Bush Supporters, got a question for ya - GoFuckYourself.com

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 10:44 AM

I don't claim to know the ins and outs of Bush's policies, nor Kerry's.

However, it seems to me, that based on global opinion we are in for a LOT more violence and US-hatred world-wide if we keep Bush in office.

Please tell me I'm wrong, because I'm scared of what will happen if he somehow gets re-elected.

Regardless of how you personally feel about the war on terror, and Bush's foreign policy in general, you can't deny that we are pissing off a lot more people globally than we have in a long time.

If you're answer is simply "Who cares what other countries think about us" I'd rather not hear it.

So, please (*cough* 12clicks), I'm not attacking here, I just want to hear your justification for keeping Bush in office, in regards to foreign policy/global US opinion.

Thanks,

-Phil

benc · 06-09-2004, 10:45 AM

Well, they attacked like crazy under Clinton, so I don't see why things should really change much no matter who is president.

So logic would say, if they are going to attack us any way, might as well attack them back instead of just taking it.

M_M · 06-09-2004, 10:46 AM

Noone will dare to invade US, unless its an army led by a crazy dictator.

On the other hand, they can just kill US economically if they wanted to.

People stopping to buy US products would put a huge dent. US already has an alarming trade deficit.

Veterans Day · 06-09-2004, 10:47 AM

You do know democrats would never do shit if we get attacked again like 9-11 right? Do like clinton, throw a few cruise missles from 500 miles away and go home.

Johny Traffic · 06-09-2004, 10:49 AM

The guy had never been out of Texas till he became president, whats he know about foreign policy?

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by benc
Well, they attacked like crazy under Clinton, so I don't see why things should really change much no matter who is president.

So logic would say, if they are going to attack us any way, might as well attack them back instead of just taking it.

I'm not just talking about terrorism. But in that sense, you are correct we have to do something. However, the WAY we are attacking has actually had a pretty big reverse affect so far. AlQaeda is turning away thousands and thousands of recruits because they have so much support right now (and those recruits are just moving on to other less-prominent terrorist organizations).

But what I'm really referring to is turning allies into enemies. It hasn't really happened yet, but our allies are democracies, and the majority of PEOPLE in most of these countries do NOT like what we are doing. In the long run, this will have a huge affect on our relationships with these countries.

-P

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 10:56 AM

So no one has a good answer to this?

I really haven't heard one yet. All of the Bush supporters I've met have good reasons why he should stay in office.... but not when it comes to foreign policy.

Anyone? 12clicks?

adjektiv · 06-09-2004, 11:05 AM

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 11:09 AM

I know there is a good answer to this question.

*Bump di Bump*

Ash@phpFX · 06-09-2004, 11:14 AM

hmm, whats going to happen in the upcoming election? if he gets less votes than the other guy does he win or lose? the last election kind of confused me.

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by asher
hmm, whats going to happen in the upcoming election? if he gets less votes than the other guy does he win or lose? the last election kind of confused me.

'tis the folley of the Electoral College system. But that's another story worthy of its' own thread.

-P

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 11:29 AM

Wow, still not a single real answer. This is dissappointing.

Anyway, Asher, regarding your question. Here's a really informative article about the Electoral College and why we use it.

In summary, the Electoral College is an outdated system based on the lack of communication between (the then 13) states, that will eventually have to go.

I can't believe it hasn't become a national issue sooner, but it will someday when people see the truth of it's origins and how far we've come since then in regards to communication and public awareness. Besides the fact that it has the potential to udermine the idea of 'democracy' ... even with all the safe-guards in place. Check out this article (It's a PDF): http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

-Phil

NBDesign · 06-09-2004, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by benc
Well, they attacked like crazy under Clinton, so I don't see why things should really change much no matter who is president.

Like crazy? Where? Here? Give some examples.. do not remember that.

foolio · 06-09-2004, 11:41 AM

Look - I hope more than anything Bush gets the boot, he is a all-around BAD president. His actions with this 'war' prove that.

But really, people will still hate the USA despite WHO is in office, the only thing that will change is the name on their banners. They do not like Bush because he returned the punch... And if Kerry does get in office he basically has 2 options - keep on the path Bush is on or turn his back and walk away from the 'war'. If he walks away all these stupid terrorists will think they can own the USA and step up the attacks because they know we will not do anything. OR Kerry can keep on with the path Bush has started to go down.. if he does this nothing will change, we will still lose our sons for oil, thee USA will still be hated in many parts of the workd making it unsafe for any American to travel to any country outside of our ever-shrinking circle of friends.

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by foolio
Look - I hope more than anything Bush gets the boot, he is a all-around BAD president. His actions with this 'war' prove that.

But really, people will still hate the USA despite WHO is in office, the only thing that will change is the name on their banners. They do not like Bush because he returned the punch... And if Kerry does get in office he basically has 2 options - keep on the path Bush is on or turn his back and walk away from the 'war'. If he walks away all these stupid terrorists will think they can own the USA and step up the attacks because they know we will not do anything. OR Kerry can keep on with the path Bush has started to go down.. if he does this nothing will change, we will still lose our sons for oil, thee USA will still be hated in many parts of the workd making it unsafe for any American to travel to any country outside of our ever-shrinking circle of friends.

I agree in part, but the thing that you are not acknowledging is that 90% of our allies are whole-heartedly in support of the 'war on terror', but they want to see it done on an International level. Our decision to go into Iraq (basically) unilaterally was the real problem. If we had a president that was more active in working with other countries to fight terrorism (and actually listened to what they had to say) don't you think that the focus would be taken off of the US?
Also, I feel that the simple act of re-electing Bush will say to the world "The PEOPLE of the US agree with what Bush has done". Not a huge thing, but the opposite is also true. If we elect someone else, we will be saying "We don't agree with the way things have been done. We want to do it better."

IMO.

-p

jimmyf · 06-09-2004, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jawanda

In summary, the Electoral College is an outdated system based on the lack of communication between (the then 13) states, that will eventually have to go.

I can't believe it hasn't become a national issue sooner, but it will someday when people see the truth of it's origins and how far we've come since then in regards to communication and public awareness. Besides the fact that it has the potential to udermine the idea of 'democracy' ... even with all the safe-guards in place. Check out this article (It's a PDF): http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

-Phil

I really do not think Electoral College was founded because of lack of communication between the states.

Main reason so the large states like New York and California now, would not elect the Prez. case in point the last election.

I would suggest you go and read up some on the Electoral College.

I have no ideal what they are teaching in school now, because I did learned what the Electoral College was for, and it dam sure was not for the reason you posted.

The Electoral College is NOT going any place in my nor your life time, so forget about that.

NBDesign · 06-09-2004, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jawanda
I agree in part, but the thing that you are not acknowledging is that 90% of our allies are whole-heartedly in support of the 'war on terror', but they want to see it done on an International level. Our decision to go into Iraq (basically) unilaterally was the real problem. If we had a president that was more active in working with other countries to fight terrorism (and actually listened to what they had to say) don't you think that the focus would be taken off of the US?
Also, I feel that the simple act of re-electing Bush will say to the world "The PEOPLE of the US agree with what Bush has done". Not a huge thing, but the opposite is also true. If we elect someone else, we will be saying "We don't agree with the way things have been done. We want to do it better."

IMO.

-p

I agree with a war on terror... but I am still not seeing where Iraq fits into this. AlQuada... Bin Ladden and all that should have been delt with.

benc · 06-09-2004, 11:53 AM

Exactly. The Electoral College is a good system. It scares me that people that whine about their freedoms being take away all day long want to just rip up the Constitution.

The sytem works.

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
I really do not think Electoral College was founded because of lack of communication between the states.

Main reason so the large states like New York and California now, would not elect the Prez. case in point the last election.

I would suggest you go and read up some on the Electoral College.

I have no ideal what they are teaching in school now, because I did learned what the Electoral College was for, and it dam sure was not for the reason you posted.

The Electoral College is NOT going any place in my nor you life time, so forget about that.

You're right, the electoral college was put in place so that a single large state did not have the power to put a president into office. But, the idea was that states would elect a 'home town boy' because they feared a federal government that was out of their control.

I think it's safe to say that things have changed. People have a bit more of an idea of what is going on in the entire country and won't just vote for someone because they are from the same state. That idea is ludicrous.

-P

sixxxth_sense · 06-09-2004, 11:56 AM

there is still people out there that support bush? damnnnn fucking idiots

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NBDesign
I agree with a war on terror... but I am still not seeing where Iraq fits into this. AlQuada... Bin Ladden and all that should have been delt with.

Hey now, I'm not the one who tied Iraq to the War On Terror.

One of GW's primary INITIAL (Note: They have been modified) justifications for war with Iraq was intelligence showing that Iraq was a major supporter of Al Qaeda (Note: Most of that intelligence proved to be wholely incorrect. Not blaming Bush for that, but ...)

-P

NBDesign · 06-09-2004, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jawanda
Hey now, I'm not the one who tied Iraq to the War On Terror.

One of GW's primary INITIAL (Note: They have been modified) justifications for war with Iraq was intelligence showing that Iraq was a major supporter of Al Qaeda (Note: Most of that intelligence proved to be wholely incorrect. Not blaming Bush for that, but ...)

-P

Sorry... was not implying you did... Just quoted that line to make my point... nothing more. Sorry if it was taken the wrong way

jimmyf · 06-09-2004, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jawanda
You're right, the electoral college was put in place so that a single large state did not have the power to put a president into office. But, the idea was that states would elect a 'home town boy' because they feared a federal government that was out of their control.

I think it's safe to say that things have changed. People have a bit more of an idea of what is going on in the entire country and won't just vote for someone because they are from the same state. That idea is ludicrous.

-P

Most of the large states voted for Gore the last election

This computes with me, the system worked just like it should have (the electoral college)

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
Most of the large states voted for Gore the last election

This computes with me, the system worked just like it should have (the electoral college)

Really?

It seems to me that what you're saying is that opinions are solely divided on a state by state basis, rather than on a person by person basis.

You live in Cali, therefore you vote Democrat?

Come on man, you gotta do better than that. One person, one vote. It has nothing to do with what state you live in... well, it shouldn't anyway. We live in the "Information Age" ... we are all Americans (Edit: and regardless of what state we live in, we all have an equal opportunity to 'know' what is going on in our nation). Think about it.

-P

PlayGirl · 06-09-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jawanda
People have a bit more of an idea of what is going on in the entire country and won't just vote for someone because they are from the same state. That idea is ludicrous.

-P

Plenty of people that vote are not informed at all. Sure it's ludicrous, but I know of people who voted for Bush in the last election because he "seems like the kind of guy you can sit down and have a beer with."

NBDesign · 06-09-2004, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jawanda
I think it's safe to say that things have changed. People have a bit more of an idea of what is going on in the entire country and won't just vote for someone because they are from the same state. That idea is ludicrous.

-P

Gotta disagree with you on that.... There are still people that will vote for bush just because they are in the same polital party.... and no other reason.

jimmyf · 06-09-2004, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jawanda
Really?

It seems to me that what you're saying is that opinions are solely divided on a state by state basis, rather than on a person by person basis.

You live in Cali, therefore you vote Democrat?

Come on man, you gotta do better than that. One person, one vote. It has nothing to do with what state you live in... well, it shouldn't anyway. We live in the "Information Age" ... we are all Americans (Edit: and regardless of what state we live in, we all have an equal opportunity to 'know' what is going on in our nation). Think about it.

-P

You live in Cali, therefore you vote Democrat?

you assume a lot.

i will post one more time the system worked just like it was set up 2 work.

I again suggest you do some reading and study what you read very carefull.
Think long and hard also. after all we live the **United States of America**.

foolio · 06-09-2004, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jawanda
Our decision to go into Iraq (basically) unilaterally was the real problem. If we had a president that was more active in working with other countries to fight terrorism (and actually listened to what they had to say) don't you think that the focus would be taken off of the US?

To a point yes.

Bush had to know the UN would not have done anything - if he thought it would then I am sure he would have done just what you said. I think that was the major difference between him and if Al Gore was elected.. if Gore was in I think 9/11 would still have happened - we had not really done anything to that point. But Gore would have not gone in on his own - and that would be taken as a sign of weakness and opend us up to more and more attacks. I really think thats how and why 9/11 happened. We were tested with numerous smaller attacks - each getting slightly bigger and bigger and closer to home as a test to see what could be got away with, and Clinton really did nothing major.

Think of it as a kid testing his parents to see what he can get away with. Same concept IMHO.

But I do not think the focus would be off of the US that much more - we are often picked out as the leader of the western world and even with the UN backing us the finger would still be pointed at the USA by most of the people that are pointing it now. Thats just what happens when you are as large and as strong as the USA is.

Basically -- we are fucked despite what we do, or do not do.

And keep in mind I hope Bush goes down in flames come November

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NBDesign
Gotta disagree with you on that.... There are still people that will vote for bush just because they are in the same polital party.... and no other reason.

I agree with you, but that has nothing to do with the Electoral College.

What I'm saying is, people from California, Colorado, Missippi, Forida, etc etc etc will vote for Bush simply because they are in the same political party.

Making the Electoral College outdated, no?

It would be different if you said "People from Texas will vote for Bush because he's in Texas, and each state will have a candidate that they will vote for simply because that candidate is from their state. Therefore, we can't let the biggest states have all the power."

That, however, is not the way things are these days.

-P

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
You live in Cali, therefore you vote Democrat?

you assume a lot.

i will post one more time the system worked just like it was set up 2 work.

I again suggest you do some reading and study what you read very carefull.
Think long and hard also. after all we live the **United States of America**.

Lol, I was being sarcastic when I said that "You live in Cali, therefore you vote Democrat?" ... I was trying to point out how silly that idea is.

I think we're saying the same thing here in a lot of way, and honestly, the downfall of the Electoral College system isn't something that I really give a shit about It does do what it is supposed to do, but I also think that in this day and age it is an outdated system.

Anyway, that wasn't the point of this thread. I really just wanted to hear what Bush supporters like about GW's foreign policy, and I've only heard a tiny bit of that lol.

-p

NBDesign · 06-09-2004, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jawanda
I agree with you, but that has nothing to do with the Electoral College.

What I'm saying is, people from California, Colorado, Missippi, Forida, etc etc etc will vote for Bush simply because they are in the same political party.

Making the Electoral College outdated, no?

It would be different if you said "People from Texas will vote for Bush because he's in Texas, and each state will have a candidate that they will vote for simply because that candidate is from their state. Therefore, we can't let the biggest states have all the power."

That, however, is not the way things are these days.

-P

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jawanda
I think it's safe to say that things have changed. People have a bit more of an idea of what is going on in the entire country and won't just vote for someone because they are from the same state. That idea is ludicrous.

-P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by NBDesign
Gotta disagree with you on that.... There are still people that will vote for bush just because they are in the same polital party.... and no other reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I meant by my comment was that people really don't care about what is going on the country when it comes to their political party... No matter who they put in the party... they will vote for them. On a state level or personal level they will vote their party.

So why not vote for someone just because they are from the same state... especially if they are in the same party. People hold loyalty for the strangest reasons... don't ask me why.

Sorry... doing 5 things at once... I need to stay off here today... cannot give the posts the attention they need and I guess I am not making sense... sorry...

I will return later after I get caught up a bit...

Rich · 06-09-2004, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Veterans Day
You do know democrats would never do shit if we get attacked again like 9-11 right? Do like clinton, throw a few cruise missles from 500 miles away and go home.

Nice cop line from Rush Limbaugh, but we've heard it before and people who pay attention understand that Clinton was obsessed will killing Bin Laden. I guess the right is pissed because he didn't personally fly to the middle east and shoot him himself.

No, better to do like Reagan, let 300 US soldiers get killed in Lebanon and do NOTHING. That was the start of Middle East terrorism against the US.

US gets attacked in Lebanon, Republicans invade Grenada. US gets attacked by Saudi's, Republicans invade Iraq. Someone really needs to show these dumb fucks a map.

soldierdog · 06-09-2004, 12:46 PM

I have to put forward my opinion that and fact that the U.S. has been under attack well before Bush came into power. Clinton buried his head in the sand along with the U.S. and the rest of the world as to what has really been going on. Churchill warned about the Wasabi Fundamentalists during WWII and what was coming.

Regardless, the Middle East and Europe has taken control of American politics and sovereignty through the use of oil control, propaganda and let's knock down the big guy feeling in the world.

If Bush did not implement the hardline approach of compulsion and reward without drawing a line in the sand, the problem would still continue to fester like a cancer not yet detected. Good for him for starting the Chemotherapy and detoxification.

As for diplomacy and the Iraq war, there was 12 years of it through the U.N. which did not work.

In the end I believe should he get re-elected with the growth in the economy, democracy continuing to take hold in Iraq and all the nay sayers looking for a piece of the pie he will be a solid leader in the world that does not bring any more harm to America then what would come regardless of leaders. Just look how the Canadian election is flowing, it looks like the New Conservative party will be elected and whichs shares many of the same views as Bush and Republicans. This in a country of extrem leftism.

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by soldierdog
If Bush did not implement the hardline approach of compulsion and reward without drawing a line in the sand, the problem would still continue to fester like a cancer not yet detected. Good for him for starting the Chemotherapy and detoxification.

Using your analogy, it's better to implement a treatment that fights the initial symptom while endlessly multiplying the underlying SOURCE of the problem?... Seems counterproductive to me. NOT that a Dem in office would have done any better, but who knows..

Quote:

Originally posted by soldierdog
As for diplomacy and the Iraq war, there was 12 years of it through the U.N. which did not work. [/B]

Really? What did Iraq do to defy the UN's rulings? Produce Weapons of Mass Destruction???

Hmmm .... seems to me that Iraq DID what it was told to do by the UN. (Ok, Ok, they gave the UN shit about allowing full access all the times they asked for it) ... but once the UN weapons inspectors had full access ... what did they find that put Iraq in violation of the UN resolutions? Unless I'm missing something??

Thanks for the interesting response, but can you please clarify a bit?

-P

marcu5 · 06-09-2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jawanda
Wow, still not a single real answer. This is dissappointing.

I've noticed that most Bush supporters don't support him because of his politics. More so how he pretty says fuck what you're thinking, I'm doing what I want to do reguardless.

Centurion · 06-09-2004, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by benc
Exactly. The Electoral College is a good system. It scares me that people that whine about their freedoms being take away all day long want to just rip up the Constitution.

The sytem works.

You REALLY think the electoral college works?!?

I don't know about you, but I don't like the fact that the state of Florida overrode my vote and the vote of the MAJORITY of Americans as to who they wanted for president in 2000.

Is not a democracy based on the rule of the MAJORITY?

In light of this, please explain how the electoral college works in representing the wishes of the majority!

Centurion · 06-09-2004, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
Most of the large states voted for Gore the last election

This computes with me, the system worked just like it should have (the electoral college)

It is not STATES that elect our government officials, but the votes of the majority of verified individual voters!

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion
It is not STATES that elect our government officials, but the votes of the majority of verified individual voters!

It seems so obvious, doesn't it?

-P

jawanda · 06-09-2004, 01:54 PM

Well, no good answers so far to my initial question ... pretty bummed about that.

I guess I'll give up for now, but bookmark this thread and check it again tomorrow, just in case some legitimate Bush supporter has something real to say about the subject.

Thanks for those of you who participated in this thread, it was pretty interesting anyway!

-Phil

Lykos · 06-09-2004, 02:45 PM

Bush is an idiot

NBDesign · 06-09-2004, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich
Nice cop line from Rush Limbaugh, but we've heard it before and people who pay attention understand that Clinton was obsessed will killing Bin Laden. I guess the right is pissed because he didn't personally fly to the middle east and shoot him himself.

No, better to do like Reagan, let 300 US soldiers get killed in Lebanon and do NOTHING. That was the start of Middle East terrorism against the US.

US gets attacked in Lebanon, Republicans invade Grenada. US gets attacked by Saudi's, Republicans invade Iraq. Someone really needs to show these dumb fucks a map.

jukeboxfrank · 06-09-2004, 03:13 PM

I think a better question is why and who wants him gone...
Terrorists??? What you think about the rest of the world ??? ,...where were they on 9/11. Where would they be if we needed them????? I think instead of asking what Iraq has to do with war on terror What did those people have to do with the US foreign policy that caused their deaths on 9/11 ?????
I would vote for anyone that would defend my home land no matter what the rest of the would thinks.......So if this is not what you wanted to hear TOO bad.... The truth is hard for some people.

warlock667 · 06-09-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jawanda
Well, no good answers so far to my initial question ... pretty bummed about that.
-Phil

Your question was answered, you just didn't like it so you blew it off.

Our "unilateral" war with Iraq as you call it was supported by:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

Yes, that list has shrunk a bit since some of the countries got scared and tucked tail, but the fact is it was NOT unilateral. Just because this list doesn't contain some of the "traditional" allies of the United States, it includes many new ones that are alot more relevant to the region of this conflict.

Secondly, many of the allies not involved in the war in Iraq HAVE BEEN and STILL are allied with us on the war on terror. Special Operations forces from countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, Canada, FRANCE and GERMANY, have been provided for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

Europe is struggling right now for it's own identity, and they'll continue to snub the U.S. as much as they can to save face, regardless of who is in power. Bush just seems to be the "Enemy Of The Day", but they'll find fault in anything relating to the U.S. if it serves their purposes.

Remember, President Clinton purposely did not approach the U.N. when he started bombing in Kosovo. The U.S. decided to make it a NATO action instead of U.N. because of world opinion. In fact, we have more allies for the war in Iraq than in that conflict. Point is, fallout was not that great from that "Unilateral" action, nor will it be from the war in Iraq.

And to even suggest that this may anger the terrorists more, you need to look at history and realize they've hated us for the past 30-40 years, but for some reason since Bush has stood his ground the most to put an end to this while others want to just pretending it's not a problem, he's the bad guy?

Quote:

Really? What did Iraq do to defy the UN's rulings? Produce Weapons of Mass Destruction???

Lastly, although not part of your original question, I had to chime in. You really need to do some research and check the history of U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq since 1991. Iraq was not in violation for producing weapons of mass destruction, it was in violation for not proving it had destroyed weapons it already claimed to have. Regardless of if they destroyed them or not, they were required to prove they had, not the U.N. or the U.S.

Everyone member nation of U.N. was in agreement that Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolutions.... The problem was that the U.S. was the only one to do something about it.

budz · 06-09-2004, 03:52 PM

http://www.musicforamerica.org/misc/...s/bushjoke.mov

warlock667 · 06-09-2004, 03:53 PM

Why is it that when I start posting facts, nobody can come back with a response and just let the thread die? Let's go Bush haters, come in and back up your arguments for once instead of just quoting Michael Moore and running!

twistyneck · 06-09-2004, 03:58 PM

I'm too lazy to read your post but Bush has been endorsed by Al Qaeda so that is good enough for me.

From Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

Quote:

The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

What more do you need?

jimmyf · 06-09-2004, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion
You REALLY think the electoral college works?!?

I don't know about you, but I don't like the fact that the state of Florida overrode my vote and the vote of the MAJORITY of Americans as to who they wanted for president in 2000.

Is not a democracy based on the rule of the MAJORITY?

In light of this, please explain how the electoral college works in representing the wishes of the majority!

America is **NOT** a democracy.

warlock667 · 06-09-2004, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by twistyneck
What more do you need? [/B]

A group that wants me dead already has hopes that Bush may be able to anger some more people doesn't change my opinion much. They want me dead if Bush wins - They want me dead if Bush loses. They hated us long before Bush came to power, and will regardless what the U.S. does, unless it becomes a completely secular Muslim state, which I'm sure it does want. That's got nothing to do with Bush, except for he's trying to kill people like that.

jimmyf · 06-09-2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by warlock667
Why is it that when I start posting facts, nobody can come back with a response and just let the thread die? Let's go Bush haters, come in and back up your arguments for once instead of just quoting Michael Moore and running!

Because they don't have any thing 2 say to you. Another thing, would take a bit of thinking on there part.
They might a have small problem with this though.
I've read there post and it looks 2 me like most of them realy don't have that much to think with.

when you see shit like, Bush is a moron, Bush is a idoit, that tells me something.

I'm old enough and heard the same shit about Reagan, the press use 2 tear him a new ass often.

by the why your post

AsylumN · 06-09-2004, 04:20 PM

06-09-2004, 10:44 AM	#1
jawanda Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,040	Bush Supporters, got a question for ya I don't claim to know the ins and outs of Bush's policies, nor Kerry's. However, it seems to me, that based on global opinion we are in for a LOT more violence and US-hatred world-wide if we keep Bush in office. Please tell me I'm wrong, because I'm scared of what will happen if he somehow gets re-elected. Regardless of how you personally feel about the war on terror, and Bush's foreign policy in general, you can't deny that we are pissing off a lot more people globally than we have in a long time. If you're answer is simply "Who cares what other countries think about us" I'd rather not hear it. So, please (cough 12clicks), I'm not attacking here, I just want to hear your justification for keeping Bush in office, in regards to foreign policy/global US opinion. Thanks, -Phil

06-09-2004, 10:45 AM	#2
benc Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 788	Well, they attacked like crazy under Clinton, so I don't see why things should really change much no matter who is president. So logic would say, if they are going to attack us any way, might as well attack them back instead of just taking it. __________________ Numerous Adult and Non Adult Domains For Sale Such as SlutVideos.com, FitWomen.com Listed on Sedo or can do direct sale

06-09-2004, 10:47 AM	#4
Veterans Day Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Windy City Posts: 8,403	You do know democrats would never do shit if we get attacked again like 9-11 right? Do like clinton, throw a few cruise missles from 500 miles away and go home. __________________ Build a Massive Traffic Network, Hands FREE, Totally Automated

06-09-2004, 10:49 AM	#5
Johny Traffic Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,461	The guy had never been out of Texas till he became president, whats he know about foreign policy? __________________ hosted flv's, hosted galleries, morphing rss feeds, free content, free sites, hosted blog

06-09-2004, 11:41 AM	#14
foolio ICQ: 178725656 Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunny San Diego Posts: 12,366	Look - I hope more than anything Bush gets the boot, he is a all-around BAD president. His actions with this 'war' prove that. But really, people will still hate the USA despite WHO is in office, the only thing that will change is the name on their banners. They do not like Bush because he returned the punch... And if Kerry does get in office he basically has 2 options - keep on the path Bush is on or turn his back and walk away from the 'war'. If he walks away all these stupid terrorists will think they can own the USA and step up the attacks because they know we will not do anything. OR Kerry can keep on with the path Bush has started to go down.. if he does this nothing will change, we will still lose our sons for oil, thee USA will still be hated in many parts of the workd making it unsafe for any American to travel to any country outside of our ever-shrinking circle of friends. __________________

06-09-2004, 10:46 AM	#3
M_M Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,167	Noone will dare to invade US, unless its an army led by a crazy dictator. On the other hand, they can just kill US economically if they wanted to. People stopping to buy US products would put a huge dent. US already has an alarming trade deficit.

06-09-2004, 10:56 AM	#7
jawanda Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,040	So no one has a good answer to this? I really haven't heard one yet. All of the Bush supporters I've met have good reasons why he should stay in office.... but not when it comes to foreign policy. Anyone? 12clicks?

06-09-2004, 11:05 AM	#8
adjektiv Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: USA Posts: 381

06-09-2004, 11:09 AM	#9
jawanda Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,040	I know there is a good answer to this question. Bump di Bump

06-09-2004, 11:14 AM	#10
Ash@phpFX Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 4,292	hmm, whats going to happen in the upcoming election? if he gets less votes than the other guy does he win or lose? the last election kind of confused me.

06-09-2004, 11:29 AM	#12
jawanda Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,040	Wow, still not a single real answer. This is dissappointing. Anyway, Asher, regarding your question. Here's a really informative article about the Electoral College and why we use it. In summary, the Electoral College is an outdated system based on the lack of communication between (the then 13) states, that will eventually have to go. I can't believe it hasn't become a national issue sooner, but it will someday when people see the truth of it's origins and how far we've come since then in regards to communication and public awareness. Besides the fact that it has the potential to udermine the idea of 'democracy' ... even with all the safe-guards in place. Check out this article (It's a PDF): http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf -Phil

06-09-2004, 11:53 AM	#18
benc Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 788	Exactly. The Electoral College is a good system. It scares me that people that whine about their freedoms being take away all day long want to just rip up the Constitution. The sytem works. __________________ Numerous Adult and Non Adult Domains For Sale Such as SlutVideos.com, FitWomen.com Listed on Sedo or can do direct sale

06-09-2004, 11:56 AM	#20
sixxxth_sense So Fucking Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: T.O. Posts: 2,430	there is still people out there that support bush? damnnnn fucking idiots

06-09-2004, 12:46 PM	#33
soldierdog Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 82	I have to put forward my opinion that and fact that the U.S. has been under attack well before Bush came into power. Clinton buried his head in the sand along with the U.S. and the rest of the world as to what has really been going on. Churchill warned about the Wasabi Fundamentalists during WWII and what was coming. Regardless, the Middle East and Europe has taken control of American politics and sovereignty through the use of oil control, propaganda and let's knock down the big guy feeling in the world. If Bush did not implement the hardline approach of compulsion and reward without drawing a line in the sand, the problem would still continue to fester like a cancer not yet detected. Good for him for starting the Chemotherapy and detoxification. As for diplomacy and the Iraq war, there was 12 years of it through the U.N. which did not work. In the end I believe should he get re-elected with the growth in the economy, democracy continuing to take hold in Iraq and all the nay sayers looking for a piece of the pie he will be a solid leader in the world that does not bring any more harm to America then what would come regardless of leaders. Just look how the Canadian election is flowing, it looks like the New Conservative party will be elected and whichs shares many of the same views as Bush and Republicans. This in a country of extrem leftism.

06-09-2004, 01:54 PM	#39
jawanda Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,040	Well, no good answers so far to my initial question ... pretty bummed about that. I guess I'll give up for now, but bookmark this thread and check it again tomorrow, just in case some legitimate Bush supporter has something real to say about the subject. Thanks for those of you who participated in this thread, it was pretty interesting anyway! -Phil

06-09-2004, 02:45 PM	#40
Lykos Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: World Posts: 31,027	Bush is an idiot __________________

06-09-2004, 03:13 PM	#42
jukeboxfrank Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: www.jenniferworthington.com Posts: 1,207	I think a better question is why and who wants him gone... Terrorists??? What you think about the rest of the world ??? ,...where were they on 9/11. Where would they be if we needed them????? I think instead of asking what Iraq has to do with war on terror What did those people have to do with the US foreign policy that caused their deaths on 9/11 ????? I would vote for anyone that would defend my home land no matter what the rest of the would thinks.......So if this is not what you wanted to hear TOO bad.... The truth is hard for some people.

06-09-2004, 03:52 PM	#44
budz Disruptive Innovator Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Vegas Posts: 4,230	http://www.musicforamerica.org/misc/...s/bushjoke.mov __________________ C:\Code\ C:\Code\Run\

06-09-2004, 03:53 PM	#45
warlock667 Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 142	Why is it that when I start posting facts, nobody can come back with a response and just let the thread die? Let's go Bush haters, come in and back up your arguments for once instead of just quoting Michael Moore and running!

06-09-2004, 04:20 PM	#50
AsylumN Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 625	50 __________________ SexSearch