»

[Faile]

I wasn't trying to make you feel guilty. You acted in the way you saw as being the best. I was merely stating my opinion. It's a real shame that the US electoral system is the way it is and that this results in disenfranchisement.

[Mannofiron]

I dunno guys...most of the people in the US were happy enough to reelect Bush. The electoral vote is of course all that matters, and he got that. The popular vote, which is meaningless really, still went in his favor. He actually got more than 50% of the people, more than Clinton got in either of his victories. To say anything about NY and DC going for Kerry being indictative, that's a laughing matter. These places always go for the democrats because they have a high African American population, loads of people on welfare, and extremely high crime rates (especially DC). These are hardly the places that should represent any candidate.

For some reason, the people feel that Bush is the best man for the job. The war, despite its mistakes and detractors, was a job that had to be done: removing a dictator with access to terror networks and the ability to disperse weapons or use them seems perfectly logical to me. Many people including democrats voted to go to war and would have acted the same way in Bush's position.

Socially, I really don't think Bush is far off from the public. In a large number of states the gay marriage ban passed overwhelmingly. A majority of the public favors abortion only for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I have no problem with "regression" if that means steps toward social justice such as saving the life of the unborn and preserving an important social institution.

My hopes for the second term: democracy in Iraq and eventual self-government. Continued economic growth through low taxes and business-friendly policies along with the plan to cut the deficit, especially through less spending. Some good judges on the Supreme Court that don't legislate from the bench.

It was an interesting and, if you ask me and most people, fair. There are bound to be little mistakes when you have 120 million people voting. There was so much paranoia on each side i doubt any foul play got through on either side. To say that the machines were rigged is implausible...there is no way this would have escpaed observers and exit polls everywhere, not just FL, were shown to be inaccurate. To continue these fallacies that Bush "stole" the election is exceedingly ridiculous considering that Kerry knew it would be useless to challenge on such baseless accusations. It seems to be a decisive victory and no one on either side at the high levels of politics seems to think that it was won unfairly.

Doom

[Faile]

An important social institution? You could class slavery as being one of those, or racism. Today we have a bunch of out of touch, out of date men telling women what they can and cannot do to their bodies. And that is utterly sickening. Social Justice? That is not a Social Justice. There is no justice in forcing people to have children when they cannot possibly afford to support said child due to the high levels of debt, the huge unemployment and the poor healthcare that the Bush admin. has forced upon the people of the U.S.
America should have no say about democracy in Iraq. They should not be there at all. Business friendly policy? Another few wars so Haliburton can do rather nicely?
The Bush admin. makes me sick and I am personally shocked that a lot of people in America, who live in comfortable surroundings cannot see the effect that voting Bush in to power will have upon their fellow American people and the peoples of this world. The world is not safer tonight, and will not be safe for another four years at least.

[Spank-A-Thon]

Faile, just as in the UK you have to understand that not all people are a) interested in politics, or b) educated about politics.

There is no doubt that Bush has made some serious errors of judgement; I think that is something we can all agree on. I too am sorry that Bush was re-elected, but I have to admit also, there was something about Kerry that just did not sit right with me.

If Kerry had have won I'm not convinced things would have changed that much - history shows that new leaders don't generally make many changes to the status quo with any immediacy. On Foreign Policy there's not much difference in their stance (although I can't shake off the feeling that Kerry would be willing to negotiate with terrorists) but in Domestic Policy Kerry said he would do new things (which is not the same as actually doing).

There is no doubt that the whole Iraq situation is seriously messed up; a resolution looks difficult. However, I don't think Kerry would have been able to bring anything new to the table. The senate will still have a Republican majority and as such would have still exerted a "Bush-onian" influence over actions in Iraq.

Ultimately the American people have decided that Bush is best for them. That is their right and as such you cannot dismiss the American people for that. Unfortunately, it was a choice between Kerry and Bush and therein lies the problem; John Kerry.

I know it sounds stupid but Kerry just didn't look like a President (for me, Edwards was vastly more suitable). I have no doubt, if good ol' Bill had have been running against Bush things would have been vastly different. This election was as much about the man as it was the parties and America voted on the man.

I can understand that Bush needed to be voted out, but I don't think the US could bring themselves to vote Kerry in "just to vote Bush out".

As for the world "not being safer", it will never be safe as long as there is religion. The majority of wars are started because of religion. The fanatic nut jobs (I refuse to call them militants) are not interested in democracy or tolerance, they want to impose their way of life upon everyone. Whether Bush or Kerry is in power, those type of people will always exist and as such the world will never be safe.

On a final note, my brother is in the Armed Forces. My partner is in the Royal Air Force and because of Bush-Blair they could very well end up dying in Iraq. The many hostages killed could also be blamed on Bush-Blair so if anyone assumes I am a fan of Bush, then that is so far from the truth I can't describe it.

I cannot however agree with calling Bush worse than Hitler. Hitler committed mass genocide and brought the world to war. I do not agree with Bush's decisions or methods, but I certainly don't agree he is evil on the same scale as Hitler.

- S

[Uchiha Sasuke]

Question do you all know why we are in debt and why we have no jobs? Its because all of the US industry is overseas. Now let me ask you which president signed the bill (NAFTA) that allowed that? It was good ol President Clinton.

[goodman]

Amazingly this was the largest voter turnout since the 60's, with Bush apparently getting both the popular and electoral vote. Also the House and Senate were won again by the Republicans. Four more years, no doubt, and the people did get out to vote for who they wanted, apparently........ oh and the Cowboys get a new stadium....

[Faile]

Maybe I should perhaps give more clarity to my "Bush is worse for this world than Hitler" comment. I've spent the last six years of my education studying the Nazi party and Hitler so I feel confident in saying this. The main differences between the two rest upon the fact that Hitler and the Nazi Party was elected nice and legally with little dispute in 1933. Something that cannot be said of Bush in 2000.
Obviously the Nazi domestic policy towards certain groups was utterly hideous and disgusting, but the Bush Administration has a similar policy towards certain groups, condemning them not to death via concentration camps but to a slower social death due to the crushing poverty and lack of hope that causes crime.
Employment within Nazi Germany was incredibly high, along with the standard education and healthcare, this cannot be said of America at the moment.

I'm not trying to gloss over Nazi Germany, but I feel my comparison stands and for the world at the moment, Hitler would do less damage than Bush.

[Hyuuga Neji]

Wow ignorance runs everywhere, so sad to see a good forum go down the drain allowing this. Bush is no Hitler and the world pushing for kerry did nothing but create a reverse effect, now its time to move on and try to look to the future because for every person who points at the US needs to step back and think because for every problem here there is other problems around the world in their own country but that is never discussed. I understand that you studied the Nazi party and Hitler but have you studied anything in the US and the safe guards that are put into place, the reason we the right to bear arms is to rise up against the government if we feel that they arent listening and forcing us to do these things. Im just sickened by the closed mind and ignorance faile. You don't have to bother responding to mine as im done with the forum here if mods and admins cant keep a gaming forum free of ignorant politics and biased sides then i don't need to come here. The Hitler comment was out of line and should have been shut down and deleted as soon as it hit the threads.

[Pu the Owl]

Originally Posted by Hyuuga Neji

Wow ignorance runs everywhere, so sad to see a good forum go down the drain allowing this. [...] Im just sickened by the closed mind and ignorance faile.

I think the ignorance is all yours. The Hitler comment was less out of place than you might think. Everybody who has a little bit of culture and knowledge regarding politics and history could affirm that. Of course Bush is no Hitler, I don't think the comparison is about the superficial aspects you are referring to. Faile is not that stupid to affirm they are clones or that they would damage the world using the same means. Bush and Hitler sadly are a sign of times and I agree Hitler would do less damage nowadays than Bush, and with Bush I'm talking of the whole system of interests covering his precious back. Don't start again with the genocide thing. Don't act naive: we are not talking about that.


I was upset that Bush was elected again, but ok, I can respect (even If I can't agree with them) those who voted Bush for real convinctions or because he's really doing their interests. In the end voting is precisely choosing as a leader the person who can grant you to keep your interests safe. But the fact is most voted for him because they didn't have a valid choice, for escapism or because they didn't know anything about politics. This could be for several reasons, for example what Spank said about Kerry or for the fact in our world who's keeping the media in his hands is usually also the one who has the power, who's doing the interests of the ones who have the power or again who in any case has the power to reach the higher political spheres. I agree with Spank that Kerry was not the "man" that people would see as a President. Kerry didn't "look" like a President, and consider the word "look" in the wider sense of the term. I'd also like to continue something started by Mena. She pointed out which are the states who voted for Kerry. Oddly enough, but again only on a superficial level, only states located on the "edge" of your country voted for Kerry, or the ones closer to Canada. States that in most cases, coincidence or not, are the nevralgic cultural centers of the US, the states I mean that contributed the most, speaking of cultural products, both on a traditional and avantgardistic level (I doubt North Dakota or Montana ever produced anything significant speaking of culture...). Those states wanted Bush out.
I don't know for you, but for me this means something, even if I'm a little ignorant closed-minded administrator who's letting a good videogaming forum go down and be corrupted like that, so that so many cultured and enlightened minds have to escape from us and our blasphemy and look for salvation and protection somewhere else.

Anyway, many around here would do better studying the history of their own country before accusing others of ignorance. Maybe too much videogaming is the best way to keep brains younger and safer from too much thinking and reflecting about truth or possibilities behind what others want you to know. I'm not trying to cause you an heart attack with my rudeness, but frankly I am the one sick of the ignorance. People have their own theories and many studies have been written thanks to the fact people are free and able to think differently, also risking to appear "extremist". If you're done with the forum, I don't think after your meaningless and gratuitous accusations we could care less. Faile didn't offend or attacked you, while you did. Why? Probably who lacks the ability to keep argumentations on a more serious and mature level finds easier relief and strenght in attacking others, instead of spending more time trying to reply otherwise. Attacking somebody else like you did is always a sign of weakness. And ignorance is definitely weakness.

[LrdAlucard]

ok ok ppl....lets just it end here. the elections are over, no need to argue anymore....:\

[Uchiha Sasuke]

Transfer this to my Saddam thread See if it holds up against evidence.

[Faile]

The land of the free indeed. If anybody has a problem with the points I present then you do not have to read them at all. I've presented my opinion in a way I believe to be true. If you wish to debate the above points then do so.
I'm sure that in fact you haven't studied the U.S yourself if you believe that the easy answer to the problems of the U.S can be solved by carrying a gun. I'm pretty sure that if you were to attempt to solve electoral problems at the end of a gun you wouldn't succeed. But I digress. I've presented my argument, and if you disagree then you are welcome to counter what I have said.

[Spank-A-Thon]

Originally Posted by Faile

The land of the free indeed. If anybody has a problem with the points I present then you do not have to read them at all. I've presented my opinion in a way I believe to be true. If you wish to debate the above points then do so.
I'm sure that in fact you haven't studied the U.S yourself if you believe that the easy answer to the problems of the U.S can be solved by carrying a gun. I'm pretty sure that if you were to attempt to solve electoral problems at the end of a gun you wouldn't succeed. But I digress. I've presented my argument, and if you disagree then you are welcome to counter what I have said.

One thing I'd like to hear your thoughts on Faile...

You quite rightly blame the current situation in Iraq on Bush, but then you crtiticise the American people for not voting him out.

It is my belief that Blair is equally to blame; he has lied and "sexed up" dossiers in order to justify the war in Iraq. He defied the UN and sided with Bush (thus prompting the popular image of Blair being Bush's lapdog).

So my question to you is this: Do you believe the British public should vote Conservative in the next General Election so that we may rid the UK of Blair (in effect doing what the US didn't do)? Furthermore, if Bush was a Democrat - would you still feel the same way?

I'm just curious to see if your obvious left-wing bias has any impact on your opinion.

- S

[Mannofiron]

First off let me say that I don't take anything personally and I'd hope it isn't directed at me that way. Secondly, I don't want to personally offend others either...I can seperate a person from their political beliefs.

That said, I think you come off sounding a little elitist Falie. You make the situation seem rather dire here at home when in reality we've faced much worse domestically. The unemployment is hanging at a relatively low level, and the jobs we've lost had more to do with a horrible terrorist attack that crippled a nation and a few of its industries than Bush's policies. Inflation is low. We want global markets, so outsourcing, viewed as terrible and bad for the economy, isn't really bad at all. We will develop better jobs here in America and foreign goods can be offered at better prices. Economically, the standard of living increases when global markets exist.

On the social issues, I don't see how abortion can be justified that way: could you say the same thing about an infant? or a 12 year old? Just because people have trouble affording children doesn't make it okay to kill one no matter what the age...they need to take responsibility and cope with the outcomes of their actions. I am not against civil unions or extending such rights to gay people, but I am for marriage being exclusive to a man and a woman. This is not for religious reasons but rather for social concerns and by the examination of countries where it is already in place. Marriage is a contract involving more than love, but also a commitment to society that assures continuation of the species and the raising of children with a mother and a father. I'm sure you'll get all excited about this...both these issues could have a whole thread easily, so I'm not trying to argue, just to state my points so you see where I'm coming from.

As for Iraq, I think it's vital we press democracy there: free nations reject terrorism. Also, history has shown that totalitarian gov'ts never exist peacefully with free countries. Removing a dictator who the world believed to have weapons of mass destruction and has been hostile towards us in many ways (paying families of suicide bombers, top al-qeida operatives found in Iraq when we invaded) is definitely in our nation's interest. Of course, a nation that is occupied will always be hostile, but I think the possibilities once Iraq is a democratic nation are overwhelming. Though I will cede this: we should not be "policing" the world...I agree with Iraq because it is part of the war on terror, but I'm against intervention otherwise.

I'd hope that there would be more intelligent debate on these forums...too many people are spiteful and unwilling to talk out differences. Let's at least be cordial...I find it hard to believe anyone would say America is stupid...all sorts of different people voted for each candidate. Well educated people supported both of them along with people less learned as well. Stop the name-calling and debate honestly.

[Faile]

Obvious left wing bias? That's pretty interesting that you should mention that.
Should the people of the UK vote for the conservative party? No. Why? Because the Conservative party has a far worse domestic policy than the Labour party and a far worse foreign policy than the Labour party. Michael Howard has an immigration policy that would not technically allow Michael Howard in the country.
So those points again, the conservative party has bad foreign and domestic policy.

And here is the connection, the Republican party has bad foreign and domestic policy currently. Hence why I believe that America should have voted Democrat where things are slightly more liberal and allows for personal freedom and choice.

Okay, Blair went to war. I cannot forgive him for that either, but Howard would have gone to war twice as quickly. Thatcher would have taken us to war. Kennedy would have taken us to war. Any British Prime Minister would have taken us to war. Because we have to follow the lead of the U.S when we are such close allies. It is just the done thing. The U.S would have gone to war even without Britain though. Remember, don't forget Poland.

The conservative party long ago declared war on the working class of this country and that can never ever be forgiven. Much like the Bush Administration seems set on wiping out the working class of the U.S.

However, I suspect you think I believe more in the name than the policy. This would be an incorrect belief as I can quite happily talk to you about the good Republican Presidents that America has known (namely Richard Nixon, who gets a terrible press owing to water gate but was quite forward thinking in terms of feminism, healthcare and other important domestic issues).

[Redpyramidhead]

Originally Posted by Hyuuga Neji

You don't have to bother responding to mine as im done with the forum here if mods and admins cant keep a gaming forum free of ignorant politics and biased sides then i don't need to come here. The Hitler comment was out of line and should have been shut down and deleted as soon as it hit the threads.

Go ahead, leave. You Bush-clingers are just upset because you're justification of Bush's so called actions to protect our nation are being challenged as being amoral. I know people who could care less that innocent people are dying in other countries just so long as "their president is doing something to protect us from terrorism." Than again, I know people like you, who has been put into fear by bush's fear tactics, that also fear that bush is not going about things the right way, therefor supporting him would be quite amoral. After all, supporting murder, secret arrests, desctruction of privacy, spending all our country's money that we need for helping its ppl to stay alive on a day to day basis without dying a slow torturous death and turning on eachother... spending all that money on war in a place we don't belong... in a place we are killing innocent people...including the troops we sent there who are pawns caught in a huge game....after all... that would make me feel guilty if I supported that kind of thing just in the name of "homeland security." How are you to know the statistics enough to know it is needed in anyway to save us? Bush says nothing about it except the occasional thing to stir fear. His administration has been the most secretive that any senator can remember.

Kerry is not wishy washy. If you understood anything about the voting process in the senate you would understand why this man is intelligent. Bills get passed thru, voted for, then sent to the president who may veto it and put pressure to have it rewritten in a way where it is more to his liking. This is what Bush did with the bill asking for 80 billion dollars to go to the war in iraq. Kerry voted yes for the original version that was worded in a way that he felt more fair. WHen Bush vetoed it and tried to have it reworded so that it would give him more personal control over what the money did in iraq, cutting the possibility of funding for things kerry felt important in the rebuilding of iraq and prtoecting its troops and the innocent people who live there, he changed his vote to NO the second time around. Bush's campaign used an example of his own abuse of power to try and claim Kerry was weak-minded. Countless voters fell for it.

What Kerry does is change his thoughts according to the changing situation in real time. His mind evolves according to every situation. This is a concept most conservatives are not used to and even many so called liberals, after all the average person wouldn't understand something so brilliant unless it were explained to them.

Bush, instead of evolving, regresses. The man is a moron. He is a child. He never grew up. He takes more vacation days than any president in history. He doesn't work anywhere near as long as the average american in a job you would think would require you to never have sleep. The claim he misses church due to his job is ridiculous. He misses it because he is the lLAZIEST president we have ever had.

I have said enough for now. Good night. And may the world hope and pray in their respective religions or forms of spirituality for its safety.

PEACE to ALL

No matter who you voted for or didn't, you are all my brethren, and I love you as my fellow human beings. I hope that we all survive. PEACE

_RED_ stuff

[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by happy_doughnut

Personally, I wasn't a Kerry fan, either. There was something about him that didn't quite grab my interest. However, knowing my own personal state, I would have voted for just about anyone except Bush. Why? Reasons I'd like to keep personal.

But see, I don't quite get it. If you didn't like Kerry to begin with, even if you agree with his reasons, how would you know that he will follow through with everything that he says he'll do? What I mean is, if a person didn't like that person's personality/outlook/exterior/whatever, how would you be able to vote for someone you didn't like? Because you won't be able to trust him and his policies, even if he said he'll try to restore America and take care of everything that Bush screwed up. But, maybe this is just me, I'm not asking you to divulge your personal reasons, but I just don't quite see this part.

Originally Posted by happy_doughnut

I understand what meryl was saying, and her reasons for not voting are justified, as least I think. Plus, she said that her state is a democratic one and that Kerry won there, anyway, so no harm done.

NOW... if someone lives in Ohio and didn't vote, then they desserve to get smacked. Really.

Err...I don't quite know what happened in Ohio (I didn't see the entire election all the way), but okay...so what if I lived in Ohio and I said I didn't vote and I gave my same exact reasons? So will I get smacked then? I dunno, but I think your response to my post would be different if I did live in Ohio and not one of the pro-Kerry states. I just don't think it's a very fair comment. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?

[goodman]

From what ive seen and heard, apparently the Republicans got out the vote even better than the Democrats, they had a call to the voting booth and people responded. I watched some of Fahrenheit 911 and will watch some more over time im sure. Even with that movie people voted for who they wanted in office, they simply prefer Bush over Kerry, its over this time, not like 2000.

[dan da man]

Originally Posted by Spank-A-Thon

So my question to you is this: Do you believe the British public should vote Conservative in the next General Election so that we may rid the UK of Blair (in effect doing what the US didn't do)?
- S

NO NO NO NO!!!!!! Conservative party ruined this country and im glad there gone!

[happy_doughnut]

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

But see, I don't quite get it. If you didn't like Kerry to begin with, even if you agree with his reasons, how would you know that he will follow through with everything that he says he'll do? What I mean is, if a person didn't like that person's personality/outlook/exterior/whatever, how would you be able to vote for someone you didn't like? Because you won't be able to trust him and his policies, even if he said he'll try to restore America and take care of everything that Bush screwed up. But, maybe this is just me, I'm not asking you to divulge your personal reasons, but I just don't quite see this part.

*hopes lunch doesn't burn... eek!*

Yes, I understand why that mya seem hypocritical of me, meryl. However, like I said, my reasons are very personal, and I wouldn't like to share them on an open forum. However, if I were to explain to you in private, then I'm sure you'd understand.

Let me say this, though: I did not say I disliked Kerry. There were some policies he had that I agreed with very much. For example, his policies on abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriages - these I agreed with, and because Bush is a con to these policies, I would choose Kerry. What I meant about the "not being a fan" thing was that Kerry did seem unappealing. Like Fortune said, I think it was the way he looked, as incredibly superficial as that may sound. I felt that he needed more zest and charisma to with over the full approval of the people. I liked his policies, I just simply did not like the way he presented them. Hence, that is why I wasn't his "fan" or anything. Like Gore, for example, I was his fan... 100%. I was in full agreement with most of what he said, and I loved his enthusiasm. In politics, I doubt there will ever be one I fully agree with, but if some people refrain from voting because their beliefs don't match absolutely, then they will never vote. I suppose one just has to pick the lesser of two weevils.

Err...I don't quite know what happened in Ohio (I didn't see the entire election all the way), but okay...so what if I lived in Ohio and I said I didn't vote and I gave my same exact reasons? So will I get smacked then? I dunno, but I think your response to my post would be different if I did live in Ohio and not one of the pro-Kerry states. I just don't think it's a very fair comment. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?

Oh, sorry.

In Ohio, I guess you could say that, well, pretty much everything was up to the - the entire election. What the Democrats needed in order to win was to win over a state that had in the 2000 elections voted Republican. Since most states kinda just "vote the same each time," (like CA, always D. and LA. always R.) they democrats thus needed to win a state that usually voted republican in order to detract from the electoral points of the republicans. Since you said your state is democrat, then even if you would have voted republican, it wouldn't have made much of a difference. In my state, it is pretty much totally liberal, so it always goes democrat, so even if I would have voted republican, is wouldn't have matter much.

However, Ohio was pretty much up for grabs for either party. Thus, every vote in that state was signifficant, whether it be republican or democrat.

The smack thing was a joke, meryl...

What I mean by that is that even though some people in Ohio knew that their state was pretty much the one that would decided the election (and since it could have gone easily either way), they still didn't vote. That to me is just wrong.

If you lived in Ohio and didn't vote, you would have had every right to do that. However, frankly, yes... my responce would have been different. Like I said, one can't hope to vote for someone that is going to agree with one on everything, but I'm sure that there was one that you liked more than the other, and these don't have to be either Bush or Kerry. When a state is such a big factor in the elections, it is imperative for every one in that state to vote. Hey, there are always those green/independent parties, ya know? And I always appear on every ballot, so you could have voted for me!!