Voting for Bush = stupid

[Amethyst Hunter]

And don't forget: Al-Quida tried to bomb the Twin Towers during Clinton's administration. They don't hate just a specific US President, they hate America for what it stands for: Freedom.

That's too easy a generalization. They don't just hate this country because of our freedoms (although that is one aspect of it; their nutjobs and ours are really no different - the only thing stopping ours from doing the kind of terrorism they'd really like to do is our justice system (which is one of many things being systematically undermined by dominionism, fyi). And even that is no guarantee, as evidenced by disasters like Oklahoma City 13 years ago.

The nuts over there hate Westerners because of the Western world's long history of meddling in their lands. We undermine their governments and install our puppets, and then wonder why the fundamentalism surges. It's because the puppets ignore the citizenry, and when the citizenry gets desperate, they turn to anything to help them cope. Unfortunately, more often than not the coping mechanism turns out to be terrorism. People who are otherwise all right get brainwashed into believing that all Westerners are Satanic (literally) and that the only way they'll ever know any real peace and joy is to either kill or be killed for "the glory of God." A few of them don't even necessarily *want* to become jihadists or whatever, but, much like our street gangs over here, they aren't given any choice in the matter: either you join up, or you'll pay dearly one way or another.

If we're lucky, we can retrain some of these people to realize that this is the wrong way to go about changing things...but, sadly, often the nuttery is too deeply ingrained - a lot of them are raised from childhood into believing that their only purpose in life is to kill as many People Who Are Not Like Us as they can. These fools have been fighting *each other* for *centuries*; sometimes I wonder if they even remember what they're fighting for, the hate and the ignorance and prejudice is so deeply rooted.

Understand that I am NOT in any way defending terrorism. I have zero sympathy for those that commit atrocities against innocent people, anger or no. Terrorism is crossing a certain line. I do think, however, that if we addressed the root cause of the problem in a constructive manner rather than just carpet-bombing everything in sight (excepting those times when violence is necessary/justifiable), we'd see a lot less of this crap snowballing. It's too easy to say that "they hate America because we're free." If that were wholly the case, they'd be turning on their own dictators instead of directing their ugliness at innocent people who have nothing to do with the state of another's affairs.

Bush is a good man, he's intelligent

No he isn't, and no he's not.

Good men don't follow in their father's footsteps when said father spouts such rubbish like atheists should not be considered American citizens by his definition. You (generic you) might think that your religion is The Only One True Way, but that doesn't give you the right to stomp it on others who don't believe as you do.

Good and intelligent men don't start wars that we know we're going to lose even before we begin, and they certainly don't do it on falsified or incomplete evidence. Good men don't go around gleefully saber-rattling and snarking at other countries when our goals would be better achieved through discussion and working together instead of threats.

Intelligent men would have read their frickin' history and remember that *France* and *England* are two of our oldest allies, *not* Israel, which has only been around for 60 years (unless you count the nomadic existence before the state was officially formed). Oh, but wait - France doesn't count, I guess, since they dared to oppose us when we were getting ready to barge into Iraq. After all, if a country disagrees with us on something as monumental as *war*, it just means that they're a bunch of chickenshits and couldn't possibly know what they're talking about *despite* having the hard experience of going through centuries of continental turmoil of their own. Right? Maybe we'd better give that 'ol Statue of Liberty back...

Good men don't lie, which Bush has been shown to do *repeatedly.*

Good and intelligent men don't promote ignorance (abstinence-only curriculum) in place of knowledge, and they don't promote ideology in place of solid science. And they don't stick their cronies into positions of power (FDA tinkering, Attorney General, Supreme Court Justices, etc.) where that ignorance and ideology is likely to spread.

Good men don't cover for their cronies when said cronies rat out their fellow citizens in a case of national security, which I do believe is considered high treason. (Valerie Plume case) Good men don't rig elections to sneak into power. Good men don't sit around with their thumbs up their asses during a national crisis (which Bush did - twice, even! - once during 9/11 and once during Hurricane Katrina).

Good and intelligent men do not do any of these things. Period.

Bush has proven himself to be unworthy of his office and unworthy of any decent respect whatsoever. Part of the reason he's so despised is because the people who see him for what he is look at their friends, their family, anyone they know who supports him, and they can't help but wonder: "if you support someone who does these horrible things, would YOU do the same to me if you could?"

That's why the misassumption of "voting for Bush = stupid person" has spread (and it doesn't help that there ARE people out there who will blindly vote a particular way because someone - a preacher, an elder, etc. - told them to).

[Zyanya]

Bush is a good man, he's intelligent (yes, I do believe that, I have been known to turn a phrase oddly, mispronounce certain words, but does that make me stupid? So why does it make President Bush stupid?)

Again, just my 2 cents.

That is most assuredly NOT why I think he is stupid. Among his most recent stupidities, I think he is stupid because he seems to honestly believe the families of dead soldiers are honored he quit playing golf so they didn't have to see him golfing on TV.

Moreover, I think he is an idiot because he cultivates the persona of an idiot. Since he is flubbing his speeches and making up new words, his stupidity takes on a veneer of affability. It's not much different than Bill Engvalls 'I'm a guy' routine. It's to garner sympathy. "Hey, you wouldn't laugh at a retard would you? That would be cruel, Bush can't help the mistakes he makes!" It is an act to absolve himself of responsibility for the very real (and stupid) decisions he made, such as bombing Iraq and lying to the American public.

After all, he didn't 'lie', he just 'misunderstood' and 'misinterpreted' the information, cause he's not bright ya know.

And of course, half the American population has below average intelligence, and Bush comes off as one of them. They don't understand those elitist arguments against Bush's positions, they get far to technical and force you to look at situations logically. "Those condescending elitists just have it out for the guy, ya know? We got to stick together against those stuck-up brainiacs."

And because Bush comes off as stupid, they have low expectations of him. He can't be expected to broker peace, it's enough that he can tie his own shoelaces. " Quit picking on the guy! He is the president and you should respect him! It's treason to call the president a moron!"

He is stupid because he cultivates stupidity out of laziness. Why should he bother to study foreign policy? Nobody expects him to know it anyway! And that way when he does actually know something, everyone is just so dang proud that it doesn't matter that he screws everything up. It means he doesn't need to evaluate his decisions. He won't debate anything because that forces him to put forth mental effort. He leaps to conclusions based on what he personally believes, even when the evidence says otherwise. He is a man of action after all!

He has contempt for knowledge and equates learning with snobbery. We elected someone who got a C-average in the easy courses at college. He is a lazy little boy who never outgrew his need for attention and flailing efforts to compete in arenas he was unqualified in.

That is why Bush is neither a good man, nor an intelligent one.

[DesignFox]

For the welfare thing, I think Rahmota, Cancel and Zyanya brought up some additional good points.

Additionally, I'm sorry. I didn't want to elect a man who is of average intelligence to run the country.

Granted, straight A's aren't the end all...but they are a pretty good indication of someone's dedication to their work. Very few college courses give you an A by sleeping- and if you could sleep through the class and get an A, what the hell does it say about you if you acheived anything less?

I don't agree with his party politics, I don't agree with the rule by fear, and I cringe whenever the man opens his mouth. (Hey Pope Benedict, "awesome speech" man) *palm to forehead*

For crying out loud, he interrupted everything to address the nation over the "right for gays to marry." um...did we REALLY need to address the nation about that? Like it was a natural disaster or an announcement of war? Shows where his and his party's priorities stand...

[ebonyknight]

That's too easy a generalization. They don't just hate this country because of our freedoms (although that is one aspect of it; their nutjobs and ours are really no different - the only thing stopping ours from doing the kind of terrorism they'd really like to do is our justice system (which is one of many things being systematically undermined by dominionism, fyi). And even that is no guarantee, as evidenced by disasters like Oklahoma City 13 years ago.

The nuts over there hate Westerners because of the Western world's long history of meddling in their lands. We undermine their governments and install our puppets, and then wonder why the fundamentalism surges. It's because the puppets ignore the citizenry, and when the citizenry gets desperate, they turn to anything to help them cope. Unfortunately, more often than not the coping mechanism turns out to be terrorism. People who are otherwise all right get brainwashed into believing that all Westerners are Satanic (literally) and that the only way they'll ever know any real peace and joy is to either kill or be killed for "the glory of God." A few of them don't even necessarily *want* to become jihadists or whatever, but, much like our street gangs over here, they aren't given any choice in the matter: either you join up, or you'll pay dearly one way or another.

Quoted for Truth. I hate that line as well, that they hate us for our freedoms. That is such propaganda and against common sense thinking.

Did we deserve 9/11? That's a debate for another time (I ain't gonna open that can of worms), but it is crystal clear that we have not been even-handed in our treatment of the middle east. We deal with oppressive regimes that mistreat their people, it shouldn't be any wonder why they are upset with us.

Prime example being Saudi-Arabia.

[IDrinkaRum]

And when we decide not to interfere, we are hated. Where does it end? Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

We've got to make up our minds. We either want to be the world's babysitter, or we sit back, watch our own interests and let the rest of the world go to he!! in a handbasket.

Please don't chastise the United States Government (President & both Houses) for going to war. We were attacked on our own turf. We had people die because Al-Qaeda has a problem with us. Hindsight is always 20/20. The pundits who now decry the use of force in our enemy's land were the ones who called for the heads of our enemies on silver platters.

America is a great country. We have people both good and bad who are running and have run this country. Every President has been hated since George Washington.

And I'm still waiting for all those celebrities who said they'd move out of the country to move if Bush was elected.

[Boozy]

Please don't chastise the United States Government (President & both Houses) for going to war. We were attacked on our own turf. We had people die because Al-Qaeda has a problem with us.

There was absolutely no connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Seriously, this should be common knowledge by now.

(Edited to add: I assume that you weren't speaking about the Afghanistan campaign.)

[IDrinkaRum]

I'm just saying that President Bush wasn't the only one who was gung-ho for the war at the beginning. It's easy for Clinton & Kerry and Joe Schmo from a street in Kokomo, to say now, "Oh yeah, the war is stupid and if I knew then what I know now, I'd never have voted/supported/put up with it."

I'm conservative. I'm a Republican. People might hate (or at least strongly dislike) me for my stances. I can be persuaded (to a point) about something, but sometimes (wrong or right) war is a necessary evil. Sure we went after Saddam when Osama wasn't entangled with him. We did it bassackwards. Saddam needed to be removed. Osama needed to be removed. Osama should have been found and destroyed first and the Saddam.

I just say, we pull out of the war right now. Turn a deaf ear to those we were helping when they ask us for help, because hey, we don't really need to do anything more. We'll vote for a man who would talk openly and honestly to our enemies and who would declare war (at the drop of a hat) on our "friends".

Isolation does have its good points.

[Amethyst Hunter]

And when we decide not to interfere, we are hated. Where does it end? Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

That depends on what we choose to get involved with. Humanitarian aid during a major disaster (quakes, for example) is one thing, sticking our noses into a centuries-old rivalry is another. In that case, there's really nothing we can do except offer basic humanitarian aid (medical, food, that sort of thing) to the survivors on both sides, and avoid the politics like the plague.

Isolation is neither a practical nor a wholly achievable goal in this day and age. With so much of the global economy depending on social interactions now, we need to find that balance between protecting our own interests and stepping back to allow others to handle their own affairs unless they specifically ask us to intervene (which is subject to our own scrutiny so that we don't get bogged down in petty stuff).

Please don't chastise the United States Government (President & both Houses) for going to war. We were attacked on our own turf. We had people die because Al-Qaeda has a problem with us. Hindsight is always 20/20. The pundits who now decry the use of force in our enemy's land were the ones who called for the heads of our enemies on silver platters.

There's a difference between a war that has justifiable cause and a war that's just plain insanity.

As I stated earlier, I had no problem with the operations in Afghanistan, because *at the time* that was where the enemies were primarily based. Had we kept our attention focused squarely on that area, we might well have nailed bin Laden's worthless ass by now.

But we didn't. No sooner had we established ourselves in Afghanistan than we turned our collective eye on Iraq. And as Boozy said, there was NO - I repeat, NO - evidence that Iraq was involved in any way in 9/11. Our so-called "president" deliberately ignored that proof (or lack thereof) and the advice of seasoned people who knew what they were talking about, and was hellbent on plowing into there whether people wanted it or not. He acted like a spoiled little brat who throws a temper tantrum when he's not immediately given what he wants - witness his snotty little "I've got a mandate and I'm going to spend it!" comment right after his crew managed to trick people into letting them back in for a second round in 2004.

I have absolutely no problem with the government tracking down terrorist scumbags and dealing with them in a permanent manner. I have a HUGE problem when that same government decides to charge off on their own crusade when there is little to no concrete proof that certain areas and certain peoples are truly our "enemies." Thanks to their fuckups in Iraq, we now have a fertile recruitment ground for more al-Qaidas when before there wasn't, and our international reputation is in shreds. We had a HUGE outpouring of sympathy and kindness from nations the world over (including, FYI, Iran! - there were candlelight vigils in Tehran the night of 9/11), and Bush totally squandered it.

It's not only a right but a duty of the American people to call their government on bullshit when it's committed. The war in Iraq is teeming with bullshit, and it's our own citizens - domestic and military - and the innocents overseas, who are paying the price for this government's stupidity.

America is a great country. We have people both good and bad who are running and have run this country. Every President has been hated since George Washington.

All true counts; however, I daresay that not even Washington was as despised as Bush is, and with good reason. Probably the only two ex-Prez's I can think of who would rival Bush in public hatred are Nixon and Reagan (both of whom deserved it too).

Saddam needed to be removed. Osama needed to be removed. Osama should have been found and destroyed first and the Saddam.

Actually, we should have dealt with Saddam during the first Gulf War. We had the opportunity and we had plenty of cause; but, as usual, we failed to follow through and wound up with more mess later.

[AFPheonix]

Actually, we should have dealt with Saddam during the first Gulf War. We had the opportunity and we had plenty of cause; but, as usual, we failed to follow through and wound up with more mess later.

I think Bush Sr. had it mostly right by leaving him in there. He knew that balance must be kept in that region and that Saddam was an excellent check to Iran. Now that he's gone, power in the region is very much out of whack. Give the old guy credit, he's far savvier on foreign policy than his son.
Now, had the UN kept up their part of the bargain and not had issues with corruption in the oil for food program, this might be a different story today.

[IDrinkaRum]

Even when we're giving humanitarian aid during major world disasters, we're criticized. We're not "giving enough". Even if we're the only major country helping out! Where are the other countries? They want to sit back and let us take over. They're never happy.

I was being a bit sarcastic about being isolationists.

I might be a little confused about the hatred for Reagan. Where I live, and with whom I've been friends, Reagan was a well liked man (except by my Dad's mom & stepfather).

[BlaqueKatt]

Don't believe the war's not about oil, eh? One word - no, actually, I'll give you two: Halliburton and Blackwater. I wonder why these two corporations - at least one of whom Cheney has serious stakes in

Cheney's stock dividends were set up to be donated to charity before he ever took office(not required at all-and we were not at war)-which is why if you see his public tax returns he donated over half of his income to charity-mostly to inner city schools for scholorships.-he is not profiting.

Yet somehow we don't seem very inclined to want to rush right over there and Liberate The People/Fight Teh War On Terrah. Could it be, perhaps, that North Korea doesn't have anything worth getting our mitts on, no known way to be exploited? The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven there.

maybe you forget we already did that-it was a stalemate that would've turned into vietnam had we not pulled out(my stepfather fought in that war)-there was even a TV show about it-it was called M.A.S.H.
Politicians don't like not winning(Korea was considered a loss-Desert storm was a win)looks bad on the resume.

[protege]

Actually, M*A*S*H* was set during the Korean War--the last episode hints at sending troops into Vietnam. However, the producers said that the series was about war in general. BTW, technically the Korean War is still going on--there was never a peace treaty to end the war.

I agree though--if Saddam was going to be taken out, it should have happened during the *first* Gulf War. However, that would probably have ended up with the same mess now, with Iran and Syria (both of whom have supported terrorism) vying to unstabilize the region.

As for bin Laden, I hope that asshole is caught and executed for 9/11. (Some of you know that I knew people who were killed on 9/1--one of the planes landed right in their office.) However, if that asshole is executed, too many of his followers will see him as a martyr, and it might actually make them stronger. As such, I think that death is too good for him. He should be forced to suffer as much as possible, for as long as possible.

[Slytovhand]

(This has been an unpaid announcement on behalf of the Marginal Electorates Party. Seshat speaking.)



(For those who don't know: Aussie political messages have to have that sort of declaration-of-interests in them. So to the other Aussies here, that was probably funny. Probably. Maybe?)

I smiled Probably a good party to be in as well

Pedersen...in Oz there is a political movement called Get Up which I am a part of (the lazy part ). It is pretty much all online, apart from the locals who do things like letterbox drops etc. Now... there are about 250K ppl who are a part of it. They did a letterbox drop to all the voters in the (now) Ex-Prime Minister's electorate... he lost his seat. IIRC, he's the first PM to lose his seat - and in a landslide - in ages!

Your stats from page 1 gave me a figure of 100 Million votes or so. I just did a google, and the US has a population of around 300 Million... what are the other 200 Million doing? Choosing not to vote because they think it won't count??

I like the idea of the "none of the above" vote (and would also be a fantastic party name... so if you want to make a difference, create a party, and have it put on the electoral form for people to vote for ).

Even if you don't, surely the electoral commision would note the number of intentional informal votes??? That just might give those 2 parties something to think about... 100million intentionally informal votes??

Oh - and although things are a bit different here (ok... a lot different), we did have a Green Party which held the balance of power in our Senate for quite a while. 1 man had the power to approve or deny ALL things that went for approval! And so, with an effective 5% or so of the overall vote - he pretty much had absolute power. (fortunately, he also has a fair sense of ethics!)


/part 1

Slyt

[Slytovhand]

Part II

(I'm doing this in parts, cos there's 3 different points I want to put across...)

As per Mysty's OP...

I have a question for Y'alls...

Why did you vote the way you did?

(there's no facetiousness in that question, nor any particular agenda... I am actually wondering).

I presume that there are actually people who are 'stupid' who will vote a particular way. There are those who vote a particular way for particular reasons, and not look too far into the actual politics (usually just following a particular party and general reasons). People will also vote for what they see as best for themselves. And lastly, there are those who will really go into the pros and cons of everything and make a very informed decision (ie.. no preconceived ideas).

So... why have those on here voted the way they have? I presume the people on here are the intelligent lot, so... what are the actual reasons? And this also assumes, the vote for, as against the vote against someone...

Which really should come down to a matter of priorities I suppose.....

[Slytovhand]

III

Last one.. and this relates to particular things brought up.

No - I don't think the US is a target because of it's 'freedoms'. As someone mentioned - if that's what it was about, they'd rise up against thier own governments. Also - Aus, NZ, UK, most of Europe etc would be blown to hell!

If we look at history, the US has become a target to certain organisations and peoples because of its interferences in their local political arrangements - usually only because of some economics. In Afghanistan, the US was actively trying to organise things to its way ... an oil pipeline which the local regime (the Taliban.. whom the previous US governments helped fund to fight the Russians...) decided to decline.

(Willing to take a stack of flack here....) I personally don't believe that the Twin Towers terrorist attack was as black and white-ly Al-Qaeda as has been reported. I do think the invasion of Afghanistan was staged and planned... well before those 2 planes hit those towers, and those innocent people were killed. Too much doesn't add up for my liking. Yep... I know I'm probably in the minority here, but there you go. Certainly, the 'official report' that eventually came out sounds way too dodgey, and then to go and let everyone off the hook???? Uh-huh!


"Damned if you do, and damned if you don't"??

No... How about doing things in co-operation with the UN?? Instead of walking into a country under a pretext, how about putting those US troops in White with a Blue armband?? Let them actually be peace-keepers, instead of ousting governments who choose not to be capitalistic? How about not installing political heads of state who will go and execute it's populace?

(A quick look at Wiki under Saddam Hussein suggests a strong US government connection in the early part of his rule - and especially in getting him to power in the first place... and the first decade or so things were pretty good! Then things soured... as they do.)

Of course - I do think the UN needs to get it's act together as well, and not have such a back foot. But - does it have the 'right' to tell a nation how it should treat it's people... (I, personally, am for the 'human basic rights are more important than your 'elected' government'...how would that go if the UN didn't like the US government ). That being said, and assumed, the UN (with a stack of US forces in white and blue) 'should' walk into ...Darfur, Burma, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Sarajevo, ... oh.. how about China??

So it's not really about 'whatever we do', it's about co-operating on the world stage, and acting in concert... and being honest up front!

Oh.. and in that vein from above... if a government (any government), via its various military and intelligence efforts, actively attempts to oust an elected government using force of arms, then it has effectively declared war on that country. Bush is not alone in having done that throughout the years of humanity. So, in declaring that war (or not actually 'declaring it', but presupposing it...), any form of attack against it is an act of war, and therefore not an act of 'terrorism'. And, given prior activities of the US in various countries, the US is actually at war with quite a few countries at the moment...

(please please please... I'm trying to UNDERSTAND, not CONDONE here...ok??3500 US civilians died in those attacks... tens of thousands have died in countries across the planet due to US intervention. NEITHER is acceptable!)

(and for now... I'm also staying away from the religious bits as well)


Slyt