Why vote for Bush?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-08-07 01:59pm

Actually, its more like a steel cage match between fanatical Islam and fanatical Christianity to the death. Nothing about the Bush administration or its ideal Western civilization strikes me as particularly "secular".

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-07 02:03pm

Lazy Raptor wrote:Actually, its more like a steel cage match between fanatical Islam and fanatical Christianity to the death. Nothing about the Bush administration or its ideal Western civilization strikes me as particularly "secular".

Boing! I was talking to the Duchess over AIM and I had predicted that
the inevitable reply to my post would be:

"but the US is a country run by fundies!"

Or some variant thereof.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-07 02:11pm

Lazy Raptor wrote:Actually, its more like a steel cage match between fanatical Islam and fanatical Christianity to the death. Nothing about the Bush administration or its ideal Western civilization strikes me as particularly "secular".

Then why have they proceeded to blow up Europeans and Australians
enmasse if it's just a steel cage match between a mythical american
theocracy that exists only in your fevered imaginations and fanatical
islam?

Oh excuse me, All High Inqustitioner Ashcroft is at the door, demanding
to know why I haven't sung enough PRAISE TO THE LORD at church

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-08-07 02:20pm

MKSheppard wrote:Oh excuse me, All High Inqustitioner Ashcroft is at the door, demanding
to know why I haven't sung enough PRAISE TO THE LORD at church

Keep joking. Give Bush four more years and he will be.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-07 02:35pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:Keep joking. Give Bush four more years and he will be.

Yes, George W Bush will turn America into a Christian Theocracy, despite millions of Atheists, and the ACLU!

Please excuse me! I must be going to the execution of an Atheist by
LORD HIGH EXECUTIONER ASHCROFT! We're going to kill him by knocking
a wall over with a Abrams tank. He dared to blaspheme the name of our
LORD GOD!

PRAISE THE LORD!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-07 02:42pm

As a matter of fact, does anyone realize how stupid you sound when
you say Bush is going to turn this country into a Christian Theocracy?

That's up there with the FReepers talking about Clinton declaring himself
Dictator and not leaving office just before the election of 2000.

GET A FUCKING GRIP PEOPLE!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-07 02:46pm

Iceberg wrote: Marina's phobia of degeneration and decay was shared by Adolf Hitler.

Nice, so you've now invoked Goodwin's law barely a page into this thread.

I will not condone those who wish to destroy the United States of America in order to save it.

Agreed. Which is why I argue for the use of a massive thermonuclear
first strike to preserve our republic instead of us becoming an Empire
to reform Islam from within.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-07 02:48pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote: Marina's phobia of degeneration and decay was shared by Adolf Hitler.
Nice, so you've now invoked Goodwin's law barely a page into this thread.

Better to invoke an informal USENET law than to invoke an actual fallacy each time you post. The Golden Means in this thread are ridiculous.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-08-07 02:48pm

I'm posting so Shep won't make 4 in a row. I'm voting for Bush because I like his ideas better than Kerry's.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-07 02:49pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I'm posting so Shep won't make 4 in a row.

Too late.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-08-07 02:50pm

SirNitram wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote: Marina's phobia of degeneration and decay was shared by Adolf Hitler.
Nice, so you've now invoked Goodwin's law barely a page into this thread.
Better to invoke an informal USENET law than to invoke an actual fallacy each time you post. The Golden Means in this thread are ridiculous.

What's a Golden Mean?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-08-07 02:53pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote: What's a Golden Mean?

Golden Mean

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-07 02:54pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
MKSheppard wrote: Nice, so you've now invoked Goodwin's law barely a page into this thread.
Better to invoke an informal USENET law than to invoke an actual fallacy each time you post. The Golden Means in this thread are ridiculous.
What's a Golden Mean?

In short? 'This side is really extreme.. But the other side has to be just as extreme!' You know, like 'The Left is just as bad as the Right, even if the Right has an entire news channel for their propaganda, and publishes multiple books calling the Left traitors, calling for their destruction, etc while the Left has neither of these'. Or, 'John Kerry mispoke twice.. Therefore he's just as bad as Bush who cannot function without a teleprompter and even then makes amazing fuckups'. Those are just two recent ones from these threads.

Mike's site also has a bit: URL

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-08-07 04:56pm

Well. From what I have heard, people like Bush because he is a "strong and deceisive leader, determined and moral, good with economics (rebound), and effective in the war against terror. He is also pro-business they said.

I see the opposite said about him, and then I see the same said about him. I am at the point in which I don't know whom to believe because they all potentially hae some diabolical agenda against one another.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-08-07 05:28pm

I can only assume whoever votes for Bush agrees with him. And this shit about "Oh i dont agree with his (insert subject) but i'll vote Bush because Kerry is a dickhead" is horseshit. IMO. People just dont want to admit they love the idea of a racist, right-wing thocracy ruling the country in public. So they imediately try to delude themselves by claiming they're not voting for Bush but against Kerry.

Typical black-and-white fallacy. Everyone who votes for Bush must go along, lock, stock, and barrel with every one of his policies and initiatives? Bullshit. People pick a candidate they think is more appealing overall. That's the nature of the political process. I bet you can't even tell me you agree with every single item on the Kerry agenda, or whatever other Party you plan to back in November.

I've explained why I like Bush. His economic policies are leagues better than Kerry's knee-jerk, pandering Protectionst drivel, his security policies are the best on the block because they don't sacrifice the initiative like all the proposals coming from his competitors, and the 2004 election is a litmus test in the eyes of the rest of the world as to how much clout they have in determining American politics.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-07 06:11pm

Axis Kast wrote:I've explained why I like Bush. His economic policies are leagues better than Kerry's knee-jerk, pandering Protectionst drivel, his security policies are the best on the block because they don't sacrifice the initiative like all the proposals coming from his competitors, and the 2004 election is a litmus test in the eyes of the rest of the world as to how much clout they have in determining American politics.

You like Bush's economic policies despite his incredible ballooning spending and his own rediculous tariffs, like that steel tariff from hell he made early in his term?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-07 06:15pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: You like Bush's economic policies despite his incredible ballooning spending and his own rediculous tariffs, like that steel tariff from hell he made early in his term?

Don't confuse Axi, you'll only stress him out

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-08-07 07:28pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Really, the whole exercise is grimly amusing. We are falling down the same spiralled, heady paths as the Roman Republic, to chaos and destruction, and it is arrogant of us to think that our latest brand of democracy has any particular qualities that will save it. Very arrogant indeed, when history teaches such a stern and clear lesson, available for all to see if they simply bothered to look, which nobody of course shall do. I am, at any rate, simply going to wait for our Augustus to come along and shut you all up.

First of all, don't you mean "our Caeser"? Octavius wouldn't have done shit without Julius. Sedondly, we don't have the kind of war that produces a Caeser anymore. Honestly, the last time someone even came close to something like that was with Douglas MacArthur.

What particular qualities does our democracy have that makes it different from Rome? It's much less militaristic, there's no empire to maintain and enforce (yet, anyway

), Americans are far too diverse for a single person to achieve such popularity, etc.

And what lesson does history teach us? An extremely militaristic republic without even a fraction of the suffrage of a modern democracy can have a charismatic military leader start a monarchist dynasty. No shit, I could have told you that.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-07 09:22pm

Not to mention that our system is designed so it's nearly impossible for a single man to take power, unless a major shift in how the United States works happens first.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-08-07 09:41pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Not to mention that our system is designed so it's nearly impossible for a single man to take power, unless a major shift in how the United States works happens first.

I believe that the shift in power you speak of was 9/11.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-08-07 09:41pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Not to mention that our system is designed so it's nearly impossible for a single man to take power, unless a major shift in how the United States works happens first.

Yeah. You can't say that an established representative government became an oppressive monarchy a thousand yearsm ago, therefore every representative government is dommed to to collapse into a dictatorship.

A new democracy that's a product of a revolution is a different story (see also France, post-WWI Germany, early 20th-century Japan, and just about every one aside from the United States). Those tend to become dictatorships pretty soon, but that just shows that evolutionary change is better than revolutionary change.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-07 10:18pm

JME2 wrote:I believe that the shift in power you speak of was 9/11.

Not really. On the grand scale of things, 9/11 wasn't close to the end of the world. Far worse things have happened to America and the system has survived.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-07 10:21pm

<Dons black Budweiser cap adorned with the number 8>

Bush kicked some sorry asses that asked for it. When he talked after 9/11 you could see it in his eyes that he was itchin to kill the whole damm bunch of em. Probly wanted to nuke the bastards but got talked out of it. Afgan got off lucky if'n you ask me.

And Iraq? He finished off what we shoulda done long ago. Weapons of mass Destruction? Who cares! Not our fault if Saddam didn't realise the rules had changed. And when France tried to stop us, what did Bush do? Hell, he took a dump in a box, gift-wrapped and had it FedEx'ed to em with a Hallmark card that read "Screw'e Vou'e". Now that's the stuff of leadership. He's not gonna kowtow to the UN or nobody else. Now I don't like seeing our boys get killed any more than the next person, but it was high time we let the world know that you shouldn't piss us off.

And he's taking a stand against all them perverts out there. "I now pronounce you man and man"? Sis and I don't want our kids exposed to that kind of filth. So yeah, I'm voting for Bush.

<Removes cap>

Whew!

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-07 10:44pm

I believe that the shift in power you speak of was 9/11.

There have been worse assaults on American freedoms (and seperation of Church and State) in the past than Bush and the Patriot Act, like Habeus Corpus being suspended during the Civil War, or the Sedition act during WWI, which essentially made it illegal for the press or public to to criticize the government in any way, or how about the raving paranoia of the "evil commies" during the '50s (Remember the Hollywood Blacklist? Remember Joe McCarthy?), when the US government was far more heavily steeped in Christian Fundimentalist "values" than even Bush's administration (remember, this was the era in which "under God" got stuck in the pledge of alligence)...

American freedom survived all of this, just as it'll survive Bush...

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-08-07 10:47pm

You like Bush's economic policies despite his incredible ballooning spending and his own rediculous tariffs, like that steel tariff from hell he made early in his term?

It's wartime. I expect the government to over-spend. If Kerry wins, he's doubtless to overspend himself. It's not a problem I consider endemic to the Bush administration, but rather endemic to the times.

As for the steel tarriff, Bush played it smart and let international pressure force him to turn around. Kerry, on the other hand, has promised to play hard ball even past that point.