Bush Cousins Launch Pro-Kerry Website 138
WerewolfOfVulcan writes "CNN is carrying a story about bushrelativesforkerry.com, a site launched by relatives of the President."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bush Cousins Launch Pro-Kerry Website
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
Re:No Political Bias on /. (Score:2, Interesting)
This is my letter to the Bush relatives: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is my letter to the Bush relatives:
_______
Bush Relatives,
The three movies and 35 recently published books reviewed in the article linked below describe U.S. government corruption:
Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org]
There were several books published before and during the Clinton administration about former U.S. President Bill Clinton. However, the situation with Clinton and previous presidents was not even remotely comparable. There are many more books discussing the Bush administration, and the negative issues are far, far more serious.
Also see this well-documented article from The Nation magazine:
100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration [thenation.com]
Michael Jennings
Futurepower Publishing
P.S.: I learned about your site from a front-page story on Slashdot.org.
_______
In past elections, there has been a reason to vote for the other side. I didn't choose Bob Dole, but if he had been elected, the nation would have been okay, because Bob Dole is a decent man.
This election is different. It is not a matter of preference. The Bush Administration is extremely corrupt. Those who vote for Bush are not well-informed.
An old DEC manual for technical writers said that only 2% of Americans read non-fiction books not connected with work. That seems correct to me. I have found that even Slashdot readers, who are more intelligent than most people, have little knowledge of the activities of their government. Instead, some of them have picked up and believe Bush campaign lies like "Bush is Christian" and "Bush will protect us in the war against terrorism".
Re:No Political Bias on /. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No Political Bias on /. (Score:4, Interesting)
Granted, there are a lot of bright people who are pro-Bush. I'm sure the assumption comes from people's first-hand experience that most bright people they know are pro-Kerry. I've spent significant time in both academia and in the commercial world, and my experience is that most (but not all) bright people in academia are anti-Bush (and some are even pro-Kerry), and most (but not all) people in the commercial world (including, but not limited to the bright people) are pro-Bush. Of course, I realize that these generalizations are based on my own experiences, so YMMV.
Personally, I always enjoy finding a bright person who disagrees with me so I can understand an intelligent alternative view point. Frequently the differences center around your priorities and moral beliefs. E.g., if you're pro-life and pro-environment think that overtuning Roe v. Wade is more important than anything else, Bush is a logical choice. If however, you are think that the environment is more important than anything else, anti-Bush is a logical choice. (Seriously, it's hard to imagine anyone doing more harm to the environment than he has.) There are other reasons to support either belief, and I have made obviously over-simplified statements just to illustrate that differing priorities can lead to differing logical choices, even if both people have the same moral stances and agree on the facts. (Big "if" of course.)
Re:No Political Bias on /. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush has had to deal with some specific and very serious accusations. He's accused of being a poor leader, a liar, a proxy for some dark neocon movement, of having a low iq and many other traits we're not looking for in the next president of the USA. Before Bush I don't think it would have been very polite or appropriate to attack someone like that. However, given his lack of a good response to any of these accusations (he has chosen the way of misrepresenting rather than addressing issues) I don't think that it is very surprising that people who bother to inform themselves about stuff that matters are mostly pro Kerry.
Maybe a slashdot poll on this matter would be nice. I have a feeling that Bush would loose badly (even if only american slashdotters would vote) but please prove me wrong.
Re:No Political Bias on /. (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said, there are plenty of thoughtful, well reasoned arguments for Bush out there, if people take the time to look for them. Try Hugh Hewitt [hughhewitt.com] for example. I've actually been looking for thoughtful, well reasoned bloggers for Kerry and had little success. Many of them are pure propaganda (e.g. Michael Moore) or are mostly just sarcasm and snide comments with little real substance (e.g. Joshua Marshall).
As to Bush being a liar, a proxy, or a poor leader, you would need to be more specific to get a good counter argument. In regards to the accusation of Bush being a low IQ, there is evidence that Kerry's is lower [vdare.com].
A /. poll would only prove that bored computer people have a certain opinion. Generalizing from that to the "tendency" of the general population's intelligence is silly. Maybe /. is mostly slackers and all the really hardworking, intelligent computer people don't bother reading/posting/moderating here, in which case the Kerry support is simply a symptom that lazy computer people support Kerry. Of course, this theory I just made up is entirely lacking in factual basis - just as the theory that bright people choose kerry is lacking in any solid factual basis.
Re:No Political Bias on /. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush has also answered questions many times, while Kerry has refused [washingtonpost.com] to answer questions from a reporter that many consider to be left-leaning!
Bush has also had the balls to say that Social Security is in danger, and will need to be revamped. Kerry's response was, "It'll work long enough." I was pleasantly suprised to find that I actually agreed with Bush's domestic policy.
Perhaps the main reason is that Bush's reelection is going to be 4 more years of the same, which (for me and my friends) has not been too bad. But Kerry's election would be (potentially) 8 years of who knows what. I have no real hope that either party will work to fix the DMCA, as both parties supported it whole-heartedly, but perhaps we can at least keep Congress involved with howling about Iraq and not passing any more extensions.
The PATRIOT act [senate.gov] is troubling, but Kerry just says he wants to "review" it. If Kerry says that he passed it without reading it, then he is admitting that he didn't do his job as a Senator. That is frightening. At least Bush seems to know (and do) what his job entails.
And furthermore, we need a decisive electoral victory for Bush, to show Iraq and Afghanistan that we really are going to support them, not dump them like a hot potato the moment it becomes convenient. That was the biggest mistakes we've made as a country recently - pulling up short of Baghdad in 1991, which resulted in many Iraqis who thought we were going to help them overthrow Saddam dying, and ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviet Union fell, which resulted in the Taliban taking control.
Also, I do not believe that an administration that supports the Clinton view of the Second Amendment is good for the long-term freedom in America.
Those are some of my reasons.
Things I disagree with Bush on:
1. Outsourcing. It needs control, but I don't care if an Indian has my job if I'm been blown up by a terrorist, so priorities.
2. Education. I think that education should either be controlled by local politics (cities & counties) or not by the government at all.
In fact, I am more in agreement with the Constitutional Party [constitutionparty.com] than with the Republicans in many ways, but I feel that especially after the 2000 election, we need to have a decisive victory. Otherwise every election from now on will be decided in courts by lawyers. This is unacceptable.
Here is a link [littlegreenfootballs.com] to a blog that explains some of the reasons behind my thinking.
Other, more personal reasons I don't like Kerry:
1. He attacks Bush about this "Draft," yet the draft bills were introduced by Democrats [snopes.com], defeated 402 to 2, and John Kerry himself [archive.org] supported "National Service" as very recently. This is not just politics, but downright shameful. Also, given that many military personell have said they won't reenlist if Kerry wins, the only way he can keep his 40,000 more troops promise would be to instate a draft. Note that the link is to the archive.org's copy of the John Kerry website; this draft stuff has been modified [johnkerry.com] in his current platform. Even Rumsfeld [defenselink.mil] doesn't want a draft.
2. Why the hell does he try to pret
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
I've got a cousin who does some pretty stupid things too, like helping architect Reaganomics and being GWBs cheif economic advisor. Then he went and actually admittted his estimate of how much the Iraq war would cost. I respect him for telling the truth, and for the fact that his estimate has turned out to be dead on. But I've got to admit that that too was stupid. He really should have known that telling the truth was a no-no for members of GWBs administration. Bush promptly fired him.
Hey Larry - I'm no longer embarrased to tell people I'm related to you now that George fired you. But you're going to have to do a big Paul O'Neil style expose if you want to get back on my Christmas card list.