Us presidential election 2004

[bn880 5]

So yeah, why didn't Bush get OBL? Maybe he just did not need the extra votes after all.

I am very happy that someone is elected more cleanly now (I hope), it looks like Bush really did have a majority popular vote, good, fine, let us see what happens with the leader the Americans have chosen.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I am very happy that someone is elected more cleanly now (I hope), it looks like Bush really did have a majority popular vote, good, fine, let us see what happens with the leader the Americans have chosen.

WOW! I like that post...

[Taconic 0]

I justw anna quote this right now since am in a hurry but what the hell is this:

Quote[/b] ]2: Kerry himself. His entire platform was "I'm not Bush." He did not sell himself. He did not really give anybody any reason to vote for him beyond "I'm not Bush." For many, that simply wasn't enough.

IS this all america ABOUT selling yourself?

Selling the image and buying it? Were you electing a president or a Action play figure here? This isnt some product were selling here damnit this isnt Google.com or Yahoo.com whos search is better ofcourse people prefer Google since its branded itself as THE BEST however all searches are NEARLY the same by yahoo as well.

So what the **** is this with the image thing. He didnt sell himself because he didnt need to HE LET his image and past record speak for themselves , thats enough for me i dont need to READ a fuck** sign off the poster to see thta the guys trustworthy of honest.

P.S: Going to watch Bush deliver or AHEM read his speech which someone else wrote for him *cheney?* unlike Kerry who like a true statesman delivered it from his heart and spontaneously. His ability to express himself and what he felt was truly remarkable.

I don't really understand why you find the idea of a presidential candidate standing tall and putting forward very detailed, specific reasons stating why he would the most qualified person for the job to be so offensive.

Kerry did not sell himself. That does not mean that I think that he's an action figure, a website, or a bottle of Coke. "Selling yourself" means to put your good points out there for people to see--to actually explain why you think that you are better than the other guy, why you think you'd do a better job than the other guy, and how you would have done things differently than the other guy. Kerry did not do this enough. He relied on the fact that he wasn't the other guy far, far too much. Kerry's past record didn't say much about him, either. It said that he was a typical career politician, not that he was honest or trustworthy.

[Acecombat 0]

Ah feck it i cant watch that dope repeat those few words which his english vocabulary is filled with and repeat the same crappy rhetoric again.

Just watched BBC and some stupid guy from Forbes was interviewed they asked him what was next for Bush and he said attacking Iran is next wtf? Did he even knew what hes talking about they are stretched thin as a lowest grade paper sheet can be in Iraq and afghanistan and hes thinking of Bushs next agenda to bring 'freedom' in Iran?

If that is true then i am beginning to feel Bush and his admin/supporters think they are invincible or something reminds me of Hitlers word after the failed assasinationa attempt 'providence is with me i am immortal they cant kill me'.

[ericz 0]

Frisbee

Quote[/b] ]Quote

Please explain. I missed the point you no doubt witily made

Terrorists kill civilians unscrupulousely, but do so "to strike at the American aggresor", the infidels, the land of the free, however you wish to put it.

You attack Iraq with most likely good intentions (hey, you're not devils, I'm not stepping over that line) but you're killing people.

Bombarding houses in urban area's with jets just doesn't seem to comply with "minimizing civilian casualties". I'm no expert by any means, but the US has to have better means than that at its disposal?

Moral high ground/road meaning that, being the good guys you have to "set the example". Condemning terrorists is hard when you're in essence almost doing the same thing (again, I'm not saying that you're worse than "the terrorists" in general, numerically maybe a worse record in Iraq, but I digress) even by accident just comes across in a strange way.

I am sure a guided bomb is not the preferred method in all cases but some. Consider the thousands of residential raids that occur and have occurred. But in areas such as Fallujah, where this is not possible with other than an all out ground assault and in other circumstances where terrorists would be alerted to the raid by leak or sympathetic environment a guided bomb is in the tool box.

You could also ask, why wouldn't those Iraqis that live around the insurgents or know of their whereabouts inform the Iraqi authorities or police them up themselves. Unless of course they are actively supporting them against their own government.

[Akira 0]

Unless of course they are actively supporting them against their own government.

You ever stop to think that maybe they are fearful for their families lives?

But no. They are all terrorists.

What the fuck ever.

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]I am very happy that someone is elected more cleanly now (I hope), it looks like Bush really did have a majority popular vote, good, fine, let us see what happens with the leader the Americans have chosen.

WOW! I like that post...

Thanks.

I mean

[ericz 0]

Acecombat

Quote[/b] ]unlike Kerry who like a true statesman delivered it from his heart and spontaneously. His ability to express himself and what he felt was truly remarkable.

Perhaps he should have done that throughout his campaign, he would have had a better chance.

[Charon-VW:BB- 0]

Yeaaaaahhhhhh 4 more years ....... = many, many new Micheal Moore books, movies etc. etc.

He can be really lucky by now ...  

[Heatseeker 0]

let us see what happens with the leader the Americans have chosen.

Well, he would problably like to start WW3 and split the world in half but the way he is running things he will problably kill the economy first so i guess the world will remain a safe place .

[Badgerboy 0]

A little light relief!

[ericz 0]

AKIRA

Quote[/b] ]Quote (ericz @ Nov. 03 2004,21:29)

Unless of course they are actively supporting them against their own government.

You ever stop to think that maybe they are fearful for their families lives?

But no. They are all terrorists.

What the fuck ever.

NO they are not all terrorists and I am just as emotionally distraught as you seem to be over the deaths of Iraqi children and other innocents. But they need to shed the insurgents and join the political process if they ever hope to achieve peace. A very astute Muqtada Al-Sadr is attempting this.

[Acecombat 0]

I justw anna quote this right now since am in a  hurry but what the hell is this:

Quote[/b] ]2: Kerry himself. His entire platform was "I'm not Bush." He did not sell himself. He did not really give anybody any reason to vote for him beyond "I'm not Bush." For many, that simply wasn't enough.

IS this all america ABOUT selling yourself?

Selling the image and buying it? Were you electing a president or a Action play figure here? This isnt some product were selling here damnit this isnt Google.com or Yahoo.com whos search is better ofcourse people prefer Google since its branded itself as THE BEST however all searches are NEARLY the same by yahoo as well.

So what the **** is this with the image thing. He didnt sell himself because he didnt need to HE LET his image and past record speak for themselves , thats enough for me i dont need to READ a fuck** sign off the poster to see thta the guys trustworthy of honest.

P.S: Going to watch Bush deliver or AHEM read his speech which someone else wrote for him *cheney?* unlike Kerry who like a true statesman delivered it from his heart and spontaneously. His ability to express himself and what he felt was truly remarkable.

I don't really understand why you find the idea of a presidential candidate standing tall and putting forward very detailed, specific reasons stating why he would the most qualified person for the job to be so offensive.

Kerry did not sell himself. That does not mean that I think that he's an action figure, a website, or a bottle of Coke. "Selling yourself" means to put your good points out there for people to see--to actually explain why you think that you are better than the other guy, why you think you'd do a better job than the other guy, and how you would have done things differently than the other guy. Kerry did not do this enough. He relied on the fact that he wasn't the other guy far, far too much. Kerry's past record didn't say much about him, either. It said that he was a typical career politician, not that he was honest or trustworthy.

Its not offensive its downright cheap if you come forward again and again telling us how honest and fair you are when most of the times people that shout out such things arent. Be honest with yourself and the people , present yourself in the best manner possible and let them decide dont CHOKE on their mouths with your constant -believe-in-me-i-am-better- rehearsels.

Kerrys has explained what he wanted to do and was hoping to achieve isnt that enough? His complete life history was bedraggled throughout this campaign in discussions and forums and TV ads along with all those conflicting NAM events and tv ads. Whats more to look at he DID all he could do , he couldnt just become commercial here. If the voter himself is so concerned about the candidate why doesnt he goddamn do some research himself? Or wait maybe he doesnt and wants to simply have everything served to him on a silverplatter election form ticked and all. If he said he wasnt the 'other' guy as BUSH he meant something by it too learn to understand it , look at what BUSH was standing for constant lies and deciet pre-Iraq war and then consistent crappy intelligence and economic and several domestic issues follow-up he said he wasnt him and obviously this means hes the opposite there was only a flip side to the coin there werent A WHOLE HORDE of thousands of paths he was going from there that the POOR american public got confused with.

I find this too be retarded and branding , i am not this i am that , hey i come with a life time warantee vote for me but then again as one of my net friends from america once wrote recently:

Quote[/b] ]Americans still love to get their daily dosage of survivor:vanuatu. Americans don't know how their government works..but they can tell you how many pounds of whale shit little-laura from michigan can ingest. Again, this might be a wakeup call for you, I don't know.

In any case, I do not care who wins the election. To americans it's one big gamble, we might as well start putting numbers and renaming our two dominating parties to "The Secratariats" and "The Sea Biscuts". Why not include the fast commentary? The ugly map of tassie with the funny horn? Thats all that americans care about, the blue and the red. The good or the Bad. Coke or pepsi. Anal or Oral. Which shall it be? The fact is that the two major parties are not looking out for the individual, they are looking out for themselves, their campaign funders, and their image. Not you sitting behind your computer right now, the one who works 8-12 hours a day comes home has to make dinner for your 3 kids, sit up pulling your hair out of your head because the electric company just raised your bill. Not you. Neither of the parties are looking out for you. You need to accept this fact. So stop voting for either republican/democrat on your card. Start researching the shitheads your putting your OK next to. If you like your canidate vote for him, if you don't DO NOT. Vote for WHO REPRESENTS YOU not for who represents that second cousin you fornicateed at that christmas party, NOT for who you THINK is going to win, VOTE FOR WHO REPRESENTS YOU. That is what it is all about. I can guarentee you once you start to do this you will find you don't neccesarilly agree with everything your local republican/democrat has done. You will probablly find that your not as republican/democrat as you thought and that you agree more for something else.

Its a bit cynical but it does strike some chords at the right areas.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hardly the same thing as China's shooting of U.S. spy aircraft.

Just an example why such a unremarkable event would hardly be considered a valid reason behind an invasion.

[billybob2002 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....en_dc_2

Quote[/b] ]

Unhappy Democrats Must Wait to Get Into Canada

1 hour, 1 minute ago   U.S. National - Reuters

By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Disgruntled Democrats seeking a safe Canadian haven after President Bush (news - web sites) won Tuesday's election should not pack their bags just yet.

Canadian officials made clear on Wednesday that any U.S. citizens so fed up with Bush that they want to make a fresh start up north would have to stand in line like any other would-be immigrants -- a wait that can take up to a year.

"Let me tell you -- if they're hard-working honest people, there's a process, and let them apply," Immigration Minister Judy Sgro told Reuters.

Asked whether American applicants would get special treatment, she replied: "No, they'll join the crowd like all the other people who want to come to Canada."

There are anywhere from 600,000 to a million Americans living in Canada, which leans more to the left than the United States and has traditionally favored the Democrats over the Republicans.

But statistics show a gradual decline in U.S. citizens coming to work and live in Canada, which has an ailing health care system and relatively high levels of personal taxation.

Government officials, real estate brokers and Democrat activists said that while some Americans might talk about moving to Canada rather than living with a new Bush administration, they did not expect a mass influx.

"It's one thing to say 'I'm leaving for Canada' and quite another to actually find a job here and wonder about where you're going to live and where the children are going to go to school," said one official.

Roger King of the Toronto-based Democrats Abroad group said he had heard nothing about a possible exodus of party members.

"I imagine most committed Democrats will want to stay in the United States and continue being politically active there," he said.

Americans seeking to immigrate can apply to become permanent citizens of Canada, a process that often takes a year. Becoming a full citizen takes a further three years.

The other main way to move north on a long-term basis is to find a job, which in all cases requires a work permit. This takes from four to six months to come through.

Statistics show the number of U.S. workers entering Canada dropped to 15,789 in 2002 from 21,627 in 2000. In 1981 some 10,030 Americans gained permanent residency, compared to 5,541 in 2003.

Asked if there had been signs of increased U.S. interest, Sgro said: "Not yet, but we'll see tomorrow."

The Canadian foreign ministry said there had been no increase in hits on the Washington embassy's immigration Web site, while housing brokers doubted they would see a surge in U.S. business.

"Canada's always open and welcoming to Americans who want to relocate here, but we don't think it would be a trend or movement," said Gino Romanese of Royal Lepage Residential Real Estate Services.

Those wishing to move to Canada could always take a risk and claim refugee status -- the path chosen earlier this year by two U.S. deserters who opposed the Iraq (news - web sites) war.

"Anybody who enters Canada who claims refugee status will be provided with a work permit...it doesn't matter what country they're from," said an immigration ministry spokeswoman.

Refugee cases are handled by special boards, which can take months to decide whether to admit applicants. The rulings can be appealed and opposition politicians complain some people ordered deported have been in Canada for 10 years or more.

[NavyEEL 0]

Quote[/b] ]I am very happy that someone is elected more cleanly now (I hope), it looks like Bush really did have a majority popular vote, good, fine, let us see what happens with the leader the Americans have chosen.

WOW! I like that post...  

Thanks.  

I mean  

I agree--great post. Simple, respectful, and to the point.

Whether you are a Bush, Kerry, Nader, or whatever fan, this election is a good thing. Both candidates had a clean race and the results were decisive. I applaud Kerry for stepping down and avoiding another dispute like we had in the 2000 election. He realized that he lost and graciously accepted defeat, and I know it was probably the hardest thing for him to do. Another disputed election would have been just one more thing to divide Americans, which we certainly do not need.

Now whether you like what Bush did in his first term in office with the War on Terrorism or the war in Iraq, try to start with a clean slate. There will be many changes in the administration and in the federal government as a whole. Greenspan will be gone and new economic policies will start to come into play, and the long-term effects of the war on terror and war in Iraq will start to be seen. Even if you were/are not a Bush supporter, try to be optimistic. Remember, he was elected by a majority of Americans--that means most people think he will do a decent job, so just have a little faith and let's see what he can do with a second term.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Canada, which has an ailing health care system

I've always had the impression that Canada's Healthcare system is pretty good and drugs are cheaper than in the US.

What might he mean with this ailing?

[Taconic 0]

Its not offensive its downright cheap if you come forward again and again telling us how honest and fair you are when most of the times people that shout out such things arent. Be honest with yourself and the people , present yourself in the best manner possible and let them decide dont CHOKE on their mouths with your constant -believe-in-me-i-am-better- rehearsels.

You still aren't following...

Quote[/b] ]If the voter himself is so concerned about the candidate why doesnt he goddamn do some research himself?

Are voters psychic now?

I want to know SPECIFICALLY how Kerry plans to improve the economy over the course of four years. I don't want to hear "I have a plan" and some line about not giving the upper class tax breaks. I want SPECIFICS, and I want them to be detailed. I want something that I can hold you to four years from now.

I want to know SPECIFICALLY how Kerry would have handled 9/11 differently.

I want to know SPECIFICALLY how Kerry would have caught bin Laden where Bush failed. What would he have done differently? Why would it have worked? What is he going to do from here on in?

I want to know SPECIFICALLY what he is going to do in Iraq. Is your plan better than Bush's? What is it? What is the timetable for the withdrawl? Have you actually discussed this in detail with military leaders?

I want to know many other very specific things--everything from what his plans with the DoD are to whether or not he plans to actually keep Bush's lofty goals for the space program. How exactly is one supposed to know these things unless the candidate comes out and says them?

Kerry did not give us many specifics--he gave us many vauge comments about many different things. As such, I don't think that he instilled a lot of confidence in swing voters.

I think that you're fixated on my choice of words rather than the meaning behind them.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Remember, he was elected by a majority of Americans--that means most people think he will do a decent job, so just have a little faith and let's see what he can do with a second term.

Most people thing Iraq had something to do with 9/11 to. Hard to be optimistic when our future is decided by suck geniuses.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I want to know SPECIFICALLY how Kerry plans to improve the economy over the course of four years. I don't want to hear "I have a plan" and some line about not giving the upper class tax breaks. I want SPECIFICS, and I want them to be detailed. I want something that I can hold you to four years from now.

I want to know SPECIFICALLY how Kerry would have handled 9/11 differently.

I want to know SPECIFICALLY how Kerry would have caught bin Laden where Bush failed. What would he have done differently? Why would it have worked? What is he going to do from here on in?

I want to know SPECIFICALLY what he is going to do in Iraq. Is your plan better than Bush's? What is it? What is the timetable for the withdrawl? Have you actually discussed this in detail with military leaders?

I want to know many other very specific things--everything from what his plans with the DoD are to whether or not he plans to actually keep Bush's lofty goals for the space program. How exactly is one supposed to know these things unless the candidate comes out and says them?

Kerry did not give us many specifics--he gave us many vauge comments about many different things. As such, I don't think that he instilled a lot of confidence in swing voters.

I think that you're fixated on my choice of words rather than the meaning behind them.

Go to johnkerry.com. I think a lot of people did not have the time to go on the internets to look at his plan.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]I want SPECIFICS, and I want them to be detailed. I want something that I can hold you to four years from now.

Really - www.johnkerry.com has somewhat detailed plans in PDF forms.

Here's his economic plan for example:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/economic_plan.pdf

Too bad nobody cared about economy for example in these elections which played major part in 1992 elections.

[Acecombat 0]

Its not offensive its downright cheap if you come forward again and again telling us how honest and fair you are when most of the times people that shout out such things arent. Be honest with yourself and the people , present yourself in the best manner possible and let them decide dont CHOKE on their mouths with your constant -believe-in-me-i-am-better-  rehearsels.

You still aren't following...

Quote[/b] ]If the voter himself is so concerned about the candidate why doesnt he goddamn do some research himself?

Are voters psychic now?

I want to know SPECIFICALLY how Kerry plans to improve the economy over the course of four years. I don't want to hear "I have a plan" and some line about not giving the upper class tax breaks. I want SPECIFICS, and I want them to be detailed. I want something that I can hold you to four years from now.

I want to know SPECIFICALLY how Kerry would have handled 9/11 differently.

I want to know SPECIFICALLY how Kerry would have caught bin Laden where Bush failed. What would he have done differently? Why would it have worked? What is he going to do from here on in?

I want to know SPECIFICALLY what he is going to do in Iraq. Is your plan better than Bush's? What is it? What is the timetable for the withdrawl? Have you actually discussed this in detail with military leaders?

I want to know many other very specific things--everything from what his plans with the DoD are to whether or not he plans to actually keep Bush's lofty goals for the space program. How exactly is one supposed to know these things unless the candidate comes out and says them?

Kerry did not give us many specifics--he gave us many vauge comments about many different things. As such, I don't think that he instilled a lot of confidence in swing voters.

I think that you're fixated on my choice of words rather than the meaning behind them.

What billybob basically said there , plus his stance was good enough in his debates he did mention clearly how and which taxes he would cut where the money would go , from where will he get the extra money from then. It wasnt all bullshit some of it was probably was like if Kerry says he favours the 2nd amendment just to gain conservative votes while he obviously was against it , but then again after all hes a politician and this is the 21st century .And matching this to BUSH his record is still out shining the incumbents.

If the public couldnt even grasp the basic facts about the WAR in Iraq and how it was false how can yuo expect them to understand any of Kerrys plan anyway if he HAD detailed them extensively. He did give a breif outlook to them you cant say he didnt. HE DID. All this confusion which the media is spreading about him is bullshit. You can go through this thread on all the issues youve put forward on where kerry stands and get a good picture yourself. Akira himself has posted several such accounts it would be useless to repeat them again.

AND HOW COME YOUR SO BLOODY PICKY WHEN IT COMES TO KERRYS FUTURE POLICYS WHICH HE HASNT EVEN BEEN GIVEN THE CHANCE YET TO IMPLEMENT , ALL THE WHILE GIVING BUSH the FREE HEADSUP TO DO EVERYTHING FROM declaring WAR on countries under FALSE pretences to TAX CUT FOR RICHES , WHY NOT QUESTION THAT FOR ONCE? ITS BEEN GOING ON FOR 2-3 YEARS NOW? How HYPOCRITE i might ADD.

[Taconic 0]

Go to johnkerry.com. I think a lot of people did not have the time to go on the internets to look at his plan.

I've been there. I've also been to Edwards' and Dean's sites. In fact, Edwards' site was what made me decide that I would vote for him if he got the nod. In any case, I was giving examples of various things that I didn't find to be adequetely covered in his speeches, which is what the majority of the public pays attention to.

The point that I'm trying to make is that Kerry lost partly because he was not aggressive enough in selling himself to the public. His site goes into a lot more detail than he did in many of his speeches, but it still isn't enough (IMO.) It's a website. A whole lot of people don't have internet access or are completely computer illiterate.

Bush was the incumbent. He did not have be nearly as proactive as Kerry for that reason and that reason alone. I'm not attacking Kerry here. I'm simply stating that he could have been more proactive in regards to the general public.

[Acecombat 0]

A bit of comic relief again seeing as our eyes have probably gone sore looking at that american map with the red and blues heres one last look and you shouldnt mind looking at it

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]His site goes into a lot more detail than he did in many of his speeches, but it still isn't enough (IMO.)

In TV debates with limited time it's pretty hard to get into specifics but he did keep advertising his site which unfortunately, many people did not bother to visit since his plans sound pretty reasonable. As for Bush's plans - he hardly even mentioned them and was just mostly on the defence.

You can only ask for specifics from politician up to a point, after that everything is a promise of better tomorrow. However, now we'll never know will we?