Fill in the blank!

antic · Post by **antic** » 05 Nov 2004 19:03

...in majority.

Capnpitz · Post by **Capnpitz** » 05 Nov 2004 20:27

...aparently under the impression that those who disagree with them are unamerican.

"...if you are an American then you will reap what was sown on Tuesday...whether you voted for Bush or not. If you don't like it then leave the country..."
-Phife

"...hoping that whoever said they'd move to Canada if Bush was elected would just fucking LEAVE THE COUNTRY THAT THEY REFUSE TO SUPPORT ALREADY. Support whoever is president..."
-The Fuzzybug

Look, I think we can (mostly) all agree that Bush was elected President this time. But that doesn't obligate anyone to support him. Recognize that he is the president? Yes. But "the president" does not equal "the nation." What the hell kind of argument is it that if we do not support every goddamn thing he does we have to leave the country? Bush doesn't have a monopoly on what it means to be an American. Plenty of things Bush doesn't really like--welfare, social security, gay marriage, Roe v. Wade, flag burning, civil liberties, parts of the Constitution--make up America. The country belongs to liberals too, and we're not leaving. If Bush doesn't like us, he may choose to leave.

Turbilion · Post by **Turbilion** » 05 Nov 2004 21:07

Bush won. Americans who voted for him are _______________.

Not very informed, greedy rich people or religious assholes.

they got to be one or all of these three, why?

- Bush has spent 100 Bilion dolars (not to mention the lives) in a war in name of what? Nuclear weapons that weren't there? The interest of oil companies? Revenge necessary to please an America shocked and choked by september 11?

So they got to be ignorant and badly informed people who can't see how much he messed up americas's image in the world (and economy for that matter), greedy rich people with interests in all this mess, well covered by a hipocrit sense of patriotism or just plain religious stupid people, buying all Bush's bullshit about fighting evil , wich for them can only come under the form of a muslin.

Sad days we're living...

michlersoft · Post by **michlersoft** » 05 Nov 2004 21:10

Don't bring up oil companies, even if you're joking! Someone will take it too seriously!

shanks · Post by **shanks** » 05 Nov 2004 21:34

the only good thing that came out of this is that michael moore has just lengthened his movie-making career for another 4 years.

JoeShmo · Post by **JoeShmo** » 05 Nov 2004 21:44

Bush won. Americans who voted for him are: the same people who use AOL

Johnnyboy21 · Post by **Johnnyboy21** » 05 Nov 2004 23:10

plainwlkr8 wrote:
efilflah wrote: Ignorant gullible muppets who believe whatever the media tells them
this is the dumbest statement one can make... the media is controlled by democrats. for you idiots, the same party that kerry is a part of. if you know anything about the media or politics you would know this. Every major news station besides fox news was pro kerry.

i voted for bush, he won, get over it. no matter how much you bitch, it wont change. stop your whining. the better man won.

Ah, more of the "liberal media" MYTH. THe media is not controlled by democrats, but by CORPORATIONS. Corporations who, by nature, are more favorable toward the Bush administration due to its stances on deregulation, tax breaks/shelters for multinational corporations, and removal of ownership caps on media outlets/consolidation, among other things. Huge corporations like "big media"(Time Warner, Vivendi Universal, News Corp, Viacom, Infinity Broadcasting, Clear Channel, etc.) stand to benefit from "CONSERVATIVE, FREE-MARKET" oligopolies like the one the Bush administration and the right espouses, and allows for in their policies much more so that liberals or democrats(look no further than the Bush Administration appointments to the FCC). This is reflected in news coverage.

But guess what? The right and conservatives have done a brilliant thing. Despite being the majority influence and CONTROLLING POWER in media by nature of their favorable relationships with those corporations they have convinced people of the reverse, that there is a liberal bias in the media. Besides undercutting and insulating itself from potential regulatory criticism by using this claim, it also serves to drive people to other dominant "conservative" mediums like talk radio. Of course, radio is even less regulated than television, dominated by Clear Channel, Infinity, and Viacom. These, of course are the same 3 companies that syndicate conservative radio to over 80% of the country, programs that continually tell everyone to "vote bush"(I know because I listen). Yet there is a liberal bias? Laughable.

Of course, it is easy to believe what conservative pundits, Fox News and talk radio tells you, that there is a "liberal bias", without doing any research or using common sense and people fall for it hook, line, and sinker. It is also easy to blow one or two incidents out of proportion and believe it stands in for a representation of the entire media industry, the way conservatives pounced on Dan Rather and "Memogate" is a testament to that. Never mind that there are thousands of stories every year that are softened for having too much of a critical/liberal slant by news/media editors(given a corporate mandate to care about the bottom line more than good journalism) so as not to offend/lose sponsors because they are too critical of, say, the agribusiness industry, automakers, governmental policies, etc.. However, there are journalists out their who still care about doing their job correctly and ethically. It is these who are often accused of having a "liberal bias" when, in reality, FACTS have a "liberal bias". It is the conservative media that relies on spin and disinformation.

My suggestion to anyone who thinks their is a "liberal bias" is to stop going to Townhall.com, stop reading the National Review, stop watching Fox News or Ann Coulter interviews, and stop listening to talk radio and Rush Limbaugh rantings. Instead, do your own research on the structure of the media and its increasing reliance on corporate mandates and edicts to become a profitable enterprise over a source of information serving the public interest(which is supposed to be the primary function of media in a democracy).

Of course, I don't doubt many of you are too lazy for this and don't want your cookie-cutter opinion challenged, so you'll continue to believe what is spoon-fed to you by conservatives. It seems to be how most of you make your decisions anyway.

Seriously · Post by **Seriously** » 05 Nov 2004 23:15

Blackfire wrote: Such a sad day when this site gets 10,000 views of the comments on a political issue and the last comments about a female just got 3000, Bring back the girlies

SHUT THE FUCK UP

There's plenty of smut on this site, sit there and be the fuck quiet until Justin feeds you again.

row · Post by **row** » 05 Nov 2004 23:16

he stole the election again..

DUH.. fucking dummy..

www.gregpalast.com

Johnnyboy21 · Post by **Johnnyboy21** » 05 Nov 2004 23:20

Before anyone jumps on a lazy, cheap criticism of my post, notice that here is NO complaining about Bush's victory. He won, fair and square. I may not like it, but I'm not whining, and I'm certainly not moving to Canada.

NYSWebGuy · Post by **NYSWebGuy** » 05 Nov 2004 23:41

Justin wrote: Bush won. Americans who voted for him are _______________.

the majority? the man won by like 3 million votes

Victor_Vega · Post by **Victor_Vega** » 05 Nov 2004 23:44

Some othe the reasons why I voted for Bush:
War on Terror.

Lets start with the roots of 9/11. Clinton and Bush are equally responsible in my mind. It even goes further back than that. Terrorism was seen as a law enforcement problem since it really started to become a big problem in the 70s when the Arabs, after a series of stunning defeats, realized that they could not beat the Isrealis in a conventional fasion. Clinton and Bush were just practicing the policies of past Presidents. Where Clinton failed is that he had a chance to stop 9/11 before it happened, more so than Bush I think. Clinton cut the CIA's budget by 60% (although some of that blame goes to Congress too) and established irresponsible policies like not being able to use criminal elements to gather intel. Clinton could have responed after the first WTC bombing in '93, he did nothing. He could have responded after our embasies in Africa were bombed, and he bombed the wrong place in result. He could have acted after the USS Cole was bombed, and again, he responded with a limp dick bombing of a camp. There was a CIA team following bin Laden in 98, they had him in there sights, and Clinton decided not to go through with the strike because a member the UAE royal family was with him. Tell me, why was there no action? It seems to me that Clinton had a open net to shot at, and he did not take the shot.

The 9/11 Comission in it's report said that they believe that the attacks were delayed by at most 6 months! That would have placed the attacks inside the Bush's honeymoon period! I blame Bush simply because it was on his watch, although I don't think that there is much he could have done to stop it. Never did I say that Iraq was connected to 9/11, just that Iraq is just a different theatre of the war, like Europe and the Pacific in WWII. I don't think that Bush's policies are going to cause another attack on our home, they were and still are planning attacks on us long before Bush was in office.

Economy.

Lets look at domestic issues now. This outsourcing thing is a bunch of crap. It has been created by policies that have been in existence since the first Bush administration when we created organizations like the WTO, NAFTA, and the G8. Like I have said before, outsourcing is a direct result of free trade. The majority of the jobs going overseas are classified as "unskilled (factory)." The Jobs that policies like this are supposed to create (I say supposed because jobs were lost due to the recession and transportation jobs lost as a direct result of 9/11) are "skilled" jobs (jobs that require training after HS). These policies spread economic prosperity around the world, creating new markets for our goods, and raising the standards of living in undeveloped nations. These were policies that were pushed for by the Clinton Administration and continued under Bush.

Both party candidates were going to create a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit over the next 4 years. Bush is going to do it with defense, Kerry was was going to do it with social programs. Kerry is wrong on one point about the deficits though, they are not the biggest ones we have seen in history at least not in real dollars (dollars adjusted for inflation). In the 80s we were running deficits that weere about 6-7% of our GDP, and today they are only 3%. While these are the largest dollar amount deficits in history, when you factor in inflation they come nowhere close to the record. Both parties spend massive amounts of money and the only difference is this: Republicans borrow and spend, Democrats tax and spend.

GWBush has not fucked up the economy. We were just being hit with the bad parts of carryover policies from Clinton and even his father. Free trade is a may be a bitch right now, but in a few years we will be starting to reap the benefits from it.

But what really gets me angry are people who say that "People who vote for (fill in blank) are dumb/retarded/idiots/etc." These are the same people that blame Gore's loss on Nader. These are the same people that have caused a huge rift to form in this country. For Christ's sake, Democrats/Republicans are people too. We all put are pants on one leg at a time. This is the time that we need to work together for a better future, not fight over the past. What is done is done, there is nothing that any of us can do to change it.

What I think is wrong with this country today is that people on both sides of the aisle are not willing to listen to the people on the other side. People have over reacted to Bush getting re-elected. You say the President used the politics of fear in this election, well, look at what some of you Kerry supporters are typing, which can basically be summed up like this, "Now that Bush has been re-elected, the world is going to end." Don't worry, the four horsemen are not coming anytime soon, and no, Bush and Cheney are not among them, but I think Hilary could be.

RKrispy · Post by **RKrispy** » 06 Nov 2004 01:23

i'm not a redneck :mellow:

i may have voted for him, but my state still went to Kerry. The state that Justin voted in.

but i still helped Bush win the Popular vote :wub:

AngelBaby · Post by **AngelBaby** » 06 Nov 2004 02:08

rho wrote: are.......   most of middle america who are republicans by tradition.

now, everyone needs to relax,,,, why? because think about it,, this is the republicans one shot to do things right they have the majority control over our government right now,, so if they fuck it up then you know what is going to happen in the next elections..

Umm...hello?

The Republicans had majority control over the government for the past 4 years, controlling the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, and didn't "fuck it up" so I guess you don't really have a point, huh? :rolleyes:

rho · Post by **rho** » 06 Nov 2004 08:59

AngelBaby wrote:
rho wrote: are.......   most of middle america who are republicans by tradition.

now, everyone needs to relax,,,, why? because think about it,, this is the republicans one shot to do things right they have the majority control over our government right now,, so if they fuck it up then you know what is going to happen in the next elections..
Umm...hello?

The Republicans had majority control over the government for the past 4 years, controlling the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, and didn't "fuck it up" so I guess you don't really have a point, huh? :rolleyes:

uhh, wrong, this time they have an even bigger majority, or did you not read about how many of the demcrats that ran for the house and senate didnt get re-elected..... but then agian, I will let your ignorance slide this time since its obvious you nothing but a flame troll.....

my point was that, the republicans are in position they have not been in for quite some time,, (this means that a republican has won the presidential election two terms in a row angelbaby, incase that went over you head)

and with the republicans in a postion now to dominate more over the house and senate than they were in the past, they have a better chance of getting they bills, and laws passed than before when there were almost as many democrats...

so angelbaby stop getting you info simply by vomiting back up what you see on tv or hear from your parents(because your obviously not even old enough too vote)

the balance have shifted to as far to the right as it possibly can,, what I said is that if the republicans fuck it up,, it will start shifting back the other way.

PART OF THE BOARDS FORMERLY KNOWN AS TJNR

Fill in the blank!

Who is online