Jump to content

Fin Fang Foom's Reaction To Bush's Decisive Win


Fin Fang Foom
This topic is 6600 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Like many of you, I stayed up late to watch the "end" of the coverage that never came. Finally, around 2:30am I grabbed my blankie, lifted my exhausted ass off the couch and staggered to bed.

 

I just woke up to discover that Bush won more votes than any other President in history (I wonder if the NYT will still be singing the praises of the popular vote), Bush's lead in Ohio is unsurmountable (stick a fork in it, it's done), Bush won Gore's Iowa and New Mexico, the Republicans picked up seats in the House, retained a majority of the governorships and gained seats in the Senate - including the coup de grace: defeating Minority Leader Tom Daschle (it doesn't get more exquisite than that).

 

I know my good friends on the Left are devastated to realize that they'll be staring at Bush's smirk for four more years, France will continue to have no say in what we do, the UN will still be held in well-earned contempt and Bush will appoint three new Supreme Court justices.

 

With that (and so so so soooooo much more) in mind, I have just two words for you:

 

ha ha

 

Smugly yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

FFF's reaction to decisive defeat of American ideals...

 

>I just woke up to discover that Bush won more votes than any

>other President{ial candidate} in history

 

So did Gore, fat lot of good it did him. What's most interesting to me is how different all the exit polls were. So people voted their fear and religious intolerance in the booth, then were too ashamed to admit to it right outside... unless, of course, the Diebold and other Republican manufactured machines weren't accurate, but that's never happened in a national election. Oh wait, yes it did, 2 years ago...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary/Obama '08!

 

Here's what we have to look forward to in the next 4 years due to Bush's re-election:

 

* An even larger budget deficit

 

* An even more conservative Supreme Court

 

* A rise in anti gay sentiment and legislation

 

* A growing quagmire in Iraq

 

* An increase in terrorist activity

 

* Growing anti-US sentiment across the globe

 

BUT considering just how much more Bush will seriously fuck this country in the next four years, there is one thing we will have to look forward to in '08:

 

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/11/03/04HILLARY_ent-lead__200x212.jpg

 

So I say to you, FFF: ha ha

 

Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama '08!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Hillary/Obama '08!

 

The conservatives will work with the President to reduce the deficit sharply, but cutting unnecessary expenses.

There will be a reduction in anit-gay sentiment now that the gay threat to the institution of marriage has been temporarily reduced.

Friends around the world will realize that Bush's Presidency is legitimate and that he intends to puruse the war on terror. The weakness created by the Democrat attempt to undermine the Presidency is over.

The President has been strengthened in his dealing with the terrorists and the Palestinians. OBL has indicated his desire for a truce, so even the war on terror is abating.

Tort reform will at long last be achieved.

Economic freedom will be increased for all Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a relief!

 

For a while there, I thought the Democrats might have to share some of the blame for the next four years of continuing disasters in the domestic economy, and world events.

 

But no -- all of the shame will go to the Republicans. Those without the blind faith required to follow their frightful leaders, can just sit back and watch as they fall off the cliff.

 

Let's hope they don't take too many innocent bystanders with them. Sure, a certain number of old people will die, for lack of medical care. A certain number of young people will die, at the hands of the Arabs whose lives we thought we could change simply by installing some Diebold machines. A certain number of unemployed will end up in homeless shelters, but they are cheaper to build now with imported construction materials.

 

Suffering will never be eliminated, even by Democrats, and it has always made for good poetry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Hillary/Obama '08!

 

>The conservatives will work with the President to reduce the deficit sharply, but cutting unnecessary expenses.

>There will be a reduction in anit-gay sentiment now that the gay threat to the institution of marriage has been temporarily reduced.

>Friends around the world will realize that Bush's Presidency is legitimate and that he intends to puruse the war on terror. The weakness created by the Democrat attempt to undermine the Presidency is over.

>The President has been strengthened in his dealing with the terrorists and the Palestinians. OBL has indicated his desire for a truce, so even the war on terror is abating.

>Tort reform will at long last be achieved.

>Economic freedom will be increased for all Americans.

 

and Michael Jackson is not a child molester

and Scott Peterson didn't kill his wife

and the Tooth Fairy is real

and fairy dust will make us fly

 

what are you smoking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of ridiculous fact is it that Bush "won more votes than any President in history"? Since the nation's population continues to grow, in any two candidate presidential race with a decent turnout, someone is going to win that title every four years. (Yes I know there was a third candidate in a few states, but he hardly mattered in this race.)

This is the kind of mullarkey Bush's evil genius Karl Rove puts out to impress those intellectual giants who get their news from ten second soundbites.

In fact Bush scraped by with a mere 51% of the vote which is no record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>In fact Bush scraped by with a mere 51% of the vote which is

>no record.

 

Yes, and it was not a "decisive" or "broad nationwide win" (as bush put it) either. He carried no states in the northeast, none on the west coast, and almost none in the industrial midwest. There is no mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>What kind of ridiculous fact is it that Bush "won more votes

>than any President in history"? Since the nation's population

>continues to grow, in any two candidate presidential race with

>a decent turnout, someone is going to win that title every

>four years. (Yes I know there was a third candidate in a few

>states, but he hardly mattered in this race.)

>This is the kind of mullarkey Bush's evil genius Karl Rove

>puts out to impress those intellectual giants who get their

>news from ten second soundbites.

>In fact Bush scraped by with a mere 51% of the vote which is

>no record.

 

In addition, they failed to point out that the votes that Kerry got are the largest number of votes AGAINST and incumbent president in the history of the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>It looks like that third-party candidate cost Kerry the

>victory in at least a couple of states.

 

Really?

 

Please name those states immediately. Since they're only two it should be easy.

 

One problem though: there isn't even ONE state that Kerry could have won if a third candidate hadn't been on the ballot.

 

If you're gonna complain, can you at least stick to this plane of reality and not the fevered swamp that Michael Moore inhabits?

 

Respectfully yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFF, I would be interested to know why you support Bush. I assume that you are a gay male (may be wrong).

 

I agree with Barney Frank and Diane Fienstein that the spate of gay marriages, especially in SF, helped to sink Kerry in Ohio. But, I am glad the mayor of SF went ahead anyway with the marriages -- even though I have no plans to get married myself. I respect what Clinton tried to do on gays in the military, despite the dust up policy that ended up satisfying no one. The right wing has no problem speaking up on their issues, we should do the same. I would be interested to read your opinion. It would be great if you would reply seriously, without a pro-Bush rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for Bush and am definately not ashamed. I am against much of what he stood for, BUT there was much more about his policies that I supported. Sorry, but I don't think Kerry was a strong enough president-to be, especially in this age of terrorism. And I am against the weak, socialist policies of Europe. Despite what Europe wants to think we ARE strong and their jealously shouldn't change us.

 

However, I do not think gays should butt their heads against the wall. You younger guys probably can't remember how much more acceptance we have since the sixties (obviously much more from earlier decades but that was earlier than even I can remember!).

 

Each generation is more socially liberal and yes gets more conservative once they age and have families. However they will never be like my parents generation (which will soon disappear). I know how we want it now. It won't happen now but it will.

 

And what good would it do us if some assholes from EVEN more fanatic religions try to end our society. Americans have always had balls and we have every right to defend ourselves. We have a president that has balls. We need to support our soldiers and win and in the the long run we will get our rights that are due us.

 

I realise must Gays won't (or refuse to) understand my logic but look at our long gay history. It doesn't come in a day, or a year. Yes we had Gay marriages rapidly - in a shock to all of us. It sounds so great and look what has happened. As I said my parents generation and maybe mine will disappear soon. The future can only look better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>FFF, I would be interested to know why you support Bush. I

>assume that you are a gay male (may be wrong).

 

yeah, I'm a cocksucker.

 

I supported Bush over Kerry because the #1 issue is the war against radical Islam.

 

If we don't get that right it will be impossible to get the other things right. If buses are blowing up, bombs are going off on the main floor of Macy's and school children are being massacred in Peoria, our economy will crater and cause a domino effect across the rest of the world. It's sort of like being filthy rich but not having your health. Who cares if you have money if you can't enjoy it. Who cares about gay marriage when they're killing us. Who gives a shit about what France thinks when they're putting cyanide in salt shakers.

 

The war on radical Islam is IT boys and girls.

 

When you asked Democrats what these "plans" were that Kerry was always touting, they could never say exactly what he would do. All I'd hear were platitudes about how he would repair the rift with our allies (meaning FRANCE), he'd fight it more "smartly", on and on. Listing all of his "positions" makes my hair hurt - we've heard them for months. However, when pressed about what he'd actually DO to accomplish these things, people would stomp off in exasperation. The reason no one could tell you what he'd actually DO was because HE never told America HOW he'd do it - just that he WOULD. I have faith in God, but I don't have faith in a man who voted again every single weapons system known to man (and please don't say "SO DID CHENEY!" The weapons Cheney voted against were AFTER the Cold War - not DURING it like Kerry), a man who voted AGAINST the first Gulf War (when we had the very type of coalition he screamed about us not having for Gulf War 2), a man who voted against the anti-Communist movement in South America, a man who served in Vietnam and then came home and slandered the men he left behind, a man who actually cares what the corrupt UN thinks......shall I go on?

 

Democrats knew all these things about Kerry but they didn't care because they hated Bush. They put they're own narcissism above the good of the nation. Democrats didn't have a position they could sell because they didn't have a position. Only anger and resentment.

 

Kerry wasn't a serious candidate for a serious time.

 

Is Bush perfect? No. I don't agree with everything he does. However, when it comes to the war on radical Islam, he's doing more right than wrong and looking at Kerry's record, it gave me no confidence that he could do it better.

 

In fact, under his management, I believe it would have only gotten worse.

 

Informatively yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gentle guy

>The war on radical Islam is IT boys and girls.

 

FFF,

 

I think you have a very valid point, although I would have put the economy as a co-number one issue (and I include health care as part of the economy). I am not sure that many people understand the dangers of radical Islam (you know, convert or die).

 

I have two main problems, though. One: Dubya and his people may recognize the danger, but I think they are going about it the wrong way. I feel that they are actually increasing the threat--maybe not the immediate threat, but the future threat. Two: This is a more philosophical objection, but Dubya and his religious right ilk truly are the Christian and Jewish mirror images of the Islamists. Fundamentalists are very similar, regardless of faith, and that makes me uneasy. VERY uneasy.

 

Ends do not necessarily justify means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why I vote Republican:

 

Much lower taxes (being in the top bracket which Bush helps so much, thank you Mr. President), so much more money for escorts, hustlers and other assorted ####.

 

No gay marriage, so no need to contemplate an 85 page pre-nup agreement like my sibs should I ever get completely mature and serious.

 

And most importantly, one of my best friends went into the South Tower, which as F3 correctly points out, is the only issue at the present time. They really should only allow people from New York, Boston and DC to vote for President these days.

 

Later.

 

PS. F3, on Wed morning when I got up and it was statistically impossible for Teresa's husband to win, I got a big ass grin on my face imagining what most of the posters on this site were feeling. I was all warm and fuzzy. Being a good Republican, I hate losing and love to see the other side seething.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Sorry, but I don't think Kerry was

>a strong enough president-to be, especially in this age of

>terrorism.

 

We certainly need someone to kill all the terrorist enemies that Bush has made with his adventure in Iraq.

 

And I am against the weak, socialist policies of

>Europe.

 

Like, for example, health care for the elderly and unemployed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Dubya and his people

>may recognize the danger, but I think they are going about it

>the wrong way.

 

 

Ok, then what's the RIGHT way? I keep hearing how he's doing it wrong but I NEVER hear what the RIGHT way is. Everyone is a backseat driver.

 

If you, or anyone else has a CONCRETE suggestion, and not vague sound bites, I'm all ears.

 

And, if one of the "right" ways is to get more "allies" involved, please tell me how to get those "allies" (read: France) involved.

 

Patiently yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gentle guy

>Ok, then what's the RIGHT way? I keep hearing how he's doing

>it wrong but I NEVER hear what the RIGHT way is. Everyone is a

>backseat driver.

>

>If you, or anyone else has a CONCRETE suggestion, and not

>vague sound bites, I'm all ears.

 

 

FFF,

 

I have been a regular voter for nigh onto 30 years (some of those years as a registered Republican), therefore I am no "backseat driver." As I understand voting, I AM driving.

 

As a voter, it is my obligation to vote for people who have ideas--vague or specific--with which I agree, and against people whose ideas I find wrong or abhorrent. Furthermore, as a citizen, one reason I pay taxes is to pay government officials who will devise appropriate ideas and policies.

 

I may not be certain what is the best way, but I certainly know what is a wrong way.

 

Civically and civilly yours.

gg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>And most importantly, one of my best friends went into the

>South Tower, which as F3 correctly points out, is the only

>issue at the present time.

 

Well, then you must have been thrilled when Bush said he wasn't really concerned about Osama Bin Laden and that he doesn't spend much time thinking about him, and when he invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...