Who do you want as your next President?
 

Who has your vote for the 2004 Presidential Election?

I'm with Kerry!

I don't want to get into a huge political rant right now, but all the canidates are horrible. We have a choice (so they say...) we can have a warmongering fascist or a cowardly pseudo-socialist who is too afraid to make a god damn choice...I am a socialist and hope to God America doesn't become one, because we will be too f-ed up...I chose Nadar as a way to null my vote...lol

Huge political discussions are fun. :D But, anyway, voting Nader doesn't null your vote, but actually hurts the Democratic party. The only way to null your vote in this election is to not vote.

I, as a republican, couldn't give a crap less for whatever person someone votes for, but atleast vote. Even with the electoral college your vote still matters..

Can i choose none. I don't like any of these guys. They're all jackasses.

I agree that people should always vote to an extent, but withholding your vote is sometimes as significant as voting as long as you know your intention. I certainly plan to vote, though.

Now.. hmm.. I have heard countless speaches by Kerry... I want kerry in.. :D

Anyone with a brain bigger than a walnut would be a good start! What about Bush's dog?

there really is no one right person that will help run our country as a complete success, thats just how messed up we are. So why bother with all the votes and stuff and all this animosity between canditates and parties... Might as well just have a list and take turns like the song of the week club lol

I dont live in america so I cant really comment on that. I wouldnt mind someone who looks at canadians as more than a bunch of polar-bear riding eskimos! Honestly though, in canada we had to learn american history. Why?? I think america is the most self-centered nation on the planet.

I think that's a fair statement!! To say the least!!

Because the Canadian schools focus on our history we are self-centered? I take world history, so that means everyone is self centered?

Agreed ;) :)

No, but we were at a time forced to take it, as if it was our own history. Its your choice whether you take a world histories class or not, we didnt have a choice. There was a sad time when a canadian couldnt not name the first primeminister, but could name over 5 US presidents. Not anymore, now its an optional thing for us, but I mean, that just shows that america forces its pride down everyone elses throat. Or at least it did. At least now other nations (france) have the balls to reject that kind of supremecy

I gurantee that it was the Canadian gov't that put that in schools, not ours. And as a whole, every single student has to either drop out or take world geography and world history....so it is "forced" upon us.

:offtopic: A funny requirement to graduate in the United States is having to take United States history in high school. That's not the same in Canada is it?

Makes perfect sense to me, the past guides the future. So why not understand the past so you can excel in the future (ie: capitalism)?

I think most people bitch about it just because they thing it's boring, which I can sort of agree but there is some sort of a purpose for it.

Brain surgeon now? Damn you switch occupations fast...

Firstly if we are talking about the contents of Bush's head,we may not actually need a brain surgeon.
As for my rapidly changing jobs, i like to get my hand in all pies,i would run for Pres of the USA but i am not a US citizen,i can eat pretzals without choking,and i can tie my own laces,i am afraid i am to over qualified!!!

Don't get me wrong... I like the requirement and I'm a big fan of knowing your history. But it wouldn't make sense for Canada to learn US history.

a requirement for graduation is also taking european or world history....so we learn about the rest of the world as im sure the other countries do.

and bush has condolezza rice in his cabinet, so he can be as dumb as he wants. She makes up for it.

Out of those choices, I'd pick a monkey.

You would be the one to know...

Ahh, so in the states your what we call a jack-of-all trades which also means.. But back on topic. Shame your not a US citizen, you may have just had the same chance at the Democrat nomination as Al Sharpton did.

Afraid show, again it's a pitty... :hphones:

Nice to know you have been paying so much attention to my wise words.If i didn't know any better i would say you have become a little obsessed with me.

Better watch out, might start following you...

But in reality, I'm picking you out and debating with you, nothing wrong with it at all.

Looking over shoulder as i type.

Nothing wrong with a healthy debate!!

So what exactly do you disagree with me on?

You don't seriously like Bush??

like I said before... no one president can make EVERY single person happy so why is it worth fighting over something that will never end

Because otherwise you have anarchy like you have in Iraq at the moment

Because if you want to change something you have to make the effort, or you jsut end up sat on your arse all defeatist saying 'what's the point?'

Sure as hell do. :ar_15s:

Right then(sleeves rolled up!!).

That man Bush(and Blair) has told the world the this Saddam man had to go.Nothing wrong with that,he was an evil man that,as they say here,deserved a slap!
Why then did we first of all have to have the lies of WMD? That smacks of a political leader that thinks that his people are to dumb to understand the whole truth of the matter.Even worse that he thinks he can get away with 'sexing up'the facts to suit his needs.What other issues do you think he may 'bend' the truth on to get his way?

When the facts come out that basically they did 'sex up' the argument to got to war they tried to fall back on an old and trusted excuse......Well he WAS in breach of UN directive14 blah blah,so what they decided to do was as the UN to go to war with Iraq the UN said no and they go ahead anyway!!! Now who's gone against the UN? How comes if Saddam does it he's some monster that needs kicking out but when Bush/Blair ignore UN requests nothing is said?
Bush and Blair have proved themselves to be self righteous,dishonest bully's.Not a million miles from Saddam is it?

George w Bush (i think we all know what the W stands for,see timberlake licks balls thread!) also has the dubious honour of probably being the only president of the states without actually winning the election.The whole 'chad' thing,though i cant blame Bush for this,it is still a dodgy result that put him in the most powerful job in the world.

I know that Kerry is probably no better,unfortunately there does only seem to be a handful of genuine politicians around the world,but what America can't do is allow a man who has lied to his own people and the rest of the world to get another term,otherwise he will see no end to his power and then you will be in the crap because he will walk over anyone just to get what is good for him and no one else.

Lose the fool now before he loses the plot for real!

because the whole point of a democratic system is for the people of a nation to collectively decide who they want as a leader, with the majority winning. of course no one leader will make everyone happy, that's what democracy is for. otherwise we would have a communist system with a leader/leaders who decide amongst themselves what is good for everyone, without the consensus of the population, which could ultimately lead to a dictatorship, in the case of stalin. oh, and i saw a post earlier about how it was pointless to learn to history of another country. Personally, i can't think of anything learnt in high school thats more useful. major political events and revlutions aren't isolated to individual nations. by learning about the course of history in other nations (which effects the entire world) we understand why the world is the way it is, and how the political climate in the world today came into effect. I could go on and give a lot of examples, but i'm not in the mood at the moment.

Hold the bull**** train right there..

First off, in the way early 90's Saddam did have WMD's and a ton of them. He was lobbing scuds at the Israelis and the we wouldn't let Israel retaliate. He had WMD's in the late 90's when he kicked the UN inspectors out, he had WMD's in 2002 when he let them back in. Now we're having to use a bit of effort to find them now. Whys that? Because Bush gave him way too much time, Syria rings a bell...

I believe you mentioned earlier that the USA does not have the right to go tell everyone what to do. Well then the UN does? Now you're going to say the UN is allowed to do that because it's a bunch of countries collectively. Which is true, excluding the fact that there is always some at the top with supreme control, which just happens to be that freak from Africa. The UN needs to shut the hell up and the USA needs to kick them out and stop giving the UN money (Which Bush has initiated, thankfully).

Winning the election? Total bull****. You're from the UK as I understand? Well here in the USA we have this thing called the electoral college. Basically there's 2 votes in each state. This is to prevent something like say California being able to decide the whole election for the rest of the country due to their high capita. Now for some reason the Democrats are begining to scream about this, even though this is what greatly helped Clinton in the 96 election against Bob Dole...

What's funny is you call him a fool. He's only a fool because you don't agree with him, so what does that make you?

Lying to his own people? Well it's funny you mention that, because the CIA (which is headed up by the former CEO of Citibank) is the one IIRC that told Bush about the whole WMD thing. The blame should actually be shifted to them more than Bush (if there really is any justified blame). By the way, do we not remember a particular President who was getting head and then lied about it on National TV? Or how about smoking pot? or or...

Not exactly Communism, it's more of an Monarchy...As there's tons of countries like that, ie England..But good point..

Thank you for writing that out. Hopefully kerry will be elected, and hopefully he'll be able to patch up the damage done by bush, and let me say, he sure has his work cut out for him. The situation in iraq is more fragile now than ever. although i am COMPLETELY 100% against the war in iraq, i have to say that the US need to stay in there and attempt to fix the damage done, and hopefully kerry will recognize the need for this as well. As i see it, america now has a "you break it, you buy it" deal with iraq at the moment. because of the war, iraq's political situation is in chaos (not that is was better off with sadam, but it's a different kind of chaos) so america needs to put in the effort ot help iraqis get their country under control. As it stands right now, there is a danger of 1) the US implementing a leader who will keep close ties with the US and possibly put trade relations ahead of the peoples' well being. and 2) the US leave the people to hold a democratic election, and end up with a fundamental dictator. either way, iraq is screwed. I don't have an answer at the moment, becasue as i've just stated there isn't one. As it stands, i'm hoping (perhaps a little naively) that a new leader will emerge from the iraqi public who will be able to rule the country in a non-fundamentalist, non-dictatorial fashion.

I believe Bill Hicks had it right when he did his sketch on arms trade around the world the basic gist being..." how do you know they have these weapons?............Oh well we checked the receipts!!
We all know he HAD them cos we all know we sold them to him(i use we as a collective for America/UK),and the point is when he HAD them then.He definitely didn't have then this time and that was the reason we went and got him.
Saying that Bush was given false information that led him to war is dodgy ground too,because Bush had made his mind up that at all cost Saddam had to go (after9/11) so it wouldn't surprise me that the President and his 'Advisor's' put a great deal of pressure on the secret services to get any sort of proof that he was a dangerous man,in their haste they came up with a document that was proved wrong.

You quite neatly skipped around my point that UN was a good enough body to listen to when they said that Saddam needed attention,but an invalid body when they wont back you up in war.


You may well have a system that doesn't allow California to do whatever whenever but the fact remains,Bush's win was controversial and no one will know if the result was accurate or not.

So the fact you have had Liars in the whitehouse before does not mean you should put up with another one for another term( ican't believe you didn't mention Nixon too).

You seem a proud American and it baffles me why you would want someone who makes and breaks rules as he see's fit(a bit like Saddam),has little concern if he is telling the whole truth to his OWN people( a bit like Saddam),cant declare he won his last election totally without doubt( a bit like Saddam,do you remember the vote he won 100% of the vote!!), and who makes decisions that could put his nation and people in grave danger,while he is surrounded by tight security( a bit like..blah blah).

I am not really party political in this debate i am just shocked that Americans are so willing to have Bush back.

(great debate by the way!!! Love it!!!)

About the 2000 election, you sir obviously are very ignorant just as any other person is who thinks the election results were debatable. Not only did the Supreme Court say Bush won (the same court who legalized abortion, but that's another topic) but also did the electoral which was proved by my point about how it works...


Saddam was a tyrant, Bush is not and was elected under a fair system no matter what anyone says.

Now don't get me wrong, Bush isn't perfect but he's the best thing we've had in the past 16 years in my opinion.


This goes back to the thing about Bush willingly knowing wether Iraq has WMDs (which I'm positivly sure it does but maybe not in Iraq at this moment) and there's still no definite proof of Iraq of having or not having any of the like. It's all judgemental and most of the people doing the judging haven't been anywhere near Iraq, myself included...

What you're hoping for is not possible. Iraq as a whole is Muslim and they're basically all looking towards that Cleric (whatever the hell his name is) who seems a bit crooked in my mind.

So the supreme court made a decision that backed up the president cool no problems there then!!
I doubt iraq has got any weapons though i dont think you could find a stick in one piece in that place.

I have certainly never been any where near Iraq however,I have familly who had a business in the holiday trade to Iraq( i swear on my life ppl actually were going there on holiday!!! sounds like a Dead Kennedy's tune!!) and after long discussions with them and listening to their opinions i am in the mind that the right thing happened by going to war i just think they did it telling us lies why they were and that is not acceptable in my book!!!
I would deny being ignorant but i dont know what it means!! (yes very droll indeed!!)

A Supreme court that was entirely appointed by the Clinton-Gore-Whitehouse.

You doubt? They were launching scuds off at Israel and you doubt they have any WMDs? Saddam had ample time to move them to Syria...