Bush vs Kerry

[FLeiXiuS]

Very non Ubuntu like, but I had to do a post :-)

Sorry to those who aren't in the USA.

Go BUSH!

[HungSquirrel]

Go Badnarik (http://badnarik.org/): he's VERY Ububtu-like. ;)

[javaman]

Go Badnarik (http://badnarik.org/): he's VERY Ububtu-like. ;)

Exactly, that is who I voted for.

[daniels]

How about 'none of the above' and/or 'Nader'?

[kal_zakath]

Go BUSH!

Are you really pro-Bush :shock: ???

It isn't really compatible with Ubuntu philosophy as far as I know :???:

[oddabe19]

I'm probush too...
but quite honestly... what people don't realize...

The President has almost no power. He brings Ideas to congress and they pass laws/ other things... so...
Blame Iraq on congress..
Blame the economy on the fact businesses don't wanna hire cause they're greedy.
Blame all these problems going on on congress... they're the ones you should concentrate your vote on.

anyone that took polsci 101 knows that.

end of rant.

Also, I'm sick of being called stupid cause I wanted bush in office... If you're a kerry supporter, don't bash bush supporters and if you're a bush supporter, don't bash kerry supporters... it's over now... get over it, you either lost or won....

/end of rant....

ANYWAY... it was a close election, I was up till 4amEastern, and I will admit this was the closest election I've ever heard of or seen. Kerry put up a good fight. So did Bush hats off to both.

[jeremy]

you either lost or won....
I would say that the US lost!

[jdodson]

I'm probush too...
but quite honestly... what people don't realize...

The President has almost no power. He brings Ideas to congress and they pass laws/ other things...

well you are right, to a point. though now that the senate, house and presidency are still controlled by republicans, the president has lots of power(or should i say republicans). seperations of powers was put in place to stop one party from dominating the scene, in this instance, republicans are dominating the scence.

i voted for kerry however, rock on ubuntu :mrgreen:

[im_ka]

Go BUSH!

now i know why some posts in the other election thread were deleted.
i know, i know... that thread wasn't about preferences ;)

sad to see that the (majority of) us-american people approved bush's "work". i wonder why.

[jwb]

Are you really pro-Bush :shock: ???

It isn't really compatible with Ubuntu philosophy as far as I know :???:

From the Ubuntu website:

The Ubuntu community is built on the ideas enshrined in the Ubuntu Manifesto: that software should be available free of charge, that software tools should be usable by people in their local language and despite any disabilities, and that people should have the freedom to customize and alter their software in whatever way they see fit.

So Ubuntu is about freedom to choose.

Voting for one candidate or another is...... the freedom to choose.

Sounds compatible to me.

[FLeiXiuS]

Whether anyone likes bush or not, I guarentee kerry would still be twiddling his thumbs right now asking what to do about the terrorist attacks and the war in iraq. Hes to democratic! At least have some dignity in your American Pride.

[adbak]

Now that Bush has been elected, I guess I'll have to break it to my parents that I won't ask them to attend my wedding. No, not because they voted for Bush, but because Bush won. You see, according to Bush, I chose to be gay. I chose to be treated like a second class citizen in this <i>democracy</i>. I chose to be chastised by my contemporaries. Equal rights for some. Some people I guess are just more equal.

[mduduzi]

I was not going to get into to this but with much kindness, I'd like to raise two things...
1. I think people deserve their leadership -- Corollary: The leadership reflects the nature of the people. If they tolerate an oppressive regime it's because not enough of them want change enough to sacrifice for it.

2. The highest form of intolerance I've seen in recent times is that from the Gay community. Why so much insistence that there is something wrong with our faith and insist on changing it? Religious freedom is the cornerstone of all stable and progressive societies. If your 'religion' says nothing is wrong with homosexuality surely we have rights to beieve the contrary and should give each other space to pursue each one's faith?

For thousands of years our faith has said that marriage is holy. God is holy. Homosexuality is abominable -not homosexuals, but homosexuality. BIG DIFFERENCE.
If that is the case, then any insistance that homosexuality be given 'Marriage' status is asking us to alter our faith. There's only two ways to do that, either we change our concept of God from holy to .... or we disregard the authority of the holy scriptures. Eitherway, it requires a change of faith.
That is how intolerance is at work.

Why not exercise some democratic privileges + creativity and invent something else? Marriage and homosexuality are mutualy exclusive. The majority of preachers have gone after popularity and have not an iota of scriptural testimony to favour their ambivolance on this matter.

Live and let live. Love and be loved. Respect freedoms of others as much as you want them to respect yours. Do not desecrate marraige and our faith. Get an alternative.

Am I happy that Bush won? I'm an African Judge for yourself.




Now that Bush has been elected, I guess I'll have to break it to my parents that I won't ask them to attend my wedding. No, not because they voted for Bush, but because Bush won. You see, according to Bush, I chose to be gay. I chose to be treated like a second class citizen in this <i>democracy</i>. I chose to be chastised by my contemporaries. Equal rights for some. Some people I guess are just more equal.

[Jspired]

Likewise I wasn't going to respond, but now feel I need to:

1. Leadership may be deserved and it may not be. It depends entirely on the situation.

2. Nothing wrong with religious freedom! My Mother is a minister, I am a person of faith and yet I do understand that acknowledging ALL of God's children is important. This includes people of all walks of life, color, gender, and sexuality. You must remember at one point, many religions condemned inter-racial marriage, women serving in the church, and other such things. The fact that "several" church organizations now condemn what is natural to many people is wrong in my eyes--as a person of faith. People don't choose their sexuality any more than they choose the color of their skin.

To the above poster, "live and let live", "love and be loved?" Hard to do when you are gay and half the population is telling you you're wrong! To the previous poster, adbak, I say tell your parents, enjoy your "special" day and ignore peope who tell you that you deserve anything less!

[adbak]

I never said that people who believe that is wrong. It's just that when they ignore the Separation of Church and State it's wrong. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but realize that there are others of the Christian faith who do in fact believe in same-sex marriage. So to say that people of the same sex shouldn't marry because it's in conflict with your religious ideals is ignoring others' religious ideals. Not to mention, I believe that there's a distinction between a religious marriage and a governmental marriage. Religious marriages require you to see a preacher and have it ordained. Governmental marriages require you fill out a form and sign it.

Homosexuality is not abominable. It's natural. It's been around for ages. Animals of all kinds have been shown to have homosexuals. Humans are no different. It's only recently that their existence has been acknowledged and given a name.

Also, I don't see why people of the same sex who want to marry would have to "exercise some democratic privileges + creativity and invent something else". If all the rights granted to opposite-sex couples were granted to same-sex couples as well, then why call it anything other than marriage? After all, what's in a name? Just because the government should allow people of the same-sex to marry does not in any way mean that your faith should bless or ordain these marriages.

Also, noticed how I continually called it same-sex marriage instead of gay marriage. Not all those who are of the same-sex are gay -- bisexual people exist too.

[neutron]

Very interesting discussion!

I've always learned to show respect against other human beings, but I've to say: it's very difficult to accept the choice of the American people (atleast the majority ;-) ). As you all know Holland (where I live) is a strong ally of the USA, but even here market research shows that more than 80% of the dutch vote for Kerry.

To put my opinion; I find Bush a true disaster, not only for his own country but also for the entire world, I think even more than Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden is still the face of Al Qaeida, but hasn't got power anymore. Most of the time he's to busy with hiding for his many enemies. Instead Bush his arrogance made him think that he could win a war by his own, without e.g. the United Nations. And what do I see when I see the news: a rebel- and civillianwar in Irac which get more worse by the day. I mean. let's face it: Bush is loosing control of the situation over there...

BTW, I find it ironic that espaccially the United Nations, established by the USA, turned against him in the so called war against terror. The term 'War against terrror', introduced by president Bush, also makes me feel sick. Does the war against terror also justify the oppression of Cubans? I definately think not.

Now we can only pray that Bush won't bring us more wars and violence.

FYI, I just love the USA, but at this moment I'm very, very dissappointed...

[im_ka]

Very interesting discussion!

I've always learned to show respect against other human beings, but I've to say: it's very difficult to accept the choice of the American people (atleast the majority ;-) ). As you all know Holland (where I live) is a strong ally of the USA, but even here market research shows that more than 80% of the dutch vote for Kerry.

To put my opinion; I find Bush a true disaster, not only for his own country but also for the entire world, I think even more than Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden is still the face of Al Qaeida, but hasn't got power anymore. Most of the time he's to busy with hiding for his many enemies. Instead Bush his arrogance made him think that he could win a war by his own, without e.g. the United Nations. And what do I see when I see the news: a rebel- and civillianwar in Irac which get more worse by the day. I mean. let's face it: Bush is loosing control of the situation over there...

BTW, I find it ironic that espaccially the United Nations, established by the USA, turned against him in the so called war against terror. The term 'War against terrror', introduced by president Bush, also makes me feel sick. Does the war against terror also justify the oppression of Cubans? I definately think not.

Now we can only pray that Bush won't bring us more wars and violence.

FYI, I just love the USA, but at this moment I'm very, very dissappointed...

totally agree.

many americans don´t understand why people all around the world care about the us elections, and why all this anitamericanism (or more appropiate: antibushism).
now let me ask all the us people who the hungarian prime minister is and since when? honestly, 99,9% of you could not tell this without an internet search (i´ve been on a high school exchange in fla for a year, most people didn´t even know where to look on the map for hungary, some didn´t even know what hungary is).
why not? because we´re minding our own business.

the us prez on the contrary gets elected by the american people (bush mostly by those in the southern states "yay" :)), but is "doing his work" all over the world. unilateralism sucks! i truly believe that the united nations is the proper organization for sorting out "world business". it might not be as quick and "efficient" as the rumsfled-rice "dreamteam" (let´s face it: bush is too dumb to make heavy decisions on his own), but it´s multilateral and somewhat more democratic.

i´m sure that most iraqis are glad that saddam is gone, but they did not elect bush but bush is killing people there.

before anyone calls me antiamerican:
i´ve been living in the us for a year. i really admire your development over the past few hundred years. becoming one of the wealthiest countries in the world in such a short time after being a colony is a great accomplishment. you can be proud of your constitution, really!
but you can´t by a bootle of budweiser (looking at its taste/alc contect most europeans wouldn´t even call it beer :D) under 21 but you can buy a gun when you´re 18... that´s a bad joke.

and please don´t think that the "american values" are the "right values" (whatever that means) for other nations as well.

[mduduzi]

If only you knew how side-lined my faith is. I know about oppression and discrimination -personally not from textbooks and TV, and for years at that.
Think of it this way, if this is a question of politics alone, I have no comment. But marriage is also cultural and religious. Cultures change and so do religions. That's the point I'm making. Obviously values are changing fast especially in the US. But do not make a pretence of Biblical faith and justify that which is unequivocally condemned. Some people's faith blesses such marriages but others' do not. The problem comes when there is disregard for the faith of others.

A simple example, It is wrong to call any person a 'dog'. No matter how popular sensitivities may shift it will always be wrong. Just because I reason myself into accepting it, it remains wrong until I shift my reference frame of right and wrong. My reference frame of right and wrong with regards to matters of faith is the Bible and that only. Can you accept and respect that? If so why take that which is sacred to me -and equate it to that which is offensive (Leviticus 18:22-23; Romans 1:27)? If gay marriages were first to take to the definition we would have no objection. But it's the other way round. This arguments in favour of gay marriages are intellectually dishonest. On the surface it seems plausible and consistent with other good things but it has disguised a deep hatred and intolerance for the faith that condemns it's practice. Once again, mark the difference between condemning the deed and the doer. (If my brother lies, I'll tell him it's wrong -but won't humiliate and side-line him. After the straight talk, we get along like brothers.)
My take is that if God can behold all the mess we ALL get ourselves into and tolerate it all. What grounds does a mere human have not to tolerate and accept the choices of other individuals?




Likewise I wasn't going to respond, but now feel I need to:

1. Leadership may be deserved and it may not be. It depends entirely on the situation.

2. Nothing wrong with religious freedom! My Mother is a minister, I am a person of faith and yet I do understand that acknowledging ALL of God's children is important. This includes people of all walks of life, color, gender, and sexuality. You must remember at one point, many religions condemned inter-racial marriage, women serving in the church, and other such things. The fact that "several" church organizations now condemn what is natural to many people is wrong in my eyes--as a person of faith. People don't choose their sexuality any more than they choose the color of their skin.

To the above poster, "live and let live", "love and be loved?" Hard to do when you are gay and half the population is telling you you're wrong! To the previous poster, adbak, I say tell your parents, enjoy your "special" day and ignore peope who tell you that you deserve anything less!

[mduduzi]

I propose that the 'free world' should lobby their 'democratic' governments to institute for the a... Garriage institution.
Those who object to it can alway marry and those who love it will garry. That way we separate circular and legal issues from matters that pertain to faith.

Another thought, Is it really better to have a president who objects to homosexuality but flattens two nations? Both these things are done in the name of the same god (yes, small caps G). What a country, what a world.

Peace! =;

[jwenting]

So Ubuntu is about freedom to choose.

Voting for one candidate or another is...... the freedom to choose.

Sounds compatible to me.

There's some people (mainly on the left of the political spectrum) who don't want others to have the freedom to choose (or rather want that freedom restricted to only their candidates) who they want in charge.

The same shows in the actions of the Kerry campaign on many occasions.
- They locked opponents in concentration camps during their convention in Boston (they did release them at the end of the day, as they didn't yet have the power to keep the camps operating indefinitely).
- They tried to prevent opponents from voting by slashing tyres of cars from GOP campaign officials
- There's been rumoured cases of voter registration forms from GOP members disappearing and these people never getting their registration cards.

The last could well be due to simply overwhelmed registration offices but it's somewhat disturbing that it happened more often to GOP registrations than "democratic" registrations.

Neither candidate is perfect for either the USA or the world but I'm convinced that the world (and the USA) would be a lot worse of with Kerry at the helm of the USA than with Bush.

[TravisNewman]

There's some people (mainly on the left of the political spectrum) who don't want others to have the freedom to choose (or rather want that freedom restricted to only their candidates) who they want in charge.

The same shows in the actions of the Kerry campaign on many occasions.
- They locked opponents in concentration camps during their convention in Boston (they did release them at the end of the day, as they didn't yet have the power to keep the camps operating indefinitely).
- They tried to prevent opponents from voting by slashing tyres of cars from GOP campaign officials
- There's been rumoured cases of voter registration forms from GOP members disappearing and these people never getting their registration cards.

The last could well be due to simply overwhelmed registration offices but it's somewhat disturbing that it happened more often to GOP registrations than "democratic" registrations.

Neither candidate is perfect for either the USA or the world but I'm convinced that the world (and the USA) would be a lot worse of with Kerry at the helm of the USA than with Bush.

Yes, you're right, but there are also the far right going and telling African Americans that they don't vote until the 3rd. Also, it would appear purposefully using a heavier weighted paper in some states so that the registration forms don't ever go through the system (also for black neighborhoods). The republicans also tried to convince people to ge nader on the ballot JUST to hurt Kerry. They also sent out challengers to the polls themselves to try to convince people not to vote.

Look, you're 100% right (er, correct). The Democrats were doing what you said. But so were the republicans. It's not as one sided as you said it was. And it was never enforced by the candidates themselves.

[emperor]

The United States is NOT a democracy, it was founded as a Republic for a specific reason, to protect Liberty for all. In contrast, a democracy gives Liberty to the majority only and is one of the reasons that the US is so divided. It is only recently that politicians have been calling the US a democracy! This is an absolute lie!

This link sheds some light on this issue: http://www.deoxy.org/demorep.htm

[im_ka]

i hope that we can forget this heated debate outside of this thread :)

[jwenting]

The United States is NOT a democracy, it was founded as a Republic for a specific reason, to protect Liberty for all. In contrast, a democracy gives Liberty to the majority only and is one of the reasons that the US is so divided. It is only recently that politicians have been calling the US a democracy! This is an absolute lie!

This link sheds some light on this issue: http://www.deoxy.org/demorep.htm
In a true democracy liberty is enforced as well as everyone having an equal say.
Problem is that a true democracy is impossible in a group of more than about a hundred people because decisions can no longer be taken in a finite amount of time (the discussions become endless and nothing is ever decided).

That's why in ancient Athens (which had a true democracy after a fashion, every able bodied man with an independent income had one vote and could speak on every issue of importance to the city) there was an emergency mechanism wherein a small group would be elected to lead the city (and thus decide for all) in times of crisis.
Rome in the republican era had the same. In times of crisis when it was deemed the decision making process in the senate would be too slow a triumvirate of dictators (yes, the term is that old) was chosen by the senate to lead the city. After a fixed interval they would automatically loose power back to the senate unless elected by the senate to stay on for another period.
Julius Caesar was one such man and used his station effectively to make his position both permanent and to eliminate his co-rulers, until he was the sole ruler of Rome and had himself crowned emperor.

In Switzerland, today the closest to a true democracy, there is a ruling body at federal level as well as far more powerful ruling bodies at local levels.
Also every (or just about) decision has to be decided in a nationwide referendum.
This makes the country extremely slow to change course.

The US IS a democracy, it's just not a perfect democracy (which is Utopian and impossible to achieve as I pointed out).
The US system is in some ways less democratic (in that the presidential elections for example are not necessarilly decided by popular vote) than that in for example Western Europe, but it's not undemocratic.

[Magneto]

I think the US needs a more representational government like other countries have. 59 million voted for Bush so now 56 million other people have to be disenfranchised? There is nothing that ties the elected official to serving those other than his constituants. Plus the electoral college idea is pure garbage. Do you know what the penalties are for any member of the electoral college who casts a vote other than how state law provides? A small fine.

The fact remains that 59 million idiots/fake christians/business minded people/republicans put Bush in office and the reality is one yale billionaire from skull and bones isnt far off from another.
Kerry was unelectable and chosen for that ability.
Americans voted for one of 2 candidates- the ones with the most money won their party selection. In magic tricks that involve guessing your card its called forcing the card- you picked the card so you feel as though its more genuine. ROTFL


tell enron and haliburton they have no influence on government policy

corporations run america and run public opinion

[jwenting]

The president is the head of government. There is strong representational government in the house and senate as well as at every level below that.

The system in the US is not so different in that from the UK system except the names of the institutions.
The US calls the boss president, the UK prime minister for example.
In the UK too the winning party puts together a cabinet of their own members only.

True coalition governments as exist on mainland Europe aren't everything either. There's way too much partisan politics involved with decisions that need making not being made because a cabinet member decides to block it since his/her party didn't get what they wanted some other time.

There is no perfect system, but the US system is as good (or bad) as any other.

[jeremy]

There is no perfect system, but the US system is as good (or bad) as any other.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html

[TravisNewman]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html
OK I KNOW a lot of that article is true, but I wish he had cited his sources for it. It kinda sounds like a conspiracy nut.

Speaking of which, was listening to AM Radio last ngiht, there was a guy on there who thougt that Jesus was fighting communists back in the day, that John Kerry was in the Communist Hall of Fame (not to mention he had his name changed, had his entire war record faked, etc etc) and that Jesus won the fight against Communism again in 2004 because Jesus was in Bush.

If Jesus is in Bush then Elvis Presley is in my toenail.

[FLeiXiuS]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html

I doubt half of this is correct, its just those internet geeks trying to get a story across from their opinions. Secondary sources have invalid integrity. Its all consipiresy.




Moderator: Please close this thread.

[cybrjackle]

Bush, read all the other comments and I'm not going there ;-)

Why I voted Bush.

1. Faith and "My values"
2. Backbone.
3. Supreme Court Justices and the next 30-60 years ;-)

[jeremy]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm

[jeremy]

I doubt half of this is correct, its just those internet geeks trying to get a story across from their opinions. Secondary sources have invalid integrity. Its all consipiresy.

Moderator: Please close this thread.

Why do you think this thread should be closed? Because you "doubt half of this is correct". Your right to doubt should never be questioned, but neither should my right not to doubt.

The question about electronic voting has been raised many times in the last few years, with many people saying that if there is to be electronic voting, the software used should be open source, that way anyone with the necessary technical skills could satisfy themselves that all was above board.

Instead, Bush and his henchmen opted for proprietry software that was provided by three companies ( ES&S, Diebold and Sequoia) that were contributors to the republicans campaign.

Draw your own conclusions, believe that this is all a 'consipiresy' if you like. I believe that Bush, for a second term, is president, not due to the vote, but thanks to a conspiracy.

BTW. The word conspiracy means 'act of conspiring', conspire means to 'combine privily for unlawful purpose'. "Its just those internet geeks trying to get a story across from their opinions", (whatever that may mean) could not be described as conspiracy.

Here's another link: http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html

[elwis]

Well Bush is definietly bad for the rest of the world. Nobody likes the one and only super-power
to be run by a greedy former alcoholic.

Bush and his homeboys are really running their own race, waging war in conflict with the united nations and international law. And a war based on made-up lies, which has been proved. But, that's how to make business in our century I suppose. Who carea bout 100 000 dead Iraqi's and a couple of thousands dead and wounded poor boys from the west.

And about bin-Laden. i really wonder if they actually WANT to find him, considering the fact that the Bushe's and the BinLaden's are such great partners and friends, with all this billions of dollars that the Saudi's put in their companies.

Anyway. I'm not american, so I don't care. But I would be surprised if George W wouldn't start another disaster during the 4 years to come.

[im_ka]

But I would be surprised if George W wouldn't start another disaster during the 4 years to come.

he will. and there'll be terrorist attacks in the us. i hope not, but there will be.

[mark]

As Larry niven once said, "You're gonna get over this sooner or later. Why not sooner?"

I make no doubt that the framers of the Constitution are spinning in their graves. The United States was founded as a republic, not a "democracy" - if anyone doubts this, let them read Thomas Jefferson.

I waited 'till the last minute, went online and looked at every represented party's platform statement - and voted Libertarian. I did not agree with everything they said, but they came closer to my idealogy than anybody else - and I was (previously) a pretty much life-long Republican....

Anyway, it's done. The people have spoken - and may God help us all, 'cause I don't think anybody else can (or will).

[crashd]

http://www.randys.com/catalog/images/ANARCHY%20CLOSE%20UP.jpg
:-o

[jwenting]

Anyway, it's done. The people have spoken - and may God help us all, 'cause I don't think anybody else can (or will).

And he just may, if he exists.
The GOP is the only party openly supporting Christian values so a Christian god would be more likely to support them than anyone else =D>

[FLeiXiuS]

Why do you think this thread should be closed? Because you "doubt half of this is correct". Your right to doubt should never be questioned, but neither should my right not to doubt.

The question about electronic voting has been raised many times in the last few years, with many people saying that if there is to be electronic voting, the software used should be open source, that way anyone with the necessary technical skills could satisfy themselves that all was above board.

Instead, Bush and his henchmen opted for proprietry software that was provided by three companies ( ES&S, Diebold and Sequoia) that were contributors to the republicans campaign.

Draw your own conclusions, believe that this is all a 'consipiresy' if you like. I believe that Bush, for a second term, is president, not due to the vote, but thanks to a conspiracy.

BTW. The word conspiracy means 'act of conspiring', conspire means to 'combine privily for unlawful purpose'. "Its just those internet geeks trying to get a story across from their opinions", (whatever that may mean) could not be described as conspiracy.

Here's another link: http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html


No incorrect, I believe this thread should be closed because I don't want to stir religious / homosexual / other conflicts with users on this board.

With all due respect I will speak on behalf of my opinions.

I believe Bush should be in office, I'm very faithful towards him and I believe he has what is needed to fix the united states. For him to take office after Clinton and to do what he has done today is amazing. Clinton left him an inevitable war. Yet there are too many socialists who are worried only for themeselves instead of the whole nation. You have to look at whats in front of you before you begin looking into the future.



he will. and there'll be terrorist attacks in the us. i hope not, but there will be.
Terrorism will always be there. President Bush is trying to convert the world into a democracy which I believe hes doing an excellent job of doing so. Terrorists are only following their fortunes. Many middle eastern religions are certain that life after death no matter what is going to be better then life on Earth now. So why not use that against people you don't like? Its a wonderful idea for terrorism. President Bush is attempting to make a huge accomplishment in the world. By converting a anarchy government system to a democracy, people would have more freedom in their lifes and would live better on Earth as appose to how they would life after death. Its all about our beliefs which dervices me to my next point. War is always going to happen, it will not be prevented unless the whole world follows civil values of one another. Even then there are possabilities for war.


Fight Now :: Celebrate Later
I would sacrafice my self now to see that my children were to live a much safer life and that perhaps their children would be secure also.

[im_ka]

No incorrect, I believe this thread should be closed because I don't want to stir religious / homosexual / other conflicts with users on this board.

With all due respect I will speak on behalf of my opinions.

I believe Bush should be in office, I'm very faithful towards him and I believe he has what is needed to fix the united states. For him to take office after Clinton and to do what he has done today is amazing. Clinton left him an inevitable war. Yet there are too many socialists who are worried only for themeselves instead of the whole nation. You have to look at whats in front of you before you begin looking into the future.



Terrorism will always be there. President Bush is trying to convert the world into a democracy which I believe hes doing an excellent job of doing so. Terrorists are only following their fortunes. Many middle eastern religions are certain that life after death no matter what is going to be better then life on Earth now. So why not use that against people you don't like? Its a wonderful idea for terrorism. President Bush is attempting to make a huge accomplishment in the world. By converting a anarchy government system to a democracy, people would have more freedom in their lifes and would live better on Earth as appose to how they would life after death. Its all about our beliefs which dervices me to my next point. War is always going to happen, it will not be prevented unless the whole world follows civil values of one another. Even then there are possabilities for war.


Fight Now :: Celebrate Later
I would sacrafice my self now to see that my children were to live a much safer life and that perhaps their children would be secure also.

i wanted to continue the debate first, but it wouldn't be good for anyone. we have different backgrounds, different knowledge... and this is not a topic that can be debated with keeping a "cold head".

so let's stick to the point: GNU/LINUX ;)


/part

regards

[elwis]

I believe Bush should be in office, I'm very faithful towards him and I believe he has what is needed to fix the united states. For him to take office after Clinton and to do what he has done today is amazing. Clinton left him an inevitable war. Yet there are too many socialists who are worried only for themeselves instead of the whole nation. You have to look at whats in front of you before you begin looking into the future.


Well, define "fix the united states"? That means, less work? Less money except for the real wealthy ones? That means more dead soldiers, more pollution in the environment, and a world that hates you since you break all international agreements?



Terrorism will always be there. President Bush is trying to convert the world into a democracy which I believe hes doing an excellent job of doing so.


Yes, as long as they have areason they will be there. As long as people value freedom enough do die for it, they will be there. And they fight with the only weapons they have. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't defend suicidal-bombers, but I can understand their frustration.
The war in iraq have definietly created a lot of new terrorists.

Besides? Do you REALLY think you create democracy by killing the people? Who will then vote when the Iraqis are all dead? And exactly how democratic have Afghanistan become?
(Well, according to american standards, i suppose they are the same, considering your not too democatic system? Anyway, this election were better, even though the observers weren't allowed to look into it according to media)



President Bush is attempting to make a huge accomplishment in the world. By converting a anarchy government system to a democracy, people would have more freedom in their lifes and would live better on Earth as appose to how they would life after death. Its all about our beliefs which dervices me to my next point. War is always going to happen, it will not be prevented unless the whole world follows civil values of one another. Even then there are possabilities for war.


Ouch, you really need to turn off Fox. The Iraqi war had nothing to do with democracy! Do you remember what the old Bush-man said after the first Gulfwar? he should bring democracy to Kuwait? Well...? And what about Saudi-Arabia? Don't tell me you think the Bushes will take on them, considering they are the on'es paying up for the family

Anyway. You are entitled to have your opinions, though it's very hard for me to grasp? Are there really this huge gap between the US and Europe? Obvisiouly!?



Fight Now :: Celebrate Later
I would sacrafice my self now to see that my children were to live a much safer life and that perhaps their children would be secure also.


Me too, that's why i don't want any warmongering presidents anywhere that doesn't obey international Law. Besides, i don't think Bush WANT you to feel safe, cause then he couldn't come up with laws that slowly turn you into everything but democratic.

[jeremy]

I am sorry FLeiXiuS, but I must say that I disagree entirely. You say "President Bush is trying to convert the world into a democracy", he has pretty well achieved turning the US into a dictatorship, has done his best to undermine democracy in Brazil and Venezuela (to name just two of your neighbours), and, well, Iraq, with its American governor and puppet government that rules with marshall law, is hardly a model of democracy. Okay, okay, Bush says there will be elections in Iraq in January, we'll see.

You also say "Yet there are too many socialists who are worried only for themeselves", I agree that there are too many people who worry only for themselves, and I am sure that some of them are socialists, but I am sure that one could say the same of some republicans, democrats, or any other group. The true meaning of socialism (which we must not allow to be confused with failed 'communist" dictatorships), which has, to my mind, unfortunately, never been tried, is a state that provides for peoples needs, something that is sorely lacking in the US of A.

I was born in Britain not terribly long after the end of the second world war, a time of considerable poverty. During my youth it is generally agreed that Britain achieved what in these days would be called "An economic miracle", this was achieved, not by giving industry a free reign, but by a succession of Labour (socialist) governments that provided a very high standard of free education, (including milk which continued until that revolting woman, Margaret Thatcher, became minister for education under Edward Heath!), healthcare, highly subsidised public transport, etc. etc. All of which would be anathema to Bush.

Call me an "old European" if you like, but I am proud to be a socialist, as I am proud to be a citizen of a country (Spain) that has withdrawn its troops from Iraq. I was ashamed when Spain sent her troops to Iraq under the rule of the Bush-like Aznar, a rule that has been referred to as "rancid ultra-nationalism bordering on the most genuinely Spanish facist ideology*".

To quote Jonathan Freedland, a well respected British journalist,
"Before the war, President Bush told us Iraq was a throbbing hub of terror. It wasn't, of course. But it is now".

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1170752,00.html

[jeremy]

so let's stick to the point: GNU/LINUX ;)
This section of the forum is called 'community chat'.

[TravisNewman]

I dunno about anyone else here, but I haven't seen anyone acting different toward anyone outside this thread. I'll have to say I agree with jeremy in both of his last two posts. I don't see how anyhing Bush has done has been good except for going after Osama to begin with, until he abandoned that, of course. That said, I don't really think Kerry would have been a great president, but anything would have been better than Bush, quite frankly. But then, honestly, this conversation will never end. We really won't get anywhere, and if it starts raising pulses and getting in the way of the forum goals, then it should be closed. I just don't think that's happening yet.

[zenwhen]

I voted for Bush and am glad he won. While I don't agree with him on every single issue, I do feel his values closely match mine. That is more important to me that what other nations think of my country, and what coastal state liberals think of me and my moral values.

[Hutch]

Exactly, that is who I voted for.
Me three. Alas, Badnarik didn't do as well as I hoped.

[FLeiXiuS]

I'm just sharing my opinion to those who really care. I don't agree with a substantial amount of what Bush has done. But I do believe in his morals. I believe in punishment for those who are wrong and continue to act wrong. I will show pitty at times and mercy at others. I'm not one to tolerate people who continue to act against those of different religious / moral values.

[elwis]

I'm not trying to be harsh, but I really would like to know more about how you think?

You say

I believe in punishment for those who are wrong and continue to act wrong.
And define "wrong"? You, mean everybody not heterosexual christian?


I'm not one to tolerate people who continue to act against those of different religious / moral values.

Exactly. That's why one must show tolerance, and I'm afraid, I'll never seen Bush and the Christian right-wing do anything like that?

[zenwhen]

elwis, you are being pretty closed-minded and hateful towards anyone who is Christian or has different opinions than you.

What he was saying was fairly obvious. Please stop your spin-fest... its sickening.

[jwenting]

elwis, you are being pretty closed-minded and hateful towards anyone who is Christian or has different opinions than you.

What he was saying was fairly obvious. Please stop your spin-fest... its sickening.
It's typical leftist behaviour though.
If you can't win an argument with logic (which they can't because they'll never have logic on their side), try to win by bullying and throwing dirt at the opposition.
Then once you've won you make sure your enemies can never voice their opinion again by taking away their freedom and shoving them into a Gulag (pretty much what Kerry did to his opponents in Boston).

[elwis]

Oh, I wouldn't say that I'm very leftish, or anti-christian for that sake. I do believe in science though, not any old books, but can of course understand that others have a different meaning.

I would like to know why Bush won though, so I find it interesting to see why people voted for him. There's without doubt a huge different on how the world look upon the man and his leadership, and how the people in US does it.

I do understand that this sort of discussion is dangerous on the web though, since it's too easy to misunderstand eachothers. Guess we better drop it then and go back to our favorite-distro.

[adbak]

There's a difference between the verbs "tolerate" and "accept".

Tolerate - allow the presence of or allow (an activity) without opposing or prohibiting; "We don't allow dogs here"; "Children are not permitted beyond this point"; "We cannot tolerate smoking in the hospital" <http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=tolerate>

Accept - react favorably to; consider right and proper; "People did not accept atonal music at that time"; "We accept the idea of universal health care" <http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=accept>

[fng]

http://72.3.131.10/gallery/1/ :)

[Seti]

I have to say it, America is SCARY!!! I talk to Americans 4 days a week at a part time job while going to school, we are an inbound call-centre and people call in about their credit-card. Sorry, but 3/4 of you people who call sound STRESSED OUT! SHORT FUSED! HIGH STRUNG and totally PARANOID! You folks are WAY TOO RELIGIOUS! The people I talk to sound like their ready to send the stealth bomber and launch an air-strike if they don't get their late-fee waived! I mean, come on.
It truly worries me that Bush is going to be in power for another 4 years. But then again, your society is on a downward spiral(and dragging Canada along with it as well) and the nation is going to have to hit rock-bottom before anything starts to improve. In 10-20 years when 100% of you all are obese, McDonalds munching, Coca-Cola swilling, pill-popping CONSUMER SLAVES then maybe....NAH!
And I can't believe how religious you people are. I mean, wow! Do you really consult a 2000 year old, irrelevent FABLE to make important decisions? You have a nation that is as technologically advanced as it is and yet its "the Good Lord" this and "The Good Lord" that?
Land of the free and the brave? Try land of THE BLIND UNQUESTIONING FAITHFUL SERVANTS OF THEIR GREAT LORDS AND MASTERS THE GODS OF $$$.
You guys should drop linux right now and just blindly accept Microsoft. After all, it much more closely fits American culture than linux. Linux is made by FOREIGNERS, probably with links to terrorist networks.
Democracy? You don't need it. Just accept whatever snake-oil lies your president feeds you and you'll be fine. I'm sure the republican party has the good of your country in mind when it makes its decisions.
They lie to you over and over again, it is proven time and again that these CROOKS are lying to you all and yet you swallow the next one. YOU GUYS ARE DOOMED!
And at this point I don't even feel safe in Canada from your PATRIOT ACT CRAP, I'd feel safer living in Europe, maybe China.
And sad to see so many Americans applying for immigration in Canada. I hope NOT ONE gets in; stay home and solve your problems, don't bring them here.
Don't get me wrong here, I like America, Americans(I have friends there) but when a nation as strong as yours starts to act as STUPID as this, one has to ask questions. I think what really needs to happen is:
1.You guys have to stop worshipping the $$$-god so much and AT LEAST ACT LIKE/PRETEND THAT YOU ARE CHRISTIANS, then maybe there may be an improvement.
2. Stop trying to control other countries OUTSIDE OF THE USA, OK? Canada is not a state. Stop sending that fool ambassador with his constant threats.
3. Middle-class people need to vote for a govornement that will actually care about them and represent them. Its sickening to see all you middle-class Americans voting for MR CAPITALISM SCREW THE LITTLE GUY because he promises to protect them from the boogie man. THAT IS SO SAD!!!
Anyway, that is what many of us north of the border feel. Sadness, regret and worry that our great cousin to the south HAS GONE CRAZY. I'm sorry if this rant offended anyone, that is not the intent. I just want you guys to know how many of us feel here.
PEACE.

[Jspired]

elwis, you are being pretty closed-minded and hateful towards anyone who is Christian or has different opinions than you.

What he was saying was fairly obvious. Please stop your spin-fest... its sickening.

I am Christian and didn't take his post that way at all. In fact, I had the same questions running through my mind as he did. Not a spin-fest, just questions.. Nothing wrong with that.

[elwis]

Good to hear!
As stated, I try to be very openminded and my intent is not to attack anyone because of their values, or way of life. That is, of course, if their ways of life doesn't harm all the others ;)

About religion, I'm born as a christian but have lived in Israel among jews, and in Palestine among arabs. It gave me a nice objective view, though I wouldn't swear myself to any religion.

[jwenting]

I would like to know why Bush won though, so I find it interesting to see why people voted for him. There's without doubt a huge different on how the world look upon the man and his leadership, and how the people in US does it.


You mean there's a big difference between how the press outside the US and the voters inside the US look at Bush?
That's hardly surprising as the press nearly worldwide is extremely leftist (in the US too).

As an example the BBC openly called for Bush to be assassinated to prevent him from getting reelected on at least one occasion.
Dutch newspapers after Bush won the elections only mentioned it in small headlines, instead plastering frontpages with the news that immigration services in Canada and New Zealand were swamped with people "fleeing Bush" (their wording).
Dutch radio didn't mention the victory of the GOP for hours after it was confirmed, instead sticking to out of date polls that showed Kerry either in the lead or (more true to form but still outdated) regaining lost ground.
At the time cnn and fox reported Bush holding 266 out of a required 270 votes in the electoral college (with Kerry holding 211) they reported Kerry having 242 and Bush 249 (figures that to the best of my knowledge never existed).

Also the reporting prior to the elections was extremely biassed to make Kerry look like an angel and Bush the devil in disguise. No wonder uninformed people will have thought Kerry the better choice, they were completely indoctrinated towards that attitude.

[jdodson]

As an example the BBC openly called for Bush to be assassinated to prevent him from getting reelected on at least one occasion.

wow, because they do that all the time. i mean the other day i watched the bbc and they called for the assination of tony blair, jesus, mohammad, god and BUSH in the same sentence. then they cut to an ad for A7055D assault rifles. seriously what a bunch of losers! :lol:

ok now on to the non-sarcasm. i wonder if you could cite a source in online form that can proove that this is true. i would be very interested in this information personally. the reason: it would make good blogging material. however, if this is spin/distortion of the facts, that would be very unfortunate.

anyways, being leftist person, i personally disagree with a comment made earlier by
[QUOTE=jwenting]
It's typical leftist behaviour though.
If you can't win an argument with logic (which they can't because they'll never have logic on their side), try to win by bullying and throwing dirt at the opposition.
Then once you've won you make sure your enemies can never voice their opinion again by taking away their freedom and shoving them into a Gulag (pretty much what Kerry did to his opponents in Boston)."[/QUOTE=jwenting]

i am leftist nor do use or support the things you mention. plus you say liberals do not have logic on thier side. i really dont see this to be true at all. to say that no liberal arguments are logical is completley obsurd. i think many arguments are logical from the left, many are logical from the right, however logic does not always matter. for instance religion is not always logical, though many right and left wing people are religious.

i dont really remember kerry throwing anyone in prison for a disagreement. or perhaps you mean that kerry used heavy handed tactics to achieve a goal? much could be said about bush in that area. perhaps you mean kerry fired people that did not agree with him? much could be said about bush in the same area. or perhaps you literally mean prison, in which case would welcome a source for your assertation.

on to the freedom thing. i would not really define liberals as attempting to strip away the freedom of the united states. personally it seems to me that ashcroft+bush=patriot act. it seems to me that the patriot act does in fact limit freedom(i am not debating its merits just stating a fact). i wonder what sources you would cite to proove that liberals take away the freedom of thier enemies.

i think it will be quite easy for you to come up with citations and examples that are logical as you seem to be of the mind that you have logic on your side. however being illogical as i am a leftist person, i guess i might not understand your high reasoning. ;)

[jdodson]

No wonder uninformed people will have thought Kerry the better choice, they were completely indoctrinated towards that attitude.

I know people seem to think that America is the most informed country in the world. They seem to think America is also the best, most moral, etc, etc. I know people who think that anyone who disagrees with them is lied to or misled. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are lied to. All people are indoctrinated anyways, here is the definition:

1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2. To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.

It seems to me that you are not bi partisan in your belief which means you are indoctrinated to believe something, does that mean you are a bad person, nope, in means that you infact are a person! If you go to church or go to school you are being indoctrinated. If you have parents, guess what?

FWIW.

[jdodson]

btw, sorry i posted three times :-)

logic is grounded in something called facts. facts are very hard to see as both sides of any issue use spin to cloud actual reason. politicans on both sides of the spectrum use false logic all the time, here is an example:

today it is raining and it is dark and cloudy.

now politicians love to do the reverse:

therefore on all dark and cloudy days it is raining.

whoah, hold up the phone that doesnt make logical sense and why not. because

if X implies Y

Y does not imply X

simply taking the reverse of a statement is not logical.

heres another one as well, something called a false analogy. something that people like to do on this forum when talking politics:) i will quote from a webpage i will cite later on:

(i) Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the
head in order to make them work, so must employees.
(ii) Government is like business, so just as business must be
sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must
government. (But the objectives of government and business
are completely different, so probably they will have to meet
different criteria.)

false analogies are used to say that if linux were as popular as windows it would just as hacked and virus/spyware ridden. WHOA hold the phone, linux and windows are TOTALLY different. true the are both operating systems, but seriously that is where the similarity ends. they are constructed on different principles that make them very different beasts. i will quote from the site i will cite later:

" Identify the two objects or events being compared and the
property which both are said to possess. Show that the two
objects are different in a way which will affect whether they
both have that property."

this kind of bad logic procedure is common amongst all politicians, people and religions. it is simply bad logic. anyways.

read on false analogies here. (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm)

FWIW

[TravisNewman]

Look at the wisdom pouring out of jdodson!! Seriously dude, that was a lot to read, but couldn't have said (most of) it better myself. Granted I don't completely agree, but no 2 people ever do completely agree on all the issues, and if they do, they're just blindly following something.

[HiddenWolf]

I as a liberal free-fought european will just have to suffer bush for another four years.

The state of the world is very serious at the moment, and in my opinion having bush at the helm does not really help a lot.

[TravisNewman]

No. Some may agree with his morals, but the fact is, people are dying unnecessarily every day because of his personal war.

[HiddenWolf]

The only good thing I'll say about him is that he does what he believes in and acts.

The bad thing is that he does not help the world doing so. :-S

[TravisNewman]

The only good thing I'll say about him is that he does what he believes in and acts.

The bad thing is that he does not help the world doing so. :-S
True. He does have a very steadfast, gung-ho attitude which is necessary for a president, but he stays steadfast and gung-ho when he's making major mistakes, which is a very BAD thing for a president to do. Kerry wasn't as steadfast, but at least he admits that opinions can change when new information is gathered.

[HiddenWolf]

True. He does have a very steadfast, gung-ho attitude which is necessary for a president, but he stays steadfast and gung-ho when he's making major mistakes, which is a very BAD thing for a president to do. Kerry wasn't as steadfast, but at least he admits that opinions can change when new information is gathered.

Here in Holland we've got the same type of guy as a Prime Minister.
Needless to say he and bush are virtually best friends.

The guy is still preaching morals, respect and complaining about being compared to Harry Potter, while christians and muslims here are up in arms against eachother.

We've had dozens of arsonist attacks on churches and mosque's, and all the while, the politicians are messing about. :-S

[Sith]

If only you knew how side-lined my faith is.

Christianity is side-lined? I'm a Buddhist and I feel that my faith is side-lined since far right-wing Christians cry persecution and try to condemn those of other faiths. The only "persecution" Christians face in this nation is not getting what they want. Life doesn't always turn out as you want.

No, don't throw Bible verses at me either since I will only throw Dhammapada verses at you as well. Just let others hav their faith. As for gay marriage, I could care less. Our national trade deificit is so bad, we need to focus on that and not what or how gays live their lives. As long as they have human rights, they are fine.

[jdong]

I draw the line here. Some of the statements in this thread are absolutely inappropriate.


This will also begin a new rule: NO Political Topics allowed.