Badmovies.org Forum

I don't know if y'all are watching the election coverage or not, but HOW THE HELL CAN ANYONE VOTE FOR BUSH WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE!?  The man and his administration are openly EVIL!  Not just stupid, but plain, flat-out unconstitutionally EVIL!  And he's WINNING AGAIN!  Thank Cthulhu I have lots of beer here.
What I think we need is a massive epidemic.  It did wonders for feudal England.  Nothing short of a huge, life-altering disaster is going to change the system in a radical enough way that there can be a proper change.

Oh okay! I'm just gonna let it out! I HATE BUSH!!!! Oh my god, I don't care if I start a flame war I've just had to hold that in for so long, good thing I got plenty of soda with me right now. But yeah the election thing has got my heart going BOOM BOOM BOOM!

Go Bush! Its a good thing  we won't bash each other for the choices we make.

Brother Ragnarok wrote:

> I don't know if y'all are watching the election coverage or
> not, but HOW THE HELL CAN ANYONE VOTE FOR BUSH WITH A CLEAR
> CONSCIENCE!?  The man and his administration are openly EVIL!
> Not just stupid, but plain, flat-out unconstitutionally EVIL!
> And he's WINNING AGAIN!  Thank Cthulhu I have lots of beer
> here.
> What I think we need is a massive epidemic.  It did wonders for
> feudal England.  Nothing short of a huge, life-altering
> disaster is going to change the system in a radical enough way
> that there can be a proper change.
>


Hell if I know!! Been asking that question all night! Sadly, it was a huge, life-altering
disaster that guaranteed this bastard his popularity. Oh, the humanity!!!

And, I would bash anyone with a difference of opinion, but I'm too damned dis-spirited right now. Kidding......maybe.

I'm going to have to agree with you guys.  It's amazing me just how many people voted for Bush.  I know that a lot of people on the board are Republicans, and that's fine.  It's just that I can't see how any "undecided" voters would actually swing towards Bush.  Fear of change maybe?

I supported Kerry throughout this entire election but not because I really liked the guy.  I thought that he had conviction, and I did think that he would make for a strong leader.  I supported him because I cannot stand Bush.  I feel that his re-election is just a disaster waiting to happen.  

Had Bush actually said at anytime during the election that he would pull troops out of Iraq, I could see this as being an acceptable win.  But no, he holds fast to his mistakes and refuses to take any responsibility for what is happening in that country.  He has pretty much blown off the fact that he originally said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and now is trying to justify the war by saying basically, "Sadaam was a bad guy.  We had to take him out of power.".

If that's the case, why don't we go ahead and take out North Korea?  I see him as much more of a threat than Sadaam.  And when did we suddenly become the country to decide the fates of all other countries?  It's not our place to take a leader out of power, even a corrupt one.  Hell if we did that, we ourselves would have to pick a new president.

I did feel that Kerry would have been beneficial to the Iraq situation.  Atleast the man has been in war and knows the horrors of it unlike our current president.  I feel that he would have been compassionate towards the troops instead of using them for his own will.  

I also feel that he would have had more sympathy for our enemies that Bush.  I know that sounds like hippie tree-hugging bulls**t, but it's not.  Think about this, Osama Bin Laden is obviously an a***ole.  But, that doesn't mean that there WASN'T a reason behind the attacks.  Sure, in our eyes it might have been the wrong reason, but there still was one.  Bush said at one of the debates: "These are a group of folks with hate in their hearts.".  It's not as simple and black and white as that.  Nothing ever is.  

Or think about it this way.  We see sometimes on the news that our troops in Iraq were attacked by a small group of "terrorists".  But, switch it around for a moment.  What if we were occupied by another country against our will, and our leader was taken?  What if then some of us attacked the occupying army?  Would we then be 'terrorists' to our people or 'freedom fighters'?  It amazes me just how much the word "TERRORIST" gets thrown around now.  

There's my rant.  Take from it what you will.  I have no doubt that there will eventually be a flame war on this board, but that is not what I want to happen.  I'm just stating my views and hopefully everyone will be respectful of everyone else's opinions.

An old saying:
Sometimes the Devil that you know is better than the one that you don't.

Well, at least in your system, they only get two terms.

In Canada, we can have the same crappy leader for as long as he wants to stay, because there are no term limits, and most people here are afraid to gamble on someone new. Unless they really get p**sed off, it's always the devil they know. What's more, our terms can be up to five years if the government is really unpopular, and extremely short if the PM wants to take advantage of a surge in popularity (he decides when elections are held). Your presidents have a chance of going out on top, while our PMs always stay at least one term longer than they should have, and the last term is often a very bad one. The whole country let out a collective 'Thank God' when Chretien finally retired. The bugger hung around for almost 12 years, and I think he must have won about four elections in that time.

So, I envy some (not all) aspects of your system, particularly a two-term limit and a fixed four-year term.

Of course, we also have some advantages, not the least of which is that our elections are decided on the same day they're held :)

I do wonder if all of the overdone attacks on Bush by folks like Michael Moore might have backfired and generated sympathy for the guy. Just a possibility.



Post Edited (11-03-04 08:06)

Andy, we have the same problem here.  Our current prime minister has been around for a while, and whilst he isn't necessarily doing too bad a job, his policies kinda suck.  Our recent election gave good ol Johnny a few more years to increase the gap between rich and poor, but then again we have really noone that I would trust or like enough to replace him.

But yes, despite it all, I'm happy that we get the results on the same day, everyone votes [which may be a pain in the arse, but at least it solves alot of problems] and we don't have to lodge lawsuits in order to become leaders.

Good luck America, the world holds it's breath!

A lot of people who voted for Bush aren't Republicans. I voted for him, but I also voted for a Democratic Congressman and Senator. The problem with our system system is that you only get to choose which dickhead will screw things up the least. Everybody in the 'anybody but Bush' camp is just being stupid. Mr. Kerry as president would have made me have to throw the TV out the window or shoot myself to keep from having to listen to the stiff for four years. (Bush is worth listening to just for the entertainment  value of his linguistic  faux pas's)

One of these days I hope we get someone to vote for, but I think we are going to have to tear down the party system to do it.  These two Bozo's spent half a billion dollars between the two of them.

I listened to Jimmy Carter on the radio one day and did you know that the US meets none of the criteria of the Carter Institute for having free and fair elections?They monitor  elections all over the world and know a little bit about the subject. One of those criteria is publicly funded campaigns, which sounds better  and better as I get older.

What we need is reform so we can get some decent candidates and not just those annointed by the two major parties.

Yeah, but in this case, I feel we know the Incumbent Devil well enough that it's worth taking our chances on what's behind the curtain.

Alright, just how is Bush openly EVIL?  Some on guys give me one good reason  to back up that kind of accusation?

Bush isn't evil, I just don't feel he is fit to lead a superpower.  That being said, I do not know that much about Kerry and his ideas, policies or anything, which is why I understand that people can vote for Bush [after all, who am I to criticize those who know more about Kerry than I do, and decide that he is not for them]

The same thing Trekgeezer was talking about sort of happened here in Australian elections: both the options weren't really that good, so it kind of gives you a depressed feeling when both canditates don't really make the grade as to what you want in a leader.  But thankfully our voting system isn't near as flawed as the American system seems to be.

But voting for which President is the more entertaining one? That's a bit much really.  Look at Australia's prime minister: he is the most annoying person imaginable, however he was voted in power again in our recent elections, not because of entertainment value, but because, arguably, he would do a better job than the opposition's leader.  That's the important thing here: who would do the best job in not only running the country, but in maintaining some semblance of peace in the world.

I didn't really mean to say that I voted for Bush because he was entertaining.  I did it because John Kerry has been going around saying he has a plan for this and that, when in 20 + years in the Senate he has never had his name attached to single bill and he waffles all over the place. He got a lot of votes out of some peoples pure hate for Bush.

I would really like to have folks like Colin Powell or John McCain running. Hell I'd vote for Arnold Schwartzeneggar if it were legal.

Hey, I voted for Constitution Party.

Mostly as a protest vote against the republican party.  I knew Peroutka had no chance and in fact he came in 5th in my own state, behind Nader, Badnarik, and Cobb.

I'm fiscally conservative and also a Christian.  

For the first, I see the Republicans being too much like the Democrats, just along different lines.  

For the second, I think the Republican party just uses the Christian vote the same way the Democrats use Unions or Blacks.  Both parties have their little voting blocks that they make promises to and can count on for votes, but it's mostly lip service and empty air.  I don't like being used like that.  Also, politics makes me make enemies of people I should reach out to because God loves them.

The man and his administration are openly EVIL! ...And he's WINNING AGAIN! Thank Cthulhu I have lots of beer here.

So, um, he's evil and you are thanking an evil being. You should be happy :)



Post Edited (11-03-04 09:18)

Brother Rag...guys....Your expressing the same hate the radicals on the other side feel for Kerry.
Let...it....go!
Its will only burn you up. Trust me, it ain't worth it.

Bush is the lesser of two evils. Thats as good as it gets. The lesser of two imperfect human beings.
Thats all we will ever have. Mankind is not getting better and better....we only think we are.
And lets face....just whos standards of "Ev-il" are we useing to determin Bush's or Kerry's "Evil", anyhoo? Judao-Christian? Humanist? Muslim?
This world is a mess of emotional children, thinking "WE" are...in what ever group "we" happen to fit....better then "THEM".
And we are going down hill, all the faster, the more we forget that point.

(Sigh)...and people wonder why i 'm so cynical.

Guys...if Kerry had won' i'd be upset too. But what good would that do?
Please, let it go. I like ya too much to see ya suffer.

I'll tell ya this much...

Even if Kerry loses, we can all agree that he gave Bush one helluva run for his money!

He'll be president for sure if he runs in 2008.

He'll be president for sure if he runs in 2008.

No he won't.  The only thing Kerry had going was "Bush is bad, I'm better"  He basically was running on disatisfaction with Bush; he was basically just the alternative.  If more people were ok with Bush than not, Bush wins.  I more people disliked Bush than not, Kerry wins.  Kerry had nothing really of his own to actually be worth voting for.  In 2008, he won't have that.

Kerry will not be on the democratic ticket in 2008, they have made it very clear the they will be pushing Hillary Clinton for that........*shutter*

To be honest,  I do indeed agree with Brother Rag on most counts, all but the mass die-off. But I can see why Bush seems to be ahead right now, the counts are not all in as I write this.

 It often seems that one side (sorry all you greens and constitionalists and libertarians, not to minimize your views but I am making a sweeping generalization) cannot in any way comprehend how the other side can think the way they do...
The die-hard Pro-Bush faction think he is a wonderful person, strong leader, decisive, well-spoken, good man etc.

The other side think he is at best a fool and corporate patsy, and at worst a dangerous lair and delusional theocrat,
There is very little middle ground that I can see.  And we, as a country, are paying the price for that.  We just can't see the other person's point of view very clearly.

-Ed

There is very little middle ground that I can see.

Ironically, I think most normal people really live in the middle ground but they politicians and  their consultants work very hard to paint the enemy as 'way over there'

Congradulations to President George W. Bush and John Kerry!

What amazes me is the belief of all those involved. I voted yesterday for George W. Bush, but not for the same reasons as most did. This election was a very interesting one as Bush and Kerry do their job this election year. The next 4 years with George Bush are going to be interesting years. Get ready for 2008 as Washington is working on a bill that will allow foreigners to run for president if they are citizens for at least 20 years ! Then for Clinton to head the so called U.N. in 2006. That is if both these two figures health holds up.  Once people realize that America is the true United Nations then you can better understand our role in the world and the function that flux of of appearance plays in world events. Things are veiled to most. Things are not as they appear.

(http://guitariste.com/articles/img/238-big-arnold-schwarzenegger.jpg)



Post Edited (11-03-04 12:28)

John Kerry has conceded to Bush. Check your favorite news outlet for details.

Great! Spoil the ending!!! I was hoping for 3 of 4 weeks of chad counting. Like Willy Wonka said"...the anticipation is killing me...I hope it lasts!" Congrats to W for pulling off what is daddy could not.

Well the good news is stem cell research won't be pushed aside by some crazy assed Christian right wing doh heads. California will continue on with it.

In 2008 we can expect AH-nuld vs. Hillary. Oh boy! By then Iraq will be the oasis of tranquility and peace.

Yep, I'm quite surprised that my boy Kerry has conceded.

Oh well.........

Looks like we have another four years with Bush.

I still hope they count Ohio.  I really want to see who that one was going to.

> Everybody in the 'anybody but Bush' camp is just being stupid.
> Mr. Kerry as president would have made me have to throw the TV
> out the window or shoot myself to keep from having to listen to
> the stiff for four years. (Bush is worth listening to just for
> the entertainment  value of his linguistic  faux pas's)

And voting against someone because you think he's a boring speaker isn't being stupid?  At least Kerry's administration never had a chance to prove itself as actively evil as Bush and his cronies, Dick "Hi, I'm Satan, enjoy the show!" Cheney and Karl "What?  No, really, I don't hate everyone, I LOVE rich white people!" Rove.  Ugh.

Not surprising he lost, considering the s**t the GOP was pulling in the swing states, particularly Ohio this year.  Passing out fliers and posters in minority neighborhoods telling them voting day was Nov. 3, calling them at home and telling them that since they were such loyal voters they could just vote over the phone and not go to the polls, and consequently throwing out their votes.  Grrrr.
And don't tell me that was "just an article on the Onion."  Reuters reported it this year.  I can't believe they're allowed to get away with this crap.

I wouldn't argue about this to much you two because it's futile. This is Kerry's brother.

(http://jta.org/storage/articleimages/13822.jpg)
Cameron Kerrry



Post Edited (11-03-04 12:44)

Those in the rank and file are very passionate. This has nothing to do with the party heads doing anthing as they can effect the vote in on a much more subversive scale.

Let's not forget the 800 or so voter registrations sent in to the state of Ohio by  the NAACP on behalf of the Democrats with names like Mary Poppins and Willie Wonka on them.

Both sides have extremists and you can't be labeling everyone that belongs to a political party  because of the actions of the outer fringe of that party. Both sides have pulled s**t like this and will probably continue to do so.

Suck it up and live with it for another four years, it's what I had to do for 8 years of  Clinton.

By the way this is the last post I'll be making on this thread. The election is over and I would like to get back to the subject of  movies and entertainment.



Post Edited (11-03-04 14:11)

Scott: "The next 4 years with George Bush are going to be interesting years."

Yes they will. He has a Republican Senate and House to play with. He's not afraid to p**s voters off because he can't run for re-election. He'll be able to fill a few Supreme Court seats with his conservative buddies... Basically he's beat the "checks and balances" system, and he's a very powerful man now.

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

Ah well.  I'm pretty well resigned to it now.  At least we can look forward to four more years of great Daily Show episodes.

Basically he's beat the "checks and balances" system, and he's a very powerful man now.

No he hasn't.  "Checks and Balances" are designed to keep one branch from getting too powerful, not one party.  If one party has control of both house of congress and the presidency, that's just democracy, the will of the people who put them there.  

"Checks and Balances" keeps Bush from trying to change the rules to get three terms or something.  Neither the Congress nor  the Supreme Court would allow that.  

Even when one party has controlled both congress and the presidency, congress has been very unwilling to give the president any more power as they fear the future when the power has shifted.  I seem to recall Bush Sr wanting some budgetary power but the Republicans in Congress wouldn't allow it because they feared the same power in the hands of a Democratic president.

"Checks and balances" has been eroded in the past because you have the Supreme Court trying to legislate from the bench, the president trying to legislate from the oval office, and the Congress trying to administer, but that's a different issue

yep.....................

you know i started reading through a lot of the posts on this thread and i must say you all have very intelligent things to say, i wish i could add something, but i can't really t-GO NADER!!! GREEN PARTY WOOT WOOT!!

www.votenader.org

"this statistic wont lay down." -Sick of it All

I lost a friend in the Pentagon and saw another badly burned.  I was scheduled to be there later that day - though not in the wing that got hit.  Bush went to Afghanistan and toppled the group that helped make that happen... and he did it in a way that left the vast majority of Afghans better off - it was nothing short of the most brilliant operation in American history - and probably faced worse odds than most.  

Then he actually did something odd.  He paid attention to the far left.  "This happened to us because we've propped up dictators and given people in the third world no hope" they said.  So he picked out the dictatorship formerly propped up by us that was most likely to provide WMD to terrorists and he knocked it off.  The going is rougher than Afghanistan - mainly due to some administration miscalculations I admit - but we're getting it done and we're going to win.

As you may have guessed from what I said earlier, I work for the US government's national security aparatus.  I see first hand how things are going and I watch the media - even FOX - ignore the real story, and that is that the Bush administration is clubbing Al Qaeda about the head and neck all over the world.  It isn't a perfect effort - don't get me started on Wolfowitz - but it's going better that World War II ever did.  And it didn't take long for me to tire of Kerry's misrepresentations of the facts of this war.  Facts for which he knows better.

I'm not an across the board Republican - I don't even register with the party.  I don't care if gays get married, I hate the death penalty, I think taxes are probably low enough... No thinking person agrees 100% with one side or another.  But you pick what's most important to you.  I have three children.  I don't want to outlive them.  That's what's most important to me.  That's how I voted for Bush with a clear conscience.

I respect your opinion and your vote for Kerry.  Please respect mine.

As I already stated, I've gotten over the (to me) depressing news and have settled down for another four years of great Daily Show episodes.

My condolences to you, Eirik.  I can't imagine how hard that must have been to see and experience!

Thank you for your post- I really appreciate your honesty and intelligence regarding the matter.  Thanks for pointing out that not everyone that voted for Bush is an "ignorant, hard-core-conservative closed-minded racist rich white man".  I happen to be a middle-class female with no clear political party (I vote based on the candidate- not the party, hence my strange looking, mixed up ballot).

It's just nice to know that some people can respect the decisions of others.

I think the San Francisco Bay Area should secede from the rest of the US. It would be cool, because a lot of the country doesn't like us, and we don't like them, cause they think we're all gay homeless hippies, and we think they're all backward evangelical hicks.(Exaggeration, obviously we live in our own world here.)
But if you look at the breakdown by county, all bay area counties except Santa Clara had like at least 75% Kerry.

Hey, lets me positive here and think of it as an opportinuty to:
1) Have lots to complain about for years to come.
2) Take up hobbies as our jobs move to foreign lands
3) Allow Reaganism to finally decay from its latest zombie-like resurrection.  
4) Watch as whole segments of our population are denied basic needs.
5) Kick all their discredited asses out in the next elections.
Ed

I can totally believe that Bush found more support in Santa Clara county, since I live and work here and witness these people every day.

Some are hoping Bush might go more to the center in a second term, but I really doubt it.  Still, there's always hope.  More often than not the religious right are used as pawns by the Republican leadership--most of the GOP higherups don't really believe  that way, but they can't win without them.  But since Bush doesn't have to worry about re-election now, maybe, just maybe he might become a little more moderate.  I do hope the economy and Iraq turn around.  

I don't agree with how Bush has handled terrorism, though I don't know if Gore or Kerry would do any better.  What that latest Bin Laden showed me was that we were in exactly the same position we were four years ago...basically with no idea when or where the attacks would come.  Except that at least four years ago we had some idea where Bin Laden was located.  Now we don't.  I don't see Bush as toppling the terrorist networks so much as he's dispersed them all over the world.
But...that's really not my big issue with Bush anyway.  All I really care about is the economy, working families, health insurance, etc.  

One thing I really do feel...although I support equal rights for everyone, I think it was a really bad idea to make 2004 the year to make gay marriage a big issue.
Who knows how many people on the right might have stayed home if those defense of marriage amendments hadn't been on the ballots?  especially in ohio.  
I just think there are so many more important issues than gay marriage.  Why couldn't it wait until 2005?

I figure either Bush turns it around and things get better, or he doesn't and people will hopefully blame his party for it in 2008.   I don't think Hillary is any more electable than Kerry, probably less so, but Edwards is already acting like he's running--though he's not real popular in his home state.  Maybe at least he'll do better that Lieberman.

Nice post Eirik.
And Petrol, we don't want you to secede; what makes America great is that  there are so many different opinions and we all live together peacefully.  Perhaps a bit more respect  for the validity of other viewpoints is in order, such as Kerry supporters are not traitors or Bush supporters are not homophobic (Hey, I voted against the dumbass gay marriage ban in Ohio).

As for Bush,
1) he can't get reelected (so no need to pander to his base)
2) the world now understands that when he says something he actually does mean it (a true shock to francophile diplomats)
now he may turn his eye towards his legacy.

> One thing I really do feel...although I support equal rights
> for everyone, I think it was a really bad idea to make 2004 the
> year to make gay marriage a big issue.
> Who knows how many people on the right might have stayed home
> if those defense of marriage amendments hadn't been on the
> ballots?  especially in ohio.  
> I just think there are so many more important issues than gay
> marriage.  Why couldn't it wait until 2005?

Ugh, tell me about it.  Nothing quite so beautifully hypocritical as the "Land of the Free" writing old-fashioned bigotry and discrimination right into many of its state's constitutions.  People make me sick.

I lived in the Bay Area for more than 5 years and I both loved and loathed it there. Most City Councils will happily vote down a day care center but any Starbuck's can move in three fold. f**k that.
I'm a libertarian artsy fartsy and I could not stand how the politics is pro-gay mafia but will bend over and tax to death any family. Where's the utopia in that? Owning a vehicle means gas must cost $3 a gallon to pay for your environmental sins and don't even think of buying a house. A rat trap scum home with wiring from the 1880's fetches $800K there now. No thanks! Keep the loony bin and enjoy, I'll visit and leave happy!

Oh yes, Bin Ladden sending a tape really tells me that we are in the same boat as before 9/11.  I mean then he could get 20 something people into plains and have them crash into buildings..........now he sends VHS tapes. Yeah, I see where Bush is messing up so badly.

I just don't think we're any safer.  At least before, we knew they were in Afghanistan.  Now we don't know where they are...they're all over the place.

Yeah, 10 months in the Bay Area is about all I can stand.  We're moving at the end of this month.

I stood in line for an hour and 20 minutes to cast my vote that I knew would be null and void because texas historically votes republican, we're in a conservative bible belt state.  I only wish that more YOUNG PEOPLE, more MINORITIES and more LOWER INCOME people would get registered and VOTE! They can literally change this country. I am not a bush fan, i along with most of my coworkers voted kerry, the one person who voted for Bush i questioned if he knew why. He had no answer. When he asked me the same, I had a long, elaborate, and well researched answer. I wasn't for Bush the first time around, right after they announced him the winner (prior to the chad fiasco) i basically stormed out of the room and said "that's it, we're going to war with iraq again guaranteed)

I am tired of this administration instilling fear and paranoia into the public. I am tired of outsourcing which has caused my immediate family to lose their jobs and Bush's rebuttal for that was "get an education'. It is the educated, highly trained people with degree's who are losing jobs BECAUSE they are educated and can ask for of a salary than someone living in India who will work for 1/3 less. I am tired of the war, which by all means and purpose should have never been nor should be going on this long, I'm just highly p**sed that I have to live through another 4 years and i just need to vent. I also would appreciate if nobody attatcked my views, i'm not here to shove politics down anyones throat, just venting (This will probably be my only post on the topic and then I'll go back to movie chat)I work for a health insurance co and even tho Kerry's plans may cause us money, hey...that's a working plan for those who can't afford insurance.

there are two people at work who are seriously considering leaving the country. I won't because that would be one less vote in the next election that may count.
Btw for what it's worth i honestly thing if hillary had run with him for VP, they would have taken the win

nitwit!
nitwit!
nitwit!



Post Edited (11-04-04 18:47)

The one this that gets me the most angered with is something that people rarely bring up, not Irag, not Afganistan, not his lack of grammar, not him loosing jobs, not his policies on the enviroment...it's his lack of support for education which p**ses me off the most, college is coming up for me (I HOPE!)

And if the constitution allowed it I would DEFINETLY voted. I think the voting should be lowered at year at least.

And at least Eirik showed me that not all Bush supporters are stupid, rich, racist, white people (but my grandma is one of those except she's not rich.)



Post Edited (11-04-04 22:07)

"Election Day" would be a good name for a horror movie.  Here are some potential tag-lines:

"You man never vote again."

"The polls are closed."

"The night HE was re-elected."

Its been a very long time since I posted on the board, but after seeing this topic I need to put my 2 cents in. Im a Bush supporter and while I do admit he never was the best republican candidate I'd much rather have him in office rather than Kerry. At least with Bush I know that he will remain firm in his polices and beliefs unlike Kerry who flip flops on every issue according to what's currently the most popular political stance at the time.
One of the big issues brought up of course with Bush is the war on terrorism. I feel Bush has handled the war on terrorism extremely well. We succeeded in toppling the Al-queda supporting Taliban and we have been constantly on the offensive with the terrorist there. We have not found Osama yet, but remember this is a guy who has been running and hiding from governments most of his life, not to mention that he is also hiding in one of the most desolate and unforgiving terrains on the planet.
As for Iraq, I'll admit that we did not immediately have to go in there but we would have sooner or later. When people criticize the war in Iraq and say how ill planed it was, they seem to forget that it was one of the fastest and most successful land wars in history. We had taken control of a country the size of california in a little over a month! What do you people want?
Now we are in the second and most difficult part of the war and that is to try and restore order and put in place a stable government in a already very unstable region.  The insurgents will be a problem for awhile but that is to be expected. Many people don't know this but after the Nazis were defeated there were many terrorist attacks committed by die hard Nazis as the Allies tried to stabilize the country.
The biggest thing people need to understand is that wars are rarely quick and easy. The war on terrorism is much like the war on drugs because you cannot have an out right win in this war. You can win battles and keep the terrorist at bay but as long as there are hateful radicals in this world there will always be terrorism. So far we have won every battle since this war began.

I've got problems hearing people blaming the president  for  losing jobs or giving him credit  for creating jobs. The government can only create government jobs.

The job loss in the US is due to the globalization of  industry.  If Kerry was going to keep jobs here maybe he should have started with his wife's company, something like 80% of their products are produced in other countries.

You can blame Bush for the war or whatever else you want to that he has control over, but a lot of  factors affect the economy and how companies do business.  Whoever the president is he can do very little about it . Kerry couldn't have kept those jobs here anymore than Bush is responsible for them going elsewhere.  This is all poliitical nonsense.

daveblackeye...  Keep in mind that Senator Kennedy - a Democrat - wrote Bush's education bill.  When he was elected, he reached across the aisle and invited the very liberal Kennedy to lead the way in education.  This is one of those real partisan and divisive things he did that the Dems are always b***hing about, I guess.  Anyway, remember that it is Congress that ultimately controls the purse strings, not the president, and it is Congress that passes the acts that effect education.  All Bush can do is write up a proposed budget and his budgets have been no less generous with education than Clinton's budgets.  I honestly think your beef is with Congress more than Bush... and as it happens in this case, with Kennedy, a Democrat.

Note: This is the reason Kerry never attacked Bush on education.

I see someone mentioned stem cell research.  A word to educate everyone: this is the most idiotic debate in the history of our country.  Yes - it is even more idiotic than the debate over which Friend should Rachel marry.  

One side wants to use embryonic stem cells for research... The other doesn't want embryos created just to harvest stem cells.  

To all the morons on both sides: every time a woman gives birth, the umbilical is loaded with guess what?  Stem cells!  Thousands of them!  They are thrown in the garbage each and every time a woman in this country gives birth (what?  thousands of times a day?).  You could stick a needle in the cord, harvest the blood, and never hurt a single embryo - in fact, it would be CHEAPER!!  Here we are, throwing enough non-embryonic stem cells every day to keep researchers supplied for a decade and instead we make it an embryo-abortion issue.  So to the left: stop harvesting embryos just to bring medical advancements into the abortion debate.  To the right: turn your brains on and see that medical research is not an inherently evil thing.  

For the sake of progress, this idiotic debate must end.  (Bonus to Catholics (I am one): The Pope himself approved using cord blood stem cells - how can you argue with that???)

No, the most frightening tagline:
"The campaigning never ends"

When he was elected, he reached across the aisle and invited

The Repubs won the elections for the presidency and both houses of congress.  If this reflects what the people voted for then I think it is the Dems who need to reach across the aisle and heal the divides

"The Repubs won the elections for the presidency and both houses of congress. If this reflects what the people voted for then I think it is the Dems who need to reach across the aisle and heal the divides"

Freep, I wasn't saying Bush needs to reach across the aisle, I said he DID reach across the aisle when he let Kennedy write his education bill during his first term.  And I wouldn't hold my breath on the Dems making nice-nice...  they lost seats in both houses and the presidency by 30 some electoral and 3.5 million popular votes and all I hear is how it isn't a mandate and Bush needs to heal our divided nation.

Don't ask me what a mandate is.  I've scoured the Constitution and see no restrictions on the policies of presidents who don't win in landslides.  Maybe its somewhere in there near the back?  Also don't ask me how our nation is "divided."  There are people who disagree with one another - that's called a healthy intellectual climate, not a divided country.  The invective is getting nastier.  Wish I could say "both sides are responsible" but I saw enough of the Democratic primary campaigning to know which side is more responsible.  But divided?  When the Democrats pick up muskets and rally at Manassas Virginia while firing artillery on Fort Sumter National Historical Park, THEN the country is divided.

Freep, I wasn't saying Bush needs to reach across the aisle

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you did.  Your comment just sparked a somewhat related thought I had at the time.

I disagree. We lost the war on terror as soon as it began, insofar as one can win or lose a war against an abstract concept. Let's call it the war against terrorISTS. The reason is simply this: George W. Bush is so universally hated throughout the Arab world that more and more radicals will line up to join whichever terrorist cell they can. He's a fantastic recruiter for Osama bin Laden, and I feel bin Laden released his most recent video message, in part, to ensure Bush's re-election. In addition to the enormously increased NUMBER of terrorists that will surface as a result of this election, there's also the fact that Bush doesn't seem particularly worried about catching any terrorists in his war on terror. He's more interested in using Echelon, Carnivore, Magic Lantern and all his other tech toys that have recently been made far easier to use with impunity by the Patriot Act to catch potheads.

In my opinion Bush has failed as President, just as he's failed every other job assigned to him. He's used fear and paranoia to gank electoral votes (a couple of my Pakistani friends from college have been badgered by the police on separate occasions because someone thought they looked suspicious - in other words, dark-skinned). He's obfuscated political issues into hollow moral rhetoric. As for his firmness of purpose, remember when he said we were winning the war on terror, then claimed in a subsequent interview that the war on terror can't be won?

Anyway, it's not as if we can contest the results of the election. We lived through eight years of Reagan, who was just as bad, so we might as well buckle up and prepare to make the best, if possible, of four more years of Bush.

Kerry was percieved as having based his whole campaign on Bush being a Cowboy Hitlermonkey who had repealed the Bill of Rights in it's entirety. This left no room to argue that things could get WORSE with another four years. If I've already lost all my civil rights without even noticing it, and I can still do EVERYTHING I could do before I lost all my civil rights, what could be so bad about the status-quo? The hysteical paranoia drowned out any sensible critisism of Bush.

I'm sitting here wondering if most aof you are even old enough to vote. Your reasons for hating President Bush is like listening to schoolyard children

OBL didn't want Bush re-elected... and the reason he and the terrorists hate him is because he & his administration are SQUASHING them.  Do you really expect the terrorists to LIKE and SUPPORT the person that is hunting them down and breaking their cells?   I think the fact that they hate him is a good sign.

By the way, I voted for Kerry.   This is just my opinion on a single topic.

Yes, most aof of us is old enough to vote, and reading your grammer are like proofreading schoochildren's papers.

Good call, brother.  I've been wondering about that very thing for some time.  It's like trying to put a puzzle together, but you can't quite finish it because the last piece is stuck to your face with your own drool and you can't figure out where it went.

Yep, now I've got some letters to go write.

Thank you for volunteering. I love proof.

Its strange to see people from the left and the right battling it out on this message board. I found it! The common ground from which we can reach eachother! Really bad movies! Yay, God bless America! One nation, under Fulci, With gore and breasts for all!

Proof of what, exactly?

Will you two stop flirting already?

But, Blaster, Ham is just so damn sexy.

Yep, Polotics will make you horny every time.

Who voted for Bush with a clear conscience? I did, for one. Here are a few others:

http://www.werenotsorry.com/TNPHOTOFRM.htm

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1099986939.shtml

http://www.ornery.org/

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200411100834.asp

Not only is my conscience clear, but I'd do it again in a minute. I'm sure these people would too. Considering that the terrorists might just take aim at your town next, I'd be careful about wishing for a "life-altering disaster" if I were you.

Bang! Bang! Bang!
Another topic that will not die!

FrigginA mighty Odinn!

The sad thing is that months from now, when this thread is finally buried and forgotten, some numbnuts will find it on a search engine, read it, and feel the need to give a really pointless and idiotic response to somebody, thus bringing it back to the top. It's happened before.

Just "it's happened before?"  Doesn't that happen at least twice a week?

Yeah, I do that sometimes. Not with a search engine though, I actually dig through the old posts once in awhile looking for something to resurect. I've got some linked on my blog I'll probably do that with someday.

http://davemunger.blogspot.com

Wasn't really referring to regular posters. It's when an outsider with no interest in the board, or in movies, happens to turn up a political thread like this one, and just can't resist putting two cents in. At least check the date, and see if the discussion is currently going on.

It happened with the Fahrenheit 911 thread, and who could forget when we were overrun by M. Night Shamalamalamon fans?

And when it does happen, there should be a .wav file embedded that goes "mwahahahaha".
The thread that rises from the grave.
Of course, at this rate, this thread will never die.

Because, in a  vicious bout of irony, we're going to keep talking about how it won't die.  Thusly not letting it die.
Live on, stupid election thread that I shouldn't have posted because I was drunk, LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!