OT: Election 2004
 

Well its getting to be that time once again were we get to vote for whom we want to lead our nation.

I have no shame in admitting that I favor Bush and will vote for him this year as I did in 2000. Even though there are many who blame him for the outsourcing of jobs, poor job market, poor job growth, and the lost jobs that have occured under his watch. The truth is it was President Clinton who ratified NAFTA and gave China free reign.

Sure Bush should have placed terrifs and other disadvantages against companies that sent jobs out of the nation, and he didn't so that does not look good for him. However, he has done what he said he was going to do and despite the costly war we are now involved in, he has done a far better job at running the country than Mr. Clinton.

Clinton was lucky, he had the teflon shield of the Internet and DotCom boom, but when the bubble began to burst, 97 and on, he was on his way out and the resulting destruction to our lives, economy, and futures was dropped squarly into Bushs lap even though he had not caused this, he has been blamed for it.

No justice for the inocent I say.

I do not like the Democrat front runner as he seems to, well to much like a man who should not be president than one who should be.

I would like to see the economy continue to improve, Job growth improve, and the war to end terrorism continued to be supported and under the Democrates that will not be the case.

The Iraqies will be left to fend for themselves like the Vietiense (sp) were left out in the cold by Ford and Carter.

We are there now and we should continue to stay there until it is safe to leave. No politics involved, simply stay and do the right thing and then leave.

Fight those who wish to do the other harm through terroristic attacks and continue to hunt and kill them for as long as they continue to commit terrorist acts.

It is going to be an interesting election year. One that I am certain will be another close call.

Best of luck to both canadates, but GO BUSH. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 24, 2004, 01:24: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Oh no, not the dreaded politcal conversations!!

Really, I'm Canadian, so I don't know much about American politics, but it seems to me that Bush is more than a little bit bloodthirsty. Afghanistan wasn't good enough, so lets go invade Iraq!!

And yep, we're only there to stop him from having weapons of mass destruction....but wait a minute...who has the most weapons of mass destruction of all the countries in the world...hmm lets think about that.

Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the US having weapons like that. In fact, it is necessary, or else the other countries that did have such weapons would run rampant, with no counter force to stop them.

But look at it this way. Lets say that Canada started developing in earnest a whole bunch of WMD's. Would the US invade Canada, saying that Canada shouldn't have such weapons? Of course, I'm missing a lot of points here, and the comparison is not near accurate, but I think you get my meaning.

Now, to bring this back to the real reason for this thread, that is why I don't think I would vote for Bush, precisely because of his prediliction for war mongering. That's all.

Please no one be offended by this, it is merely my opinion on the matter.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Thanks Renegade 13. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

There are two sides to every story and it is important to keep an open mind when discussing those points of view. Well done my friend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Oops, forgot to mention:

The US already owns Canada, so invading you would be pointless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

WHAT!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

The US owns Canada, and no one told me! I think I may die of shock right here and now!

Just don't try to come here with your army or you'll find a bunch of rednecks in the hills, shooting at you with hunting rifles! And let me tell you, we've got good aim! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Militant Canadians, that's just not right.

Of course, I'm voting for Kerry.

Bush had 4 years to do his job and he did a half-assed job at best. Sure, Clinton had the internet to protect him, but Bush used fear and threats against americans who critized him to protect himself.

Bush lsot any support from me a long time ago.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

No one can deny that Bush used fear to garner support for the war effort against Iraq. No one can deny that the Bush administration tried to say that people taking burger flipper jobs was an increase in the Manufacturing Job Market. No one can deny that Bush has done nothing about the loss of US jobs as companies in the US fire employees here and move their jobs to China, Mexico, and other.

However, Iraq had to be delt with before it did become a problem. Of this we can all agree. The method for getting the job done has left a bad tast in many of peoples mouths, but the job has been done. The ends do not justify the means however we are all better off now than we would be if we left Saddam in control.

The US economy has been recovering nicely, but Job growth has remained flat. This is the first time in history that this has ooccured and it is not do to Bush's economics. This is the result of Clintonomics and even CNN has achknowledged this as a fact.

Its the mistrust of the public that has hurt President Bush. Even though he may have lied, and yes, I do believe that at times things have to be done in order to get things done, but when its all said and done, step up to the bat and stand your ground. Bush has done this somewhat and I will continue to support him.

Kerry is a good man, but I simply do not trust him at this point. I feel that he is not the right man for the job this late in the game. Perhaps in 2008.

Right now we need to ride out this storm with the captain we currently have. That way when the Democrats take office in 2008, they can take credit for the economic boom that will occur as a result of Bush's economic plans just like Mr. Clinton did over the benefits of Reganomics.

This is how the game is played, and I hope that, no I pray that things improve and who ever wins in Novemeber, my rights will remain intacted, I have money in my pocket to spend, and food on my table.

If Bush really wants to win this election he needs to do two things right now. One sanction companies that send US jobs abroad and sanction the Gas and Oil companies for this price gouging we are now all forced to endure.

And I have to be honest, Kerry using the JFK intials is just plan bad politics and in bad taste. His name might share the intials of JFK, but he NOT JFK.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

The current U.S. administration thrives on fear and uses it as their primary tool to keep their hold on power. Just look at their ads and campaigning - "Terror this or terror that", "if someone else was in power then your taxes will go up" or "they'd be soft on terrorism and you'll die in a horrible bombing." and things of that sort.

Here are some things consider for the election:

Current Budget Defecit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Misinformation about Iraq. If they had just come out and said, Saddam is a bad dude and the Iraqi people need to be liberated - it might have been a bit better. But no, they created the illusion of imminent danger (i.e. WMD) when there was clearly none while ticking off most other countries in the process. And when that didn't work out too well - it was like well we freed the Iraqi people and got rid of Saddam - the world is now safer. However, hasn't the whole Iraq mess just turned Iraq into a new terrorism breeding ground and further decreased stability in the region? What about addressing Saudi Arabia as a major sponsor (albeit silent) of terrorism?

Foreign Policy. What can I say other than Bill Maher's synopsis "Operation: Piss Off the Planet" - there's just not anything being done on a diplomatic front to make things better for the future. The actions of the U.S. right now have just fueled the fire for more anti-U.S. crazies and their "causes". This is sort of like addressing crime by only increasing police and their budgets while not working in the communities to address poverty and other social problems that are the primary factors for crime. The situation will never really improve and the residents will feel oppressed, but at least they can justity their spending (hey, that's just like the drug war isn't it?).

Bush isn't such a bad guy on his own, but I do worry about his sidekick Cheney and his shady dealings with his former company Haliburton, also Enron, and other energy matters.

Environmental record? Nothing but loosening up pollution regulations for big corps and exploiting protected wildlife areas for more fossil fuels.

The economy is doing ok because of the whole war side effect, but where it will be afterwards? The rate of good jobs leaving the country are staggering to say the least! What kind of replacement jobs are in line? Mostly low-waged service sector jobs. The corporations have these guys in their pockets. It's most unfortunate, and it's also a problem that is happening where I live too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

I'm not a huge Kerry fan either (you guys really need a third viable option there rather than republican/democrat all the time!) but I think he'd be the lesser of two evils. There needs to be at least a fresh approach to the problems that you guys are having.

Anyways, I'm just glad that I get more than just the proto-typical US news here, it really makes a difference!

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Aww, and here I thought the u.s. was the whole world! My, your shrinking. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Muahahahahahahahahaha..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Anyways I just speak for myself. And since when is self-defense militaristic? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Very well said CK. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It is a sad day when Canadians know more about the political structure of the USA then most Americans.

Come to think about it, who runs Canada?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And since when is self-defense militaristic? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Since the people invading you control the media.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

ahhh..nothing like a political thread to stir up folks passions. Just some minor comments:

Atrocities quote "However, Iraq had to be delt with before it did become a problem. Of this we can all agree”

I think plenty of people disagree with this statement, myself included. There are bigger threats to the US and the world that Saddam. How about a regime change in Israel or China for one. China is an upcoming superpower, need them nipped in the butt. Put China on a 100 year time line and they will be the new USSR in scope of power. As for Israel, if we just quit supporting their facist regime, we would see a significant decline in the amount of Islamic terrorism directed at the US. Let get realistic here, Iraq posed no threat to US long term interests. No more than Cuba or Libya does. Hell, Canada could do greater damage to the US than Iraq. As the US's largest trading partner, if they closed their borders tomorrow, our economy would collapse. What threat was Iraq ever to us? None. We got Saddam so he couldn't nuke Israel. USA == zionist puppets and has been since the '40's.

But enough of that and on to the bigger issue, the one that forces me to vote for Kerry (I voted for Bush in '00). The DNC is setting Kerry up to lose. They are pushing him solely to make it look like they fought the good fight. The fact is they need him to lose so Hillary can win in '08. We all know the Republicans will not take three terms in a row. If Kerry takes '04, that puts Hillary out of the whitehouse forever. Kerry would rerun in '08. That would push Hillary to '12 if Republicans took '08. If Kerry took '08, would push Hillary out to '16 as no way in hell Democrats would get three terms in a row (ala Gore losing '00 after 8 years of Clinton). Hillary will be to old to run in '16. Kerry winning '04 kills any chance for a presidential bid from her. A vote for Kerry '04 is a vote against Hillary in '08. Vote Kerry.

I don't like Kerry or trust the man, but I despise Hillary. Kerry, like Bush, is a member of Skull and Bones. I find it odd that both the president and democratic front runner belong to the same secret society. From a lifestyle point of view, Bush is better for my economic future. As an Ex-Pat, I could care less about civil liberties or terrorist attacks in the US, I don't live there anymore. Only part of US law that really effects me (or any Ex-Pat for that matter) anymore is US tax law. Bush is very good for that. But sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good and keeping Hillary out of the whitehouse is exactly that.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

eol thanks for posting and offering a counter to my statement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

We will never know the true threat that Iraq could have become thanks to the war and for that I am thankful.

I did not know that both Kerry and Bush were members of this secret society. I thought that to be a myth or some bad hollywood movie.

If the vote were taken today it would be close but I think Bush would win. In six months, I think the outcome might be differant but I hope not.

Thanks again for posting.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Vote for whoever you like, Bush will just rig the election again, I'm sure of it.

I really dislike Bush (as you may have noticed) and although I know next to nothing about the other guy I'm sure he couldn't possibly be any worse, but like I always say: "It doesn't matter who you vote for, a politician always wins." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

With a very few notable exceptions, all politicians of all parties in all countries are corrupt, soulless, self-serving, bribe-taking, corporate-owned parasitic scum who will happily sell your Grandmother (not their own) to the dog-food factory for the price of a new Bentley and a seat on the board of some bull**** company or advisory board that they set up in office specifically so they and their old school chums could have a nice fat paycheque until retirement. We should burn the lot of 'em (with a few exceptions) and go live in self-sufficient anarcho-syndicalist communes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And after re-reading that little rant, I've decided I'm never eating dogfood again.

Seriously, apart from Bush being toppled, humiliated and then ritually sacrificed, the one thing I would like to see from you americans on election day is a larger proportion of the votes being cast away from the two big parties. You really need to break this two-party domination of yours.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Hey thanks DS for posting. I sincerely doubt that Bush rigged the election however given what happend I can see your point.

Then again, did we really want someone like Gore running the US? Naw, better he come in 2008.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Want to hear a funny story?

Back in '91 I was on vacation in BC and woke up one beautiful morning and decided to take the short trip to Seattle and visit the city. I don't drive, so I just purchased return fair on the bus shuttle. When I got to the boarder I was refused entry into the US. No reason given, all attempts to find out why they would refuse me ignored. They simply handed me a paper that said "Request to enter US Denied". I had to walk accross the 6 lane highway to the Canadian boarder crossing and use my 'return' ticket to get back to Vancouver. Couldn't get a refund, ($80 down the drain) I have no criminal record, I'm a good decent fellow. I have been to the US several times before. So why was I refused entry? I guess I'll never know.

Wait I just had a thought, perhaps it was a Ticket Scam by Grayhound to rip people off. Or, perhaps there is a Customs law that says that 3 random people from every bus that crosses the boarder must be refused entry. (btw, the two other people refused entry that morning was a older man (in his 50's) and a younger girl about (20-24). They too said they were not given any reason for the 'banishment'.

Yup, very funny story, hillarious, I crack up every time I think of it.

What? US Custom's is not a political issue? Sorry for ranting then, http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey !
We can send you Chirac for free ! And with him comes a bunch of usel...err..excellent ministers as a gift. Cheap isnt'it ?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey !
We can send you Chirac for free ! And with him comes a bunch of usel...err..excellent ministers as a gift. Cheap isnt'it ? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I had heard Chirac could be bought, but I didn't know you could get him for free. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Not only he can be bought for free, but the whole lot comes at the same price! Yes that's right, a full governement for free! This wonderful deal comes with no string attached, and we are even willing to pay for their transport to Juneau or in another similar place.

Isn't that enough? Well, then, we are even willing to pay if you buy then. You cannot possibly turn down such a generous offer! I mean, they would be about as effective as the vanilla ministers in SE4. How can you have a better reference?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

ahh i though this was about the canadian elections in the fall.

Change the title to USA Election 2004 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Also my bet is on the old rich white guy to win

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">heheheh... I like that one.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Election? There's an election?


Hmmm... no qualified candidates...Let's just call the whole thing off and save a lot of money. A panel of talk-show hosts can run the country by poll results for 4 years.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That, strangely enough, would be far more democratic than what we've got going now. Furthermore you'd know if your voice was heard - you'd hear it again on TV.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

and whats with the long long long running up to an election.... a huge waste of money and time and effort... Year 1 get in office... Year 2 do work Year 3 get ready to campaign Year 4 campaign...

I like Canada's way better. Call an election and have it in 36 days... must occur before 5 years go by.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

David E. Gervais want to hear a good story?

In August 1998 I went to Vancouver Island with my Grand Father and Aunt. We took the Coho (sp) out of Port Angles and had a really good time. On the Return trip I was held at US Customes and denied re-entry into the US. I am a US Citizan but they refused to let me back into the country. Finally after six hours I was "Granted" permission and ordered to get a passport. Go figure. Small world huh.

They did not let you in because you must have looked arabic to them. Or perhaps the guy just wanted to be jerk. They can do that you know.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's not so odd. Skull and Bones is not a political organisation. You don't have to be any particular party to be in it. Unless it's the kind of party where you get drunk out of your gourd and run neekid through the girls dorm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I am not old enough to vote yet but I still have very strong political opinions.

Here is the Iraq Situation Timeline in a nutshell
1. Sadam does alot of bad things
2. Iraq Invaded Kuwait
3. US Led Coalition Stops Iraq
4. UN Passes Resolutions for Iraq
5. Iraq half-*** complies
6. Sadam does alot more bad things
7. We know Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
8. US gives Iraq a boat load more time with Inspections
9. Sadam wouldn't explain what happend to the WMDs
10. Therefore they are no longer compling
11. We therefore revert back to a state of war
12. Even at the disapproval of the UN which is the one that passed the resolutions that gave Iraq a certin ammount of time to dispose of their WMDs(and show solid proof) or there would be military action taken
13. US led coalition frees the Iraqi people from a very evil dictator and will soon hopefully get a solid government setup and leave

Next:
Renegade 13: "And yep, we're only there to stop him from having weapons of mass destruction....but wait a minute...who has the most weapons of mass destruction of all the countries in the world...hmm lets think about that."

Yes the US has the most WMDs but unlike Iraq we have used them only once(outside of tests) and we used them to do the right thing which was end WWII and save possibly Millions of lives that would have been lost in a fight using conventional weapons through the Pacific. Also we were defending ourselves while Sadam liked to use his WMDs on his own innocent citizens.

Next:

The economy gone bad:
1. Bush had 9/11
2. Bush had major corperate scandles which started during the 90's with Clinton in office
3. Bush had .com boom gone bust

But:
Economy is picking up thanks to taxcuts and good old american optimism. We just had the biggest quarter of growth in something odd years. And no the taxcuts are not just for the rich like the Democrats would like you to believe. They help everyone.

Also some people complain about the current budget deficit. I am not happy about it either but sometimes there just isn't another way and I am happy that Bush kept his promise and did not raise taxes.

Enviroment:

Captiam Kwok: "Environmental record? Nothing but loosening up pollution regulations for big corps and exploiting protected wildlife areas for more fossil fuels."

Drilling for oil does not involve clear cutting entire forests and neither does logging. Also forests need to be logged a certin ammount to prevent situations like the massive forest fires that have plauged the west/south west. Also Bush put all that money(7 or 8 billion I think it was) into the development of Hydrogen Powered Cars, I sure he would have done that since all hes interested in is oil and destroying the enviroment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Abortion:

I am against it not only for the moral reasons but also because of common sense. Why kill innocent babies when there are alot of people struggling to find one to adopt because they cannot have one of their own, this includes gay couples whom I have no problem allowing them to adopt considering the alternative of killing the baby.

Gay Marriage:

I am against this because marriage is between a man and a women and its sad enough what our culture has done to the word marriage with an almost 50% divorce rate, there is no reason to degrade it any further than it has gone.

dogscoff:
"Vote for whoever you like, Bush will just rig the election again, I'm sure of it.

I really dislike Bush (as you may have noticed) and although I know next to nothing about the other guy I'm sure he couldn't possibly be any worse, but like I always say: "It doesn't matter who you vote for, a politician always wins."

With a very few notable exceptions, all politicians of all parties in all countries are corrupt, soulless, self-serving, bribe-taking, corporate-owned parasitic scum who will happily sell your Grandmother (not their own) to the dog-food factory for the price of a new Bentley and a seat on the board of some bull**** company or advisory board that they set up in office specifically so they and their old school chums could have a nice fat paycheque until retirement. We should burn the lot of 'em (with a few exceptions) and go live in self-sufficient anarcho-syndicalist communes."

That has got to be the most incredibly cynical view of the world I have ever heard. And how did Bush "rig" the election?

Well I guess this is a good spot to start my review of the canidates.

Canidates:
Bush: There is only 1 problem with basiclly anything he has done while in office and that is the Patriot Act. I find parts of this disturbing because of the power it gives the government and law enforcement and the Last thing this country needs is a government with more power.

Kerry:
Doesn't come off to me as a very nice guy, everytime I see him he has a weird cringe on his face, but this is not the main reason I dislike Kerry and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has no ideas anymore all they do is ***** and moan about everyting. Kerry also has switched back and forth on alot of key issues in a short ammount of time, he says what he thinks has the best chance of getting him elected and has no opinions of his own. Also The Democratic Party accused President Bush of being AWOL while he was supposed to be serving in the National Guard and had no evidence to back it up, these kind of unbackedup accusations from either side are unacceptable and sad.

Third Partys:

I don't know much about any third party canidates but I believe that Third Partys are a great thing because this country needs more that 2 choices. I live in Minnesota and enjoyed it when Jesse Ventura was in office, he didn't do to bad of a job and really shook up Minnesotas Political Foundation(in a good way).

Elections in general:
I think a canidates military service or lack thereof should not come into consideration in an election or at least the very high place that both sides have put it at.

Future Elections:
Voteing Kerry in 2004 will not stop Hillary from winning in 2008. Infact it might do the opposite.
Vote Bush in 2004

tesco samoa: "Also my bet is on the old rich white guy to win"

If you vote for Condoleezza Rice(current national security advisor) for president in 2008(I hope she runs, but all I have heard are rumors) we can have a very good chance to get a president that isnt a rich old white guy.

Another issue that has come up recently but I don't think will turn into one debated by our current presidential canidates is whether it is constitutional to have "Under God" in the pledge. My opinion on this is as long as you arent made to say it then there is nothing wrong with having it in there. I myself goto a school where it is not maditory and find that this solution works very well.

Ok well I think thats all I wanted to say for now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif but most likely I will have more later. And everyone this is a thread about politics, lets make sure it stays that way and not into a flame war as many threads like this do(I have seen this happen on other forums and highly doubt it could happen here but it doesn't hurt to be careful)

[ March 25, 2004, 02:35: Message edited by: Combat Wombat ]

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Your timeline missed the part about our ultimatum to Saddam being exclusively about the WMDs..which again haven't been found.

Budget: They say there isn't another way..except every time there is a hint of surplus, the answer is tax cuts. Wasn't Reagans economic boom supposed to cancel out his deficits? It didn't, and if the pattern is followed the current plan will ALWAYS lead to sky-high debt because it will never be paid down but it will be allowed to grow.

Drilling for oil does involve enviromental damage, even if some of it is accidental (the oil pipline leaks quite a bit, for example). And any building of roads to get -to- the oil is inherent disruptive because of something called edge effects (the interior of a forest has different climate than the outside, different exposure to predators, etc)

Most forests do NOT need to be logged in a convential sense. Mianly because the best trees for logging are the old, large ones. Which are also the most fire-resistant.

The fires in California? Forget about preventing them. That habitat burns to the ground pretty frequently..IIRC the oldest stand is something like a decade old.

Abortion:

There are not a lot of people struggling to adopt, sorry. Actually the system is flooded and over-loaded.

Gay Marriage:

You're against it for sematic reasons. Hmm. Or maybe its because civil unions DON'T EXIST, and if they are created they will be able to be discriminated against that way. Seperate but Equal ring a bell?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Bring the discussion back to point, who do you think is going to win the election this year?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I changed what I wrote about gay marriages because what I posted in the first place wasn't how I really feel. Don't ask how I did this, I haven't been all together today but I realized it just 5 minutes ago while laying in bed and imiditely rushed down here to change it. I don't believe gay couples should have any of the rights a normal couple has. You can say this discrimination but they have the same oppertunity to marry a person of the oppsite sex and have all the same rights as anyone else does. If we let gay people get married where will it end, soon we will have two stright men that live together asking for the same rights or one guy and his 3 wives or even weirder situations.

The point is sadam had to prove that he got rid of them, he didnt, inspectors couldn't find them so we had to assume that he was hiding them which he wasn't supposed to do or even worse he sold them to some terrorist group.

edit: I think Bush will win

[ March 25, 2004, 02:53: Message edited by: Combat Wombat ]

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">When did it become the responsibility of the US to "free" people from an evil dictator? Did I miss the announcement? And what sort of precedent does that set? Should the US now free folks all over the world from the "evil dictators" they live under? Do we have the right to impose our definition of who is good and who is bad on other coutries? What if the leader of another country woke up one day and decided that President Bush is an evil dictator and decided to free us from his rule? We'd call that a war of aggression. The only thing that keeps another country from doing that is our military power. So it boils down to "might makes right", and that's wrong. That's a bully mentality.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What gives the US the right to decide who can and cannot have WMDs? I'm not in favor of all countries having them, but the fact is the US has no more right to dictate to other countries about what they can and cannot have than other countries have to dictate to us. The purpose of having the WMDs is immaterial. A soverign nation has the right to do anything it wants to do, much the same as I have a right to do anything I want to do until my exercise of that right infringes on someone else's rights. There is no international law prohibiting WMDs, at least not that I'm aware of. If Iraq uses WMDs on its own people, then that's a problem for the Iraqis. There are many more people killed with conventional weapons by repressive regimes every day. Are we to invade and save all of them?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The tax cuts are a placebo. Does anyone really believe that the $500 most Americans receive as their tax cut is going to do anything to boost the economy? It's a joke. And yes, the cuts are for the rich. Is it a coincidence that the Bush administration has so many millionaires in it? Or that so many members came from Enron, a company that was cooking the books and defrauding its stock holders and employees? Is it just happenstance that umpteen billion dollars in contracts went to Halliburton, the VP's former company, without the normal bidding process? Bush and his administration is all about money, power, and the rich.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I believe Clinton left a balanced budget. The current administration has spent and spent and spent, and to what end? The budget deficit is less a problem for me. I'm older and won't be saddled with paying it off. That'll be left to the younger folk in this country. I wish them luck.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is more to life than money and business. It won't do businesses much good to make money if the planet dies and we go with it. Drilling in national parks, logging in national parks, repealing air pollution laws and treaties is about money and nothing else. It's about putting business before people. It's about paying off the political debts a candidate acquired on the way to the White House. Does it seem likely that businesses left to their own devices will do the right thing and take care of the environment? The only reason they behave at all right now is because of laws that force them to. As the Bush administration makes it easier for them to rape the enviroment, they most certainly will.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'd say Dogscoff's opinion is right on the money. Watch the news. We have representatives who speed through intersections and kill people and try to get off. We have senators who left a young woman to drown in their car to save their career. We have presidents who lie about sexual escapades. We have governors who take bribes. Need I go on? Someone please point out the noble politician who we can look up to. Where are the Lincolns and Washingtons today?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I disagree. A candidate's military service comes into the picture for two reasons. First, a candidate who has served in the military and potentially put his life on the line for the country can certainly be viewed as more patriotic than the candidate who dodged the draft, got his/her rich daddy to pull strings to keep them out of harms way. People who really care about something are willing to fight in support of it. It sends a bad message when a person dodges their nation's call to sevice and then aspires to lead that nation. Second, a candidate who has been in the military and especially one who saw combat is going to be much more judicious about sending troops in harm's way. They have an appreciation for what it is to fight, kill, see friends killed and are much less likely to send others off to die in frivilous wars or police actions. They are also much less likely to allow a war to be drawn out because they know the cost in lives and suffering that entails. Bush used his dad's position to avoid having to go. Kerry risked his life while Bush partied. Bush is certainly better than Clinton on that point but both of them appear cowardly in the face of Kerry.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, there is something wrong with it being there. It violates the separation of church and state guaranteed in the constitution. That aside, would you feel the same way if the pledge included something that was patently offensive to you so long as you weren't required to say it?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I love a good discussion. I appreciate your opinion, although I don't agree with it, and tried to stick with the issues and avoid any personal attacks.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ahh history is always forgotten when the rhetoric comes out. So Agent Orange, a chemical defoliant used in Vietnam was not a WMD?? What about its long Lasting impact on both Veterans and the Vietnamese still living there today? Lets not even consider WMDs like the Strategic Bombing campaign waged against Germany and Japan - Dresden or Tokyo anyone?
And if you can hide behind such farcical comments as 'we have only used them once' as a justification that is inhumane. The TWO atomic bombs dropped to test them on the Japanese have killed 100 000s of people - almost all civilians. There was no justification for their use, they did not end the war any earlier than it would have. As the only country to ever use atomic weapons surely the USA should not be allowed them still???
I have managed to avoid all previous debates like this, but sometimes things are said that just need commenting upon. So much for my five stars. At least we can debate these things.

As for the original point - Nader to win allthough he has a snowballs chance in a supernova. Otherwise Kerry, the USA cannot continue on this go alone foreign policy strategy, Kerry might just return to multilateral and UN actions.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Sorry about not replying sooner.

Been busy at the courthouse. Those dimwits don't know thier left from thier right. Oh well.

Atrocities, I do agree Iraq was a possible threat, but bush's way of going about it was idiotic. The entire shock and awe campaign was a joke (I would prefered to see a MOAB go off just outside the city limits then a couple of cruise missiles). Of course, had the Iraqi army put up an actual fight....

Realistic threats are places like Somolia, Ethiopia, Syria, and Quebec (kidding on the Last one). And the Bush Administration turns a blind eye.

While bush cannot be held at fault for Clinton's mistakes, Bush has to be made accountable for not preventing it. In the Last year my income taxes have gone up by almost 500 dollars while my income itself has gone by nearly 9000. No one can say 'tax relief' helped me unless it was a relief from my income tax refund!


As for some of his laws, and this is also a fault of the Clinton Administration, are flat out unconstitutional. I understand the need to protect america, but tossing aside the highest laws of the land shows contempt for America itself. Laws of Ex Post Facto were forbidden because of thier usage during Colonial Occupation for a reason.

Kerry, I have to agree with. He's not totally the right man for the job, but he's better than bush. Kerry has been to war, unlike bush how got waivers to stay stateside, and seen what it does to people and families. Bush has not seen this with his own eyes and, imo, lacks the fortitude to properly direct our military.


Now if only both candidates could be reasonable enough to actually discuss thier platforms. Maybe a debate where bashing each other is forbidden and mentioning 9/11 is a foul. Then maybe we'll actually see the real candidates.

Kwok,
The two party system, no amtter how messed up it is, works because it's stable. That's why Nader, Perot, etc never have a chance. Multi-Party nations (more than 2 main parties) typically build coalition governments and that always seems to be a disaster in the making. One wrong move and the entire gov't goes to pieces. Then again, the politicans actually have to work in those systems...

Renegade 13,
Canada? Self Defense? what! Impossible! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

eol,
I agree with you on the other threats. What is needed in Isreal is a democratic government, not a one-sided government. Give everyone equal represenation and a government mandate to remain religiously neutral and let's see what happens. Maybe instead of dividing people into different countries the US should try uniting them.

That is how you build a nation, Last time I checked.

However, keep in mind the loss of civil liberities here will effect you. I'll direct your attention to the Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. As a result of the actions of an american, tim mcvay, and his bombing of a federal building, immigrants to the US now face deportation from things as little as a littering fine, DUI, or even bad credit. Is that fair to people coming to the US for business, work, or pleasure? I think not. By turning low level crimes into felonies foreigners, people can unkowningly be arrested and held in the immigration deportation system for any number of stupid reasons. And if you think that's bad, they can use anything from the 20 years prior to the date of the law going into effect just to make sure. Then we got the Secret Evidence Act, guess what that is used for http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Plus 9/11 is a reminder that jsut because it doesn't happen in my back yard now doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

As for the skull and bones, it might be more surprising to learn that GWB's grandfather, Prescott Bush was fined a million dollars for aiding the Nazi's in WW1. It's funny how the California recall brought up arnold's father being a Nazi armyman, but no one ever mentions Prescott Bush. Then again, the Bush Family shares a line to King George the III and that's amusing because Powell's family does too.


Geo,
I'll bet you there isn't enough money in the world to pay the US to take Chirac.


Atrocities, David,
On my Last vacation abroad in 95, I found the easiest way to get through customs is to look exhausted and half awake and to have about 30 suitcases loaded on one trolly. Works best if you are entering at a Miami, LA, Texas, or Pheonix airport. The heat and the sweat will get anyone stinking up the high heaven and they'll wave you through with the air freshner can. lol

Wombat,
The tax cuts didn't help me. Don't assume everyone was helped just because the president keeps saying so. Myself and a number of my friends all got hit hard by the tax relief.

As for the debt, In real life, when someone runs up a huge debt and doesn't pay for it, it goes into collections. This is one way wars have started. I do recall Mexico was invaded once for not repaying thier debts. One of the causes of Hitler's rise was the fact Germany was placed into collections at the end of WW1. Going from a 5 trillion surplus to a 5 billion debt means a lot of money was lost real fast and someone wasn't keeping a tab on the account balance while writing bad checks.

Oil drilling does harm the enviroment. Of course, greenpeace using disel-powered boats doesn't help it. Take the tundra where it takes over a century for a footprint to fade in some places. What would oil drilling do to that ecosystem and all the frozen freshwater there? I like my ice without texas crude.

Forest fires are also a natural process of nature. By preventing them with logging operations we risk making the forest fires worse, or even speeding up growth of various deserts. A simply solution would be to make it mandatory that for every tree cut down, two or three saplings must be planted and left to grow.

Hydrogen fuel cells development, like Mars Mission and Moon Base and immigration visas for illegal workers are all fallacies produced for gaining votes. It simply won't happen. Gas prices can rise up to 10 bucks a gallon, and it still won't happen. Not until law makers get decisive.

Abortion, I can agree with you on. However, it should be allowed incase the mother's life is in danger and nother can be done to save the fetus. I have serious moral concerns about gay adoptions as it may hidner a child's emotional and social development.

Gay marriage I'm half and half, but not because it's supposed to be between a man and a women, but because it shouldn't be an issue. Leave it to the states to decide and the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution to enforce. Issue resolved. To me, civil unions is jsut a way of saying 'common law marriage' and de-politicalize it. Safe way out for bush.

Anyways, now my arm is gonna hurt because I typed too damn much in one sitting.

As for who will win, I say whoever takes Dixieville Notch in upstate New Hampshire. Last year was bush and the year before was clinton. Hopefully they are back into thier stride because up until 50 years ago, they always predicted the outcome of every election.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">At least it sounds like you *want* to vote, which is refreshing, even if I don't agree with most of your points.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Soon, hopefully... Unfortunately, the US will be in Iraq for some time to come, and there will not be a solid government there for even longer. Ditto for Afghanistan, which most people seem to have forgotten about. Not to mention all the other places we have "peacekeeping" troops (IIRC, N/S Korea border, former Yugoslavia (sp?), various locations in Africa, all over Latin America, etc.)

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, if you will kindly look back at your history textbooks, you will see that we in fact used them *twice* in World War II. And I'm not sure on this point, someone who has more military knowledge than I can confirm or deny, but the US Military currently uses low-yield nuclear bombs as a part of it's regular arsenal. I recall seeing a bomb used in Afghanistan which was designed to penetrate the ground several feet deep near a cave network, then detonate, and it was something on order of 1/20th the power of the "Little Boy" Hiroshima bomb.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Drilling for oil has other impacts on the surrounding environment. I know, I grew up in Northwest Pennsylvania where the whole oil thing started. While most environmental Groups severely underestimate the ability of an ecosystem to recover from "oil exploration", that still doesn't mean that it's an OK thing to do.

As for the "hydrogen economy", most people who have more than superficial knowledge on the subject will tell you that it is largely a chimera. To have a hydrogen economy, you need energy to split hydrogen off of other molecules. One way to do this is split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and so far, most of the energy to do this is derived from... fossil fuels. Another way to get the hydrogen is put fossil fuels through an expensive chemical process to extract the hydrogen. So everything you've heard hyping hydrogen powered cars and the like has been just that: Hype. Hydrogen costs more energy than it generates.

The Bush energy policy tries to drive a middle road between what the industry wants (making it easier to increase supply) and what the environmental lobby wants (making it easier for consumers to conserve energy). It has been critisized a lot since it was first released because it does not promote conservation much. The issue has largely disappeared from the media since the energy plan was released, but the huge "energy crisis" it was designed to combat turns out to have not really existed, so we're left with a plan that is mostly short-term supply increase, and little effort into the long-term strategy of increasing efficiency.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The Judeo-Christian religious definition of marriage that we use is between man and woman, yes. But just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it can't change. I direct your attention to the slavery debate...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I find many other things with the Bush presidency disturbing, other than the Patriot Acts championed by Mr. Ashcroft. For one, the extreme secrecy and lying about various issues: Clear Skies Initiative, which loosened pollution requirements on industry, Healthy Forests Initiative, which loosened logging restrictions, the continued refusal to release who had a hand in creating the administration's energy policy, pressuring intelligence agencies to come up with convenient facts about other countries' weapons, releasing severely underestimated costs for the healthcare bill and the Iraq war to Congress, on, and on, and on... Then there's the economy. You can say that the current economic situation is not the fault of the current administration all you want, but it doesn't matter when the economic policy consisted only of huge tax cuts that could not be afforded by the government, and largely ignoring the economy the rest of the time unless media started reporting on the lack of attention to the economy too much. Then a few speeches are made, and nothing is really done, and the media reports go away. Bush has absolutely no idea on how to deal with foreign policy, his economic ideas are a joke, and the military aspect of his administration is largely handled by other people, who are far too trigger-happy for my tastes. I really cannot wait for the election, so Bush can be replaced by someone who will actually *DO* something.

As for Democrats not having any "proof" of Bush going AWOL... I thought the fact that Bush didn't show up for something like 7 months for his National Guard duty was enough to show that he was Absent With Out Leave. That's the definition, in fact.

For the other charges against Democrats, I (sort of) agree. I don't like either of the two parties, but I side with Democrats far more often than I do Republicans.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ok, here I think you're just flat out wrong, at least in the case of a US Presidential election. Military service has everything to do with the position, since the President is Commander in Chief of the military. I would highly prefer a military leader who actually has some military experience. A President with no military experience will have less support from the very troops he commands, and that is not a good thing for the country. I also think a President who knows what the military life is like will be a little more hesitant to send soldiers into combat situation, and be more concerned with the duration of a conflict. These are things I think Bush has largely ignored.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry, but little chance of this happening. There is still a very large portion of the population around that would not take kindly to a President that is not what my friends call a WASP male (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male). Predjudice still exists in many places in the US, and it is very hard to overcome.

For the Pledge, what most people seem to ignore is the fact that "under God" was inserted during the McCarthy witch hunt era, in addition to the "In God we Trust" on currency, etc. This can barely scratch by the Constitutions prohibition on the government from respecting the establishment of any religion, by arguing that it is a 'spiritual' god mentioned, and not the Christian god in particular. But anyone who truly believes this, in my humble opinion, is being very naive. Would it really harm someone if the pledge was reverted back to "I pledge allegience to the Flag, and to the Republic for which It stands, One Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All"? I personally think the original is far more patriotic and inclusive, which is what the US is supposed to be. All those who are complaining about changing it back also happen to be Christians it seems...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh, I'm sure we all can remain civil.

There's probably some stuff in this post that could be considered flamebait, I'll be editing later to make things a bit more civil... but I gotta run now. Apologies in advance, no intention to insult anyone was intended (really!). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I am rather stunned by what I am reading here. Some of the people I respected have said such horrible and senseless things. Have they been mislead? Are they willfully ignorant? I have been trying to set up a rebuttal for these (IMHO) bad arguments, but my mind is so aghast with horror, it starts to cloud with every reading. Furthermore, I am not very glib to begin with. Fortunately, someone else has done a decent job, and I agree with most of what he says on his website. So I'm putting a link to him in my sig, and I hope it will at least encourage debate, if not enlighten.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Here's my opinion of politicians:

The people who want to be politicians make the worst leaders. Only the truly good people (the ones who DON'T want to be the politicians and leaders) make good leaders. That's why we don't have the Lincolns and Washingtons, because they were good people forced to do something they didn't really want to do. But they made some damn good leaders.

That I think is the real problem with the political leaders.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So um....are you going to tell us up front whose opinion you agree with?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I think he means the link in his sig. Which, at quick glance, seems to be anti-Bush, and wants Kuchnich as President.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

*sigh*

The endless debate. Never ending because people view the world and events differently.

Every time I hear Kerry speak I fear for this country. And Hilary makes me even more scared.

I am voting for Bush because America is in danger. 3000 people were murdered on 9/11. Most were Innocent civilians just going to work. Only the Pentagon was a legitimate target.

Wake up boys and girls we are at the beginning of the next World War. There are Groups out there that hate the free world and are moving to destroy us. And so far Bush is the only candidate who has done something and stands his ground. I would rather fight 5 Wars abroad then have to fight one on our own soil. And if you think that it will end with Iraq then you have not been paying attention.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, I happened to agree with your post about the willfully elected leaders... I just chose to be quiet about it at the time.

Forgive me if I seem cryptic with my post - it is appearing to me that expressing one's political nature (if it's against the current administration) is becoming more and more dangerous.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, once upon a time. However the ones unnaccounted for would have degraded beyond use years ago.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Israel has been defying the UN for decades. Should the US invade them as well?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeah, but the US did a crap job of it. They went in there and blew some **** up, that's fine, but they had no police force ready to pick up the pieces. They stood back and watched for a week or two while looters ripped the cities apart (apart from the oil ministry- they protected that from day 1). Then suddenly they took to shooting any civilians who looked even slightly suspicious on sight, fuelling revenge attacks and hatred.

And I've seen the footage of this, it ain''t pretty. I saw a documentary, and I watched an armoured car drive down the street at speed, shooting a guy who was just stood on the pavement. People drag him into a shop, but blood is pouring out of a hole in his head like water out of a tap. 5 US troops repeatedly kick a teenage boy who is lying on the floor, apparently he was caught shoplifting. Iraqi women look on in disgust from balconies. You wonder why they hate the US? Half of these so-called terrorist attacks against US soldiers in Iraq now are just ppl trying to avenge relatives who were killed without any particular provocation by US troops after the supposed "end of hostilities". Sure, Saddam was worse, but the US are trying to set themselves up as the good guys. The whole thing couldn't have been handled worse, and now the US will have to stay in even longer until it all calms back down. It's almost as if that's what bush wanted from the start.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That alone should be enough to put you off him. The Partiot act stripped away many of the fundamental rights and priveleges that differentiate America from, say, Iraq under Saddam Hussein. And that was just the foot in the door. Patriot act II is coming...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeah... what's your point?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Allow gays to marry, and give them the same adoption rights as hetero married couples. That will increase the number of potential adoptive parrents. Two birds, one stone=-)


Lord Chane: Right on mate. Joachim too, I agree.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There's still a debate about it???

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That sums it up, really. Bush has got you scared. He's got you so scared you'll let him do whatever the hell he likes. Strip away your civil liberties? Sure. Send your countrymen with your tax money to invade other countries for the benefit of your oil-industry buddies? No problem, just pull the covers over my head for me and protect me from the monsters under my bed.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There was no link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. That war was fought for other reasons, as was the war on Afghanistan. Most of the 11/9 hijackers were Saudis. Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi. A Saudi Prince, in fact, although he did work for the CIA for a while.
Most of the fanatical US-hating arabs you are so scared of in this world are- you guessed it- Saudi. Al-Qaeda is funded with Saudi money- lots of it, because the Saudi royal family is very very rich. So why hasn't the US attacked Saudi Arabia? Why isn't Saudi Arabia part of Bush's 'axis of evil'? Good questions with answers that might surprise you. I'll let you look up the answers for yourself.

But I digress...
Bush and his crew wanted an oil pipeline across Afghanistan. It says so in the PNAC, which is publicly available and predates 11/9/2001. A year or two before the the US attacked the Taliban, Bush's buddies were putting them up in 5-star hotels in Texas to try to get the pipeline ligitimately, but the Taliban weren't interested. So Bush invaded under the smokescreen of his "war on terror".
It's much the same story with Iraq. The PNAC says America must control Iraq and suddenly- hey presto- Iraq is not some broken-down little regime starving to death under international sanctions, it's a huge, scary bogeyman with weapons of mass destruction and links to AL-Qaeda that must be invaded immediately for the sake of world security.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Only if you let Bush continue to push everyone toward it.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, I happened to agree with your post about the willfully elected leaders... I just chose to be quiet about it at the time.

Forgive me if I seem cryptic with my post - it is appearing to me that expressing one's political nature (if it's against the current administration) is becoming more and more dangerous. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Please, tell us your opinions. They are valued, and help me attain better understanding of political situations.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">All the more reason to speak up now while you still can!

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Only if you let Bush continue to push everyone toward it. [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am sorry but I disagree. In the 90's they tried to blow up the World Trade Center with a bomb. They only did damage. On 9/11 they finally succeeded in destroying the building and killing many Americans. And do not forget what happened to the USS Cole. If you can not see that these are the actions of War then there is nothing I can say to convince you. However hiding our heads in the sand will not make it go away. George Bush is not pushing us to War he is responding to War.

I would like to see all Terrorist put out of Business no matter where or what nationality. And since they are willing to kill themselves to kill us (or our allies) then the only thing we can do is kill them before they kill us.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There's still a debate about it???
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, that was my point http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif There *was* a debate about slavery, with it's peak in the US around the mid 1800's. And now there isn't, except among a few white-supremacy loonies. I was just trying to say, times change, and things will not always be as they are now. Marriage will still be about love and a partnership between two people. It just won't necessarily be two of the opposite sex.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Heck are you actually KNOWING what you are writing ?
Bush. Bush.

See you once provided nations! with weapons, maybe even weapons of mass destruction.
You supported them, just for you own reaons.
You decided to supress nations, states, poeple. Man, Women, Children.
The USA has lost many of its former friends.
YEARS of surpressment, violence and hatred and you morrons actually WONDER why you are being bombed ?
You friggin forced it. The border had been reached.
HECK OPEN YOUR EYES FS. STOP LOOKING TV ALL THE TIME. LOOK AT THE WORLD, LOOK HOW THE WORLD REALLY IS !!! FS

Your Gouverments is doing friggin EVERYTHING to make you poor people stay dumb and NOT open your eyes. Most parts of the world are feeling ANGER toward your nation, weither it be civilians or soldiers.
You break treaties, you declare war without asking the world council (UN etc). You are breaking rules.
You force others to join your war. FORCE.
You kill innocent people. You are not at war because of terrorists, but because of RESSOURCES.
Because your Gouverment thinks it can establish a new world order. You try to control other. You are actually controlling others.
Your Gouverment is controlling YOU.
Poeple are dieing each day because YOU decide so. How can you let that happen ?!?
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction ?!? WHERE ARE THEY ?! WHERE ?!!!! Face it, Iraq wasnt attacked because of "Americas" Security, but rather because of Oil.
I cant stand it, wars being fought because of such stupid things.
You destroy buildings in Iraq. Now you are even asking the other countries to lower the depth that iraq has. HUH ?!?! I mean come on, am i dreaming ?

Now listen, im honest.
If i had the chance to actually -kill- Bush, believe me, i would.
Im no killer, neither a terrorits, now a fanatist.
Its just that i try i would try to make a better world. For my children, even for your children. For everyone, for a better world.
I wouldnt matter what would happen to me, as long as the world would continue peacefully, people being more happy than they are now.

Your Gouverment is destroying the entire world, is infecting it with propaganda, with anger, with fear, with weapons, with stupid politics.

Your Gouverment must be stopped. I cant believe millions of americans are not seeing what is happening. How dumb are you people ? Its unbelieveable, now its just sad, how the world is going towards its end.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Ragnarok-x, can I suggest you edit your Last post please. It makes it appear that Dogscoff said something that he actually did not say. He was quoting something said by someone else in the process of disagreeing with it.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Well I can see where you are coming from. There is as much propaganda in your words as you accuse me of having.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree this has all happened at one time or another. You are from Germany shall we discuss your history as well?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Debatable. Were they true friends or we they also serving there own interests?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How can you say this when we asked and pleaded with the UN to enforce its own resolutions its own rulings. We waited months we even gave Sadam a chance to comply with the resolutions that he agreed to with his own signature. You supposition is preposterous.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How? Where? Who? Bah! Edit: The only 'others' that you could even possibly claim would be Iraq itself. Other than that we have forced no one. Have we demanded that France and Germany honor NATO? No.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">More propaganda. Never in its history has America conquered another nation. Is Japan or your Germany under our rule?

[ March 25, 2004, 17:09: Message edited by: Perrin ]

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

RE: (Originally posted by Perrin)

"Never in its history has America conquered another nation. Is Japan or your Germany under our rule?

Flag on the play. Ever been to the Phllipines? And, heck, depending on how far back you want to go, you could call all of "Manifest Destiny" colonialism pure and simple. Ever been to Hawai'i? How about Puerto Rico?