Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

The Bush Bounce...

Politics aren't sports, although they're touted as such.

I have no problems with Republicans as a whole, it's fringe elements such as Bush that irk me. Democrats have nothing going for them either. At least Republicans know how to organize, obviously.

Anyway, to the point. I'm not seeing this election on a party line basis. Bush, the man, is either too inept or too dishonest to lead this country, depending on how one wants to look at it. On the other hand, Kerry the man is too lackluster to provide any real challenge.

Cheerleading, in any case, is pointless.
 
LugiaCSC 04: How about either contributing some real thoughts to the thread or cut out the spammish posts?
Would you like "Go Bush" posts in a thread about the Democratic Convention? [/rhetorical question]
 
Last edited:
Yah, lugia, why not post something revelant to this conversation other than go dems. Quit spamming up this thread.
Go Bush j/k

It's tough to run an effective campaign when the opponent has so much more in his war chest (I heard Ken Lay gave Bush something like 40 million dollars for his campaign, probably just a rumor though). Plus, you have to constantly defend yourself against stupid accusations like that idiotic swift boat controversy (in case anyone was wondering, swift boats on the river can easily take fire without adjacent boats knowing about it, happened all the time in Vietnam). Kerry probably can't return the same level of mudslinging that the Bush campaign does (it's pretty easy to miss senate votes when you're out campaigning for president).

I have the same problems with the fringe elements of the GOP that seem to have completely taken over the party in the last few years. I'm suprised the party doesn't have any more balls and moves back to their closer to the center ways. I guess that's what America wants though.
 
For all knows lets hope Bush doesn't steal the election again.Might get around to putting up what Kerry said tommorow...But
it is a good speach.I liked it...
 
Last edited:
Polls are stupid, especially ones done by members of one party. If you are a republican and you are doing a poll who do you think you are going to have answer the poll, a bunch of republicans or a bunch of democrats. If you want it to show Bush in the lead what party do you think the people they survey are going to be in.

Besides this is the democratic ploy, when the take the survey they say they will vote Bush to make him think he has a solid lead. :rolleyes:

America can do better......and help is on the way.

By the way does anyone remember when we weren't on a terrorist allert. Can you say "scare tactics".

We need to get rid of the electoral eliminated, and make it where presidents can be elected for more terms and make the terms longer like senators serve for 6 years instead of 4(since the first year your just getting situated and the last year your campaigning). And the president should have a number of vacation days just like any other job.
 
Last edited:
For all knows lets hope Bush doesn't steal the election again.

Yup, Bush stole the election in 2000.... according to people who don't know how the Electorial College works that is. :)

...Doesn't mean that I think we still keep the Electorial College, though. ;)
 
Last edited:
Nick15 said:
Yup, Bush stole the election in 2000.... according to people who don't know how the Electorial College works that is. :)
Click to expand...
Still pretty bad when the majority loses in a democracy.
 
Uh DragonStar, in response to your entire post...

Most of these pollsters do their job for a living, and take pride in predicting correct outcomes. Zogby is actually a registered Democrat, but he has shown Republicans leading often. The fact of the matter is, although one poll is deceiving, hundreds of polls are not.

I think after September 11th you wouldn't resort to accusing the Bush administration of "scare tactics" when dealing with homeland security. Let me guess, if the Bush administration wasn't warning people, you would say they aren't doing enough to combat terror?

You said: "We need to get rid of the electoral eliminated, and make it where presidents can be elected for more terms and make the terms longer like senators serve for 6 years instead of 4(since the first year your just getting situated and the last year your campaigning). And the president should have a number of vacation days just like any other job."

So basically you want to change the entire constitution revolving around elections? By the way, Senators DO serve 6 years, not 4.

If Bush wins the popular vote and Kerry wins the electoral this November, will I still be hearing about the horrors of the electoral college? I doubt it. Rather hypocritical if you ask me.

~ RaNd0m
 
RaNd0m said:
Uh DragonStar, in response to your entire post...
~ RaNd0m
Click to expand...
Your response is barely worth responding too, (just like the Republican attacks on John Kerry) but I'll answer it anyway.

As for the polls, like other people said who cares what the polls say, just because they say Bush is in the lead now doesn't mean he'll win the election in the end.

You talk about the Bush administration warning people, well it seems that's all they've done since after September 11th is have the country on some kind of allert, yet I haven't heard of any major terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11th tradgedy, which seems to be a huge part of his campaign for some reason.

Now the electorals were made in the times of the colony when communication between the colonies and early states took days, now that we have television and the internet covering the campaign trail the electoral is outdated and therefore should be replaced by the majority vote. The reason we only have a president serve for 2 terms is kind of dumb since other high power officials can be elected for longer terms and/or more terms, look at our supreme court justices, they serve untill they retire or are impeached. Lets face it if Bill Clinton was able to run again in 2000 against Bush chances are he would have one and done a lot beter of a job in office the last 4 years then Bush did. Also if you read the part were I talked about senators it reads like senators serve for 6 years instead of 4. (maybe you should have read it more carefully)

I'm done with this randomly horrible attempt to make Bush look good and democrat look bad.
 
Last edited:
I think one of the main reasons there hasn't been a terrorist attack in three years IS because Bush is in office. He has been strong against terrorism ever since 2001, and having someone strongly against it may deter some attack(s) from happening. That may not be true, but who knows. As soon as you stick someone in office who is going to cut back troops and likely be weaker on defense, there's the window of opportunity to blow something else up and kill more people. Less lives are lost in battle than if there were another huge-scale terrorist attack such as in 2001.
And one last note, although not necessarily mentioned on this thread, is something that's bothered me for a while now- the idea that Bush caused Sept. 11th.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/06/19/intelligence-usat.htm
That shows that it was planned since 1998. Bush was not President until 2001. So, any of you who still think Bush caused it, take a moment to read that link. True, to some extent, it could have been acted upon a bit sooner, but it's not like they went on television and said "We're going to blow stuff up on this date." It was privately organized. Bush did not cause it.
 
Ya but under Bush troops have been dying in a war our country went into because of the false pretence that Sadam had weapones of mass destruction that still have not been found. Also how many innocent Iraqie citizens died because of this war against Sadam. I thought this war was supposed to be on terrorists not some dictator in the middle east, were are our priorities, when the Iraqie people told us they wanted us out of there country we should have respected there request and left them to deal with Sadam. This may seem a bit harsh but I don't think anyone who have had family or friends die in the war in Iraq feel they died for a just cause, if you've seen Fahrenheit 9/11 you know what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
Here is the speech:

We all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican convention. For the past week they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq. The Vice President even called me unfit for office last night. I geuss I'll leave it up to the voters whether five deferements make someone more qualified to defend this nation then two tours of duty.

Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty.Leading our nation into war with Iraq makes someone unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes unfit to lead this nation .Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi Royal Family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit. That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it's not going to change. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I beleive it's time to set a new course for America.

--John Kerry, Sep. 2, 2004

Discuss.
 
Short and to the point good speech, but he needs to start using more of the Bush administration tactics and take all the cheap shots by bringing up Bushs past.
 
Last edited:
RaNd0m said:
If Bush wins the popular vote and Kerry wins the electoral this November, will I still be hearing about the horrors of the electoral college? I doubt it. Rather hypocritical if you ask me.
Click to expand...
I'd still squawk. Bothersome when the majority loses and all, especially since the main gimmick that democracy has going for it is that the majority should always win.

But then again I see America as being an elected dictatorship, so what would I know, eh?
 
I think this post is all good and in the right place..

I really do not think George Bush is fit to be a President. What happened at 9/11 might not have been his fault, but I do believe he could hve at least ATTEMPTED to stop it. While I didn't see Farenheit 9/11, I heard my mom talking to my aunt about it. From what I have heard, Bush KNEW these pilots were going to attempt to crash in to the WTC, he KNEW he should do something, and guess where he was during the summer of 2001? At some vacation spot doing NOTHING. And yet he knew he could have stopped this. But did he? Of course not. Why? I don't know, but he didn't. And then, when he got word that the WTC HAD been hit, he was in a 1st grade classroom watching the kids. He sat in the classroom for almost TEN minutes after hearing this news before getting up to leave. TEN MINUTES. That's a lot of time after something so big to happen IMO. I think in those 10 minutes, he was mulling over the fact that he could have stopped this, but he didn't.

BESIDES this fact, why did we go into Iraq? So we could stop Saddam and get his weapons of mass destruction. Did we find any? No. How many troops did we send into Iraq? A lot. How many did we send into Saidi Arabia, where a lot of the 9/11 terrorists were ACTUALLY from? A very minimal amount. Why? Because there is oil fields in Saudi Arabia, of course! Bush is really only in this for money, I don't really think he is thinking for the benefit of America. Do I think Kerry will be better? Not really. But I think Kerry will actually help America, not hurt it, like Bush is doing.

Anyway, i think my ranting is done for now. ;/

~Chu :)
 
Bush should lose after the badness he brought to the U.S. Kerry all the way for me he better win if he does I will be very mad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top