Kerry or Bush,who are you voting for?

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:25 pm

Well, if the president is truly irrelevant concerning national security matters

The President is irrelevant concerning National Security matters? WOW!! That's a strong statement to make.

If, however, what you inferred is that I said the President is irrelevant concerning National Security matters, then mabye you should read my post again. As I think I clearly stated, who was President on 9/11 is irrelavent because the terrorists were planning to carry out the attacks long before Bush ever came into office. Therefore, to narrow 9/11 down to who's watch it happened on is an arguement that just won't fly.

My views on Bush have been made in previous posts, however, there is absolutely no way that Bush should take responsibility for 9/11. To suggest he should is absolutely absurd. It is neither his fault, nor the fault of the previous administration.

Perhaps you should

patrickg68 · Post by **patrickg68** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:28 pm

What I should have said was irrelevant concerning terrorism, because that is exactly what you said. Now, can you answer this question. If a presidential administration can not be at fault for not preventing the 9/11 attacks to occur, and thus is is irrelevant concerning terrorism, how can Bush design an entire campaign around saying that he will protect us from terrorism and Kerry won't? He can't have it both ways. If he wants to say that he will protect us from terrorists, then he has to take responsibility for 9/11 happening on his watch.

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:47 pm

If a presidential administration can not be at fault for not preventing the 9/11 attacks to occur, and thus is is irrelevant concerning terrorism, how can Bush design an entire campaign around saying that he will protect us from terrorism and Kerry won't?

You'll have to ask George Bush, not me. I'm neither a Bush supporter or a Kerry supporter. But, to say that Bush is responsible for 9/11 is ludicrous. Can a lot of things be done differently? Absolutely. For instance, we could have gone after Osama Bin Laden a lot more aggresively than we did both during Clintons administration as well as Bush's administration. Had we done that, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened on anyones watch. Don't take any of this to be a defense of George Bush. I'm certainly not defending him. I'm merely defending the office of the President. As for the campaign questions that you have, they're legitimate questions. However, I'm not the one to answer them. I personally think the job that Bush has done in the War on Terror is just slightly better than the awful job he's doing in Iraq.

I'm adamantly opposed to the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq, but to suggest he is somehow responsible for 9/11 is preposterous.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:51 pm

Pat, comeon, this isn't really a relevant line of discussion.

Sure the Bush administration shares part of the blame for 9/11. It did happen "on his watch." But does that make the Clinton administration less culpable? Does it make the media and the Congress and the complacent citizens less culpable?

There are many reasons I can't vote for Bush. The fact that 9/11 happend "on his watch" is not one of them.

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:02 pm

Well said cville.

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:53 am

Attention getting? Getting Attention?...sad

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:59 am

Scooter wrote:Attention getting? Getting Attention?...sad

I don't follow you?

wormer · Post by **wormer** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:04 pm

To the Bush supporters...can I ask, what do you all ultimately want for our country?

In other words, describe your perfect nation.

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:06 pm

It's simple bait to start an arguement that nobody is going to win. the Cowboy fan has come here to get attention. Attention he is getting... sad.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:09 pm

Scooter wrote:It's simple bait to start an arguement that nobody is going to win. the Cowboy fan has come here to get attention. Attention he is getting... sad.

Ah, ok, I follow you now.

'Tis true. All the more apparent by the fact that he bailed on the discussion when it was pointed out as preposterous.

Estahpruunty · Post by **Estahpruunty** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:53 pm

Theres a freakin storm goin on over here

When is the election?

Who's runnin?

How many dudes are up for office.. 5? 7?

I guess its the same as here nine or ten?

Anyway I hope Leno wins

EEEEEstah

joebagadonuts · Post by **joebagadonuts** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:02 pm

patrickg68 wrote:Actually, I'm not voting. I'm not even registered to vote, and I don't really like Kerry. I'm just saying that the idea that Bush has protected America is laughable.

in my book, if you're not going to take the time and energy and investment to register and vote, you have no right to complain about either candidate.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:11 pm

joebagadonuts wrote:
patrickg68 wrote:Actually, I'm not voting. I'm not even registered to vote, and I don't really like Kerry. I'm just saying that the idea that Bush has protected America is laughable.

in my book, if you're not going to take the time and energy and investment to register and vote, you have no right to complain about either candidate.

Ever hear the Carlin bit about how it should be the opposite of that? How, if you voted, the mess is YOUR fault?

Funny stuff.

But, seriously, why aren't you registered Pat? If you are of voting age it's imperative that you voice your opinion, because nobody will do it for you. And one of the ways you voice your opinion in a democracy is to vote. Even if you can't pick a major Presidential candidate in good conscience, you should vote in your local, state, and congressional elections.

patrickg68 · Post by **patrickg68** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:46 pm

First off, I'm not necessarily saying that Bush is at fault for 9/11, I'm merely saying that if he wants to claim to be a president who will protect us from terrorists, he needs to take responsibility for when we do get attacked.

I am not registered to vote because I want to reserve the right to complain, just like Carlin said. If I vote for Kerry, and then is elected, I have no right to complain about anything he does because I helped put him there. However, by not voting, I reserve the right to complain about the mess which the voting public has created.

patrickg68 · Post by **patrickg68** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:57 pm

I also want to add that I think that when you vote, unless you are in a few of the battleground states, that your vote doesn't mean much. If you are a democrat in a traditionally republican state, or vice versa, your vote is absolutely worthless because of the election is determined by the electoral vote, and not the popular vote. I think that the word democracy is a misnomer. We are really a republic. We would be a little more democratic if the election was decided by popular vote.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:04 pm

Pat, I see you are in Tampa. I can think of at least eight reasons why you should register and vote. The Presidential race isn't the only thing on the ballot.

I happen to disagree with Carlin, if you don't vote, you are giving up your voice. Unless you are a famous comedian, then people might listen to you anyway.

TheMagicThree · Post by **TheMagicThree** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:10 pm

patrickg68 wrote:I also want to add that I think that when you vote, unless you are in a few of the battleground states, that your vote doesn't mean much. If you are a democrat in a traditionally republican state, or vice versa, your vote is absolutely worthless because of the election is determined by the electoral vote, and not the popular vote. I think that the word democracy is a misnomer. We are really a republic. We would be a little more democratic if the election was decided by popular vote.

That's why I say 'F*** The Electoral College.' It's nothing but b*******.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:16 pm

If the election was decided soley on the overall popular vote, the power would be concentrated around the metropolitan population centers. Then it would just mean that votes in Iowa and Ohio didn't count as much. Basically, SSDD.

patrickg68 · Post by **patrickg68** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:38 pm

If the election was based solely on popular vote, then every vote would truly count. Gore won the popular vote, yet was beaten in electoral vote. Is it really fair that the majority of America chose one president, but the system chose another?

TheMagicThree · Post by **TheMagicThree** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:43 pm

patrickg68 wrote:If the election was based solely on popular vote, then every vote would truly count. Gore won the popular vote, yet was beaten in electoral vote. Is it really fair that the majority of America chose one president, but the system chose another?

Bingo, it should be by what the popular vote is, not the electoral college.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:50 am

Justice Hog wrote:If Mark Solway wasn't from freakin' Canada, he'd get my vote!

Now, THAT is an argument I would not mind to bring to the smack forum! :evil:

freakin' Canada eh? What do you Justice have against this great country? :roll:

And do not bring this silly idea that a Canadian could not become President of the US. I say Mark for Vice-President of the US in a ticket with Joe Gibbs for President.

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:04 am

If we must blame someone for 9/11, then let's take a page from Matt Stone, Trey Parker and the South Park children....."Blame Canada".

As far as electoral versus popular vote, the idea behind it is to give every state a voice. Without it, one candidate could win 40 states but still lose the election because of winning NY, MA, CA, TX etc. If 40 or 50 states want one guy, and 10 want another, who should win?

BTW, I didn't do any research on these numbers, I just made them up to make a hypothetical point.

doroshjt · Post by **doroshjt** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:21 am

I think with the elections coming so close because of electoral college, popular vote is the best choice. Currently if you win a state by one vote you get all the electoral votes, that doesn't make any sense. Also, just because I support the candidate that isn't popular in my state, my vote is essentially useless. This seems wrong. For instance, with the examle above, if I lived in that state and voted for the other guy, it would be a tie, but since I don't the other candidate wins out right and my vote gets lost in the state in which I live. Don't divide by states, just have a running total of votes, thats the only way it should be.

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:29 am

Your vote would be worthless in popular vote. Virginia is a small state. As stated previously, the candidate winning in large population centers would win the election. While Nrthern Virginia is a populated area, it is far from New York City or Los Angeles.

doroshjt · Post by **doroshjt** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:57 am

you are assuming that large population centers vote 100% for one candidate. That is true in the electoral college setup, the winner takes all. So in NY if Bush gets 51% of the popular NY vote, he gets all the electoral votes, thats 49% of a large population not going to Kerry. The system doesn't make sense. As can be seen from the last election. Winning came down to carring florida, regardless of the popular vote. This election the exact same thing could happen with bush winning the popular and loosing the electoral. And it'll wind up in the courts and be a mess.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Kerry or Bush,who are you voting for?

Kerry or Bush?

HEY!!!