Reasons to vote for Bush?

Memnoch

VinnyL wrote:

thats my point... bertie is a very good de-de-de-diplomat, and he has a tiny bit of the eh eh eh during his speeches, doesnt make him a bad leader!

yes having a bit of a stutter doesn't make him a bad leader. But bush doesn't have a stutter. He just doesn't seem to be able to construct coherent sentences. When you say things that are outrightly stupid the way bush does, it DOES have an effect on leadership capablities because he appears like an idiot, and people are less likely to take an idiot seriously, or atleast someone who they THINK is an idiot.

Moores "documentry" (and i use that term VERY loosely) has been over critical of bush, and the american people have seen through michael moore, and bush has gained points from it.

you're just quoting fox news propaganda. Its very bad to blast or criticise something when all your information comes from the same source, maybe you should TRY to actually research your own information for a change? In my opinion Moore wasn't as critical of bush and co as he should/could have been. ANd really if you're going to criticize the movie, you should SEE it first, then tell us what particular bit in the movie you find to be so offensive. Until then, it just looks like you're quoting fox news propaganda.

Sure. I didnt mean that moore is a journalist, because he definately is not, just that he is the biggest critic of the USA in todays world. he is a lunatic lefty.

Actually you're wrong, Moore comes accross to me as being extremely patriotic, something which makes me a bit quesy sometimes, as i'm not really a big fan of patriotism. you say he's a lunatic, but where is the proof. And please tell me what is bad about being a lefty? Most of europe is like that, and america itself is founded on both Right AND left. All you do is make blanket statements which show that you don't really know anything about the issues at hand. Lets see some facts to back up these statements shall we?

jefferson said that to discent against ones country is the most patriotic thing anyone can do, but moore is not discenting, he is un-patriotic and un-american. HE supposedly loves america, yet he is looking to tranform it in to a socialist/fascist country.

again more unbacked statements. firstly define un-patriotic and un-american then show us exactly how moore meets those definitions.
When did moore say he wants it to become a socialist/fascist country. And socialism and fascism are NOT the same things by the way. I'd say moore is TRYING to make america more democratic and LESS fascist.

hes what moveon.org is all about!

whats moveon.org about?

please, research you're facts. ANd you would be much better off if you ignored fox crap propaganda and started using some real media for your information. The problem with fox news propaganda is that its extremely hollow, if you try quoting that to any semi-educated person, they will tear your arguement to shreds, as several posters have done already in this thread. Remember facts >>> fiction

StickyMcGinty

lads, your getting me wrong. perhaps i'm hurrying my responses and not explaining myself properly. sorry, but this is my third post to the politics board, and its a step up from "After Hours"

and you seem to be implying that all or some of it is unjustified. Have you seen the movie? If so can you point out which points you felt were unfair or incorrect? And please no pointing to other peoples opinions (pointing to facts is ok). I want yours.

The fact is that moores film is full of propeganda, and he has been very loose with his facts. I have seen the movie 3 times, i have it in divx on this PC!


Moore calls bush a LIAR because told the country there were WMD's in Iraq, and he used this as an excuse to invade Iraq. Complete crap.

The 9/11 report, the Lord Butler Report and Putins report, all said that faulty intelligence from the CIA, MI6 and the Kremlin led to bush being misinformed. Now Bush did make a mistake, but he made a tough call on the best intelligence that he had at the time. he was misinformed by 3 legitimate intelligence organisations, with huge reputations. yet moore still calls him a liar.

If you saw the movie (which I doubt) you would see that he isn't a critic of the USA. He is a critic of Bush. In fact his movie is very pro-American (and in some cases someone insulting to other countries).

You say he is a lunatic? How? or are you just quoting newpaper comments?

Would you agree that this is World War 3?

Moore criticises the US way of life, not just the war.

A time of war is when a country comes together, but america is truly a very divided country. Moore bad-mouths his country to foreign press day-in day-out.

i consider moore a lunatic lefty because of the sheer propeganda included in his movie. Moores movie has been discredited world wide. The whole "bin-laden family escape from the US" chapter, has been discredited by the 9/11 commission. The extreme left has been trying to flog these lies to us for months now. they are throwing mud against the white house, hoping some will stick.

in one part of the movie, it shows iraqi children cut and wounded, and then cuts to american choppers in the sky, listening to heavy metal music, trying to show that the soldiers are celebrating hurting iraqi children! COMPLETLY IRRESPONSIBLE editing from Moore. Moore trys to slander these troops while they are fighing to liberate 27 million people in iraq. patriotic?

He calls americans stupid. is he not american? are his mother and father who raised him not american?

My definition of "un-american" is disloyal and unpatriotic. moore fills these criteriae.

I could go on about moore all day, but this thread is about bush.

Do you have links to actual proof of this? Where exactly does Moore say that the US would be better as a socialist/fascist country? Actually Moore isn't far off from comparing Bush to a Facist. So prehaps both of you have a different defination of what a facist is.

Moore is not stupid enough to SAY that he wants the us as a socialist country. but what else would a critic of a democratic capitalist society want?

i keep my distance from that crazy moveon.org site. Even kerry is smart enough to do that.

and apologies on my facism remark.... dont know what i was thinkin...!! gotta stop rolling outta bed on to boards.ie

any more questions.... ?

EDIT: i'll include sources from now on.... apologies to those who requested them.

BlitzKrieg

but what else would a critic of a democratic capitalist society want?

a legal political labour movement?

A time of war is when a country comes together, but america is truly a very divided country.

wouldnt this be enough of a hint that Bush's policies are not the best for america? The only other american war to get this much division was the vietnam war and everyone feels that was a mistake. Even worse the division of that didnt start until the body bags did. There were large scale protests about this policy before the war even bagun.

StickyMcGinty

wouldnt this be enough of a hint that Bush's policies are not the best for america? The only other american war to get this much division was the vietnam war and everyone feels that was a mistake. Even worse the division of that didnt start until the body bags did. There were large scale protests about this policy before the war even bagun.

true, but would it not also be a fact that moore and other bush-bashers are fuelling the fire when it comes to america being divided. i mean, there is not just disaggreement out there, which is to be expected in an election year, but sheer hatred for bush!

sovtek

vorbis wrote:

severe paranoia there nixmix. Most americans i've met wouldn't fit into the blind patriotic category. They have a different democratic system to su. Saying they're being indocrinated because of that is well a bit ignorant.

he has a point though. From day one of the public school system you are indoctrinated. It starts with the pledge and then singing patriotic songs. It then gets more subtle as you get older. No more pledges but then the history books can be awfully subjective.
As well there is a tendency to favor the multiple choice way of doing things, rather than a think-for-yourself method.
But you are correct that it doesn't mean that everyone buys into it. We aren't robots.

BlitzKrieg

true, but would it not also be a fact that moore and other bush-bashers are fuelling the fire when it comes to america being divided. i mean, there is not just disaggreement out there, which is to be expected in an election year, but sheer hatred for bush!

i agree micheal moore can fan the flames...but the flames were allready present. I mean Bush couldnt go for the traditional walk into office because of how the crowds felt. this was before moore and 9/11. There was uproar over the election. and you must remember he has his fathers record sitting on top of him, and the record of most of his advisors.


also on the speakign problem. Is it not worrying that he cant physically say the word nuclear? there has been alot of debate over his education. I mean saying your favourite childrens book was a book released when you were around 40? how dos that not worry you?

mycroft

The 9/11 report, the Lord Butler Report and Putins report, all said that faulty intelligence from the CIA, MI6 and the Kremlin led to bush being misinformed. Now Bush did make a mistake, but he made a tough call on the best intelligence that he had at the time. he was misinformed by 3 legitimate intelligence organisations, with huge reputations. yet moore still calls him a liar.

Well yes, seeing as a senior member of Bush's cabinet has testified that Bush was planning on going after Iraq the day after Sept 11th, that senior members of his administration have close ties with companies making a fortune in Iraq. As for the Bulter Inquiry see, the Widgery inquiry for the benchmark in British tribunals, and the Kremlin can also be easily dismissed.

Would you agree that this is World War 3?

No, the civilian and miltary death toil needs to jump a few million before we descend into exaggeration.

A time of war is when a country comes together, but america is truly a very divided country. Moore bad-mouths his country to foreign press day-in day-out.

And what would you call a civil war then?

No Moore badmouth this administration, spot the difference. And a good journalist (even a bad one in Moore's case, is one who anaylises the facts and draws then presents their conclusions).

The world will be a better place if everyone stood around and turned to the leaders and said "run this by me again why we're doing this"?

in one part of the movie, it shows iraqi children cut and wounded, and then cuts to american choppers in the sky, listening to heavy metal music, trying to show that the soldiers are celebrating hurting iraqi children! COMPLETLY IRRESPONSIBLE editing from Moore. Moore trys to slander these troops while they are fighing to liberate 27 million people in iraq. patriotic?

Em Lynse English and her cohorts? More doesn't need to give the US military bad press, they do a great job all by themselves.

He calls americans stupid. is he not american? are his mother and father who raised him not american?

When exactly does he call Americans stupid?

Moore is not stupid enough to SAY that he wants the us as a socialist country. but what else would a critic of a democratic capitalist society want?

Someone looking for a more fair and equitable society where wealth and money isn't confided to 1% of the population.

Also Moore is campaigning in the elections for f**ks sake

Hobbes

VinnyL wrote:

The fact is that moores film is full of propeganda, and he has been very loose with his facts. I have seen the movie 3 times, i have it in divx on this PC!

However proproganda does not equal lies (it can, but it can also equal truth with a slant on it).

Moore calls bush a LIAR because told the country there were WMD's in Iraq, and he used this as an excuse to invade Iraq. Complete crap.

I strongly suggest that you go look at this documentry instead. It goes into more detail and proves that Bush lied about WMD and was told that there was no WMD.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=176868

Also funny, but Bush when asked did he do the wrong thing going to war when there was no WMD, he said "I would still of gone to war anyway".

The 9/11 report, the Lord Butler Report and Putins report, all said that faulty intelligence from the CIA, MI6 and the Kremlin led to bush being misinformed.

Again, look at the other documentry. Where people from CIA and other famous people connected with it say without doubt that Bush had been giving proof there were no WMD, no nukes, no chemical trains.

It even shows where after being told not to mention anything about Nuclear material (by a CIA report) because it didn't exist. Bush went and claimed it existed anyway, then after the CIA complaining and it finally getting pulled the administration said they pulled it because the CIA said too. What they fail to mention is the CIA told them beforehand.

Would you agree that this is World War 3?

No. How does Moore insulting other countries make it world war III?

Moore criticises the US way of life, not just the war.

Again, in what parts of the movie?

Moore bad-mouths his country to foreign press day-in day-out.

I haven't seen him bad mouth America. Bad mouth certain aspects of America certainly.

Moores movie has been discredited world wide.

Again, please back that up with facts.

The whole "bin-laden family escape from the US" chapter, has been discredited by the 9/11 commission.

??? How exactly? What are you talking about? It is a known fact they were flown out of the country by the US government at the request of the Saudi Ambassdor.

Did the 9/11 commision report somehow change history? Please point out in the commission report where this was false.

in one part of the movie, it shows iraqi children cut and wounded, and then cuts to american choppers in the sky, listening to heavy metal music, trying to show that the soldiers are celebrating hurting iraqi children!

It showed me what war was like. Your the one making the distinction. But if you must know the US troops were told in Afganistan to shoot women and children.

But what he is pointing out in the movie is the lack of training the US soliders have actually had in dealing civilians. Take the UK soliders for example. They get police based training as well. US soliders are taught to shoot then question who is alive first..

Is that only part of the movie you can come up with?

Moore is not stupid enough to SAY that he wants the us as a socialist country. but what else would a critic of a democratic capitalist society want?

He could want Aliens from the Planat Zoltron to come down and reign over the human race, but he is not stupid enough to say that he wants that.

i keep my distance from that crazy moveon.org site. Even kerry is smart enough to do that.

So your basing your argument on moveon.org being a fringe site without even reading the actual site? If you don't bother enough to read something, don't bother commenting on it.

Raskolnikov

This post probably won't make me any friends, ho-hum, here it goes.

So, I'm wondering why is this? From my perspective, he is a danger to the world, has absurd foreign policies, complete lack of empathy and is completely corparate driven. Yet people vote for him? So I have reached the conclusion that I am simply not educated enough in this area and so have come here to learn more.

Why is it that Americans are voting for him? What are his party's aims that have drawn such an ammount of followers? And if you are pro Bush, do things such as Abu Gharib, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, etc... bother you or do you believe in his actions?

The average American doesn't give two hoots about how some terrorists and rebels. I don't think anyone in Europe has the right to take the moral high ground either, we've all got bloody pasts and our lack of compassion for others in the world remains to this day. Let me remind you that it wasn't long ago that British troops were shooting unarmed protestors in N. Ireland, French troops murdering and raping in Algeria, a facist dictator in Spain murdering political opponents. The EU practices blatant East German-style communism in it's subsidies and tariffs which are helping to destroy the livelyhoods of farmers and business in developing countries. Maybe we ought to be solving our own problems before we start criticising others.

he has every bible waving Beer guzzing redneck in his pocket, if you look at his speeches and the location of them its usually an Army Base with troops in the backround with American Flag Waving everywhere, and his usual rantings "Terror,terror, iraq,iraqi,saddam,wmd, arent i great?" and so on,its constantly hamered home to people ,whats really disturbing is that the race is so close ,that 50% (nearly) of people actually buy into his type of thinking!

:rolleyes:

The main reason I can see for voting Bush is the continuation of the accelerated economic doom of the United States.

Are you saying that Bush is responsible for the economic woes of the US? He hasn't been strong on the economy, but the alternative is worst.

Following are the main campaign promises Sen. John Kerry made in his speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday night:

— Cut the deficit in half over four years by ending corporate tax cuts.

Ridiculous, inreases in corporation tax might give a short term increase in tax revenues but in the long-term will only serve to drive business out of America. In Ireland we've recently brought down corporation tax from 37.5% to 12.5% and actually seen an increase in taxes brought in. Why should we complain though, if Kerry gets in, more jobs for us. Bye bye jobbies!

— Offer targeted tax breaks for the middle class; roll back tax cuts to people earning over $200,000 a year.

This sounds all very cosy in practice but it won't be good for business. Why not abolish those do-nothing space and nuclear missile programs and everyone can have a tax cut!

— Close tax loopholes to companies moving jobs abroad and give breaks to firms keeping good-paying jobs at home.

That sounds all warm and fuzzy but again, why should the American public have to stump up because other Americans aren't as efficient/productive as they should be.

The reason why so many ppl vote for Bush is because those who control the media have marginalised the population by very clever manipulation of the news. So in essence Americans are not really given any choice.

I disagree, then how do you explain the majority of liberal reporters/anchors. CBS, ABC, and NBC are all pretty much liberal, with anchors, such as Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, and Peter Jennings. As for more minor reporters -- like the army at CNN -- when I argue that they're liberal, I mean they are the MTV generation. Even if they don't necessarily pound on Bush, they still support liberal issues and their reporting reflects that.

In reality, I have no problem with bias in the media, because I think it's inevitable. I wish Fox News, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, and the others would simply come clean and admit their political stances. Everyone knows it, but no one says anything.

However, if conservatives do in fact own the major networks, then it would seem, by way of the vast number of liberal reporters, there are two reasons for this:

Either,

1. Conservatives really are fair and balanced, inasmuch as they allow liberals to outnumber them on television (and not just in the news media, but with shows, such as Paris Hilton, Queer Eye, etc.)

or

2. They're not really conservative.

Basically there's a difference in the way we're educated in Europe and the U.S. In Europe we're given material in a subject and, in the exam, we don't know what to expect - only that we'll use what we've been taught to derive the answer to a question. It generally involves making some deductions and possibly creative leaps to achieve this. It's quite noticable in a field like mathematics. However, the U.S. system uses a different learning design methodology. It's the principle of reinforcement. You tell them something once and then repeat and repeat, driving it home. Questions and theories are derived from what you've been taught and, going into an exam, you can expect to know - broadly - what's going to come up. The idea of making a creative leap, or essentially have to think more about the subject, isn't there in the same manner.

I'm sorry, that's utter crapola, I've had two years of US high schooling, I found that the opposite to what you've said is true. In Ireland the emphasis is often on trying to memorize material (for the Leaving anyway) rather than learn and think about it.

he has a point though. From day one of the public school system you are indoctrinated. It starts with the pledge and then singing patriotic songs. It then gets more subtle as you get older. No more pledges but then the history books can be awfully subjective.

Rubbish, two years of US high schooling and I never had to make a pledge or sing a patriotic song. I think you might be getting confused with military schools or schools in the Deep South which comprise of only a very small number of schools in the US.

Bush is far from an ideal candidate in my eyes, rather, the only genuine alternative for most Americans.

ionapaul

sovtek wrote:

he has a point though. From day one of the public school system you are indoctrinated. It starts with the pledge and then singing patriotic songs. It then gets more subtle as you get older. No more pledges but then the history books can be awfully subjective.
As well there is a tendency to favor the multiple choice way of doing things, rather than a think-for-yourself method.
But you are correct that it doesn't mean that everyone buys into it. We aren't robots.

To be 100% fair, all nation states attempt some form of indoctrination. The history as taught in the Irish primary school system (and to a lesser extent secondard school system) is quite blatant in its bias and misrepresentation of facts. Try to comment negatively on Michael Collins or Wolfe Tone, or list the benefits Ireland may have received from British rule, and you'll see what I mean!

All countries are similar in this regard, some (like China and Russia) are worse than others. The US certainly pushes nationalism and patriotism a lot more than we do - but I believe that is only the case in Ireland because of fear of indirectly boosting support for the IRA, if they weren't around we'd probably have our own little pledge of allegiance to the Republic of Ireland each morning!

sceptre

BlitzKrieg wrote:

there has been alot of debate over his education. I mean saying your favourite childrens book was a book released when you were around 40? how dos that not worry you?

Ah, he was nowhere near 40. The book (great book btw, even if it takes 20 seconds to read) came out in 1969, Bush was born in 1946. So he was 23 and just using joined up writing.

Incidentally, Kerry has said his favorite song is Springsteen's No Surrender (I'll bet it isn't really) whereas Bush's is Wake Up Little Susie (presumably the Everly Brothers' version) whenever he's not listening to ZZ Top. Nevertheless for the campaigns, Bush has been using Hail To The Chief (I'm the incumbent and there's a war on) and Kerry's been using Johnny B Goode (I wouldn't say this is why he picked Edwards for the John double whammy but who knows based on how the actual "Vote for me" as opposed to "I'm not the other guy" campaign is doing).

I'm leaving Michael Moore as no-one took the trouble to actually disagree to any great extent with anything I said or belted back a ball on the loyalty to country rather than loyalty to leader issue that I ran with.

mycroft

N. Ireland, French troops murdering and raping in Algeria, a facist dictator in Spain murdering political opponents.

Franco's dead, France isn't in Algiers, And we're trying to sort of peace in Nth ireland by sitting everyone around a table and having talks about talks until everyone gets bored.

You could have mention, Basque seperates in Spain, the rise of the right in France, continued violence by terror gangs in the north etc... We're not done yet by a long shot, that doesn't mean some of us aren't bothered by some of the stuff in our backyards.

The EU practices blatant East German-style communism in it's subsidies and tariffs which are helping to destroy the livelyhoods of farmers and business in developing countries.

It's a little more complicated than that but I agree, it's why I actively opposed article 133 of the Nice referendum.

Are you saying that Bush is responsible for the economic woes of the US? He hasn't been strong on the economy, but the alternative is worst.

The dollar has plummeted, unemployment has rocked, and the majority of jobs created have been in the mcjobs sector (low pay, long hours, no skill required)

Following are the main campaign promises Sen. John Kerry made in his speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday night:

And Bush's alternative is increased tax breaks for the rich, the kind of trickle down economics that destroyed american infrastructure in the 80s.

You suggest that Kerry slash funding for space and nuclear weapons funding, imlpying thats something Bush would do. bush announced in his administration a proposed mission to mars, and son of star wars, an idea so mindboggling at odds with the current geopolitical situation it's amazing no general hasn't turned to him and gone "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FRIGGIN MIND" Suggesting Kerry's economic policys are less sound than Bush's when Bush is pushing policies you find insane is a logical paradox.

However, if conservatives do in fact own the major networks, then it would seem, by way of the vast number of liberal reporters, there are two reasons for this:

Might I suggest you watch outfoxed and get back to me on that one?

Bush is far from an ideal candidate in my eyes, rather, the only genuine alternative for most Americans.

Alternative to what? Define alternative, for the past 25 years conservative republicans have held office for 16 of them, and for 4 years of Clintons administration he fought off a congress and senate republician heavy to such a degree that they chased him over a dress stain.

Hobbes

ionapaul wrote:

To be 100% fair, all nation states attempt some form of indoctrination. The history as taught in the Irish primary school system (and to a lesser extent secondard school system) is quite blatant in its bias and misrepresentation of facts.

That is very different then indoctrination though. History in all countries are slanted to be pro-country. I did schooling in England and Ireland, and Ireland history wasn't touched on at all in school simply because England was more important.

However in the US you have to pledge alliegance to the flag. They are quite strict on it. My brother who did one year of schooling (primary) in the US refused to pledge alliegence because "It wasn't my flag" and had his guardians called around to the school because he refused. Them being typical Irish-Americans told the school board to feck off.

or list the benefits Ireland may have received from British rule, and you'll see what I mean!

Not sure what you mean by that. I would be intrested to see the list. But there was a great comedy double sketch catholic/prodestant in NI where they do this kind of list. So certainly it will exist, but then saying things like "Hitler helped build a great road system in Germany" doesn't detract about what the real issues were in influence. (Note: not directly comparing England/Ireland to Hitler)

All countries are similar in this regard, some (like China and Russia) are worse than others.

Having lived in a few. I would say they are as bad as each other. Some of the conversations I had with chinese people in China about the rest of the world were as bad as people I have chatted with in the US. That is not to say both countries have knowledgable people, but no one country wins on the most ignorant.

if they weren't around we'd probably have our own little pledge of allegiance to the Republic of Ireland each morning!

Hardly.

ionapaul

Hobbes wrote:

That is very different then indoctrination though. History in all countries are slanted to be pro-country.

Nope, teaching something 'slanted', biased or in a partisan fashion in order to give children a 'proper grounding' in their nation's history is indoctrination. And as you say, every nation engages in it. Nations and their governments need (obviously) loyal and devoted citizens.

ionapaul

Hobbes wrote:

That is not to say both countries have knowledgable people, but no one country wins on the most ignorant.

I definitely agree with you here. Humans are humans, no matter where they live - to paraphrase another poster on the 'Arcade goes crazy' immigration thread, any arguing about which country is the best is like fleas arguing about which dog they live on is the best!

AngelofFire

Bush is an idiot. To go to war he lied about WMDs he also lied about Bin laden being linked to hussain.He handled the occupation in an appauling manner, much of the US army`s resources are concentrated on protecting oil reserves.The systematic torture of Iraqi prisoners and the denial of the due process for those being held in guantanamo bay.The same guy said last year that the US were committed to the abolition of torture.

This man refuses to comply with the kyoto protocol and the environment is suffering as a result, global warming is something that is already in motion. He`s too busy sending people to different country`s preaching about the "evils" of pre marital sex.

His blatant homophobia is enough to justify not voting for him

Billy Kovachy

Devils advocate time>

Bush is an idiot

ok ill give you that one

To go to war he lied about WMDs he also lied about Bin laden being linked to hussain

That was mainly due to bad intelligence by the CIA and especially the british intelligence which is why they backed USA going in because they gave the intel on the deployment status.

He handled the occupation in an appauling manner

Yes thats true but considering at the moment its only al sadar resisting and not the other factions such as the Kurds and Bathist.Actually usually with a power vacumm after a war the main piority is to stop an all out civil war which they have done.Yea the horrible occupation "always with the negative waves" but the war went so well no millions of deaths and only in four weeks or there abouts.A really good campaign.

much of the US army`s resources are concentrated on protecting oil reserves

Ok did you not see the environmental disaster of the first gulf war.Hundreds of oil rigs and fields in flames,tonnes of oil pump into the gulf (think of the seagulls does anyone think of the seagulls) and a magor target for terrorism.So yes they sould be protected for that not to happen again.

The systematic torture of Iraqi prisoners and the denial of the due process for those being held in guantanamo bay

That was not systematic that was trailer park boredom having a good time and they are being brought to justice at the moment so they will pay for there sins.These were individual acts and not state sanctioned ones.Guantanamo bay well its practically cuba anyways so anything goes.

This man refuses to comply with the kyoto protocol and the environment is suffering as a result, global warming is something that is already in motion.

I gave you the first one,so when the scientist try to explain this to him its like a scene from the simpsons when homer talks to his brain.Then he asks rummy and he says "well the boys in texas will kick your ass if you sign this" and guys from texas are huge so you cant blame him for that.

He`s too busy sending people to different country`s preaching about the "evils" of pre marital sex.

Actually he is bringing his boys back for all corners of the world (really check the news sometime) and circling the wagons now because the wagons cost alot in other countries a couple of billion.Pre-martial sex have you read nothing about his daughters.

His blatant homophobia is enough to justify not voting for him

Well now thats just too personal.He is just a simple man who doesnt understand some things.A bible man and if that book tells him things are bad well thats just gods words and he follows those words.
All in all its bush what you see is what you get, unlike some others that come with attachments which are below the counter that you cant see.

sceptre

Billy Kovachy wrote:

That was mainly due to bad intelligence by the CIA and especially the british intelligence which is why they backed USA going in because they gave the intel on the deployment status.

Where does the buck stop (Where should it stop?)?

Billy Kovachy

Perspectively through the eyes of the bush administration the CIA is were the buck stops with the recent resignation of the head guy.

Hobbes

Billy Kovachy wrote:

That was mainly due to bad intelligence by the CIA and especially the british intelligence which is why they backed USA going in because they gave the intel on the deployment status.

I posted a link earlier. Bush documentry where members of the CIA clearly state that Bush was told there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Long before his case for war and the attack. The CIA are being used as scapegoats.

Yea the horrible occupation "always with the negative waves" but the war went so well no millions of deaths and only in four weeks or there abouts.A really good campaign.

Thats Bushes problem. "Went", his declaration that the war was over when it is clearly not over. It wasn't over in four weeks. If it was we would not have over 1,000 people dead and around 6,000 people wounded (Note: these figures are for military only).

Also you use the term "Occupation". Bush used "Liberation", but it is clearly an occupation.

So yes they sould be protected for that not to happen again.

Oh please, environment? The US wanted the Oil to continue to flow for cheap oil. Its not flowing now and look what is happening.

These were individual acts and not state sanctioned ones.

The woman charged has claimed that she was sanctioned by PSYOPS to create the pictures.

Guantanamo bay well its practically cuba anyways so anything goes.

It is not Cuba. If it was Cuba then according to Castros speech he would of released or given the people there a fair trial (lol, if you can believe Castro). But the part of the land is US owned.

Actually he is bringing his boys back for all corners of the world (really check the news sometime)

No he is removing the troops from non-hostile areas starting around 2006 and lasting for 10 years. Most of these troops will be redeployed back into war zones. 40% of the troops in Iraq are reservists. The US is clearly short of active troops in areas they need it.

Pre-martial sex have you read nothing about his daughters.

What does that mean exactly? Because his daugthers put out that he is for pre-marital sex? I don't recall the girls running for president.

He is just a simple man who doesnt understand some things.

Well fuk me. When you want a president who has the ability to do so much damage without the knowledge, then you want your best there?

A bible man and if that book tells him things are bad well thats just gods words and he follows those words.

However there is a slight difference between following the words in the bible and claiming that you are the hand of God and he speaks through you.

Pretty sure there are some things in the bible about lying, greed and treating your neighbour as yourself.

shotamoose

Billy Kovachy wrote:

Devils advocate time>

Quote:

Bush is an idiot

ok ill give you that one

LOL, post of the month!

Seriously, it doesn't really matter if Bush is such a terrible president because he's a bad man or because he's a stupid and easily led man. The net effect is the same. He and his evil den of fascists need to be run out of office or the world will suffer.

Stabshauptmann

VinnyL wrote:

jefferson said that to discent against ones country is the most patriotic thing anyone can do, but moore is not discenting, he is un-patriotic and un-american. HE supposedly loves america, yet he is looking to tranform it in to a socialist/fascist country.

Is questioning the system not an integral part of democracy?

Sociaism is on the left, fascism is on the right, how does Moore plan to simultaneously bring about both?

ixoy

Billy Kovachy wrote:

He is just a simple man who doesnt understand some things.A bible man and if that book tells him things are bad well thats just gods words and he follows those words.

I think I have a different meaning of "simple" in mind when it comes to Mr. Bush. The thing is fundamentalist religion (and let's face it, born again Bush is just that really) should not have a place in politics in these days. It's particularly abhorrent when he's using this book to put down certain groups - for example his sickening bid to ban, at a Constitutional level, gay marriage. That alone makes me despise the bigotry of, unfortunately, one of the world's most powerful men.
Now yes, I know the Church here has its own enshrined place in the Constitution but we're not using it (anymore) to dictate policy. That'd be farcical, declaring that we're doing God's work... yet Bush is doing just that. It really seems to be an example of how to abuse the concept of a belief system. Having religious views is fine - all Presidents have had them and its often been important - but weilding it in such a blatant manner, in such a potentially devestating way? No thanks - and please DO let the door hit you on the way out of the Oval Office.

bonkey

Billy Kovachy wrote:

That was mainly due to bad intelligence by the CIA and especially the british intelligence which is why they backed USA going in because they gave the intel on the deployment status.

Firstly, "mainly" isn't good enough. Secondly, there is quite an amount of contention about just how certain the CIA et al said they were about their information. Thirdly, you may recall back earlier in his Presidency, when Bush had his own little security enclave, which it was widely reported at the time had his ear over and above the established security services.

Actually usually with a power vacumm after a war the main piority is to stop an all out civil war which they have done.

No, they haven't. No nation under the control of a foreign occupation can engage in all-out civil war....because its the foreign occupying army they'd have to fight, which is hardly civil.

Yea the horrible occupation "always with the negative waves" but the war went so well no millions of deaths and only in four weeks or there abouts.A really good campaign.

Really? So why did Rumsfeld et al stand up not so long ago and admit that they had basically screwed the pooch when it came to post-battle / reconstruction planning - that they underestimated the resistance, the issues they would face, how long the violence would continue, and so on? Why are there still US planes bombing Iraqi cities?

Overall, if we were to be honest, its been a disastrous campaign which started with a relatively-well-executed main battle strategy. Then again, the Iraqi army was vastly over-hyped by the US prior to going in there, which everyone was happy to swallow, so realistically the main battle strategy didn't need to be (and may not have been) that sound in reality.

Ok did you not see the environmental disaster of the first gulf war.

Yes, I did. Do you remember how it happened?

So yes they sould be protected for that not to happen again.

So whats with the constant disruptions, explosions, etc. ? I didn't realise that "really good" as a description had the bar set so low.

That was not systematic that was trailer park boredom having a good time

Really? And how can we have faith in this? Prior to the revelations that sparked all of this off, the administration insisted the rumours of prisoner abuse were groundless. Now, they insist that ok...they were wrong about that (wow, what aren't they wrong about these days), but that they're certain it couldn't have been organised. In the meantime, organisations like the Red Cross and Amnesty have made statements about how the abuses were far more prevalent than was admitted - statements which basically got swept under the carpet.

In short - there are two major points here :

1) Those making the claim that it was isolated are those who have a vested interest in them being seen as isolated. This immediately brings about a conflict of interest which should make anyone wary of taking what is being said at face value.

2) Those making the claim that it was isolated were also those who said it wasn't (and couldn't be) happening up until they couldn't deny it any more. Hardly conducive to trusting their word on the subject.

and they are being brought to justice at the moment so they will pay for there sins.

And while they are being brought to trial (I refuse to accept that the sentences handed out to date constitute justice, as they are little more than a slap on the wrist in some cases), no-one is apparently very interested in making certain that it didn't go any further up the chain, and that these people aren't being used as scapegoats.

Guantanamo bay well its practically cuba anyways so anything goes.

Really? Thats why the US Supreme Court ruled that those detained there were entitled to a hearing to see if they had a case to answer? A ruling that flew directly in the face of what Bush used as the legal justification for holding people without trial?

And not only that, but what sort of an excuse is that? You might as well say that Abu Ghraib was practically Iraq anyways, so anything should have gone there, and shur whats the big deal about the torture, weren't they all really bad men anyway?

I gave you the first one,so when the scientist try to explain this to him its like a scene from the simpsons when homer talks to his brain.Then he asks rummy and he says "well the boys in texas will kick your ass if you sign this" and guys from texas are huge so you cant blame him for that.

I see. And how do you explain the rest of his pattern of bordering-on-criminal abuse of the scientific community. He has had reports suppressed and/or rewritten when he doesn't like what they say. He has ridden roughshod over the scientific community, loading his "expert panels" with people who will say only what he wants them to rather than choosing experts across the spectrum to give him a balanced viewpoint. In short, he has been a disaster in the scientific community, and I am frankly amazed that he's been let away with some of it.

He is just a simple man who doesnt understand some things.

And who makes decisions even when he knows he doesn't understand. And who lines up people to say what wants to hear to help him "understand" the issues.

Unfortunately, what scares me most is that in a recent poll, the US apparently placed decisiveness over intelligence as a key facet for a president. YOu don't need to know - or even care - what the right decision is...you just have to decide, then stick to your decision regardless of how wrong it may prove to be in hindsight.

Under such criteria, Bush is unquestionably a good choice. I would just question the sanity of the criteria.

All in all its bush what you see is what you get, unlike some others that come with attachments which are below the counter that you cant see.

Now, when you say "what you see is what you get", you are - I assume - including his PNAC cronies and all of their agendas as well, yes?

jc

sovtek

Raskolnikov wrote:

Rubbish, two years of US high schooling and I never had to make a pledge or sing a patriotic song. I think you might be getting confused with military schools or schools in the Deep South which comprise of only a very small number of schools in the US.

So you spent two years in the US school system and you didn't feel indoctrinated? Just because you had a different experience doesn't mean what I said is rubbish. I know it's not rubbish because I lived it.
I am American and lived most of my life there.
And no I'm not confusing them with military or schools in the "Deep South"?
And you might want to check the population of the "Deep South" (check Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisianna, Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas) before you go believing that schools there make up a small portion of American schools.

Typedef

I don't honestly think that Bush will win.

The reason being that there are some very rich people who simply don't make *as much* money with a Republican in office as they did with a Democrat in office.

However, if Bush does win a second term in office, 2005-2007 will be years that are highlighted by a *still* more envigorous neo-Conservative agenda.

Perhaps invasion of Iran (a defacto Russian allay) or North Korea ( a defacto Chinese allay).

Remeber the invasion of Iraq (which used to be an American ally) could almost be viewed as internal housekeeping by the Core-NATO group, whereas an attack on either of the other two mentioned countries would be sabre ratteling in the direction of Russia and China... which are the United States *only* realistic military no-go arenas.

So, from my perspective the Bush administration has broken the cardinal rule of re-election politics... "Please them all in the first term" , "Do what you 'want' in the second term". The Bush administration played it's hand in it's first term in *totality*. Rollback of 'years' of pro-environmentalism... a massive world wide military offensive, in modern terms at least. Highly right wing religous fundamentalist policies.

You have to remember that 50% of the voting population voted for Al Gore, the Vice President of the most liberal President the United States has ever had... in my view, had 9/11/2001 never happened the mere concept that the Bush administration could be re-elected, with it's behaviour so far would be laughed out of court.

As it stands now, to be honest... I think you'd have to be very niave, to think that "who is President" significantly affects long term American global policy or general American economic policy. Much like Ireland's own long term policies, vis-a-vis Northern Ireland, or Britian, Europe, the United States and the rest of the world... in a large way.. it's the civil servants in Foreign affairs who craft Macro foreign policy and Finance who crafts economic affairs.


The real reason for the Iraqi war was a thing called "peak production".

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/midpoint.htm

Peak production in terms of oil "has been reached" and the scarcity of oil (hence it's price), is fueling war. What people fail to realise about peak production is that, the situation in terms of oil availability will get consistenly worse... since no more oil is being discovered, while demand keeps increasing.

The page linked here shows the 'predicted' model for oil production versus consumption. What the graph shows (a graph which has been available to people for quite some time) is that the world is "at" peak production. This means that the ever increasing demand for oil versus the fact that basically no new oil has been found means that in roughly 5-10 years (10 years is a genarous estimate), the world be start to simply *not* have enough oil to satisfy demand.

The Iraqi war sure (was about oil), everybody knows that, but, it wasn't about "gluttoney" in the classic sense of the word, but rather scarcity, when people say, "the oil is running out", it means that within 25 years, there will have to be relatively large scale use of hydrogen as an energy source... that's what Iraq was about.

So back to the point, whether Bush or Kerry wins the election, the world is facing an energy crisis and Saddam's lack of playing the game, had him removed from power, since he was an obstacle to the global economy. If Kerry wins then all that's going to happen is American economic growth will probably double.... and it will be nicely placed to grow steadily for the next 20 years, while slowly deploying hydrogen as an alternative energy source.

Voting Kerry in would just make the fat cats [1] that everybody allegedly hates so much... richer.

There is no morality ... there is only the brazen reality that the US grew for eight years under Bill Clinton, annexed Oil reserves under George Bush and with another Democrat in the oval office in 'this' cycle all that will happen is economic output will jump 'now' instead of in four years.

These people play a long game... and the fact is.. the supposed 'combat' for power between Right and Left in the US, is simply a parlour show, for the political, economic and military realities that must be served in order to grow the global economy.

Presidential election indeed.



[1] The same glutonous fat cats nobody seemed to complain about under Clintion, I might add.

Sand

Looks like Typedefs journey to the Dark side is well and truly underway. Youd have to agree with about 75% of what he said.

Billy Kovachy

No, this isn't another Bush Bashing™ thread, there's plenty of them should we need it.

Oh I had such hopes at last refuge,but alas no.All I see from this forum "reasons to vote for bush" is how horrible and evil bush is.But wait who is that other candidate Cherry something anyways the boss likes him.But I think Ill vote for Bush (I dont care if Iam Irish I have the right no wait a duty to publicly state my position on the internal affairs of other countries).Why because well yea he did a lot of things maybe not for the best are the good of the rest world but for the USA.The main point being he did something for any politician thats a damn good quality and gets you votes.Anyways theres no such thing as bad publicity.
Is the world a safer place because of bush answer yes.Saddam is now going to face justice for his evil reign.Which may not be as evil as bushes because bush is going to kill the whole world by not signing the Kyote or Wolfe threaty thingy,what did Saddam pathetically do just killed a few Hundreds of thousands and raged a couple of wars gassed his own people but compared to Bushes Apocalyptic era it means nothing.
The economy is going down,well at least its going somewhere.Is that michael moran running he seems to be mentioned more than Cherry,Michael is a funny man I liked his joke about the situation in the north what about Catholics and Protestants getting married and the whole troubles thing will get sorted.Oh how my sides splitted on that one.He might get my No.2,yep Moran for Vice pres. and bush as the main dude,make a wonderful team.

Hobbes

Billy Kovachy wrote:

But wait who is that other candidate Cherry something anyways the boss likes him.

Its Kerry, the least you could do is research the other candidate. Oh wait you read in the newspaper there Bruce was holding a concert.

I dont care if Iam Irish I have the right no wait a duty to publicly state my position on the internal affairs of other countries

Absolutly. If Americans can do it, why not the Irish? And if that other country is going to cause 8-20% increase in your bills, make your investments worth less why not comment on how screwed up their leader is?

Why because well yea he did a lot of things maybe not for the best are the good of the rest world but for the USA.

Like what exactly? Was it the removal of rights from US citizens? How about putting the US into record debt? Or prehaps the collaspe of the $? Or Oil prices at a historic high (thats good for his friends), or corporate scandal connections? Awarding unfair contracts to his friends to vacumn the taxpayers money? Cutting Veterens benifits? Sending more people to war? Alienate most of US allies? Lie to the world to start a war?

Come on seriously, what did he do for the best?

Is the world a safer place because of bush answer yes.Saddam is now going to face justice for his evil reign.

If the world is a much safer place then why is the US still worried about terrorist threats? Do you feel safer? Do you think there will be less or more terrorist attacks against the US due to Bushes actions?

what did Saddam pathetically do just killed a few Hundreds of thousands and raged a couple of wars gassed his own people but compared to Bushes Apocalyptic era it means nothing.

Least we forget, the US (famous Donald Rumsfield video) gave him the weapons to gas the "Kurds" (who he didn't see as his people) and make war on Iran.

But lets talk about the Kurds who the US fuked over by refusing them a change to powershare in Iraq or have their own country so they could get Turkey in to help them fight the war.

The economy is going down,well at least its going somewhere.

I see you have the same financial sense as Bush.

Seaneh

Reasons to Vote Bush.

#1 He isn't John Kerry.
#2 He isn't John Kerry.
#3 He isn't John Kerry.


I think you get the idea.