The Bulldrek September U.S. Presidential Poll

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:11 am

You can have a say in the big system. True mastery is achieved by breaking the enemy's resistance by blowing stuff up.

Cazmonster · Post by **Cazmonster** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:27 am

Johnny the Bull wrote:
Serious Paul wrote:
mrmooky wrote:Most of your founding fathers would be considered extremist basket cases by today's standards.
But are those the appropriate standards to judge them by? Whatever modern standards are?

Isn't it more appropriate to compare them to each other in this case?
Okay, they were puritan basket cases by that era's standards.

Waitasecond - the Puritans were the idiots who couldn't take the 'perils' of drinking, singing, and egads theatre once Charles the II took the throne in the ashes of Cromwell's failure. Fuck the puritans - dumbass buckleheads didn't understand fucking agriculture and survived their first couple of years thanks to some very kind Native Americans that they turned around and wiped out for their troubles.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.

For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is free to combat it.

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

Thomas Paine wrote: Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible].

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.

My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

George Washington wrote: Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.

As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority.

Those sound like Puritan words to you? They don't to me.

And may Oliver Cromwell forever burn in hell!

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:50 am

T'was a joke son. Hence the

I guess I am just bitter. You fuckers should still be a colony, bitches.

One day I'll rule the Empire, then you're all fucked.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 8:37 am

I'd vote for Kerry if I could and here I can, fear my free will

Looking at the list of possible parties/people to vote for, I assume it is correct cause I am to lazy to actually check for myself. I found this kind of odd;

Socialist USA: Walt Brown / Mary Herbert
Socialist Equality: Bill Auken / Jim Lawrence
Socialist Workers: Róger Calero / Arrin Hawkins
Workers World: John Parker / Teresa Gutierrez

You have four different parties that are basically socialists, they might even have a little commie connection. Why on earth can't they just form one party? The Socialist Equality Workers of America or whatever. Not that I care for socialists or commies but it seems pretty stupid to divide the little vote they get four ways instead of one way. So much for that socialism idea of all just getting along and being equal.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 1:31 pm

Some thoughts on Kerry. I do believe this explains everything.

Cazmonster · Post by **Cazmonster** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:16 pm

Johnny the Bull wrote:T'was a joke son. Hence the

I guess I am just bitter. You fuckers should still be a colony, bitches.

One day I'll rule the Empire, then you're all fucked.

Yeah, well Puritans piss me off, and it was late at night, oh, and I have twins that have eaten my sarcasm organ.

If you Brits had figured out how to fight like men, instead of toy soldiers, maybe we still would be a colony.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:27 pm

Elldren wrote:edit: And no, I'm not voting. I can't have a say in real life, so I don't see why I should force myself into false dilemmas.

The whole not being eligible thing doesn't really help, either.

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:39 pm

Cazmonster wrote:
Johnny the Bull wrote:T'was a joke son. Hence the

I guess I am just bitter. You fuckers should still be a colony, bitches.

One day I'll rule the Empire, then you're all fucked.
Yeah, well Puritans piss me off, and it was late at night, oh, and I have twins that have eaten my sarcasm organ.

If you Brits had figured out how to fight like men, instead of toy soldiers, maybe we still would be a colony.

We decided we were better than the Colonial terrorists and would fight like real men. In lines, wearing red coats that just screamed 'shoot me'.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:16 am

lorg wrote:You have four different parties that are basically socialists, they might even have a little commie connection. Why on earth can't they just form one party? The Socialist Equality Workers of America or whatever. Not that I care for socialists or commies but it seems pretty stupid to divide the little vote they get four ways instead of one way. So much for that socialism idea of all just getting along and being equal.

Welcome to the world of left wing politics.

Get a bunch of Marxists in a room together, and they'll inevitably split along pragmatist-dogmatist lines.

JongWK · Post by **JongWK** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am

Kerry. Though JFK isn't my ideal candidate, GWB has been a walking disaster and I've had enough of him. I admit AK's idea is soooo tempting...

Cazmonster wrote:My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

Sigged!

mrmooky wrote:Welcome to the world of left wing politics.

Get a bunch of Marxists in a room together, and they'll inevitably split along pragmatist-dogmatist lines

I take you've been watching Uruguayan politics of late?

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:10 am

Dude, Jong, no! Vote for Bush, you liberal fuck because JFK is dead on the inside! We must have evil bastards in the White House to begin Armageddon! Vote for mediocrity, vote for lowered standards, vote for the blatant use of dead people for political purposes, vote for the money! Look, reasoning says if people wanted Bush back in 2000, they can have him in 2004 and suffer and we can enjoy watching them lose their jobs and houses and dignity. Why should we vote in Kerry or Nader or any of those fucks on false promises they have no intention of keeping when we already know Bush is a lying dirty AWOL corporate bootlicker? Nothing he does can possibly shock me, and I feel a sort of quiet comfort out of that, knowing that every suspicion I've ever had about the GOP has finally come true. Do you really want to be disappointed by Kerry? To feel like a traitor to the liberal cause by voting for Nader? Fuck that. Just roll with the sucker punch you know's coming and vote for the Shrub.

Seriously, this is a rare opportunity to strike a vote for apathy. Furthermore, it's a chance to thumb your nose at the Democrats whilst you say, "You silly bastards can't even come up with a decent candidate when it matters most. I'll bet you're wishing you didn't leave Dean out in the cold now, huh, you silly little fucks."

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:17 pm

Man, I'd still vote for Dean. He was fun. Hrm... I'm in a solid Kerry state, maybe I should do a write in...

Buzzed · Post by **Buzzed** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:16 pm

Updated the results so far. (the text in black on first post)

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:26 pm

Looking good so far, now if only we ruled the world...

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:31 pm

Angel wrote:
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
Actually, ak your idea is brilliant, you've convinced me to change my vote to Bush.

Just to reiterate, Angel. I'm voting for Bush because I like seeing morons suffer by voting for a man who is eventually going to bankrupt them in more ways than one. Are you bitter enough to set aside idealism for schadenfreude?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:56 pm

If you weren't so serious in your beliefs I'd laugh at you a lot. As it is I chuckle a whole lot.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:14 pm

We decided we were better than the Colonial terrorists and would fight like real men. In lines, wearing red coats that just screamed 'shoot me'.

Quite frankly, you were kind of winning until the Colonial terrorists wised up and started doing the same.

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:56 pm

TheScamp wrote:
We decided we were better than the Colonial terrorists and would fight like real men. In lines, wearing red coats that just screamed 'shoot me'.
Quite frankly, you were kind of winning until the Colonial terrorists wised up and started doing the same.

It just makes me laugh at the idea of my ancestors marching slowly towards cannons wearing bright red coats in closed ranks.

Lemmings.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:51 am

Serious Paul wrote:If you weren't so serious in your beliefs I'd laugh at you a lot. As it is I chuckle a whole lot.

Hey, I said the same thing about Clinton.

Wait, no I didn't. I just wanted to see the "but the President can't get blowjobs in the Oval Office" motherfuckers suffer. Anyone who says that any man can't get a blowjob anywhere he damned well pleases is automatically my enemy. See, I think that's it; if anyone raised an article that said they found George getting sucked off by Laura in the War Room while George was murmuring, "War, Money, War, Money, War, Money, War, Money, FUCK YEAH!" as he was watching replay footage of first-week bombing runs upon Iraq and the liberals suddenly sniffed, and squeaked, "but the President can't get blowjobs in the War Room," I'd shift and give a thousand reasons why Kerry's too much a fucking prudish wimp to be the President.

We'll start with the hair.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:37 am

ak404 wrote:Wait, no I didn't. I just wanted to see the "but the President can't get blowjobs in the Oval Office" motherfuckers suffer. Anyone who says that any man can't get a blowjob anywhere he damned well pleases is automatically my enemy.

So you're cool with adultery, then?

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:46 am

Look, if the President cheats on his wife, I don't give a fuck, so long as he does his job well. Any marriage problems are their own fucking business (no pun intended); we're hiring a paper-pusher for a four-year contract on the basis of efficiency, not a royal family.

If the Pres wants a blowjob (or in the future, God willing, a good muff diving) and there's a man or woman willing to give him one, let him have it; he's the President, if nothing else, he should at least get that, because if the President of the United fucking States can't get blown, we're all in deep shit.. And I might be second-guessing here, but Hillary doesn't look like the kind of gal who'd take a shot in the mouth...even enjoy sex anymore. (Goodness knows, I've tried my damnedest to imagine it.) (For that matter, Laura doesn't either, but if W can coax some oral lovin' out of her, more power to him.)

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:12 am

Salvation122 wrote:
ak404 wrote:Wait, no I didn't. I just wanted to see the "but the President can't get blowjobs in the Oval Office" motherfuckers suffer. Anyone who says that any man can't get a blowjob anywhere he damned well pleases is automatically my enemy.
So you're cool with adultery, then?

Fuck oath.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:38 am

No, I can see where Sal's going with this: if a guy is willing to break his wedding vows, he's probably willing to break the Oath he's taken as the President. Maybe. It's a big step, but if you're going for moral absolutism, it's understandable.

However, I don't think that's ever going to happen: it takes a certain mindset to decide to become, to run, and to be President, and while one's personal ethical and moral code is always question, there is no doubt that every President from Washington on down has always had that hyper-nationalistic streak that makes him think that what's he's doing is best for the country.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 7:02 am

That's a tough one. I'm no moralist, but I'd like my president to not be the kind of guy who gets blowjobs in his office from ugly interns. I'd like him to be presidential.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 7:51 am

So basically you want someone that totally lacks libido or is a eunuch.

So lets say you where married, then for some reason got freaky with an intern at work and got a blowjob by your desk and then had half the world looking at you when they asked if you did or not. Who wouldn't lie? It is non of their fucking business if I did or not.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:17 am

lorg wrote:So basically you want someone that totally lacks libido or is a eunuch.

Do you seriously think anyone who doesn't get blowjobs in his office from ugly interns [adulterously, at that] "totally lacks libido or is a eunuch?" That's ridiculous. I would wager a fair number of the married or otherwise beholden men on this board have both balls and a sex drive, and haven't gotten blowjobs in the office.

lorg wrote:So lets say you where married, then for some reason got freaky with an intern at work and got a blowjob by your desk and then had half the world looking at you when they asked if you did or not. Who wouldn't lie? It is non of their fucking business if I did or not.

I would lie, certainly. That's one of the many reasons I shouldn't be President; I'm dishonest and self-serving and immoral.

The lying, for me, is only half the point. If I got caught fucking some chick on my desk at work, I'd get fired. And I should. If I'm the President of the United States of America, and I have adulterous oral sex in the Oval Office and then lie about it, I ought to get "fired." I like Clinton, and I like blow jobs, but that's how I feel.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:11 pm

Would it have mattered if it had been "off the clock"?

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:37 pm

3278 wrote:That's a tough one. I'm no moralist, but I'd like my president to not be the kind of guy who gets blowjobs in his office from ugly interns. I'd like him to be presidential.

Exactly. He should be getting blowjobs from the hot interns.

Bill Maher (I think) covered this admirably. To paraphrase: "Everything about Clinton's affair scream 'busy.' He's on the phone with the Russian president, has a slice of pizza in the other hand, is reading reports on his desk and Monica is going down on him under the desk. Busy guy." Now, see, you or I might have time to jerk off when sexual pressures grow to be too much, but Clinton was a busy guy. He didn't have a hand free long enough to do it himself so he got the intern to do the excess manual labor for him.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:47 pm

WillyGilligan wrote:Would it have mattered if it had been "off the clock"?

I've thought about that myself. I don't really think Presidents get to be off the clock; futhermore, he was really, really "on company property," so I'm going to go ahead and say, "Bad Bill!"

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:34 pm

3278 wrote:
WillyGilligan wrote:Would it have mattered if it had been "off the clock"?
I've thought about that myself. I don't really think Presidents get to be off the clock; futhermore, he was really, really "on company property," so I'm going to go ahead and say, "Bad Bill!"

Okay, but his /home/ is on company property. I mean, I'm not running around throwing "Yay, Bill Got Blown!" parades, but I can certainly see where some blurring of the lines could and would happen.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:30 pm

Well, funny thing. The President is never "off the clock;" Presidency isn't something like a crown you can take off and suddenly, you're not the king anymore, it's more like a policeman's badge that never comes off no matter where that badge may lie. The President is always the President until his shift is over.

Funny thing is, right around the Lewinsky thing, wasn't there that funeral of a former French politician where his wife and mistress both showed up at the same time...on the same pew?

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:14 pm

By "off the clock", I pretty much meant some other time than on the phone in the Oval office conducting business. I mean, the Prez is allowed to watch a ball game from time to time, or read a book that isn't an intelligence briefing, or something. It's a high-demand job, but he does get some free time. But I'm sort of leaning in the same direction anyway--you campaign to be our figurehead for four to eight years, so for that four to eight years you could try to be as upstanding a citizen as you can be, or at least pick the lesser things to be human about, like jogging to McDonald's or something.

Also, I know it's been said a few times, but I'm getting sick of campaign promises not saying "I'll be the best president you've ever had" in favor of "Well, at least I ain't that other guy."

ak404 wrote:Funny thing is, right around the Lewinsky thing, wasn't there that funeral of a former French politician where his wife and mistress both showed up at the same time...on the same pew?

Don't take this wrong, but you're point is...what? I mean, the world didn't end becuase a politician was unfaithful to his wife, but there's a staggering lot of things that, while not world-threatening, are still not good things. Not to mention the fact that French culture has been fairly open about extra-marital affairs for quite some time now. Their culture is not ours. So what does this funeral change for us?

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:20 am

Nothin' really. I just thought it was funny.

Oh, and Angel? For a quick laugh, read this. Apparently, some other liberals are sort of warming up to the idea of four more years of Bush. It's a joke, yeah, but considering that liberals aren't fucking trying hard enough (just look at their candidate), I think I can live with it.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:18 am

It is non of their fucking business if I did or not.

Except that, if you're President, it of course is. As Sal pointed out, it goes to moral character. The President is not just a paper pusher, if for no other reason he has access to the "football". You want a guy with good solid moral values who isn't going to trade nucelar access codes for sex. Of course, why we keep electing politicians and then wondering why they have no morals is beyond me.

Oh, and she was ugly. You see, when JFK had an affair, he had an affair with Marilyn Monroe (among others). Now that's cool. What guy can condemn that? Clinton hob nobs with the rich and powerful. He rubs elbows with hollywood elite. Can you explain to me why he always has affairs with ugly women? It makes the country look bad when the most powerful man in the country is banging ugly chicks.