|
Bush Vs Kerry
November 01, 2004 11:16AM
|
Registered: 15 years ago
Posts: 118 |
Oh please you sweet Americans...land of the free and beef jerky. You satire laden comedians that gave us Hulk Hogan and Paris Hilton, take your ballot papers and put a hole next to John Kerry's name. Georgie Bush he of the "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." and "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" whose favourite book is the 'Hungry Caterpillar' which wasn't even published until he was in his 20's, is not fit to run an errand to the corner shop for some chewing tabacco, let alone the USA. Vote Kerry or vote dumb!
Nite x
Yes, don't vote for Bush! Vote for Kerry, the man who, while Senator, voted the same way as Bush on the war in Iraq, on the Patriot Act, on gay marriage, on No Child Left Behind... (Noticing a theme here?)
-Mike
 
Go listen to my band. We're awesome.
http://www.myspace.com/rosencrantzny
weallgotwoodandnails
"First, a few words about John Kerry. Certainly there is little in his persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge -the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry - seems overdone, as Kerry's contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) Not that Kerry isn't plainly a conventional liberal. Surely he's no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.
But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.
It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America's conservative party, he has become the Left's perfect foil - its dream candidate. The libertarian writer, Lew Rockwell, has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia's last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries' budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.
Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation's children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing clich? about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal - Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can't be found to do it - and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.
During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course, there has always been "anti-Americanism." After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a "Third Way" between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe's radicals embraced every ragged "anti-imperialist" cause that came along. In South America, defiance of "the Yanqui" always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washingtonto their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It's the same throughout the Middle East.
Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that "good" countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.
These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists - indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America's survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world's most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.
I've read (yes, I read too!) about people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father's administration and say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush's public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?
The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency - and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.
But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency - and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell's departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the "neoconian candidate." The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.
But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then, only then, that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past-and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.
George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly na?ve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies-a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky's concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies-temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election-are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans "won't do."
This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support."
i thought this was a great little think-piece.
now if you'll excuse me, i'm going across the street to vote.
rachel......
I hate them both, but if I really have to make a choice it'd be Bush. I don't give a fcuk.
Post this image everywhere you can, in avatars, signatures, just everywhere
I don't know if anyone else heard about this, but check it out.
http://217.160.163.211/globalvote2004/
Kerry - 77%
Bush a wooping - 9%!!! Someone's popular
Third party candidates - 14%
~ Sofi ~
"And so tomorrow there will be another number for the one who had a name."
Message deleted on 2015-09-05 06:30:16 PDT
Message deleted on 2015-09-05 06:30:16 PDT
Your characterization of John Kerry's voting record
(per Bush) is INCORRECT.
the netherlands detest bush. He's too found of war. And personally, I just cannot understand why any american would vote for him. Gosh, it's just so naive! he says: Americans are brave, americans work hard, *vomit*. Like every american is the same; there are weak americans, there are strong americans. Just like there are intelligent strong dutch heroes, there are dutchdumb brainless people who like nazis and hardcore. He just tells you what you want to hear, and in the meanwhile do or think something else.
Don't get me wrong; Kerry isn't the best president to choose, but you've got to admit that Bush is the worse one. oh well..not that it matters now, the voting numbers cannot be changed..although I wish they could, because it seems bush is going to win... something i certainly did not expect. bluh, that's what I think of bush.
bush is like a little child with a weapon; his parents tell him that for every person he aims at, he gets a candy; if he shoots, he gets two!
Message deleted on 2015-09-05 06:30:16 PDT
Message deleted on 2015-09-05 06:30:16 PDT
Let's hope that the word "unification" does not become the new buzz word for submitt or be crushed. And let's hope that gays do not become the American equivalent of German Jews in the 1930s and 1940s.
Let's hope. But I wouldn't place any bets.
Sadly for America, it seems that we will have to see things get worse before they get better.
But, hey -- it's a great day for terror recruitment around the world. The number one poster child will be around for 4 more years. And many Americas following his charge to battle, will not.
When Americans start feeding gays into ovens you can make that first atrocious statement.
I'm running for office.
Vote Esposito in 2024.
-Mike
Go listen to my band. We're awesome.
http://www.myspace.com/rosencrantzny
weallgotwoodandnails
Message deleted on 2015-09-05 06:30:16 PDT
I think that if civil unions was on the ballot over marriage it may not have passed.
Towelheads is a silly name.
Baby killers weren't a factor.
At least he only pandered to one area as opposed to every one of them like some other candidate...
This is still gonna be a long four years. But maybe some good will come out of this and Bush will privatize some social security like he's said he wants to. I'm willing to compromise on it at this point and ween it out as opposed to doing away with it immediately.
-Mike
Post Edited (11-03-04 09:32)
Go listen to my band. We're awesome.
http://www.myspace.com/rosencrantzny
weallgotwoodandnails
"the netherlands detest Bush" oh **** of, I'm really ashamed of people like you... I don't like him but I want Bush rather than Kerry, that's an easy choice.
Post this image everywhere you can, in avatars, signatures, just everywhere
Message deleted on 2015-09-05 06:30:16 PDT
He maintained an economy that he inherited that was in decline even after the economic catastrophe that was 9-11, with a recession only lasting a few months, and even getting the economy to grow at a rate that hadn't been seen in 20 years at one point.
-Mike
Go listen to my band. We're awesome.
http://www.myspace.com/rosencrantzny
weallgotwoodandnails
Message deleted on 2015-09-05 06:30:16 PDT
Message deleted on 2015-09-05 06:30:16 PDT
So, George Bush has managed to accomplish something that only he and half of America wanted, another four years. Even though he has made America the social pariah of global politics. I agree with you Rach that this election was mostly a referendum on the incombent. I just can't believe that Americans bought the 'fear and loathe' campaign ensued by Bush and his dads old cronies. I love America and it's inhabitants and have spent a lot of time there; and it is aweful the amount of anti-americanism that swills around in social circles and countries around the globe. I think in a 'West' where religious faith(especially in Europe)is starting to wane, we find it amazing that Bush can use his ultra selective interpretation on the Bible and manifest policies that run contrary to evolved, liberal morality. In the East the obvious conflict between Islamic fundametalism and Bush's blinkered right wing christianity, and the possible embarrassment of not being able to sort out there own affairs without the help of the west continues to produce an unhealthy wave of anti-americanism. I hoped that Kerry's administration would at least try to build a bridge between America and the rest of the world and start to adhere to the U.N(of which it was a founding member). I hoped Kerry would embrace Kyoto whilst finding other ways for the American economy to grow and thrive, for we in Britain are as dependant on a strong american economy. I obviously hoped to much.
The problem with Bush though is that his world domination is a polar opposite to what Leo Trostsky was proposing after the Russian Revolution in 1917. Guided by Marxist thinking and less politically motivated than; Lenin, Stalin, Bucharin et al - Trotsky wanted global domination through the education of (and social agitation)the proletariat. He wanted the lumpen masses to rise up an beat down the bougeoisie. This is different to Bush. Bush want to take over the world for the elite, the true marxists wanted the world for the masses.
Well all I can say is that we will have to wait another four years to rid ourselves of the Republicans....roll on 2008...roll on Hillary Clinton.
*bush singing* hail to the cheif,
if you don't i'll have to kill you,
I am the cheif
so you better watch your step you bastards....
ugh, some kids at my school today were chanting "FOUR MOR WARS!! FOR MORE WARS!!!" which was funny. then today some girl was like yay bush is winning! at which point my friend went up to her and asked her if he could have her gloves. she looked at him puzzled and asked why. he said, "I'm off to Iraq next week and they say the nights are cold an lonely and they'll keep my hands warm and remind me of home...." we all cracked up but she shut up real quick. i just don't wanna watch that smug bastard for 4 more years
Post Edited (11-03-04 17:49)
Rock on...
Kevin
I wanna be with you forever, and tomorrows not too late...
"Beware the fury of a patient man" ~John Dryden
oh, and after cameron's comment looking at the map of who voted bush (the red states) reminds me somewhat of communist expansion.....weird man
Rock on...
Kevin
I wanna be with you forever, and tomorrows not too late...
"Beware the fury of a patient man" ~John Dryden
Which is funny, because at the DNC, looking at all the people in the building holding thousands of red signs reminded me of Stalin addressing the Soviets.
Coincidence that both these men bring up these communist images? I think not.
-Mike
Go listen to my band. We're awesome.
http://www.myspace.com/rosencrantzny
weallgotwoodandnails
oh man, scubacayman88, that is awesome that you made that girl feel bad. what branch does your friend serve under? im heading off to naval officer candidate school in february and maybe i could catch up with him to see if he has a true sense of honor, courage, and commitment or a cynic who is treading ground he ought not.
It is important to realize that Bush got more votes for Prez than any other candidate in history.
Know who was number two and three on the list?
John Kerry got the second most votes in history and Al Gore Got the third most.
Amercia has spoken. And more people than ever in our history did not want Bush.
|
|
