If Election Was Today Who Would You Vote For

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
User avatar
Techie-Micheal
Security Consultant
Posts: 19511
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:11 am
Location: In your servers

Post by Techie-Micheal »

You do realize that Nader is considered a wingist, even compared to Kerry or Bush, don't you? Wingists are bad.
Proven Offensive Security Expertise. OSCP - GXPN

Natan
Registered User
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 3:49 am
Location: Baltimore

Post by Natan »

naderman wrote: Hi,

http://www.globalvote2004.org

Why are you bringing in a global vote? This election is about the USA, not the rest of the world.
"You may only be one person to the world, but you may also be the world to one person."

Volion
Registered User
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 5:25 pm
Contact:

Post by Volion »

After watching all the debates and the mud slinging these last few weeks, I vote for Mickey Mouse.
Image
Proud supporter of phpBB-RPG.com.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

MennoniteHobbit wrote: Yet none of these actions are making the government run by religion... however I'm only using the word "theocrasizing" as the verb version of theocracy meaning a government run by religion, not any other stretched version.

From Merriam-Webster:
Theocracy: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

Bush is fond of saying that he relies on God's guidance, he pushes policies which are regarded as divinely ordered (eg- the gay marriage ban), and he takes the other actions I listed before which have no secular justification whatsoever, but which do have an obvious religious motive. You can deny that this is theocracy if you like, but at this point it seems like Bush would need to call himself the Pope before you would admit that he's been pushing the government in a theocratic direction.

PS. Before you try to use a "no true Scotsman" fallacy on me, theocracy is not an on/off binary condition. A state can be more or less theocratic, and under Bush, America has become more theocratic. This can only be denied if you are not familiar with reality.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

User avatar
BiggDawgg
Registered User
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:46 am
Location: USA, Illinois
Contact:

Post by BiggDawgg »

I won't vote for anyone

because I know no matter who wins

I will get screwed for 4 more years!!

.... couldn't even claim that when I got married

lololol :lol:
Last edited by BiggDawgg on Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

To be quite honest, I'm just sick of hearing about this election and this seemingly endless campaign. Why can't the American elections be like the Canadian ones, where the whole thing from start to finish takes about a month rather than two years?
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

TehBooster
Former Team Member
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:54 pm

Post by TehBooster »

Darth Wong wrote: To be quite honest, I'm just sick of hearing about this election and this seemingly endless campaign. Why can't the American elections be like the Canadian ones, where the whole thing from start to finish takes about a month rather than two years?

The Media blows things out of proportion, and decides shove it down everyone's throat?

JINJ_THE_DESTROYER
Registered User
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:32 am
Location: You probably won't See

Post by JINJ_THE_DESTROYER »

i think i'd go with what most of us English gentlemen would do and stick with Bush for comedy value.
Cheers,
JTM

CLee
Registered User
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 2:42 pm

Post by CLee »

TehBooster wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:To be quite honest, I'm just sick of hearing about this election and this seemingly endless campaign. Why can't the American elections be like the Canadian ones, where the whole thing from start to finish takes about a month rather than two years?

The Media blows things out of proportion, and decides shove it down everyone's throat?

The media is only interested in the "horserace" aspects of the campaign. But one of the things that is making the season longer is the heavy influence of the state primaries. In the past, each party's presidential candidate was chosen through backroom deals by the party bosses at the party's conventions. That meant that the actual campaign season was no more then three to four months long. But since the state primaries are now used to selected the presidential candidates, that has added at least 6 more months of campaigning. This, also has the affect of turning the conventions to grand stage show for the candidates.
Carlos Myers
A+, Network+
Member - Star Wars Roleplaying Club

KingOfDarkness
Registered User
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:58 pm
Location: Taz's Bar coming soon...
Contact:

Post by KingOfDarkness »

I Hate both of them ...

But if i had to choose it would be bush ...

cause he has already made things worse.

But kerry would make it even more worser. ^_^

User avatar
Anaximander Thales
Registered User
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:05 am
Location: Alabama

I found this interesting ...

Post by Anaximander Thales »

Seems that "The American Conservative" is Endorsing Kerry - just because Bush is unworthy.

Article Here.

Some Excerpts
Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.

Interesting the a magazine that supports the party that Bush represents doesn't even support Bush - in fact says he's unworthy of ANY of their support.

Sure, there are Democrats that don't support Kerry - but very few Republicans will openly defend Bush's "war plans" for Iraq. Only a handful call Bush's plans successful - most others call it misquided and ill thought out.
A cat almost always blinks when hit in the head with a ball peen hammer.

User avatar
Johan-Tayn
Registered User
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 10:41 pm
Location: the last place you saw me...
Contact:

Post by Johan-Tayn »

Bush
http://www.third-core.org
2004 Election Debates and the HowWouldTheyVote videos.

Pit
Security Consultant
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:17 pm
Location: kµlt øƒ Ø™
Contact:

Post by Pit »

Techie-Micheal wrote: You do realize that Nader is considered a wingist, even compared to Kerry or Bush, don't you? Wingists are bad.

You mean, he is distinctly different to other candidates? Yeah, I can see why that would be really bad! :o
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

bammer
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: In front of the computer screen
Contact:

Re: If Election Was Today Who Would You Vote For

Post by bammer »

sketter wrote: The arab world attacked us on 9/11/01.


Besides the fact that I'm 13, I would vote for Bush. I disagree(sp?) with your "Arab world" comment. It is not "the arabs" that flew the planes into the Twin Towers, but a group of people under the command of Osama Bin Laden, who happen to be Islamic extremists. That does not mean the whole Arab population of the world planned a massive attack on us.

Let's pretend you flew a plane into a highrise building in Saidi Arabia. Let's pretend you're Catholic. It is like blaming all of Catholocism for one attack by some mentally impaired extremist.

Just my two cents.
Pit wrote:
Techie-Micheal wrote:You do realize that Nader is considered a wingist, even compared to Kerry or Bush, don't you? Wingists are bad.

You mean, he is distinctly different to other candidates? Yeah, I can see why that would be really bad! :o


Nader. Well, he doesn't even really have a chance, as him ballot is only in 28 states. He is an Independant, not belonging to the democratic or Republican parties, but belonging to the group of people who brought on the law saying that car must have seatbelts, etc. His "party" can also be called consumer advocates.
bammer
The Flying Lawnmower... the general chat site

Image

Natan
Registered User
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 3:49 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: If Election Was Today Who Would You Vote For

Post by Natan »

bammer wrote: Let's pretend you flew a plane into a highrise building in Saidi Arabia. Let's pretend you're Catholic. It is like blaming all of Catholocism for one attack by some mentally impaired extremist.


Sorry to nitpick, but I'd like to dispell the commonly thought notion that suicide bombers and 'extremists' are mentally impaired or are poverty stricken. Studied have found "that the more you look into the biographies, the more the clichés crumble about external factors such as poverty or loneliness playing any major role in determining the profile of a suicide bomber. They come from poor and wealthy families, from among the working class and university graduates."

The British science weekly says that experts who have studied the psychological profiles and backgrounds of suicide bombers find these assailants are often secular, well-educated individuals.
"You may only be one person to the world, but you may also be the world to one person."

Locked

Return to “General Discussion”