- Jul 24, 2005
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
ban.the.electoral.college said:If Bush was ever the one calling the shots in the White House, this news might disturb me. However, there is a wizard behind the curtain. How else do you explain an otherwise complete and total ****-up rising to power as he has??
I have always been disturbed by this man. More so that the republican party would nominate him. It's a slap in the face to the American people. We deserve better.
KevinWan said:O please... He won. Stop being a sore loser.
Connecticutter said:So "Dr. Frank" thinks he can diagnose Bush by looking at the news? This is clearly a sham made up by people who can't debate Bush on the issues.
By the way, Abraham Lincoln suffered from Depression.
51% of the vote.freethought6t9 said:And he only beat Kerry by 3% with one of the slimmest mandates in the history of mandates.
Batman said:51% of the vote.
- 8% more than what Clinton was elected with in '92.
- 2% more than what Clinton got re-elected in '96.
But yeah, Clinton had a real mandate.
He is Gettig like LBJ during Viet Nam, only preaching to the choir.
What do you know about LBJ? Were you even around then?Originally posted by SKILLMATIC:
However, I will say that although LBJ's war policies were some of the most horrible he had some of the most greatest ideologies such as the great american nation. Most of which we see today was becasue of him. Like SSN, welfare, all the benefits of school(like scholarships, grants), tax deductables, medical and medicaid benefits, and so much more.
freethought6t9 said:That and the fact that whatever you're views on the Florida debacle, Gore won the popular vote!!! And he only beat Kerry by 3% with one of the slimmest mandates in the history of mandates.
"Drive it like you stole it"-Scarily Relevant Bumper Sticker
KevinWan said:Popular Vote... Since when does the popular vote mean anything at all? The president is elected by the electoral vote, therefore he won. Gore was pathetic... he didn't even win his home state/home county... Kerry should have won that election... his defeat was entirely his fault. I thought the President had alot of loopholes the Dems could of capitalized on... but o well.
kal-el said:The president is elected by the electoral college, I agree, but that is why this election, and last for that matter, where shams. IMO an election should be decided by the number of votes. Given that almost 50% of the country didn't vote, it goes to show that half of the country dose'nt trust our leaders. I don't blame them.
KevinWan said:OK... so that must make every single President we've ever had a "sham." I don't blame them for not voting either... maybe not that they dont "trust" their leaders, but more likely because the choices were both pretty shabby. I mean Kerry... Bush... whats the difference?? It was a battle of "whos the least-bad."
kal-el said:Not really, even you have to agree with the fact that at least there were a little voter discrepencies in these elections. The truth is W hijacked Both elections, and in turn, started an illegal and immoral bloodshed to make the mid east safe for his buddies the Saudis.
You're right about Bush and Kerry, the lesser of 2 evils, of course, but IMO, W is Not it. I agree it would'nt make much of a difference now who's in the Oval Office, it would have 5 years ago though, as it takes infinitely more wisdom Not to invade Iraq in the first place, thus making us safer.
KevinWan said:I highly doubt he hijacked both elections... I mean c'mon EVERY recount was done in his favor and so was the Supreme Court's decision... Fine, if you want the Saudis to be unsafe, go right ahead, if you don't mind paying 10$ a gallon oil... But thats besides the fact, Iraq and Afganistan had little to do with the Saudis...
Are you implying Gore would have been a better President than Bush?? I think not... 9/11 would have been 10x worse had Gore been in office... and then the post 9/11 world would have just continued the Clinton "ignore the terrorist threats after 3 attacks" policy.
If you were President in the post 9/11 world, I have no doubt that any rational person handed over intellgence that appeared to be truthful indicating Iraq had WMD, would go to war. To let WMDs flow around in the Middle East would be a disaster. And sure, now that we're there we realise the intelligence was wrong, but at the time nobody would of thought that US intelligence could have failed so badly. Any rational person would not allow the proliferation of WMDs in the Middle East.
kal-el said:Please, do I have to go over all the voter discepencies, especially in Miami Dade County? $10 for a gallon of gas? Well it's almost at $3 now, and W's illegal bloodshed hadn't improved that quote at all. So I highly doubt it would be any worse if we had'nt invaded Iraq. And it is almost, I say almost common knowledge that Bush is in bed with the Saudi's.
Of course Gore would have been better. At least he is literate. And didn't get busted for a DUI. Add to the fact that he very rarely invokes "God" in his speeches. You can argue and say all Presidents did, but No one has referred to his Presidency in such epic biblical terminology. "God told me to strike at al-Queada." "God told me to strike at Saddam." C'mon, that proves he is a fanatic. First of all, I don't believe in a supernatural "God", but if there was one, why would he be speaking to W?
And you wanna talk about WMDs in the Mid East? Try Israel, Or India.. wait what about Pakistan? And of course Saudi Arabia- and them siiting on an ocean of oil, have No peaceful use for.