PDA

View Full Version : BUSH: the unelected president


griff38
01-10-2003, 05:02 PM
For those of you who beleive that Democracy still works in the U.S. , I have some swamp land I will sell you cheap.

Since the 1rst rules and laws of this country were established, those in power have sought to change the laws & rules to consolidate their power and control.

I live in Florida where the votes were thrown out by the tens of thousands, my county alone dispposed of over ten thousand presidential votes.

It's been 2 years and nothing has changed for the better. In our recent senate and local goverment vote the same thing happened again.

The leader of this country (no right to be called the president) had the most powerful position ever held by a single human being given to him by unelected officials. Many of which had their jobs handed to them by his Father.

The people of the United States do not run their own country, it's run by the rich and powerful who can apoint anyone they want dispite majority rule.

I once read somewhere the pondering of a historian who wondered "If the Romans saw the fall of their empire when the Visogoths crested the hill in site of the capital." (even though it took awhile).

I beleive the U.S. version of the Visogoths have crested the hill.

P.S. Iam gonna move my family to Norway or Holland, or some place like that.

Griffs clips (http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/griffmanco/lst?.dir=/JEDI&.view=l)

C'jais
01-10-2003, 05:26 PM
Hmmmm.... I've heard about the "disappearing votes" before.... is it possible for you to find a source? I believe he wasn't democratically elected, but I'd just like some proof of it.

The interesting question is whether Gore would have made a better President. But hey, at least he wouldn't have felt any sort of obligation to clean up the "unfinished business" his father left in the middle east.

I'm thinking your post is going to attract Republican flak like a B-17 over Berlin. Better watch this one. - C'jais

El Sitherino
01-10-2003, 06:40 PM
first of all america is not a democracy. its a republic. we elect officials to make decisions for us. second i hate bush and all of his plans. thank you that is all.

mercatfat
01-10-2003, 07:32 PM
I honestly don't care, considering the other choice was Gore/Lieberman. I hope the latter decides not to run for presidency today.

You can't blame Bush for everything. He's not the only one making the decisions.

Toonces
01-10-2003, 07:44 PM
Get over it already, and have fun in Holland ;)

I'm really supprised that some people are still complaining about this. If Gore had asked for a state wide recount rather than just that one highly democratic county the Supreme Court never would have had to get into it.

It's over, move on, Gore did not ask for a state wide recount because he knew he would lose. Recounts have been done since the 2000 election by various independant sources and Bush picked up a few thousand votes state wide

I'm not going to even mention the Military absentee ballots that the Democratic lawers were trying get thrown out. Read the Supreme Court decision, and learn how our Constitution actually works next time before posting :D

Taos
01-10-2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by mercatfat

You can't blame Bush for everything. He's not the only one making the decisions.

I agree with Mercatfat......there are several people there making decisions, Bush is just the figure head.

It is really sad what happened in Florida a couple of years ago. You say this happened again, recently?? You would think that they have things figured out down there by now.....

Didn't the USA Today dig up the votes and do their own re-count that said Bush still would have won?

As far as I'm concerned....I don't think who is currently in office would have made a difference on how things are today.

Father Torque
01-10-2003, 07:45 PM
Hey Insane sorry to burst thy bubble but America is a democracy a democracy is a way to rule a goverment and has the people vote for officials to lead the country and a republic like China. A republic is a large council of people who decide not the people. I think you got the two mixed up:D or maybe you thought since george bush is a republican(a person who thinks people should decide on issues without the help of a government)is in office that the government is now a republic that is not necesarily true

Also yes George bush maybe be a cowhick from texas but does his decisions really affect you as a person or do you just follow what your parents think??????? Well i think George Bush is a great president even though his decissions affect me i dont take time to bikker that he has an accent which is very common in the Southwestern region of the United States of America. So if his deccisions dont affect you in any possible way dont complain and also all you democrats would Al Gore be much of a better choice i mean come on.

Speech by Al Gore at presidential campaign speech

On my plan Elanor Hillsby will have her medicare paid for her she will be able to rest and have good life insurance she wont have to worry about retirment and best of all she will be happy

And on my openents plan her house would burn to the ground.

To me this is bolagna this persons home would never burn down because of medicare costs and this proves Al Gore's lack of intellegance.

I am sorry InsaneSith i have reviwed my knolagable history and have realized that i have made a mistake

Britain's American colonies broke with the mother country in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation of the United States of America following the Treaty of Paris in 1783. During the 19th and 20th centuries the government was declared a federal republic which is very stongly democratic this new government form sparked these historical things some where goodand some bad, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions. The two most traumatic experiences in the nation's history were the Civil War (1861-65) and the Great Depression of the 1930s. Buoyed by victories in World Wars I and II and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the US remains the world's most powerful nation-state. The economy is marked by steady growth, low unemployment and inflation, and rapid advances in technology.

ZBomber
01-10-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
first of all america is not a democracy. its a republic. we elect officials to make decisions for us. second i hate bush and all of his plans. thank you that is all.

Actually, USA is democracy. Democracy is when you vote for your leaders. Use your mind. Go back 2 years ago. We elected a president. Good job. Have a cookie.
I did not want Gore or Bush to win. Gore made pethatic lies like his grandfather invented the lightbulb or some crazy ****. Bush is Texan, so he automacially is not good. lol, jk. :p

El Sitherino
01-10-2003, 07:49 PM
looks its in the pledge for goodness sakes. we pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.

Father Torque
01-10-2003, 07:51 PM
I agree with you totally Z, except the part about G Bush read my post above yours and it explains my opinion on this topic:) ^

Father Torque
01-10-2003, 07:54 PM
srry bout double post but it refers to a Republic in 1807 when the pledge was written. Its 2003 now:p :p see my point things change and actually Teddy Roosevelt in the 1900's was elected president he brought with him the system to run a government that he had learned of when he went on a trip to Euorope and discovered the democracy and this sparked the idea for him to be pres of the USA :D

C'jais
01-10-2003, 08:00 PM
You're a representative democracy last time I checked. A republic is a representative democracy.

Torque, edit your new post into the old. Double posting problem solved :)

Just as a sidenote, you can all delete your posts from the edit screen if you ever accidentally double post due to the server locking up.

-C'jais thinks people should cut 'n paste some more on this forum

El Sitherino
01-10-2003, 08:03 PM
well a democracy is a government RUN by the people. meaning no need for an official. second if anything its a democratic republic in which we elect the officials to create laws and all that for us. if we were a democracy every citizen would be able to decide laws and whether or not to go to war. and all that. also its in the US government classes. also i dont care what my parents say im an individual i follow facts not anything else.

C'jais
01-10-2003, 08:07 PM
Good point InsaneSith.

No country has so far been completely democratic in the true sense of the word.

Toonces
01-10-2003, 08:09 PM
Our founding fathers were quite clear to make the distinction between a true "Democracy" and a Representative democracy, or Republic. In a Democracy the will of the majority is law. Anything is allowed, as long as the majority approves. There are no checks and balances, and the rights of the individual are not protected.

Jedi_Monk
01-10-2003, 08:18 PM
I'm not going to even mention the Military absentee ballots that the Democratic lawers were trying get thrown out.
The New York Times found:

"• 344 of these overseas ballots had no evidence that they were cast on or before Election Day.
• 183 ballots were postmarked in the United States.
• 96 ballots lacked appropriate witness information.
• 169 ballots came from unregistered voters, had envelopes that weren't signed properly, or came from people who hadn't requested ballots.
• 5 ballots came after the November 17th deadline.
• 19 overseas voters voted on two ballots and had both counted.

All of these ballots violated Florida law, yet all were counted."

Furthermore, in the summer of 1999, Katherine Harris paid $4 million to a company called Database Technologies to go through Florida's voter roles and remove anyone "suspected" of being a former felon. It appears that the company not only removed these felons from the roles, but also thousands of black citizens who had never committed a crime in their lives--eligible voters who were disenfranchised by the Florida government.
(From Stupid White Men by Michael Moore)

Father Torque
01-10-2003, 08:19 PM
I am sorry InsaneSith i have reviwed my knolagable history and have realized that i have made a mistake

Britain's American colonies broke with the mother country in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation of the United States of America following the Treaty of Paris in 1783. During the 19th and 20th centuries the government was declared a federal republic which is very stongly democratic this new government form sparked these historical things some where goodand some bad, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions. The two most traumatic experiences in the nation's history were the Civil War (1861-65) and the Great Depression of the 1930s. Buoyed by victories in World Wars I and II and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the US remains the world's most powerful nation-state. The economy is marked by steady growth, low unemployment and inflation, and rapid advances in technology.

So once again Insane i am very soory and you are right infact and the teddy rosevelt thing proved to be wrong i got my facts screwed up he has injured i think in the vietnam war and never went to Euorope after that point there disproving my statement

Also Cjais i sent you a PM please read and respond

ShadowTemplar
01-10-2003, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by griff38
Since the 1rst rules and laws of this country were established, those in power have sought to change the laws & rules to consolidate their power and control.

From the very first laws of man those in power have sought to consolidate their positions. So what's the news? That they succeeded. Holy mother... Scary.

Originally posted by griff38
The leader of this country (no right to be called the president)

Which is why I usually refer to him as el Presidenté (has anyone played Tropico?).

first of all america is not a democracy. its a republic. we elect officials to make decisions for us. second i hate bush and all of his plans. thank you that is all.

But Republic is, oficially, a way to implement democracy. Or at least it can be. Denmark, for example, is a monarchy and a democracy (or at least that's what we like to fancy ourselves...).

SkinWalker
01-11-2003, 05:05 AM
The problem here in the United States is not that the country is run by the rich and powerful so much as it is allowed to be run by them.

Voting is one of the rights we have that are most taken for granted... both Republican and Democrat parties would just as soon keep it that way, too. The fewer "regular people" that get out and vote, the less likely there is to be "swing" elections where folks vote with their minds and hearts rather than their party.

This is why voting *does* make a difference. Even if there is not an official you prefer, voting creates a situation where you HAVE TO BE COUNTED. In future elections, political parties will then have to take your demographic into consideration.

If a most college-age adults (18-24) voted in the United States, our government would be significantly different. Issues would be significantly different.

The election between Bush/Gore was far too close for anyone to say that Bush is an "unelected president." The best decision was made given the information available at the time, regardless of what exists now. Had the decision gone the other way, the arguments would be the same, only from different people who feel disenfranchised.

For the record, I disagree with MOST of Bush's positions on most of the issues. I firmly believe that he is an alcoholic and far too condesending to be a leader. But I would also give him my highest loyalty were I too be called back into military service. Honor dictates it.

My disagreement with him came about when he promised us (the voters in Texas) that he was interested in being the Governor and not in using the Governor's mansion as a stepping-stone to the Whitehouse. Clearly a lie since it was later revealed that a significant amount of his Governor campaign funding came from the California Republican Party... hmmm....

Skin

obi
01-11-2003, 10:02 AM
There are not many of us around, but I am a Bush supporter.I have been from the get-go.

On the account of votes being thrown out, well, things happen, it's not Bush's fault.

I shudder to think what our country would have been like today if Gore won the election......

griff38
01-11-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
The problem here in the United States is not that the country is run by the rich and powerful so much as it is allowed to be run by them.

Well yes I must agree with that. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

The record shows that the majority of US citizens are moderate to liberal. (all playing video games & going to movies) Yet the conservitive minority maintain power ( they go to church 2 or 3 times a week and are in bed by 10:00)


Oh yes as far as Gore is concerned I don't think he would have been a better president (I voted for Nader) but at least he would have been the legal president.

As a nation that prides itself on laws, we sure don't seem to mind ignoring law when its inconvienant.

TheWhiteRaider
01-13-2003, 09:56 PM
Actually, USA is democracy. Democracy is when you vote for your leaders. Use your mind.

*buzzer*

A democracy is were the people rule them selves. The greek had that. A republic is where you elect leaders. Just like the romans had.

America is a Republic.

The problem here in the United States is not that the country is run by the rich and powerful so much as it is allowed to be run by them.

Hey every goverment one way or another will end up like that just some faster than others.

Yet the conservitive minority maintain power ( they go to church 2 or 3 times a week and are in bed by 10:00

Pinning stereo types? Not all are like that. And by the way I do not support Bush too much and yet I am a Republican. And what do you mean by the conservitive minority? More states voted for Bush than Gore. That is why we do not go by popular vote or else liberals would win all the time.

It say

"We the people"

not

"We the states of New Your, California, and Florida"

And you I note that Liberals are the only ones I can think of that want to go with the popular vote. Also if you look at a county map only the counties with big citys vote for Liberals In fact Bush won 89% of the counties.

As a nation that prides itself on laws, we sure don't seem to mind ignoring law when its inconvienant.

And it was liberals that tried to bend the law during the election. They tried changeing the rules mid-election.

C'jais thinks people should cut 'n paste some more on this forum

*Whisper*Join the club*Whisper*




By the way This IS HISTORY JUST LEAVE IT ALONE! If you stay on the past so much no wonder you do not win the elections.

Tyrion
01-13-2003, 11:43 PM
1. Even though I'd rather have neither Bush nor Gore elected,I'd have to say Gore would be better,just because Bush was so damn lazy and irresponsible.

2. He AWOLed out of the army for 4 months. He could've been to sent to jail for that.But did he? Nooo. He had his Daddy to help hin...

3. The Florida election. They clearly tried to get more republic votes there without being too suspicious.

4.The entire fact Gore had more votes than Bush,but Bush only one because he had relations in Florida.

Oh,and obi, Bush did have an option. To back down.

TheWhiteRaider
01-13-2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Tyrion
1. Even though I'd rather have neither Bush nor Gore elected,I'd have to say Gore would be better,just because Bush was so damn lazy and irresponsible.

2. He AWOLed out of the army for 4 months. He could've been to sent to jail for that.But did he? Nooo. He had his Daddy to help hin...

3. The Florida election. They clearly tried to get more republic votes there without being too suspicious.

4.The entire fact Gore had more votes than Bush,but Bush only one because he had relations in Florida.

Oh,and obi, Bush did have an option. To back down.

1. LAZY!? Have you seen the black sacs under his eyes? Clinton if anyone was lazy.

2. Clinton did drugs too so why do you not rag on him.

3 and 4. Both sides have many "questionable" votes. Both side tried to as many of the "questionable" votes so neither side is more innocent than the other.

Tyrion
01-14-2003, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
1. LAZY!? Have you seen the black sacs under his eyes? Clinton if anyone was lazy.

2. Clinton did drugs too so why do you not rag on him.

3 and 4. Both sides have many "questionable" votes. Both side tried to as many of the "questionable" votes so neither side is more innocent than the other.


1. What in the...? Clinton was one of the best presidents! He helped raise the economy by alot! He tried to make peace treaties with countries. Bush is not benefiting the homeland,instead, he is going to Iraq(or Iran,I forgot) only to get the oil and to finish what his dad started.

We're just lucky he's disabling a nuclear theat at the same time..

TheWhiteRaider
01-16-2003, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion
1. What in the...? Clinton was one of the best presidents! He helped raise the economy by alot! He tried to make peace treaties with countries. Bush is not benefiting the homeland,instead, he is going to Iraq(or Iran,I forgot) only to get the oil and to finish what his dad started.

We're just lucky he's disabling a nuclear theat at the same time..

Clinton the best? Helping the economy...sorry to say he did not do that. He raised taxes as soon as he go into office(Even though he said before he was elected that he lower taxes.) He should have been thrown into jail for what he did in office.

By the way Tyrion without oil the economy is dead. More than just cars use oil. Medical uses for oil is stuff like Anti-bacterial cream, vaseline(Which is 85-100% from oil), and tons more. Also the gloss on women's dresses comes from oil(Not to mention the make-up on their faces.)

Also did you know at one time the CIA knew where Osama was. They could even know where he goes to the bathroom. But Clinton told the CIA to use their equipment to find copyright violation.

And also how about takeing all the "W"s off the keyboards of the WhiteHouse, pardoning hundreds of people(And odds are may have been for money.), and he was only trying to make peace for the fame.

And one last thing is did you know a war boosts the economy more than almost anything else? In fact only a war get a economy out of the pits.

Tyrion
01-16-2003, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
And one last thing is did you know a war boosts the economy more than almost anything else? In fact only a war get a economy out of the pits.

Money for civilian lives,eh?

By the way Tyrion without oil the economy is dead. More than just cars use oil. Medical uses for oil is stuff like Anti-bacterial cream, vaseline(Which is 85-100% from oil), and tons more. Also the gloss on women's dresses comes from oil(Not to mention the make-up on their faces.)

Did you know that the only reason oil is used in cars is so that the gas companies get alot of money. It's polluting the air,and there are already safer ways to power cars,or are at least in testing. There are solar suckers(forgot the proper term) that can power a car during the day,and during the night,it can use oils(effectively cutting the oil use in more than half,on sunny days,though). So it'd only be useful in the Western USA,but it'd help alot.And there will be hydrogen cars if they can ever be safely used.

More later..too tired...

TheWhiteRaider
01-16-2003, 06:55 PM
Money for civilian lives,eh?

Hey I said it help the economy not that it was good.


Did you know that the only reason oil is used in cars is so that the gas companies get alot of money.

Yes I do. People have not changed at all over 6,000 years so they are going for money. In fact just about all people make stuff for their own profit. Tell me Tyrion if I told you that you can wash my car if you give me 50$ would you do it? Most likey not.

One of the reasons we do not go to the other cars is that it would cost about $24 billion to get everyone with a new car. Intill they find a new way to produce the new cars at a low price we will not be replacing cars for some time.

It's polluting the air,and there are already safer ways to power cars,or are at least in testing. There are solar suckers(forgot the proper term) that can power a car during the day,and during the night,it can use oils(effectively cutting the oil use in more than half,on sunny days,though). So it'd only be useful in the Western USA,but it'd help alot.And there will be hydrogen cars if they can ever be safely used.

More later..too tired...

Did you know that power and cars are only 10% of oils uses? Lets us go over some basic economy lessons.

Supply and Demand = Price

There are so many uses for oil and so little of it that there is a high price on it.

Tyrion
01-16-2003, 07:18 PM
One of the reasons we do not go to the other cars is that it would cost about $24 billion to get everyone with a new car. Intill they find a new way to produce the new cars at a low price we will not be replacing cars for some time.

Considering we spend over 1-2 billion dollars on war alone...

Of course,it could just go to schools..which if more money went to schools,it'd make more jobs and better education,and thus, make the economy better.



Did you know that power and cars are only 10% of oils uses? Lets us go over some basic economy lessons.

Supply and Demand = Price

There are so many uses for oil and so little of it that there is a high price on it. [/B][/QUOTE]

..so if there's so little oil,why dont we go looking for subsitutes of oil?

TheWhiteRaider
01-20-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Tyrion
Considering we spend over 1-2 billion dollars on war alone...

Of course,it could just go to schools..which if more money went to schools,it'd make more jobs and better education,and thus, make the economy better.

One thing people get is "It is not how much money you use, it is how well you use it" This is also another economy lesson. They should buy with brain not just throw tons of money where it does not need that much money.


..so if there's so little oil,why dont we go looking for subsitutes of oil?

Becuase that is the problem. YOU CAN'T! Anything that has nothing to do with burning you still need oil for.
We have a good power solution it is called "Nuclear" it puts out 1/50 of the amount of oil, but the EPA(which is trhe cause of the power shortage in California) puts so much crap that the power companies have to go through that they can not use Nuclear. And when Cars have a new and cheap source then that would help alot(And if it was cheaper than oil that would get everyone off oil).

Oh and you want to know why we have so little oil? BECUASE THE EPA WILL NOT LET THE U.S. LOOK FOR MORE! Personly I think the EPA has been going down hill.

And do not get me wrong, I do want to take care of the enviroment. I like trees and green plants, but that does not mean I do not want to use trees for paper,wood,ect.? I think what would help is not wasteing resources. If we used them more wisely we would be in a better place.

The most of the EPA now is after money than out to save the enviroment(Some EPA members have been found putting endangered animials on people property to try seizeing the property.)

Breton
01-21-2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider


And do not get me wrong, I do want to take care of the enviroment. I like trees and green plants, but that does not mean I do not want to use trees for paper,wood,ect.? I think what would help is not wasteing resources. If we used them more wisely we would be in a better place.



But oil and coal plants does great damages to the enviroment. Why do you not want to denvelop new, enviroment-friendly energy sources instead?

Let me tell you something. In the largest countries in Europe, they use a lot of those plants. UK, Germany, even Denmark, plus a lot of others. Now, these plants pumps a lot of CO2 into the air. And do you know what happens to it? The wind blows it up north, to a country named Norway, where I happen to live. There it falls as sour rain and damages the enviroment a lot. Here, 98% of all the CO2 that pollutes comes from other countries. I guess it's just fine for people getting a lot of power from such plants, as long as they won't have to take the crap from it.

C'jais
01-21-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
even Denmark

Hmmrph!

And let me tell you something: while it is true we use coal power plants for most of our electricity, we're one of world's leaders when it comes to wind energy with a large percentage of our landscape dotted with these tall, white mills.

We simply do not have the great rivers found in your mountains, so we're naturally completely unable to use hydroelectricity (besides buying it from Norway and Sweden).

There isn't anything we can do, except growing some mountains and plant some rivers. If we could do that, then hey, we'd be just as ecologically nice as you.

A last option would be a nuclear power plant, but I'm afraid we can't afford. It's more safe than coal power, but I'm suspecting the general population is against it due to Tjernobyl.

Hiasho Storm
01-21-2003, 02:00 PM
Bush in power - through a 'democratic' election? mis-election more like...
its all about oil - Bush is a low C-grade average student ('daddy' paid his way through his education - at least he thought it was an education he was paying for though obviously isn't what he got), who doesn't actually make any important crucial decisions towards things - its all done through his oil-funded cabinet.
they couldn't give a damn about anything else, just a bunch of money hungry idiots out for themselves and no one else. For example, first thing Bush's environmental minister did upon election was to announce a new oil pipeline/field/digging operation in alaskan wilderness - previously protected under clinton's fouggees - but oh! stuff that for a shot at more oil!! dumb B*tch probably has a seal-fur coat too, "well an environmental official has to look good you know"
need we remind people of the tits who continuously run aground hauling what? OH yeah OIL!!

Another reason he wants Iraq - what have they got lots of...? oh yeah (need I say it?)

if he's so bleeding worried about terrorists why the heck doesn't he smash the cr*p out of Saudi - thats where they all come from! GOD!! doesn't take a genius to work it out. but then Bush is a monkey so he's never gonna work it out. (has post-it notes around the white house for directions to the washroom...!)

actually, despite his faults (one obviously 'sucked' more than others) Clinton wasn't a bad chap. shame Yanky-land has that dumb rule about kicking 'em out after 2 terms...
yanks...is it a name-sake or is there really a 'chain' involved...?what about 'yankers'... figuer out the rest :o)

:lsduel:

Watch your language. And welcome to the forums - C'jais

GUNNER
01-22-2003, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by griff38
For those of you who beleive that Democracy still works in the U.S. , I have some swamp land I will sell you cheap.

Since the 1rst rules and laws of this country were established, those in power have sought to change the laws & rules to consolidate their power and control.

I live in Florida where the votes were thrown out by the tens of thousands, my county alone dispposed of over ten thousand presidential votes.

It's been 2 years and nothing has changed for the better. In our recent senate and local goverment vote the same thing happened again.

The leader of this country (no right to be called the president) had the most powerful position ever held by a single human being given to him by unelected officials. Many of which had their jobs handed to them by his Father.

The people of the United States do not run their own country, it's run by the rich and powerful who can apoint anyone they want dispite majority rule.

I once read somewhere the pondering of a historian who wondered "If the Romans saw the fall of their empire when the Visogoths crested the hill in site of the capital." (even though it took awhile).

I beleive the U.S. version of the Visogoths have crested the hill.

P.S. Iam gonna move my family to Norway or Holland, or some place like that.

Tell you what. You let me know when your ready to go and I will personally help you pack your shiat and see to it you get on the plane. It's no one elses fault that your fellow statesmen don't know how to read.

And if your such a great leader then why don't you put your name on the ballot next time around.

I am sick of people crying and sniveling about this. The economy was going down hill when that retard Clinton was in here so don't blame Bush.

I bet money that your just like that bonehead Bassinger and Baldwin who said they would leave the country if Bush won.

Those turds are still here and even you know no matter who runs this place there is no where better then the US so quit your bitchen and get over it.

TheWhiteRaider
01-22-2003, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
But oil and coal plants does great damages to the enviroment. Why do you not want to denvelop new, enviroment-friendly energy sources instead?

Let me tell you something. In the largest countries in Europe, they use a lot of those plants. UK, Germany, even Denmark, plus a lot of others. Now, these plants pumps a lot of CO2 into the air. And do you know what happens to it? The wind blows it up north, to a country named Norway, where I happen to live. There it falls as sour rain and damages the enviroment a lot. Here, 98% of all the CO2 that pollutes comes from other countries. I guess it's just fine for people getting a lot of power from such plants, as long as they won't have to take the crap from it.

Did I say I was against cleaner power? Find one that is better than oil and I will take it, but for right now we are stuck with oil power.

A last option would be a nuclear power plant, but I'm afraid we can't afford. It's more safe than coal power, but I'm suspecting the general population is against it due to Tjernobyl

Yes. Most people do not know what realy cause the Tjernobyl reactor to go critical.

Clinton wasn't a bad chap.

Did you know that because of Clinton Sadam and Osama is still alive?

ET Warrior
01-22-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Did you know that because of Clinton Sadam and Osama is still alive?

:eyeraise: So Clinton is a bad chap because he didn't kill people? :eyeraise:

Rogue_Ace
01-22-2003, 04:31 PM
The only reason that the economy was good during Clintons years is because of the work that Bush Sr did. Also the economy started to go down before Bush even took office so dont blame the recession on him. As for the unelected prez thing whats past is past, both sides had shady dealings going on, sadly thats how modern politices works now. And Im certinally glad Gore did not get into office, the guy is a retard:D .

TheWhiteRaider
01-23-2003, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
:eyeraise: So Clinton is a bad chap because he didn't kill people? :eyeraise:

Well because of Osama tons of americans are dead. And also Sadam has made some cruel tortures. You want to here one?

"....A room with about 8 fire sprinklers(One for a spot in the room) the prisoner would be put into. The sprinklers would spray a weak, but painful acid. The sprinkler would turn on one at a time in random order. The prisoner would be running around the cell trying to avoid the acid untill he could no longer go on or gave the info...."

Sound like a good leader? This is about one of the kindest tortutes he uses.

ET Warrior
01-23-2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Well because of Osama tons of americans are dead. And also Sadam has made some cruel tortures. You want to here one?

And because of America tons of innocent middle easterners die to our bombs.

And I agree, Sadam is not a nice man. But will killing him solve anything? Maybe......but maybe not..maybe somebody even more evil will take over and run things when he's gone...hmmmm?


There are many in this world who deserve death, but there are some who deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be so quick to deal out death and punishment. ~Gandalf the Grey

ShadowTemplar
01-23-2003, 03:34 PM
That a guy like el Presidente Bush can get even close to the oral oval office is disappointing. He has an IQ of 80-something. And he pits the US/Iraq "conflict" as a holy crusade, by stating that the American values are divinely inspired, and saying that the "war against terrorism" is a "crusade".

What is he up to, start a nuclear war? I'm not surprised that he resorts to prayer instead of thinking, or consults the Pope on matters scientific.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Becuase that is the problem. YOU CAN'T! Anything that has nothing to do with burning you still need oil for.

Three words: Hydrogen fuel cells.

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Now, these plants pumps a lot of CO2 into the air. And do you know what happens to it? [...] it falls as sour rain and damages the enviroment a lot.

Sorry, that's not carbondioxide, but SO3. See the SO3 meets the water vapor in the air and is turned into H2SO4.

Carbondioxide, on the other hand, is thought responsible for global warming.

And carbonmonoxide... uuh, I don't even want to get into that: Binds itself to your blood in place of oxygen, so you suffocate even as you still draw breath. Not nice. Not nice at all. Fortunately CO isn't that common.

And also: Hydroelectric power comes at a cost: The landscape is pretty much permanently scarred by the artificial lakes created by it. I'd go for wind, solar, wave, or nuclear power (solar and wave has yet to be implemented on a large scale).

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Yes. Most people do not know what realy cause the Tjernobyl reactor to go critical.

I don't rightly know what caused Tjernobyl to go nuclear (in the most litteral sense of the word), but I suspect it had something to do with cheap construction and crappy maintainance.

What made it more dangerous that plants like Barsebäck was the fact that the fuel-sticks were in the water that pulled the turbines, instead of a seperate system. This means that there was a greater risk leaks and the maintainance was harder (not to mention riskier) to carry out.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
And also Sadam has made some cruel tortures.

[...]

Sound like a good leader?

Sounds more like propaganda to me... Do you have a source?

I actually think that the topic here was: Bush: the unelected el Presidente, or something like that. It seems that we are getting into another US/Iraq thread. While I don't exactly find that subject disinteresting, there are several (three I believe) other threads around that cover this subject.

[/Redwing]

Rogue_Ace
01-23-2003, 04:00 PM
Three words: Hydrogen fuel cells.

Two words: very expensive

Four words: not exactly safe yet

C'jais
01-23-2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Rogue_Ace
Two words: very expensive

Four words: not exactly safe yet

Fifteen words: Put more money into developing it, instead of clinging desperately to middle eastern oil sheiks.

Breton
01-23-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Well because of Osama tons of americans are dead.

And because of Bush, tons of Afghanians are dead. What's the difference?

TheWhiteRaider
02-10-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
And because of Bush, tons of Afghanians are dead. What's the difference?

Bush did not intend on killing civilians. Besides what about Clinton bombing Bagdad?

Three words: Hydrogen fuel cells.

Five words and a quote:Notice the "Anything that has nothing to do with burning " in my post?

There may be burning solutions in the future, but some uses my never be gone for oil

That a guy like el Presidente Bush can get even close to the oral oval office is disappointing. He has an IQ of 80-something. And he pits the US/Iraq "conflict" as a holy crusade, by stating that the American values are divinely inspired, and saying that the "war against terrorism" is a "crusade".

You mind not ragging on Christains? I don't like the whole Iraq deal anyways. In the media we heard

Osama bin Laden,Osama bin Laden,Osama bin Laden,Osama bin Laden,Osama bin Laden,Osama bin Laden,Osama bin Laden,Osama bin Laden,Osama bin Laden,Sadam.

I don't even know why the jump. I havent been pleased with it either. Besides did you know the U.S. gets most of it's oil from somewhere else?(If I had a map in front of me I would write the name down, but I don't speak Spanish so I don't even want to try to spell it.)

I don't rightly know what caused Tjernobyl to go nuclear (in the most litteral sense of the word), but I suspect it had something to do with cheap construction and crappy maintainance.

That and illegal experiments.


Sounds more like propaganda to me... Do you have a source?

History Channel's "Why can't we kill Sadam"(Or one of the other history channel specials) and from the mouth of someone who has been through it. Any questions?


I also think we need the army's help with the mexican boarder. Men with Ak-47s in full cammo have come across illegaly and even shoot dead park rangers and we aren't doing anything about it!

SkinWalker
02-11-2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I don't even know why the jump. I havent been pleased with it either. Besides did you know the U.S. gets most of it's oil from somewhere else?(If I had a map in front of me I would write the name down, but I don't speak Spanish so I don't even want to try to spell it.)

In April 2002, the U.S. got 72, 607 barrels of oil (crude) for that month from the Persian Gulf. 17, 500 were from Iraq.

From outside the Persian Gulf, the U.S. imported over 200, 000 barrels of oil during April 2002.

The top four leading suppliers in order of most to least were Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela (perhaps the country you were thinking).

Now these statistics were for the month of April... but one can assume that annual imports follow this model.

What I've never understood was what the real reason for the impending war with Iraq is truly about. It ain't oil. Iraq won't just give us the oil when we liberate them from Saddam. We'll still have to purchase it. Even if the prices were lowered dramatically for Iraqi oil, I can't imagine that OPEC would stand for it. It can't actually be the "weapons of mass destruction" thing. Other peripheral nation-states have openly proclaimed possession of nuclear weapons or programs to develop.... why weren't they the first to be attacked?

My thoughts are more toward power. I expect that once the war with Iraq begins, domestic legislation will go into effect that would ordinarily be considered outrageous by the everyday citizen. The type of legislation that will severely intrude into freedoms and civil liberties of American citizens.

I'm reminded of the Patriot Act that went into effect immediately following the 9/11 attack. It's not possible for a bill to have been discussed, designed, drafted and proposed in that short of time. Most bills (especially of this complexity) take months, even years, to create.

I expect that such a bill is sitting in wait for the right moment to be revealed. The Patriot Act was a test. I can only hope that American society benefits as a whole from the radical ideas it will enact as law.

SkinWalker

C'jais
02-11-2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
What I've never understood was what the real reason for the impending war with Iraq is truly about.


An old family grudge is my guess. "...and Saddam tried to kill my father!" - let Bush and Hussein settle this once and for all with a knife-fight :rolleyes:

My thoughts are more toward power. I expect that once the war with Iraq begins, domestic legislation will go into effect that would ordinarily be considered outrageous by the everyday citizen.

American liberalization, or American colonization? This is soon starting to look like the forging of an American empire to me - what's the real difference between Pax Romana... ...and Pax Americana?

I can't see it.

CagedCrado
02-13-2003, 08:37 PM
If you dont count the votes in time, they dont get counted. You had 2 months to do it, i think you could have found different results if it mattered. Also if you dont vote right, your vote wont be counted. I blame it on floridan stupidity or whiney democrats that wont settle with losing. If you say bush lost then you know nothing of american government because you get elected by the electoral college, not the people and it has been that way forever. (although their decision is determined by peoples votes) This allows each state to be properly represented in the presidential election and not have a president that is only good for californians and new yorkers but is good for the majority of states. The amount of electoral votes depends on state population, therefore every state is represented in a presidential election. Get over it.... that was 3 years ago and bush is doing a good job. If you blame bush for the economy you dont know anything about economics since the government doesnt control the economy. (unlike the socialist in europe and canada, same as communism dont ya know?) And again.... that was 3 years ago. If you dont like it dont vote for your local officials because the local offiicials are idiots.

C'jais.... i dont comment on how in the netherlands they smoke pot and inject heroin in their veins so stay out of the united states business. It doesnt matter if you like it since you dont vote. There arent liberals here like there are in europe and thats good. What you call an empire we call a healthy country. Just because your socialist government isnt good enough to have big business and they live in the united states.... oh yes that means we need to change. lol.... 50% or higher tax rates. Rediculous

El Sitherino
02-13-2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
let Bush and Hussein settle this once and for all with a knife-fight :rolleyes:
id want sadam to win. sorry i just hate bush.

SkinWalker
02-14-2003, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
If you dont count the votes in time, they dont get counted.

I can't argue there... I, too, think that all the BS surrounding the elections was crazy. It was clear to me that Bush was the winner of Florida.

Originally posted by CagedCrado
Get over it.... that was 3 years ago and bush is doing a good job.

I would disagree there. Bush was my governor before he sold us out. He made a campaign pledge that his goal was to be the governor of Texas, and not to use it as a stepping-stone to the Whitehouse. Of course, it came out later that much of his gubanatorial campaign was funded by the Californian Republican Party. Hmmm...... then he ran for President. But, then nearly every politician is accepted to be a liar first.

Now he's making the United States look bad. To the rest of the world, we're nothing but a big bully on the block. You wait... the fun hasn't even started yet. In a few days, we'll be at war with Iraq. Bush's domestic approval rating will go up. Then a piece of legislation will hit the floor of Congress. We'll lose many freedoms we've fought so hard for. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Originally posted by CagedCrado
If you blame bush for the economy you dont know anything about economics since the government doesnt control the economy.

Actually, the government has a much larger control than you might wish to admit. The Fed sets interest rates. Foreign policy directly affects the market. Legislation tightens or losens tariffs. Legislation increases or reduces taxation. Each of these items (along with others, I'm sure) can directly control the economy. Recent history has demonstrated that Republican economies are generally more deficit than Democrat, primarily due to defense spending. In the day of Reagan, it was the wise choice. We won the Cold War by spending the USSR to death.

Today, this might not be the wise choice. Bush is determined to wage war against a country that has little to no proven effect on our own soil. This, when there is crisis in Isreal/Palestine, Pakistan/India, and several small, former, Russian states. Most of these crises involve countries with established nuclear, chemical, and/or biological capability. North Korea itself has the ability to reach US territories with its missile technology (whether or not they're nuclear capable).

But that brings us back to the "good job" that Bush is doing. He's doing such a wonderful job that he has squandered all of the good will that was directed to our country from the rest of the world during the aftermath of 9/11. Its gone. Wasted. Long-time ally Germany is against us. France, the country that presented us with a gift of liberty is against us. Our sole supporter is Vice-President Blair.

Originally posted by CagedCrado
(unlike the socialist in europe and canada, same as communism dont ya know?)

Nope. Socialism and communism are two different ideas.


Originally posted by CagedCrado
C'jais.... i dont comment on how in the netherlands they smoke pot and inject heroin in their veins so stay out of the united states business.

Seeing as how C'jais is Danish (being from Denmark and all), I'm sure that he would be interested in reading your thoughts about the Soddom and Gammora that exists in the Netherlands. (a certain amount of inside humor included there ;) )

Originally posted by CagedCrado
It doesnt matter if you like it since you dont vote. There arent liberals here like there are in europe and thats good.

Actually, nearly all important American progress has originated from Liberal ideas. Right-wing fanatics have, in recent history, managed to brainwash their new members and the uninformed public into believing that the word "Liberal" is a form of profanity. Liberal simply means to favor progress or reform, without which, our country would never have risen to the heights it has reached. How unfortunate that extreme right-wing conservatives wish to stagnate us into a status quo.

Originally posted by CagedCrado
What you call an empire we call a healthy country. Just because your socialist government isnt good enough to have big business and they live in the united states.... oh yes that means we need to change. lol.... 50% or higher tax rates. Rediculous

I cannot disagree with much of your sentiment here. I don't see the United States as an Empire either. Not in the literal sense. We don't have actual colonies, however, we do have many American owned businesses that operate in small, often militarily governed countries where labor is cheap. This is often at the expense of using American labor. Very few "American made" products are actually made in America anymore. I somehow doubt that the tax rate in Denmark (or the Netherlands) is as high as 50% on income, it is higher than in the U.S. They don't, however, worry about paying for higher education, medical care, etc. that most of the working class in the U.S. cannot afford.

SkinWalker

Somehow, I get the feeling I was trolled.....

C'jais
02-14-2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
I cannot disagree with much of your sentiment here. I don't see the United States as an Empire either. Not in the literal sense.

It's not an empire per se. But when USA is willing to solely attack other nations without the support of the UN, and under the excuse that they're preserving the peace, we are talking about "American Peace" - meaning peace through military operations to crush any dissent. Just like in the old Roman days.

I somehow doubt that the tax rate in Denmark (or the Netherlands) is as high as 50% on income, it is higher than in the U.S.

Believe it or not, my family pays 55% in tax. Not kidding.

It's through this high tax system that there is virtually no difference in the wealth of Danish citizens. Our country is one big middle class.

Somehow, I get the feeling I was trolled.....

Don't mess too much with the Crado ;)

ShadowTemplar
02-16-2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
A democracy is were the people rule them selves. The greek had that. A republic is where you elect leaders. Just like the romans had.

America is a Republic.

Democracy: Peoplerule. So if the people choose the rulers, then I'd call it a democracy... But I don't really care to argue that. If you want to call it a republic rather than a democracy, then go ahead.

But I still think that republic and democracy aren't mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Hey every goverment one way or another will end up like that just some faster than others.

Na. The democracy (or republic for you) was supposed to be able to change the government to avoid this effect.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
And what do you mean by the conservitive minority? More states voted for Bush than Gore. That is why we do not go by popular vote or else liberals would win all the time.

You are wrong to write this problem off so easily. Basically the big bash in Europe right now is whether we should have a system of states/regions voting or the citizens of the EU voting in the upcoming European Republic. The problem is a complex one: The first option would mean that a Danish voter would have more power than a French voter, but the other option would mean that France and Germany would be able to dominate the federation.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Also if you look at a county map only the counties with big citys vote for Liberals

Perchance that's because the institutions of education and the jobs that require education are all in the cities?

Clinton if anyone was lazy.

Which part of the Oslo Protocol did you fail to notice?

In fact only a war get a economy out of the pits.

Oh. Will someone please tell me, then, why some of your most right-wing generals are warning you that a war will be 'too costly'.

Five words and a quote:Notice the "Anything that has nothing to do with burning " in my post?

There may be burning solutions in the future, but some uses my never be gone for oil

Burning provides heat and pressure... Which can be created by electricity, which can in turn be created by fuel cells.

You mind not ragging on Christains?

I do not rag on Christians. I rag on Christianity.

To everyone:

Oh, please. Get the idea that Europe is socialistic out of your heads. We are social-liberalistic. And it works, thankyeverymuch.

I could get into the pros and cons of a social-liberalistic system here, but that would be kinda off-topic, methinks. Basically, though, the concept is that people aren't left to rot in the streets when they are out of a job.

I don't see the United States as an Empire either. Not in the literal sense.

The US is a hyperpower, no? All previous hyperpowers have been called empires, no? And el Presidente's crusade is pretty imperialistic, no?

Psydan
02-16-2003, 11:35 PM
Hey Griif how cheap are you selling that swamp for? Anyway, I think Bush was picked fairly, and in fact if anything Gore was trying to do a little cheating, but hey thats my opinion, I think Bush is a great leader, and that there is nothing that he is doing wrong, 'cept maybe trying to start too many fights at once,
(N. Korea, Iraq, TERROR, and the rest of that "axis of evil" thing) but I think he knows what he is doing, and is just reacting to the increasing amounts of fear and terror spreading like wildfires, and I guess a lot of people are just kinda worried. Anyway, I think it's a good thing Bush is in office 'cause Gore was very strange and tricksy.

OH, and another thing, what about the communist and Socialist (etc.) parties in our country, why don't they ever get a fair run, and it's always a feirce competition between the Democrats and Republicans, though they aren't really that different in theory...

LilDrumLad
02-17-2003, 05:56 PM
The media also helped contribute to the Florida mess. Bear in mind that the media is 80% liberal. They announced the state was won by Gore very early, when in fact voting was still allowed in some places. Surveys were done post-election to ask if the announcement that Gore won the state deterred Florida citizens from going to the polls. The answer? Yes. Who wants to vote for a loser?

Bush won. Like it or not.

And no, he's not the smartest guy on the planet. But at least he's smart enough to surround himself with people that do know what they're doing.

TheHobGoblin
02-21-2003, 09:33 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by C'jais
let Bush and Hussein settle this once and for all with a knife-fight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
id want sadam to win. sorry i just hate bush.

Saddam is a fat old turd. He'll lose. I hate you so I would fight you. I may have came off crazy but I hate you and the democrates and the terrorist, saddam ect. Bush knows everything he is doing. He is the PRESIDENT. Unelected my fat orange ass. You should show respect but I'm through showing respect. People Are Stupid.

C'jais
02-22-2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
I hate you so I would fight you.

Calm down. Count to ten while taking deep breaths. I don't want any flaming in here.

Bush knows everything he is doing. He is the PRESIDENT.

You don't seriously believe presidents get all-knowing and a few extra IQ points the moment they get elected, do you?

You should show respect

Why? Cuz he's the prez? I'm thinking we also shouldn't question his motives and ability, right?

but I'm through showing respect.

You and InsaneSith can go kill each other while offline. But when on these boards, you will show respect to other people.

Comprendes?

SkinWalker
02-22-2003, 03:07 PM
Man Cjais!

You deleted some of my best stuff ;)

EDIT: I just realized that I thought I was in the other thread.... HobGoblin was getting a little heated there too.... hard to tell that one from this one. My bad.


:cool:

Big Daddy Skin