RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Are you sure you want to re-elect him?(27 posts)

Are you sure you want to re-elect him?Fender
Jul 3, 2003 9:21 AM
I usually stay out of political debates, but this might be worth discussing.

He won't be getting my vote, supposing I decide to make the effort.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/12731102.html

- RESUME -
George W. Bush

Past work experience:

- Ran for congress and lost.

- Produced a Hollywood 'slasher' B movie.

- Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

- Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land... using taxpayer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

- With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas. Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

- Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

- Attacked and took over two countries.

- Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

- Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

- Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

- Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

- First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

- First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

- First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

- After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

- Set the record for most campaign fund raising trips than any other president in US history.

- In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

- Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

- Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

- Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

- Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

- Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.

- Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

- Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

- Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

- Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

- Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

- My presidency is the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.

- Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleezza Rice has a Chevron oil tanker named after her).

- First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.

- Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

- First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.

- Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

- Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, m
I don't know, does the Green Party have a good candidate? (nm)TJeanloz
Jul 3, 2003 9:48 AM
OK I'll take the baitLive Steam
Jul 3, 2003 9:57 AM
For you obviously want someone to, for a guy who "usually stay out of political debates". This is the most telling sign of who you are - "supposing I decide to make the effort" to vote. Hey maybe you could get a couple of packs of cigs from Rev. Al and his cronies for voting. I know quite a few plaque heads like yourself. They like to complain about the World, but can't take the time out to vote. They just like complaining. Most of them don't vote so they don't get put on the jury roster. Another civic duty you responsible voices of society like to avoid.

The only thing I'll respond to on your list is the last election. If you, and many here, had any intellectual understanding of the Constitution and of the opinion rendered by the Supreme Court regarding that election, you would know that the only thing the US Supreme Court ruled on was not allowing the FLA Supreme Court to change the election laws in the middle of an election. They said that the FLA Supreme Court had no authority to "legislate" and changers in the law that was established before the election. The people of FLA have that power. Not the appointed judges. The ruling prevented the FLA SC from allowing a partial count of the votes. If a recount was to be done, the entire state had to be recounted and recounted within the bounds of the law. That meant that they had to recount the vote within the prescribed time. That was deemed impossible - especially with all the hanging chad BS. You people are truly desperate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is motivating me to be more proactive in my party. I think it has done that to many conservatives. Looking forward to '04 :O)
OK I'll take the bait -Fender
Jul 3, 2003 10:37 AM
It's funny how you failed to respond to the current way in which international situations have been handled as well as the state of what's left of the economy?

As for my decision not to vote, the only reason I have not voted is because there is hardly any difference between the main political parties, and I do not agree with all of their political platforms. As for The Green Party, as another poster mentioned, I do agree with many of their platforms, but not all, due to moral and religious beliefs.

As for the explanation on FLA SC, thanks. It did clear up some misunderstandings I had.

Now as far as being desperate as you mention "you people being desperate" actually I am. This country needs a leader, not a little boy who runs to daddy.

And for your information, I am registered to vote and would gladly do jury duty if called upon.

Ohh, and one more thing, when I needed to vote and make a difference like in the 2000 Presidential election in Mexico (where I am also a citizen), I did my share of "civic duty".
Good assumptions, Live!sacheson
Jul 3, 2003 11:26 AM
I just LOVE the way you can read between the lines. It's like a freaking sixth sense!

Anyone who doesn't support GW deserves to have unsupported claims made against them, correct?

And I DO hope you, and other extreme right fanatics like yourself, get more involved in the GOP. There's no better way to drive level-headed conservatives away from the party than people like you!
Well you have to admit that ....Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 1:16 PM
for someone who "doesn't normally get involved in political posts" or what ever, he sure took a big swing :O) There was no ambiguity in his post. He made a lot of claims the extreme left try to pin on Bush. His response to my post does not change my opinion of people who do not vote. I don't agree with everything this administration does - I pay for my own healthcare out of my pocket and do not believe that the govt. should have to do it for me - but I vote so I can have a legitimate say about the current state of the country. If you don't vote because you cannot agree 100% on every platform some candidate is running on, well what can I say. Nothing is 100%. It just sounds like the guys I know who smoke their dope and live an irresponsible life with not much commitment to anything other than themselves. It is a harsh criticism, I know. It isn't something you discuss with your "friends" every time you see them, but it is more of a personal observation that is stored away in the memory banks. When they complain about the state of the union or their own personal state of being, I remind them of why things are what they are.

We may all think we know someone from posting here. You said we wouldn't be friends because of that mere fact. You may think I am crass or intolerant or something like that and as a result would not want to associate with me. Well maybe your right. Maybe not. Most people say that I am very friendly, caring and free with my time to help someone in need. Posting here is altogether different. We should be civil, but debating with true conviction is perfectly fine as far as I am concerned. I don't get upset when someone calls me out for being an overly conservative right wind zealot. I do get perturbed with jokers like MJ, Rerun and a few others think they need to be insulting to make their point. They aren't intelligent enough to pull it off. It just shows their immaturity.

I don't look for middle ground here. What's the point of that? We are just masturbating our egos here. Nothing gets done based on what we say in these posts. Debate is what this is and it needs two or more opposing views to be qualify. We could all post the same stuff, always agreeing with each other. I would be bored and leave. So If you want to get rid of me, agree with everything I post :O)

I did jump to a conclusion here, but I seems I may have been pretty close to the mark. He votes in Mexico. OK that is fine, but then don't complain about what happens here in the US if you don't vote here. I am curious why he felt compelled to vote in Mexico and not here. I am also surprised that he doesn't like Bush as he has been a pretty good friend to the Mexicans.
Why I voted in Mexico and not the USFender
Jul 3, 2003 1:54 PM
Actually I can complain about what happens in the US because I pay taxes, just like every other voting and none voting citizen. I am also a US citizen (born in the US) and thus as a citizen I have the right to decide whether I vote or not.

Now why I decided not to vote is simple. It was in sign of protest of discontent with the candidates. Gore and Bush where the only ones with a chance of winning, and I did not agree with either one. Simple.

As to why I felt compelled to vote in Mexico and not the US, is simple. Mexico is undergoing a non violent political revolution. While Mexico's last PRI president, Ernesto Zedillo did an outstanding job as a leader, the party needed to be taken from power because off of it's legacy (not a very good legacy might I add). There was a change that was needed in political power, and Vicent Fox and PAN where the best alternative.

As for Bush being friendly to Mexico, your news source must be White House sponsored CNN. Bush and his administration made clear statements (notice I use plural in "statement") that there would be consequences if Mexico did not support a US lead invasion of Iraq. And that is only one example. There are several others I could cite.

Now, enough with the politics. I need to start thinking about my trip back home tonight and spending time with family, friends and my girlfriend.

Happy 4th of July to all!
dang.sacheson
Jul 3, 2003 1:55 PM
I mostly agree with you.

I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to be somewhere and someplace there's something out of alignment (how's that for ambiguity?). ;-)
I think there's a beer in my future! And that ....Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 2:01 PM
future is NOW! Awe nothings out of alignment. If people reading and posting here don't get it, well we are all in pretty sad shape. The "General" cycling board is fine, but get mundane sometimes. Thank goodness the TDF starts Saturday. I'll post my opinions on the TDF board about the progress of the race. Have a happy and safe 4th! Live to ride and ride to live! Yaddayaddayadda!!!!! :O)
you also (nm)sacheson
Jul 3, 2003 2:25 PM
Sounds goodSteveS
Jul 3, 2003 11:04 AM
I just scanned your post but one thing jumped out at me and that was the claim of "bankrupting the state of Texas." Odd that I should have missed that,please go back to your source and back it up.

Funny, but with all that, he easily carried the state of Texas. Speaks well for the people being able to separate truth from error or maybe malicious bs.
now ...sacheson
Jul 3, 2003 12:33 PM
I think GW is a shady dude. And it does bother me that he is President of our country (yes, Live, it bothered me that Clinton was as well). But what responsibility does he really have for the state of the economy? I really don't fault the guy for the coincidence for serving his term during a recession ... and I think anyone else -regardless of their political platform- would be dealing with the same issues - handling it better or worse, I don't know.
Yeah, but look on the bright side...rwbadley
Jul 3, 2003 1:44 PM
At least he hasn't got caught doing the nasty in the oral office! ;-)
RW that's all you could come up with ...Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 1:47 PM
after four hours in the saddle? :O)
Heh heh, my four hour ride took five hours...rwbadley
Jul 3, 2003 7:26 PM
I just decided to extend it a bit.

Actually, that observation took all of about two seconds, and was (I'm sure you know) full tongue in cheek.

Leaving Saturday AM to meander up to Seattle for the STP ride.

I hope you all have a nice long relaxing weekend.

RW
The reasons grow, weeklyTypeOne
Jul 3, 2003 3:33 PM
Every week, I find another reason not to vote for him in '04. Let's see, this week's reason: he made contradictory statements in the same interview about not leaving or being chased away from Iraq until the military completes its mission. The mission? To allow Iraq to govern themselves.
What the hell is the policy here? Sounds a lot like an occupation force, as many Iraqis suspect.
Coming in a close second was Bush's goading Iraqis to "bring it on" and attack US troops. Has any commander in chief ever encouraged enemies to do this?
If you stop listening to sound bites like the rest ...Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 6:42 PM
of the lemmings you would know who he was talking about. He was referring to the Bathists who still remain loyal to Saddam and to the terrorists that entered Iraq to undermine the peace initiatives. The US and Brits are trying to restore order to daily life for ordinary Iraqi people, but this is not in the best interests of those that prefer chaos and disorder to further their extremist agenda. You really need to get your news from some place other than Saturday Night Live.
Better SNL than FOX! (nm)empacher6seat
Jul 3, 2003 8:13 PM
Define "terrorist"TypeOne
Jul 5, 2003 7:02 AM
Bush sure likes to toss that word around. But someone who fires on an occupying military force, often while wearing civilian clothing, is not a terrorist. A guerrilla, not a terrorist. Setting a bomb off to indiscriminantly kill civilians in order to make a political point is terrorism, while resisting a military occupation is something different. While I think the killing of US troops is horrible, my reading of just war doctine doesn't tell me that the Iraqis are in the wrong: there was no formal surrender by the military or government and hence no ceasefire that would transfer noncombatant immunity to any Iraqi (the flip side: US troops are free to fire on any armed Iraqi that they reasonably deem to be a threat), and defense of one's homeland from the imminent threat of another nation creates a sliding scale of just action in war. This might be the assumption of your average Iraqi, not my assumption. Ask yourself this: if another country sent troops to "liberate" your nation, didn't leave immediately and marched soldiers down your streets, you'd probably be resisting, too. Does that make you a terrorist?
you mean like back in 1776? (nm)rufus
Jul 5, 2003 2:21 PM
Yeah, kind of like that :{TypeOne
Jul 5, 2003 3:00 PM
While the underlying causes of the conflicts are very different, of course, it's not a tough analogy to make. I believe Bush would call the American colonists "patriots," while today he calls the Iraqis "terrorists." Great irony on July 4th.
You can play naive if you think it makes your point, but ...Live Steam
Jul 5, 2003 3:40 PM
it has been widely known and reported in even the most liberal news media sources that prior to the start of the war many "terrorist" factions entered Iraq and intermingled with the Iraqi people. Their goal has been to create disorder and turmoil. If you want to believe that the average Iraqi is unhappy with the ousting of Saddam and his Bathist party, you are free to do so. These attacks on Americans, and now attacks on Iraqi's cooperating with Americans, is a form of terrorism, and is being perpetrated by "terrorists". Their goal is to destabilize the region. Believe what you like.
What?Ridearound
Jul 7, 2003 6:40 AM
Listen man - your posts are just a long series of expressions of your personal opinions (nothing wrong with that) with no sources or grounds.

Noone is going to be convinced by this "it's well-known" stuff out of high school, followed by what you believe to be true, but with no sources or quoted basis, using self-evident definitions as proof, i.e. its "terrorism ...being perpetrated by "terrosists".

It's utter nonsense, even leaving aside you propensity to just insult anyone who has the decency to respond with a contrary view.

If what you are saying is true, put some more thought and effort into your posts and show it to be.
What?Live Steam
Jul 7, 2003 8:24 PM
You're still a moron, but here you go. Maybe you'll learn something - that is if you can read.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&ncid=68&e=7&u=/nyt/20030706/ts_nyt/topgeneralsaysiraqiresistanceisfarfrommonolithic

http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/030701a.asp

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~1489980,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/31/iraq/main546934.shtml

http://wcbs880.com/mideast/mideast_story_090072147.html

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=9381&lang=en

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030616-113913-8670r.htm
I got it nowRidearound
Jul 8, 2003 12:36 AM
You are going into stand-up satire comedy, and are trying out your material here first - hence your wide-ranging and decerning "sources". I hope you don't go to overboard on the academics and thinking.

All makes sense now.
So now you don't like the sources?Live Steam
Jul 8, 2003 5:49 AM
I did a simple Google search in response to a simpleton. Why don't you search the NY Times, LA Times, and your beloved paper the Guardian to see what they have to say on the subject? I am sure you will get the answer you want there.
Thick as a buffalo omletteRidearound
Jul 9, 2003 12:33 AM
Helps if you read the sources first, think, then form your argument, not the other way round.