View Full Version : Who do you want to see as the next president of the world ?
January 9, 2004, 03:50 PM
The million dollar question!
I am just chatting with a friend of mine.. he is is telling me how Clarke is great.... So I came up with this question... So BC members, share your thoughts!
Please also say why but you don't have to!
[Edited on 9-1-2004 by Orpheus : by world I mean USA :)]
January 9, 2004, 04:02 PM
I can't vote in the U.S and never will.
But If I had to I would vote for the minuscule green third party, just to increase their numbers and protest the joke that is called democracy. :)
January 9, 2004, 04:16 PM
sorry! Who would you like to see as the next president!
I wasn't thinking about the parties and international ppl :)
Oracle, your thought NOW!
[Edited on 9-1-2004 by Orpheus]
January 9, 2004, 04:32 PM
It's a farce to begin with. I think American people should let the Corporate CEOs decide who should be the next incompetent figurehead of the country. It makes a lot of sense, since corporations own the country anyway. :)
American voters should do what they do best: sit home, wear plaid knickers, eat popcorn, watch a lot of lord of the rings and the matrix, and occasionally go to the churches and malls to show off their clothes and buy shoes with lights in them.
January 9, 2004, 10:52 PM
hmm so you feel there is not even a single competent person to be the next president. Actually many people feel that way. I was watching one of those many debates the other day and there was a funny question. A man said he is a life time democrat and always voted for them but he doesn't like any one of the candidates from this year. What should he do? not vote.
Anyways, there might not be an ideal candidate for this election but you certainly have a preference. You can state that. When my friend was telling me about Clarke, he said that one of the reason why he likes Clarke was because of Clarke' tax plan. Taking more money from the rich (corporates) and letting the middle and poorer have more.. so they can spend.. circulate money.. blah blah blah! Maybe that's your man right there.
Jaihok - Buying shoes with lights in them is actually a Bangladeshi thing. I also think that if Americans can do all those things without worrying about their next president, we are in great shape. And foreigners are complaining. It seems that foreigners are more concerned about American president than Americans.... :p
January 9, 2004, 10:59 PM
It seems that foreigners are more concerned about American president than Americans....
Why does this surprise you?
A man said he is a life time democrat and always voted for them but he doesn't like any one of the candidates from this year. What should he do? not vote.
Actually that's the reason the republicans voted for Bush back in 2000. Let me quote Maddox here:
Until recently, I didn't think anyone liked Bush. All of this changed a few months ago when I spoke to someone who not only didn't think Bush was a moron, but that he was doing a good job. I did the usual probes for sarcasm and eventually came away empty-handed. It looked like this was the genuine article.
I was talking to an authentic Bush-lover. For the first time in the 2+ years he was appointed to office, I finally found one of these elusive, almost mythic people.
I was excited, so naturally I had to ask the obvious question: "why did you vote for Bush?" The response: "because I'm a republican."
I suddenly felt a sharp stabbing pain in my frontal lobe; it was the unmistakable feeling you get when you walk away from a 30 minute conversation with a yammering co-worker--the feeling you get when you know that you just got dumber. Because "I'm a republican." What the hell does that mean? So just because you're a republican you're supposed to vote for whichever asshole your party selects as your candidate? Why can't people disassociate themselves from their party? There was a unanimous outcry from everyone when dumb **** Trent Lott gave the thumbs up to Thurmond, why weren't republicans supporting him? If you're going to justify your voting of a moron into office with a blanket statement like "I'm a republican," why not be consistent and stand behind your party all the time?
I'm tired of people defending Bush. He's a moron. Period. What difference does it make if he graduated from Harvard, Yale or MIT for that matter? Just because you graduate from an accredited university doesn't mean that you're suddenly void of giving a bad speech. It doesn't make you impervious to mistakes. I'm tired of people saying "just because he talks slow doesn't mean he's stupid." Bullshit. There's talking slow, then there's just plain ineptitude. It's almost impossible to do a critical analysis of his speech because the man practically satirizes himself. Bush proponents have adopted a kinder word for inept: "Bushism." That's stupid. Why is it a screw up if anyone other than Bush makes a mistake, but a "Bushism" if he does it? When Clinton screwed up, nobody called it a "Clintonism." They called him a dumbass (and if they weren't, I sure as hell was). I mean, talking slow is one thing but to not know the difference between "hostile" and "hostage," or "prosecute" and "persecute" is not a "Bushism," it's extra-strength dumb. Before you email me "BUT MADOX HE DOESN'T WRITE HIS OWN SPEECHES LOL," consider the following quote:
"People make suggestions on what to say all the time. I'll give you an example; I don't read what's handed to me. People say, 'Here, here's your speech, or here's an idea for a speech.' They're changed. Trust me." -George W. Bush in an interview with the New York Times, March 15, 2000.
All sarcasm aside, you could probably infer that I'm not a republican by reading this article. I'm not a democrat either. Don't email me your stupid republican/democrat jokes, I don't care. The next person who says "HEY MADDOX YOU KNOW WHAT GOP STANDS FOR? GRINCHES ON PARADE LOL" gets punched in the face.
No, I'm not a democrat or a republican. I'm just a guy who's tired of the bullshit. Am I the only one who has a problem with the fact that Bush has gone on record saying: "There ought to be limits to freedom"? He publicly said that in reference to a website that criticized him (listen to the clip yourself). What business does this man have serving as president of the United States? I know that there should be limits to freedom like when someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater, but never against political criticism--quit emailing me. Bush is by far the worst president ever appointed by the Supreme Court. It's almost as if the presidents try to outdo each other by being shittier every year. You're being duped.
January 9, 2004, 11:13 PM
Bush proponents have adopted a kinder word for inept: "Bushism."
I actually read this small booklet called bushism in one my friends' house. Hillarious quotes..... One of them from top of my head:
"if you don't disarm, we will."
January 9, 2004, 11:15 PM
Why does this surprise you?
Not really surprised. It's just ironic that's all :)
January 10, 2004, 08:43 AM
Oracle, your thought NOW!
OK. If we are talking about people it would be either Nader (if he is running) or the no hope candidate for the dems, Kuchinich. If I was forced to vote for Dems it would be Kuchinich cause he is quite solidly against the war and the others are just too careful on this issue. I mean just look at Dean and Kerry, they try to please too many people.
Well that's my bias.
January 10, 2004, 06:54 PM
What about Schwartzinegger?
January 10, 2004, 09:21 PM
The fact is Bush DIDN'T win the last election through the voting system. He won it in a court case.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.