Plymouth Roadrunner Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Now I dont want to start any Poloitcal arguments so just vote. People over the pond are welcome too Link to post Share on other sites
HaVoC Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Bush. Link to post Share on other sites
Plymouth Roadrunner Posted October 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Me Too Link to post Share on other sites
doc_newstead Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Well I haven't even voted in my own country yet But I'm going to say Bush. Link to post Share on other sites
sp00n Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 They both suck, if I had the option of voting (to young) Id vote for Nader. GO NADER. Link to post Share on other sites
Catchv22 Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 'I HATE EVERYBODY! I VOTED FOR NADER!' Kerry Link to post Share on other sites
Tripod Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 This is a hard decision. Me. Link to post Share on other sites
snowman Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Bush or Mickey Mouse would be as easy... GO MICKEY!!!!! Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites
MAKKOO Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Well, I think they both suck!!! But because I belive in the second amendment!!! I have to go with Bush and the Republicans!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Banzai Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 I vote for that racist slimeball pat buchana just for laughs, after all , he is just as bad (worse but not by a whole lot) then kerry, bush, nader, or the clintons imo Link to post Share on other sites
Rikkster Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Christ, I think I'd vote Nader too. If anyone can list five positive things Bush has done in the last five years I might reconsider. People seem to think Bush will be tougher on terrorism, but he hasn't exactly done a bang-up job so far has he? Link to post Share on other sites
Sean Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 For some reason, this just seems so right to post here; I'm voting for Kerry; Bush had four years, and accomplished little. I will cede Bush that 9/11 was a bad way to start a term, and that invading and occupying Afghanistan was done correctly for the correct reasons, 1) Osama Bin Laden was there, and 2) the government of Afghanistan knew this and was adding and abbeting him. However, the recession, the encouragement of shipping more and more jobs overseas, clear government preferance for the rich, the jingoist foreign policy, and the horribly failed occupation of Iraq far outway the little that he has accomplished. As for Nader; the people voting for him are the reason that voting should be a privilege and not a right. Link to post Share on other sites
Pato Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Hard decision. Kerry's got the botox Look at this before you go vote Link to post Share on other sites
Rikkster Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 For some reason, this just seems so right to post here; Hooray! Vote for the Crown! As for Nader; the people voting for him are the reason that voting should be a privilege and not a right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Out of interest: why? Curious cos the main problem I have with politics in the US and the UK is the main political parties have narrowed their ideology down so fine that Bush and Kerry actually agree on nearly as much as they disagree on. Same deal here with Blair and Howard. Both opposition parties (in the US and UK) voted for the war on Iraq, despite the fact it was all a complete lie. Third parties should be encouraged in a democracy, not scorned. Link to post Share on other sites
Rikkster Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Fair and balanced: Bush-Cheney Kerry-Edwards Link to post Share on other sites
rhino Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Heh heh... At least you didn't put the "Governator" up there... Link to post Share on other sites
BadAssTronaut Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 and that invading and occupying Afghanistan was done correctly for the correct reasons <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Done correctly? Did you know there were more cops in New York City than soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. The war began on October 7, 2001, but not until seven weeks later did the United States “insert a ground force unit (Marines) to take and hold a former al Qaeda and Taliban facility. . . . The late-November operation did not include any effort by U.S. forces to seal the border with Pakistan, snatch the al Qaeda leadership, or cut off the al Qaeda escape!!1 Thats how you do it correctly huh? http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040412fa_fact I chose Nader, but this is irrelevant because I would vote anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
Rikkster Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 There's more than that too. - Heroin production is now at its highest-ever levels - Some 60% of the country is currently in the hands of local warlords or the resurgent Taliban - Hamid Karzai never leaves Kabul for fear of being assasinated and has virtually no power whatsoever Machiavelli (who was in many ways the original neoconservative) wrote that to successfully occupy a country you must retain the goodwill of its inhabitants, or you will always lose. Historically this has been proved true 100% of the time. Despite lots of talk about hearts and minds, I haven't seen it in evidence anywhere in Afghanistan or Iraq. Worst of all; Kerry has changed his position somewhat of late (surprise) and is now sounding increasingly hawkish. He wants more troops on the ground in Iraq (something that worked a treat in Vietnam) and also would not "let the rebels off lightly...in Fallujeh". 500 civilian casualties not good enough then? Link to post Share on other sites
Phoenix Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Dont forget that when Osama was cornered at Tora Bora, instead of sending US forces such as the 10th Mountain, Bush relied on Afghan warlords to capture him, who only aa couple weeks before pledged alligiance to Osama. "He outsourced those jobs too." Link to post Share on other sites
Catchv22 Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 I have to quote you on that one. That was hilarious, Phoenix. Bush isn't a moron. He's a charismatic, gung ho leader, but I just don't think he's leading our country in the right direction. It doesn't matter how hard you spur your horse when you're sitting on it backwards. Link to post Share on other sites
ThaSniper Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 for gods sakes kerry! bush will kill us all! Link to post Share on other sites
HaVoC Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 What annoys me is people who accuse Bush of being 'the policeman of the world'. Think about it. What would happen if you removed the police force from your country? Anarachy would erupt, that's what would happen. Total anarchy and chaos. Someone has to do the dirty work, mopping up the dregs of society from not only individual countries, but also the world. I admire Bush for being about the only guy who has the balls to take on the job... "But it's not his business what happens in Iraq!" I hear you say. Well, next time you get mugged/stabbed/shot/beaten on the street, how about the police arrive but stand back and watch from a distance, pretending to ignore what's going on...? Someone has to sort out all the scum in the world, and Bush and his allies are the only ones with the balls to do it... Link to post Share on other sites
sp00n Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 As for Nader; the people voting for him are the reason that voting should be a privilege and not a right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> With thinking like that you would be the first to have your privlage revoked. This is supposed to be a free country, although that statement is BS, we still have some controll over it. Link to post Share on other sites
destrukto Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Over 1,000 US troops dead, countless Iraqi dead, that's an impressive body count Haven't seen carnage like that since Vietnam.... American civil liberties have been trampled into the mud with the patriot act... Record deficits.... Education funding has been on the decline (We're stupid enough as it is already over here, although there are some exceptions) tax cuts for the rich, as if they don't have enough money already... "The Iraqi people will greet us with flowers and kisses" - last time I checked AKs and RPGs weren't tokens of goodwill Can't really think of any positive things that Bush has done Someone please explain to me why Bush should be re-elected, I cringe when I think of the possibility of Bush in office for another 4 years Link to post Share on other sites
Phoenix Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 We watched the debates here with the family, it was great. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.