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 6 of 7
Author:  Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Tue Oct 05, 2004 6:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
and how about how Bush has suprisingly said nothing about getting another assault wepons ban *cough* NRA member *cough*
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Wed Oct 06, 2004 5:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
While I wish I'd found this when the RNC was more recent, I just came across this really amazing and kind of shocking video from the convention. I think the new GOP slogan should be "Because American just isn't scared enough yet."
Author:  thefreakyblueman [ Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
That was funny, smart, and catchy!

Awexome.

But then again, the terror implants have been living in Fox News ever since 9/11.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Some of you may be interested in Bush's Resume. I sure wouldn't hire him.
Author:  woddfellow2 [ Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why would anyone vote for Bush?
Pardalis wrote:
He wants to constitutionally ban gay marriage, which is just pure evil, if you ask me. Not to mention a blatantly populistic move, trying to appeal to I guess, uhm.. backwards people. (Sorry, but I hold people who want to ban gay marriage in contempt. And I am not going to pretend I have a shred of respect for their opinion.)

That's crazy because it was never legal in the first place.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why would anyone vote for Bush?
woddfellow2 wrote:
That's crazy because it was never legal in the first place.


You are one seriously confused fellow.

There has never been a national law regarding marital rights. Ever. Your town probably has laws saying who can marry whom. Your state does, too. But this nation thankfully never has.

Bush is the first president to try to amend the constitution of the United States to marginalize any group of people or to limit any person's civil rights. But nevermind that, he's "a uniter, not a divider." :20x6:
Author:  thefreakyblueman [ Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
This is a rather scary article from Salon. It talks about George Bush's "mystery bulge" on his back during the first or the Presidential Debates. But, the best thing is that Bush talked as though someone was talking to him.
Bush at the first debate wrote:
As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts. I, I, uh -- Let me finish -- The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at.

I had TiVo'd the debate, kept it, and re-watched it after I saw the article, and sure enough, he says that with no influence by either Kerry or Lehrer (the moderator). Another thing is that he, when asked a question, stared forward blankly and looked very intent on something.
Does anyone that has a TiVo know how to transfer a media file on it to a computer? It'd be great to get this onto the internet. (I don't have the series 2)

Also, during the second debate, there was nothing to be found on his back, so that rules out the back-brace theory.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've been keeping an eye on the whole Bush-wore-a-wire thing, but I'm not sold yet. He seemed to have something under his shirt. And part of the pre-debate agreement was that nobody would photograph him (or Kerry) from behind, which seems suspicious. It would make for a nice explanation of his vapid mid-sentence stares. But I'm just as ready to write it off on incompetence. Some people conjectured that it was a bulletproof vest, which isn't implausable, but his campaign denies it. But they haven't denied the allegations about being wired.

Oh, and Bush is a partial owner of a lumber company, and in 2001 reported $84 in income from it. He's just rollin' in that lumber money. :cheatgrin:
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
I feel really sorry for the modem users who watch me post these video links and either have to wait a century for them to load, or don't bother to watch them. Sorry, guys. Anyway, here's a video (5.6MB MOV) for today. Tim Ryan is a Representative from Ohio, and is my new hero. We need more guys like this. In the video he's talking about why young people are so afraid that the draft will be reinstated despite Republican denials.

I was going to send Rep. Ryan a short note, but I found that the email form on his web site assumes that you are from Ohio, though from poking around the source of the form it looks like his email address is imaoh17@mail.house.gov so I may skip the form and email him directly. I wanna buy this guy a pizza.

And while I'm at it, here's another video that demonstrates one doctor's diagnosis that Bush is suffering from pre-senile dementia.
Author:  TURKEY [ Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Wow. I kinda liked Bush ten years ago.

About Tim Ryan: Wow. A great politician. Put another pizza from me on the tab. How come no people like that run in Illinois?
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
MoveOn is running an ad by Rob Reiner about Bush's inability to admit his many mistakes. It's prefaced with this:

Quote:
The most telling moment in Friday's Presidential debate came at the very end, when an audience member stood and asked the president to name three mistakes he's made while in office. Bush wouldn't or couldn't do it.

Given his fumbling response, you might think that this is the first time Bush has been asked such a question. But it isn't: at a news conference a few months ago, he stammered and stuttered for almost 45 seconds, unable to come up with even a small mistake he's made in the last four years.


And TURKEY, you do have someone like that running in Illinois: Barack Obama.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
SFGate is running a really great editorial called Where did the middle go? - How polarized politics and a radical GOP have put a chill on measured debate.

It's really a phenomenal article. A choice quote:
Quote:
Here's what I think most infuriates liberals. They are up against a Republican opposition that has shown no comparable willingness to risk party unity on a matter of conscience -- nothing that compares to the sacrifice liberals were willing to make over civil rights and Vietnam. Republicans have had no difficulty swallowing episodes like McCarthyism and Watergate. [...] Others (like Ann Coulter) are now toiling to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy, including his charge that liberals are traitors. And Ronald Reagan went to his grave this year all but officially pardoned by Republicans for Iran-Contra, the most blatant violation of constitutional government in American history.


I think the author hit the nail on the head.
Author:  TURKEY [ Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
InterruptorJones wrote:
And TURKEY, you do have someone like that running in Illinois: Barack Obama.


Dang-I'm bad at remembering people! First the League of Women Voters and now this, the biggest duh here! Even Didka couldn't run against him. Keyes...HA!
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
The Economist recently surveyed 56 academic economists about what they thought about Bush and Kerry's respective campaign agendas regarding the economy and put it all together into an interesting set of charts. On almost every issue they either favor Kerry or are evenly divided. The three big ones I wouldn't have expected are that they overwhelmingly categorized outsourcing as "not a problem", by a small margin they believe Bush has a better policy for creating jobs, and by a significant margin think Kerry's trade policy is poor. But overall, they say Kerry's economic plan pretty solidly beats Bush's.

I wish they'd also have surveyed which of these issues the economists think are most important to the economy in general, but we can't have everything.

Of course, Rove & Co. would just write it off as "liberal academia".
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
The title of this topic is "Why would anybody vote for Bush?" .. PIPA has finally figured it out: Bush supporters have absolutely no idea (PDF) what's going on. 72% of Bush supporters still think Iraq had WMDs or a major program to develop them (compared to 26% of Kerry supporters). And 57% of Bush supporters think that the Duelfer report actually concluded in favor of WMDs in Iraq.

But wait, it gets worse.

72% of Bush supporters believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (compare 30% of Kerry supporter). 55% of Bush supporters think this was the conclusion made by the 9/11 report (27% Kerry).

Only 30% of Bush supporters are aware that the majority of the people in the world oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and 57% of Bush supporters think that the majority of people in the rest of the world would like to see Bush re-elected (compared to 1% of Kerry supporters).

82% of Bush supporters think that the rest of the world feels better or is evenly divided about U.S. foreign policy under Bush (14% Kerry).

And a majority of Bush supporters believe Bush favors multilateral approaches to international issues and addressing global warming. "In all these cases, there is a recurring theme: majorities of Bush supporters favor these positions, and they infer that Bush favors them as well." He doesn't.

The gist is this: Most Bush supporters don't know what's going on in Iraq or has been for the past 3 years, and though Bush disagrees with most of his supporters on foreign policy issues, they're blissfully unaware of it.

I wish there was a way to accurately express my exasperation at this. I wish I could shake each and every one of them and scream, LAY OFF THE KOOL-AID!!
Author:  woddfellow2 [ Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
So in other words, Kerry supporters are more aware of current events.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
woddfellow2 wrote:
So in other words, Kerry supporters are more aware of current events.


To make a gross understatement, yes.

Also, another part of the report that I skipped in my previous post is that while most Bush supporters have no idea that Bush doesn't actually share their views, most Kerry supporters have an accurate idea of Kerry's policies.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Everybody, this is your president. (Warning: Strong, er.. gesture.) Right back at ya, big guy.
Author:  TURKEY [ Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
HOW DO YOU FIND THESE THINGS?!?!? They're awesome!
Author:  racerx_is_alive [ Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Get your bumper stickers ahead of time. http://www.defectiveyeti.com/archives/001044.html
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:00 am ]
Post subject: 
Two years before 9/11, Bush was talking about invading Iraq.

Shocker!! (sarcasm, people)

And while we're at it, it's worth noting that the White House secretly sent plans for the Iraqi invasion fully five months before the invasion took place

And though it won't surprise most of you, here's a novel way the neocons have come up with for absolving themselves of huge military blunders that are costing American lives as we speak: blame it on the troops! That's what Rudy Giuliaini did on the Today Show this morning when defending the president, who managed to lose 480 tons of explosives when he forgot to guard weapons depots instead of oil facilities:

Giuliani wrote:
It's not the fault of the president, it's the fault of the troops who were there. Did they search thoroughly enough?


Nice, Rudy. Real nice. I'll bet you have a "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker on your car, too.

And after two days of awkward silence on the matter, Bush finally came out with an interesting excuse: "Uhhh.. maybe those explosives were stolen before the invasion! Right, Karl?" Oh, sure, that could be the case. Except that we have them on film, still cozy in their depot, a month after the invasion.
Author:  TURKEY [ Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:22 am ]
Post subject: 
This just makes me happy.

http://www.flashplayer.com/animation/war.html

Not really anti-Bush, but close enough.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:26 am ]
Post subject: 
Cool video, and catch toon, but I wish I understood the lyrics.
Author:  TURKEY [ Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:41 am ]
Post subject: 
It's because they're in Norwegian. My friend's girlfriend is translating it as we speak.
Author:  osiris-kitty [ Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:27 am ]
Post subject:  ...
I'm the independent party (I'd vote for Mickey Mouse, my dad, or myself)--I don't really like either of them, but I'd like to have Bush as a president more than Kerry.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ...
osiris-kitty wrote:
I'd vote for Mickey Mouse
...
I'd like to have Bush as a president more than Kerry.


Gotcha.
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:48 am ]
Post subject: 
The election is too close. We cannot allow Mickey on the ballot. Besides, Google has this election in the bag.
Author:  Cheatcake [ Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why would anyone vote for Bush?
Pardalis wrote:
As someone from Europe, observing the US objectively, I seriously wonder why anyone would vote for Bush. And I don't write this to offend. I just seriously wonder why!

What I have seen from the guy is this;

He took more vacations then any president in the office ever.

He turned a large budget surplus into a large deficit. He also gave tax-cuts to the rich.

He invaded Iraq despite the UN's objection, based on claims that there where weapons of mass destruction, which weren't there. Either he lied, or he believes lies, neither seem good qualities for a president.

He wants to constitutionally ban gay marriage, which is just pure evil, if you ask me. Not to mention a blatantly populistic move, trying to appeal to I guess, uhm.. backwards people. (Sorry, but I hold people who want to ban gay marriage in contempt. And I am not going to pretend I have a shred of respect for their opinion.)

He insulted just about every country allied with the US. I an definitly tell this here in Holland. Under Clinton people respected the US. Now the US is mocked, hated, looked down upon and what not.

Under his wing, employment has fallen 0.5% whilst the working age population grew 2.4%

Libertarians seem to like him, but as written on Zompist.com;

Bush's tax cuts are not matched by spending cuts, nor is he reducing the size of government; quite the opposite. Over two terms, Clinton raised non-defense discretionary spending by 10% total. In less than half that time, Bush has raised it by 25%. Bush's open-ended expansion of government powers should also be worrying to libertarians.

Evangelicals also seem to like him, but again, as written on Zompist.com (where it can be found in the rants section); The Republicans control all three branches of government; have they made any serious moves to ban abortion, reinstitute prayer in schools, or reverse gay rights? (which would be respectively misguided, a breach against the seperation of church and state and evil anyway.)

The Republicans apperently want to US to work like a Latin American nation. The fruits of the economy under Bush are more and more exclusively going to the rich, with the middle class barely staying where it is, and the poor getting worse off.


Now, and I really am not trying to troll here, I'm just seriously wondering. If anyone is pro-Bush, then why? And what counters do you have to these arguments?

I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just honestly curious. I noticed some here are pro-Bush, and I wonder what defense they have for the guy. I simply can't see any good points to him. Maybe I missed something?
[/i]


YEAH, MAN! I'LL KNAW YOUR FRIGGIN' FACE OFF! Kerry's abortion and gay-marrige makes him a no-go. If I sound ticked off, I AM, thank you very much, Pardilas!
Author:  Clever Danielle [ Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
We had this mock election at my school, and it was Kerry, Bush and some ramdom libertarian guy... Kerry won, but the thing that got me was that the random other guy got more votes than Bush! Ha!
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
That other guy is Badnarik.

I remember when I was in middle school and we had a mock election. It was 1992, and the choices were Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ross Perot.

I think Clinton won, though I couldn't be sure, but I remember voting for Perot. Of course, I had no idea what the issues were at the time (or what issues my little middle-school brain thought were important) and I can't recall why the heck I thought that was a good choice.
Page 6 of 7 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/