US Presidential Election

ll=llannah

Hillary Clinton should never ever run

because she's a woman, because she's intelligent or because she's good at what she does?
(or is it because of that really scary "L" word? (liberals! aah! run! tbh, the republicans are the ones defacing our constitution. but then again, my political views are lefter than left. or is it because of stem cell research? see...the thing about a dead baby is you can't kill it. it's already dead. contrary to what bush said in the debates. a dead baby CANT get deader. sorry to be morbid. next point.)

4 MORE YEARS!

wheee! more wars!!! a draft where you and i will be enlisted to fight in a war (at least I) don't and won't believe in!! all in the name of such words as "those bad terrorists" and "freedom". (don't get me wrong, i was in nyc on 9/11, i've lived there all my life, don't bring that one up. but going into Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.) oh, i forgot - more ****ty foreign policy!!! which will lead us into even more crap than we are in now.

It sucks but Kerry would have just been an accident waiting to happen

in YOUR opinion. he's not perfect, but in a lot of people's opinions he was the second worst option. the scenario we're in now being the worst possible.

btw, i don't mean to get on your case, hannahC, but such are my views. so don't take it personally. i'm very politically active and hence am very passionate about these things. very. very. very.
*sigh*

on the bright note, yay for my college leftist/liberal/anarcho-syndicalist group going to protests and putting signs up everywhere and being magnificent. i loves my liberals.

Raphael

3 cheers for the first, and far better, american hannah!

Crash

you gotta love an election where the best slogan the democrats could possibly come up with would've been "kerry - well....i guess he's not quite as bad as bush..."

Stephen Forde

I didnt really care which one won the election! I dont think it actually affects me at all. Does anyone else think that its just something we shouldnt go worrying too much about?

Barry Aldwell

Kerry

Stephen Forde wrote:

I didnt really care which one won the election! I dont think it actually affects me at all. Does anyone else think that its just something we shouldnt go worrying too much about?

.....I don't think that even deserves a serious response

Stephen Forde

pray tell me your brilliant points of views. Please grace me!

Raphael

I'd flame it, but I just can't stop laughing

Stephen Forde

em ok im bored bye

PurpleFistMixer

Give him some credit. Look at the decency of the writing.

Stephen Forde wrote:

I didnt really care which one won the election! I dont think it actually affects me at all. Does anyone else think that its just something we shouldnt go worrying too much about?

Okay, enough of that.

Heh... *wipes tear from eye*

StupidLikeAFox

Kerry

either way non of ye answered the post. it doesnt have a great deal to do with our lives directly, and to be honest non of the problems/good things i have in my life at the moment have changed since last week or for that matter in the last four years which can be attributed to americas president, so the guy has a point

PurpleFistMixer

I have films to be watching right now, so I'll keep this short.

You are not the only person in the world.

I think since most people here realise this by default they understood that it did not need to be said, and it is with great sadness that I must say it. But you asked for the point. There it is.

It wasn't me!

Have you seen the price of petrol lately? The word doubled mean anything to you? Also, fifteen thousand dead civilians would seriously love to beat the **** out of anyone who says Bush isn't a problem.

Hannah, I intended for that to be interpreted as Kerry being the much lesser of two evils. He is, but I still can't see him having been a good president. He would have sucked a whole lot less than Bush, but he would have sucked.

Stephen Forde

yea but does that greatly affect you? I dont think it affects me that much if either of them that won. And also u say they both suck...? Its a matter of opinion as some of you guys prefer bush and other of you prefer kerry.




and thanks i am trying so hard to beat the urge of typing abbreviations :cool:

It wasn't me!

Think about how important oil products are in your life. How do you get around? How do you heat your house? Then think what it's going to be like in a few years when your paying for it all and this braindead monkey has shot the price up. I also feel really uncomfortable with his stubby, crayon-stained finger on the nuclear button, and he's the only world leader dumb enough to do it too.

Good work on the typing thing too. Keep it up and Aonghus won't know what hit him.

StupidLikeAFox

Kerry

all well and good, but its out of our hands, dont really see the point worryin bout it too much

Stephen Forde

but like what do you think any president would have dont in his position???
I mean they attacked his country! What else could he do but get rid of the threat? Which seems ok to me. But im sure he has his good points also. And also he has got the guts to protect his country. Im sure kerry would have protected his country also if he was in his position!

It wasn't me!

By bombing two countries into the ground? That's not preventing terroroism. That is terrorism! The only difference is he's the president of the United States.

Stephen Forde

well the countries didnt co-operate! INstead of cooperating they set up guns and defenses instead. So....Bush bombed em to try and get rid of the threat.
the president must protect their country!

PurpleFistMixer

To quote the weekend review of the Irish times,
"He [Bush] knows that wars remain war, no matter what language we give them. He also knows that while poor people commit terror, rich people commit war, but the rich people have enough money to pretend that it's right."

Interesting way to look at it...

Piste

Who said that?

PurpleFistMixer

Colum McCann.

It wasn't me!

You are aware of course that Iraq cooperated completely with the UN when it came to arms inspectors being allowed search the country. It was Bush who decided to go over the UN's head and Bomb the place anyway, just to make sure, y'know. :rolleyes:

Then, "A president has to protect their country"? So Bush must protect his country by invading Iraq, a country that posed no threat to the United States, like, come to think of it, every other country on the face of the earth, but Iraq is being "uncooperative" if it doesn't want to be invaded by a hostile force?

Come on. The US could wipe the world clear of other countries if that monkey so decided. What threat did either Iraq or Afghanistan pose to it?

Stephen Forde

well u remember Sept 11.Thats an infamous day now since the planes crashed into the twin buildings! Rememeber?

Piste

[SARCASM]And we all know the Iraqis were responsible for that[/SARCASM]

It wasn't me!

Disclaimer: I do not condone terrorism or violence of any kind. The exact opposite in fact. If you are unwilling to believe this, do not read this post.







How many died that day? Three thousand. That's an incredible loss of life. How many has Bush killed using that as a false motive to gain control of oil fields? Six or seven times as many. Now tell me who's the bigger monster: Bush, who only wants material gain, or Osama Bin Laden, who truly believes he is doing the right thing?

Barry Aldwell

Kerry

One of the first basic ideas of war is that you take the fight to the enemy, to show him what happens when he screws with you. The allies didn't do it after World War 1, and World War 2 happened 21 years later, because the Germans A: Had been screwed over, and B: Hadn't seen what war would do to their homeland. After World War 2, when the allies had taken the fight to German soil, with the Americans and English billeting their troops in German houses, and the Russians doing much, much worse, there was universal surrender and disarmament.

However, as terrorists have no specified country, the closest you can come to that is making an example of a country you have a problem with. In this case, it was eyerack, and Saddam, and they're making a pretty good example of what will happen to your country if you let terrorists stay.

Oh, and anyone who says "But Bush said it wasn't for oil!" is an idiot. Politics is not a business where everything is as it appears. The second I heard "This war is to free the people of Iraq" I thought "Bull****, it's for oil, freeing the Iraqis is just a perk", and anyone who didn't realise this was the case is incredibly naive.

It's a ****ed up system, yes, but it is better than some of the alternatives.

Piste

Operation Iraq Liberation


Anyone else see a coincidence here?

Barry Aldwell

Kerry

Gummybearz!!! wrote:

Operation Iraq Liberation


Anyone else see a coincidence here?

It's Operation Iraqi Freedom, actually

Piste

Liberation/Freedom, same thing, Liberation works better though

Bazookatone

Okay. My last post was a little (a lot actually) angry. But anger leads to irrationality, and you shouldn't base political views on irrational emotion, that leads to nuclear armageddon. So I'm going to calmly make a few pertinent points.

1) Europe would like to think that the US is a terrible bully and is sucking up the world's oil, and we'd never do that, cos we're so Democratic. Now, anyone who tries to say that there's no blood on America's hands is, quite simply, ignorant or a liar. However, Europe is also guilty of the same crimes, though NOT to the same extent.

2) Both Europe and America suck up more than their fair share of the world's resources. We eat too much, use more oil than we should, drive cars and surround ourselves with Unneccessary plastic objects.

3) This is, in short, ultimately responsible for the present situation. We are guilty of treating a considerable portion of the world like crap. Is it any surprise that these people listen to religious fundamentalists. They look around and see nothing but injustice.

4) Now I'm not a whiny little Liberal. I don't think that we should ship all our posessions to third world countries and wear animal skins and live in harmony with nature in mud huts. But ideas like cancelling third world debt, helping thse countries set up skilled industry, sustainable farming methods, these are good ideas.

5) I oppose a woman's right to choose. Let me make this clear, I'm not pro life, I just don't think it is a woman's right to choose whether someone else lives or dies. I'm anti choice, not pro life. I am a very bad person, and I do it on purpose.

6) I believe passionately in separation of church from state, though I support the teaching of religion in school, it's imortant to give kids knowledge about the world around them, and religion is part of that, so they should know about it. However, giving political power to religious orginisations has not helped the world as much as it's hurt it, in my opinion.

7) I do not think there is any debate over the following issue, the point has been proven time and time again. In a choice between low taxes and a small safety net and high taxes and a large safety net, the latter is better in every respect.

Gotta go ,will finish this later