Would you vote for George W. Bush again?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

Bonesdad

Platinum Member
Nov 18, 2002
2,213
0
76
didn't vote for him first time...can't believe anyone would have the 2nd time. Can't believe people continue to defend him now.
 
Z

Zepper

Elite Member
May 1, 2001
18,998
0
0
One definition of insanity:
Keeps doing the same thing over and over and expects a different result each time.

Political Version:
Keep voting demopublican/republicrat and expecting things to get better.

You have to kick the biparty habit if you really want things to get better. Otherwise shut up about it. You deserve what you get!

.bh.
 
P

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: Killerme33
Everyone conservative is gonna hit vote yes, everyone liberal is gonna vote no. Whats the point of this thread?
Click to expand...

I voted for him in 2004 and I would not vote for him again. I think I'd vote Libertarian since I was not favorable to Kerry at all either
Click to expand...

I'm considering voting Libertarian even more often than I already do. If there is a GOOD Libertarian candidate, I'll take them over a similar Dem or Rep any day of the week. I didn't vote for Badnarik because I think he was a little to extreme, even for the Libertarian party. However, I voted Libertarian for several other candidates in the 2004 election, including their candidate for Senator from California running against Boxer. She's an idiot, and this guy seemed pretty on the ball, formed judge with very reasonable libertarian views.

My only problem with voting Libertarian is that they aren't all that well run as a party, I kind of feel like I'm throwing my vote away, or at best, using it to help prove a point to the Dems and the Reps. Which is fine for the most part, except the current actions of the Reps have made me think that having ANYONE keeping them in check would be better than the current situation. Our government doesn't function all that well (apparently) with one party running everything. While the Republicans in congress are finally standing up to Bush, it's too little, too late, IMHO. They all need adult supervision, and while I'd rather have it be the Libertarians than the Dems, you know the saying about birds in the hand vs birds in the bush.
Click to expand...


That's why I'm voting Dem in the 2006 elections
 
eits

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: Killerme33
Everyone conservative is gonna hit vote yes, everyone liberal is gonna vote no. Whats the point of this thread?
Click to expand...

I voted for him in 2004 and I would not vote for him again. I think I'd vote Libertarian since I was not favorable to Kerry at all either
Click to expand...

I'm considering voting Libertarian even more often than I already do. If there is a GOOD Libertarian candidate, I'll take them over a similar Dem or Rep any day of the week. I didn't vote for Badnarik because I think he was a little to extreme, even for the Libertarian party. However, I voted Libertarian for several other candidates in the 2004 election, including their candidate for Senator from California running against Boxer. She's an idiot, and this guy seemed pretty on the ball, formed judge with very reasonable libertarian views.

My only problem with voting Libertarian is that they aren't all that well run as a party, I kind of feel like I'm throwing my vote away, or at best, using it to help prove a point to the Dems and the Reps. Which is fine for the most part, except the current actions of the Reps have made me think that having ANYONE keeping them in check would be better than the current situation. Our government doesn't function all that well (apparently) with one party running everything. While the Republicans in congress are finally standing up to Bush, it's too little, too late, IMHO. They all need adult supervision, and while I'd rather have it be the Libertarians than the Dems, you know the saying about birds in the hand vs birds in the bush.
Click to expand...


That's why I'm voting Dem in the 2006 elections
Click to expand...

it usually seems like everytime the democrats get overthrown, we democrats get upset, the republicans rejoice and fvck everything up, and the democrats get back in power and fix everything the republicans fvcked up...

i makes you wonder if we should stop getting upset when the republicans take over, because we know it won't be long before they fvck it all up and people start to realize that the democrats have to be back in power to make it all better (as best as can be expected with the amount of damage the republicans have done, anyways)...
 
agentbad

agentbad

Senior member
Nov 2, 2004
269
0
76
why not just split the country north and south like the good ol' days? the south can stay ignorant and jesus lovin' while the north converts to socialism. my theory on stupidity in america including the south stems from ignorance of alcohol and fetal alcohol syndrome. how else would you vote for bush?
 
B

bulletpr00f

Member
May 30, 2004
80
0
0
Let's see ...
1. The guy can literally not speak except about his dog and pretzels
2. Under his leadership I can absolutely claim that US had the "worst" ever 6 years in international diplomacy for "each" year in these six years (not overall!!!, he is very competitive indeed)
3. US product sales overseas plummeted even though dollar vs. other currency rates dropped due to political issues (which makes this issue entirely presidential)
4. As mentioned in 3, US currency lost its value 20+ percent
5. Dramatic slowdown in research and investment businesses
6. Made US a very unattractive place for talent and people seeking freedom.

I mean how many more do you need people? I do not like Kerry or Hillary neither but ... bush is not even in the same league as these guys. No law or public service background, i mean literally "0" credit ... I still can not believe we actually elected this guy on the first yet worst on the second round ... A horrible message to give to the world ..



 
B

beyoku

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2003
1,568
1
71
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I personally would like to see this administration, the entire Congress, the Supreme Court, and every lobbyist on K Street sent packing. Hit the reset button on government. Erase the tax code. Have every single American re-study American history without revisionist BS overtones. Then have every American memorize the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Then we can maybe begin rebuilding government.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
C

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: eits
how could anyone say "yes" after reading this?
Click to expand...

Plenty of blame to go around on that. How could anyone vote for Nagin, Blanco, Etc? How could they have diverted funds previously appropriated to shore up the levies, etc.? No one person is to blame. So I would vote "yes" again.
Click to expand...


This is what I hate about this President, the administration and people that are defending him.
The argument is that since everyone one is responsible no one is to be blamed? What about the buck stops with the President of the United States? It's about Personal Responsibility - a supposed tenet of the Republican party.
Instead GWB gives medals to George Tenet for his CIA intelligence work, Hecka of job praises to Brownie and fires no one for the Iraq mess.
He has signed each and every spending bill and tax cut the Republicans have shoveled onto his desk. He has gotten us into a mess and DETOUR that is Iraq. He is on pace to add TRILLIONS to the national debt. He has been a complete and utter disaster.
I would dig up Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon's body and cast my vote for them before I would even consider voting for this smug bastard.
:thumbsdown: George W. Bush.
 
FelixDeCat

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,262
2,786
126
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: eits
how could anyone say "yes" after reading this?
Click to expand...

Plenty of blame to go around on that. How could anyone vote for Nagin, Blanco, Etc? How could they have diverted funds previously appropriated to shore up the levies, etc.? No one person is to blame. So I would vote "yes" again.
Click to expand...


This is what I hate about this President, the administration and people that are defending him.
The argument is that since everyone one is responsible no one is to be blamed? What about the buck stops with the President of the United States? It's about Personal Responsibility - a supposed tenet of the Republican party.
Instead GWB gives medals to George Tenet for his CIA intelligence work, Hecka of job praises to Brownie and fires no one for the Iraq mess.
He has signed each and every spending bill and tax cut the Republicans have shoveled onto his desk. He has gotten us into a mess and DETOUR that is Iraq. He is on pace to add TRILLIONS to the national debt. He has been a complete and utter disaster.
I would dig up Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon's body and cast my vote for them before I would even consider voting for this smug bastard.
:thumbsdown: George W. Bush.
Click to expand...


Yes the buck should stop with the President, but everyone has a hand in it. Like the long running Soc Sec mess that is/will add TRILLIONS to the national debt and may even cause default. President Bush is trying to fix this and NO ONE will work with him.

If there is lesson to learn from Katrina is that corruption existed in LA. So go after corruption around the country NOW. What other 'levee' problems exist? Who needs to be outed as misappropriating funds for disaster preparedness in the future? Will CA survive the next big earth quake? Are we prepared / preparing for the next super eruption volcano out of Yellowstone that will kill almost everyone in North America? Hmmm?

As soon as the President does, there will be howls by anyone not accused of being on the ball and those who purport to want to keep the administration on its toes will simply derail any effort and deflect it back at the White House. No cooperation. No nothing. But if this is what you expect of this or any President, good luck. Because in certain areas (like LA) local responsibility didnt exist regardless of what the President did.

 
A

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Bush is responsible for the record deficits with his tax cuts for the very wealthy and unnecessary war on Iraq. He wants to screw things up even further by "fixing" (funnel more money to his rich friends while taking away from the middle class) SS. It's just another bad idea in a long string of them for his ridiculous administration.
Trying to pin FEMAs failings on the locals is another diversionary tactic by a Republican party which has become adept at lying and diverting.
"Disaster Preparedness" for Bush means having the military roaming the streets shooting people. Just another bad idea.
 
FelixDeCat

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,262
2,786
126
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom