| The American election.. | |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
Good or bad that Bush won? Discusssssss! |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Nero - Student 
|
Odan said that very nicely I must say. Except for the France/USA thing I think so too. _______________ -Nero Quote: Curious, Smartass, what else? |
|
Aayla Secura - Ex-Student 
|
I 2nd that. But it will be interesting too see how the neo conservatives try to change the world into their “view” of a good world, in 4 years... I see a lot of death and destruction in waiting, for the Middle East. Delivered by those who see themselves righteous. _______________ IN UR FACE I'M NOT BLONDE! This comment was edited by Aayla Secura on Nov 05 2004 06:18pm. |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
I agree with Odan. |
|
Odan-Wei Belouve - Student 
|
Well, I have 2 main points that bother me about Bush. - his foreign policy - his faith I think Bush's foreign policy is too extreme and that his choices are less for the righteousness than for US economy well-being. I mean the terrorist attacks on NYC surely were awful and something had to be done. But a military engagement in both Afghanistan and Iraq do not only serve the purpose of fighting the terrorist organizations. It also puts 2 geo-strategically important areas under US military control. Afganistan is on the natural gas route, Iraq has one of the best oil in the world. That just seems a bit too easy... Note that I do feel compassion for the US people about the Sept 11th. But I feel disgust toward the foreign policy the Bush administration has run. And being French, we were badly struck in the face by the way US gov treated us (recalling the world war 2 and the fact USA saved France, and forgetting strangely the role of France in the Independance War between USA and Great Britain... We could spin the circle forever...). So, I'm mainly anti-Bush and anyone but him was necessarly better 5and Kerry has ties with French people). - Now Bush's faith is something that worries me. I don't mind religious people at all. I just don't like seeing religion intertwined so tightly with executive power. But that's just my opinion. Now, maybe Bush did some great things for the internal affairs of USA, I can't tell. I'm just scared that he doesn't correctly fit in his international role _______________ Padawan and brother to SmilyKrazy  - Adopted in the Belouve Family by Fizz and Bubu, BELOUVE ON! - Vladarion, you'll always be in my heart and memories - Spam-Padawan of Jacen Aratan  - [DJ is my beloved wife!  - JA Family: Brothers:
Virtue, Furi0us, Vladarion, Hardwired, Janus, Axion, D@RtHM@UL, Motrec, Mike , xAnAtOs , Luke Skywalker; Little bro to SilkMonkey ; Special kind of brother to Kenyon ; Sisters in-law: Rosered, Ain-Soph Aur] Photoshop works: click here |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
Well, I called Bush's English "poor" because it was just the best contradiction to Kerry's "big words"-English. And can you really be certain he ISN'T a West Texan girl? Thought so. |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
Quote: I personally think it's a bad thing if someone loses votes because he can use big words - some people have a habbit of using them, without thinking about whether others understand them or not (*cough*Java*cough* ). Three words: dictionary dot com And Bush has a fine command of the English language. It's public speaking that he's not great at. He trips over his words, stumbles over sentences. Some of the most intelligent people in the world do that. What I love is how the media pounce on every verbal flub Bush makes and completely ignore those of the Democrats. Bush once referred to men serving on a battleship as "soldiers" (the correct term is "sailors" , and the liberal press jumped all over it--they had ignored Al Gore's having made precisely the same error months earlier. John Edwards, the "eloquent" one? He mixes up his usage of "me" and "myself" all the time. I don't hold it against someone if he's not an expert on grammar, but when someone who graduated from a prestigious law school thinks it's okay to criticize Bush's public speaking, then he should at least have mastered the basic rules of pronouns himself. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. This comment was edited by JavaGuy on Nov 05 2004 03:16pm. |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student 
|
Quote: Yeah, but some just do that naturally - and if you're not gonna punish Bush for speaking poor English, then why punish someone for using big words? ... good point. Well, I don't think his english is poor, let me tell you that first of all. Yes, he makes mistakes, but he's dyslexic, which is why he's prone to make certain mistakes, like the one in Gradius' profile A west Texan Girl, just like me. Everyone knows what he meant, but he just made an ass off himself. Could happen to anyone who's dyslexic. Oh well, you have a good point Jacen  Besides, I don't think Kerry lost all that many votes simply because of his language... He probably just lost a few hundred votes _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
Yeah, but some just do that naturally - and if you're not gonna punish Bush for speaking poor English, then why punish someone for using big words? |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student
|
Quote: I personally think it's a bad thing if someone loses votes because he can use big words - some people have a habbit of using them, without thinking about whether others understand them or not (*cough*Java*cough* ). yeah okay, not positive ... but still, sometimes I watch those elections and I just weep ... (figure of speech) "Big words, wow, you can use big words. Now... who understood what he was saying?" if you get my point. That's why I'll always prefer a President who talks understandable english, and none of that gibberish crap ... _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
I personally think it's a bad thing if someone loses votes because he can use big words - some people have a habbit of using them, without thinking about whether others understand them or not (*cough*Java*cough* ). |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student
|
Quote: But, wasn't Kerry exactly that, an intellectual? which in my opinion made him very impopular. I remember when preparing for my debate that I read through a site saying that he lost a lot of votes in the polls simply because he can use big words ... Bush can't. What good is a leader you don't understand what he's saying? And I agree completely with that. Here in Belgium, we have the Flemish Block, they are the biggest (and dumbest) racists ever who believe that women should be at home, not working, taking care of the children, and they believe that every outsider (not a Belgian) should be banned from Belgium. I won't go over everything they stand for, but it's quite close to the Hitler Germany. They are winning all elections simply because the people understand what they're talking about. All other parties use big words, and only those who are smart (enough) vote for the other parties. But if we say: "Hey, they are sexists who want the wife to stay at home!" no one wants to vote for them anymore. Know what you're voting for, that's all I'd like to say. :-) A bit of googling can make a big difference, (and don't google for 'Bush Bashing' if you're looking up the facts, just my idea) _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. |
|
Nero - Student 
|
Quote: You contradict yourself. You said Kerry's main plan was pointing out errors and not giving solutions. That's pretty much just saying Bush sucks. They ran about the same. The difference was Bush ran on his record and could point out things that some people thought he did good and play on the fact that people thought he would be stronger than Kerry on National Security. Kerry ran on his military record that he refused to completely release to the public, and not using his 20 year record in the senate. Of course the Republican campaign was more than happy to use it. The point is that both parties tried running the "The other guy is horrible" campaign, and at the end of the day Bush is the president. You can be happy, you can be disappointed and move on, or you can be like some morons out there whining about wanting to put it in the courts forever to try and cheat a win or call for civil war. I'd recommend moving on. -I haven't said anything about a "Main plan" - Kerry is attacking the policy, Bush the person. In my opinion attacking the person is far worse than attacking the policy if it comes to the campaign thing. - With the second part I agree. _______________ -Nero Quote: Curious, Smartass, what else? This comment was edited by Nero on Nov 05 2004 09:57am. |
|
Ash - Eats Babies 
|
Quote: Oh noes, the possibility of having HALF THE PRICES we have in Europe. Fear. Oh, horror. Etc. *Sweeps over with sarcasm detector* *Explodes* _______________ "We keep odd hours...." ----------------------- They Live, We Sleep |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
Quote: Bush now can hike up gas prices Oh noes, the possibility of having HALF THE PRICES we have in Europe. Fear. Oh, horror. Etc. |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
I do not believe it takes four years for the economy to change. When incentives change, people's behavior changes pretty much instantly. But sure, Bush certainly inherited a recession from Clinton. The "official" numbers didn't mark it a recession until a couple days into Bush's term, but remember those numbers are collected over a period of months and reflect changes in the economy that have been happening for a while. But the economy can change quickly when incentives change, or it can change only very slowly if that change is delayed. Take the Bush tax cuts, for example. The 2001 tax cuts hardly cut taxes at all. The Democrats claimed they cut taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars, but what they actually did was reduce the (questionably) projected tax revenue over the next ten years by that much, which was actually a drop in the bucket. Moreover, the 2001 tax cuts hardly cut any taxes at all in 2001--they simply promised to cut taxes in future years. Nonetheless the Democrats whined about how the (virtually nonexistant) "cuts" in 2001 supposedly caused deficits--couldn't have had anything to do with the recession Bush inherited from Clinton, could it? Naaaaaaaaaaaaah. Now the idea behind the tax cuts is that when taxes are lower, investment is more attractive, people work harder, save more and consume less, so the economy grows faster. This is sound economic reasoning and is vindicated by the Kennedy tax cuts of the 60s and the Reagan tax cuts of the 80s--tax rates went down, yet tax revenues mysteriously went up, or not so mysteriously since lower tax rates obviously result in much faster economic growth. The Bush tax cuts of 2001, unfortunately, mostly just promised tax cuts in the future...meaning Congress could change its mind before those cuts actually happened. But worse, even if investors at the time had expected the cuts to happen in the future, the fact that they were delayed until the future was a strong disincentive to invest and start/expand business in that year. Think about it this way: You're a car dealer selling cars for $20,000, and next week you plan to have a sale and sell them for $15,000. Do you announce this fact in advance? How many people do you expect to come buy cars for $20,000 when they know they can buy them for $15,000 next week? Same with tax cuts as incentive for investment. Why start a new business in 2001 when tax rates are still outrageously high from the Clinton years, when you know that in 2003 or later they will be lower? So the recovery was sluggish, too sluggish in my opinion. Arguably the delayed tax cuts actually slowed the recovery. But when incentives change quickly, behavior does change quickly. Big tax cuts can stimulate very rapid economic growth in little time, just as big tax increases can clobber the economy in short order. But Bush did not have a strong majority in Congress in 2001, so he pushed through the best tax cut package he could get. I wasn't happy with it, but it was better than nothing. Politics is the art of the possible. As an example of how quickly things can change, note the Dow bounce on Bush's victory. A Kerry victory would have motivated me to dump all my stocks before he and Edwards could tax those companies to death, and many middle-class investors like me would do the same (half of American households have a stock portfolio). Investors were understandably jittery about the election, but when Bush won, bang, investors bought up the market. Change the incentives, change the conditions. Instantly. No four-year wait necessary. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Gradius you might want to check the $200,000 payment. I believe during Clinton or Bush it went up by mandate, because the vice president gets a raise on some basis and based on that raising it was soon going to be that the vice president would make more than the president. I'm not 100% confident on this though so you might want to look. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Dicemaster - Student 
|
They say that the econmy takes an average of four years to truely change. So basically we were seeing clintons mistakes and good things while bush was president. Over the next four years, technically speaking, we should be seeing what bush has done. So personally i don't think its bush's fault that all those jobs were lost. ALSOOOO Plo, your comment about Bush making as much money as he can? thats bull crap. I am currently taking an American Government class at my High school, and basically, the President gets $200,000 a year....NO MATTER WHAT he does. Granted he gets a lot of other great benefits, as well as a $148,400 pension after he retires from office. Thats right all living presidents who have left office are currently being paied 148,400 dollars a year. Besides that money, they get free ofice space and $60,000 a year for highering office staff. Upon there death, there spouses get $20,000 a year. THATS AWESOME.....lol they get like to live for free the rest of there lives. Not to mention that half of them make considerable amounts of money in other ways, for example Bill Clinton was gaurenteed 5 million for his book, so I mean its not like our past presidents are poor, so i highly doubt Bush is trying to raise gas money to put money in pocket -Dice _______________ Dicemaster |
|
JavaGuy - Student
|
[EDIT: Plo actually said three trillion, not five as I originally wrote. That doesn't change my point a bit, but for the sake of acuracy I correct.] [2nd EDIT: Fixed my italics tags!] I find it fascinating that Plo feels qualified to call millions of people stupid when he has irrefutably proven that he himself cannot grasp second-grade arithmetic. Let's go over the budget "surplus" under Clinton, okay? According to Plo, it was three trillion dollars during the Clinton administration. The budget surplus is revenue minus cost (if revenue is greater than cost, otherwise there's a deficit which is cost minus revenues). Revenues under the Clinton administration peaked at $2.105 trillion for fiscal 2001*, about two trillion. This means that according to Plo, two trillion minus the money the Federal government spent that year is three trillion! WOW! Can I learn to do that kind of math? The arithmetic they taught me is a lot less fun--if I have ten bucks, I can only spend that much or less. But seriously... More than grade-school arithmetic, I'd really like to see Plo learn some manners. People of good conscience can disagree about whom to vote for, but the discussion should really be based on facts and reason, not name-calling. Plo began his little tantrum with a posting of "data" about political figures' military careers that he (almost certainly) copy-pasted from the urban legend e-mail we all got a couple months ago beginning with the all-caps entreaty to "FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!" Yes, Plo, almost everybody got that e-mail the first time it went around, but most people know to hit the delete button as soon as they see those messages. It's a good habit to get into and will save you the embarassment of warning all your friends about Mickey Mouse tatoos with LSD in them. After his, um, "data" were countered with actual facts, he kind of lost it. Oh no, people didn't agree with him! And they use facts! The horror! Only one thing to do: Bring out the name-calling. Not only will that never win any arguments with thinking people, Plo, it won't win you any friends, either. I know a lot of Kerry supporters who are willing to discuss their views calmly and rationally using real facts, even if we disagree on how to interpret the facts. They don't make up "facts" that don't even jibe with the laws of arithmetic, much less evidence, as you do. They may never convince me, and I may never convince them, but at the end of the discussion we still go for beer together and are still friends. I suspect you're still very young, and I know this is a lot to take in, but take it from someone who pissed off and alienated a lot of people in his reckless youth: calm and rational and armed with facts is the way to go, and even those who disagree with you will respect you for it. Best of luck. JavaGuy ---------------- *It was actually less, because the $2.105 trillion figure was arrived at by the Clinton administration's counting of money borrowed from the Socialist Security surplus as "revenue," which is like borrowing money on a credit card and calling it "income." Imagine going to a bank to apply for a loan and having the following conversation: You: I'd like to borrow $100,000. Banker: You'll have to make monthly payments of $733. How much money do you earn? You: Six thousand dollars a month. Banker: How do you make that money? You: Well, I make $1,500 a month at my job, and I borrow $4,500 a month on my credit card. Think you'd get the loan? That's the "accounting" method by which the Clinton administration got its "surplus." And BTW, in years where Socialist Security runs a deficit, no, they do not count that as a cost (it's magically "off-budget" nor subtract it from revenues in any way. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. This comment was edited by JavaGuy on Nov 05 2004 02:57am. |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student
|
Quote: Yeah 50 million voted for Kerry and 52 mil. voted for Bush,I believe the people who voted for bush are sadly stupid or ill-educated or brought up a certain way by their parents,Bush now can hike up gas prices and harm the environmant to make as much money as he can before the next 4 years are over  I would have voted for Bush... I am sadly stupid and ill-educated I take it? He can't hike up gas prices, since our gas comes from Venezuela, not Iraq, and the prices are only raised by state taxes, last I heard (being from Belgium) Bush has no relations to the gas prices. To make as much money as he can... When his time is over, he's isn't getting a percentage of the money he made you know. He gets money, no doubt, but he's the President of the United States here. Personally I think you were very insulting with your last comment, as there are a lot here who would have voted for Bush. But that's a different subject, now isn't it. You voted for Kerry, yes, but you have no right at all to judge other people's opinions, at least, that's what I think _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Yeah IQ by state, that's kind of bogus since people in each state voted for both candidates. For all you know in Connecticut, There are a bunch of really high IQ people who voted Republican that give that state such a high IQ. It went 54% Kerry 44% Bush. Maybe the 44% are the smartest people in the state. You don't know. And maybe there are some really stupid democrats in the states that went for Bush. You don't really know and that's a crap attempt at a statistic. And congratulations Plo, you've just insulted 52 million people by calling them stupid. I didn't call anyone voting for Kerry stupid. Grow up and learn some tact before you start talking next time. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. This comment was edited by Buzz on Nov 05 2004 01:16am. |
|
Plo Koon - Student 
|
Yeah 50 million voted for Kerry and 52 mil. voted for Bush,I believe the people who voted for bush are sadly stupid or ill-educated or brought up a certain way by their parents,Bush now can hike up gas prices and harm the environmant to make as much money as he can before the next 4 years are over _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
But, wasn't Kerry exactly that, an intellectual? |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student
|
Quote: Everyone at my school hates Bush. Even my 'clever' art teacher accidentally called him a retard. But I don't see whats so bad about him. I happen to have the exact same opinion as you Everybody Quote: I have to honestly say that I completely disagree with this site. I think it's those who have checked out the facts about both contestants, (and this is entirely my opinion) voted for Bush, for good reasons in my opinion too And checking your facts, is in my opinion, a sign of intelligence, so ... Note: This was entirely my opinion ... _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. This comment was edited by Bail Hope of Belouve on Nov 04 2004 10:39pm. |
|
Malk - Student 
|
http://geekgossip.net/2004election_by_iq.png This website says it all really _______________ You swing too hard, ass. I Swear!!! This comment was edited by Malk on Nov 05 2004 06:08pm. |
|
Smilykrazy - Retired 
|
I wanted Bush to win and I am glad he did. _______________ RIP MOM 06/29/58-07/31/08 Married to Koyi Donita 4/30/11 |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |