Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

The Bush Bounce...

Fahrenheit 9/11. That's a good way to win people over, by taking your reasoning from a movie based on false premises and half-truths. Oh wait.

The Electoral College also has another purpose nobody is mentioning... States' rights... but whatever.

Dragonstar, I wrote out a thought-out post with facts, and you responded with rhetoric. At least Marril and NoTimeForLoveDrJ can debate with me coherently. Also, I continue to read what you said about Senatorial terms and I still keep getting the idea you said 4 years. Is that my fault?

I love how you think the Kerry campaign has been cordial during this entire campaign and yet the Bush campaign has been mean. Granted, I give you that the Bush campaign has been rather negative... more negative than I would prefer. But Kerry's ENTIRE CAMPAIGN is based on the premise that he isn't Bush! How much more negative can you get?

You obviously don't take September 11th seriously, but I suppose listening to Michael Moore will do that for you. After all, 9/11 is Bush's fault right? The fact of the matter is that you're debating two points... you're saying the Bush administration wasn't ready enough pre-9/11 and that they're too ready post-9/11. That's "w". That's "wrong". (I do admit that's a rather catchy slogan of Kerry's.)

The Republican attacks on Kerry currently are about his record. Kerry responds talking about Vietnam. Hmmm... is he embarassed by the fact that his record is so liberal? Why can't Kerry just stand up for what he believes in? This is what bothers me. I wouldn't mind if he was a liberal if he would just ADMIT it. I wouldn't mind he was anti-defense as much as he is if he would ADMIT IT. But he's completely trying to fake who he is to win. That's "w". That's "wrong".

So yeah I basically give up already on Dragonstar and Magnechu...

Marril, if that's truly the case, I respect you quite a bit. I will admit that there were quite a few republicans pre-election 2000 that were squawking about the electoral college (because many predicted Bush to win the popular and Gore to win the electoral college)... and then they just shut up. I back the system because I feel it's more dependable than the popular vote... and it gives the states more power, rather than the central government. However... I do find it rather odd when a President wins the majority and loses the electoral college.

As long as the topic remains the war on terror and Iraq in this election, Bush will win. I recommend you libs focus on the true issues the Democrats have "points on"... at least with the American people. Not necessarily me.

By the way, when an economy swells enormously like it did in the late 90's, recession is a NORMAL thing. Jobs are GOING to be lost.

How is John Kerry going to create 10 million jobs anyway? How do Presidents CREATE jobs?

Can someone answer that for me? Wow I covered quite a bit in one post.

~ RaNd0m
 
Magnechu said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Amen.

I agree, though, I don't think Kerry is a LOAD better, but IMO anyone will be better than bush....
 
RaNd0m, I respect you (especially as a Pokemon player as I started as you as my hero ;x) but how do you give up on me if this is my first post on the thread? Just wondering. Also, I'm not sure about all the facts. I'll admit that. I didn't even WATCH F9/11, just have overheard things about it. I haven't listened to all the speeches and campaigns and stuff. I was just voicing my opinion. And I also said that 9/11 may not have been Bush's fault, but I have a feeling he could have at least attempted to stop it, especially if he knew about the situation.

One more thing before I go to bed (As I have my first day of 8th grade tomorrow), how do you know Michael Moore's research is false? Have you seen the movie? Have you done extensive research for months and months on this topic? I don't think you have, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Moore, if my sources are correct, had one of Bush's own (I don't remember exactly who he was) that stated all these thing were true, not false. Also, if F9/11 was "half-truths" and "false premises", wouldn't Bush, or the media for that matter, rip apart F9/11 and SAY it wasn't true. Have you seen that? I don't believe I have.

In the words of my mom "If Bill Clinton did have the things George Bush has done, he'd have been empeached a long time ago."

'Night everyone!

~Chu :)
 
Bill Clinton wasn't impeached f00lish boy, he left cuz he was mad at the system ;).

Uhhh.... I hope Bush wins :p
I don't want Frankenstein for president ;/
BTW, with the amount of idiotic people in this country, the electoral college pwns IMHO.
 
RaNd0m said:
Fahrenheit 9/11. That's a good way to win people over, by taking your reasoning from a movie based on false premises and half-truths.~ RaNd0m
Click to expand...
Hummm......if I remember right documentaries are based compplettely on fact, and if that is the case then that would mean Fahrenheit 9/11 is based complettely on fact and like Magnechu said if any of it was false Bush would have probably charged Mr. Moore with slander and degration of character. So why didn't the Bush administration do any thing about the documentary film, oh ya because it's only reveals the truth. And what about this "The Electoral College also has another purpose nobody is mentioning... States' rights... but whatever" it seems you don't care at all about the individuals equal rights. Say I vote for Kerry but in my state Bush got 51% of the votes, in this case because of the way the Outdated Electoral College works Bush gets all the electoral votes from my state and the votes made by the people in the other 49% get cast asside as if our opinion means nothing. States rights should never overide the rights of the people! If they did it by popular vote everyones vote would be just as important as everyone elses so how is it "against the states rights"? Also most people here haven't even said anything about Bush being responsible for 9/11, but then again he could have done more to prevent it, but wait.....that would have ment cutting into his vacation time.
Then you said "As long as the topic remains the war on terror and Iraq in this election, Bush will win" enter George Bush scare tactic exhibit A. This is the guy that has had on country on some kind of allert since 9/11 and what terrorist attack has happened in the U.S. hmmmm......I can't seem to recal any. Also if I remember right the Bush administration promised to created a bunch of jobs a few months back and so far have come no where near there proposed number, seems like just another promise that hasen't been fulfilled during Bushs time in office. Here's another thing you said that was wrong " But Kerry's ENTIRE CAMPAIGN is based on the premise that he isn't Bush! How much more negative can you get?" that's not being negative that's being factual, Oh it's true it's true. I'm done with this reply you random Bush follower. :nonono:
 
Last edited:
Let's keep this debate civil and non-personal, please...I'd hate to have to lock it...:nonono:

'mom
 
JasonthePwnda said:
ok first off, the elecctoral college is perfectly fair. i mean, in tennis, for example, you can beat your opponent in over-the-net play (popular vote) but still lose the match. The small difference the electoral college makes is VERY small compared to votes based on half-truths, like F9/11.

Look up your favorite part in Fahrenheit 9/11 and see what bogus it is made of.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Click to expand...

There's a difference between lying and putting a spin on things that support your agenda or opinions, and as a supporter of ANY politician, you should be well aware of this before pointing this out and accusing anyone of "lying". Slanting the truth, while certainly not good, is not as bad as outright denying the existence of the truth in the first place.

Unfortunately, yes, people are gullible enough to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and believe that Michael Moore is out there, trying his very best to get the truth out to you, the apathetic, ignorant typical American. (I hate the fact that I have to point this out every time I speak like this, but this is a generic "you" as per usual) Most of us are too concerned with our own lives to give any attention to national or even international affairs. On both ends of the spectrum, people either too busy just trying to get by, or people too comfortable in their own lives to be bothered with anything that might make them feel uneasy, embarassed, or even disgusted with the way things are going on these days.

I also hate to use the right/left distinction, but I have to say that most leftists slant the truth to paint a grim picture, worse than reality, to make you care. But oftentimes, the right will simply throw the truth out the window and tell you what you want to hear to be complacent. It seems the right is winning this one. People don't WANT to care, people want to be secure enough to not have to worry about anything. I can't blame them for that, but there are so many things going on in this world that deserve our attention. I don't believe we should sit idly by while the people are disillusioned enough to believe anything any authority figure says, and as a result goes off to war. People start caring when it affects them personally, and that's the only thing positive about the war. It's a wake up call to some people, that things are not right with the world, and perhaps something we're doing is the problem.

On a side note, kudos to you for not using a single bit of net lingo in your post. That's quite possibly the first time I've seen you post something downright serious. Sincerely, good job.
 
:eek: O.M.G. someone is trying to compare a match in tennis to that of deciding the president of our nation, and how is ignoring the votes made by millions of people very small in comparison to votes based on half truths(which again F9/11 is based on all facts hence the fact that it is a documentary and Bush hasn't charged Moore with slander and liebel). And if you weren't "gullible" enough to see F9/11 then you are just the kind of Americans that don't like to here the real truth and just like to live in your fantacy world and you are the "ignorant typical American". Your the kind of people that don't care about national and global affairs because your reasoning is let Bush handel it(while he's not on vacation). Also there's nothing positive about the war, 1,000+ soldiers have died there now and for what, oh ya stopping Sadam and those weapones of mass destruction of his(that we still haven't found). Is the reason we're always on some kind of allert because there are things are not right with the world, well other countries have had to deal with terrorist attacks on there own soil for years, but at least there leader isn't trying to scare the people that live there. Everyone says the only way to defeat terror is to not show fear, if I was in antoher country I would see this as fear, being on alert all the time is like saying your never safe. The only thing Bush wins is most scare tactics used during a single term. :mad:

A vote for Ralph Nater is a wasted vote, but it's still better then a vote for Bush. :D
 
Last edited:
Magnechu: Sorry when I said I give up on you, I wasn't necessarily meaning that in an overall sense. Hopefully people realize this is just politics, and although I disagree with many of you on this board, I still consider you my friends. Politics getting personal usually ends up with both sides being angry, and it's pointless.

What I meant by "giving up on you"... is that I can't debate with you if you believe F9/11. If you believe the movie, you have an answer to everything I have to say. I can point out numerous reviews of the movie that dissect it piece by piece... but you are right, I have not seen it. I didn't want to waste my money by donating to the DNC. :p

Dragonstar, I'm not even a "Bush follower". I support the President, but I disagree with him on a plethora of issues... I'm a Libertarian who would happen to vote Republican this election (if I could vote) because I believe the left does not have national security as a priority.

Bush doesn't rip any of his critics. That's part of his persona. He tries to "take the high road". I'm actually surprised he's taken shots at Kerry because usually that doesn't fit his style. But Bush has a high regard for the office of the Presidency and doesn't feel stooping down to fend off attacks from MoveOn.org and Michael Moore is worth it.

The Electoral College is there for States' rights. This is part of the idea of Federalism. It also forces politicians to campaign EVERYWHERE instead of just NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. Think about it... if there was no electoral college, would Aledo Illinois ever be considered? Would Aledo even be worried about? So the citizens of Aledo essentially have no vote in the democracy.

Aledo has a population of 4,000 by the way.

Ok I gotta go.

~ RaNd0m
 
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, it's not a vote for Kerry, Gore could have actually won the electoral if Nader wasn't running and stealing Democratic votes, then we wouldn't have this rant about how bad the electoral college is.

Anyway, the fact is, there are always going to be channels in the media that twist and spin fact to suit a certain agenda. You really can't trust anything that comes from Michael Moore, the same way you can't trust anything that comes from Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. All of them have one thing in common, and it's that they'll twist and spin to suit their main agenda, whether right or left. It doesn't matter whether anyone takes action against these individuals, we already know what their reasons for their actions are. It is the truth, from a person's point of view. The real danger is when you start to believe it as a complete truth. Any fact can be twisted, it isn't exactly a lie, just a different conclusion.

The electoral college was created, historically as a way to defend the minority from mob rule. Essentially, a large, superpowerful group taking over the country and leaving every other opinion in the dust. One of the biggest concerns in creating the constitution was that complete democracy would be a danger, the failure of the Articles of Confederation created that view. So a system had to be created to keep some power in the minority. So now we have the possibility of a minority president.
 
RaNd0m said:
Marril, if that's truly the case, I respect you quite a bit. I will admit that there were quite a few republicans pre-election 2000 that were squawking about the electoral college (because many predicted Bush to win the popular and Gore to win the electoral college)... and then they just shut up. I back the system because I feel it's more dependable than the popular vote... and it gives the states more power, rather than the central government. However... I do find it rather odd when a President wins the majority and loses the electoral college.
Click to expand...
Of course I'd still say something. Democracy's big gimmick is that the majority wins. No one person in power should be able to do anything should the majority of the people say nay. It's simply what we come to have accepted as civilised. I have no respect for Bush because he invades countries with little provocation and erroneous facts. Farenheit 9/11 might have a few things right, but it also has a few things wrong. However, accepting either side as being the voice of reason and truth and the other as being lies and deceit is something I simply won't do.

If Kerry wins because of the electoral college despite the majority voting for Bush, there'd still be something seriously wrong, despite that I believe that Bush has no right to be in the white house. I'm not going to claim to have a great deal of knowledge about the electoral college (hey, that rhymes), being Canadian and all, thus being more familiar with our own parliament. That said, I do believe there needs to be a reworking of the weight that the "main" states (heck, provinces too) are given as opposed to the ones we never hear about.

Frankly, democracy's selling point is that its results should show what the majority of the people in a country believe and that its leader should represent them. Bush is a rich white man. That's a fact. America is not composed of rich white men. Thus my opinion that America is an elected dictatorship easily pushes aside the notion that America is a democracy. This is, however, simply my opinion on the matter.
 
When people say I'm not going to vote since my vote means nothing this is because the electoral college makes it were there vote means nothing, anyways I thought this country was of the people, by the people, and for the people, I keep hearing people not state. THAT is why the electoral college is outdated and needs to be reformed.
 
Last edited:
As I mentioned before, DragonStar, the problem with that is that people in rural settings become less important and their needs are ignored. At least when individual STATES are to be won, it's a smaller number and therefore your needs have a greater chance of being addressed. Eliminate the electoral college, and what's the need for getting the votes from the agricultural people and the rural people? Just go into a city, say "hey, we'll pave your roads and give you entitlements!" and the need to address the rural people dies.

*EDIT IS BELOW*

Ralph Nader has a right to run. Unfortunately, people think America can only have two parties... and it's unfortunate because neither party truly addresses the needs of all Americans. And the fact of the matter is, while Nader might be "stealing" votes from Kerry, Badnarik will be "stealing" votes from Bush. Voting for a third party is idealistic, but important... because maybe someday a third party will be able to emerge and finally challenge the main two parties run by corporations on their corruption and ill-promises. One can only hope.

~ RaNd0m
 
Last edited:
RaNd0m said:
Unfortunately, people think America can only have two parties...
Click to expand...
Well, up here in Canada, we have four serious contenders for parties. There's the Liberals, the Conservatives (these two are fairly obvious), the NDP, and the Bloc. The latter two might not be "major" parties in the sense that the Liberals/Conservatives are pretty much our Democrats/Republicans, they both get a solid number of votes and have distinct policies. In fact, with a liberal minority at the moment, the NDP has quite a lot of say if the Liberals want to push something through.
 
Marril said:
Still pretty bad when the majority loses in a democracy.
Click to expand...
You're right, it is pretty bad. But it's not the case in the U.S. as we aren't a democracy.


Dragonstar said:
Your response is barely worth responding too, (just like the Republican attacks on John Kerry)
Click to expand...
Come on Dragonstar, I may feel that your post is completely ignorant and say you aren't worth responding to, but name-calling is not arguing. Let's have well thought out arguments rather than "you're stupid so your opinion doesn't matter"'s which get us no where.

Dragonstar said:
Also how many innocent Iraqie citizens died because of this war against Sadam...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
Click to expand...
To answer the first question, hundreds of thousands less than under Sadam. Addressing the second point, it make no sense to listen to sadam loyalists (who, believe it or not, do not solely make up "the Iraqi people") and after going into Iraq, we establish anarchy, and support the militant Muslims around the globe by what would be seen as surrendering. And then of course Sadam loyalists could take over, and you're no better off in Iraq than when you first started. Finally, though you may not think that anyone who has had family or friends die in the war believe it is a just cause, I think it is a guarantee that most closely related to the dead soldiers do support the war.

Magnechu said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, Bush did not know these events were going to happen. If he did of course he wouldn't be fit to be president. Check the facts first. One major mistake made by many is they take their relative's or friend's say-so, or even worse some person's completely slanted views that are presented to be fact in a documentary's say-so.

Dragonstar said:
Hummm......if I remember right documentaries are based compplettely on fact, and if that is the case then that would mean Fahrenheit 9/11 is based complettely on fact
Click to expand...
ROFL. Ah....Heck no. (BTW I said ROFL not to inslut you dragonstar, but I just found it funny how some people will regard something as complete fact while others will see it as some completely liberally or conservatively slanted material, and often it is the person with same view as the completely biased documentary, article, etc. that regards it as fact)

Dragonstar said:
it seems you don't care at all about the individuals equal rights. Say I vote for Kerry but in my state Bush got 51% of the votes, in this case because of the way the Outdated Electoral College works Bush gets all the electoral votes from my state and the votes made by the people in the other 49% get cast asside as if our opinion means nothing. States rights should never overide the rights of the people! If they did it by popular vote everyones vote would be just as important as everyone elses so how is it "against the states rights"?
Click to expand...

You brought this argument a couple times, but there is no logical connection to why people's votes don't get neglected when the popular vote decides, and yet when the Electoral college decides somehow people's votes are getting neglected. No matter what some people aren't going to get their way. I.e. Using your argument, one could say that in the popular vote (and in the case the popular decides the president) if say Kerry wins 51% to 49%, then all those people who voted for Bush get just as cast aside as if their oppinion means nothing as it does in the Electoral College system. Your argument just doesn't make sense which is crucial considering that's your whole reasoning for why the Electoral college should be done away with.

Marril said:
Bush is a rich white man. That's a fact. America is not composed of rich white men. Thus my opinion that America is an elected dictatorship easily pushes aside the notion that America is a democracy.
Click to expand...

So what's your reasoning? Bush is a rich white man, therefore we should put a different rich white man in office? And of course a man being rich is also such an atrocity in this day and age.

Dragonstar said:
When people say I'm not going to vote since my vote means nothing this is because the electoral college makes it were there vote means nothing, anyways I thought this country was of the people, by the people, and for the people, I keep hearing people not state. THAT is why the electoral college is outdated and needs to be reformed.
Click to expand...

This is probably what I should have quoted earlier. You have never shown how the Electoral College magically demeans people's votes whereas the Popular vote wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
Mike said:
You're right, it is pretty bad. But it's not the case in the U.S. as we aren't a democracy.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of this. I've debated on that exact topic. It's an elected dictatorship. However, America has to still put up a good face fo appearing to be democratic. Keeps the rabble in line and all.


So what's your reasoning? Bush is a rich white man, therefore we should put a different rich white man in office? And of course a man being rich is also such an atrocity in this day and age.
Click to expand...

No, you should put somebody into office who can represent Americans as a whole. Given the options, I'd vote for Kerry, yes. However, that doesn't mean that I would vote for him above all else. Have some common sense, man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top