2004 Elections
- Thread starter CaryP
- Start date
lastdyingtree
Junior Member
- Messages
- 103
2004 Elections
I would rather have a decent 3rd party choice, but the fact of the matter is that they simply aren't going to win this November.
Maybe in 4 years.
Chris
While this statement may, in fact, be accurate; I cannot with good conscience see Mr. Bush as president for another 4 years. My vote MUST go to Kerry just to save us all. :lol:
I would rather have a decent 3rd party choice, but the fact of the matter is that they simply aren't going to win this November.
Maybe in 4 years.
Chris
Unintentional
Active Member
- Messages
- 577
2004 Elections
I am usually of the mind to vote Libertarian no matter what. If Bush looses Virginia because of the Libertariar vote, oh well. If he really wants the Libertarian vote, he needs to adopt some Libertarian policies. You should always vote who you want to represent you, not who you think will win or want to win.
Still with the Greens election reform, I would vote Libertarian 1st choice, Republicans 2nd choice, Greens 3rd choice. With their system, if Libertarians came in last, my vote would then go to Republicans automatically.
I agree with lastdyingtree. Third party candidates need to start campaigning non-stop and not just a few months before the election.
The libertarian candidate once said to a person who would have voted for him if he had a chance of winning, "Well what if I was going to get 25% of the vote? You vote for me then?"
The other guy said yes. The libertarian candidate then said, "Well would you get in the life boat of the titanic when the lifeboats were 5% full or 25% full? It doesn't hurt to get in first."
I am usually of the mind to vote Libertarian no matter what. If Bush looses Virginia because of the Libertariar vote, oh well. If he really wants the Libertarian vote, he needs to adopt some Libertarian policies. You should always vote who you want to represent you, not who you think will win or want to win.
Still with the Greens election reform, I would vote Libertarian 1st choice, Republicans 2nd choice, Greens 3rd choice. With their system, if Libertarians came in last, my vote would then go to Republicans automatically.
I agree with lastdyingtree. Third party candidates need to start campaigning non-stop and not just a few months before the election.
The libertarian candidate once said to a person who would have voted for him if he had a chance of winning, "Well what if I was going to get 25% of the vote? You vote for me then?"
The other guy said yes. The libertarian candidate then said, "Well would you get in the life boat of the titanic when the lifeboats were 5% full or 25% full? It doesn't hurt to get in first."
lastdyingtree
Junior Member
- Messages
- 103
2004 Elections
Well, in a way you have made up your choices the same way I have. First choice for me is Green...second are Democrats. To me the Democratic party COULD be decent again if they just stopped trying to be Republicans. Which they more than likely wont stop.
Chris
Well, in a way you have made up your choices the same way I have. First choice for me is Green...second are Democrats. To me the Democratic party COULD be decent again if they just stopped trying to be Republicans. Which they more than likely wont stop.
Chris
Unintentional
Active Member
- Messages
- 577
2004 Elections
To Fringam:Bush didn't choose this war. Sadam did.
Did Bush promise not to touch social security? If he did he would have been the only president since the creation of social security to not treat FICA funds as part of the general funds.
It was Bush who finally got a prescription component of medicare (medicaid?).
I'm glad he choose to invade Afganistan. Should we not retaliate when openly attacked?
US popularity throughout the world is basically the same the day he took office, except for extremist muslim countries (the numbers are even lower and I could care less).
Bush has basically done the same, if not better for the environment as every other president (ever hear of his "Clear skies Initiative" or are you talking about him rescinding Clintons 7-year-11-month-into-his-term of reducing arsenic levels that would not have even taken place until 2006, in which case Bush did not increase levels but put them at the same level they were the entire term of Clinton and all previous administrations).
Maybe tax cuts for the rich were massive, but their contribution to the tax base is massive. The top 15% earns 33% of all income, but pay 53% of all taxes. Did they 53% of the total tax cut? Nope, they got less. They got screwed.
In 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 there were 142, 143, 144, 146 million employed Americans respectfully. How is that exploding unemployment? Especially since unemployment is now 5.4%, lower than the average unemployment in all the 90s?
Foreign extremist muslims SHOULD be mistrusted.
The world economy has chosen oil. Do you hate the world economy?
To Fringam:Bush didn't choose this war. Sadam did.
Did Bush promise not to touch social security? If he did he would have been the only president since the creation of social security to not treat FICA funds as part of the general funds.
It was Bush who finally got a prescription component of medicare (medicaid?).
I'm glad he choose to invade Afganistan. Should we not retaliate when openly attacked?
US popularity throughout the world is basically the same the day he took office, except for extremist muslim countries (the numbers are even lower and I could care less).
Bush has basically done the same, if not better for the environment as every other president (ever hear of his "Clear skies Initiative" or are you talking about him rescinding Clintons 7-year-11-month-into-his-term of reducing arsenic levels that would not have even taken place until 2006, in which case Bush did not increase levels but put them at the same level they were the entire term of Clinton and all previous administrations).
Maybe tax cuts for the rich were massive, but their contribution to the tax base is massive. The top 15% earns 33% of all income, but pay 53% of all taxes. Did they 53% of the total tax cut? Nope, they got less. They got screwed.
In 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 there were 142, 143, 144, 146 million employed Americans respectfully. How is that exploding unemployment? Especially since unemployment is now 5.4%, lower than the average unemployment in all the 90s?
Foreign extremist muslims SHOULD be mistrusted.
The world economy has chosen oil. Do you hate the world economy?
2004 Elections
I am very glad to see lively and diverse political view points still being expressed on this forum. The last few days were a little dittoish sounding. Thank you Fringan and lastdyingtree for adding your voices of opinion.
As always, CaryP and unintentional your continuing contribution to this site is much appreciated.
I am very glad to see lively and diverse political view points still being expressed on this forum. The last few days were a little dittoish sounding. Thank you Fringan and lastdyingtree for adding your voices of opinion.
As always, CaryP and unintentional your continuing contribution to this site is much appreciated.
sosuemetoo
Active Member
- Messages
- 723
2004 Elections
I agree. It's hard to have a political debate that is all one sided. We need more dems and third party supporting members to make this a true debate.
"Mom"
Resident Dittohead
Originally posted by Phoenix@Sep 9 2004, 10:23 AM
I am very glad to see lively and diverse political view points still being expressed on this forum. The last few days were a little dittoish sounding. Thank you Fringan and lastdyingtree for adding your voices of opinion.
As always, CaryP and unintentional your continuing contribution to this site is much appreciated.
I agree. It's hard to have a political debate that is all one sided. We need more dems and third party supporting members to make this a true debate.
"Mom"
Resident Dittohead
2004 Elections
Oh please, fool the other one. Saddam never started any war agains the USA. I don't know what propaganda you have been watching and believing but your statement just is not true.
Most other things said in the text of the picture i posted I don't know enough about to stand for. however, I KNOW saddam did not attack america.
When bush said in his speaches that he was 100% sure Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he might use them on american cities i bet Saddam was watching and saying something like "What the HELL is that moron talking about?".
Again, get your facts straight. Afghanistan has never attacked you. Afhanistan has never even threatened to attack you. Bush choose to attack Afghanistan because they wouldn't agree to hand over some people to american justice if USA could not show the them/world proof of those people committing a crime. Bush could not come up with any proof other than his own administrations propaganda and so Afghanistan would not hand them people over.
Therefore Bush started a war conflicting with UN rules and international law making him a war criminal who would, if he did not rule a country with an imortant economy, be charged for his crimes in Haag. Ofcourse it was as illegal to attack Iraq for no real reason aswell.
Living in europe I can tell you, my friend, USA is not as popular as after the Clinton administration. Everyone seems to know this, except americans. Can you say "propaganda"?
Yeah well.. USA, land of the free! (if you are caucasian, christian and have alot of money)
<!--QuoteBegin-Unintentional@Sep 9 2004, 01:24 PM
The world economy has chosen oil. Do you hate the world economy?
[/quote]
... Cary please fill me in on this one. Explain to him why the world economy sucks and us still beeing dependent of oil even though we expect that we run out of it in 30-50 years is a catastrophy
Furthermore, I recommend you to try mixing your sources of facts from other sources than american.
Oh please, fool the other one. Saddam never started any war agains the USA. I don't know what propaganda you have been watching and believing but your statement just is not true.
Most other things said in the text of the picture i posted I don't know enough about to stand for. however, I KNOW saddam did not attack america.
When bush said in his speaches that he was 100% sure Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he might use them on american cities i bet Saddam was watching and saying something like "What the HELL is that moron talking about?".
Again, get your facts straight. Afghanistan has never attacked you. Afhanistan has never even threatened to attack you. Bush choose to attack Afghanistan because they wouldn't agree to hand over some people to american justice if USA could not show the them/world proof of those people committing a crime. Bush could not come up with any proof other than his own administrations propaganda and so Afghanistan would not hand them people over.
Therefore Bush started a war conflicting with UN rules and international law making him a war criminal who would, if he did not rule a country with an imortant economy, be charged for his crimes in Haag. Ofcourse it was as illegal to attack Iraq for no real reason aswell.
Living in europe I can tell you, my friend, USA is not as popular as after the Clinton administration. Everyone seems to know this, except americans. Can you say "propaganda"?
Yeah well.. USA, land of the free! (if you are caucasian, christian and have alot of money)
<!--QuoteBegin-Unintentional@Sep 9 2004, 01:24 PM
The world economy has chosen oil. Do you hate the world economy?
[/quote]
... Cary please fill me in on this one. Explain to him why the world economy sucks and us still beeing dependent of oil even though we expect that we run out of it in 30-50 years is a catastrophy
Furthermore, I recommend you to try mixing your sources of facts from other sources than american.
2004 Elections
I'm with Frings here. Bush started two wars with countries who never attacked us, or threatened to attack us first. Bush gave reasons to go to war, which have all come to light as blatant, bald faced lies. Don't try and hand me that "faulty intelligence" crap either. They knew it was false, and ran with it anyway. Paul O'Neil, former Treasury Secretary under Bush II, wrote in his book that Bush was talking about going to war with Iraq his second day as president at their first cabinet meeting. Bush was consumed with finding an excuse to invade Iraq. What was he so hell bent about? Was he scared Saddam would rat out Bush I and all his cronies who had supplied Iraq with WMD's back in the 1980's? Bush and most of his administration should be tried as war criminals just based on the fact that the use of torture was authorized before the invasion took place. They got a damned legal opinion from the Justice Dept. ahead of time, which makes the administration's position binding. This is all in contradiction to US law and international treaties signed by the US. Torture is used by fascists and dictators like Saddam, and has been outlawed by most nations for decades. The Bushco admin. and its neocon handlers have shown their true hand - they are fascists and criminals. Problem is Kerry is planning on doing the same crap if he gets elected.
Smuda, about the only thing I'm with you on here is voting Libertarian. Damn straight.
Your comment: "The world economy has chosen oil. Do you hate the world economy?"
I have no clue what you're talking about. What was the intended meaning of your statement and follow on question?
The world economy has been built on fossil fuels over the last century or so. It wasn't a recent choice of "oh yeah, let's switch to oil" in the last 3 years. Peak Oil has arrived. Believe what you wanna believe. The truth of evidence will be "out there" over the next few years. Petroleum based energy will become increasingly scarce and expensive. Petroleum based economies will suffer massive downturns (US is the biggest importer and consumer of crude oil - we're gonna get hit harder than most). That probably has a lot to do with Bushco's foray into the Middle East. That's where the oil is, and the only semi-serious military deterrent was Iraq.
The world economy is perilously close to a systemic "seizure" that will make the 1930's look like a warm up match. I've posted about this in numerous other places so I'll spare you the diatribe. But combining Peak Oil with a historically huge debt bubble, a derivatives market approaching $300 Trillion and a host of other global and systemic imbalances, and you have the recipe for TEOTWAWKI (the end of the world as we know it).
As for the US's popularity being the same as when Chimpadent Bush first took office, you've got your head in a very dark place. Polls of non-US countries have consistently shown a declining popularity of the US. In fact, the US is probably the most hated and the most feared country on the planet right now. Surprising isn't it? You get an American president that starts acting like a genocidal, fascist lunatic and people suddenly begin to dislike, distrust and fear the USA. The citizenry aren't evil, but we put this guy in office with his whole neocon gang, and we're blindly supporting his crap. If I were in Europe, I'd be of the same opinion. In fact, Bush and those of the American citizenry who continue to support him, scare the ever loving crap out of me. I don't like 'em and I don't trust 'em, either.
Thanks for speaking up Frings, another voice of reason. I read uni's post earlier today, but I've been too busy to post anything until now.
Cary
I'm with Frings here. Bush started two wars with countries who never attacked us, or threatened to attack us first. Bush gave reasons to go to war, which have all come to light as blatant, bald faced lies. Don't try and hand me that "faulty intelligence" crap either. They knew it was false, and ran with it anyway. Paul O'Neil, former Treasury Secretary under Bush II, wrote in his book that Bush was talking about going to war with Iraq his second day as president at their first cabinet meeting. Bush was consumed with finding an excuse to invade Iraq. What was he so hell bent about? Was he scared Saddam would rat out Bush I and all his cronies who had supplied Iraq with WMD's back in the 1980's? Bush and most of his administration should be tried as war criminals just based on the fact that the use of torture was authorized before the invasion took place. They got a damned legal opinion from the Justice Dept. ahead of time, which makes the administration's position binding. This is all in contradiction to US law and international treaties signed by the US. Torture is used by fascists and dictators like Saddam, and has been outlawed by most nations for decades. The Bushco admin. and its neocon handlers have shown their true hand - they are fascists and criminals. Problem is Kerry is planning on doing the same crap if he gets elected.
Smuda, about the only thing I'm with you on here is voting Libertarian. Damn straight.
Your comment: "The world economy has chosen oil. Do you hate the world economy?"
I have no clue what you're talking about. What was the intended meaning of your statement and follow on question?
The world economy has been built on fossil fuels over the last century or so. It wasn't a recent choice of "oh yeah, let's switch to oil" in the last 3 years. Peak Oil has arrived. Believe what you wanna believe. The truth of evidence will be "out there" over the next few years. Petroleum based energy will become increasingly scarce and expensive. Petroleum based economies will suffer massive downturns (US is the biggest importer and consumer of crude oil - we're gonna get hit harder than most). That probably has a lot to do with Bushco's foray into the Middle East. That's where the oil is, and the only semi-serious military deterrent was Iraq.
The world economy is perilously close to a systemic "seizure" that will make the 1930's look like a warm up match. I've posted about this in numerous other places so I'll spare you the diatribe. But combining Peak Oil with a historically huge debt bubble, a derivatives market approaching $300 Trillion and a host of other global and systemic imbalances, and you have the recipe for TEOTWAWKI (the end of the world as we know it).
As for the US's popularity being the same as when Chimpadent Bush first took office, you've got your head in a very dark place. Polls of non-US countries have consistently shown a declining popularity of the US. In fact, the US is probably the most hated and the most feared country on the planet right now. Surprising isn't it? You get an American president that starts acting like a genocidal, fascist lunatic and people suddenly begin to dislike, distrust and fear the USA. The citizenry aren't evil, but we put this guy in office with his whole neocon gang, and we're blindly supporting his crap. If I were in Europe, I'd be of the same opinion. In fact, Bush and those of the American citizenry who continue to support him, scare the ever loving crap out of me. I don't like 'em and I don't trust 'em, either.
Thanks for speaking up Frings, another voice of reason. I read uni's post earlier today, but I've been too busy to post anything until now.
Cary