Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics

Journal EnronHaliburton2004's Journal: The four kinds of Bush supporters 35

Journal by EnronHaliburton2004

There are four kinds of people who support Bush:

  1. The Fool - People who are too gullible to realize that Bush has lied.
  2. The Coward - People who are too scared to vote for anyone else.
  3. The Codependent - People who enjoy being lied too and live in a fantasy world put forth by the President, where America is still noble, secure and respected around the world. At night, he beats you black and blue, but you keep quiet.
  4. The Pig - People who agree with the lie and who want to continue the lie for their own nefarious purposes.

What kind are you?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The four kinds of Bush supporters More

The four kinds of Bush supporters

Comments Filter:
  • and after 26 months of unemployment and the Bush economy driving my family to the brink of bankruptcy, I'll be voting for either Kerry or Peroutka this time around.

  • 2 more (Score:3, Insightful)

    by macdaddy ( 38372 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @02:29PM (#10578030) Homepage Journal
    5. Mr./Mrs. Lazy - People who do support Kerry but are too damned lazy to get off their asses and vote, thus helping Junior. They do nothing but help the incumbent. Democracy is not a spectator's sport.

    6. The Follower - People who can't think for themselves and have to be told what to do. They'll vote for whomever is ahead in the Fox News polls on the day of the election because they want to be with the majority on the winning team, whatever team that may be.

  • #2 (Score:2)

    by tsotha ( 720379 )
    Mark me down as #2, since I'm too scared to vote for Kerry. What with all those secret plans and a history of going whichever way the wind blows, even his supporters have no idea what he'll do if elected.
    • You are obviously one of those fools believing whatever lies Bush spews forth - especially about Kerry's so-called "flip-flopping"
      • If you can tell one lie [die.net] Bush told, I will vote for Kerry.

        • Re:No - you're a #1 ... (Score:3, Informative)

          by Neph ( 5010 )
          If you can tell one lie Bush told, I will vote for Kerry.

          Holy crap, talk about shooting fish in a barrel. Is the White House website [whitehouse.gov] an adequate source for you?

          THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll fin

          • What weaseling?

            I am asking about a LIE. By the definition I linked to before (or anyone's definition, for that matter). The administration pointed out stuff that may not be true (the jury IS still out on that). But it wasn't just the administration saying it. The intel came from the CIA. It was backed up by the NSA, agreed with by the British, Russian, and German intelligence (among others), and proven partly by Lord Butler's investigation and the Dulfer Report (it was, read the whole thing).

            However
            • The administration pointed out stuff that may not be true (the jury IS still out on that).

              So he said there were biological labratories before he said maybe there weren't any biological labratories?

              That's weaseling, flip-flopping or lying.

              But I don't care about the lies as much as I care that the lies were used to justify a preemtive war for oil and kill thousands of people. Or that Bush said he wouldn't do anything different in the war given a second chance.

              Again, history will be the ultimate judge on

            • Re:No - you're a #1 ... (Score:3, Informative)

              by Neph ( 5010 )
              I am asking about a LIE. By the definition I linked to before (or anyone's definition, for that matter). The administration pointed out stuff that may not be true (the jury IS still out on that)

              I'm well aware of the definition of a lie. First of all, "pointing to stuff that may not be true", when you know it may not be true, and saying "it is true", is lying by any reasonable definition.

              But the quote I linked to and pasted was even worse than that! Not only did he not say "There are probably WMDs in I

              • Sorry, I didn't really read your whole quote before responding, and that was rude.

                However, we did find chemical weapons. Some insurgents even tried blowing up a warhead with serin gas in it. Thankfully, they didn't know what they were doing, and the serin was only patially activated.
                • However, we did find chemical weapons. Some insurgents even tried blowing up a warhead with serin gas in it.

                  It was a shell, not a warhead. A warhead is something you put on a missle. It sounds more threatening, which is maybe why people used it.

                  Plus, it wasn't really a suprise. We all knew that there was Sarin around, it's left over from the war.

                  But a few rusty shells of Sarin gas isn't enough to justify a war.

                  It's like me finding a nickel on the ground and claiming that I am now richer.
              • I'm now finding myself defending a position I don't wholeheartedly agree with. I think there was problems with the way we went into Iraq. I do think it was the right thing to do. I am not upset that France, Germany, and Russia sat it out. The Dulfer Report showed what many suspected; these courtries were getting rich off Saddam. Over 80% of the weapons in Iraq were French, and most were new. I did vote for Bush and am glad he won.

                I think we can both state that we see this situation differently and th

                • I think there was problems with the way we went into Iraq. I do think it was the right thing to do.

                  Hm. I'm not completely opposed to the argument that the invasion of Iraq was justifiable from a humanitarian point of view. I suppose that will be for historians to decide. The same goes for Afghanistan. But the current situation in Iraq is rather hard to view as an improvement!

                  My real problem with the situation is the lies and deceit. The war was sold as self-defense, necessary due to a) Possession of

  • #7 (Score:1)

    by texwtf ( 558874 )
    #7: The Kicked Dog Republicans who just can't bear to vote for someone else no matter how bad their candidate is. So.. we didn't go to war for "WMD", that was obviously b.s. We didn't go to war for Saddam, there are lots of dictators "worse" than he was. So why are we there? Oh yeah, it doesn't matter. America goes to war you get behind her and push with all your might. What a prized patriot you are! The fortune 500 thank you from the bottom of their tax rebates.
    • These "worse" dictators didn't have 17 UN resolutions demanding that he let us see ALL that we wanted and get rid of weapons and facilities to make weapons, or else. The "or else" has to be backed up at some point.
      Also, Bush called out three countries as the "axis of evil." Of the three, Iraq was the only one to feasibly act against because there were resolutions and we could easily beat them. Going into Iran or North Korea just ain't possible right now; they are too strong. And if you don't think we are
      • So, you just supported texwtf's remark... Bush keeps shifting his position on why we invaded Iraq.

        Winning in Iraq shows the others we mean business.

        It shows others that we will invade countries for illegetimate reasons, which undermines the respect for our country.

        Maybe they'll rise up and overthrow the government

        Or, maybe the existing government will further entrench themselves in reaction to Bush's aggressive moves.
        • There are valid arguements against the Iraq war. I agree with some of them. However, overall, I think its a good thing. Whatever Bush said, it's Congress that declares war and they passed the authority to the president to use at his discretion. In that bill there were (I think) 17 reasons to give that authority to the president. These are legitimate reasons. I will try to find that bill, I have read it before, and post it here.

          So while I can entertain intelligent debate about the war in Iraq, saying
  • I voted for Bush only because I knew Nader didn't have a chance. I am most impressed with the zealot underdogs such as Nader, libertines, etc. My basic assumption (having spent 10 years in the university system studying liberal arts and history) is that socialism is a failure. The new oligarchy is a failure too (corporatism -- as Nader tries to combat). The two prime evils -- representing socialism on the one hand and corporatism on the other -- is taxation and labor abuse (the workin' man and his strug
    • "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
      -- James Madison
    • but do not attack the person holding that idea. Only a socialist or an oligarchist would do that,

      Please explain the connection there. I fail to see what an indivual's views of economics or politics has to do with argumentation.

      You are atributing a causal relationship between two unrelated ideas, yet offer no evidence

    • My basic assumption (having spent 10 years in the university system studying liberal arts and history) is that socialism is a failure.

      I don't know any well-functioning country in the world that is not partially socialist. At this point it seems pretty clear to many in the world that a mix of capitalism and socialism is the optimal choice. The US seems to be a bit of an exception though, since it seems that when you say socialism to an American, half of them think you want communism and the other half auto
  • So I have this problem with the Democratic Party. If it weren't for this one problem, I might even be a Democrat. Here it is:

    Democrats are Anti-Choice about their pro-choice agenda.

    For better or worse, I see abortion as a crime against humanity: each year, we choose to take the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings[1] in order to save the lives of under a hundred human beings (see the CDC figures for this, paying especial attention to the year 1972). The Democratic party has no room in its ten
    • The election is over now, but I still feel the need to comment. As per your insistence, I won't try to disabuse you of the notion that abortion is murder.

      Instead, I'll point out that nothing can ever be done to change Roe vs. Wade, and 30 years of backing that precedent. Abortion is NEVER going away, not unless a vast majority of people agree that it's wrong. That won't happen. That's a simple fact.

      So, you voted for Bush because he's opposed to abortion. But after four years of Bush, anyone can still walk
      • That won't happen.

        Hrm, so couldn't the Republican congress write a law declaring abortion a "State's choice", banning it on the federal level, Bush signs it into law, and Supreme Court (It's likely that 3 judges will be replaced in the next 4 years) strikes down any challenges?

        4 years from now, I can see abortion being illegal in many states, but still legal in places like New York and California.
        • That's an interesting perspective; it honestly never occurred to me that this could be made a states' rights issue. Somehow, I doubt it could happen though. It's not often that decades of legal precedent are ignored; more often, long running precedents are formalized into laws. It's something of an insult to the judicial system to have it done any other way, and I don't think the half of America that supports abortion would stand for it.

          On the other hand, this is Bush we're talking about: he's invincible.
      • Genuine questions deserve genuine answers. I see the solution to abortion as an incremental one, dealing with all fronts. On the societal front, there are a host of issues, including

        making available viable alternatives to abortion

        changing our double standard about sexuality (i.e.,guys that fool around are "cool", but girls that get pregnant are "sluts")

        increasing the standard of living for lower-income America

        learning to value people as people instead of economic units.

        On the scientific front, the Holy

        • Thanks. Your responses provide a bit of insight.

          I only wish everyone opposed to abortion and supportive of Bush thought it through to the degree that you have.

          You seem to know a lot more about Roe vs. Wade than I do, so I'll have to expand on your comment that "Roe is predicated on the notion that "person" is an undecidable term." I'd have to agree with that.

          I'm of the opinion that people aren't really people until they're self aware - until then, they're biological machines, with their minds being blank
    • I am a Democrat who also sees abortion as "a crime against humanity," so I have struggled with the same issue as you. Here's the logic that allows me to continue voting Democrat: Although I may believe that an abortion takes a life, I can't prove it. Who is to say whether life begins at conception or later? In the face of this uncertainty, pro-choice is the only logical position. For those who believe life begins at conception, abortion is not an option; for others, it is. John Kerry, who is also anti-
      • I respect the good intentions of your position, but it's flawed. Go back to the Dred Scott decision [wustl.edu]. Scott's problem was that he couldn't prove the obvious: that he was a person and not property. How does *anyone* prove that he is a person? He cannot, for the simple reason that the word "person" has been deliberately left undefined by SCOTUS.

        This leaves us with two choices: either

        a) we give in to "might makes right" and declare that people are only those who have the sufficient political will to make

  • It seems the most important type of Bush voter is the Religious Right. They vote Bush cause their Pastor said so.

    Although I don't see how they can vote for someone who runs the most evil campaigns. I don't see how they can vote for someone who lied in order for the USA to go to War which resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths. IMHO, Bush is not a moral man. He may play one on TV, but that is about it.

Slashdot Top Deals

The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood

Close