![]() |
Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
I just hope Bush will get thrown out as his father so I'll be able to keep saying "I love USA" without getting a bashing.
**running the hell out of the thread before the flamewar*** |
Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
Everything you need to know to make up your mind about the election is here:
http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp Cheers, ~S http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif |
Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
Quote:
1. It isn't really the US that those people/organizations are attacking, its the entire western philosophy and civilization. The US is only attacked more than other western countries due to its increased influence, and the fact that it is the epitome of what those anti-Western people hate. There are in fact other countries threatened by terrorists, such as Britain, Canada, and any other western country. 2. You mentioned "The US and Freedom" as though they were inseparable concepts, as though the US is the only "free" country. It is not, and Freedom could exist without the US, and the US could exist without freedom. They are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, with some of the laws that have been enacted in the US, such as the Patriot Act (that's what its called isn't it?), I'd say that Canada is much more a "free" country than the US is now. I'm not intending to step on any toes here, or offend anyone, I just felt I had to state my opinion. Note that it is NOT anti-US. Thanks. |
Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
Quote:
Several other treaties are the same way; they have more to do with "[censored] the US" then their stated goals. Not unlike the bills in congress that have one title and some action on that, then 50 completely unrelated sections; the unrelated bits are stuffed in because they would never pass on their own -and- if your opponent votes against them you can say he voted against, say, cracking down on child exploitation. |
Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
Well, i hate to discuss politics, as it mostly leads to flame wars, but i got something on the topic a few months ago from a friend, i tought it may be worth sharing
Quote:
"I am also the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security." From the outside, Bush seems like a bullying jackass, who pays no attention to international laws or treaties, so basically doesnt gives sh*t about international politics. For him, there seem to be two sides: with me, or against me.. Considering the ammount of 'anti-planet' bombs he has at hand, this is more than scary. That kind of politics will one day break the bond between the EU and the USA, and im not sure we wanna live trough that, no matter which continent we live on. Take the current war for example: it has nothing to do with terrorism, that may have been the causus belli, the reason for the war, but i think the 'evidence' the whole war was based on was already proved wrong. What happened? The Intelligence Agency apologized for the mistake, and the war went on. The only reason Bush has a chance is, that its not the world that has to elect the new US president, but the people living there. I just hope they make the right choice. The above post is not intended to offend anyone: my only problem with the USA to date is its president, which can - and hopefully will - change soon. |
Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
*Moderator mode /on*
Hi all! As most of us know, all of this has been beaten to death already in other threads and I really see no connection to SEIV here. I will move the thread to the general discussion area where it belongs and leave a shadow here. And, please, remember, keep it civil, different people have different views on the world. *Moderator mode /off* |
Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
Bush's tax cuts are what stalled the lay offs in my area. My old company has even stated that if not for the tax cuts they would have closed their doors. And here comes Kerry with his TAX increases and people think he is the greatest thing to walk on water since GOD.
He is a liar, a backstabbing MF, and to top it all off, he VOTED to cut the funding of the CIA, FBI, and NSA following the first attack on the trade center. And now he says what happened on 9-11 was all Bushes fault? Please. He blames the economy in the US on Bush, when it was Bush who inheritied Clintons economy which started to go down hill in 97 after he opened the flood gates for free trade with China. A note to all you kiddies, China makes things a lot cheaper than we can here in the US, and they flooded our markets with their inferior products and swamped many business right out of business. And then we still have the NAFT problem that Clinton signed in. No, I think it is best that we keep BUSH for another four yeats in order to KEEP what little jobs we do have and grow more. |
Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
If you wanted to get anal about it, we could have gone after Iraq at any time; they never really fullfilled the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire.
By the time we knew for sure no significant WMDs would be found the war was over; and even if not, going in shooting things up and leaving is NOT an option. |
Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
csebal - That article is not at all accurate and it is designed to be as inflamatory as possible. You should have read the one about Clinton, and Gore a few years ago. And the one about Kerry is a lot better read than this one about Bush, and is backed up by facts and not some liberal democrates imagination.
|
Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
Quote:
What causes a person to win the Presidential election is winning a majority of votes in the electoral college, which is NOT based on population directly. It is based on 2 votes per state + X votes based on population. Thus, 100 of the votes have nothing to do with population, but with geography. Many of them come from relatively very low population states. Further befuddling the issue is the fact that many states give their _entire_ electoral vote count to the candidate that wins the election in that state. These things are what allows discrepencies between total popular vote and winner of the election to occur. Usually, the two go to the same person. But a few times (I think Bush Jr. was the 3rd), it has happened that the national popular vote and the electoral vote do not end up going to the same person. There is nothing illegal or fishy about this, at all. It is how the Presidential election system in the US works. Now, you be of the opinion that it is silly, and the election should be based entirely on the popular vote. You may or may not be right. But, saying that Bush did something wrong in 2000 just because he did not win the popular vote is wrong. Now, whether Bush did something shady to win the vote in Florida is an entirely separate issue. It should NOT be confused with overall popular vote, which is, again, not related to who wins the US Presidential election. The whole issue was a big mess. Who knows what really happened. Gore did voluntarily cede the election to Bush at the end, so regardless of whether he legitimately won the Florida election, he did win the overall election, due to Gore ceding it to him. There is no contesting that fact. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.