 |
Planetfurry BBS
Forums for Planetfurry Site Members and more
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Who are you supporting in the upcoming election? |
| Kerry |
|
20% |
[ 5 ] |
| Bush |
|
56% |
[ 14 ] |
| Nadar |
|
8% |
[ 2 ] |
| Stump |
|
16% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 25 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Jbird
Forum Hatchetman
Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 554
Location: Reloading.
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The kind that may give "Senator" Hillary Clinton the nod in 2008?
"Clinton/Schumer 2008: because we really do know what's best for you..."
Hey, it'll give Billy Boy the chance to kiss and make up *snortchucklelaugh* with all of those interns. As much as I may dislike President Bush for being a fence-sitter, I do not see any other viable choice this year. And so I vote 'against Kerry', not 'for Bush'.
_________________
(00:40:05) nbz: you win at the motherf***ing internet O_O |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Elfen_Furry
Moderator
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 2601
Location: NYC NY
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jbird wrote: | | The kind that may give "Senator" Hillary Clinton the nod in 2008? |
The day SHE gets elected into office, is the day they find my rear end on the Cuban Shore with an inner tube around my waist, and demanding for Amnesty!!!
How she got elected into office- I swear... She was not even an NYS Resident at the time!
_________________
SHARKS In The Gene Pool South of Kosovo!
*CHOMP!* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thane
Registered User
Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 275
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elfen_Furry wrote: | The day SHE gets elected into office, is the day they find my rear end on the Cuban Shore with an inner tube around my waist, and demanding for Amnesty!!!
How she got elected into office- I swear... She was not even an NYS Resident at the time! |
Ah, yes. But then, since when has anything connected to the Clintons made legal sense?
As for what would happen if Ms. Clinton ever did get elected Pres. .... There would be a pile of snowballs in hades and I would be stockpiling ammo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Galadrion
Registered User
Joined: 17 Aug 2001
Posts: 378
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike Regan wrote: | | This will continue until someday, soon I hope, both the Democrats and Republicans lose. |
Uncle Kage for President! Furries for a rational choice!
_________________
Galadrion - Member of the Longbottom 3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hurtful_Wolf
Registered User
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 224
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maxx wrote: |
Sure, keep voting for stump. I hope you guys feel proud of that. Least you could do is support your country.. |
Exactly. . I'm dam.n proud to be a citizen of possibly the greatest country on earth (no offense to any foreign furs but hey I'm patriotic  )
I'll be voting for Bush this election. . .and thats all I'll say. . .
_________________
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
Long Live the Wolf Revolution ARRROoooooooo!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrinityStar
Registered User
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 60
Location: Orlando FL
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll be voteing BUSH  ..... Kerry frightens me ... I think hes up to no good. NE How... Bush it is 
_________________
~A fallen angel , forsaken and betrayed, lies dormant in the shadows waiting to be saved~
Long live the wolf revoulution! ArrroOoOoOOooo
http://www.livejournal.com/users/xxtrinitystarxx/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sniktch
Registered User
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 20
Location: Backwoods Maine
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*Sigh*. OK. This is going to be long. This is also going to be very impolite.
I will not be voting for Bush. I will be voting for Kerry. Not because I like Kerry, but because of the actions of Bush. Lesser of two evils, as Mr. Regan said. The issues to me fall thusly:
1. Abortion. I made this post on another BBS, in response to a heavy-abortion foe.
| Quote: | | Clutch wrote: |
Sniktch: If a pro-lifer believes that abortion is murder as the pro-lifers say, doesn't he then have the right to say that it's wrong? Because I sure as hell think that I have the right to tell other people that it's wrong to murder me.
The way I see it is this: a fetus will one day be able to form opinions and make choices. Saying that because the fetus cannot yet do so the mother can make the choice to live on its behalf is like saying that the government can do whatever it likes to its citizens up until the ballots are passed out on election day, including abolishing those very elections. I feel the debate should be less about a woman's right to choose but rather whose right to choice is more important: the woman's or the child's.
Now, I don't believe in the creation of laws that restrict choice when it comes to determing one's own destiny. I'm for one's right to be euthanized if he so wishes, I believe that people should be allowed to consume drugs if they so choose. I refuse, however, to acknowledge a woman's "right" to take away choice from someone else, even if that someone is just a potential someone.
|
(I start here)
Clutch: And by forcibly removing a woman's right to choose, how are you any better than her? Each person must make their own choices in life; why else did whatever deitiy give us FREE F***ING WILL?
If a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy, it is HER CHOICE. I do not argue that it is the best choice, or even a good choice. But I have no right to forcibly stop her. I may attempt to convince her it is not right, and I may point out other options. But it is HER life, HER soul, HER child. HER CHOICE. Not mine, not Jerry Falwell's, and not yours. Abortion is ugly. I personally don't like it. But ANYONE telling someone they do not have the right to control their own life in any way is an abomination to me.
And to those who say a fetus is a person: Once a fetus has the capability to survive outside the mother's body without continuous massive medical intervention, I will completely agree that it's alive and deserving of protection. Until then, it is a part of the mother's body, incapable of continued function on its own. Just like the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc. As such, humans have free reign over their own bodies...including the right to have parts of them removed. |
I think that sums up my position there...
2. The police state. I don't want ANY government official to have the right to peep into my private life without independent evidence of wrongdoing on my part. The USA PATRIOT act is the most invasive piece of legislation passed in the US since the Sedition Acts waaay back. Bush is pushing to extend the reach of the current law, and expand the allowable taps/searches/interrogations that wouldn't need a warrant. No Thank You; I like my private life PRIVATE, not on some Washington bureaucrat's desk. Another way of putting this: How many "closeted" furries here would like some anonymous FBI/CIA/NSA spazz letting their hyper-conservative, Bible-thumping employer know about their alternative lifestyle because they snuck a peek into your computer on a random terror sweep? Vote for Bush, and you can expect it.(note: I do not make the "closeted" remark in a negative way; I personally don't let many people know about this side of me because most folks don't understand, and basic human nature is "That which we do not understand, we fear; that which we fear, we destroy.")
3. Religion. I am not a religious person; I don't belong to any church, parish, organization, whatever. In my eyes, organized religion is little better than institutional mind-control. I have no problem with faith, and belief I can understand. What p***es me off is BLIND faith and UNQUESTIONING belief-and these are exactly what organized religion promotes most heavily("We'll make sure Father Geoghan gets treatment, no need to go to the cops", says the bishop...you know the rest). This connects to the whole political argument in several ways; Bush's "crusader" mentality("They're evil, because my God says they're evil!"), his subsidizing of Christianity(and the way NCLB was designed, it WILL eventually force a sizable portion of the school-aged population into Catholic parochial schools or other low-cost religion-based private schools), and several quietly-passed "resolutions" that could easily be considered precedents for the establishment of a state religion all scare the crap outta me. I don't want to wake up in an America where a cop could arrest me for heresy, apostasy, or blasphemy.
4. The War. The original stated purpose of going to war was to relieve Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. After the Army was halfway to Baghdad with NONE FOUND(All NBC related materials found were purely defensive; atropine auto-injectors, gasmasks, US-style NBC-protective fatigues, and Arabic-language NBC defense manuals, the kind of things that even Third-World militaries with zero NBC warfare capability purchase for their best units, and later expanded to include ONE INCOMPLETE gas centrifuge that had been buried under a rosebush for a decade; to even start a uranium enrichment program, 5000 of them would have been needed) it morphed into liberating the Iraqi people from Hussein. Now the reason is using Iraq as a base to spread democracy through the Middle East. Abu Ghraib was "a few bad apples", despite the fact that the methods used there were textbook CIA interrogation techniques from 1967 to present day! Dick Cheney still holds a quarter million in Halliburton stock; he can't collect the dividends on it, sell it, or exercise any voting priveleges with it till after he's out of office, but he sure as he** can make a fat profit on it the second he finishes out - since it keeps going up while he's in office, mostly because Halliburton got 6 BILLION in no-bid, no-competition, cost-plus contracts(and at least 5 of the said contracts have already popped overcharge and kickback scandals) to "rebuild Iraq". This war stinks worse than a week-old diaper. The reasons keep changing, the people who pushed it the most stand to reap insane amounts of money from it, and the people we were supposed to save have grown to hate us. And we've no way out, either. And now Bush is making noises about taking troops from Korea so he can move on Damascus.
5. Taxes. Bush proclaims himself a tax-cutter. If you're a multimillionaire or megacorp, he is. If not... The best way I can demonstrate this: When I filed my 2000 tax return in January 2001, I got back a little over one thousand dollars; a standard return for me for tax cycles under Clinton's law-set. When I filed my 2001 return at the start of 2002, the first full tax cycle under Bush's law-set, I got back NINETY DOLLARS - including Bush's $150 "rebate" circa May 2001. My income had not changed, and I filed the exact same way. While my income tax refund has in fact started to even back out, my 2002 and 2003 returns have yet to get back to $1000 refunded. Put simply: Since Bush took office, my taxes have INCREASED.
There are many other reasons I could post, but I think this is long enough. Kerry is far from perfect, but Bush is worse.
_________________
"Oh s***. Not again." - Random Pedestrian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jbird
Forum Hatchetman
Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 554
Location: Reloading.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sniktch wrote: |
4. The War. The original stated purpose of going to war was to relieve Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. After the Army was halfway to Baghdad with NONE FOUND(All NBC related materials found were purely defensive; atropine auto-injectors, gasmasks, US-style NBC-protective fatigues, and Arabic-language NBC defense manuals, the kind of things that even Third-World militaries with zero NBC warfare capability purchase for their best units, and later expanded to include ONE INCOMPLETE gas centrifuge that had been buried under a rosebush for a decade; to even start a uranium enrichment program, 5000 of them would have been needed) it morphed into liberating the Iraqi people from Hussein. Now the reason is using Iraq as a base to spread democracy through the Middle East. Abu Ghraib was "a few bad apples", despite the fact that the methods used there were textbook CIA interrogation techniques from 1967 to present day! Dick Cheney still holds a quarter million in Halliburton stock; he can't collect the dividends on it, sell it, or exercise any voting priveleges with it till after he's out of office, but he sure as he** can make a fat profit on it the second he finishes out - since it keeps going up while he's in office, mostly because Halliburton got 6 BILLION in no-bid, no-competition, cost-plus contracts(and at least 5 of the said contracts have already popped overcharge and kickback scandals) to "rebuild Iraq". This war stinks worse than a week-old diaper. The reasons keep changing, the people who pushed it the most stand to reap insane amounts of money from it, and the people we were supposed to save have grown to hate us. And we've no way out, either. And now Bush is making noises about taking troops from Korea so he can move on Damascus.
|
I'm going to go take a nice little walk before I respond to this.
_________________
(00:40:05) nbz: you win at the motherf***ing internet O_O |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sniktch
Registered User
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 20
Location: Backwoods Maine
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Honestly, I AM voting against Bush rather than for Kerry. I'd vote Nader, but in the current one-and-a-half-a**ed party system we have, it'd be a waste. It's less about liking Kerry, and more figuring he's less likely to intentionally try and trigger the Apocalypse. As for DEMANDING better candidates... To do that, we'd have to:
1. Make a viable third political party. Been tried repeatedly. None have lasted long; internal strife, the weirdo factor, and the great Republicrat propaganda machines have shredded them. Until a group with the megabucks to buy the ads, the CEOs, and multiple congressfolks comes along, we've got the same two parties. Even then, we'd be trading one hidebound, tradition-laden, arrogant bunch of "professional politicians" *spits* who KNOW they're right and we're wrong for another.
2. Join one of the two political parties and attempt to change it from within. Again, been tried. This cycle alone, Edwards and Dean both got tore down because they weren't "connected" and weren't right in lockstep with the rest of the party; if you ain't already rubbing shoulders with the folks who pull the party strings, yer screwed afore the gate opens. Unless, of course, you've got the megabucks needed to "sway opinions" with timely campaign contributions; if you do, you're probably already one of the DNC/GOP bigwigs I'd like to maim repeatedly.
Mr. Regan, if you have any better ideas, feel free to enlighten me. 'Bout all I can think of is gettin' a bunch of folks together, buying a heluva lotta land, and telling the Washington a**holes to pound sand. 'Course, the difficulty is this: Bush has proven he's willing to shoot to illegally annex another country, so it's a sure bet he'll shoot to keep part of this one.
_________________
"Oh s***. Not again." - Random Pedestrian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vallus
Registered User
Joined: 20 Nov 2000
Posts: 397
Location: Oologah, OK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sniktch wrote: |
Mr. Regan, if you have any better ideas, feel free to enlighten me. 'Bout all I can think of is gettin' a bunch of folks together, buying a heluva lotta land, and telling the Washington a**holes to pound sand. 'Course, the difficulty is this: Bush has proven he's willing to shoot to illegally annex another country, so it's a sure bet he'll shoot to keep part of this one. |
http://www.christianexodus.org/
I remember hearing about that site on the radio a couple of days ago. I highly doubt that they'll achieve the support they need to achieve their goal.
As far as who I'm going to vote for I'm still undecided. I really need to take some time to sit down and examine the candidates to see who I would prefer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elfen_Furry
Moderator
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 2601
Location: NYC NY
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jbird wrote: | | sniktch wrote: |
4. The War. The original stated purpose of going to war was to relieve Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. After the Army was halfway to Baghdad with NONE FOUND(All NBC related materials found were purely defensive; atropine auto-injectors, gasmasks, US-style NBC-protective fatigues, and Arabic-language NBC defense manuals, the kind of things that even Third-World militaries with zero NBC warfare capability purchase for their best units, and later expanded to include ONE INCOMPLETE gas centrifuge that had been buried under a rosebush for a decade; to even start a uranium enrichment program, 5000 of them would have been needed) it morphed into liberating the Iraqi people from Hussein. Now the reason is using Iraq as a base to spread democracy through the Middle East. Abu Ghraib was "a few bad apples", despite the fact that the methods used there were textbook CIA interrogation techniques from 1967 to present day! Dick Cheney still holds a quarter million in Halliburton stock; he can't collect the dividends on it, sell it, or exercise any voting priveleges with it till after he's out of office, but he sure as he** can make a fat profit on it the second he finishes out - since it keeps going up while he's in office, mostly because Halliburton got 6 BILLION in no-bid, no-competition, cost-plus contracts(and at least 5 of the said contracts have already popped overcharge and kickback scandals) to "rebuild Iraq". This war stinks worse than a week-old diaper. The reasons keep changing, the people who pushed it the most stand to reap insane amounts of money from it, and the people we were supposed to save have grown to hate us. And we've no way out, either. And now Bush is making noises about taking troops from Korea so he can move on Damascus.
|
I'm going to go take a nice little walk before I respond to this. |
Same here...
_________________
SHARKS In The Gene Pool South of Kosovo!
*CHOMP!* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elfen_Furry
Moderator
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 2601
Location: NYC NY
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sniktch wrote: | Honestly, I AM voting against Bush rather than for Kerry. I'd vote Nader, but in the current one-and-a-half-a**ed party system we have, it'd be a waste. It's less about liking Kerry, and more figuring he's less likely to intentionally try and trigger the Apocalypse. As for DEMANDING better candidates... To do that, we'd have to:
1. Make a viable third political party. Been tried repeatedly. None have lasted long; internal strife, the weirdo factor, and the great Republicrat propaganda machines have shredded them. Until a group with the megabucks to buy the ads, the CEOs, and multiple congressfolks comes along, we've got the same two parties. Even then, we'd be trading one hidebound, tradition-laden, arrogant bunch of "professional politicians" *spits* who KNOW they're right and we're wrong for another.
2. Join one of the two political parties and attempt to change it from within. Again, been tried. This cycle alone, Edwards and Dean both got tore down because they weren't "connected" and weren't right in lockstep with the rest of the party; if you ain't already rubbing shoulders with the folks who pull the party strings, yer screwed afore the gate opens. Unless, of course, you've got the megabucks needed to "sway opinions" with timely campaign contributions; if you do, you're probably already one of the DNC/GOP bigwigs I'd like to maim repeatedly.
Mr. Regan, if you have any better ideas, feel free to enlighten me. 'Bout all I can think of is gettin' a bunch of folks together, buying a heluva lotta land, and telling the Washington a**holes to pound sand. 'Course, the difficulty is this: Bush has proven he's willing to shoot to illegally annex another country, so it's a sure bet he'll shoot to keep part of this one. |
Just because you are registered as one polictical party of another DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO VOTE FOR that party's officer runner. George McGovern learned that the hard way in 1972. How does it feel to be a democrat office runner and to have a state's entire democratic votes all vote against you? Ask him... he's the only one in recorded history to loose (to Nixon) on a 48 - 2 state count (Thats a whopping 91% of the Electorial College; considering that He managed to Get NYS- a major share of the votes, and still manage to loose!) of which many were considered as Democratic Strong Holds!
Secondly- you can change parties when ever you feel like it. It just means that you have to go to that party's offical office and make the changes.
Third... in case you have not gotten it by now, its not Bush, but its the lobbyists who makes the final decisions in this country. Get rid of them, and then you'll have a much more fairer country once again. Now- the question is- how in **** does one get rid of the lobbyists?
_________________
SHARKS In The Gene Pool South of Kosovo!
*CHOMP!* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Donate
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
