US election poll

[taks]

Yes Kraftan but unless your economic elite are the mojority of the population wouldn't that make the majority the opposite of what you just stated?  I do believe Gromnir was talking about the majority not that there were no conservatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thanks dakoth, this statement is true, but kaftan was referring to my comment, not gromnir's

 

taks

[Rhomal]

> Oh and Gorth Clinton lied under oath. No matter what weak excuse he gave that is unacceptable for the President to do, he is to up hold the law not break it. Clinton and a lot of Dems lost my respect when he did that and people were defending him.

 

And if the dems controled congress we could impeach bush on what he has done. Whats worse, lying about a blowjob or running the country into the ground while lying to the american people and congress about a war?

 

Clinton for his weakness of the flesh, did a damn good job with the economy and had the respect of the world. Something bush cant do on either count.

[kumquatq3]

In the arena of states (read:  nations) and politics, power is, unfortunately, all that matters.  Without power, a state ceases to function effictively, or at all.  As the purpose of government is to both protect its citizenry and ensure that trade is regulated, a lack of power causes a state to fail in both regards.  Continuing, the more power that a state has, the better able it is to protect its citizenry and their wealth.  Thus, one can conclude that the best thing for any state is to dictate the policies of other nations, thus ensuring that the best interests of its citizenry are always served.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

but you called it a "right" to do so. Just because it may be in our best interest, doesn't mean we have the right. It may be in my best interest to rob you, but I don't have the right to.

[Weiser_Cain]

"Regardless, I'm in Illinois, the state is going to Kerry. "

 

Yeah the way Chicago goes the rest of the state must follow, some thing that really chapps my ass.

Are you ready for another ass chapping? Let's face it, without Chicago, illinois would be as bad as indiana.

 

I don't like europeans interfering in our politics. I don't like bush but he's our representative for good or I'll and though I didn't vote for him I think he still deserves respect for what he represents. I'll be voting for kerry and I'll be watching the reaction from across the atlantic. See, I tend to belive that some countries aren't helping us in the war on terror and with iraq because they don't like bush. Anyone that suddenly helps us would in my eyes be guilty of letting US troops die to spite bush and to influence US politics.

 

I digress? Non-Americans don't get a say. We are our own country, we decide our future. If you think we have too much influence well too bad. I'd rather bush win for real this time than he loose because foreigners don't like him.

[Weiser_Cain]

> Oh and Gorth Clinton lied under oath.  No matter what weak excuse he gave that is unacceptable for the President to do, he is to up hold the law not break it.  Clinton and a lot of Dems lost my respect when he did that and people were defending him.

 

And if the dems controled congress we could impeach bush on what he has done. Whats worse, lying about a blowjob or running the country into the ground while lying to the american people and congress about a war?

 

Clinton for his weakness of the flesh, did a damn good job with the economy and had the respect of the world. Something bush cant do on either count.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Plus I didn't think we should have been asking him that question in the first place. Besides I can understand exactly whay he lied about cheating on his wife, and though I wouldn't cheat on anybody I can't say I wouldn't lie to cover up something like that.

 

Lying to start a war is diffrent and the fact that no republican has called him on that reveals their hypocrisy.

[Volourn]

Like I said before, if Bush 'lied' about Iraq so did Clinton so the Clintion fanboys (which I am one) who say otherwise are hypocrits.

[taks]

And if the dems controled congress we could impeach bush on what he has done. Whats worse, lying about a blowjob or running the country into the ground while lying to the american people and congress about a war?

while bush's original speeches may have been misleading, they were summarily based on intelligence even clinton believed in at the time. not a lie and neither was bush under oath. clinton lied under oath. that is a felony.

 

a big difference between bad decisions and outright lying.

 

Clinton for his weakness of the flesh, did a damn good job with the economy and had the respect of the world. Something bush cant do on either count.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

he had the respect of the world because he's liberal. he set the stage for the worst economic crash the world has seen. the "good job with the economy" was borne on false assumptions of an unlimited advertising base for the "internet boom." the money was not there and investors lost hundreds of billions of dollars as a result. this isn't just money that changed hands, it went away as if it never existed (which it didn't...)

 

get your facts straight before commenting.

 

taks

[Weiser_Cain]

he had the respect of the world because he's liberal.  he set the stage for the worst economic crash the world has seen.

Of course you need to have an economy to have a crash, something neither bush seemed to have had...

[Rhomal]

> Oh and Gorth Clinton lied under oath.  No matter what weak excuse he gave that is unacceptable for the President to do, he is to up hold the law not break it.  Clinton and a lot of Dems lost my respect when he did that and people were defending him.

 

And if the dems controled congress we could impeach bush on what he has done. Whats worse, lying about a blowjob or running the country into the ground while lying to the american people and congress about a war?

 

Clinton for his weakness of the flesh, did a damn good job with the economy and had the respect of the world. Something bush cant do on either count.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Plus I didn't think we should have been asking him that question in the first place. Besides I can understand exactly whay he lied about cheating on his wife, and though I wouldn't cheat on anybody I can't say I wouldn't lie to cover up something like that.

 

Lying to start a war is diffrent and the fact that no republican has called him on that reveals their hypocrisy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

From the AARP msg forum. -

 

While suturing a laceration on the hand of a 90 year old man (he got his hand caught in a gate while working his cattle) the doctor and the old man were discussing Bush's health care reform ideas. The old man said "Well, ya know old Bush is a post turtle." The doctor was puzzled and asked him what he meant by a post turtle. The old man replied..."When you are driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle. You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up there, and you just want to help the poor thing down!."

[Rhomal]

> while bush's original speeches may have been misleading, they were summarily based on intelligence even clinton believed in at the time. not a lie and neither was bush under oath. clinton lied under oath. that is a felony. a big difference between bad decisions and outright lying.

 

You need to stop getting all your news from repub talking points and get to the root and facts of the matters.

 

Bill got intel about Osama (the attacker of 9/11 I might add unlike saddam) and destroyed several training camps which the repubs got their panties in a bunch about. So its damned if you do try to take a stab against terrorists, damned if you dont as your called weak apparently. (Of course this only applies to democrats)

 

As for the intel, Bush cherry picked the intel and sent that intel to congress to make it seem sadaam was far more dangerious then he was. Thats flat out wrong.

 

I agree a lie is a lie but the degrees are the point of contention. Who did bill hurt by being embarrased about his infedilities and lying? Did people get sent to a unjust war against a country who had no way to harm us? did his fling with monica and its coverup cause over 1,000 deaths and thousands more maimed and wounded for life?

 

Jackson, Rosevelt, JFK they all had flings as well in the whitehouse. Only difference between them and bill, is bill was outted while in office rather then after. So I suppose those preisdents you have ill will towards as well then. Since a lie/coverup is a lie/coverup in your eyes with no shades of grey apparently.

 

> he had the respect of the world because he's liberal.

 

And here I thought it was because he used force as a last resort and built alliances rather then this cowboy diplomancy garbage bush likes to do.

 

> he set the stage for the worst economic crash the world has seen.

 

Yes the president has full control of the economy and no other factors are present that influence it. You need to take a 101 macro economics course.

 

> get your facts straight before commenting.

 

pot.. kettle.. black

[Meshugger]

Actually outside the US, the term "liberal" means that you're a fan of Reagan's economic policies => right-wing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but i'm in the US responding to politics (and a vote) in the US, therefore i'm justified using the left-wing definition of "liberal." if anybody is incapable of discerning that difference, then they probably are not qualified to comment on this discussion.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was a funny sidenote.

 

Labelling different people based on their views can be confusing at times.

[kumquatq3]

I digress? Non-Americans don't get a say. We are our own country, we decide our future. If you think we have too much influence well too bad. I'd rather bush win for real this time than he loose because foreigners don't like him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, offically they don't get a say. However, lots of people (like myself) feel that as the only superpower left, that we have to take into account more than just ourselves and our immediate neighbors. With in reason, of course.

 

we decide our future.

 

To clearify my above point: but our choices can greatly effect others who don't have a say in the matter. While their choices often don't have near the effect on us.

 

To nitpick: Also, if last year made anything clear it is this: "we" (as in the people) don't always directly decide our future, in terms of presidents. Popular vote and who gets elected obviously don't always go hand in hand. Not arguing the pros ans cons of the electoral college, but that is the case.

[taks]

It was a funny sidenote.

 

Labelling different people based on their views can be confusing at times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, but context is important. generally speaking, "liberal" politics in the US are favored on the world stage. nuff said.

 

taks

[taks]

Of course you need to have an economy to have a crash, something neither bush seemed to have had...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

again, he had false economic prosperity, nothing real. the gains were fake and the results were that we ended up back at the beginning, literally... all of the "gains" that we realized during the clinton administration were erased. they were erased, of course, because they didn't really exist in the first place. the current bush started out with that crash and managed to create growth... to say "neither bush had" an economy is kinda not seeing the forest through the trees on this one.

 

to throw a loop into the discussion, btw, neither president had anything to do with the situation. at least not directly. bush's tax cuts helped, but congress had to approve them. clinton had a surplus, only because congress wouldn't approve his spending. honestly, d'ya think we'd be in good shape if national healthcare had been passed? hint: no. in contrast as well, had bush pushed for the big medicaid spending bill with a democratic house and senate, it wouldn't have passed, either, and he'd probably have a surplus. funny how that all works.

 

all things considered, the one benefit i can see with a kerry presidency is that nothing will get done... at least not as long as republicans control the house and/or senate.

 

taks

[taks]

You need to stop getting all your news from repub talking points and get to the root and facts of the matters.

 

Bill got intel about Osama (the attacker of 9/11 I might add unlike saddam) and destroyed several training camps which the repubs got their panties in a bunch about. So its damned if you do try to take a stab against terrorists, damned if you dont as your called weak apparently. (Of course this only applies to democrats)

not what i was referring to. you're offering an argument that is not relevant.

 

try again.

 

i was specifically referring to the fact that the intel clinton had, coincidentally the intel the entire world had, was that saddam had WMD. two years ago, EVERYBODY thought saddam had WMDs, hence the resolutions to prove he had destroyed them... remember? please read my statements carefully if you're going to offer counter points.

 

As for the intel, Bush cherry picked the intel and sent that intel to congress to make it seem sadaam was far more dangerious then he was. Thats flat out wrong.

perhaps wrong, but still not a lie. try again.

 

 

I agree a lie is a lie but the degrees are the point of contention. Who did bill hurt by being embarrased about his infedilities and lying? Did people get sent to a unjust war against a country who had no way to harm us? did his fling with monica and its coverup cause over 1,000 deaths and thousands more maimed and wounded for life?

 

Jackson, Rosevelt, JFK they all had flings as well in the whitehouse. Only difference between them and bill, is bill was outted while in office rather then after. So I suppose those preisdents you have ill will towards as well then. Since a lie/coverup is a lie/coverup in your eyes with no shades of grey apparently.

perhaps again, but no matter how you spin it, bush has committed no crime. clinton lied under oath, a clear felony. clinton was summarily impeached by the house, and then acquitted by the senate. the latter occuring because the senate fully believed the impeachment was "punishment" enough, btw...

 

And here I thought it was because he used force as a last resort and built alliances rather then this cowboy diplomancy garbage bush likes to do.

opinion regarding the bush slam most certainly. either way, clinton is a liberal and the rest of the world likes our liberals.

 

Yes the president has full control of the economy and no other factors are present that influence it. You need to take a 101 macro economics course.

can't the same thing be said about bush? why didn't you respond with that when weiser_cain tried to give credit to clinton in the first place? it works both ways buddy...

 

besides, you should read the rest of my comments before spouting the rhetoric. on one hand, liberals LOVE to talk about how much clinton did for the economy, yet on the other, he wasn't "fully responsible" so it wasn't his fault. i acknowledge the latter in every discussion i've ever had. you need to pick which way you want it... either the economy IS the presiden't fault or it isn't (or something in between) and stick with it.

 

pot.. kettle.. black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ah yes, master rhetoric, i must be as you say...

 

taks

[Dakoth]

I will bring this up to all you Clinton defenders the President is held to a higher standard than normal citizens, that is the first point.

 

The second he was not impeached for having an extra marital affair it was for his lie about it. As President you are expected to up hold the laws not break them when convienet for you .I only condem his lie for what it was a lie under oath, why don't you try it and see what the judge does to you. Also thats a real classy man to have sex with an intern in the oval office, what that showed was his disrespect for his position.

 

As for Illinois being like Indiana or Iowa without Chicago, damn lower taxes and cheaper housing, less crime and drugs. Man Wieser your right Chicago is only pluses. <_< Its not Chicago in general its the elitest attitude of some of the people who live there. Contrary to a popular held belief Illinois does not end at interstate 80. Also the Democrats that run our state have done quite well at running up a large deficet haven't they? I believe we rank in the top 5 for most dept if I remember correctly, so lets here it for the politicians the Chicagoans choose. That includes the govenor that believes he shouldn't have to live in the state capital because he is from Chicago.

 

Oh and sorry about that taks it was early in the morning when I was reading this the first time.

[Volourn]

."I only condem his lie for what it was a lie under oath, why don't you try it and see what the judge does to you. "

 

Bah. He should have never have been asked the uestion in the first place. The idiots who brought it to where it got that far should all be fired and fined for wasting tax payers' money.

[deganawida]

fired

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Who are you and what have you done with Volourn?! He always says "fried"! :D

[Dakoth]

Interesting so if you had an affair with a co-worker at the work place the people you are responsible to (In Clintons case the Public and Congress ) have no right to ask you if you have? Then when it comes out not only did you have sex at work but then bold face lied about it have no more right to fire you for it (especially in Clintons case since he was under oath)? Both interesting theories but some what lacking. He lied to save his ass plain and simple kinda makes me wonder what some of the other things he might have lied about to save his ass. Letting the Chinese get documents on nuclear weapons, whitewater the list goes on.

[Judge Hades]

Like I said before, if Bush 'lied' about Iraq so did Clinton so the Clintion fanboys (which I am one) who say otherwise are hypocrits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The thing is Clinton and his fans didn't invade the country. Bush did.

[xanas3712]

Like I said before, if Bush 'lied' about Iraq so did Clinton so the Clintion fanboys (which I am one) who say otherwise are hypocrits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The thing is Clinton and his fans didn't invade the country. Bush did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So what? They had sanctions on the country which probably killed as many people for that reason, etc. The bill where we clarified our policy of regime change was in 98 and for these reasons as well, among others that apply regardless of WMD. I really don't know how anyone could support Saddam staying in power. Even if he didn't have WMD the facts are that he did plan to reconstitute programs, was bribing officials of other nations with money stolen from a program intended to feed and help his own people, etc. He was a viscious, horrible man and deserves everything that he gets. Oh yeah yeah, I'm sure we'll get clarification how all the others who don't like Bush don't like Saddam either, but you wouldn't do anything about him. In the long run that country will be better off because we went in. You probably don't believe that, but I do, and I see a country moving forward, with trouble yes, but moving forward and the polls of the Iraqi people show that they see the same thing (I've also seen some anecdotal evidence of this from some of the Iraqi blogs online).

 

In truth, I would have preferred us to go in in 92 during the revolution that Bush Sr. called for. But we let our hands be tied by the international community then and by the fact that we knew it would be difficult work. But at that time we didn't have some of the disadvantages we do now, and I think it would have overall been an easier operation then. Nothing we can do about that now.

 

Anyway.. in regards to the poll, I have to say I'm surprised that Bush got as many as he did (I'm one of them obviously). Normally on polls in forums such as this, especially ones in which nader gets more than the national percentage, you'd see Bush with maybe 20% to Kerry and it's somewhat more equal here. Which is interesting.

[Volourn]

"Interesting so if you had an affair with a co-worker at the work place"

 

Interesting enough, the White House is also the First Family's home while the Prez is in office. In that instance, what Clintion sexually was in his 'private' home therefore none of the Public or Congress' buisness since as 'immorally' sad as it is; it is not illegal.

 

 

"The thing is Clinton and his fans didn't invade the country."

 

Only because the Republicans would have never allowed it. Afterall, Clinton did have fun blowing things up in iraq from afar and still got called for 'Wagging the Dog'.

 

Both sides are hypocrites in this matter.

[Dakoth]

"Interesting enough, the White House is also the First Family's home while the Prez is in office. In that instance, what Clintion sexually was in his 'private' home therefore none of the Public or Congress' buisness since as 'immorally' sad as it is; it is not illegal."

 

Interesting theory but still you are walking a thin line. While yes there are living quarters in the white house the work and living areas are clearly marked. The Lincoln bedroom= living quarters, Oval office= work. It doesn't matter what time of day or the day of the weak the Presidents job is like a police officers even when you are off duty you are still a officer of the law so don't do questionable things.

 

I will say this again if you work at home and your boss finds out you are having sex when you should be working what is he going to do.If a male and female firefighter are caught having sex at the fire house what do you think is going to happen there. Yes they live there and there are personal and work areas there but what do you think will be done?

 

I am sorry Volourn but sex in the work place while not a violation of a law is considered a fireable offence in most companies, why because when at work your supposed to be working not nailing evryone of the opposite sex you can.

[Pope]

They're all idiots...

[Volourn]

Takes one to know one.

 

P.S. And, yes, that makes me an idiot.

 

 

Next.