Bush gets a second term...

[Dinin]

I tire of the ingnorant people that won't vote for bush just because "he can't talk right," or because "he's stupid."

 

I don't know if anyone else recognizes this, but it is impossible to graduate at Harvard, become the governor of Texas, then move on to be the President of the United States, and be stupid. Just can't happen. It is possible, however, to do all of those things, and not be very bright when it comes to grammar and the English language.

 

The most important thing in a presidential candidate, is his ability to lead. Almost everything else is irrelevant. Being able to pronunciate words and talk clearly is a good quality in a president, but leadership is the most important.

[tyjet3]

People just need to undersatnd that Kerry's policies are pretty weak compared to Bush's... Like Bi-laterial talks with Korea... madness i tell you... But Kerry sounds and probably is more intelligent than Bush. But I don't think people realize how weak the presidenece really is anyway. People seem to label him as all powerful and everything that goes wrong is his fault... unbelievable...

[Eiade]

I don't understand why people say that... People are always like "Bush did this" and "Bush did that" which is wrong. THE GOVERNMENT did it...

 

Well, about some things this is true. The pres has the veto power, which means he can halt any bill with absoluteness to stop it from becoming a law, and it is his decision alone. Bush has stopped many bills that had they been passed, they really would've helped the country and/or certain groups of people, and/or, one of his biggest problems, the environment. So yes, it makes no sense to solely blame Bush for things like the war and big things like that, but he was solely responsible for stopping a lot of things that could've been good.

[Guest]

Fuc|< Bush and Fuc|< Kerry too...

 

Fact is i've been so turned off by all of this childish "I know you are but what am I" mudslinging.

 

Vote Badnarik! (Libertarian party)

I'm telling you...Go to his website.

He even wants to end the war on Drugs!

W00T!

[tyjet3]

Well, about some things this is true. The pres has the veto power, which means he can halt any bill with absoluteness to stop it from becoming a law, and it is his decision alone. Bush has stopped many bills that had they been passed, they really would've helped the country and/or certain groups of people, and/or, one of his biggest problems, the environment. So yes, it makes no sense to solely blame Bush for things like the war and big things like that, but he was solely responsible for stopping a lot of things that could've been good.

 

True, I just hate how people still blame the president for every problem in the US. It so stupid to do that. Besides, anything Bush vetoed could still have become a law if the Congress had a 2/3 vote. Congress is just as much to blame as is Bush. I'm just wondering when people will understand that.

[ImmortalSnafu]

The President is commander-in-chief, the line stops at him. Thus, most of the things wrong with the country are his fault.

[NinjaSalad]

You people have to understand that bush is really just a face for the people to look at so they don't just think that the government is some kind of hartless intagible being, and also, bush got to power with money, money, and family, don't forget who his father is!

[tyjet3]

The President is commander-in-chief, the line stops at him. Thus, most of the things wrong with the country are his fault.

 

I'm sorry, but that is a niave and wrong statement. The line doesn't stop at him. We have two other branches other than executive. Congress has more power then the President in most cases. If the president wants to do something it first has to be checked by Congress. If Congress wants to do something, it has to be checked by the President, BUT Congress can over rule the President with a 2/3 vote. THEN the Judical Branch decides if the law is ethical. Therefore the President does not, never will, be as strong as a dictator. Why do people still blame everything on the President? I guess it's just easier to balme one man, rather than a large group of people...

[nzdbox]

This will probably be my last post until I finally lurk all the forums I belong to. But I'll get straight to the point.

I tire of the ingnorant people that won't vote for bush just because "he can't talk right," or because "he's stupid."

 

I don't know if anyone else recognizes this, but it is impossible to graduate at Harvard, become the governor of Texas, then move on to be the President of the United States, and be stupid. Just can't happen. It is possible, however, to do all of those things, and not be very bright when it comes to grammar and the English language.

 

The most important thing in a presidential candidate, is his ability to lead. Almost everything else is irrelevant. Being able to pronunciate words and talk clearly is a good quality in a president, but leadership is the most important.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Impossible to gradute at Harvard? Ha-ha. Have you ever heard of MONEY? Do you think the idea that he or his big daddy payed the college to graduate cannot even be thought of? I think it can.

Governor of Texas? You really think that it's hard for the SON OF THE PRESIDENT to become governor of Texas? Maybe you should remember all of papa Bush's connections with political figures. Wich is also one of the damn reasons he got elected a few years ago in the FIRST place. Haven't you watched Fahrenheit 9/11? You'll find plenty of explaining there. And if your telling me Michael Moore lied.. please. The repubblicans alredy tried confronting him with that, and they couldn't prove him wrong on any point that he discussed.

He can't be stupid you say? That SO makes me laugh. Have you ever HEARD his speeches? He can't talk. And when he does, he always blabbers about the same goddamn crap. "War on terror". "Saddam Hussein is the king of terror" (before he eventually got captured). Crap like that. He can't make anything out of any other topic. All he blabbers is nonsense in those cases. And, since Kerry starting gaining on Bush again after all the debates, while BEFORE the debates he was losing a LOT more than he is now, maybe my point is proven.

Personally, I don't think Bush deserved to become president even the first goddamn term. It's so damn obvious that the elections were rigged back then. Back to Fahrenheit 9/11, did you see the scene when he drove off to the White House after having *won* (yeah right) the elections? Yeah, sure, the crowd agreed with him being in power for the next 4 years. NOT

 

Again, like many other people in here, I would vote for Kerry myself. If I were old enough. Sadly, that's not the case.

Seems as if these same elections would be 4 years ahead instead of right now Kerry would win by a landslide... looks like people that can't vote yet are all in favour of Kerry. Good to see people overlooking some nonsense and actually focusing on the REAL bad stuff. Bush effectively deserted the military. Wasn't desertion illegal? So, we effectively have a criminal as a president? Because someone that does something illegal is a criminal by definion. Or?

 

I would go on. But political threads bore me. So I'll end right here (much to the relief of all you repubblicans out there)

[Peregrine]

Impossible to gradute at Harvard? Ha-ha. Have you ever heard of MONEY? Do you think the idea that he or his big daddy payed the college to graduate cannot even be thought of? I think it can.

 

Which has to be the only option, since it would ruin your nice simple image if you had to admit that Bush did it without anyone's help. Why do we assume that just because he graduated he had to have someone bribing the school?

 

Governor of Texas? You really think that it's hard for the SON OF THE PRESIDENT to become governor of Texas? Maybe you should remember all of papa Bush's connections with political figures.

 

Ok, so he had an advantage in getting nominated for the election. Just like every other governor. But after that point, there's still the voters to convince... or did you forget about them?

 

Which is also one of the damn reasons he got elected a few years ago in the FIRST place. Haven't you watched Fahrenheit 9/11? You'll find plenty of explaining there. And if your telling me Michael Moore lied.. please.

 

Fine, I'll be generous. Michael Moore didn't lie. He just bent the truth so far that it barely resembles reality anymore. You're just being blind and stubborn if you think Moore's "documentaries" are anything but pure, biased propaganda. Objective and Moore are complete opposites.

 

The repubblicans alredy tried confronting him with that, and they couldn't prove him wrong on any point that he discussed.

 

See above. Of course they couldn't prove him absolutely wrong, since there was some tiny bit of truth hidden in all the exaggeration. And especially since a lot of the time it isn't just what Moore says that's deceptive, it's what he doesn't say.

 

He can't be stupid you say? That SO makes me laugh. Have you ever HEARD his speeches? He can't talk.

 

Yes, we all know he's a terrible speaker. But public speaking skills are not the same as intelligence. I consistently score in the top tiny percent of intelligence, but I'm even worse a speaker. Bush's speech-giving skills are irrelevant to his ability to run the country. Unless you think all the president has to do is make pretty speeches?

 

And when he does, he always blabbers about the same goddamn crap. "War on terror". "Saddam Hussein is the king of terror" (before he eventually got captured). Crap like that. He can't make anything out of any other topic. All he blabbers is nonsense in those cases.

 

Welcome to American politics. Everyone does that. 99% of what politicians say is nice short phrases like that, while saying nothing useful about the actual issue. If you think only Bush and the Republicans do it, you're ignoring reality.

 

And, since Kerry starting gaining on Bush again after all the debates, while BEFORE the debates he was losing a LOT more than he is now, maybe my point is proven.

 

Your point? Even by your own argument, Kerry is still losing. You haven't proved anything. A post-debate gain in the polls doesn't mean anything unless it changes the outcome of the election. Kerry losing by 1% is the same as Kerry losing by 100%.

 

Personally, I don't think Bush deserved to become president even the first goddamn term. It's so damn obvious that the elections were rigged back then.

 

It is obvious? Present your proof that the elections were rigged, and "because Bush couldn't possibly win an honest election" isn't proof.

 

Back to Fahrenheit 9/11,

 

You're joking, right? If that's your best source, you might as well concede now.

did you see the scene when he drove off to the White House after having *won* (yeah right) the elections? Yeah, sure, the crowd agreed with him being in power for the next 4 years. NOT

 

Congratulations to Moore for filming an anti-Bush crowd. Since we all know Bush is the only politician to attract protests. If Gore had won, you'd have seen the exact same kind of crowd. Except it wouldn't be in the liberal propaganda of course.

 

Seems as if these same elections would be 4 years ahead instead of right now Kerry would win by a landslide... looks like people that can't vote yet are all in favour of Kerry.

 

Two problems:

1) Most of them are young, and I have little confidence in their knowledge of the issues. Many of them are favoring Kerry because of their parents, or because hating Bush is popular. Do those polls again in 4 years once they start forming independent opinions and I doubt you'll get such one-sided results.

 

2) In four years, it won't make a difference, because Bush won't be available for election. Did you miss the huge pro-Kerry vote coming from the "anybody but Bush" hordes? Another candidate (hopefully) won't make it another "lesser of two evils" vote, so the Democrats lose a lot of votes. Kerry has about the same chance of election in 2008 as of hell freezing over.

 

 

Good to see people overlooking some nonsense and actually focusing on the REAL bad stuff. Bush effectively deserted the military. Wasn't desertion illegal? So, we effectively have a criminal as a president? Because someone that does something illegal is a criminal by definion. Or?

 

Yes, lets focus on the really important stuff, like events that happened 30 years ago and are absolutely irrelevant today. Since we all know people can't change in 30 years...

 

And as a related point, why is Bush a criminal who doesn't deserve to be president because he ran from the war, but a liberal who committed a crime by dodging the draft in Canada is a hero?