Zelaron Gaming Forum

Zelaron Gaming Forum (http://zelaron.com/forum/index.php)
-   The Lounge (http://zelaron.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=183)
-   -   2004 Election (http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29532)

D3V 2004-05-26 10:44 PM

2004 Election
 
Personally, I would vote for John Kerry. Personally I can't stand bush, his brother is the 'leader' of our state, and he has done such a shitty job with the funds he has been given. Bush sucks. John Kerry seems to be aganist this pointless war, thats why I would vote for him?

Kuja`s #1 2004-05-27 05:32 AM

If you want a serious topic about them and their stands on certain issues, DON'T POST IT IN THE CHAT FORUM!!!!

Acer 2004-05-27 03:45 PM

Ill be 18 in august so I can vote... but I wont. If I did, I would pick Kerry, I dont like him nor bush, but I have to pick one.

MightyJoe 2004-05-27 03:57 PM

Yeah I turned 18 in april and I will be voting for Bush because I can't stand Kerry. He goes back and forth on all the issues.

KagomJack 2004-05-27 05:42 PM

Yeah...if I could vote, it would be for Bush. Kerry is 2 faced and won't stick with the issue long enough. He'll go "Yeah...I'm against this." and a month later he'll go "I'm for it!"

He also got medals and is waving them around now. However, when he first received them, he threw them out and started an anti-war campaign. He really is an ass. Also, I had talked to a senior (who has now graduated :() and he said that Kerry's economic plan would be very bad. He even said Ben Stein (actor and wealthy man) said that it would be bad. He had taken a course on economics and studied politics.

Titusfied 2004-05-27 05:59 PM

I'm hittin' up Bush. Kerry is trying to please everyone...

uncapped 2004-05-27 07:32 PM

We need that guy from 24 to run for Pres. That would be great.

Anyways, I pick Kerry, simply because I'm from Mass and it really isn't too fucked up, so he must doing something right.

Penny_Bags 2004-05-27 07:40 PM

Yeah, I'd go Bush, a mass policy change in war time is bad.

Demosthenes 2004-05-27 09:10 PM

If I could vote, I'd vote Kerry. Then again, I'd vote for Pumba from the Lion King over Bush.

Sovereign 2004-05-27 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GravitonSurge
I don't trust Kerry, I hate Bush.

Ralph Nader is the perfect american.

Stoned, doesn't give a shit.

My kind of guy. ^_^

D3V 2004-05-27 11:40 PM

I would vote for that other John,... fuckin I forgot his last name, but he was like 30 somethin years old.

badboy 2004-05-28 01:01 AM

Personally I think you people need to get off your crack. John Kerry is an opportunist, pure and simple. John Kerry has opposed almost ever major defense authorization and program during his years in the White House. He oppossed : B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache, F-15, F-14A, F-14D fighter jets, AV-8B Harrier jet, Aegis air-defense cruiser, Trident missle system. Furthermore he : voted to cut back the M1 Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile and the F-16. Voted to cut more than $3 billion from defense in 1991 and shift the money to social programs. Voted to cut $6 billion from defense in 1992, Republicans and Democrats alike were against Kerry. Opposed a military pay raise in 1993. Introduced a plan in 1993 to cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews, reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force, terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship progam, force the retirement of 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year, and reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army to one. The plan was DOA. Voted to freeze defense spending in 1995 for seven years, cutting more than $34 billion from defense. Introduced a bill in 1996 to cut Defense Department funding by $6.5 billion. Kerry had NO Sponsors from ANYONE. Voted yes on a fiscal 1996 budget resolution that would have frozen defense spending for the next 7 years and transferred the $34.8 billion in savings to social programs. It was rejected. Kerry says he favors missle defense now but : he voted no on the Defend America Act of 1996. He voted no on the American Missle Protection Act of 1998, but voted yes on the Cochran-Inouye National Missle Defense Act of 1999. He opposed funding Patriot Missile System. In 1994 he proposed to cut $1 billion from intelligence. In 1995, the senator voted to cut $80 million from the FBI's budget and introduced a bill that would have reduced the intelligence budget by $1.5 billion by 2000.

Kerry has opposed all attempts to ban gruesome partial-birth abortions. He voted to allow federal taxpayer funding of abortions and to provide abortion clinics. Though he claims to be a Catholic, if elected president he would would appoint only pro-abortion judges.

1989-90 voted against tax cut in capital gains. 1993-94 voted against an amendment to reduce spending by $94 billion. Voted for the largest tax increase in history. 1995-96 voted against bipartisan plan to balance the budget in seven years. 1997-98 voted against approving a GOP budget to cut spending and taxes. Voted against a balanced-budget constitutional amendment. 1999-2000 voted against reducing federal taxes by $792 billion over 10 years. 2001 voted against Bush's tax relief, a $1.35 trillion package to reduce income-tax rates, alleviate the marriage penalty and gradually repeal the estate tax. Voted to reduce Bush's proposal by $448 billion over 10 years. In April 2002, Kerry flip-flopped by calling for a tax cut even larger than the one passed in 2001.

Demosthenes 2004-05-28 07:47 AM

Like I said, Pumba over Bush. If Kerry is Bush's opponent, then I'm all for him.

zagggon 2004-05-28 08:56 AM

Bush most definatly, Kerry is just gona raise the taxes.

Chruser 2004-05-28 09:10 AM

Kerry, obviously. While he may not have his goals as straight as Walker himself, he isn't the same war-crazed lunatic. Yes, Bush is better for the US economy in the long run, as it is heavily based on war to make its wheels turn, but give me a break, collateral damage for profit? If Bush remains president, I, for some reason, foresee invasions of Iran and North Korea; the latter if capitalism can't take its toll soon enough on the nation.

Who said the cold war was over because Soviet "lost"?

zagggon 2004-05-28 09:28 AM

Chruser whats wrong with invading a country that starves there people and has slave work camps like NK?

Thanatos 2004-05-28 09:34 AM

Bush all the way.

Chruser 2004-05-28 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zagggon
Chruser whats wrong with invading a country that starves there people and has slave work camps like NK?

Collateral damage. Militia renegades and revolts. Making the people revolt is more efficient. Treat it like DDR, not like Iraq. Kennedy was a genius unlike Bush.

zagggon 2004-05-28 09:42 AM

Chruser NK has an army of 1 million all of which are loyal to Kim, what do you think would happen to a weak little peasant rebelion supported by the US?

Demosthenes 2004-05-28 11:03 AM

Someone please explain to me on what basis would we use to justify our foray into North Korea?

badboy 2004-05-28 11:07 AM

North Korea is a communist country, they hate the U.S.A, they have nuclear weapons.

badboy 2004-05-28 11:13 AM

The General of Vietnam in 1975 said "if it wasn't for these guys (Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War) we would have lost."

D3V 2004-05-28 11:24 AM

I Vote Kerry because he's a democrat. Look at how badly we are off when a Republican is in office. The fucking statistics don't lie, they give us a little money from tax breaks, then they fucking do some stupid shit and ruin our economy. Look at Clinton, he had the economy going great, keeping out of wars, Smokin the peace pipe with many nations. Then gay ass Bush comes in here, we (get attacked) Then we go to war with Afghanistan. (88 billion dollar war). Then we go to Iraq, (800 billion dollar war). Now our economy is shot, gas prices going up, our reputation as a nation is shitty, and everything is out of line. Bush's time is up, get him the fuck outta office.

Demosthenes 2004-05-28 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badboy
North Korea is a communist country, they hate the U.S.A, they have nuclear weapons.

That would be the perfect justification if you were a playground bully, but that in no means justifies a millitary advancement into North Korea. China is a communist country with nuclear weapons, but we aren't attacking them. Plus, a large part of the world hates the USA. So again, how is it that attacking North Korea would be justified?

We aren't the sole country with the rights to nuclear arms. We can not make political blunders simply because we feel threatend. Going to war with them for that reason would make no sense whatsoever. That's like a country coming into the USA and telling us we aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons. As you have already guessed, that would most likely spark a war, most likely a nuclear war, and we all know the reprecussions to that. Attacking North Korea for that reason would simply make the United States a power-hungry warmonger.

Albeit a small one, there is a communist party in the USA. Why don't we dissolve them? Because we are a democracy, and they have the right to express whatever political views they want to. Going to war with North Korea would just be forcing our political views upon them. Now, if I recall correctly from my social studies class, America was founded by the pilgrims because they were being opressed from expressing their views. Going over to North Korea and forcibly making them a capitalistic democracy, simply because we can, would be a quintessential demonstration of hypocrisy, and an indirect attack on what this country stands for.

Even if everything you said correctly justified going to war, why wouldn't we do the same thing to China? They are also an evil :rolleyes: communist country, but we have made no encroachment upon their territory. So why North Korea, and not China? Asserting something on a much weaker country, and then not doing the same thing on another country that would require much more of a struggle is "being a pussy," as some have so eloquently called me for saying anything against this frivolous, over-done depredation in Iraq. Going into North Korea would be even worse.

Chruser 2004-05-28 12:29 PM

Very well said, mjordan2nd. If you support a republican because YOU'RE a republican, or a democrat for president as you're a democrat yourself, then you deserve to starve to death, chained to a tree root far below surface level.

Really, I think the best idea to run a nation would be via full democracy. Give everyone a chance to vote in ALL matters, and establish a large council to count the votes in public. Yes, let the people do the decisions of the "president". There wouldn't *be* anyone in power, or tops, some powerless person involved in political matters who can only talk about the nation's greatness without an ability to change anything. Look into how the monarchy system works in the Scandinavian nation for more information about this. If anyone would be corrupt in the vote-counting council, it would very likely be reported. Human fallacy. It's *much* safer than giving a closed presidential administration practically full power to run a multi-million population nation.

Since computers are common and available to just about anyone, all that would be needed would be to distribute an iris scanner to all users in order to allow unique identification of everyone, to let them vote. This system would be very hard to cheat if established well, but unfortunately, conservatists (such as, a majority of the US population whether you like it or not) would never support this idea.

Chruser 2004-05-28 12:49 PM

Actually, I have a prime example of what could go wrong when a "big happy box of politics" is chosen. Remember what happened during the early 20th century in Germany? The National Socialists offered a remedy that would take care of the poverty caused by the Versailles treaty. Of course, this great help from the party required the "weak in society" to be blamed, but hey, if it patches the horrendous, suicide-inducing economy and they will make our nation strong once again, it's not so bad, is it? That's what people thought. Kind of like the supporters of a president in the US. You see so many great qualities in a president, that the bad sides can be ignored. He's still THE guy to support, right? I mean, the other candidate is REALLY an utter moron.

Well, we all know what happened in nazi Germany. I'm not saying that the US will turn out to be a modern version of that atrocity, but I'm very well saying it can and WILL have some consequences that won't conform with the will of the US population, no matter who gets elected. But who knows, maybe millions will die if, say, Bush decides to invade North Korea. The destruction of another Communist nation may look great. But will it be worth the price of an atrocious genocide?

D3V 2004-05-28 01:18 PM

I hate when ignorant people try and talk Kerry down. They talk about how he wants to make cuts from this stupid ass war. And he wants to cut some of the defensive budget. But do you know why? HE WANTS TO IMPROVE OUR COUNTRY. Not waste all of that money into a defensive system which is not needed. Look how many times we've been attacked after 9/11 ..... NONE. If you count Anthrax , well that was an american who did that, so blah.

John Kerry has a good plan for the states, and We've already seen how shitty of a job Bush has done, Put us in Debt, get the whole world to hate americans, Our fucking popularity has gone down like 32% since Bush came in off. See, Bush doesn' tlike to listen to the U.N. ... If we would have let them go in , check for the ''''weapons of mass destruction''''' then We wouldn't have had any of the problems. But his war hungriness led to this.

zagggon 2004-05-28 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjordan2nd
Someone please explain to me on what basis would we use to justify our foray into North Korea?

Ok MJ lets stear away from the "Lets please the rest of the world instead of ourselves" reason and go onto something more urgent, the fact that North Korea's Leader Kim is starving his people and has active torture chambers. Or the fact that he threatens South Korea's Capital Seol once a month with a nuclear attack. Or if thats not enough the fact that Kim's army is digging under ground tunnels thrue South Korea in preperation for a future invasion. But I can understand, your way to imbeded with the rest of the "lets all be against Bush cuzz he actually did something!" crowd to give a damn about the kids in North Korea that work 12 hours a day and resemble a walking stick while their "harmless leader" and his devote zealots live a luxuroius life style while their people starve to death. John Kerry is a hypocrite, he claims that there are "Benedict Arnold companies" in the US, yet, he benefits from his wifes Hienz Ketchup company who is a major out sourcer.

!King_Amazon! 2004-05-28 04:12 PM

Ok then MJ, let's just sit around and wait for them to nuke us. Did you not read it very well? THEY HATE US AND THEY HAVE NUKES. 2+2=NUKED.

Woops, forgot the whole point of this thread. Neither Bush or Kerry are pleasing me too much right now, but I'd take Bush over Kerry any day. He knows how to get things done the right way and he does them. Democrats are teh sux.

Chruser 2004-05-28 05:00 PM

Kim is digging underground tunnels and threatens South Korea with a nuclear strike every month? I'd like to see your source for that information, zagggon.

!King_Amazon!, as far as I know, the range of the North Korean nukes is unknown. And once again, wouldn't it be BETTER if everything worked out like DDR in '89? The two instances are very similar; only the scale of the conflict in the Koreas is far greater. And honestly, assume for a moment that North Korea DID have ICBM's. I'd hardly want to invade such a nation with controversial forces. "Hey, let's invade RUSSIA with 400,000 men from the infantry. I'm sure they will want to play this game fair and square, even though they know they can't deal with us in field battle."

You'd get nuked.

You die.

You lose.

So does the whole fucking world, from the nuclear winter. Think twice before you want to start a war with a nuclear nation. In fact, think twice before you want to start a war at ALL!

zagggon 2004-05-28 05:05 PM

So your fine with letting Kim have his way and the North Koreans starving eh?

Chruser 2004-05-28 05:15 PM

If the price for stopping their starvation will come at the price of sacrificing 85% of the Earth's human population, including the "starving North Koreans", from massive radioactive fallout, then yes, I'm fine with it. Really.

badboy 2004-05-28 05:17 PM

Apparently they are. They hate Bush, I can tell from D3V's view of him causing the oil prices to go up. How the fuck does that have anything to do with Bush? It's called those gay ass Arabian oil monopolies that hate America and don't care if they lose money by not selling us oil cause they are already fucking rich as hell. And there are no statistics to prove that Clintion did anything for the economy, he was just around when it was good. 9/11 caused people to panic and pull out of the market, fucking learn your information.

badboy 2004-05-28 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chruser
If the price for stopping their starvation will come at the price of sacrificing 85% of the Earth's human population, including the "starving North Koreans", from massive radioactive fallout, then yes, I'm fine with it. Really.

It's people like you that were the reason Hitler killed millions of Jews, and Stalin killed millions of his own people.

zagggon 2004-05-28 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badboy
It's people like you that were the reason Hitler killed millions of Jews, and Stalin killed millions of his own people.

True, Chruser you cannot just ignore suffering to save your own skin... Besides, 85% of the worlds population?! Come on Chruser, not anywhere near that many people would die...

Demosthenes 2004-05-28 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zagggon
True, Chruser you cannot just ignore suffering to save your own skin... Besides, 85% of the worlds population?! Come on Chruser, not anywhere near that many people would die...

Most likely more, if an all out nuclear war were to happen.

Demosthenes 2004-05-28 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by !King_Amazon!
Ok then MJ, let's just sit around and wait for them to nuke us. Did you not read it very well? THEY HATE US AND THEY HAVE NUKES. 2+2=NUKED.

Other countries could say the same fucking thing about us. And what about China, why not them, then. You can not go and attack someone because they have technology, and you feel threatend. If they were to use it, which is very unlikely, then go ahead.

Many countries hate us. Hey, I have a great idea. Lets start World War III because our pride heavily outweighs our reason.

badboy 2004-05-28 06:11 PM

Um, have we attacked them, no, so drop it.

Demosthenes 2004-05-28 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badboy
Um, have we attacked them, no, so drop it.

Yes, but the fact of the matter is that you are actually trying to justify the hypothetical situation of us attacking them.

zagggon 2004-05-28 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjordan2nd
Most likely more, if an all out nuclear war were to happen.

We are not talking about an all-out nuclear war you dunce.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is best seen with your eyes open.