Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Why would anyone vote for Bush?
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=627		 Page 5 of 7
Author:  StrongCanada [ Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
InterruptorJones wrote:
You still have to wait til you're 35, dear.


Or another amendment!! B-) lol

Only 11 more years to go! Vote StrongCanada in 2018?
Author:  thefreakyblueman [ Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
StrongCanada wrote:
Or another amendment!!

By Bush's current "policy" on the Bill of Rights, anything's possible. :mrgreen:
Author:  TURKEY [ Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
StrongCanada wrote:
InterruptorJones wrote:
You still have to wait til you're 35, dear.


Or another amendment!! B-) lol

Only 11 more years to go! Vote StrongCanada in 2018?


Were you born Canadian? If so, sorry, but no can do.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:25 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Only 11 more years to go! Vote StrongCanada in 2018?


Try 2020.

Ticket to fame? But I already thought you were famous, what with the acting career and all. But then again, you could always ride that fame to victory, like Ahnold!

I'm 35 already. Vote Didymus in 2004!
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Today's Daily Reason to Dispatch Bush is compelling:

Quote:
The Department of Energy will spend $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons in 2004. President Bush has requested $6.8 billion for 2005, and $30 billion for the following four years. Adjusted for inflation, the 2004 expenditure is over 50 percent more than the United States' average annual spending on nuclear weapons during the Cold War—$4.2 billion. President Clinton's last budget devoted $5.2 billion to nuclear activities.


And for your daily dose of perspective, If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?.
Author:  lumberpeg vegeplank [ Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, wait 'til those lousy terrorists get a load of our nuclear capabilities.

And Russia, too, for old times sake.

Just when you thought the cold war was over, here's Dr. StrangeBush!
Author:  Stu [ Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Next up...

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bush... err... Bomb ;)
Author:  thefreakyblueman [ Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:02 am ]
Post subject: 
I actually get that joke! I feel like I'm part of this now! Hoorah!

Anyway, it's amazing how many reasons--no, just plain FACTS there are of how George wouldn't be a viable president, yet there are so many people who would vote for him anyway.
Author:  thefreakyblueman [ Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:05 am ]
Post subject: 
I heard this joke the other day, I'm not sure where it was from, but here goes:

Think of George Bush like this- a post turtle.
You're driving along the highway, and there's a tall post sticking out of the ground on the side of the road. On top of this post is a turtle. You think to yourself, "Well, there's NO way that he (the turtle) got up there by himself" and "He doesn't belong there". Finally, you just say that you should help him down.

So, everyone, let's help get George W. Bush down from his post where he doesn't belong, shall we?
Author:  Jengajam [ Mon Sep 27, 2004 12:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
thefreakyblueman wrote:
I heard this joke the other day, I'm not sure where it was from, but here goes:

Think of George Bush like this- a post turtle.
You're driving along the highway, and there's a tall post sticking out of the ground on the side of the road. On top of this post is a turtle. You think to yourself, "Well, there's NO way that he (the turtle) got up there by himself" and "He doesn't belong there". Finally, you just say that you should help him down.

So, everyone, let's help get George W. Bush down from his post where he doesn't belong, shall we?

Nice. Here's another Bush joke..
"How many Bush's does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
4.
1 to horrably plan it, one to make sure the speach was misspelled right, one to screw it up, and one to blame the other 4."
Author:  Carol [ Tue Sep 28, 2004 8:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
I just found out today that Bush is trying to pass a bill reinstating the draft for men and women, ages 18-26, regardless of college enrollment. It is thought that if Bush is re-elected, this bill will be passed, meaning that this will become a law that all people in this catagory will be subject to be drafted as it is their "duty to their country."

urgh, I'm so upset that I am too young to vote.

I don't know why anyone would vote for Bush, as he has tried to make gay marriage illegal and he wants someone who is pro-life to be the head of the medical part of the government (that brings religion and government dangerously close...)

if you want more info on the draft, visit http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type in "HR 163" into the bill number search box at the top of the page. You will then get to read the entire bill.
Author:  lumberpeg vegeplank [ Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
I keep thinking about these undecideds...who are they? And why do they keep switching back and forth, from Bush to Kerry, then back again to Bush?


Everybody know either is vehemently opposed to Bush or loves him like the uncle that always writes you back.

I can't see the appeal of Bush: unless his propoganda of "culture of life (read: ironic)" speaks to you.

It is funny that almost exactly half the country hates Bush, while the other loves him. It wasn't always like that, was it? Can't we all have a president that we all sort of...uh...tolerate?
Author:  TURKEY [ Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
lumberjack vegetable wrote:
Can't we all have a president that we all sort of...uh...tolerate?


Not for the next 4 years.
Author:  Brunswick Stu [ Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Carol wrote:
I just found out today that Bush is trying to pass a bill reinstating the draft for men and women, ages 18-26, regardless of college enrollment. It is thought that if Bush is re-elected, this bill will be passed, meaning that this will become a law that all people in this catagory will be subject to be drafted as it is their "duty to their country."

urgh, I'm so upset that I am too young to vote.

I don't know why anyone would vote for Bush, as he has tried to make gay marriage illegal and he wants someone who is pro-life to be the head of the medical part of the government (that brings religion and government dangerously close...)

if you want more info on the draft, visit http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type in "HR 163" into the bill number search box at the top of the page. You will then get to read the entire bill.


1. draft legislation is introduced at the beginning of every session of Congress, so it can be pushed through quickly in the event of a national catastrophe. you'll note that this was introduced in January of 2003, and no action has been taken on it.

2. supporting the draft is political suicide. Bush and his cronies wouldn't have to worry about it if he gets re-elected, but what about Congress? they'd get voted out in the next election cycle if they did this.

3. currently, women cannot be drafted. they're not required to register with Selective Service.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
he wants someone who is pro-life to be the head of the medical part of the government

Don't you believe that American children have a right to live?
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Quote:
he wants someone who is pro-life to be the head of the medical part of the government

Don't you believe that American children have a right to live?


While the wording of your question is clearly bait for a discussion that belongs in another thread, the issue here is not abortion, it's women's health. The person Carol is talking about (whose name I cannot for the life of me remember aggh) has an awful record on women's health issues and is essentially anti-woman. The point is that abortion is not illegal in this country and it's the government's obligation to make abortion (like all medical procedures) as safe as possible for women. But instead the policies that are being made are highly partisan and political, and women's health is being jeopardized. Some hateful people might say that women who have abortions deserve to have their lives put in jeopardy, but I can't imagine a more disgusting (and un-Christian?) concept.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
By the way, last year the Center for Health and Gender Equity put together a scorecard concerning the Bush administration's policies on women's issues, and the differences between what they said they would do and what they actually have done. Dismal, of course. Print it out and give it to all your female friends.
Author:  lumberpeg vegeplank [ Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
My wife saw something funny the other day:

A guy at the Penn State campus was passing out leaflets for Bush, and he had a sign that said, "The W is for Women."

Oh my Gosh. That's funny on all sorts of levels. Not just for the obvious untruth -- GWB's stances are all against women's rights, really (unless they want to die for him in combat), but think of the implications of "George Women Bush." Uh oh, does Laura know?

When she saw the sign, she laughed at the Bush guy and threw a couple of one-liners at him. The guy was left speechless. Man, is my wife cool.
Author:  Didymus [ Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:16 am ]
Post subject: 
Besides, I think THAT "W" fits better in Bill Clinton's name.

I was also trying to address the notion that the abortion issue was strictly a religious one. This is not true. It is an ethical question that touches the very foundation of our country's freedoms: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without the right to life, neither of the other two make any sense. It is therefore inherently wrong to deprive one demographic of its right to live for the sake of another demographic's liberties.

As a religious professional who at one time worked for the government (those of you who have been around a while would probably remember I worked for the VA over the summer), I do not see the "separation of Church and State" in such stark, black and white terms. The separation as stated is that one should not CONTROL the other: neither the state controlling the church, nor the church controlling the state. Either scenario would be very bad. This does not mean, however, that the two should NEVER meet, or that the two should not compliment and/or challenge each other.

The simple truth is that people WILL make political choices based on religion, and religious choices based on politics. So what do you do?

And no, I am not a Bush supporter. But neither am I a Kerry fan. The one issue that turned me off to Bush--this fiasco of a war in Iraq--was supported by Kerry, so why would I vote for him? I am disappointed in Bush and Kerry has failed to earn my trust. So what does that mean for me in November? That I will focus my efforts on dealing with local concerns, rather than fooling myself into thinking that the president is the one all-in-all factor to determine our nation's future.

You hear that people? Take an interest in your local and state politics if you really want to make a difference.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:11 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
The one issue that turned me off to Bush--this fiasco of a war in Iraq--was supported by Kerry, so why would I vote for him?


I, too, am ashamed of the fact that Kerry supported the invasion and took so long to change his stance (that is to say I'm glad he flip-flopped, but I wish he'd done it much sooner). But the answer to your question is an easy one: Kerry understands the truth about the War on Iraq, that it is going very, very poorly and that its handling has been from the start and continues to be completely wrongheaded, and wants the American people to be informed of the truth. This is in contrast with Bush, who either lives in a fantasy land in which he actually believes the things he says about Iraq, or is entirely okay with continually and deliberately misleading his country into thinking that we are "winning" there and things are improving and that our invasion and our continuing presence (and the thousands upon thousands of casualties that have resulted) once were and still are justified.

I don't know which it is, delusion or lying, but either way I'd rather see a realist in the White House, even if was drinking the W. Kool-aid so many months ago.
Author:  Didymus [ Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:28 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
This election the decision is especially difficult because it pits a sitting president who started a war in order to find things that don't exist, versus an ugly guy. I don't think I'm alone in saying I'm not totally comfortable with either choice.
- Scott Adams, creator of "Dilbert"
Author:  Carol [ Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
[quote="Brunswick Stu)
3. currently, women cannot be drafted. they're not required to register with Selective Service.[/quote]

On of the new things this bill instates if it is passed (which I realize is probably a slim chance, but who wants to take that chance?) is that women will have to register with the selective services. Otherwise they wouldn't have said that women were included. I realize this is a big step for women's equality, and that wasn't what really bothered me about the draft idea. A draft in general is my problem...I just thought I should include all of the details I knew about.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:30 am ]
Post subject: 
I think women SHOULD register with selective service, just like men. If women expect equal opportunities, privileges, and pay, they should also bear equal responsibility. If men are required to register, I can think of no valid reason why women shouldn't also register.

As far as the draft, I do not think that there should be such a thing unless there is a national emergency, like if Canada attacks us.
Author:  Warlordofhomsaria_v2 [ Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:34 am ]
Post subject: 
if canada attacked us, were would draft dodgers go?
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Mexico, of course!
Author:  Warlordofhomsaria_v2 [ Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:39 am ]
Post subject: 
i would be attacked first! run to da hills
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Warlordofhomsaria_v2 wrote:
if canada attacked us, were would draft dodgers go?


Pitcairn Island.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:56 am ]
Post subject: 
That's a good reference on a number of levels:

(1) US and Canada were both originally British colonies.

(2) draft-dodging and mutiny are both refusal to submit to military authority.

Vote:
The Popular Search Engine
Google
for President!
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
For those of you who still think the President was relying on faulty intelligence when he said Saddam was building nuclear capabilities, you might want to take a look at an article NYT is running today entitled How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence. It centers around the well-known aluminum tubes issue, but don't give it a miss just yet -- it goes much deeper into the issues and how it was played by the administration than any other article I've read on the subject. It's long, but worth reading if you really want to know what Bush did and did not know before he decided to invade Iraq.
Author:  Jengajam [ Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:20 am ]
Post subject: 
Do you know that Bush passed a day wilst still a gov. that is "Jesus Day"?! And I thought he made stupid moves as President...
PS: If someone can find a Wikipidia artcle on this I'll be greatful!-_^
Page 5 of 7 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/