thats my bush

[mrpyrex]

i just wanted to express my hate for the piece of shit that runs my country. oh wait im sorry i forgot, its not really everyones country anymore now is it

[cosmictraveler]

Yep, thanks to over 50 million people that voted for Bush, BTW were you one of them?

[dsdsds]

You are right to hate him but you have to ask yourself HOW things will be diferent if and when Kerry replaces him. -- Also forty something percent of your compatriots support him. Do you HATE them also?

[cosmictraveler]

Remember that Kerry voted for the wars approval! What does that say about Kerry?

[Ozymandias]

Plus, he looks French! :rolleyes:

I'll vote for almost anyone to get Bush out of office.

[Closet Philosopher]

Tis is when I am proud to be Canadian. We never supported the war. Yay for us. Chretien may have looked like an idiot, but he pulled through when it came to this issue. The Republicans and the Democrats are basically the same party with different names, there are connections - don't fool yourself.

[Dreamwalker]

I do not like Bush and his politics. I hope you guys over there in the USA vote for Kerry or anyone else, as long as Bush gets out of office. I thought he was a nutcase before, but then he started this stupid war, what a dickhead.

[Fraggle Rocker]

I thought this thread was going to be about the wonderful show named "That's My Bush" that was on Comedy Central in 2001. It was one of the funniest programs they ever aired. Unfortunately they caved in after 9/11 and stopped running it. So much for freedom of the press.

[Whirlwind]

Remember that Kerry voted for the wars approval! What does that say about Kerry?

Whirlwind comments:

It means that the Whitehouse terrorist "fooled" everyone! :eek:

I mean, you're listeing to the president of the United States stating the facts as the CIA has developed them - or so we were led to believe.

How were we to know that DIM BULB and his Judenrat NeoCon(men) Rummy, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser and Perle were running their own internal one-sided intelligence department supported by the Sharon government and the "Fair & Balanced" lying liars of the FOX JEWS NETWORK!

Whirlwind..... :D

[Mystech]

Yep, thanks to over 50 million people that voted for Bush, BTW were you one of them?

Hey now, don't try to insinuate that it was the American people who put Bush into office. Remember that in 2000 more people voted for the other guy (That's got nothing to do with pregnant chads, Gore won the popular vote), it was the Supreme Court that put Bush into office.

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Hey now, don't try to insinuate that it was the American people who put Bush into office. Remember that in 2000 more people voted for the other guy (That's got nothing to do with pregnant chads, Gore won the popular vote), it was the Supreme Court that put Bush into office.
Actually it was the people, just not whom you think. The franchised Florida populace put Bush in office by being too inept to operate a voting system.

[Johnny Bravo]

Well, Bush is just a puppet for the VP and big money friends.
He is a big nothing...the "what, me worry? boy.

[crazy151drinker]

And what about the Military votes that were not counted?
Do you propose we go to a direct election system? (a true democracy *LOL*)
There go States rights.......

Well we hated Clinton, and we Hate Kerry. So too bad.

[ElectricFetus]

Its all about voting for the lesser of two evils and Bush is way up there in evil, well just stupidity is administration is way up there in evil. Kerry on the other hand is less so in both evil and stupidity, so the choose is obvious for me.

[crazy151drinker]

Is it just me or is Kerry sounding more and more like Bush everyday?

[Undecided]

The people of the United States if we are to use the correct use of a democracy voted for Gore. By 500,000 or so votes more then Bush. In the electorial college Bush won by 271, compared to Gores 267. If one state (like Arizona) swings for Kerry then Bush is a done deal.

[Stokes Pennwalt]

The people of the United States if we are to use the correct use of a democracy voted for Gore. By 500,000 or so votes more then Bush. In the electorial college Bush won by 271, compared to Gores 267. If one state (like Arizona) swings for Kerry then Bush is a done deal.
And nobody will argue this point. However, the United States is a representative republic. Voting by proxy via the electoral college is a mechanism enumerated in the Constitution by framers who had the acuity to understand the weaknesses inherent in voting at large via a populist democracy.

[ElectricFetus]

And nobody will argue this point. However, the United States is a representative republic. Voting by proxy via the electoral college is a mechanism enumerated in the Constitution by framers who had the acuity to understand the weaknesses inherent in voting at large via a populist democracy.

and this is why the American democratic system is archaic and outdated, and why the electoral college system should be removed, and multi-vote or even Borda voting should be implemented.

[otheadp]

US is the most stable country alive actually
there hasn't been a coup or anything similar since the US's creation after the civil war
the current system is fine for both democrats and republicans

as for Kerry, he's a walking joke - even funnier than Dean
reminds me of Bibi (Netanyahu) in the early 90's when he was flip flopping and changing his opinion every other campaign advertisement

he's either a "i'll say anything to get elected" kind of guy, a "can't make up my mind" kind of guy, or a "i have no idea what i'm doing, or gonna do once i'm elected" kinda guy

or, of course, all of the above

in addition he's just a plain moron (http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/001083.html)

is Kerry the best the democrats have? if so, and if he is elected, say 'bye bye' to the US

[ElectricFetus]

US is the most stable country alive actually

Ha no, Canada, Australia, new Zealand, Switzerland, Norway,ect are more stable politically.

also otheadp the us is already going down the drain with Bush administration, actually it would take allot for any up coming administration to do even worse.

[otheadp]

what do you mean "more stable politically" ?
the US's system of ruling has been alive longer than any of the systems of ruling of the countries you've mentioned, and has not been seriously shaken even once since the end of the 18th century when US declared independence

it's been the same constitution without serious amendments and with the same system of government since the beginning

[ElectricFetus]

Oh I do remember something like the civil war, civil right riots, women’s rights marches, ect, many of the countries I mention never had a civil war and had civil rights and women’s rights equalized legally decades before the USofA and generally have less public protest in their capitals.

[otheadp]

but has the Constitution been majorly redrafted as a result of any of these? (except the 1st one you've mentioned)

[Stokes Pennwalt]

and this is why the American democratic system is archaic and outdated, and why the electoral college system should be removed, and multi-vote or even Borda voting should be implemented.
Maybe this will happen. But it's going to take a Constitutional amendment to do it, and that's not small beans.

[ElectricFetus]

that does not mean it would not be better if it were not done.

[Undecided]

Politically speaking the most stable western democracy is most likely Japan, she has only had one government change. The same liberal party has been in power except in 93-94. The US is not by any measure the best system or democracy in the world. If we take a measure I believe the best democracy in the world is Finland.

[Mystech]

The people of the United States if we are to use the correct use of a democracy voted for Gore. By 500,000 or so votes more then Bush. In the electorial college Bush won by 271, compared to Gores 267. If one state (like Arizona) swings for Kerry then Bush is a done deal.

I'm in Arizona and I'll be doing my part ot make sure that happens!

To be honest though, opinion polls aside, I really don't see this state falling into the hands of the democrats any time soon. . . it's just too. . . westerny. Buncha' cowboys in pickuptrucks laughin' and braggin' whenever we bomb them durn towelheads!

[Mystech]

Ha no, Canada, Australia, new Zealand, Switzerland, Norway,ect are more stable politically.

also otheadp the us is already going down the drain with Bush administration, actually it would take allot for any up coming administration to do even worse.

That's for sure. It'd take one hell of a screw up to leave a legacy of complete ineptness like Bush is creating every day he's in office. And I'm not talking about the "getting head from an intern" sort of fuckup (wow how I wish that were the worst of our nation's troubles again!) I mean something that can top invading a nation on false pretenses and then shrugging it off, lying to the entire nation, and just holding up a package of mentos to make it better, and don't get me started on domestic policy! Handing the nation over to the religious right wasn't real a real winner in my book.

Kerry may not be some shining golden boy, and he’s certainly as sneaky as any politician but at least he believes in a foreigner policy that won’t have our former allies turning their backs on us in disgust, and I doubt that he’ll use God as his justification for his domestic policies. That’s something at least.

[otheadp]

Politically speaking the most stable western democracy is most likely Japan, she has only had one government change. The same liberal party has been in power except in 93-94. The US is not by any measure the best system or democracy in the world. If we take a measure I believe the best democracy in the world is Finland.

when talking about stability, it's not how long 1 party has been in power, but how long the system of government has stayed in power.

Japan's system has been around since the end of WWII
so has Finalnd's

while in the US the parties keep changing every once in a while, the Constitution has remained practically the same for over 200 years, except for minor amendments

which is the factor i use in determining stability

[Undecided]

No what stability means is that the democratic system is balanced. In the US corruption, illegal campaign contributions, a president appointed by the Supreme Court, etc. This not the stalwart of a democracy. If you want to play the most stable western democracy by years by far it's the UK. The US has been relatively stable, but it is not the most. It has its major flaws, and I think you are going to be the only one (as usual) to actually deny this. The facts bore out that today Finland and other states are the best democracies in the world. If EI_Sparks was here he would tell you about the direct democracy that they have in Switzerland. American democracy compared to others, leaves much to be desired.

[ElectricFetus]

otheadp,

Let me put it this way: the USofA was the first democracy in over 1000 years, during its 200 years of existence other nations have developed democracies based off the USofA and many having the wisdom of more modern progress have create democracies superior in political and government structure to the USofA. To put it in simple terms the USofA is like the Intel 286: out of date and archaic but still view as a major point of progress. To summarize change is good, changing the constitution is not a bad thing, if we had not changed it before women would still be inferior, many people would be marked as sub-human slaves and savages good only for killing, and worst of all many would still be wearing those ugly white wigs!

[otheadp]

nico, i didn't say US was the best democracy, i said it was the most stable.
i'm not denying there is corruption, for there is corruption everywhere because no system is perfect

as far as "the best democracy", there are many, and each one is a little different, with its own pluses and minuses

fetus, your Intel 286 analogy is not completly accurate. as times change, so do laws. but the system that brings these laws to life, removes other laws from life, is still the same

[ElectricFetus]

otheadp,

The government has changed laws and regulations on its self repeatedly, for example a amendment was passed in 1951 that a president could not server more then 2 terms. why could an amendment not be made that would dismantle the electoral college?

[otheadp]

it could, of course
i did say that the Constitution hasn't been changed significantly

the slight amendments in the Constitution were changed legaly

[otheadp]

i don't know about the UK
.. when was the power transfered from the royalty to the government?

i might be mistaken, but i think up a century ago or a little longer, the royalty had the final say in the UK
and it's changed since then

if so, then the US in its form has been around longer

[Whirlwind]

Remember that Kerry voted for the wars approval! What does that say about Kerry?

Whirlwind opines, :o

It shows that the Bush NeoCon(rats) fooled "everybody!"

Herr Goebbel's could have learnt a thing or two from the BUSHWACKERS!

Whirlwind, :D

[Fraggle Rocker]

It may be that the Iraq situation has become so bad that neither Bush nor Kerry will be able to fix it quickly and easily. However, there are other important issues in America besides Iraq.

The environment, for instance. If Bush and Cheney have their way, the entire State of Alaska will become one giant oil well, the National Forests will become National Lumber Yards, and pollution will return to the levels of the 1960s. Kerry can and will halt and reverse those trends.

The economy, for another example. Bush is completely in the pocket of a handful of wealthy men. Between them they have discovered a way for the U.S. economy to grow without creating any new jobs. This is short-term thinking, of course, but a brain the size of Bush's is incapable of looking more than fifteen minutes into the future, and his corporate buddies are so downright evil that they figure once they've destroyed America they'll just take over Europe or Australia and start fresh. Kerry may be a professional politician, but at least he understands that there is a long term and that America must have jobs. He'll probably bring back inflation and high mortgage and credit card interest rates, but that's better than unemployment.

And speaking of Iraq, the only reason we're there (aside from the Bush Dynasty's personal vendetta against Saddam) is so that Cheney's corporate buddies can make a fortune on petroleum. Kerry does not have those ties to the industrial slimeballs. He could order all the troops home, let the Iraqis go back to hating each other like they always have, and live to see the next sunrise, something Bush can't do.

There are important differences between the candidates if you can look past Iraq.

[Undecided]

And speaking of Iraq, the only reason we're there (aside from the Bush Dynasty's personal vendetta against Saddam) is so that Cheney's corporate buddies can make a fortune on petroleum

I disagree, surely those played a factor but this administration is ideological. They really want to change the face of the ME to suit their needs and those of Israel. Iraq is highly symbolic, and it is benefical (in theory) for the US to have democracies in the ME. Sadly I don't think the US would enjoy another bunch of Islamic theocracies in place of secular bath'ists.

[Voodoo Child]

when talking about stability, it's not how long 1 party has been in power, but how long the system of government has stayed in power.

A system of government may stay in power for ages yet be prone to fragile coalitions, snap elections, hung parliaments, electoral fraud, disputed elections, etc, etc. This is not a picture of stability.

[ElectricFetus]

Voodoo Child,

take Rome for example.

[WildBlueYonder]

Whirlwind comments:

It means that the Whitehouse terrorist "fooled" everyone!
more like a figure head from a right-wing judicial coup



I mean, you're listeing to the president of the United States stating the facts as the CIA has developed them - or so we were led to believe.
they wanted so much to invade Iraq, that lies were said



How were we to know that DIM BULB and his Judenrat NeoCon(men) Rummy, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser and Perle were running their own internal one-sided intelligence department supported by the Sharon government and the "Fair & Balanced" lying liars of the FOX JEWS NETWORK!



Whirlwind.....
just because you don't like jews, doesn't mean that they control everything, most of the liars at Fox are anglos, check for yourself, why are you so anti-semitic?

[otheadp]

Randolfo... don't you read books?
it's FOX JEWS! under the direct control of Sharon, the head of the Elders of Zion!

...but anyway,
let's discuss the democratic Presidential candidate. i heard he came up with a new slogan and a logo:

Those are my principles! If you don't like them...I have others!

http://members.rogers.com/babytm/kerryimg.jpg

[mrpyrex]

wow. i was just venting, thats pretty cool that there is this many replies. maybe the thats my bush helped out a little but was completely unintended. i cant help but to feel like im the onlyone my age thats cares at all about whats going on. maybe its just the people i talk to. i just turned 21 is anyone else here around that same age?
ha some moron caller on cspan thats saying the only people that are speaking out against bush, are people that are trying to get their books sold. its stupidity like that that scares me into thinking were not going to make it out of this hole. i just cant see things ever getting better

[mrpyrex]

oh yea, i gotta say thanks to c-span for being the only news related show taking live callers. i realised the importance of this a few minutes ago. and that is that there are comments and opinions by people that arent representing that news company. sure some of the callers are a little wacky but the average citizen gets to voice his/her opinions sweet Mike

[otheadp]

i just turned 21 is anyone else here around that same age?
you'll be surprised how many young people are on sciforums

some moron caller on cspan thats saying the only people that are speaking out against bush, are people that are trying to get their books sold

surprisingly enough, these people are getting extra attention (http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/032404e.htm) from the "Jew-owned" (see Liberal) media



When an FBI agent with close, regular contact with President Clinton wrote his book, he was virtually blacklisted from the mainstream media. Upon the release of Gary Aldrich's book "Unlimited Access (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895264064/anncoultedoto-20/ref=nosim)" in 1996, White House adviser George Stephanopoulos immediately called TV producers demanding that they give Aldrich no airtime. In terms of TV exposure, Aldrich's book might well have been titled "No Access Whatsoever."

"Larry King Live" and NBC's "Dateline" abruptly canceled their scheduled interviews with Aldrich. Aldrich was mentioned on fewer than a dozen TV shows during the entire year of his book's release -- many with headlines like this one on CNN: "Even Conservatives Back Away From Aldrich's Book." That's almost as much TV as Lewinsky mouthpiece William Ginsburg did before breakfast on an average day. (Let's take a moment here to imagine the indignity of being known as "Monica Lewinsky's mouthpiece.")

But a "tell-all" book that attacks the Bush administration gets the author interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes" (two segments), CNN's "American Morning" and ABC's "Good Morning America" -– with an "analysis" by George Stephanopoulos, no less. In the first few days of its release, Clarke's book was hyped on more than 200 TV shows.

In contrast to Aldrich's book, which was vindicated with a whoop just a few years later when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, many of Clarke's allegations were disproved within days of the book's release.


there are many books actually praising Bush, but they don't get any coverage at all. the big media outlets are very selective in which books and whose opinions they choose to hype up

[ElectricFetus]

I think there is a difference between Clinton fucking an intern and Bush fucking 9/11. Call me crazy but when one president gets impeach for lying about having had a blow job by a intern, and then another president right after lies about reasons for starting a war that killed thousand of people and counting and cost us over $100billion and nothing is done to him about it, well I call that unfair and bias, very partisan.

[otheadp]

i'll asume you didn't read the whole quote, or just didn't get it



wrote his book ... in 1996
...
Aldrich's book, which was vindicated with a whoop just a few years later

his book had nothing to do with Lewinsky

[ElectricFetus]

and what did his book say that was so important?

[WildBlueYonder]

Randolfo... don't you read books?
it's FOX JEWS! under the direct control of Sharon, the head of the Elders of Zion!

...but anyway,
No way, are you jewish?

[otheadp]

hmm... should i tell you or shouldn't i...

you should decide from my responses
and those lines you quoted are obviously sarcastic, in case you missed it

[Frisbinator]

I love Bush. He is the best President ever and don't you forget it. If you hate him so much, move to Canada so that you can be with that clown who is so proud to live there because his Prime Minister did not want to stand up and back up the war against terror!

[WildBlueYonder]

I love Bush. He is the best President ever and don't you forget it. If you hate him so much, move to Canada
you love him that much, then marry him!
Bush, asleep at the wheel! Bush, the wrong-way driver, what, we have to catch al-Qaeda? Bush says, "lets get that evil Saddam", now we have that little problem in Iraq, what to do? why Bush says, "lets bomb N. Korea!"

[ElectricFetus]

No man after iraq Bush says: "What that is so yesterdays issue, its the gays we need to worry about now! oh oh and Ya were going back to the moon and mars isn't that cool?”

[WildBlueYonder]

No man after iraq Bush says: "What that is so yesterdays issue, its the gays we need to worry about now! oh oh and Ya were going back to the moon and mars isn't that cool?”
ok, so your responce is way better & cooler than mine, "did you say go to the moon", (gets starry-eyed & begins daydreaming)

[jinchilla]

otheadp, you are complex. Let me try to piece things together:

You're a republican-leaning, ex-pot-smoking Israeli living in Canada who supports the "war on terror", loves the US and Bush but also Canada and pines for Israel and feels the "liberal" media (a term only used since Clinton took office) is under (undesirable) Jewish control?

Does that some it up? :bugeye:

[ElectricFetus]

Why did you not just say completely insane with fries on the side??? It’s the same thing.

[otheadp]

:D
lol fetus

jinchilla, some slight corrections:
i think the liberal media is under the control of fundamentalists running the arab governments (when it comes for middle east isues)
the rest is all advertising and i don't really give a f*ck

i love the US for some things but i hate it for others

as for Bush, i wish he could give better press conference appearances... but otherwise i love what he's doing and even more, i love what his team is doing :D

that should sum it up

oh yeah, I HATE ARAFAT

[ElectricFetus]

aaaaaah but why the liberal media I thought it was the religious right that love Israel so?

[hungvu]

After 9/11, I think America should be united to fight terrorism but obviouly, there are leftists who would rather fight against a different enemy, our president for fighting terrorism.

[otheadp]

some blogger said on the day of 9/11: "don't they know they've just created 2 generations of patriots?"
boy was she wrong :(

[jinchilla]

2 generations of patriots?

Don't worry, the "leftists" or "liberals" seem to be into responsible reproduction and have one or two kids. It's the patriotic "right" or "neo-cons" who are building their numbers through unchecked population growth.

Biased stereotyping.

[crazy151drinker]

Who cares about Clinton's office rants. What bugged me was that he sent troops into Somalia without the proper support and then pulled them out. What a waste. Then the Rwandians. Well I cant really blame Billy for that, the whole world just sat there (Except for the Canadians!!)

That press conference though was horrible. Bush should have slammed some vodka shot before he went out there.

[otheadp]

"it seems i'm not as quick on my feet as i should be"
"you put me on the spot here like this"

jebus wtf is wrong with him

[ElectricFetus]

hungvu,

So Iraq is part of that terrorism thing? I mean Bush is definitely not on the mark when it comes to fighting terrorist.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Many of Clarke's allegations were disproved within days of the book's release.You said this a week ago and I have yet to see any of Clarke's substantive allegations disproven.

What's all this drenn about the "liberal media?" As far as I can tell, every major newspaper, magazine, and tv news show (with exceptions I can count on one hand), has failed to:

1. Note that the fact that we already invaded Iraq anyway is not an adequate reason for continuing to keep troops there;
2. Ask why a planeload of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, was allowed to leave the USA on 9/11 when all other non-military flights were grounded;
3. Publicize the fact that Wal-Mart is the largest engine of offshore outsourcing of American jobs;
4. Ask why the U.S. still counts the dictators of Saudi Arabia as allies, even though they finance almost all of the anti-American terrorist academies throughout the Mideast, provided nearly all the money and all but four of the personnel for the 9/11 hijacking, and undoubtedly know where Bin Laden is if he's not actually relaxing in a guest suite in their own palace;
5. Expose the failure of the D.A.R.E. program;
6. Explain that when the pilot of a planeload of Saudi officials demanded that the female air traffic controller at a U.S. airport be replaced by a male, the correct answer should have been, "When hell freezes over, you damn sexist terrorists, let's see if you can make it home without refueling -- this is Gloria Allred, counsel for the ATC of this airport, speaking";
7. Report that the War on Drugs is responsible for more deaths, broken homes, and inner city terror than the drugs themselves.

[Repo Man]

Who cares about Clinton's office rants. What bugged me was that he sent troops into Somalia without the proper support and then pulled them out. What a waste. Then the Rwandians. Well I cant really blame Billy for that, the whole world just sat there (Except for the Canadians!!)

That press conference though was horrible. Bush should have slammed some vodka shot before he went out there.

Bush 1 deployed US troops to Somalia, Dec. ninth 1992 ( http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/Somalia/Chronology.htm ) Clinton inherited the mess.

If Clinton hadn't been in a constant struggle for his political life, who knows what might have been accomplished? As it was, he had no political capital that he could afford to spend trying to stop a genocidal civil war in an African country that most Americans had never heard of.

If there had been even one soldier killed, he would have been handing the 1996 election to the Republicans.

Bush might have been better if he had taken a couple of shots. He couldn't have been worse.