Bush´s reelection campaign perls

[ralphwiggum 6]

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info

2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (81%) Click here for info

3. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (79%) Click here for info

4. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (75%) Click here for info

5. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (68%) Click here for info

6. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (67%) Click here for info

7. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (67%) Click here for info

8. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (52%) Click here for info

9. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (43%) Click here for info

10. Libertarian Candidate (42%) Click here for info

11. Bush, President George W. - Republican (26%) Click here for info

12. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (18%) Click here for info

oh well, guess that gun control thingy pushed me to Dean. Al sharpton and i have similar traits - both have bad hairstyle.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)

2. Green Party Candidate (87%)

3. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (77%)

4. Socialist Candidate (74%)

5. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (71%)

6. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (68%)

7. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (67%)

8. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (66%)

9. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (59%)

10. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (57%)

11. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (52%)

12. Libertarian Candidate (46%)

13. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (36%)

14. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (32%)

15. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (13%)

16. Bush, President George W. - Republican (8%)

17. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law (7%)

I read the green party info link and I agree with more of it than the rest of them. So that's fair enough.

[theavonlady 2]

This test is not selective enough.

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info

2. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (67%) Click here for info

3. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (61%) Click here for info

4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (59%) Click here for info

5. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (58%) Click here for info

6. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (56%) Click here for info

7. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (56%) Click here for info

8. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (55%) Click here for info

9. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (39%) Click here for info

10. Bush, President George W. - Republican (31%) Click here for info

11. Libertarian Candidate (28%) Click here for info

12. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (12%) Click here for info

[SpecOp9 0]

What's the point of protesting?

You make a sign, stick it in the air, light american flags on fire with a mask on...

if you feel so strongly about something why do you need to hide from it?

People are just dumb imo.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]What's the point of protesting?

You make a sign, stick it in the air, light american flags on fire with a mask on...

if you feel so strongly about something why do you need to hide from it?

People are just dumb imo.

Neither did the protestors light flags, nor they had masks on. They protested against G.W. Bush exploiting the work and reputation of a worldwide respected fighter for the rights of black people and they protested against his faked war that affects people as people die and get injured.

It´s called freedom of speech. Regular citizens don´t have much of a chance to influence policy. The only thing they can do is go out on the street and tell what they think. This is where democrazy happens. On the streets. If you stick your nose in a book you will see that a lot of changes only happened because people went out on the streets.

German reunion anyone ?

Quote[/b] ]People are just dumb imo.

Who is dumb now ?

[NavyEEL 0]

freedom of speech, i agree. however, there is a little thing called tact, and there is a time and place for everything. people should know when to be respectful and keep their mouths shut, and when to open them to voice their opinions.

[Tovarish 0]

Clark Tries to Start WW3

Quote[/b] ]

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Jackson reportedly told the US commander during one heated exchange

Eh?!?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]freedom of speech, i agree. however, there is a little thing called tact, and there is a time and place for everything.  people should know when to be respectful and keep their mouths shut, and when to open them to voice their opinions.

Could you pls explain that more specific ?

Bush doesn´t show up that much in open public since his WMD lies the faked reasons for war etc came up.

I can remeber a full mouthfull president when the war was started with all the lies he introduced tothe world and US public.

He also din´t hold a speech for the rights of afroamericans in the USA and he preferred to shut up and leave the place as he found out that his PR job at the memorial didn´t really work.

Quote[/b] ]people should know when to be respectful and keep their mouths shut, and when to open them to voice their opinions.

There is no better time than now for the US public to stand up and oppose their president. He has willingly betrayed them. Now he has to face consequences of betraying people.

Wherever he is, whenever he shows up. A little price if you keep in mind that people DIE for his plans and lies.

[NavyEEL 0]

Quote[/b] ]freedom of speech, i agree. however, there is a little thing called tact, and there is a time and place for everything.  people should know when to be respectful and keep their mouths shut, and when to open them to voice their opinions.

Could you pls explain that more specific ?

Bush doesn´t show up that much in open public since his WMD lies the faked reasons for war etc came up.

I can remeber a full mouthfull president when the war was started with all the lies he introduced tothe world and US public.

He also din´t hold a speech for the rights of afroamericans in the USA and he preferred to shut up and leave the place as he found out that his PR job at the memorial didn´t really work.

Quote[/b] ]people should know when to be respectful and keep their mouths shut, and when to open them to voice their opinions.

There is no better time than now for the US public to stand up and oppose their president. He has willingly betrayed them. Now he has to face consequences of betraying people.

Wherever he is, whenever he shows up. A little price if you keep in mind that people DIE for his plans and lies.

People are dying for a good cause. Does anyone disagree that freeing the Iraqi people is a good cause? Regardless of whether we find WMD's in iraq or not, helping them is the right thing to do. Sure some of our soldiers die in the process (after all, it IS a war), but are our lives any more important than those of the Iraqi people? Our soldiers are doing what they chose to do. At least when we are finished, the people of Iraq will have that same freedom of choice.

As far as being respectful... booing a president when he is paying respect to the deceased is disrespectful. Regardless of one's opinions of him, they should at least have the courtesy to speak at appropriate times.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

People are dying for a good cause. Does anyone disagree that freeing the Iraqi people is a good cause? Regardless of whether we find WMD's in iraq or not, helping them is the right thing to do.

Can you honestly say that this war would have been fought without 9/11 + WMD smoke blowing?

[Tovarish 0]

People are dying for a good cause.  Does anyone disagree that freeing the Iraqi people is a good cause?  Regardless of whether we find WMD's in iraq or not, helping them is the right thing to do.  Sure some of our soldiers die in the process (after all, it IS a war), but are our lives any more important than those of the Iraqi people?  Our soldiers are doing what they chose to do.  At least when we are finished, the people of Iraq will have that same freedom of choice.

That was never the reason for starting the mess in the first place, a large number of Iraqi's feel they were better off before, and if "freeing people" is what it's all about, why isn't the U.S. "freeing" the North Korean people in the same manner? Hey, they even admit to having WMD's!

[NavyEEL 0]

People are dying for a good cause.  Does anyone disagree that freeing the Iraqi people is a good cause?  Regardless of whether we find WMD's in iraq or not, helping them is the right thing to do.  Sure some of our soldiers die in the process (after all, it IS a war), but are our lives any more important than those of the Iraqi people?  Our soldiers are doing what they chose to do.  At least when we are finished, the people of Iraq will have that same freedom of choice.

That was never the reason for starting the mess in the first place, a large number of Iraqi's feel they were better off before, and if "freeing people" is what it's all about, why isn't the U.S. "freeing" the North Korean people in the same manner? Hey, they even admit to having WMD's!

One task at a time... and sure Iraqis feel they were better off before--a lot of them don't know any better, and don't know what it's like to have real freedom. And as of right now I'm sure they don't feel any better off because the country is in a delicate state--Saddam is out of power yet coalition forces haven't fully settled violence within the civilian population. Once they gain control and the everyday violence ceases, then they will be much better off. Just give us some time.

[Tovarish 0]

One task at a time... and sure Iraqis feel they were better off before--a lot of them don't know any better, and don't know what it's like to have real freedom.  

Yes, but once upon a time, before they got the crap bombed out of them, they knew what it was like to have drinking water and electricity  

<span style='color:red'>*edit*</span>

And what exactly gives the US the right who decide who's better off how and what to do about it? What gives the US the divine right to change a country's government because you think you have a better system? That's the argument your country used against the Soviets for the past half-century!

[Acecombat 0]

uh the war was for liberating Iraqis

Never knw that i thought it was for all the money and the sticky black liquid involved

Its nice to see caring people ....

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]At least when we are finished, the people of Iraq will have that same freedom of choice.

No. That´s not true. I can say right now that it won´t ever be true.

Why ?

If you gave them that freedom of choice you talk about the Shias would run the country as they have the majority of people in Iraq. A Shia led Iraq will be not tolerated by the US as they are too close to islam and fundamentalism.So how can you dare to claim the Iraqi people will be given freedom of choice when it is already stated that this won´t happen.

Make up your knowledge and take that to the Iraq thread pls.

I´m still waiting on your reply about the sources you claimed and the info about the 30mm incident.

Freedom is a nice word but that´s not on the US list for Iraq.

[Acecombat 0]

True freedom isnt instated by puppet leaders or guns.

It can only be brought about (in iraqs case specifically) through education and lowering the fundamentalistic ideals of some people there.

Until then all this freedom crap is hogwash.

[NavyEEL 0]

It can only be brought about (in iraqs case specifically) through education and lowering the fundamentalistic ideals of some people there.

Did I mention that we are building educational systems for the Iraqis? And that includes their own military academy so that they will be able to educate their own soldiers for their own protection and welfare.

As far as Tovarish's comment about the US having some "divine right" to change a country's government... we never said we had a divine right. However, when a government is as oppressive as Saddam's was, then it is our responsibility to intervene. Just because nobody else wanted to help doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

[Tovarish 0]

 However, when a government is as oppressive as Saddam's was, then it is our responsibility to intervene.

Pure B.S. When he was on good terms with the U.S. he was just as oppressive. Same with Pinochet, Batista, ect. but since he helped the USA's interests he was tolerated. As soon as he was no longer useful to the US, then we all started hearing about what a bad guy he is.

*edit* and from the way George Bush speaks, you would sure think he believes he has a divine right:

Quote[/b] ] I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

[Acecombat 0]

It can only be brought about (in iraqs case specifically) through education and lowering the fundamentalistic ideals of some people there.

Did I mention that we are building educational systems for the Iraqis?  And that includes their own military academy so that they will be able to educate their own soldiers for their own protection and welfare.

As far as Tovarish's comment about the US having some "divine right" to change a country's government... we never said we had a divine right.  However, when a government is as oppressive as Saddam's was, then it is our responsibility to intervene.  Just because nobody else wanted to help doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

oh please drop this argument already i feel like banging my head against the wall now

The US didnt care for the Iraqi people before when saddam was gassing his own people did they?

In other words if your country was so 'were so pious and crap' thenthey should have stopped them then and not now when they are looking for secondary Oil resources other then SA's. The whole war was for OIL BOTTOMLINE , it wasnt to safeguard th iraqi people or some other moral crap.

Lets just wait and see which new prick comes in power in Iraq now , only differnece would be that he'll be a US loving prick i bet the us wouldnt mind it either if he/she builds up a army to go up against Iran again ...

FACT is th US govt has no interestin Iraq or its people their only interest is in the oil and to have another base now after leaving SA.

[canukausiuka 1]

FACT is th US govt has no interestin Iraq or its people their only interest is in the oil and to have another base now after leaving SA.

That is the only point I disagree about. It may be true, but it is not by any means a "fact". While I support President Bush myself, I can see how people would be sceptical about the reasons for going into Iraq. Hell, I'd be lying if I said I had no doubts. But regardless, it is wrong to label that statement as truth, when it is really just speculation and opinion.

Frankly, I believe the people of Iraq will be better off in the long run. That does not mean the war was justified, but it does mean that some good will come out of it. And I agree that the US has a nasty bad tendancy to support horrible regimes when it suits their interest. That's not the right way to do things.

As far as Bush's reelection campaign, I'd say its going to be an uphill battle most of the way. He has strong support in many areas of the country, and from a bit less than half the population. The key to the election will probably be who the Democratic candidate is, not President Bush. People have already formed their opinions about him, but not about many of the Democrats. So for those undecided, chances are they will have to look at the Democratic candidate and Bush, and decide which they feel is the "lesser of two evils". For most of the country though, they have already decided to either vote for Bush or to vote for whatever Democrat comes out on top.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

*edit* and from the way George Bush speaks, you would sure think he believes he has a divine right:

Quote[/b] ] I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

That was actually Bush Sr. that said that; however there are other statements Bush Jr has said which indicate he feels the same way (plus a LOT of religious crap in his campaign)

[Schoeler 0]

Let's try to keep this ontopic so it doesn't get closed.  We've all heard your opinions about Iraq and they belong in another thread.  Stick to the election topic, I want to hear people's opinions about that.

[Tovarish 0]

That was actually Bush Sr. that said that; however there are other statements Bush Jr has said which indicate he feels the same way (plus a LOT of religious crap in his campaign)

I stand corrected, and yeah, sorry if I took part in turning this into a second Iraq thread, will keep any other posts on the subject in the appropriate thread.

[Schoeler 0]

That was actually Bush Sr. that said that; however there are other statements Bush Jr has said which indicate he feels the same way (plus a LOT of religious crap in his campaign)

I stand corrected, and yeah, sorry if I took part in turning this into a second Iraq thread, will keep any other posts on the subject in the appropriate thread.

No problem, I just don't want this thread closed.

Can anybody here even wait to hear Bush debate a real democratic candidate this time?

Kerry, Edwards or Clark could make him look like a monkey in just a few minutes. He's got to be worried that Dean is slipping out of the race.

[toadlife 3]

I'm waiting for someone to explain to me what a few nutters being disrespectfull to Bush and King have to do with his reelection campaign. Visiting King's grave during Martin Luther King Jr. day may aswell be a presidential duty - considering it's a national holiday.