kinda personal: Will You Vote For Bush?

[DigDug]

So you don't agree with me, get over it and stop trying to start a flame war by name calling. Doesn't matter what I tell you, because you've already made up your mind about me and put me into a "type

Read again. I didn't call you a name. Second, I based my comment upon your statement implying that Bush "liberated" Iraq, or in other words, did so as some altruistic measure for the Iraqi people. Anyone who believes that is sucking in media propaganda with a garden hose. You said, so you apparently believe it, and therefore fall into that category of naive people who actually believe a governmental leader has the ability to mobilize billions of dollars of weaponry and American lives cause he wants to free people and nothing more.


C'mon man. Think!

 

[Konigin]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Konigin

So bush had to produce WMD to justify the war? Maybe removing Saddam from power and having his people live like humans for a change is all wrong.

What Bush had to do was not lie or mislead people as to motives or intel. Perhaps you forgot the many statements from the White House that this war was not about liberation? Duplicity in presidents is not acceptable regardless of outcome.[/quote]

Iraq did not comply with UN weapons inspections, they touted their "power" and warned they would use WMD, the UN was too lame to hold Iraq to the laws agreed upon, thats why we attacked.[/quote]

They did comply, but not to the satisfaction of Bush. It is hard to remove what you do not have. It would not have hurt the US one bit to continue the inspections or use some action short of war. Bush wanted this war, and he used whatever he could to get it. That means he used you, and you love him for it. If the criteria you used justifies a war, god help us all.[/quote]

As I recall, they kicked all UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq, saying they did not have to comply with the UN demands. I agree it would not have hurt us to continue the inspections, but we weren't getting anywere, just because we don't have them doen't mean they still do not exist. I may also add that Congress approved the defence budget not Bush, and it was encouranged by MANY democrates.

 

[Linux23]

I am voting for Gore...

 

[DougK62]

Yes.

A poll like this is pretty worthless here. It'll always be skewed because the liberals seem to have a great majority on these boards, and most people vote party lines.

 

[DigDug]

I agree it would not have hurt us to continue the inspections, but we weren't getting anywere...

getting anywhere with WHAT? we didn't need to "get anywhere". The whole scene was like a kid making excuses not to go to school. After one excuse didn't pan out, he latched on to another. And made things up - the Uranium in Africa that the CIA is quickly taking the hit for. And where's the WMD? C'mon man......We obliterated another country, because we hate him. And as much as he is deserving of that hatred, hatred and bravado isn't enough to justify a WAR.

 

[brtspears2]

My choice is to vote for Bush.

And according to Selectsmart.com :

1. Bush, George W. - US President (100%) Click here for info
2. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (81%) Click here for info
3. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (71%) Click here for info
4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (69%) Click here for info
5. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (65%) Click here for info
6. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (58%) Click here for info
7. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (56%) Click here for info
8. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (52%) Click here for info
9. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (49%) Click here for info
10. Libertarian Candidate (46%) Click here for info
11. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (43%) Click here for info
12. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (17%) Click here for info
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (0%) Click here for info


Yup, Bush, 100%.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Talon02

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Probably not. I'll have to see what libertarian candidate is running.

Libertarian ideology is awesome, so yeah, me too.

With both the Republican and Democratic parties corrupt and broken beyond repair maybe the Libertarian can do it but unfortunately even if whoever that candidate may be gets the Majority vote the Electoral College will still select a winner based on which party of either Republican or Democrat has bought them out at the time.

I bet your Libertarian candidate more closely matches the GOP platform than the Democrat one. Why not make your choices on the issues in the AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SELECTOR and see if I'm not right. Some of their answers to the questions were vague, except for Bush, so it was hard for me to place them. But if you answer the questions yourself in the selector, you'll see which ideologies more closely match up in the end. Take a look below and just see who is usually the odd man out:

• 
  1. ABORTION ISSUES: Which views on the issue of abortion would you prefer your candidate advocate?
  • 
    "Pro-Choice" Harry Browne, Gore
    Neither
    "Pro-Life" Bush
  2. MINORITY ISSUES: Would you prefer your candidate support or oppose such legislation as affirmative action?
  • 
    Oppose Bush, Harry Browne
    Neither
    Support Gore
  3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE: Would you prefer your candidate support or oppose campaign finance reform?
  • 
    Oppose Reform (Lift restrictions on contributions) Bush, Harry Browne, Gore
    Neither
    Support Reform (Abolish "softmoney" contributions, etc.)
  4. CRIME: Some candidates have outlined their approach to minimizing crime. Which approach do you prefer your candidate stress?
  • 
    Support "get tough" approach,e.g. longer prison sentences Bush
    Neither Harry Browne
    Support preventive approach, e.g. educational & recreational programs Gore
  5. DEFENSE SPENDING: Would you prefer your candidate advocate an increase or decrease in the defense spending budget?
  • 
    Support increase Bush, Harry Browne, Gore
    Neither
    Support decrease
  6. DRUG POLICY: Some presidential candidates support an increase in drug crime prosecution and penalties while some favor a decriminalization or complete legalization of what are currently drug crimes. What stance would you like your candidate to adopt?
  • 
    Support increased prosecution and penalties Bush, Gore
    Neither
    Support decriminalization Harry Browne
  7. GAY RIGHTS: Some candidates believe that sexual orientation is an unchangeable characteristic and support across the board equality under civil law for gay and lesbian Americans. On the other end of the spectrum, some believe that gay relationships are a destructive assault on the heterosexual, marriage-based family. What policies would you like your candidate to favor?
  • 
    Support legislative equality for homosexuals. Gore
    Neither
    Oppose special legislationconcerning homosexuality. Bush, Harry Browne
  8. EDUCATION: Some presidential candidates support school choice. Others see it as a separation of church and state issue. What position would you like your candidate to support?
  • 
    Favor School Choice Bush
    Neither Harry Browne
    Support tax dollars for public schools only Gore
  9. ENVIRONMENT: Which position regarding the environment would your ideal candidate advocate?
  • 
    Support the environment only after considering market and private property concerns. Bush
    Neither Harry Browne
    Support environmental protection legislation Gore
  10. EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM: Some presidential candidates favor the teaching of Creationism in public schools along evolution which is currently taught in science classes. What's your opinion?
  • 
    Support the situation as it is now: evolution only Gore
    Neither Harry Browne
    Support legislation including the teaching of Creationism Bush
  11. FOREIGN POLICY: Would you prefer your candidate embrace an non-interventionist or interventionist approach to foreign policy?
  • 
    Support non-interventionist Harry Browne
    Neither
    Support interventionist Bush, Gore
  12. GUN CONTROL: Would you prefer your candidate oppose or support gun control legislation?
  • 
    Oppose Bush, Harry Browne
    Neither
    Support Gore
  13. HEALTH CARE: Would you prefer your candidate support increased federal involvement in health care? Or would you prefer health care be an area outside governmental control?
  • 
    Support health care as primarily the responsibility of the individual Bush, Harry Browne
    Neither
    Support health care as primarily the responsibility of the government Gore
  14. MORAL ISSUES: Would you prefer your candidate favor federal, state and/or local legislation supporting "traditional values" such as advocating prayer in public schools, promoting teen-age sexual abstinence and restricting access to Internet pornography?
  • 
    Support legislation of "traditional values". Bush
    Neither Harry Browne
    Oppose legislation of "traditional values". Gore
  15. SOCIAL SECURITY: Would you prefer your candidate promise to preserve or reform (including dismantle) Social Security?
  • 
    Support reforming Bush, Harry Browne
    Neither
    Support preserving Gore
  16. TAX POLICY: Various candidates have promised to overhaul the federal income tax codes. They differ in how extreme the proposed changes would be.
  • 
    Support retaining current system Gore
    Neither
    Support reforming or abolishing Bush, Harry Browne
  17. TRADE ISSUES: Would you prefer your candidate be an advocate of free trade or trade controls like tariffs and embargoes?
  • 
    Support free-trade Bush, Harry Browne, Gore
    Neither
    Support trade controls

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: DougK62
Yes.

A poll like this is pretty worthless here. It'll always be skewed because the liberals seem to have a great majority on these boards, and most people vote party lines.

You must be new, Actually most people are NOT liberal but right wing, some even hard core. I guess they are taking the night off.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Konigin

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Konigin

So bush had to produce WMD to justify the war? Maybe removing Saddam from power and having his people live like humans for a change is all wrong.

What Bush had to do was not lie or mislead people as to motives or intel. Perhaps you forgot the many statements from the White House that this war was not about liberation? Duplicity in presidents is not acceptable regardless of outcome.

Iraq did not comply with UN weapons inspections, they touted their "power" and warned they would use WMD, the UN was too lame to hold Iraq to the laws agreed upon, thats why we attacked.[/quote]

They did comply, but not to the satisfaction of Bush. It is hard to remove what you do not have. It would not have hurt the US one bit to continue the inspections or use some action short of war. Bush wanted this war, and he used whatever he could to get it. That means he used you, and you love him for it. If the criteria you used justifies a war, god help us all.[/quote]

As I recall, they kicked all UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq, saying they did not have to comply with the UN demands. I agree it would not have hurt us to continue the inspections, but we weren't getting anywere, just because we don't have them doen't mean they still do not exist. I may also add that Congress approved the defence budget not Bush, and it was encouranged by MANY democrates.[/quote]

They kicked them out long ago, but they were back in long before the war. IYou may be correct about WMDs existing but unfound so far. My point is that the leader of the US told me and you that we knew what there was and where they are. Well, that is demonstrably untrue. We had other presidents in other times who did just this, and it is impossible to say how it feels to have it happen all over again. We were betrayed by Johnson, and Bush seems more concerned about announcing that the case is closed with a wave of his hand, than producing what he said he had. Perhaps you feel a President is unaccountable, but not I. He owes me. You too, even if you do not think so. As far as the Dems go, many signed on because they were afraid of public backlash. They should have stood their ground if they had any principles. You see, I do not care if it is a Rep or Dem, there needs to be a VERY high threshold for war. Because one can do a thing does not mean it should happen.

 

[DigDug]

A poll like this is pretty worthless here. It'll always be skewed because the liberals seem to have a great majority on these boards, and most people vote party lines.

And why do you think this is the case? You know, I never really meet any conservatives with advanced degrees. I honestly don't. It's something I wonder about - why is most of academia, presumably the brains of our society, so consistently left-leaning? Is there something intelligent about pacifism, objectivity, and compassion?

 

[Dudd]

Doubtful. Bush is quickly heading downhill, and the Democrats entire platform seems to be "Hey, we're not Bush!!" Probably will vote Libertarian.

 

[LongCoolMother]

we need a poll. and we need Red dawn in here.

 

[Konigin]

Originally posted by: BlipBlop

I agree it would not have hurt us to continue the inspections, but we weren't getting anywere...

getting anywhere with WHAT? we didn't need to "get anywhere". The whole scene was like a kid making excuses not to go to school. After one excuse didn't pan out, he latched on to another. And made things up - the Uranium in Africa that the CIA is quickly taking the hit for. And where's the WMD? C'mon man......We obliterated another country, because we hate him. And as much as he is deserving of that hatred, hatred and bravado isn't enough to justify a WAR.

first - stop ranting
second- realize that we don't agree, we won't, EVar, so give it up.

 

[Feldenak]

According to SelectSmart my candidates are:

1. Bush, George W. - US President (100%) Click here for info
2. Libertarian Candidate (98%) Click here for info
3. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (68%) Click here for info
4. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (60%) Click here for info
5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (59%) Click here for info
6. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (59%) Click here for info
7. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (58%) Click here for info
8. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (58%) Click here for info
9. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (57%) Click here for info
10. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (54%) Click here for info
11. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (33%) Click here for info
12. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (29%) Click here for info
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (0%)

 

[bolinger]

Helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll NO

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: bolinger
Helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll NO

 

[Yossarian]

I will not vote for Bush, and I don't have much respect for anyone who does.

 

[Freejack2]

[Idiot Mode]
Bush punched me in the face and burned my house down...
OF COURSE I'LL VOTE FOR HIM!
[/Idiot Mode]

 

[Soybomb]

So bush had to produce WMD to justify the war?

Well given that it was his reason, it'd be nice. Personally I find deceit from the president to be unacceptable. If the reason was to liberate the iraqi people from saddam's rule, why couldn't we be told that upfront instead of being lied to? Of course I have a feeling that for public approval of such actions we would have needed to have a larger coalition that felt more strongly about doing the same. Instead he chose to hide his intentions behind supposed WMD and garner support by trying to make a connection between saddam and bin laden (ohhhhhhh axis of evil...be scared american people). Lies and manipulation aren't something I look for from a leader.

 

[Kenny0829]

I think everyone has missed one fine point..
He went in to finish what his Daddy didn't do..
Pappa Bush SHOULD have taken out Saddam in the FIRST war, but did not
SO to make his Father look better in the History books,
JR. went back and tried to do it.........
HISTORY will tell...... SOMEDAY

 

[FoBoT]

why is this in OT ?

this is a political topic, it shouldn't be here

it needs to be moved

 

[DigDug]

first - stop ranting

Ranting? Only because I'm apalled that after all this time there are those so painfully naive as to what is really going on. The clues are being thrown in your face, but akin to a religious zealot, you just wipe them away because they don't fit with what you've already decided.

second- realize that we don't agree, we won't, EVar, so give it up.

True enough, because we come from differenty angles. I continually search for what really is, while you stagnate in what you pretend things to be.

 

[Amused]

From Selectsmart.com

Your Results:

1. Libertarian Candidate (100%) Click here for info
2. Bush, George W. - US President (86%) Click here for info
3. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (55%) Click here for info
4. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (53%) Click here for info
5. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (51%) Click here for info
6. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (42%) Click here for info
7. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (40%) Click here for info
8. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (40%) Click here for info
9. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (35%) Click here for info
10. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (29%) Click here for info
11. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (24%) Click here for info
12. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (21%) Click here for info
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (0%) Click here for info

 

[rgwalt]

It depends on who the democrats run, and which way my state looks like it will sway. If my state looks like it might go democrat, I'll vote for Bush, especially if I particularly loathe the dem. candidate (Hillary). However, if my state is going republican, I'll probably vote for the libertarian candidate, or possibly another third party if someone is going to make a good enough stand and try to get the required number of popular votes to have a 3rd party receive funding.

So, in short, I'm a definite maybe leaning towards yes.

You see, it is not that I like Bush per say, but I definitely don't like the democrat platform.

Ryan

 

[jagr10]

Originally posted by: Konigin

Originally posted by: Soybomb

List the things he has done, I'd like to know

I still have yet to see the weapons of mass destruction that justified out invasion.
I continue to see our rights be stripped away in the name of public safety because it will keep it safe from "terrorists" (bad axis of evil!)

Thats really quite enough for me. fwiw: I usually lean toward the republican side because of the usually sound economic policies even though I disagree with the social ones, but sometimes you can go far enough to make me go in the other direction.

Lets see who runs against him too though ultimately.

So bush had to produce WMD to justify the war? Maybe removing Saddam from power and having his people live like humans for a change is all wrong.

Yes, he focused on that the whole time to justify war! There are a bunch of countries with bad leaders. I don't see Bush eager to go to any of them. Yes, getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but why stop with that country?