The asshole bush wants to replace ashcroft with
Posted 03 February 2005 - 06:56 AM
to the british,
not the americans. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Thabks for bringing that up Hip. Stopped me getting all grumpy
Posted 03 February 2005 - 09:06 AM
Posted 06 January 2005 - 12:37 PM
Has anyone else made more clear that the goals of dubya do NOT match the goals of the United States of America?
Here is the link if anyone still doubts that the White House is completely out of touch with the American people.
Posted 06 January 2005 - 12:39 PM
As more and more hispanics come into the states the more votes the conservative party will get. Most hispanics I know are all very anti gay marriage and align themselves with the conservative religious agendas Bush seems to love so much.
Posted 06 January 2005 - 01:17 PM
and a "somebody threw a sucker punch; lets kick some ass, redneck style" mentality
no logic involved, reliance on spinal voting is all the rage these days, you don't even have to be coherent if you can hit the right nerve, you'll get votes
Posted 06 January 2005 - 01:19 PM
Sorry, saw the title for the thread and it just got me laughing and I haven't stopped.
Until now. Well put. This country is starting to fucking terrify me. Wait...starting to? Oh man...the memory holes must be getting to me...
Posted 06 January 2005 - 05:59 PM
Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:24 AM
redneck style" mentality
no logic involved, reliance on spinal voting <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
those kind of disparaging remarks
about people are not welcome here
even if they voted for a man you don't care for.
i will not tolerate remarks that portray
anyone who supports bush
as a redneck or a moron, etc.
Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:43 AM
the White House is completely out of touch with the American people. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
perhaps with a minority of people that's true
but the majority voted for bush.
that fact was just certified officially by congress yesterday, a few disgruntled democrats aside.
i think the opposite is more true,
the dems are the party
that is out-of-touch
as their defeat tends to confirm.
mainstream america has always been
and still is
the majority does not want
gay marriage, strict gun controls, welfare statism, social activist judges, etc.
opinions are one thing
but votes are hard facts that cannot be denied.
so who really
is out of touch ?
Posted 07 January 2005 - 03:58 PM
Posted 07 January 2005 - 05:02 PM
the majority does not want
gay marriage, strict gun controls, welfare statism, social activist judges, etc. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Very good point. I'm glad you were fair and balanced. "Welfare statism" is practiced by dubya more so than any other president. He's handed out more in corporate welfare in the last four years than has been handed out in the history of the country.
"Activist Judges" is a hallmark of the Republican/christian right agenda.
As for who is out of touch with the American people, just read the quote at the top of the page again. Oh, and dubya's 51% is hardly a mandate by the voters. Bush could be our sides best guy in the long run. Kerry would be picking up the pieces of the largest budget deficit in history, and grappling with a failed war had he won. Now bush has to sleep in the bed he's made for himself.
Posted 07 January 2005 - 05:47 PM
Thats not always the majority of the country.
Posted 09 January 2005 - 12:54 AM
SOME of the people that voted for Bush AND SOME of the people that voted for Kerry voted for reasons other than logic and hard thinking. I just don't think voting for prez should be an emotional descision, just my opinion
The Media twists things and a lot of people get confused. I don't want to be partisan, that was not my intent but I sometimes cannot help picking on any and all politicians and their methods to obtain power. My local government is bankrupt and the politicians came real close to shutting down all 50 sumthin of the public libraries (now they're open two days a week)
In a nutshell, these incompetent people are in office because they managed to hoodwink people into voting for them. SO on a national level, when neither politician that was running for office was anywhere close to being fit for the job IMO... I am a little angry at the fact that some people are satisfied with or even gleeful about the course of events, instead of despairing at having a choice between the lesser of two evils in the greatest country in the world. The fact that we arrived at different conclusions about the better canidate doesn't matter because there is no obvious or even real "right or wrong" about something like this. Especially considering the choices, I mean come on, who here that voted; if you had the chance to choose two canidates for people to vote for, would either of them have been Bush or Kerry?
Again, no offense and I wish we were free of all the bad vibes and mudslinging that goes on between politicians and should have nothing to do w/ us especially in January. sorry I ran on so long 2
Posted 09 January 2005 - 07:28 AM
they would be doing alot of the
And I would be bitching about them.
I am a man without a party.
Posted 09 January 2005 - 09:38 AM
SOME of the people that voted for Bush AND SOME of the people that voted for Kerry voted for reasons other than logic and hard thinking.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
but you were implying
that was true far more often
in the bush camp
which is debateable.
my opinion is the opposite,
i saw more fuzzy warm wishful thinking
in the kerry camp.
Posted 09 January 2005 - 10:19 AM
but i honestly believe more people DONT show up to vote in more urban states and cities (which tend to be democratic states, along the edges of the country), as opposed to more rural states (which tend to be republican)
so i dont think that more people really WANT bush in office
but more people actually took the initiative to get up and vote for him
commendable and def not a bad thing
but i just wanted to point out that voting polls and turnouts, and what a mass of people want are two diff things.
even if they are too unmotivated to want it enough to get up and vote.
Posted 09 January 2005 - 05:18 PM
I am a man without a party.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I feel and felt the same way during the election.
It was very hard to vote at all, considering I didn't really support either canidate and just voted because as a part of this country and society, I believe you have to vote or forfeit your right to complain later.
Grave's theory about voting initiative I get a feeling is right too, and would like to add to that thought that I remember hearing a statistic about how 80 sumthin percent of voters in the district of Manhattan voted for Kerry.
That doesn't mean he was the right man for the job, any more than the claims of "biggest margin of victory in years" mean that Bush has a mandate from the American people. Unfortunately the media has reached a pro-level ability of twisting statistics to mean anything that will sell a story, so the reliability of pretty much any assertion made by people getting data points from CNN or any other nt'l source is questionable
Posted 10 January 2005 - 08:36 AM
so i dont think that more people really WANT bush in office <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
that's called DENIAL,
it's the first stage of the
time to move on to the next step, friend...