TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - New York
-- Kerry or Bush?
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 »


Posted by DeRangedMind on Oct-29-2004 16:50:

quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
I dont argue, I just state stuff.



why do you have to fire back even though I was right. Your a punk ass bitch and you straight know it.


Posted by Miss Bliss on Oct-29-2004 18:14:

quote:
Originally posted by Stassi
people getting in heated arguements over politics is just stupid...


At least it's something worthwhile to argue about! Almost as worthwhile as a PVD vs. Tiesto fight!!


Posted by Stassi on Oct-29-2004 18:16:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Bliss
At least it's something worthwhile to argue about! Almost as worthwhile as a PVD vs. Tiesto fight!!

if pvd and tiesto fought, it would probably be histerical.
The only thing funnier is to see Bush and kerry throw down like gangstas.


Posted by Miss Bliss on Oct-29-2004 18:19:

From bigmanwithaplan's article from Eisenhower's son:

quote:
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we "always have." We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.


I think this mentality might actually begin to show up as of this election... what with the HUGE rise in new voter registration and especially YOUNG voter registration. I hope it means people are starting to take a stand and think for themselves. The worst thing is when people vote for a party, and not a candidate!


Posted by Miss Bliss on Oct-29-2004 18:21:

quote:
Originally posted by Stassi
if pvd and tiesto fought, it would probably be histerical.
The only thing funnier is to see Bush and kerry throw down like gangstas.


They do so much fighting in TV ads and so much harsh criticizing of each other wherever they go that it wouldn't be too far off if they DID throw it down WWF style!!


Posted by verndogs on Oct-30-2004 03:56:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Bliss
They do so much fighting in TV ads and so much harsh criticizing of each other wherever they go that it wouldn't be too far off if they DID throw it down WWF style!!


it's nothing compared to the NY senate races in 92 and 98...where everyone pretty much voted on who was less of an asshole than on the platforms


Posted by verndogs on Oct-30-2004 04:00:

92 NY senate race:
Democratic Challenger Bob Abrahams called Incumbemnt Alfonse D'Amato a "Fascist" during a rally in Sept. D'Amato gets re-elected

98:
D'Amato called Schumer a "Putzhead" (Yiddish for literaly a Penis Head) during a speech a few days before the election

There were also the numerous shit-slinging commercials I saw back when I was a wee little kid


Posted by DaveSZ on Oct-31-2004 12:58:

quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
I didnt know that they were a 'tabloid'. I just thought it was interesting.



The man who owns it is the leader of the Moonies - a cult of nutjobs.

Bio:

http://www.***********/library/bio/r...sun-myung-moon/


Posted by DaveSZ on Oct-31-2004 13:04:

quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
One other thing. This flu 'epidemic' that is going around is not Bush's fault. If anything it stems from the Clinton term. When Clinton took office there were 7 flu vaccine making companies out there. By the time Clinton left office there was only 1 left. Quite ironically, Kerry never showed up to vote to out source it from other countries - obviously not an important issue.



I was under the impression that conservatives believed in personal responsibility, but I can't even begin to count the number of times the bush admin has blamed the Clenis for its many failings.


Posted by mcb001982 on Nov-01-2004 03:41:

voted for bush once and will do it again


Posted by trunks1022 on Nov-01-2004 04:11:

let's be honest... anything we opine here on the boards, it won't change anyone's opinion or vote... what a waste of keystrokes


Posted by vtwin on Nov-02-2004 02:38:

Well-Balanced Critique

Bush:

Hide the plants! Political partisans are sucking much of the air out
of the environment with insane rants, and it's tough to get oxygen. So
I am going to try something new by attempting to evaluate the Bush
presidency using simple logic and stone cold facts. Please don't hate
me.

The President's biggest problem is bad foreign intelligence. The CIA
bungled the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction scenario and failed to
predict the toxic problems that have occurred in Iraq after Saddam's
fall. Also, the Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI both failed to
detect the 9/11 plot. All of this happened on Bush's watch.

In response to those catastrophic intelligence failures, the President
has said little. It took him forever to remove CIA chief George Tenet
and Mr. Bush is reluctant to address the WMD and Iraqi controversies,
preferring to paint an optimistic picture of the future.

But millions of Americans are deeply troubled by the chaos in Iraq and
the President's hopeful outlook is not soothing that apprehension.
Thus, Mr. Bush is fighting for his political life.

On the homefront, things are better. Despite democratic hysteria, the
economic sky is not falling. Unemployment is less than it was when
Bill Clinton won reelection in 1996, and most Americans are living
comfortable lives. The situation does vary from state to state,
however. Florida, for example, is booming, while Ohio is struggling.
That situation makes the electoral vote outlook a tossup.

Gas prices are way up, but Americans seem to be taking that in stride.
Once again, the President has not said much about rising fuel prices,
concentrating on the big picture, which is that the U.S. economy is
much better than that in most other developed countries.

On social issues, Mr. Bush has played it smart. He and his
conservative base are compatible and the President sincerely believes
that gay marriage, partial birth abortion and faith based initiatives
are subjects worth taking a strong stand on. Bush's support is much
more fervent than Kerry's, according to all the polls, and that's
because of his social outlook.

The presidency of George W. Bush is hard to evaluate because of the
war on terror, which has consumed much of his time. The No Child Left
Behind Act is a vast improvement over the directionless academic chaos
that had been plaguing many American school districts. The funding
issue is largely bogus: many states simply can't spend all the money
that is available because of poor administration.

Homeland Security is debatable, but what is undeniable is that we have
not been hit again by Al Qaeda. That's a big win for Mr. Bush.

So summing up, the President's big downside is the intelligence
debacle and his failure to adequately explain it. His big plus is that
most Americans like him, and his conservative base reveres him. If he
defeats John Kerry, he will do it on who he is, rather than what he's
done.

Kerry:

If John Kerry wins the presidential election, he can thank Donald
Rumsfeld. The Secretary of Defense truly believed the Iraqi people
would rise up and help the United States pacify their country, and
therefore did not plan adequately for the guerrilla war that began
after Saddam was toppled.

That war has put President Bush on the defensive and is, perhaps, the
defining issue in the campaign.

Senator Kerry has done an effective job pointing out the mistakes of
the Bush administration and a sympathetic media has aided him every
step of the way. That's a potent one-two punch; the Kerry challenge
echoed by network news broadcasts and major urban papers like the LA
and New York Times. Together they are pounding home a simple message:
Iraq is screwed up, Kerry can do better.

But the Kerry challenge stalls after leaving the Iraq issue, because
the senator has not defined himself to the American people. Many of us
simply do not know how he will handle complicated problems, and how he
has arrived at this belief system.

Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, the Watergate
guy, recently appeared on my TV program saying that John Kerry would
not give him an interview even though he submitted his questions to
Kerry in advance! Woodward and I agreed that we have no idea where
Kerry stands on the following:

* How would he pay for the massive government medical insurance he
says he will provide? Taxing the rich cannot cover the trillions of
dollars that will be needed.

* How many new troops will he will send to Iraq and where will
they come from?

* What will he do to prevent more than three million illegal
immigrants from crossing the border from Mexico each year?

* And why does he oppose gay marriage when he voted against The
Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton?

In addition, I would like to know why, in 1991, Kerry voted against
removing Saddam's army from Iraq by force, in light of the fact that
at least five thousand Kuwaiti women were raped by Saddam's
brutalizers, according to the European Journal of International Law.

I'd also like to know what he would say to General Tommy Franks about
Osama Bin Laden. Franks has said Kerry is flat out wrong to accuse the
Bush administration of "outsourcing" the job of catching Bin Laden in
Tora Bora to "warlords." According to Franks, U.S. Special Forces were
embedded with Afghan locals in the hunt for Bin Laden. Who's right,
Franks or Kerry?

Also, Senator Kerry has also been a staunch supporter of legalized
partial birth abortion. Why does he think 64 senators voted to ban the
procedure?

All of these questions remain unanswered by the junior senator from
Massachusetts, thus his challenge is really built on the chaos in
Iraq, not a publicly stated clear and present vision.

I've known John Kerry for 25 years and he's always been a hard man to
read. If he becomes President of the United States, there's no reason
to believe he will not remain that way.


Posted by Yan on Nov-02-2004 02:47:

quote:
Originally posted by vtwin
Well-Balanced Critique

Bush:

Hide the plants! Political partisans are sucking much of the air out
of the environment with insane rants, and it's tough to get oxygen. So
I am going to try something new by attempting to evaluate the Bush
presidency using simple logic and stone cold facts. Please don't hate
me.

The President's biggest problem is bad foreign intelligence. The CIA
bungled the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction scenario and failed to
predict the toxic problems that have occurred in Iraq after Saddam's
fall. Also, the Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI both failed to
detect the 9/11 plot. All of this happened on Bush's watch.

In response to those catastrophic intelligence failures, the President
has said little. It took him forever to remove CIA chief George Tenet
and Mr. Bush is reluctant to address the WMD and Iraqi controversies,
preferring to paint an optimistic picture of the future.

But millions of Americans are deeply troubled by the chaos in Iraq and
the President's hopeful outlook is not soothing that apprehension.
Thus, Mr. Bush is fighting for his political life.

On the homefront, things are better. Despite democratic hysteria, the
economic sky is not falling. Unemployment is less than it was when
Bill Clinton won reelection in 1996, and most Americans are living
comfortable lives. The situation does vary from state to state,
however. Florida, for example, is booming, while Ohio is struggling.
That situation makes the electoral vote outlook a tossup.

Gas prices are way up, but Americans seem to be taking that in stride.
Once again, the President has not said much about rising fuel prices,
concentrating on the big picture, which is that the U.S. economy is
much better than that in most other developed countries.

On social issues, Mr. Bush has played it smart. He and his
conservative base are compatible and the President sincerely believes
that gay marriage, partial birth abortion and faith based initiatives
are subjects worth taking a strong stand on. Bush's support is much
more fervent than Kerry's, according to all the polls, and that's
because of his social outlook.

The presidency of George W. Bush is hard to evaluate because of the
war on terror, which has consumed much of his time. The No Child Left
Behind Act is a vast improvement over the directionless academic chaos
that had been plaguing many American school districts. The funding
issue is largely bogus: many states simply can't spend all the money
that is available because of poor administration.

Homeland Security is debatable, but what is undeniable is that we have
not been hit again by Al Qaeda. That's a big win for Mr. Bush.

So summing up, the President's big downside is the intelligence
debacle and his failure to adequately explain it. His big plus is that
most Americans like him, and his conservative base reveres him. If he
defeats John Kerry, he will do it on who he is, rather than what he's
done.

Kerry:

If John Kerry wins the presidential election, he can thank Donald
Rumsfeld. The Secretary of Defense truly believed the Iraqi people
would rise up and help the United States pacify their country, and
therefore did not plan adequately for the guerrilla war that began
after Saddam was toppled.

That war has put President Bush on the defensive and is, perhaps, the
defining issue in the campaign.

Senator Kerry has done an effective job pointing out the mistakes of
the Bush administration and a sympathetic media has aided him every
step of the way. That's a potent one-two punch; the Kerry challenge
echoed by network news broadcasts and major urban papers like the LA
and New York Times. Together they are pounding home a simple message:
Iraq is screwed up, Kerry can do better.

But the Kerry challenge stalls after leaving the Iraq issue, because
the senator has not defined himself to the American people. Many of us
simply do not know how he will handle complicated problems, and how he
has arrived at this belief system.

Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, the Watergate
guy, recently appeared on my TV program saying that John Kerry would
not give him an interview even though he submitted his questions to
Kerry in advance! Woodward and I agreed that we have no idea where
Kerry stands on the following:

* How would he pay for the massive government medical insurance he
says he will provide? Taxing the rich cannot cover the trillions of
dollars that will be needed.

* How many new troops will he will send to Iraq and where will
they come from?

* What will he do to prevent more than three million illegal
immigrants from crossing the border from Mexico each year?

* And why does he oppose gay marriage when he voted against The
Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton?

In addition, I would like to know why, in 1991, Kerry voted against
removing Saddam's army from Iraq by force, in light of the fact that
at least five thousand Kuwaiti women were raped by Saddam's
brutalizers, according to the European Journal of International Law.

I'd also like to know what he would say to General Tommy Franks about
Osama Bin Laden. Franks has said Kerry is flat out wrong to accuse the
Bush administration of "outsourcing" the job of catching Bin Laden in
Tora Bora to "warlords." According to Franks, U.S. Special Forces were
embedded with Afghan locals in the hunt for Bin Laden. Who's right,
Franks or Kerry?

Also, Senator Kerry has also been a staunch supporter of legalized
partial birth abortion. Why does he think 64 senators voted to ban the
procedure?

All of these questions remain unanswered by the junior senator from
Massachusetts, thus his challenge is really built on the chaos in
Iraq, not a publicly stated clear and present vision.

I've known John Kerry for 25 years and he's always been a hard man to
read. If he becomes President of the United States, there's no reason
to believe he will not remain that way.


Beautifully put. Really sums everything up for us.

Thanks a bundle.


Posted by dEsidEL on Nov-02-2004 13:00:



i know , it's not our country but ..

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=219320


Posted by LiquidX on Nov-02-2004 13:09:

KERRY!


Posted by verndogs on Nov-02-2004 15:49:

I voted for the race I cared about the most



Schumer over Mills!

then I had fun with the rest of my votes :-)

Edit: - the Race for Seante in NY

PS: I Voted for Dubya all in the name of the superme court


Posted by dEsidEL on Nov-03-2004 03:11:



New York Tranceaddict poll (NYTA)
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=216863


German Tranceaddict poll (GTA)
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=216571


Toronto Tranceaddict poll (TOTA)
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=219320


Netherlands (Holland) Tranceaddict poll (NLTA)
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=214282


Sweden Tranceaddict poll (SWETA)
http://tranceaddict.com/forums/show...threadid=219467


Posted by DeRangedMind on Nov-03-2004 03:16:

Man this election is looking scary, oh well


Posted by Miss Bliss on Nov-03-2004 04:53:

schumer takes NY, of course

Bush got Florida... I predict Bush in NH as well... Kerry can't lose Ohio or he's fucked...


Posted by Vlad on Nov-03-2004 04:56:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Bliss
schumer takes NY, of course

Bush got Florida... I predict Bush in NH as well... Kerry can't lose Ohio or he's fucked...


Kerry is up in NH though.

Bush clearly has Florida, they are practically done counting.
Bush is up in Ohio, but there are still some swing counties in that state that could sway it.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooo can you feel the tension!!!


Posted by Greedy on Nov-03-2004 05:19:

FLORIDA = BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Posted by trunks1022 on Nov-03-2004 05:22:


Posted by DeRangedMind on Nov-03-2004 05:31:

^^^ ROFL


Posted by Vlad on Nov-03-2004 05:41:

BUSH WINS OHIO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Posted by Greedy on Nov-03-2004 05:42:

it was a close race!


Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.