Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 76

Thread: 4 more years of Bush, OMG.

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    313

    4 more years of Bush, OMG.

    Well it saddens me to say 4 more yrs of Bush in charge.

    I was one year away from being born in Boston & Kerry along with Al Gore & Bill Clinton would've had my vote.

    I can't say I don't blame them, but it seems that the ppl are more concerned with homeland security & terror than they are with health care, jobs, & support for the poorer & middle class ppl.

    I'm not trying to be mean or offend anyone, but if anything happens while Bush is in charge, I won't feel bad as it was the ppl's choice.

    Kerry would've had my vote.

    BTW, does anyone know how to get in touch with him via e-mail?
    His site doesn't give one.

    I'd just like to send my regards.

    Take care all.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Mainely Maine
    Posts
    87
    Try e-mailing Kerry @ flip-flop.com

    BB69

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    568
    It's true, he would flip flop a lot...if he was more consistent, he would have been preferred over a simple minded dummy like Bush...

    Notice the states where Bush was elected compared to Kerry...just interesting..

  4. #4
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,169

    Kerry

    The truth is that Kerry would not have made a good President. If I want to see flips and flops I can go fishing..........truth is the Democrats had a field of weak candidates from which Kerry emerged. Kerry is a northern Democrat and northern Democrats, except for Kennedy, have historically proven to be unelectable.........Edwards probably would have had a better chance if he had been the top guy.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver
    The truth is that Kerry would not have made a good President.
    I agree completely. Most people who voted for Kerry did so because they don't like Bush.

  6. #6
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver
    ........truth is the Democrats had a field of weak candidates from which Kerry emerged. Kerry is a northern Democrat and northern Democrats, except for Kennedy, have historically proven to be unelectable........

    I agree with you here EB. I think the Demos have to find themselves some new and real leaders for the future around whom they can build a more robust ideology and by whom they can be stronger represented.

    Looking at the voting map breakdown, it appears that the Demos have lost the culture war. They need to build a stronger following in southern and mid-western states and find better ways to appeal to the rural voter which will inevitably entail an ideology revision. Personally, i thought that Kerry's quite liberal stance on family values and on the issue of abortion might have been enough to cost him the elections.

    But whatever the reasons for explaining this outcome, and even though i'm personally disappointed, i accept the final result for i have faith in the American people and respect for their democratic process.

    And so i say to myself that if millions of people deemed it warranted to give Bush another term, then maybe they might not be so wrong afterall in the final analysis, even though there are still a lot of things that escape me...

    shemaleluver

  7. #7
    Kerry is a good talker, but didn't have a plan if he was elected. The reason he could flip-flop on all topics is the simple fact that he is intelligent and could argue either side of the equation. I would've voted for a liberal candidate if a viable one existed, but Kerry for President, you must be kidding. I'll take 4 more years of BUSH for obvious reasons.

    Ask any Kerry supporter before today when asked why he/she wanted to vote for Kerry started the answer is the same:

    Bush ------

    Nothing was ever said about Kerry, all negative towards Bush. I even think some of the people that voted for Kerry on Tuesday are relieved today he didn't win.

    You make the call.

    Masshole

  8. #8
    Larger than average
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    All over
    Posts
    113
    My 2 cents. The Democrats really seem to have lost touch with the people. Despite what personal views I may have on the subject, a gay marriage platform does not appeal to voters in middle America.

    To all of those Canadians who hoped that Kerry would prevail because it would be better for Canada, give your heads a shake. Northern democrats like Kerry are not free traders. The only Canadian industry that would have benefitted from a Kerry victory would be mail order drug stores.

  9. #9
    Hillary will make a bid but I doubt her electability. As the wife of a sex offender, I'm sure the Rove team has tons of dirt already dug up.

    A contest involving Hillary would make the Bush / Kerry campaigns pale in comparison ...

    If you should drown or be hanged, make sure to take note of your sensations.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nevada USA
    Posts
    51

    Smile

    While visiting the Canada Immigration website this morning, I thought it over for awhile and believe this won't be the end of the world having Bush for another 4 years. I figured, no matter who is president, I still get up in the morning, go to work and live my life. I do cringe at some of the things the president says, and voted for Kerry because Bush has bungled Iraq. Hopefully he will start fixing the mess. But life will go on. In 2008 the democrats better have someone good. Hillary would go down in flames. If the Republicans were smart, they would start getting John McCain ready with possibly Arnold Schwarznegger as VP(assuming they could get constitutional changes).

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Travelling
    Posts
    671
    Posted by Regnad
    "Bush was re-elected by putting together an unbeatable coalition: fanatics and fools."

    You are talking about the majority Bush got in the election!!!!!!!!

  12. #12
    I would have voted Kerry if I were eligible to vote. Now that Bush is elected for a second term, it will mean that we will get more of the "same old, same old"! Bush only has 2 years as president till he becomes a "dead duck", since he is only allowed to do 2 terms in office as president. In the second 2 years the republican party will have to groom a sucessor to the post of president. I for one do not see Cheaney capable of capturing the confidence of America.

  13. #13
    Kerry lost because he had no real vision, it changed from state to state from people to people, day to day. Bush never deliberately lied. I know allot of merbites are going to disagree with me but that’s my opinion. With Bush you knew what your going to get but you did not with Kerry.

    It's better to elect the evil that you know opposed to the evil that you don't. Kerry only got the majority of his base to vote just because his name was not George W. Bush.

    South park had the best episode last week when the boys from south park had to elect a new mascot there choice was between a giant douche and a shit sandwich. SO would think that Kerry was the giant douche and bush was the shit sandwich. So on Tues day I voted for the shit sandwich.

    I'm an Independent I will vote either way. I'm in the center of American politics I hate the far right wing nuts just as much as the left nuts. But you are forced to choose a side because of our two party systems there for I tend lean more to the right. The thing that pissed me off about bush was his strong ties with religion I never liked Sen. Kerry, I have never voted for him in my 12 years of eligibility nor will I ever.
    Now, she should be good-looking, but we're willing to trade looks for a certain... morally casual attitude.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=J. Peterman]Bush only has 2 years as president till he becomes a "dead duck", since he is only allowed to do 2 terms in office as president. In the second 2 years the republican party will have to groom a sucessor to the post of president. I for one do not see Cheaney capable of capturing the confidence of America.[/QUOTEIts

    "lameduck" is the correct term.

    Cheaney has no chance of winning in 2008, look for Guilani or some other up and rising Republican
    Now, she should be good-looking, but we're willing to trade looks for a certain... morally casual attitude.

  15. #15
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,169

    I Agree

    Willy,

    I agree with your first post above in its entirety, except as a fellow independent you should have joined me in voting for Nader so as to reject some of the partisan politics which you allude to. From the day Kerry was nominated I thought he was a poor choice from a weak field of candidates. It is kind of hard to have any kind of vision when you are constantly flip flopping on the issues.

    The Republican candidate in 2008 will not be Cheney, but rather Giuliani or Schwarznegger if the expected constitutional amendment is passed allowing him to run. Jeb Bush is too young and is a longshot at best.

    I think John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are the leading contenders on the Democrat side at this point.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 11-04-2004 at 03:16 PM.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •