Bush getting re-elected

i haven't read many of the posts here because most of them are written by conservative tools that have no idea what they're talking about. it isn't about the economy or the pointless wars. it's about bush and his neo-liberal administration's policies. our freedoms are being taken away and people like wolfowitz wanna take over the world. the entire world hates us and it will eventually come back around to fuck us over in more instances like Sept. 11th. if we re-elect bush we're fucked. plain and simple.

'Afterlife....if I knew I had to go through another life I'd kill myself right now'
 
i agree with nickskier i almost only see dean getting covered and he is the front runner for the dems. the media plays a huge role in the election

____________________

visit www.cafepress.com/silentwitness for all your silent witness needs

Modest Mouse...oh shit...
 
The Bush administration as screwed us all over, unless you make billions and are a republican cnservative bastard who doesnt give a shit about the real problems in this world. We dont need any more false wars where lifes are lost for the sake of capitalism. Zake de la Rocha for President!

Skiing, it's so damn hot right now!
 
estaked you're a fucking douchebag and should kill yourself. wake up; unless you own a company and want nothing more than to return to the gilded age, you have no right supporting bush or anything he (or the rest of his administration) does.

okay with that said, here's what happened in the florida election. In the late 90's, Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, hired a privately owned company to 'purge' the voter rolls, a process each state undergoes each year to remove convicted felons and other ineligible citizens from the lists of legitimate, registered voters. This was the first time in the history of the U.S. that a private company did the purge, as opposed to the state. conversely, the company hired (ChoicePoint) was a part of Enron, which was basically headed up by Kenny Lay (Kenny Boy, as Bush used to call him before the equities scandal broke), a HUGE donator to the Bush campaign.

Here's where things get extra-special. During these purges, 173,000 people were taken off the rolls, and none were informed. This is a 100,000 jump in ineligible voters from the last purge. these 100,000 citizens were predominantly non-felon black democrats. Extrapolate the situation out; these people went out to vote, and discovered at the polls that they were in fact convicted felons, ineligible to vote. Even more fun is the fact that names, addresses, and social security numbers used in the lists were mixed and matched to take off as many registered, black democrats as possible.

Well fuck, in an election on which the final decision hinged upon 537 votes, i think it might be reasonable to believe that these 100,000 votes might have made a bit of a difference.

You might like to contest that the supreme court made its ruling according to the law, maybe, maybe so; however, the conservative court appointed by H.W. Bush virtually NEVER overrules state court decisions. The sanctity of the state supreme courts has been a cornerstone of their ideology up to, and ever since, the Florida election. This political 180 is enough to raise eyebrows, and maybe even allude to an ulterior motive in their decision.

open your eyes.

dude, one time, I snorted ketchup off of a pizza. that sucked.

Oh yeah, republicans suck, you right winged conservative bastards, have fun burning in hell!!!!
 
and i don't know if i made this clear, those 100,000 NON-FELONs taken off the rolls shouldn't have been; why they were was nothing more than a big mistake, apparently.

yeah right.

dude, one time, I snorted ketchup off of a pizza. that sucked.

Oh yeah, republicans suck, you right winged conservative bastards, have fun burning in hell!!!!
 
and never_summer, what 'many scandals' was al gore involved in? don't get me wrong, i think he's a douche, but i haven't heard of any of these, please enlighten me.

and the terrorists started the war? i fail to see the connection. if the Iraq invasion was a reply to 9/11, we should be invading Saudi Arabia, seeing as 17 of 19 hijackers hailed from the kingdom. The CIA has come out and discredited bush's 'link' (a great all-purpose word he and rummy like to toss out) between Saddam and bin Laden.

and if you guys all think that we went in because of his oppressive regime, you obviously aren't paying much attention to the world outside of the middle east and northern americas. do some research on north korea, somalia, zimbabwe, saudi arabia, and Dem. Republic of the Congo, for starters. if it was the human rights violations that caused us to invade, we have a long list of similar instigators to subdue.

worse yet, the bush team followed a completely illogical reasoning process to go to this war. war is supposed to be a LAST RESORT, not something you're touting as the only answer from day one. the first argument the bushies came forth with was the WMD connection, and people were pissed, but not pissed enough to support a war. After that was the infamous 'link' to terror, and the public was a wee bit closer to obedience; all it took was the bush buddies to remind us of saddam's oppressive regime (which needed to be dealt with, but not at the cost of America's reputation.)

'Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense' - Donald Rumsfeld

sounds like a bit of a 'guilty until proven innocent' deal for ol' saddam, eh?

dude, one time, I snorted ketchup off of a pizza. that sucked.

Oh yeah, republicans suck, you right winged conservative bastards, have fun burning in hell!!!!
 
do ya anti-war heathens ever listen. The war in Iraq was NEVER EVER EVER stated as a retaliation to 9-11, it was started for one reason. to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He needed to be removed because he had access to WMDs and is a known threat to the U.S. These are FACTS that cannot be argued or miscontstrued any further. Maybe we shouldn't have removed Hitler from power, maybe Stalin wasn't such a bad guy, maybe we need a dictatorship in the U.S. Perhaps you would prefer it be ran by the Democrats as well. Yes, the Democratic dictator, preferably some goodhearted folk like Al Sharpton could tax only the people making over 20,000$ a year, until their net income is at 20, 000. Then the money could be given to the dumb, and the lazy, and the huddle masses who are to fat or too stoned to get a job. Mmmm I like the smell of that. Oooooh and also we could not protect our country at all, and open all the borders completely. Wouldn't that be a safe and loving society.

FUCK YOU!!! I don't want to live like that. If ya don't like this country, then GET THE FUCK OUT!!!

Ha. Ha.
 
yeah because of the capture of Sadaam he is probably going to get reelected, but i hope not. that man.....aahhhhh.

real advice is telling someone that when you are bangin a girl and you hear a pop to pull out quick because your condom just broke
 
slickjames... #1: there may never have been a time when someone from the administration said 'we are going into iraw to get the terrorist', but consider this. I saw a nationwide poll where about 70% of americans drew that connection. trust me, we aren't all smart enough to draw that conclusion by ourselves, they must have been doing something to make us think this. Also, it was part of the 'war on terror'. wow, i wonder how they drew a crazy conclusion like that. and if your comparing saddam to hitler, why am i wasting my time on you.

 
did you ever think about the president has to represent his country and the state's ideas.

bush is very bad at representing his state he just tries to make every other country do what he wants to get through. in europe the US is almost just the same as sayin fuck you to someone foreign you pass on the street. bush just totally fucked up foreign politics. that's why he shouldn't get elected anymore i think.

tune out everyone in the crowd because now its just me and you come fall in love with the sound
 
^your such a dumbass, ha! anyways...they just found some chemical weapons in iraq, which means they officially violated the UN ordinance, which would have made the iraq war a UN action. now its time for 'see we told you so!'

 
the invasion of iraq wasn't a direct retaliation to 9-11, but bush's reasoning he put forth to the public goes something like this: terrorists are bad, and terrorists are EVERYWHERE. we need to take out everyone who fosters terrorism anywhere. this WAS his position, as you'd know if you watched the news or hit up reuters every once in a while.

and simonfuller, if they just found any chemical weapons in iraq, it's on no news anywere that i can find; care to put up a link somewhere so we can take a look?
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4107157

dude, one time, I snorted ketchup off of a pizza. that sucked.

Oh yeah, republicans suck, you right winged conservative bastards, have fun burning in hell!!!!
 
rediculous. of course he is getting re elected. if only by the simple virtue that the dems refuse to ellect a semi competent canidate (libermen or kerry) because they arnt socalist enough. if i wanted to live in a socalist country i would move. and that is what i would suggest to anyone else who doesnt like living here. move. go away. or quit crying about it, and vote how you want to, and accept the outcome. 'oh, but it doesnt matter how i vote, cause florida this and supreme court that' well then, move. go away. and to the right honerable gent who procalimed 'zach de la rocha for president' you should go away immidiatly. regardelss of anything else. blah. if we start to value mercy over resposability, as is the case with the recent immigration proposal, then the america that was built up by previous generations will be turned into a second rate sweeden (without the year long snow coverage) in no time. i dont agree with everything that the pres does, the aforementioned imigration bill being a prime example, (although it is only being proposed as an obvious pander to steal away latino votes from the dems, under the assumption that it will get struck down in congress anyhow...) but i definatly prefer it to the america that would exist under howard 'the world isnt any safer without saddam, and i my only cradentials are governing a state the size of san jose' dean.

-you think you can take us on... you and your cronies-
 
simonfiller, those are from 1988. not excactly what he said we'd find, in fact it shows no evidence they had a weapons program within the last 15 years. yep, everyone knew there were left overs from the war with Iran, that not what he was talking about.

 
its doesnt matter how old they are my illinformed friend. UN rules are UN rules. it was still a stock pile containing chemical agents. chemical agents are still just as dangerous even if they have been buried for that long. your naive to say it doesnt matter. most all of iraq's, syria's, iran's weapons are pretty old, but that doesnt mean they are not effective in killing mass amounts of people. heck older weapons are more dangerous in a lot of cases.

 
A little piece I wrote for my anti-war peacemongering ENGL 121 professor. You can read some or all of it if you choose, I just felt some of the points made in the essay pertain to the discussion in this thread.

A bad reputation has begun to fall upon this Nation’s president. Support for him has begun to dwindle. The American in some respects have begun to question his intentions, others have just jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon. His intentions should be known, his cause should be seen as justified, his term should continue.

The American public supported him feverously when he announced his plans to finally take action against the evil dictator Saddam Hussein. At that, however, many did not realize the costs of war, the time that an effect campaign would take. Now they have turned on President Bush. Some have always viewed this war as senseless. In fact, though, it is any thing but senseless. Show me how taking out a dangerous and devious man who is powerful of a very wealthy nation is senseless. Show me how that can be deemed an unnecessary cause, especially when this man has openly showed his hatred towards every single American. If he hates us, and he has the abilities to obtain weapons that could destroy us, why should he be left in power? Granted this war has cost us much. But does it cost us as much as rebuilding might after a full-scale assault had been launched by the Iraqis against us? If we had had the opportunity to eliminate Hitler before his rise to power I believe we would have taken it.

People proclaim this President Bush’s war. It couldn’t be further from the truth. This war was started over ten years ago when Saddam openly defied the mandates set forth by the U.N. President Clinton, who preceded Bush in office, did take some action against Saddam, but not enough. Unfortunately the U.N. was too lenient or cowardly to enforce their own rules. But fortunately our president decided we had let him off for too long, that we could not allow his leash to get any longer. It wasn’t just Bush who believed this, Congress voted unanimously to rid the world of this threat. Great Britain, who has seen their share of ruthless tyrants in history, was one of the few countries that agreed with us, sadly. Even the French, whom we went out of our way to save in World War II, wouldn’t lift a finger for us.

The propaganda needs to stop, people must know the facts. The interests of not only the American people, but also the world community as a whole were the reasons for this battle. This wasn’t about Bush wanting to steal their oil. He wasn’t using terrorism as an excuse for this war either. Propaganda will always be fabricated to help people’s points of view, but in this case it has become a detriment to our society. Peace can only be obtained through the elimination of those who threaten it. It may seem like a harsh reality, but reality is harsh. I feel safer knowing we have a president who will take the action necessary to secure our peace.

Ha. Ha.
 
He is an idiot and I hate him and if you americains re elect him i will laugh. He is only there to finish what his father couldn't do

 
^your the reason liberals and democrats can come up with an argument that is rational. you just say retarded stuff like that. finishing what his dad couldnt...your such a moron. like you have any clue.

 
alright simon, how about this. we sold those weapons to iraw when they were at war with iran. does that do anything for you? if not, let me quote something mr bush said, '25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent.' thats what he said they had. if your saying that weapons WE sold to them that have been buried for 15 years was what we were looking for when we invaded, your very ignorant.

 
and i belive if these weapons had mattered at all, we'd be hearing a little more about them than what FOX news has to say.

 
first i didnt say that was a primary reason. second off the weapons were on ALL other news site, just not on the front page. thats to be expected since CNN, ABC, CBS are all anti-war. but thats another thread. we went to war to crack down on regimes that support terrorism. thats it. as for the weapons...i dont know if your numbers are correct as you could have just made them up, but i will take your word for it cause its pretty irrelevant anyways. you think because the projected weapons have not been found they dont exist? good god man. this is my opinion, but i can guarantee you that most all of iraq wmd's were movied into syria. we knew from the start that they were all portable weapons and saddam had weeks to get them out of there before the war started. your naive to think he would just let us find them thereby add further fuel to our fire. whats it going to take for you to see the light? another 9/11?

 
so what your saying is saddam was involved with 9/11, and iraq was involved with terrorism? woah buddy, i remember Bush saying there was NO CONNECTION. and no i didn't make up those numbers, they were in his state of the union adress.

 
you should have a watched a 60 minutes last night where there was someone from Bush's cabinet on. he admitted that they had been planning this war for a loooong time before 9/11, and that they had no evidence of wmds.

 
'so what your saying is saddam was involved with 9/11'

---I never even implied that. The war was planned far in advanced, which is probably why it was the most successful war in history, as far as casualties go. You need to stop speaking with so much political horseshit.

So all you need is one episode of 60 minutes to set your mind on something? Interesting. Try thinking for yourself and not believing everything you see on TV. I understand your against the war and dislike bush, but that doesn't mean you can make stuff up and implicate peoples words into alternate meanings to support your opinions. Heck if you were president you wouldn't even need a cabinet. You would just need 60 minutes and you could successfully run the states. Amazing. Go bob for dicks.

 
USA has soo many fucked problems with its voting system i dont think it matters if you are allowed to vote or not, no doubt its gonna get fucked up again somehow by the mean nasty republican fat cat pussies. But if you are 'legal' to vote, do so, and i suggest against Bush or any right wing movement for the sake of planet earth. Either that or we could just commit mass suicide and leave this earth in peace, coz we are its main parasite.

FUCK ME!
 
'wow, you are one ignorant person. why am i even argueing.'

---The post of a TRUE LIBERAL without justification for his claims.

 
again lagwagon proves the point...what problems are you talking about lagwagon? Please explain

Ha. Ha.
 
simon, i presented my arguement, but instead of respsonding with a counter point, you called me a dumbass. that is you being ignorant.

 
'The post of a TRUE LIBERAL'--what the hell does that mean simon? i'll never understand why people who aren't members of the capitalist class support a party that only represents that class. you can give me any justification you have concerning the true politics of the party but when it comes down to it, that is exactly what they do. and don't think that i'm a dumbass ignorant to the way parties operate in the u.s., i just graduated with a b.a. in political science. i'm not saying that to make myself sound smarter than anyone else, i'm sure there are plenty of people on here that know more than i do. i'm just making that clear so nobody thinks i'm a 14 yr old making these statements out of ignorance. the republican party is destroying every foundation this nation was originally built upon.

'Afterlife....if I knew I had to go through another life I'd kill myself right now'
 
Yeah, howard dean is a joke, watched a program where he completely contradicted hiimself then they played a clip of him from another debate sayin the exact opposite thing. Bush is dope. lol he's pretty dang smart too, smarter than u chunks. funny how al lyou guys are sayin how selfish and disoriented the democratic party is, WELL then if a democrat is elected, then thats how its gonna be when they're president too ur sayin? meh

www.BottleCapProductions.com

info@bottlecapproductions.com

PROHIBITED to be released spring of 2004

we are about pure riding enjoyment!
 
Yeah, howard dean is a joke, watched a program where he completely contradicted hiimself then they played a clip of him from another debate sayin the exact opposite thing. Bush is dope. lol he's pretty dang smart too, smarter than u chunks. funny how al lyou guys are sayin how selfish and disoriented the democratic party is, WELL then if a democrat is elected, then thats how its gonna be when they're president too ur sayin? meh

www.BottleCapProductions.com

info@bottlecapproductions.com

PROHIBITED to be released spring of 2004

we are about pure riding enjoyment!
 
Aspen23NYC...where did you get your degree from? Please tell me it didn't take you 4 years for a BA in Polisci? I'm a Dual Polisci(BA)/Econ(BS) major at the Johnson School (Cornell) and I'll be done in 4 years (1 year left). Anyways now that I have complemented your bragging with mine, what can you say about the issue at hand? Your letting your personal opinions cloud your argument.

 
And Nickskier stating, 'wow, you are one ignorant person. why am i even argueing' does not present any sort of argument. You just used that statement in hopes of protecting your self from further humiliation. You lost face in your argument so you resort to personal blows. Lots to learn.

 
hey there buddy, pay attention. i said a quotes from bush and some other things and you responded as 'go bob for dicks' because you couldn't seem to come up with anything to counter my arguement. thats what i was responded as 'you are ignorant' to. looks like you lost buddy.

 
Actually Nickskier...it looks like he did present an argument and then he closed with 'go bob for dicks'. If you read what he wrote it actually makes good sense in regards to what your failing to say.

Taste Death. Live Life.
 
Another false alarm with chemical weapons. Why am I not surprised.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108390,00.html

---------------------------------------------------------

'Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.'

-John Kenneth Galbraith
 
i'm letting pesonal opinion cloud my argument? i think you're doing the exact same thing, attacking the liberals arguing against you. and i have degrees in poly sci and journalism and yes it did take me 4 yrs to do that. also, i may not have gone to such a prestigious school but i did graduate with honors and am a member of pi sigma alpha (i would expect you know what that is). anyways, i enjoy a good political argument so why don't we quit talking about shit that doesn't matter and add useful posts to this thread.

'Afterlife....if I knew I had to go through another life I'd kill myself right now'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top