I think he speakes clearly. You guys are just democrats and dont want to listen to what is best.
Printable View
I think he speakes clearly. You guys are just democrats and dont want to listen to what is best.
Or you're just a republican and dont want to listen to what's best. Don't make assumptions of people's political stances. The most intellegent voters dont vote just because of a candidate's party, but for the issues they stand for and against.Quote:
Originally Posted by wakka
Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm an Independent. Bush is not a good speaker when he is put in front of a live audience. He has a good sense of humor, but isn't as quick on his toes as some of our past Presidents such as Reagan, and Clinton. Oftentimes, he fumbles on words when trying to express himself, which is more a lack of preparation than anything else. A President usually has a mock Press Conference before an actual one to sort of warm him up, but it always seems that Bush hasn't quite gotten the hang of expressing himself.
Take care all.
Yes, Bush has a bad speaking record. He's said a lot of dumb things, whether intentionally or just nervously (hell, I'd be flustered addressing so many people) like "I will not repeat it in French, nor in English, nor in Mexican." The way a President speaks is very important. Whether Bush is a genius or an idiot, the way he speaks has caused many to brand him as the latter.
And as for political parties, I'm Independant as well. I often lean Democratic, but I consider the issues as opposed to party lines, because I cant stand people who do things like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix
I would vote zell miler if he went for preisedent (dont know if the last name is right) and he is a democrat. There is some republican than i can not stand.
"but I consider the issues as opposed to party lines, because I cant stand people who do things like that."
Which in my opinion is the wisest way to go about it. If more people, politicians especially, would focus on issues rather than pleasing their party, I think we'd all be better off.
Take care all.
I consider the issues instead of the party as well. It's just that most of the sides that I agree with fall within the Republican Party. There are a few exceptions, like anything that has to do with religion (I'm a "devout" atheist) and abortion.
I'd vote for Senator Miller just because his first name is Zell.Quote:
Originally Posted by wakka
I don't like that George Bush but that Barbara Bush is a hottie so I don't mind who wins the election either way.
Which of course completely invalidates the fact that you just accused us all of not knowing who is best because we are Democrats. /sarcasmQuote:
I would vote zell miler if he went for preisedent (dont know if the last name is right) and he is a democrat. There is some republican than i can not stand.
Partisanship is really getting on my nerves, I absolutely HATE when people will slavishly follow political parties just because of the fact that they are the political party they "identify" with which usually means the political party they were raised to follow slavishly for the rest of their lives.
My particular stance has always been to ask "who will do the least damage?"
Thus I believe Bush has to go.
Wandering Zero: i think you should watch what you say on the internet. if that scary man, John Ashcroft were to have read waht you just said i think you might just "disapear" sometime soon.
also, my father travels around the country every week because of his job. he told me taht from what he has seen, there is no way to prevent a terrorist attack. if someone wanted to commit terrorist acts, there is nothing anyone can do to stop them.
I also know a woman from poland who has lived most of her life under soviet oppression. this woman told my family that the amreican government has FAR MORE control over its citizens tahn the soviets had over them. she also said we had far less privacy. if taht isnt a scary thought, i dont know what is.
"And as for political parties, I'm Independant as well. I often lean Democratic, but I consider the issues as opposed to party lines, because I cant stand people who do things like that."
i whole heartedly agree with you here.
the bush administration is making this country a far worse and more scary place to live. four more years of this man would be a dangerous thing. hell, they are already trying to create a "patriot 2" which will expand the patriot act, thus taking away MORE of our rights.
also, did you know that the way hitler stripped the german citizens of their rights was through an event very similar to 9/11?? the reichstag was burned down and hitler blamed the communists. he instilled fear in the people and offered "safety".
and another thing, you people should check out "the project for the new american century" it was written by a bunch of conservatives (many just so happen to be in bush's administration know, such as dick cheney) and it outlines the plan that the government should take in this new century (2000) to keep the superpower for as long as possible. ONE thing they say we should do is secure middle eastern resources through things like an invasion of iraq. it makes clear that iraq is to be invaded REGARDLESS of whether or not saddam hussein is in power or not. it also says that the european theatre is no longer of much importance, and the asian theatre is now the biggest threat. (the middle east is here, which is why it is important to control it and its oil before china, who's economy is soon to skyrocket) i havent read THIS PART of it myself, but i heard that in the PNAC (project for the new american century) taht it says that it would be difficult to sell an invasion of iraq to the public and that a "pearl harbor like incident" would be necessary to get the people to go along. bush gets elected. boom, 9/11. then afgahnistan and iraq, and if you look at iraq georgraphically, it is right in the center of the middle east, which now allows us to strike at virtually ANY middle easter country from iraq.
also, it states that controlling cyberspace is something taht they should do. the patriot act allows for them to have more control over the internet. another thing in there is actually controlling outerspace itself. wasnt it odd that bush suddenly wanted to go to mars??
now im not saying that george bush has the intellectual capacity to carry something like this out, but peoplel ike Dick cheney, rumsfeld, etc. etc. DO have the intelligence to do this.
anyways, i would check this out, regardless of whether you were a conservative or a liberal. (you can go to its official website so that u dont get such a biased interpretation of it like i gave)
In fact, I listen to Bush speeches when I see them on TV: I like to think he's kidding and laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by wakka
I saw one speech of him and
I thought man, this guy must be kiddin'!'
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Is it just me, or are the conservatives only able to attack the personal lives of Clinton and Kerry? Don't they have anything else? And what does that tell us? Hmm.
On a side-note, accusing Bush of being an alcoholic born-againy dope-headed military deserter is fair game cause they're habits, not one-shot clips from the past. <_< >_>
Bush will do what he thinks is right, even if everyone else disagrees with him. When a person is right, this is a good thing. Kerry will do as little as possible on his own. A vote for Kerry is a vote for congress. The election is a choice between President Reckless, and President Spineless. I think Kerry is the safe vote. Chances are nothing serious will happen (IE: we won't see another 9-11 for a while). If there aren't any big decisions to be made, I'd vote for Kerry because he won't take initiative, so problems that aren't critical won't be made an issue, which on the foreign affairs front would be a bonus. If I believed that the future would be a time of crisis, and 9-11 caliber decisions had to be made, I'd vote Bush. Sometimes, it's not the quality of a decision, but simply that a decision was made that makes the difference. I might disagree with Bush on how he goes about solving problems, but I do believe he's not afraid to solve them. It's really a tough decision. Bad Decisions vs No Decisions. You can't win. My vote will be based on my whim at the moment.
I enjoy people writing off Kerry before he's even given a chance. How do we know how he'll react as President? Being a Senator is much different than being President, so I think one's record in Senate is moot. Being in Congress is all about compromise, and pleasing as many people as possible because you're working in a group. Being President, means you actually make decisions, and rely, or don't rely on Congress and the American People for input and feedback. Show me any Politician who has never changed his or her mind on an issue and I will bow to thee.
The same thing sort of irks me when people say Al Gore would have prevented 9/11. Frankly, I don't think Bush or Gore could have prevented 9/11, and really, unfortunately hindsight is 20/20 whilst everything else is speculation. In my mind, Bush had his chance and blew it, more because of the people he chose to surround himself with than anything else.
Remember American History too: Andrew Jackson was initially viewed as a waste of a Presidency, but during his term, he probably did more to change the face of American politics than anyone before him or after him until Lincoln or even FDR.
Take care all.