BUSH OR KERRY??

[luda888]

TELL ME WHO AND WHY.

[liszmaninopin]

Kerry, because he offers sound domestic policy (environmental, taxational, educational, health care, etc.), a more honest and open foreign policy, and is less arrogant than Bush (who has been quoted as describing "haves" and "have mores" as his base, and who has lied frequently while in office, while nobody takes him up on it.  For example, he denied in the third debate ever having said that "he wasn't concerned about Bin Laden."  Of course he was lying, as I have seen the video of him saying just that, but the news networks let his lies go while jumping all over Kerry.)

[Nightscape]

George Bush is unfortunately a disgrace to America.  Becuase of him and his poor decisions while in office,  The United States has become the laughing stock of the entire world.  Recent international polls show that people in most other developed countries, including Japan, Great Britain, Spain, France, and Australia now have a less favorable opinion of the United States and believe that George Bush's actions in Iraq were illegal and immoral.

We need a new president to restore the world's faith in America - even Republicans are against isolationism, and having George Bush in office is the most isolationist thing we are doing now.

[comme_le_vent]

i want more than 2 candidates

[Spatula]

You see the sad thing is, if Kerry wins, then there will be no more "bush-ism" caught on camera...we'll miss that for sure.

[brewtality]

me love Bush, me love anything dat brings foliage to da punani area

[comme_le_vent]

i concur with brew

[Daevren]

Bush surely dethroned the US as the leader of the world.

I live in one of the most pro-american democratic countries in the world, Holland. And polls show only 10% would vote for Bush if they could. hat even suprised me, because at the time 35% supported the war in Iraq, and that was a huge number. Probably the largest outside of the US.

[fnork]

and is less arrogant than Bush (who has been quoted as describing "haves" and "have mores" as his base)

Jesus christ, do you even know where that quote was taken from? He was just supposed to "make fun of himself" when saying that (you should notice that the audience listening to him was LAUGHING). Al Gore was there too, doing the same thing if I don't remember wrong. I don't remember exactly why they were doing it, but I believe it was before the elections. I can dig up more about it if you want me to.

A question: Where and when did he say that he wasn't concerned about bin Ladin? In what context?

[sharon_f]

Kerry ....because it anyone could be the anti-Christ it was be George W. Bush!

[Daevren]

Come on, everyone remembers that one.

Search for the interview yourself, don't be lazy.

[sharon_f]

Kerry ....because it anyone could be the anti-Christ it was be George W. Bush!

Sorry, I meant to write "... it would be George W. Bush!" I am absolutely so upset about this upcoming election that I can't even write straight. I mean this is a president who has actually talked about using tactical nuclear weapons. Doesn't that scare you just a little?

[Hmoll]

and is less arrogant than Bush (who has been quoted as describing "haves" and "have mores" as his base)

Jesus christ, do you even know where that quote was taken from? He was just supposed to "make fun of himself" when saying that (you should notice that the audience listening to him was LAUGHING). Al Gore was there too, doing the same thing if I don't remember wrong. I don't remember exactly why they were doing it, but I believe it was before the elections. I can dig up more about it if you want me to.

A question: Where and when did he say that he wasn't concerned about bin Ladin? In what context?

At a NY fund raiser for Catholic Charities in October, 2000.

The complete quote was: "This is an impressive crowd of the haves and have mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."  Most of the people there were Wall St. millionaires, but Hillary Clinton and some other lofties were there too.

[bizgirl]

comme_le_vent, there are more than two candidates.  You can see them here:

https://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All

What do you think about the "Turtle" party or "Mike's Party?"

[andvaranautr]

Bush.

You're fooling yourself if you think either of the candidates have been honest in their debates (check www.factcheck.org sometime), and you're fooling yourself if you believe that foreign approval rates should matter to American voters.

I see there are a lot of liberals here so I look forward to an interesting debate.

[klavierspielerin]

I never thought I'd support a guy like Bush, but Kerry and especially Edwards are so repulsive I think it is a matter of choosing the evil you know over the foreign one.

[luda888]

I posted this topic but i am Michael Badnarik all the way. He is running for the Libertarian Party.

[BoliverAllmon]

too bad he won't win though.

[JK]

I know this is a serious discussion, but have a look at this:

https://www.dancingbush.com/

hehehehe!!

[luda888]

too bad he won't win though.

i know 

[luda888]

ELECTION DAY IS TOMORROW!!!!!

[Spatula]

Yes I know 

[janice]

Let's get back on track to the bush/kerry.  I was going to post this earlier, because I thought if was funny--yesterday someone from the Kerry campaign called, and I told the guy off!!  I totally lectured him on what I feel are important things.  And I told him (twice) that he is being brainwashed by the Democratic Party and that he needs to learn to think for himself as to what is truly right, instead of being spoon fed.  LOL  At the end I thanked him for listening to me!  So I was nice about the whole thing, I was just my outspoken self!  But it was funny!  I had a friend over at the time, and she was just rolling her eyes as if to say "This is SO Janice"!

[chopiabin]

You could have politely said that you didn't support Kerry. I guess that's just too difficult. Why do you think the man was brainwashed?

[breadboy]

final election outlook...

almost certain electoral votes (unless hawaii switches):

Bush: 227
Kerry: 207
(270 necessary to win... 269 causes a tie in which Bush wins because the House will then vote him in)

Realclearpolitics averages (compilation of current polls and widely regarded as the most accurate in 2000)
• Florida: Bush + 1.0
• Ohio: Bush + 2.1
• Pennsylvania: Kerry +0.9
• Wisconsin: Bush + 0.9
• Iowa: Bush + 0.3
• Minnesota: Kerry +3.2
• Michigan: Kerry +3.5
• New Mexico: Bush + 1.4
• Nevada: Bush + 6.3
• New Hampshire: Kerry +1.2

All Bush needs is Florida and Ohio and he wins... if he loses Ohio then he needs Wisconsin and Iowa and New Mexico.

If Bush loses both Florida and Ohio, the election is probably over... if Kerry loses Pennsylvania the election is probably over.

Final tally
Bush: 296
Kerry: 242
 

[breadboy]

Kerry ....because it anyone could be the anti-Christ it was be George W. Bush!

Sorry, I meant to write "... it would be George W. Bush!" I am absolutely so upset about this upcoming election that I can't even write straight. I mean this is a president who has actually talked about using tactical nuclear weapons. Doesn't that scare you just a little?

not even slightly... "bunker busting" bombs are the comming necessity for killing people who have vast underground lairs (North Koreans for instance). You do know that nuclear weapons don't explode on impact right? This can all be engineered to work far more effectively than conventional explosives ever could. Just because something is indeed a nuclear weapon does not mean it is going to wipe out a city, state or country... nuclear weapons can be designed for this task, something that right now, nothing else can fill.

[breadboy]

Kerry, because he offers sound domestic policy (environmental, taxational, educational, health care, etc.), a more honest and open foreign policy, and is less arrogant than Bush (who has been quoted as describing "haves" and "have mores" as his base, and who has lied frequently while in office, while nobody takes him up on it.  For example, he denied in the third debate ever having said that "he wasn't concerned about Bin Laden."  Of course he was lying, as I have seen the video of him saying just that, but the news networks let his lies go while jumping all over Kerry.)

this does bring up the difference between lying and being mistaken. Lying is when you deliberatly attempt to decieve someone. Being Mistaken is when you actually believe something but are in fact wrong. I can't remember this specific reference, but going on what we know about the president I'm going to give him the benifit of the doubt here.

[Spatula]

The country looks all red...

[luda888]

ya

[Pam_Dunlap]

Hi. Gotta get in my two cents, since the election is now over. sigh...

Tuesday evening several of my piano students commented on the "I Voted" sticker on my shirt, and their remarks were very interesting. One boy was absolutely HORRIFIED that I had voted for Kerry because - get this - that day in school his teacher had told him that if John Kerry was elected President of the U.S. he would subsequently CANCEL Halloween.

Now I ask you, what kind of simple-minded jerk would prey on a classroom full of EIGHT-year old kids? ? ? It's not like these kids can vote or anything. Why on earth didn't this "educator" spew this ridiculousness to some of those undecided adults? grrrr.......

So while I'm venting (!) check THIS out - another student told me that she would have voted for Bush for one reason: he's a Christian.  Excuse me??? John Kerry is Catholic - last I heard, people of the Catholic faith also believe in Jesus. 

Mr. Bush seems to think that he has been personally appointed by God to run this country, and  decidedly projects this image. Eighty per cent of voters who based their voting decision on "moral grounds" ended up voting for Mr. Bush (statistic from NPR,) and I cannot help but infer from that fact that his propaganda campaign has been successful. That is one of the biggest things that convinced me to vote for Kerry (or rather, AGAINST Bush.)

Can someone please enlighten me? I truly do not understand why gay marriage is such a big deal. I'm heterosexual, so would not personally consider it, but as a pianist who has accompanied many theatrical performances I've come into quite a bit of contact with gay people.

Just exactly who are they hurting by committing to a long-term relationship? (and PLEASE don't tell me that they're harming the "institution of marriage"!) Why on EARTH do we want to add a discriminatory amendment to our beloved Constitution???  If the far right Christians have used this as their predominant reason for voting in Mr. Bush (as my elderly mother has) then what about the other Christian values, such as the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? ? ? ? Let's talk about execution statistics in Texas (where Mr. Bush was governor) for example, or this seemingly endless war in Iraq...

sigh....

Okay, I guess I'm done ranting. Thanks to everybody who chose to read my ramblings. This is a great forum!

[Spatula]

Hi. Gotta get in my two cents, since the election is now over. sigh...

Tuesday evening several of my piano students commented on the "I Voted" sticker on my shirt, and their remarks were very interesting. One boy was absolutely HORRIFIED that I had voted for Kerry because - get this - that day in school his teacher had told him that if John Kerry was elected President of the U.S. he would subsequently CANCEL Halloween.

Now I ask you, what kind of simple-minded jerk would prey on a classroom full of EIGHT-year old kids? ? ? It's not like these kids can vote or anything. Why on earth didn't this "educator" spew this ridiculousness to some of those undecided adults? grrrr.......

So while I'm venting (!) check THIS out - another student told me that she would have voted for Bush for one reason: he's a Christian.  Excuse me??? John Kerry is Catholic - last I heard, people of the Catholic faith also believe in Jesus. 

Mr. Bush seems to think that he has been personally appointed by God to run this country, and  decidedly projects this image. Eighty per cent of voters who based their voting decision on "moral grounds" ended up voting for Mr. Bush (statistic from NPR,) and I cannot help but infer from that fact that his propaganda campaign has been successful. That is one of the biggest things that convinced me to vote for Kerry (or rather, AGAINST Bush.)

Can someone please enlighten me? I truly do not understand why gay marriage is such a big deal. I'm heterosexual, so would not personally consider it, but as a pianist who has accompanied many theatrical performances I've come into quite a bit of contact with gay people.

Just exactly who are they hurting by committing to a long-term relationship? (and PLEASE don't tell me that they're harming the "institution of marriage"!) Why on EARTH do we want to add a discriminatory amendment to our beloved Constitution???  If the far right Christians have used this as their predominant reason for voting in Mr. Bush (as my elderly mother has) then what about the other Christian values, such as the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? ? ? ? Let's talk about execution statistics in Texas (where Mr. Bush was governor) for example, or this seemingly endless war in Iraq...

sigh....

Okay, I guess I'm done ranting. Thanks to everybody who chose to read my ramblings. This is a great forum!

Just out of curiosity, did your "I voted" sticker infer or mention who you voted for?  Or did it just read, "I voted."?

[Pam_Dunlap]

The sticker simply read "I voted"

[Spatula]

Very interesting.

[sharon_f]

not even slightly... "bunker busting" bombs are the comming necessity for killing people who have vast underground lairs (North Koreans for instance). You do know that nuclear weapons don't explode on impact right? This can all be engineered to work far more effectively than conventional explosives ever could. Just because something is indeed a nuclear weapon does not mean it is going to wipe out a city, state or country... nuclear weapons can be designed for this task, something that right now, nothing else can fill.

You have to be ******* kidding. Do you hear yourself? The greatest threat to this planet is a nuclear war. And you are actually explaining the viability of nuclear weapons. So if we launch "nukes" you don't think North Korea would launch nukes back? Maybe they would only fire back "safe" ones.

[xvimbi]

not even slightly... "bunker busting" bombs are the comming necessity for killing people who have vast underground lairs (North Koreans for instance). You do know that nuclear weapons don't explode on impact right? This can all be engineered to work far more effectively than conventional explosives ever could. Just because something is indeed a nuclear weapon does not mean it is going to wipe out a city, state or country... nuclear weapons can be designed for this task, something that right now, nothing else can fill.

Ehem, you are not up to date. Bunker-busting bombs have been put on the back burner, simply because there is nothing that can bring such a bomb into the vicinity of an underground bunker in the first place. Well, that is, there is nothing except a nclear bomb...

[xvimbi]

this does bring up the difference between lying and being mistaken. Lying is when you deliberatly attempt to decieve someone. Being Mistaken is when you actually believe something but are in fact wrong. I can't remember this specific reference, but going on what we know about the president I'm going to give him the benifit of the doubt here.

You are repeating what the Reps have been telling you, and you don't display critical thinking. Nobody would complain if they had truely been mistaken. However, how come most of the rest of the world said from the beginning that they did not have any intelligence that would support this administrations' claims? How come the critical claims have all been discredited by the CIA and the FBI, yet the administration kept repeating them?

Worst of all: if they had been mistaken, how come they don't admit it, and why would they now not change their actions. Any decent person, when making mistakes, will revise his/her actions. Not this administration, because they were not mistakes. This is all a deliberate, cold-blooded plan. Oh well, it seems that most Americans think that changing ones mind because better information is available and new courses of actions are necessary is "flip-flopping", whereas sticking to the wrong path, no matter how much information to the contrary is available is "integrity".

It wouldn't be that bad if this insanity was confined to the U.S., but since they think they are ruling the entire world, they are actually dragging everybody down.

[Spatula]

I remember the first "hollywood" version of what it'd feel like to have a nuclear weapon explode about 4 miles away, far enough from ground zero was in Terminator 2.  At first, I though there was never such a force on earth that could do that.  I just passed as some techie-uber weapon used by Skynet to kill humans. 

Little did I know that that is a pretty good representation of experiencing such a horrific feeling of .....  doom.

See Bush:
https://www.ebaumsworld.com/bushuncensored.html
https://www.ebaumsworld.com/gwbushdrunk.html

See Nuclear Weapons in Action:
https://www.ebaumsworld.com/atomicbomb.html

[Regulus Medtner]

Bush or Kerry?  It's like choosing between the ebola virus and AIDS. I'd rather be healthy!

[Ludwig Van Rachabji]

I don't know. I supported Al Sharpton. Wow, that guy knew what he was talking about.... 

- Ludwig Van Rachabji