Bush vs. Kerry

09.06.04, 21:22
Who do you think SHOULD win in November in the US?
George 'Dubya' Bush, the neo-fascist (sorry, neo-conservative) incumbant or Kerry, the boring, uncharismatic fool without an actual agenda?

Who do you think WILL actually win?

    • Gość: As Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.144.popsite.net 09.06.04, 22:35
      ...of course, the boring and uncharismatic fool - as you call him, should win.
      On the other hand, "the neo-fascist" Bush is also, boring, uncharismatic, and
      on top of it all, a right-wing evangalist; his true agenda unknown, perhaps
      drowning in third-country oil wells...
      • Gość: wacko jacko Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nyc.rr.com 09.06.04, 22:58
        What should be the weather like on 11th day of July?
        I think it should be sunny but not too hot. Around 80 degrees with a nice breeze
        and 60% humidity. Where I am in July we have triple H weather, Hot, Hazy and Humid.
        The real question is " Who I'd like to see winning?"

        Let's turn that around a little bit and ask "Who has the better chance?"
        • Gość: As Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.144.popsite.net 09.06.04, 23:14
          Let's turn that around a little bit and ask "Who has the better chance?"

          based on the last american elections, the better thief!
          • Gość: wacko jacko Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nyc.rr.com 09.06.04, 23:20
            Gość portalu: As napisał(a):

            > Let's turn that around a little bit and ask "Who has the better chance?"
            >
            > based on the last american elections, the better thief!

            Very simplistic opinion and unsubstantiated.
            • Gość: As Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.144.popsite.net 09.06.04, 23:29
              I WISH that I could make the last elections as simplistic as you make them out
              to be (I don't-at all-think that my opinion was that); and if you have any idea
              of what happened in the us during the last elecitons, you would not make such
              statements.
              • Gość: wacko jacko Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nyc.rr.com 10.06.04, 02:51
                It is very simple if you want to learn anything.
                Gore stood no chance of winning that election mainly due to mismanagement of
                his staff who basically gave him a wrong advice.
                Just read the constitution and you'll see for yourself.
                In fact Gore lost the election not in Florida but in Tennessee and New Hampshire.
                Had he won one of those two states Florida wouldn't matter at all. He'd be the
                president today.


                I wonder what is so wrong with "Patriot Act"? Nobody can cite even one abuse.
                The legislation was passed 98 to 1(Feingold-D) with 1(Landrieu-D) not voting.
                Patriot Act is used as a political football. All of the sudden the democrats
                discovered that they are in fact opposing such a legislation. Where were they
                on the day of the rollcall? Drunk? High? Who's stupid?


                • erwas Re: Bush vs. Kerry 10.06.04, 05:56
                  Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał:
                  > Gore stood no chance of winning that election

                  let's not get technical, but he did win the election (popular vote). someone
                  else got appointed.

                  > I wonder what is so wrong with "Patriot Act"? Nobody can cite even one abuse.

                  ?

                  Congress passed the Patriot Act with almost no debate in the wake of 9/11, when
                  everyone was all unhinged. and you know, don't you wacko, what happens when you
                  get unhinged.
                  it takes away checks on law enforcement and threatens the very rights and
                  freedoms that Americans are so pompously proud of. for example, without a
                  warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your
                  most private medical records, your library records, and your student records...
                  and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.

                  one day you will be doodling along the NJ Turnpike in your 1978 Chevy Caprice
                  (did I get that right?) with your turn signal on and one of your headlights
                  out, dripping oil and trailing a black cloud of smoke. enough to annoy a cop.
                  just a routine stop. happens every day.
                  this time the cop enters the Terror Suspect Database. aha! a neighbour, who
                  studies your hovel through a telescope from the neighbouring project high-rise
                  has repoted seeing the familiar Guardian Unlimited logo on your monitor. no use
                  you protesting that you NEVER read the Guardian. it was chickenshorts that made
                  you do it. Ijustaccidentaly clicked on the link, and suddenly WHAM!! ten
                  minutes later (at 7 bps) there it was, that ugly logo. it's the truth officer!!
                  we WILL miss you wacko.
                  but with no lawyer, no contact with the outside world and some ladies underwear
                  on your head the chances of you ever reappearing on this forum are very slim.



                  • Gość: wacko jacko Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nyc.rr.com 10.06.04, 10:36
                    According to the constitution it is not a popular vote what counts.
                    At no time Mr Gore had surpassed Mr Bush in Florida vote tally. After each count
                    he came a few votes short. The court stopped the vote recounts on a ground
                    of equal protection clause (7:2) and ordered to certify results (5:4). Tht
                    happend on the 12th of December which was a due date for the result certification.
                    In the case of court not ordering the remedy the final vote would take place in
                    Congress with one state having one vote. Note that Mr. Bush had 29 states on his
                    side. In 1888 Benjamin Harrison became a president losing popular vote.

                    Very nice try with the Patriot Act. A bit on a border with paranoia.
                    The situation you have so colorfully painted is not covered by the statue.
                    Currently there are two people being held under the Patriot Act.
                    ACLU could not bring one example of the abuse.

                    In a political season there are political games being played. Your job is to
                    separate reality from the static noise.


              • Gość: marie Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nhsd.k12.pa.us 10.06.04, 15:30
                The terms like right-wing evangalist and neo or (the one I just read) facist
                conservative are derrogatory words towards political opponents. Like right-
                wing evangelist refers to people who believe in God and use their morals to
                form some policies. Neo facist really doesn't make sense because Bush hasn't
                made the US a totalitarian state. The patriot act is needed some parts may
                stretch too far though. Otherwise the US couldn't investigate terrorists even
                with as much resources as they do common criminals. One other point...The US
                is a Republic so the populace of the US doesn't directly elect the
                President. "based on the last american elections, the better thief" implies
                Bush stole the election. Ballots weren't filled out right, the election results
                were announced by the media before the vote was counted causing some to not
                vote, and Al Gore felt the need for a recall only where he lost. It was really
                messed up but not stolen.
                • jtt23 Re: Bush vs. Kerry 10.06.04, 18:17
                  Gość portalu: marie napisał(a):

                  >Neo facist really doesn't make sense because Bush hasn't
                  > made the US a totalitarian state.

                  Two points:
                  1) just in terms of your argument, to be precise, the fact that Bush has not made the US a totalitarian state, does not prove he is not a fascist at heart (he could be facing constraints)
                  2) However, I did not mean neo-fascist literally; I assumed participants in this forum would be sophisticated enough to notice that. What I did mean was that I noticed some extremely disturbing tendencies in his policies. Such as releasing very little information to the public, which impedes the democratic process and is generally associated with nasty regimes. Example: The way he tried to bully the press into submission. The way he portaits any criticism as "unpatriotic".
                  • Gość: wacko jacko Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nyc.rr.com 11.06.04, 05:01
                    Your point number one is lauhable. Bush might have some hairy thoughts, you know.
                    Based on that assumption let's call him a pervert.

                    Point number 2 is even more unrealistic.
                    You are basing your opinions on a political talk not on the facts.
                    In accordance with the law the administration releases only what it has to release.
                    Who did Bush called unpatriotic? Give me one example.

                    PS. Ever heard of stonewalling? That was the main tactic of former president, Mr
                    Clinton. Was he a fascist at heart? I think you need to reexamine your political
                    vocabulary.
    • Gość: krish Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: 62.233.233.* 09.06.04, 23:09
      What does "neo-fascist" or "fascist" mean???
      • Gość: wacko jacko Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nyc.rr.com 09.06.04, 23:28
        Gość portalu: krish napisał(a):

        > What does "neo-fascist" or "fascist" mean???

        It means that the writer does not like the candidate. The dislike is primarily
        based on emotion and begs for some kind of backing. The English language comes
        to the rescue with the words like dumb, stupid, aloof, neo-fascist, extreme
        rightwinger, idiot, shallow, warmonger and many, many more. Who was that candidate?



        Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. In 1988 when Bush was running they added wimp
        to above description.
        • Gość: As Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.144.popsite.net 09.06.04, 23:32
          neo-fascist or fascist does not mean what you have implied, and you know it!
          be clear and precise!
          • Gość: krish Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: 62.233.233.* 10.06.04, 00:36
            What does it meat then?...
        • jtt23 neo-fascist 10.06.04, 00:38
          When I said neo-fascist I was referring to Bush's policies... Fascist means right-wing authoritarian. Like the misnamed "Patriot Act", his style of government- release as little information as possible to the public and say "just trust me, guys". And of course his disregard for the well-being and life of non-Americans (see Guantanamo Bay, prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib prison)

          I think saying Bush is just dumb is giving him way too much credit.
          • Gość: krish Re: neo-fascist IP: 62.233.233.* 10.06.04, 01:01
            Sorry, but I think, that you are mixing things. Fascists WERE of the left
            wing!!! By the way: I am neither Bush's opponent nor his follower.
            • jtt23 Re: neo-fascist 10.06.04, 01:17
              Gość portalu: krish napisał(a):

              > Sorry, but I think, that you are mixing things. Fascists WERE of the left
              > wing!!! By the way: I am neither Bush's opponent nor his follower.

              The definition of fascism is actually: a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism).

              So its more about militarism and an opressive, totalitarian regime. This does not strictly imply right- or left-wing regimes. However, I would tend to say Hitler of Nazi Germany, Mussolini of Italy and General Franco of Spain (all 3 were Fascists) were right-wing in their social ideology. They believed in a traditional social structure with men working and women at home and so on, they wanted a strong state with law and order... But you are correct in the sense that their economic policy was quite left-wing.
              • Gość: krish Re: neo-fascist IP: 62.233.233.* 10.06.04, 08:35
                Yes, you are absolutely right as for definitions. But what does result from
                them? Left wing politicians want a weak state without law and order... I am
                beginning to get anxious, it's the truth. (Am I not a fascist). But when one
                compare left- and right-wing one conclusion comes out: right-wing ones have
                mainly faults; left-wing ones have exclusively advantages and only one fault:
                they never work.


                PS. Not only economy. Did you know, that Hitler introduced as the first limits
                in smoking cigarettes: limited number public places, where smoking was allowed,
                limited access to cigarettes for women (especially pregnant), and other things,
                which EU is doing now as its own invention.
                • jtt23 Re: neo-fascist 10.06.04, 14:01
                  No need to get worried. Communists are not the only ones with a love for weak states. Libertarians do as well and even though their ideology hasn't been tried out yet, it does not involve an authoritarian state.

                  Also, the "best solution" need not be extreme right-wing or extreme left wing, right? I would expect that most extreme solutions will have many faults.

                  And lastly, you say left-wing ideas only have advantages. Do you really mean that????? It seems to me they have mostly disadvantages...
                • erwas assholes 10.06.04, 16:49

                  > right-wing ones have mainly faults; left-wing ones have exclusively
                  > advantages and only one fault: they never work.

                  which just goes to show how misleading these generalized definitions can be.
                  the overlap in extreeme ideologies (fascism, communism) suggests that they have
                  more in common with each other than they do with their more centered cousins.

                  the last time a in human history that a reasonable socio-political (not to
                  mention religious) system was in place was during the neolithic. it held out
                  here and there (Crete one example) but was pretty quickly crushed by the
                  onslaught of the nomadic-pastoral, patriarchal, iron forging, horse riding, and
                  literate assholes from the fringes of the known world.
                  too bad they didn't just stay out there with their stupid goats and ideological
                  luggage.
                  they're still in charge to this day.

                  there is only one path: the straight and narrow.

              • Gość: marie Re: neo-fascist IP: *.nhsd.k12.pa.us 10.06.04, 15:15
                left means radical
                right means conservative (keeping things the way they are)

                Being left or right for me depends on what the topic is about.
                Hilter and Mussolini were definitely radical though. There wasn't a nazi or
                facist state in Germany or Italy until they took power.
    • Gość: VIP-1 jtt-23, pojeb jestes IP: *.city.mississauga.on.ca 10.06.04, 16:53
      • jtt23 Re: jtt-23, pojeb jestes 10.06.04, 17:52
        Cheers for the constructive criticism!
Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja