Slashdot Mirror
Bush Cousins Launch Pro-Kerry Website
WerewolfOfVulcan writes "CNN is carrying a story about bushrelativesforkerry.com, a site launched by relatives of the President."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
These are the grandchildren of his great-aunt (George Bush Senior's Father's Sister).
Join the Free Software Foundation
I saw on TV last week something about Bush and Kerry already being distant relatives of each other, maybe these are the Bush relatives that are closer to Kerry?
www.monkeysforkerry.org ?
sorry, couldn't resist...
Bush has Bob NASCAR and Jane Minivan, though.
The problem is that there are people who aren't aware of certain.. aspects of the Bush group. Such as their pure black evil hearts.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
www.whogivesamonkeys.org
...this one.
It's nominally anti-Kerry, but if this site really convinces you to vote for Bush, then your voting priveledges should be revoked. It's just a funny site.
I've got a bunch of cousins who do stupid things, too.
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
Slashdot is doing a great job covering both sides of this election: both Pro-Kerry and Anti-Bush.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
The problem is that there are people who aren't aware of certain.. aspects of the Bush group. Such as their pure black evil hearts.
That's ironic that you say "pure black evil hearts" about people who are rasicists.
This place is becoming like the lite version of Democratic Underground. How about some criticism of Kerry and the left? They're not perfect either.
With a week left in the campaign, you'd think CNN would have something less trivial to highlight. Of course, you'd think Slashdot might, also.
I'm rather bemused by how dynastic politics is in a country that was based on rebellion against monarchy. It seems in many minds being named Bush or Kennedy automatically makes you representative of some particular ideology. If I ran for President today my own wife probably wouldn't vote for me let alone distant cousins. What does that prove about anything?
And another thing, why do so many Americans refer to "the queen" when they mean "the queen of England?" You know you don't have a queen because you kicked out her loony German ancestor all those years ago right?
But I guess the opportunity to run any anti-Bush story on Slashdot is too great.
This is my letter to the Bush relatives:
_______
Bush Relatives,
The three movies and 35 recently published books reviewed in the article linked below describe U.S. government corruption:
Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government
There were several books published before and during the Clinton administration about former U.S. President Bill Clinton. However, the situation with Clinton and previous presidents was not even remotely comparable. There are many more books discussing the Bush administration, and the negative issues are far, far more serious.
Also see this well-documented article from The Nation magazine:
100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration
Michael Jennings
Futurepower Publishing
P.S.: I learned about your site from a front-page story on Slashdot.org.
_______
In past elections, there has been a reason to vote for the other side. I didn't choose Bob Dole, but if he had been elected, the nation would have been okay, because Bob Dole is a decent man.
This election is different. It is not a matter of preference. The Bush Administration is extremely corrupt. Those who vote for Bush are not well-informed.
An old DEC manual for technical writers said that only 2% of Americans read non-fiction books not connected with work. That seems correct to me. I have found that even Slashdot readers, who are more intelligent than most people, have little knowledge of the activities of their government. Instead, some of them have picked up and believe Bush campaign lies like "Bush is Christian" and "Bush will protect us in the war against terrorism".
The fact that these people are distant relatives of Bush is completely irrelevant. They have added nothing to the discussion that hasn't already been said in a more intelligent fashion elsewhere. All I see is a poorly designed website that's like a run-on sentence with no organization.
PS: Vote Badnarik (Libertarian).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Nah, monkeys vote for their own candidate.
www.communistsforkerry.com
So he has relatives who don't agree with him. So what? Don't we all? The problem with these types of stories is that they make an issue out of a non-issue. Imagine if a story was run that stated that EVERY relative backed Bush: there would then be whining of collusion and conspiracy.
Nothing to see here. Move along...
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
but maybe they should have put it up with a little more time remaining (one week left).
Life is offtopic.
I'm unhappy with the direction the USA is progressing. I'm not sure I'd be happy with Kerry's plans, either.
But in reality, I'm voting to STOP the current direction, fully realizing that with a staunchly Republican House Kerry will have a difficult time getting ANYTHING done. The worst problems on BOTH sides of the fence will not come to pass, in this circumstance. For anything that REALLY needs to be done, pressure typically goes directly on the President, so that's visible and gets reacted to. If Kerry is trying to do what NEEDS to be done, the nation knows it, and the House is blocking him, then the 2006 elections will reflect that, just like 1994 did.
As for your third-party vote being worthless, it depends on if you more highly value stopping the current direction, or going in your candidate's direction. Keep in mind that with the House composed as it is, your candidate's direction problably doesn't matter, even if he were elected.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Interesting charts. Read all the way to the bottom of the page, and it's clear that by *every* source, more people think the nation is on the wrong path than think it's on the right path. In fact, in only one poll is it less than a 54% majority that think we're on the wrong path.
Yet only a few polls show Kerry winning, and most show Bush winning decisively.
This is unsettling, largely because of how WRONG our current path is, IMHO, and that as a nation we're apparently choosing to keep going that way, anyway.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
What makes you think that geeks wouldn't have a firm opinion about the religious zealot currently running the White House? True, not all Slashdotters are male SF Fan, heterosexual-in-theory and monosexual-in-practice, liberal-to-libertarian hacker whackos. However, there's (apparently) a strong correlation to each of these characteristics individually. Virtual communities, like most other forms of community, form around COMMONalities. Those who don't like the neighborhood, move on. (This may or may not be a good thing, but it is easily observed in internet groups.)
So, most Slashdotters lean one way, while most Born-Again-Christians lean another. Beeg Fat Hairy Deel. If you don't like it, submit more Pro-Bush coverage stories, or more Anti-Kerry coverage stories. If they have a defensible point, they might get through.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Moderators are using their moderation points to make political statements. My parent comment above is not a "Troll". You may disagree, but I am not making trouble. My statements are backed up by 3 movies, 35 books, and a very well-documented article.
--
Bush borrows money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?
I'm going to start a web site where I proclaim that, since my Uncle's cousin's brother-in-law's 2 wife once sold a dog to Kerry's ex-wife, and my uncle's a Bushite, we all should be.
It would have about the same relevance to this election.
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
"Bush... the worst president this country has ever had!"
Compared to reality, that statement is almost praise for Bush.
Extraordinarily corrupt is closer to the truth.
Unfortunatly I threw it away but I got a chain email about some site showing that Bush and Kerry are releated by a few generations. That seems quite likely, so this really isn't too suprising. Bush could start his *own* web site and call it "Kerry relatives against Kerry".
Anyone who uses the words "liberal" and "conservative" shows that he or she is not thinking deeply. Those words are used in so many ways that they have lost their meaning, except as epithets.
Programmers and those who administer complicated computer systems must be logical. If they aren't, they cannot write a working program or troubleshoot problems. If logical people read enough books and gather enough facts, they must come to the conclusion that Bush should not be re-elected.
I could give hundreds of pages of support for this view. For 100 facts, see this well-documented article from The Nation magazine:
100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration
Many Republicans and some Democrats maintain power by selling the government to the rich and powerful: Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics.
I ran into this in Kerry's wikipedia article initially.
The source: FamilyForest
I wouldn't make too much of the cousin relationship (honestly, if you're looking into this kind of thing, it's a lot more significant that they both went to Yale and were in Skull & Bones!), but the relationships are funny sometimes.
For example, Bush is actually more closely related to Gary Trudeau than he is to Kerry. (Trudeau is the author of Doonesbury... a political newspaper comic strip that's -- well -- not very Bush-friendly).
Bush is also a 9th cousin to John Edwards (though Kerry and Edwards are not related).
Bush is a 6th cousin (6 times removed) to Joseph Smith, Jr., who is a *very* interesting guy. He founded the Mormon faith in the 1820s after being visited by the angel "Moroni" and told about golden plates that had been hidden in a hill in upstate NY, by a race decended from the Jews who lived there 600-400 BC. He translated the text on the plates and returned them to the angel (so the plates are not available to be examined today). He and his followers moved west from NY gradually, in response to repeated episodes of mob violence until (led at this point by Brigham Young after Smith was killed) they eventually settled in Utah, which was then Mexican territory.
There is one thing Kerry can (and almost certainly will) do that is important - he'll get some of the neocons a little further from power. I consider those people to be dangerous.
Though I take anything written by an anonymous author claiming to have inside information with a grain of salt, this article is a pretty interesting take on what may happen in a second Bush administration.
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
I'm guessing you have not read one book about the U.S. government.
However, good intentions... well, as they say, the road to hell is paved with them. Bush's intention for Iraq to become a Western democracy is admirable, but his incompetence in dealing with the occupation has led to a war that both America and Iraq are losing, and his good intentions are cold comfort to the thousands of Iraqis and Americans killed and maimed by that war.
Still, I wouldn't rule out selfish motives. People often do things for a combination of reasons. The thinking might have been "Hey, we free the Iraqi people from opression. PLUS, Halliburton and other companies can make billions rebuilding the place- which is gravy."
Folks, JOHN KERRY is Bush's cousin. What meaning, if any, do you imagine this has?
How is this a troll? It's a legitimate point.
Bush's foreign policy accepts two principals as fact:
1. Democracy, like Communism, will spread via domino effect. (Remember, his administration is made up of people who still believe it was right to intervene in Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Grenada because we had to stop the forward march of socialism.)
2. The ends justify the means.
The first part, which you addressed, can be interpreted as good intentions. I personaly don't buy their premise, but that's up for debate.
However the second part is a sign of moral bankruptcy.
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
Everyone can make political statements. It is not logical to do it through abusing the moderation system.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't think that it is very surprising that people who bother to inform themselves about stuff that matters are mostly pro Kerry.
Yet, from reading this, it would appear that you are completely unaware of some specific and very serious accusations against Kerry.
For example, The Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Now, the first thing that's often brought up by Kerry supporters when mentioning the SBVT is that they've been 'discredited'. However, this 'discreditation' consists of only having been shown to be funded by Bush supporters.
No shit. Who do you think was gonna fund them? George Soros?
You won't hear, however, that Kerry has now retracted his two decade old 'christmas in cambodia' story, which he has previously stated was a strong basis for his political beliefs. Swift Vets said Kerry was never in Cambodia. Kerry's people later agree. Then the swiftvets said at least one of his purple hearts was bullshit, and given for a self inflicted wound (no one ever said it was intentional, which would have been a court marshal level offense.) Kerry's people later changed their tune on that.
So, as someone who says he bothers to inform himself, why aren't you bringing that up?
Are you also aware that Kerry is either a war criminal or a liar? In the 70's, there was the 'winter soldier investigation', where Kerry and a bunch of veterans- some real and some not- claimed that US soldiers routinely commited the worst war crimes against the vietnamese, and that Kerry had seen or participated in such activities. If Kerry had seen them and not reported them, that makes him complicit and a war criminal.
More than likely he lied, however. Under oath and in front of congress. Kerry served a year on the gridley and 4 months on a swift boat. He would have never been in a position to see any such war crimes that he testified to.
Kerry stabbed our soldiers in the back for political points.
Okay, so you might say 'so what, that happened thirty years ago' And it is possible that people can change dramatically in thirty years.
But we've seen his bald-faced lies for cheap political points in the last debate. See here.
Short story: Kerry claimed to have met with the UN security council and was making buddies with them. Security council members later say that never happened at all.
Now, we all know politicians are liars, but what kind of man does it take to make such an easily and immediately provably false statement on national TV?
What else? When Kerry was skiing some time ago, he fell on the slopes after a collision with a Secret Service agent. When asked about it, he said "I don't fall, the son of a bitch knocked me down." I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't insult someone who was supposed to catch a bullet for me. What kind of a man does that?
I could go on, but that's enough for now. I've been paying attention and bothering to inform myself, and I find Kerry to be a reprobate. You don't seem to have taken much time to inform yourself of Kerry's failings, have you?
Now, why vote for Bush?
Because he knows what the stakes are, that's why. I'm no Bush fanboy, as I think his domestic agenda sucks (though probably for different reasons than you.) However, Overall he's the right president at the right time.
For the past several decades, terrorists- the muslim, middle eastern variety- have been carrying out attacks against the west of increasing adaucity, culminating in 9/11. They've carried out significant attacks in other countries since then- that russian school, spain's trains, etc. They're in a war against the west. Bush realizes this, and has a decent plan that he's been executing for the past 3 years. Strangle off state support for Al-Qaeda and their brothers, and spread liberty in the middle east. Is it easy? No. But
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
But the observation that more intelligent people tend to be anti-Bush is not invalidated by these exceptions.
What gets me going is how Kerry supporters can never shut up about how smart they are. Get over yourself, buddy. And all those Kerry-loving proffessors?
Well, hate to be the one to break it to you, but Profs are just as capable of being as full of shit as anyone else, it's just that they mistake their PHD's for actual superiority in fields other than their thesis.
And of course, in soft sciences, you often have nothing to validate a thesis against, so it's pretty meaningless.
If you want to know why I support Bush and detest Kerry, I laid it out in great detail elsewhere in these comments. I'm sure you can find it.
Incidentally, I consistently score in the 95th percentile in any standardized test, if you still want to talk about how smart you are.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I have a MUCH more likely theory. Americans are smart enough to realize that war is a nasty business and if we decide that we can't fight wars without hurting and killing innocent people, then we really can't fight wars at all. Unilaterally disarming in a dangerous world is not a bright idea. Americans also realize that our enemies set out to kill as many civilians as possible whenever they can. Does anyone think "turning the other cheek" after 9/11 would have done anything but make Al Queda bolder? I know a few people who think blatant war crimes like Abu Graihbe (sp?) are OK, but these are a thankfully small minority. If we agonzied over civilian casualties in 1941 like this article suggests we should the whole world would have fallen to the vilest evil imaginable.