PDA

View Full Version : Why do you vote for Bush? / The George Bush Bitching Thread 2004


!<blocparty>!
Oct 10th, 2004, 01:39 PM
Bush Voters, why are you voting for him? Why have you voted for him?


thanks :)

He's more or less got in for a second term. Thoughts and opinions.

Discuss.

!<blocparty>!
Oct 10th, 2004, 03:04 PM
:lol:

esquνmaux
Oct 10th, 2004, 03:09 PM
Just a hunch, Republican voters are supporting him because he is ...well Republican?

!<blocparty>!
Oct 13th, 2004, 11:34 AM
:wavey: ?????

rand
Oct 13th, 2004, 11:40 AM
Just a hunch, Republican voters are supporting him because he is ...well Republican?
but he's not really, is he?
republicans are supposed to be conservatists, but nothing about bush's politics can be called conservatist does it?

DeDe4925
Oct 13th, 2004, 04:39 PM
Because they are brainwashed into believing his lies.

Sally Struthers
Oct 13th, 2004, 04:51 PM
I have not decided. I vote based on how it will affect my career. Hollywood has historically voted democrat, but lately it's become fashionable to be a moderate republican, socially liberal but economically conservative. Note our new governor. I might get slammed by Susan Sarandon and her Liberal Gestapo so I'll just keep my vote to myself.

GBFH
Oct 13th, 2004, 04:56 PM
Because they are brainwashed into believing his lies.
no.

it's because i believe everything mommy and daddy tell me http://yelims.free.fr/Manga/Manga32.gif

i am incapable of original thought...although...that sounds confusing...more like independent thinking...individual thinking...

Helen Lawson
Oct 13th, 2004, 05:39 PM
They don't make 'em like Ike and Truman anymore. Those guys were REAL leaders, not the pretenders we have today.

!<blocparty>!
Oct 13th, 2004, 06:41 PM
OK, so far one person has said why they would/have vote for him. :lol:

Martian Jeza
Oct 13th, 2004, 06:47 PM
Because they are brainwashed into believing his lies.

http://www.wtaworld.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif

Justeenium
Oct 13th, 2004, 07:05 PM
but he's not really, is he?
republicans are supposed to be conservatists, but nothing about bush's politics can be called conservatist does it?

it's conservative, and yes you're right he's not conservative but he is more conservative than Kerry. I wouldn't say kerry is very liberal either. basically you can't win by being very far from center

!<blocparty>!
Oct 14th, 2004, 10:25 AM
bump :wavey:

Paldias
Oct 14th, 2004, 12:31 PM
but he's not really, is he?
republicans are supposed to be conservatists, but nothing about bush's politics can be called conservatist does it?

No same-sex marriages, and cutting taxes aren't converatist policies?

rand
Oct 14th, 2004, 01:03 PM
No same-sex marriages, and cutting taxes aren't converatist policies?it hasn't really been the essence of his policy, has it? disturbing the world order for example is an example of not being conservatist...

SzavayFi
Oct 14th, 2004, 01:28 PM
BUSH!, but i cant vote yet, but bush is against Abortion and Gay Marriges, so thats good.

DeDe4925
Oct 14th, 2004, 04:11 PM
BUSH!, but i cant vote yet, .
Thank God. :rolleyes:

!<blocparty>!
Oct 14th, 2004, 04:21 PM
but bush is against Abortion and Gay Marriges, so thats good.

:retard: :scared:

Almalyk
Oct 15th, 2004, 02:35 AM
Noodely obviously needs to get a life if that's all he/she cares about!

I'm gay and i'm fully for abortion if people require/need it- I was just curious why you would solely vote for a cock like Bush on just those issues alone? Religion!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrr

le bon vivant
Oct 15th, 2004, 02:45 AM
I just got my Voter's Registration Card yesterday!

:tape: Heres hoping I dont get disenfranchised.

Mariangelina
Oct 15th, 2004, 10:40 AM
:rolleyes: Even I wouldn't entirely base my vote on same-sex marriage, and I am gay. I spend a good fifth of my life whining about not being able to vote yet, but now I see the point of an age limit. Nice to hear you're properly bigoted at a tender age, Noodely. Great promise for the future. You'll help keep family values strong and all those yucky homosexuals far away from normal people.

I Love Sharapova
Oct 15th, 2004, 03:58 PM
I think many Americans will vote for him because he seems like the type of "down-to-earth" guy that you could sit down with and just be yourself around him. This quality is very attractive to many Americans. It eases a persons mind to know that they have a leader who is "real" like they are.He doesn't seem to have a need to put on aires and such.

le bon vivant
Oct 15th, 2004, 04:53 PM
I think many Americans will vote for him because he seems like the type of "down-to-earth" guy that you could sit down with and just be yourself around him. This quality is very attractive to many Americans. It eases a persons mind to know that they have a leader who is "real" like they are.He doesn't seem to have a need to put on aires and such.

Are Americans that stupid/superficial?

DeDe4925
Oct 15th, 2004, 05:14 PM
I think many Americans will vote for him because he seems like the type of "down-to-earth" guy that you could sit down with and just be yourself around him. This quality is very attractive to many Americans. It eases a persons mind to know that they have a leader who is "real" like they are.He doesn't seem to have a need to put on aires and such.
My ex-husband is a "down-to-earth" guy that you could sit down with and just be yourself around, but he's a pathological liar and a moron, and I wouldn't want him as my president. No, I'm not Laura Bush.

rrfnpump
Oct 15th, 2004, 05:28 PM
Why is being against abortion good, Noodely??? :confused:

I Love Sharapova
Oct 15th, 2004, 06:21 PM
Why is being against abortion good, Noodely??? :confused:
How many geniuses have been aborted? Look,if it is a case of rape or life and death I can see how abortion might be condoned,but to have an abortion just because you "Don't want a kid," or "Can't take care of one," is just wrong in my opinion. Id they do not want a kid or cannot take care of one they should have:

1.Put the child up for adoption.

or
2. Thought about it before participating in the act which led to having a child. :rolleyes: :mad:

rrfnpump
Oct 15th, 2004, 06:32 PM
I agree I Love Sharapova.

But you cannot force a raped girl to get the child of this man. Or imagine a father would rape his daughter and it will be 100% sure that the child will be disabled and would live in pain......

So I think you should not be against abortion! But I can follow your arguments. Its not like that I criticize the people who are against abortion - just my opinion.....

DeDe4925
Oct 15th, 2004, 06:40 PM
How many geniuses have been aborted? Look,if it is a case of rape or life and death I can see how abortion might be condoned,but to have an abortion just because you "Don't want a kid," or "Can't take care of one," is just wrong in my opinion. Id they do not want a kid or cannot take care of one they should have:

1.Put the child of for abortion.

rolleyes: :mad:
:confused:

I Love Sharapova
Oct 15th, 2004, 06:47 PM
:confused:
DeDe,I can see how you got confused. :lol: I went to the original post and corrected it.

DeDe4925
Oct 15th, 2004, 08:44 PM
"APPEALING TO OUR LIZARD BRAINS: WHY BUSH IS STILL STANDING

By Arianna Huffington

Since the president's meltdown in the first debate — followed in quick succession by Paul Bremer's confession, the CIA's no-al-Qaida/Saddam link report, the Duelfer no-WMD-since-'91 report, and the woeful September job numbers — I have been racking my brain trying to figure out why George W. Bush is still standing.

The answer arrived via my friend Ed Solomon, the brilliant writer and filmmaker, who explained that the conundrum could be solved by looking at the very organ I'd been racking.

Ed introduced me to the work of Dr. Daniel Siegel, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and author of the forthcoming book "Mindsight," which explores the physiological workings of the brain.

Turns out, when it comes to Campaign 2004, it's the neuroscience, stupid!

Or, as Dr. Siegel told me: "Voters are shrouded in a 'fog of fear' that is impacting the way our brains respond to the two candidates."

Thanks to the Bush campaign's unremitting fear-mongering, millions of voters are reacting not with their linear and logical left brain but with their lizard brain and their more emotional right brain.

What's more, people in a fog of fear are more likely to respond to someone whose primary means of communication is in the nonverbal realm, neither logical nor language-based. (Sound like any presidential candidate you know?)

And that's why Bush is still standing. It's not about left wing vs. right wing; it's about left brain vs. right brain.

Deep in the brain lies the amygdala, an almond-sized region that generates fear. When this fear state is activated, the amygdala springs into action. Before you are even consciously aware that you are afraid, your lizard brain responds by clicking into survival mode. No time to assess the situation, no time to look at the facts, just: fight, flight or freeze.

And, boy, have the Bushies been giving our collective amygdala a workout. Especially Dick Cheney, who has proven himself an unmatched master of the dark art of fear-mongering. For an object lesson in how to get those lizard brains leaping, look no further than the vice-presidential debate.

"The biggest threat we face today," said Cheney in his very first answer "is the possibility of terrorists smuggling a nuclear weapon or a biological agent into one of our own cities and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans."

Just in case we didn't get the point, he repeated the ominous assertion, practically word for word, two more times — throwing in the fact that he was "absolutely convinced" that the threat "is very real." It was "be afraid, be very afraid" to the third power.

And when we are afraid, we are biologically programmed to pay less attention to left-brain signals — indeed, our logical mind actually shuts itself down. Fear paralyzes our reasoning and literally makes it impossible to think straight. Instead, we search for emotional, nonverbal cues from others that will make us feel safe and secure.

When our right brain is at Threat Level Red, we don't want to hear about a four-point plan to win the peace, or a list of damning statistics, or even a compelling, well-reasoned argument that the policies of Bush and Cheney are actually making us less safe. We want to get the feeling that everything is going to be all right.

In this state, our brains care more about tone of voice than what the voice is saying. This is why Bush can verbally stumble and sputter and make little or no sense and still leave voters feeling that he is the candidate best able to protect them. Our brains are primed to receive the kinds of communication he has to offer and discard the kinds John Kerry has to offer, even if Kerry makes more "logical sense." Which, of course, he does.

The strutting, winking, pointing and near-shouting that marked Bush's town hall debate performance all sent the same subconscious message to our fear-fogged brains: "I'm your daddy . . . I've got your back. So just go to sleep and stop thinking. About anything."

"At the deepest level," Dr. Siegel told me, "we react to fear as adults in much the same way we did as infants. It's primal. Human babies have the most dependent infancy of any species. Our survival depends on the caregiver. We instinctively look to authority figures to comfort us and keep us safe."

As needy infants, this natural drive to be soothed and reassured is what we looked for in our parents; as anxious adults in these exceptionally unsettling times, it's what we are looking for in our leaders.

Over the remaining three weeks of the campaign, as the anxiety level reaches a fevered pitch — and you can be certain the Bush campaign will do everything in its power to make sure that happens — the test facing voters is no longer, "Which candidate would you rather have a beer with?" It's "Which candidate would you rather give you your blankie and a bottle and keep the boogeyman away?"

I know it sounds ludicrous that the most important election of our lifetime is coming down to who can best pacify the electorate's inner baby, but I can think of no better explanation as to why Bush is not currently hovering at around 5 percent in the polls — a voting block made up of those hardcore fanatics who are as utterly blind to reality as he is.

As long as we're operating from our lizard brains — and reason takes a back seat to more primal needs — George Bush will continue to survive the logic-based attacks on his ever-escalating failures.

The only question that remains is: Can Bush, Cheney and Rove keep us shrouded in the fog of fear long enough to brain John Kerry and win in November? "

Volcana
Oct 15th, 2004, 11:24 PM
How many geniuses have been aborted? Look,if it is a case of rape or life and death I can see how abortion might be condoned,but to have an abortion just because you "Don't want a kid," or "Can't take care of one," is just wrong in my opinion.Why is it wrong? Serious question. If life begins at conception, then it's murdering a child regardless of rape, or the life or death of the mother.

And if life DOESN'T begin at conception, then why is it wrong?

Id they do not want a kid or cannot take care of one they should have:

1.Put the child up for adoption.An awful lot of kids who get put up for adoption in the USA don't get adopted. That certainly isn't a way for a birth mother to be sure her child is cared for.

or
2. Thought about it before participating in the act which led to having a child. :rolleyes: :mad:Exactly how much good is 'you should have thought of that' doing anybody? Seriously. What good does that comment do ANYBODY?

Berlin_Calling
Oct 15th, 2004, 11:34 PM
The morning after pill is a good solution for a rape victim.

Bush's tax cuts are a large reason of why I would vote for him.

Volcana
Oct 15th, 2004, 11:37 PM
BTW, I can give you a REALLY good reason why people vote for Bush. It's not applicable in modern society, but much of human history, it WAS applicable.

In fuedal/tribal society, authority was very much top down. Kill the leader, and half the components of an army would ride away. Their loyalty and fealty was to the LEADER, not the cause. Changing leaders during wartime was politically frought. And while you were dicking around (how apt) re-arranging your political alliances, the enemy cut you to ribbons.

As soon as you say 'war', things change.

But that was a pre-Vietnam War mentality. We DID elect a new leader in the middle of the Vietnam War. It didn't cost us the Republic. This isn't even a war, inthe sense that we were ever threatened by our current adversary. This is us going out and picking a fight.

We can replace our current 'lead*r' with one with enough intelligence to get us out of this without abondonning the Iraqi people to the hellhole we've created for them.

But, traditionally, changing leaders in time of war is only done in the direst circumstances. This is why Hamlet wqas hesitant to denounce Claudius.
The morning after pill is a good solution for a rape victim.

Bush's tax cuts are a large reason of why I would vote for him.Would I be correct in guessing you don't have children?

Berlin_Calling
Oct 15th, 2004, 11:41 PM
I wont have children for at least like 12 more years.

GBFH
Oct 15th, 2004, 11:50 PM
Why is it wrong? Serious question. If life begins at conception, then it's murdering a child regardless of rape, or the life or death of the mother.

And if life DOESN'T begin at conception, then why is it wrong?

An awful lot of kids who get put up for adoption in the USA don't get adopted. That certainly isn't a way for a birth mother to be sure her child is cared for.

Exactly how much good is 'you should have thought of that' doing anybody? Seriously. What good does that comment do ANYBODY?
:yeah:

Mariangelina
Oct 16th, 2004, 01:10 AM
"You should have thought of that?" Lovely Christian compassion going on there. I personally do not think abortion is the best course of action and I would not have one myself, but I very firmly believe that it's every woman's own choice to make, and it's ridiculous that her ability to make this choice without involving rusty coat hangers often ends up in the hands of old religious-fanatic males who really can't imagine what an unwanted pregnancy is like.

I Love Sharapova
Oct 17th, 2004, 01:49 AM
Exactly how much good is 'you should have thought of that' doing anybody? Seriously. What good does that comment do ANYBODY?
Sometime,Volcana,you are somewhat of an enigma. You seem to imply that there should be no moral standard for people,yet you degrade Bush for making a political decision to go into Iraq. :confused:
All this particular comment recommends is that people think before they participate in the act which will lead to an unwanted child. That is what good it would do. Maybe it would actually make a logger headed mofo stop and think for a change.

!<blocparty>!
Nov 3rd, 2004, 01:48 PM
bump.

fifiricci
Nov 3rd, 2004, 02:01 PM
Because, like the song says, we are dealing with "idiot America":rolleyes:

OUT!
Nov 3rd, 2004, 02:03 PM
Let's hope the US deficit doesn't increase even more *wishful thinking*

!<blocparty>!
Nov 3rd, 2004, 02:06 PM
Whats the next country to be attacked for the "war on terror" then?

ex hopman
Nov 3rd, 2004, 02:28 PM
Whats the next country to be attacked for the "war on terror" then?
exactly... :sad:

MinnyGophers
Nov 3rd, 2004, 02:35 PM
heh probably Korea or one of these middle east countries with tons oil...
But if I were Bush I would invade Canada... i'm sure they are plotting secretly and will try to attack us and become the most powerful country in the WORLD!!!!! We really should not trust these Canucks.....

!<blocparty>!
Nov 3rd, 2004, 03:44 PM
heh probably Korea or one of these middle east countries with tons oil...
But if I were Bush I would invade Canada... i'm sure they are plotting secretly and will try to attack us and become the most powerful country in the WORLD!!!!! We really should not trust these Canucks.....

:lol: If they attacked N Korea, they'd know what a REAL threat was ;)

:haha: Canada. Oh yes. I'd like to see that one.

DeDe4925
Nov 3rd, 2004, 05:00 PM
"APPEALING TO OUR LIZARD BRAINS: WHY BUSH IS STILL STANDING

By Arianna Huffington

Since the president's meltdown in the first debate — followed in quick succession by Paul Bremer's confession, the CIA's no-al-Qaida/Saddam link report, the Duelfer no-WMD-since-'91 report, and the woeful September job numbers — I have been racking my brain trying to figure out why George W. Bush is still standing.

The answer arrived via my friend Ed Solomon, the brilliant writer and filmmaker, who explained that the conundrum could be solved by looking at the very organ I'd been racking.

Ed introduced me to the work of Dr. Daniel Siegel, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and author of the forthcoming book "Mindsight," which explores the physiological workings of the brain.

Turns out, when it comes to Campaign 2004, it's the neuroscience, stupid!

Or, as Dr. Siegel told me: "Voters are shrouded in a 'fog of fear' that is impacting the way our brains respond to the two candidates."

Thanks to the Bush campaign's unremitting fear-mongering, millions of voters are reacting not with their linear and logical left brain but with their lizard brain and their more emotional right brain.

What's more, people in a fog of fear are more likely to respond to someone whose primary means of communication is in the nonverbal realm, neither logical nor language-based. (Sound like any presidential candidate you know?)

And that's why Bush is still standing. It's not about left wing vs. right wing; it's about left brain vs. right brain.

Deep in the brain lies the amygdala, an almond-sized region that generates fear. When this fear state is activated, the amygdala springs into action. Before you are even consciously aware that you are afraid, your lizard brain responds by clicking into survival mode. No time to assess the situation, no time to look at the facts, just: fight, flight or freeze.

And, boy, have the Bushies been giving our collective amygdala a workout. Especially Dick Cheney, who has proven himself an unmatched master of the dark art of fear-mongering. For an object lesson in how to get those lizard brains leaping, look no further than the vice-presidential debate.

"The biggest threat we face today," said Cheney in his very first answer "is the possibility of terrorists smuggling a nuclear weapon or a biological agent into one of our own cities and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans."

Just in case we didn't get the point, he repeated the ominous assertion, practically word for word, two more times — throwing in the fact that he was "absolutely convinced" that the threat "is very real." It was "be afraid, be very afraid" to the third power.

And when we are afraid, we are biologically programmed to pay less attention to left-brain signals — indeed, our logical mind actually shuts itself down. Fear paralyzes our reasoning and literally makes it impossible to think straight. Instead, we search for emotional, nonverbal cues from others that will make us feel safe and secure.

When our right brain is at Threat Level Red, we don't want to hear about a four-point plan to win the peace, or a list of damning statistics, or even a compelling, well-reasoned argument that the policies of Bush and Cheney are actually making us less safe. We want to get the feeling that everything is going to be all right.

In this state, our brains care more about tone of voice than what the voice is saying. This is why Bush can verbally stumble and sputter and make little or no sense and still leave voters feeling that he is the candidate best able to protect them. Our brains are primed to receive the kinds of communication he has to offer and discard the kinds John Kerry has to offer, even if Kerry makes more "logical sense." Which, of course, he does.

The strutting, winking, pointing and near-shouting that marked Bush's town hall debate performance all sent the same subconscious message to our fear-fogged brains: "I'm your daddy . . . I've got your back. So just go to sleep and stop thinking. About anything."

"At the deepest level," Dr. Siegel told me, "we react to fear as adults in much the same way we did as infants. It's primal. Human babies have the most dependent infancy of any species. Our survival depends on the caregiver. We instinctively look to authority figures to comfort us and keep us safe."

As needy infants, this natural drive to be soothed and reassured is what we looked for in our parents; as anxious adults in these exceptionally unsettling times, it's what we are looking for in our leaders.

Over the remaining three weeks of the campaign, as the anxiety level reaches a fevered pitch — and you can be certain the Bush campaign will do everything in its power to make sure that happens — the test facing voters is no longer, "Which candidate would you rather have a beer with?" It's "Which candidate would you rather give you your blankie and a bottle and keep the boogeyman away?"

I know it sounds ludicrous that the most important election of our lifetime is coming down to who can best pacify the electorate's inner baby, but I can think of no better explanation as to why Bush is not currently hovering at around 5 percent in the polls — a voting block made up of those hardcore fanatics who are as utterly blind to reality as he is.

As long as we're operating from our lizard brains — and reason takes a back seat to more primal needs — George Bush will continue to survive the logic-based attacks on his ever-escalating failures.

The only question that remains is: Can Bush, Cheney and Rove keep us shrouded in the fog of fear long enough to brain John Kerry and win in November? "
Fear is why Bush won. :sad:

bis2806
Nov 3rd, 2004, 05:10 PM
I seriously think americans shouldn't vote for bush because of security reasons. Like what osama said ''security is in your own hands, and not your leader''

fifiricci
Nov 3rd, 2004, 06:08 PM
Whats the next country to be attacked for the "war on terror" then?They'd better not come to Wales, the sheep are terrified and bite! http://smileys.******************/cat/16/16_3_158.gif (http://www.******************/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm371)

Lets just be thankful their geography is SOOO bad they'll never find it (and if they drop a cruise missile it'll probably miss and destroy England, he he! :devil: )

!<blocparty>!
Nov 3rd, 2004, 06:16 PM
They'd better not come to Wales, the sheep are terrified and bite! http://smileys.******************/cat/16/16_3_158.gif (http://www.******************/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm371)

Lets just be thankful their geography is SOOO bad they'll never find it (and if they drop a cruise missile it'll probably miss and destroy England, he he! :devil: )

:lol: Oh god, wouldnt it be flattering? What would they bomb wales for? If there was a world wool shortage?

What would be the motive? R. Morgan could be dubbed as an evil dictator with WMD hidden under welsh dairy farms.

faboozadoo15
Nov 3rd, 2004, 09:10 PM
I seriously think americans shouldn't vote for bush because of security reasons. Like what osama said ''security is in your own hands, and not your leader''
:scared: let's all listen to osama bin laden and vote with him...

Frank Riley
Nov 4th, 2004, 01:37 AM
I was making a point at another site about how the 2004 election went and how the West Coast and upper Eastern Coast voted for Kerry and how the Heart Land of the USA voted for Bush. Truth is the USA is very divided. I actual made many responses basically saying that educated people that speak correct English voted for Kerry and that those with speach problems voted for Bush. This is my last response and I have brought it here so you may comment and we can get this all out in the open. I am sure many European people have a thought and response. If you did not like the last two years get ready for 4 more years just like it. I am from California a State that voted for Kerry all the way. This is your chance to let it all out so go for it!


Kerry is the better man and we all can see that. Kerry is a real war vet, Kerry has a much better education, Kerry has better ideas, Kerry won all the debates and to be honest Bush is screwing up the USA.

I have been across the USA many times and I have lived in many States, I know exactly what I am talking about. The South is the South and it is still full of slow talking ignorant white people that know nothing about Europe and they also hate blacks very much down there, racism is very strong in the South and it in no wonder they want to kill more Arabs in the South.

First word G.W. Bush said when he had won and gave a speach, he said Yall, that is both poor grammer and incorrect words that mean nothing, he should have said "thank you everyone for coming to day", instead he said, "thankYall for comin", he does not speak english, he is stupid and is the worst person we could have in office. But to be honest the poor english he used is how the mid west and south speaks.

My point exactly is that in general most of the educational power and ability is associated with States that voted for Kerry.

The best thing about all this is that now Bush can continue killing Arabs and when it is all done it will all be his fault. In fact it can only get worse at this point and it will. By the way for all the Arabs you better learn how to be democratic the Republican way and Baptist Christian very fast or Mr. Bush will kill you. That goes for all the people in the world.

One final note, the Germans elected Hitler because they thought he was a great man, how did Hitler turn out. Hitler wanted to correct the world as well, Hitler wanted everyone to be German and Christian. You tell me the difference here? Does Bush wish for all the world to be democratic, Christian, non-gay, Southern, Cowboy? You tell me how this well end?

Kerry is a better man and I hope Kerry runs again because after Bush has further fucked it all up I hope I can vote for Kerry again because I can not support Monkey Boy.