Burn in hell america

cdebru

pickarooney wrote:

.
Simply put, the USA hasn't been attacked since Bush went on his rampage against terror, something that counts for a lot in the eyes of an insecure people. Remember they'd never been attacked on home soil before, and that's something that nobody wants to go through, or even risk.

Kerry failed to understand the mindset of the common voter, failed to address their concerns adequately, failed to win them over, failed to become president.

actually the twin towers were attacked in 1993

and you could argue that it took 8 years to organise the next atack
or that bill clinton kept them safe for 8 years

Memnoch

Kaimera wrote:

so you think that the majority of americans then dont want peace just because the voted Bush in?

either they don't want peace or they are too ill-informed/stupid to realise that voting for bush is going to result in the opposite of peace for all concerned.

hence the early mention of american voters being dumb by several posters.

seamus

pickarooney wrote:

Simply put, the USA hasn't been attacked since Bush went on his rampage against terror, something that counts for a lot in the eyes of an insecure people. Remember they'd never been attacked on home soil before, and that's something that nobody wants to go through, or even risk.

That's an interesting thing to say pickarooney. Since the only major terrorist attack took place during Bush's presidency, then surely it means that there was something lacking in Bush's administration that allowed it to happen.

Now we all know that regardless of who was sitting in the White House, these attacks probably would have taken place, but surely the logic is completely backwards to elect Bush on the basis of his past record of defence against terrorism. Put bluntly, Bush has had the worst portfolio of preventing and defending against terrorism in US history.

RE*AC*TOR

seamus wrote:

Now we all know that regardless of who was sitting in the White House, these attacks probably would have taken place

Have to disagree with you there. Had Gore beend elected, I fully beleive Richard Clarkes anti-terrorism strategy would have been adopted sooner (which amounted to pretty much everything done since), and the Hart-Rudman report would have been acknowledged. The Bush camp ignored the threat.

Trojan

seamus wrote:

Now we all know that regardless of who was sitting in the White House, these attacks probably would have taken place

Not necessarily. In all reports I've read, Clinton was extremely pro-active in fighting Al-Q and OBL. GWB is reported to have ignored 3 warnings of these attacks. I think it's fair to say that there was a good chance the attacks wouldn't take place, or succeed, if GWB hadn't "won" the last election.

pencil

I don't want America to burn in hell - that’s overdoing it.

But, I awake this morning and I honesty cannot believe what I am seeing - they voted Bush back in!!!!

How could they vote him in? After all of this?

1. All the America soldiers dying for a LIE - Iraq.
2. The sweet heart deals - non contested contracts awards (Halliburton).
3. Not giving a sh!t about the environment - Kyoto.
4. The absolute lack of tact when dealing in all international affairs - the downright disrespect shown to the U.N. (and hence the rest of the world).
6. Ignoring the 'Mighty' Constitution and treating people worse than you would treat rabid dogs - Quantanimo (sp?) & Iraqi prisons.
7. The downward spiral of living standards of the average American.

I can only conclude one of two things. Either Americans are in fact stupid or there is something dangerous happing in politics over there.

(I'm really nervous about those electronic voting machines with no paper trail)

God knows what he'll do in the next 4 years - its frightening!

The best that can happen is that he doesn't fu@k up to much and populace get shaken to their senses enough not to vote so right-of-right for 50 years!


Pork99 gets my vote for the best one liner!
"The American people have been asked whether they prefer killing foetuses or Arabs. They chose Arabs." LOL

The_Bullman

pickarooney wrote:

Simply put, the USA hasn't been attacked since Bush went on his rampage against terror, something that counts for a lot in the eyes of an insecure people. Remember they'd never been attacked on home soil before, and that's something that nobody wants to go through, or even risk.

Reminds me of the Bear Patrol Simpsons episode

Kerry failed to understand the mindset of the common voter, failed to address their concerns adequately, failed to win them over, failed to become president

That sums up Kerry's election campaign for me. I was over there during the summer and he failed miserably to get his point accross-all he did was to bog himself down with his vietnam experiences

koneko

Not one of ye are IN america and all your **** is based on media which we all know is the best way to judge anything.

I was in America recently and plenty of the (younger) people I spoke to there are even more anti-Bush than some of the people here. They are going to have to deal with him every day. The people that I spoke to that are voting for Bush couldn't think of a single reason to do so, their votes were based on sheer ignorance of what's going on.

I'm sure some people agree with Bush's tactics and policies, and aren't worried by his war-mongering, or the patriot act, or any of it. But that doesn't mean everyone that's voting for him does. A lot of the votes he's receiving are out of plain ignorance of what's going on in the world. Plenty of them still think there are WMD and that Saddam and OBL have some sort of happy-terrorist-camp set up somewhere.

seamus

Troj, Reactor -

I reckon an attack of sorts would have taken place. It was inevitable imo.

My points still stands though. Bush's history with terrorism is abysmal, downright incompetent. How could so many voters have been duped into thinking it was the exact opposite (since it's obvious now that Terrorism was *the* main factor)?

Hobbes

cdebru wrote:

take the ear plugs out she 's screaming

Sorry to burst your bubble but it is not over yet. Bush would like to think its over but until every vote is counted its still anyones game.

pickarooney

seamus wrote:

That's an interesting thing to say pickarooney. Since the only major terrorist attack took place during Bush's presidency, then surely it means that there was something lacking in Bush's administration that allowed it to happen.

Now we all know that regardless of who was sitting in the White House, these attacks probably would have taken place, but surely the logic is completely backwards to elect Bush on the basis of his past record of defence against terrorism. Put bluntly, Bush has had the worst portfolio of preventing and defending against terrorism in US history.

I'm by no means saying I agree with what I hypothesised as for me the likely reason for Bush's victory, just trying to understand how what for most of the world seems inconceivable is a hard reality.

Point taken about the 1993 WTC attacks and Oklahoma, but in terms of casualties these were small-scale. Nobody expected anything like the 2001 attacks (I mean the average Joe here, not those with inside information and after-the-fact theorists), so they don't really blame Bush. It was like a guy at a bar getting sucker-punched from a stranger walking in off the street. No shame on they guy for getting hit, but dammit if he's not gonna hit back, and hard.
So Bush gets the rep as the bare-knuckle idiot among world followers of politics, and Kerry has to adopt the mantle of the suave sophisticate, not something that particularly suited him.
In the end, Kerry was not just out-gunned, but out-smarted by the "illiterate chimp". That has got to hurt. Don't expect Kerry to get near a nomination ever again (actually I don't know if that's possible) as when the dust settles he might well be more hated than Bush. America don't take kindly to failures, and that, despite the undoubted qualities that the man has, but failed to emphasise, will be Kerry's sad legacy.

pickarooney

koneko wrote:

I was in America recently and plenty of the (younger) people I spoke to there are even more anti-Bush than some of the people here.

Statistics seem to show that the youngsters still didn't get up of their arses to vote.

RE*AC*TOR

seamus wrote:

Troj, Reactor -

I reckon an attack of sorts would have taken place. It was inevitable imo.

Of course, but would it have succeeded under Gore?
Eg what about all the attacks under the Clinton Admin?

What do all the folowing have in common?

12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously, UN Headquarters, FBI Headquarters, Israeli Embassy in Washington, Boston airport, Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY, George Washington Bridge, US Embassy in Albania.

Insert the phrase "plan to blow up" before each one. Then after each one insert the phrase "was thwarted under the Clinton administration".

Pal

Gizzard wrote:

You fking morons, how in hell could more people vote for the monkey bush again this time


Well America deserves to burn in the hell its created now, country full 51% of right wing rednecks

AGREED

koneko

pickarooney wrote:

Statistics seem to show that the youngsters still didn't get up of their arses to vote.

Puff Daddy failed us all.

Seriously though people, leave out the personal insults. Insult the post, not the poster. If this keeps up the Politics forum will collapse and we won't have anywhere to discuss the results.

Unpossible

hmmm, I think its a little unfair to just label all americans as dumb/morons/<insert insult> . I can understand why people voted bush, I imagine most of them are afraid and they saw him as being a strong set leader who could lead then to safety. I am really angry/p***ed off at the result, but they have the right to choose their own leaders theres nothing I can do about it.

ionapaul

koneko wrote:

...A lot of the votes he's [Bush] receiving are out of plain ignorance of what's going on in the world. Plenty of them still think there are WMD and that Saddam and OBL have some sort of happy-terrorist-camp set up somewhere.

I think more votes are from people who just don't really care about the average Iraqi, or if they do, it is well down their list of priorities. I think they are certainly wrong to believe that what Bush is doing / will do will better protect them, but I certainly don't damn them (or insult them) for voting that way.

If I thought that waging a far-off war would be to my benefit in the long run, I probably would support it if I thought it was being conducted in a fairly humane fashion. Maybe I am a selfish bastard, but I think most people would do likewise.

Third_Echelon

Gizzard wrote:

You fking morons, how in hell could more people vote for the monkey bush again this time

Well America deserves to burn in the hell its created now, country full 51% of right wing rednecks

no.. that would be 51% of the people who voted. Only 60% (159million out of 265 million) of america voted... if you are going to blame anyone, blame the other 40% for not getting up of their arse and voting!!!!

OfflerCrocGod

Third_Echelon wrote:

blame the other 40% for not getting up of their arse and voting!!!!

The other 40% would probably have voted Bush aswell.

Sums the democratic voice/opinion up pretty nicely.

theprofessor

i'd like to say thanks to all the kerry supporters who did so much, there's just no fighting brainwashing, ignorance and STUPIDITY on such as grand scale as the U S of A! :mad:

they should enjoy their ignorance while they have a chance, he'll have them all drafted within a couple of years if he keeps it up


my REAL fear is that during the NEXT four years, he won't care about public opinion since he can't run for a 3rd term(unless he sorts that one out too).

ALLAH only knows what he will do!!!!!!

it was nice knowing you all people............. :eek:

BEAT

I didnt read the last 8 pages but I will say one thing.
My exact words yesterday were that America should burn with Bush and his reign of terror.
I knew he would win long before election time, but I still got out and voted for Kerry.
Everyone in my office voted for Bush.
why?
well they are rich white americans and Bush keeps the wealthy happy and keeps the poor right where they are.
Why did the non-wealthy vote for Bush...simple
maybe some of you dont know about this but Bush adopted this tax plan that gives the middle class more money back at tax time.
so in exchange for a little more money at the end of the year they vote for the man who lost us jobs and got us in a war that wont end anytime soon.
The answer here is , a quick buck makes the votes sway and he knows that.
I agree that America deserves what it gets and I cant wait to get out of here for good.

bonkey

BEAT wrote:

The answer here is , a quick buck makes the votes sway and he knows that.

More importantly, he knows that people only look at the easy numbers.

Bush gave a tax-cut and cut many benefits. Many people who eneded up worse off overall still were grateful for their taxcut.....as though two seperate people were responsible.

Its like "Bush is great, he gave us less taxes.....and that helps us pay for the cost our decreased benefits no longer cover, but its not Bush's fault that they're gone....."

I don't get it.....

jc

seamus

bonkey wrote:

I don't get it.....

Neither do they bonkey, and that's the problem

BEAT

bonkey wrote:

More importantly, he knows that people only look at the easy numbers.

Bush gave a tax-cut and cut many benefits. Many people who eneded up worse off overall still were grateful for their taxcut.....as though two seperate people were responsible.

Its like "Bush is great, he gave us less taxes.....and that helps us pay for the cost our decreased benefits no longer cover, but its not Bush's fault that they're gone....."

I don't get it.....

jc

I hear ya man,
He literally bought his votes with the tax cut, and then he gave money back to single parent in the middle of the year. In july single parents were cut a check of around $600 per kid , craziness. He spent the last 4 years taking jobs away, outsourcing, taking benefits away, but giving money out here and there and it made them forget that thier neighbor lost his/her job and home etc...

I dont get it either,
they are so easily brainwashed with a quick easy buck.

landser

Bush being elected is the best thing that could happen to the US. had Kerry been elected, the fall-out from Iraq could have tainted the Democrats for a generation. The result of this would be 3, 4 maybe 5 unchecked terms of good ol' boy Republican rule. Mercy! As matters stand, the Democrats can now sit back and fling the ****!

cdebru

Hobbes wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble but it is not over yet. Bush would like to think its over but until every vote is counted its still anyones game.

its over nearly 140,00 votes behind virtually every provisional and postal ballot would have to be for kerry its not gonna happen
i wish it would
but lets face reality
unless they find a bundle of a hundred thousand uncounted kerry votes lying around he doesn't have a chance
and that count has been so closely watched i cant see that happening

claidheamh

Hello everyone,

Also-
With a Republican majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate, the US is more than likely heading in a very startling direction politically. Where is the balance of power? I believe it got off at the last station, and we've gotten on the bullet train straight to hell.

Something else I find deeply disturbing: The international community knows more about the processes of US government than most US citizens. This disturbs me because these ill-educated people vote, so long as they aren't felons. Heck, I come to the Irish Web to get my news. Even with the occasional flame, people here are much more levelheaded than to that which I am exposed here at home.

Home? I live in Texas, and knew my vote meant very little; However, I went out and voted. Still, it is very disheartening to see the result of the decisions made last night.

It seems to me, that many more US citizens than I previously imagined, care about imposing their belief of "Manifest Destiny" upon the globe. It is easier for us to ignore the squalid condition in which our lower class survives, while simultaneously forcing ourselves upon other nations. That is shameful, and I feel embarrassed to be even an unwilling party to such wanton bigotry.

Please realize, that some of us being loaded onto this bullet train are kicking and screaming. Many of us are just as disgusted with the outcome as our international neighbors. We did our best.

Unfortunately our best wasn't good enough, and now the international community must unify and congeal. It will need to take an unyielding position when doing business with the US and its allies. Make your voices heard. Boycott our goods. If possible, employ us overseas, so that we are making a difference to the growth and improvement of your community. If you're afraid you may pick-up one of the conservative mindset...don't worry, as most wouldn't apply for overseas jobs (excluding the o&g industry) anyway.

My sincerest apology for my countrymen's blindness goes out to anyone willing to accept it.

ionapaul

landser wrote:

Bush being elected is the best thing that could happen to the US. had Kerry been elected, the fall-out from Iraq could have tainted the Democrats for a generation. The result of this would be 3, 4 maybe 5 unchecked terms of good ol' boy Republican rule. Mercy! As matters stand, the Democrats can now sit back and fling the ****!

Interesting point. Assuming the US is free of Iraq in 4 years time, I suppose! It is impossible (but fun) to forecast the next election - I expect the Democrats to walk it following another 4 years of Bush's presidency.

Peteee

the thing is though is taht america would be out of iraq if the iraqi's didnt blow them up!

idiots

and also name a country that has gone from dictatorship (or similar) to democracy, overnight?

ireland, there was 1922, britain there was a civil war, like wise america

stop blowing up the americasn, THEY CAME TO HELP YOU! why not let them leave, and tehn you can go sling **** at each other

As for bush being elected, tis a travesty. Interesting how all the hick (yes i'm tarring with one ginormous brush but...........) states voted for bush, while the rest voted for kerry. Go figure, monkeys will vote for monkeys

I feel sorry for all you people living in texas (etc) who voted kerry, KNOWING, it wouldnt have any difference. As i see democracy it shouldnt have any difference where youre from, a vote is a vote, whether from rich or poor etc etc whereas in america your vote is worth more if you live in ohio rather then texas (in a way its not, but in anotehr, better way, it is)

cdebru

ionapaul wrote:

Interesting point. Assuming the US is free of Iraq in 4 years time, I suppose! It is impossible (but fun) to forecast the next election - I expect the Democrats to walk it following another 4 years of Bush's presidency.

well its unlikely cheney will run
with that dodgy ticker
maybe it will be rice vs clinton
or powell vs clinton

btw cant see the US out of Iraq in the next four years unless they are forced out but the upside to that is they dont really have enough troops to invade anywhere else
of course the iranians have realised this and its full steam ahead with their atomic weapons programme same with the north koreans
as they have seen this is the only way to safeguard yourself from the US


now i see why they voted for him he really has made the world a safer place