70 replies to this topic

[|nfinite]

If bush is so dumb. Then why did he get elected TWICE to the presidency

Because he's an Evangelical Christian. 90% of the votes that got him the re-election were from Evangelical Christians like himself. Explain to me this:

"We don't need a rule book, I have my rule book right here *takes out the bible"

I believe that's what Bush said in one of his speeches after the events of 9/11.

Explain to me what's wrong with what he just said.

[Tetiel]

Actually... Bush is Methodist, not Evangelical

Somewhat of a big difference there...

[Krnsaber]

*Yawn* Ill admit, I dont know too much about what Bush has done or said.
All I hear about is people complaining about the war and the media feeds off that and says crap about Bush.
Now, people hop on the bandwagon and go OMG,EVERYONE HATES BUSH, I GOTTA HATE HIM TOO![/sarcasm]
The sad thing is, if Bush is so bad at presidency, then our American voters are stupid arent they?
Im just hoping the American economy doesnt decline too much soon -_-

[pyke]

Depends what Bush you're talking about?

Seriously though, I agree with alot of bushs proposals and his actions in the Iraq war. Sure he lied over "WHY" he's going over there, but he wouldn't of recieved much support otherwise. He's gotten rid of Saddam and made Iraq a better place, and that's what I think of America as an "Older brother" to make sure no-one gets bullied. Plus if there was documents on the WMD with enough evidence, I'd send my troops over. If the troops didn't want to be sent to war, they should of never signed up.

That's my 2 cents.

By putting Saddam out of power he has let into Iraq what he tried to keep out. Al Quadea (or whatever its called) were never a problem until Saddam got the boot. Afghanistan is the real hot seat of terrorism or at least was. USA is more like the big bully where it pushes everyone including the little bullies around xD.

On the bright side for the usa once they get this american friendly democratic government rolling in Iraq, they should recieve an economic kick in the ass with the change in oil prices

Last election Nader basically screwed Kerry out of presidency . Wouldn't have been good to put him in anyway, since he would have made a premature removal of the troops and damned the whole area .

[nox]

In the invasion of Iraq, President Bush ordered the United States armed services into combat without an explicit declaration of war or other constitutionally appropriate authorization from Congress. The Constitution is very clear on the point that only Congress may initiate military hostilities. Besides ignoring international law, Bush fails to even follow the Constitition. This puts him up for possible chance of inpeachment, which I hope is considered by congress. ;[.


Bush has stabbed a bigger hole in economy than Hummers to the Ozone.

Edited by speaker, 09 December 2005 - 08:04 PM.

[pyke]

speaker don't you know, democracy is for the democrats . That whole thing probably disturbed me more then any other aspect. The idea that he went in using similar to dictorial powers to "bring democracy" is a little spooky xD

[MSLEGEND]

I don't really like bush. Never really did like him.
Good thing he can't be president anymore after 2008





-Commander_Cobra_360

[redlion]

If bush is so dumb. Then why did he get elected TWICE to the presidency

He didn't. The supreme court decided the election. By not allowing a recount of the votes, they declared bush to be the winner. In ANY circumstance involving a recount, florida went to Gore. I doubt he would have been the Republican nominee if he hadn't one the first one... in which case John McCain would be the president

[nox]

America is NOT a democracy, but a democratic republic. The people do not decide the president, they only "influence" the vote of the represenatives.

[redlion]

Well, anymore, the representatives HAVE to vote what their constituents vote. It's only rarely like 2000 election that we come to odds with it.

And it is right to have that way. The Founders were thinking ahead, would you believe it.

For example, the majority of Californians think alike to some small degree, by simply coexisting together and having the same media, neighbourhoods, jobs, etc, you get a general "feel" for the area. I'm not grouping EVERY Californian in with this group, but the vast majority of Californians are like this. California has also 55 electoral votes and 33.8 million people.

Conversely, Nevada has 5 votes and 2 million people. Even though they are right next to each other, Nevada has a completely different atmosphere than California. People act different, vote different, etc.

On the opposite spectrum, Kansas as 6 votes and 2.9 million people. I cannot explain how radically different Kansas and California are in every way. Nevada is like Kansas politically, except with opposite values.

That being said, politically, Nevada and Kansas tend to vote the same. But 11 votes against 55? A guarunteed vote in that 55 SIMPLY because of where someone lived?

Do you understand?

Here, let me give you an example of what would happen based on pure voting numbers:

California, 33.8m, 55 votes (BLUE)
Kansas, 2.9m, 6 votes (RED)
Nevada, 2m, 5 votes (RED)
Missouri, 5.6m, 11 votes (RED)
Nebraska, 1.7m, 5 votes (RED)
Arizona, 5.1m, 10 votes (RED)
Montana, 900k, 3 votes (RED)
West Virginia, 1.8m, 5 votes (RED)
Alabama, 4.5m, 9 votes (RED)
South Dakota, 760k, 3 votes (RED)

Now, you have two sides. 57 for red, 55 for blue.

When you add up pop totals for blue side, it is 33.8m (of course).
When you add up pop toals for the red side, it is 25.26m.

On a population based vote, ONE state would beat NINE other states. Does that sound right to you? Nine different states with nine completely different values, political stances, environments, general atmospheres, would not even stand a CHANCE to California.

THAT is what the electoral college protects against. Because nine states have just as much say, if not more, than one state. If nine states from completely different areas and values agree on one thing versus ONE state, then yes, the nine states deserve to win.

Anyone can argue if they like, but I'll stand firm in the college's defense.

And also, redlion, those votes had already been recounted time and time again, don't you remember? The Supreme Court just said, "Enough is enough." and finalized it. There's only so many times you can recount those damn votes before you have to admit that somebody's won. The Dems would have just demanded more recounts. We could have been debating the presidency for ages otherwise. It was ridiculous, really.

What you are saying in your states example is that the greater population population of california should NOT have a greater sway in the government? Thats ludicrous. Whats even more ludicrous is the fact that no matter how small a state is, it can still have three votes. Thats not equal representation. California has 55 votes for a reason: it has 33.8 million people. All those constituents want their wishes to be heard, just the same as the people in the red states in your example. You shouldn't discount their opinions and mis-representations based on the fact that all of their votes are grouped together under 'California'.

THAT is what the electoral college protects against. Because nine states have just as much say, if not more, than one state. If nine states from completely different areas and values agree on one thing versus ONE state, then yes, the nine states deserve to win.

But they shouldn't. If their populations, the number of people they represent, is less than that of California, they should have less say in the government than California. Not that they should have no say at all, just less.

And also, redlion, those votes had already been recounted time and time again, don't you remember? The Supreme Court just said, "Enough is enough." and finalized it. There's only so many times you can recount those damn votes before you have to admit that somebody's won. The Dems would have just demanded more recounts. We could have been debating the presidency for ages otherwise. It was ridiculous, really.

No, there was never a government sanctioned recount, which resulted in the supreme court saying that they didn't want one. They did not allow for the votes to be recounted, and thus, they decided the election in favor of George W. Bush.

[nox]

Well, anymore, the representatives HAVE to vote what their constituents vote. It's only rarely like 2000 election that we come to odds with it.

And it is right to have that way. The Founders were thinking ahead, would you believe it.

For example, the majority of Californians think alike to some small degree, by simply coexisting together and having the same media, neighbourhoods, jobs, etc, you get a general "feel" for the area. I'm not grouping EVERY Californian in with this group, but the vast majority of Californians are like this. California has also 55 electoral votes and 33.8 million people.

Conversely, Nevada has 5 votes and 2 million people. Even though they are right next to each other, Nevada has a completely different atmosphere than California. People act different, vote different, etc.

On the opposite spectrum, Kansas as 6 votes and 2.9 million people. I cannot explain how radically different Kansas and California are in every way. Nevada is like Kansas politically, except with opposite values.

That being said, politically, Nevada and Kansas tend to vote the same. But 11 votes against 55? A guarunteed vote in that 55 SIMPLY because of where someone lived?

Do you understand?

Here, let me give you an example of what would happen based on pure voting numbers:

California, 33.8m, 55 votes (BLUE)
Kansas, 2.9m, 6 votes (RED)
Nevada, 2m, 5 votes (RED)
Missouri, 5.6m, 11 votes (RED)
Nebraska, 1.7m, 5 votes (RED)
Arizona, 5.1m, 10 votes (RED)
Montana, 900k, 3 votes (RED)
West Virginia, 1.8m, 5 votes (RED)
Alabama, 4.5m, 9 votes (RED)
South Dakota, 760k, 3 votes (RED)

Now, you have two sides. 57 for red, 55 for blue.

When you add up pop totals for blue side, it is 33.8m (of course).
When you add up pop toals for the red side, it is 25.26m.

On a population based vote, ONE state would beat NINE other states. Does that sound right to you? Nine different states with nine completely different values, political stances, environments, general atmospheres, would not even stand a CHANCE to California.

THAT is what the electoral college protects against. Because nine states have just as much say, if not more, than one state. If nine states from completely different areas and values agree on one thing versus ONE state, then yes, the nine states deserve to win.

Anyone can argue if they like, but I'll stand firm in the college's defense.

And also, redlion, those votes had already been recounted time and time again, don't you remember? The Supreme Court just said, "Enough is enough." and finalized it. There's only so many times you can recount those damn votes before you have to admit that somebody's won. The Dems would have just demanded more recounts. We could have been debating the presidency for ages otherwise. It was ridiculous, really.

The reason California has so many votes, is because they have so many people. It's not the state itself, its the people who vote. Each person in theory is worth the same as another, so 33m>25m.


On your other post,

Influences should be set aside, since you're voting for your president. It's hard to respond to something like that, because its so farfetched.

Edited by speaker, 10 December 2005 - 10:17 AM.

[nox]

CENSORED no.

Can you give guidlines why? I agree with you, and it seems like its me and one other person vs the whole board in politics. Share your thoughts =].

[Bora]

I somewhat say yes and no--on some topics I do, some topics I don't. I don't see why so many people just absolutely hate his guts, though. I could understand a disagreement on topics like taxes and whatnot but some people just completely go the opposite direction of him without even listening to what he is going to do.

Edited by AntiGravity, 10 December 2005 - 07:58 PM.

[muffinsforgod]

I do not like Bush mainly on his policy of no child left behind. He put all these restrictions on schools and left the states to deal with paying for these restrictions.

I also did not agree with the war, but now that we are in it I think that if we just left Iraq right now we would have a new generation on people that hate america. The best thing that we can do for our own security is to build up Iraq and make it better so that they do not hate america.

IMHO I do think that the war does have alot to do with the vp making profit in weapons trade and Bush making profit with oil... thats just my conspiracy theory

[Alex]

I dont support Bush. I think he's a lieing douche bag. I don't support anyone who doesnt have the slightest hint of honesty or morrals.

[|nfinite]

I dont support Bush. I think he's a lieing douche bag. I don't support anyone who doesnt have the slightest hint of honesty or morrals.

Politics is a dirty business. Unfortunately, The truth is rarely ever allowed to be exposed.

[Ives]

I hate all politicans. All of them in general are lying douchebags anyways, so why the hell can I trust one if they're honest or not?

Edited by Radon, 20 December 2005 - 11:36 PM.

[Punk]

I live in Canda, but I still voted. I HATE BUSH!

I bet that a bunch of you think bush is bad cause of that propaganda film with that fat directer guy.

aye, that was a good movie. It was called Farenheit 9/11


P.S if in didnt spell Farenheit right, its becuase in Canada, we use Celsius

[travis]

No.
Not republican or democrat...Amarchist.

[Ives]

I live in Canda, but I still voted. I HATE BUSH!




aye, that was a good movie. It was called Farenheit 9/11


P.S if in didnt spell Farenheit right, its becuase in Canada, we use Celsius

Micheal moore is a liberal douchebag that wants Bush for president so He can make money on whining and bitching about him. Fat little CENSORED does nothing to society and needs to be shot. Bush > Moore

[Punk]

I don't really like bush. Never really did like him.
Good thing he can't be president anymore after 2008
-Commander_Cobra_360

AMEN to that

I dont support Bush. I think he's a lieing douche bag. I don't support anyone who doesnt have the slightest hint of honesty or morrals.

that's a good one...DOUCHE BAG XD

Micheal moore is a liberal douchebag that wants Bush for president so He can make money on whining and bitching about him. Fat little CENSORED does nothing to society and needs to be shot. Bush > Moore

actually it should be:

Canada: Jack Layton > Paul Martin <- is idiot

America: Jack Layton > George Bush

Georgie is PWNED

[|nfinite]

Michael Moore is biased. EXTREMELY biased on his opinions.

Not to mention that he exaggerates just a "tad" too much.