Post your politcal stuff here

[Capt. Nemo]

You mean the evil of the two...

 

[Erik]

The funny thing is that Nader actually isn't a bad candidate, it's just that you throw your vote away if you vote for him.

 

[spoofskate]

I don't know Erik... I'd have to say that he's actually not that strong a candidate. He's very strong in a couple of areas, but doesn't have much of a story at all outside those areas. He always kinda flubs during the presidential debates.

 

[CozKramer]

Nader = 4$$hO|_3.. Anyone who has the audacity to run, simply because they can, irregardless of what he'll end up doing to the end result is just that. An 4$$hO|_3 shmuck..

 

[Erik]

I agree with you.

I mean he's not bad, but I disrespect him because it's ridiculous that he runs over and over with no chance of winning, and he just ruins it for the democrats.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The funny thing is that Nader actually isn't a bad candidate, it's just that you throw your vote away if you vote for him.

I ponder why people think this. Right now global terror is a significant threat to the world. Yeah, Nader has experience with that. :hmm:

The economy is at a crossroads. Oh yeah, Nader an economic expert. :hmm:

And we all know the support Nader would have with Congress. :hmm:

Excuse me... why is Nader a good candidate?

 

[Erik]

To tell you the truth, I wasn't really thinking.

I don't know too much about him, except for the fact that it's irresponsible for him to keep running and tarnishing the current elections.

I was more talking prematurely and giving him the benefit of the doubt on that one, so you win!

 

[ford50mus]

I vote for Spoofee for President !! Then we would all get rewarded in life !!

 

[Choochoojr]

I vote for Spoofee for President !! Then we would all get rewarded in life !!

:hail: :hail: :hail: Spoofee :42:

:beer_yum: :beer_yum:

Freebies for all...

 

[ford50mus]

Can we put him on the California Ballot ? How many signatures would we need ? Can someone look into this ?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To tell you the truth, I wasn't really thinking.

I don't know too much about him, except for the fact that it's irresponsible for him to keep running and tarnishing the current elections.

I was more talking prematurely and giving him the benefit of the doubt on that one, so you win!

Thats cool. In 2000 people thought Nader would draw 5+% of the vote. I knew he'd get less than 3%. This time around, Nader may be lucky enough to get 1% or 1.5%. We'll see if he makes the difference again. He barely did in 2000, but enough to make the difference.

Folks, Florida, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Iowa all proved that every vote does matter. Don't waste it on someone who even if they were elected, couldn't possibly fulfill the responsibilities of the office. This is not the year for a protest vote.

 

[iRepublican]

You need "Balls" to be president!

I hope we're fortunate enough to relect the best president we've had in 12 years. Sure, Bush's hasn't been popular. Just read this thread and it's obvious. But popularity isn't important to him - he'd rather do the right thing - which is exactly what he's done all along. To tell you the truth, none of us who haven't actually been to Iraq know the true impact of what we've done (good or bad) as the media only shows us what gets the highest ratings and, let's face it, being liberal what will make the war look wrong. We can say all we want that the war was wrong for a number of different reasons. But we probably will never know how far it went to fend off future terrorist attacks that likely would have happened if we sat passive and comfortable in our own little country.

Fortunately Geroge W. Bush has the "Balls" to make the tough decisions that need to be made to make America safer for all of us.

 

[Cedar]

Fortunately Geroge W. Bush has the "Balls" to make the tough decisions that need to be made to make America safer for all of us.

May be he should try using his brain instead? Also nothing Bush has done has made us any safer. I'm still going with Kerry at least he had enough "balls" to go to war himself and enough brains to fight agaisnt the war when he was out.

 

[ksocia]

What we need is a weed-whacker

People are not just pissed because he had the 'balls' to finish his daddy's war... oh wait, what is the death toll? Finish is the wrong word... f*ck up?, yeah that's closer. Look at what *great* strides the economy has lept since he's been in office (and don't blame it all on 9/11). Look at what *great* work he's done with our deficit ( :banghead: ), our social security funds ( :banghead: ), our ties to other nations ( :banghead: ), our relationship with any group or country that isn't made entirely of ultra-conservative-republican-bible-thumpers. Christ, our vice president was the head of a company that just got nailed for accounting scandals AND overcharging the government on a NON-BID contract that just *happened* to goto Halliburton . What we need is a president who will at least make some attempt to be civil with the rest of the world (terrorists and the french aside), is actually respected by people in both parties, can actually pronounce half the words that his speech-makers write down ( ), didn't get through the war in a half-ass bull**** guard position that 'daddy' got him ( ), got better than C's in Yale (which I bet daddy got him into also), and does not need the secret service to protect him from pretzels ( :banghead: ). There, that's my 2 cents on it, Kerry 2004, and if not him, than Anyone but Bush 2004.

 

[iRepublican]

Look at what *great* strides the economy has lept since he's been in office (and don't blame it all on 9/11).

Are you for real? It would take a great deal of ignorance to not be aware of the negative impact that 9/11 would have on an economy. The fact that our economy has shown improvement is indication of the correct plan our president has for our nation. :42:

 

[ksocia]

Yes, 9/11 had a negative impact on the economy, and after 3 years, what's been accomplished? Not much thanks to Bush and his 'war on terror' that's blown billions of dollars and made Iraq into a terrorist clubMed. Bush has lost more jobs under his presidency (that haven't been made up for) than any president in decades, his fiscal policies (i.e. tax cuts and war spending) is pushing up the deficit and raiding SS funds so that we, our kids, and our kid's kid's will be working to correct this damage. Did 9/11 have an impact on jobs/the economy? Yes. Is all of our problems with jobs/the economy/the deficit because of 9/11? No.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I hope we're fortunate enough to relect the best president we've had in 12 years. Sure, Bush's hasn't been popular. Just read this thread and it's obvious. But popularity isn't important to him - he'd rather do the right thing - which is exactly what he's done all along.

Like saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas... or that it hasn't been proven yet?

To tell you the truth, none of us who haven't actually been to Iraq know the true impact of what we've done (good or bad) as the media only shows us what gets the highest ratings and, let's face it, being liberal what will make the war look wrong.

Yeah, but sadly the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) did a review on Iraq and their conclusion that Iraq was actually worse than the media was "portraying" it as. I mean, honestly, how many in here know that well over 50 American soldiers have died in combat in September? This ignores all the cities not in Iraqi control, the mob rule in Basra, and Kurdish tensions. The media isn't showing the war in its true light. It has under-reported deaths in Iraq since April! And since May, an average of 15 US Soldiers have died every week! Where is that in the media?

We can say all we want that the war was wrong for a number of different reasons. But we probably will never know how far it went to fend off future terrorist attacks that likely would have happened if we sat passive and comfortable in our own little country.

It was GW Bush's lack of a response to the USS Cole that helped make America look weak. It was Reagan's lack of a response against Iran after the Beruit bombing that made American look weak to terrorists. It was G HW Bush's lack of a response to the Pan AM 103 bombing over Lockerbie that made the US look weak to terrorists. Clinton was the only President who actually fought back... first by bombing Iraq after the HW Bush assassination plan was uncovered and bombing Afghanistan after the embassy bombings in Africa.

Bush's invasion has actually created a new home for al Qaeda and has stretched our military too far apart, so that we can't even fight the war on terror, instead we are just barely keeping Iraq in one piece.

Fortunately Geroge W. Bush has the "Balls" to make the tough decisions that need to be made to make America safer for all of us.

And when you actually think, you'll realize that's just foolishness.

Are you for real? It would take a great deal of ignorance to not be aware of the negative impact that 9/11 would have on an economy. The fact that our economy has shown improvement is indication of the correct plan our president has for our nation.

You do realize that Bush is the first president since Hoover to lose more jobs than create them? That's almost 100 years ago. And that stat was not 9/11 based.

 

[spoofskate]

I hope we're fortunate enough to relect the best president we've had in 12 years.

You've got a strange definition of a good president. The last pres. you liked before Dubya was... his daddy. So... essentially what you're saying is that a good president is one who takes us to war for no reason other than a huge stake in the oil pie, destroys the economy (lest you've already forgotten about the terrible recession under Bush Sr.), and whose bald-faced lies would make the senior management of Enron blush ("read my lips, no new taxes" - and Junior's lies are too countless to even begin listing).
So then by your definition, a bad presidency would be one like Clinton's, where thousands of new jobs were created, unemployment was at an all-time low, we opened diplomatic relationships with new countries and strengthened ties with old allies (as opposed to running a unilateral administration that has frankly pissed off the whole world).

Time to do your homework before making unfounded blanket statements.

Oh yeah, and as for "balls"... It doesn't take a whole lot of nerve to send someone else's kids to war. Must have taken a lot of balls to sign up for a Natl. Guard unit that never saw any action, and still not even show up for duty there. Bravo - that's the type of gutsy leader we need.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh yeah, and as for "balls"... It doesn't take a whole lot of nerve to send someone else's kids to war. Must have taken a lot of balls to sign up for a Natl. Guard unit that never saw any action, and still not even show up for duty there. Bravo - that's the type of gutsy leader we need.

Besides, I'd rather have a president with more brain than balls!

 

[Erik]

Thats cool. In 2000 people thought Nader would draw 5+% of the vote. I knew he'd get less than 3%. This time around, Nader may be lucky enough to get 1% or 1.5%. We'll see if he makes the difference again. He barely did in 2000, but enough to make the difference.

Folks, Florida, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Iowa all proved that every vote does matter. Don't waste it on someone who even if they were elected, couldn't possibly fulfill the responsibilities of the office. This is not the year for a protest vote.

Yeah, but look at the closeness of the vote in 2000. I may be incorrect again, correct me if I am, but Nader draws votes mostly from the democratic candidate. Nader definitely made the difference in 2000, and he can make a difference again if the election is really close. I personally think that if Nader hadn't run, the democrats would've won in 2000, because look at the amount of vote he got in 2000 and the amount of votes needed to change the election in favor of Gore.

If the election is as close, which it won't be, he could still make a difference. I agree though that he's less of a factor now than in the last election, but he's still a waste of resources and votes.

:hmm: :banghead: