Pick-A-Prez

BWX · Mar 23, 2003, 05:17 AM

I just think it is very ironic. I would have guessed he would be the one brigning up the rear in the percentages, I am suprised.
With all the Bush haters, I gotta say something-

Vampyromaniac · Mar 23, 2003, 05:30 AM

fair enough
I wonder who picked Hillary

Falstaff · Mar 23, 2003, 10:56 AM

probably wants an end to wars, people sitting around and communicating instead of fighting, working out their problems over blintz's and coffee, shopping instead of fighting, etc etc etc....sure as hell wasn't me, ha ha

~~ByteMe~~ · Mar 23, 2003, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
The oil resourses will be down in 60 years from now with the current level of consumption.

No Javafox.....Oil is NOT clean.

Bluelight

Where the heck you get this info? My friends in the oil industry say that they believe that not even HALF of the oil in the world has been found. And with the progress with tech. (fuel cell, etc) oil won't be that important in 60 years.

~~ByteMe~~ · Mar 23, 2003, 04:13 PM

Oh, I also voted for Colin Powell. I like Bush alot but at that second I thought Powell would be a good president.

JavaFox · Mar 23, 2003, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
. . . says twice, not twice consecutively

Well, I hate to admit it, but I think you're correct, Vampy. That must be a common misconception.

raid517 · Mar 23, 2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
LOL--haha Bush is STILL winning!

And amongst all the (supposed) hatred for him.
LOL, I love it. I know this just eats some of you guys up, which makes it so much more funny.

And this is an international site!

Well no not really. I personally am just opting not to cast a vote in what is an American matter. Besides the crop of oposition isn't so great. Is that really the best that the left in America can do right now? There's not a lot to choose from is there? At least 3 of those candidates have no chance whatsoever (infact probably all of them) of ever getting elected. And Clinton isn't even in the picture anymore...

Q

JavaFox · Mar 23, 2003, 04:37 PM

Lieberman is probably the left's best bet. Although to be frank, unless God himself runs, I don't see a Democratic victory in 2K4.

raid517 · Mar 23, 2003, 04:38 PM

Anyway by my crude maths, out of our regular members there are about 3 left leaning sympathisers (though not all would term themselves 'democrats') and about 6 hardline republicans. So really we have a 2 to 1 ratio in favour of the republicans. However if you were to eliminate all the no hope candidates on the left and unite these numbers behind a single credible candidate, the numbers I think wouldn't be all that different at all. The only problem is that they are divided right now...

Q

raid517 · Mar 23, 2003, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Lieberman is probably the left's best bet. Although to be frank, unless God himself runs, I don't see a Democratic victory in 2K4.

Well I can't see it either, not unless people finally get sick of all this repressive patriot act 1 and 2 stuff and get fed up feeling like their living in a police state. If they get elected again I don't doubt that they will bring in stuff that makes Patriot 1 and 2 look like a kids bedtime story - and also that the second phase of their plan for dominance in the Mid East will come fully into play.

We shall see i guess. There will come a time when people are just sick of it.

Q

JavaFox · Mar 23, 2003, 05:19 PM

Yeah, well, there's no reason to blame Republicans for those acts. Democrats support them just as much.

raid517 · Mar 23, 2003, 05:24 PM

They are Republican sponored - and in light of the current situation, practically everyone is terrified of speaking against them. I mean how can you vote against a Patriots Act? Doesn't that mean that by definition you are 'unpatriotic'. Crude tactics perhaps, but in the eyes of the public they certainly seem to work. Politicians who care about their jobs are hardly in a position to ignore this.

Q

Falstaff · Mar 23, 2003, 05:51 PM

He's as interesting as C. Powell, and seems to be more balanced in his thinking, He like Lieberman, didn't make the list, ha ha...go figure..

JavaFox · Mar 23, 2003, 06:09 PM

Nah. I'm tired of the "Dems only support th PATRIOT Act because they are scared to be against it." Give them some credit. I don't agree with them, but surely some of them have conviction and sincerity. The fact is, they support the act too.

raid517 · Mar 23, 2003, 07:28 PM

Mmm... Politicians with true conviction and sincerity, that's a new concept... Well anyway, I have heard some talking on the radio and read a few reports in the press where they more or less say this. I can play the linking game with you again if you want JF, but I'm not the only person here with access to Google, you know what to do - although I suspect you will probably choose not to do it.

But what do I care anyway..? I wonder when you will realise how much things have really changed? Perhaps when police are walking about the streets in full battle dress carrying machine guns? Oops, I forgot that has already happend with new terrorist alerts nearly every day. Pretty soon Americans will become familiar with the notion of being in a permanant state of alert - and won't even notice the armed police or the army on the streets any more - or won't care when new bills are introduced that errodes their rights further...

Well having said that, maybe some Americans will care. Will they be able to make a difference? Who knows...? Maybe it will soon be too late for all that.

Q

Falstaff · Mar 23, 2003, 07:41 PM

You gotta hand it to Bush, he stands on his statements, and he has way fewer apologists than Clinton ever did, and....ah there is no comparison, Bush has way more integrity than Clinton ever will, maybe that will be his legacy..

raid517 · Mar 23, 2003, 07:50 PM

Na... Politicians and integrity are not compatible ideals. I have spent some time with these kind of people - and most of the time they just just plot endlessly how to stab each other in the back. I don't think any politicians are different. It is the nature of the dirty game they are in.

Q

Vampyromaniac · Mar 24, 2003, 12:52 AM

I basically started with GwB, Clinton, and Bush Sr., because they were all President recently,
Gore, Dole, Nader, and Perot who ran against them and lost,
Cheney who is VP now, so he's . . . a) "almost" a Prez, and b) might run soon
and added Powell and Hillary, who I wouldn't mind seeing run someday, esp Powell

That said, this isn't an "election"-type poll.
Rather, just if you think one of those would be better instead of GwB right now

I could've just asked "GwB or someone else" (currently 22-11 in favor of someone else, someone in the list anyway)
but I put in all those people because it's more fun, and it's my poll, dammit

PS Yes, I said "could've", not "could of" like some members seem to think it might be

BWX · Mar 24, 2003, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
I basically started with GwB, Clinton, and Bush Sr., because they were all President recently,
Gore, Dole, Nader, and Perot who ran against them and lost,
Cheney who is VP now, so he's . . . a) "almost" a Prez, and b) might run soon
and added Powell and Hillary, who I wouldn't mind seeing run someday, esp Powell

That said, this isn't an "election"-type poll.
Rather, just if you think one of those would be better instead of GwB right now

I could've just asked "GwB or someone else" (currently 22-11 in favor of someone else, someone in the list anyway)
but I put in all those people because it's more fun, and it's my poll, dammit

PS Yes, I said "could've", not "could of" like some members seem to think it might be

A very interesting poll, still. Who said could of?

Vampyromaniac · Mar 24, 2003, 07:37 PM

I just see every now and then people in the forum changing the " 've " in many words to " of "

Falstaff · Mar 24, 2003, 07:51 PM

I thnk itz txt mssging

Oblivious · Mar 24, 2003, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Well I can't vote as I'm not American. But to be honset I don't see any credible oppsition on the left right now in America. The left are good at producing charismatic clever politicians like the Kenedys, or Clinton, so maybe they will need someone like this to come along and make an impact before America can turn away again from this lurch to the far right. I'll say one thing for Ronald Reagan, he may have been none too smart himself, but as a president he was in a totally different legue from Bush. He played and won much bigger battles than Bush Jnr could ever dream of - and what's more, he won most of them without having to fire a single shot. That's pretty damn impressive.

Q

Dude, no disrespect for JFK or anything but the Kennedy's suck! I live in Maryland, our *ex*-Lieutenant governor was Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. She was so bad that she lost to the Republican candidate Bob Ehrlich. To put this in perspective Maryland has not had a republican governor in ~40 yrs. Thats how bad she sucks.

Family has nothing to do with politics!!

Oblivious · Mar 24, 2003, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
The oil resourses will be down in 60 years from now with the current level of consumption.

With Usa consuming about 25 percent of the total consumption per year on a global basais i suggest you all do your own calculations where or not oil is important or not as one of the reasons for this war.

The largest resourses of oil in the world are found in the region.Some of them are situated in Iraq.

It is of course important to any major world power to control these resourses politically or economocally through its enterprises.

Someone said oil is clean....That depends on what you mean by clean.It is cleaner that coal but it produces just as much products that speeds up the prcess of global heating.

Global heating is a fact among all scientists except those paid by Exxon not to think it is.

No Javafox.....Oil is NOT clean.

Bluelight

Hmm, let me put some emphasis on oil but not quite from that angle.

Does everyone here realize that Europeans pay about two times as much for gas as Americans do? I mean Russia is a major oil EXPORTER and prices are still double of what they are in America. Not that i am going to start pulling statistics, but why do you think America is in such a cheerful position?

This war is about oil, even if Iraq supplies some minute amount of the total U.S. consumption -- this is still of Enormous importance. Let me stress this further by pointing out that prices globally won't be affected as much as they will be in the U.S.

Basically, oil is important. It is critical to the economy. The war maybe about human rights, but it will still impact the oil supply.

Comments?

JavaFox · Mar 24, 2003, 09:29 PM

Like I remarked in another thread, Oblivious, if this war were about oil, we are not only going about it in the wrong way, we are also going after the wrong country. Saudi Arabia has more oil, and better developed oil infrastructure than Iraq.

raid517 · Mar 24, 2003, 09:36 PM

Well I was thinking more about the two Kennedys that got shot. The rest I don't know about. On a side issue, for an awful long time I couldn't work out how anybody could have shot these guys... But after having spoken with many American Conservatives and Ultra Conservatives (not just here but on other forums through these last two years) I can kind of understand that there is a real fear and resentment among many Consevatives for the force of liberalism and change in America. It makes sense to me now, having taken on board what these Conservatives have been saying, why they could have been killed. (Not just the Kennedys, but Martin Luther King and Malcom X too - and conversly g