Bush out of office.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-11-09 08:31pm

While not realizing the American political system was worse every moment from the end of the Revolution until the 1960s as now? Please. How many Aaron Burrs and seperatist slave states and Presidents who blatently said that "to the victor goes the spoils" and decided proper civil service was by his political supporters?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-11-09 08:32pm

I don't want him out of office. I think he's an intelligent politician and an intelligent foreign policy leader, the rumours of stupidity coming from democratic campaign slandering. I believe he's surrounded himself with an exceptionally competent leadership team, and has an excellent ability to unify and guide the nation in a desperate and unsure time of war. He's the perfect leader, and we need him at the moment. Besides, his tax policies are vastly preferable to those of any democratic politician, and so the only person I'd want to see him replaced with would be Cheney - So what would be the point?

I think that the dangers of his religious beliefs are being vastly overestimated. Bush and his immediate inner circle are a break from the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. How many of you know that Cheney's daughter is homosexual, and they are not estranged, for example? Even the appointment of conservative judges is not a particular danger; conservative judges in one sense can mean conservative in a libertarian fashion, defending property rights and strict constitutionalism, as opposed to morally conservative.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-11-09 08:37pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I don't want him out of office. I think he's an intelligent politician and an intelligent foreign policy leader, the rumours of stupidity coming from democratic campaign slandering. I believe he's surrounded himself with an exceptionally competent leadership team, and has an excellent ability to unify and guide the nation in a desperate and unsure time of war. He's the perfect leader, and we need him at the moment. Besides, his tax policies are vastly preferable to those of any democratic politician, and so the only person I'd want to see him replaced with would be Cheney - So what would be the point?

I think that the dangers of his religious beliefs are being vastly overestimated. Bush and his immediate inner circle are a break from the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. How many of you know that Cheney's daughter is homosexual, and they are not estranged, for example? Even the appointment of conservative judges is not a particular danger; conservative judges in one sense can mean conservative in a libertarian fashion, defending property rights and strict constitutionalism, as opposed to morally conservative.

bah! he´s still a dangerous warmonger!

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2002-11-09 08:40pm

I want him out of office because he's in office. As a general rule, vote against the incumbent.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-11-09 08:40pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I don't want him out of office. I think he's an intelligent politician and an intelligent foreign policy leader, the rumours of stupidity coming from democratic campaign slandering. I believe he's surrounded himself with an exceptionally competent leadership team, and has an excellent ability to unify and guide the nation in a desperate and unsure time of war. He's the perfect leader, and we need him at the moment. Besides, his tax policies are vastly preferable to those of any democratic politician, and so the only person I'd want to see him replaced with would be Cheney - So what would be the point?

I would rather see McCain or Rumesfeld, actually. The tax cut doesn't actually come into affect with the economy for a couple years after the inception. What people don't realize is the supposed tax cut was cut taxes after 10 years time, and the "surplus" was projected surplus after 10 years from now. To say that the tax cut ate the surplus is blatently dishonest.

He needs to put troops on the border, place the INS under Federal inquiry and fire all of it's heads. They've displayed incompetance on unbelievable levels.

Most criticisms against Bush are either uninformed opinions, dishonest, complaints about meaningless propoganda, or something they heard on Saturday Night Live.

I am against his choice of John Ashcroft. I didn't feel animosity toward the man when he was chosen as his candidate by Bush, but now he's proven ineffectual and largely offensive or irrelevent. He's stooge.

I also am at odds with George Bush's lack of support for comprehensive sex education (as in not "abstinence-only horseshit).

Other then that, good.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I think that the dangers of his religious beliefs are being vastly overestimated. Bush and his immediate inner circle are a break from the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. How many of you know that Cheney's daughter is homosexual, and they are not estranged, for example? Even the appointment of conservative judges is not a particular danger; conservative judges in one sense can mean conservative in a libertarian fashion, defending property rights and strict constitutionalism, as opposed to morally conservative.

Roe vs. Wade is going nowhere people. Stop being paranoid indeed.

Bush and co. are not Helms or Hatch here. We don't need to worry about neo-fascism.

I am concerned by those who complain about the recent election turnouts. These individuals were willfully and consciously elected by the American people. If a slight Republican majority is the outcome of a legitimate election, then there should be no complaints. The people have spoken.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-11-09 08:42pm

salm wrote:
bah! he´s still a dangerous warmonger!

Indeed for not starting any wars.

Does ANYONE actually realize that propoganda and speeches serve political purposes and are not to be taken literally? It's all a game. George is playing it because he was elected to do so.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-09 08:55pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
salm wrote:
bah! he´s still a dangerous warmonger!
Indeed for not starting any wars.

Does ANYONE actually realize that propoganda and speeches serve political purposes and are not to be taken literally? It's all a game. George is playing it because he was elected to do so.

Well, in that case, more reason to not have him in office, if you ask me.....it's not all fun and games.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-11-09 09:01pm

BUSH IS A DUMBASS!

GORE IS A DUMBASS!

MOST REPUBLICANS ARE FULL OF SHIT!

MOST DEMOCRATS ARE FULL OF SHIT!

THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS IF YOU ARE WILLING TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-11-09 09:07pm

Like, what, Communism? The Redneck Reforms? Write-in candidate someone made up?

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-09 09:08pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Like, what, Communism? The Redneck Reforms? Write-in candidate someone made up?

Perot....

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-11-09 09:25pm

verilon wrote:
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Like, what, Communism? The Redneck Reforms? Write-in candidate someone made up?
Perot....

Quit. And he was never a viable candidate anyway.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-09 09:26pm

Stormbringer wrote:
verilon wrote:
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Like, what, Communism? The Redneck Reforms? Write-in candidate someone made up?
Perot....
Quit. And he was never a viable candidate anyway.

I know he quit. And what made him not "a viable candidate"?

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-11-09 09:32pm

verilon wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
verilon wrote: Perot....
Quit. And he was never a viable candidate anyway.
I know he quit. And what made him not "a viable candidate"?

He was third-party. He got 6% of the popular vote last time he ran IIRC.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-09 09:37pm

IG-88E wrote:
verilon wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: Quit. And he was never a viable candidate anyway.
I know he quit. And what made him not "a viable candidate"?
He was third-party. He got 6% of the popular vote last time he ran IIRC.

Just being third-party does not make him unviable. If we were to get rid of the two other parties, then he (based on percentage) would have been President.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-11-09 09:38pm

verilon wrote:Just being third-party does not make him unviable. If we were to get rid of the two other parties, then he (based on percentage) would have been President.

Based on that logic if we eliminated the other hundred or so canidates the cchimp someone entered could have been president.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-09 09:42pm

Stormbringer wrote:
verilon wrote:Just being third-party does not make him unviable. If we were to get rid of the two other parties, then he (based on percentage) would have been President.
Based on that logic if we eliminated the other hundred or so canidates the cchimp someone entered could have been president.

Likely, yes, but saying that he is not a viable candidate is ridiculous. In fact, IIRC, some of Clinton's financial ideas were based n Perot's.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-11-09 09:43pm

verilon wrote: Just being third-party does not make him unviable. If we were to get rid of the two other parties, then he (based on percentage) would have been President.

Verilon, that's like saying if we removed all but one stormtrooper from an Imperial ground force, the ST force would win. See the idiocy in it?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-11-09 09:47pm

verilon wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
verilon wrote:Just being third-party does not make him unviable. If we were to get rid of the two other parties, then he (based on percentage) would have been President.
Based on that logic if we eliminated the other hundred or so canidates the cchimp someone entered could have been president.
Likely, yes, but saying that he is not a viable candidate is ridiculous. In fact, IIRC, some of Clinton's financial ideas were based n Perot's.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean he had any sort of shot at the Presidency. Especially not after he dropped out and the re-entered.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-09 09:47pm

IG-88E wrote:
verilon wrote: Just being third-party does not make him unviable. If we were to get rid of the two other parties, then he (based on percentage) would have been President.
Verilon, that's like saying if we removed all but one stormtrooper from an Imperial ground force, the ST force would win. See the idiocy in it?

Yes, I recanted.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-11-09 09:52pm

verilon wrote: Yes, I recanted.

Yes, I see now.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-09 10:10pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Knife wrote:I will deny it, durring the civil war era it has been recorded that represenitives have actualy started fist fights in Congress. Political corruptions is not new, Rome knew it, Greece knew it, all goverments know it.
I'm not denying we've had corruption. What I'm saying is that government as a whole wasn't corrupt. Now as it stands, Congress whores after cash and re-election rather than looking out for the country. Special interests and big donors own Congressmen and no cares.

The problem is not that there is corruption, it's that it has spread to the whole system. Are government is being paralyzed by it.

Knife wrote: However, seeing that we had a MAJOR election scandal two years ago and neither the military or any other opposition force tried any sort of coup, I would say that our form of goverment is about as stable as one can get. Can you imagine what happened in Florida happening in say, China or Russia. The peaceful transition of power while hottly contested intellectualy was a testement to the stability of our form of goverment.
Our government is stable, I've never said otherwise. The problem is that it's rotting from the inside out. And unless a major shakeup occurs (and I hope one does) the system is going give some how.

I would say that in today's goverment is as politicly corrupt as the goverment was 100 years ago. Does it matter if the special interset groups are oil fucktards or railroad fucktards.

Until either more people who think different, vote or some people involved in the individual parties change them from the inside, you are looking at the result of the peoples choise. Just because the Repubs win doesn't a facist state make. I am not a Republican, but I tend to vote in that direction even though I'm carefull to avoid the funie canidates. And even though the Christian fundies have a strong showing in the Republicans, the left wing nuts scare me even more. Truth be told, the nutballs in each party pretty much cancell each other out. Last year the Sennate was 50/50, this year its only slightly in the Republicans favor. Next term it might be slightly in the Democrats favor and all this means is that the two parties do represent the majority of the people in America and do it well. If a third party canidate was too be elected, they would have by now. Am I happy with the canidates that usualy get selected....NO. But then again, I do not belong to a political party, so I don't partake in that choise.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2002-11-10 11:18pm

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Political parties run against everything our forefathers intended for this nation. It's nothing more than an excuse for the bovine masses to turn politics into black/white fallacy popularity contests. When you're technically only given two options, you have to pick the lesser of two evils and deal with it. Here's a solution: Pick a form of government and stick with it! If the US wants to be an actual republic, it needs to do it intelligently. If it wants to be total democracy, it needs to put some serious attention towards educating the masses and stop spoon-feeding them everything.

This is the first really intelligent post I've seen in this thread. (keep in mind that I'm still reading page 3 so I just might find more.

)

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2002-11-10 11:21pm

Well, all the reason everyone could list.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2002-11-10 11:27pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
salm wrote:
bah! he´s still a dangerous warmonger!
Indeed for not starting any wars.

Does ANYONE actually realize that propoganda and speeches serve political purposes and are not to be taken literally? It's all a game. George is playing it because he was elected to do so.

Thats debateable. Some propaganda IS meant to be taken seriously. *points to any mud-slinging ads during any given election period*

Lets say he is 'playing poker' with Saddam....what's he gonna do when he has to antie up?

ArthurDent · Post by **ArthurDent** » 2002-11-10 11:27pm

There is only one reason I would want Bush out of office - if someone better were to actually want the job. So far everyone lining up for a chance is just as bad or worse than he is.