US Presidential Elections thread - the fate of the world to be decided (2 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.
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
#142
Mar 16, 2004
111,603
#142
++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
Pecker whenever there is a terrorist threat his approval ratings go up. So what do you think his approval is based on? Its a 4 letter word, starting with F and contains two vowels- e and a. Have fun.


F _ _ _.
Click to expand...
Fake? ;)
 
gray

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
#146
Apr 22, 2003
30,260
#146
November 1, 2004 -- WASHINGTON -

Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race — and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.

The respected Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors and translates Arabic media and Internet sites, said initial translations of a key portion of bin Laden's video rant to the American people Friday night missed an ostentatious bid by the Saudi-born terror master to divide American voters and tilt the election towards Democratic challenger John Kerry.

MEMRI said radical Islamist commentators monitored over the Internet this past weekend also interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us."

The statement in question is when bin Laden said on the tape: "Your security is up to you, and any state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

That sentence followed a lengthy passage in the video in which bin Laden launches personal attacks on the president.

Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI, said bin Laden used the Arabic term "ay-wilaya" to refer to a "state" in that sentence.

That term "specifically refers to an American state, like Tennessee," Carmon said, adding that if bin Laden were referring to a "country" he would have used the Arabic word "dawla."

MEMRI also translated an analysis of bin Laden's statement from the Islamist Web site al-Qal'a, well known for posting al-Qaeda messages, which agreed that bin Laden's use of the word "ay-wilaya" was meant as a "warning to every U.S state separately."

"It means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president, it means that it chose to fight us and we will consider it an enemy to us, and any state that will vote against Bush, it means that it chose to make peace with us and we will not characterize it as an enemy," the Web site said, according to MEMRI's translation.
 
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
#147
Mar 16, 2004
111,603
#147
++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
November 1, 2004 -- WASHINGTON -

Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race — and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.
Click to expand...
So, if he holds his word, Michigan, California, and New York (all look like secure Kerry states) would be in the clear. For some reason I highly doubt that.
 
K10

K10

Senior Member
#148
Jul 12, 2002
2,698
#148
How valid is that story Gray?

In a way, I understand (never said I agreed) what Bin is saying. But can he be trusted is another question.

I don't think Bin wants Kerry to win because it will be easier to attack America.
 

BigIzz

Senior Member
#150
Jul 12, 2002
1,088
#150
++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
kiran thats the opposite of what most people think
Click to expand...
The is the opposite of what most people think, yes. However this argument is nearly totally without merit. To consider that foreign policy was considered to be Bush's weakness four years ago -- and rightfully so seeing as he was governor of Texas and never held a federal office, never dealt with foreign leaders. Yet somehow, four years later, this is considered to be a strength of his. Why? I really must say I don't have the slightest idea. It's all smoke and mirrors, based on a stereotypcal view of Republicans being tough (tough on crime, quick to go to war, etc.) and a hawkish administration. Meanwhile, Kerry has been a member of the United States Senate for more than 20 years and is on the Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry has at least an equal record as a statesman to that of Bush.

And simply look at the record. Primarly, if George Bush was so tough on terrorism, then why did what may be the most significant terrorist attack in modern history happen under his watch? If he were really, so tough on terror, don't you think maybe he would have sniffed out this plan involving dozens of people and years of planning and training. Not to say that he deserves all or even most of the blame. But simply, if he is a tough on terrorism as his supporters would lead you to believe, then 9/11 would have never happened. Instead as terrorists attacked the United States, Bush sat reading a book about goats to a group of first grade students.

Since 9/11, Bush has stopped any significant terror attacks in the United States. Same as Clinton did, save WTC 1 and Oklahoma City. Same as Bush Sr. did. Same as Reagan did. Same as Carter did, etc. etc.

This is not to say Bush is totally without merit. I don't see many positives in his reelection, but I can understand why some would support him. But to suggest he is this strong leader and more able to stop terrorism then John Kerry (or numerous other people) is nothing more then an absurd fabrication.
 
KB824

KB824

Senior Member
#154
Sep 16, 2003
31,680
#154
Well, the early results are in.

A smal town in New hampshire has voted 35-21 in favor of President Bush, so Senator Kerry has a long way to go to catch up :D


Projected voter turnout is expected to top 120 million voters, which would be an all-time record.

Love or hate these candidates(I'm in the latter category. Where oh where are you, John McCain!?!?!?!?), the fact that 120 million people will vote warms my heart, as it shows that more than ever the American people care about the right to vote.
 

Petrovich

New Member
#157
Nov 2, 2004
42
#157
++ [ originally posted by Sergio ] ++
Well, the early results are in.

A smal town in New hampshire has voted 35-21 in favor of President Bush, so Senator Kerry has a long way to go to catch up :D


Projected voter turnout is expected to top 120 million voters, which would be an all-time record.

Love or hate these candidates(I'm in the latter category. Where oh where are you, John McCain!?!?!?!?), the fact that 120 million people will vote warms my heart, as it shows that more than ever the American people care about the right to vote.
Click to expand...
"Vote or Die"

You can thank P. Diddy for that. :rolleyes:

Out of those 120 million people, how many of those do you think know what they're voting for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)