Da Election!

[Softpaw]

<!--QuoteBegin-norsenerd+Aug 5 2004, 05:33 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (norsenerd @ Aug 5 2004, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I disagree with George W Bush and would rahter him not be president. <br><br>[LONG-A** RANT]<br><br> I agree with Nader on a lto of the issues and after researching his campaing I decided that he was the right option for me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> <a href='http://fusiontechva.net/FJL/forum/viewt ... ?p=337#337' target='_blank'>Yay for Copy & Paste</a> <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[norsenerd]

<!--QuoteBegin-FelixLockhart+Aug 5 2004, 10:40 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (FelixLockhart @ Aug 5 2004, 10:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin-norsenerd+Aug 5 2004, 05:33 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (norsenerd @ Aug 5 2004, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I disagree with George W Bush and would rahter him not be president. <br><br>[LONG WELL THOUGHT OUT EXPLINATION]<br><br> I agree with Nader on a lto of the issues and after researching his campaing I decided that he was the right option for me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><a href='http://fusiontechva.net/FJL/forum/viewt ... ?p=337#337' target='_blank'>Yay for Copy & Paste</a> <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> I'm also very lazy. Would you re-write a severl paragraph explination when you coudl just cut and paste it?

[NHJ BV]

If only the US would vote like this poll in November <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <br><br>I voted Kerry, because he's the most leftish guy who has a chance. And because Bush needs to go.

[Gizensha]

<!--QuoteBegin-NHJ BV+Aug 6 2004, 06:28 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (NHJ BV @ Aug 6 2004, 06:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> If only the US would vote like this poll in November <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <br><br>I voted Kerry, because he's the most leftish guy who has a chance. And because Bush needs to go. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Nah, surely you want 'Other' far higher. As long as it's the right sort of Other, of course.

[Tavis]

Upon looking at the results and taking into consideration that it is a poll coming from a fan forum for O&M, I am not at all surprised about who is taking the lead. I am surprised, though, that Bush (at the time of this writing) is still in second place with 5 votes. While this place isn't as balanced as I might like to see in an area that would be best used in a neutral setting, I am relieved to see it is not as one-sided as I originally suspected.

[Gizensha]

<!--QuoteBegin-Tavis+Aug 10 2004, 06:24 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Tavis @ Aug 10 2004, 06:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Upon looking at the results and taking into consideration that it is a poll coming from a fan forum for O&M, I am not at all surprised about who is taking the lead. I am surprised, though, that Bush (at the time of this writing) is still in second place with 5 votes. While this place isn't as balanced as I might like to see in an area that would be best used in a neutral setting, I am relieved to see it is not as one-sided as I originally suspected. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Bush is only 4% or so more comforting than anarchy, though. Which suprises me, I was kinda expecting anarchy to beat Bush here.

[Supersmoke]

After a long time of letting the candidates make fools of themselves i've decided that they both suck.<br><br><a href='http://www.jibjab.com/' target='_blank'>This is hilarious.</a><br><br>Kerry is a lying douche bag, all politicians are but Kerry is worse, that'll use anything he can to win. His purple Hearts, his vietnam experience(which is is idiotic to use anyways <!--emo&<_<--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... ns/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo--> ), the 9/11 attacks, anything. His wife needs to get medication. Badly. If Kerry becomes president he'll try to work on our economy, but he'll end up being a useless president, like Hoover was, but at least Hoover tried. If anyone can name something good about Kerry, post it now. And it can't be one of the "promises" he made as a prsidential candidate. I have a feeling Kerry is gonna screw the nation over if he becomes president.<br><br>Bush is a bush. The war on/in Iraq has made him unpopular. Vietnam all over again. :/ The only thing giving him credit for the war is that it was the only choice to make. We thought Iraq had Weapons of mass destruction, but we couldn't prove it. After 9/11 no one wanted to take the chance, so Bush did what most people thought was the best idea and we attacked. What else could he have done? Waited like a puss for another attack on the us? No. He actually did the right thing. That's the only thing I can give to Bush. Other than that, he's a COMPLETE MORON. He doesn't know jack schiite of what's going on, except that we have soldiers in Iraq. Even "Abu Grabee," as he said it, is over his head. Bush is being controlled. Either by his administration or the little talking cocaine clouds floating around in his head.<br><br>I think we need to stick with Bush. Kerry may be more popular, but Kerry is gonna screw us over. If Bush is elected and he messes up bigtime, I'll eat my computer.

[Softpaw]

Hope you like the taste of silicon, then.<br><br><a href='http://www.bushgame.com' target='_blank'>Clickie! (Large, but informative, flash game)</a>

[Supersmoke]

OK I will, but name me one positive thing about Kerry.

[Gizensha]

Does him being able to recite speaches without screwing up count? *looks at Bush's recent "Our enemies will never stop looking for new ways to harm America, and neither will we"*<br><br>And it should be noted that the intelligence to do with the WMD was questionable at best It wasn't that there might have been WMDs in Iraq but weren't, it was that there wasn't any real evidence pointing to them being there, as inquiries into the evidence makes perfectly clear (caution only acts as a defence to a certain degree. The lack of evidence is above said degree, also acting without UN sanction does make America look... Shall we say warmongerous? to the rest of the world)<br><br>Personally I, like about half of the UK, it should be noted, was opposed to the war. Now that it's happened I'm opposed to pulling out in a rush. Clean up the damage and stabalise things, then leave the new government to deal with things. The damage has already been done, lets not make things worse in a PR and International Relations nightmare, shall we?

[Supersmoke]

Of course, I hate politics, I'm just bored enough to try to argue about how our future leaders are tards. <!--emo&:o--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... s/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--><br><br>Here's some new questions: If Kerry is elected, what will he do?<br>If Bush is re-elected, will he change his path(doubtfully) and try to actually help the country?

[Gizensha]

If Bush is re-elected, I seriously doubt it. Which will probably (according to the extremely amaturish financial predictions of myself) cause the US to collapse under it's own economic weight at some point. I seem to remember last time that happened (Great Depression) it took the world with it.<br><br>If Kerry gets elected, I have no idea. Although the phrase "can't be worse" springs to mind.

[Tavis]

<!--QuoteBegin-Gizensha+Aug 11 2004, 02:06 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Gizensha @ Aug 11 2004, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Does him being able to recite speaches without screwing up count? *looks at Bush's recent "Our enemies will never stop looking for new ways to harm America, and neither will we"* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> I have read that quote far too many times by too many people trying to say the president is stupid. Despite the initial eye-blinking it causes from people eager to say, "Ha, ha, he said it wrong," it actually makes sense. In order to provide effective protections, one must adequately determine the possible threats. Looking for ways to harm America is a part of solidifying ways of thwarting them. That doesn't excuse some other "Bushisms", but please stop using that one as an example. It is not supporting your case.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Gizensha+ Aug 11 2004, 02:06 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Gizensha @ Aug 11 2004, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> And it should be noted that the intelligence to do with the WMD was questionable at best  It wasn't that there might have been WMDs in Iraq but weren't, it was that there wasn't any real evidence pointing to them being there, as inquiries into the evidence makes perfectly clear (caution only acts as a defence to a certain degree. The lack of evidence is above said degree, also acting without UN sanction does make America look... Shall we say warmongerous? to the rest of the world)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>The intelligence is questionable, but it is all hindsight. A lack of evidence is not because there have been successful inspections of Iraq's weapons programs. The U.N. sat on their butts for years turning a blind eye to Iraq, and don't believe the failure to find WMDs meant that there was no effort on the part of Iraq to make them. Saddam has been playing these games with the world for years. The difficulty of obtaining ANY intelligence from Iraq placed a heavy burden on what information America could obtain, and it was a good call. What if America had done nothing until the world learned with absolute certainty that Saddam really <b>did</b> have WMDs rather than simply the plans and capacity to develop them? It would be too late for anyone, even America, to do anything about it.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Gizensha+ Aug 11 2004, 02:06 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Gizensha @ Aug 11 2004, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Personally I, like about half of the UK, it should be noted, was opposed to the war. Now that it's happened I'm opposed to pulling out in a rush. Clean up the damage and stabalise things, then leave the new government to deal with things. The damage has already been done, lets not make things worse in a PR and International Relations nightmare, shall we?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Yes, war is indeed a heavy-handed task, and even when Bush gave the orders it was considered a last resort. There was little cooperation when it came to inspections, and the push for more aggressive searches only caused Iraq's forces to push back. In the wake of a new government, it is important that the Unted States pull out, but gradually, to make sure that the established government can actually stand up to the pressures of violent factions from within and without. I would be just as eager as anyone to see the fighting there to come to a close.

[Gizensha]

<!--QuoteBegin-Tavis+Aug 12 2004, 01:05 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Tavis @ Aug 12 2004, 01:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin-Gizensha+Aug 11 2004, 02:06 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Gizensha @ Aug 11 2004, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Does him being able to recite speaches without screwing up count? *looks at Bush's recent "Our enemies will never stop looking for new ways to harm America, and neither will we"* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>I have read that quote far too many times by too many people trying to say the president is stupid. Despite the initial eye-blinking it causes from people eager to say, "Ha, ha, he said it wrong," it actually makes sense. In order to provide effective protections, one must adequately determine the possible threats. Looking for ways to harm America is a part of solidifying ways of thwarting them. That doesn't excuse some other "Bushisms", but please stop using that one as an example. It is not supporting your case. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Hm. That's an interesting point on that one. However, I'm not convinced that he meant it like that and didn't just skip a line on the paper he was reading from. Actually, most of the Bushisms seem to indicate Bush struggling to read things, rather than him actually being stupid. Idiocy isn't the only thing that might cause things to not be read properly. As someone I know pointed out, his speach giving might be down to him being dislexic rather than idiotic.<br><br>I'm not saying you're wrong about that specific quote, of course, I'm just saying it *felt* like his eyes skipped up a line at that point. I can't help but think the original speach was meant to go more along the lines of 'and we will continue to find ways of stopping them'. Speach writers don't tend to write things that can be taken in two ways, remember. And as I already said, most of the Bushisms could simply be down to something like dislexia. Which would more show an idiocy with his PR people since you don't play to your weaknesses :/<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Tavis+--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Tavis)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin-Gizensha+ Aug 11 2004, 02:06 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Gizensha @  Aug 11 2004, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> And it should be noted that the intelligence to do with the WMD was questionable at best  It wasn't that there might have been WMDs in Iraq but weren't, it was that there wasn't any real evidence pointing to them being there, as inquiries into the evidence makes perfectly clear (caution only acts as a defence to a certain degree. The lack of evidence is above said degree, also acting without UN sanction does make America look... Shall we say warmongerous? to the rest of the world)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>The intelligence is questionable, but it is all hindsight. A lack of evidence is not because there have been successful inspections of Iraq's weapons programs. The U.N. sat on their butts for years turning a blind eye to Iraq, and don't believe the failure to find WMDs meant that there was no effort on the part of Iraq to make them. Saddam has been playing these games with the world for years. The difficulty of obtaining ANY intelligence from Iraq placed a heavy burden on what information America could obtain, and it was a good call. What if America had done nothing until the world learned with absolute certainty that Saddam really <b>did</b> have WMDs rather than simply the plans and capacity to develop them? It would be too late for anyone, even America, to do anything about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Although he was *starting* to play ball at the point when America decided to attack, unless my memories of the news coverage serve me wrong. Admittedly, he should have played ball years ago. However, according to investigations, the critical bits of evidence that caused, at the very least, the UK to go to war were known to be flawed when they were presented. And yes, Iraq has been a problem to the world for the past 10 years. I can't say I'm sorry to see Sadam go, it's just that the whole methodology of this grates me somewhat.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-"Tavis"+--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> ("Tavis")</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin-Gizensha+ Aug 11 2004, 02:06 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Gizensha @  Aug 11 2004, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Personally I, like about half of the UK, it should be noted, was opposed to the war. Now that it's happened I'm opposed to pulling out in a rush. Clean up the damage and stabalise things, then leave the new government to deal with things. The damage has already been done, lets not make things worse in a PR and International Relations nightmare, shall we?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Yes, war is indeed a heavy-handed task, and even when Bush gave the orders it was considered a last resort. There was little cooperation when it came to inspections, and the push for more aggressive searches only caused Iraq's forces to push back. In the wake of a new government, it is important that the Unted States pull out, but gradually, to make sure that the established government can actually stand up to the pressures of violent factions from within and without. I would be just as eager as anyone to see the fighting there to come to a close.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Agreed. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen any time soon. Pulling out of this sort of thing is a very tricky and precarious thing to do. And I just hope no-one screws up on it (to be honest, both of America's main candidates bother me with the pulling out. I'm expecting Bush to stay too long and Kerry to pull out too soon).

[Zylo]

Name one positive thing about Kerry?<br><br>His wife is Theresa Heinz. If we don't elect him, he'll make his wife take all the ketchup away =P