• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

To GAF Bush supporters: why?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
All I know is that whomever I end up voting for on election day, I will feel guilty for doing so. All of these candidates suck, and the entire political process has been reduced to a popularity contest. It's like a high school student council election, but instead of pledging to get a snack machine in the cafeteria or lower lunch prices, it's entitlements and tax relief. There's no such thing as long term goals anymore. It's all about just giving people stuff to please them in the short term in order to ensure their votes.

Yuck. I don't want to support any of these guys, but I think voting for anyone would make more of an impact than voting for no one.
 

Cool

Member
Dan said:
All I know is that whomever I end up voting for on election day, I will feel guilty for doing so. All of these candidates suck, and the entire political process has been reduced to a popularity contest. It's like a high school student council election, but instead of pledging to get a snack machine in the cafeteria or lower lunch prices, it's entitlements and tax relief. There's no such thing as long term goals anymore. It's all about just giving people stuff to please them in the short term in order to ensure their votes.

Yuck. I don't want to support any of these guys, but I think voting for anyone would make more of an impact than voting for no one.


RALPH NADER '04!!!
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
akascream said:
I think of what would have happened if Gore had to deal with 911.

I love arguments like this, because they're both patently ridiculous in their reasoning, and carry a disgusting amount of venom.

Tell me, please: What would have happened if Gore were President? Does your crystal ball also give lotto numbers?
 

Azih

Member
Elfalope, reducing the opposition to invading Iraq to 'just France' is just not valid at all. Hell the biggest surprises to me during that time was that Canada and Mexico opposed the Bush administration's actions in the buildup to war.

Make no mistake both of these nations are dependent for their economy on American good will. What's good for America is good for Canada and Mexico as a healthy and happy American population will buy from Mexican and Canadian companies. These countries and their populations had *nothing* to gain by taking a stand against the U.S and yet they did. So don't reduce the international opposition to Bush to just them opportunistic Frenchies, because it isn't true.
 

Socreges

Banned
Well, its just titled differently. ;)
oh lololol

At best, I suspect this thread has been done twice before and did not have the questions that I posed. Therefore people immediately came to blows. With a couple exceptions, this thread has stayed civil and I'd like to think that has something to do with how I posed my questions.

efralope said:
It wasn't unilateral. Really, it was basically France. Even if you say Europe opposed us, it was basically France. And it's probably for the better that countries benefiting from Saddam's Oil-For-Food corruption and selling weapons to Iraq weren't part of the coalition.

Really, Britain, Japan, and Australia are heavyweight enough in terms of stature. I would have like Russia as well, but France wouldn't have gone along as long as their officials were part of the Oil-For-Food scandal. Even if Clinton or Kerry had been President, France wasn't going to help, and Joe Lieberman and John McCain pretty much laid out how disappointing it was that they would choose to move against the US.
I didn't use the word unilateral by accident. I, as well as many others, consider this a unilateral war, regardless of the "coalition of the willing". It's interesting to see the circumstances surrounding them. America not only provides far and away the most troops (besides the UK, each country has given relative pittance), but determines everything that happens. The coalition are puppets and given little choice of otherwise. France, for instance, was punished by the US in a few ways after resisting. Hell, if you're not neutral like Switzerland, chances are you got a slap on the wrist from the US if you weren't "willing".
I'm not concerned at all about outrage from the UN. They made money off Saddam's "Oil-For-Food" program and haven't allowed for a public, transparent investigation of where all the funds ended up.
I wasn't talking about the UN.

By "international/domestic", I'm talking about people all over the world, in nearly every country. Particularly those in countries that are part of the coalition. Blair, for instance, is remarkably unpopular since going to war. And of course the great divide in America.
Even RIGHT NOW with current situations you can see the absolute turtle-speed of the UN. While Annan is offering condolences for what happened in Russia, NOTHING is happening. They may have good intentions, but their record on human rights is outrageous. They do so much talking and conferences, but rarely act or back up their threats or concerns. It's just sad. Not to mention they fail to denounce human rights violations by some member countries.
It's always a matter of self-interest. Blame the Perm 5.
Things that occured after the Iraq invastion:

-China sealed off oil supplies for 3 days to North Korea and reminded them or where their lifeline is.
-Palestinian suicide attacks have subsided greatly from where they were back in 2000-2001.
-Libya is wanting to become an international player and allowed for disclosure on it's former weapons programs.
Attacking Iraq probably got Libya to shape up. That one I can give you. Though I'm not convinced that other measures could have been taken to achieve the same result.
Yes. He event went into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam may have not being a threat to the US, but installing a pseudo-democracy is going to give us leverage, stop Hussien payment to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and at least serves to show some countries that the US keeps it word.
Afghanistan did that. All Iraq did was show some countries that the US is capable of anything. The policy of "preventive" war has aggravated relations with many countries.
Also, I'd rather Al-Qaida and this so-called "War on Terror" move the sphere of fighting to the streets of Iraq and not more planning for here on the US.
First off, you're a horrible person for saying that. I hope that you just worded that poorly.

Secondly, simply directing attention to Iraq will not safeguard the US from interest. At all. At best, it may delay an attack, but give more reason to do such a thing.

I mean, sure it's cute to think of the possibilities that could be without the invasion, with Saddam declaring victory over the US on the moral front, France and Russia opening up more business (and some of their corrupt officals getting Saddam money for covering up Oil-For-Food corruption), and Tony Blair a little weirded out that now both Clinton and Bush had ignored his calls for doing something about the decade-old UN-defiance situation.

But I'd rather have aggression than cuteness.
Cuteness.... huh.... anyway...

Saddam would have had a "moral victory", to put it poorly, yes. The precursor to the war was all about WMD and they were never going to find them. Maybe Saddam deserved the victory then.

I suppose you prefer the US getting Iraq's oil, versus France and Russia. Fair enough.

And please enough about the UN being so terrible. Exactly what role do you think the US has played in its sorry state?
I mean, I'd seriously consider supporting him if he were to come out and say that Syria and Iran need to stop their terrorist support and than a Kerry administration would move to make sure terrorist-sponsoring countries are held to account. Also, if he would annouce a plan to push for reform to root corruption in the UN would help. Even Bush hasn't gone this far. If Kerry would, I might consider him viable (probably not considering how most of what he says/voted on Iraq has been politically motivated). I mean, I wouldn't mind the "politicaly motivated" part if he was still supporting Bush on this and just focusing on domestic policy (like Joe Lieberman), but he's really been all over the map on this.
Right now, he's trying to win an election. Not run the country. He'll do as much as "I am strong on terror" until afterwards. Such as Bush is doing. What is Bush's plan? Who the hell knows.

As much as I disagree with you on several things, I'd like to say that you are actually more reasonable than a lot of your comrades on this board. I can understand some of your takes and, for instance, you can admit things such as:

"He event went into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam may have not being a threat to the US"

..which makes replying a whole lot easier. Otherwise I'd be asking myself why I was bothering the entire time. Which, to be honest, I still sorta did. :p
 

Lyte Edge

All I got for the Vernal Equinox was this stupid tag
It will be interesting to see if Bush actually gets elected for real this time around.

:::runs:::
 
akascream said:
I think of what would have happened if Gore had to deal with 911.
gore911.jpg
 

Gruco

Banned
efralope said:
Also, it may be a stereo-type, but I honestly don't know what he'd do in office. He hasn't laid out any exact plans.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

Kerry has a number of detailed plans. My concern isn't his lack of ideas, it's the difficulty he'll have in getting any of them passed

Also this is funny...(goes back to May)

In these times of change, Americans are looking for steady leadership. Indeed. Steady leadership... in times of change. But there are those who would doubt the steadiness of our present leadership. And perhaps the Medium Lobster cannot entirely blame them for doing so. With an Iraqi torture scandal growing larger by the day, threatening to engulf the highest levels of the Pentagon and the White House itself, with mounting American and civilian casualties in Iraq and the war on terror, with a radical Shiite cleric still at large in the nation's holiest cities, it is understandable how those with linear vision could question George Bush's leadership, and even consider John Kerry's as an alternative.

But what would a Kerry administration look like? Would John Kerry offer a "multilateral" solution to the war on terror - or a terrifying new failure? Let us look once again, my friends, into the Lobsterscope of the possible future of...

...PRESIDENT KERRY! In his first act as commander-in-chief, "internationalist" Kerry issues an executive order placing all United States military operations under the command of the United Nations! American troops are soon scattered across the globe, defending America-hating governments, propping up the new Islamist regime in Iraq, and serving as the private "honor guard" of the corrupt Kofi Annan, forced out of duty to fan him with hundred-dollar bills and anoint his naked flesh with oil made from the fat of impoverished and exploited third-world youths!

In the meantime al Qaeda becomes emboldened by the abandonment of George Bush's "war" approach to terror, and founds its own Islamofascist state, Islamofascistan, complete with its own military and ballistic missile program! When Islamofascistan forces invade Turkey, Kerry can only respond with "police and intelligence operations" - which are helpless against the al Qaeda terror-state juggernaut!

In March of 2006, Kerry's "police operation against terror" finally captures Osama bin Laden and the rest of his top lieutenants. But bin Laden's case is dismissed in court when it turns out that he wasn't properly Mirandized upon his arrest! Exiting the court room, bin Laden flips a middle finger towards a visibly perturbed Kerry, mouthing the words "F**k you, copper!"

As al Qaeda test-launches its first submarine-based nuclear missiles, Kerry considers "flip-flopping" on his policy of gutting vital military projects such as the missile defense screen. But a corrupt UN Security Council stays his hand, reminding the whipped and ineffectual Francophile of his 2005 Delegation of Pentagon Budget to Unsavory Foreign Powers Act. "You are my bitch, Mister President, and you will always be my bitch!" laughs Kofi Annan in his rich Ghanan accent.

In August of 2007, Kerry finally and officially surrenders to the forces of Islamofascist terror in the new Islamofascist capital of MeccaMunich. The Treaty of Terror decrees that America's constitution will be replaced with a "Jihadstitution," which abolishes Freedom in the West and establishes a militant Terrorocracy of the Proletariat! Kerry, weeping on his knees, begs history for forgiveness - but his words are too riddled with shameful caveats and self-serving rhetoric for the ordinary plainspoken George W. Bushes of the world to follow.

As for what happens next - ah, even the Medium Lobster dare look no further. Those horrors are stories for another time, my friends...
 

Lathentar

Looking for Pants
Lyte Edge said:
It will be interesting to see if Bush actually gets elected for real this time around.

:::runs:::
With the money, he'll be pouring into Florida after the Hurricanes (unless he doesn't want to win) I wouldn't be surprised if he runs away with the state.
 

KingV

Member
Mostly, I agree with Dan above. I don't particularly like any of the candidates.... I like Kerry the least though. I'm not so much a Bush supporter, as a Kerry detractor. Kerry, to me, embodies everything bad and slimy about a politician. The only thing positive I can say about him is that he served his country in Vietnam. Even if the medal allegations turn out to be 100% true (unlikely, I'd say there's probably embellishment on both sides), he still put his life on the line in Vietnam, and I have to give him some respect for that. Apart from that though, I can't say there's a single action from Kerry that I truly approve of. I dislike the way he handled himself after Vietnam, and I dislike what I've seen of his 20 year Senate voting record. I don't think he'd be the worst President this country's ever had, but neither is Bush. I'm not even sure he'd be much worse or even different than Bush, due to checks and balances within the government. I find the man so truly despicable, however, that there's no way I'd vote for him.

One of the only things I do like about Bush is that he's straightforward, and he's got the balls to go through with what he thinks is right regardless of world opinion. As the most powerful country in the world, I think it's important to lead rather than follow and take a stand that you think it's important. I can say that I'm mixed on some of the stands that Bush has taken, but at least he has the balls to take them, which is not something I've seen in a President since Reagan.
 
Dan said:
All I know is that whomever I end up voting for on election day, I will feel guilty for doing so. All of these candidates suck, and the entire political process has been reduced to a popularity contest. It's like a high school student council election, but instead of pledging to get a snack machine in the cafeteria or lower lunch prices, it's entitlements and tax relief. There's no such thing as long term goals anymore. It's all about just giving people stuff to please them in the short term in order to ensure their votes.

Yuck. I don't want to support any of these guys, but I think voting for anyone would make more of an impact than voting for no one.

WRITE IN ROBINSON

ALL HAIL THE ADMIRAL

I'm seriously doing this. Not as if my vote will matter.
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
KingV said:
Mostly, I agree with Dan above. I don't particularly like any of the candidates.... I like Kerry the least though. I'm not so much a Bush supporter, as a Kerry detractor. Kerry, to me, embodies everything bad and slimy about a politician. The only thing positive I can say about him is that he served his country in Vietnam. Even if the medal allegations turn out to be 100% true (unlikely, I'd say there's probably embellishment on both sides), he still put his life on the line in Vietnam, and I have to give him some respect for that. Apart from that though, I can't say there's a single action from Kerry that I truly approve of. I dislike the way he handled himself after Vietnam, and I dislike what I've seen of his 20 year Senate voting record. I don't think he'd be the worst President this country's ever had, but neither is Bush. I'm not even sure he'd be much worse or even different than Bush, due to checks and balances within the government. I find the man so truly despicable, however, that there's no way I'd vote for him.

One of the only things I do like about Bush is that he's straightforward, and he's got the balls to go through with what he thinks is right regardless of world opinion. As the most powerful country in the world, I think it's important to lead rather than follow and take a stand that you think it's important. I can say that I'm mixed on some of the stands that Bush has taken, but at least he has the balls to take them, which is not something I've seen in a President since Reagan.

I wouldn't say that Bush has balls for any of the things he has done. To me he has shown his cowardice. If he had balls he would have led the charge into Baghdad. I know it's something that a president would never do, but this "Bush has balls" stance is just bullshit.

You can say you like him for his being straightforward, but i think that's his downfall. You must be flexible when you are the leader of the freeworld, otherwise you come off as being a tyrant. Plus the international and environmental bridges he has burned are rediculous.
 

Lyte Edge

All I got for the Vernal Equinox was this stupid tag
Azih said:
dude wasn't even the 'Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet' joke debunked?

Of course it was. Everyone knows *I* invented the internet. You may show your appreciation with gifts of great monetary value.
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
Also, how do the Bush supporters feel when the administration uses fear tactics to win more support/keep supporters? Cheney said today something along the lines of "There will be another terrorist attack under the next president, if that president isn't GWB." Don't you find something wrong about this? If their administration was so righteous and for the people why would they do this?
 

KingV

Member
deadlifter said:
I wouldn't say that Bush has balls for any of the things he has done. To me he has shown his cowardice. If he had balls he would have led the charge into Baghdad. I know it's something that a president would never do, but this "Bush has balls" stance is just bullshit.

You can say you like him for his being straightforward, but i think that's his downfall. You must be flexible when you are the leader of the freeworld, otherwise you come off as being a tyrant. Plus the international and environmental bridges he has burned are rediculous.

Faulting him for not being on the front lines in Baghdad is ridiculous. At the very least, he was willing to engage in an unpopular war, that potentially may lose the election for him because he thought it was the right thing to do. I would have a very, very hard time seeing Clinton or even Bush, Sr. doing this (their foreign policy was very similar in practice). Essentially risking his next go at President on the Iraq War took balls, this election would likely not be nearly as close had he played to the status quo after Afghanistan.

The second issue, I think is merely a difference of personal opinion. I couldn't give a crap about what other countries think about us, or citizens of those countries think about us. They don't live or vote here, and are more interested in their interests than our interests. Kyoto was a load of crap (I assume that's what you're talking about), and Bush saw right through it. Globabl Warming is the brain child of Paul Ehrlich, who's been predicting the end of the world for damn near 50 years now due to various environmental phenomena. There's no absolute proof that global warming is occurring on a large scale, and if it is, no one is certain that the human input is enough to even minutely affect it. There's not a climate model out there that has proven reliable, and the data on climate change doesn't go back far enough to claim any trends definitely. There's some good science going on about climate change, but there's lots and lots of bad science going on. I'm not an expert, but I've researched enough to know that the topic of globabl warming is still hotly debated.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
KingV said:
There's no absolute proof that global warming is occurring on a large scale,

It's because contrary to what is often the popular take on the issue, global warming happens very slowly. Kyoto was a load of crap, huh? I'd like to see you back that up.
 
xsarien said:
It's because contrary to what is often the popular take on the issue, global warming happens very slowly. Kyoto was a load of crap, huh? I'd like to see you back that up.

Most scientists agree that there is climate change and it is due to human influences. The conservatives tend to argue that the climate change is due to natural causes, not because of the humans. I suggest kingv do more research into climate change.
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
KingV said:
Faulting him for not being on the front lines in Baghdad is ridiculous. At the very least, he was willing to engage in an unpopular war, that potentially may lose the election for him because he thought it was the right thing to do. I would have a very, very hard time seeing Clinton or even Bush, Sr. doing this (their foreign policy was very similar in practice). Essentially risking his next go at President on the Iraq War took balls, this election would likely not be nearly as close had he played to the status quo after Afghanistan.

You are right, except for the fact that he has nearly 50% of the voters behind him no matter what he does.

The second issue, I think is merely a difference of personal opinion. I couldn't give a crap about what other countries think about us, or citizens of those countries think about us. They don't live or vote here, and are more interested in their interests than our interests. Kyoto was a load of crap (I assume that's what you're talking about), and Bush saw right through it. Globabl Warming is the brain child of Paul Ehrlich, who's been predicting the end of the world for damn near 50 years now due to various environmental phenomena. There's no absolute proof that global warming is occurring on a large scale, and if it is, no one is certain that the human input is enough to even minutely affect it. There's not a climate model out there that has proven reliable, and the data on climate change doesn't go back far enough to claim any trends definitely. There's some good science going on about climate change, but there's lots and lots of bad science going on. I'm not an expert, but I've researched enough to know that the topic of globabl warming is still hotly debated.

I'm not just talking about kyoto, but why take a risk on global warming? Why not try to prevent it than rather saying "the hell with it, nothings been proven"?

Another example is the clean water act, and the list goes on and on.
 
Cool said:
It's so easy to dislike Bush, simply because he wants to re-enstate the draft. Bull-shit.

i thought it was democrats that wanted to re-instate the draft (and not really, but brought it up to make a political point).. as far as i know, bush has never said anything about re-instating the draft.
 

KingV

Member
xsarien said:
It's because contrary to what is often the popular take on the issue, global warming happens very slowly. Kyoto was a load of crap, huh? I'd like to see you back that up.

You've already proven it for me! You want to undertake serious financial burdens, country wide over something that MIGHT be happening, to an UNKNOWN degree, when the human effect is further UNKNOWN? I'm sorry that's too many what-if's for me. There's no reliable predictions as to what will happen without the Kyoto Treaty and how that contrasts with what will happen with the Kyoto Treaty.

It's further flawed because it only takes industrialized nations to task while allowing developing nations to pollute to their heart's content, which is probably my biggest beef with it. Even John Kerry does not support it in its current form:

John Kerry and John Edwards believe that the Kyoto Protocol is not the answer. The near-term emission reductions it would require of the United States are infeasible, while the long-term obligations imposed on all nations are too little to solve the problem. Unlike the current Administration, John Kerry and John Edwards will offer an alternative to the Kyoto process that leads the world toward a more equitable and effective answer, while preserving coal miners’ jobs.

source: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0819g.pdf

Look at how much it's costing Canada: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13694

A number of nations look like they will not even be able to meet their Kyoto obligations.

You shouldn't be asking why shouldn't we sign it, you should be asking why we should. It's based on unproven science, to fight an environmental concern with unknown consequences, that will take place an unknown time from now. Even if we did reduce emissions, we wouldn't even know that what we did had an effect. It's an absurdly high amount of money to spend on something so uncertain.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
KingV said:
You've already proven it for me! You want to undertake serious financial burdens, country wide over something that MIGHT be happening, to an UNKNOWN degree, when the human effect is further UNKNOWN? I'm sorry that's too many what-if's for me. There's no reliable predictions as to what will happen without the Kyoto Treaty and how that contrasts with what will happen with the Kyoto Treaty.

No, it is happening. The Reagan model of "Oh, the private sector will sort it all out by themselves" is woefully naive. You want to talk about cost? What good is saving money if you're going to lose the environment in which you're going to spend it?

It's best to deal with it now, while the affects ARE minimal. It's so our kids, and our grandkids aren't buying ocean front property in Vegas.
 
KingV said:
You've already proven it for me! You want to undertake serious financial burdens, country wide over something that MIGHT be happening, to an UNKNOWN degree, when the human effect is further UNKNOWN? I'm sorry that's too many what-if's for me. There's no reliable predictions as to what will happen without the Kyoto Treaty and how that contrasts with what will happen with the Kyoto Treaty.

It's further flawed because it only takes industrialized nations to task while allowing developing nations to pollute to their heart's content, which is probably my biggest beef with it. Even John Kerry does not support it in its current form:



source: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0819g.pdf

Look at how much it's costing Canada: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13694

A number of nations look like they will not even be able to meet their Kyoto obligations.

You shouldn't be asking why shouldn't we sign it, you should be asking why we should. It's based on unproven science, to fight an environmental concern with unknown consequences, that will take place an unknown time from now. Even if we did reduce emissions, we wouldn't even know that what we did had an effect. It's an absurdly high amount of money to spend on something so uncertain.

Unproven science? You're lucky that I'm not at school because I would then access the online databases of scientific journals and then out-quote you on who is more scientific. There is much less controversy in the scientific journals... the controversy seen in the popular media is usually when some survey doesn't fit the model... then pundits cherrypick and make a big deal out of it. Climate change is being called "junk science" because it doesn't conform to what the conservatives want to believe.
 

Ecrofirt

Member
Is it that hard to believe that not everyone is liberal? I mean, it is possible for different people do have different views about what's best for our nation.
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
LuckyBrand said:
i thought it was democrats that wanted to re-instate the draft (and not really, but brought it up to make a political point).. as far as i know, bush has never said anything about re-instating the draft.

The Draft*

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.

The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

http://www.informationclearinghouse...article5146.htm

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their cur-rent semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

From Lemonz in another thread.
 

KingV

Member
eggplant said:
Most scientists agree that there is climate change and it is due to human influences. The conservatives tend to argue that the climate change is due to natural causes, not because of the humans. I suggest kingv do more research into climate change.

Yes most agree that there is climate change, and that humans have some effect on it, however, very few can agree on how much and how quickly this will affect the climate, assuming of course that CO2 emissions go on as predicted in the models. Here's something to watch out for in scientific thinking, "Most scientists agree" is a sign that you've taken a departure from the scientific method and you're dealing with unproven theories. If it's 100% scientifically true that humans cause global warming, than you don't have to agree, or think, or suspect, because it's proven using the scientific method.

I've read two books dealing with Climate change in the last year, though neith exclusively with climate change, "Eco Scam" by Ronald Bailey (I heard him spoke and it sounded interesting), and Bjorn Lomborg's somewhat controversial "The Skeptical Environmentalist". I'd recommend either, but Lomborg's book is much more scientifically based, (well, statistically based, really) at the cost of being very very dry reading. It took me a number of months to finish it, and even then I had to skim some of the duller parts. It may not mean much to you if you haven't had at least rudimentary training in statistics, however.
 

Celicar

Banned
Cerebral Palsy said:
Because democrats are sheep. Vote party over president is their mantra. Who cares how the guy performs as long as we have a card carrying democrat in office?


there. fixed.
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
Not just global warming, but it doesn't bother Bushies that he is going to have the worst environmental record EVER, of any president?
 

KingV

Member
deadlifter said:
Not just global warming, but it doesn't bother Bushies that he is going to have the worst environmental record EVER, of any president?

What does that even mean, exactly? That the US is dirtier than it's ever been... or what? Not trying to bait you, errrr too much :D , but I'm unsure where you're going with that
 

DCharlie

And even i am moderately surprised
just a question : if there is a draft, will all Bush supporters happily go along and do their duty?

(this is hyperthetical and not suggesting that the draft would happen - although would it be that massive of a shock if there was a draft??)
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
Ha, no problem...

It's basically their actions on environmental policies. Whether they pushed saving the environment forward, or cutback. This administration cutback. Bigtime.

Robert F. Kennedy said:
In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=5939345&rnd=1094612627857&has-player=unknown

Some more info

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/

And some more

http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/
 

KingV

Member

xsarien

daedsiluap
DCharlie said:
just a question : if there is a draft, will all Bush supporters happily go along and do their duty?

You're basically suggesting going into the gaming forum and saying "Fine, then you make a better game..."
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
DCharlie said:
just a question : if there is a draft, will all Bush supporters happily go along and do their duty?

(this is hyperthetical and not suggesting that the draft would happen - although would it be that massive of a shock if there was a draft??)

I'm really interested in this too...

Any takers?
 
Celicar said:
there. fixed.

Why fix something that wasn't broken. I really can't blame the Republicans. There aren't any valid reasons for a sane person voting Bush/Cheney. Voting Republican is the least retarded reason I could think of. The sheep mentality runs wild in the Republican party. If you can't see it you must try pretty hard not to. Hell, they went fucking ape shit over Nixon during Arnold's rediculous RNC speech. Nixon! As long as you're a Republican it's all good!
 

MC Safety

Member
Why?

Why are you asking the question? It's certainly not to understand someone else's position -- you've made your disdain perfectly clear.

Here's an idea -- grow up. Explore the notion of tolerance and exercise your political rights where it will do some good: on the bumper of your car and in the voting hall.
 

Fusebox

Banned
Disco Stu said:
Why?

Why are you asking the question? It's certainly not to understand someone else's position -- you've made your disdain perfectly clear.

Best post in this whole sorry thread.
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
Disco Stu said:
Why?

Why are you asking the question? It's certainly not to understand someone else's position -- you've made your disdain perfectly clear.

Here's an idea -- grow up. Explore the notion of tolerance and exercise your political rights where it will do some good: on the bumper of your car and in the voting hall.

Right, because there have been verbal attacks, and no good discussion throughout the thread!

There's an obvious bias on the forum, and the question was brought up because most here do not know why people support George W. Bush. KingV has brought up some good points so i don't see why you're bitching. This is a forum, things will be discussed, if you don't want to look in a thread, you don't have to. Anyway, I think wearing you're political affiliation on your sleeve is not a good idea (bumperstickers). I really don't see what they accomplish.
 

Socreges

Banned
Disco Stu said:
Why?

Why are you asking the question?
It's certainly not to understand someone else's position -- you've made your disdain perfectly clear.

Here's an idea -- grow up. Explore the notion of tolerance and exercise your political rights where it will do some good: on the bumper of your car and in the voting hall.
Because I want to understand their position. efralope has been the only one so far to actually give a thought-out reply, and though I disagreed with him on several things (I'm not just going to say "OK" to everything - I think some of what he said was simply untrue), I said that I appreciate how he is mostly reasonable and understand where he's coming from. And though you can look at just two massive replies and infer what you'd like, very little of what I said was even in opposition to Bush.

And save the drama. You don't have a clue.

deadlifter said:
Right, because there have been verbal attacks, and no good discussion throughout the thread!

There's an obvious bias on the forum, and the question was brought up because most here do not know why people support George W. Bush. KingV has brought up some good points so i don't see why you're bitching. This is a forum, things will be discussed, if you don't want to look in a thread, you don't have to.
Thank you.

KingV seems to support Bush because he detests Kerry. He didn't even say anything about flip-flopping! Bonus.
 

MC Safety

Member
deadlifter said:
Right, because there have been verbal attacks, and no good discussion throughout the thread!

There's an obvious bias on the forum, and the question was brought up because most here do not know why people support George W. Bush. KingV has brought up some good points so i don't see why you're bitching. This is a forum, things will be discussed, if you don't want to look in a thread, you don't have to. Anyway, I think wearing you're political affiliation on your sleeve is not a good idea (bumperstickers). I really don't see what they accomplish.

Oh, really? I don't have to look in a thread if I don't want to?

Be honest. This thread isn't about explanation or understanding.
 

ourumov

Member
The second issue, I think is merely a difference of personal opinion. I couldn't give a crap about what other countries think about us, or citizens of those countries think about us. They don't live or vote here, and are more interested in their interests than our interests. Kyoto was a load of crap (I assume that's what you're talking about), and Bush saw right through it. Globabl Warming is the brain child of Paul Ehrlich, who's been predicting the end of the world for damn near 50 years now due to various environmental phenomena. There's no absolute proof that global warming is occurring on a large scale, and if it is, no one is certain that the human input is enough to even minutely affect it. There's not a climate model out there that has proven reliable, and the data on climate change doesn't go back far enough to claim any trends definitely. There's some good science going on about climate change, but there's lots and lots of bad science going on. I'm not an expert, but I've researched enough to know that the topic of globabl warming is still hotly debated.
Oh shit...It's frightening to see there is people that think THIS. It reminded me about one of the members of the government from this film:

The%20day%20after%20Tomorrow%20poster.JPG
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
Disco Stu said:
Oh, really? I don't have to look in a thread if I don't want to?

Be honest. This thread isn't about explanation or understanding.

Believe whatever you want to. I feel that i have learned from this thread, and you're the one that's saying the thread has been useless. I haven't attacked anyone in the thread either, so what is the problem, exactly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom