Heroes of Might and Magic Community
please log in.! Register | Today's Posts | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile

<a href="http://www.game-advertising-online.com/" target=_blank>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

Heroes 1 (Heroes 2 (Heroes 3 (Heroes 4 (Heroes 5 (Heroes 6 ()

Login:     Username:     Password:    
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Why George Bush Should Not Be Re-elected.
Thread: Why George Bush Should Not Be Re-elected. [ This thread is 18 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 (6) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ]
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted May 17, 2004 12:36 PM

If Powell were running, I'd vote for him as well.  Unfortunately, he's not.  I wish I had your conviction, but the fact is that if Bush wins and I'd voted for anyone other than the only other viable candidate under the current system, I wouldn't be able to forgive myself.  The American system is too heavily rigged against alternatives for me to vote my conscience in good conscience, if that makes any sense.  If we had proportional representation, it would be a different story.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted May 17, 2004 01:23 PM

May I Interject?

You guys,

Colin Powell is our best and most respected diplomat. I personally feel there is no greater a vice president than he. The reason I feel he should get the v.p. is because the world respects him while our economy cries for him. He is, without a doubt, an american rock in an endless sea of 'make-the-voter-happy-politicians'. I love him. He is destined to lead our country one day. He is as american as anyone I can think of. Colin Powell is many things to many people but one thing he is not is Allen Greenspan. Do you understand my point? To be president, my opinion requires that our highest office be held by someone who can do many jobs. While there is no greater world diplomat than Colin Powell, he is not a man who can be a visionary economist. We need our economy to be prosperous, just, and strong in the face of adversity. Can he do that with our economy? I would say not but he has definitely earned the right to be called an american leader with great respect both from his own people and to the world abroad.

I, too, will be writing in my own vote on the ticket. I'm a registered democrat and I'll probably be writing Hillary Clinton's name down.

Thus far I have been swinging in the ropes from Wesley Clark to Dennis Kucinich. For a very long time I have wanted a leader with a vision that will move the country forward with new hope of being pulled out of old belief systems and bad habits. I know she isn't running for office but when I see how people respond to her i realize that my other candidates just don't inspire in the way that she does. I finally came to the conclusion that it's time for change. I think Hillary Clinton can lead the country into a new era of democracy where equal rights will see a new light and our economy will get some healthy advice from her husband and his good friend, Allen Greenspan. I just don't buy this whole 'war on terror' in the way that Bush has presented it. Yes, we need a good security for our country but I don't think that means invading other countries unless we are directly attacked. I know(from personal experience) that ex-pres. Bill Clinton is a stern supporter of our special forces military, F.B.I., and C.I.A. organizations. That's where our focus needs to be put for national defense,(in my opinion) not spending for expensive bombs, tanks, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. I prefer a high-paid police force over a heavily armored HUM-V adorned with armor piercing uranium-depleted rounds that can melt through tank armor. I believe in necessary force over 'over-whelming-force'. Because of my experience in the military, I know all too well the capabilities of an M-16 rifle and it's attachable/detachable grenade-launching feature. In my opinion, you don't win a war on terror with higher yield and more deadly weapons. You win it with reliable intelligence and trustworthy advisors while you focus on a strong economy.

In my opinion, this is the future I want. It is similar to the Brittish and Israeli intelligence and counter-terrorist organizations.

Why not a ticket with Hillary Clinton as president and Colin Powell as Vice president? I like the sound of that much better.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted May 17, 2004 02:30 PM

Three things:

First,
Quote:
Beyond the required 3, states' representation is proportional to their population, so it's not completely disconnected.

Hmmm, ok. But I wasn't problematizing the population representation here, but the disrespect of the diparity between the scores of the two candidates. Meaning it isn't matter if the voters in California vote 51% or 100% for Bush - he still gets all of California's votes in the electorial college. Meaning you can have a hypotetical situation where the losing candidate has 75% support, and that's a LOT. At least that's how I understood you. Or is the selection of the members in the EC done on proportional basis? (much more sense!)

Second, about the two-party hostage situation.  Now this confused me further. For example, in my country anybody that menages to collect 100,000 signatures from citizens can run for presidency. But that's only the first phase. After the first voting, the two candidates that have the most votes enter the second electorial circle. Here, everybody can choose whether to vote for one of the candidates (no matter if you hadn't vote for them in the first circle) or abstain if they aren't good enough for your liking. And the vote counting is on global level.
Now, in your case, I can see that there's only one chance to vote(!). Is that why you have to vote anti-Bush immedietly, and not for the candidate that you support and is not a Republican or a Democrat? Now, that's one even more absurd system. If I am correct?... (And that would make the whole College system even more crappy, cause now the winner in a state can even have less than 51% of the votes!)

And third, about mister Powell. Do you think you'd still vote for him if he wasn't black? Not that I put the race issue in the game, but it seems to me that Peacemaker's identification with the "minority" concept is what makes her and her family inclined towards Gen. Powell. I know that he is a reasonable politician, but I have a general disliking to military personel getting the highest functions in the government. Of course I might be wrong with my assumptions about your motives, but don't take it offensively. My questions often have the form of statements.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted May 17, 2004 03:06 PM

There are primaries in which people of each party vote and hold caucuses (cauci?  I'm not sure what they are) to pick a candidate for the final race.  Not many people participate -- voter apathy is yet another problem in the US.  I liked Dennis Kucinich as well, but his showing was dismal in the Democratic primaries, and there's no way he could win a national campaign.  The two main contenders were Kerry and ... the other guy whose name has already blipped off my radar.  Kerry seems to have won, but neither was particularly spell-binding.  Part of the problem is that both parties compete for the moderate votes, so candidates from both parties gravitate towards the middle of the political spectrum, which makes for bland choices.  Last time, Bush played the middle in his campaign (with troubling notes early on) then headed off into right field once in office.

I'd vote for Powell because I think he could handle the Iraq situation.  He has a healthy respect for diplomacy, even though his efforts were undermined by the adminstration, and his military background is in this situation a plus.  This nonsense with beauraucratic people (Rumsfield & Co.) overriding professional military personnel about how to conduct a war would not happen under him.  From his behavior throughout this whole fiasco, it appears that he did not personally agree with the president/vice-president's choices but did his job out of loyalty to the country.  He eventually pulled out, and the speculation is because of disagreements with the Bush people.  The situation in Iraq is very delicate right now, and Colin Powell is one of the few people I'd trust to handle it well.  I don't trust John Kerry to manage, and I can only trust that Bush will bungle things even further.  In short, race has nothing to do with it; I just think he'd do a good job.

Unfortunately, he won't run because his wife is ill and he wants to take care of her.  
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted May 17, 2004 04:24 PM
Edited By: Peacemaker on 17 May 2004

Consis --

Actually the Vice President has even less pull than the Secretary of State.  So putting Colin Powell in that seat would give him perhaps even less sway than he currently has and would be almost a complete waste of his talents.

As for the economic issue, I submit to you that the true mark of any great leader is the ability to choose experts in the field to advise them in areas where they might be deficient.  It is not always necessary -- or posible -- to have such expertize oneself. We don't need Alan Greenspan in the presidency as long as he is already the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board.

That said, I have never heard Powell speak to economic issues, have you?  So I for one cannot conclude either way about whether he has an economic "green thumb."  I do, however, trust that he would choose his advisors as wisely as he carries himself elsewise.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted May 17, 2004 04:40 PM

Yeah Well...

Quote:
Actually the Vice President has even less pull than the Secretary of State.

Tell that to Dick Cheney. I wish he would wake up and smell the viceness of Bush's presidency.

Unfortunately, the vice gets as many responsibilities as the president will allow or hand down. That's the reality of it, and guess who Bush's babysitter is. His dad's old friend that's who. Vice or not, Cheney pulls more weight than any vice in history.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Asmodean
Asmodean


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
posted May 17, 2004 05:21 PM
Edited By: Asmodean on 17 May 2004

Try this.

Google search:
http://fun.from.hell.pl/2004-05-18/failure.png

____________

To err is human, to arr is pirate.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Responsible
Legendary Hero
about the business
posted May 17, 2004 06:01 PM

There is no definate awnser you can have right now, so those who are on black or white (left or right) theres alot of people who can call you a flaming idiot.
____________
In the Industry, we call it...
The Industry

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Responsible
Legendary Hero
about the business
posted May 18, 2004 12:29 AM
Edited By: Celfious on 18 May 2004

so which logical outlay has been correct so far? I mean, if it were logical we would all know for certain which cnadite is right.

dont take offence from my words. I just have a feeling no one can provide absolution in reason when it comes to contraversies in this modern day. Example, the 33V33^ that point and say repub, or demo.
____________
In the Industry, we call it...
The Industry

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dArGOn
dArGOn


Famous Hero
posted May 18, 2004 12:31 AM
Edited By: dArGOn on 18 May 2004

Interesting brief discussion of the electoral college.

I believe we are so incredibly blessed that Bush won in 2000 (I can go on and on about that), but I must say the electoral college does not make a lot of sense to me.

I wish that some Democrats instead of whining about the confirmed election of Bush, would instead take up the issue of whether or not the electoral college is still needed.  One perspective is a pitiful, bitter facade full of an unawareness of the facts (i.e .Bush won the recount 3 times in Florida plus independent newspapers again confirming him the winner in their own recount) vs. the other is an objective look at our system of voting.

Also interesting thoughts about our 2 party system.  I think it is unfortuante and there should be at least 4 parties to give people more voice in their government....but unfortunatly I have never heard of a feasable way of making this happen unless the people themselves start revolting and voting out of principle (i.e. write in canidates, etc).
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted May 18, 2004 07:27 AM

Quote:
but unfortunatly I have never heard of a feasable way of making this happen unless the people themselves start revolting and voting out of principle (i.e. write in canidates, etc).

Well, it's an amazing how a small country with short democratic tradition, such as Macedonia (read my previous post) has managed to have a more sense-making elective system than the bastion of democracy - USA. Not that we made it up, but it functions better than yours.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Nyarlathotep
Nyarlathotep

Tavern Dweller
posted May 18, 2004 08:58 PM

Heh...eh...

Im almost sorry to have to say this, but a thread named "Why Bush should be reelected" would definately be considerably shorter!

Isnt it obvious why not?!

---------------------------------

God in heaven, hear my cries of anguish, im in PAAAAAIN...


____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted May 19, 2004 11:06 AM

Hey Dargon!  Long time, man!

So tell us, would you vote for Powell if he were on the ticket?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dArGOn
dArGOn


Famous Hero
posted May 20, 2004 02:57 AM

Yes Peacemaker it has been awhile...good to see you again also
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted May 20, 2004 10:55 AM

Hey there old friend!  -- But you didn't answer my question about voting for Powell!!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfman
Wolfman


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
posted May 20, 2004 04:57 PM

If he was on what ticket?  Kerry's VP?
____________
Don't assume you know anything
about my position on any issue.  
Best idea would be to ask.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Khayman
Khayman


Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
posted May 20, 2004 10:35 PM

More Right Wing Propoganda...Or Is It?

A liberal friend o' mine sent me this.  It is about Social Security.  I thought some of you would enjoy it, while others, live Svarog, will spend much of his precious time researching and pointing out its ambiguity.  JK!

----------------
SOCIAL SECURITY:

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.  He promised:

  1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

  2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

  3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

  4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

  5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.



Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right!  Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.  Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments!  The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year!

____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted May 21, 2004 08:17 PM

Quote:
I thought some of you would enjoy it, while others, like Svarog, will spend much of his precious time researching and pointing out its ambiguity. JK!

He he... No, my friend. Actually you'll be surprised how fast and easy it is to find all the stupid things Bush administration does. It takes no more than 5 minutes. But you're right about this one. I won't spend my time on every false propaganda you're posted through e-mail.
JFK! (jo-fu*king-king)
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfman
Wolfman


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
posted May 21, 2004 09:25 PM

Things that you support are true, but things you don't are propaganda...I get it now...

I saw JFK, I thought of a former president...
____________
Don't assume you know anything
about my position on any issue.  
Best idea would be to ask.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Khayman
Khayman


Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
posted May 23, 2004 11:08 AM

You Heard It Here First

Here is my prediction for the outcome of the United States' 2004 Presidential Election:

George Bush is re-elected by a very narrow margin over John Kerry

Here are my reasons, along with some hypothetical situations, that I believe will occur before the election, which will lead to George Bush getting re-elected President:

1. The Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, will raise the interest rate .25% perhaps once, or maybe even twice, in the near furute.  I predict during the summer months (June-August).

2. As a result of raised interest rates, the stock market will take a hit (drop), but will make a huge recovery in the early fall, a month or two prior to the polls opening.

3. The governmental transition in Iraq on June 31 will be ugly...not a complete mess or a failure, but ugly none-the-less.  Early instability in Iraq and the surrounding regions will also cause the stock market to take some hits, but nothing so extreme as to really shake investor confidence.

4. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will uncover a huge terrorist plot to attack the United States sometime early next fall, around September, when its citizens 'terror awareness' is very high.  The results will point to the large number of casualties that were avoided.  This will cause the U.S. voters to focus 'inward' on domestic issues, and less 'outward' on foreign issues, such as the rocky transition and instability of Iraq's government.

5. I do not think the U.S. military will locate Osama Bin Laden prior to the election, but if they do find him, this will only increase the margin of victory for Bush.

6. When it comes time for the election, the stock market will have made its recovery and possibly surged to its highest point since September 11, 2001.  Investors will be optimistic and retirees will be confident.  Also, the Iraqi government will still be having its hiccups, but will be showing some indications of growing stability; however, this will be overshadowed by the U.S. citizens 'internal' focus.

The Bottom Line
Here is the truth, all be it sad, but still the truth about the American voter.  Please listen closely...The average American votes with his or her 'checkbook' and not his or her 'conscience'.  Now, before those open-minded Americans here in HC jump down my throat, along with those objective HC members outside of the U.S., please listen to my reasoning...

The average American does indeed have a conscience, and a very noble and good one at that; however, the American voting populus is not composed of the 'average American'.  There are many United States citizens who do not exercise their right to vote, which is a tragedy, IMHO.  The average American 'citizen' and the average 'voter' are two very different people.  The average American voter, IMHO, is generally a more educated, socially involved, financially stable citizen whose #1 priority is to secure that financial stability for himself (herself) and his (her) family.  "So what if we are waging an unjustified war with another country, look how great my investment portfolio is doing."

Some people believe that George Bush only gave tax breaks to the rich and to business owners; however, those $400 child tax credit checks are a HUGE impact for middle and lower class voters.  Imagine what it is like to be earning $12,000 a year with 4 kids to feed, and getting a $1600 check from the Internal Revenue Service.  That would inspire me to get off my a** and make a trip to the polls to vote for whoever was responsible for getting me that extra money.  Many people may believe President Bush is a moron, but guess what, he is not as stupid as everyone believes him to be.  

As stated above, this is my sole prediction, and I am not claiming that this is what will be best for the United States (or the rest of the world, for that matter).  To sum it all up, I think that the finacial status of the United States at the time of election will have the greatest impact on the voting results, as the average American voter will choose his or her wallet over the other social and political issues...and thus another four years for G.W.

Love, Peace, and Happiness!  
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 18 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 (6) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll Post New Topic Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0779 seconds