TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › More Bush.. sorry!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

More Bush.. sorry!

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
I've been trying to get off of the whole I hate Bush thing, but someone sent me a link to this flash movie, about the first election.. Granted it's on a sort of anti bush site, but I have been told by a probush person that it is accurate (although this guy was online so who knows).. I just thought that this was a really interesting collection of facts..

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

Sorry again about the overbushing of the IMO board.
post #2 of 22
Well, I wasn't surprised...
BTW, Bush just plain SCARES me!!!!!
post #3 of 22
Ditto to what Lorie said.

post #4 of 22
OMG, thank you for sharing that!

While it's nothing I didn't know (I followed the 2000 election debacle and its aftermath religiously), I'm awed by such an amazing, powerful presentation. It really hits you in the gut. Sadly the outrageous conflict of interest that Katherine Harris represented is par for the course in this administration. (*cough* Halliburton *cough* )

Nearly three years later, my anger over that election travesty has yet to subside. (Actually I don't think it should. IMO every US citizen should be angry over having our voting rights being usurped.)

Speaking purely aesthetically, the production itself is incredibly well done. I love the music.

So thanks, Annabelle! As far as I'm concerned, there can never be too much antibushifying.
post #5 of 22
Pres. Bush was here yesterday. He spoke at our Congress. Well, I get bored listening to speeches so I didn't pay much attention to it. Laura Bush took time out to read to public school kids. It was a short visit (8hrs.).
One thing I noticed though, that man looked tired!
post #6 of 22
Bush is screwing up.

Our economy is in the toilet and we are spending money rebuilding Iraq ? Meanwhile over 1 million people are out of work...many good people who just got downsized.

I heard someone say the other day...."The economy will recover and most of the people out of work are just bottom feeders who were overemployed". I wanted to smack her.

Bush is making the US more of a target for terrorism. When I hear the amount of money we are spending to rebuild a country of people who don't want us there....it makes me sick. Meanwhile, US citizens are running out of unemployment benefits and being forced to take crappy jobs just to pay their mortgages. The government won't extend benefits, but will fork over millions to Iraq ? What the hell ?

I'm glad I started my own business or my family would be bankrupt.
post #7 of 22
No surprises there, but I really enjoyed it. I'm still furious about how the election was hijacked - I had always thought that such things only happened in "Banana Republics". It's over the top, but you might enjoy Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men". I'm getting to the same point my mom (71, a lifelong Republican until Clinton's impeachment hearings) has been at since the elections - turn off the TV whenever Bush is on.
post #8 of 22
Wow - that was scary! As a Brit I am not really in a position to comment one way or another (but Ive never really cared much for Bush or Blair for that matter). But 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.
Who actually votes for congress? is it the same as over here i.e. the people vote for a representative in 'parliment'. Oh boy i feel ignorant!
My big fear is the way my government seems hell bent on following Bush into every battle large or small even though the people march and protest.
Oops and I wasnt going to comment.
post #9 of 22
The people I blame the most for our current political situation are the $2.9 million fools who voted for Ralph Nader who in my mind is nothing but a self-aggrandizing ego-maniac who was proud to be the spoiler in the 2000 election. Most of those voters (IMO) were disaffected Democrats, who fell for the anti-establishment, pro-consumer pitch of Mr. Nader, who himself is worth more than $4 million from what I've read.In Florida, 97,000 people voted for Nader, far more than the hanging chads and butterfly ballot questioned votes combined. A week or so before the elction, I started getting copied on emails from a few different people who were exhorting their friends & family to NOT vote for Nader, since they suddenly realized that the election was going to be close in some states. I was actually shocked to see the emails, because I didn't think anyone in their right mind would vote for Nader, if they had public-interest concerns.

The economy is a big problem, but an even bigger problem will be if
Bush gets to appoint any Supreme Court Justices, since he has said on multiple occasions that Scalia and Thomas are his 'model' Justices. A few more like them and America will really be in trouble.
post #10 of 22
tulip2454, I think it's the same thing, we vote for our representatives in both Congress and the Senate.
post #11 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by Lucia
The people I blame the most for our current political situation are the 2.9 million fools who voted for Ralph Nader who in my mind is nothing but a self-aggrandizing ego-maniac who was proud to be the spoiler in the 2000 election.
Yup, a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush!

I hope people learned from this mistake and don't do it again!!
post #12 of 22
Well, seems like the disillusioned Republicans did. A vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton the first time around. Although I still think it's pretty sad that there is just no way that a third party candidate even stands a chance in today's political climate. Regardless of who won, I think that the country would be in a fix right now. Gore was no better qualified than Bush IMO. Both parties put up nincompoops as candidates knowing that one of them will prevail.
post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by valanhb
Well, seems like the disillusioned Republicans did. A vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton the first time around. Although I still think it's pretty sad that there is just no way that a third party candidate even stands a chance in today's political climate. Regardless of who won, I think that the country would be in a fix right now. Gore was no better qualified than Bush IMO. Both parties put up nincompoops as candidates knowing that one of them will prevail.

I have a hard time describing Gore as a 'nincompoop' unless you use it with a different meaning than I do. I've heard him described as boring, and stiff and inconsistent, but I never heard a single Republican call him stupid. He's an expert on the environment. He reads and writes books. He was even more conservative on military defense than Clinton was, who by the way, got toasted by the Republicans for bombing suspected terrorists sites after the US Mision in Kenya was bombed. Gore for certain as a church-going family man would not have used his religion to set his public policy. He was pro-choice. He didn't give speeches at Bob Jones University whose founder was rabidly anti-Catholic. If a Republican was going to be President, I would have felt a heck of a lot safer with John McCain than George Bush. At least he can think for himself. GW just does what daddy's advisors tell him to do, which is why we are in this quagmire in Iraq. And on 9-11, as a New Yorker who voted for him twice, it was Rudy Giuliani who kept panic at bay in America, not GWB who seemed more determined that day to protect his own a$$ than the woes of his nation.
post #14 of 22
Again, I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I meant that statement as a commentary of the general political system, not necessarily of that one election. But thanks for the rundown of the merits of Gore. Perhaps if he had been presented in that manner during the campaign, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

My apologies for interrupting your Bush-Bashing.
post #15 of 22
LMAO...i rather enjoy bush-bashing...i didn't vote for him and never would.

we need more strong third party candidates, and to re-educate the public from thinking that voting for one is a "waste of a vote". the only wasted vote is the one not cast. THOSE are the people who threw the last election. the millions of people who were too lazy to get off their a$$es and take two minutes to vote. and those people had better not complain, they have no right to. you don't vote, then you'd better just accept the results, your vote could have made a difference.
post #16 of 22
Quote:
your vote could have made a difference.
I agree, and I think the last fiasco of a presidential election proved how much difference a few votes either way would have made.

Sadly, I don't know how much of a difference that will have made when it comes to the next election. Maybe it will encourage some who didn't vote to do so; unfortunately, I'm guessing it will serve as an excuse for others to justify their not voting ("what's the point - it doesn't count anyway"). I hope I'm proven wrong on that. What does that make me - an cynical optimist?? Kind of an oyxymoron.
post #17 of 22
Thanks for the infor Laurie D.
Someone votes for these people. Its like over here when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister for 18 years. when it all went wrong you couldnt find even one person who would admit voting for her-but SOMEONE must have (I did for one).
Maybe the electorate becomes apathetic and bored etc so when it matters they just dont care. Blair got into power with the lowest turn out since the 1st world war so what does that tell you about how the British view their politicians. People think that their one vote does not/can not make a difference but how wrong they are. One person CAN change the world, we just have to remember that power comes from the bottom up not the top down!
post #18 of 22
VERY true Tulip...our last election ALSO had the lowest voter turn out that (i THINK) our country has ever seen.

how sad that people do not believe in the power of their vote!
post #19 of 22
[quote]Originally posted by tulip2454
[b]Who actually votes for congress? is it the same as over here i.e. the people vote for a representative in 'parliment'.

There's "proportional representation" in the House of Representatives (lower house, roughly equivalent to the House of Commons). Each state is divided into districts, and there is one representative for roughly 600,000 people, with a minimum of one representative per state. All fifty states have two senators each, regardless of the size of the population. Presidential candidates and their "running mates", i.e. candidates for Vice President, are elected separately. Cabinet members are appointed by the president, but must be approved by the Senate (upper house, roughly equivalent to the House of Lords). They may not be members of Congress, and thus must give up their seats if appointed and confirmed. We have three separate branches (at least in theory): the executive branch, consisting of the President and Vice President, commonly referred to as the "White House", the legislative branch, consisting of the two houses of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives, commonly referred to as "Capitol Hill" or "the Hill"), and the judicial branch (Supreme court and lower federal, state and local courts). Recently there have been problems with the various branches "poaching" on each others' turfs. IMO, all the branches currently have their "bogeymen".
post #20 of 22
[quote]Originally posted by tulip2454
Who actually votes for congress? is it the same as over here i.e. the people vote for a representative in 'parliment'.

There's "proportional representation" in the House of Representatives (lower house, roughly equivalent to the House of Commons). Each state is divided into districts, and there is one representative for roughly 600,000 people, with a minimum of one representative per state. All fifty states have two senators each, regardless of the size of the population. Presidential candidates and their "running mates", i.e. candidates for Vice President, are elected separately. Cabinet members are appointed by the president, but must be approved by the Senate (upper house, roughly equivalent to the House of Lords). They may not be members of Congress, and thus must give up their seats if appointed and confirmed. We have three separate branches (at least in theory): the executive branch, consisting of the President and Vice President, commonly referred to as the "White House", the legislative branch, consisting of the two houses of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives, commonly referred to as "Capitol Hill" or "the Hill"), and the judicial branch (Supreme Court and lower federal, state and local courts). Recently there have been problems with the various branches "poaching" on each others' turfs. IMO, all the branches currently have their "bogeymen".
post #21 of 22
well i'll tell ya,im not a big Bush fan BUT i will stand behind
him because he IS the president
post #22 of 22
I'd always thought it would be better to have a strong third party, but after living in Germany, where coalition governments are the norm, I wonder. There are two big parties, the SPD (Social Democrats) and CDU (Christian Democrats - no official separation of church and state here - we even pay "church tax"!). Since no party ever seems to get an absolute majority, the big party with the most votes has to form a coalition with a small party like the "Free Democrats" or "Greens". That, of course, means compromise, and gives the small party more power than warranted by the election results. While Germany is fairly stable, other countries with coalition governments (I'm thinking of Italy and Israel) seem to constantly be holding elections. I also think that many people in the U.S. don't vote a) because their state may not have "automatic registration", and it's a hassle to reregister if you've missed a few elections, for whatever reasons, and b) many people don't register to vote because they want to avoid jury duty, and their state picks potential jurors from voter registration lists. I personally prefer being able to elect local officials from district attorneys to school board members to dog catchers, instead of having to rely on appointees, but I think many people are simply overwhelmed by the ballots, and therefore don't vote. Moving Election Day from "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in October" to a Sunday would probably increase voter turnout,too.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › More Bush.. sorry!