I'd vote for Bush twice if I could

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
you sound pretty indoctrinated
think for yourself

Exactly.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: kage69
Then you'd be voting twice for corruption, incompetence, hypocrisy, and ignorance. If you can't see this, then it's you who isn't thinking for himself. Only a hopeless idealogue could remain blind to the glaring eyesore that is the Bush Administration. Were it you cared for your country as much as your idealogy :disgust:

No patriot would vote for Bush.

Because Kerry and the Dems are as idealogically pure as the driven snow. Um, sure..... :roll:

Any realist recognizes that the general election is almost always going to be a choice among evils. A lot of conservatives are voting for Bush because he's not as bad as Kerry, but to say they actually support him on his own merits would be incorrect.

Actually a realist (like some of my friends) would be voting for kerry to stop the expansion of government by having gridlock between democrats and republicans (as opposed to an idealist, like me, who is voting libertarian).

Taking for example that prescription drug bill passed last year, wouldn't you agree as a libertarian that it was yet another massive expansion of gov't, and you'd oppose it? So how would it be more true to the libertarian ideology to support the Democrats, who claimed it was not big enough?!?! (See CNN interview with Sen. Kennedy Here). A National Taxpayer's Union study of Kerry's campaign proposals (Here) found they amount to $276.8 Billion in new spending. How exactly is Kerry going to stop the expansion of government?!?!
It's time for a Balanced Budget Amendment - people will stop supporting big government when they actually have to pay for it, and when they can no longer pass the costs off to future generations via deficits. On the deficit issue, both parties are thoroughly corrupted.

You're completely twisting what i said. I didn't say SUPPORT democrats. Some libertarians are taking a pragmatic approach and supporting GRIDLOCK. If you look at what happened during the clinton years, you'll know what i'm talking about.

Here's what happened to the Public Debt during the Clinton years - it got bigger every year, at least in constant terms. And this is good how?

And here's what happened to government growth under bush versus everyone else:

http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/bush/factsfigs.html

And if i remembered correctly, spending went down .7% under clinton and went up twenty some % under bush.

 

[kage69]

Because Kerry and the Dems are as idealogically pure as the driven snow. Um, sure.....

Did I say Kerry and the Dems are idealogically pure as the driven snow? Drawing comparisons does nothing to nullify the Bushies record while in office. Sorry.

Any realist recognizes that the general election is almost always going to be a choice among evils. A lot of conservatives are voting for Bush because he's not as bad as Kerry, but to say they actually support him on his own merits would be incorrect.

I'm interested in what these conservatives consider bad... not starting illegal wars? Bringing accountability back to DC? Working with our allies as opposed to paying or intimidating them? America as a whole needs to look at the immedaite picture. Forget politics, forget religion, forget the war - how about having a President who can speak for himself? Better yet, how about a president with a working knowledge of his native tongue? Kerry can speak French better than Bush can speak English. That says volumes not only about Bush, but of these conservatives and their ulterior 'merits.'

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: kage69
I'm interested in what these conservatives consider bad... not starting illegal wars? Bringing accountability back to DC? Working with our allies as opposed to paying or intimidating them? America as a whole needs to look at the immedaite picture. Forget politics, forget religion, forget the war - how about having a President who can speak for himself? Better yet, how about a president with a working knowledge of his native tongue? Kerry can speak French better than Bush can speak English. That says volumes not only about Bush, but of these conservatives and their ulterior 'merits.'

OK, this is the kind of liberal drivel that I'm talking about. First of all, to have an intelligent discussion, you need to state facts. By calling this war "illegal" is a subjective opinion of Bush-bashers. I personally feel the war was justified, and has been a huge success. Accountability back to DC? What exactly do you mean by that? Working with allies? Bush has the support and respect from many allies. Did you not hear how Putin recently said that Democrats have no basis for criticizing Bush on the Iraq war? And making fun of Bush's inability to speak well is not an intelligent argument aginst him. Just more liberal drivel. I guess that's the surface level concepts Democrats can understand. I mean, Michael Moore has pointed out how Bush messes up words sometimes. That's reason enough to vote for Kerry. Grow up!

I'm glad I could start some debate. I should conclude with one thought: Repblicans are good, Dems are bad.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I cannot emphasize how much I am supporting Bush/Cheney this election. I'm sure that sounds nuts to some of you...

'nuf said. :roll:

 

[maXroOt]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet)

I'm curious...does anyone have any information relating average income and education to voting for the Democrats or Republicans?

i believe this meets your needs very well, directly refuting what he said:
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gcharter/iq.txt

anyone hear the new bad religion song "let them ear war". it talks about this issue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I'm glad I could start some debate. I should conclude with one thought: Repblicans are good, Dems are bad.

Well, I am not a kid, and have been round the barn more than once.

In the many Presidential elections I have voted in (and I haven't missed any)I have always voted for the Rep. candidate. Not this time out. Kerry, who I really don't care for will get my vote.

Bush unwisely attacked the wrong country either because he was a great fool or lied, or both. Saddam was not a threat, yet he was billed as one. We knew where the WMDs were, yet we did not. We went prepared for war, but were completely unprepared for the aftermath. We needed allies, yet we alienated them. Just now is this administration learning lessons that should have been taken for granted on day one of taking office.

No, for all Kerry's faults, Bush needs to go.

 

[gcy]

Here are 833 Reasons I'm voting agains Bush. :disgust:

 

[Rob9874]

I cannot accept your arguments as factual.

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Bush unwisely attacked the wrong country either because he was a great fool or lied, or both.

The war was approved by Congress. Dems included. Didn't Kerry vote for the war?

Saddam was not a threat, yet he was billed as one.

It is a fact that Saddam was a threat to millions of people. It's common knowledge that he murdered thousands of innocent people, and showed no signs of stopping. They weren't necessarily Americans, but since when do we discriminate whose lives we save?

We knew where the WMDs were, yet we did not.

If you truly believe that Iraq had no WMD's, you are a fool. You do not argue with facts, but with propoganda the media has spewed forth. Think for yourself!

 

[chess9]

Rob9874:

I'm just a teenager, so what do I know, but sheezh, donja' think you sound like a neocon and not a conservative? Maybe you should re-think that whole post. You know, strengthen the analysis, the facts in support of your argument, and some of that exciting and pertinent ad hominem you threw in about dumb Dems. I'm sure you have a PhD from Harvard and could really shine here. Please, shine away.

Also, if you want to vote twice, move to Florida. Jeb has a welfare program for Republicans to vote twice, especially for Katherine Harris who is to die for.

-Robert

 

[Phokus]

Rob9874, you're nothing more than a Cad/Passions/Etech/Heartsurgeon kool-aid drinking clone. True conservatives who know wtf they're talking about would be condemning the bush administration and the republican party. Leave the thinking to the non-morons, thanks.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: chess9
Rob9874:

I'm just a teenager, so what do I know, but sheezh, donja' think you sound like a neocon and not a conservative? Maybe you should re-think that whole post. You know, strengthen the analysis, the facts in support of your argument, and some of that exciting and pertinent ad hominem you threw in about dumb Dems. I'm sure you have a PhD from Harvard and could really shine here. Please, shine away.

I can see from the points you make (and the term "ad hominem") that you took high school debate. Very good job. However, you forgot to point out where I contradicted myself (another high school debate technique).

Originally posted by: Phokus
True conservatives who know wtf they're talking about would be condemning the bush administration and the republican party.

"True conservatives" = Libertarian?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I cannot accept your arguments as factual.

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Bush unwisely attacked the wrong country either because he was a great fool or lied, or both.

The war was approved by Congress. Dems included. Didn't Kerry vote for the war?

Saddam was not a threat, yet he was billed as one.

It is a fact that Saddam was a threat to millions of people. It's common knowledge that he murdered thousands of innocent people, and showed no signs of stopping. They weren't necessarily Americans, but since when do we discriminate whose lives we save?

We knew where the WMDs were, yet we did not.

If you truly believe that Iraq had no WMD's, you are a fool. You do not argue with facts, but with propoganda the media has spewed forth. Think for yourself!

Sure, Saddam was a threat, but to whom? He had a decrepit military and the WMDs we knew he had were most, if not all, past their shelf-life. However, when we're sitting here trying to make a case for invading Iraq, what happened? Oh, that's right, Kim Jong Il decided to restart the Yongbyon reactor, in addition to reminding us that he has a missile capable of hitting the west coast.

Also, read a history book if you do not believe there has never been discimination on lives being saved.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: maXroOt

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet)

I'm curious...does anyone have any information relating average income and education to voting for the Democrats or Republicans?

i believe this meets your needs very well, directly refuting what he said:
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gcharter/iq.txt

anyone hear the new bad religion song "let them ear war". it talks about this issue.

Interesting.

I suppose then that I could say that the Republican party's constituency is primarily racist Americans.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
There seems to be a mindless conformity to Democrats. It's the party for the non-thinkers.
...
But Republicans are intelligent enough to understand that while these concepts seem ideal, and make us feel warm and fuzzy, they don't always make sense logically.
...
Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet), they play on that perspective, and realize that they can appeal to that point of view.
...
Well, I've ranted long enough. Hopefully my words enraged some liberals, or influenced some kid who doesn't know what party he belongs to. My last point is this: Don't follow the party or candidate that your friends or MTV tells you to. Think for yourself.

And I'm no dem by the way, but OMG, you are the most elitist asshat I've seen come along in a long while. Oh I get your point: that everyone else is just too stupid to understand the "genius" of the Republican party. Oh please, the only thing you're insulting is everyone's intelligence. Go back to the hole you were hiding in.

:roll:

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Strk
Also, read a history book if you do not believe there has never been discimination on lives being saved.

Well, I just thought a bleeding-heart liberal would have compassion for all people, regardless of race or nationality.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: chess9
Rob9874:

I'm just a teenager, so what do I know, but sheezh, donja' think you sound like a neocon and not a conservative? Maybe you should re-think that whole post. You know, strengthen the analysis, the facts in support of your argument, and some of that exciting and pertinent ad hominem you threw in about dumb Dems. I'm sure you have a PhD from Harvard and could really shine here. Please, shine away.

I can see from the points you make (and the term "ad hominem") that you took high school debate. Very good job. However, you forgot to point out where I contradicted myself (another high school debate technique).

Originally posted by: Phokus
True conservatives who know wtf they're talking about would be condemning the bush administration and the republican party.

"True conservatives" = Libertarian?

Not necessarily, but you publicly support an asshat that has increased the size and scope of government to heights never seen before. Therefore, you are an asshat commie.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Strk
Also, read a history book if you do not believe there has never been discimination on lives being saved.

Well, I just thought a bleeding-heart liberal would have compassion for all people, regardless of race or nationality.

And who is the bleeding-heart liberal, might I ask?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Go back to the hole you were hiding in.

I'm considering the source - someone with anti-Bush propoganda in his sig. Of course you're going to disagree with me, newb.

 

[kage69]

By calling this war "illegal" is a subjective opinion of Bush-bashers.

Subjective?! :laugh: Oh that's right, it was a pre-emptive, internationally applauded assault on terror. How silly of me.

I personally feel the war was justified,

Shocker.

and has been a huge success.

Over 800 US soldiers dead over a non-existant threat. Embarrasing incidents of abuse and murder. Yeah, but at least we got that shell, and provided Halliburton with soem business. Your qualifications for success make me sick.

Accountability back to DC? What exactly do you mean by that?

Do you even read the papers or watch the news?

Working with allies? Bush has the support and respect from many allies.

Yes, as in 'international cooperation' bereft of kickbacks or threats of having aid revoked. No, America may have the respect and support of many allies - this has been in an almost constant state of erosion thanks to the chimp. We had the whole globe (ok, not NK) showering us with compassion and offers of assistance after 9/11. Seems to me a worthy leader and statesman could have done far more with it than pissing it away like Bush did.

Did you not hear how Putin recently said that Democrats have no basis for criticizing Bush on the Iraq war?

Putin. You're actually citing Putin as some kind of supportive argument. Amazing. Sorry, I must have been busy reading about all the war crimes Russians have been inflicting on their Muslim neighbors. Not that I would take 'KGB material' seriously anyway.

And making fun of Bush's inability to speak well is not an intelligent argument aginst him.

Just listen to yourself. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - COMPETENCY IN ENGLISH IS A MUST. Our president must be a leader, an orator, and a polished statesman. Bush is none of these. It comes down to a simple matter of being qualified for the position (read: he's not). Attempt to dismiss it however you like, you're still wrong.

I mean, Michael Moore has pointed out how Bush messes up words sometimes

You try to invalidate this concern by downplaying it's severity and frequency. Nice. Unfortunetly, this goes beyond a simple speach impediment. He's a simpleminded man who once held his vices dear - and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. The problem is he's in the White House, a scene which by it's very nature should suffer no fools. What does it say about the rest of the country when we've got one at the wheel? Saying Bush 'messes up words sometimes' is like saying Kim Jong Il has a healthy opinion of himself. Sure other politicians have the occiasional goof - but no one comes close to Bush in quality or quantity when it comes to displays of oratorical ineptitude.

Grow up!

Don't flatter yourself. So far you're the one demonstrating the need to mature.

I'm glad I could start some debate

Well, you started the thread if that's what you mean...

I should conclude with one thought: Repblicans are good, Dems are bad.

I would argue Reps are bad, Dems are bad.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Of course you would, and that's what makes you a republican...a complete disregard for right in lieu of your own personal agenda. We each get to vote once, thus marking the majority decision. Hence 'democracy' in our title of 'democratic republic'. Don't worry, I'm sure with PNAC and wealthy egocentrics on board the republicans will soon develop a method of vote fraud...oh wait. Never mind.

Your ignorant inference that only the ignorant or young vote democrat marks you clearly as an uneducated bigot. That's fine, you're in the perfect political party for it. You fail to address independent party voters, provide any actual data of your claims, or in fact make any serious claims, just talking out your lazy ass hoping to score a last minute blow against those who'll stand up for what's right over what makes them personal wealth.

Good luck to you and yours in the election.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Phokus
But you're a kool-aid drinking republican.

Thank you for proving my point!

Anyone who believes in limited government would vote libertarian. You're proving how stupid you are by accusing liberals of doing something when your party does the exact same thing, in fact republicans do it WORSE. And btw, i'm a libertarian, not a liberal so i'm not proving your deluded point, mr. kool-aid drinker/statist.

Anyone who believes in limited government could also vote for the Constitution Party.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Phokus
True conservatives who know wtf they're talking about would be condemning the bush administration and the republican party. Leave the thinking to the non-morons, thanks.

true conservatives have to choose the lesser of two evils [Bush over Kerry] because no true conservative is electable in '04. No one but those true idealists who cant seem to understand a compromise will vote outside the mainstream. When a true conservative [Constitution or Libertarian] party comes to power and provides a viable 3rd option, you'll just be wasting your vote.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Phokus
True conservatives who know wtf they're talking about would be condemning the bush administration and the republican party. Leave the thinking to the non-morons, thanks.

true conservatives have to choose the lesser of two evils [Bush over Kerry] because no true conservative is electable in '04. No one but those true idealists who cant seem to understand a compromise will vote outside the mainstream. When a true conservative [Constitution or Libertarian] party comes to power and provides a viable 3rd option, you'll just be wasting your vote.

Lesser of two evils? Last time i checked, giving republicans carte blanch control of government resulted in BIGGER GOVERNMENT. What we DONT need is ONE party controlling the whole government, what we need is either

a) Gridlock

or

b) A party that values limited government and ACTUALLY IMPLMENTS PLANS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT in power.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: kage69

By calling this war "illegal" is a subjective opinion of Bush-bashers.

Subjective?! :laugh: Oh that's right, it was a pre-emptive, internationally applauded assault on terror. How silly of me.

I won't quote your entire post (and by the way, I'm flattered that you took so much time to respond. My opinions must mean alot to you.), but I want to comment on this point. Since when does international support define what's right?