Aileron Posted August 22, 2004 Report Posted August 22, 2004 Yeah, its a democracy people. Your opponant is ~gasp~ going to have organizations that support him, even if ~gasp~ you happen to not like him!
Vile Requiem Posted August 22, 2004 Report Posted August 22, 2004 Whoops...the Bush campaign IS tied to the SBV's (I love having info, it's fun) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/vilerequiem/swiftboat.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/vilerequiem/swiftboat3.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/vilerequiem/swiftboat2.jpg Yay for violation of campaign finance laws! Then there's this:http://mightyspork.blogspot.com/2004/08/fl...-swiftboat.html And this:http://216.239.57.104/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-...gle+Searchbr%20 Now, Ken Cordier is in the swifboat ad and it turns out that he was on ome Bush/Cheney Steering Committee until August 19. His name has now disappeared from the Bush/Cheney website. Very simple logic:1.) Someone ordered the Webmaster at www.georgewbush.com to scrub Ken Cordier's name from the website altogether. It didn't just "disappear" by itself. (Considering as this is Bush's OFFICIAL website, we're getting beyond the "anonymous" attack dogs that I referenced above). 2.) Whoever the webmaster is that scrubbed the page and then uploaded it again (there is a permanent record) must be subpoenaed and questioned as to WHO told him/her to take Ken Cordier's name off of Bush's official website. 3.) Any direct linkage between the Bush Campaign and the swift boat ad is a violation of federal election laws. 4.) FAR WORSE: Any attempt to hide evidence of a crime is Obstruction of Justice. Now we are talking major felony activity. Now tell me again: Where's the evidence with Kerry and Moveon?
Vile Requiem Posted August 22, 2004 Report Posted August 22, 2004 Oh, and this is for the Dr. Personally: What do you think Black Baby implies in SOUTH FUGGING CAROLINA? The 1st state to seceede over Slavery?Home of Strom Thurmond?Still proud of the Stars n Bars And even if they aren't racist against blacks, they sure as -*BAD WORD*- are about an implied interracial marraige/adoption. Lest we forget the Confereracy's illusterous history.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 22, 2004 Report Posted August 22, 2004 You'll have to spell this out for me cause im pretty stupid when it comes to the various laws surrounding campaigns. Am i understanding correctly that the problem is the switf boat organization is funded by republicans that support bush? If so, i'm willing to bet moveon.org is funded by democrats that support kerry. What do you think Black Baby implies in SOUTH FUGGING CAROLINA? The 1st state to seceede over Slavery?Home of Strom Thurmond?Still proud of the Stars n Bars And even if they aren't racist against blacks, they sure as -*BAD WORD*- are about an implied interracial marraige/adoption. Lest we forget the Confereracy's illusterous history. Generalize much? Somehow I think you'll have a tough time painting the general population of South Carolina as racist. NewsFlash.. the Civil War wasn't over slavery...
Vile Requiem Posted August 22, 2004 Report Posted August 22, 2004 (edited) Yes, I wrote a paper about this for a US AP exam which I passed well enough to recieve credit from a tech school for it. While there were many economic factors involved, one of the major (edit)ins!@#$%^&*utions(/edit) the Confederacy wished to preserve was Slavery. Why did Dr. MLK have to march for civil rights if the southerners were so accepting of them? Why did the attack WORK on John McCain if they're not racist (Not the general pop, SC Republicans, this was a primary)? Remember, he had previously beaten Bush in Iowa and New Hampshire and had the momentum going into SC. The problem with implication is, when history showed the attack worked, it's not implied anymore. The McCain (yes, the same one) Feingold Campaign Finance reform states that a campaign can not coordinate activities with a 527 organization (Moveon/Swift Vets/etc...) or it will be in breach of Federal Election Law. Edited August 22, 2004 by Vile Requiem
Jauggernaut Posted August 22, 2004 Report Posted August 22, 2004 To me (I am Canadian BTW) there is no better candidate although Bush has made a fool of himself and his family, but It's not my country (although it will probably affect us in some way ). They are both boneheads, but you gotta admit the defecit Bush has created in one year is horendous :\...
Aileron Posted August 24, 2004 Report Posted August 24, 2004 Well, really Bush didn't have that much choice in creating the deficit. There was an economic recession that started in 1998 and a couple wars, one of which there is no arguement that he absolutely had to fight in. With those conditions, he had no choice but to spend money. Besides, when you adjust for inflation, that deficit is not all that much. Also remember that the plan is to fix the economy and the economy will fix the deficit. The deficit was caused by Bush getting handed a bad situation. BTW, quit with the negative at!@#$%^&*udes people. Neither one of these candidates are that bad, its just that you have no comprehension of just how bad the media is.
Zetirix Posted August 24, 2004 Report Posted August 24, 2004 Registered Voter = NoTime to Register = YesClear cut answers to (unemployment)-(school funding)-(national budgets)-(etc...) = NoPossibility of voting for Bush = 0%Possibility of voting for Kerry = 0%Possibility of moving to another country without a "war on terrorism" motto = 99%... Something's not right here.... - Z
sunnyd Posted August 24, 2004 Report Posted August 24, 2004 bring clinton back he owns all presidents
Hackysack Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 Possibility of moving to another country without a "war on terrorism" motto = 99%...Good ridence. Everyone(US) has the choice to move out of the country if they don't like the rulership of the country. -_-
Zetirix Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 Although you're right about one thing, you're missing the key factor in people moving... aka $$$$... Which I don't have, since I'm not working... since the city I live in is moving jobs here to West Virgina, South Carolina, and other states and countries that include but not limited to Mexico and Canada... Anyone wanna pay for me leaving? I know I've sucked up enough tax money alone on welfare... I don't wish to be on it, but I do enjoy eating when hungry... this state or any other governments which covers my living space have done zero to get me off of the system too... I'm living on !@#$%^&*isted payments for living, and for food, which is directly taken from taxes, state, and federal funding... do I wish to be? Nope... I'm not eligible for any technical training, and have been denied any further funding for an education. And also living in a county of only 113 thou, almost 20 thou are unemployed... that's alot of compe!@#$%^&*ion for someone without a full scale college education. Now, find me a president and a governer who can fix something in just this one state, then I'll change my mind But, in my minds eye, I would rather live in a country that puts a higher priority on educating their young. In my county alone they have cut 35 teachers out of the public system... Federal funding for these schools, and where I grew up were also cut... way to save some bucks by sacrificing children. Those kids are the next majority of the country to vote and/or lead it... - Z P.S. The governer of this state and the president have something in common... they're both Republicans.
MasterDrake Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 Your guys problem is that you expect so much from the president the reason the jobs are being out sourced is basically because they would rather pay someone who works harder for less money. If you want to keep your jobs then work hard at them and do your best quit -*BAD WORD*-ing around all day. And if you can't get any education you had the chance and let it slip by hey there is still the military if your on welfare they will help get off it and get and education and lots of experience in a field just make sure you know what you wanna do before you go sign up trust me. Anyways we are really missing the point here people! GRIZZLEBEE'S DELIVERS!!
BG Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 It's funny how a somewhat un-serious thread Goes from Unserious, To utterly serious, to Hiliarium. All within 2 pages.
Vile Requiem Posted August 26, 2004 Report Posted August 26, 2004 Or the president could be like Kerry and say the following in sumup: "Companies who outsource American Jobs no longer get tax breaks". But people are right, the general consensus is manufacturing jobs are going to become very scarse due to our working for higher wages to pay inflated prices (Colbert did a hilarious Daily Show piece the other day about Gas price anti-gouging), the most easily fixed being importing drugs, but yet the president refuses to do this (He may have switched recently, I don't have time to check. If he did, it's a flip-flop). We are becoming a service economy, which is why the Clinton Boom happened, even after the tech bubble burst. Because Americans LOVE people to do -*BAD WORD*- for them like make burgers. But oddly enough, Mcdonalds Employees have been reclassified under Bush as, you guessed it, MANUFACTURING EMPLOYEES. I actually do CNC work, that pisses me off. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/20/...ain601336.shtml
nikegurl637 Posted August 26, 2004 Report Posted August 26, 2004 Oi. You forgot the "I miss the election by 2 months" option in your poll.Or simply, "I can't vote in the election, dammit. ;_;"
Aileron Posted August 26, 2004 Report Posted August 26, 2004 Look, whether Bush outsources or not, our manufacturing jobs are screwed. We are a capitalist society, and therefore even our entire government cannot stop this. Even if we did stop losing manufacturing jobs to foreigners, we would then lose them to machines, robots, and more labor efficient production methods. We need to build more schools, and train more white-collar workers. That is where our advantage lies, and that is where we should be pushing. India, China, and Taiwan can produce laborers at a much cheaper wage than we can, but they cannot match us in neither quality nor quan!@#$%^&*y of eductated workers.
Vile Requiem Posted August 26, 2004 Report Posted August 26, 2004 Oh, this one is utterly hilarious: Our president, who's made us a safer place... http://www.nydailynews.com/08-20-2004/news...5p-192424c.html Whilest Mr. Kerry gave his 45 minute speech in the open Ya know who else used to travel around in secret with massive protection and away from protestors? I'll give ya the initials: S.H. THE MAN COULD NOT EVEN PICK UP A LETTER FROM A VIETNAM VETERAN WITH 3 LIMBS MISSING AND IN A WHEELCHAIR YESTERDAY, WITH CAMERA CREWS EVERYWHERE IN CASE HE GOT SHOT WE WOULD KNOW WHO DID IT. What's wrong with this picture?
A Soldier Posted August 26, 2004 Report Posted August 26, 2004 hahahahahaha I have a question though: I saw in the papers today that Kerry said he would reduce taxes I think by 98% for the lest wealthy people and increase thoses of the wealthiers... how does he plan to do that?
Vile Requiem Posted August 26, 2004 Report Posted August 26, 2004 John Kerry can explain it better then I ever could: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/tax_reform.pdf and http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/middle_class.html
A Soldier Posted August 26, 2004 Report Posted August 26, 2004 Thanks. Won't it scare rich investors away from your country?
Aileron Posted August 27, 2004 Report Posted August 27, 2004 yep. Here's my ideal tax plan: 1) Reduce the paperwork to a single page for a 1040 form, and cut frivolous deductions. Basically, make it simple, so people save money by not having to go to an accountant to have their taxes done. 2) Make an effort to keep taxes low for business and industry. Particularly, give them a rebate proportional to the money they are giving to their American employees. The more people they hire, the more money from taxes they get back. Neither candidate has anything close to what I want. However, I like Bush's plan better because his plan is more intelligent than Kerry's.
Dav Posted September 2, 2004 Report Posted September 2, 2004 I'm sure, George, when faced with the football being thrown at him, would have the secret service jump in and take the hit. He would then bomb the person who threw it at him, and replace it with a Puppet-random-ball-thrower.correction: He will bomb the general area of the person that threw it at him but lose trhis person. He will then proseed to withdraw attention from this by attacking some other "evil" person / country.
Hunting Posted September 2, 2004 Report Posted September 2, 2004 I'm voting Bush. If you don't, you're a "Girlie Man" (J/K)I think both Kerry and Bush would do a good job. They both have their ups & downs. :onethumb:
Aileron Posted September 2, 2004 Report Posted September 2, 2004 *falls off his chair in amazement, then falls back up." OMG, A NON-PESSIMIST IN THIS FORUM!!!
Bacchus Posted September 3, 2004 Report Posted September 3, 2004 bah. I just finished reading a 10 pages article on Bush, it's ideas, relations, politics, etc. It sucks.ps: it's in french so i won't post any sources but i'll supply it if asked. It's not an independant source but it's reliable i think...it's only facts anyway. I'm gonna read another one on Kerry. Did i mention i wasn't american? oh well...
Recommended Posts