Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

RE: How Could Anyone Have Voted for Him? (Bush-isms)

search

Vile
Picture of Vile
My Blog
My Profile
My Audience
My Sources
Send Me a Message

sponsored links

Vile's topics
Arts
Business
Games
Health and Wellness
Home and Garden
Miscellaneous
Current Events
Recreation
Local Information
Science
Society
Sports
Technology

support us

Get MemeStreams Stuff!


 
RE: How Could Anyone Have Voted for Him? (Bush-isms)
Topic: Miscellaneous 7:37 pm EST, Nov  5, 2004

mal wrote:
] Apparently a small majority of the voters have not been paying
] attention the past 4 years or else in some sort of
] Harrison-Bergeron-like trance they can look at Bush and say,
] "I know he's a complete idiot but he's trying so hard."
]
] This is a collection of things hje really said. I remember
] hearing some of them during the debates. I laughed so hard I
] cried, then I just cried. :)
]
] ] "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
] They
] ] never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and
] our
] ] people, and neither do we." ¬óGeorge W. Bush, Washington,
] D.C., Aug.
] ] 5, 2004 (Watch video clip)

People voted for him because the democratic party doesn't have it's shit together at all. Let's face it, if everyone could vote in the primaries, not just registered dems, then the party would NOT have nominated Kerry and, in turn, Edwards would not have hicked his way onto the ballot either. If the dems just folded and found themselves replaced by the Greens, then Bush would be packing his bags now. No true liberal wants to see Bush in office, but they definitely don't want to be pandered to by a democratic party so out of touch with america that their primary message is not what they can do for our country, but rather "Bush is evil," "Bush is stupid," "WE can't take another four years of Republican policies," or "Only morons vote republican." How many Reagan democrats might kiss the democrat part goodbye when confronted with such an ideology. The Democrats have tried to make themselves the "thinking man's party," but in doing so they lack action, one concise plan and the ability to sway moderate voters. It's kind of funny, because other than abortion rights, welfare and defense spending, they are beginning to be a mirror image of the Republican party, which has itself grown more moderate over the past ten years. Now, on the subject of Bush's intelligence, it appears to be absent. However, his cabinet (excepting Rumsfeld and Ashcroft), are awfully smart in their handling of national affairs, and they are very well-spoken. Certainly we could compare Bush to Al Gore, whom no one seemed to hate when in fact he was as much of an idiot, career politician and fortunate son as the current Commander in Chief. Let's face it, people who polarize two-party american politics don't know a whole helluva lot about politics in America. The liberals had a choice this time out (and last time out). He got one percent of the vote, but every vote cast for him was an intelligent form of protest against the pseudo-liberal conservatism of the democratic party. If the dems became more moderate on some issues and more left-leaning on others, they would have taken every election in my lifetime. Until people begin voting from the heart instead of their gut, our nation will be controlled by evil bastards. Not to harp on it, but take a look at the last two elections. In 2000, we had two third generation career politicians from privileged families with little in the way of smarts, or plans, to choose from. One of them was married to a woman who wanted to ban rock music in the 80's. Very liberal-minded, eh? I cannot believe that Nader did not win the election! In fact, he didn't because of the fear that drives the liberal agendas. They want total comfort, safety, and freedom. These things are incompatible. Real freedom means responsibility, which the liberal mindset often doesn't understand. The conservative mindset messes this up as well, but in a different way. They want safety and freedom, which is impossible, whereas the liberals want liberty and freedom. These are rarely compatible, and neither mindset understands the drawbacks to their philosophy. In this election, we had two Yalies, both Skull and Bonesmen, cousins in fact, who put on a good stage-fight with no substance to it at a time when both cons and libs are at each other's throats in the streets, bars, and living rooms of the nation. Neither of these old rich fools had been to any of these three places in their lives (their own living rooms don't count since they are the size of my whole house). We don't need third party. We need to kick the democrats and republicans out for GOOD. Neither represents the American people and all those who vote for either of them are fools who deserve no freedom, liberty or security. If people are so political then they should run for office under the green party and run good, solid campaigns based on ideas for positive change (and a bit of viciousness towards the self-appointed, constituent-supported establishment). Until we work towards a new governing ideal from the bottom up, jerkoffs like Bush, Gore, Kerry, Cheney, and Lieberman will always be telling you what to do, and you will do what one of them tells you, unless of course if you are in that marvelous one-percent range that voted for Nader, or the Green Party. Is Minnesota the only state with balls here?

RE: How Could Anyone Have Voted for Him? (Bush-isms)



 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics
RSS2.0