceful solution to the Iraq problem. The conservatives here may find my opinion repulsive, but I think it is the unwavering supporters of President Bush who need to decide whether they have been blindly following propaganda or not.

----

As for political moderates, the American political process tends to keep them out. The big two parties will not give much campaign support to a renegade party member, and at primaries and caucuses the candidates must shift left or right to win the party hardliners and special interests who tend to turn out for such things. Of course, as seen in 2000, the general elections require a shift back to the center even if it is only a fa&#231;ade, as in the case of President Bush.

itld
03-07-2003, 07:34 PM
howdy,

President Bush has not been very clear on what exactly it is about other than a vague reference to a possible future threat and presumed connection with today's terrorist organizations

Vague References???
your kidding, right???

M.R.

Bajanine
03-07-2003, 09:03 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2380889,00.html

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020916-28573872.htm

RESOLUTION ON IRAQ (1441)
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/iraq/unscr1441.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/maps/satindex.htm

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2231238

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002994



"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
-President Bill Clinton in 1998

Unregd
03-07-2003, 09:24 PM
It's interesting you brought up Bill Clinton. I think we all know why he decided to bomb Iraq, and oil definitely was not the top concern.

I am satisfied with stepping up weapons inspections in Iraq--for now.

Speaking of terrorist supporting, repressive regimes, what about Saudi Arabia? We'd be after them too if it weren't for the very same Saudi oil princes who support terrorism negotiating bargains with American oil companies.

Bajanine
03-07-2003, 11:02 PM
How many decades should we allow for Iraq to comply with 1441?

dP munky
03-08-2003, 01:08 AM
with some of these people 1 wasnt enough, he probably needs a few more, i dunno, it just seems to me that the guy is hiding something. he's made no attempt, none, zero, nada, nilch, zip, zippo, uh-uh to comply w/the resolution. i cant believe some people just wanna let this go by w/nothing, "lets keep inspecting" thats like taking one guy from belgium placing him in the us and saying, find this guys lucky sock...???

*ClownPimp*
03-08-2003, 11:06 AM
I think allowing a few more months or whatever for inspections for the sake of having the backing of the UN is worth it. Iraq is not an _immediate_ threat us or anyone for that matter (if he were to try and attack one of his neighbors right now, that would be the impetus for war)

itld
03-08-2003, 11:38 AM
howdy,

having the backing of the UN
at this point UN backing is probably impossible and for the most part meaningless.

M.R.

*ClownPimp*
03-08-2003, 08:38 PM
The UN represents the international community and having the backing of the international community is very meaningful. I am alarmed at the growing anti-Americanism in countries that are our strongest allies. The US would be foolish not to address that, and the US taking unilateral action against Iraq will just fuel the fire.

itld
03-08-2003, 08:46 PM
howdy,

and the US taking unilateral action against Iraq will just fuel the fire
unilateral suggests we would go it alone, as far as i know we have several other countries in agreement with us. and only a few disagree with us.

M.R.

Bajanine
03-08-2003, 09:02 PM
If you read the links you would see that we are supported by others. If we need to have EVERYONE agree on every matter we would never accomplish anything!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2380889,00.html

LouDu
03-08-2003, 09:44 PM
If i was President Bush's secratery i would do as fallows...


1. Change His current war plans and plans to propose to the UN to Blow up Iraq and put a missle thru osma bin ladne and saddam husanes head.
2. Vote for bush till he dies, even if he isnt on the ballow, that will make florida recount more :)

zahid
03-08-2003, 10:32 PM
No allowed to vote for US President,

But if allowed, Vote would go for "No" .
Even for both Bush.

I know very little about US internal Politics but because of Last US President, I found little idea on Republicans and Democrats. Their attitude.
I'm not sure if i'm right, republicans love war more than democrats.

itld
03-08-2003, 10:44 PM
howdy,

I'm not sure if i'm right, republicans love war more than democrats.
neither LOVE war.

M.R.

*ClownPimp*
03-09-2003, 01:00 AM
ok, unilateral wasnt accurate. But, without the UN, our actions against Iraq will lose credibility in the eyes of those who oppose it. It will seem like Bush just has something personal against saddam or some ulterior motive for wanting war so badly. The best thing we can do is to keep working through the UN and also keep giving the inspectors intelligence so they might be able to expose beyond any doubt any Iraqi deception.

itld
03-09-2003, 04:54 AM
howdy,

they might be able to expose beyond any doubt any Iraqi deception.
IMO the inspectors have proven many violations of Res 1441. the existance of the "forgotten" chemical war heads, the existance of the buried long range missles, the purchase of the precsion aluminum tubing, the inspectors have to LOOK for roof instead of being PROVIDED proof of the destruction of weapons.
Sadam is a very clever man whom at this point is playing the UN like a fiddle, he (Sadam) needs to end this threat of war by complying with res 1441 and other UN Resolutions.

M.R.

incognito
03-09-2003, 08:34 AM
I think that after a while you just get tired of his little games. I mean it's not like this is the first time, we have this type of problem with the guy.

*ClownPimp*
03-09-2003, 10:17 AM
> I think that after a while you just get tired of his little games. I mean it's not like this is the first time, we have this type of problem with the guy

thats very true, but besides the point. It will be much to our advantage to have the backing of the UN before any action in Iraq, if only to give legitimacy to the war and to any government that will replace him. If we dont have UN approval, it will just seem like more American arrogance and forcefulness at work. There is no reason not to wait for UN approval, it will happen eventually.

incognito
03-09-2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
> I think that after a while you just get tired of his little games. I mean it's not like this is the first time, we have this type of problem with the guy

thats very true, but besides the point. It will be much to our advantage to have the backing of the UN before any action in Iraq, if only to give legitimacy to the war and to any government that will replace him. If we dont have UN approval, it will just seem like more American arrogance and forcefulness at work. There is no reason not to wait for UN approval, it will happen eventually.


Very true............but how long will we have to wait for UN approval?

Unregd
03-09-2003, 10:58 AM
It is true that some countries' governments support President Bush's war plan, but popular support in these countries is weak. British prime minister Tony Blair wanted to propose a resolution giving Saddam more time to comply because of popular opinion in Britain having turned strongly against him. Members of the opposition party in Parliament were more supportive than many members of Prime Minister Blair's own Labour Party.

Saddam Hussein losing power would be a good thing--if done right. The United States' real or perceived imperialism fuels the rhetoric of anti-American terrorist groups, and a war with Iraq will only add substance to their words. It is true that everyone in the world should have personal freedom, the basic human rights, a government that serves the people not itself, and so on, but attempting to create that change under gunpoint will only deter that cause at this time.

The United Nations Security Council will probably not approve a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq now unless Saddam Hussein starts another war or acts out his terrorist fantasies outside his country. France, where popular opinion is strongly anti-Bush and anti-war, will veto any war resolutions.

incognito
03-09-2003, 11:14 AM
Well I understand what you mean but it's so frustrating.......didn't he promise to get rid of his nukes and biological weapons before? Yet he lied about destroying all of them......It almost makes wanna say "forget it" and let him build a powerful arsenal again, so when he decides to Nuke someone or test some of his chemical weapons on his people again ( I heard this happened before) then people will see what he's all about. Yet it might be somewhat late to try to sanction the guy then. I think if this happens and the UN should THEN decide to take actions against him the US should say "I told you so, now don't .......... with me asking me to help you fight him, go way". What makes you think he's not gonna lie again?