|
Post by Elfie on Apr 21, 2004 19:56:52 GMT -5
His economics were a bit shaky, but he was a lawyer, not a businessmen. More importantly, he had a coherent vision for Canada, which is essential in good leader.
|
|
|
Post by Smorgasbord on Apr 21, 2004 20:16:04 GMT -5
They both suck arse. Recent political candidates have really, really been shitty politicians. And it figures, America eliminates all the good ones, and gives the idiots candidacy. Out of the two, I'd say Kerry. Bush is an exceedingly cowardly man, and is an awful leader. He destroys the economy, leads the country into a pointless and ultimately fruitless war-campaign, in an obviously rascist movement. Furhter more, when asked about but ONE SINGLE MISTAKE during his term, he couldn't think of any. NONE. That is the sign of an awful leader. A leader needs to be able to admit failure. A leader needs to be strong; a leadder needs to be clever; a leader needs to be entirely callous, and not worried with sacrificing human lives in pursuit of a goal... but I digress.
Bush sucks. So does Kerry. But Kerry's the better candidate.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Apr 21, 2004 22:28:59 GMT -5
Strong and clever I agree with.
But sacrificing of human lives? That's a bit...extreme...
I feel a lot better about this election if Edwards was running against Bush. At least then I would actually have faith in whoever won, as opposed to just Bush, and even then my faith isn't solid.
|
|
|
Post by Smorgasbord on Apr 22, 2004 7:48:33 GMT -5
Well, the whole sacrificing human lives part, I was referring to wars. And Bush actually fits it quite nicely... If you're attacked, you need to attack back regardless of what the death toll might be. But, you also need to show prudence in exactly WHO you attack... We enetered Afghanistan with very little hard evidence to support our bin-Laden theory. It's only because he tried to kill GB sr. And as soon as that anal cavity we have for a preisdent realizes we're never going to catch him, he brings into play his ace-in-the-hole; Saddan Hussein.
I think the whole war on terror is a way to control the human population growth... Think about it. We go in there, lose a good 500 lives during the war, and then as soon as it's over and we've succesfully captured Hussein, as well as completely obliterate what Iraq once called an economy, we stay there, regardless of whether we need to or not. And regardless of the loss of humans... It's a perfect scheme. It's a way to control our oil consumption, and keep the world going for longer. Note that we entered an oil rich country, which happens to be close to other oil rich countries, and we show no signs of leaving any time soon. And yes, I just thought that up on the spot, but it all makes sense!
If I could pick from ALL the candidates, I'd have to say Sharpton. Sharpton is possibly the funniest political joke yet. And he has funny hair.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Apr 22, 2004 15:10:21 GMT -5
Wow Karda, that was good. I agree with you there. Bush is a coward, hes a draft dodger, instead of joining the Army like every other brave american did, he joined the National Guard, which had a very small chance of actually seeing any action.
|
|
|
Post by Smorgasbord on Apr 22, 2004 15:49:56 GMT -5
T'ankee. Not only the whole army thing... bush felt so insecure about the whole terrorist thing. Upon reaching one single, albeit somewhat likely, conclusion, he attacks Afghanistan! Why not meddle in others affairs, just for the possibility of gaining more protection for yourself! He's destroying the world as we know it with his cowardice.
Ya know what? We should all move to China. Soon enough, they're going to come back and bite us in the ass. You could wonder how those economic bastages (why do they need to filter that? It's a perfectly legitimate term, if oft misused...) got such lofty positions with such naive beliefs...
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Apr 22, 2004 21:21:30 GMT -5
Ugh... Anyone who knows anything about the economy can tell you that the neither the President nor any other part of the Federal government controls the economy. The economy goes in natural cycles, goes up, down, and back up again. President has very little control over this, although Bush did gove the economy a slight boost with the tax cuts.
As for the oil thing, one thing that people don't seem to understand: The US has not taken a drop of oil from Iraq. Not even to refuel the vehicles our military has over there. Nor have we even gotten a discount on it. If the US really wanted oil, they would have simply taken it.
And Afghanistan, I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. Intelligence determined that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11, US tracks their main location to Afghanistan, so that's where we go.
I'm not quite sure how any cowardice on Bush's part would cause him to attack terrorists.
I've always found it ironic that those who criticize Bush for dodging the draft are the same people who defended Clinton when people said it was wrong of him to dodge the draft.
|
|
(LK)
Artificer
Posts: 733
|
Post by (LK) on Apr 22, 2004 21:28:17 GMT -5
yes, the irony is just overwhelming
|
|
|
Post by Smorgasbord on Apr 22, 2004 21:58:56 GMT -5
*shrug* Just a theory. I hate Bush, I hated Clinton, I hate Kerry. American politics in general suck. I still say we should move to China.
|
|
(LK)
Artificer
Posts: 733
|
Post by (LK) on Apr 22, 2004 22:13:20 GMT -5
um, how about no?
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 22, 2004 23:03:08 GMT -5
Yes, the economy goes in natural cycles, but it can still be controlled. Take FDR during the Great Depression. He instituted al those program and things began to look good for the economy. Then he thought things had recovered enough and he cut the programs, and the country lapsed back into depression. Are you telling me that was just coincidence?
As for oil, the President clearly told the Iraqi to keep their oilfields safe. I saw it in an adress he made. Frankly, I think he's shrewder than he looks in this case. Taking oil would cause national outrage, but trying to establish a US friendly government would supply the US with oil through trading.
Afghanistan wasn't the only place that was training terrorists. Take Saudi Arabia. 18 of the 20 hijackers resided there for a significant period of time before coming to the US. In my opinion, Saudi Arabia should have been on the list before Iraq.
Clinton and Bush both dodged the draft. You can't condemn one without condemning the other, but Clinton never tried to be a war president. Bush wants to be recognized a strong Commander-in-Chief while having dodged the draft of a former Commander-in-Chief. Anyway, I don't think that military record will be a huge factor in the next election. Suffice it to say that John Kerry does indeed have a better military record than the president. I don't think that can be refuted, but I also think its a very minor issue.
|
|
(LK)
Artificer
Posts: 733
|
Post by (LK) on Apr 22, 2004 23:08:09 GMT -5
well according to one of my sources, Kerry only spent like 3-4 months in Vietnam for being a "war hero" which was what? A few minor injuries gaining him purple hearts then disobeying a command where which he was instructed not to leave the ship but did anyway, i may have said some of the stuff incorrect, like how he got the purple hearts, nevertheless he really shouldn't be looked upon as a war hero.
As for Bush... I don't like the guy, and i don't like Kerry either, there's no winning here man!
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 22, 2004 23:13:15 GMT -5
Minor injuries = Shot 3 times.
Leaving the ship = Saving soldiers' lives who (I think) had been ambushed.
|
|
(LK)
Artificer
Posts: 733
|
Post by (LK) on Apr 22, 2004 23:19:16 GMT -5
the shots weren't life threatning though
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 22, 2004 23:23:41 GMT -5
Do you honestly believe that Kerry's record in the military is worse than Bush's, or are you just playing Devil's Advocate?
Anyway, I think that discounting the fact that he was shot as minor wounds because they weren't life-threatening is a bit silly. I mean, I'd imagine it still hurts an awful lot to get shot, and three times? Don't tell that doesn't count for anything.
|
|
(LK)
Artificer
Posts: 733
|
Post by (LK) on Apr 22, 2004 23:25:53 GMT -5
about the shots, i think they were like in body parts that wouldn't make it life threatning, like shoulder or like leg... I don't know, i heard my dad talking about it in spanish, and the website he got the info gave him a virus or two so meh and oh no, by all mean's neccesary, Bush's military record is not better then Kerry's, Kerry's is far better then Bush's will ever be really, sorry if i made anyone misinterpret anything, i have a way of doing that alot
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 22, 2004 23:28:07 GMT -5
No problem, I was just curious.
|
|
|
Post by Smorgasbord on Apr 23, 2004 8:55:00 GMT -5
I'm just being my usual cynical self. I know he said not to harm the oil fields, but he's only waiting until he's in a good enough position to take it. He's being more xclever than we give him credit for. Next, he's going to find problems with other terrorists in other middle eastern countries (note how broadly defined the "War On Terror" is.) From there, he'll start a "war on dictatorships" or summat like that. That gives him the freedom to invade Saudi Arabia and overthrow Crown Prince Abdullah, thereby gaining the country and all the oil in it. Then we're free to spread to Oman, Yemen, the UAE, and Qatar.
Again, that's just pessimistic me talking, and it's just a theory. IT all makes sense to me, regardless of whether it does to any of you.
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Apr 23, 2004 9:22:48 GMT -5
It all makes perfect sense to me. Bush is (or at least, eventually will be) to Arabs what Hitler was to Jews.
|
|
|
Post by Smorgasbord on Apr 23, 2004 11:21:47 GMT -5
Except Hitler was less subtle, and a hell of a lot smarter.
|
|