Moses, The Bush is Burning!

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

http://www.tilenut.com/yo/BUSH_record.html

No comment.

Now, just as a question, who is running WITH Kerry? Is it that video game hating Lieberman? If so, no vote for him.

Bush, Dick, Colon.

Bush, Dick, Colon.

Like we haven't heard that a hundred times already. OLD!!

In response to those site I say: Bush 'O4.

That's RIGHT! I'm a Bush supporter so get over it! Bush is one of the greatest Presidents that the U.S. has had in my memory [The only other being Clinton, but that's not the point] and if I was old enough I'd vote for him...TWICE!!*

*This message approved by President Bush.

Gentlemen, we shall create a new super president forged of Bush and Clinton! Get the buzzsaw and blowtorch!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Go Great Rumbler. That makes three of us, with Weltall included.

:banana: :banana: :banana:

Alright, guys, let's hold a fricken' rally to support our favorite President! Hoo-yeah!!

Gentlemen, we shall create a new super president forged of Bush and Clinton! Get the buzzsaw and blowtorch!

Throw in Reagen too! And Lieberman! Even though he was never the president or even the vice president, he was cool anyway!

NO! Lieberman shall have his DNA mixed with a prime rib steak! For he hates video games, don't you? Let's toss in Washington, the DNA anyway, and um, Leonard Nemoy. Now then Steve, turn it ON!

Okay! *is eaten by a giant present* How did that get there?! Blargh!!

I like Liebermand. I'd have much rather had him the nominee instead of Kerry. I think we should have a Jewish president; and he was very moderate on many things.

Yeah, I used to hate Lieberman because of his stance on games, but really, I think he's the only Democratic nominee in this whole race that ever had any sense.

If I EVER voted Democratic, he'd be it.

I like Liebermand. I'd have much rather had him the nominee instead of Kerry. I think we should have a Jewish president; and he was very moderate on many things.

Why? You're a nazi.

Is that why you said that? reverse psychology. ah, well...

I actually know next to nothing about the Leibman except that he blames games for violence. If the other stuff he thinks actually makes sense, well I'd have to wonder why his stance on video games is like it is. Considering how much I like video games, I certainly wouldn't vote for a guy with the intentions he's had for them, that is, either getting them banned altogether, or just getting rid of all the fun parts and turning every game into tetris clones.

Yeah, but he really doesn't bother with it anymore.

There is so much amounts of incredible violence , Its rare any child 8 years old or older haisnt seen atleast one violent tv show or movie by then. But only a small percentage of the 98% of kids who frequiently watch violent tv shows actually will grow up to do a felony.

Joe Lieberman promotes violence by supporting military action in iraq, Now there even saying to have manditory military service, Which means instead of having tv or video games showing violence the goverments wants 17-18 year olds to become trained killers in real life.

I swear to God, if the inane re-cock-ulous super-PC people vote Kerry in, I will go on a rape benge and boink every living thing I see.

Anyone but Bush, I say.

John Kerry is a douchebag, but I'm voting for him anyway.

My thoughts exactly on the weekend. I would vote Libertarian if this election didn't matter to me, or I thought they would have a snow ball's chance. Fucking bipartisan country... :rolleyes:

Anyone but Bush, I say.

Anyone but Kerry, I say. :p

Now, just as a question, who is running WITH Kerry? Is it that video game hating Lieberman? If so, no vote for him.

He hasn't decided yet, but Leiberman is extremely unlikely. Too conservative and not from a region that would help him any (Conneticut isn't a place he badly needs votes in... :) ) I don't like Leiberman at all. Far too conservative and far too openly religious for me. His stand on games is just the beginning... I do like his stand on some things (like the environment) and obviously if he was the candidate I'd vote for him, but I'd never want him to be that candidate.


My thoughts exactly on the weekend. I would vote Libertarian if this election didn't matter to me, or I thought they would have a snow ball's chance. Fucking bipartisan country...

One vote doesn't matter MUCH, but it matters SOME... sure, most states aren't too competitive. But some are... need anyone remember that about 250 votes in one state, or a couple thousand in any one of three or four, would have changed the results?

Kerry has no running mate, and the elections are four months away. How's he even a viable candidate without a running mate; and you know why---because no matter who he picks, it'll turn off some voters. As long as he doesn't choose anyone, all his potential voters are happy. He's just dragging his feet on this. Take a shit or get off the pot, you liberal nazi.

He needs to pick a running mate all ready. He's only waiting so long because no matter who he picks, it'll turn somebody off. The longer he waits, the better it goes for him.

He should get Ted Kennedy as his running mate, that way his chance of getting elected would go down to zero and we'd get four more years of Bushism.

Are running mates actually REQUIRED by the constitution though, or just by the parties, which as a reminder, aren't official parts of government.

SJ, don't just think you are throwing your vote away. Everyone thinks that, and thus they don't ever actually vote what they want. Don't vote "strategically", vote for who you want. That's how it's INTENDED to work.

What would happen if Bush and kerry fused together into one being like on Dbz?

George Berry

thats cool!

Did they dance or use magic clip-on earings?

DJ, yes, the Vice President DOES actually appear in the Constitution... :) He has to have a running mate. But Darunia, you act like he's waiting a long time! Not true at all. The normal time is a lot closer to the convention than now! People are just more aware of it because of how highly politicized everything is now... but he is NOT delaying.

I would imagine that person does, I just wasn't quite certain if running mates were actually NEEDED. Keep in mind I haven't read that thing in a long time :D. My memory being what it is, those details will always slip out. Now, as to the exact article, numbers are almost impossible for me to remember. I mean, it takes me forever to learn my own phone number when it changes. I may remember what the ammendmants say, but I won't ever remember what NUMBER they are, or the exact wording for that matter :D. Same with just about everything I read or watch. I remember the gist, but then I have to see or read it again because I forget a lot of the details. I mean, that's why most people check out their favorite entertainment again right? The guy with the photographic memory really has no reason to ever see any movie twice, what with being able to replay the whole thing, word for word, in their mind, in polish... with subtitles!

I thought there was one president that did not have a vice-president.

His name was washington.

There was a VP or two who died in office, so that after that point there was no VP (I don't think they are required to replace them... or not immediately at least...)... and if the president dies there is no VP... and the first three elections had a different system where the runner-up in the election was the VP. But after Jefferson was VP to Adams THAT went out the window... :)

John Adams was his veep.

I checked. John Tyler had no vice-president.

Tyler, Tyler... oh, right. :)

You're missing the fact that Tyler was a VP who became president. "Tippicanoe and Tyler too" -- except 'Tippicanoe' (William Henry Harrison) died three months into office, of that cold he got getting his 'longest opening address ever' award.

Other veeps have become President, and they all eventually had their own veeps.

I knew we had to have a VP mind you. I was wondering about the need to attach a VP to a main president during the voting part. I was thinkin' a mix & match should be allowed. In other words, VPs run seperatly from Ps.

It'd be a highly contested office, with all those vital powers the Constitution gives the VP... :D

Seriously, no, that would not work. The President and VP have to be able to work together. That's why after the very first time two opposing people were President and VP they changed the laws.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Go Great Rumbler. That makes three of us, with Weltall included.

:banana: :banana: :banana:

Try 4. I will be damned if I would vote for Kerry...

Now we have enough people for a rally! Woo!!

SJ, don't just think you are throwing your vote away. Everyone thinks that, and thus they don't ever actually vote what they want. Don't vote "strategically", vote for who you want. That's how it's INTENDED to work.

By principal, that's how I would normally vote (although I've never actually voted before...), but I'll do anything to prevent 4 more years of Bush. He's got to go.

I've voted twice in the three years since I could... the other one had no offices that mattered at all up for vote.

I personally don't really like either Kerry or Bush.

this country is doomed.

On a side note, have you heard that Jesse Ventura is thinking about running for president next time around? He said if he does he's not going to have a political party... :weird:

He doesn't have a chance of winning unless he's with one of the two parties.

All third party people can do is play spoiler...

Yeah, even if they get a decent amount of the vote all the really do is help one party or the other win the election.

yeah, and that's just too bad how the government works. i think that's one of the main problems in the government today..

Maybe, but with a two party system I think you get more balance since both sides have clearly defined views. Of course there are problems with it since it makes cooperation more difficult and new opinions take longer to get integrated.

I think Italy has averaged more than one prime minister per year over the last 50 years. Would you rather it was like that? :)

Why don't you ask our founding fathers? They sure didn't want it to be THIS segregated.

Jesse Ventura '04.

Washington didn't like the idea of parties, but because of Hamilton and Jefferson we have them... well, they'd have happened anyway, but their conflict helped it along. And it's been two parties since the start except for during a few short periods.

Don't forget the Whigs. And, by two parties, they weren't so hateful towards eachother back then. Given, some politics were settled by gun duels, but it was still more solid back then when we had SMART people running the country (not an attack on bush --- moreover an attack on a lot of neopoliticians). The government is slowly becoming corrupt... go ahead, disagree with me someone.. I know I'm not the only one that thinks this though... I had this discussion with my political science teacher and he somewhat agreed with me as well.

Two parties. Democratic-Republicans and Federalists, Democrats and Whigs, then the nation seperated and there were a bunch of parties, then the Democrats and Republicans until now. :)

Illusion, if you want to talk about hateful politics... the period in the 1850s is one of the worst ever. Remember, the end result was secession and the Civil War, but things got bad well before that politically... the Whigs collapsed by the late 1850s, torn apart by sectionalism. There were a whole lot of factions, with the parties split between north and south... the 1860 was essentially two seperate elections (with different competitors in each part) in the North and the South, for instance.

Except a couple of more successful third-party movements, like the Populists of the late 1800s.

Oh, and how exactly were they so much smarter? I don't see it. ... but I was just reading a book about the Civil War... Oh, Bush is stupid, but is appeasement so much better? Oh, sure, I can see why -- they wanted to make sure to keep the nation together -- but the South would be happy with nothing less than absolute gaurantees of slavery and national policy to take over parts of Latin America to expand slaveholding territories...

I was mainly referring to pre civil-war... it's common knowledge that the mid 1800s was a terrible time for America and its politics.

Post civil war had problems too, with the north in control and reconstructing the south fairly harshly... and as for before the 1850s... well, slavery had been an issue forever. It just got worst in the 1850s, but it'd been a problem for a long time... not as critically, but the compromises about slavery go all the way back to the Declaration of Independance!

These events are completley different than the issues of today. Some politicians today are more snot-nosed than ever and sometimes it turns out to be a blame game. With the media controlling everything and displaying issues to the public, American politics is solely about the amenability of the government and is slowly becoming currupt.
I forget who said it, but I remember reading somewhere that someone was comparing us to the Roman Empire. We reached our peak not too long ago and are slowly on a decline...

Here's the thing, okay, allow parties, but do you really think it's healthy that there are ONLY two, and the SAME two? Why aren't either of these parties dying and being replaced with something else? I do believe it would be far more healthy and a lot less of a boring cycle that will NEVER EVER GO ANYWHERE EXCEPT TO STAGNATION if parties were being created and dying all the time in a dynamic fasion.

Don't forget about the Bullmoose Platform. :nodding:

Ahh, good old 'civilization is in decline'! A standard saying of many in every era in history. And once or twice they're actually right! But given how often it's wrong for every time it's true, I think everyone can safely ignore such things. The "good old days", when you look at it, really weren't that much better...

I do think two parties is the better system. When I look at countries with many, I see relative chaos... it makes strong government hard. Okay, good for when the opposition is in power, but not so good when you are... it focuses things and makes a lot of policy possible. It'd be really hard to pass much if everyone only answered to the people at home...

As for which parties, there have been two times when the (conservative) party changed... why the "Grand Old Party" calls itsself that while it's far newer than the Democrats is kind of odd, really. :)

It's not that it's in decline, it's that it's standing perfectly still. The parties have become SO divided that policy is VERY hard to ever actually change. The second one party suggests something, anything, the other party, SIMPLY because the first is "the enemy", has GOT to be completely against it. A while ago, it seemed like this had changed. Both parties had seemed to finally work together, realizing that working for the agendas of each of their little "clubs" wouldn't work and working for the COUNTRY is what mattered. That didn't last long though.

Both without parties, it'd be notoriously hard to trust anyone. There'd be no one to dig up dirt on one another; and it'd be much harder to raise the funding to get ANYONE elected. And at least with parties, you know where the candidate stands. Sometimes.

And allow civil disorder and havoc to persue...

Both without parties, it'd be notoriously hard to trust anyone. There'd be no one to dig up dirt on one another; and it'd be much harder to raise the funding to get ANYONE elected. And at least with parties, you know where the candidate stands. Sometimes.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting increasingly sick of all the scandals and smear campaigns. Without political parties, these wouldn't be anywhere near as intense. Members of opposing parties would have less motivation to find whatever facts they can and put a spin on them to further their political agenda.

Also, without "knowing where each candidate stands" via a silly label, voters would be obligated to examine the candidates individually and make a more informed decision. There wouldn't be any more party-loyal idiots who blindly accept whatever their favorite political group tells them to.

Well, I was just playing the devil's advocate. I don't know if we need them or not anymore. It'd just be a very strange and different way without parties.

Partyless democracy would be too chaotic to make sense... parties would inevitably form, as they did in the US (it was not by design). How many, though, that is the question.

We should either have a lot more like France, or preferably, none at all. Two is at the same time too many and too few.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting increasingly sick of all the scandals and smear campaigns. Without political parties, these wouldn't be anywhere near as intense. Members of opposing parties would have less motivation to find whatever facts they can and put a spin on them to further their political agenda.

Also, without "knowing where each candidate stands" via a silly label, voters would be obligated to examine the candidates individually and make a more informed decision. There wouldn't be any more party-loyal idiots who blindly accept whatever their favorite political group tells them to.
No, then we'd have even fewer people who would bother to vote.

I have to wonder, the 2000 election was hotly contested and both sides said they won, Americans chose them or them. But that's not really true. At least half did not vote at all and chose no-one. So, at best, about a quarter of our population, give or take, decides who runs the joint.

I think either more need to form, or somehow, someway, parties must learn how to live and die dynamically. No, I don't mean "a new conservitive party" because that's just the same party with a new name. I mean a completely DIFFERENT way of thinking. The idea that there's two ways to think and no others is just plain arse, and to think that one or the other is the "opposite" is also that word I said. They are different, a bit, but not opposites. They take a few issues and take completley different sides, but it's always the same stuff, always the same slander, but it's more divided now than ever. I'm not the only one, though honestly the company I keep thinking this leaves me wondering :D, but really, a LOT of people I know are really getting sick and tired of the party system playing America like saps, making them think that it's the best way, or the only two "real" choices. It's SO divided that no real work is getting done any more. Is it the republican's or the democrat's fault this rebuilding has had some of the trouble it's had? I'd say it's the constant bickering over every little detail making it take months to come to any decision that lead to it. The two parties no longer even TRY to work with each other any more. Listen to debates, and if you are like me, you will notice that they are essentially EXACTLY like the last few debates we had around here a week or so ago.