The ELECTION thread...

General Discussion
Locked

Who should be in the White House?

Kerry/Edwards
39
57%
Bush/Cheney
9
13%
Nader/Camejo
5
7%
Clive/Cabbage
12
17%
none
4
6%
 
Total votes: 69

User avatar
BlindingForce
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:45 am
Location: NJ
Contact:

Post by BlindingForce » Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:37 pm

Food for thought. My apologies if these were posted already.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=6648889

and you best to do well to remember this one and realize that there's a mandate for the person who gets in.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story. ... 018FLPC104

if it's Bush then it's four more years of what we have been doing. If it's Kerry then it's a new game. One that could lead away from war and to dialogue but the way I feel personally...it won't.
Anthony Schiavino

Designer Blinding Force Productions
Mass Market Designer/Assistant TOR Books

User avatar
Jason C-M
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:12 am
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

Post by Jason C-M » Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:40 pm

dryponder wrote: Saying Bush cut education is a lie. Kerry said it, but that doesn't make it true.
But I think it is safe to say that "no child left behind" is really screwed up and underfunded.

My position may be biased by the fact that my wife, aunt, uncle, and best friend are all teachers, and I used to work in the school system round about the time no child left behind came into play.

Where it's not empty, it's damaging. And the stats used to get it through congress were so faked and scammed that its unconsciounable.
Last edited by Jason C-M on Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fun for Brains and Eyeballs!
with Drawing a Blank: News from the Drafting Table
http://www.cheeseman-meyer.com

User avatar
deantrippe
Posts: 838
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:34 pm
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

Post by deantrippe » Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:41 pm

*nevermind* :roll:

helix7
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:16 am
Location: New Jersey

Post by helix7 » Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:25 pm

Anthony:
I saw your avatar and I knew I had seen it before. It took a second, but then I remembered seeing it silkscreened in red and black in the art gallery in Holman Hall. That was a great piece and its one of the few that I distinctly remember from those gallery shows. I'm a TCNJ art department grad myself. Got out in December 2002. It's good to see some more Jersey people around these art forums and websites.

As for the topic at hand... I was a Dean supporter from day one so neither of these guys are my first choice, but this is what we're stuck with.

Some people say that you only need one reason to vote. One good reason, or one thing that you really believe in. I personally have a shopping list of reasons to vote against Bush (and yes I am voting against one candidate rather than for either of them), but at the top of that list is the unjust war in Iraq. I've got friends over there right now, and they don't even know why they are there anymore. All they know is that every day a few of their own are killed or wounded, and with no end in sight they are low on hope and morale. I believe that Kerry can bring them home sooner than Bush would, and that is my #1 reason to give Kerry my vote.

User avatar
Kazu
Site Admin
Posts: 9337
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:59 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by Kazu » Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:33 pm

Just to add to this fiery ball of debate> I think we can all agree that neither candidate is an ideal president, but they are the two choices we have. It's not like someone can scribble "Herve Villaechaize for Prez" on the ballot somewhere and somehow it'll happen. So let's think about what actually can be done. Also, let's also refrain from attacking people on small comments and elaborate on the BEST of what's said here, and not the most faulty.

And frankly, aside from the fact that he has Bon Jovi as his soundtrack, I don't see where Kerry is messing up so badly. All these people come out and say he's a liar, but what exactly did he lie about? AND, if he does lie so often, please compare them with Bush/Cheney's massive, baldfaced lies and show me how they can be any worse. Oh, and I make sure to mention Cheney often because he's so much worse than the President himself. I don't ever believe a word that comes out of his mouth, and I have a feeling that he doesn't either.
Image
Image

helix7
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:16 am
Location: New Jersey

Post by helix7 » Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:43 pm

One more quick thing... I read an article similar to this one today about the possibility of an electoral tie. There is something like a 3% chance of this happening based on current battleground state status and likely dem/republican state outcomes. If it did happen, the likely outcome through house and senate choice would be President Bush and Vice President Edwards. I'm not sure if this is better or worse than a Bush/Cheney win.

User avatar
Jason C-M
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:12 am
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

Post by Jason C-M » Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:02 pm

Kazu wrote: I make sure to mention Cheney often because he's so much worse than the President himself. I don't ever believe a word that comes out of his mouth, and I have a feeling that he doesn't either.

Did you see the videoclip of him being interviewed last year (or maybe longer ago now) about the "imminent threat" thing? He said that "imminent threat" was a term the media had coined, not one that the administration used. The interviewer said "so no-one in the administration ever said Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat?" And Cheney replies, "well I certainly don't know everything that every person working in the administration has said in the past two years, but neither the president, myself, or the top candidate officials ever used that term to describe Saddam Hussein."

So then the interviewer runs three video clips of Cheney himself in interviews and at PCs calling Hussein an imminent threat. And man, if looks could kill. Those eyes, and that scowl were just scary. They said "this is a man who makes rules but feels himself above being held to them."

edit-- OOOPPS!! My memory was screwy. I went and looked it up. It was Rumsfeld, not Cheney, on Face the Nation. --end edit.
Fun for Brains and Eyeballs!
with Drawing a Blank: News from the Drafting Table
http://www.cheeseman-meyer.com

User avatar
Soggytoast
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:23 am
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Soggytoast » Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:51 pm

Kazu wrote:Just to add to this fiery ball of debate> I think we can all agree that neither candidate is an ideal president, but they are the two choices we have. It's not like someone can scribble "Herve Villaechaize for Prez" on the ballot somewhere and somehow it'll happen. So let's think about what actually can be done. Also, let's also refrain from attacking people on small comments and elaborate on the BEST of what's said here, and not the most faulty.

And frankly, aside from the fact that he has Bon Jovi as his soundtrack, I don't see where Kerry is messing up so badly. All these people come out and say he's a liar, but what exactly did he lie about? AND, if he does lie so often, please compare them with Bush/Cheney's massive, baldfaced lies and show me how they can be any worse. Oh, and I make sure to mention Cheney often because he's so much worse than the President himself. I don't ever believe a word that comes out of his mouth, and I have a feeling that he doesn't either.
Dammit, Kazu... why do you have to sound so REASONABLE! Despite the Michael Moore ass-kissing remark ;) ;) ;)
-Zack Giallongo-

User avatar
BlindingForce
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:45 am
Location: NJ
Contact:

Post by BlindingForce » Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:52 pm

hey all

TCNJ: Yeah that's me...unfortunately. Let's just say that a certain couple of dept heads screwed over my portfolio class so bad we didn't have a review and or do they even acknowledge they were at fault. Alot of horrible stuff went on to the point that I'm ashamed of the school and the department.

And thanks for the comment on the piece. It was actually silkscreened. And they had it in the gallery but then decided to put it out in the hall case so that most people thought it was photoshop work.

But if you want more details on what happened with the school just email me and we'll talk.

---
Election: Don't get me wrong Kazu. I don't like Bush at all and I agree with most of what is said. I can get into it even dirtier than the next guy but that won't solve anything and I was at work when I was posting earlier so I could only write so much.

and with that I just don't trust Kerry. He's had too many opinions on too many subjects and it's really just depending on what speech he's given on any given time/place/subject. I don't know much about his past and I won't comment on that. I just don't know enough. I do think he asks the right questions though. I think that most Americans don't like facing the truth and are stuck in their own little worlds where if there's the slightest inconvience they freak.

Do you know what it's like walking to work every morning seeing homeless people left and right sleeping on the street in New York? The fact that i worry everyday I go to work not knowing if a bomb is going to go off in the subway I'm taking doing nothing more than trying to get home to my family?

This is a war between the politicians and the extremist. Neither side wants to hear the other and or give. The extremists just want to kill for the sake of some holy war that only they care about. Innocents yet again are stuck in the middle. Take the Isreal Palestein situation. Same thing. People fight over nothing more than a piece of land and neither side will hear the other. I'm talking about governments here. And the innocents on both sides get killed and lose their homes.

We have George Bush and John Kerry. I like neither. So I'm deciding not to vote instead of throwing it away on an independent not even able to run in all 50 states. I can't in good concience and my beliefs and my faith vote for either one. They each have their own agendas and do nothing but lie to the public and in the case of Kerry...not have a single opinion on a given topic. You want to disagree with Bush...fine. But have a cohesive on going solid opinion. He just doesn't. But he asks the right questions. Yet he doesn't follow through.

I know we only have these two but in my eyes we lose either way. We lose because neither will hear us and like all the other conflicts I mentioned above, we'll be caught in the middle. If there's a draft I won't go. I've made up my mind. I will kill another human being for the sake of a lie or agenda. It's against all I believe in. If somebody was attacking my family then that's another story but right now it's not and I don't want somebody shooting from the hip so to speak sending us to war. There's so many things wrong with Bush. There's so many shipping tanks in jersey that go unchecked in the ports. So many screeners at the airports not doing their job. So in my eyes Bush needs to go. Now. I gave him the benefit of the doubt but he lied, and if he didn't, he refuses to hold people accountable. He can very well go public with names but he won't. I have this feeling that this is why Powell is overseas right now. He just doesn't agree with the administration and I think this is who George was talking about at the debates when he said he regretted putting certain people in his cabinet, or something along those lines.

I just have this bad feeling with Kerry as well. I can't really explain it more than that. He does speak well but I don't trust him. I really don't. I'll continue this later...don't want to make the post too long. But again...I can't vote for either and do it in good concience. I can't do it and sleep at night knowing I may have voted for a man who invokes the name of god and is willing to send another person's child to do but not his own. And a slew of alot of other problems...including the arogance that is Cheney
Anthony Schiavino

Designer Blinding Force Productions
Mass Market Designer/Assistant TOR Books

User avatar
BlindingForce
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:45 am
Location: NJ
Contact:

Post by BlindingForce » Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:54 pm

helix7 wrote:One more quick thing... I read an article similar to this one today about the possibility of an electoral tie. There is something like a 3% chance of this happening based on current battleground state status and likely dem/republican state outcomes. If it did happen, the likely outcome through house and senate choice would be President Bush and Vice President Edwards. I'm not sure if this is better or worse than a Bush/Cheney win.
Either way you can bet that we're going to have the last election all over again with more anger, more bickering, and it's definately going to court. Welcome to the new democratic process where most of the time your vote doesn't count. States to lost ballots and those same states also find CDs with over 6,000 votes on them a few years later with only one or two articles mentioning it. The answer to both is Florida and the year they found the CD was either end of 03 or beginning of 04.
Anthony Schiavino

Designer Blinding Force Productions
Mass Market Designer/Assistant TOR Books

User avatar
dik pose
Posts: 1948
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Culver City
Contact:

Post by dik pose » Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:14 pm

For those of you that keep saying there has never been a serious third party or thinking you are "wasting" a vote...here ya go...

...In, at least, 1912 the third party got more votes than the Republican Party (Bull Moose!! Boo Ya!)... and some people, like Ross Perot in 1992, running in the 3rd party slot got over 18% of the popular vote...thats a HUGE chunk, seriously, both the Republicans and the Democrats looked at that number, looked at Perot's platform, and formulated ways to steal those voters back, they did this by integrating Perot's platform into their own...

...All this because ultimately neither of the two big parties wants a third party, they will steal votes away and make it easier for the other side to end up in office...

...Like, what if Dean was running in a third party? Kerry wouldnt stand a chance because Democrats would be spilt, and that is the last thing Democrats want...or what if McCain was to run in a third party, lots of Republicans would jump to his bandwagon and Bush would be beaten easily...most politicians want the support of their party and do not want to be ostracized later for running as a third party candidate...

Oh, and how about Jesse Ventura winning a governorship as a third party candidate? That should give some of you third party people a glimmer of hope...small steps...

...(on a general note about politics) When it comes to government/politics, so many people only "check-in" every four years, its like people that watch the Superbowl, but they dont watch any of the regular season games, sure, maybe they catch some hi-lights on sportscenter every few weeks, but then, in January, they have the audacity to formulate opinions on something they know very little about... its very funny.

**Oh and I found a website with election stats, fun to look at year by year...if you are into that sorta thing :) http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

Dave

Vote for me!!!!

Post by Dave » Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:32 pm

If I was president, I would institute a national "Happy Day" and give out free twinkies and milk!! Wouldn't that be bitchen?? I think so.

Seriously though, Kerry has an agenda and Bush has an agenda. Liberal judges have an agenda, Rush has one too. Howard Stern and Micheal Powell both have agendas. The Catholic church has an agenda and so do satanists and budists (i know I didn't spell that right). I choose Bush for my own reasons. Kazu chooses Kerry for his own reasons. Why? Because Kazu and I both have agendas... we all do like it or not. See my point? The thing folks, is that you can hold to whatever agenda you want to and do your darnd'st to get others to see it your way, but for the most part people change by their own choosing not by getting blasted with lenghty one sided posts. Save some time all of you and get some comics drawn. Or don't, whatever, it's your choice.

So pick your side and fight for it and change sides if you want to. We'll all see soon enough who wins in the end right? Anyways, I gotta go home and eat dinner and play with my kids and kiss my wife and hopefully draw a little tonight. Hopefully you all can do something similar. Have a good night and God Bless.


dave

User avatar
BlindingForce
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:45 am
Location: NJ
Contact:

Post by BlindingForce » Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:09 pm

Yes I agree with the twinkies and it would help the company out in light of the low carb diets. What ever happened to eating moderately and or actually watching what you eat? Everyone wants to eat everything they want, and again, forget about inconvenience.

See the good thing about this topic is yeah all of us have sides and people we want to or not want to vote for but we talk about it and honestly this is the most tame election talk I've seen.

All I'm saying is nobody cares about the little people. In any country. Yes everyone has agendas and I think what you said is taking it a tad to the extreme. We're talking about government here. A government, like any other, who has everything in there power to help their people but because nobody votes their concience in these two parties it's always either it's Democrat or it's Republican. It's like the generation before us and more specifically my parents. They're voting republican because they've always been. They watch fox news and there one of those kinds of people that yell at the tv to an extent. When the other opinion is expressed...forget it. Doesn't matter what is being said or what questions are asked. And it's what these two parties do.

I haven't felt that in every election I would be throwing my vote away if I voted independent. I agree with what was said about the stats in the old days so to speak. But in this election. It's throwing it away in my opinion...but that's mine. Just as other people have theirs.

It just sickens me that these people are doing these stump speeches trying to get votes and whine and cry about he didn't do this or that. They never ever say what THEY would actually do. They're children. The leaders of the free world have become children. Meanwhile people are dying overseas on both sides for reasons that keep changing and changing. I'm not out to convince anyone about changing sides or who to vote for. All I'm saying is make sure you know what you're voting for and the consequences. You could be drafted. Why do you think it hasn't come up yet everyone talks about it?

Let me tell you something. If I didn't do my job I would be fired. But that doesn't apply here. And while those men and women die for us overseas we have all these problems at home. How is it in America we have such a high rate in job loss? The crap of it is they tell you that there were such and such jobs in july but never ever say the quality of those jobs, part time or full time, or if your average american can feed themselves let alone a family.

I know I've been ranting but I see people on the street. They look at me...I smile. I walk through the city and I see a muslim woman and I don't think terrorist. I'm not stupid. I look for things but I look at people. I see how they look so sad. You can just see it in their expressions. Why is that? Why in America are people like that? I know it's not a perfect world but with everything going on somewhere we've lost our priorities. It'll be a great day when this election is over. Then we can get back to real life that these two candidates refuse to talk about or even know how to live. Sorry for the rant. I know I kind of went off there but this is why I said what I said before about voting and etc.

At a certain point in your life you see what's really important and believe me people. Bush and Kerry aren't high up on that list. Yet they put themselves up there. Maybe if they actually made a better quality of life for everyone. But hey it's not like it's their job to get people to agree and help the american people.
Anthony Schiavino

Designer Blinding Force Productions
Mass Market Designer/Assistant TOR Books

User avatar
agent44
Posts: 1398
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:36 am
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Post by agent44 » Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:29 pm

For me the the single most important issue right now is: Which man is better equipped to run the global war on terrorism?

Is it the Commander-in-Chief, or the Massachusetts' liberal who has always been anti-war and anti-defense, who voted against the first Gulf War and against supplies for the troops in the war in Iraq while continually mocking our reliable allies in a vain effort to court France's approval?

I'm choosing the former.

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:36 pm

Hi there. I am MW and I am new to these forums. I couldn’t resist this discussion. I would just like to add a little different perspective here.

When you ask someone to risk their life, you better have an extremely good reason for doing so. When you ask someone to kill you should have an even better one. Is there such a reason in the case of Iraq? Why did we invade Iraq?

Mr. Giallongo (I like your work and am looking forward to Pishio part 2) laments “if Bush ha[d] given the inspectors more time instead of rushing in...” We might have discovered what we now know: Saddam Hussein got rid of his Weapons of mass destruction in ‘91. I am not so sure of that.
I can’t speak to George W. Bush’s assertions that Saddam wanted weapons of mass destruction, but I suspect that he’s correct. Everything I’ve seen about the man suggests that he’s the kind of person who spends a lot of time reading “WMD Monthly!” with his pants around his ankles. It would seem out of character then for him to stop actually trying to get these weapons, but as it turned out . . . He did. It seems that we were wildly successful in our efforts to get Saddam to end his weapons programs. Why didn’t we know this? As Mr. McCool points out: almost “everyone . . . said Hussein had WMDs.” I think that we failed to understand something fundamental about Saddam Hussein. I would submit the following theory:

Saddam Hussein was the most paranoid son of a bitch in the world.

In 1990 Saddam gambled that noone would care if he invaded Kuwait. It probably seemed like a good gamble. Unfortunately for him, the rest of the world responded by smacking him upside the head and nearly destroying his regime. From Saddam’s perspective it looked like the entire world was crashing down around him. I think the fact that he was allowed to remain in power was something of a surprise to him. He got rid of his weapons programs because he was terrified of what might happen if he ticked off the US and the rest of the world again. He tried to play nice. In short: Saddam Hussein was the most paranoid son of a bitch in the world.

Why didn’t we know that? Why didn’t he just tell us? Why would he kick the weapons inspectors out when he really didn’t have anything to hide!?! Why? Because he was the most paranoid son of a bitch in the world: Saddam was a man who ruled through fear. The most dangerous thing in the world to him was the possibility of losing face. If he publicly backed down before the UN, or anyone, it would be a sign of weakness. Saddam was terrified of appearing weak. Saddam would not, and could not say “I don’t have anything to hide,” without also winking and saying “or do I?”

How could we have known this about him? The fact that he ran around the dessert with a bunch of look-a-likes might have tipped us off. His habit of killing off family members who were to popular might have been a clue. The fact is that we didn’t know and may have never known while Saddam was in power.

That said, it doesn’t matter. If Saddam had openly displayed WMDs on the front lawn of his palaces, it still wouldn’t have justified going to war. The United States cannot claim that we believe having WMDs to be wrong. We have more weapons of mass destruction than anyone else. We are the only nation to ever use an atomic bomb in anger. We did it twice. We cannot even claim the moral high ground here on the basis that Saddam signed a treaty saying he would get rid of said weapons programs (a treaty it turned out he honored), because the bush administration is actively pursuing weapons research that violates the START treaty (I neither agree nor disagree with this policy).

Saddam Hussein did not have any link to Al Qaeda. The goal of Al Qaeda is to bring the arabic world under the control of fundamentalist totalitarian Shiite religious organizations like the Taliban. Saddam was a secular leader who oppressed the Shiite majority living in Iraq. He had more to fear from Al Qaeda than we do.

A friend of mine supports the war based on the following argument: “if something bad is happening to our neighbors and we can do something about it, we have a responsibility to help.” This is true on a personal level but is bad national policy. We do not have the right to depose a foreign government because we do not like their way of governing is terrifying. It sets a bad precedent. We may believe that our way of governing and living is the best way to do it (I believe it), but we do not have the right to impose our system on anyone else. I’ve always liked the state motto of New Hampshire: “Live free or die!” But it was never meant to be an instruction. In any case, that isn’t really why we invaded Iraq either.

Let’s not kid ourselves. We weren’t benevolent liberators: we went into Iraq because we wanted to kick some ass. We were angry and wanted to take it out on someone. Don’t believe me? Listen to the music that was coming out at the time. Look at the way the war was fought. We dropped tons of explosives on cities filled with innocents and then our troops followed with the rock and roll cranked up as if it were some big game. During the first weeks of combat every soldier was issued a deck of playing cards with a hit list printed on them. Then we were surprised when some of our soldiers decided to use Iraqi prisoners as objects to humiliate for their own entertainment.

As of today there have been a reported 1,251 killed from coalition forces. Noone knows how many Iraqi civilians have been killed, but the conservative estimate I found on one website puts it at 14160. I can’t find a site at the moment with any information on the number of Iraqi soldiers killed, but I would a assume that the number is in the tens of thousands. I don’t know how many people starved to death from the foreseeable consequences of destroying the infrastructure of a country with a population of over 20 million people. I am sure all of you have seen the pictures of the starving Iraqi children, and I feel that one is too many. There is no way to know what long term effects this will have on the children of Iraq.

So, was there a good enough reason for us to go to war in Iraq? My feeling is no. I believe that there is enough violence and horror in the world already. Agent44 is upset because John Kerry is “Anti-war.” I truly hope that noone anywhere is “pro-war.”

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests