Decision 2008: The Official BHZ USA Presidential Race Thread

[Burled Holiday Cabbage]

Or that he orchestrated 9/11, launched cruise missiles into the WTC and Pentagon, in order to justify a war for oil. To those people, all I can really say is "uh huh. sure."

You know how you can be sure that Bush didn't organize 9/11?

It worked.

BHC, I honestly can't tell if you're just joking or if you're being serious about these things.

I really outta type my sarcasm in a different color...

But I was just pointing out that the leader of the greatest (or used to be greatest, in the minds of many; not specifically me) nation on Earth should be, you know, intelligent. He's doing his best, the poor dear...

I've been hearing lately that the last 2 times, people voted for a guy they'd want to have a beer with. I know Americans don't like elitists because they don't want to feel inferior, but isn't that what a president is supposed to be? Someone better than most or all of us? Smarter? More committed? Or do we just want to stay in Iraq for 100 years, cause that's working out so well...

I've never really cared about politics (heck, I'll admit that I didn't know who Monica Lewinsky was until 2004; not something for a preteen to be exposed to, really... anyway), but I kinda don't want to grow up where the rest of the world hates you and your leader has to make a guest appearance on Deal or No Deal to boost his popularity...

I guess Bush wasn't quite ready to appear on Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader...

(I like ending paragraphs with an ellipsis apparently...)

[The Chort]

I think it's unfair to make assumptions about a person based on whether or not they are a great public speaker. I have many friends who get nervous and stumble over their words, even though they are quite intelligent. Multiply the nervousness of talking in front of your class or even your whole school by millions, especially when you know that many are listening just to hear you mess up.

I feel certain that if President Bush wanted to, he could spend many more hours practicing each of his speeches than he already does. That would probably help him eliminate more mistakes and stumbling. But as President, I think he probably has a pretty full plate as is. Hypothetically, would you consider it noble of him to give up that extra practice time, and thusly some of the respect of the people he's leading, if it meant giving more time and effort to other areas that he deemed more important? I know many think he's not doing much as President, other than bad, but I find it hard to believe that he has plenty of free time during the times he's not making bone-headed decisions.

But I was just pointing out that the leader of the greatest (or used to be greatest, in the minds of many; not specifically me) nation on Earth should be, you know, intelligent. He's doing his best, the poor dear...

I find it hard to believe that a man who completed a bachelors degree at Yale and got an MBA at Harvard is unintelligent. Does he make incorrect assessments and poor choices sometimes? Dang right he does. But being wrong doesn't mean someone is stupid.

[Burled Holiday Cabbage]

I know many think he's not doing much as President, other than bad, but I find it hard to believe that he has plenty of free time during the times he's not making bone-headed decisions.

You don't think Bush has plenty of free time?? Haven't you seen this?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/7QXjgPDLSUo&amp;feature=related" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/7QXjgPDLSUo&amp;feature=related</a>

He finds time to tap-dance in front of the media... and if you want more evidence... (sarcasm alert)

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/gost6eWoXt8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/gost6eWoXt8</a>

I find it hard to believe that a man who completed a bachelors degree at Yale and got an MBA at Harvard is unintelligent. Does he make incorrect assessments and poor choices sometimes? Dang right he does. But being wrong doesn't mean someone is stupid.

Yes, being wrong doesn't mean someone is stupid; that's right. But continually being wrong and thinking that you're right; that's stupid. He got into those colleges because his father got him in, and he most likely got through it with similar help. Either that, or he lost all his intelligence doing drugs when he was supposed to be in Vietnam.

If you watch the Late Show, or the Daily Show, or the Colbert Report, then you know where I'm coming from. Still, I haven't heard anyone anywhere recently commenting on Bush doing something good. You don't hear of him passing any bills to fix the economy, or addressing the housing crisis. Although perhaps that's the media's fault, but I think if he did anything good, the media should be ready to inform the public (or put a smiley face on it and place it on the refrigerator).

Should everyone be making fun of Bush's decisions or the way he talks? No, of course not. But how much criticism does he need to know if something works or not? About 2 weeks ago or so, Bush said he wasn't aware that gas was reaching $4.00... I mean, if someone is really that clueless, then please get out.

[The Chort]

You don't think Bush has plenty of free time??

He finds time to tap-dance in front of the media...

Actually, yeah. I doubt he has a lot of free time. I know he has some, for certain. But I disagree with the sentiment that the man has several hours every day that are free and clear, with no responsibilities. Besides his work as President, he also has a family, which I imagine he enjoys spending time with. I know if I faced the kind of seething hatred he sees, I'd want to retreat into the unconditional love and support of my family a little more.

I couldn't view the video, (probably because I'm in Thailand...) but I figure he didn't schedule a press conference to show of his phat tap dancing skills. Maybe after a tough day dealing with all kinds of important stuff, he wanted to lighten the mood or just do something fun. Don't forget that he's a human being. For the most part, humans don't like being serious every moment of every day. You are welcome to take that video however you please, but I'm not going to assume that because he takes a couple of minutes to try to make his day a little less monotonous that he's spending time that he should be using to solve the world's problem practicing his dance moves.

Yes, being wrong doesn't mean someone is stupid; that's right. But continually being wrong and thinking that you're right; that's stupid.

I disagree. Is President Bush getting a whole lot of advice on all of his decisions? You better believe he is. I believe it would be stupid to ignore the advice of everyone if they were all saying the same thing. But he is certainly getting different ideas from different people. Take the War in Iraq. Some urged him to move forward with the invasion, while others were strongly against it. Some people want us to begin bringing troops back right now, no matter what. Others believe that it was a mistake to go, but no that we are there, we should finish what we started. Still others want to send even more troops.

He is listening to persuasive advice that sounds like lunacy to you. That being said, I'll warrant that he has spent hundreds of hours listening to the pros and cons of each side. Even with great information and hours of debate, can an incorrect solution be reached? Of course. But I'm just cannot justify calling the man stupid because his choices based on more information clash with what I think is the right choice based on less information.

He got into those colleges because his father got him in, and he most likely got through it with similar help. Either that, or he lost all his intelligence doing drugs when he was supposed to be in Vietnam.

Are those researched facts or your conjecture? While I'll agree that having a father as an alumnus of a school can sure help you get in, schools like Yale and Harvard aren't known for being easy to get through. Also remember that at the time he was at Yale in 1968, his father was only a representative for a congressional district in Texas. It wasn't as if his professors were saying, "Ooh, better give Lil' Dubbya a good grade, cause I bet his daddy's going to be President in twenty years!" (Although if one of them did say that, it'd be really funny, mostly because I doubt Yale Profs speak with a Texan accent the way I type.)

Also, addressing the drugs comment: I completely agree that drugs are detrimental to your brain-power, kill brain cells, and have many other negative consequences. But I have seen no research indicating that doing drugs has the can cause someone to "lost all his intelligence." I think it's fair to note that alcohol has many of the same effects as drugs, yet few people are afraid that since Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have downed cold ones while on the campaign trail, that all of their pertinent knowledge about politics was killed by the booze.

If you watch the Late Show, or the Daily Show, or the Colbert Report, then you know where I'm coming from. Still, I haven't heard anyone anywhere recently commenting on Bush doing something good. You don't hear of him passing any bills to fix the economy, or addressing the housing crisis. Although perhaps that's the media's fault, but I think if he did anything good, the media should be ready to inform the public (or put a smiley face on it and place it on the refrigerator).

As far as the media goes, every news outlet has a bias. While there is probably nothing good about President Bush played on CNN, maybe they will find something positive over at FOX News. But either way, the media has been known to not tell the whole truth, but instead opt for stories that are more grabbing, or that more closely fit the mood or their watchers. With President Bush's approvals ratings circling the toilet, news teams naturally want to pander to a larger audience. If 80% of American thinks the President is doing a bad job, those people are more likely to tune in to a new station that they agree with and gives them more reason to stick to their beliefs. Network executives know this, so they report news based on what's best for ratings.

I guess what I'm driving at is that blatantly disrespecting George Bush may be fashionable right now. It definitely is your right as an American or citizen of any country. But even if you think he's dead wrong, even if you think you've stepped on things smarter than him, even if you think he's the worst President in our history, it's still important to remember that some important facts about him.

He was chosen as our leader by many people. (I'm not saying the majority of people, I'm not even saying he should have won in 2000. I'm saying that a lot of people did want him to be our President.) He is human, and makes mistakes, as we all do. Just about everything he does is under the scrutiny of Americans and the world, the Democrats, Independents, and his own party. He has held a very difficult job for almost eight straight years.

He isn't perfect by any means. But I choose to respect him, even though I often times don't agree with him.

[Revan/anakinjmt]

To me it doesn't make any sense to distrust Obama because a untrustworthy group endorses him. It doesn't say anything about his own beliefs or plans or anything. It's not like he asked for their support, so why does it matter that they do support him?




As a side question, what are you (anakinjmt) implying when you say "What's more, China has embraced Hamas"? I mean, I'm not trying to be smarmy or anything, I'm just not sure why China supporting something is a bad thing.

I don't distrust Obama because Hamas endorsed him. The fact that Hamas DID endorse him makes me question what he's saying about policies. America should be bad news for terrorists. In 2004, Al-Queda was hoping that Kerry would get elected, and honestly, I think that might have been part of the reason Kerry lost. I'm not sure I want a President that a terrorist organization wants in office. Anybody that a terrorist organization is dead-set against, in my book, means that they know if that person is elected they'll be hard on terrorists, and as a Criminal Justice major, the most important issue to me isn't the economy or rising gas prices (though those are issues I care about). It's terrorism and fighting crime. I'll be taking a terrorism course this fall learning about terrorism, why terrorists believe what they do, the different tactics they'll use, and how to combat them, so to me, I'll want all the help I can get when I eventually become a police officer and have to deal with that kind of thing. So, really, I think my vote come November will come down to what will the candidate do about terrorism, the war in Iraq, and combating crime? I'll want a President tough on all of those issues, and so far, McCain and I see pretty eye-to-eye. I think Obama would do a better job with the economy and the issues of health care, but my vote right now would go to McCain because that's what I'm most concerned with.


China is a Communist country. They have a horrible human rights record, and I'm not just talking about Tibet. I have two books of stories of Christian martyrs throughout the past two millenniums, stories put together in books by the Christian band DC Talk. There are stories of martyrs during the time of the Romans, during the Inquisition, during the various wars with Muslims and the Ottomon Empire. There are stories about people suffering for their faith in the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, India, and China. China cracks down on anyone that says anything bad about the government or its leaders, or anyone of Christian faith or several other faiths that aren't part of the "official" state church. I don't think China is as bad as North Korea, but the fact that China supports Hamas hurts China's already horrible human rights reputation. An organization that kills innocent men, women, and children for no reason whatsover does not deserve the backing or support of nations, but of course nations do because they agree with that organization. Same thing with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al-Queda.

[Burled Holiday Cabbage]

I'll be taking a terrorism course this fall learning about terrorism, why terrorists believe what they do, the different tactics they'll use, and how to combat them, so to me, I'll want all the help I can get when I eventually become a police officer and have to deal with that kind of thing.

A tip on why terrorists do what they do:

Terrorists were angry at us for invading their country in the 80's or whenever by Bush senior. We invaded their holy land, and they wanted to get back at us. So they blow up a couple buildings, venting rage the way a 6 year old might.

What do we do to get back at them? Invade their country again, showing that we won't stand for such acts. But wait, if they were mad at us in the first place for invading their country, then wouldn't they be extra mad that we came back, or furious that we won't leave??

(Sarcasm alert) Who knows, maybe we should go retro and drop a couple atomic bombs on their sorry butts. Worked before. Maybe afterwards, Iraq in 40 years will become a video game giant like Japan. It'll be a lot faster than staying there, and then we'll be done with it. I mean, don't we have a bunch of bombs just lying about, gathering dust? Let's use 'em!

Considering that this war and WWII are much different, I guess that couldn't happen. FDR dropped the bombs because if he didn't, more Americans and Japanese would've died eventually in the ensuing fights. The American death toll in Iraq is around 4000, which hardly warrants a bombing. Still, you gotta admit it's tempting!

(Or not)

[Mr. Teatime]

The way I define "Terrorist" is as a radical Muslim extremist who, for much farther back than the 80s, have believed that all heathens must be killed to unite the world under Muslim rule. Note, that is a very small percentage of actual Muslims. They are separate from those that simply want us to leave and are angry with us fiddling about in their homes.

[Revan/anakinjmt]

The way I define "Terrorist" is as a radical Muslim extremist who, for much farther back than the 80s, have believed that all heathens must be killed to unite the world under Muslim rule. Note, that is a very small percentage of actual Muslims. They are separate from those that simply want us to leave and are angry with us fiddling about in their homes.

Ah, but surely you, as a 24 watcher, know that only half of all terrorists are Muslim. The other half are all European. And all of them have some sort of American co-conspirators.

Yes, that was sarcasm. Although I wonder how false the American co-conspirator part really is.

[The Chort]

Well, we've moved past the Primaries, and now have Presumptive Nominees, John McCain and Barack Obama. Right now the polls are showing Obama with 48% and McCain with 42% of popular vote. Third party candidates Bab Barr and Ralph Nader have also come into a bit of the spotlight.

It seems like the biggest question mark of the summer seems to be who will will the veepstakes? So sound off BHZians. Who should McCain pick to offset his age? Should Obama go with an older, more experienced V.P.? How do you feel about the so-caled Democrat "Dream Ticket" of Obama/Clinton?

[potthole]

My wife and I were talking a little bit about VP's last night.  Who I vote for will all boil down to who the VP's are.

[Mr. Teatime]

My wife and I were talking a little bit about VP's last night.  Who I vote for will all boil down to who the VP's are.

Same. Right now I'm a swing vote; I don't love either candidate, but I don't hate either of them. And yes, I meant either of them. *Looks over at Ralph Nader and Bob Barr.*

But there are some people who I'd either really love to see as VP, or would really hate to see as VP. For one, if Obama goes into the so-called "dream ticket," it can more or less guarantee my voting for McCain. Likewise, if someone like Mike Huckabee is chosen as McCain's VP, I am running straight for the Obama camp.
Personally, what I'd really like to see is an Obama/Richardson ticket.

[Revan/anakinjmt]

Same. Right now I'm a swing vote; I don't love either candidate, but I don't hate either of them. And yes, I meant either of them. *Looks over at Ralph Nader and Bob Barr.*

But there are some people who I'd either really love to see as VP, or would really hate to see as VP. For one, if Obama goes into the so-called "dream ticket," it can more or less guarantee my voting for McCain. Likewise, if someone like Mike Huckabee is chosen as McCain's VP, I am running straight for the Obama camp.
Personally, what I'd really like to see is an Obama/Richardson ticket.

And if Obama picks Clinton and McCain picks Huckabee?

Also, what if McCain picks Romney?

[Mr. Teatime]

And if Obama picks Clinton and McCain picks Huckabee?

Then that would suck.

Also, what if McCain picks Romney?

Not as bad as Huckabee, but I'm not that huge a fan as Romney, either.

[Burled Holiday Cabbage]

Welp, the Vice Pres is Biden. I hear he's good.

If Hillary was picked though, I was going to make a motivational poster of Obama and Hillary together, then under it says:

Whining
       It works

Lucky I don't have to though. Now all we need is Huckabee for McCain and the Democrats will surely win! Either him or a reanimated Nixon corpse...

[Inf]

reanimated Nixon corpse...

Nixon's back!



A-whoop, a-doop, a-diddly boop.



*cough*