Good ol' American debate.. 36 replies

Please wait...

GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#21 13 years ago
PB2AU Honestly, Bush was ******dly religious when he was still a lawyer, before his political life, so it most likely wasn't a ploy to 'win votes'. But even if we can discount that, unless you haven't noticed, 'doing it right' is all that matters.

If bush was so religious, he wouldnt have had elaborate slander campaigns, be drunk at one of his presidental debates, take away from the poor, take away from the military men and women fighting in iraq, pay off people to lie, lie to the american public, always mention how bad clinton is, start wars, get failing grades in school, responded so slowly to the poor in new orleans, have the church distance themselves from him, or sell huge swaths of public parks and reserves to logging and mining companies. He is a die hard born again christian in image only, just for the vote of the religous right. I know at least three pastors that hate him because he is not religious, and lies about it. Honesty is a christian value BTW.




_-|Darkstar|Vengence|-_

HL2 addict and family guy fan

50 XP

30th August 2005

0 Uploads

26 Posts

0 Threads

#22 13 years ago

The INDecision 2004 election was a lose-lose-lose election: If you voted Bush, more soldiers die and we pay taxes for retarted things If you vote kerry our army starts to suck, we lose funding for the military, we pull out of the war and pray to christ (or whoever) that we don't get overrun by terrorists If you voted Nader, you're just a f***ing idiot-raise your hands, you 50-odd Nader voters...




Red Menace

SCHOFIELD DID 4/30

415,758 XP

10th August 2004

0 Uploads

40,364 Posts

1 Threads

#23 13 years ago
GreatGrizzlyCorrection: Bush failed all of his classes. But his dad pulled some strings and made the university give him "gentlemens C's" Bush was a party man, just like most college kids ;)[/quote] I just really hope that wink smilie is for that whole post. [quote=Orpheo]Bushes IQ is proven to be 90.. thats pitiful mine is 130.

Interesting since their is no IQ data available for George W. Bush. But we do know that the Bush had a score of 1206 on the SAT, the most widely used test of college aptitude. Bush's test performance places him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students.

http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Bush/Bush-IQ-Myth.html

I guess they left fact checking out of the test, Mr. "Very superior."


sigpic82523_3.gif</div></body></html>



Mr. Matt VIP Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

356,447 XP

17th June 2002

7 Uploads

33,656 Posts

779 Threads

#24 13 years ago

A vote for Bush meant a vote for things to stay as bad as they were already. A vote for Kerry could have meant things could have become better, but it also meant that things could have become a whole lot worse. As someone else has said, Bush might be an idiot, he might even be a bad president, but at least people knew what to expect with him by then. The fact that the popular vote was virtually 50/50 suggests to me that America as a whole didn't really know who they wanted in charge. Seems more like pot luck than a decisive victory. Though one thing is certain -- nobody wanted Nader!




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#25 13 years ago

"A vote for Bush meant a vote for things to stay as bad as they were already. A vote for Kerry could have meant things could have become better, but it also meant that things could have become a whole lot worse."

Agreed, both had their flaws and neither were perfect. There could be both better Democratic and Republican candidates but unfortunately the American people where left with these two options. I myself wouldn't have voted on either of them. It's pretty much the price you have to pay when there effectivly only are two parties.

will keep on bringing up the multi-party system with seats which are devided accordin to the percentage of votes you got, it's less flawed and atleast you would have been able to pick form a larger list of parties then the three (two ;) ) in the last election.




Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#26 13 years ago

Then less than 1/2 of the US is happy with their new president. I would much rather see 2 parties with 1/2 or more of the US people happy than 10 with only a small percentage happy.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#27 13 years ago

As a republican, I am ashamed to see our party headed in the direction it is in.

Kerry is very much more articulate. Any hope we could of had at making ourselves look better in the eyes of Europeans went down the drain when Bush won again. This republican administration is an embarrassment to America.




Delta Force

Revenge was here.

50 XP

23rd June 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#28 13 years ago
PethegreatThen less than 1/2 of the US is happy with their new president. I would much rather see 2 parties with 1/2 or more of the US people happy than 10 with only a small percentage happy.

We need to get many parties like they have Europe and Canada, than one party wouldn't be able to ignore the views of the other, because they would have to form alliences because it is very rare for multi-party systems to have one side with 50 or more percent all by itself, and the leading partys change with every election. US democrazy isn't democratic, it's a battle between two fanactial, completly opposite sides unwilling to budge on even the smallest issue. It's just a wrestling match.:lol:




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#29 13 years ago

First off, the two party system is good how it is. You either support one side or you support the other. Too many parties means less people are in control, and less progressive or regressive work (depending on what side you support) can get done.

What does need to happen is that both parties need to be refined. The republican and democratic parties are both pretty much the same. People think they are so different, and their are little differences, but in the end whoever you vote for, the same results come out of each party.

Each party needs to have their own goals, own agenda's.




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#30 13 years ago
PethegreatThen less than 1/2 of the US is happy with their new president. I would much rather see 2 parties with 1/2 or more of the US people happy than 10 with only a small percentage happy.

On the other hand, 50% are royally pissed off. :lookaround: