Who Voted for Bush?

[sextoyking]

Yeh I am pissed off today

As we continue on our war path internationally, we have the right wingers and republicans trying to quash more and more of our civil rights, feedoms, etc.

Shit, you don't have the correct domain name, you loose it and mabey goto jail. WTF is next with this administration.

Every day I miss Clinton more and more. At least we have the Aclu fighting for us. I just donated another $500.00 today to them, not a huge donation, but I do what i can.

even know Aclu is known to be left wing, etc, etc I do remember many times them fighting the Clinton Admin. on various issues.

Deep down I just can't belive some of those of you who voted for bush now feel the same way about him...

mabey I am ignorant. If he wins in 2004 we are truly fucked..

[Winetalk.com]

If he wins in 2004 we are truly fucked..
***************************************

People, don't despair!

fucked in the head or not,
Oprano will still do business with you if you are not French or German
;-)))

[Mike AI]

Todd you need to get your panties out of a bunch.

I still support Bush, infact I have more confidence in him now, then I did 2 years ago.

[Mike AI]

[sextoyking]

Mike,

so you have complete support for him and his administration hugh?

is this war wise, fighting terrorism only, or are we talking domestic issues also?

please inform me. Don't feel like you have to support this asshole because of pride ok. I know my clinton did wrong things

[Mike AI]

The domain name thing is bullshit Todd, that is not Bush but other Republicans in the house.

Lets face it, Democrats and Republicans both are anti-porn, and will stand against it and do things like this to get PUBLICITY - to get more votes.

No politician is going to come out and say " Hey you know what, Porn is not bad.... infact I like it"

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 26 2003, 05:36 PM

No politician is going to come out and say " Hey you know what, Porn is not bad.... infact I like it"

..cuz those who do,
become politicians no more
;-)))

[sextoyking]

Mike,

it's not just the domain thing, I know that won't make it through the courts, and I know politically it best for both dems and repubs to take a strong stance against porn, that's cool with me.

I don't know, just more and more of this Patriot act, rights, etc.

just really burning me out man

[Mike AI]

I have not seen an erosion of my rights Todd.

Some of the things in the Patriot act I do not like, I think it could have been done to focus just on terrorism - that is they can tap lines and such, BUT can only use thae info gained for anti-terrorism crimes. If they tap a drug dealers line, and they find out about drugs, or whatever - then its thrown out by a court.

They should have worded it to just protect NATIONAL SECURITY.... I have not read the details, maybe it does.... I do not know.

[Evil Chris]

I seem to recall quite a movement on our boards a few years ago for American webmasters to exercise their right to vote anyone but a Republican back into office.

Now Bush is Superman. What % of the vote did he get?

If I were an American, I'd have more faith in President David Palmer from the TV show "24".



Last edited by Evil Chris at Mar 26 2003, 06:57 PM

[Mike AI]

If I were an American, I'd have more faith in President David Palmer from the TV show "24".

Thank goodness you are not American. We have enough morons in this country already.

[Almighty Colin]

I like Bush INCREASINGLY because of his leadership in Afghanistan and Iraq. Great leaders lead. They don't follow.

I don't like his budget *ahem* plan though. I'm glad it got half-way nixed. Shoulda been more. Fuck, get that budget under control. Don't make it worse. I can't make sense of those tax cuts and I am even a sometimes supply-sider. Probably a political move. He promised tax cuts. I think one already passed. Pass another - he can campaign on:

"Cut taxes twice. Won two wars. Passed education bill".

Hard to listen to Bush talk sometimes. Worst public speaker for a president I can remember.

We'll see. Undecided on how much I like his presidency yet but I sure as hell support the war and all coalition troops. Could go either way for me. If budget gets more in line and war goes well, I like him more than Clinton. If the opposite, less. Only half-way through his administration. Pretty difficult for me to form an opinion only half-way there.

I don't understand something though. How could one blaim Bush for a bill that hasn't even been voted on yet?

[ulfie]

I voted for Bush and I'm happy I did. Do I agree with him 100% on everything? Nope, but it always comes down to the lesser of 2 evils.

Colin, public speaking is tough. I've done a ton of it in my life (even won a few awards) and I was always nervous even though I was only speaking to 100-500 people. I can't imagine what it's like to speak to the world. It's easy when you know everyone in the audience, much tougher when you don't know anyone. Clinton is a gifted speaker, no doubt about that, but it's easy to tell people what they want to hear. It's much tougher when people don't want to hear your message. I gave a presentation at an IBM conference a couple years ago about some new Microsoft technology and it was how I'm sure Bush feels when it's over. (IBM guys hate Microsoft in case you didn't know) Nothing I said could possibly convince them, nothing I said could change their minds, etc. At the end of an hour and half I was drained both physically and emotionally. In a long winded way I guess I'm trying to make the point it isn't easy to tell people what they don't want to hear especially when they are in a crowd.

[Almighty Colin]

Ulfie,

I think it would be disrespectful for me to say anything negative about Bush during this time of war, so I will respectfully stop.

We can discuss his public speaking soon.

[PornoDoggy]

Colin ... the rule I live by is never say anything about a President during a time of war that was not said about Lincoln or Roosevelt. The idea that criticising the President is somehow inapprorpriate in time of war is absolute bullshit. Roosevelt went so far as to reward a reporter an Iron Cross due to his criticism of the President, and Dewey ran against Roosevelt in part by charging him with being a defeatist.

The idea that criticism of a war is somehow unAmerican is historically inaccurate; that it equates to a lack of patriotism is no more than simple-minded bullshit. Abraham Lincoln was a vocal opponent of the Mexican American War, both before it and all through it - and I don't guess many folks question his patriotism. World War I was greatly criticized, and probably would have been criticized more had it not been for Attorney General Palmer, who makes Ashcroft look like George McGovern.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 26 2003, 08:51 PM

[Torone]

Todd (and all the rest of you Clinton-lovers),
You might as well kiss his ass goodbye...he can never be your President again (If I wasn't an agnostic, I might say something like "Thank___).

As for percentages, you must be deliberately trying to appear ignorant. Either that, or you never learned about the Electoral College. Oh, I forgot, you Libs hate the Constitution except when you can pervert it to your advantage...

[Evil Chris]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 26 2003, 07:01 PM

Thank goodness you are not American. We have enough morons in this country already.

Mike please... if you have to resort to name calling, you lose all your credibility. Just ban me from the board if you can't take hard questions.

[Vick]

Evil Chris - I see you have a link in your sig to bowling for columbine

Just want to check with you to make sure you know Michael Moore is Satire and not Documentry


John Fund.. Wall Street Journal
Friday, March 21, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

With Hollywood in a fever pitch against the war in Iraq, Michael Moore is likely to win the Oscar for Best Documentary at Sunday's Academy Awards.
"Bowling for Columbine," Mr. Moore's work of anti-American propaganda, has grossed over $15 million, an amazing sum for a film billed as a documentary.

But the film, a merry dissection of America's "culture of fear" and love of guns, is filled with so many inaccuracies and distortions that it ought to be classed as a work of fiction.

Mr. Moore is naturally a big hit among the French. The jury at the Cannes Film Festival created a special, one-time only award to honor his film and then gave it a 13-minute standing ovation. "Not since Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer have we seen such a successful export of anti-Americanism," observes Andrew Sullivan in London's Sunday Times.

Mr. Moore plays into all of the worst stereotypes and distortions about America. "Bowling for Columbine" attempts to explain interventions by the U.S. military as rooted in an inherently violent domestic culture. "I agree with the National Rifle Association when they say, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people,' " he told NBC's "Today" show. "Except I would alter that to say, 'Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.' We're the only country that does this, and we do it on an personal level in our neighborhoods and within our families and our schools, and we do it on a global level. The American attitude is that we believe we have a right to just go in and bomb another country. This is where Bush is going right now, right?"

To make this strained connection, Mr. Moore tries to make us believe that the two mentally disturbed high school students who massacred their Fellow students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., grew up in a community that has a sinister connection to the military-industrial complex.

A Lockheed Martin factory in Littleton manufactures "weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Moore claims. The factory actually makes rockets that carry TV satellites into space. And the very title of Mr. Moore's film is based on a deception. It refers to the bowling class that the Columbine killers supposedly took the morning they committed their murders. The only problem is that they actually cut the class.

Forbes reports that an early scene in "Bowling" in which Mr. Moore tries to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain guns in America was staged. He goes to a small bank in Traverse City, Mich., that offers various inducements to open an account and claims "I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, I walked out with my new Weatherby," a rifle.

But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."

Mr. Moore makes the preposterous claim that a Michigan program by which welfare recipients were required to work was responsible for an incident in
which a six-year-old Flint boy shot a girl to death at school. Mr. Moore doesn't mention that the boy's mother had sent him to live in a crack house where her brother and a friend kept both drugs and guns--a frequently lethal combination.

Some of the fact-bending and omissions of "Bowling for Columbine" could charitably be chalked up to really sloppy research. (I called the chief archivist for Mr. Moore's film, Carl Deal, yesterday, but he hasn't called back.) Others show a willful aversion to the truth. Mr. Moore repeats the
canard that the United States gave the Taliban $245 million in aid in 2000
and 2001, somehow implying we were in cahoots with them. But that money actually went to U.N.-affiliated humanitarian organizations that were completely independent of the Taliban.

David Hardy, a former Interior Department lawyer who delights in debunking government officials and pompous celebrities, has uncovered even more evidence of Mr. Moore's distortions. The film dhahahahats NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness. Another speech is described as being given immediately after the Flint shooting . In reality, it was made almost a year later. All of these and more inaccuracies can be found at Mr. Hardy's comprehensive Web site.

Ben Fritz ofSpinsanity.org also notes that Mr. Moore has "apparently altered footage of an ad run by the Bush/Quayle campaign in 1988" to buttress his claim that racial symbolism is frequently misused in American politics. His leading example is the case of Willie Horton, a murderer who became a major issue in the 1988 presidential campaign. Mr. Moore shows the Bush ad that generically attacked a prison furlough program in Michael Dukakis's Massachusetts . Superimposed over the footage of prisoners entering and exiting a prison are the words "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

While the caption appears to be part of the original ad, Mr. Moore actually
inserted it; the ad made no mention of Horton. (Another ad, sponsored by the National Security Political Action Committee, a conservative group independent of the Bush campaign, did mention Horton; it aired only briefly in a few cable markets.) The phony Moore caption also is inaccurate; Horton brutalized a Maryland couple and raped the wife, but didn't kill anybody while on furlough.

In print, too, Mr. Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. In his "Stupid White Men," his best-selling book, he blithely states that five-sixths of the U.S. defense budget in 2001 went toward the construction of a single type of plane and that two-thirds of the $190 million that President Bush raised in his 2000 campaign came from just over 700 individuals, a preposterous assertion given that the limit for individual contributions at the time was $1,000.

When CNN's Lou Dobbs asked Mr. Moore about his inaccuracies, he shrugged off the question. "You know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know," he said.

"Glaring inaccuracies?" Mr. Dobbs said.

"No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"

Mr. Moore would deserve an Academy Award if there were an Oscar for Best Cinematic Con Job. If "Bowling for Columbine" is a comedy, most of its fans don't know it. They actually believe they're watching something that is in rough accord with reality.



Last edited by Vick at Mar 27 2003, 12:13 AM

[Hooper]

that is not Bush but other Republicans in the house

clinton lead the dems.. bush is leading the republicans.. you really can't *seriously* believe that there is all this wild wacky republican policy being thrown around without bush's blessing do you?

I have not seen an erosion of my rights Todd.

You're not supposed to wait til you actually see the erosion, you're supposed to prevent the erosion from happening at all... or do you prefer to find yourself or your colleagues in prison for obscenity and *then* say "hey, i'm seeing an erosion of my rights here". I mean seriously Mike, not to start shit but you and a few others here are the first to jump to arms (no pun) when even the mere mention of gun control is made (such as banning assault rifles), but somebody begins talking about ways to punish porners and you dont take the same attitude.

It seems contradictory to only get excited about proactively defending certain civil rights.

I'd bet 100 bucks that if democrats were intiating these policies you would be more worried.

[RawAlex]

Mike, there is something important about "erosion of rights" - you never notice until they have gone too far. Just like erosion under a paved road, you don't see it until suddenly the road drops six feet into a major sinkhole.

The economy is the same thing - tax rebates on the scale proposed is erosion... because they are taking tomorrow's tax dollars and giving them to you today. Like a payday loan. Sooner or later, you have to pay anyway.

There should NEVER EVER EVER be tax cuts without equivenant SPENDING cuts. That is bad economics. The debt increases, and the money needed to pay for that debt continues to increase. The more tax dollars that go to paying the debt and interest on the debt limit the government's own ability to pay for current programs, and forces future increases in your taxes. No voodoo economics here... simple math, really. The more you borrow, the more interest you pay. The problem is this: Typically, the bill usually comes due during the NEXT President's term, so someone else gets blamed for the debt, for the increased taxes, and the reduced government services.

The Bush economic plan increase government spending, cuts taxes (government income), and now will need probably 200-300 billion more to pay for the war. For 290 million people, you are each looking at $1000 for the war.

What will happen? Junior will be gone, a new democratic president will be in, taxes will have to go up, services will go down, and you will shit on him for stealing all your money... when you should realize that Bush did the deed, he just framed the next guy.

Alex

[Vick]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 26 2003, 11:37 PM
There should NEVER EVER EVER be tax cuts without equivenant SPENDING cuts.

Mark it on the calendar, I agree with Alex on 2 things in one day :P

[cj]

Originally posted by Evil Chris+Mar 26 2003, 10:37 PM-->