I'm voting for Bush!

I don't like him, but I dislike him least of all.

Published on May 15, 2004 By messybuu In Republican

What I enjoy about David Wong's Pointless Waste of Time (which contains vulgar content so beware!) is that Mr. Wong writes many of his articles in a style that is easy to read. That style, of course, is the list, which usually consists of fifty reasons why Lord of the Rings, the Matrix, or Eminem sucks. Not only is it easy to read though, but it's also much easier to write than an essay with transitions and paragraphs. And so, in light of those facts, I present to you...

10 Reasons I'm Voting for Bush and not Kerry

Kerry's more indecisive on issues than Arnold Schwarznegger was during California's recall.
Bush is the most reasonable candidate out of all the major candidates. Kerry, Nader, and any Libertarian candidate are that bad!
I prefer a ex-crackhead in office to somebody that would sell their soul for power.
Anybody but Kerry!
John McCain and Al Gore, candidates for whom I'd vote, aren't in the election.
Ross Perot and Hollywood Hogan, other preferable candidates, also aren't in the election.
The Democrat Party has declined in quality over the last four years. This is evident in the fact that their best hope is in a shameless sycophant.
I have more respect for somebody who'll do what they believe is right even in the face of large amounts of criticism more than somebody who'll sit on the fence because he's too afraid to lose alienate a potential voter.
Kerry reminds me too much of Eddy from Ed, Edd, and Eddy, except while Eddy will do anything for cash, Kerry will do anything for power. He also isn't as entertaining.
Screw Flanders!

What are your reasons for not voting for Kerry?

Comments (Page 1)

greywar

on May 15, 2004

hear, hear, well spoken Bruce!

Saint Ying

on May 15, 2004

I'm voting for Kerry because I feel like cancelling some random idiot's vote out.

Mr_Frog

on May 16, 2004

I don't think I'm going to vote for either of them. I may vote "None of the above" like I did in 2000, because I don't like *any* of the candidates.

--B

messybuu

on May 16, 2004

I'm voting for Kerry because I feel like cancelling some random idiot's vote out.

That might be necessary, as I'm sure some Democrats out there will probably accidentally vote for Buchanan again, even if he isn't on the ballot.

I don't think I'm going to vote for either of them. I may vote "None of the above" like I did in 2000, because I don't like *any* of the candidates.

I've thought about voting for myself, but I'm not 35 yet, so I'm not eligible to be President.

kingbee

on May 16, 2004

im not sure i understand several of the reasons listed. specifically #s 3 & 9 both of which allude to kerry being power hungry. what's that all about?

as to indecision and arnold schwartzegger, i was forced to endure several months of arnold's statements, campaign ads and speeches. he was only indecisive in two areas, one of those for only 2 days (he was clearly unable to decide how many women hed assaulted, whether hed open hearings into that question and eventually if hed even seen any of those whining chicks before). throughout the campaign he seemed unable to decide how to pronounce 'california'.

he was emphatic on all other issues...emphatically determined to insure he had some nifty plans without revealing what they entailed. .

Genghis Hank

on May 16, 2004

Reply #3 By: Mr_Frog - 5/16/2004 12:06:39 AM
I don't think I'm going to vote for either of them. I may vote "None of the above" like I did in 2000, because I don't like *any* of the candidates.

If you are going to the write in option anyway, write someone in who has the qualities that you feel are missing from these canidates. It won't help in this election, but maybe, somewhere, someone will see it and think "You know, that's not bad. Maybe we should run someone like that next time."

I can dream, can't I?

Marvin Cooley

on May 16, 2004

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO YOU VOTE FOR. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SO EVIL AND DECADENT ANYMORE THAT THEY ARE TAKING THIS NATION TO DOOM. LEADERS ARE, MORE OR LESS FIGUREHEADS. THE REAL POWER LIES IN WHERE THE PEOPLE TAKE THE COUNTRY. AND IT APPEARS THAT THE PEOPLE ARE GOING THE WAY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. WITHIN 10 YEARS, YOU WILL SEE MORE TROUBLE THAN YOU COULD EVER IMAGINE.

kingbee

on May 16, 2004

yeah but if the guy i vote for wins, at least i dont have to blame nero or marcus aurelius

Draginol

on May 16, 2004

It's not surprising why Saint Ying has negative points.

Joshocom

on May 16, 2004

Bush is equally indecisive on a wide variety of issues, such as:

1. Was he a pot-smoking coke-snorter or wasn't he? (No answer offered.)
2. Did he show up for his military service, or didn't he? (answers conflict)
3. Did Saddam Hussein have WMD, or didn't he? (answer varies)
4. Was Saddam Hussein a threat in any way to the US, or wasn't he? (answer varies)
5. Was Iraq complicit in 9/11, or wasn't it? (answer varies)
6. Is Bush, as he claims, a true Christian and follower of Jesus Christ, or does he grin from ear-to-ear and speak proudly when he talks about the record-setting number of state-sponsored executions he approved as governor of Texas? (answers conflict)
7. Does the "Clear Skies Initiative" weaken air pollution controls, or strengthen them? (no answer given)
8. Is the Democrats' tax-and-spend policy more or less fiscally irresponsible than Bush's "don't-tax-but-spend-anyway" policy? (no answer given)
9. Is the God that Bush claims to speak with the same God that told him that Saddam had WMD and that the US is on the side of justice? If so, is it really God, or is it Ardra?
10. Does Bush believe in the Constitution, or does he believe that dissenters should be restricted to small police-approved locations a half-mile away from any political event? (answers conflict)
11. Should we go to war with countries that thumb their noses at the United Nations, or should we BE a country that thumbs our nose at the United Nations? (answers conflict)

--Josh

Anthony R

on May 16, 2004

My top reason for voting for Bush...

1. I don't want to spend my days rocking back and forth in a mandrassa reading the Koran.

Draginol

on May 16, 2004

Josh - that's the best you can do?

1. It's irrelevant as an issue for determining the President in a post-Clinton era.

2. He did. Answers don't conflict. He got an honorable discharge. End of story.

3. While that is an issue, that isn't an example of flip flopping.

4. Yes. He was. Bush has never stated differently.

5. No, Iraq wasn't. Bush has never stated differently.

6. Bush has addressed this and it's not a campaign issue anyway. Kerry claims to be Catholic but is pro-choice. Both are non-issues.

7. This isn't an example of flip-flopping.

8. This is an issue but not one of flip-flopping. He has his opinion which is that during times of recession, which we were in one, the government should lower taxes and increase spending to stir the economy. You and I may not agree with it but it is his stated position on the matter.

9. This is just petty.

10. Please let us know where in the constitution it states that people can protest right at ground 0 of a given event. Feel free to re-read the first amendment.

11. Please feel free to show the UN resolution that condemns or disapproves of the coalition removal of Saddam.

Really it's no wonder the Democrats keep losing. Even I coudl put together a better anti-Bush list than this.

Joshocom

on May 16, 2004

Anthony,

Oddly enough, that's why I wouldn't vote FOR Bush (not that voting for Kerry is an exciting prospect).

Kerry is an unknown in many regards, but he appears far less liable to claim theocratic superiority as Bush often has. Bush has claimed a divine knowledge - that he has God's support for various actions -- several times. This is the kind of thinking that seeks to impose one person's religion on the masses: Bush will work to make abortion illegal for everybody because abortion is against his personal religious doctrine; Bush will work towards a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because it is against his personal religious doctrine, etc..

Kerry, on the other hand, has not claimed he has God whispering in his ear.

We sometimes forget that America was founded as an ESCAPE from theocracy. Now we're relaxing our standards and allowing theocracy back into the country. History tells us where that will lead, but we, as a nation, are very poor students of history.

You're a lot more likely to end up forced to read the Koran -- or some other religious doctrine -- if a religious zealot is elected.

--Josh

Draginol

on May 16, 2004

As a borderline atheist (I'm agnostic) I somehow manage to not get the heevie-geevies that Bush is religious.

But I will say this, I'd rather someone believe that there is a high power than himself than someone who thinks THEY themselves are the higher power. That is the feeling I get from Kerry - that he believes he is superior to everyone else and must lead us sheep.

I've met protest organizers over the years and they all seem to have one thing in common - a superiority complex over the masses. Given his record and history, it's pretty clear that Kerry, if elected, would try to change things "for our own good" . I've seen plenty of left-wingers here on JoeUser proudly state that the reason they need "control" is because the rest of us are too "ignorant" to do the "right thing".

No thanks. I'll take the guy who believes in God over the guy who has a God complex.

Joshocom

on May 16, 2004

It's irrelevant as an issue for determining the President in a post-Clinton era.

How so? It seemed to be utterly relevant to the Republican when Clinton was running; now that Clinton's no longer running, it's not relevant? How hypocritical. Apparently issues of character are only issues of character as long as Republicans want them to be, and thereafter, they're relevant.

. He did. Answers don't conflict. He got an honorable discharge. End of story.

No. The question was not, "Did he receive an honorable discharge, or didn't he?" (If it had been, you'd be correct.) The question was, did he show up? His CO says he did not. Even the papers released by the White House did not actually answer this question.

While that is an issue, that isn't an example of flip flopping.

I didn't say flip-flopping; I said indecisive. Considering that Bush is actually quoted as saying that WMD *had* been found, it is indeed indecisive to later clarify by saying that weapons had not been found, but a biological laboratory had been, and then later to have it further clarified that what had been found was a laboratory that COULD have been used for creating biological weapons, but with no evidence that it HAD been. Then he said that evidence had been found of WMD *programs.* There are a number of different conflicting answers in there, none of them decisive, authoritative, or accurate.

Yes. He was. Bush has never stated differently.

Hussein may have been many things, but a threat to the US? It has not been borne out by the evidence. His army was not. His weapons were not. Additionally, Bush's claims about the actual threat from Hussein have changed many times. Prior to the war, it was because Hussein had WMD, was buying uranium, etc.. As those charges have been proved false, the argument morphed into a more vague "support of terrorism" (which has also since been discredited). Now it's because he was a bad, bad man.

No, Iraq wasn't. Bush has never stated differently.

When's the last time you read Bush's March 2002 address to the nation? I believe it is facetious to read (or hear) it and insist that no connection at all is being drawn between Iraq and 9/11.

Bush has addressed this and it's not a campaign issue anyway. Kerry claims to be Catholic but is pro-choice. Both are non-issues.

I never said it was an election issue. However, the argument was that Kerry is indecisive. This is an area in which Bush says one thing and does another. That is hardly decisive. And please note that I didn't deny that Kerry is indecisive; I only indicated that Bush is.

This isn't an example of flip-flopping.

True, I suppose -- it's an example of deliberate misleading. Many apologies.

This is just petty.

I would say that claiming you have God's support for your mission is rather a big deal for the leader of the free world. I question all zealots. Sorry if you find that petty.

Please let us know where in the constitution it states that people can protest right at ground 0 of a given event. Feel free to re-read the first amendment.

I'm astonished that anyone would defend the notion of Free Speech Zones. Even the American Conservative has called this a "Federal attack(s) on freedom of speech." Link

Really it's no wonder the Democrats keep losing. Even I coudl put together a better anti-Bush list than this.

I'm not a Democrat, I'm an independent, and as such, it's the votes of people like me who'll determine the outcome of the upcoming election. I'm no Kerry fan. Nor a Nader fan, if that's your suspicion.

--Josh

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!