Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
President George W.Bush; your opinions about our leader
Topic Started: Jul 15 2006, 07:51 PM (1,008 Views)
Tech Junkie
Member Avatar
Styx Ferryman
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I wouldn't waste a vote on Hillary. If she runs, she will redefine negative turnout (people showing up specifically to vote against her).

Vote Liberetarian and give both major parties the finger. At least the odds of your candidate getting elected are greater than 0, and the benefits of such are high.
May the blessing of Our Lady of the Workshop be upon you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tom Joad
Member Avatar
Gap tooth so my dick's got to fit.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Vote Liberetarian and give both major parties the finger. At least the odds of your candidate getting elected are greater than 0, and the benefits of such are high.


--Applause--

When I turn 18 in October 2008 I will be able to vote in my first Presidential election, and I plan on going Libertarian all the way, unless somebody from another party seems way too cool. Partisian politics are for weiners, as the kids say.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Irockwayhard
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
Tech Junkie
Jul 18 2006, 01:17 PM
I wouldn't waste a vote on Hillary. If she runs, she will redefine negative turnout (people showing up specifically to vote against her).

Vote Liberetarian and give both major parties the finger. At least the odds of your candidate getting elected are greater than 0, and the benefits of such are high.

Hillary's an electable female democrat. She's a centrist, like her husband not a liberal - she'd get all the Bill Clinton fans, I assume a majority of the female vote. Mudslinging campaigns only have two (successful) terms as a Senator to draw from and Bills record, which, save the Lewinsky thing (a non-issue), was nearly impecable. Those who wouldn't vote for a woman would more than likely vote straight republican anyway. She just needs to come across a little nicer.

And to those who want to vote Third Party: This is the US; we have a two-party system and barring civil war or absolute governmental upheaval, we will always have a two-party system. It sucks, but we deal. We learned that third parties and grassroots social movements wouldn't work in the 60's - and that was a time when people were much more socially and politically active than now.

Hate to break it to you, but Third Party vote = wasted vote.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tech Junkie
Member Avatar
Styx Ferryman
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
How is Hillary a centrist? Hillary Health Care? Tax Hikes? What evidence do you have that she's a centrist? As I recall, her voting record paints her a liberal, and a rather staunch one.

How will Hillary get the female vote? Are people really superficial enough to say "Hey, whe's a woman, and I'm a woman. I must vote for her, despite any ideological differences I may have with her, and despite anything anyone does to convince me otherwise?"

She is a polarizing figure.


We have a 2 party system, this is true. The false assumption made is that the 2 current parties will be the '2 parties' forever. Granted, they have the deck stacked in their favor. And if enough votes for another party come through . . .

Well, there have been liberetarians in state and local office. Only a matter of time before one reaches the national level :)
May the blessing of Our Lady of the Workshop be upon you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nekobe
Member Avatar
Planning World Domination
[ *  *  *  * ]
I didn't vote for Bush in either election, I voted for Gore and then for Kerry. And in the first election, Gore won the popular vote but lost the electorial one. In my opinion the whole electorial college thing is outdated. It makes it sound like that voters in Florida are more important than voters in say, Iowa. People are people no matter where they live. If we had gone by the popular vote, Bush would have never been President, and Iraq would likely not have been invaded for no reason.

Heh, did anyone else hear Bush the other day? He was having what he thought was a private conversation and used an obscenity to describe Iran. There was an open mic nearby and its been all over the news. I'm sure Leno and Letterman are having a field day. The man is a warmonger, plain and simple. He would invade Iran and probably Lebannon if he thought he could get away with it. At what cost? Thousands of young American soldiers barely in their twenties? No skin off his nose.

Do not toy with the future, for it is a devious thing...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tech Junkie
Jul 19 2006, 01:28 AM
Are people really superficial enough to say "Hey, whe's a woman, and I'm a woman. I must vote for her, despite any ideological differences I may have with her, and despite anything anyone does to convince me otherwise?"

Unforunatley yes, people are that superficial. A good amount of people that vote probably don't even know what political stance they are but they take the "cool" side or the person that appeals to them the most.

Defending Bush, I'm sure everyone uses obsenities to describe Iran. That is why I hate the media (another rant), they take a small little thing like that, which I'm sure everyone does, and when someone they don't like does it, they are a horrible person. Just think about it, the country that is giving you one of your biggest headaches and you wouldn't swear to descibe them. I know Bush is a hateful person but that argument shouldn't make someone a horrible person.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Krispy
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
I try to pretend I'm not apart of the world these days. It makes being in such a tense political backdrop so much more convenient.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Irockwayhard
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
Tech Junkie
Jul 18 2006, 09:28 PM
How is Hillary a centrist? Hillary Health Care? Tax Hikes? What evidence do you have that she's a centrist? As I recall, her voting record paints her a liberal, and a rather staunch one.

Centrist = reform current government and its programs, not radical creation of new government. i.e. fix things

Opposed late term abortions unless the mother's life was in danger. Rejected tax cuts until we can (her words) "pay down the national debt, secure
Social Security, add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and provide affordable tax cuts". Voted to extend tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. Voted to loosen restrictions on telephone wire tapping. The ACLU criticized her for having a "mixed record" on civil rights issues. Pro domestic parter benifits (i.e. gay and lesbian rights) but opposed to gay marriage. Supports Bill Clinton's "three strikes you're out" program and wants more, but reformed prisons, along with a separate courts system for drug crimes. Supports a boycott on violent media and was instrumental in Tipper Gore's Parental Advisory movement. Tough gun control but not anti-gun. Anti-bureaucracy, pro state power. Supports missle defense system. Voted for the Patriot Act Twice. Pro Israel. Consistantly votes for funding for Iraq/Afghanistan wars and rebuilding. Pro integration of chirches in social services....blah, blah blah...

And health care? Duh? When people are dying because they don't have health care - costing the taxpayer more money in the long-run (most without health care don't seek medical attention for disease or malady until it is very progressed. Treating someone preventively, or earlier on in the illness is much cheaper.) - something needs to be and can be done.

And yes, she has a 13% higher approval rating among women than men - more republican women support her than republican men.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Necronomicon
Member Avatar
omar comin' yo
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I advise everyone against misunderestimating Bush.
omar yo. omar comin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tech Junkie
Member Avatar
Styx Ferryman
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Irockwayhard
Jul 19 2006, 04:18 PM
Centrist = reform current government and its programs, not radical creation of new government. i.e. fix things

Opposed late term abortions unless the mother's life was in danger. Rejected tax cuts until we can (her words) "pay down the national debt, secure
Social Security, add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and provide affordable tax cuts". Voted to extend tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. Voted to loosen restrictions on telephone wire tapping. The ACLU criticized her for having a "mixed record" on civil rights issues. Pro domestic parter benifits (i.e. gay and lesbian rights) but opposed to gay marriage. Supports Bill Clinton's "three strikes you're out" program and wants more, but reformed prisons, along with a separate courts system for drug crimes. Supports a boycott on violent media and was instrumental in Tipper Gore's Parental Advisory movement. Tough gun control but not anti-gun. Anti-bureaucracy, pro state power. Supports missle defense system. Voted for the Patriot Act Twice. Pro Israel. Consistantly votes for funding for Iraq/Afghanistan wars and rebuilding. Pro integration of chirches in social services....blah, blah blah...

And health care? Duh? When people are dying because they don't have health care - costing the taxpayer more money in the long-run (most without health care don't seek medical attention for disease or malady until it is very progressed. Treating someone preventively, or earlier on in the illness is much cheaper.) - something needs to be and can be done.

And yes, she has a 13% higher approval rating among women than men - more republican women support her than republican men.

Um, doesn't all of this save the abortion thing and retaining the capital gains and dividends tax cuts pretty well fall under "Liberal views"? And wouldn't she have something to lose personally from a reversal of those cuts?

Anyone superficial enough to vote for a candidate based on something like gender needs to be seperated from television and their magazines for a while and forced to study political science while surrounded by fashion-blind people. B)

And on a personal note:

*spits at the very concept of having to 'pay for' a tax cut, since the last few we've had have INCREASED government revenues*
May the blessing of Our Lady of the Workshop be upon you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tom Joad
Member Avatar
Gap tooth so my dick's got to fit.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tech Junkie--My first source for political insight.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zer0
Member Avatar
LOEV 2 KONSOLE
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tech Junkie
Jul 19 2006, 01:28 AM
How will Hillary get the female vote? Are people really superficial enough to say "Hey, whe's a woman, and I'm a woman. I must vote for her, despite any ideological differences I may have with her, and despite anything anyone does to convince me otherwise?"


Yes, the majority of people in the U.S. are that superficial.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
严加华
Member Avatar
Magister Ludicrous
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Zer0
Jul 20 2006, 04:10 PM
Yes, the majority of people in the U.S. are that superficial.

Here, allow me to correct your typo for you:

Quote:
 
"Yes, the majority of people are that superficial."


It's the reason I think that democracy is a failed experiment.
LC Sez: Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Irockwayhard
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
Tech Junkie
Jul 19 2006, 09:22 PM
Um, doesn't all of this save the abortion thing and retaining the capital gains and dividends tax cuts pretty well fall under "Liberal views"? And wouldn't she have something to lose personally from a reversal of those cuts?

Anyone superficial enough to vote for a candidate based on something like gender needs to be seperated from television and their magazines for a while and forced to study political science while surrounded by fashion-blind people. B)

And on a personal note:

*spits at the very concept of having to 'pay for' a tax cut, since the last few we've had have INCREASED government revenues*

She's not trying to save abortion, just trying to keep the current system. And capital gains and dividend cuts are taxes that investors pay on stock, bond, etc. earnings - cutting those taxes would benifit the wealthy (yes, perhaps Clinton herself. However I've not seen her investment portfolio, so I have no idea how she stands to be effected.), and it's no secret that fiscally conservative republicans favor the wealthy.

And why do you automatically assume that the only reason a woman would vote for a female candidate is superficial. What about voting for a candidate with your interests and values in mind. A female in office would be more aware and sympathetic to women's needs and wants. It's nut superficial to vote for the candidate that best represents your interests.

And government revenue does not translate into personal revenue. The economy has been growing (whether or not that's because of tax cuts is debatable), but those in the top earning brackets are reaping the benifit - the lower and middle classes - the majority of the US - are not seeing comprable growth. And think about what suffers when taxes are cut: education, medicaid, medicare, after school programs etc. all of these took funding cuts as a direct result of the tax cuts. Is that worth it?
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tech Junkie
Member Avatar
Styx Ferryman
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Allow me a few corrections:

By "save the abortion thing", I didn't mean anything about saving abortion. I meant "except for" abortion and the tax cuts. My fault for not being clear.

Fine, allow me to illustrate the male half of the superficial equation:

"She's a woman, therefore I must vote for her to avoid appearing sexist, reguardless of any and all reasons I can come up with the vote against her."

OR for general purpose:

"It's time to put a woman in office. It doesn't matter which woman. After all, it'll make us look good for about 10 minutes."


On funding cuts: Were you listening? GOVERNMENT revenues went up as a result of tax CUTS. The Government provides the services you mentioned being cut. If they're being cut despite an INCREASE in revenue (and by cut, they generally mean the rate of spending increase has been reduced), then you may want to take that up with your elected officials.

On a woman being more sympathetic to women's issues: My bullshit detector's blaring at this one. Given the inequalities in our current legal system that favor females, despite over 200 years of men running the country, it appears that male leaders didn't seem more sympathetic to male issues. Given that we're all the same species, and much of our psychological makeup is the same, it stands to reason that a female leader would be just as out of touch with female issues as male leaders have been with male issues. Ya gotta remember, a politician is a politician. They say what it takes to get your vote, then do what they were gonna do anyway.

Back to a little economics: The reason the upper classes see the most benifit from a tax cut is simple: THEY PAY MOST OF THE TAXES. The upper tax bracket is in the 30% range (I can't remember the exact figure), the lowest . . . doesn't pay. The lower class doesn't pay income tax, and much of the working class don't either. The middle classes pay a little, and the upper classes pay the most. Therefore, when taxes are cut, who benifits the most? That's right, those paying the most taxes. This means they have more money to spend and invest. They spend more, this means others have to produce more to meet those needs. This means more jobs. This also means more money for the companies involved, which buy more stuff to keep their businesses running, which . . . well, you see where this is going.

So, in a nutshell:

Tax cuts in the current economy allow both more money into the system and more money to fall into federal coffers.

Hillary Clinton is a liberal.

A lot of voters are superficial and more than a little braindead, unfortunately. (I blame the education system as wrecked by the past 2 presidents)

Vote Liberetarian :P
May the blessing of Our Lady of the Workshop be upon you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Made by Sionthede of the IFSZ.