BUSH v. KERRY

An open section to speak about anything on your mind from News, politics, Conspiracy Theories, and any random street or urban event.
User avatar
el tio
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 378
Joined: March 25th, 2004, 7:25 pm

BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by el tio » July 13th, 2004, 3:53 pm

Even though I am a Republican I do give the opposing candidate a serious look to see what they have to offer.

One of the things I disagree with Kerry is with his view that it is okay to kill a baby that has come to full term in a womb. He supports abortion politically even though he says he opposes it personally. Why would you do such a thing?

I'm also turned off by his constant pandering to all people. You can't be all things to all people.

At this point I'm still voting Bush...unless someone can convince me otherwise.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2 ... borti.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Jun2.html

Anonymous20

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by Anonymous20 » July 13th, 2004, 3:55 pm

Ok, so one guy is confused about wether killing babies in a womb which mothers voluntarily want is right or wrong and you say you'd rather vote for a man who actually does go killing babies AND mothers in other countries or both at the same time willingly for some fakeass stuff. Try understanding the logic in this.

User avatar
el tio
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 378
Joined: March 25th, 2004, 7:25 pm

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by el tio » July 13th, 2004, 4:43 pm

If anyone wants to reply coherently I'll answer your questions. Using words like "fake ass stuff" will keep people from taking you seriously.

Anonymous20

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by Anonymous20 » July 13th, 2004, 4:51 pm

The only thing you're ever gonna reply with is another thread anyway hahaha Just look at how many threads you've started when you were stuck in the corner with no reply.

User avatar
el tio
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 378
Joined: March 25th, 2004, 7:25 pm

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by el tio » July 13th, 2004, 5:00 pm

Threads get old.

And so do your responses.

When a thread turns into a dead end it's time to end it.

Just because you're the last to post doesn't mean you're right.

Besides you don't even live in the USA "so you aint gotta leave but you gotta get the hell outta this thread."

Anonymous20

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by Anonymous20 » July 22nd, 2004, 4:39 pm


User avatar
Bulls Fan
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 161
Joined: July 26th, 2003, 2:10 pm

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by Bulls Fan » July 23rd, 2004, 6:41 pm

1) Kerry is a wishy washy politician. He was voted the most liberal Senator in the senate, and he has a history of flip-flopping on his positions. (How can he be the most liberal Senator in the senate and represent mainstream America??? Even political science experts believe the constituency of this country is moderately right wing on average -- just take a intro poli sci class if you dont believe me!!) For example: he votes to ban gay marriage in his home state, but is pro civil unions nationally (they're the same damn thing, two people with full marital legal rights who live together of the same sex). Then he harps on Bush about Iraq, talks about how the military is too big, how it needs to be cut back, how the post-war Iraq situation is ridiculous... and at the same time says he wants to send more troops to Iraq to finish it off "correctly". Just another way of playing to both sides of the loop. His anti-war base and his pro-war base. But what's his real stance?!?!

2) Kerry is weak on national security. He only points out the Bush administration's problems and doesn't provide any answers. Whole lot of bit*hing and complaining without any real solutions. At least the Bush administration is actively trying to improve the defensive structure of this country, whether it has great results or not. They're still better off since 9/11 and we haven't had another terrorist attack since, so at least things are being handled somewhat.

3) Kerry wants nationalized healthcare. This may sound nice, but every country that has nationalized healthcare has a tax rate of 60% or higher. (e.g. Cuba, all of Europe, etc.) Our current tax rate for the middle class is around 30% nationally and 10% state. If Kerry proposes to implement this plan, he will either have a national debt 10 times the size of Bush's, or he'll have to raise taxes 50 - 100% its current level federally. Who the hell wants more taxes!! Bush may be fiscally irresponsible with our tax dollars, but Kerry's solution is to create MORE programs and raise taxes EVEN MORE to compensate for those MORE programs along with our current debt. Okay, so we reduce the debt under Kerry and get nationalized healthcare, but 60 - 70% of my future paycheck goes to Uncle Sam and I dont even go to the fuking doctor that much!! There is no way I am pitching my vote in that political camp.

5) There is a good economy now. Everyone blamed Bush for the bubble-burst of the 90's boom that started during the last 6 months of Clinton's presidency and progressed through the first two years of Bush's. But, now since the economy has a GDP growth of up to 2% a quarter, unemployment levels are dropping again, and since the stock market is back up at its high late-90's levels, the economy is good again. Thanks to Bush. oh yea... and just cuz the employment level isn't as good as it was under Clinton doesn't mean sh*t. the 4% unemployment level under Clinton was the record of the century. Everyone said Reagan had a great economy that he produced and the unemployment rate during his presidency fluctuated between 6 - 9 %!!! Not to mention that the unemployment rate can't get any lower than 4% anyways because of the seasonal shift of changing jobs and the lull inbetween.


User avatar
el tio
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 378
Joined: March 25th, 2004, 7:25 pm

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by el tio » July 26th, 2004, 8:34 am

Bulls Fan wrote:1) Kerry is a wishy washy politician. He was voted the most liberal Senator in the senate, and he has a history of flip-flopping on his positions. (How can he be the most liberal Senator in the senate and represent mainstream America??? Even political science experts believe the constituency of this country is moderately right wing on average -- just take a intro poli sci class if you dont believe me!!) For example: he votes to ban gay marriage in his home state, but is pro civil unions nationally (they're the same damn thing, two people with full marital legal rights who live together of the same sex). Then he harps on Bush about Iraq, talks about how the military is too big, how it needs to be cut back, how the post-war Iraq situation is ridiculous... and at the same time says he wants to send more troops to Iraq to finish it off "correctly". Just another way of playing to both sides of the loop. His anti-war base and his pro-war base. But what's his real stance?!?!

2) Kerry is weak on national security. He only points out the Bush administration's problems and doesn't provide any answers. Whole lot of bit*hing and complaining without any real solutions. At least the Bush administration is actively trying to improve the defensive structure of this country, whether it has great results or not. They're still better off since 9/11 and we haven't had another terrorist attack since, so at least things are being handled somewhat.

3) Kerry wants nationalized healthcare. This may sound nice, but every country that has nationalized healthcare has a tax rate of 60% or higher. (e.g. Cuba, all of Europe, etc.) Our current tax rate for the middle class is around 30% nationally and 10% state. If Kerry proposes to implement this plan, he will either have a national debt 10 times the size of Bush's, or he'll have to raise taxes 50 - 100% its current level federally. Who the hell wants more taxes!! Bush may be fiscally irresponsible with our tax dollars, but Kerry's solution is to create MORE programs and raise taxes EVEN MORE to compensate for those MORE programs along with our current debt. Okay, so we reduce the debt under Kerry and get nationalized healthcare, but 60 - 70% of my future paycheck goes to Uncle Sam and I dont even go to the #%@& doctor that much!! There is no way I am pitching my vote in that political camp.

5) There is a good economy now. Everyone blamed Bush for the bubble-burst of the 90's boom that started during the last 6 months of Clinton's presidency and progressed through the first two years of Bush's. But, now since the economy has a GDP growth of up to 2% a quarter, unemployment levels are dropping again, and since the stock market is back up at its high late-90's levels, the economy is good again. Thanks to Bush. oh yea... and just because the employment level isn't as good as it was under Clinton doesn't mean sh*t. the 4% unemployment level under Clinton was the record of the century. Everyone said Reagan had a great economy that he produced and the unemployment rate during his presidency fluctuated between 6 - 9 %!!! Not to mention that the unemployment rate can't get any lower than 4% anyways because of the seasonal shift of changing jobs and the lull inbetween.


I AGREE.

User avatar
Kemosave
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1171
Joined: July 1st, 2004, 10:03 am

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by Kemosave » July 26th, 2004, 8:57 am

But mostly Kerry just wants to be President. The issues are just a sideshow to him.

User avatar
el tio
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 378
Joined: March 25th, 2004, 7:25 pm

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by el tio » July 26th, 2004, 9:05 am

Kemosave wrote:But mostly Kerry just wants to be President. The issues are just a sideshow to him.
That is the problem. When a person wants to be President so bad he'll do anything.........like Gore.

LcBwC
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1017
Joined: June 3rd, 2004, 12:10 pm
What city do you live in now?: Long Beach
Location: Long Beach, CA

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by LcBwC » July 26th, 2004, 9:43 am

im still not for either one. ill just have to wait until November and while time passes get on the side of one....well actually the time will be for Kerry to step up because im not vothing for Bush

User avatar
el tio
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 378
Joined: March 25th, 2004, 7:25 pm

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by el tio » July 27th, 2004, 12:30 am

LcBwC wrote:im still not for either one. ill just have to wait until November and while time passes get on the side of one....well actually the time will be for Kerry to step up because im not vothing for Bush
you know you're not voting for Bush so Kerry doesn't need to step up. I'll count you for Kerry.

LcBwC
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1017
Joined: June 3rd, 2004, 12:10 pm
What city do you live in now?: Long Beach
Location: Long Beach, CA

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by LcBwC » July 27th, 2004, 8:20 am

nah cant just count me for Kerry because if he doesnt step up and sho me how he is different from Bush then it wont be a vote. Its no need for me to vote for someone who is the same in my eyes and the person i want out of office.

User avatar
E`S`T
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 781
Joined: July 6th, 2003, 1:58 pm
Location: SCHOOLS IN SESSION

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by E`S`T » July 27th, 2004, 9:26 am

WHAT DO YOU PPL THINK ABOUT ALL THE "LOVE" BETWEEN THE BUSH ADMIN. AND THE SAUDIS??? I MEAN, FLYING BIN LADENS FAMILY OUT OF THE COUNTRY ON SEPT. 12??? YES THIS WAS THE ONLY FLIGHT ALLOWED BY YOUR PRESIDENT?? WHEN SOMEONE COMMITTS A MURDER HERE ON THE STREETS, DOSENT THE POLICE QUESTION THIER FAMILY ABOUT THEIR WHEREABOUTS, TIMING, ALABIES, ETC...BUT IF U HAVE CONNECTION TO OIL, U PROTECT SOMEONE WHO KILLED THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE BY FLYING THIER FAMILY OUT OF THE COUNTRY. THAT'S A PRESIDENT I WANT RUNNING THIS COUNTRY...

AND WHAT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF AFGHANISTAN...HAMID KARZAI (SP)...BEFORE 9/11 HE WAS A "CONSULTANT" FOR UNOCAL OIL...THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE U.S INVADES AFGHANISTAN AND HE'S PRESIDENT!!! WHAT CREDENTIALS DOES HE HAVE??? SOUNDS KINDA LIKE THE PREZ OF THE U.S??? I MEAN, BE INVOLVED IN OIL AND U GET YOUR OWN COUNTRY???? OH YEA ONE MORE THING, FAMILIES AND SURVIVORS FROM 9/11 HAVE FILED A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT AGAINST BIN LADENS FAMILY FOR THE TERROR ATTACKS AND GUESS WHO IS REPRESENTING THEM??? NONE OTHER THAN GEORGE DUBYA'S OWN PERSON FRIEND AND EX-LAWYER FROM HIS TEXAS OIL DAYS....SO WHEN NOVEMBER ROLLS AROUND, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS GUY IS A CROOK, CRIMINAL, NATIONAL GUARD DESERTER, FATHER TO ALCOHOLICS, AND A RECOVERING ALCOHOLIC HIMSELF....HE KISSES AND HOLDS HANDS WITH THE ENEMY, FOOLS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, AND SPENDS ALOT OF TIME ON VACATION...LIKE WHEN 9/11 HAPPENED.....HE'S A JOKE AND FRAUD AND ITS SAD TO SEE MANY PPL FOOLED BY NOT KNOWING THE TRUTH..

User avatar
el tio
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 378
Joined: March 25th, 2004, 7:25 pm

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by el tio » July 27th, 2004, 4:18 pm

S-DOOBIE wrote:WHAT DO YOU PPL THINK ABOUT ALL THE "LOVE" BETWEEN THE BUSH ADMIN. AND THE SAUDIS??? ...
We went through this already.

It was General CLARK (THE HERO FROM THE MOORE MOVIE) that flew them out. He signed the papers. He authorized it. End of story.

Besides, all the Bin Laden family has OPENLY DENOUNCED Osama........it's just a bunch of hot air Moore is blowing.

User avatar
'X'
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3127
Joined: May 31st, 2004, 10:36 am
Country: Hong Kong, China
If in the United States: North Dakota
What city do you live in now?: ........

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by 'X' » July 30th, 2004, 12:41 pm

^^^ YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS AGAIN!!!

ANYWAY...KERRY IS JUST THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS!!!!


SUPPORT REPARATIONS!!!!


D.X

User avatar
el tio
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 378
Joined: March 25th, 2004, 7:25 pm

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by el tio » July 30th, 2004, 3:15 pm

D.X wrote:^^^ YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS AGAIN!!!
serious as a heart attack again.
ANYWAY...KERRY IS JUST THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS!!!!
No, Bush is the greater of the two choices.
SUPPORT REPARATIONS!!!!
nahhh.

G bka C.rum
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 234
Joined: July 20th, 2003, 5:13 pm

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by G bka C.rum » July 30th, 2004, 3:26 pm

D.X wrote:^^^ YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS AGAIN!!!

ANYWAY...KERRY IS JUST THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS!!!!


SUPPORT REPARATIONS!!!!


D.X


Brotha you took the words right outta my mouth exactly why pick the lesser of 2 EVILS. Who have been in league with each other ever since thier Skull n Bones college fraternity days http://www.infowars.com

asr1
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 24
Joined: June 19th, 2004, 8:34 am

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by asr1 » August 9th, 2004, 3:56 pm

D.X. wrote:^^^ YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS AGAIN!!!

ANYWAY...KERRY IS JUST THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS!!!!


SUPPORT REPARATIONS!!!!


D.X
true

S-Rot40
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 120
Joined: April 4th, 2004, 12:36 pm
Contact:

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by S-Rot40 » August 9th, 2004, 5:32 pm

dont you think that the american system is B.S.?
there are only 2 "serious" parties... and both are supported by the same people... so where is democracy? no matter what party you vote in the end the rich white folks get what they want... thats f... up!!! dont you think?

User avatar
'X'
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3127
Joined: May 31st, 2004, 10:36 am
Country: Hong Kong, China
If in the United States: North Dakota
What city do you live in now?: ........

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by 'X' » August 9th, 2004, 5:49 pm

^^ I agree 100%

User avatar
Interested
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 208
Joined: July 18th, 2004, 8:12 am
Location: Back home in Columbus, Ga
Contact:

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by Interested » August 9th, 2004, 6:05 pm

I'd picked Kerry because bush took too many jobs,money, and soldiers lives. Plus Bush nor Rumsfield ever served in the military so how would they know how to run a ARMY. plus rumsfiled job is Secretay of Defense so that means protecting AMERICA not ATTACKING IRAQ.

User avatar
lewis503
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 268
Joined: August 2nd, 2003, 1:31 am
Location: EastSide 82nd Portland

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by lewis503 » August 10th, 2004, 1:09 am

Interested wrote:I'd picked Kerry because bush took too many jobs,money, and soldiers lives. Plus Bush nor Rumsfield ever served in the military so how would they know how to run a ARMY. plus rumsfiled job is Secretay of Defense so that means protecting AMERICA not ATTACKING IRAQ.
I agree.

User avatar
mr. chill
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 809
Joined: February 2nd, 2004, 1:08 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by mr. chill » August 22nd, 2004, 3:16 pm

I hate politics, its just a bunch of lies and BS to me, but I dont want to see Bush in office again

Panik
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1322
Joined: January 19th, 2004, 10:31 am
Location: W/S Santa Ana

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by Panik » August 22nd, 2004, 3:59 pm

well, by hating bush, you obviously havce some interest in politics. If you really don't want bush back, then show some more interest in politics and make sure you try to get as many people as you know that can vot to vote against him. It may not cure everything that is wrong with the country, but it will be a step in the right direction (away from bush).

User avatar
Kemosave
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1171
Joined: July 1st, 2004, 10:03 am

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by Kemosave » August 23rd, 2004, 1:41 pm

It might be an opportunity to look for a graceful exit from Iraq. However, what would we leave behind? Would Iran move in? An Iran determined to develop and build out nuclear capabilities as fast and as soon as possible whose government is a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy whose belief system is about submitting the planet to Islamic law?

Oh yeah.. what a world it would be.

Panik
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1322
Joined: January 19th, 2004, 10:31 am
Location: W/S Santa Ana

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by Panik » August 23rd, 2004, 1:47 pm

I think it would be good. Iran is already coming apart with all of their young people wanting to be americans and wanting democracy. It's only the older people that are still clinging onto power, barely. If they had to control what's going on in Iraq right now, they would completely fall apart. It would be one big middloe eastern civil war. Let them all kill each other off and save us the ptrouble. Let them Jihad against each other. They would be way too occupied with killing their own than to come and mess with us.

User avatar
Kemosave
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1171
Joined: July 1st, 2004, 10:03 am

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by Kemosave » August 23rd, 2004, 3:30 pm

There is speculation both ways. Aren't you assuming the elders (who have the military firmly in their pocket) won't squash this little "Summer of love" and throw the country back into war? I mean you are making it sound as flowery as possible. You do understand who rules the country, what they believe, and what they are willing to sacrifice to accomplish those ends right? You do understand the young people (not all maybe not even most) that want a more liberal government aren't in agreement as to what they want really and they retain their Muslim beliefs. Has it occurred to you they aren't squashing it right now because they are pursuing nuclear technology and don't wish to draw negative attention at this time?

On the other hand.. what if it's bigger than it seems to be and you're right? I hope you are.

willihen
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 324
Joined: August 5th, 2003, 12:15 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by willihen » September 1st, 2004, 12:44 pm

el tio wrote:
D.X wrote:^^^ YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS AGAIN!!!
serious as a heart attack again.
ANYWAY...KERRY IS JUST THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS!!!!
No, Bush is the greater of the two choices.
SUPPORT REPARATIONS!!!!
nahhh.
Hot Damn!
El Tio,
I like your style

User avatar
'X'
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3127
Joined: May 31st, 2004, 10:36 am
Country: Hong Kong, China
If in the United States: North Dakota
What city do you live in now?: ........

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by 'X' » September 1st, 2004, 4:43 pm

willihen wrote:
el tio wrote:
D.X wrote:^^^ YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS AGAIN!!!
serious as a heart attack again.
ANYWAY...KERRY IS JUST THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS!!!!
No, Bush is the greater of the two choices.
SUPPORT REPARATIONS!!!!
nahhh.
Hot Damn!
El Tio,
I like your style

????

Anonymous20

Re: BUSH v. KERRY

Unread post by Anonymous20 » September 9th, 2004, 5:20 pm

FUCK EM BOTH! YOU CHOOSE THE LESSER OF 2 EVILS

Post Reply

Return to “Open Section for Other Random Topics & Controverisal issues”