50



:winkwink:

Dude, the fact is that if you take someone from the south, representing a state such as Texas that has a very loyal following towards their repubican politicians, and you stamp two brands on their forehead - Religious Evangalistic Fundamentalism, and - Big Business... you tend to sway a lot of people regardless of right or wrong.

That's the fundamental difference between the two parties, it's that the Democratic party doesn't sell their soul to corporations or try to rule the world under Christianity.

That's simple enough for even people on GFY to understand.

People don't get it. At election time candidates try to appear more to the center.

Bush had the whole compassionate conservative thing etc. But was in the pocket of big business and the defense industry.

And Kerry is trying to act like a fiscal conservative. He is considered the most liberal member of the senate. He is a tax and spend liberal. Once he gets in, he is going to be pushing tons of social programs, do away with the tax cut, and a couple years from now find an excuse to raise taxes.

Yes, but none of those idiots will ever be in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth.

What would you rather have, our slumping economy, record unemployment rates, and poor USD value... or a country that thrives, where people have jobs, and your investments aren't on a slippery slope down the toilet?

I'll choose paying higher taxes.

:eek7

When you want to change the subject because you realize you're making yourself look like an idiot, a more subtle approach usually works better.

possible, not probable....

Neither will Bush. Presidents _always_ represent a large team of experts. They don't just make decisions themselves, they make decisions based on what their experts say.

Bush happens to have neoconservative experts, but they aren't much different from Kerry's experts.

When it comes to actual policy, the difference between Bush and Kerry is pretty much minimal.

The subject hasn't changed. Bush is an idiot, and to run a society the way he does, it means his moral judgement is severely lacking. I don't respect him, and I don't understand how anyone does for that matter.

I haven't seen you say anything to the contrary to what I've written, however... you seem to still argue a point that's not exactly clear. You don't support Bush, but you somehow respect him if you're going to be trying to fight a point on his behalf. I just don't respect those that don't value humanity.

If you didn't even notice how you changed the subject, you are even more stupid than I thought. Congratulations on that, you've managed the seemingly impossible.

I don't respect Bush, and I don't see how I am fighting a point on his behalf by calling idiots stupid.
Bush is probably of above average intelligence (graduating from Yale and Harvard makes that pretty likely, as does his performance in debates), and he's doing a pretty good job at what he's supposed to do - getting people to vote for him.
Most of the people who call him stupid, on the other hand, are dimwitted nobodies who don't know the first thing about politics, economics, international relations or anything related. Their whole political position is based on irrational preferences, and the only justification they are able to give for their position is that "the other guy is stupid". Whether you agree or disagree with Bush, shit like that simply doesn't cut it, especially if you're an idiot yourself.

You know what the difference between you and me is? I know what the fuck I am talking about, and base my judgments on knowledge, facts and likelihoods, while you are just parrotting sound bites.

:1orglaugh

:thumbsup

I agree with what you're saying, and I'm fairly well read politically. I'm not going to go into much depth for the trolls of GFY, however. There's no need for analytical political research and dialogue in a thread that's read by people who don't give a shit. I'm not here to write papers on the social dynamics behind political parties, and the atrocities either one of them commits behind the scenes. Really, that would be petty and I'd be wasting my breath.

I'll just leave this as my closing argument. If it came down to one person to run this country... Bush or Kerry, who would you trust? Bush has already proven he cannot be trusted. Bush lied, thousands died... and Bush wasn't even elected.

Nothing more need be said. :2 cents:

think about it, if you were a terrorist would you attack america knowing theres a crazy asshole incharge that will bomb anyone and take over any country that pisses him off.

He'll win for that reason and that every large company is giving him millions.

I actually much prefer Kerry over Bush. Never said anything different. Bush represents what can be considered an extremist platform, while Kerry represents a slightly more moderate platform.

People who watch too much Fox News tend to start repeating the catchphrases.:winkwink:

What's to get upset about? If the south secceed it would depend on who ended up presiding over it. If it were Bush or similar I'd sell everything and move up north:glugglug

Unfortunately no one knew who he was then!
They know NOW!

Is this way illiterate Republicans spell?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Bush isn't a moron, in fact, he's probably smarter than 90% of the people on this board considering all the registered users. He's got a BA from Yale and Masters from Harvard, which speak for themselves.

Sure a family name can get you into a school, but it won't help you get the degree or pass your classes.

'Conservative' Bush Spends More than 'Liberal' Presidents Clinton, Carter

Conservatives stew as Bush spending grows

$3 Trillion Price Tag Left Out As Bush Details His Agenda

On Spending, Bush Is No Reagan

Bush's spending binges

US spending surges to historic level

War does not justify Bush budget

Greenspan warns Bush over spending

agreed,,,


Bush will not get another 4 year pass from myself...


that guy is an extremist...and people on either side that lean as FAR right or left get on my fucked-up radar...

Stupidity is a relative term. George Bush is obviously smarter than many people. But as a leader, responsible for people's lives and destinies, he falls way short of the required level of intellect. This country is literally bleeding. The world is bleeding. And it keeps getting worse. Bush is like an old doctor from the dark ages. He thinks a good bloodletting will heal your open wounds.

Either he is too stupid to realize he's made things worse or he doesn't have the guts to admit it.

Terrorism is not defined by geographical boundaries. It is a frame of mind. An ideology. Would you justify bombing a church when a Christian zealot blows up an abortion clinic? What Bush did is not all that different. The terrorists could care less if a "country" gets destroyed. They are not fighting for people. They are fighting for an ideology.

If we did bomb churches, the zealots will only grow in numbers. Bush is breeding new terrorists faster than the madresas in Saudi Arabia.

Bush believes in the book of revelations. He may very well be the one who will fulfill his own paranoid prophesy.

politics

1. don't lie and keep your word

2. lie and create complex schemes to cover them up

3. just be the idiot you are and blame somebody else because most people are even more idiotic to even notice your idiocy





bush doesn't even accept responsibilty for his own administrations actions!

This is the fucking problem - isn't that what Bush thought Saddam was? Didn't stop him, why will it stop Bin Laden and his buddies?

THE WORLD DOESNT WANT BUSH -

Read this article - it shows that MOST of the developed world want's him out.

http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/1...784013044.html

ALSO - WHY cant Americans realise the war in iraq is not only without reason (what did Iraq do to America?) But it's cost is bleeding your economy dry of billions of dollars a year?

VOTE KERRY!