« Nelson Mandela: Put Your Mouth Where the Money Is. | Home | Saddam and his Liberal American Allies »
Response To Punkvoter.com
By Matt Margolis | February 16, 2003
Not too long ago, I was made aware of a list that appeared on the website punkvoter.com called 15 Reasons Why You Should Hate The President.
The website recently posted its “three clear objectives”: ((1) To activate punks and other disenfranchised young people to participate in elections. (2) To vote Bush and the Republicans out of office, and (3) to build a coalition of informed voters who can individually and collectively influence public policy.
These objectives clearly show you the agenda of Punkvoter.com, but they show more than that. Punkvoter.com’s motives are not the pursuit of truth, but their collective contempt towards George W. Bush and all Republicans. Objectives 1 and 3 are contingent on objective 2. This explains the “15 Reasons Why You Should Hate The President” - a flawed attempt to influence the reader to despise President Bush and Republicans. Punkvoter.com would like you believe it is trying to create a coalition of “informed voters” - when in fact it is not. In an attempt to right a severe wrong done by Punkvoter.com, I have taken the site’s list called “15 Reasons Why You Should Hate The President”, done real research (which the author of the list clearly did not do) and have proved just how misleading, inaccurate, and sometimes blatantly false the author’s statements regarding President George W. Bush and his administration are.
The youth of American cannot be subjected to such leftist political diatribe anymore. They need to be shown that they are never getting the full story, or the truth from websites such as Punkvoter.com. People who author lists like “15 Reasons Why You Should Hate The President” only care about that 2nd Objective - and that to them is more important than the truth. They will twist and spin facts and make allegations to promote their beliefs and indoctrinate the impressionable minds of young people who they know will not take the time to research these statements like I did to find they have been duped.
Send this to your friends, and young people, and show them how Punkvoter.com and other sites like it have been lying to them.
1) He cut a half a BILLION dollars from the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget. Who needs to look after the environment when there’s all that oil drilling going on?
President George W. Bush’s federal budget proposal for the fiscal year 2002 to the U.S. Congress gave $7.3 billion to the Environmental Protection Agency operations and programs… which is $56 million MORE than President Bill Clinton requested in his 2001 budget.
Regarding the drilling, there would be nothing but benefits if we drilled for our oil. 1.5 million acres of the total 17.5 million total (which is only 8%) is being considered for development and less than 2000 acres of that 1.5 million will be affected if oil is discovered. The existence of oil pipelines in other regions of Alaska has actually helped the caribou population grow considerably.
2) He approved a bill that denies financial aid to students convicted of misdemeanor drug charges (though convicted murderers are still eligible for financial aid).
This is incorrect. This is referring to an amendment of the 1998 Higher Education Act that denied financial aid to students convicted of misdemeanor drug charges. Bill Clinton was president in 1998.
3) He recently sent a delegation to the UN children’s summit to declare that the use of condoms is not a valid way to fight AIDS and that abstinence is the only solution. This is the view shared by some other countries such as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and the Vatican. It seems that his policy of, “No child shall be left behind” has a whole new meaning.
According to the White House, the goal of Federal policy should be to emphasize abstinence as the only certain way to avoid both unintended pregnancies and STDs - which it undoubtedly is. The countries mentioned above are all countries with a state religion - religions that actually prohibit the use of contraceptives. This example only attempts to suggest the Bush’s policy is similar to that of countries who actually enforce religion on it citizens, and use violence as a means of enforcement. Bush’s policy merely stresses the fact that abstinence is the only 100% sure way to prevent STDs and pregnancy … the policy of the other countries is that the use of contraceptive devices is prohibited - these are drastically different policies.
4) He wouldn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol agreement on global warming, which was ultimately signed by 178 other countries. He also told the entire European community that he would listen to their arguments, but he would not change his mind, effectively treating Europe like an 8 year old child. This may have something to do with why most of the world hates the US.
First, only 84 out of a total of 123 countries signed the treaty. And as of February 24, 2003, less than 60 have actually ratified it. Can anyone trust the legitimacy of this entire list when the author invents 55 countries?
Next: Not participating in the Kyoto Treaty was not a new policy of the Bush administration, but rather a continued policy of the Clinton Administration - which sat on the Treaty for 3+ years after the conference. Since taking office, President Bush has stated his reasons for not accepting the treaty, which includes the exemption of China and India (two major population centers) from compliance with the treaty.
Also, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying the treaty. It’s rather unfair to blame President Bush when the Senate would have had to approve it first.
Amongst other things, CONSAD Research Corporation concluded that if the USA ratified and implemented Kyoto: it would drive up prices on all consumer goods, 3.1 million would lose their jobs The U.S. standard of living will decrease as working families are forced to reduce consumption of goods and services in every major category-including food, energy, and health care.
Not only would the Kyoto Treaty cripple the United States economy if we ratified it, according to many experts, would not have any positive effects on the environment.(9)
5) He rejected an international accord to enforce the 1972 treaty banning germ warfare. Of course that would mean that the US would have to stop producing biological agents too.
In a unanimous review by the Bush Administration’s interagency team regarding this treaty, they concluded that the current version of the protocol would be inefficient in stopping cheating, and that all its deficiencies could not be remedied by the negotiating deadline.
6) And talk about the fox watching over the hen house, he nominated former mining company executive Dan Lauriski as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
Would you rather have Bush nominate someone with no experience in that field? Would you hire a doctor to defend you in court, or hire a lawyer to do open heart surgery on you?
7) He allocated only 3% of the amount requested by Justice Department lawyers in the governments continued litigation against tobacco companies.
The particular lawsuit in question here sought billions of dollars to cover the cost of treating sick smokers through federal health insurance programs. Which basically means that smokers think that Phillip Morris Co. and other tobacco companies should be paying for their health costs because they chose to smoke. This is grossly unjust. People have been well aware of the health risks involved in smoking tobacco products for many, many years and this is merely an attempt of extorting money from these companies.
He prohibited any financial aid from going to international family planning organizations that provide abortion counseling, referrals, or services with their own funds.
For the sake of consistency, how can the pro-abortion movement tell the government that their body “is their business” but then demand government money pay for their abortions? If abortion is not a government issue, then government money (a.k.a. taxpayer dollars) should not go towards funding them.
9) He provided every member of the Bin Laden family living in the U.S. a chartered plane shortly after 9/11 to fly back home to Saudi Arabia without questioning them. One of GW’s first petroleum ventures was partnered with the Bin Laden family and George Sr. has been getting filthy rich selling defense contracts to the Bin Ladens. These are just some examples of the many ties the Bush family has with the Bin Ladens.
This is referring to Bush’s connections with The Carlyle Group, a buyout firm, one of the nation’s largest defense contractors, based in Washington, D.C., which does have investors from Saudi Arabia, including Shafig bin Laden, one of Osama’s many brothers. Besides the fact that the bin Laden family has “disowned” Osama, they have also severed ties with The Carlyle Group, and the company has also given the bin Laden family back about two million dollars which they had invested. These connections are exaggerated and do not connect the Bush family or anyone else to terrorism.
10) He officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.
Two countries signed this treaty 30 years ago. Only one of those countries still exists today. Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, this treaty was in effect null and void. Further, the treaty prevented the United States from developing technology to PROTECT ITSELF from a missile attack. One of the jobs of the President of the United States is to be our Commander-In-Chief, which means he has an obligation to protect the citizens of America. With several countries wanting to attack us, or gaining the ability to attack us with air to ground missiles and/or nuclear weapons, (Iraq, N. Korea, & China, for example) would it not be irresponsible for a President to ensure our country is prepared for a possible missile attack on our country?
11) Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001.
President Bill Clinton was the one who refused to sign the 1997 Treaty banning APMs.
12) September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa.
The White House and the State Department specifically objected to two proposals of the conference, put forth by African and Arab nations, which politicized the conference. The first being “reparations for slavery” from America and other Western nations; the other condemned Zionism as “racist.”(14)
13) Over the past 10 years, the US prison population has more than doubled. This is mainly due to unfair three strikes laws, and harsher drug penalties. OK so maybe W. wasn’t behind this one, but the Republicans are.
The “Three Strikes Law” was a provision under the 1994 Crime Bill Act, which was passed by Congress (including a Democrat controlled Senate) and signed by President Clinton. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with this provision, it’s quite difficult to blame this one on the Republicans isn’t it?
Also, In the year 2000, drug related crimes accounted for only 11% of all arrests (Table 29). The allegation that harsher drug laws had any significant affect on the US prison populations is completely absurd. In fact, drug related arrests went down from 1999-2000 (p. 217). An estimated 1,042,334 drug related arrests were made in 2000, while in 1999 there were 1,557,100.
14) International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US was the only one to oppose it.
This summit is not much different then the Kyoto protocol. The Bush Administration is not opposed to anyone using “cleaner energy” for anyone who may choose to consume cleaner energy - but the Bush Administration feels it is irresponsible to impose it regardless of the cost to consumers. President Bush has also advocated the development of new technologies to address the issue cleaner energy.
Aside from that, the methods of “cleaner energy” include wind, water and solar energy. To generate energy from these sources requires the building of dams, covering undisturbed hillsides with windmills and solar panels - which aren’t “clean” solutions by definition of many environmentalists.
15) George replied, “Ken who?” when asked about his relationship with Kenneth Lay, the CEO of Enron, during the federal bankruptcy hearings. This was after Enron gave him their company jet to use for his presidential campaign. George and Kenny were such good friends that Ken was actually seen giving wedgies to the president in the oval office. Yet he still replied, “Ken who?”
The point of this appears to be to link President Bush with Kenneth Lay? somehow suggesting there is a damaging connection between the two. Clearly the fact is ignored that the Bush Administration chose not to bail out Enron during its troubles. Also, if a relationship between Bush and Lay is up for criticism, does the author of this list condemn Bill Clinton for taking a $100,000 donation from Enron in 1993? What about the high level executives of Enron who were also were invited to the Clinton White House? The scandal-ridden Enron had closer to ties to the Clinton Administration and the DNC than to the Bush Administration. Aside from the many improprieties of the Enron-Clinton connection, Enron gave its largest single donation ever (which was over $100,000) to the Democrats in 1995.
Topics: The Right Idea |
Related Posts:
October 13th, 2003 at 1:08 pm
I want to know how you can defend a man that is so ignorant. He goes to war half way avroos the world to fight terrorists but what about the terrorists in this country? We have anti- government militias, gangs, and not to mention the neo nazis among many other groups that are no better then Saddam or Bin Laden. Why not take care of the home front first?
October 13th, 2003 at 1:50 pm
So Kate,
Are you suggesting combating terrorism abroad is not a problem worthy of our attention? Is it irresponsible of the United States to have any foreign policy at all?
One of the main setbacks in fighting the war on terror here at home is left wing wackos who choose to dismantle any means which our government can effectively fight terrorism.
November 27th, 2003 at 4:25 pm
Answering Bush Critics
Another thing I’m thankful for, this season, is the ability to read interesting, and informative responses to attempts to discredit the Bush Administration and to misinform potential voters: A weblogger named Matt Margolis recently took on a website c…
January 25th, 2004 at 2:56 am
You try to discredit criticism by saying they are “left wing wackos”, when this people is PROMOTING VOTE. That, as I see, is nothing but logical. And, is really BOMBING WHOLE COUNTRIES the way to fight terrorism? The short view of Bush is shown in the early attempts of creating a missile shield for the USA before 9/11. I´d like to say more… but i know you won´t read it, because, as I see it, you are nothing but fanatics… the same as the ones that attacked America 9/11. You are living in the most powerful country in the world, and I think you should try to use that power in better ways. Don´t let your government fool you, FEAR IS A POWERFUL WEAPON, and I think Bush is using it to do whatever he wants.
January 31st, 2004 at 3:51 pm
Its good to see that not everyone is completly uninformed on world issues.It really gets under my skin how so many people under the age of 30 (esspecialy in the “punk” community) just have to hate Bush because its “cool” to do so. I wish more people would learn the facts before blatently deciving others just to promote thier own hate filled agendas.
February 3rd, 2004 at 2:05 am
To begin with I feel that Bush is not the right guy for the job, and that he does not represent the majority of america. I’m in no way a punk/goth/emo etc…I’m Mike. However I feel that the debate that is going on is great, because this is a democracy and debate is the fuel that it needs. When I say Bush is a Nazi, I’m not saying it because it is cool, I’m saying it because he is a part of history that has done nothing stop war, poverty, or racism, the list can go on of all the negative aspects of life that he keeps alive. Anyways, that is my two cents I’m going to do Statistics homework. bye bye.
February 3rd, 2004 at 6:06 pm
Matt,
It is great to see someone put some thought and research into their responses! Thanks for clarifying.
February 4th, 2004 at 2:44 am
So Mike, can you explain how Clinton stopped war? Was Kosovo a way to stop it? What about Somalia, did that stop it in 1993 when that religion of peace decided to bomb the WTC from the bottom?
What about proverty? Did Clinton help it any when he allowed OSHA to expand their regulations that made it more economical to send business over seas? What about those old people eating Alpo? Did Clinton help them to get out of proverty by allowing Social Security to be taxed?
Did Clinton help Racism against Jews by rewarding the Palestinians with the promise of land and the possibility of more land by bombing little children and grandmothers?
Did the left in Enland help stop war and proverty by selling out to Hitler for peace?
Did the left stop war and proverty in Vietnam? Well, they stopped war, but unfortunately proverty is still a big issue in Vietnam.
And if you think the killing was bad during the Vietnam war, maybe you should read a book called: The Black book of Communism.
More were killed in the region by Communists in the 3 years after Vietnam, than in all 15 years of war. Source: BBOC
Just in case you want the abridged version:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED012696b.cfm
Remember the Left is not representing Freedom, but Socialism. A very small degree of difference between Communism. What makes us think it will be peaceful, let alone work this time.
February 4th, 2004 at 10:59 am
War has never solved anything, except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism, and communism. History is such a good teacher.
February 4th, 2004 at 12:28 pm
On reaon #9, concerning Bush flying the Bin Ladens out of the country after 9/11, the author never denies that Bush flew them out of the country because IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. He also doesn’t address the Bin Laden family putting up money for W’s first oil company, Arbusto. THEY DID.
Having some Bin Laden DNA sure would come in handy for identifing his remains.
Also, with #7, the author of this critique seems to think that companies who sell addictive drugs that kill people should not be held accountable for fixing the mess they’ve made. If a product creates a disease that compels it’s user to continue using, then abstinence from it is no longer a matter of consumer choice. It’s a matter of medical treatment and it’s perfectly fair to make tobacco companies pay for it.
February 6th, 2004 at 12:26 pm
I’ve always considered “punk” as more of an attitude than a particular style of music. Punk, to me, has been about nonconformity, going against the grain, not taking shit from anyone…. And now, all of a sudden, so-called punk artists have taken a political stand? “15 Reasons Why You Should Hate The President”??? Give me a break! First of all, since when did punks (and I use this term lightly cuz there are legitimate punk rockers out there) cared about factual-based politics? (Yes, I said factual-based politics.) Anyone can make an opinion on important matters such as war, abortion, affirmative action and so on, but can anyone back up their opinions objectively using hard facts and not through a biased, emotionally-driven, liberal-filtered view of the world? I’ve always admired anyone that is willing to question anything and everything, but having a punk-flavored campaign that encourages hate more than it encourages the pursuit of truth AND historical facts — that’s just hypocritical. There’s hypocrisy on both sides of the political spectrum, but the liberal-minded (Democrats) seem to excel in it.
February 6th, 2004 at 1:06 pm
By being all about “non-conformity”, they have become a movement of conformists.
February 7th, 2004 at 2:46 pm
It’s nice to see these far-left loons get called out on their bulls***. I’m sick and tired of seeing one viewpoint spread about. You know, postings like this one make me glad I served in the Iraq war.
And… if you’re thinking about voting for John Kerry for president, read this about the so-called “Great, Patriotic American”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/7/125509.shtml
February 12th, 2004 at 12:03 am
I’m very glad to see that you are not biased against religion.
“did that stop it in 1993 when that religion of peace decided to bomb the WTC from the bottom?”
referring to Muslim extremists…. but blanketing the label of terrorist to cover the entire religion of Islam.
February 16th, 2004 at 4:00 pm
I see that you deleted my post that was completely fact-based and not at all flaming you. Very brave, little man.
February 16th, 2004 at 4:12 pm
What a cowardly thing to do, to just dodge the issue and delete Gary’s comments. What, is your argument so weak that some random internet person can easily defeat them? And are they so invalid that your only response is to delete his valid remarks?
You have to cover the facts, just like George Bush. That must be why you care so much for him and his policies. I consider myself to be very conservative, but even I can see that he is the worst president we’ve ever had.
Go ahead and delete my comments. Go ahead and ban me. I’ll never visit this site again, as you say, “No skin off my back”, but know that you are a craven coward that can’t handle any sort of challenge whatsoever, just like George Bush.
February 16th, 2004 at 4:23 pm
Gary’s comment was removed for a few reasons.. Citing facts was not one of them. He gave his opinion on some issues, and attacked the President for having an alleged low IQ - where the number Gary gave comes from an unfounded assumption that has since been disproven.
Gary’s comment was generally nonsensical. He clearly had no intention of having a reasonable discussion, but a mission to bash the President using cliche liberal talking points based on nothing.
Ikana, don’t try and pull the “I’m a conservative” line and then spew out that “Bush is the worst President ever,” crap…
That’s means as much to me as me telling you that I’m a hardcore liberal Democrat should mean to you.
February 16th, 2004 at 11:52 pm
So, in your opinion, a true conservative can’t have a low opinion about Bush?
I had every intention of having a reasonable discussion. I was ready and willing for you to give a decent rebuttal to what I had written, although you gave none. Instead, you simply deleted it, refusing to allow other readers to think about what I had written. How mature.
I don’t understand how someone can honestly and truthfully support the President for any other reason besides the fact that they are a Republican. That is the most idiotic reason that I can possibly think of for supporting someone: simply because of what political party they are from. I don’t think you can argue with this point: the negative affects that Bush has had on the USA and the world far outweigh any positive affects.
February 16th, 2004 at 11:59 pm
You’re already showing lack of any interest in reasonable debate because you’re trying to frame this entire debate around your opinion that Bush’s negatives already outweigh his positives… You’re trying to set your viewpoint an objective fact.
Forget it, you’re not worth talking to…
February 17th, 2004 at 2:11 am
I’m not trying to set my viewpoint as an objective fact, as you say. I was inviting you to list some actual positive things that Bush has done. We’ve all read the long lists of negatives that he has done, and I was wondering if there were any positives. If so, it shouldn’t be hard for you to find them and show them to the readers here. This was all simply to back up my comment about how some of the Bush supporters only support him because he is a Republican, or because they are utter nationalists. Those people don’t support him based on his deeds, and I view that as a problem. Our leaders should be strong, well-opinionated, intellectual, and wise. I do not feel that Bush fulfills this criteria that I hold. I feel that he is doing the American public a failing job, and that there are far-better suited candidates for such a prominent position. This is why I find it so insulting and disgusting that some people support him based solely on their own nationalism and political affiliation. I am not saying that those are your reasons, or that they aren’t. Honestly, I don’t know why you support Bush, which, again, is why I brought up how I feel that the negatives outweigh the positives. I can see that you support him very avidly, and I’d be interested to hear why.
February 18th, 2004 at 12:28 pm
well… i haven’t yet gone through all of them… but either you’ve made a mistake or you’ve lied… your first source, i.e. refering to Bush’s “$7.3 billion to the Environmental Protection Agency operations and programs” does actually not state that fact. Actually intrestingly enough, it doesn’t actually state Bush’s name throughout it. So if the left-wing people are misinformed and you are trying to correct them… wouldn’t it be a lot more profound to correct them with factual information?
February 18th, 2004 at 12:40 pm
Oh, I see, so the budget lied….
Listen, all you need to do is compare the budgets and do a little math.
February 18th, 2004 at 12:57 pm
i can’t… i don’t have adobe acrobat, but i’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt:) but i’m sure if you also did the math you would see that Bush’s deficit is a record low. Also i don’t understand why you deleted Gary’s post. Everyone here is voicing their opinion. And isn’t it slightly hypocritical that in your opinion he’s comments were “liberal cliches”, so you deleted them?
February 18th, 2004 at 3:43 pm
I’ve already explained why Gary’s first post was deleted. People who don’t seem to be interested in reasonable discussion will see their comments removed. i need not justify myself anymore.
February 21st, 2004 at 5:31 am
“I never back down from a debate with a liberal. As futile as they may be, I find even the most pointless debate with a liberal to have entertaining and educational value.”
-Matt Margolis
“…Forget it, you’re not worth talking to…”
-Matt Margolis
Can you say hypocrisy? You make a claim like the one above, and then you go completely out of your way to avoid my “futile”, “pointless” liberal conversation. Way to go.
P.S., in the future, try not to use the sickening amount of stereotypes towards liberals that you use all over these web pages… it will make you look MUCH more intelligent. Stereotypes are never true and just make the person using them look like a moron.
February 23rd, 2004 at 5:59 pm
“Would you rather have Bush nominate someone with no experience in that field? Would you hire a doctor to defend you in court, or hire a lawyer to do open heart surgery on you? ”
The comparison you make is completely irrelevant. Yes, Dan Lauriski knows the business, but he also knows that by cutting safety laws, and health regulations he can cut costs for all mining companies. Anmore accurate comparison would be, would you rather have a security guard watching your house, or a convicted felon.
February 25th, 2004 at 11:17 am
The one thing the extreme left never comes to terms with, while flinging about the term ‘fascist’and ‘Nazi’, is that Hitler and Stalin were both SOCIALISTS. It was called NATIONAL SOCIALISM. While the fascist socialism, based on nationalist racism and genocide, was defeated, the OTHER SOCIALISM, based on class hatred and genocide, flourished for many years with lots of high ranking members of the U.S. and European governemnts cheering them along. So if you tell me you are aginst racism and intolerance but that we should eat the rich, you’re exchanging one hatred for another. This is how thirteen million people died under Stalin, while the intellectuals of this country and Europe gave their open endorsement to him, distorted facts, and lamabasted as paranoid and cretinous anybody who dared oppose their views. Imagine if it was found out that there were openly NAZI members of the US government over the last thirty years. Would anybody have stood for it? Yet left politicians openly defended and endorsed the views of the other socialist mass murderer. This type of distortion is nothing new, kids. It’s the status quo.
February 25th, 2004 at 6:55 pm
I just wanted to say thank you for a breath of fresh air. I find myself in the position of rehabilitating my liberals friends through education using facts and figures. Some of them refuse to hear the truth and throw up the wall of no communication. The majority of the things they say to me are opinions. For example, “No War for Oil!” We didn’t have one. We only get 26% of our imported oil from Middle East, that includes all of the Middle East, not just Iraq. We get most of our oil from Mexico and Canada. We refused to purchase oil from Iraq for almost 5 years following the first Gulf War as part of a UN embargo. Clinton agreed to begin buying oil from Iraq again in a effort to please the UN that wanted to implement a Food for Oil program, which ultimately did nothing for the “people”, but helped Saddam build a bigger army and those beautiful palaces. We give “billions” in aid to foreign governments every year who never have to repay it and at the same time spit in our faces. Look up the World Bank. I’ve been tiffed by this for years, but recently, Amen, Bush is going to cut aid to governments who are anti-democratic and have high records of Human Rights violations. We will increase aid to countries who have a good Human Rights record and in general have a democratic form of government. This a positive step. I can’t see anyone disagreeing with this for any good reason. People claim the world hates us, not true. You judge a country by how many people are trying to get in and how many are trying to get out. I wish that the youth in this country would truly appreciate what they have. I have many friends and family from the Middle and Near East, Lebanon, Armenia, Iran, and India who constantly praise all that we have and agree that God has truly blessed us. We have rights that many people can’t even fathom. Use it or lose it people! I am blessed to be here. I would not be an engineer rowing my own boat if I was born most other places on this planet. I would be uneducated, most likely pregnant with my 6th or 7th kid, unable to vote or have any sort of life outside of my husband’s desire. God Bless America!
February 26th, 2004 at 11:51 am
I find it shocking that Mr. Robertson is posting messages here trying to state that he was just trying to “understand” the reasons why Conservatives support President Bush. Is that how he poses his questions in his Economics classes?? NO! There are no questions, just statements such as, “Bush is an f’ing idiot and if you support him, you are too.” Sound familiar? Yeah, you said it in my class. How about some other notable remarks spewed out by Mr. Robertson. Do any of you know who killed Kennedy? According to our Econ. Prof it was the Republican Party of course! How about the true nature of the WTC attacks, remember stating that there was an explosion from the inside that brought down the towers? Or how about my favortie Robertson musing yet, remember that story ran in the AQ times about Arnold’s run for Governor and the alleged sexual harrassment scandal? How did Mr. Roberston respond to the article? One would think with some form of deep and insightful liberal retort. NOPE! His letter to the female writer stated that she should be sexually harrassed by every man on campus so that she will know what it feels like. What kind of well formed, intellectual, factual debate is that starting? Your comments were censured there for being completely out of good taste. Being censured is something you should be used to Mr. Robertson, as I am sure it has happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future, as long as your capacity for rational thought is non-existent. If you are to post messages here then I implore you to write what you really think. If you are going to force your students to be indoctrinated instead of educated then by all means let everyone know of your true beliefs. And never, EVER criticize someone for using party rhetoric when not only do you use it, but you teach uninformed students with it.
February 26th, 2004 at 6:35 pm
I just habe to say that it’s about time someone said something. All these people sit out here and say what Bush has done wrong. Well, think about what he’s done right.
February 27th, 2004 at 7:47 am
Hi I’m from Switzerland
I think it’s time that Europe does something against the force-abuse by your country. As the EU gets stronger and stronger (and bigger) the time will come soon!
I wanted to say something about your “fighting the terrorists is good” mentality. You have nothing to do in other countries and others have nothing to do in yours - that’s clear. Do you never ask your self why so many countries hate the USA? It’s not beceause your so rich and all others are poor (=not jealousy) - no that can’t be the trouth because my country is far richer than the USA and the word Bush is just like a swearword here. The reason is that Bush wants to control everything - and nobody wants to be controllend by a foreign force. Countries like switzerland and the whole EU are strong enough (at least since a few years) to say no! We don’t want your way of live - we have our own! But there are countries that are to weak to say that. They need the money and are pushed down by the western world (above all from the USA) all the time - that creates fear and anger and you know: If you make an arabian-man angry - he doesn’t speak much, he acts - sometimes very hard. That’s how the 9/11 happened and it will happen again if you don’t change your way how you treat the world. More attacs against your country will come and you will loose your friends in the world. So you get weaker and weaker. So the solution for freedom is not - please now you must have understood it - war, bombs, dead man, children, women, animals and plants! That makes the hate stronger against your country. The solution is: We let you live and you let us live. America and its system is just for the people who invented it (at least for most of them) and not for the world! Every country has its own system. Respect is the key to the freedom!!!!!
February 27th, 2004 at 5:00 pm
3,000 of our countrymen and women died. We saw a threat. We took it out. But thanks for hating our country.
“Respect is the key to the freedom!!!!!”
Maybe you should think about your words.
February 29th, 2004 at 6:27 am
I’m wondering why you refuse to address the problem/question at hand and point out some “researched fact” from the clinton admin. Clinton is certainly no great or remarkable leader, but to lump democrats together and convey to us (the audience), that you aparently think that clinton was our knight in shining armor, and he could do no wrong, only contradicts the argument you are trying to make. Because the fact is, most people know Clinton wasn’t tremendously great, however, any repub or dem cann’t deny the economic gains and national debt reduced during the 90s. I am a young man and haven’t been around the political block yet, but it seems to me, from my study of history, that people, societies, and worldly social interaction, are headed for a humanistict care and repect for our friends and neighbors, regardless of the current world superpower’s actions. I must admit is fun to have an intelligent, motivated columnist rebute polically and discredit those whom you are opposed, and to reply. But you are a dieing breed, and most people who think for themselves see your efforts as futile and for lack of a better term “grabbing at straws”. Lucky for you there are lots of people out there that are warm and smugg in there safe white suburban neighborhoods who find comfort in what you say. However, in case you haven’t noticed, the baby boomer generation who were raised by the WWII vets and survivors is coming to retirement age, and most of the kids they had(my friends and I), were raised by TV and the internet, both places not fostering to right wing points of view. The reason for this is the baby boomers took every thing for granted, they were the first to be raised with the US as the end all, be all of the world, and choose not to instill their offspring with the same pseudopatiatism that they were broght up with. The result is a massive demographic equal to if not exceeding the baby boomers themselves. And as life comes, life goes, and this country (and world) will evermore take a position left of the current one. My intent is not to badger or point fingers or place blame, much less name calling. The bottom line is the point that people who are more left think of other people before they think of themselves, and those more right think of themselves before they do other people. And thou personal gain and self-interest are appealing to the self, in our world of social interaction, the greater good is obviously paramount, and the realization of this is your greastest enemy. I wish you well and hope you are content in your life, because no matter how much you want to deny it, that’s all you have, is your life. -Chris
February 29th, 2004 at 7:52 am
To “Sucks for you”: “thanks for hating our country”.
No please! Nobody hates America here in my country - it’s the Bush administration who makes us angry! Don’t get me wrong we have a lot of americans here because of the globalisation! What I wrote is just politicaly ment and not personally to all americans. In fact I love the open hearted mentality of all americans I met in my life. Bush doesn’t stand for your whole country - he’s just one man with a lot of force and most people here don’t like him. That’s why we want o fight him and not America! His actions affects us too ad if we don’t want it that way, we do something against it. I hope you understand me now.
February 29th, 2004 at 5:16 pm
Chris,
I think you are wrong. I am not smug and safe in my suburban neighborhood. My parents were not educated. Young people are turned on the ideologies of Socialism and Communism and swear by them, but as more of them are educated and grow more mature, they realize those ideologies are pipe dreams. They cannot exist in this reality, history has shown us this time and time again. I am young and educated and highly conservative. My friends are too. Some are not, but when I debate with them, they realize they can’t back up any of their talk with facts. Then they usually resort to name-calling and walk away. That is what children do. One of my friends though admitted finally that I was just more informed than him and left it at that. Props to him. The majority of my friends are not the children of baby boomers, they are poor, uneducated, repressed immigrants from the Middle East. They swear by this system. They praise God every day for the blessing of being here. I think the Internet fosters whatever you want to learn about, it is the best Capitalistic invention ever. I’m sorrt you were raised by the TV and Internet, I was raised by my parents and my community. You assume Conservatives care nothing for others, you are soooo far off. How much do you give to your church? How many children do you sponsor overseas? How many days a week do you volunteer at the Children’s Cabinet or Homeless Shelter? You are a hyprocrite, as are we all, no one but Christ is perfect. Open your eyes! All I have is not just my life by the way. That is the most selfish thing I have ever heard. I have so much more. I have a soul that belongs to God. I have a responsibility to live as the Lord intended. I also have the responsibilty to make this world a better, safer place for my children if I am blessed with them. This is the best system on earth. There is a better system though, read the New Testament, Jesus explains how to get there. I’ll pray for you in the mean time as I do all my fellow youth who are trying to destroy this great country of ours. Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.
March 2nd, 2004 at 6:42 pm
Thomy -
I understand what you’re trying to say but I have to disagree with some of your points. If I understand you correctly, your objection to the Bush administration’s actions amount to a) disagreement over the need for war and b) irritation at the USA’s taking unilateral action rather than obtaining the support of our alleged European allies. I feel compelled to point out that since it is primarily American force that preserves freedom in the world, it falls upon America to make the hard choices. We do not have the luxury of believing the world can “live and let live” with totalitarian regimes like Iraq or North Korea (or, for that matter, the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany). Nor do we have the luxury of fooling ourselves that war is never the answer. In the 1930s there was plenty of opportunity for the rest of Europe to step in and quash Hitler before he became unstoppable, but Europe (and England specifically) relied on treaties and appeasement instead, following a “live and let live” and “war is not the answer” policy, and look where it got you. Sometimes war is necessary, even if it means a small pre-emptive action to prevent a much larger and bloodier conflict later. As for the unilateral action, again, as the main enforcer of the free world, it is the USA’s responsibility to step up to the plate and do what needs to be done, even if it means we become unpopular, if the alternative is to be dragged by our “allies” into the same appease-and-ignore policy that has failed so consistently in the past. It would be NICE to believe we could sign a treaty with, say, North Korea and have them honor it. But that’s a fool’s bargain; the incentive is entirely on North Korea to cheat and pull ahead in arming, and the evidence is that they do exactly that. Treaties, like laws, are no good unless they’re backed up with force, and that is exactly what the USA was doing in Iraq - responding to Iraq’s noncompliance with the promised force, in spite of our so-called allies caving in. And why was that, anyway? France and Russia made the biggest stink about it, and what a coincidence, both of them had a lot of trade going on with the Hussein regime, trade that they would lose if that regime fell. Should the USA have stood by and allowed Hussein to continue his reign of terror just so France and Russia could keep a customer? I don’t always agree with Mr. Bush, and I probably won’t vote for him this time around, but I think the USA did the right thing and made the hard choices on Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe history will see it that way too once the dust settles.
March 17th, 2004 at 12:17 pm
why is it that punkvoter.com has no place to contact the moderators or anything to tell them that they’re wrong? it’s like they’re not even open for suggestion…
March 17th, 2004 at 1:14 pm
A conservative punk…somewhat oxymoronic (no?). The definition of “punk” is “the expression of growing up with the ability of questioning ones environment,” that is clearly the opposite of “conservative”. A real punk would NEVER subscribe him or herself entirely to one political ideology, but rather, think and reason for themselves. I have much more to say, however, in my experiences of dealing with Republicans, calm intelligent debates turn into the Right Winger getting severely out of hand. E-mail me if you can keep yourself in check.
March 17th, 2004 at 1:34 pm
One more thing, a response to number 27 by David. You attack the Left by citing Hitler and Stalin as Socialists. You are completely and utterly wrong. Hitler was a National Socialist (which in itself is an oxymoron), and Stalin was a Communist (not a socialist. Also, if you had ever taken the initiative to research political ideological philosophies you would realize what I realized on my own, when I was fifteen years old (I am now sixteen), the Left and Right only exist to a certain extent, the structure of political ideologies is actually a circle, not a line. By the way, Hitler and Stalin both imprisoned, tortured and killed trade unionists, not very socialist.
March 17th, 2004 at 3:55 pm
I understand that most of you seem to support Bush, that is painfully evident. I have seen the school system plummet and watched good students fall from standardized testing due to the NCLB act. Good men and women die in search of weapons that were not to be found. So, seeing where your president’s priorities relay lay. (Not for the good of the nation) why continue to give him your blind support?
March 23rd, 2004 at 3:09 pm
One thing that kind of bothers me about this board is the implementing of CLINTON into arguments.
“Bush is a Nazi!!!!!!!!”
“So, Clinton attacked Kosavo”
Where did Clinton come into this? I don’t like Bush. Does that mean I automatically love Clinton? Are they direct kneejerk reactions of eachother? No. So stop arguing Bush’s faults by paralelling them with Clinton. He is not an effective way of disproving Bush’s shortcomings. I just proves that Bush has done NOTHING to improve a country that apparently “CLinton fucked up.”
March 27th, 2004 at 9:27 pm
Leif,
I understand your frustration. But I think it fair to point out that Clinton did do these things. The reason people are pointing it out is that the people who are coming down on Bush now gave Clinton a free ride when he messed up in the same way. Its called hypocracy.
Mind you that the same Republicans who cleaned Clintons clock are letting Bush slide now, so it is just politics as usual.
Just some cases in point;
Clinton used bad intellegence and proceded to blow up Asprin factories and Chinese Embassies in afganistan - lots of innocent died in that. Left gave him a free ride. Right rheemed him.
Bush overthrows Iraqi government based on bad intelligence - lots of innocent died. Right gives him a free ride. Left is eating him alive.
Clinton signs the most dramatic welfare reform package in 20 years. If a Republican president had done so, the left would have crucified him.
Bush increases deficit spending to its highest levels in 20 years. If a Democratic president had do so, we’d still be hearing about his spending gone amuck rhetoric.
Its just more of the same. There is no real difference between them other than like someone pointed out above, they’re two different teams playing the same game. Its just we all take sides. I think, secretly, they all get together when we aren’t looking and laugh at us.
March 27th, 2004 at 10:43 pm
Hey you should check out this guys website. http://www.jasonlvandyke.com
he wrote a ignorant article criticizing PunkVoter also saying that they insult punk fans. what a crock! I haven’t checked back there but someone said his article was now linked on the front of his page.
April 28th, 2004 at 12:35 pm
I just wanted to say that I agree with the comments made by Forge.
“Its just more of the same. There is no real difference between them other than like someone pointed out above, they’re two different teams playing the same game. Its just we all take sides.”
I just have to laugh at the amount of juvenile finger-pointing (by various supporters or the politicians themselves)that goes on in any election year. No matter what the party, there will always be detractors and the nit-picking that follows the end of an administration. There are no absolutes, in anything. In the end, it doesn’t matter so much what I support but that I was able to exercise my right to do so and *not* to force my objectives on others. I’ve come to realize that I have no right to tell others how to live or pray or be happy, nor would I presume to.
There is an oft used, and often snickered at (usually in a whiney tone), quote that says “Why can’t we all just get along?”- as I am at work I’m not able to research in depth as to who gets credit for it. Still, as I’m young enough to remember my hopeful ideals and mature enough to know that I’ll never see them in my lifetime, I think I can provide an answer. Simply put; We can’t, we’re human.
I’m not naive enough to believe in world-peace, or even peace within my own country. Instead, I’ll just continue to listen to my Mother and ‘take everything with a grain of salt’, political or otherwise. I’ll play in the dirt with my kids and teach them to be respectful of all people, not just a majority. And I’ll be forever grateful that I live in a country that’s open to debate, even if we do sometimes end up squabbling like children.
April 29th, 2004 at 2:30 pm
Matt,
This is a great article. We weren’t even aware of “Rock Against Bush” or PunkVoter until we came across the CD in Best Buy. We wrote an article, , about it an linked up your site as a reference. Keep up the good work.
Beth and Terry
April 29th, 2004 at 2:52 pm
Bryan,
Why do you come down on NCLB so hard? This is another myth from the left.
Here are the common NCLB myths from Franken and perpetuated by the likes of Michael Moore:
1. “President Bush budgeted only $1 billion for Title One”.
This is a flat out lie. President Bush’s Title I budget allocations were $9.06 billion in 2002, $11.35 billion in 2003 and $12.35 billion in 2004. If you do the math yourself you will see that the $1 billion figure is the difference in spending between 2003 and 2004. Franken’s claim that Bush budgeted $1 billion should clearly read that this is an increase in Title I spending and should not be characterized as the total amount of the Title I budget. We are pretty sure that this is not an innocent error by Al the dummy.
2. “Congress authorized a $5.6 billion increase in Title One spending for low-income children”.
Wrong. The No Child Left Behind Act does not authorize or force congress to spend any specific funding amount. The law authorizes congress to spend funds “as may be required” to implement the reforms authorized by the act. The authorization levels in the act for Title I and Reading First are spending caps only. The figures for each of these programs can be found in sec 101 of the act. Nowhere in the act does it call on congress to spend a $5.6 billion dollar increase on Title I.
3. Fact. Title I alone received a larger combined increase in the first 2 years under President Bush than in the 7 previous years under Clinton combined!
These are examples of why the left is so irritating. Do some research and stop spewing pointless garbage that has been spoon fed to you.
May 1st, 2004 at 4:30 pm
i thank you for this article now i dont have search this info out to tell this person the true facts, for he posted punkvoter info on our (my friends and i personal) forum and i have to say that i belive that the “War on Terrorism” is in fact “World War III” even if the world isn’t with us
May 9th, 2004 at 12:06 am
this is going to be simple. im not big on using 7-syllabled words as if it would help prove my point.
if you dont support the president, you can go live in iraq and see if life suits you better over there.
people bash the president on the grounds that he has a low IQ (although he was accepted at yale and harvard) and the fact that he rushed into war (meanwhile, statistics predicted that our country would have gone under numerous terrorist attacks by now had we not taken a stand)
America is a not a pushover. I’m glad we went to war to fight for something that directly affects us and innocent people everywhere.
May 27th, 2004 at 3:31 pm
I find it rather funny that there is no place for anyone to respond on punkvoter.com. Kinda hypocritical about the censorship thing, huh? I did go to NOFX’s website and asked about that on their Q & A…I doubt they’ll post it or answer it!
June 28th, 2004 at 1:45 am
some of this makes me ashamed to be a member of the human race (comment #49 especially, no explanation required). in regards to the above ‘facts’ ‘debunking’ the origional list, the irony and hipocrisy outweighs any ‘debunking’ that may or may not have taken place. while it is obvious that the punkvoter list is not propaganda-free, the matt margolis list does even worse.
for starters, those of you who find brilliance within should actually read it carefully. many of these supposed ‘debunkings’ are nothing more than roundabout rhetoric that actually do not answer to the original punknews claim. which is particularly idiotic given the obvious amount of time which was put into this page.
read these claim/counterclaim sets above again:
1. read the statistics. also, who cares if the caribou population was increased? anyone with a jr. high education knows that increasing a random un-endangered population out of porportion to the rest of the ecosystem is a bad thing. and the way that the pipeline increases caribou population (in one area, mind you) is by blocking their normal migration routes. see how many variables there are which one would not expect in each of these issues?
numbers 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 do not actually present facts or arguements, but merely present counter-opinions, which are meaningless and unimportant, not matter which ’side’ they come from. read them carefully.
as for a ‘point’ in number 15. the fact that bush did not bail kenneth lay out of trouble is supposed to prove that there was no scrutinizable relationship between the two is ridiculous. think about it. what would have happened if bush had? political suicide anyone? given all the media attention to the case, bush would have to be an idiot to give ken a hand. there is not always an obvious single motivation for the actions of a political figure, democrat or republican.
so, everyone should go do some of their own research on this stuff instead of buying mike’s crap telling you not to buy punknew’s crap. neither work is valid.
June 28th, 2004 at 1:46 am
hehe, comment #48 i mean. #49 makes a point of sorts. sorry about that!
June 28th, 2004 at 12:26 pm
Miles, just because information contrasts that given by punkvoter does not mean it is an opinion. Several facts are presented, and valid arguments given to counter implications made by Punkvoter.
As far as Ken Lay is concerned, the point is Enron’s connections to politicians include both Dems and Republicans… one dem in particular would be Bill Clinton, so Punkvoter is selectively criticizing associations to promote its agenda.
sorry, but you’re going to have to do better than that. saying that facts and rebuttals presented are not relevent due to some reason you conjure up isn’t going to work.
June 29th, 2004 at 7:59 pm
I appreciate Matt’s effort at debunking, there are some good points made, but a lot of the comments within the content seems to be knee-jerk right-wing. I don’t like the far left or the far right, they are 2 sides of the same coin to me. I take whats good from both sides and leave out the rest, Clinton is a joke and so is Bush, for all of the lefties- complete socialism is a slippery slope towards communism which is another slippery slope towards a worldwide-monostate where freedom is non-existant, but on the flipside, for all of you right-wingers; corporate capitalism along with right-wing rhetoric leads to a path with similar results; as corporate tentacles of control are held less and less accountable and hold more and more influence in geo-politics, blurring the role of governments and businesses we’re heading towards worldwide corporate serfdom,all of this time wasted on left vs. right, liberal vs. consevative isn’t contructive to me, is exactly what a lot of one-worlders want, and yes there are those out there that would like this, call me a conspiracy nut- whatever, there are some extremely powerful people who strongly believe in social Darwnism combined with the Hegelian Dialectic- “divide and conquer”, I say we start talking about what brings us together rather than what seperates us, only consensus can move us forward.
June 30th, 2004 at 4:18 am
One of the first things that people should know about websites as “punkvoter.com” is that their main purpose is to simply serve as propaganda. Leave it at that. Fahrenheit 9/11, punkvoter.com, johnkerryisadouchbag… blah blah are all aimed towards ignorant youth (such as we are stereotyped to be) so that we may think how others may want us to think.
Matt’s done his research. If everyone on this little ring were intelligent enough, we’d all actually look at the links and see that 99% of what punkvoter claims, is either simply lied, or taken out of context. We all seem to disagree over how many countries there are in the world.
Whoever the hell keeps on asking “Why are we changing Iraqui rule? Bush’s fault blah blah blah.” Know that regime change in Iraq was already decided in 1999. Yes, that would be Clinton’s administration.
My fellow Republicans and conservatives…
In this generation, American youth are generally liberal, the middle aged group are generally split, and the elderly are generally conservative. People also tend to vote as the get older, with an estimated less than 15% of youth voting. Rest assured that the largest liberal group (the youth) won’t vote, and that the conservative youth will dutifully head off to the polls.
Just because we don’t agree with liberals doesn’t mean we don’t have open minds. I had an open mind, and liberals filled it with junk.
I enjoyed your post Matt.
July 1st, 2004 at 9:58 pm
While on the surface this response looks well thought out is is lazy at best and intellectually dishonest . First of all Matt, Clinton is NOT running for office this go around. Bringing up Clinton doesn’t serve to prove anything. i.e Just because Clinton did something doesn’t make it okay. I see conservatives using this arguement all of the time and it is just plain LAZY. Punkvoter wasn’t around when Clinton was in office and in all likelihood, they would probably be upset with some of his policies.
Of course when Matt veers off using Clinton as an excuse, he really starts to unravel. Take the reply to #6. It is not an either or. I sure there are plenty of people with “experience in the field” who’s “experience” extends beyond making $$ and getting around pollution laws. Plus your analogy sucks. CEOs have little hands on experience or would you want an HMO executive to operate on you (after all they have all that “experience”).
or #7. Matt presumes that smoking lawsuits are without merit and uses this idea to justify Bush
or #15. Matt just misses the point. It is not solely the relationship that is in question. It is Bushes attempt to lie about (oh great, now you are going to post a Clinton lie) and his arrogance.
Overall what I find is laughable that after years of Rush’s Limbaugh’s act, the Clinton-hate industry, Fox News worship, the hijacking of talk radio…you guys are suddenly bothered by “propaganda”.
p.s. Fat dudes should not wear goatees (even liberal one)
July 12th, 2004 at 8:17 pm
You really should have done some research to rebut the list. You think you did, but so much of what you answered with was opinion, not research. Your comment on #1 is laughable, your statistics are complete bullshit. On #4, “many experts”? Are you kidding? Your answer to #6 is complete nonsense, and your answer to #7 is simply absurd. I won’t even go into #15, playing the Clinton ticket is just weak. You’d better do a little more research next time you want to do battle like this Mikey, answering one screed with another isn’t thoughtful debate, it’s just another pissing contest and God knows we’ve had enough of those.
July 12th, 2004 at 8:18 pm
You really should have done some research to rebut the list. You think you did, but so much of what you answered with was opinion, not research. Your comment on #1 is laughable, your statistics are complete bullshit. On #4, “many experts”? Are you kidding? Your answer to #6 is complete nonsense, and your answer to #7 is simply absurd. I won’t even go into #15, playing the Clinton ticket is just weak. You’d better do a little more research next time you want to do battle like this Matt, answering one screed with another isn’t thoughtful debate, it’s just another pissing contest and God knows we’ve had enough of those.
July 19th, 2004 at 5:45 am
The Dude - thanks for what I see (oh man, someone admitting an OPINION) as the most intelligent post. I have been trolling anti-Bush/democrat & pro-Bush/republican web sites for a long time now and it all looks the same!
“you dumbass lefties, all you do is spout opinions and bend the truth”
“all you hardcore conservatives do is bend the facts all outta whack and support war-mongering”
guess what… you’re all right and you’re all wrong. _most_ conservatives and liberals will be that way until the day they die. maybe if we’d all stop fighting and worked together the world would be a better place… but i think the human race will go extinct before that. and hopefully we do go extinct before we kill off everything else on earth that knows how to live in balance with nature.
oh.. sorry, we’re supposed to be fighting about who’s right here….
anyone can manipulate “facts”, ie. statistics and numbers, to make it look better from their standpoint.
unemployment - you know, no one has ever proved that the good numbers under clinton and bad, but slooooooowly improving, numbers under bush are anything but the natural cycle of the economy.
environment & science - yeah, try to prove bush is great for the environment. increasing spending doesn’t mean anything when you repeal laws to appease your buddies in big business. or maybe all the scientists, nobel prize winners included, who work their life for hard facts are wrong, and bush is a great guy…. yeah, just maybe.
the war - america has a right to invade other countries because the rest of the world won’t? you really believe that? the world has sent a clear message - THEY DON’T WANT US TO BE THEIR POLICEMEN!! PERIOD. so, by that rationale, if you murder my brother, i should go and murder you because the cops might not have enough evidence to convict you? besides - iraq and the war on terrorism aren’t the same thing. the war on terrorism is against al qaeda, not saddam. even if i would support a war in iraq, maybe it should’ve been done when we were done cleaning up th mess in afghanistan.
the budget - record deficit… but then again, the government doesn’t need money to run, does it?
NCLB - instead of looking up numbers and figures, why don’t you try talking to people who work in education? i’ve talked to teachers and school administrators in at least 2 states. all they’ve seen is less resources for schools and the kids in school.
but bush is a good guy right? his good deeds have outweighed the bad? like wasting congress’ time with the marriage amendment he knew would fail, which also tried to write bigotry into the constitution?
Bush is responsible for all of America, not just his conservative base.
July 31st, 2004 at 1:40 am
i dont understand how ppl see the war as a right or whatever. the war on terror was america striking back at the terrorists who attacked us… period… the war in iraq isnt america doing what no one else will… is britian and, other governments that i cant think of off the top of my head, helping us? id say they are. and america is in iraq becos we took the initiative to take out a murderous dictator, and cos suddam refused to reveal if he had or if he didnt have WMD. bush did what clinton failed to do when he had the chance to do in desert storm or something, get rid of suddam.
and how is this war worse the the wars that clinton or other leftist presidents got us in with almost full cooperation from america http://www.suanews.com/articles/2003/nottheliberalskindofwar.htm
ppl that take history into account should realize that idleness never solved anything. in WW2 france gave peace a chance and they sat idle leaving there overwelling military might on germanys borders for 6 months and when they finally did join the war they surrendered after 6 weeks cos they allowed germany to move their forces to the western front.
no after that little history lesson i wouldnt want to experience the same. sitting idle doesnt do anything it just prolongs the inevitable.
August 8th, 2004 at 7:37 am
just to straighten out the record:
in your response to punkvoter’s number 2 reason to hate bush, or whatever, you correctly state that the measure containing the provision exempting students with drug charges from recieving federal student aid (not state aid) was signed by clinton (sorry for the un-clear phrasing).
however, clinton did not enforce the provision (maybe he should of, but that’s not the point).
the info provided by students on the applications was bascially ignored by his education department.
bush, however, made a point of enforcing it.
so, while punkvoter’s info was inaccurate, you fail to make the point that bush actually put the policy into effect.
so, in a way, you’re both wrong.
August 15th, 2004 at 6:20 pm
So, Matt, #14 on your “debunk” list comes from the White House? WTF? How can we trust the validity of an assertion made by the White House? What are they going to say, “sorry, we lied?” I think not. A better strategy would be to cite research by an independent organization. I think it was 30 prominent scientists, including many Nobel laureates condemned the Bush administration’s policy initiatives and so-called “scientific” backing. Lest you say they were all liberal Democrats, note that only 12 of the 30 indentified themselves as “liberal.” That leaves 18 (close to a two-thirds majority) who either consider themselves to be moderate or conservative.
By no means was Clinton and amazingly great president. He did some pretty lousy things, but I think I can safely say he was the last reasonable Cheif Executive we have had in the last quarter century.
You can never trust the official government line as the Gospel truth, be it a Republican or Democratic administration. You have a responsibility to yourself and your readers to check your own facts and not blindly swallow every little dribble of propaganda fed to you by those in power. I’m not crazy about John Kerry, but compared to the reactionary policies and closed, secretive attitude of this president’s administration, he’s definately a step in the right direction. A small step, but a step.
August 18th, 2004 at 11:28 pm
It’s incredible to me how people misuse language. Just read many of the posts above and you’ll see people twisting and turning their arguments instead of conveying ideas. Calling out “Hypocrisy!”, on the writer of the article, instead of explaining their point of view.
The truth is, many of you are misinformed to just non-informed. Many of you would rather slander Bush’s IQ rather than question what is going on in our country. Many of you would rather slander some one’s ideas and factual evidence than hear a good word about Bush. It’s an attitude more than it is a response. Look at our country. People say “Bush’s Deficiet”, when we all know the ecnomy went down after Sept. 11. People say “Bush’s War”, when we all know that Iraq was a dictatorship and would have made WMD any chance they had in order to have weapons to hurt us. The entire Mid-East is something that we couldn’t ignore anymore, and if you think that leaving the world we live in alone, and yet they come at us at every turn, then you’ve got problems.
It’s a tough road to be in America today. People are so heated up and angry and they seem to want it all for everyone. But no matter who is President there will still be problems and there will still be injustices for the next president to take over in the next election.
What is scary, though, is the horrible, mindless anger towards our current President. I’ve never seen anything like this before. Decentcy and respect is right out of the window and in it’s place are Anti-Bush rallies and sladerous websites at every corner. The basic repsect for our leader is gone, and because of that - as a nation - we are weaker. I hope it is worth it people. I hope it’s worth it.
September 6th, 2004 at 4:59 pm
Great job debunking those propagandists over at punkvoter.com -
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
have you seen this:
http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/archives/2004/spring/opinion/volLIVno103-punk.shtml
September 10th, 2004 at 1:59 am
Thankyou for making this site. I love my president. I love the fact that you actually pointed out what punkvoter.com said. I believe Bush’s outlook on policies are right on, and I support whatever you have to say. Thanks for this, I was starting to lose hope in my generation. God bless.
September 14th, 2004 at 3:40 pm
As someone in the military, I don’t feel comfortable with a man like Bush having the ability to send me to die. Especially when the advantages for him and his friends to get richer because of this war are so blatant. The man never won the election, does not deserve to be president, and should not have the right to send me to die fighting for greed. By no means am I a Democrat as I see that they are no better than the Republicans. But rather than try and devote so much time and energy to discredit a website that, although may not be completely true, gives facts that lean a certain way. That’s all they are. It’s the same dissemination tactics used by the otherside. There is one thing that is certain and that is what you read and see isn’t EVER completely right down the middle. It’s a fact of life.
September 21st, 2004 at 4:22 pm
With all do respect, why did you join the armed forces? Obviously knowing that you could be sent to war…? It could happen with any president.
October 20th, 2004 at 4:35 am
Ahh punkvoter.com blows!
Kerry thinks terrorism is a minor nuisance like prostitution or gambling.Clinton thought it was a matter for the local police.Bush is the only one with the balls to do what is needed and go kick their asses instead of sitting back getting a blow job and pretending it doesn’t exist!
Bush rocks!
February 19th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
K im in a band that tells people all about bush’s BS punkvoter doesn’t lie and most of u aren’t punx so we punx don’t care wat u think punk is wtf is “non-conformist” or watever man its all confusing im a punk and i dnt even kno wat that means so u fockers stfu and lve the rebellion to the rebels and dont worry about it.
March 10th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
nobody has told me anything good that Bush has done for this country. why not? i have two posts on this stupid ass pro-take away your rights website and nobody has answered? so far no one has answered me or even gave me one thing that asshole has done for this country and its people. oh yeah i’m a punk and there is plenty of liturature that is handed out at shows and its all true. punks are generally non-racists, non-conforming good people who wont just roll over and let unjustices go unoticed. please e-mail me with something good he’s done for the environment,or anything!
September 20th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
crack my mind
May 8th, 2007 at 2:55 am
alex, post 59.
Here’s another history lesson,
Desert storm = Bush senior not Clinton
…countries sitting idly by.. look up the Spanish Civil War. 1936-39. You’ll find that the US government at the time, sat idly by while facism reared its ugly head and allowed Hitler time to build his war machine. Yes, Americans were heroic in WW2, so were many other countries, but your image of the U.S. as John Wayne coming to the rescue is a little off.