Reasons to vote for Bush?

DaSilva

No, this isn't another Bush Bashing™ thread, there's plenty of them should we need it.

Personally I'm not pro Bush, however thats irrelevant for this thread. I get this feeling Bush is going to be relected.

So, I'm wondering why is this? From my perspective, he is a danger to the world, has absurd foreign policies, complete lack of empathy and is completely corparate driven. Yet people vote for him? So I have reached the conclusion that I am simply not educated enough in this area and so have come here to learn more.

Why is it that Americans are voting for him? What are his party's aims that have drawn such an ammount of followers? And if you are pro Bush, do things such as Abu Gharib, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, etc... bother you or do you believe in his actions?

Im trying to remove my Bush ignorance, not my spelling ignorance, so grammar police keep your distance :P

MadsL

My fear about the election is that there seems to be an anti-confrontation sentiment in the US voter. This means Kerry cannot bring full force of the the liberal wrath to bear on Bush without being seen as a raving radical. Pity, as I feel that he may be more successful at this than the standard press-the-flesh meet-the-press approach.

At least my wife has a vote. That's 1 vote for Kerry.

Simi

I like his tie, thats a good enough reason.

magick

i remember on CBS news they asked a woman why she was voting for Bush her reply was ..."because hes a christian" the reporter paused for a second expecting more of an answer from her , but i think that sums it up, he has every bible waving Beer guzzing redneck in his pocket, if you look at his speeches and the location of them its usually an Army Base with troops in the backround with American Flag Waving everywhere, and his usual rantings "Terror,terror, iraq,iraqi,saddam,wmd, arent i great?" and so on,its constantly hamered home to people ,whats really disturbing is that the race is so close ,that 50% (nearly) of people actually buy into his type of thinking! :eek:

BlitzKrieg

i think a portion of the less *religous* voting populace feel that the devil you know is better then the devil you dont...


Kerry has constantly changed his opinions on key topics (war in iraq) and has failed to present himself to the public as anything more then *another person who is NOT bush*

to some people this would be enough...but others want to know that kerry wont be a complete muppet in office.


Bish on the other hand...they've *survived* 4 years with him...whats another 4.

the little detail people are forgetting though in the devil you know train of thought...The next 4 years Bush doesnt need to keep the public image to run for another election because he cant so i can see his policies taking a step up rather then a step down next year...


c'est la vie.

shotamoose

I think about 30% of the 'will-definitely-vote's would vote for Bush almost no matter what, simply because he is a fundamentalist Christian and plays to that agenda. Many of them believe in the fundamental truth of the Bible, which makes them objectively insane, but there you go, it's a free country etc.

leeroybrown

The main reason I can see for voting Bush is the continuation of the accelerated economic doom of the United States.

Hobbes

DaSilva wrote:

Why is it that Americans are voting for him? What are his party's aims that have drawn such an ammount of followers? And if you are pro Bush, do things such as Abu Gharib, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, etc... bother you or do you believe in his actions?

Read Fox News, it will clear it all up for you.

Or you could try this...

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4398

Now if you will excuse me, I need to get a tissue for my eyes bleeding.

Edit: This one is funny though.. http://www.americandaily.com/article/113

BlitzKrieg

here you go...its a wierd forum but you have americans talking about voting on it and they explain why they are voting bush

http://invisionfree.com/forums/The_Fallout_Shelter/index.php?showtopic=4399&st=0

turns into a argument above gay marraiges halfway through though.

keu

"the devil you know is better than the devil you don't"

bush will be re elected in novemeber, providing the election goes ahead and is not "hindered" by a code red cancellation.

The removal of troops from europe is just so that he can send them back next year following massive terror strikes across Europe.

Bush will take an assination bullet (fired by a friendly colleague) will die and rise again on the third day.

2008, G.W. Bush becomes the first leader of the new global Governing body after Europe is devastated following four years of war against (US funded)Islamic terrorism.

edit: all characters and situations are entirely fictional and are used for entertainment purposes only.

Redleslie2

leeroybrown wrote:

The main reason I can see for voting Bush is the continuation of the accelerated economic doom of the United States.

And by extension, the rest of the world probably. And then there'll be loads and loads of war.

ronanp

BlitzKrieg wrote:

here you go...its a wierd forum but you have americans talking about voting on it and they explain why they are voting bush

http://invisionfree.com/forums/The_Fallout_Shelter/index.php?showtopic=4399&st=0

turns into a argument above gay marraiges halfway through though.

LOL! Democracy sure does work...

" People don't realize there are multiple parties, and until they do the chances of us having a good President are second to none"

"And I don't really care for either side, Bush or Kerry. Therefore, I'm going to vote for a third party, whoever THAT is"

"Bush is protecting our country, and even though I may be 16 years old and incapable of casting my own vote, my vote DOES go out for him."

keu

"I want the US either try to get along with our allies or to tell them "We're the superpower and we'll do as we damn well please", anything that's not the political crap that's been going on."

"I agree that we should tell the other countrys to either help or stay outa our way! On a final note I support Bushes amendment to abolish "gay marriage". "

aye aye

Big Ears

don't forget if Bush isnt a elected everyone will be talking : Arabbic/Farsie/Chinese :rolleyes: .

you know I wouldnt mind if this election is fixed..............once Nader wins that is . .

The lesser of 3 evils I say .

dangerman

Don't forget too, every time an american switches on his/her tv set, he's bombarded with advertisements 'kerry kills and eats children' etc. - the level of attack advertising is massive on both sides + with the huge cash advantage bush has he can afford more airtime.

The reason why so many ppl vote for Bush is because those who control the media have marginalised the population by very clever manipulation of the news. So in essence Americans are not really given any choice.

Kerry does not represent an alternative, he is from the same background as Bush.And lets not forget the US is the only 'democracy' in the world that do not have a labour movement represented in any house of government. At the end of the day Kerry will not make much of a difference. The neo-con hawks will find a way to manipulate the government institutions one way or another.

From day one Americans are indoctrinated and brainwashed into the system by repeating the pledge of allegiance. Therefore any institution that wishes to control the population only has to use patriotic images to trigger the emotive response required to acquire unflinching support. This is the exact same method that any facist or fundamentalist state uses to control the people.

vorbis

severe paranoia there nixmix. Most americans i've met wouldn't fit into the blind patriotic category. They have a different democratic system to su. Saying they're being indocrinated because of that is well a bit ignorant.

ixoy

Seems to be a couple of elements. Firstly, you've got the likes of FOX News screaming about how terrorists are about to slaughter half of the US unless we let Dubya have lots of money for the war on terror. It's rare that any of these media outlets question the fundamental reasoning behind this war so a fair whack of the populace don't question it.
As to the questioning of what they're told... seems to be a few reasons for that. It's a media-saturated country but generally one blaring a single patriotic message. If it's all you know, if all you're ever taught is this view of the world... why would you think differently? We could answer, of course, that you go check out the facts for yourself, question the validity of what you're told. And this brings me to something interesting that came up at work yesterday...
Basically there's a difference in the way we're educated in Europe and the U.S. In Europe we're given material in a subject and, in the exam, we don't know what to expect - only that we'll use what we've been taught to derive the answer to a question. It generally involves making some deductions and possibly creative leaps to achieve this. It's quite noticable in a field like mathematics. However, the U.S. system uses a different learning design methodology. It's the principle of reinforcement. You tell them something once and then repeat and repeat, driving it home. Questions and theories are derived from what you've been taught and, going into an exam, you can expect to know - broadly - what's going to come up. The idea of making a creative leap, or essentially have to think more about the subject, isn't there in the same manner. This mindset then permeates into adulthood where they have a greater degree of compliancy with the president and, unlike here or the UK for example, become much more hardline about the topic despite never possibly fully understanding why...

Hobbes

Redleslie2 wrote:

And by extension, the rest of the world probably. And then there'll be loads and loads of war.

Tell me about it.. I see ESB are going to put an 8% price hike come the winter because of Iraq.

mike65

Hobbes wrote:

Tell me about it.. I see ESB are going to put an 8% price hike come the winter because of Iraq.

Roffle! They're doing that to fatten the calf.

Mike.

Stabshauptmann

Not pro bush at all and dont agree with any of this but..

*He is a strong believer in the american way of life and holds its values safe from enemies of the free world

*He has strong religious conviction. These include anti-abortion and religious education in schools and religious themes in state policies.

*He is a good family character, he stands by his daughters and they stand by him plus you always see him surrounded by family and friends of family

*He is a leader and role model

*He is willing (though not happy) to make the tough decisions needed to safeguard freedom.

:rolleseyes

mike65

During times of crisis ppl usually vote for, a) the incumbant and b) the guy who seems to be most resolute. The Amercian ppl seem to think they're in times of crisis (helped by the media) and many really do think Bush is a strong leader, while Kerry as stated above has shifted his views on some big issues.

Mike.

StickyMcGinty

bush is a strong leader on homeland security, as is shown by Kerry voting to cut homeland security budget by 6 billion quid. kerry is changing his opinion on issues, to try and win voters! and they can see right through that!

I dont think FoxNews deserves all the bashing you guys give it, on most shows they give a 2 way slant (eg. Hannity & Combs, with Sean Hannity being Conservative, and Alan Combs being liberal) and it usually gives 2 very good points of view! the likes of Fox&Friends provide more entertainment but phrases like "War on Terror" are justified because, America is in fact, leading a war on terror.

I dont think Kerry is a strong leader, i think bush looks after his own country well (which obviously is the concern of the american voters) and although i hate things like him pulling out of the Kyoto (sp?) agreement, most of his home policies are fair.

And it REALLY annoys me when people say Bush cant lead a country because he makes a few mistakes when speaking! A person can be the smartest person in the world and still stutter, our own Bertie has a bit of a stutter (not that he's the smartest in the world or anything )

Bush has a tough time over in Europe, the press led by the un-american Micky Moore give him an terrible rollicking day-in day-out, which is not deserved the whole time. Releasing films like 9/11 i believe has given bush more support in the US, even if it is helping Al-Quaeda to recruit in the middle east.

theres my 2 euro anyway!

sceptre

VinnyL wrote:

bush is a strong leader on homeland security, as is shown by Kerry voting to cut homeland security budget by 6 billion quid.

In fairness, in itself, that doesn't prove Bush is any more of a leader on homeland security than anyone else who can spend an extra 6 billion quid. Unless the money's actually going somewhere useful (and I'd like to see where but merely spending more money doesn't necessarily mean anything)

StickyMcGinty

sceptre wrote:

In fairness, in itself, that doesn't prove Bush is any more of a leader on homeland security than anyone else who can spend an extra 6 billion quid. Unless the money's actually going somewhere useful (and I'd like to see where but merely spending more money doesn't necessarily mean anything)

i know, but it does show what his policy is on security, something which rthe american people are VERY concerned about



I think that this is what will be the deciding factor between Kerry & Bush...


If on election day the economy is more importent, Kerry will be elected, and if the war on terror is more importend on the day, Bush will be elected. its gonna be 58/42 for bush me reckons anyway!

Hobbes

VinnyL wrote:

I dont think FoxNews deserves all the bashing you guys give it, on most shows they give a 2 way slant (eg. Hannity & Combs, with Sean Hannity being Conservative, and Alan Combs being liberal) and it usually gives 2 very good points of view!

Fox News is an oxymoron. They don't show two views, unless the other view can be cut off, belittled and the subject changed.

Also Fox News is the only news channel to sue it's reporters for not lying about a news story and actually winning. #

You can also check out Media Matters. Its a website that looks for lies in the media. Fox gets the most coverage through its actions.

i think bush looks after his own country well

Sorry but he's run the US into the toilet at the moment. Mass jobs migration, keeping population in constant fear, massive deficit, $ gettting more and more worthless and skimming of money from Bush and Co from the taxpayers.

A person can be the smartest person in the world and still stutter, our own Bertie has a bit of a stutter (not that he's the smartest in the world or anything )

True, but a person who is a complete idiot can also stutter or mess up their words.

the press led by the un-american Micky Moore give him an terrible rollicking day-in day-out,

Moore is American. He is also nothing to do with the Press. Never occur to you that they are reporting facts, or that you ever bother to investigate what they are reporting to see if it is true or not?

Also can you tell me what Un-American is.

Releasing films like 9/11 i believe has given bush more support in the US, even if it is helping Al-Quaeda to recruit in the middle east.

Have you watched the movie? Can you tell me what parts did that?

theres my 2 euro anyway!

I didn't think the $ inflation had gotten that bad for 2cents.

Redleslie2

VinnyL wrote:

And it REALLY annoys me when people say Bush cant lead a country because he makes a few mistakes when speaking! A person can be the smartest person in the world and still stutter, our own Bertie has a bit of a stutter (not that he's the smartest in the world or anything )

Bush doesn't have a stutter. He's illiterate and ignorant. And say what you like about Bertie, but he's not stupid by any stretch and he's not a bad diplomat at all.

StickyMcGinty

thats my point... bertie is a very good de-de-de-diplomat, and he has a tiny bit of the eh eh eh during his speeches, doesnt make him a bad leader!

i ask someone why they dont like bush, and #1 answer.... he cant even speak!

why does that matter?!

Have you watched the movie? Can you tell me what parts did that?

Moores "documentry" (and i use that term VERY loosely) has been over critical of bush, and the american people have seen through michael moore, and bush has gained points from it.

Moore is American. He is also nothing to do with the Press. Never occur to you that they are reporting facts, or that you ever bother to investigate what they are reporting to see if it is true or not?

Also can you tell me what Un-American is.

Sure. I didnt mean that moore is a journalist, because he definately is not, just that he is the biggest critic of the USA in todays world. he is a lunatic lefty.

jefferson said that to discent against ones country is the most patriotic thing anyone can do, but moore is not discenting, he is un-patriotic and un-american. HE supposedly loves america, yet he is looking to tranform it in to a socialist/fascist country.

hes what moveon.org is all about!

agree?

ixoy

VinnyL wrote:

i ask someone why they dont like bush, and #1 answer.... he cant even speak!

why does that matter?!

Umm there's a difference between the likes of a mild speech impediment, an occasional stutter, and saying incredibly stupid things. People don't lambast Bush for a stutter - it's for the faux pas that come out of his mouth. If it was one, that'd be okay, but there's a long history of them. And no, he shouldn't be held up to the same standards as the common folk. He needs to be held up to higher ones. He's representing their country to the world and, as he has alas done, cultivating an image of an imbecilic speaker is not exactly useful...

Moores "documentry" (and i use that term VERY loosely) has been over critical of bush, and the american people have seen through michael moore, and bush has gained points from it.

Source?

HE supposedly loves america, yet he is looking to tranform it in to a socialist/fascist country.

Fascist? What? Huh? What? No seriously what are you on about?

agree?

No.

Hobbes

VinnyL wrote:

Moores "documentry" (and i use that term VERY loosely) has been over critical of bush, and the american people have seen through michael moore, and bush has gained points from it.

and you seem to be implying that all or some of it is unjustified. Have you seen the movie? If so can you point out which points you felt were unfair or incorrect? And please no pointing to other peoples opinions (pointing to facts is ok). I want yours.

just that he is the biggest critic of the USA in todays world. he is a lunatic lefty.

If you saw the movie (which I doubt) you would see that he isn't a critic of the USA. He is a critic of Bush. In fact his movie is very pro-American (and in some cases someone insulting to other countries).

You say he is a lunatic? How? or are you just quoting newpaper comments?

jefferson said that to discent against ones country is the most patriotic thing anyone can do, but moore is not discenting, he is un-patriotic and un-american.

If he is not dissenting, what is he doing then? You have yet to explain what un-American is. Is it that complaining about Bush is un-American and un-Patriotic? If so why?

HE supposedly loves america, yet he is looking to tranform it in to a socialist/fascist country.

Do you have links to actual proof of this? Where exactly does Moore say that the US would be better as a socialist/fascist country? Actually Moore isn't far off from comparing Bush to a Facist. So prehaps both of you have a different defination of what a facist is.

hes what moveon.org is all about!

agree?

Agree on what? Have you read moveon.org? Do you even know what the website is about?

i ask someone why they dont like bush, and #1 answer.... he cant even speak!

Well you have to think that as President he should be able to clearly get his point across and not say the complete opposite thing to what the question is about.

You think it shouldn't matter? "Axis of Evil" speech had negative effects and actually started NK on speeding up the process to getting nukes.

His speech in Japan where he made a Bushism actually caused a half a yen off the value of the $ in a day. The White House had to make an official statement saying he said the wrong thing to stop it dropping even more.

When you have someone who has the potencial to completly fuk up the world, you really want your best and brightest. Bush is neither.

sceptre

VinnyL wrote:

jefferson said that to discent against ones country is the most patriotic thing anyone can do, but moore is not discenting, he is un-patriotic and un-american.

Any chance of a definition of the difference? How dissenting do you actually have to be before you become unpatriotic and un-American (again whatever that is - are you using the Joe McCarthy definition?)? Do you have to piss on a flag[1]? Or burn the Bill of Rights?

Patriotism, as Teddy Roosevelt once said, means to stand by your country, not by your president. He said that over a hundred years after Jefferson made his remarks about dissent being the highest form of patriotism and well over a hundred years after Tom Paine said that the duty of the patriot is to protect his country from the government. It's the measure of a democracy when people have the freedom to voice their opinions and that's exactly what Moore is doing. And whether you love the guy or hate the guy, agree solidly with him or disagree with every opinion - or like the rational among us find a happy medium between all four - it's a little odd to criticise the guy for being "un-American" and "un-patriotic" after opening with a paraphrased Jefferson quote which implies that dissenters are among the most necessary of citizens. Freedom gives birth to eternal vigilance and vice-versa, without both any democracy is a sham. Criticise the guy for being a dumbass if you can, for his opinions if you wish and for his actions if you like. It's what many people do with Bush. Limiting your attacks to calling someone "un-American" and "un-patriotic" with very little to back it up, while equating socialism and facism, is pretty weak.


[1]I'd go with flag-burning but for Texas v Johnson (1989). Bush Senior tried to reverse that but US v Eichman confirmed it. Pissing it is then.

Memnoch

VinnyL wrote:

thats my point... bertie is a very good de-de-de-diplomat, and he has a tiny bit of the eh eh eh during his speeches, doesnt make him a bad leader!

yes having a bit of a stutter doesn't make him a bad leader. But bush doesn't have a stutter. He just doesn't seem to be able to construct coherent sentences. When you say things that are outrightly stupid the way bush does, it DOES have an effect on leadership capablities because he appears like an idiot, and people are less likely to take an idiot seriously, or atleast someone who they THINK is an idiot.

Moores "documentry" (and i use that term VERY loosely) has been over critical of bush, and the american people have seen through michael moore, and bush has gained points from it.

you're just quoting fox news propaganda. Its very bad to blast or criticise something when all your information comes from the same source, maybe you should TRY to actually research your own information for a change? In my opinion Moore wasn't as critical of bush and co as he should/could have been. ANd really if you're going to criticize the movie, you should SEE it first, then tell us what particular bit in the movie you find to be so offensive. Until then, it just looks like you're quoting fox news propaganda.

Sure. I didnt mean that moore is a journalist, because he definately is not, just that he is the biggest critic of the USA in todays world. he is a lunatic lefty.

Actually you're wrong, Moore comes accross to me as being extremely patriotic, something which makes me a bit quesy sometimes, as i'm not really a big fan of patriotism. you say he's a lunatic, but where is the proof. And please tell me what is bad about being a lefty? Most of europe is like that, and america itself is founded on both Right AND left. All you do is make blanket statements which show that you don't really know anything about the issues at hand. Lets see some facts to back up these statements shall we?

jefferson said that to discent against ones country is the most patriotic thing anyone can do, but moore is not discenting, he is un-patriotic and un-american. HE supposedly loves america, yet he is looking to tranform it in to a socialist/fascist country.

again more unbacked statements. firstly define un-patriotic and un-american then show us exactly how moore meets those definitions.
When did moore say he wants it to become a socialist/fascist country. And socialism and fascism are NOT the same things by the way. I'd say moore is TRYING to make america more democratic and LESS fascist.

hes what moveon.org is all about!

whats moveon.org about?

please, research you're facts. ANd you would be much better off if you ignored fox crap propaganda and started using some real media for your information. The problem with fox news propaganda is that its extremely hollow, if you try quoting that to any semi-educated person, they will tear your arguement to shreds, as several posters have done already in this thread. Remember facts >>> fiction

StickyMcGinty

lads, your getting me wrong. perhaps i'm hurrying my responses and not explaining myself properly. sorry, but this is my third post to the politics board, and its a step up from "After Hours"

and you seem to be implying that all or some of it is unjustified. Have you seen the movie? If so can you point out which points you felt were unfair or incorrect? And please no pointing to other peoples opinions (pointing to facts is ok). I want yours.

The fact is that moores film is full of propeganda, and he has been very loose with his facts. I have seen the movie 3 times, i have it in divx on this PC!


Moore calls bush a LIAR because told the country there were WMD's in Iraq, and he used this as an excuse to invade Iraq. Complete crap.

The 9/11 report, the Lord Butler Report and Putins report, all said that faulty intelligence from the CIA, MI6 and the Kremlin led to bush being misinformed. Now Bush did make a mistake, but he made a tough call on the best intelligence that he had at the time. he was misinformed by 3 legitimate intelligence organisations, with huge reputations. yet moore still calls him a liar.

If you saw the movie (which I doubt) you would see that he isn't a critic of the USA. He is a critic of Bush. In fact his movie is very pro-American (and in some cases someone insulting to other countries).

You say he is a lunatic? How? or are you just quoting newpaper comments?

Would you agree that this is World War 3?

Moore criticises the US way of life, not just the war.

A time of war is when a country comes together, but america is truly a very divided country. Moore bad-mouths his country to foreign press day-in day-out.

i consider moore a lunatic lefty because of the sheer propeganda included in his movie. Moores movie has been discredited world wide. The whole "bin-laden family escape from the US" chapter, has been discredited by the 9/11 commission. The extreme left has been trying to flog these lies to us for months now. they are throwing mud against the white house, hoping some will stick.

in one part of the movie, it shows iraqi children cut and wounded, and then cuts to american choppers in the sky, listening to heavy metal music, trying to show that the soldiers are celebrating hurting iraqi children! COMPLETLY IRRESPONSIBLE editing from Moore. Moore trys to slander these troops while they are fighing to liberate 27 million people in iraq. patriotic?

He calls americans stupid. is he not american? are his mother and father who raised him not american?

My definition of "un-american" is disloyal and unpatriotic. moore fills these criteriae.

I could go on about moore all day, but this thread is about bush.

Do you have links to actual proof of this? Where exactly does Moore say that the US would be better as a socialist/fascist country? Actually Moore isn't far off from comparing Bush to a Facist. So prehaps both of you have a different defination of what a facist is.

Moore is not stupid enough to SAY that he wants the us as a socialist country. but what else would a critic of a democratic capitalist society want?

i keep my distance from that crazy moveon.org site. Even kerry is smart enough to do that.

and apologies on my facism remark.... dont know what i was thinkin...!! gotta stop rolling outta bed on to boards.ie

any more questions.... ?

EDIT: i'll include sources from now on.... apologies to those who requested them.

BlitzKrieg

but what else would a critic of a democratic capitalist society want?

a legal political labour movement?

A time of war is when a country comes together, but america is truly a very divided country.

wouldnt this be enough of a hint that Bush's policies are not the best for america? The only other american war to get this much division was the vietnam war and everyone feels that was a mistake. Even worse the division of that didnt start until the body bags did. There were large scale protests about this policy before the war even bagun.

StickyMcGinty

wouldnt this be enough of a hint that Bush's policies are not the best for america? The only other american war to get this much division was the vietnam war and everyone feels that was a mistake. Even worse the division of that didnt start until the body bags did. There were large scale protests about this policy before the war even bagun.

true, but would it not also be a fact that moore and other bush-bashers are fuelling the fire when it comes to america being divided. i mean, there is not just disaggreement out there, which is to be expected in an election year, but sheer hatred for bush!

sovtek

vorbis wrote:

severe paranoia there nixmix. Most americans i've met wouldn't fit into the blind patriotic category. They have a different democratic system to su. Saying they're being indocrinated because of that is well a bit ignorant.

he has a point though. From day one of the public school system you are indoctrinated. It starts with the pledge and then singing patriotic songs. It then gets more subtle as you get older. No more pledges but then the history books can be awfully subjective.
As well there is a tendency to favor the multiple choice way of doing things, rather than a think-for-yourself method.
But you are correct that it doesn't mean that everyone buys into it. We aren't robots.

BlitzKrieg

true, but would it not also be a fact that moore and other bush-bashers are fuelling the fire when it comes to america being divided. i mean, there is not just disaggreement out there, which is to be expected in an election year, but sheer hatred for bush!

i agree micheal moore can fan the flames...but the flames were allready present. I mean Bush couldnt go for the traditional walk into office because of how the crowds felt. this was before moore and 9/11. There was uproar over the election. and you must remember he has his fathers record sitting on top of him, and the record of most of his advisors.


also on the speakign problem. Is it not worrying that he cant physically say the word nuclear? there has been alot of debate over his education. I mean saying your favourite childrens book was a book released when you were around 40? how dos that not worry you?

mycroft

The 9/11 report, the Lord Butler Report and Putins report, all said that faulty intelligence from the CIA, MI6 and the Kremlin led to bush being misinformed. Now Bush did make a mistake, but he made a tough call on the best intelligence that he had at the time. he was misinformed by 3 legitimate intelligence organisations, with huge reputations. yet moore still calls him a liar.

Well yes, seeing as a senior member of Bush's cabinet has testified that Bush was planning on going after Iraq the day after Sept 11th, that senior members of his administration have close ties with companies making a fortune in Iraq. As for the Bulter Inquiry see, the Widgery inquiry for the benchmark in British tribunals, and the Kremlin can also be easily dismissed.

Would you agree that this is World War 3?

No, the civilian and miltary death toil needs to jump a few million before we descend into exaggeration.

A time of war is when a country comes together, but america is truly a very divided country. Moore bad-mouths his country to foreign press day-in day-out.

And what would you call a civil war then?

No Moore badmouth this administration, spot the difference. And a good journalist (even a bad one in Moore's case, is one who anaylises the facts and draws then presents their conclusions).

The world will be a better place if everyone stood around and turned to the leaders and said "run this by me again why we're doing this"?

in one part of the movie, it shows iraqi children cut and wounded, and then cuts to american choppers in the sky, listening to heavy metal music, trying to show that the soldiers are celebrating hurting iraqi children! COMPLETLY IRRESPONSIBLE editing from Moore. Moore trys to slander these troops while they are fighing to liberate 27 million people in iraq. patriotic?

Em Lynse English and her cohorts? More doesn't need to give the US military bad press, they do a great job all by themselves.

He calls americans stupid. is he not american? are his mother and father who raised him not american?

When exactly does he call Americans stupid?

Moore is not stupid enough to SAY that he wants the us as a socialist country. but what else would a critic of a democratic capitalist society want?

Someone looking for a more fair and equitable society where wealth and money isn't confided to 1% of the population.

Also Moore is campaigning in the elections for f**ks sake

Hobbes

VinnyL wrote:

The fact is that moores film is full of propeganda, and he has been very loose with his facts. I have seen the movie 3 times, i have it in divx on this PC!

However proproganda does not equal lies (it can, but it can also equal truth with a slant on it).

Moore calls bush a LIAR because told the country there were WMD's in Iraq, and he used this as an excuse to invade Iraq. Complete crap.

I strongly suggest that you go look at this documentry instead. It goes into more detail and proves that Bush lied about WMD and was told that there was no WMD.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=176868

Also funny, but Bush when asked did he do the wrong thing going to war when there was no WMD, he said "I would still of gone to war anyway".

The 9/11 report, the Lord Butler Report and Putins report, all said that faulty intelligence from the CIA, MI6 and the Kremlin led to bush being misinformed.

Again, look at the other documentry. Where people from CIA and other famous people connected with it say without doubt that Bush had been giving proof there were no WMD, no nukes, no chemical trains.

It even shows where after being told not to mention anything about Nuclear material (by a CIA report) because it didn't exist. Bush went and claimed it existed anyway, then after the CIA complaining and it finally getting pulled the administration said they pulled it because the CIA said too. What they fail to mention is the CIA told them beforehand.

Would you agree that this is World War 3?

No. How does Moore insulting other countries make it world war III?

Moore criticises the US way of life, not just the war.

Again, in what parts of the movie?

Moore bad-mouths his country to foreign press day-in day-out.

I haven't seen him bad mouth America. Bad mouth certain aspects of America certainly.

Moores movie has been discredited world wide.

Again, please back that up with facts.

The whole "bin-laden family escape from the US" chapter, has been discredited by the 9/11 commission.

??? How exactly? What are you talking about? It is a known fact they were flown out of the country by the US government at the request of the Saudi Ambassdor.

Did the 9/11 commision report somehow change history? Please point out in the commission report where this was false.

in one part of the movie, it shows iraqi children cut and wounded, and then cuts to american choppers in the sky, listening to heavy metal music, trying to show that the soldiers are celebrating hurting iraqi children!

It showed me what war was like. Your the one making the distinction. But if you must know the US troops were told in Afganistan to shoot women and children.

But what he is pointing out in the movie is the lack of training the US soliders have actually had in dealing civilians. Take the UK soliders for example. They get police based training as well. US soliders are taught to shoot then question who is alive first..

Is that only part of the movie you can come up with?

Moore is not stupid enough to SAY that he wants the us as a socialist country. but what else would a critic of a democratic capitalist society want?

He could want Aliens from the Planat Zoltron to come down and reign over the human race, but he is not stupid enough to say that he wants that.

i keep my distance from that crazy moveon.org site. Even kerry is smart enough to do that.

So your basing your argument on moveon.org being a fringe site without even reading the actual site? If you don't bother enough to read something, don't bother commenting on it.

Raskolnikov

This post probably won't make me any friends, ho-hum, here it goes.

So, I'm wondering why is this? From my perspective, he is a danger to the world, has absurd foreign policies, complete lack of empathy and is completely corparate driven. Yet people vote for him? So I have reached the conclusion that I am simply not educated enough in this area and so have come here to learn more.

Why is it that Americans are voting for him? What are his party's aims that have drawn such an ammount of followers? And if you are pro Bush, do things such as Abu Gharib, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, etc... bother you or do you believe in his actions?

The average American doesn't give two hoots about how some terrorists and rebels. I don't think anyone in Europe has the right to take the moral high ground either, we've all got bloody pasts and our lack of compassion for others in the world remains to this day. Let me remind you that it wasn't long ago that British troops were shooting unarmed protestors in N. Ireland, French troops murdering and raping in Algeria, a facist dictator in Spain murdering political opponents. The EU practices blatant East German-style communism in it's subsidies and tariffs which are helping to destroy the livelyhoods of farmers and business in developing countries. Maybe we ought to be solving our own problems before we start criticising others.

he has every bible waving Beer guzzing redneck in his pocket, if you look at his speeches and the location of them its usually an Army Base with troops in the backround with American Flag Waving everywhere, and his usual rantings "Terror,terror, iraq,iraqi,saddam,wmd, arent i great?" and so on,its constantly hamered home to people ,whats really disturbing is that the race is so close ,that 50% (nearly) of people actually buy into his type of thinking!

:rolleyes:

The main reason I can see for voting Bush is the continuation of the accelerated economic doom of the United States.

Are you saying that Bush is responsible for the economic woes of the US? He hasn't been strong on the economy, but the alternative is worst.

Following are the main campaign promises Sen. John Kerry made in his speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday night:

— Cut the deficit in half over four years by ending corporate tax cuts.

Ridiculous, inreases in corporation tax might give a short term increase in tax revenues but in the long-term will only serve to drive business out of America. In Ireland we've recently brought down corporation tax from 37.5% to 12.5% and actually seen an increase in taxes brought in. Why should we complain though, if Kerry gets in, more jobs for us. Bye bye jobbies!

— Offer targeted tax breaks for the middle class; roll back tax cuts to people earning over $200,000 a year.

This sounds all very cosy in practice but it won't be good for business. Why not abolish those do-nothing space and nuclear missile programs and everyone can have a tax cut!

— Close tax loopholes to companies moving jobs abroad and give breaks to firms keeping good-paying jobs at home.

That sounds all warm and fuzzy but again, why should the American public have to stump up because other Americans aren't as efficient/productive as they should be.

The reason why so many ppl vote for Bush is because those who control the media have marginalised the population by very clever manipulation of the news. So in essence Americans are not really given any choice.

I disagree, then how do you explain the majority of liberal reporters/anchors. CBS, ABC, and NBC are all pretty much liberal, with anchors, such as Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, and Peter Jennings. As for more minor reporters -- like the army at CNN -- when I argue that they're liberal, I mean they are the MTV generation. Even if they don't necessarily pound on Bush, they still support liberal issues and their reporting reflects that.

In reality, I have no problem with bias in the media, because I think it's inevitable. I wish Fox News, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, and the others would simply come clean and admit their political stances. Everyone knows it, but no one says anything.

However, if conservatives do in fact own the major networks, then it would seem, by way of the vast number of liberal reporters, there are two reasons for this:

Either,

1. Conservatives really are fair and balanced, inasmuch as they allow liberals to outnumber them on television (and not just in the news media, but with shows, such as Paris Hilton, Queer Eye, etc.)

or

2. They're not really conservative.

Basically there's a difference in the way we're educated in Europe and the U.S. In Europe we're given material in a subject and, in the exam, we don't know what to expect - only that we'll use what we've been taught to derive the answer to a question. It generally involves making some deductions and possibly creative leaps to achieve this. It's quite noticable in a field like mathematics. However, the U.S. system uses a different learning design methodology. It's the principle of reinforcement. You tell them something once and then repeat and repeat, driving it home. Questions and theories are derived from what you've been taught and, going into an exam, you can expect to know - broadly - what's going to come up. The idea of making a creative leap, or essentially have to think more about the subject, isn't there in the same manner.

I'm sorry, that's utter crapola, I've had two years of US high schooling, I found that the opposite to what you've said is true. In Ireland the emphasis is often on trying to memorize material (for the Leaving anyway) rather than learn and think about it.

he has a point though. From day one of the public school system you are indoctrinated. It starts with the pledge and then singing patriotic songs. It then gets more subtle as you get older. No more pledges but then the history books can be awfully subjective.

Rubbish, two years of US high schooling and I never had to make a pledge or sing a patriotic song. I think you might be getting confused with military schools or schools in the Deep South which comprise of only a very small number of schools in the US.

Bush is far from an ideal candidate in my eyes, rather, the only genuine alternative for most Americans.

ionapaul

sovtek wrote:

he has a point though. From day one of the public school system you are indoctrinated. It starts with the pledge and then singing patriotic songs. It then gets more subtle as you get older. No more pledges but then the history books can be awfully subjective.
As well there is a tendency to favor the multiple choice way of doing things, rather than a think-for-yourself method.
But you are correct that it doesn't mean that everyone buys into it. We aren't robots.

To be 100% fair, all nation states attempt some form of indoctrination. The history as taught in the Irish primary school system (and to a lesser extent secondard school system) is quite blatant in its bias and misrepresentation of facts. Try to comment negatively on Michael Collins or Wolfe Tone, or list the benefits Ireland may have received from British rule, and you'll see what I mean!

All countries are similar in this regard, some (like China and Russia) are worse than others. The US certainly pushes nationalism and patriotism a lot more than we do - but I believe that is only the case in Ireland because of fear of indirectly boosting support for the IRA, if they weren't around we'd probably have our own little pledge of allegiance to the Republic of Ireland each morning!

sceptre

BlitzKrieg wrote:

there has been alot of debate over his education. I mean saying your favourite childrens book was a book released when you were around 40? how dos that not worry you?

Ah, he was nowhere near 40. The book (great book btw, even if it takes 20 seconds to read) came out in 1969, Bush was born in 1946. So he was 23 and just using joined up writing.

Incidentally, Kerry has said his favorite song is Springsteen's No Surrender (I'll bet it isn't really) whereas Bush's is Wake Up Little Susie (presumably the Everly Brothers' version) whenever he's not listening to ZZ Top. Nevertheless for the campaigns, Bush has been using Hail To The Chief (I'm the incumbent and there's a war on) and Kerry's been using Johnny B Goode (I wouldn't say this is why he picked Edwards for the John double whammy but who knows based on how the actual "Vote for me" as opposed to "I'm not the other guy" campaign is doing).

I'm leaving Michael Moore as no-one took the trouble to actually disagree to any great extent with anything I said or belted back a ball on the loyalty to country rather than loyalty to leader issue that I ran with.

mycroft

N. Ireland, French troops murdering and raping in Algeria, a facist dictator in Spain murdering political opponents.

Franco's dead, France isn't in Algiers, And we're trying to sort of peace in Nth ireland by sitting everyone around a table and having talks about talks until everyone gets bored.

You could have mention, Basque seperates in Spain, the rise of the right in France, continued violence by terror gangs in the north etc... We're not done yet by a long shot, that doesn't mean some of us aren't bothered by some of the stuff in our backyards.

The EU practices blatant East German-style communism in it's subsidies and tariffs which are helping to destroy the livelyhoods of farmers and business in developing countries.

It's a little more complicated than that but I agree, it's why I actively opposed article 133 of the Nice referendum.

Are you saying that Bush is responsible for the economic woes of the US? He hasn't been strong on the economy, but the alternative is worst.

The dollar has plummeted, unemployment has rocked, and the majority of jobs created have been in the mcjobs sector (low pay, long hours, no skill required)

Following are the main campaign promises Sen. John Kerry made in his speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday night:

And Bush's alternative is increased tax breaks for the rich, the kind of trickle down economics that destroyed american infrastructure in the 80s.

You suggest that Kerry slash funding for space and nuclear weapons funding, imlpying thats something Bush would do. bush announced in his administration a proposed mission to mars, and son of star wars, an idea so mindboggling at odds with the current geopolitical situation it's amazing no general hasn't turned to him and gone "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FRIGGIN MIND" Suggesting Kerry's economic policys are less sound than Bush's when Bush is pushing policies you find insane is a logical paradox.

However, if conservatives do in fact own the major networks, then it would seem, by way of the vast number of liberal reporters, there are two reasons for this:

Might I suggest you watch outfoxed and get back to me on that one?

Bush is far from an ideal candidate in my eyes, rather, the only genuine alternative for most Americans.

Alternative to what? Define alternative, for the past 25 years conservative republicans have held office for 16 of them, and for 4 years of Clintons administration he fought off a congress and senate republician heavy to such a degree that they chased him over a dress stain.

Hobbes

ionapaul wrote:

To be 100% fair, all nation states attempt some form of indoctrination. The history as taught in the Irish primary school system (and to a lesser extent secondard school system) is quite blatant in its bias and misrepresentation of facts.

That is very different then indoctrination though. History in all countries are slanted to be pro-country. I did schooling in England and Ireland, and Ireland history wasn't touched on at all in school simply because England was more important.

However in the US you have to pledge alliegance to the flag. They are quite strict on it. My brother who did one year of schooling (primary) in the US refused to pledge alliegence because "It wasn't my flag" and had his guardians called around to the school because he refused. Them being typical Irish-Americans told the school board to feck off.

or list the benefits Ireland may have received from British rule, and you'll see what I mean!

Not sure what you mean by that. I would be intrested to see the list. But there was a great comedy double sketch catholic/prodestant in NI where they do this kind of list. So certainly it will exist, but then saying things like "Hitler helped build a great road system in Germany" doesn't detract about what the real issues were in influence. (Note: not directly comparing England/Ireland to Hitler)

All countries are similar in this regard, some (like China and Russia) are worse than others.

Having lived in a few. I would say they are as bad as each other. Some of the conversations I had with chinese people in China about the rest of the world were as bad as people I have chatted with in the US. That is not to say both countries have knowledgable people, but no one country wins on the most ignorant.

if they weren't around we'd probably have our own little pledge of allegiance to the Republic of Ireland each morning!

Hardly.

ionapaul

Hobbes wrote:

That is very different then indoctrination though. History in all countries are slanted to be pro-country.

Nope, teaching something 'slanted', biased or in a partisan fashion in order to give children a 'proper grounding' in their nation's history is indoctrination. And as you say, every nation engages in it. Nations and their governments need (obviously) loyal and devoted citizens.

ionapaul

Hobbes wrote:

That is not to say both countries have knowledgable people, but no one country wins on the most ignorant.

I definitely agree with you here. Humans are humans, no matter where they live - to paraphrase another poster on the 'Arcade goes crazy' immigration thread, any arguing about which country is the best is like fleas arguing about which dog they live on is the best!

AngelofFire

Bush is an idiot. To go to war he lied about WMDs he also lied about Bin laden being linked to hussain.He handled the occupation in an appauling manner, much of the US army`s resources are concentrated on protecting oil reserves.The systematic torture of Iraqi prisoners and the denial of the due process for those being held in guantanamo bay.The same guy said last year that the US were committed to the abolition of torture.

This man refuses to comply with the kyoto protocol and the environment is suffering as a result, global warming is something that is already in motion. He`s too busy sending people to different country`s preaching about the "evils" of pre marital sex.

His blatant homophobia is enough to justify not voting for him

Billy Kovachy

Devils advocate time>

Bush is an idiot

ok ill give you that one

To go to war he lied about WMDs he also lied about Bin laden being linked to hussain

That was mainly due to bad intelligence by the CIA and especially the british intelligence which is why they backed USA going in because they gave the intel on the deployment status.

He handled the occupation in an appauling manner

Yes thats true but considering at the moment its only al sadar resisting and not the other factions such as the Kurds and Bathist.Actually usually with a power vacumm after a war the main piority is to stop an all out civil war which they have done.Yea the horrible occupation "always with the negative waves" but the war went so well no millions of deaths and only in four weeks or there abouts.A really good campaign.

much of the US army`s resources are concentrated on protecting oil reserves

Ok did you not see the environmental disaster of the first gulf war.Hundreds of oil rigs and fields in flames,tonnes of oil pump into the gulf (think of the seagulls does anyone think of the seagulls) and a magor target for terrorism.So yes they sould be protected for that not to happen again.

The systematic torture of Iraqi prisoners and the denial of the due process for those being held in guantanamo bay

That was not systematic that was trailer park boredom having a good time and they are being brought to justice at the moment so they will pay for there sins.These were individual acts and not state sanctioned ones.Guantanamo bay well its practically cuba anyways so anything goes.

This man refuses to comply with the kyoto protocol and the environment is suffering as a result, global warming is something that is already in motion.

I gave you the first one,so when the scientist try to explain this to him its like a scene from the simpsons when homer talks to his brain.Then he asks rummy and he says "well the boys in texas will kick your ass if you sign this" and guys from texas are huge so you cant blame him for that.

He`s too busy sending people to different country`s preaching about the "evils" of pre marital sex.

Actually he is bringing his boys back for all corners of the world (really check the news sometime) and circling the wagons now because the wagons cost alot in other countries a couple of billion.Pre-martial sex have you read nothing about his daughters.

His blatant homophobia is enough to justify not voting for him

Well now thats just too personal.He is just a simple man who doesnt understand some things.A bible man and if that book tells him things are bad well thats just gods words and he follows those words.
All in all its bush what you see is what you get, unlike some others that come with attachments which are below the counter that you cant see.

sceptre

Billy Kovachy wrote:

That was mainly due to bad intelligence by the CIA and especially the british intelligence which is why they backed USA going in because they gave the intel on the deployment status.

Where does the buck stop (Where should it stop?)?

Billy Kovachy

Perspectively through the eyes of the bush administration the CIA is were the buck stops with the recent resignation of the head guy.

Hobbes

Billy Kovachy wrote:

That was mainly due to bad intelligence by the CIA and especially the british intelligence which is why they backed USA going in because they gave the intel on the deployment status.

I posted a link earlier. Bush documentry where members of the CIA clearly state that Bush was told there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Long before his case for war and the attack. The CIA are being used as scapegoats.

Yea the horrible occupation "always with the negative waves" but the war went so well no millions of deaths and only in four weeks or there abouts.A really good campaign.

Thats Bushes problem. "Went", his declaration that the war was over when it is clearly not over. It wasn't over in four weeks. If it was we would not have over 1,000 people dead and around 6,000 people wounded (Note: these figures are for military only).

Also you use the term "Occupation". Bush used "Liberation", but it is clearly an occupation.

So yes they sould be protected for that not to happen again.

Oh please, environment? The US wanted the Oil to continue to flow for cheap oil. Its not flowing now and look what is happening.

These were individual acts and not state sanctioned ones.

The woman charged has claimed that she was sanctioned by PSYOPS to create the pictures.

Guantanamo bay well its practically cuba anyways so anything goes.

It is not Cuba. If it was Cuba then according to Castros speech he would of released or given the people there a fair trial (lol, if you can believe Castro). But the part of the land is US owned.

Actually he is bringing his boys back for all corners of the world (really check the news sometime)

No he is removing the troops from non-hostile areas starting around 2006 and lasting for 10 years. Most of these troops will be redeployed back into war zones. 40% of the troops in Iraq are reservists. The US is clearly short of active troops in areas they need it.

Pre-martial sex have you read nothing about his daughters.

What does that mean exactly? Because his daugthers put out that he is for pre-marital sex? I don't recall the girls running for president.

He is just a simple man who doesnt understand some things.

Well fuk me. When you want a president who has the ability to do so much damage without the knowledge, then you want your best there?

A bible man and if that book tells him things are bad well thats just gods words and he follows those words.

However there is a slight difference between following the words in the bible and claiming that you are the hand of God and he speaks through you.

Pretty sure there are some things in the bible about lying, greed and treating your neighbour as yourself.