US Presidential Election

Aoibheann

wiping out debt and teaching them how to provide for themselves would though, there's a lot of charities that campaign for just that. Then you could leave them to their own devices.

Aoibheann

It wasn't me! wrote:

Thankee Aoibheann. Aonghus, damn you!


*Make it 61*

you're welcome.

Piste

It wasn't me! wrote:

By the way, anyone want to give me free good rep? I want another little green dot. Only need 60. I'll return the favour to anyone who does.

Oh yeah, rep prostitution.

Post on the humour board. It's the one place my really awful jokes are appreciated



Colm, I see your point and I agree that cancelling third world debt ALONE could lead to bigger problems but if debt was cancelled and other countries were to aid the impoverished countries there would be more prospiety.


*EDIT*- Basically what Aoibheann said

Aoibheann

Gummybearz!!! wrote:

Post on the humour board. It's the one place my really awful jokes are appreciated



Colm, I see your point and I agree that cancelling third world debt ALONE could lead to bigger problems but if debt was cancelled and other countries were to aid the impoverished countries there would be more prospiety.


*EDIT*- Basically what Aoibheann said

did you use my really crap jokes on the humour board, btw?

yay, agreement, I thank you.

It wasn't me!

/Off to the humour board.

StupidLikeAFox

Kerry

Aoibheann Brady wrote:

wiping out debt and teaching them how to provide for themselves would though, there's a lot of charities that campaign for just that. Then you could leave them to their own devices.

Im pretty sure thats the gist of what i was sayin aoibheann :rolleyes:

Now if we all team up, and go on a round the world trip to all the capitals, What country wouldnt listen to ctyi?

Piste

Aoibheann Brady wrote:

did you use my really crap jokes on the humour board, btw?

Em maybe.......................

Aoibheann

ColHol wrote:

Im pretty sure thats the gist of what i was sayin aoibheann :rolleyes:

I re-read your post and I didnt find that in it at all. But hey, if you say so.

Piste

ColHol wrote:

Now if we all team up, and go on a round the world trip to all the capitals, What country wouldnt listen to ctyi?

Maybe Bangladesh, never liked the look of those French.....

Aoibheann

Gummybearz!!! wrote:

Em maybe.......................

you used the cauliflower one, I'm just after seeing it on the humour board....

Piste

I think that joke physically hurt some people.

StupidLikeAFox

Kerry

Aoibheann Brady wrote:

I re-read your post and I didnt find that in it at all. But hey, if you say so.

Bout the whole thing being managed properly?

Ah no worries, your happy, im happy, we're all happy


So, george bush really sucks as a president then..........

Aoibheann

Liz-well I did warn you that it was crap....

Aoibheann

ColHol wrote:

Bout the whole thing being managed properly?

Ah no worries, your happy, im happy, we're all happy


So, george bush really sucks as a president then..........

yes, I am happy. Happiness is great.

yeah, Dubya is ****e. but at least he cant run again after this term. and all the Americans will (hopefully) hate the Republicans so much, they'll vote Democrat....

Barry Aldwell

Kerry

On Bush not obtaining the popular vote the first time around:
The United States of America is just that, a bunch of states, united under one federal government. When originally founded, it was more like the EU than America is today. As you can see with the current EU Constitution negotiations, one of the biggest issues is getting fair representation for every country, regardless of population. If the EU president was decided by popular vote, Ireland's contribution in terms of total vote would not even warrant the candidates to campaign here. Leaving us feeling left out, and likely to leave the EU. It was exactly the same back in the 1700s in America. If they used the popular vote, the elections would effectively be decided by the populations of California and the northwestern states. Leaving everyone else feeling useless and unrepresented, and likely to leave (and lets remember what did happen when some states left, or tried to leave). So they came up with the electoral college system, which meant that the smaller states mattered.

On 3rd world debt:
If you cancel the debt, the corrupt governments will spend all their extra money on palaces and arms. If you want to stop this happening, you have to invade and replace the government. The only people willing to actually do that these days is America, and we all know how popular their attempts to install a new government in eyerack are. Catch 22

hannahC

Kerry

ll=llannah wrote:

because she's a woman, because she's intelligent or because she's good at what she does?

1. I'm a woman. Why would I care if she's a woman? I think it would be great to have a woman president, just not her.

2. You're right, she's quite intelligent. Intelligent enough to realize staying with Bill Clinton after he's publicly admitted to cheating on her twice (Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky) would get her a senate seat. Also intelligent enough to realize that uberfeminists would call her a strong woman for doing so, even though in my mind staying with the man who cheated on you is not being very strong or independent (not calling you an uberfeminist btw)

3.What has she done besides have one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate? I'm honestly asking.

(or is it because of that really scary "L" word? (liberals! aah! run!

hahahahah.

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.)

my parents are both doctors, so I'm not really against stem cell research. I do have a bit of a problem with creating embryos simply to kill them, however; taking stem cells from umbilical cords would be a much better alternative. Also, stem cell research is not the end-all cure that will stop cancer or altzheimers. A scientist famous with his work on stem cell research has publicly said that stem cells most likely won't cure altzheimers. "the people needed a fairy tale to believe in such a cure." direct quote.

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.)

there won't be a draft. I don't know where people are pulling that from. I don't need a draft to fight for my country. I'd be enlisted already if I was old enough. Also, if there were a draft, you and I wouldn't be going.
I wasn't going to pull 9/11 into this. I realize that Saddam, while he does harbor terrorists, didn't have any direct hand in 9/11. Personally, I didn't need him to. The fact that he is a mass murderer who's sons are just as evil and cunning as he is was enough to make me think we needed to remove him. let's be honest, UN sanctions were not working and further UN action against Iraq would not have happened because France could veto anything we put down, and said it would do so publicly. France has oil contracts with Iraq that are quite profitable to France, so they have their own interests there.

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*

I completely understand. I too am very passionate about politics. No offense taken.

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.

What college do you go to? I need to put it on my list of colleges to avoid because there is a threat to my well-being.

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

I know this is a long post, but just one more thing.

On Bush not obtaining the popular vote the first time around:
The United States of America is just that, a bunch of states, united under one federal government. When originally founded, it was more like the EU than America is today. As you can see with the current EU Constitution negotiations, one of the biggest issues is getting fair representation for every country, regardless of population. If the EU president was decided by popular vote, Ireland's contribution in terms of total vote would not even warrant the candidates to campaign here. Leaving us feeling left out, and likely to leave the EU. It was exactly the same back in the 1700s in America. If they used the popular vote, the elections would effectively be decided by the populations of California and the northwestern states. Leaving everyone else feeling useless and unrepresented, and likely to leave (and lets remember what did happen when some states left, or tried to leave). So they came up with the electoral college system, which meant that the smaller states mattered.

Thank you Barry. I'd also like to bring up the point that the whole "he won the electoral vote but lost the popular one" has happened at least 4 times before. This is not common, but it does happen and people need to just accept it when it does. Also, no more of "Bush stole the election" since this time he won around 3.5 million more popular votes than Kerry.
59,459,765 to 55,949,407 to be exact.

It wasn't me!

Quick question, if Saddam is a mass murderer, what's that make Bush? What you call these people all depends on what side of the line they've drawn you stand. I've a fiver that says there're a whole lot of Iraqis wandering around with no legs and no families who'd be perfectly willing to describe Bush as a mass murderer. I really don't want to go into this though. As far as I'm concerned, war can never be justified, never, and any leader who sends troops to fight is directly responsible for their deaths and the deaths of those they kill.

pinkpimp

1. War that isn't nececessary for (relatively direct) defence of your country is never justifiable, Agreed.
2. If those Iraquis didn't have legs, I reckon they'd find it pretty difficult to wander around.

It wasn't me!

Right, let me make that a little clearer: Declaring war on someone is never justifiable. Generally that means offensive. And defense should be settled peacefully as well. There's always a way.

P.S.- Enter mister peg-leg.

Raphael

What, two peg legs??

That would be awkward...

Oh, btw, in case it wasn't clear, "first and best hannah" refered to our tall, blonde, brooklyn friend

It wasn't me!

Unfortuantely I've seen it. Awkward, yes. Horrifying, yes. Pathetic, yes. Justifiable, no.

Barry Aldwell

Kerry

It wasn't me! wrote:

And defense should be settled peacefully as well. There's always a way.

If everyone was all nice and nobody wanted to kill anybody ever, then yes. However, in real life this is not the case. Like it or not, there are bad people out there, who want to kill others, and rather than theorise about exactly why they are so disillusioned, it's best to simply remove their ability to kill others, by either jailing them (handy, allows you to extract information from them), or by killing them (less paperwork, less prisoner handling).

Piste

You forgot torture: extracting information and sadistic sadism. :rolleyes:

Barry Aldwell

Kerry

Gummybearz!!! wrote:

You forgot torture: extracting information and sadistic sadism. :rolleyes:

Barry Aldwell wrote:

jailing them (handy, allows you to extract information from them)

Ownzed

Btw, I am not in any way promoting or accepting the use of torture. The Geneva Convention is quite clear on it, and no true soldier would lower themselves to it.

StupidLikeAFox

Kerry

Barry Aldwell wrote:

Btw, I am not in any way promoting or accepting the use of torture. The Geneva Convention is quite clear on it, and no true soldier would lower themselves to it.

Lucky you not a true soldier so
In any case removing saddam IN MY OPINION had to be a good thing, maybe the methods and aftermath werent/isnt so hot, but still. I mean one of the sons (uday/qusay) was manager of the iraqi national soccer team, and after a poor result had them all executed. That had to stop right? At least SOMETHING was done about it

Raphael

In all fairness, they deserve it for playing a poncy sport like soccer

Bazookatone

Hey! I started this thread! If I post seemingly random nonsense, there's a point I'm trying to make. Please be good enough to pay attention.

Now I realise that all the stuff I said seems to have very little to do with terrorism, Iraq or Bush, but I was trying to make a point. I had to go somewhere, so I couldn't finish it there and then. Here's my point:

Republicans and Democrats have very different views of how America should be run. But the truth is, neither of them has all the answers, and they've become so used to arguing with each other, they care more about their belief system than the good of the country. There's no respect left in US politics. Millions were spent on ads which were not about the issues at all but about character assaisination.

My post was intended to reflect that a well balanced person can have views that borrow from both Democratic and Republican dogma. I support Gay marraige but oppose abortion for example. Republicans wauld say I'm a whiny Liberal, and Democrats would accuse me of being a bible beating redneck.

America has a lot of problems, and the problem isn't that the people in charge are doing nothing, it's that every time someone tries to do something, it gets debated, watered down, compromised and rendered inneffective. Like every attempt at gun legislation gets lobbied by the NRA until it's so full of loopholes, it looks like a goalkeepers net.

BTW, my first post was about two pages back, so if you're only joining this thread now, this post will seem a little nonsensical.
And the point about the "not pro life, but anti choice" is to reflect that people can agree on the same thing for very different reasons.

Bazookatone

One more thing, and don't any of you Americans EVER forget this:

Saddam Hussein was AIDED, not hindered by the US when he first came to power. I have books written during the Iraq Iran war which paint him as the good guy, nay, as a saint and a freedom fighter.

Don't any, not one of you people dare to take the moral high ground over Saddam. You put him there, you did it for your own ends, not for the sake of the Iraqi people, and you told everybody that you did it for freedom. You never accepted responsibility for your actions, you never admitted you meddled to advance your own interests, and you've never apologised to the world for doing so. Quite frankly, the entire Iraq debacle is the fault of your fathers' generation, worsened by your generation, and I can assure you that you will be paying in blood for their mistakes long after your children have grown up.

Spraypaint

Bazookatone wrote:

One more thing, and don't any of you Americans EVER forget this:

Saddam Hussein was AIDED, not hindered by the US when he first came to power. I have books written during the Iraq Iran war which paint him as the good guy, nay, as a saint and a freedom fighter.

Don't any, not one of you people dare to take the moral high ground over Saddam. You put him there, you did it for your own ends, not for the sake of the Iraqi people, and you told everybody that you did it for freedom. You never accepted responsibility for your actions, you never admitted you meddled to advance your own interests, and you've never apologised to the world for doing so. Quite frankly, the entire Iraq debacle is the fault of your fathers' generation, worsened by your generation, and I can assure you that you will be paying in blood for their mistakes long after your children have grown up.

Amen to that.