Do you support President Bshu?

Hello of you, it is Japanese kc.
Though there is a question
Do you support President Bshu?
I am not tenable.
It broke off the search it was not possible to find while saying that
there were Weapons of mass destruction and a poison gas munition.
Were tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens killed till then?
President Bshu ..whether the Iraq attack is correct.. thinks that it
should apologize to the Iraqi citizens.
Especially, I want to ask the person of the President Bshu support
sect.

Though it is the end
On another note
I think that the person who made this Frashu movie is terrible and great.
http//advision.webevent/...

I don't support Bush. He says "spread democracy and world peace" but how does he achieve it? Invade other countries, kill their people and establish American bases in that country.

Maybe what Bush really means is "conquer the world". Not all countries in the world has the same system and values as USA. This should be accepted. But instead, Bush thinks the only way USA will be safe is when all other countries have the same system and values as USA.

I don't know what Bush supporters will say to justify Bush and his policies, but most of what I've heard from such people is calling Arabs derogatory names. I've yet to here a real serious comment from a Bush supporter, so I'm also waiting to see a response in this thread.

Who is Bshu?  Is he related to Pikachu?

only 51% of people who voted support president bush. People who tend to be liberal sometimes don't vote or are convicted felons (criminals) and can't vote.

I do not support him.

“This is an impressive crowd; the haves and the have mores.
Some people call you the elite, I call you my base” – George W Bush

Who could support this person?

People who like stand-up comedians?

>>8

zing!

I support him.

>>7
>Who could support this person?

the elite, ie. people that matter and understand his plaform in regards to their interest

AND

the conned, people who are either blindly patriotic and would support any american president or people who are being directly(financially) screwed by current policy trends but are easily molded by advertising/image campaigns facilitated by this  wonderfully omnipresent media saturation we have created

>>8 If you think that is stand up comedy you must not be a fan, though they do say the best comedy is based in truth.

You need to lighten up, >>12.

>>13
Word

Anyways, I consider myself politically conservative, but not crazy of Bush.  I don't think he's a living legend, but he's far from the worst person, or worst president we've ever had.  But he is our president, and I give him the respect his title dues him, and I wish those of liberal-leanings could do at least that.  It's hard to respect them when all they can do to "improve" things is make a Bush-Nazi photoshop.

>>7
Did you ever think the reason people voted Bush was the other challengers were just not any good?  I mean, I could win if my best opponents were a guy who "invented" the internet and one who doesn't know what happened that Chrismas, wheither he threw his ribbons and/or medals, couldn't clearly say what he'd vote for or against, etc.

>>14
bush hired the better advertising/image team, bush won fair and square... his team did a superior job than kerry's team

phds in stastics and psychology designed the television image campaigns for bush, each state had a different formula based on focus group testing and profiling... only critical "swing" states were targetted narrowing it down to about 15 seperate advertising campaigns, money was no object completely budgetless

rove is worth his weight in palladium as a campaign manager.
its not as if they had better material per-se... they just executed everything flawlessly, great timing. kerry's team had some good points but they always fell apart in the presentation

..and really in the end all americans do respect the office of the president in a time of war, its simple psychology of protection. i have no problem with bush even though i didnt vote at all

the state of new york was not an electoral swing state, therefore entirely meaningless to the election

Bshu #1!
Bshu #1!

The Singapore Government support this idiot, because they think we cannot afford to piss off America. Bah, humbug. They should be concentrating on their neighbours(geographically) and not some fallen superpower trying to justify its actions. Dammit, giving free reign to the RIAA, MPAA and BSA is stupider than this Iraq War crap.  Yes, we know you can flex your muscles. Yes, we know you can force your fucking democracy into a former dictatorship(yes, this shit has happened before, look @ the Phillipines today). Yes, we know you're a FUCKING IDIOT. So go away and ruin your own country. Don't ruin the whole of the Middle East, for fuck's sake. Also, I believed Bush impeached Clinton so he could get the presidency.
Yeah, I hate this idiot, do not support whatever he does, and would love nothing more than to take an AK47 and blow his ass off.

And 14, he won, and put the entire country in debt. Again.

>>17
normally i wouldnt dignify this type of ignorant 12year old style idiocy with a response...

america is far from a fallen superpower, it's system won the cold war... communism is fallen, now america is busy converting the world over to the winning system.. passively spreading democracy by example and recently actively spreading it by war(some would say in arbitrary priority.... iran should have been the top of the list)

mpaa, riaa is simply a corporate organization... corporations run the world.. its all about bottom line, not which country the corporation is from

bush impeached clinton? come again?

oh and good luck with that ak47 and the ass-blowing...

>>17

Yeah, agreeing with 18 that this comment is stupid.
The reasons I in particular dislike Bush is on social issues, i.e. abortion and gay marriage. Abortion is philosophically murky for me; although I support its use in controlling unwanted pregnancies, why stop at the fetus? Why not children? I'm not sure. Gay marriage, though... the debate is entirely religious (/ridiculous). There is not a single secular point out there against it. The "sanctity" of marriage, Bush says. Who died and made him God, so as to decide whether something is "sanctified" or not? It's an amazing hypocrisy for a man "of God" to act as a self-righteous priest. Moreover, we did not elect a priest, to use the law Iranian-style. Some worry that their tax dollars will fund gay marriage; well, THERE'S ALREADY MEASURES FOR SIMILAR THINGS, like abortion or war.

>>19
yea gay marriage was one of the key issues pitched in the targetted television ads in many of the swing states, the evangelical base is very large in non-metropolitan america and can be mobilized entirely

faith is an odd thing, it can be very compelling
the freedom that absolute secularism offers often leads people to not vote out of apathy... if kerry's campaign compelled a couple million apathetic voters in the block of 70million that didnt vote, he would have won(if they were all swing state voters)

the fundamentalist right evangelicals are all responsible voters because they fear an invisible god controlling their "after"-life... they all vote and get their friends to vote etc... the democrat secularists have no counter-balance to "faith-based communities" they are a highly effective demographic

rove realized this and targeted the perfect demographic, because he is one cutthroat sumbitch who's been playing the game excellently since way back when he took bush as a candidate for governor in texas

i'd say rove won the game, twice.. he is quite a strategist

ive noticed businessmen and politicians from texas, their strength is they break down events and politics into very simple language... they can they take what they read of a situation and plug it into their worldview.. which is highly realistic and "pragmatic" to put it gently

texas invented nolimit poker, lets just say they aspire to be 'honorable gamblers' ..they understand the way people work on that level... and for foreign policy that is certainly an important skill

ofcourse inherent with gambling is the fact that you always have a losing hand now and then, but if you remove the will to ever doubledown... things can get hairy with even one loser these days

>>20 no counterbalance to "faith-based communities"

Except for urban black churches, which are just about 100% wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democratic Party.  And then there's the whole Welfare system, which exists in order to buy the votes of people who want to keep "their" food stamps coming.

>>21
how good do you think welfare voter registration is... let alone turn out

>urban black churches
true but the democrats already have a lock on metropolitan area voters, urban black churches are the only "faith-based" microdemographic the democrats have.. the bulk of their constituents are secularists

rural evangelical communities in mid-western swing states like ohio is what killed the dems in `04

What killed the Democrats in '04 was their ongoing swing far to the left and nomination of a candidate who had a 35-year public record of being a left-wing lunatic fringe extremist.

If the Democrats want the White House in 2008, they're going to have to either pray the economy tanks and the voters blame Bush, or find an actual centrist moderate (or someone who can pretend convincingly to be one) and run on a common-sense centrist platform like Clinton did in '92 and '96.

This is just an observation from someone who no longer bothers to vote, but continues to consider American politics to be the best entertainment money can buy.

>>23
as if the winning electoral margin was something to gloat about?

wow what a landslide, what a mandate... please, it could have easily gone either way in 04 even with kerry as the pr image - inept as he was

talk about centrist in the same breath as the bush/cheney image? they should have run mccain as a centrist in 00, they would have won by a clear margin and there would be no irrational bush-bashing/right-bashing today... it puts us in a dangerous situation to so violently polarize the country as has been done in the last race

Clinton won both times even though clear majorities of the electorate voted against him.  57% of the popular vote was split between Bush and Perot in '92, you will recall.  Dubya has far more of a mandate than Clinton did either time.

I don't see Dubya as an extremist, either.  The Bush family has always been held in ill-concealed contempt by the much-touted "faith-based demographic," who have always considered them to be lukewarm and wishy-washy, or, as Reagan called Bush the Elder in 1980, "a wimp."  In '04 they didn't vote for Bush, they voted against Kerry.

We have a center-right party and a center-left party in this country and there's less difference between them than most people perceive, though now the Democrats are apparently bound and determined to forget the lessons of '92 and '96 and go lurching ever leftward until they fall off the edge of the earth.  They don't see that they're marginalizing themselves, nor do they see that this country needs two parties, two clearly articulated visions about which men of principle can honorably disagree.  I don't think, however, even now, that there's enough difference between the big American political parties to merit "violently polarized" as a description.  "Childishly peeved," maybe.  We don't really have significant numbers of extremists in American politics today, for which I am personally thankful.

In any event, the Democrats are going to have to come back to the center and try to make themselves look respectable again or face the consequences.  Putting Howard "YARRRRRRRRRR" Dean in charge of the DNC is going to come back to haunt them, I predict.  Their pandering to the lunatic fringe is alienating more and more people.  The respectable moderates in the Democratic Party have been jumping ship for over a decade, like Ben Nighthorse Campbell.  They're going to get their heads out of their asses and come back to the center, or see themselves becoming less and less relevant.  I don't want to see that, because one-party rule breeds complacency, arrogance, and corruption.

both parties are thoroughly complacent, arrogant and corrupt... lets not kid ourselves
"Childishly peeved" may be fine for the parties themselves and the operators within the parties who understand the system on that realistic level
"violently polarized" is what factions in the public buy into and that is the cause for general danger

the difference between a democrat politician and a republican politician is essentially nil, they are given priorities by the party and they advocate/parrot those priorities within their specific committees and in their public media statements

the republicans are a bit power drunk at the moment, they have achieved more of their long-attempted goals in the past 4 years than in the past 50

securitizing social security will be their undoing, it is too much.. abject greed exposed for what it is... looks quite ugly.
the cover of war can only be stretched so far, for fear of upheaval, i suspect the republicans will willingly give the whitehouse over to the "other party" in 2008 if they achieve their pre-set goals for this second term.. which is mostly making the last term's victories permanent plus the whole new social security issue

>>25
"center-right party and a center-left"

You can't be serious. Visit the rest of the world a bit more often, please.

>>27
no hes right, if we are talking about dynamics of american politics, this is the most targeted demographic a.k.a 'swing voters' 'centrists' etc.. ie people who can be persuaded vs. the base constituents who vote along party lines no matter what

but visiting the rest of the world is something everyone should do obviously.. insular experience forms beliefs that are narrow by definition, this can lead to mis-perceptions in general

as for america, getting the 70 million eligible voters who didnt vote would be nice... i'd suggest leaving the polls open for a week instead of a day and perhaps offering a tax exemption for people who do register and vote... then maybe we can see a better picture of where the country is

"offering a tax exemption for people who do register and vote" --- you know democrazy has failed when you need to pay the citizens to cast any votes

>>29
actually it seems right in step with capitalism

"The PRC government asserts that Tibet is, and has been, a part of China, and that military actions taken in the 1950s and 1960s were for the sake of the Tibetan people themselves in order to *liberate* them from the feudalistic system of government administered by the Dalai Lama"
--Wikipedia (Free_Tibet article)

LOL

I just realized something. USA wouldn't attack a country at all if they knew the country had nuclear bombs or the like...

>>28
a voting week sounds like a good idea

http://221.139.49.68/magga/flash/image/bush01.swf

Post numero 34:

Err, i could be mistaken, but i recon this means something like;

Error 404: We dont like no fucking yankee flashanimations on our chinese servers mate. PS, powerd by MS Windows 3.11.

"이 페이지를 찾을 수 없습니다.
찾고 있는 페이지가 삭제되었거나 이름이 변경되었거나 일시적으로 사용할 수 없습니다.

다음을 시도해 보십시오.

    * 주소 표시줄에 페이지 주소를 입력했다면 주소를 정확히 입력했는지 확인해 보십시오.
    * 221.139.49.68 홈 페이지를 연 다음 원하는 정보에 대한 링크를 찾으십시오.
    * 뒤로 단추를 클릭하여 다른 링크를 시도해 보십시오.

HTTP 404 - 파일을 찾을 수 없음
Internet Information Services

기술 정보(지원 인력용)

    * 자세한 정보:
      Microsoft 기술 지원
"

I could be mistaken but those look more like Hangul characters than Chinese characters to me, AMIRITE?

>>32 Says who? We could blow up every single nuclear facility they had in the space of a few hours unless it was a very large country like China.

China just did a very interesting thing, the government seems to have charged  a "private" chinese corporation: "Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp., the nation's biggest steelmaker" to reject a buy offer from the famous Carlyle group...

http//quote.bloombe/...

bump