Who are you going to vote for??

[Sharpieman]

Now that we know that Kerry will be running for the Democrats, who are you going to vote for?

[sachmo71]

Nader.

[CamEdwards]

I'm writing in John Birch.

[AlejandroSosa]

Bush

[Neuqua]

"My butt"

[KevinNU7]

How about a poll?

[Sharpieman]

Oh by the way, if anyone actually cares, I'm voting for Kerry. Bush is a horrible President.

[rkmsuf]

don't forget to include trout in the poll...

[Sharpieman]

dola, I didn't want a poll because I wanted people to respond with reasons why they are voting for whoever...

[CamEdwards]

I'm pretty sure this threat should have started out in flames.

[AlejandroSosa]

Kerry smells like cheerios

[Sun Tzu]

Perot.

[FBPro]

Bush

[WussGawd]

Kerry. Heck, I'd vote for Bozo the Clown if it meant I didn't have to suffer four more years of the stammering buffoon.

[CamEdwards]

Kerry. Heck, I'd vote for Bozo the Clown if it meant I didn't have to suffer four more years of the stammering buffoon.

you have enough money to pay for a computer, internet access, and basketball games, plus enough free time to write a dynasty about your experiences.

yep... that's suffering all right. :rolleyes:

[CamEdwards]

dola: flame on!

[Desnudo]

Yeeeeeehaaaaaaaaa!

[rkmsuf]

you have enough money to pay for a computer, internet access, and basketball games, plus enough free time to write a dynasty about your experiences.

yep... that's suffering all right. :rolleyes:

Maybe it's like a Mary Hart thing and his voice induces seizures or something. That's sufferin...

[Sun Tzu]

Actualy screw Perot.

I'm voting for the Swedish Chef.

http://www.grudge-match.com/Images/swedish_chef.gif

[Desnudo]

I like the Swedish Chef. He has charisma. May have to keep him away from the bottle though.

[sterlingice]

I like the Swedish Chef. He has charisma. May have to keep him away from the bottle thought.
Didn't hurt Yeltsin. ;)

SI

[WussGawd]

you have enough money to pay for a computer, internet access, and basketball games, plus enough free time to write a dynasty about your experiences.

yep... that's suffering all right. :rolleyes:

All of which I have in spite of the economic policies of the ruling party. Or do you think 2.5 million more unemployed people is a coincidence? :rolleyes:

[WussGawd]

I like the Swedish Chef. He has charisma. May have to keep him away from the bottle though.

Actually, having an alcoholic for President might explain some of the policy decisions that usually come out of Washington. :D

[Desnudo]

It wouldn't be the first time. ;)

[sachmo71]

Wait, wasn't Patty Hearst an option? I'm voting for that crazy broad!

[CamEdwards]

All of which I have in spite of the economic policies of the ruling party. Or do you think 2.5 million more unemployed people is a coincidence? :rolleyes:

My God... WussGawd is really 2.5 million people! This board is much more popular than I thought.

And the short answer is "I don't believe the Bush administration is responsible for the unemployment of 2.5 million people, just as I believe they're not responsible for the employment of 180 million." Now, if you do believe that the government is directly responsible for employment, I'd make an argument that an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent is awfully good. In fact, that's a tenth of a point higher than 1996, when Clinton was finishing his first term.

[sachmo71]

I vote for CAM!!!!

[WussGawd]

My God... WussGawd is really 2.5 million people! This board is much more popular than I thought.

And the short answer is "I don't believe the Bush administration is responsible for the unemployment of 2.5 million people, just as I believe they're not responsible for the employment of 180 million." Now, if you do believe that the government is directly responsible for employment, I'd make an argument that an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent is awfully good. In fact, that's a tenth of a point higher than 1996, when Clinton was finishing his first term.

Weak, Cam, weak. And since Dubya has been touting his ridiculous tax cuts for the folks who need them least as a "jobs" package, he apparently was eager to take credit for them if the jobs materialized. Since they haven't, therefore, he gets to bear a lot of the blame. That's the way politics works, whether you like it or not. If Bush wants to trumpet successes from the rooftops (though Dubya hasn't had many of those, to be honest), then he gets the opportunity to be called out on the failures.

[hukarez]

Whoa...deja vu!

Kodos! (Or Kang!)

[rkmsuf]

Seacrest/Dunkelman 2004

[Rizon]

I'm voting for my parties candidate. I'm registered with the "Tippytarian" party.

[stevew]

Weak, Cam, weak. And since Dubya has been touting his ridiculous tax cuts for the folks who need them least as a "jobs" package, he apparently was eager to take credit for them if the jobs materialized. Since they haven't, therefore, he gets to bear a lot of the blame. That's the way politics works, whether you like it or not. If Bush wants to trumpet successes from the rooftops (though Dubya hasn't had many of those, to be honest), then he gets the opportunity to be called out on the failures.

So what you are saying is that the people that make the most money should be penalized. Lets screw the rich mofo's. And the lower class, lets give them more programs with the rich peoples money.

[WussGawd]

So what you are saying is that the people that make the most money should be penalized. Lets screw the rich mofo's. And the lower class, lets give them more programs with the rich peoples money.

Seemed to work pretty well through the 20th Century. Of course, you might want to rephrase.

Those who benefit the most from a stable, prosperous economy (the rich) should be expected to carry more of the burden of the cost of that government.

As for programs, I think it's disingenuous to broad brush say that all government programs are good or bad. Certainly, some government programs, like the ones that allow Halliburton subcontractors to bill us an extra buck a gallon for gas or 50% extra for meals in Iraq, are bad. Whereas making sure that a large number of unemployed people don't starve to death might be good. Guess I'm just funny that way.

[Ksyrup]

All of which I have in spite of the economic policies of the ruling party. Or do you think 2.5 million more unemployed people is a coincidence? :rolleyes:
I believe that economic cycles largely move free from our leaders' ability to specifically control them, and that about the only control we have over the ups and downs, is what underlying, fundamental policies we choose to move through those changes. For instance - there was no doubt that both Reagan and Clinton would benefit from economic recoveries. The economy was in a down-swing or moderate up-swing when both were elected; it had to go up again. Similarly, there is little doubt that the false market conditions created by the tech boom, coupled with 9/11 and shaky investor confidence in corporations following Enron/World Com, etc., were going to cause the economy to falter during Bush's term. We simply cannot give Reagan and Clinton full credit for the economy's recovery, and solely blame Bush for this downturn, when nearly any paths those Presidents took would not have changed the ultimate course of the economy.

The fact that you would simply equate bad economy with the President's term in office, without even considering, much less discussing (or, I guess, in your case, it would be rationalizing away) the context in which the economy faltered, is troubling. I may be partisan, but I can tell you that if Gore was President, I wouldn't be blaming him for what occurred, but rather, I would criticize him for the policies he had implemented to take advantage of the obvious economic upswing we will undoubtedly be going through in the coming years.

If you think Bush's tax cuts were bad policy, then vote against him. But if you really believe Bush, and not the confluence of all of those outside sources, caused the economic "problems" (I should point out that 5+% unemployment ain't all that bad) of this country...yikes.

[Ksyrup]

Cam and I are twins...but I got the hair.

[Ksyrup]

Seacrest/Dunkelman 2004
Dunkelman was invited to Iowa, but the bus pulled away while he was taking a whiz on the side of the road, and no one felt obligated to stop and go get him. No, I think on this ticket, Seacrest rides alone.

On a related note, I heard Casey Kasam doing a voice-over on a tampon commercial or some shit like that. Old man's gotta make money somehow, since Seacrest booted his ass to the Top 40 Countdown curb. I just hope this doesn't mean a Rick Dees sighting in Tallahassee...

[rkmsuf]

Dunkelman was invited to Iowa, but the bus pulled away while he was taking a whiz on the side of the road, and no one felt obligated to stop and go get him. No, I think on this ticket, Seacrest rides alone.

On a related note, I heard Casey Kasam doing a voice-over on a tampon commercial or some shit like that. Old man's gotta make money somehow, since Seacrest booted his ass to the Top 40 Countdown curb. I just hope this doesn't mean a Rick Dees sighting in Tallahassee...

Maybe Seacrest can pick up Dees as his running mate if they can patch things up.

Casey is cooky...he's a big Robert Blake guy. I think Blake is staying at his beach house or something right now.

Nothing is better than the Casey Kasam rant with the long distance dedication...

[sterlingice]

Ok, it's time to unsubscribe from this thread.

SI

[Primal]

Or do you think 2.5 million more unemployed people is a coincidence? :rolleyes:
Funny thing is I've had an ad in the Newspaper, at local colleges, and on Monster.com. So far no one wants to work. I'll have those 2.5 million are unemployed by choice.

[CamEdwards]

Weak, Cam, weak. And since Dubya has been touting his ridiculous tax cuts for the folks who need them least as a "jobs" package, he apparently was eager to take credit for them if the jobs materialized. Since they haven't, therefore, he gets to bear a lot of the blame. That's the way politics works, whether you like it or not. If Bush wants to trumpet successes from the rooftops (though Dubya hasn't had many of those, to be honest), then he gets the opportunity to be called out on the failures.

It's no more weak than listening to someone like yourself claiming to have suffered over the last four years because of the president. We complain about the rhetoric used in the campaigns when we're just as guilty of it ourselves.

By the way, I did a news.google.com search of "bush jobs package" and came up with nothing to indicate the president has been touting his tax cuts as a job package. Could you steer me in the right direction?

[Ksyrup]

And since Dubya has been touting his ridiculous tax cuts for the folks who need them least as a "jobs" package, he apparently was eager to take credit for them if the jobs materialized. Since they haven't, therefore, he gets to bear a lot of the blame. That's the way politics works, whether you like it or not. If Bush wants to trumpet successes from the rooftops (though Dubya hasn't had many of those, to be honest), then he gets the opportunity to be called out on the failures.

God Gawd...

In case you haven't noticed, that's the way politics is played, and will continue to be played. It's up to us, the (supposedly) educated voters, to see through the BS posturing on both (or all 3) sides and decide what the truth is for ourselves. I think both Cam and I specifically declined to give Bush all of the credit for what good has occurred, so your argument that we are only seeing one side of the issue is without merit. The fact that Bush is doing so is entirely expected, since he's trying to get elected.

Do you decide who to vote for solely on campaign ads and other meaningless rhetoric?

[CamEdwards]

Cam and I are twins...but I got the hair.

bastard.

[WussGawd]

If you think Bush's tax cuts were bad policy, then vote against him. But if you really believe Bush, and not the confluence of all of those outside sources, caused the economic "problems" (I should point out that 5+% unemployment ain't all that bad) of this country...yikes.

I think Bush has been nothing but 4 years of bad policy. But let's look at that policy a little closer though. We have a President who again tried to sell us trickle down economics. After all, they worked so well during the Great Depression. Hell, Bush's dad derided them in the 1980 campaign against Reagan as Voodoo Economics.

Yes, all that extra dividend money in the hands of the rich certainly created jobs in India, which apparently, to the surprise of several good hard working folks I know who have been out of work for 18 months or longer, is a good thing according to the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, half a million people last month stopped looking for work (they gave up). No private sector jobs were created and lots of folks are losing their homes, their property because unemployment benefits have run out. Are the Republicans concerned about this? Naw, they're trying to make these tax cuts permanent. Meanwhile, we're already running record deficits, and Bush hasn't even come clean on how much the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are going to cost (and courtesy of Spain, those costs in Iraq just went up, regardless of what you think of the new Spanish government).

So, tell me, again, that all of these policy decisions have helped the economy, and try to keep a straight face doing it. Anyway, I'm done here. You all have proven my point. The party in power is always eager to take too much credit for successes in the economy, but happily shirks the blame when their decisions hurt the economy (and I'm well aware that Bush and the Republicans are not the only factor here or even the biggest factor affecting the economy, but they are a factor).

[WussGawd]

So, all I've got to know is who is the Chef adding as a running mate?

[rkmsuf]

Anyway, I'm done here.

Seacrest......out!!!

[Fritz]

moved to here http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?p=414135#post414135

[CamEdwards]

I think Bush has been nothing but 4 years of bad policy. But let's look at that policy a little closer though. We have a President who again tried to sell us trickle down economics. After all, they worked so well during the Great Depression. Hell, Bush's dad derided them in the 1980 campaign against Reagan as Voodoo Economics.

Yes, all that extra dividend money in the hands of the rich certainly created jobs in India, which apparently, to the surprise of several good hard working folks I know who have been out of work for 18 months or longer, is a good thing according to the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, half a million people last month stopped looking for work (they gave up). No private sector jobs were created and lots of folks are losing their homes, their property because unemployment benefits have run out. Are the Republicans concerned about this? Naw, they're trying to make these tax cuts permanent. Meanwhile, we're already running record deficits, and Bush hasn't even come clean on how much the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are going to cost (and courtesy of Spain, those costs in Iraq just went up, regardless of what you think of the new Spanish government).

So, tell me, again, that all of these policy decisions have helped the economy, and try to keep a straight face doing it. Anyway, I'm done here. You all have proven my point. The party in power is always eager to take too much credit for successes in the economy, but happily shirks the blame when their decisions hurt the economy (and I'm well aware that Bush and the Republicans are not the only factor here or even the biggest factor affecting the economy, but they are a factor).


Good gracious. Talk about empty rhetoric.

Percentage of mortgages delinquent in in the 4th quarter of 2003: 4.49%, the lowest it's been since the 2nd quarter of 2000 (when it was 5.51 percent). In other words, there are fewer people delinquent on their mortgages now than when Clinton left office. Should we be praising Bush for allowing more people to pay their bills on time?

Percentage of mortgages foreclosed in the 4th quarter of 2003: 1.29%, down from a peak of 1.54% in the 1st quarter of 2002.

All this, by the way, comes at a time when home ownershsip is on the rise.

I'll agree with you on the deficit. Don't like it one bit. But tell me something: if repealing the Bush tax cut for the wealthy will generate an additional $252 billion dollars, and Kerry's healthcare plan alone is estimated to cost $900 billion, and know damn well that the size of the government never shrinks... how's Kerry going to pay for that one program, much less everything else he wants, without either increasing taxes on everyone or adding to the deficit?

[Ksyrup]

So, tell me, again, that all of these policy decisions have helped the economy, and try to keep a straight face doing it. Anyway, I'm done here. You all have proven my point. The party in power is always eager to take too much credit for successes in the economy, but happily shirks the blame when their decisions hurt the economy (and I'm well aware that Bush and the Republicans are not the only factor here or even the biggest factor affecting the economy, but they are a factor).
Geez, dude, do you even read what people write? I just got done explaining why I didn't think the President should get most of the credit for what will be an upswing in our economy, his policies notwithstanding, and yet here you are again, deriding me for giving the party in power too much credit. The economy was going to suck for a while, and it is going to get better, regardless of who was in power. Again, if you disagree with the policies being implemented to take advantage of the economic upswing, that's one thing - for the sake of argument on that point (because it's not really the point I'm trying to make), I'll give you that that's a legitimate point of contention. But to suggest that Bush's policies are the reason we are where we are, and then to throw your whole argument away on that point in a parenthetical at the end of your last paragraph...? I don't get it.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Wendel Wilkie

[ISiddiqui]

Kerry... though if I had a choice of any politician in the US, I'd gladly vote for McCain for President.

[Cuckoo]

I wouldn't vote for John Kerry if you threatened the life of my mother. I'd probably just convince myself that it's about her time. :)

I'm not a huge Bush fan right now, but as usual it's a lesser of two evils kind of thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This election is one of the easiest voting decisions I've ever made.

I'll be doing everything I can to ensure the re-election of President Bush. It's a slam dunk, there has been no President in my lifetime with whom I've agreed more often, been prouder of, or happier with, than this one.

There have been occasional disagreements (immigration policy & a less-than- adequate use of military force in the Middle East would be a couple of obvious points) but on the whole, there's been no President in my 36 (nearly 37) years that I've been even remotely this approving of.

[ShovelMonkey]

...but as usual it's a lesser of two evils kind of thing.

Exactly. My vote will be going to Bush because of this. It's kind of sad that it has come to this, however.

[yabanci]

But if you really believe Bush, and not the confluence of all of those outside sources, caused the economic "problems" (I should point out that 5+% unemployment ain't all that bad) of this country...yikes.

Truman had a sign on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here."

Bush has a sign on his desk that says "The Buck Stops at the Confluence of All of the Outside Sources."

[Chief Rum]

Can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Issidiqui. I wish McCain were runnung.

Since he ain't, no way in heck I am voting for Kerry. Go Bush! ;)

CR

[fhasumi]

They both smell like Cheerios

[Flasch186]

Kerry

I dont see how I can vote for an administration that Lies, gets caught in their lies, and then lies to cover up those lies. I would rather vote for someone, anyone, who admits their mistakes and can adjust their thinking/policy when they see something isnt working. Just my opine.

[McSweeny]

i know i'm far out numbered, but i do not want Bush back in office for a second term. I'm not going to get into a huge debate mostly because Kysrup and Cam will kick my ass. That's fine.

Fat Mike of NOFX has put together a great grassroots movement to help educate people and get people registered to vote. Check out
PunkVoter.org (http://www.punkvoter.org) it's got lots of great information and some great articles. Even you pro-bush guys might enjoy it.

[CamEdwards]

McSweeny,

Just FYI, I'm wearing my Dropkick Murphy's shirt right now. :)

Honestly, I love a good debate, and I love arguing with the guys on this board. It seriously helps me hone my arguments and makes me think about what I believe and why I believe it.

I might disagree with your politics, but at least you care. As a talk show host, liberals aren't my enemies, apathy is.

That's cool that Fat Mike's got that site up. Too bad it's taking away from another MFATGG's cd.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I don't vote, but if I did, I'd vote for Pau Gasol, because he STILL has tremendous upside.

[stevew]

Kerry

I dont see how I can vote for an administration that Lies, gets caught in their lies, and then lies to cover up those lies. I would rather vote for someone, anyone, who admits their mistakes and can adjust their thinking/policy when they see something isnt working. Just my opine.

People voted for Clinton

[stevew]

I don't vote, but if I did, I'd vote for Pau Gasol, because he STILL has tremendous upside.

Man, Tyson Chandler is a goldmine of potential.

[McSweeny]

McSweeny,

Just FYI, I'm wearing my Dropkick Murphy's shirt right now. :)

Honestly, I love a good debate, and I love arguing with the guys on this board. It seriously helps me hone my arguments and makes me think about what I believe and why I believe it.

I might disagree with your politics, but at least you care. As a talk show host, liberals aren't my enemies, apathy is.

That's cool that Fat Mike's got that site up. Too bad it's taking away from another MFATGG's cd.

I agree with you about apathy being the enemy(along with yankee fans!) and i admire you're debating skills. Even though i don't agree with you on several issues, the way you take apart some of the hot-headed liberals is fun to read. Sometimes i get yelling at my computer screen, but that's what makes this place (FOFC) so great.

I normally enjoy a good debate myself, however political debates always tend to wear me out and leave me somewhat jaded. It's also tough for me because politics are something i am not 100% sure about. For the most part i know where i stand, but i'm always learning and reading and educating myself. That's mostly why i just read these types of threads and don't get involved so much. It's not so much that these types of discussions lead to me changing my mind, it's just that i am always reminded to keep an open mind and it is great to hear other people's opinions and the reasoning behind them even if sometimes they can get my blood boiling.

Anyway, what i think i'm trying to say is that i'll leave the debating to the debators or something like that. :)

And no matter what they say Cam, i know you can't possibly be a bad guy. A Red Sox fan and a fan of excellent (murphys, me first) music can't be all that bad :D


PS: Wow that turned into a total spoodge fest... carry on

[Sun Tzu]

So, all I've got to know is who is the Chef adding as a running mate?

http://www.nutzworld.com/images/cookie_monster.gif

How can you <b>not</b> vote for a Chef/Monster campaign?

[Jon]

I'm just amazed at how polarized the country really seems to be, it appears that people either hate Bush or like him. It looks like this election is going to focus even less on the issues than most presidential races and get down to the likeabililty factor. I believe that JonintheMiddle represents most people-- that is, if you like Bush you are going to do all that you can to get him reelected and if you dislike him you are going to do what you can to keep him from getting reelected. It's tragic how both sides are going negative so early and it's only going to get worse. we might see some of the Saturday Night Live parody attack ads become real this time around.

[Flasch186]

Thank God for Clinton....He only held peace for a long time, handed Bush Bin Laden as the #1 enemy of the state, handed Bush a budget surplus, an incredible economy, stopped genocide "the right way" in Kosovo and turned it over to NATO. Whoops, he got a BJ from someone other than his wife!!! Let us all forget everything else but this.

[Cuckoo]

If you honestly believe all that you just wrote, there's no sense discussing it with you.

[Chief Rum]

If you honestly believe all that you just wrote, there's no sense discussing it with you.

Boy, ain't that the truth!

PA announcer: "Objectivity at the front desk waiting for Flasch...Objectivity lost and looking for Flasch..."

CR

[duckman]

Though I'm not a big fan of the deficit Bush has runned up, I know that we are at war so I'm not as concerned as I would during more peaceful times. He has been a solid leader so he'll get my vote in November.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Is Pat Paulsen running again?

[JeeberD]

Bush

[Buccaneer]

All I can say about Flasch that there always has to be one in a crowd (I only read this second page). I can't believe there some people in this country that actually believes that.

I am voting for the Libertarian candidate, whomever that might be.

I don't there is any chance at all that Kerry will win the electoral votes of Colorado so that means I can safely vote Libertarian again.

I have witnessed 9 presidential elections since I was 8 and in every case except 1 (maybe 2), it has always been the lesser of two evils.