Indy Companion
Montreal Escorts

4 more years of Bush, OMG.

Johnny

Banned
Jul 16, 2004
313
0
0
45
Montreal
Visit site
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.
 

Reppy

Member
Apr 24, 2004
645
5
18
Montreal
Visit site
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..
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
16,718
204
63
U.S.A.
Visit site
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.
 

femaleluver2

proud infidel
Sep 25, 2004
1,982
0
0
50
from the civilized world
Visit site
EagerBeaver said:
........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
 

masshole10

New Member
May 27, 2004
45
0
0
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
 

Piratos

Larger than average
May 29, 2003
115
1
18
All over
Visit site
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.
 

Peeping Tom

New Member
Mar 12, 2003
164
0
0
Visit site
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 ...

:eek:
 

Jaxon

New Member
Jan 4, 2004
51
0
0
Nevada USA
Visit site
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).
 

Lawless

New Member
Dec 15, 2003
671
0
0
Travelling
Visit site
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!!!!!!!!
:cool:
 

J. Peterman

New Member
Feb 26, 2004
776
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

willyapd

Grab a brew
May 21, 2003
138
0
0
Fenway Park
www.rjpixxx.com
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.
 

willyapd

Grab a brew
May 21, 2003
138
0
0
Fenway Park
www.rjpixxx.com
J. Peterman said:
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
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
16,718
204
63
U.S.A.
Visit site
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:
willyapd said:
J. Peterman said:
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

Look for McCain on the R's side and Hillary or Edwards on the D's.

While i am happy that Bush won, he will have some serious issues to face. I hope the fact that he doesn't have to run again will make it easier for him to make those.

1) Iraq war - sooner or later there has to be an endgame.

2) Deficit..Deficit..Deficit. he might have to raise taxes.

3) Social Security - The projected shortfall for SS is estimated to be triple of the current deficit. The first wave of baby boomer will retire by the end of 2008.

4) Gay Marriage - It will eed a final definition.

5) Supreme court - There is the potential of 4 judges retirng. Rehnquist is just the beginning.

6) Energy policy - Oil prices are not likely to come down, and there is a question on how much is still available.

Maybe it would have been better for the R's in the long term if kerry would have been elected. :D
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
16,718
204
63
U.S.A.
Visit site
regnad said:
As for his being a flip-flopper, that was an invention of the Bush campaign. They colored him with it so successfully that he was never able to convince the gullible portion of the public otherwise.
So what you are saying is that the Bush camp was actually a whole lot smarter or more effective than the Kerry camp was in terms of projecting where Kerry stood on the issues. Isn't that what a political campaign is all about? Selling one's strengths and warning about the adversary's weaknesses? And may the best man win?

I prefer not to believe that completely. Kerry did flip flop and he admitted as much when he made the infamous (and perhaps foolish) statement that his seemingly contradictory positions were reflective of the fact that "there is complexity in the world." He never should have made that statement. I have an IQ somewhere north of above average and in my book it was an admission that he flipped and flopped like a bluefish trying to shake a popper on the deck of the local fishing pier. :rolleyes:
 

ricola

New Member
Sep 24, 2003
43
0
0
47
montreal
Visit site
stupid is as stupid does

A few comments...

Kerry presents himself as an intellectual, a no-no in American politics as it does not inspire trust in the great American unwashed. The great politician Bill Clinton, a Rhodes scholar, often played down his intellect with his good ol` boy routine. G.W. Bush on the other hand does not have the ``intellectual tag`` disadvantage mainly because he is a moron. Just think of the typical heartland American as a slightly retarded Forest Gump ... `` stupid is as stupid does``.

As for Arnold... no chance being President as he is not American born.

Hillary in 2008? Sure, i would love to hear about Bill Clinton getting a tc in the Whitehouse!
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
16,718
204
63
U.S.A.
Visit site
Arnold

Don't count Arnold out as that constitutional amendment may happen and it may happen soon. Many have underestimated Arnold but he will be a force. He has been featured on many popular political magazines and many Republicans view him as a future star and when the Republicans need to grease the wheels to get something done, the wheels get greased.

I would have voted for either Giuliani or Arnold had either one run in this election. Giuliani I view as slightly more of a partisan puppet but I like and respect him. Arnold is completely his own man which will inspire respect in some quarters and consternation in others particularly the religious right as has been mentioned in prior posts. However I don't give a shit about the religious right and they are not going to set the agenda and impede progress of our country as have the Islamic Fundamentalists impeded progress in the Middle East.
 
ricola said:
A few comments...

Kerry presents himself as an intellectual, a no-no in American politics as it does not inspire trust in the great American unwashed. The great politician Bill Clinton, a Rhodes scholar, often played down his intellect with his good ol` boy routine. G.W. Bush on the other hand does not have the ``intellectual tag`` disadvantage mainly because he is a moron. Just think of the typical heartland American as a slightly retarded Forest Gump ... `` stupid is as stupid does``.

As for Arnold... no chance being President as he is not American born.

Hillary in 2008? Sure, i would love to hear about Bill Clinton getting a tc in the Whitehouse!

You make it sound like, that whoever voted for him is just stupid? I take offense to that.
Sounds like you have a hard time accepting reality.Well get over it. You Dem`s get another shot in four years from now. Maybe this time you pick the right candidate.
Kerry is an opportunist and he got his bluff called.
 
PinkCherry Sex Toys