Royal Carnage - Elect the President
- Thread starter General Zod
- Start date
JayKeeley
Be still, O wand'rer!
Yeah, so true. Like some Arab underground Al-Queda organization is going to the lengths of defying the FBI and CIA, with years of planning, just so they can blow up a diesel gas station in bumfuck Utah.lurch70 said:
If (and when) Bush wins, I think you'll get a fair representation of who your fellow countrymen and women are, and how scared they are.
Islam = Communism
Patriot Act = McCarthy Witch Hunts
etc.
America always needs someone to hate.
NAD
What A Horrible Night To Have A Curse
Yeah no shit. It's like Animal Farm, always some random figure to put the finger at, whether international, national, state, county, city, neighbor, etc. I say we target Antarctica, like the US gov't could set up some castle down there with a big hammer and sickle flag and stage little battles "outside" (some studio in Hollywood) of it to show on the news once or twice a month. That way nobody really gets harmed and the American populace always someone to hate.JayKeeley said:
PS: Go see Team America: World Police! You need to!
You know, I used to think Bush was going to win. I'm not so certain any more. There are two encouraging factors at play here are:JayKeeley said:
1 - history shows that if the incumbent doesn't go into election day with a sizable lead, he loses. Bush might actually be behind in the polls by Tuesday.
2 - there seems to be this strong belief, that the youth voted isn't accounted for in the polls. If that's the case, and the 18-25 group votes, that could also give Kerry a big boost.
Additionally, short of the republicans having Bin Laden stashed somewhere, and rolling him out on a hand cart, ala Hannibal Lecter, on Monday morning, any news over the next four days will be bad days for Bush. And not to be too big a pessimist, but I wouldn't be shocked if something big happened between now and election day.
I have a feeling Kerry may win the election. The problem is, I don't know if he'll win the recount.
Zod
JayKeeley
Be still, O wand'rer!
What would be the connection between youth votes and Kerry? I would have figured that the younger crowd go for Bush, just through simple ignorance.General Zod said:
Ho ho ho.
SonOfNun
Bill Ward's Red Pants
JayKeeley said:
I must agree, unfortunately. Just judging from my Government class, the majority of people my age support Bush. Why you ask? Because they think Kerry isn't as tough as Bush. They think "OMG hE Si GOING to TKAE oUr GUnNs!" Like Bill Maher and others have said, it's pretty fucking ridiculous that Kerry has to try to make himself look like the tough one when he put his ass on the line in Vietnam while Bush was protected in a Privleged Sons Unit. Is our memory so short that we've already forgotten that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch because of his negligence and that he has increased Anti-American sentiment greatly after invading a sovereign nation of Iraq and thus uniting the radical Islamic community who think we've declared holy war on them. People are so misinformed it's sickening.
spaffe
Geisterglut
What about those votes that got lost in Florida again? Any news on that? Sounded pretty strange that it happened again in the same state
neal
wizard in black
spaffe
Geisterglut
Haha, I never really understood how your country gained the epithet "The worlds greatest democracy", greatest as in most voters? Perhaps most eligible voters but hardly when counting how many that actually vote
For starters, the young are traditionally Democrats. Second, they'll vote their self-interest. College-age students, when polled, believe Bush will re-enact a draft. Finally, the limited polling they've done among this age group, shows they lean strongly towards Kerry.JayKeeley said:
Zod
NAD
What A Horrible Night To Have A Curse
Yeah it's pretty sad when a "record turnout" means around 30% of the population votes.spaffe said:
GrumpyDwarf
Beard scratcher
J. said:
Just out of curiousity, what would you have proposed the U.S. do differently? Not react at all? The country & its leadership - not just Bush sillies, but every President dating back through Reagan - failed time and again to institute proactive preventative measures, leaving the current leadership in a situation where being reactive was the only choice.
There's lots of talk here about "terrorists have already won," and "americans are stupid," etc., etc., until I puke, but seriously, what was the alternative? Continue to do nothing I suppose.
J.
Old Fart
if Kerry wanted all "young-voters" in AMerica, all he needs to say is that he'll legalize marijuana. hell, I bet even a bunch of adults would go for that. the only ones that would be against it are the ones already voting for Bush
GrumpyDwarf
Beard scratcher
General Zod said:
Conversely, for those who support Kerry. What exactly is it about his inconsistencies and wavering support for a variety of issues that make you think the country will be any better than it's been for the past 4 years?
Someone who supports Bush could simply say, well, "I hope it will get better in the 2nd term." That's no different than the Kerry supporters, 99% of which are voting for the man simply because he's not Bush. Genius.
J.
Old Fart
The alternative was to NOT ATTACK IRAQ!!! Iraq had NOTHING to do with what happened on 9/11. I'm willing to bet almost every American, myself included, supported attacking Afghanistan.GrumpyDwarf said:
And here we are concentrating on an entirely different country because they happen to have the world's second largest oil reserve.
Get out of Iraq, and concentrate on killing Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda. That's the alternative.
GrumpyDwarf
Beard scratcher
Opeth17 said:
You're not serious here, are you?
I would have thought that someone taking government (and maybe politics/history) classes would realize that blaming ONLY the current administration for events that happen during their term is pretty asinine. I mean, it's not like Clinton's 8 years had anything to do with allowing Al-Qaeda to become an international force.
GrumpyDwarf
Beard scratcher
J. said:
You're changing the subject. The subject is NOT whether or not we belong in Iraq.
You originally posted something to the effect of "the terrorists have already won," etc, which was quite clearly in response to the Bush administration's directives following 9/11. My question was about what would you have done differently? What could ANY political group have done differently. Your post and others like it make it sound like everything was Bush's fault. That's just silly. They were in a tragically reactive situation without an alternative, thanks in LARGE PART to a fucking disastrous situation created by both his father and Clinton's 12 years prior.
J.
Old Fart
OK, things I would have done differently:GrumpyDwarf said:
1. I would not have instituted a terrorist alert warning. WHat purpose does that serve, exactly, other than to scare the US citizens? Supposedly, when this alert is on red or orange, our police and security forces are suppose to be "on alert". Aren't they always suppose to be on alert for "suspicious activity"? It's also quite obvious Bush has used this warning for political gain, having raised the level during important political proceedings. And seriously, while Bush is in office, do you ever think the level will go down to green?
2. What was the purpose of instituting the Patriot Act again, other than to take civil rights away from Americans? This basically means that if the government, for whatever reason, thinks I'm a danger to national security, they can simply walk in my house while I'm gone (or while I'm there) and search it. That's scarier than any terrorist. The next step is a police state. Totally unnecessary. ANd yet, here we have AMericans backing the Patriot Act because they'd rather have a false sense of security than there US rights.
3. If Bush wants everyone in his country to feel safe, then why in God's green earth then we take our eye off the ball (Bin Laden/Afghanistan) and go after another country that was not even tied to 9/11. I guess Iraq hates freedom, huh?
4. Definition of terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Well, my friend, they've succeeded. They have successfully had our gov't take away citizens rights by using intimidation. They have successfully influenced countless redneck yahoos to buy guns because they think Osama Bin Laden wants to attack their little patch of grass in bumfuck, USA. They have successfully used countless tapes (didn't one just come out?) saying they will attack us again, etc. They have successfully altered the way people run their lives. We have not successfully stopped them.
GrumpyDwarf
Beard scratcher
Ok, thanks, now THOSE are some solid points. In fact, the only one I'd disagree with at all is the first one, about the terrorist alert levels.
While some may perceive it as a scare tactic or whatnot, it's the United States way of - as said in an earlier post - using 9/11 to join the rest of the world. Other countries I'm assuming don't have "alert levels" because they know that terrorism and the threat of it can and do happen at any time, on any day. We as a collective nation still do NOT, thus the constant reminder that it can and will happen. Though I'm sure part of it is the fearmongering that leftist-types love to refer back to.
Incidentally, I also have no problem with the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan or rather, the Taliban/al Qaeda, was quickly rendered incapacitated as an organized threat. Keeping in mind that a terrorist group doesn't need a strong infrastructure, there's not much more the U.S. can do, other than keep hunting (if bin Laden's not found yet, that is) the caves, etc. So attention was turned to Iraq, maybe not the greatest worldwide threat, but still, a threat nonetheless. And no, I'm not talking about the WMD thing. Hussein was a prick. Now he's gone. I just wish the boneheads in office had actually thought out an exit strategy.
While some may perceive it as a scare tactic or whatnot, it's the United States way of - as said in an earlier post - using 9/11 to join the rest of the world. Other countries I'm assuming don't have "alert levels" because they know that terrorism and the threat of it can and do happen at any time, on any day. We as a collective nation still do NOT, thus the constant reminder that it can and will happen. Though I'm sure part of it is the fearmongering that leftist-types love to refer back to.
Incidentally, I also have no problem with the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan or rather, the Taliban/al Qaeda, was quickly rendered incapacitated as an organized threat. Keeping in mind that a terrorist group doesn't need a strong infrastructure, there's not much more the U.S. can do, other than keep hunting (if bin Laden's not found yet, that is) the caves, etc. So attention was turned to Iraq, maybe not the greatest worldwide threat, but still, a threat nonetheless. And no, I'm not talking about the WMD thing. Hussein was a prick. Now he's gone. I just wish the boneheads in office had actually thought out an exit strategy.
NAD
What A Horrible Night To Have A Curse
I don't blame Bush or any other president for 9/11 or for the terrorists winning. Terrorists attack the mentality of a people, and they succeeded with 9/11, because now people hesitate before getting on a plane, or going to a football game, etc. Previous terrorist attacks on the US didn't upset the mind of the average American, but 9/11 did.GrumpyDwarf said:
Isolated terrorist attacks cannot be stopped, just like there will always be robberies, senseless murders, rapes, etc. It works on such a low level that our only hope is that it just doesn't happen.
