Thread: looks like Bush got in again for another four years....

I'm guessing that y'all watched and/or paid attention to the US elections. Whatta ya think of those and the fact that Bush got in again? Here's my thoughts in one short sentence- I'm feeling nauseus. I get to bitch for another four years.

I feel similarly depressed by this event, but I'm comforting myself with two thoughts: firstly, I don't think it would have made a huge difference if the other guy had got in (I will accept corrections on that point..) and secondly I have a feeling that a certain process is playing itself out on the world stage, and George Bush Jr's election and re-election hasn't created it, but is only accelerating it.

I'm with waxwing. Not that what he said was at all comforting, but it's nice to think that America isn't the only nation of hosers.

Luckily, if Bush declares martial law, I'm conveniently located to disappear into the SUBTROPICAL THORN FOREST.

Just try to come and get me there, Homeland Security! Try to brave the terrors of the cacti, tropical birds and Spanish moss! Mwa haha!

I'm really going to miss our forests and national parks
(Bush thinks mining and logging is a good way to care for our national treasures)

If there are trees growing somewhere in America you can bet you are on some kind of park or forrest. Where else can lumber be obtained? Everything outside of metropolitan areas is slowly being turned onto parkland and restricted use areas. It is becomming harder and harder for Americans to build a home in the woods in order to live in nature. All this would have only been made worse if Kerry had one.

I have some questions on Homeland Security but whos to say Kerry would have helped or made that worse, afterall both candidates are members of Skull And Bones.

Heh. That's right, guys: Kerry is anti-Walden. You heard it here first.

You better read the first paragraph of my post again, baby!

Originally Posted by JB

I'm really going to miss our forests and national parks
(Bush thinks mining and logging is a good way to care for our national treasures)

I'll not only miss the trees and nature but also the good clean air (thank you Bush for not signing kyoto; we all know you love to see animals and plants and nature in general die off and become extinct; this will eventually affect humankind as well. And Bush says he's "prolife"! HA!).
I guess we can all say "paka" to the good clean air as well. Hello smog!

Originally Posted by Светлана Ежова

I'm guessing that y'all watched and/or paid attention to the US elections. Whatta ya think of those and the fact that Bush got in again? Here's my thoughts in one short sentence- I'm feeling nauseus. I get to bitch for another four years.

You mean you're feeling nauseated. Nauseous means you cause others to feel sick when they are around you Maybe this is true too, I don't know.

BTW Kerry rejected Kyoto also, but on different grounds. He didn't deny global warming even exists like Bush has, but he considers the Kyoto Protocol too costly to implement for the American economy. Even if Kerry had become President, do you think a Republican-controlled Senate would have approved the treaty? No way. The essence of our government is to prevent a radical shift in executive power from translating into a radical shift in new legislation. While this is good in that it prevents some evil Hitler-like figure from imposing his will upon a helpless Congress, it also means that major shakeups in the status quo in a positive direction are next to impossible (ergo, it's pretty useless to vote for a third party candidate for president since he'll spend 4 years as an ineffective, lame duck and ruin his career for life). The structure of a two-party system is similar to the mechanics of a pendulum. Swings to both sides for a little while, but eventually it sits dead in the middle.

BTW2: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gcharter/iq.txt Go Connecticut

Originally Posted by Светлана Ежова

Originally Posted by JB

I'm really going to miss our forests and national parks
(Bush thinks mining and logging is a good way to care for our national treasures)

I'll not only miss the trees and nature but also the good clean air (thank you Bush for not signing kyoto; we all know you love to see animals and plants and nature in general die off and become extinct; this will eventually affect humankind as well. And Bush says he's "prolife"! HA!).
I guess we can all say "paka" to the good clean air as well. Hello smog!

Oh, please. I dislike Bush as much as the next person who's capable of independent, logical thought, but he's not solely responsible for the (future) state of the environment or anything else. To accomplish anything, he requires the complicity of other US legislators. Unfortunately, at the moment, the Republicans have control of just about every subsection of American government at this point (the judicial branch included, since there'll soon be Supreme Court nominations). Well, maybe not. There is this guy. Hooray for him. Of course, if you listen to the conspiracy theorists, he knows who killed JFK. But still.

Where was I? Oh, yeah. As I was saying, Bush cannot ruin the world alone. Luckily, he has the help of the Congress, not to mention certain other bootlicking world leaders. WAR IS PEACE! FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

Well, Mike, I guess the word "nauseaus" still does apply here. Because Bush sure has made lots of people around the world feel sick

About kerry, well, actually I don't like him. I do feel that he would be not much better than Bush. Won't sign Kyoto because it would be too expensive. Rrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhhttttttttt. The dumb@$$ should realize that if our planet is destroyed NOONE would be around to even CARE about money! But if I were a voting American I would vote kerry because I hate Bush more than Kerry. Ralph Nader? Well, in my opinion, a good way to waste your vote.

Originally Posted by mike

BTW2: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gcharter/iq.txt Go Connecticut

2004

Originally Posted by Светлана Ежова

Ralph Nader? Well, in my opinion, a good way to waste your vote.

I'm curious how much you actually know about US politics? Because Nader wasn't really a factor in this election. He wasn't even the Green Party candidate, for heaven's sake. And in any case, the primary reason to vote for a third party candidate in US presidential races is not to get them elected (because it's just not going to happen) but to get them a high enough vote count that their party gains more of a voice (and more funding). I believe Nader's goal in 2000 was 5% of the popular vote. Perhaps someone politically savvier than I will correct me, but I think I'm remembering correctly.

I do not like the two party system because it forces people to vote for their second choice instead of the person they really want. Perhaps "forces" is too strong a word. Maybe, but people are afraid that their vote will be wasted if they don't vote for one of the two main parties.

I see no correlation between IQ and common sence.
ie; A man who ran a filling station (petrol/gas) quit hiring college students because they were no good at pumping gas.

Kyoto; First: Proof of global warming has never been presented, only theories which vary. Many scientists believe that global warming theory is bunk. It could be that the issue is more political than scientific.
Second; Even if global warming is true only a fool would sign the Kyoto Treaty unless they were the president of almost any other country other than the US.

Many people who think they are for the Kyoto Treaty find out that they are not, once they realise a few facts.
http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/op ... -04es.html

Originally Posted by DDT

I do not like the two party system because it forces people to vote for their second choice instead of the person they really want. Perhaps "forces" is too strong a word. Maybe, but people are afraid that their vote will be wasted if they don't vote for one of the two main parties.

OMFG I agree with DDT about something.

PS: Is my avatar showing up for y'all? Because it's not showing up on my computer, but my computer is evil, so...

I know, it is terrible for me to agree, too........Actually we agree on something else too....what we want for Humankind. We just don't agree on how to get there.

And no, your avatar is gone. But your'e still doing better that me because I still can't even figure out how to get my avatar small enough for this place.

Originally Posted by DDT

And no, your avatar is gone. But your'e still doing better that me because I still can't even figure out how to get my avatar small enough for this place.

Once again my theory proves correct. Bush supporters are a tad bit more stupid than the rest of the population... I was arguing with three people about bush and it came to this...

The first people, who proved themselves wrong by the way, based their argument on this.

"Kerry likes gays so he is gay and bush is better" and then, some other bush d00d was like "But bush's partner has a gay daughter" (yes the word vice president isn't even in his vocabulary, he said "bush's partner" maybe sex partner? Probly). Then the girl who was against gays was like "She is?" (see, she is jus as un informed as the next blind bush supporter) And i was like "YEA SHE IS" and she goes "oh... who cares?!"

So, when you're whole argument that kerry is bad is centered on "he likes gays and gays = bad" but then it's "OK" if the vice presidents daughter is gay... well then you my friend are a flip flopping homosexual.

Second person.

This girl was like " Oh bush is so great omg he's the best" and i was like "yea, because he got 1,000 Americans killed?" and she said "Not 1,000 have died, only like 20."

I didn't even continue this argument, she's obviously too "right". get it, right?' hahahahaa.

the third chick said that "Kerry would retreat from iraq and the whole world would think we are cowards".

First, If we retreated from iraq... WOULD IT BE A BAD THING? If i was president, i'd put sadam RIGHT back in power, appolgize to the world and move on with life.

Second, Since when are we trying to "impress" the world ? Who cares what the world thinks. Let them think we are cowards? who cares? If someone tries to invade us THEN we can invade them. But since there were no weapons of mass destruction, no links to terror, no "INSTANT THREAT OMG"... Iraq was a mistake and Bush is too arrogant and rich to admit it.

Well perhaps if your friends were old enough to articulate coherent thoughts you would recieve a more informed response. Afterall, thats why we have a voting age.

well, they were 16 /17.

I missed the vote by 1 month. I don't turn 18 untill december. Blast. It's ok, my state went for kerry anyways. W00t go state.

Maybe the internet should have an age requirment, since, there are obviosuly parts you havn't figure out how to use.

Originally Posted by DDT

I do not like the two party system because it forces people to vote for their second choice instead of the person they really want. Perhaps "forces" is too strong a word. Maybe, but people are afraid that their vote will be wasted if they don't vote for one of the two main parties.

There's no maybe about it. If we had something like instant runoffs and the abolition of the electoral college there'd be no such thing as third party spoilers at all. Of course, the two main parties won't support instant runoffs for some weird reason, and smaller & less populous states won't vote to get rid of the electoral college because it means they can't manipulate the elections the way they do. I mean, it's really a terrible fucking joke that a state like Montana or Alaska with less than a million people (not voters, but people overall) gets 3 electoral votes automatically. Here's something funny to think about: when I first started watching the numbers after the first polls closed they looked like this:

Bush 54% 39 electoral votes
Kerry 46% 3 electoral votes

Does that make sense to you? A little later it was like

Bush 51% 66 electoral votes
Kerry 49% 77 electoral votes

Now, maybe it's just me but if 51% of the country wants Bush to be elected he ought not to have 46% of the electoral votes.

Originally Posted by DDT

I see no correlation between IQ and common sence.

According to most polls people didn't vote for Bush based on common sense. They voted for him because of gay marriage and the war on terror. Explain to me how one may know, using "common sence [sic]," that gay marriage should be illegal or that Bush is handling the war on terror appropriately. These are precisely the types of things that require information and reason, not some yokel's inner voice telling him "Dat ain't right, Gomer! Them thangs is all in a mess o' trouble! You bes go an vote fer Bush before them fags an Ay-rabs form themselves a coalition and send a nucular bomb to New York or D.C. again." DC and NYC are two places, btw, where Bush lost.

Truth be told, all serious political and economic issues demand a little more than having an intuitive feeling. Thinking otherwise is a dangerously stupid way of forming policy.

Originally Posted by DDT

Kyoto; First: Proof of global warming has never been presented, only theories which vary. Many scientists believe that global warming theory is bunk. It could be that the issue is more political than scientific.

Wrong. You read too much Libertarian Party propaganda, my friend. Global warming is proven beyond a doubt. The earth is heating up. In the past 100 years the global surface temp's gone up about one degree. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it has really far-reaching effects on the environment. Take a look at Antarctica sometime. Or what's left of it anyway.

What's theoretical is the principle cause of global warming. I think you're mistaking the two, very different as they are. It's the cause of global warming and how serious the problem will be if it continues that's open for debate. I'm sorry if the LP has made you believe otherwise. They tend to willingly mislead stupid people on a lot of issues to gain steam for their economic deregulation plans. It's easier to convince people to vote for a candidate who wants to remove the government mandates on pollution (which saves the companies millions of dollars at the expense of everyone on the planet) when you've already convinced them that pollution isn't something to worry about.