2024-04-29, 09:08 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: That's it, I'm voting Democrat  (Read 14899 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ConfusedUs
 

Elite (2k+)
**
Posts: 2358

WWW
« on: 2004-03-05, 18:42 »

Originally posted by Phil in this thread.
Quote
   I never thought I'd say this, but I swear to sporking Allah that I think I'm going to vote for the Democratic candidate in November. I've been a Republican since I was old enough to vote in 1984. Voted for Reagan w00t. But this whole George Bush agenda - the FCC vs. Howard Stern bullshit, the constitutional amendment on gay marriage nonsense, the wacky religious zealotry, the non-existent WMD's in Iraq and of course the Patriot Act. It's all so mothersporking invasive. Plus, these idiots are SO uptight about sex and nudity. If my kids see Janet Jackson's titties on TV, I'll tell them, "Yes kids, people have nipples. It's nothing to be ashamed of. We all have nipples, Greg". I'd rather them see someone's tits than someone getting their head blown off in C.S.I.

...

Can we please have a do over? I think I want to change my vote.

Phil
Midland, Texas
(Home of our Fearless Leader, George W. Bush)

Phil pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned with the government. Every time I go to the library, I'm assaulted by notes on the walls stating that "Due to the Patriot Act, the [library] cannot guarantee the privacy its patrons". It's sad when I can't go to the  library without being concerned that someone's gonna diasgree with my choice of books and start an investigation.

So here's to Kerry. Cheers!
Logged
MantiCore
 
Cacodemon
****
Posts: 70

« Reply #1 on: 2004-03-05, 19:02 »

I've never defined myself by a party, I vote for the candidate I see most fit for the position, but our buddy W hasn't got a chance this year.

I goto some of my college classes on a base (Mcdill Airforce Base), and most of the people there have been ragging on Bush. A friend of mine in Virginia also goes to school on base, and he has a similar situation.  

Considering Republicans usually get a majority of the military's vote, I'll be interested to see who supports Bush this year (aside from Religious wackos, who hes hooking now with the gay marriage diversion, and people who vote Republican regardless of whos running).

But ya, that post from Shacknews pretty much nails everything on the head.

Go Kerry!
Logged
Dicion
 

Team Member
Makron
*********
Posts: 353

WWW
« Reply #2 on: 2004-03-05, 19:16 »

Man... Its sorta sad that we dont have more choice then between bush and kerry...

I wonder if it's too late to get my name on the ballot..
Logged
Tha[\]atos
 
Imp
**
Posts: 24

« Reply #3 on: 2004-03-05, 21:19 »

hey I didn't vote for him(bush)...:angry:
reasons to vote against bush this time:
1) he screwed up the budget... After clinton fixed it!!!
2) he's messing with the constitution... the constitution's sole purpose is to protect people's rights, not constrict them
3) iraq... (need I say more)

I know there are more... (please list any u think of)
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #4 on: 2004-03-06, 05:17 »

Just remember though that sometimes what may look like the better alternative can turn out to be worse in the long run, and how someone behaves while campaigning will differ drastically from how they'll behave once in office.  My best advice - do your homework.  Vote based on the facts, not emotions, whichever way you decide to go.  They're all politicians at the end of the day as far as I'm concerned.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
OoBeY
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 299

« Reply #5 on: 2004-03-06, 06:09 »

Were it not a total waste of my vote, I think I'd most likely vote Libertarian or something. But, as it is, nothing W has done so far really affects me.

I'm not gay, I don't live in Iraq, I think there's a lot of stuff on public broadcast that belongs on cable or some other subscription service, I fail to see how the Patriot Act really affects me, so whatever I'll just go Republican in the hopes the party will one day return to its smaller government roots...

That, and I can't figure out where Kerry stands on anything, I'm definitely against the Democrat's social welfare stance, so it really boils down to a lesser of two evils.
« Last Edit: 2004-03-06, 18:11 by OoBeY » Logged
Woodsman
Icon of Booze
 

Beta Tester
Icon of Sin
***********
Posts: 823

« Reply #6 on: 2004-03-06, 07:26 »

for the record Clinton did not fix the budget he over spent and then raised taxes. there is a diffrence.
Logged
Makou
 

Team Member
Shub-Niggurath
*************
Posts: 749

« Reply #7 on: 2004-03-06, 18:50 »

Even though Clinton did indulge in over-spending and raised taxes (and what recent president HASN'T done at least one of the two, really?), he also had things set up that by now, the budget should have been fixed. We were also set to finally pay off the national debt, rather than constantly add to it. Bush screwed that up when he decided to give $300-$600 tax refunds to everyone.

However, I have to say one thing: Do not vote third party. Yes, it's a wonderful thing that the option is there, but it would be a spoiler for the main two candidates, and more likely for Kerry. That's part of what happened last time, although the primary reason was family ties in Florida.

And it's true that what seems like the better option could turn out worse, but at this point, I'd rather have (almost) anyone over Bush The Second right now.
Logged

If you see a "Rona Altana" out there on the internet somewhere, that's probably me
Hedhunta
 
Chton
*******
Posts: 231

« Reply #8 on: 2004-03-06, 19:53 »

although the tax cut was stupid as hell.. everyone blames bush for the economy when clinton let all the enron type crap go on til he left.. bush comes in an suddenly enron goes under ... so everyone blames it on bush.. clinton let it go on.. wtf? ... err.. stupid random thoughts

ohh.. and can i ask what is the point in voting AT ALL when the general publics vote dont count for shit because of the electoral college... why partake in a farce of an election when your actual vote doesnt mean anything because some guy thats supposed to represent our state can vote AGAINST the popular vote(ie, highest percentage of people say vote for kerry, the state representative can still vote bush disregarding what the actual PEOPLE of the state voted) .. ...oh wait, its because then the people really DO have the power.., and that would be bad.  Idiot
« Last Edit: 2004-03-06, 19:56 by Hedhunta » Logged
Makou
 

Team Member
Shub-Niggurath
*************
Posts: 749

« Reply #9 on: 2004-03-06, 21:23 »

Your vote matters because you're voting for a representative of the candidate you vote for to place the vote in the electoral college. That's what the entire thing in Florida was about, when you get down to it.

Of course, if it was only the popular vote, we wouldd have I Robot in the White House right now instead of G.W. Monkey...
Logged

If you see a "Rona Altana" out there on the internet somewhere, that's probably me
OoBeY
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 299

« Reply #10 on: 2004-03-07, 02:20 »

Quote from: Hedhunta
ohh.. and can i ask what is the point in voting AT ALL when the general publics vote dont count for shit because of the electoral college... why partake in a farce of an election when your actual vote doesnt mean anything because some guy thats supposed to represent our state can vote AGAINST the popular vote(ie, highest percentage of people say vote for kerry, the state representative can still vote bush disregarding what the actual PEOPLE of the state voted) .. ...oh wait, its because then the people really DO have the power.., and that would be bad.  Idiot
Because we the people are not electing someone to govern us. The states are electing someone to govern THEM, hence thats why the states vote. The federal government is supposed to govern the United States of America, not the People of America. The STATES are supposed to govern the people.
Logged
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #11 on: 2004-03-07, 04:15 »

Actually you are, the executive is granted the powers of the head of government AND state under the American constitution. This gives him direct authority over the people of the united states not just the executive body. Which is why in most other countries they divide the head of state and government, and the party picks the head of government (The Prime Minister) and the head of government is picked by a popular vote (The President)

In that regard, the use of the electoral college, especially with a single member plurality as an electoral system within the states is in fact undemocratic. If it makes you feel any better, Canada is worse, we haven't even evolved past a simple Parliamentary system

If you want a good reason not to vote for Bush here's my list
1. Diminished the trustworthiness of the US in foreign politics
2. Depreciated US currency
2.1. Appears to be trying to turn a large open import economy into a large open export economy, and sadly thinks that it will work. I hate to break it to you, but you can't compete with China, India and the Asian Tigers for exports, well unless the plan is to get enough unemployed people that you do away with minimum wage and everyone starts working for a dollar a day
2.2. A Tax cut for mainly the wealthy
3. Iraq, lies and the almost 600 American Bodybags it has produced
3.1. Cutting vetrans pensions
4. The 6 billion dollar oil contract that was given to Halliburton at a closed meeting instead of being put up for the lowest bidder like all government contracts are
5. Patriot Act I
5.1. Patriot Act II which was passed by clandestinely sneaking it into another piece of legislation so fewer people would notice, yes, that's right, the Patriot Act no longer expires next year
6. Proposing a constitutional ammendment, which would expand government involvement in an area it should not be in in the first place
7. Kennith Lay, large supporter of the Bush Presidency in 2000, who destroyed several million pensioners and got away with a several million dollars after the collapse of Enron, alive and free
8. Attempting time after time to stack the US Supreme Court with Religious Right Wing psychos
9. Attempting to revise media ownership laws (which are so relaxed it isn't even funny) that would allow 55% of ownership of all domestic media by one company
10. Has raised 250 million dollars from corporate america for his relection campaign, more than the combined total of Bush Sr, Clinton and Regan's campaigns.


I could probably think of more but this is all that comes to mind at present time
Logged
OoBeY
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 299

« Reply #12 on: 2004-03-07, 05:29 »

I'm certainly not disagreeing with any of those you listed, devlar, but just casually i'm a bit interested in the wording of number 7. You would advocate the death penalty for Mr. Lay? I certainly think the man is scum, but surely killing him is a bit extreme, no? Slipgate - Smile
Logged
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #13 on: 2004-03-07, 07:12 »

As much as it will make me seem like an extremist, yes, and in all honesty I don't even advocate the death penalty for murderers
He ruined the lives of millions of people who had their entire life savings in Enron, not only that, he got incredibly wealthy in the process. Its moments like that I think the people who all lost their lives savings should each contribute a dollar and hire a professional.
Logged
OoBeY
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 299

« Reply #14 on: 2004-03-07, 07:53 »

Frankly, I think jail time would be better suited. In my opinion, the death penalty should only exist for and be used in cases where the person is so unstable, deranged, psychopathic or whatever as to be a permanent threat to society, and would be a liability even with the small risk of a prison escape. It is there to prevent truly henious crimes from being committed once more. Lay cannot ever do something like he did (thanks to his ruined reputation), and therefore killing him is a bit moot. Rather, he should be forced to rot in jail and SUFFER for what he did, not get the easy way out.

Of course, he's not even in jail, is he?
« Last Edit: 2004-03-07, 07:54 by OoBeY » Logged
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #15 on: 2004-03-07, 09:35 »

I wish I could find you the article I had a few months back about where these upper class criminals are ending up, sadly I don't have the link

Needless to say its a homeless person's wet dream, free food, one room per occupant and your own bathroom, tennis, rowing, day passes, and more.

There's a big difference between going to a maximum security prison, working on a chain gang and what these guys recieve. Sure, its hell for them, the champaign they serve must be at ROOM TEMPERATURE (oh no!) and I'm sure the Caviar is from North American (more oh no!) but to the average person it looks like a country club, and for your average homeless person who may or may not have been put on the street due to the Enron scheme, its paradise.

I believe in rehabilitation for the people that actually aren't educated and their crimes are a result of their lack of education, I honestly can't say that for white collar crimes. These are usually wealthy, educated, individuals commiting these crimes for no other reason than the fact that they have found a loophole in the system, and at worst they'll have to give back half the money they've stolen. For White collar crimes the punative system of justice should be applied since really no amount of education is going to turn an educated mind and make them realize that what they have done is wrong. Reason regrettably turns all scenarios into instances of calculated risk. So when you are faced with that what else can you do?
Logged
OoBeY
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 299

« Reply #16 on: 2004-03-08, 00:56 »

You're absolutely right. I more or less forgot what "jail time" would mean for Lay and other white collar criminals. It's a shame, really.
Logged
Woodsman
Icon of Booze
 

Beta Tester
Icon of Sin
***********
Posts: 823

« Reply #17 on: 2004-03-08, 06:01 »

Frankly i think what Mr Lay did was not only unethical and despicable i think it was high treason for him to pull it during a time of economic instability. Im actually with Devlar this time off with his head i says.
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #18 on: 2004-03-08, 06:31 »

Where Bush has really screwed up his re-election chances are passing a 400 billion dollar medicare prescription drug entitlement that NOBODY wants.  Even seniors who are the proposed benificiaries don't want it, as a lot of them are currently better off with private plans, and you know that insurance companies will drop them once medicare can take it over.  Second, he's favoring a renewal (and possible expansion) of the 1994 crime bill that will ban every kind of rifle and shotgun that's basically useful for insurrection should the government decide to take away everyone's rights overnight.  Every semi-auto rifle and shotgun, and pump guns that hold over 5 rounds you can kiss goodbye.  I've read the bill, and so far I've seen no grandfather clauses, so those 100% legal semi-auto AK's, SKS's or mini-14's will be contraband, despite the proven statistical fact that this stupid law has done absolutely NOTHING to reduce crime whatsoever, after having been on the books for 10 years.  Democrats lost the house and senate in 1996 because of the first bill, and that only passed with marginal support and then ONLY because it had a 10 year sunset provision.  It's nice that there is little support for this, but the fact that he says he supports it is flat out catering to the other side and has pissed off a lot of gun owners who would otherwise probably vote for the guy.

I really don't have a problem with Iraq.  The whole WMD thing should never have been pressed as the reason to go in there.  I still think that was catering to the UN.  Besides, Iraq had the weapons at least until the inspections ended in the mid 1990's.  Clinton knew they had them.  All of the UN said they had them.  Either Saddam got rid of them by destroying them, hid them so damned well that nobody CAN find them, or they're now in Syria, Iran, and God knows where else.  The fact is Saddam DID have them.  He used them on the Kurds, and on Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.  I really wish people would stop pretending like they never existed.  If they're in the wrong hands now, then the question isn't if, but WHEN they'll be used in a terrorist attack.  Blaming Bush for not finding them makes as much sense as blaming a cop for not finding a well-hidden murder weapon.  As for getting rid of Saddam I have no problem with that either.  Except for a few loyalists and imported thugs most of the people in Iraq are pretty happy he's gone.  This does depend on where you get your news from though.  Watching the usual outlets all you hear is gloom and doom.  Of course, this won't change any opinions of anyone who thinks the war was unjustified in the first place, but packing up and abandoning the Iraqi people NOW would be a fatal and unforgivable act of shameful cowardice, and a mistake that would haunt the world for generations to come.  I'd really like to see a bit less finger pointing and a lot more support for the reconstruction effort.  We already know the names, addresses, and serial numbers 5 times over of everyone who thinks the war was bad/wrong and Bush is Hitler/Satan.  The horse is dead, please refrain from kicking it.

All of this hurts Bush's electability because he's not playing to his base.  Conservatives typically do not vote Democrat, for rather obvious reasons, and Bush's electability rides with how well conservatives view him.  He stood tall for 9/11, but humans have astoundingly short memories and attention spans in this decade.  I do like the tax cuts, mainly because I think government wastes too much money in the first place that belongs to the people.  Cutting taxes is a good thing to stimulate economic growth as well, but ONLY if you cut spending to go along with it.  Bush has been rather liberal with the federal budget, and his constituency does not like this fact.  Fiscal conservatism and limited government I do not think are in this man's vocabulary.  He's acted more like a Democrat than a Republican since he's been in office, not counting the whole gay marriage thing.  He's not going to win over centrists with his policy, and you can forget the left, they're still following Dean around.  A year ago I would have said he's a shoe-in, but at this point he's cut off his nost to spite his face.  I really don't know what this man thinks he's accomplishing with all of this.

I do not think anyone from the Democratic party is a better solution though.  For every reason to not want to vote for Bush, I'm sure an equal number can be found for Kerry.  If anything the problems Bush is creating now will only get worse under Kerry.  I still say they're all politicians and not to be trusted.  It's just a matter of which one you can stomach for the time being.  I'm sure glad they don't let birds vote.  I'd hate to have to choose between the lesser of two weasels.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
games keeper
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1375

« Reply #19 on: 2004-03-08, 17:16 »

Quote
He used them on the Kurds, and on Iran during the Iran-Iraq war

anyone explain me why there wass war between those 2 ?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to: