US Presidential Elections thread - the fate of the world to be decided (6 Viewers)

Who would you vote to be the next President of the United States?

  • John McCain

  • Barack Obama

  • undecided


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Elnur_E65

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2004
10,848
#81
++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++

To bring freedom to the Iraqi people and to show them how great democracy can be, for the limited offer bargain price of thousands of innocent civilian lives and billions of dollars worth of revenue for American companies from the 'rebuilding of Iraq' :extatic:
That's right! :D


***giggle***
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,507
#83
I have to agree with Sergio that I'm not liking the candidates we have to choose from. I thought we could find somebody with a little more charisma, but unfortunately we have a person with great ideas who doesn't explain how to make things happen, and another who accuses the other as being the "most Liberal member of the US Senate". Like we haven't heard all that before.

Do I think one is better than the other? No. But my decsision is based on what is best for myself and my family.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
83,441
#84
++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
I have to agree with Sergio that I'm not liking the candidates we have to choose from. I thought we could find somebody with a little more charisma, but unfortunately we have a person with great ideas who doesn't explain how to make things happen, and another who accuses the other as being the "most Liberal member of the US Senate". Like we haven't heard all that before.

Do I think one is better than the other? No. But my decsision is based on what is best for myself and my family.
Hey, Andy -- on that note, I only suggest that I wouldn't let ... as some would suggest ... the lack of major terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 sway your vote towards one candidate or the other. It was 8 1/2 years between the Feb 1993 terrorist attempt to take down the WTC and the time in Sep 2001 that it was taken down -- over two whole presidential administrations -- and over a period when anti-terrorist scrutiny was far more lax than it is today.

You had better believe that there are those with a sense of "unfinished business" on the D.C area with the planes that hit the secondary targets of the Pentagon and Pennsylvania on 9/11, and they've proven to be a very patient bunch...
 
OP

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #85
    ++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
    I have to agree with Sergio that I'm not liking the candidates we have to choose from. I thought we could find somebody with a little more charisma, but unfortunately we have a person with great ideas who doesn't explain how to make things happen, and another who accuses the other as being the "most Liberal member of the US Senate". Like we haven't heard all that before.

    Do I think one is better than the other? No. But my decsision is based on what is best for myself and my family.

    What I want to know is, when did being liberal become a bad thing? FFS, Bush is saying it like Kerry's a freakin serial murderer, whats wrong with being liberal?
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    111,507
    #86
    ++ [ originally posted by swag ] ++


    Hey, Andy -- on that note, I only suggest that I wouldn't let ... as some would suggest ... the lack of major terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 sway your vote towards one candidate or the other. It was 8 1/2 years between the Feb 1993 terrorist attempt to take down the WTC and the time in Sep 2001 that it was taken down -- over two whole presidential administrations -- and over a period when anti-terrorist scrutiny was far more lax than it is today.

    You had better believe that there are those with a sense of "unfinished business" on the D.C area with the planes that hit the secondary targets of the Pentagon and Pennsylvania on 9/11, and they've proven to be a very patient bunch...
    I understand that Swag, the National Security is a big issue, just as much as the state of our economy.

    I have a feeling that the plane that crashed in Somerset County was heading to either Camp David (couple miles from my house) or to Fort Detrick (where my dad's lab is). A thank you goes out to those who stopped that plane from reaching its pre-determined destination.
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    83,441
    #87
    ++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
    What I want to know is, when did being liberal become a bad thing? FFS, Bush is saying it like Kerry's a freakin serial murderer, whats wrong with being liberal?
    Yeah -- it's all name-calling. I never quite got it either. As I recall, "liberal" was being bandied about in U.S. presidential elections since the Reagan 1980s -- used as sort of the election equivalent of the 8-year-old who calls some other kid "gay".

    Independent of the electionspeak, labels are what you fall back on when you have no coherent or constructive argument to make otherwise. (Some Kerry supporters are equally as guilty of this when they simply label Bush as a moron and stop there.) But candidates use the "liberal" label because it probably works in a lot of circles.

    But even on those merits, I would hardly call John Kerry a liberal -- or anything close to the most-liberal-senator-who-ever-walked-the-face-of-the-earth. Paul Wellstone (God, I miss that guy -- he put all Capitol Hill people in their place) was definitely a liberal senator. But Kerry?
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #88
    Dictionary.com

    liberal

    # Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
    # Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
    # Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
     

    Elnur_E65

    Senior Member
    Feb 21, 2004
    10,848
    #91
    ++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++



    What I want to know is, when did being liberal become a bad thing? FFS, Bush is saying it like Kerry's a freakin serial murderer, whats wrong with being liberal?
    Swag's right. It started with Ronald Reagan, and a lot of people (bith Democrats and Republicans) are thankful to him for that, he started to pertray Democrats as Liberals right when he ended up in the Oval Office in 1980.

    Given his popularity (driven out of the "Reaganomics" and foreign policy), he's done a great job on that. "Liberal" since then has been a bad word in American Politics.

    It took Democrats more than a decade to lift this "liberal" image off of them.

    During his innagural speach in early 1993, Bill Clinton made a statement which until now I hear quoted on CNN frequently: "The era of big government is over".
     

    Vinman

    2013 Prediction Cup Champ
    Jul 16, 2002
    11,481
    #92
    ++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++



    What I want to know is, when did being liberal become a bad thing? FFS, Bush is saying it like Kerry's a freakin serial murderer, whats wrong with being liberal?
    Liberal ppl like Clinton are the reason we were attacked in '93, our interests hit in '98 and 2000, and the reason that Sept 11 was planned and executed

    Clinton did NOTHING to protect this country

    Its a known, proven fact !!!!!
     

    baggio

    Senior Member
    Jun 3, 2003
    19,250
    #93
    Well Clinton looked at it from a broader perspective, than Bush has done. Clinton, realised, that an immediate retaliation would only mean more terrorist attacks, instead he went around promoting goodwill in other parts of the world, encouraging the global community to join hands in their war against terror. Bush on the other hand has taken things too far. He actually believes he has the right to wage war with any country he feels threatened by, and that to me is somthing that can potentially destroy world peace.
    Andy, your sayng you dont like the candidates you have to choose from, your probably right. But then again, to me its basically a race for who is the lesser of two evils. And that's Kerry.
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #94
    Yes, I'm sure it's true. I bet he supplied the terrorists with weapons as well.


    :rolleyes:
     

    Elnur_E65

    Senior Member
    Feb 21, 2004
    10,848
    #95
    I think Bill Clinton was an OK President.

    During his first term he made only two major mistakes: started an initiative to reform medicare which was totally KILLED in Congress, and initiated this "don't ask don't tell" gays in military policy, which was also heavily screwtinized and eventually killed.

    But, he was the first modern President to balance the budget and actually have a surplus.
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    111,507
    #96
    I have to agree, Clinton was a great President. Like I have said before about the budget, that is an admirable accomplishment, something I hope our current Leader or future leader could do. Of course hard Conservatives will point fingers at Bill's personal life (ie Monica) because they have nowhere else to point towards, as he was not really faultering in most of his decisions as an acting President.
     

    Loppan

    Senior Member
    Jul 13, 2002
    2,528
    #97
    ++ [ originally posted by Vinman ] ++



    Clinton did NOTHING to protect this country

    Its a known, proven fact !!!!!
    I think it's Bush who can't protect his country since 9/11 happend under his watch.

    We only hear about when CIA etc fails not when their succed in their job.
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    83,441
    #99
    ++ [ originally posted by Vinman ] ++
    Liberal ppl like Clinton are the reason we were attacked in '93...
    Hmmm, so if I follow this logic, if George Bush v1.0 got re-elected instead of Clinton, all the Islamic death cult fanatics would have said, "Oh -- well, now that George is still in office, I don't care if he got the world to put troops on Arab soil ... particularly in the holiest places in the Koran in Saudi Arabia. We're afraid of him and we better not do anything, because he might do something that could defend his nation against guerrila attacks from a nationless terror organization..."

    Err... uhhh... I'm still thinking about this one, but it just isn't coming to me.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 6)