Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on October 14, 2006, 01:51:39 AM
-
If you voted for Bush in 2000...
... and if you voted for Bush in 2004...
... clap your hands, and say so here.
If so inclined, say why you did.
It's confusing to me. I'm dumbfounded.
Step up. Explain it.
-
I had bush in 2000 but in 2004 it was all gone if that helps any :D
-
Bush is an efing idiot with alot of money. OK. Figure it out soon.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I had bush in 2000 but in 2004 it was all gone if that helps any :D
Bush over Gore?
Okay.
I dunno what kinda calculus you were working with there... hence the confusion. And the question.
Why was that, exactly?
Why Bush?
-
......this thread looks familiar
-
Nilsen was just 'splainin that he shaved his pubes. TMI AFAIC.
-
nash, i think that you may have to tell them that they are not currently under the suspicion of any government agency and that as americans they are still required, at least in spirit to listen to thier hearts and to speak the truth.
88
-
lol....
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Nilsen was just 'splainin that he shaved his pubes. TMI AFAIC.
almost.... im talking about my wife :D
-
Jesus Nash, Nielsen's post was pretty obvious... that is unless you were waiting for the first Boosh fanboi to post and jump all over him.
Welcome back to the O'Club btw, where ya been?
-
Originally posted by Stang
Jesus Nash, Nielsen's post was pretty obvious...
Yeah... he liked W in 2000.
I don't get it. I don't get why. His choice is obvious. His reason is not.
There are shrinks the world over trying to figure this out right now....
.... as am I.
-
LOL Nielsen's "Bush" didn't refer to Dubya, but bush as in hair... holy **** man, lighten up and see the humor in front of you.
:lol
-
What do ya want me to do, Stang?
Chuckle over "I had bush in 2000 but in 2004 it was all gone if that helps any"?
Okay, ha ha....
Does that work for you?
-
Yes.
:aok
And lighten up.
;)
-
Why am I tanglin' with you? And Why are you tanglin' with me? I just have a few questions, is all:
If you voted for Bush in 2000...
... and if you voted for Bush in 2004...
... clap your hands, and say so here.
If so inclined, say why you did.
It's confusing to me. I'm dumbfounded.
Step up. Explain it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
If you voted for Bush in 2000...
... and if you voted for Bush in 2004...
... clap your hands, and say so here.
If so inclined, say why you did.
It's confusing to me. I'm dumbfounded.
Step up. Explain it.
you voted gwb in '04, just like your parents did and so on. so what's your point?
-
i dont know who i voted for in 04
i had a mail-in ballot & traded it for two really good sandwiches.
in 00 i wrote in myself, then crossed that out & wrote in "i aint sayin"
this year i also have a mail-in & im torn over selling it again or drawing porno pictures on it
-
:rofl
Haven't got a laugh from O' Club in ages..
-
Up until 2000 I voted party line democrat since forever..
In 2000 Gore seemed the usual promise breaking, finger waging liberal many were tired of. Bush was a chance for a change..
In 2004 the Kerry/Edwards tag team comedy act showed little promise of anything positive, plus during times of war I personnaly think that changing presiedents is not the best move... Bush was a better choice..
What you youngun librules fail to realize is that its not always about just you!
-
I remember the 04 election campaign. Kerry was caught in so many damn lies that I would never have voted for him. He was playing the politition telling people what they wanted to know, but he forgot and contradicted himself.
I remember the guys in my squad discussing it and I piped up, I would vote for Bush, the other guy is a tard.
So, Nash, I would have voted for Bush because he is the lesser of two evils, stick with the animal you know.
In the next election if if's between Hilary and 'W'. Let me save you the post now and say I voted for 'W' once again because Hillary is a kunt. If she was a strong leader she would have 'Bobited' he cheating husband and left his bellybutton long ago.
BTW, did you vote for Cretien back in the day? IF so, you can stop posting now, you helped ruin Canada by doing so.:D
-
2000 - Every other candiddate was Green Party. Got to Pres, I chose Bush because Michigan is a Dem. state and chose to defend myself owning a handgun. Once he got in, handgun laws were eased in Michigan.
2004 - Kerry? ROTLMMFAO!!!!
2008 - No Reps or Dems (except McCain). 92 and 96 were Perot.
I vote for purpose, NOT the Lesser of two evils. If you reply to this, sorry, 1.) I don't care what you have to say. 2.) if you CANNOT vote in the US, see 1.
-
from the title of the thread i thought this was about something important like a light bulb that lasts a long time. :confused:
-
Originally posted by john9001
from the title of the thread i thought this was about something important like a light bulb that lasts a long time. :confused:
They already have that infomercial. The light bulb that is shatterproof, cool to the touch etc.
-
I voted Bush In 2000 and In 2004 simply because in my opinion it was the lesser of the evils I had to choose from.
-
Bush in 2000, because Gore was a friend of the family at one time and I knew he was a total idiot.
Bush in 2004 because Kerry was a lying moron I wouldn't trust in an outhouse with a muzzle on him.
Am I completely satisfied and happy with Bush? No, not at all, not even close. Is he light years ahead of Gore, Kerry, or any other left wing fruit cake the Democrats have offered in recent history (since maybe Kennedy)? Yes.
The Democrats, and their rapidly further left leaning policies have NOTHING to offer me, their domestic policies on spending and law/order suck, and their foreign policy is even worse. Further, the Democrats do not offer ANY plan, all they offer is "we're not Bush and we're not Republicans". The REASON they offer that is that no one but the far left likes or wants what they REALLY stand for.
I REALLY wish the Democrats DID have something to offer besides "we're not Bush and we're not Republicans", because if nothing else, it would force the Republicans to perform better and actually do a better job of being true conservatives. But the Democrats don't offer much outside of major suckage, and as dissatisfied as I am with the Republicans, the Democrats are completely unacceptable.
If the Republicans were true conservatives we'd have even less taxes, we'd have more drilling for oil in the ANWAR and in the Gulf of Mexico, and more refineries. We'd have ten times as many nuclear power plants, and we'd be mining more coal and figuring out how to turn it in to gas and diesel. We'd have a more aggessive prosecution of the war on terror (it'd be known as the war on Islamic Fascism) especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, there'd be a lot more pressure on Iran and North Korea. We'd have a lot less money wasted on "social programs" and other B.S. We'd have a lot better policy on illegal aliens.
The fact that the Republicans are at least somewhat conservative is the ONLY thing keeping the Deomocrats from making all of the previous paragraph far worse than it is already. The Democrats energy solution is to tax the Hell out of oil and oil companies. The public will pay for that at the pump, not the oil companies, and it'll KILL the economy. Their budget solution is to immediately raise taxes on EVERYONE who makes more than $20K a year, and raise them exponentially on anyone that makes more than $100K a year. That will only KILL revenue AND the economy, and they'll only want to spend more on "social programs" AKA "money for the poor" which will encourage the poor to be poor. Their foreign policy will be "cut and run". Their foreign policy has blessed us with things like North Korea. They'll want to further restrict my right to own and to carry my firearms. They'll want us to subsidize more abortions and the results of failed gay marraiges (yes, the public subsidizes failed marraiges by paying for the support of children, and we already know once they legalize gay marraiges they'll fully support adoption by gayt couples). No, the Democrats and their far left candidates have NOTHING to offer me.
Is that enough for you Nash? Enjoy it. And writhe in agony at your inability to vote or have any real effect on politics down here.
-
Originally posted by Nash
If you voted for Bush in 2000...
... and if you voted for Bush in 2004...
... clap your hands, and say so here.
If so inclined, say why you did.
It's confusing to me. I'm dumbfounded.
Step up. Explain it.
I know you are confused, about a lot of things, that has long been apparent.
Everyone who voted for Bush could see plainly he was the "lesser of the two evils"
If the Democrats ever put up a decent candidate, they might have a chance.
With only Gore and Kerry as the choices, of course Bush was going to win.
Funny how this still gnaws at you Nash, I remember the spectacle you made of yourself during the last election, and you still are fixated and obsessed.
Seek help.
-
Isn't it obvious Nash? Many of us here are just too stupid to know any better. Like you pointed out not long ago.
-
put away the spoon and syringe son you are doing yourself great harm.
-
Originally posted by Dago
snip
Funny how this still gnaws at you Nash, I remember the spectacle you made of yourself during the last election, and you still are fixated and obsessed.
Not only that, but Canadian. Have some pity :)
culero
-
Bush in 2000
Bush in 2004
Any Republican over a Dem in 2008
I agree with everything Hilts did, he hit it right on the nose but I can add a few thoughts.
1. Bush understands the nature of the threat we're facing. Democrats and other liberals either do not or are not willing to admit it because to do so would weaken their chances or regaining political power.
2. Bush understands you can't build an "Atlantic Wall" around the US to keep terrorists out, nor can you just turn this back over to the local constable and ask him to just arrest the enemy.
3. I think it's hilarious that so many liberals can't decide of Bush is an idiot or an evil genius. He doesn't have Tony Blair's gift for public speaking so Dems claim he's an idiot; however, amongst smaller, less formal groups he is exceptionally engaging. When the Dems are trying to scare everyone they come up with this stuff about him having plotted to overthrow Saddam back in Texas before he was even elected or that he has plans for a "1000 year Reich" making him an "evil genius". Dems are flat out pathetic.
4. I think the "I voted for him because he's the lesser of two evils" really understates the issue. In my mind, he wasn't the less evil choice, he was the only choice. As others have pointed out, look at the competition. The very idea Dems thought these guys were viable candidates points to the real problem, the Democrate party is institutionally insane. The conservative side of the country has it's own nut jobs, there's no doubt about that, but the Republican Party isn't defined and run by them. Not so the Dems where the liberal nut jobs are the Dem Party. Look at the way the Dem Party embraces nutjobs and failures like Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Cynthia McKinny, etc., etc. Look at the conspiracy theories they subscribe to: Bush "knew", Bush blew up the towers, Bush blew up the Levees, Bush planned the Iraq war before he was even elected, Bush is listening to all your phone calls. And this is just a tiny list of the Dems problems. The people who run the Dem party need to take their medications and get a grip on reality. The US is far weaker with an insane Democrat Party than it would be with a strong party that could really challenge Republicans on issues instead of spewing a constant stream of wackjob rhetoric.
-
I voted for bush both times over the liberal socialists that the democrats were trying to put into power.
I didn't care for him much but had no choice.
There were supreme court justices and the UN and gun laws that were on the horizon.
Bush has been a good thing... rolled back all the gun bans and put in the protection of commerce act that protected gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits just as the small aircraft industry had been in the past protected because the democrats wouldn't do it.
Bush put in two supreme court justices that are constituionalists... this is worth whatever else Bush may do that is maybe too tax and spend socialist.
The gun grabbers have not even tried for 6 years... that is great. A chance to relax for a while.
Appointed John Bolton to the UN... Kerrie would have appointed some UN leg humper.
rolled back some taxes...
The only serious thing I have against him is the Patriot act... this is evil.
I also am not fond of how he is dealing with the illegal alien problem but realize that any democrat in power would do far worse.
lazs
-
and yep... the democrats are all for the big power grab as "environmentalists" the "war on global warming" the republicans use the patriot act to take away our rights but the environmentalists use the EPA...
You can use the environment to justify any abridgement of freedoms and... they do... it is the new IRS with no accountability and limitless power.
The democrats don't want nuke plants and won't allow refineries to be built or offshore drilling or anwar....
Yet.. they scream that the republicans aren't doing enough..
The democrats in my state want to tax oil companies because they ran out of tobacco money... then fast food... then.... all food... we are too fat they say and the only solution is to take our money away and give it to the illegals so that they can get more illegals to vote for em.
lazs
-
On a side note, did you know that after the Bush tax cuts, government tax revenues are at an all time high?
Aslo:
Unemployment is lower than it's been in 4 decades.
Gas prices low, interest rates low, consumer spending good, stock market at all time high. Nearly 7 million jobs created since August 2003.
Also under Bush, we got John Roberts and Sam Alito on the Supreme Court.
I dont agree with Bush on a lot of issues, but he's done a great job on the issues that matter most to me. The Dems would have destroyed the country after 911.
Now look at what Gore and Kerry ran on: Bush can't create jobs and is ruining the economy. LOL! Those lying sacks of crap known as liberals can go suck an egg eat carp.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
On a side note, did you know that after the Bush tax cuts, government tax revenues are at an all time high?
Aslo:
Unemployment is lower than it's been in 4 decades.
Gas prices low, interest rates low, consumer spending good, stock market at all time high. Nearly 7 million jobs created since August 2003.
Also under Bush, we got John Roberts and Sam Alito on the Supreme Court.
I dont agree with Bush on a lot of issues, but he's done a great job on the issues that matter most to me. The Dems would have destroyed the country after 911.
Now look at what Gore and Kerry ran on: Bush can't create jobs and is ruining the economy. LOL! Those lying sacks of crap known as liberals can go suck an egg eat carp.
Dont forget to mention that the deficiet is dropping at an amazing rate. Bush stated that he wanted to cut the deficiet in half by 2009, and they are something like 3 years ahead of schedule.
Dems, libbies and the MSP aren't fond of mentioning that either.
And a "well said" to Mace2004 and Lazs2.
-
I'm not clapping my hands, but I voted for Bush because l believed he would be a little less damaging to the country than any liberal Democrat. Both times.
-
2k yea - lesser of 2 evils
2k4 nay - learned my lesson
-
Originally posted by Nash
If you voted for Bush in 2000...
... and if you voted for Bush in 2004...
... clap your hands, and say so here.
If so inclined, say why you did.
It's confusing to me. I'm dumbfounded.
Step up. Explain it.
Lack of any other realistic option
-
Mosgoooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
Where the hek have you been?????? :eek:
Rob53
The Flying circus
-
Rob! Hey Hey!
I'm still around bud. Moved to So. Cal for a few months but am back in N. Canton again.
How you doing?
-
Nash, I think that for many people it's not so much a choice, as it is a total lack of one. Some people would rather take a poison pill than vote democrat. To them, that vote signifies the end of the free market, the onset of socialism, the end of good old American values, etc.... There may be credibility to this, there may not. To those people, that poison pill was GW. To these same people, the fact that he went into Iraq to impose American values created appeal in 2004 where there was little or none in 2000.
Your question therefore has a built in answer. Why did people vote for GW? Because he ran. They would have voted for anyone running in that slot. Anything but a liberal.
GW's bible thumping and sanctimonious nation-building, however, has changed a lot of people--opened their eyes to the ugliness of brainless self-indulgence, hubris and maniacal ego-centrism. I am one of those people.
-
Originally posted by Nash
If you voted for Bush in 2000...
... and if you voted for Bush in 2004...
... clap your hands, and say so here.
If so inclined, say why you did.
It's confusing to me. I'm dumbfounded.
Step up. Explain it.
I voted for him in 2000 but didn't make the same mistake the second time around.
-
Voted for Bush in 00 Cause I didnt like Gore
Voted for Bush in 04 cause I didnt see Kerry as the "viable alternative"
Basicaly their policies would have put us i the exact same place as today and Kerry never did say what his "plan" was.
While I have always maintained I didnt particularly like Bush.
If I had it to do over again.
Given the same circumstances
I would.
Next election I am probably voting independent.
Or will abstain out of disgust.
We are in Dire need of an overthrow in this country.
Not of the system or form of government.
Just of the people in it.
Wipe it out clean and start over freash
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Voted for Bush in 00 Cause I didnt like Gore
Voted for Bush in 04 cause I didnt see Kerry as the "viable alternative"
Basicaly their policies would have put us i the exact same place as today and Kerry never did say what his "plan" was.
While I have always maintained I didnt particularly like Bush.
If I had it to do over again.
Given the same circumstances
I would.
Next election I am probably voting independent.
Or will abstain out of disgust.
We are in Dire need of an overthrow in this country.
Not of the system or form of government.
Just of the people in it.
Wipe it out clean and start over freash
i know some mexicans that feel much the same way.
-
Hhm, it's not like I'm going to agree with most of this stuff... big surprise there... but these have been some very well expressed answers... and I appreciate it.
-
I shudder to think what Gore or Kerry would have done had they won. Most likely: nothing
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
I shudder to think what Gore or Kerry would have done had they won. Most likely: nothing
i think gore would have done a good job. i honestly believe that. i think that he is a decent man by any stretch of comparison.
kerry not so much, but there is no possible way that he could have flubbed our policies worse than bush and i doubt that we would be staying in a prolonged war for ketchup.
-
My three big issues:
1) pro-life
2) provide opportunity for the american dream without giving people free stuff and forcing successful folks to support those who fail
3) minimal government involvement in my life
I don't consider myself a republican but they represent the better of the two parties with regard to my issues at this point. Decades ago the democrats were not as liberal and were viable candidates but hey have been taken over by special interests and i hope they clean house someday and return to their former selves.
-
Originally posted by FALCONWING
Decades ago the democrats were not as liberal and were viable candidates but hey have been taken over by special interests and i hope they clean house someday and return to their former selves.
same for the haliburtons/er...i mean, republicons.
-
Originally posted by Nash
If you voted for Bush in 2000...
... and if you voted for Bush in 2004...
... clap your hands, and say so here.
If so inclined, say why you did.
It's confusing to me. I'm dumbfounded.
Step up. Explain it.
Normally I would say "None of your frikin business who I voted for!"
But since I know it bothers you so...I'll tell ya.
I have voted Repub every election since I was able to Vote.
I voted for BOTH Bush 1 and Bush 2....that might really set ya off huh.
Dems. having nothing now nor have they ever had anything to offer in my opinion. My current thougts of how things are going are mine , and besides , you would just argue with my opinons or thoughts anyway.
To bad you can't vote here. To bad many that post here can't vote here. Would be funny to see all the faces if you guys were to lose again in the presidential election.
-
I find it interesting that so many claim that they voted for Bush in 2000 but changed in 2004 or will change in the future. I cannot understand how this makes any sense at all.
If you voted for Bush, it was because the Republican party represents policies that are closer what you want than the Democrats offer. To vote for a Democrat, just because you have problems with something Bush has done that means you're now going to vote against those policies you agree with and for the policies you disagree with. And this is supposed to do what exactly?
Say you strongly disagree with the war and think Bush made the wrong decisions, OK, I can see that and I can understand no longer being "for" Bush. But by changing to Dems you'd be voting for tax increases, a ruined economy, pro-abortion, liberal appointments to the courts, etc., etc., and, most importantly, you're voting to follow the exact same path the US followed after Vietnam. A unilateral withdrawal and defeat in the WOT. Don't forget that millions died in SE asia after we withdrew and the Democrat controlled congress withdrew all promised support for South Vietnam. These people were killed by the Vietnamese and Pol Pot. What did the US get out of this? Jimmy Carter who usered in the era of state sponsored terrorism we're in now and a ruined economy because of Democrat fiscal policies.
Even if you disagree with the war, is this kind of result what you'd really want? Just to register your objections? Would you ignore the successes of the administration such as the economy, employment, court appointments, and defeats of terrorist plots in the US?
This, to me, makes no sense. In spite of whatever "leaders" are offered by the parties, the parties themselves are fundamentally different and represent totally different approaches to the issues facing the US. Democrats offer nothing but a unilateral withdrawal and defeat in Iraq. As a matter of proof, can you name a single successful Democrat program in the last 50 years? Raising Taxes? Abortion on demand? Minority preferences? Unlimited illegal immigration? Expanded use of tax dollars to support illegal aliens? Here's a good example of what you'd get....the Dems have controlled New Orleans for over 50 years. Is this what you want for the entire US?
Just a few things to think about.
-
I just want to be the first to say...
Man I missed lamb chops. I just cooked me up a pair, they were so good.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Normally I would say "None of your frikin business who I voted for!"
But since I know it bothers you so...I'll tell ya.
I have voted Repub every election since I was able to Vote.
I voted for BOTH Bush 1 and Bush 2....that might really set ya off huh.
Dems. having nothing now nor have they ever had anything to offer in my opinion. My current thougts of how things are going are mine , and besides , you would just argue with my opinons or thoughts anyway.
To bad you can't vote here. To bad many that post here can't vote here. Would be funny to see all the faces if you guys were to lose again in the presidential election.
Any answer that bothers Nash is a good answer LMAO
My voting record is as follows
Carter
Regan
Bush
Perot
Abstained out of disgust
Bush
Bush
-
Gosh, you're all gonna be real happy when you get to vote for Bush 3 in 2008. :huh
-
Originally posted by Halo
Gosh, you're all gonna be real happy when you get to vote for Bush 3 in 2008. :huh
Jeb:aok
-
I voted for Bush in 2000 because of Algore
I voted for Bush in 2004 because of john squealing kerry.
I wish I could have voted for someone better in each case but the opposition made sure I voted for Bush. Will vote against the democrats in 2008, thats just the way it goes.
-
There is no choice when there is only 2 choices.
-
...one must always choose the lesser of two weevils.
-
Bush 3 will never make the ballot! 2 Bushs were enough...
-
I vote Republican because I am an old fashioned fuddy duddy conservative who believes in the Divine and couldn't be paid to vote for the likes of kerry, edwards, gore, kennedy, pelosi, hillary, ppl who lead by sticking their finger in the air to measure the poll winds. their latest?
NK is worst because of Bush
they never mention the dough slick financed their nuke program with through the 90's..
-
Best part of voting Republican is driving raging liberals and nutjobs like Nash crazy. :D
-
"drive a liberal insane, work hard and become a millionaire"
-
Originally posted by T0J0
Bush 3 will never make the ballot! 2 Bushs were enough...
That's probably true but the sad part is the Jeb is the best of the bunch.
-
yep... two viable choices means no choice at all for a sensible person.
The democrats are never a choice as they are liberal socialist controled... even if the candidate claims not to be... he WILL tow the party line.
The only real choice I have is that if a Republican will win by a landslide... if I am sure of this... I will vote libertarian to "send a message" I suppose.. the truth is... no protest is worth the chance that a democrat will get in.
I think some of the guys who voted for Bush in double ought voted for libertarians or others in 04... That was kinda dumb in my opinion because kerrie could have gotten in.
It isn't about if he is a good man or not.... It is about taxes and social programs and destroying the second amendment and letting more and more illegals from socialist countries vote. It is about apointing liberal judges and cowtowing to the UN and giving the EPA more and more power over our lives... It is about blue areas dictating laws to red ones.
lazs
-
wait until George P. Bush comes of age, the Bush's may actually be what the Kennedy's wanted to be.
-
I haven't voted for anybody for president in a long.... make that ever.
Voted against Gore, voted against Kerry.... It would be nice to vote for somebody someday....
-
Originally posted by straffo
There is no choice when there is only 2 choices.
there are more then two.
Which is why Im probably going to vote 3rd party
Possibly libritarian.
-
jeb bush is the democrats nightmare, he is married to a Hispanic and could get most of hispanic votes.
-
I only regret I can't vote for GWB again. :aok
-
I dont think Jeb will run and it would be foolish for him to do so as his brother has left a bad taste in too many peoples mouths and the Demoncrats have done a more then effective job with their anti Bush Propaganda and overall whining. To have another Bush elected just based on the name alone
and lets face it. Bush has helped them with his lack of willingness to adapt to changing situations.
And some of his antics such as the patriot act have rubbed too many people the wrong way
Socially The country as a whole is tired of moving to the right. Just as it was tired of moving to the left in 00.
The way it stands now
Its gonna be real hard for the republicans to win in 08.
They are going to have to put up someone that REALLY wows people.
About the only one I can think of that has half a chance would be Rudy G
but even that would be tough.
About the only thing the Reps have going for them is I just heard Hillary was announced as a frontrunner to run for the election in 08
Which I dont think this country is quite ready for yet. Certainly not with Hillary anwyay
but the country right now seems so disgusted and dissillusioned with the republican party at the moment. I dont know if they can over come it
The time is probably as ripe as its going to get for a third party candidate should one of the third parties put themselves out there to be known enough.
by and large I think most of the country has about had it with both parties antics
so should a third party Candidate make himself known enough. There probably isnt a better time for it.
Unless George decides to go to war with North Korea
Of the issues that will be at the forefront. I think the two main ones will be Iraq and illegal immigrants.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
there are more then two.
Which is why Im probably going to vote 3rd party
Possibly libritarian.
LOL...here's a match...just burn your ballot. We have a two party system, third parties are nothing but spoilers. Just ask Algore. Always have been, always will be.
Edit: Just wanted to add, third parties do have a role in that they tend to force the major parties to pay attention to issues they might otherwise ignore. In Ross Perot's case it was economics. In Ralph Nader's case, it was....well, I guess he showed that there was potentially someone worse than Gore.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
LOL...here's a match...just burn your ballot. We have a two party system, third parties are nothing but spoilers. Just ask Algore. Always have been, always will be.
Edit: Just wanted to add, third parties do have a role in that they tend to force the major parties to pay attention to issues they might otherwise ignore. In Ross Perot's case it was economics. In Ralph Nader's case, it was....well, I guess he showed that there was potentially someone worse than Gore.
If memory serves correct
Lincoln was a third party candidate
What rule is written that said its only a 2 party system?
No such thing as a burned ballot.
Why cause they wont win?
You vote for who you think would do the best job. Not by who you think would win
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
If memory serves correct
Lincoln was a third party candidate
What rule is written that said its only a 2 party system?
No such thing as a burned ballot.
Why cause they wont win?
You vote for who you think would do the best job. Not by who you think would win
Thw Whigs fell apart, the Republican party was built upon the ashes of the Whigs, Die hard Whigs formed the Constitutional Union party, the Democrats broke into two peices... so there were four candidates in 1860.
Lincoln, Douglas, Breckenrige and Bell
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
If memory serves correct
Lincoln was a third party candidate
True, the Republican party was a third party but by winning it destroyed one of the two major parties resulting in the continuation of a two-party system. You also have to consider the situation in the US at the time, nobody is seriously suggesting the US is going to have another civil war.
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
What rule is written that said its only a 2 party system?
There is none, as a matter of fact, the founders wanted a no-party system but the way the system is set up it virtually guarantees two major parties while making it almost impossible for a third party to garner enough votes to do anything other than to influence the major parties. Historically, the US has a two-party system and to argue that it's not the "rule" ignores history.
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
No such thing as a burned ballot.
Actually, you can burn an absentee ballot but I think you get my point.
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Why cause they wont win?
By voting for a third party you're not voting for either of the parties that will win so, in essence, you're throwing your vote away. No party is perfect, I think that's fairly obvious, but say you believe in 80% of what one party stands for and 20% of the other. Wouldn't you still rather see the party you mostly agree with win?
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
You vote for who you think would do the best job. Not by who you think would win
I didn't say you should vote for the guy that's going to win. I was simply saying that to vote for a third party candidate you know will lose is a poor choice and may result in the party you most disagree with winning. Those people who voted for Ross Perot were more closely aligned with the Republican party than the Dems and look who won. Those who voted for Ralph Nadar were more aligned with Dems and look who won that one. Seems a little bit foolish to do this.
-
I was simply saying that to vote for a third party candidate you know will lose is a poor choice and may result in the party you most disagree with winning.
I'm beginning to think that it might be worth it if the revolution is kicked off sooner.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
True, the Republican party was a third party but by winning it destroyed one of the two major parties resulting in the continuation of a two-party system.
The Whig party, the other party with the Demos which made up the 2 party system before the civil war was all but gone in 1854, after the Kansas Nebraska act split the party.
The Whigs did not feild a candidate in 1860, so Lincoln's win was not the cause of the end of the Whigs.
-
Lincoln caused the civil war by invading the south, no blood for cotton, bring the boys home.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Lincoln caused the civil war by invading the south, no blood for cotton, bring the boys home.
You had bad intel.:lol
-
quote:Originally posted by Stang
Jesus Nash, Nielsen's post was pretty obvious...
Yeah... he liked W in 2000.
I don't get it. I don't get why. His choice is obvious. His reason is not.
There are shrinks the world over trying to figure this out right now....
.... as am I. - Nash
I would like to respectfully suggest that it is the arrogance of statements like this that have sunk "Air America", and it will also explain your dismay. Maybe, Nash, you don't understand this???
__________________
-
No I don't.
-
Originally posted by Nash
No I don't.
Nash, Bush has done a pretty good job. Only a democrat could and WOULD screw up our economy and raise taxes, then cut defense spending.
As it is: taxes are lower, tax revenues are higher, defense spending is higher, deficit cut in half, lowest unemployment in 4 decades, stock market at all time high, gas prices very low, consumer spending great (the reason for higher tax revenue) and we are now actually responding to terrorist attacks.
-
yep... we are pretty much stuck with voting against the other guy now. We tend to defend the guy that we cast a ballot for but in reality..
we voted against the other guy. When push comes to shove... most individualists will hold their nose and vote republican.
At this point... anything else is simply cutting off your nose to spite your face.
nash and the your-0-peeans don't get it because their press has convinced them that the boooosh is the great evil and that everything he does is both stupic and dioblical super villan at the same time...
they tend to feel that if only they could show us poor uninformed Americans what is "really" happening.... that we will drop everything and embrace world socialism as they have.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nash and the your-0-peeans don't get it because their press has convinced them that the boooosh is the great evil and that everything he does is both stupic and dioblical super villan at the same time...
they tend to feel that if only they could show us poor uninformed Americans what is "really" happening.... that we will drop everything and embrace world socialism as they have.
Good points Lazs. It is funny when the Euopeans put all the blame on Bush and forget to look in their own backyards. Muslim "immigrants" that have built their own enclaves and want the freedom to impliment Sharia Law within them, third generation Muslim "immigrants" who still don't speak the local language, Muslim "immigrants" that riot because their "right" to not be fired is threatened or someone says something they don't like or someone publishes a cartoon they disagree with; Muslim "immigrants" that receive tons and free welfare but live in the Middle East, Muslim "immigrants" who import their young wives from home and then lock them away in their homes and enclaves, Muslim "immigrants" that are protected by laws against "hate speech" but are pretty much free to do and say anything themselves....it goes on and on.
-
Wow ! so much clichés with so few words ... I'm impressed ...
Do'nt you think it's not that simple ?
-
Originally posted by john9001
Lincoln caused the civil war by invading the south, no blood for cotton, bring the boys home.
I blame Clinton for the Civil War, and the general decline in morals through the first half of the 19th century that led up to it. He is going to burn in hell for that, his other sins notwithstanding.
-
I blame clinton for P-funk and a street in hoboken N.J.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
snip
Republiclones cant be trusted. Neither can democlones.
Hastert is a useless leader, a crook and he's manipulated the process for his party (3am votes on bills nobody has time to read?), not the people. When a repub expresses his real opinion, you know 'free speech', that goes against party lines... Hastert goes on the attack to silence opposing opinions... a true American huh?
It's loser partisans like him that have clongress approval at a record low, but NOTHING can be done about it. The clones have the election boards full of party hacks and pockets full of $$ to silence free thinkers. They keep Ind's off ballots illegally, sue to keep voters from choosing freely in primaries and re-draw districts to make them safe party seats.
The lunatics are running the asylum.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15282501/page/2/
For example, Hastert encouraged an effort to oust Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) as a committee chairman after Smith bucked party leaders on veterans benefits. He angrily chewed out then-Sen. Robert C. Smith (R-N.H.) for holding up a bill full of pork-barrel projects for vulnerable House members before the 2000 election. He held open a 3 a.m. vote in 2003 on the prescription drug bill for three hours until he could round up a majority, and persuaded Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) to switch his vote to pass the Central American trade bill.
Republicans say Hastert wins by appealing to party loyalty and taking care of members with earmarks, campaign cash and other goodies.."
-
I voted not so much for GWB as against the Dems. I think they're a lot scarier than the GOP. Bottom line, I thought he was the lesser of several evils. Still do.
-
After voting independent twice in a losing row, I simply went for the party Id rather see in office. I wanted to be a winner. :P
-
soooo marine... are these evil republicans better or worse than democrats?
do you believe that there is really no difference in what judges are appointed or polices enacted or laws passed when either is in power?
Or... are u just a democrat pretending to be an independent so that you can bash republicans while seeming to not have a dog in the fite?
lazs
-
uh. suspension of habius corpus.
screw that.
-
I believe the cartoon "South Park" said it best in the episode where they were voting for a giant sweetheart and a **** sandwitch... i voted Bush.... I try'd to like John Kerry, but common you can't actually watch the guy for 5 minutes without realizing he was just completely FOS, and had to vote Bushy in 2000 as well, couldn't handle Al Gore. I don't blame Bush on the republicans, I blame the Demo's for not finding someone that could beat him. Look at the past few candidates they have had, are they just picking the biggest loser/idiot out of a hat or what LOL
I think that Jeb Bush in Florida will run, the democrats will try something retarded like nominating Hillary Clinton, and it wouldn't matter if she won 99% of the popular vote, the "good ole boys" in Washington would never ever let her get a single electoral vote
-
i just don't see the dems putting hillary up.
she will probably just continue to serve her party as a senator. a powerful one at that.
she seems to do relatively well there and has gotten respect from alot of ranking republicans for her work.
-
My first legal general election was 2004, and I gave my support to President Bush. Furthermore, from 2002-present I have supported a Republican Congress. I do this because I know they are the party that will keep me safe. I vote for them because I know they are willing to do what it takes to defend this country. I do this because I support wire taping, and I dont think a terrorist is on an equal level with any American citizen. I do this because I believe the President is sincere and honest. There is no room for me in a party of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi.
-
He spends like no democrat ever dreamed of, but at least they do it the right way, tax and spend, not borrow and spend. So that 2 dollars in tax money you didn't have to spend now will cost you 5 dollars instead. So plz, tell me how his out of control spending represents the republicans, a party known for their control of spending?
When Clinton was in office the republicans did a great job of keeping any spending bills in check, but are afraid of even raising their voice (some do, but are told to shut up and tow the party line) now that there is a republican pres who can't control spending.
-
Originally posted by Nash
If you voted for Bush in 2000...
... and if you voted for Bush in 2004...
... clap your hands, and say so here.
If so inclined, say why you did.
It's confusing to me. I'm dumbfounded.
Step up. Explain it.
O, hush
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I believe the President is sincere and honest.
:eek:
-
Originally posted by cav58d
My first legal general election was 2004, and I gave my support to President Bush. Furthermore, from 2002-present I have supported a Republican Congress. I do this because I know they are the party that will keep me safe. I vote for them because I know they are willing to do what it takes to defend this country. I do this because I support wire taping, and I dont think a terrorist is on an equal level with any American citizen. I do this because I believe the President is sincere and honest. There is no room for me in a party of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi.
Sounds like you "know" what you are told to "know".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
soooo marine... are these evil republicans better or worse than democrats?
do you believe that there is really no difference in what judges are appointed or polices enacted or laws passed when either is in power?
Or... are u just a democrat pretending to be an independent so that you can bash republicans while seeming to not have a dog in the fite?
lazs
Congress is a toilet that needs to be flushed, a diaper that needs changing. Clinton was trailor trash, Bush is a party hack who handed his pal $3M by signing Hasterts pet project into law... it all sickens me, esp how they fight keep Ind opinions off their political stage. They need to be reminded that is OUR stage, they are there to serve us.. not the party.
Hastert can make $3M in a shady land deal, Reid can influence zoning laws to make a cool $1million.. thats all good? I know cops, who have done more good for more people, who got punished for accepting a free hamburger or tow.
Judges?.. I dont trust either party to choose.
I happily "throw away" my vote. And at the end of every Scandal (http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Examples_of_Republican_hypocrisy_on_moral_values) I know it had nothing to do with me. Thats a piece of mind I enjoy. I'd be throwing up in my mouth knowing I had something to do with sending Hastert or Pelosi another robot to enable their corruption / lunacy.
Hastert has a track record of chastising moderates who dont tow the party line, and rewarding the loyal with pork goodies while stuffing $3M in his pocket. Pelosi is quite simply a nut job; these are the "leaders"?, the shining examples of both parties?... no thanks. I'd rather see that Texas granny in charge, its hard to imagine she could do worse.
-
For christs sake... it is TOE the party line. You don't "tow" the friggin party line around, like it broke down on the highway.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
For christs sake... it is TOE the party line. You don't "tow" the friggin party line around, like it broke down on the highway.
Seeming both parties are a wreck, tow works just fine
-
Originally posted by Urchin
For christs sake... it is TOE the party line. You don't "tow" the friggin party line around, like it broke down on the highway.
taking the LORD's name in vain? - 20.
not capitalizing it? - yer gonna burn in Hell for that.
-
Clinton made me do it.
-
yer gonna have to learn to stand up to her man.
okay fine. (doing various hand gestures...lighting incense)
your punishment shall be 9 hail skuzzies and 1 detailed critical review of
nilsens poetry.
absolvo dominus requiem.
-
Originally posted by JB88
...absolvo dominus requiem...
is that English?
jehovah
-
if you have to ask you would not understand
-
well marine... in the upcoming election for the socialist state of kalifornia....
It looks like AHneee will win by a landslide. I will send a message by voting for the libertarian (whoever he is).
If there was even a chance that some democrat as bad as angliedes could get in I would vote for Ahneee.
My logic is sound I believe. we can't have democrats in power despite what you say about not having either side pick judges...
That was just glib and meaningless on your part and... evasive... the truth is that democrats appoint the worst, most extreme lefties for judges.
You don't get the choice of not letting either party appoint em... your choice is have democrats appoint em or have republicans appoint em...
soooo... what is your choice?
lazs
-
yep. the dems never would have had the sack to put up such brilliant judicious minds like harriet myers.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
is that English?
jehovah
he said "jehovah"
may we stone him skuzzy?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
He spends like no democrat ever dreamed of, but at least they do it the right way, tax and spend, not borrow and spend. So that 2 dollars in tax money you didn't have to spend now will cost you 5 dollars instead. So plz, tell me how his out of control spending represents the republicans, a party known for their control of spending?
When Clinton was in office the republicans did a great job of keeping any spending bills in check, but are afraid of even raising their voice (some do, but are told to shut up and tow the party line) now that there is a republican pres who can't control spending.
This is why, as a conservative, I'm exceptionally concerned about the state of the Democrat Party. I have nothing in common with them and disagree on every point the Dems stand for; BUT, the shear stupidity of their rhetoric, complete and total lack of any alternative plan, and constant rehashing of the same old crap makes the Dem Party irrelevant. Why does this concern me? Because without legitimate competition the Republican Party is going the same way as the Dems. Irresponsible spending is just one of the symptoms.
-
OMG!
No matter how wacky you all get somebody comes up with a funny post.
It is the Dem's fault the Republicans are like this... LOL.
-
Ok, color me amazed that such an obvious troll got so many bites. Ah well, not that I think it will improve Nash's view of me, but I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004.
then again, I still can't legally vote in this or any other country
-
Will anyone in here vote for Barack Obama if he runs for president in 2008? Will Obama be a different Democrat compare to the likes of (Hillary) Clinton and Kerry? Do you see him as the new Kennedy of the early 21st century (in terms of charisma?)
-
Originally posted by tikky
Will anyone in here vote for Barack Obama if he runs for president in 2008? Will Obama be a different Democrat compare to the likes of (Hillary) Clinton and Kerry? Do you see him as the new Kennedy of the early 21st century (in terms of charisma?)
Partisanship will be taken to a new level, on that of color and politics:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/06/18/sen-obama-investigating-_n_2835.html
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I do this because I know they are the party that will keep me safe.
Beware the illusion of safety...the government will not keep you safe. Any politician who has you believe that cannot be trusted
-
Originally posted by tikky
Will anyone in here vote for Barack Obama if he runs for president in 2008? Will Obama be a different Democrat compare to the likes of (Hillary) Clinton and Kerry? Do you see him as the new Kennedy of the early 21st century (in terms of charisma?)
no
-
Originally posted by tikky
Will anyone in here vote for Barack Obama if he runs for president in 2008? Will Obama be a different Democrat compare to the likes of (Hillary) Clinton and Kerry? Do you see him as the new Kennedy of the early 21st century (in terms of charisma?)
NO
-
Since the economy is going so great ( lowest unemployment in 4 decades, deficit cut in half, 6.8 million jobs created in 2 years, stock market at all time high, taxes lowered, tax revenues at all time high, low gas prices, low interest rates, high consumer spending) I'm guessing that the Dems are gonna lose big again in the next two elections.
If any American thinks things are going along too good, you know what to do. Just vote for a Democrat so they can raise taxes, trash the economy and kill our defences.
-
I'd vote for J.C. Watts
-
Originally posted by RedTop
I'd vote for J.C. Watts
Yeah, I probably would too, but he's like Fred Thompson, he's sick of politics.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Since the economy is going so great ( lowest unemployment in 4 decades, deficit cut in half, 6.8 million jobs created in 2 years, stock market at all time high, taxes lowered, tax revenues at all time high, low gas prices, low interest rates, high consumer spending) I'm guessing that the Dems are gonna lose big again in the next two elections.
If any American thinks things are going along too good, you know what to do. Just vote for a Democrat so they can raise taxes, trash the economy and kill our defences.
The problem is, the media isn't making much of the economy, the revenue increases, or the deficit decreases. So the general public isn't hearing much about it. Go figure. Bush should go on TV about a week or so before the elections and tell the country about it. IF he could get air time.