Bulldrek v3.0

Just interested. His popularity with American voters seems to have dropped significantly in the last couple of months, now that the US media's finally found the balls to criticize the situation in Iraq.

Unless a better candidate appears, yes. I would gladly vote for say John McCain, or any other qualified candidate if I thought they would do the job the way I would like. I wish a real good Libertarian or independent would run.

No way. I didn't vote for him last time either, he just somes off too much like a moron for me to have any confidence in him. I also have a hard time trusting someone who says he is a reborn Christian and the turns around and says that he would assassinate Saddam if given the chance.

Yes I would.

I also have a hard time trusting someone who says he is a reborn Christian and the turns around and says that he would assassinate Saddam if given the chance.

I'm not certain how those two things are contradictory.

Depends on your interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill/murder", and its relevance to Christianity, basically.

Depends on your interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill/murder", and its relevance to Christianity, basically.

Yes, and I subscribe to the "Thou shalt not murder" translation (Which I've always been told is the correct translation). Killing a murderer is not itself murder. I would presume that Bush subscribes to a similar interpretation.

If he has said it in a way that made me feel like he cared about doing the world a service by removing Saddam, I would be fine with it. But he said he would enjoy pulling the trigger himself and his tone of more vengeful and murderous sounding than I am comfortable with from a president.

But he said he would enjoy pulling the trigger himself and his tone of more vengeful and murderous sounding than I am comfortable with from a president.

I'd quite enjoy pulling the trigger myself, so I can't say as I'll hold it against him. There are a lot of things I'll hold against Bush, but that isn't one of them.

In absolutely no way, shape, or form would I vote for the retard.

Grey wrote:I also have a hard time trusting someone who says he is a reborn Christian and the turns around and says that he would assassinate Saddam if given the chance.

So would it be acceptable if he were to give an order and have half an army's worth of assorted military people roll into the country and off the bastard instead? Because as Commander in Chief, don't all candidates have to be able to do this to fufill the duties of the office?

Granted, I can certainly see some problems with the idea. One is that it opens you up to reprisals of a likewise nature, which is never good. Plus the whole secrecy angle. But wouldn't it be better if they could just assassinate guys like this and help cut down on combat duration? Hell, with Iraq and the amount of money blowing shit up, I reakon they should have just offered every soldier that defected five hundred dollars or so and bought off the Iraqi army.

On another point, people keep coming back to the idea of how stupid the guy is meant to be. Would anyone be kind enough to post some examples that illustrate this - and not just the odd occassional example please - since I haven't really followed American politics or the man himself to make a judgement on it. Thanks.

No. Didn't vote for him the first time, won't vote for him the second time. Didn't vote last time, won't vote this time. What's the damned point, when you're choosing between the lesser of who gives a damn?

If John McCain ran, I'd vote. If John McCain ran, I'd join the damned campaign. But John McCain won't run.

This is tricky, tricky. I support our position overseas, but I don't really like Bush as a person. I voted Gore last election. Not really because I liked Gore, but because I thought Bush was a cocky, power-hungry S.O.B. ...Funny how that still seems evident.
I guess it would all matter as to who his opponent(s) was. If I liked them and they supported the war, then I'll vote them over Bush. However, if they are too liberal, I don't think I could sit right with my vote. Of course, I /did/ vote for Gore. Ack. Like the guys said, I'd vote for McCain if he were running. I voted for him in his primary election that he lost (which was a huge mistake IMO, on part of voters.) However, since the chances of his running are slim, I am just hoping for that war-supportive liberal or moderate to become Bush's new contender. We shall see. I probably won't make up my mind until I am in my little booth, casting my vote.

3278 wrote:No. Didn't vote for him the first time, won't vote for him the second time. Didn't vote last time, won't vote this time. What's the damned point, when you're choosing between the lesser of who gives a damn?

If John McCain ran, I'd vote. If John McCain ran, I'd join the damned campaign. But John McCain won't run.

Well, assuming Bush wins this time - and I think there's a decent chance that he will; the Democrats have this weird tendency to shoot themselves in the foot - what are the odds the McCain would run /next/ time? Against Her Highness Clinton?

I want Howard Dean in office and that's all I ask for.

I didn't vote for him the last time, and I don't plan on doing so this time. Bush has made such a mess of our international relations, shoved us so far into debt, and tried to force fundamental Christianity on so much of the country, I'd rather see a monkey in the Oval Office before I'd want to see Junior there.

I would gouge out my eyes with an olive fork before voting for that pompous fuck.

Having just read through his website, I assure you that Dean could not get elected President if the Republican candidate was named Judas Iscariot and had ram's horns for ears and cloven hooves for feet:

1): Let's run on a platform of raising taxes. Because we know how well it's worked in the past. Particularly against someone who will most likely be talking about lowering them again.

2): Let's be certain to badmouth Bush - who, after all, is still relatively popular - at every opportunity, without really explaining how we're going to do better. (See his Education section for an excellent example of what I mean here.)

3): Let's ensure that every manager and buisness owner in the country votes against you by being the AFL-CIO's bitch.

4): Let's make grand lofty statements about the US's place in the world - "ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order" - without mentioning the plan, cost, or way we're going to pay for it. Not to mention capability. (Tangent: China isn't integrated into a stable international order? They're friggin' rich Communists! How much more stable do you get? What, are we talking about Taiwan?)

5): Let's give more money in support to the wealthiest segment of the population (AARP.)

6): Let's support additional gay rights legislation, even though it's unnecessary, sincemost Americans already have no problem with equal employment for homosexuals, and the other issues are moral ones where government has no buisness.

As for me: I would not vote for Bush at all. AT ALL. But rather, vote for someone who:

1. Keep focus on Iraq. Abandoning Iraq = Terrorist breeding grounds/repeat of Afghanistan.

2. Is much more diplomatic.

3. More on environment. Bush allowed arsenic to be in our drinks...

4. Someone with brains

I'm just not happy with Democrats, so I'll probably vote for independent, or someone who has best chance against Bush.

FlameBlade wrote:3. More on environment. Bush allowed arsenic to be in our drinks...

No, Bush overruled new legislation that unnecessarilly reduced the amount of arsenic in our water. The 50ppb standard has been in place since 1942, and it hasn't caused health problems. Reversing Clinton's standard was stupid, but it wasn't dangerous.

FlameBlade wrote:3. More on environment. Bush allowed arsenic to be in our drinks...

Not to mention allowed and signed off on a hitchhiker bill that would allow a National Conservational Park to be lumbered to the ground and then used for strip mining. Thankfully someone noticed it and the bill was repealled once it was brought to the attention of everyone else. (It only made small news of about a paragraph some time back)

Link, please?

Salvation122 wrote:

FlameBlade wrote:3. More on environment. Bush allowed arsenic to be in our drinks...

No, Bush overruled new legislation that unnecessarilly reduced the amount of arsenic in our water. The 50ppb standard has been in place since 1942, and it hasn't caused health problems. Reversing Clinton's standard was stupid, but it wasn't dangerous.

How do you know it wasn't dangerous? Arsenic is a known material that can kill.

And also, I'll get back to you on that, 3278...There are a lot of environmental issues, but was brushed under the cover by Bush and Media...can you say spin city?

FlameBlade wrote: How do you know it wasn't dangerous? Arsenic is a known material that can kill.

Because it hasn't been killing people for the last sixty years?

Do the math?

Because we placed limits on arsenic...and it haven't killed us in 60 years of that?

No. Frelling. Chance. In. Hell.

Bush ranks somewhere below Great Cthulu on the list of people I would be willing to vote for.

FlameBlade wrote:How do you know it wasn't dangerous? Arsenic is a known material that can kill.

As the oft quoted saying goes, anything in large enough quantities can be lethal for you. I think what Sal is trying to get across is that the current levels have worked fairly well - since people haven't for the most part been dying in large numbers and littering the place up - so what's the point of this, in his eyes, unnecessary step that'll just cost more to implement for no discernable return? Apologies if I've misconstrued anything or trod on people's toes.

feck no...he didn't even qualify as the lesser of two evils last time.

Jet could answer two questions for me:

1. Do you think Dean would refuse federal funds for his election attempt? And do you think it would hurt him?

2. What do you see in Dean? I honestly know nothing about the guy, but he makes my weasel sense go crazy. So I want somebody who sees something good to tell me about him.

and for time being...

This seemed to be a good source of information on arsenic from WHO.

Here

Bed time for me...Don't know if I'll be able to research this further...after all...it's finals week for me very soon. Damn Quarterly system

FlameBlade wrote:Because we placed limits on arsenic...and it haven't killed us in 60 years of that?

I think we're talking past each other.

What Bush undid was not all limits on arsenic in drinking water. He rescinded a new limit imposed in the twilight days of Clinton's administration that, to my knowledge, never actually went into effect. Arsenic is still rigorously regulated to the same standards that have been in place for the past sixty years, just not to the (unnecessary) standards that Clinton set in the last weeks of his presidency.

As you said, spin city.

3278 wrote:If John McCain ran, I'd vote. If John McCain ran, I'd join the damned campaign. But John McCain won't run.

Last election, being a great fan of Gore himself and not just being Anti-Bush, I would probably have voted for McCain. I'm seriously thinking of starting a write-in campaign for him. It wouldn't go anywhere, unfortunately, but if I could get enough people to agree to be electors in the electoral college for McCain it's theoretically possible we could have a write-in campaign winner for president for the first time in history. How cool would that be? And just think of the embarassment caused to the national parties. I wonder how much cooperation you need from the person who gets written in... *sigh and goes off to dream*

Sidenote to Flak: I'll pull up a few things in a bit. There's some serious items around, but in particular I remember that his background includes running more than one business (given to him by G. Bush Sr.) into the ground and he didn't do so well in a pop quiz on international politics. Some of that could be biased in the report, but the underlying stuff is hard to fake without risking slander suits.

Sidenote regarding Arsenic: Doesn't that stuff build up in your body slowly and never really get expelled? Meaning that you could take several very small doses over a period of years and it would eventually kill you? I seem to recall some potential murder cases existing where there was too little evidence to convict because the water supply had enough arsenic in it to theoretically have killed the person, assuming they drank one or two glasses more than the recommended daily eight every day for most of their life prior... It's rare, but I'm fairly certain it has happened on occasion. In any case, I'm all for lower is better. You can think of it as a reset back eight years or whatever, but then, repealing them totally "would just be letting us go back to how they were before 1942, and it's not like a lot of people died of arsenic poisoning in the water supply then..." I suppose a cost-benefit analysis would help, but I haven't got the technical expertise in biology, here, to manage the research efficiently. Anyone feel like pulling up the Clinton-signed bill and the Bush-signed repeal to see what evidence they used to reach their decisions?

I think what Sal is trying to get across is that the current levels have worked fairly well - since people haven't for the most part been dying in large numbers and littering the place up - so what's the point of this, in his eyes, unnecessary step that'll just cost more to implement for no discernable return?

Worse than that, the estimates on the cost of those restrictions passed on a ghastly price increase to consumers, particularly in rural areas. The result of such price increases is infallible: consumers (particularly rural) stop buying and get their water from wells. Water from wells doesn't benefit from any of the limiting standards on arsenic or other chemicals. So not only is there no discernable benefit to most people, but a lot of people wind up drinking down more and possibly dangerous levels of arsenic.

Serious Paul wrote:Jet could answer two questions for me:

1. Do you think Dean would refuse federal funds for his election attempt? And do you think it would hurt him?

2. What do you see in Dean? I honestly know nothing about the guy, but he makes my weasel sense go crazy. So I want somebody who sees something good to tell me about him.

1. I can't say I know whether he would refuse them or not, but I do think it would hurt him if he did because Dean isn't as rich as Perot was, and Perot still made a huge dent in his pocketbook when he campaigned.

2. I went to a rally of his about the second week of September. He's pro-same sex marriage, which is very important to me and I appreciate the fact that it is in his campaign. He wants to deviate some funds to help rural Americans. He is pro-choice, affirmative action, helping persons with disabilities, etc. etc. He pretty much holds all of the same ideological viewpoints that I do. He's against the No Child Left Behind Act and the Patriot Act.

I don't know whether he'll hold true to any of these things, but I like his campaign. I like his promises.

Serious Paul wrote:Jet could answer two questions for me:

1. Do you think Dean would refuse federal funds for his election attempt? And do you think it would hurt him?

2. What do you see in Dean? I honestly know nothing about the guy, but he makes my weasel sense go crazy. So I want somebody who sees something good to tell me about him.

1. I can't say I know whether he would refuse them or not, but I do think it would hurt him if he did because Dean isn't as rich as Perot was, and Perot still made a huge dent in his pocketbook when he campaigned.

2. I went to a rally of his about the second week of September. He's pro-same sex marriage, which is very important to me and I appreciate the fact that it is in his campaign. He wants to deviate some funds to help rural Americans. He is pro-choice, affirmative action, helping persons with disabilities, etc. etc. He pretty much holds all of the same ideological viewpoints that I do. He's against the No Child Left Behind Act and the Patriot Act.

I don't know whether he'll hold true to any of these things, but I like his campaign. I like his promises.

Anguirel wrote:You can think of it as a reset back eight years or whatever, but then, repealing them totally "would just be letting us go back to how they were before 1942, and it's not like a lot of people died of arsenic poisoning in the water supply then..."

Thing is, since it never went into effect, it's not a reset at all. It's maintaining the status quo, which I don't really have a problem with, here.

Thanks.

Serious Paul wrote:1. Do you think Dean would refuse federal funds for his election attempt? And do you think it would hurt him?

I think, in theory, he could probably earn a lot more if he did, but I'm fairly certain he already has accepted the spending cap and it likely will hurt him in the end (it was one of the early election numbers things -- all of the then-declared Democratic candidates had already agreed to the funding limits imposed by accepting matching federal money whereas Bush had not and was already looking like he'd exceed the limit before he even needed to announce his intention to run (since he won't need to run in a primary).

2. What do you see in Dean? I honestly know nothing about the guy, but he makes my weasel sense go crazy. So I want somebody who sees something good to tell me about him.

And Bush and Cheney don't? Last time you mentioned this, I think I let it slide since I attributed it wholly to your general political view. Dean is a lot more liberal and a lot less willing to toe any line than the candidates I generally associate with the Republican party. I'll give the Republicans at least one thing: they maintain a solid image. I have a feeling that, in general, you aren't going to like him. He's for a lot of socialist (in the non-perjorative sense) measures, very much about protecting civil rights and freedoms (all of them, not just the ones he likes), and balancing the budget. And -- while I think you waver or somewhat agree with some of those things, I don't think you'd like his intended way of doing it. I could be totally misreading you, I suppose... Anyways...

Here's a quick summary of Dean's official positions:

• Against any futher federal laws on gun control. Leave it as a state issue.
• For some form of universal healthcare -- based on Vermont's model which enables 96% (or something like that) to be covered by some form of insurance.
• Change the Bush Medicare prescription plan. It looks good but won't work.
• Embrace nation building over isolationism.
• Repeal Bush tax cuts -- Balance the Budget and use some to also fund side projects.
• "No Child Left Behind" is "Every School Board Left Behind" -- an unfunded mandate.
• Under no circumstances abandon the public school system.
• For the ERA and believes Affirmative Action corrects biases in hiring practices.
• Patriot Act shows reckless disregard for civil liberties.
• Current Energy Policy is one of our biggest security threats.
• Voluntary partnerships reduce greenhouse gas emissions economically. We should also help developing nations reduce greenhouse gases.
• Support NAFTA and WTO, but they need revision - particularly level labor standards.
• Abortion is none of the government's business.

From his speeches I think he wants to finish Iraq now that we're there, but get NATO and UN support, and be flexible in giving up control of the situation there to international authority instead of maintaining a unilateral approach. Just like everyone else, really... However, that isn't listed yet on the site I usually use to keep tabs on the policies of the candidates.

In general I like him. He seems to agree with a lot of the things I'd prefer to see happen plausibly in the country (i.e. not the "If I were King" sort of changes but the "If I were elected and had to deal with a Legislative Branch and all that" sort of changes). I particularly like his immediate internet presence and the fact that he's got a very hands-off campaign running. He's supportive of everyone willing to help, but he doesn't have a centrally managed campaign happening. It's very grass-roots in feel. The funding also has that feel to it. Rather than the $2,500 a plate hot dog fund raisers of Bush, you've got a pile of $15 donations from thousands of people through the internet. He's not the candidate of the rich who does favors to garner support, he's the candidate of everybody else.

Edit: And what JetPlane said while I was typing.

Sal: Ah, kay. It wasn't clear when I was typing up my first post. I take too long.

Never have, never will.

I'm still sad Bill Bradley wasn't able to get the Democratic nomination last time, but in a few more years I'll probably get over it.

I am sad that I haven't been more impressed with any of the Democratic candidates out there this time. Honestly I think it's that the Dems are just not at all organized, and are too busy being liberaler-than-thou to actually get anything done.

Stupid world. Should just figure out they should let me be in charge....

Thanks, its nice to get something that has much more clarity than what I have read in the papers.

Was John McCain that former fighter pilot?

So what's so good about McCain, exactly?

Absolutely nothing. Huh. Sing it again.

I have decided that I will vote for someone who is non-democrat and non-republican. Last election there was a big deal over 'you need to vote for Gore so Bush doesn't win'. Well, we all saw how that worked out. I hate that elections in the US basically come down to the two parties. The way many countries in Europe do it makes so much more sense. I will make it a point to vote outside of the two standard US parties in order to make my one, little, not-counting-for-much vote support 'other parties' being significant parts of the system. Make sense?

Honestly I think it's that the Dems are just not at all organized, and are too busy being liberaler-than-thou to actually get anything done.

Better that than being middler-than-thou. Finally they're talking like they got some fucking balls.

Jestyr wrote:So what's so good about McCain, exactly?

Oh, not much. He's just this guy, see, but I agree with most of his viewpoints on "the issues," and I don't want to hit him when I see him. That alone puts him far and away above any presidential candidate this time around.

I haven't been able to find a non-biased link about the deforestation for mining that Bush signed in. But there are a lot of sites dedicated to trying to fight the bill. I've found links about it for the NY Times, the LA Times and various smaller city papers. However they all seem to be written by people with angry pens and just appeal to the emotions of the people reading it. If I can find something non-biased that looks at the facts, I'll post it.

Much like 3278 I agree with a lot of what Mr. McCain says in some areas, in addition I also think any guy who spent five years as a POW (Yup he was a fighter pilot in Nam DV8) has some special qualifications to bring to the table. I also have this unreasonable idea that has no explanation, that veterans make better people. I know it isn't true, but I still think it, especially when I vote.

I would vote for any decent moderate over Bush. I wish McCain could face off with Bush in the actual election and not just primaries. I would vote for McCain on any day of the week. I wish Joe Lieberman had a snowball's fucking chance of taking the Democrat primary, because I would happily vote for Joe.

Sadly, the Dem candidate will probably be either Dean or Kerry. I would vote for Kerry over Bush. I would vote for Bush over Dean. No matter what anti-Bush rhetoric Kerry may be slinging right now, he understands the importance of not pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan at this point. Dean does not. I know there are many issues on the table besides Iraq and the War on Terror (related issues now, because the terrorists are fighting in Iraq now), but this is one of the most important. No matter whether it was right or wrong to get in there, we CANNOT pull out until we've done the job and done it right. Removing our troops now tells the terrorists of the world that if they kill enough civilians, they can get the US to give up on ANYTHING. We cannot send that message. Cannot. Because then when it really is closer to home again, it will be that much harder to convince the terrorists of the world that the US has any backbone. Dean (among others) advocates pulling out all of our troops. As much as I hate Bush, I could not allow Dean to take office.

I don't want to vote for Bush, but I will if I have to. The lesser of two evils really can make a huge difference in the big scheme of things.

George Soros has some strong feelings on the subject.

I'm surprised that someone could put so much money into a negative outcome (not-Bush), rather than putting it towards something specific.

Bethyaga wrote:No matter what anti-Bush rhetoric Kerry may be slinging right now, he understands the importance of not pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan at this point. Dean does not.

Dean (among others) advocates pulling out all of our troops.

Where do you get that idea?

The clostest thing to that I have heard Dean say, or read of him saying is that he would reduce our troop commitment by internationalizing the occupation. I just checked out his website to verify it and indeed that is what he says he will do.

Personally I think thats wishfull thinking, but it is a far cry from "pulling out all of our troops" and is actually the same plan the Bush administration has except that Dean says he will trade control and reconstruction business for help while the Bush administration thinks what they have been trying for the last year diplomatically will suddenly start working.