The us government

[The Grim Hamster lord]

I forgot to ask... what does everyone think about Chavez's latest comments?

He made more?

 

Oh and incidentally Cheesemaster, many of the European and Japanese car firms are now looking at offering Hydrogen fuel cells as an option in their cars. Currently BMW offers a very good prototype in the 7-series, Honda (Acura) are designing a very efficient and working fuel cell for their models and Mercedes-Chrysler is looking to bringing hydrogen across all models. It isn't a miracle fuel though, because the process to make Hydrogen still relies on an emissions producing process, but if the rumours I've been hearing from Honda are correct, then they may have cracked it at last.

 

As to Clinton, I appreciate that she has not been overly vocal about her ideals for the Presidency, but her policies on a State level have been some of the best in the US. I personally will be watching what she says in these internet "dialogues" and "conversations" she has soon and whether she makes any committing statements then. And does it matter if that is her motive if it means the policies and country as a whole benefit? A utilitarian approach is in order perhaps to decide.

[Jesse]

I agree with on Iraq not knowing what it is. But see, everyone is looking towards the end of the conflict to be the middle of the conflict. We are thinking what is going on right now is indeed what is going to happen in the end. And you might be correct. But given no one can predict the future, well we can predict but we do not know it. Jesse do you believe in God? If so, then think about this. Nothing in the world or existence happens without God's permission because it is all according to His will. And as the bible says "Worry yourself not with worldy things" but rather think about God, you, and God's will for you today. Those are the things you need to concentrate on.

 

Yes, I do believe in God, and true, there is no way to tell the outcome of this. But even if the outcome is good, it just seems sometimes that it is not worth all of this suffering for both us and Iraq. But then again...those soldiers are volunteers...do they think it's worth it? They, and you too, must see something that I don't...

 

You know why we were fine with Afg? Because we were just attacked. That is the reason. We were sad and angry.

True, and I'm not sure I agree with the Afg invasion completely (I just don't know enough about it...) but it was directly linked to 9/11, wasn't it? I brought Afg up because I was thinking...what's the link to Iraq? What thing did they do to us that was like 9/11? I never understood that connection.

 

Territory out of Iraq? Hm. Well, would it hurt? I mean, Iraq has been in a state of turmoil for so long and still is. So would doing anything, bad or good, really hurt Iraq?

Good point, but it would hurt the identity of Iraq...I mean, it's independence would be done in. What happens if afterwards, they started a war of independence? How ironic would that be to the US... What if they become extremely radical like Germany did, after we left them with almost nothing from the Treaty of Versailles? (well, I shouldn't say "we" as in the US since they didn't want that to happen, but our allies did) What if another world war occurs?

 

And it would hurt the US too, because plenty of nations will be angry with us if it gets to that point. Surely some will think, "who do those Americans think they are, invading countries and making them their own? Can't they be satisfied with the territories they already have?" Even if that logic might be slanted a bit, it's going to be there.

 

Also, no one knew who to help. Help the south or the North? Who is right? Who is wrong? What will the outcome of the country be if the south or the north win? Well luckily we know what the North has accomplished since then. I dare not venture to wonder what the South would have. But then again, perhaps over time the South would have banished slavery too. Who knows?

That was my point: They didn't know who's side to take. My question is, why did WE take a side?

 

I am not completely sure as to what all is in thi statement. The reason being there seems to be so many things and also so very few things. But I will try my best.

Okay, we as Americans have the option for our state government to say no to federal goverment laws and etc. Now of course there are rules and etc as to what we can say no to and stuff.

-Religion-: I have no idea of what Iraq could be in that situation. I will try to think of something and post it back on here.

 

I was comparing our civil war to their civil war. The same way that other nations couldn't sort out our problems for us, we can't sort out Iraq's problems for them.

 

Or...the two houses can join and become one. Okay, take this into perspective. What do you think political parties are? Nothing but religions. What? Religions? Yes. What is a religion? A religion is views of morality, life, and etc. Politics is just another word for religion. That and its forced upon other people at a heavier rate than churches can do.

Politics = religion. That's interesting. I suppose that's true. In that case, Iraq's politics doesn't agree with our politics. It still means we can't make their politics better for them.

 

We spent billions of dollars try to glue together a broken house in the Civil War.

That didn't really work either. People in the South are still going "the south will rise again" as they wave the confederate flag around. They still hold their prejudices against the north while the north mostly forgets about it. They were thrown into an economic slump that they still haven't really recovered from, and may never will. Sometimes I think that the north should have let the south be its own country, as awkward as that is to think about...maybe an impossibility. My imagination runs off with those kinds of ideas. How come Texas can succeed when it wants, but no other state can?

 

Now those are issues I am angry at, considering I am studying premed. There ARE cures for cancer, aids, and etc. Not treatments or "helpers" but CURES! But this isn't the governments fault entirely. You can put the blame on yourself also. Why? Pharmaceutical companies. You buy the medicine they make and sell. It's all about money, not saving someone's life. That's why you cannot blame the government which allows us to have free enterprise.

And in this case the free enterprise is the problem. I think cancer research should be government regulated instead of run by private businesses. (Perhaps I will think differently however when I start paying taxes for myself. )

Literacy? Because its so easy to do other stuff without an education. We have billionares and etc who dropped out of school. That and teachers are not paid enoug, and we do not put an emphasis on education life we should.

Yeah, that was probably a moot point I made, at the federal level at least...once I turn 18 I'm going to get at the local level and say, get more money for education! whether it's by the vote or some other method...

 

Jesse... We are talking about people you know. You complain about send our troops over but give th go ahead for them to kill themselves. The world is OUR house. We are all inhabitants of it. Do not be a hypocrit, please. Think of the other human beings with life who you are saying can die!!!! Do not play with a humans life. It may be hard to understand but think about it. Once you die, you cease to exist. That is one of the reasons people cry when someone dies! Yes, I do believe in heaven and I am not saying once you die that is it. I am talking about in this plane.

PLEASE do not say I am indifferent to people's lives. People are the reason why I am angry about our involvement. I meant that the "bloodbath" was caused by OUR presence. I am NOT saying Iraqis should just kill themselves, but unfortunately that would happen whether we were there or not. My point is that our involvement is only adding wood to the fire of civil war, and the hatred in Iraq is more polarized.

 

My above statements goes for this one too. Also, you as an american citizen can put your money to good use since the government obivously "won't". You go to the people who sell you treatments for curable diseases and deman the cure. Do your part as an American citizen.

 

I don't have money to spend yet, but I will keep that in mind. Still, I think the government needs to step in and take some of the absolute power away from the pharmacies.

 

Our goal is to give people a chance at life. Not to make something out of Iraq. And if you really want something to do, join the Armed Forces, go over there and then come back. I want to know what you think then. Get this. Most, if not all, of our Armed Forces agree with being over there and if they had the choice to do it over again, they would not make a difference in choice. Put yourself in your shoes, in the line of danger, fighting for another Human being's life and you can certainly hold greater power and wisdom.

I just don't get the connection between invading Iraq, and then fighting for another's life. Those two things just contradict each other in my mind. It feels like we're sticking our nose into someone else's business.

 

I am sorry I kind of got...out of control with anger in there and personal attacks. But I will not change my remarks. They are well thought out and true.

 

Don't apologize. In fact, thank you. As must as I dislike debating, it is healthy for my integrity, as well as the integrity of anyone who looks at our discussion. Thank you. And I'm sorry if any of my comments are offensive to you, as I do not intend that at all. I am trying to make myself clear, and it is tough for me as I rarely write out my points like this.

[Taynio]

Yes, I do believe in God, and true, there is no way to tell the outcome of this. But even if the outcome is good, it just seems sometimes that it is not worth all of this suffering for both us and Iraq. But then again...those soldiers are volunteers...do they think it's worth it? They, and you too, must see something that I don't...

Maybe or maybe not, that is something I am not sure of. Regardless, it's the thought of helping another which I think it may be. We as humans may be different in our perception on one another but in our hearts, we will defend anyone...even if that person is racist against you.

 

True, and I'm not sure I agree with the Afg invasion completely (I just don't know enough about it...) but it was directly linked to 9/11, wasn't it? I brought Afg up because I was thinking...what's the link to Iraq? What thing did they do to us that was like 9/11? I never understood that connection.

 

The connection they made was vague and not really one that could be obvious. Indeed Saddam did have connections to Bin Laden but whether or not those connections were evil and to be associated with 9/11 is unidentified.

 

Good point, but it would hurt the identity of Iraq...I mean, it's independence would be done in. What happens if afterwards, they started a war of independence? How ironic would that be to the US... What if they become extremely radical like Germany did, after we left them with almost nothing from the Treaty of Versailles? (well, I shouldn't say "we" as in the US since they didn't want that to happen, but our allies did) What if another world war occurs?

 

And it would hurt the US too, because plenty of nations will be angry with us if it gets to that point. Surely some will think, "who do those Americans think they are, invading countries and making them their own? Can't they be satisfied with the territories they already have?" Even if that logic might be slanted a bit, it's going to be there.

I kind some points out on accident. My mind was racing faster than I could type lol. And I can type pretty darn fast. I see what you mean by this. What we are intending to, from what I can tell, is salvage what was destroyed by Saddam and ourselves. It is our mess and it is our job to fix it. So when someone says pull out, tell them we have to clean up our mess before we leave. That way you dont give away what your side is and sound like a smart and wise person. Okay..not totally wise but shhhh don't let them know

 

Well, to be honest, many other countries with ties to the UN have territories such as France, England, etc. If the U.S. takes one, I doubt it would hurt much...especially since if it was ours' then we would have the responsibility to help the country without laws and rules from the UN.

 

That was my point: They didn't know who's side to take. My question is, why did WE take a side?

 

I believe we took sides because no one else would. Other countries were afraid of what may happen to them if they took sides. We as the world super power were capable of doing this with the least of problems arising. Imagine if England or any other country attempted what we are trying. In the end, we had no choice.

 

I was comparing our civil war to their civil war. The same way that other nations couldn't sort out our problems for us, we can't sort out Iraq's problems for them.

There are a few major and minor differences. We have the rest of the world backing us up where as in our civil war it would be all countries against...well let's just say it would have been the first world war. Now given the fact I am not a god and not omnicient, I cannot tell you the honest truth. But I believe these to be truth to some extent. But then again, I believe a lot of things will lead to another world war lol.

 

That didn't really work either. People in the South are still going "the south will rise again" as they wave the confederate flag around. They still hold their prejudices against the north while the north mostly forgets about it. They were thrown into an economic slump that they still haven't really recovered from, and may never will. Sometimes I think that the north should have let the south be its own country, as awkward as that is to think about...maybe an impossibility. My imagination runs off with those kinds of ideas. How come Texas can succeed when it wants, but no other state can?

 

Hm. Well. The people in the south are indeed saying that. But what do you think they mean by that? I don't think they are referring to the views of the South during the 19th century. I think what it is is that they no longer will be referred to as the poverty part of the U.S. And indeed as we speak they are rising again. But not in the manner people are thinking. Texas can succeed? Hm? Where did you get that? I am not saying your are wrong. I just never have heard that.

 

And the reason for Texas may be that its just so bad of a state its more of a hint to them to leave the country. OF COURSE I AM JOKING.....kind of! NO OFFENSE! lol

 

And in this case the free enterprise is the problem. I think cancer research should be government regulated instead of run by private businesses. (Perhaps I will think differently however when I start paying taxes for myself. )

Mhm Yes. I also forgot to add that we think medicine is sooo good for us. But it actually kills us and makes our body worse, therefore making us buy more medicine. It's the worst business of them all. Enron and etc has nothing on the Pharmaceutical business. Even Hitler, and etc has nothing.

 

Yeah, that was probably a moot point I made, at the federal level at least...once I turn 18 I'm going to get at the local level and say, get more money for education! whether it's by the vote or some other method...

 

If it would only work..did you know there are less and less teachers every year? And more are quiting or getting second and third jobs? I bet you didn't But I did

 

PLEASE do not say I am indifferent to people's lives. People are the reason why I am angry about our involvement. I meant that the "bloodbath" was caused by OUR presence. I am NOT saying Iraqis should just kill themselves, but unfortunately that would happen whether we were there or not. My point is that our involvement is only adding wood to the fire of civil war, and the hatred in Iraq is more polarized.

Sorry about that. I just have this HUGE love and compassion for people and etc that I kind of forget that. Think about this, Saddam was the peacemaker in Iraq. How? He kept the bombers and etc from coming out. They were so afraid they would be next they tried to stay in line. If they were killing with Saddam in power, he would have them all killed. Which might not have been a bad thing considering more people are converting and bombing people.

 

I don't have money to spend yet, but I will keep that in mind. Still, I think the government needs to step in and take some of the absolute power away from the pharmacies.

 

I agree but according to our laws and policies and etc it would be a VERY VERY VERY bad move and the american people would reallllllly go at the government for it.

 

I just don't get the connection between invading Iraq, and then fighting for another's life. Those two things just contradict each other in my mind. It feels like we're sticking our nose into someone else's business.

Regardless if were did butt into their business, it is ours now also because we caused a great part of it.

 

Don't apologize. In fact, thank you. As must as I dislike debating, it is healthy for my integrity, as well as the integrity of anyone who looks at our discussion. Thank you. And I'm sorry if any of my comments are offensive to you, as I do not intend that at all. I am trying to make myself clear, and it is tough for me as I rarely write out my points like this.

 

Mhm agreed. Well, I have to go. Take care.

[Jesse]

Maybe or maybe not, that is something I am not sure of. Regardless, it's the thought of helping another which I think it may be. We as humans may be different in our perception on one another but in our hearts, we will defend anyone...even if that person is racist against you.

And that's fine. The part that makes me feel conflicted is that we defend someone, against someone else. Even if that someone else is bad it feels like interference to me. Like you pointed out later in your post, Saddam was a peacemaker even though he was a bad guy. What about the other bad guys, what if their removal makes things worse?

 

 

The connection they made was vague and not really one that could be obvious. Indeed Saddam did have connections to Bin Laden but whether or not those connections were evil and to be associated with 9/11 is unidentified.

And the image it gives to me, and probably lots of people, is one of haste... "while we're at it, let's invade Iraq!" It is something that the Democrats jump on when they can, and something that the Republicans don't seem to know the answer to.

 

Well, to be honest, many other countries with ties to the UN have territories such as France, England, etc. If the U.S. takes one, I doubt it would hurt much...especially since if it was ours' then we would have the responsibility to help the country without laws and rules from the UN.

Yeah, that's true. And having the UN try to take care of it directly wouldn't get too much done, I imagine.

 

 

 

I believe we took sides because no one else would. Other countries were afraid of what may happen to them if they took sides. We as the world super power were capable of doing this with the least of problems arising. Imagine if England or any other country attempted what we are trying. In the end, we had no choice.

There are a few major and minor differences. We have the rest of the world backing us up where as in our civil war it would be all countries against...well let's just say it would have been the first world war. Now given the fact I am not a god and not omnicient, I cannot tell you the honest truth. But I believe these to be truth to some extent. But then again, I believe a lot of things will lead to another world war lol.

That's news to me...and I was thinking that just about all of the countries were AGAINST our invasion of Iraq. Then again I suppose there are people in every country that have differing opinions, and maybe I was just taking those as the majority opinion.

 

 

 

Hm. Well. The people in the south are indeed saying that. But what do you think they mean by that? I don't think they are referring to the views of the South during the 19th century. I think what it is is that they no longer will be referred to as the poverty part of the U.S. And indeed as we speak they are rising again. But not in the manner people are thinking. Texas can succeed? Hm? Where did you get that? I am not saying your are wrong. I just never have heard that.

Makes sense, as northerners do hold their own prejudices against the south, thinking they are stupid and all, and southerners must get angry about it now and then.

 

When Texas was a republic of its own, views were mixed about whether it should join the union or not. So the U.S. annexed Texas on the condition that it could succeed when it wants to. It makes me wonder why they can't give all states this kind of secure feeling.

 

 

If it would only work..did you know there are less and less teachers every year? And more are quiting or getting second and third jobs? I bet you didn't But I did

It figures, with the kind of pay they get compared to the annoying kids they deal with every day (among good ones, of course). I would suggest raising the pay, although that may not make the job much more appealing...

 

Sorry about that. I just have this HUGE love and compassion for people and etc that I kind of forget that. Think about this, Saddam was the peacemaker in Iraq. How? He kept the bombers and etc from coming out. They were so afraid they would be next they tried to stay in line. If they were killing with Saddam in power, he would have them all killed. Which might not have been a bad thing considering more people are converting and bombing people.

Now it makes sense...no wonder people were so mixed about his execution! Now it seems so...untimely, if nothing else. Although I guess the Iraqi government is always going to try and make its course while the invasion continues.

 

Regardless if were did butt into their business, it is ours now also because we caused a great part of it.

You mean the US brought Iraq to this state of turmoil? How? That changes my perspective about this whole thing.

[Horatio]

Maybe or maybe not, that is something I am not sure of. Regardless, it's the thought of helping another which I think it may be. We as humans may be different in our perception on one another but in our hearts, we will defend anyone...even if that person is racist against you.

And that's fine. The part that makes me feel conflicted is that we defend someone, against someone else. Even if that someone else is bad it feels like interference to me. Like you pointed out later in your post, Saddam was a peacemaker even though he was a bad guy. What about the other bad guys, what if their removal makes things worse?

 

Saddam was a peacemaker? Take a look at this:

 

April 4, 2003

 

Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime

 

 

For over 20 years, the greatest threat to Iraqis has been Saddam Hussein's regime -- he has killed, tortured, raped, and terrorized the Iraqi people and his neighbors for over two decades.

 

When Iraq is free, past crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against Iraqis, will be accounted for, in a post-conflict Iraqi-led process. The United States, members of the coalition, and the international community will work with the Iraqi people to build a strong and credible judicial process to address these abuses.

 

Under Saddam's regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions, the vast majority of them Muslims. According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings, and electric shocks ... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

 

Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered. Allegations of prostitution are used to intimidate opponents of the regime and have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women. There have been documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulting in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

 

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

 

Iraq's 13 million Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, face severe restrictions on their religious practice, including a ban on communal Friday prayer, and restriction on funeral processions.

 

According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991]that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that

 

"Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."

 

In 2002, the U.S. Committee for Refugees estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians, and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the "central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north."

 

"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.

 

The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors. From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq. The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."

 

Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including:

 

4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;

3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;

2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign;"

122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;

23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and

At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.

 

Let me know what you think after reading the above.

[Mushroom_king]

So, one year left of Moronism. Who are we picking out of the candidates for the Republican and Democrats' Presidential line up?

 

Line up (although anyone who didn't already know this should be ashamed);

 

DEMOCRATS

Joe Biden

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

Al Gore

Barack Obama

Bill Richardson

 

REPUBLICANS

Sam Brownback

Newt Gingrich

Rudolph Giuliani

Mike Huckabee

John McCain

Mitt Romney

My personal choices would be Al Gore, Obama or Clinton for the Democrats and for the Republican Party to be disbanded, taken to an airport runway, lined up and then run over by a Hummer.

 

PS Will Horatio ever tell me what irritates him so about Hillary Clinton?

*~*The Grand Illusion*~*The Final Cut*~*

 

I agree.

 

(Is that all i ever say in this tawpeek?)

 

*~*The Psychedelic Luau*~*The Astronomy Domine*~*

[Taynio]

Maybe or maybe not, that is something I am not sure of. Regardless, it's the thought of helping another which I think it may be. We as humans may be different in our perception on one another but in our hearts, we will defend anyone...even if that person is racist against you.

And that's fine. The part that makes me feel conflicted is that we defend someone, against someone else. Even if that someone else is bad it feels like interference to me. Like you pointed out later in your post, Saddam was a peacemaker even though he was a bad guy. What about the other bad guys, what if their removal makes things worse?

 

Saddam was a peacemaker? Take a look at this:

 

Let me know what you think after reading the above.

 

Lol Horatio I know all about Saddam. I am calling him a peacemaker in the since of he kept the clans or what have you from fighting and kill each other, thus turning his evil and their evil into a huge mess. I didn't say he was a good man. And by me calling him a peacekeeper/maker, it is my own choice and personal belief. I am not condoning anything he has done.

[Horatio]

Maybe or maybe not, that is something I am not sure of. Regardless, it's the thought of helping another which I think it may be. We as humans may be different in our perception on one another but in our hearts, we will defend anyone...even if that person is racist against you.

And that's fine. The part that makes me feel conflicted is that we defend someone, against someone else. Even if that someone else is bad it feels like interference to me. Like you pointed out later in your post, Saddam was a peacemaker even though he was a bad guy. What about the other bad guys, what if their removal makes things worse?

 

Saddam was a peacemaker? Take a look at this:

 

Let me know what you think after reading the above.

 

Lol Horatio I know all about Saddam. I am calling him a peacemaker in the since of he kept the clans or what have you from fighting and kill each other, thus turning his evil and their evil into a huge mess. I didn't say he was a good man. And by me calling him a peacekeeper/maker, it is my own choice and personal belief. I am not condoning anything he has done.

LOL... good. I have to check every now and then. LOL

[Horatio]

I was wondering if anyone watched The State Of The Union Speech and are there any comments.

[Cheesus]

I was wondering if anyone watched The State Of The Union Speech and are there any comments.

I didn't. I was watching G4, I think. xD

[Horatio]

I was wondering if anyone watched The State Of The Union Speech and are there any comments.

I didn't. I was watching G4, I think. xD

WHAT???

[Mushroom_king]

I was wondering if anyone watched The State Of The Union Speech and are there any comments.

*~*The Grand Illusion*~*The Final Cut*~*

 

I didn't watch it

 

*~*The Psychedelic Luau*~*The Astronomy Domine*~*

[Jesse]

I didn't watch it, but I've heard the gist of it. Basically Bush wants the congress to cooperate with him. Better think again, Bush. I think he got a bit spoiled from the 6 years of republican congress that served his policies to him on a silver platter. No point in the 3 branch system if two branches are going to have a tea party together.

[Taynio]

I didn't watch it, but I've heard the gist of it. Basically Bush wants the congress to cooperate with him. Better think again, Bush. I think he got a bit spoiled from the 6 years of republican congress that served his policies to him on a silver platter. No point in the 3 branch system if two branches are going to have a tea party together.

OH, so you have something against tea now, do ye? Fine then....I see...no cookies for you! lol

 

Hm...interesting take. Sad thing is, in this modern time with our leaders in America (Everyone in the government and anything with any power) there is no 3 branch system. It's all like... 10000 branches.

[Cheesus]

I didn't watch it, but I've heard the gist of it. Basically Bush wants the congress to cooperate with him. Better think again, Bush. I think he got a bit spoiled from the 6 years of republican congress that served his policies to him on a silver platter. No point in the 3 branch system if two branches are going to have a tea party together.

OH, so you have something against tea now, do ye? Fine then....I see...no cookies for you! lol

 

Hm...interesting take. Sad thing is, in this modern time with our leaders in America (Everyone in the government and anything with any power) there is no 3 branch system. It's all like... 10000 branches.

That is a big tree. To bad it has all these birds in it trying to get to the top.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

*realises someone had a debate without him*

:glare: Curses.

 

So, State Of The Union address. Could it be any more pathetic? He sets unrealistic targets too. Cut 20% of petrol use by 2017? Impossible for him. Give him a chance on Iraq? No you had that, you moron. Made me vomit a couple of times. My personal attention it rather wrapped up getting Blair off the Premiership and preventing David Thatcher Cameron from becoming the next one. Please, please, please electorate, vote New Labour at the next general election rather than Tory. Please, please, please.

[Horatio]

*realises someone had a debate without him*

:glare: Curses.

 

So, State Of The Union address. Could it be any more pathetic? He sets unrealistic targets too. Cut 20% of petrol use by 2017? Impossible for him. Give him a chance on Iraq? No you had that, you moron. Made me vomit a couple of times. My personal attention it rather wrapped up getting Blair off the Premiership and preventing David Thatcher Cameron from becoming the next one. Please, please, please electorate, vote New Labour at the next general election rather than Tory. Please, please, please.

Are you really going to like what happens under Gordon Brown? He is another control freak.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

*realises someone had a debate without him*

:glare: Curses.

 

So, State Of The Union address. Could it be any more pathetic? He sets unrealistic targets too. Cut 20% of petrol use by 2017? Impossible for him. Give him a chance on Iraq? No you had that, you moron. Made me vomit a couple of times. My personal attention it rather wrapped up getting Blair off the Premiership and preventing David Thatcher Cameron from becoming the next one. Please, please, please electorate, vote New Labour at the next general election rather than Tory. Please, please, please.

Are you really going to like what happens under Gordon Brown? He is another control freak.

Anything is better than ThatcherCameron. I'm just anxious that Labour stay in power so I can take over the party and become Prime Minister without selling my soul myself to the Tory Party. We can't vote Lib Dem because they are incompetent. We can't vote Conservative because they are even more incompetent and that leaves only Labour.

[Horatio]

*realises someone had a debate without him*

:glare: Curses.

 

So, State Of The Union address. Could it be any more pathetic? He sets unrealistic targets too. Cut 20% of petrol use by 2017? Impossible for him. Give him a chance on Iraq? No you had that, you moron. Made me vomit a couple of times. My personal attention it rather wrapped up getting Blair off the Premiership and preventing David Thatcher Cameron from becoming the next one. Please, please, please electorate, vote New Labour at the next general election rather than Tory. Please, please, please.

Are you really going to like what happens under Gordon Brown? He is another control freak.

Anything is better than ThatcherCameron. I'm just anxious that Labour stay in power so I can take over the party and become Prime Minister without selling my soul myself to the Tory Party. We can't vote Lib Dem because they are incompetent. We can't vote Conservative because they are even more incompetent and that leaves only Labour.

Better the devil...

[The Grim Hamster lord]

*realises someone had a debate without him*

:glare: Curses.

 

So, State Of The Union address. Could it be any more pathetic? He sets unrealistic targets too. Cut 20% of petrol use by 2017? Impossible for him. Give him a chance on Iraq? No you had that, you moron. Made me vomit a couple of times. My personal attention it rather wrapped up getting Blair off the Premiership and preventing David Thatcher Cameron from becoming the next one. Please, please, please electorate, vote New Labour at the next general election rather than Tory. Please, please, please.

Are you really going to like what happens under Gordon Brown? He is another control freak.

Anything is better than ThatcherCameron. I'm just anxious that Labour stay in power so I can take over the party and become Prime Minister without selling my soul myself to the Tory Party. We can't vote Lib Dem because they are incompetent. We can't vote Conservative because they are even more incompetent and that leaves only Labour.

Better the devil...

I was thinking the lesser of three evils, personally.

 

Anyway, isn't this US Government topic rather than the UK?

 

Let's see what you have. You have the police getting cheap deals from the US military, a gigantic protest against Iraq, a system which strives to provide no welfare at all and an economy on the edge of a recession - 1929 style. Enjoying yourself?

[Horatio]

*realises someone had a debate without him*

:glare: Curses.

 

So, State Of The Union address. Could it be any more pathetic? He sets unrealistic targets too. Cut 20% of petrol use by 2017? Impossible for him. Give him a chance on Iraq? No you had that, you moron. Made me vomit a couple of times. My personal attention it rather wrapped up getting Blair off the Premiership and preventing David Thatcher Cameron from becoming the next one. Please, please, please electorate, vote New Labour at the next general election rather than Tory. Please, please, please.

Are you really going to like what happens under Gordon Brown? He is another control freak.

Anything is better than ThatcherCameron. I'm just anxious that Labour stay in power so I can take over the party and become Prime Minister without selling my soul myself to the Tory Party. We can't vote Lib Dem because they are incompetent. We can't vote Conservative because they are even more incompetent and that leaves only Labour.

Better the devil...

I was thinking the lesser of three evils, personally.

 

Anyway, isn't this US Government topic rather than the UK?

 

Let's see what you have. You have the police getting cheap deals from the US military, a gigantic protest against Iraq, a system which strives to provide no welfare at all and an economy on the edge of a recession - 1929 style. Enjoying yourself?

UK: no constitution... shall I continue? LOL

[The Grim Hamster lord]

*realises someone had a debate without him*

:glare: Curses.

 

So, State Of The Union address. Could it be any more pathetic? He sets unrealistic targets too. Cut 20% of petrol use by 2017? Impossible for him. Give him a chance on Iraq? No you had that, you moron. Made me vomit a couple of times. My personal attention it rather wrapped up getting Blair off the Premiership and preventing David Thatcher Cameron from becoming the next one. Please, please, please electorate, vote New Labour at the next general election rather than Tory. Please, please, please.

Are you really going to like what happens under Gordon Brown? He is another control freak.

Anything is better than ThatcherCameron. I'm just anxious that Labour stay in power so I can take over the party and become Prime Minister without selling my soul myself to the Tory Party. We can't vote Lib Dem because they are incompetent. We can't vote Conservative because they are even more incompetent and that leaves only Labour.

Better the devil...

I was thinking the lesser of three evils, personally.

 

Anyway, isn't this US Government topic rather than the UK?

 

Let's see what you have. You have the police getting cheap deals from the US military, a gigantic protest against Iraq, a system which strives to provide no welfare at all and an economy on the edge of a recession - 1929 style. Enjoying yourself?

UK: no constitution... shall I continue? LOL

UK: Has a constitution, just unwritten and compromising a series of laws, bills and legislation.

 

US: Has a constitution so shoddy it requires a near infinite amount of amendments. Also says that you can carry guns round.

 

EU: No constitution yet. May have one when the French decide to stop being so difficult.

[Horatio]

*realises someone had a debate without him*

:glare: Curses.

 

So, State Of The Union address. Could it be any more pathetic? He sets unrealistic targets too. Cut 20% of petrol use by 2017? Impossible for him. Give him a chance on Iraq? No you had that, you moron. Made me vomit a couple of times. My personal attention it rather wrapped up getting Blair off the Premiership and preventing David Thatcher Cameron from becoming the next one. Please, please, please electorate, vote New Labour at the next general election rather than Tory. Please, please, please.

Are you really going to like what happens under Gordon Brown? He is another control freak.

Anything is better than ThatcherCameron. I'm just anxious that Labour stay in power so I can take over the party and become Prime Minister without selling my soul myself to the Tory Party. We can't vote Lib Dem because they are incompetent. We can't vote Conservative because they are even more incompetent and that leaves only Labour.

Better the devil...

I was thinking the lesser of three evils, personally.

 

Anyway, isn't this US Government topic rather than the UK?

 

Let's see what you have. You have the police getting cheap deals from the US military, a gigantic protest against Iraq, a system which strives to provide no welfare at all and an economy on the edge of a recession - 1929 style. Enjoying yourself?

UK: no constitution... shall I continue? LOL

UK: Has a constitution, just unwritten and compromising a series of laws, bills and legislation.

 

US: Has a constitution so shoddy it requires a near infinite amount of amendments. Also says that you can carry guns round.

 

EU: No constitution yet. May have one when the French decide to stop being so difficult.

I see you have such a sunny view of the US. LOL

[The Grim Hamster lord]

*realises someone had a debate without him*

:glare: Curses.

 

So, State Of The Union address. Could it be any more pathetic? He sets unrealistic targets too. Cut 20% of petrol use by 2017? Impossible for him. Give him a chance on Iraq? No you had that, you moron. Made me vomit a couple of times. My personal attention it rather wrapped up getting Blair off the Premiership and preventing David Thatcher Cameron from becoming the next one. Please, please, please electorate, vote New Labour at the next general election rather than Tory. Please, please, please.

Are you really going to like what happens under Gordon Brown? He is another control freak.

Anything is better than ThatcherCameron. I'm just anxious that Labour stay in power so I can take over the party and become Prime Minister without selling my soul myself to the Tory Party. We can't vote Lib Dem because they are incompetent. We can't vote Conservative because they are even more incompetent and that leaves only Labour.

Better the devil...

I was thinking the lesser of three evils, personally.

 

Anyway, isn't this US Government topic rather than the UK?

 

Let's see what you have. You have the police getting cheap deals from the US military, a gigantic protest against Iraq, a system which strives to provide no welfare at all and an economy on the edge of a recession - 1929 style. Enjoying yourself?

UK: no constitution... shall I continue? LOL

UK: Has a constitution, just unwritten and compromising a series of laws, bills and legislation.

 

US: Has a constitution so shoddy it requires a near infinite amount of amendments. Also says that you can carry guns round.

 

EU: No constitution yet. May have one when the French decide to stop being so difficult.

I see you have such a sunny view of the US. LOL

WHAT!? You have a sun in the US!?!?

 

And it isn't the US people, it is the US government which I have such a bleak outlook on. That is, after all, why we are here. Now, who voted Eisenhower into the Presidency? The man was an incompetent war leader, forget peacetime leader.

[Horatio]

*realises someone had a debate without him*

:glare: Curses.

 

So, State Of The Union address. Could it be any more pathetic? He sets unrealistic targets too. Cut 20% of petrol use by 2017? Impossible for him. Give him a chance on Iraq? No you had that, you moron. Made me vomit a couple of times. My personal attention it rather wrapped up getting Blair off the Premiership and preventing David Thatcher Cameron from becoming the next one. Please, please, please electorate, vote New Labour at the next general election rather than Tory. Please, please, please.

Are you really going to like what happens under Gordon Brown? He is another control freak.

Anything is better than ThatcherCameron. I'm just anxious that Labour stay in power so I can take over the party and become Prime Minister without selling my soul myself to the Tory Party. We can't vote Lib Dem because they are incompetent. We can't vote Conservative because they are even more incompetent and that leaves only Labour.

Better the devil...

I was thinking the lesser of three evils, personally.

 

Anyway, isn't this US Government topic rather than the UK?

 

Let's see what you have. You have the police getting cheap deals from the US military, a gigantic protest against Iraq, a system which strives to provide no welfare at all and an economy on the edge of a recession - 1929 style. Enjoying yourself?

UK: no constitution... shall I continue? LOL

UK: Has a constitution, just unwritten and compromising a series of laws, bills and legislation.

 

US: Has a constitution so shoddy it requires a near infinite amount of amendments. Also says that you can carry guns round.

 

EU: No constitution yet. May have one when the French decide to stop being so difficult.

I see you have such a sunny view of the US. LOL

WHAT!? You have a sun in the US!?!?

 

And it isn't the US people, it is the US government which I have such a bleak outlook on. That is, after all, why we are here. Now, who voted Eisenhower into the Presidency? The man was an incompetent war leader, forget peacetime leader.

Let's see, it must have been the fault of the electoral college.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

The electoral college which means you have, in effect, no true democracy?

 

Can someone name a good president of the United States?

[Horatio]

The electoral college which means you have, in effect, no true democracy?

 

Can someone name a good president of the United States?

Abraham Lincoln.

 

Now you tell me... what are you doing up so late?

[Cheesus]

The electoral college which means you have, in effect, no true democracy?

 

Can someone name a good president of the United States?

Abraham Lincoln.

 

Now you tell me... what are you doing up so late?

funny, that is the first name I thought of. xD

[Jesse]

The electoral college which means you have, in effect, no true democracy?

 

Can someone name a good president of the United States?

Haha, good presidents...that's a good question. But as Horatio said, Abraham Lincoln was overall a good president (although his timing with becoming president "made" the south secede but that's a different matter I suppose...)

 

What's another one?...What DEFINES a good president anyway? It seems that they have to be involved with a war to be considered really great, or really bad, depending on the outcome. And then people tend to just forget the rest.

 

FDR was the one to help with the great depression, right? (I keep getting him confused with Teddy!) I'd say overall he's a good president. It's hard to tell whether his plans would work in the long run since the next world war interrupted our slow recovery and pulled us back on our feet.

 

There are continued protests about the electoral college. My view is, it just doesn't fit with modern times. We the general public DO know enough about the candidates now to make good decisions*, thanks to the TV, radio, etc... However the force of tradition keeps it in place. I hate the concept of tradition sometimes. It can be so blind.

 

*: Of course, the candidates may still conceal things from the public, but that could be the case with the electors too, so that point is irrelevant.

[Horatio]

What's another one?

Jefferson.

[Taynio]

What defines a president? Is it the ability to deal with situations properly? And if so, what can then be defined as properly since we all have our own personal views?

Is it where the outcome is good? Or perhaps bad? These are great questions that must be asked.

To many, Saddam was a great leader. To many Bush is a great leader. If they are both indeed great leaders, then how do you define one as being a great leader?

 

It must be easier for you to say your president is great. But why is it? Why are you unable to say some "evil" person is good?

 

A great person is someone who stands for what they believe in. Am I correct? Maybe. Maybe not. Why? Because sometimes standing up for what you believe in can only hinder you. But to some that makes you great?

 

Do you see what I am getting at? You say Lincoln was a great president. Why? Because he abolished slavery? No. HE didn't. Infact it was the millions of people who died in the name of freedom. Did Lincoln die in believing as such? No. Though he was killed, it was not during the struggle. We tend to put victories to the person in charge, just as we do the faults of a country.

 

Why was Jefferson a great president? Because he wrote the Constitution? So. It was the beliefs and thoughts of many bright men that went into it. Just because he wrote it does not mean he is any greater than the many people who have came before him and failed.

 

Was Washington a great president? Well, yes, he was the first. But does that make him great? Sure he led the revolution. But does that make him the greatest general in existence. No. Why? The French are the ones that secured the victory of the U.S.

 

FDR. A great president? Maybe. Maybe not. What I do know is that he was a man, a strong man. Just like his cousin Teddy who said "Speak with a soft voice but carry a big stick." Was it Franklin though that truly make it possible for us to overcome devastating things? Maybe. Sure he had the ideas, but we the people are the ones that pulled together.

 

Well.. I am watching Crow right now and lost my train of thought lol. Later.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

I expected Lincoln to come up as the first choice. I would be more hesitant in giving him that title. Mainly because I question his motives for freeing slaves, as after studying the period I could argue that he freed the slaves, not out of any ideal of egalitarianism, but out of strategy to get the advantage over the Confederacy after months of stalemate, to maintain his position in the Party after pressure from the Radicals and to preserve the Union. He'd still be considered, but I wouldn't give it to him so easily just for freeing slaves. I think he'd still win it based on his excellent leadership qualities, his oratory and the huge amount of good he did for the United States and the Union.

 

FDR wouldn't even get a look in for best president. The New Deal was, largely, a failure. The amount of expenditure put in for the amount of jobs it saved and created was far too minimal. While you can attribute success in terms of sorting out the banking crisis, the New Deal was not a New Deal for all, as the most poverty stricken were not the ones the New Deal helped. As a war leader, you could argue a good case for him being a good leader in many aspects. I would just criticise him for being so easily manipulated by Stalin at the numerous conferences held between the Big Three, he also condemned some of his allies to economic troubles after the war, his reluctance to get in the war in the first place and help Britain and Russia more actively than just the Lend-Lease program and his increased distance from Churchill as the war grew on as the two fell out due to Churchill's suspicion of the USSR's motives. Sorry, I've just gone and trashed one of the more highly regarded presidents.

 

I'd tell you who would get in at about 2-5 though. Bill Clinton.

[Horatio]

I expected Lincoln to come up as the first choice. I would be more hesitant in giving him that title. Mainly because I question his motives for freeing slaves, as after studying the period I could argue that he freed the slaves, not out of any ideal of egalitarianism, but out of strategy to get the advantage over the Confederacy after months of stalemate, to maintain his position in the Party after pressure from the Radicals and to preserve the Union. He'd still be considered, but I wouldn't give it to him so easily just for freeing slaves. I think he'd still win it based on his excellent leadership qualities, his oratory and the huge amount of good he did for the United States and the Union.

 

FDR wouldn't even get a look in for best president. The New Deal was, largely, a failure. The amount of expenditure put in for the amount of jobs it saved and created was far too minimal. While you can attribute success in terms of sorting out the banking crisis, the New Deal was not a New Deal for all, as the most poverty stricken were not the ones the New Deal helped. As a war leader, you could argue a good case for him being a good leader in many aspects. I would just criticise him for being so easily manipulated by Stalin at the numerous conferences held between the Big Three, he also condemned some of his allies to economic troubles after the war, his reluctance to get in the war in the first place and help Britain and Russia more actively than just the Lend-Lease program and his increased distance from Churchill as the war grew on as the two fell out due to Churchill's suspicion of the USSR's motives. Sorry, I've just gone and trashed one of the more highly regarded presidents.

 

I'd tell you who would get in at about 2-5 though. Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton was useless.

[Jesse]

Sorry, I've just gone and trashed one of the more highly regarded presidents.

 

Well, highly regarded ≠ good, and I was ignorant of most of those points. Presidents are treated as one-dimensional a lot. Either they're awesome or they're really horrible, and the awesome presidents have their bad actions forgotten and vice versa.

 

I suppose "good president" is an irrelevant term after all. Like Taynio said, there is controversy in what we think makes a good president. Plus, we will never know the full story of the presidents. Did Harding know what scandals his cabin was committing? No one knows for sure.

[Mushroom_king]

I expected Lincoln to come up as the first choice. I would be more hesitant in giving him that title. Mainly because I question his motives for freeing slaves, as after studying the period I could argue that he freed the slaves, not out of any ideal of egalitarianism, but out of strategy to get the advantage over the Confederacy after months of stalemate, to maintain his position in the Party after pressure from the Radicals and to preserve the Union. He'd still be considered, but I wouldn't give it to him so easily just for freeing slaves. I think he'd still win it based on his excellent leadership qualities, his oratory and the huge amount of good he did for the United States and the Union.

 

FDR wouldn't even get a look in for best president. The New Deal was, largely, a failure. The amount of expenditure put in for the amount of jobs it saved and created was far too minimal. While you can attribute success in terms of sorting out the banking crisis, the New Deal was not a New Deal for all, as the most poverty stricken were not the ones the New Deal helped. As a war leader, you could argue a good case for him being a good leader in many aspects. I would just criticise him for being so easily manipulated by Stalin at the numerous conferences held between the Big Three, he also condemned some of his allies to economic troubles after the war, his reluctance to get in the war in the first place and help Britain and Russia more actively than just the Lend-Lease program and his increased distance from Churchill as the war grew on as the two fell out due to Churchill's suspicion of the USSR's motives. Sorry, I've just gone and trashed one of the more highly regarded presidents.

 

I'd tell you who would get in at about 2-5 though. Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton was useless.

*slap* Bad hamster! *slap* No sunflower seeds for you! *slap* You lose 50 points! *slap*

[The Grim Hamster lord]

I think you just got slapped for calling Bill Clinton useless, Horatio.

 

I'd argue he wasn't useless. He maintained a strong dollar, a good economy and moved the country away from the doldrums Bush Sr. had put it in, he even managed to get a surplus in the federal budget. Just because he wasn't what you might call "sexually ethical" doesn't mean he wasn't a good president. Look at what he has gone to do, and what he did then. He did a lot of good work for the American people in his first term, and went onto do more. He helped solve the Northern Ireland Crisis over here, he tried to help the Middle East peace process and has furthered humanitarian work now he has retired.

[Horatio]

I think you just got slapped for calling Bill Clinton useless, Horatio.

 

I'd argue he wasn't useless. He maintained a strong dollar, a good economy and moved the country away from the doldrums Bush Sr. had put it in, he even managed to get a surplus in the federal budget. Just because he wasn't what you might call "sexually ethical" doesn't mean he wasn't a good president. Look at what he has gone to do, and what he did then. He did a lot of good work for the American people in his first term, and went onto do more. He helped solve the Northern Ireland Crisis over here, he tried to help the Middle East peace process and has furthered humanitarian work now he has retired.

In the USA a budget surplus does not happen onernight. So you have to look back in years.

 

There were lots of Presidents who did more with foreign policy.

 

As for coming to my conclusion that he was a useless President, sexual exploits never entered into my thinking.

[Mushroom_king]

I think you just got slapped for calling Bill Clinton useless, Horatio.

 

I'd argue he wasn't useless. He maintained a strong dollar, a good economy and moved the country away from the doldrums Bush Sr. had put it in, he even managed to get a surplus in the federal budget. Just because he wasn't what you might call "sexually ethical" doesn't mean he wasn't a good president. Look at what he has gone to do, and what he did then. He did a lot of good work for the American people in his first term, and went onto do more. He helped solve the Northern Ireland Crisis over here, he tried to help the Middle East peace process and has furthered humanitarian work now he has retired.

*Throws Horatio in The Meat Grinder* >(

[Taynio]

I think you just got slapped for calling Bill Clinton useless, Horatio.

 

I'd argue he wasn't useless. He maintained a strong dollar, a good economy and moved the country away from the doldrums Bush Sr. had put it in, he even managed to get a surplus in the federal budget. Just because he wasn't what you might call "sexually ethical" doesn't mean he wasn't a good president. Look at what he has gone to do, and what he did then. He did a lot of good work for the American people in his first term, and went onto do more. He helped solve the Northern Ireland Crisis over here, he tried to help the Middle East peace process and has furthered humanitarian work now he has retired.

In the USA a budget surplus does not happen onernight. So you have to look back in years.

 

There were lots of Presidents who did more with foreign policy.

 

As for coming to my conclusion that he was a useless President, sexual exploits never entered into my thinking.

 

 

Wasn't it also Clinton who had a hand in the bombing of foreign countries? I remember have some friends in middle school who were from those countries. I cannot remember....starts with a B I think.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

I think you just got slapped for calling Bill Clinton useless, Horatio.

 

I'd argue he wasn't useless. He maintained a strong dollar, a good economy and moved the country away from the doldrums Bush Sr. had put it in, he even managed to get a surplus in the federal budget. Just because he wasn't what you might call "sexually ethical" doesn't mean he wasn't a good president. Look at what he has gone to do, and what he did then. He did a lot of good work for the American people in his first term, and went onto do more. He helped solve the Northern Ireland Crisis over here, he tried to help the Middle East peace process and has furthered humanitarian work now he has retired.

In the USA a budget surplus does not happen onernight. So you have to look back in years.

 

There were lots of Presidents who did more with foreign policy.

 

As for coming to my conclusion that he was a useless President, sexual exploits never entered into my thinking.

 

 

Wasn't it also Clinton who had a hand in the bombing of foreign countries? I remember have some friends in middle school who were from those countries. I cannot remember....starts with a B I think.

Bosnia probably, and US and UK involvement there was to stop the genocide of thousands of people. If you need context, Yugoslavia was being broken up, and after the elections, all out civil war broke out. Serbian war leaders pursued policies of religious genocide against anyone who wasn't Serbian, terrorism and guerilla warfare was rife in the entire region and atrocities committed on a daily basis. The UK, US and Europe sent in armed peacekeeping forces to stabilise the situation and now we have a near stable Balkan region, with the war crimes trials going on even today of people like Slobodan Milosevic (who died in the Hague). Foreign Policy Success for Clinton in that respect.

 

And to defend Clinton some more, I'd point out that the surplus only appeared late on in his term as President, so it can be attributed to his early financial policies in that respect and that his Foreign policy was good if you compare it with a large majority of Presidents who have made disastrous foreign policy choices. He was also liberal (this is not a swear word you Neo-Conserative Fascists out there) and forward thinking, as he tried to allow people into the armed forces regardless of sexuality and tried to introduce more equality into the United States.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

EL GASP!

 

Kimmy has agreed to take steps towards nuclear disarmament in return for Fuel Aid! Does this mean I get to go back to South Korea now without being attacked by US Airport Security?

[Horatio]

EL GASP!

 

Kimmy has agreed to take steps towards nuclear disarmament in return for Fuel Aid! Does this mean I get to go back to South Korea now without being attacked by US Airport Security?

If you like? LOL

[Jesse]

This Mr. Boehner dude gets on my nerves. He tries to make something out of nothing.

 

This is what the house resolution (in-progress?) basically says: "The house will continue to support and protect US soldiers, but disapproves of the 21,500 troop increase."

 

Then this silly Republican goes and says

 

It is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission

 

Obviously in light of the "we will continue to support and protect US soldiers" bit of the resolution.

 

cut off their reinforcements

 

Cut off? What does he think this is, a blockade?

 

and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely.

 

Soldiers aren't resources to other soldiers, you twit. If you're so worried about resources you can cut meals out of your day and send them over. Or better yet, use some of your own easily-earned money instead of leaving it up to congress to pay for it all, who will in turn be forced to force it out of future tax payers.

 

Don't mind me, I'm in a particularly flippant mood this afternoon.

[Cheesus]

This Mr. Boehner dude gets on my nerves. He tries to make something out of nothing.

 

This is what the house resolution (in-progress?) basically says: "The house will continue to support and protect US soldiers, but disapproves of the 21,500 troop increase."

 

Then this silly Republican goes and says

 

It is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission

 

Obviously in light of the "we will continue to support and protect US soldiers" bit of the resolution.

 

cut off their reinforcements

 

Cut off? What does he think this is, a blockade?

 

and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely.

 

Soldiers aren't resources to other soldiers, you twit. If you're so worried about resources you can cut meals out of your day and send them over. Or better yet, use some of your own easily-earned money instead of leaving it up to congress to pay for it all, who will in turn be forced to force it out of future tax payers.

 

Don't mind me, I'm in a particularly flippant mood this afternoon.

 

Wow. >.< Some people really are idiots.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

The first will be to clear the ground - moving in and removing any obvious threats.

 

But the aggression comes in the second phase, controlling the ground, and the pace of the operation will depend on the ability of troops to do that, so they can move onto phase three - retaining it.

 

^^^ That is the US General in charge of Baghdad's idea of what he should do to follow Bush's change in strategy.

 

Sorry, how stupid do you have to be not to remove obvious threats before they attack you? "Yes, I can see the mortar outpost where Sunni loyalists are lobbing bombs at us, why don't we remove it? Well, it hasn't been part of the plan."

 

Well, if comments made by our Foreign and Defence Secretary are anything to go by, we are leaving Iraq this year meaning the US Army has no more friends to shoot up any more. How sad. This is me, not sympathising with the US troops because they just shot a clearly marked British convoy and killed several troops.

[Jesse]

Sorry, how stupid do you have to be not to remove obvious threats before they attack you? "Yes, I can see the mortar outpost where Sunni loyalists are lobbing bombs at us, why don't we remove it? Well, it hasn't been part of the plan."

 

...because they just shot a clearly marked British convoy and killed several troops.

That stinks! The way they are blundering things up, I can only imagine what kind of things will happen if Bush gets all of his extra troops over there...

 

Oh, look at what popped up on BBC:

 

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

 

Alright, really, this is ENOUGH! How many countries are we going to have infiltrated by the time Bush is out of office?

[Mushroom_king]

Alright, really, this is ENOUGH! How many countries are we going to have infiltrated by the time Bush is out of office?

All of them?

[Cheesus]

The moonenites are terrorists, we gotta bomb the moon...

[Jesse]

Well, it seems that Iran wants everyone else to stop doing things with Uranium before Iran stops the process themselves. Although it's quite a demand, I like the logic in it. We have nuclear weapons, do we not? Why are we about to attack someone else because they MIGHT have nuclear weapons?

 

Again it's a case of "offense is the best defense," which is stupid thinking when it comes to, you know, invading countries. It was the same thing with Iraq, or at least, that's how Republicans describe it when they are asked why we went in. "We don't want a terrorist attack again, so we invaded them."

 

I have to go eat breakfast now. I hope we will leave Iran alone.

[Horatio]

Well, it seems that Iran wants everyone else to stop doing things with Uranium before Iran stops the process themselves. Although it's quite a demand, I like the logic in it. We have nuclear weapons, do we not? Why are we about to attack someone else because they MIGHT have nuclear weapons?

 

Again it's a case of "offense is the best defense," which is stupid thinking when it comes to, you know, invading countries. It was the same thing with Iraq, or at least, that's how Republicans describe it when they are asked why we went in. "We don't want a terrorist attack again, so we invaded them."

 

I have to go eat breakfast now. I hope we will leave Iran alone.

I would not want to see us involved in Iran.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

Well, it seems that Iran wants everyone else to stop doing things with Uranium before Iran stops the process themselves. Although it's quite a demand, I like the logic in it. We have nuclear weapons, do we not? Why are we about to attack someone else because they MIGHT have nuclear weapons?

 

Again it's a case of "offense is the best defense," which is stupid thinking when it comes to, you know, invading countries. It was the same thing with Iraq, or at least, that's how Republicans describe it when they are asked why we went in. "We don't want a terrorist attack again, so we invaded them."

 

I have to go eat breakfast now. I hope we will leave Iran alone.

I would not want to see us involved in Iran.

Nobody does and I especially don't. There is no need for action in Iran and as a far as I am concerned no need for sanctions either. If the CIA was aware of where exactly Iran was (next to Pacmanistan, right?) then maybe they'd know that. Within a few years Iran may be peaceful and supportive of the West, after the liberals in Iran who hold the most influential posts (the University places and the intellectuals) gain office after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't relected after everyone gets sick of an economy which isn't improving and a removal of freedoms, the only thing which holds Iran together is hatred of the West, but mostly of the USA.

 

Oh, and why the United Kingdom hates the USA at the minute:

The cockpit video at the centre of a row over the "friendly-fire" death of a British soldier in Iraq has been obtained by the Sun newspaper.

 

An inquest into the death of Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, 25, from Berks, was adjourned after the coroner said the tape was central to the case.

 

The video was classified "secret" by the US, but minister Harriet Harman wants all evidence made available.

 

The Sun says it shows a 2003 US aircraft attack on a British convoy.

 

The deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in London, David Johnson, said it was considering de-classifying the video if the military considered it would not put forces at risk in future.

 

The Sun has published a transcript of what it says was said by US military personnel on the video.

 

At the start of the attack, one pilot notices orange panels on the vehicles and asks whether there could be any friendly units in the area.

 

His command gives assurances there are no coalition forces in the area.

 

Pilots open fire but soon the error is realised and they are informed that friendly units were in the area.

 

They are told: "Abort your mission. You got a, looks we might have a blue-on-blue situation [a friendly fire incident]."

 

An air controller on the ground says: "We are getting an initial brief that there was one killed and one wounded, over."

 

One pilot replies: "Copy. RTB [return to base]." A colleague says: "I'm going to be sick."

 

They then talk about the possibility of being jailed for carrying out the attack.

 

'Weeping'

 

The first pilot says: "Did you hear?" His colleague replies: "Yeah, this sucks."

 

"We're in jail, dude," says the first.

 

The other pilot then weeps, saying: "God dammit".

 

 

Whilst the Americans cannot be legally obliged to help, they should do so, bearing in mind they are our allies

Constitutional Affairs minister Harriet Harman

 

The BBC's defence correspondent Paul Wood said it was obvious from the recording that the pilots were appalled by their mistake.

 

"They are not just remorseful, they are weeping. They are beside themselves."

 

Defence analyst Paul Beaver said: "I can see no reason for classifying it, other than it is deeply embarrassing to the US military.

 

He said it showed a "catalogue of errors" including pilots ignoring orange panels on vehicles - the NATO symbol for friendly forces.

 

"You have to ask were they fit for flying at that time? What sort of training do they have?"

 

The Sun has released footage to television and radio stations, but is not giving other websites permission to use clips.

 

It is not known who leaked the video to the newspaper, but the US government says it will be prosecute whoever is responsible.

 

Constitutional Affairs minister Ms Harman said she would not be drawn on whether the source of the leak should be prosecuted.

 

However she did say she would be holding meetings with British officials throughout the day to discuss how to resolve the matter.

 

"We have always had a very clear view that what matters is the information should be available to the family and, whilst the Americans cannot be legally obliged to help, they should do so, bearing in mind they are our allies," she added.

 

Last week, when the existence of the tape came to light, L/CoH Hull's widow, Susan, described it as an "absolute disgrace" that she had been assured by the military no such tape existed.

 

L/CoH Hull, from the Household Cavalry Regiment, died from multiple injuries inside his blazing Scimitar tank, despite efforts by colleagues to save him.

 

He was travelling in a column of light armoured vehicles near the southern Iraqi city of Basra when it was reportedly attacked by a US A-10 "tankbuster" aircraft.

 

Furious attack

 

On Friday, Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker was forced to adjourn L/CoH Hull's hearing because the MoD had failed to provide the inquest with a recording.

 

He had earlier launched a furious attack on the MoD for refusing to release the tape.

 

The MoD said it was given a copy of the video by the US government for its own investigation into the incident.

 

"This recording is the property of the United States government and the MoD does not have the right to release it without their permission," it said in a statement.

 

L/CoH Hull's family had been told that some classified material has been withheld, "but we did not specify its exact nature", the statement added.

 

"There has never been any intention to deliberately deceive or mislead L/CoH Hull's family."

 

However, Mr Johnson, from London's US Embassy, said the US government had been in discussions with Harriet Harman and other officials over the tape.

 

A Pentagon spokeswoman said the US government never released documents that were part of an investigation.

 

The Pentagon is understood to have a longstanding position of not letting US servicemen appear before foreign tribunals.

[Cheesus]

Well, it seems that Iran wants everyone else to stop doing things with Uranium before Iran stops the process themselves. Although it's quite a demand, I like the logic in it. We have nuclear weapons, do we not? Why are we about to attack someone else because they MIGHT have nuclear weapons?

 

Again it's a case of "offense is the best defense," which is stupid thinking when it comes to, you know, invading countries. It was the same thing with Iraq, or at least, that's how Republicans describe it when they are asked why we went in. "We don't want a terrorist attack again, so we invaded them."

 

I have to go eat breakfast now. I hope we will leave Iran alone.

I would not want to see us involved in Iran.

 

We need to take care of our own problems first before we tackle issues in other countries. >.<

Well, I'm not saying that we shouldn't work for world peace, end to hunger and whatnot, But you know what I mean.

[Horatio]

Well, it seems that Iran wants everyone else to stop doing things with Uranium before Iran stops the process themselves. Although it's quite a demand, I like the logic in it. We have nuclear weapons, do we not? Why are we about to attack someone else because they MIGHT have nuclear weapons?

 

Again it's a case of "offense is the best defense," which is stupid thinking when it comes to, you know, invading countries. It was the same thing with Iraq, or at least, that's how Republicans describe it when they are asked why we went in. "We don't want a terrorist attack again, so we invaded them."

 

I have to go eat breakfast now. I hope we will leave Iran alone.

I would not want to see us involved in Iran.

 

We need to take care of our own problems first before we tackle issues in other countries. >.

Well, I'm not saying that we shouldn't work for world peace, end to hunger and whatnot, But you know what I mean.

Read TGHL's post above yours.

[Cheesus]

Well, it seems that Iran wants everyone else to stop doing things with Uranium before Iran stops the process themselves. Although it's quite a demand, I like the logic in it. We have nuclear weapons, do we not? Why are we about to attack someone else because they MIGHT have nuclear weapons?

 

Again it's a case of "offense is the best defense," which is stupid thinking when it comes to, you know, invading countries. It was the same thing with Iraq, or at least, that's how Republicans describe it when they are asked why we went in. "We don't want a terrorist attack again, so we invaded them."

 

I have to go eat breakfast now. I hope we will leave Iran alone.

I would not want to see us involved in Iran.

 

We need to take care of our own problems first before we tackle issues in other countries. >.<

Well, I'm not saying that we shouldn't work for world peace, end to hunger and whatnot, But you know what I mean.

Read TGHL's post above yours.

 

The efforts of the US government to cover things up is horribly disgraceful. >.< Do they have no heart?

[The Grim Hamster lord]

I do so love the people who supply the US' military intelligence. They quite obviously don't use Google Earth, otherwise they'd know approximately where British troops were stationed. Of course, this isn't the first time the US has refused to court martial or release evidence to a UK court. There was the famous example of a brave tank commander who rescued his entire squad from a burning tank after hit by an anti-tank missile by Iraqi forces, returned to Britain for recovery, recovered and then when he got back to Iraq, got attacked again and was sent home once more after another brave feat of derring-do. He would have got the Victoria Cross too. If it wasn't for the fact that the latter occasion was after US troops decided it was time to play a game of shooting gallery with our Challenger II tanks which are completely unlike any other tank visually in the world. And now the US Government wants an armed militia of teenage hicks running round Iraq? Oh, how we all dread that day.

[Cheesus]

I do so love the people who supply the US' military intelligence. They quite obviously don't use Google Earth, otherwise they'd know approximately where British troops were stationed. Of course, this isn't the first time the US has refused to court martial or release evidence to a UK court. There was the famous example of a brave tank commander who rescued his entire squad from a burning tank after hit by an anti-tank missile by Iraqi forces, returned to Britain for recovery, recovered and then when he got back to Iraq, got attacked again and was sent home once more after another brave feat of derring-do. He would have got the Victoria Cross too. If it wasn't for the fact that the latter occasion was after US troops decided it was time to play a game of shooting gallery with our Challenger II tanks which are completely unlike any other tank visually in the world. And now the US Government wants an armed militia of teenage hicks running round Iraq? Oh, how we all dread that day.

 

Military intelligence, greatest oxymoron in the world... Or at least, the U.S. >.<

[Jesse]

And now the US Government wants an armed militia of teenage hicks running round Iraq? Oh, how we all dread that day.

 

For the record, last time I heard there's like, one guy in congress who is pushing to get the draft going. The democrats are trying to shut him up lest he make them look stupid. (And it figures that I forgot the guy's name...) And they'd better do it quick if they want to win the presidency!

[The Grim Hamster lord]

We have our first Republican Party candidate forward.

 

Shame it is a doddering, ancient relic of the bad old days whose idea of cohesion is to bomb France.

 

Next up for the Presidential candidate for the Republic Party: An evangelical nut/Someone who was in 'Nam/Someone who wasn't in 'Nam because his Daddy pulled some strings/A Nazi. Delete as appropriate.

[Horatio]

We have our first Republican Party candidate forward.

 

Shame it is a doddering, ancient relic of the bad old days whose idea of cohesion is to bomb France.

 

Next up for the Presidential candidate for the Republic Party: An evangelical nut/Someone who was in 'Nam/Someone who wasn't in 'Nam because his Daddy pulled some strings/A Nazi. Delete as appropriate.

What an interesting outlook on politics you have TGHL!

[The Grim Hamster lord]

We have our first Republican Party candidate forward.

 

Shame it is a doddering, ancient relic of the bad old days whose idea of cohesion is to bomb France.

 

Next up for the Presidential candidate for the Republic Party: An evangelical nut/Someone who was in 'Nam/Someone who wasn't in 'Nam because his Daddy pulled some strings/A Nazi. Delete as appropriate.

What an interesting outlook on politics you have TGHL!

You mean one which isn't endorsed by News Incorporated?

 

I feel slightly proud. I made a comment on the BBC new website about Murdoch and it got read on BBC News 24. You'd have to know about BSkyB and Virgin Media in order to understand it, but I am still quite happy that my view is appreciated.

 

I feel quite disappointed that daily mess ups are now so common it is worthless commenting on them.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

This topic clearly needs invigorating. The best way to invigorate things is with blatant antagonism. Here is some;

 

*starts singing*

 

Unbreakable Union of freeborn Republics,

Great Russia has welded forever to stand.

Created in struggle by will of the people,

United and mighty, our Soviet land!

 

CHORUS:

 

Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,

Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.

O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people,

To Communism's triumph lead us on!

 

Through tempests the sunrays of freedom have cheered us,

Along the new path where great Lenin did lead.

To a righteous cause he raised up the peoples,

Inspired them to labour and valourous deed.

 

CHORUS

 

In the victory of Communism's deathless ideal,

We see the future of our dear land.

And to her fluttering scarlet banner,

Selflessly true we always shall stand!

 

CHORUS

[Horatio]

This topic clearly needs invigorating. The best way to invigorate things is with blatant antagonism. Here is some;

 

*starts singing*

 

Unbreakable Union of freeborn Republics,

Great Russia has welded forever to stand.

Created in struggle by will of the people,

United and mighty, our Soviet land!

 

CHORUS:

 

Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,

Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.

O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people,

To Communism's triumph lead us on!

 

Through tempests the sunrays of freedom have cheered us,

Along the new path where great Lenin did lead.

To a righteous cause he raised up the peoples,

Inspired them to labour and valourous deed.

 

CHORUS

 

In the victory of Communism's deathless ideal,

We see the future of our dear land.

And to her fluttering scarlet banner,

Selflessly true we always shall stand!

 

CHORUS

*sends TGHL in for psychological testing*

 

On another note TGHL, who do you think the Illuminati has planned as the next President of the USA?

[Otter]

( kill Bush )

X___X

[The Grim Hamster lord]

This topic clearly needs invigorating. The best way to invigorate things is with blatant antagonism. Here is some;

 

*starts singing*

 

Unbreakable Union of freeborn Republics,

Great Russia has welded forever to stand.

Created in struggle by will of the people,

United and mighty, our Soviet land!

 

CHORUS:

 

Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,

Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.

O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people,

To Communism's triumph lead us on!

 

Through tempests the sunrays of freedom have cheered us,

Along the new path where great Lenin did lead.

To a righteous cause he raised up the peoples,

Inspired them to labour and valourous deed.

 

CHORUS

 

In the victory of Communism's deathless ideal,

We see the future of our dear land.

And to her fluttering scarlet banner,

Selflessly true we always shall stand!

 

CHORUS

*sends TGHL in for psychological testing*

 

On another note TGHL, who do you think the Illuminati has planned as the next President of the USA?

It was only the National Anthem of the Soviet Union.

 

Allow me to consult Dan Brown, God of Truths which may be true, but may also not be true. Hmmm... Says here Hillary Clinton. Also says that she will introduce a welfare state in the US, achieve much good and then be assassinated by a disgruntled hamster.

[Horatio]

This topic clearly needs invigorating. The best way to invigorate things is with blatant antagonism. Here is some;

 

*starts singing*

 

Unbreakable Union of freeborn Republics,

Great Russia has welded forever to stand.

Created in struggle by will of the people,

United and mighty, our Soviet land!

 

CHORUS:

 

Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,

Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.

O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people,

To Communism's triumph lead us on!

 

Through tempests the sunrays of freedom have cheered us,

Along the new path where great Lenin did lead.

To a righteous cause he raised up the peoples,

Inspired them to labour and valourous deed.

 

CHORUS

 

In the victory of Communism's deathless ideal,

We see the future of our dear land.

And to her fluttering scarlet banner,

Selflessly true we always shall stand!

 

CHORUS

*sends TGHL in for psychological testing*

 

On another note TGHL, who do you think the Illuminati has planned as the next President of the USA?

It was only the National Anthem of the Soviet Union.

 

Allow me to consult Dan Brown, God of Truths which may be true, but may also not be true. Hmmm... Says here Hillary Clinton. Also says that she will introduce a welfare state in the US, achieve much good and then be assassinated by a disgruntled hamster.

ROFOCLH!!!

Good one! Here, have a freshly baked cakie for that response.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

Why thank you Horatio.

 

Anyway, on the topic of Bushisms, what do we think of Bush threatening to veto the proposed bills on Iraq? You know, this talk of vetoing reminds me of someone similar to Bush. He was called Andrew Johnson and tried to veto the 14th and 15th Amendments. Coincidence?

[Horatio]

Why thank you Horatio.

 

Anyway, on the topic of Bushisms, what do we think of Bush threatening to veto the proposed bills on Iraq? You know, this talk of vetoing reminds me of someone similar to Bush. He was called Andrew Johnson and tried to veto the 14th and 15th Amendments. Coincidence?

LOL. Why do you catch me off-guard and make me laugh? This always makes me forget what I was going to write. LOL

 

As for vetoing the proposed bills on Iraq. Who knows what he is thinking. I am against a total sudden withdrawal. There needs to be more thought and let the General do his job. A number of the Democrats are acting like lemmings and not thinking this through.

[Cheesus]

A sudden dropout would end unpleasantly. Now that we have this started, we can't just leave. unfortunately.

[Jesse]

It seems we are stuck in a giant pit that certain people in power have made for us. I am certainly not looking forward to paying high taxes and looking at the death toll rise because Bush wants to "stay the course," (nice grammar, Bush ) but it also would seem irresponsible to drop out immediately. The part that is bugging me is, Bush. I'm afraid of his stubbornness. I hope it is not our downfall.

[Cheesus]

It seems we are stuck in a giant pit that certain people in power have made for us. I am certainly not looking forward to paying high taxes and looking at the death toll rise because Bush wants to "stay the course," (nice grammar, Bush ) but it also would seem irresponsible to drop out immediately. The part that is bugging me is, Bush. I'm afraid of his stubbornness. I hope it is not our downfall.

 

 

The thing that really gets to me is the way that companies can change the price of gas whenever they want.

It was 2.16 a few months ago, now it is 1.61. >.<

Remember when 2.00 was outrageous?

But it someone tries to get government regulation on gas prices, there will be a bunch of people (probably involved with the gas companies) screaming communism.

[Horatio]

It seems we are stuck in a giant pit that certain people in power have made for us. I am certainly not looking forward to paying high taxes and looking at the death toll rise because Bush wants to "stay the course," (nice grammar, Bush ) but it also would seem irresponsible to drop out immediately. The part that is bugging me is, Bush. I'm afraid of his stubbornness. I hope it is not our downfall.

 

 

The thing that really gets to me is the way that companies can change the price of gas whenever they want.

It was 2.16 a few months ago, now it is 1.61. >.

Remember when 2.00 was outrageous?

But it someone tries to get government regulation on gas prices, there will be a bunch of people (probably involved with the gas companies) screaming communism.

Where are you getting gas???

It is $2.68 here in Florida and that is for regular.

[Cheesus]

It seems we are stuck in a giant pit that certain people in power have made for us. I am certainly not looking forward to paying high taxes and looking at the death toll rise because Bush wants to "stay the course," (nice grammar, Bush ) but it also would seem irresponsible to drop out immediately. The part that is bugging me is, Bush. I'm afraid of his stubbornness. I hope it is not our downfall.

 

 

The thing that really gets to me is the way that companies can change the price of gas whenever they want.

It was 2.16 a few months ago, now it is 1.61. >.<

Remember when 2.00 was outrageous?

But it someone tries to get government regulation on gas prices, there will be a bunch of people (probably involved with the gas companies) screaming communism.

Where are you getting gas???

It is $2.68 here in Florida and that is for regular.

 

Wawa has 2.61, regular.

[Horatio]

It seems we are stuck in a giant pit that certain people in power have made for us. I am certainly not looking forward to paying high taxes and looking at the death toll rise because Bush wants to "stay the course," (nice grammar, Bush ) but it also would seem irresponsible to drop out immediately. The part that is bugging me is, Bush. I'm afraid of his stubbornness. I hope it is not our downfall.

 

 

The thing that really gets to me is the way that companies can change the price of gas whenever they want.

It was 2.16 a few months ago, now it is 1.61. >.

Remember when 2.00 was outrageous?

But it someone tries to get government regulation on gas prices, there will be a bunch of people (probably involved with the gas companies) screaming communism.

Where are you getting gas???

It is $2.68 here in Florida and that is for regular.

 

Wawa has 2.61, regular.

[Cheesus]

It seems we are stuck in a giant pit that certain people in power have made for us. I am certainly not looking forward to paying high taxes and looking at the death toll rise because Bush wants to "stay the course," (nice grammar, Bush ) but it also would seem irresponsible to drop out immediately. The part that is bugging me is, Bush. I'm afraid of his stubbornness. I hope it is not our downfall.

 

 

The thing that really gets to me is the way that companies can change the price of gas whenever they want.

It was 2.16 a few months ago, now it is 1.61. >.<

Remember when 2.00 was outrageous?

But it someone tries to get government regulation on gas prices, there will be a bunch of people (probably involved with the gas companies) screaming communism.

Where are you getting gas???

It is $2.68 here in Florida and that is for regular.

 

Wawa has 2.61, regular.

 

 

whoops, typo. xD Why would I be complaining about 1.61? xD

[Horatio]

It seems we are stuck in a giant pit that certain people in power have made for us. I am certainly not looking forward to paying high taxes and looking at the death toll rise because Bush wants to "stay the course," (nice grammar, Bush ) but it also would seem irresponsible to drop out immediately. The part that is bugging me is, Bush. I'm afraid of his stubbornness. I hope it is not our downfall.

 

 

The thing that really gets to me is the way that companies can change the price of gas whenever they want.

It was 2.16 a few months ago, now it is 1.61. >.

Remember when 2.00 was outrageous?

But it someone tries to get government regulation on gas prices, there will be a bunch of people (probably involved with the gas companies) screaming communism.

Where are you getting gas???

It is $2.68 here in Florida and that is for regular.

 

Wawa has 2.61, regular.

 

whoops, typo. xD Why would I be complaining about 1.61? xD

I don't know. Why would you? LOL

[Jesse]

Remember when 2.00 was outrageous?

 

Not really, must have been before my time. Connecticut has inflated gas prices though, especially southern connecticut - it's not surprising at all to see 3.00 down there.

[Cheesus]

Remember when 2.00 was outrageous?

 

Not really, must have been before my time. Connecticut has inflated gas prices though, especially southern connecticut - it's not surprising at all to see 3.00 down there.

 

 

And that is why communism is great! =D

Not really. xD

Although, control over some of the necessties would be good. As long as it isn't abused. But the only power company around here declared that they needed to raise the electric bill by 72 per-modded-cent. Hah, 'Raishey is prolly gonna mod that. xD But still, they claimed that they needed to, due to some lame reason or another.

[Jesse]

And that is why communism is great! =D

Not really. xD

Although, control over some of the necessties would be good. As long as it isn't abused. But the only power company around here declared that they needed to raise the electric bill by 72 per-modded-cent. Hah, 'Raishey is prolly gonna mod that. xD But still, they claimed that they needed to, due to some lame reason or another.

Yep, ours shot up too a few months ago. The thing about government control though, is that they could also have lame reasons to raise it up a notch. Then again, in an indirect democracy the public also gets some control since we elect most of the government positions. So that's a good idea.

[Cheesus]

And that is why communism is great! =D

Not really. xD

Although, control over some of the necessties would be good. As long as it isn't abused. But the only power company around here declared that they needed to raise the electric bill by 72 per-modded-cent. Hah, 'Raishey is prolly gonna mod that. xD But still, they claimed that they needed to, due to some lame reason or another.

Yep, ours shot up too a few months ago. The thing about government control though, is that they could also have lame reasons to raise it up a notch. Then again, in an indirect democracy the public also gets some control since we elect most of the government positions. So that's a good idea.

The same reasons as the companies? Nothing to lose. xD

[Horatio]

And that is why communism is great! =D

Not really. xD

Although, control over some of the necessties would be good. As long as it isn't abused. But the only power company around here declared that they needed to raise the electric bill by 72 per-modded-cent. Hah, 'Raishey is prolly gonna mod that. xD But still, they claimed that they needed to, due to some lame reason or another.

Yep, ours shot up too a few months ago. The thing about government control though, is that they could also have lame reasons to raise it up a notch. Then again, in an indirect democracy the public also gets some control since we elect most of the government positions. So that's a good idea.

The same reasons as the companies? Nothing to lose. xD

Does anyone know the governor and state who had the most progressive wind generated electrical policies? This state was far ahead of it's time.

[Jesse]

Does anyone know the governor and state who had the most progressive wind generated electrical policies? This state was far ahead of it's time.

What is this, a trivia game? *searches* Is it Christine Gregoire in Washington State?

[Horatio]

Does anyone know the governor and state who had the most progressive wind generated electrical policies? This state was far ahead of it's time.

What is this, a trivia game? *searches* Is it Christine Gregoire in Washington State?

Not a trivia game, an eye-opening serious question.

And your answer is incorrect, actually Washington State isn't even in the top twenty.

[Cheesus]

Does anyone know the governor and state who had the most progressive wind generated electrical policies? This state was far ahead of it's time.

What is this, a trivia game? *searches* Is it Christine Gregoire in Washington State?

Not a trivia game, an eye-opening serious question.

And your answer is incorrect, actually Washington State isn't even in the top twenty.

Nevada maybe?

[Horatio]

Does anyone know the governor and state who had the most progressive wind generated electrical policies? This state was far ahead of it's time.

What is this, a trivia game? *searches* Is it Christine Gregoire in Washington State?

Not a trivia game, an eye-opening serious question.

And your answer is incorrect, actually Washington State isn't even in the top twenty.

Nevada maybe?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh pleeeezeeeeee.

No.

[Jesse]

Okay, I looked again. Appearently as of 2006 Texas has the most capacity with 2768 mega watts, with California just behind. However it looks like Texas doesn't host any related activities (workshops, loans, etc.), while California does. Although maybe they just don't need them there?

[Horatio]

Okay, I looked again. Appearently as of 2006 Texas has the most capacity with 2768 mega watts, with California just behind. However it looks like Texas doesn't host any related activities (workshops, loans, etc.), while California does. Although maybe they just don't need them there?

When President Bush was Gov. of Texas, had the most progressive wind energy program in the USA. Currently Texas has the number two output for the country. California is number 17.

[Jesse]

Okay, I looked again. Appearently as of 2006 Texas has the most capacity with 2768 mega watts, with California just behind. However it looks like Texas doesn't host any related activities (workshops, loans, etc.), while California does. Although maybe they just don't need them there?

When President Bush was Gov. of Texas, had the most progressive wind energy program in the USA. Currently Texas has the number two output for the country. California is number 17.

That is indeed interesting! That makes me wonder if Bush should have stuck with his job as Governor. He seemed to have some good ideas going for that state. Appearently as Governor he was able to make bipartisan coalitions and help with schools, prisons, etc...

[Horatio]

Okay, I looked again. Appearently as of 2006 Texas has the most capacity with 2768 mega watts, with California just behind. However it looks like Texas doesn't host any related activities (workshops, loans, etc.), while California does. Although maybe they just don't need them there?

When President Bush was Gov. of Texas, had the most progressive wind energy program in the USA. Currently Texas has the number two output for the country. California is number 17.

That is indeed interesting! That makes me wonder if Bush should have stuck with his job as Governor. He seemed to have some good ideas going for that state. Appearently as Governor he was able to make bipartisan coalitions and help with schools, prisons, etc...

If he would do for the country what he did for the state of Texas, the USA would be an alternate energy leader and would benefit financially.

[Cheesus]

Okay, I looked again. Appearently as of 2006 Texas has the most capacity with 2768 mega watts, with California just behind. However it looks like Texas doesn't host any related activities (workshops, loans, etc.), while California does. Although maybe they just don't need them there?

When President Bush was Gov. of Texas, had the most progressive wind energy program in the USA. Currently Texas has the number two output for the country. California is number 17.

That is indeed interesting! That makes me wonder if Bush should have stuck with his job as Governor. He seemed to have some good ideas going for that state. Appearently as Governor he was able to make bipartisan coalitions and help with schools, prisons, etc...

If he would do for the country what he did for the state of Texas, the USA would be an alternate energy leader and would benefit financially.

 

but, heh, saddam, he wants to hurt iTERRORISM! daddy.

[Cheesus]

Okay, I looked again. Appearently as of 2006 Texas has the most capacity with 2768 mega watts, with California just behind. However it looks like Texas doesn't host any related activities (workshops, loans, etc.), while California does. Although maybe they just don't need them there?

When President Bush was Gov. of Texas, had the most progressive wind energy program in the USA. Currently Texas has the number two output for the country. California is number 17.

That is indeed interesting! That makes me wonder if Bush should have stuck with his job as Governor. He seemed to have some good ideas going for that state. Appearently as Governor he was able to make bipartisan coalitions and help with schools, prisons, etc...

If he would do for the country what he did for the state of Texas, the USA would be an alternate energy leader and would benefit financially.

 

but, heh, saddam, he wants to hurt iTERRORISM! daddy.

 

^^^

comment upon how Bush mostly went after saddam because of the prior warring with his father.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

So, the Democrats are having a debate on some key issues and The Republican candidates have fallen into a coma before their debates next week, but what does everyone think of what the Democrats had to say? No doubt Horatio will find Clinton's comments vaccuous at best.

 

Democrats lay down early markers

By Justin Webb

BBC News, Orangeburg, South Carolina

 

 

There were two winners. The first, easily on the night, with a grace and poise that will cause concern among her adversaries, was Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton said she would not shy away from using military force

She addressed her most difficult issue - the war in Iraq - head on and without flinching.

"I take responsibility for my vote," that allowed the president to go to war in Iraq, she said.

"If I knew then what I know now we would not have gone to war."

But she made it clear at the same time - this message directed at the wider American public - that if America were to be attacked she would not shy from retaliation, "a military response".

She was the only candidate to grasp that this was a crucial (if vacuous) piece of political posturing if the charge that the Democrats are soft is to be repudiated.

 

Comedy politics

The other big winner, for my money, was Senator Joe Biden.

The senator is an odd character in US politics: he is a deeply serious man with a thoughtful but realistic approach to the world.

But at the same time he can come across as a total buffoon, prolix and pompous and self-regarding to an extent that is incommensurate even with the office of president of the United States.

In this debate he was on disciplined form and he made the evening's best (and only) joke.

 

Senator Biden promised to tone down his rhetoric

Asked straight out whether he could avoid the "uncontrollable verbosity" of his past, the language borrowed from others - he once stole a speech from the former British Labour party leader Neil Kinnock - the Senator paused for a second before answering, "yes".

And he said not a word more.

The questioner had to accept that he had been defeated, and move on to other matters.

I asked Senator Biden afterwards in the "spin room", where the candidates and reporters all gather, what the point was of these debates, so long before the real event of the election.

"People can get to know us," he said simply.

I think he will have endeared himself to some Democrats and his joke will be played over and over again, getting him just the kind of positive momentum you need from these outings.

 

Gun control

The other interesting aspect of the debate was the way in which the left wing of the Democrats was represented with gusto and character by Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Senator Mike Gravel.

Mr Gravel's strong views clashed with what we all perceive to be the average American world view.

Mr Gravel said the front runners actually frightened him, so addicted were they to war and violence, a comment that would describe the attitude of many around the world to the US itself.

Interesting to hear a presidential candidate voicing that fear. It reminds us all that there is another America, which is not always on show.

But at the same time how fascinating that this other America is really not out of step culturally with the nation at large.

On the basic issue of gun control the candidates were all, of course, in favour.

But when asked who actually had had a gun in the home at some stage of their lives both of the "left-wing" candidates raised their hands.

Only Mrs Clinton, Mr Edwards, and Mr Obama had never kept a firearm at home.

I suspect this will thrill Democratic party strategists, many of whom believe that gun issues lost them the 2000 election.

Even after the Virginia Tech massacre, they do not want the issue raised again.

All in all, a fascinating evening for aficionados of America and American politics.

Most Americans will wait many, many more months before even thinking about their choices, but if they want to join in, the fun has begun.

Next week the Republicans begin their debates. I, for one, cannot wait.

 

And what about the Democrats' decision to start pulling you out of the war by October? Which Bush will try and veto, but there is always the option of kneeing him in the crotch should he try to. We'll probably be half way out by then, leaving you some nice juicy insurgents in the South of the country to deal with. I'd say serves you right for giving us some of the most dangerous areas in Iraq to police, but that would be callous and be disrespectful to all the lives of the American soldiers who have been killed, no, slaughtered as part of Bush's plan to make sure his Daddy's oil trusts are packed full of cash.

[Horatio]

So, the Democrats are having a debate on some key issues and The Republican candidates have fallen into a coma before their debates next week, but what does everyone think of what the Democrats had to say? No doubt Horatio will find Clinton's comments vaccuous at best.

 

Democrats lay down early markers

By Justin Webb

BBC News, Orangeburg, South Carolina

 

 

There were two winners. The first, easily on the night, with a grace and poise that will cause concern among her adversaries, was Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton said she would not shy away from using military force

She addressed her most difficult issue - the war in Iraq - head on and without flinching.

"I take responsibility for my vote," that allowed the president to go to war in Iraq, she said.

"If I knew then what I know now we would not have gone to war."

But she made it clear at the same time - this message directed at the wider American public - that if America were to be attacked she would not shy from retaliation, "a military response".

She was the only candidate to grasp that this was a crucial (if vacuous) piece of political posturing if the charge that the Democrats are soft is to be repudiated.

 

Comedy politics

The other big winner, for my money, was Senator Joe Biden.

The senator is an odd character in US politics: he is a deeply serious man with a thoughtful but realistic approach to the world.

But at the same time he can come across as a total buffoon, prolix and pompous and self-regarding to an extent that is incommensurate even with the office of president of the United States.

In this debate he was on disciplined form and he made the evening's best (and only) joke.

 

Senator Biden promised to tone down his rhetoric

Asked straight out whether he could avoid the "uncontrollable verbosity" of his past, the language borrowed from others - he once stole a speech from the former British Labour party leader Neil Kinnock - the Senator paused for a second before answering, "yes".

And he said not a word more.

The questioner had to accept that he had been defeated, and move on to other matters.

I asked Senator Biden afterwards in the "spin room", where the candidates and reporters all gather, what the point was of these debates, so long before the real event of the election.

"People can get to know us," he said simply.

I think he will have endeared himself to some Democrats and his joke will be played over and over again, getting him just the kind of positive momentum you need from these outings.

 

Gun control

The other interesting aspect of the debate was the way in which the left wing of the Democrats was represented with gusto and character by Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Senator Mike Gravel.

Mr Gravel's strong views clashed with what we all perceive to be the average American world view.

Mr Gravel said the front runners actually frightened him, so addicted were they to war and violence, a comment that would describe the attitude of many around the world to the US itself.

Interesting to hear a presidential candidate voicing that fear. It reminds us all that there is another America, which is not always on show.

But at the same time how fascinating that this other America is really not out of step culturally with the nation at large.

On the basic issue of gun control the candidates were all, of course, in favour.

But when asked who actually had had a gun in the home at some stage of their lives both of the "left-wing" candidates raised their hands.

Only Mrs Clinton, Mr Edwards, and Mr Obama had never kept a firearm at home.

I suspect this will thrill Democratic party strategists, many of whom believe that gun issues lost them the 2000 election.

Even after the Virginia Tech massacre, they do not want the issue raised again.

All in all, a fascinating evening for aficionados of America and American politics.

Most Americans will wait many, many more months before even thinking about their choices, but if they want to join in, the fun has begun.

Next week the Republicans begin their debates. I, for one, cannot wait.

 

And what about the Democrats' decision to start pulling you out of the war by October? Which Bush will try and veto, but there is always the option of kneeing him in the crotch should he try to. We'll probably be half way out by then, leaving you some nice juicy insurgents in the South of the country to deal with. I'd say serves you right for giving us some of the most dangerous areas in Iraq to police, but that would be callous and be disrespectful to all the lives of the American soldiers who have been killed, no, slaughtered as part of Bush's plan to make sure his Daddy's oil trusts are packed full of cash.

Welcome back TGHL!!! You have been missed.

As for my comments, I will withold them until someone else has spoken.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

Well, the media over here (by media, I exclude the tabloids and newspapers run by the fascist Murdoch, all tabloids, the Daily Telegraph, BSkyB, Channel 4, five and ITV. That means that my idea of the media includes about 5/6 newspapers out of 20 odd and two television channels (the BBC and Al-Jazeera. Yes I watch it. Both of them as a matter of fact)) has been very complimentry of Mrs.Clinton's performance, lauding her for her performance in the debates, but commenting on how vaccuous her comments on Iraq were. Barack Obama, no surprise, is ranked second and then it varies from source to source. Personally, I do feel Clinton performed best, but was politically vaccuous, her promises, pledges and opinions striking as a bit too populist. Although as The Guardian reports, one student said: ""Overall, Hillary did best. I was disappointed in Obama. Before I was torn betweeen Hillary and Obama," Not looking good for Obama. I say Obama for VP, give him some experience and when they have another Presidential election let him stand as Presidential candidate for the Democrats. He'll have more experience and be a better candidate for it.

 

The Republican debates are going to be absolutely hilarious though. I place £10 (thanks to Bush that is about $20 now. That's what you get for not controlling inflation, a weak dollar which is now at its lowest level since Britain went to decimal currency, I could now pop off over there and get stuff dirt cheap. Thank you George, I can now exploit your country's prices) on that McCain slips into a coma half way through and has to be taken off in a wheel chair.

 

Also nice to see the Amercian intelligence services can occassionally, and at random, make a terrorist arrest. How did they find this 3rd ranked Al-Queda member so he could be detained without trial and tortured in Guantanamo? Did they just walk over his hole while on patrol and fall down it? Or did Georgie throw a dart at a map of Iraq and say "Arrest all the people there."?

 

Now whereas your country's politics are getting wearisome, the French presidential elections are heating up and getting very interesting. Horatio, I demand you give your opinion on the two candidates. I am backing Royal, as I hate Thatcher and Sarkozy loves her.

[Horatio]

Well, the media over here (by media, I exclude the tabloids and newspapers run by the fascist Murdoch, all tabloids, the Daily Telegraph, BSkyB, Channel 4, five and ITV. That means that my idea of the media includes about 5/6 newspapers out of 20 odd and two television channels (the BBC and Al-Jazeera. Yes I watch it. Both of them as a matter of fact)) has been very complimentry of Mrs.Clinton's performance, lauding her for her performance in the debates, but commenting on how vaccuous her comments on Iraq were. Barack Obama, no surprise, is ranked second and then it varies from source to source. Personally, I do feel Clinton performed best, but was politically vaccuous, her promises, pledges and opinions striking as a bit too populist. Although as The Guardian reports, one student said: ""Overall, Hillary did best. I was disappointed in Obama. Before I was torn betweeen Hillary and Obama," Not looking good for Obama. I say Obama for VP, give him some experience and when they have another Presidential election let him stand as Presidential candidate for the Democrats. He'll have more experience and be a better candidate for it.

 

The Republican debates are going to be absolutely hilarious though. I place £10 (thanks to Bush that is about $20 now. That's what you get for not controlling inflation, a weak dollar which is now at its lowest level since Britain went to decimal currency, I could now pop off over there and get stuff dirt cheap. Thank you George, I can now exploit your country's prices) on that McCain slips into a coma half way through and has to be taken off in a wheel chair.

 

Also nice to see the Amercian intelligence services can occassionally, and at random, make a terrorist arrest. How did they find this 3rd ranked Al-Queda member so he could be detained without trial and tortured in Guantanamo? Did they just walk over his hole while on patrol and fall down it? Or did Georgie throw a dart at a map of Iraq and say "Arrest all the people there."?

 

Now whereas your country's politics are getting wearisome, the French presidential elections are heating up and getting very interesting. Horatio, I demand you give your opinion on the two candidates. I am backing Royal, as I hate Thatcher and Sarkozy loves her.

*knows it is past TGHL's bedtime*

I will give someone a bit more time to answer. I just know we have people with political views they want to share.

[Jesse]

I agree with TGHL in that Obama should run as VP. He can get the coattail effect and maybe go for presidency after his running mate's reign. It's one thing to have nothing bad on your record, but it's another to not have anything on it at all, except perhaps the keynote address. He's just too...fresh, at the moment, for the presidency.

 

I am also leaning toward Royal in the French race, although I don't know too much about the candidates save certain quotations and what they want to help France achieve.

 

That's all I have to say at the moment, except yes, our inflation is pretty bad. I'm trying to find a stance on gun control, but that's one issue that just seems to be bad to me from either end.

 

Oh yeah, I should at least say something about Iraq, which I'm getting more discouraged about. We just seem to like doing more and more stupid things, the current one being trapping people in walls. That's going to be a pain in the butt if Bush gets his way with the "troops surge" plan (which I'm undecided about at the moment). And I keep thinking it's like another Berlin-during-the-cold-war situation. I want it all to stop, someway, somehow...I'm starting to care less and less about how it turns out in the end because the process is more and more of a problem in itself.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

Did someone mention power surge!?!? Eat British satire Bush:

 

 

And Horatio, you owe me some opinions or musings at the very least.

[Horatio]

Did someone mention power surge!?!? Eat British satire Bush:

 

 

And Horatio, you owe me some opinions or musings at the very least.

First... you should be in bed. What are you doing up so late???

Second... I didn't think anyone would respond so quickly.

Third... great cartoon!!! You have to love that British humour.

[Jesse]

Did someone mention power surge!?!? Eat British satire Bush:

 

 

And Horatio, you owe me some opinions or musings at the very least.

First... you should be in bed. What are you doing up so late???

Second... I didn't think anyone would respond so quickly.

Third... great cartoon!!! You have to love that British humour.

*blinks* where is the post you quoted? Did you not let that through or something? I wanna see the comic!

[The Grim Hamster lord]

Did someone mention power surge!?!? Eat British satire Bush:

 

 

And Horatio, you owe me some opinions or musings at the very least.

First... you should be in bed. What are you doing up so late???

Second... I didn't think anyone would respond so quickly.

Third... great cartoon!!! You have to love that British humour.

Its midnight, I'm a manic depressive and have insomnia as a result. Its fine though, it means I get to do more work. XP

Ha, I'll give you time to prepare one of your careful and considered responses with insightful comments and everything.

Satire is where we excel when it comes to humour, and I think you may appreciate some more cartoons about Bush by this cartoonist...

 

kekeke.

 

And on human rights, we may want to refer to the Iranian crackdown on the "revolutionary dresscode" as one of the social freedoms which they won under the previous reformist president is cracked down upon and now women must be strictly in compliance with the dresscode or face arrest and trial by Islamic Court. And if Bush dares invade Iran, I will go psycho. People mistake Iran constantly for a dictatorship with a corrupt leader, but that is what the USA has done for Iran's international face, in reality it is just an authoritarian democracy with heavy religious influences and overtones. Like the US. It favours have nuclear weapons and justifies a new arms race. Like the US. It has a habit of being internationally very tetchy and atagonistic while funding and training some terrorist groups. Like the US. Oh the two way hypocrisy we have between these two countries.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

PS Whatever happened to my previous post?

[Horatio]

Well, the media over here (by media, I exclude the tabloids and newspapers run by the fascist Murdoch, all tabloids, the Daily Telegraph, BSkyB, Channel 4, five and ITV. That means that my idea of the media includes about 5/6 newspapers out of 20 odd and two television channels (the BBC and Al-Jazeera. Yes I watch it. Both of them as a matter of fact)) has been very complimentry of Mrs.Clinton's performance, lauding her for her performance in the debates, but commenting on how vaccuous her comments on Iraq were. Barack Obama, no surprise, is ranked second and then it varies from source to source. Personally, I do feel Clinton performed best, but was politically vaccuous, her promises, pledges and opinions striking as a bit too populist. Although as The Guardian reports, one student said: ""Overall, Hillary did best. I was disappointed in Obama. Before I was torn betweeen Hillary and Obama," Not looking good for Obama. I say Obama for VP, give him some experience and when they have another Presidential election let him stand as Presidential candidate for the Democrats. He'll have more experience and be a better candidate for it.

 

The Republican debates are going to be absolutely hilarious though. I place £10 (thanks to Bush that is about $20 now. That's what you get for not controlling inflation, a weak dollar which is now at its lowest level since Britain went to decimal currency, I could now pop off over there and get stuff dirt cheap. Thank you George, I can now exploit your country's prices) on that McCain slips into a coma half way through and has to be taken off in a wheel chair.

 

Also nice to see the Amercian intelligence services can occassionally, and at random, make a terrorist arrest. How did they find this 3rd ranked Al-Queda member so he could be detained without trial and tortured in Guantanamo? Did they just walk over his hole while on patrol and fall down it? Or did Georgie throw a dart at a map of Iraq and say "Arrest all the people there."?

 

Now whereas your country's politics are getting wearisome, the French presidential elections are heating up and getting very interesting. Horatio, I demand you give your opinion on the two candidates. I am backing Royal, as I hate Thatcher and Sarkozy loves her.

Nothing Hillary Dillary Dock can say will make me like her. She is more abrasive than sandpaper.

 

Personally, I like Barach Obama. He may not have enough experience to be President, but I would vote for him any day over Hillary. You get Hillary, you get Billy.

As far as what is spewing from Hillary's mouth, it has nothing to do with her beliefs, it is just what she thinks the public wants to hear to vote her in. Blah, blah, blah... You got what you were looking for, a performance. Enough said.

 

As for the Republicans, Fred Thompson may surprise everyone if the grassroots group can urge him to run.

 

France... Royal looks like a great candidate. Personally I would like to see her achieve victory.

 

Iraq. What a mess. I want to finish reading as much as I could on the report by General Petraeus before I comment.

[Horatio]

Did someone mention power surge!?!? Eat British satire Bush:

 

 

And Horatio, you owe me some opinions or musings at the very least.

First... you should be in bed. What are you doing up so late???

Second... I didn't think anyone would respond so quickly.

Third... great cartoon!!! You have to love that British humour.

Its midnight, I'm a manic depressive and have insomnia as a result. Its fine though, it means I get to do more work. XP

Ha, I'll give you time to prepare one of your careful and considered responses with insightful comments and everything.

Satire is where we excel when it comes to humour, and I think you may appreciate some more cartoons about Bush by this cartoonist...

 

kekeke.

 

And on human rights, we may want to refer to the Iranian crackdown on the "revolutionary dresscode" as one of the social freedoms which they won under the previous reformist president is cracked down upon and now women must be strictly in compliance with the dresscode or face arrest and trial by Islamic Court. And if Bush dares invade Iran, I will go psycho. People mistake Iran constantly for a dictatorship with a corrupt leader, but that is what the USA has done for Iran's international face, in reality it is just an authoritarian democracy with heavy religious influences and overtones. Like the US. It favours have nuclear weapons and justifies a new arms race. Like the US. It has a habit of being internationally very tetchy and atagonistic while funding and training some terrorist groups. Like the US. Oh the two way hypocrisy we have between these two countries.

Manic depressive with insomnia, no wonder I enjoy your writing so much. You have such a way with words. LOL

 

British satire is so entertaining. Your political cartoons are great.

 

The Middle East has different views regarding women. I do not agree with these views and wish all women could achieve equality.

[Horatio]

Did someone mention power surge!?!? Eat British satire Bush:

 

 

And Horatio, you owe me some opinions or musings at the very least.

First... you should be in bed. What are you doing up so late???

Second... I didn't think anyone would respond so quickly.

Third... great cartoon!!! You have to love that British humour.

*blinks* where is the post you quoted? Did you not let that through or something? I wanna see the comic!

One of the flaws of the board. I reply before I approve it so it happens in two steps. Otherwise, it takes four steps to approve it first and then reply.

[Horatio]

PS Whatever happened to my previous post?

It is there.

[Jesse]

So Bush vetoed the troop withdrawal bill, and once again we find ourselves with no hint of an exit strategy. Not like I didn't expect him to veto it or anything, but still...it's depressing. Bush is all like, "setting a deadline will demoralize the Iraqi people," but don't they find it demoralizing that we have no idea when or how we will leave them to be their own integrity? The fact that some of them are trapped in our walls probably doesn't help in that regard either. Perhaps some are starting to doubt that we will ever leave, we will just be there in all our "world police" goodness...I feel sorry for those people. I'm not sure if this bill was the "right thing" or not, and no one will ever know. But someday I just want Bush to wake up from his stubbornness and admit that enough is enough, and just start...cooperating, actually cooperating, instead of just pretending to do it.

[Horatio]

So Bush vetoed the troop withdrawal bill, and once again we find ourselves with no hint of an exit strategy. Not like I didn't expect him to veto it or anything, but still...it's depressing. Bush is all like, "setting a deadline will demoralize the Iraqi people," but don't they find it demoralizing that we have no idea when or how we will leave them to be their own integrity? The fact that some of them are trapped in our walls probably doesn't help in that regard either. Perhaps some are starting to doubt that we will ever leave, we will just be there in all our "world police" goodness...I feel sorry for those people. I'm not sure if this bill was the "right thing" or not, and no one will ever know. But someday I just want Bush to wake up from his stubbornness and admit that enough is enough, and just start...cooperating, actually cooperating, instead of just pretending to do it.

Unfortunately I don't think he will wake-up until he is out of office.

[Cheesus]

So Bush vetoed the troop withdrawal bill, and once again we find ourselves with no hint of an exit strategy. Not like I didn't expect him to veto it or anything, but still...it's depressing. Bush is all like, "setting a deadline will demoralize the Iraqi people," but don't they find it demoralizing that we have no idea when or how we will leave them to be their own integrity? The fact that some of them are trapped in our walls probably doesn't help in that regard either. Perhaps some are starting to doubt that we will ever leave, we will just be there in all our "world police" goodness...I feel sorry for those people. I'm not sure if this bill was the "right thing" or not, and no one will ever know. But someday I just want Bush to wake up from his stubbornness and admit that enough is enough, and just start...cooperating, actually cooperating, instead of just pretending to do it.

Unfortunately I don't think he will wake-up until he is out of office.

I doubt that he will ever wake up, really.

[Jesse]

Well, now it seems one of our attacks in Iraq killed 6 children at an elementary school. No comment from Bush is in sight. *pokes him* Nope, still asleep.

[Horatio]

Well, now it seems one of our attacks in Iraq killed 6 children at an elementary school. No comment from Bush is in sight. *pokes him* Nope, still asleep.

So sad.

Of course, some of the news you don't hear is that in some of the fighting, the children have weapons and are shooting at our soldiers and they try and shoot over the heads of these children, until they need to defend themselves. These are the same children that took candy from the soldiers just hours before.

[Jesse]

So sad.

Of course, some of the news you don't hear is that in some of the fighting, the children have weapons and are shooting at our soldiers and they try and shoot over the heads of these children, until they need to defend themselves. These are the same children that took candy from the soldiers just hours before.

Wow, that certainly is news I don't hear. What happened that made the place so war-bent? Why does it feel like everyone there is making it about war?

[Horatio]

So sad.

Of course, some of the news you don't hear is that in some of the fighting, the children have weapons and are shooting at our soldiers and they try and shoot over the heads of these children, until they need to defend themselves. These are the same children that took candy from the soldiers just hours before.

Wow, that certainly is news I don't hear. What happened that made the place so war-bent? Why does it feel like everyone there is making it about war?

My guess is for a couple reasons: first, that region has been fighting, at war, for the last 2000 or more years and second, they are tribal.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

Violence brings Pakistan full circle

By Ilyas Khan

BBC News, Karachi

 

The deaths of at least 34 people in violent clashes in Pakistan's southern port city of Karachi have brought the anti-government lawyers' movement into a new phase.

 

Injured man in Karachi

The clashes were Pakistan's worst political violence in years

 

The movement was formed after President Pervez Musharraf suspended the country's chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and for two months has been involved in peaceful protests, attracting increasing numbers of political and civil society activists.

 

In a climactic rally on 5 May, tens of thousands of people gathered to hear the chief justice in Lahore, capital of the politically important Punjab Province.

 

Many believed a similar reception in Karachi, the country's financial hub, would cause a permanent dent in Gen Musharraf's power.

 

Instead, the chief justice found himself stranded at Karachi's airport for nine hours as the city descended into anarchy.

 

MQM challenge

 

The violence was not entirely unexpected however.

 

The decision by the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), an ally of the president, to hold a rally in the city on the same day was widely seen by observers as a serious problem.

 

The MQM-dominated Sindh provincial government also expressed its concern at the potential clash, and advised the chief justice to reschedule his visit.

 

 

CHAUDHRY SUSPENSION

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry

9 March: Musharraf suspends Chaudhry for "misuse of authority"

16 March: Violence at pro-Chaudhry rally in Islamabad

3 April: Chaudhry appears before private session of court

6 May: Large rally in support of Chaudhry in Lahore

12 May: Violence in Karachi, ahead of planned rally

 

Timeline: Judicial crisis

 

But Mr Chaudhry's supporters refused, saying his visit had been planned before the MQM's rally, and called on party to reschedule instead.

 

The MQM has dominated politics in Karachi since the mid-1980s, often engaging in violent exchanges with rival parties such as the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), the Jamaat-e-Islami, and various ethnic groups in the city.

 

Since 2002, it has been a partner in the federal government, as well as in the province's government.

 

Overnight, Sindh's government ramped up security in Karachi.

 

Hundreds of trucks and shipping containers were brought in to block all routes leading to the airport and the Sindh High Court.

 

By morning, however, the security forces had virtually disappeared.

 

A series of small rallies by the MQM merged on the main road from the airport to the centre of the city.

 

Meanwhile, a series of opposition demonstrations advanced from the city towards the airport.

 

Armed clashes broke out at half a dozen points along the road whenever the two sides met.

 

It was only in the evening, after more than 30 people had been killed and 100 injured, that the security services moved in to stop the violence.

 

High stakes

 

The pattern is vaguely familiar.

 

Pakistan's military-dominated establishment is known to have used armed groups to control elections in the past.

 

 

In the past, a decrease in [the MQM's] propensity for violence has invariably led to a decrease in the number of votes it receives

 

Saturday's violence comes ahead of a general election later this year, in which both Gen Musharraf and the MQM have high stakes.

 

The president wants to be re-elected by the current parliament before its term ends in October. He also wants to remain head of the army.

 

Rocked by the crisis over the judiciary, and having no national political support base, observers believe Gen Musharraf wants to foster the support of regional forces like the MQM.

 

For its part, the MQM is seeking to maintain a stranglehold on Karachi, its sole powerbase, by keeping rival forces in check.

 

Local commentators say that, in the past, a decrease in its propensity for violence has invariably led to a decrease in the number of votes it receives.

 

The question is whether Saturday's violence will help further the aims of the president and the MQM.

 

Vicious circle

 

Gen Musharraf has put up with an unpopular policy of siding with the US in its "war on terror" because of a lack of credible political support at home.

 

Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad, 12-5-2007

Mr Musharraf has blamed Mr Chaudhry for the violence

 

He has been courting the opposition PPP, said to be the country's largest political party, to make up for this handicap.

 

But observers believe Saturday's events will have thrown a possible alliance with the PPP into jeopardy. Sindh has long been the group's main area of support.

 

They say the violence may now pave the way for the emergence of a combined opposition with the PPP in the lead. Such a coalition would be likely to support the lawyers' movement.

 

In turn, this will weaken the president's efforts to build domestic support and force him to continue relying on foreign powers for survival.

 

As for MQM, it has come full circle in its transformation - from a militant organization to a political party, and back.

 

Over the last 15 years, it has taken pains to shed its narrow ethnic support among Karachi's Urdu-speaking population by forging ties with its Balochi, Sindhi, Pashtun and Punjabi communities.

 

But many believe Saturday's events have shown instead that Karachi may descend into the same pattern of ethnic strife that pitted the MQM's main support group against the others from 1986 to 1996.

 

El Pakistani Presidenté is being very rude. Dictatorship must end now, democracy back in charge please.

 

And incidentally, I think the people of Iraq may take the slightest offence at the tribal remark. I don't think it is because they are tribal at all, it is a couple of other reasons. Of course you can justify the tribal remark, after all; all countries, nations, states and individuals are extremely tribal. A selection of examples from America itself would be a penchant for cannibalism (Ed Gein and the other multitudes of serial killers that have been caught), territorial (Mexican immigrant disputes), viciousness (er... Iraq?) and power seeking (Bush). If you want a really good tribal example, look at the Phelps. All countries are tribal, they exist because humans are very tribal it is all just a question of scale.

 

And incidentally, the whole children attacking US soldiers thing? There are two key reasons for this: religion (oh glorified brainwashing machine) and patriotism (all countries have this. It ultimately destroys us.) After all, why not die for your country if you think you have got a one way ticket to Paradise booked with no fear of delays or cancellation?

 

Perhaps not the most auspicious way to re enter the topic, but a re-entry procedure none the less.

[Cheesus]

And TGHL has brought up my greatest complaint about religion: the power to control the mind.

[Horatio]

And TGHL has brought up my greatest complaint about religion: the power to control the mind.

Very true. Look at Jim Jones. Now that is a very scary scenario.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

RARR! I HAVE FURY!

 

Mainly as a result of Bush's claim that in 18 months, thanks to him and his amazing climate changing efforts, the war on climate change will have begun with a "Global target" for reducing emissions. This is rubbish. It is not legally binding, so you can merely sign the stupid thing as a token gesture and not do anything about it , and is going to underestimate the efforts of the German Presidency of the G8 to get a legally binding treaty signed by all its members in the next few weeks. This is infuriating. It will do nothing for the climate except allow some politicians to rub their hands in glee as they think they have tricked the populous into thinking they care about the environment when all they're doing is destroying it at the same rate as before.

[Jesse]

It is stupid, yes, and a waste of time, but it's nothing new. Bush has been avoiding anything concerning the environment for pretty much his whole presidential career. While I don't want a president that might break the back of the country just for the environment, I would like to have a president that doesn't blow it off this much.

[Horatio]

It is stupid, yes, and a waste of time, but it's nothing new. Bush has been avoiding anything concerning the environment for pretty much his whole presidential career. While I don't want a president that might break the back of the country just for the environment, I would like to have a president that doesn't blow it off this much.

If President Bush would set high environmental standards for the US, tell all US companies it will be mandatory they meet these standards, set a time limit these goals must be achieved, then back this with money; what will happen is the US will be creating the technology that is used around the world, we will be leading the world in reducing use of fossil fuels and reducing our greenhouse gases, we will be a leader by our actions.

 

This will not be a burden on the country and will definitely not break the country's back, what will happen is that we will be the leader in environmental technology that the world will want to purchase. We will have created the leading edge technology and that is the place to be. It is going to happen. Are we going to be making the technology or trying to catch up to the rest of the world?

[Jesse]

Are we going to be making the technology or trying to catch up to the rest of the world?

Yes, unfortunately it feels like the latter for us, in more and more areas such as literacy, health care, and voter turnout. We need a kick in the butt. *throws a kick*

[wildcat]

Woah!!!!! I really need to get out more as far as the hamster boards go! So this is where TGHL lurks! man, i thought you died or something! This is my first time posting in the 'Hampton' section for like two years!

 

My crazy english teacher would just explode in happyness if Hillary Clinton (ick) even ran for president!

[Horatio]

Are we going to be making the technology or trying to catch up to the rest of the world?

Yes, unfortunately it feels like the latter for us, in more and more areas such as literacy, health care, and voter turnout. We need a kick in the butt. *throws a kick*

You can make a difference. If young people stated their vote would be for the candidate who reflected their views, and they were looking for change in environment, literacy, health care and they demonstrated they would come out and vote, change would occur.

 

At the moment, I am very unhappy with the system. We allow politicians to do things that most of the general public does not. For example, American's who are airline pilots, must retire by age 60. Yet you and your entire family could get on an airplane in New York (for example), fly to Los Angeles with a foreign pilot up to age 65. Politicians can work until they die in their seat. If you work or go to school, your employer has the right to drug test you for drugs and alcohol, yet, a politician can go to lunch with a lobbyist, have a few martinis, then come back and vote on a bill that directly impacts your life. The candidates now see who has the most money in their war chest and the person with the most money wins. There should be equal money for all candidates. Then we would see a big difference. As for the electoral college... that is for another post.

 

On another note... did you hear Fred Thompson is planning on running? For all those Law and Order Fans, he is one of the actors who plays the District Attorney role. Mr. Thompson was also a Senator from Tennessee. This should be interesting.

[Horatio]

Woah!!!!! I really need to get out more as far as the hamster boards go! So this is where TGHL lurks! man, i thought you died or something! This is my first time posting in the 'Hampton' section for like two years!

 

My crazy english teacher would just explode in happyness if Hillary Clinton (ick) even ran for president!

Hillary Clinton would make an awful President.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

Woah!!!!! I really need to get out more as far as the hamster boards go! So this is where TGHL lurks! man, i thought you died or something! This is my first time posting in the 'Hampton' section for like two years!

 

My crazy english teacher would just explode in happyness if Hillary Clinton (ick) even ran for president!

Hillary Clinton would make an awful President.

Barack Obama would make a great vice-President.

[Horatio]

Woah!!!!! I really need to get out more as far as the hamster boards go! So this is where TGHL lurks! man, i thought you died or something! This is my first time posting in the 'Hampton' section for like two years!

 

My crazy english teacher would just explode in happyness if Hillary Clinton (ick) even ran for president!

Hillary Clinton would make an awful President.

Barack Obama would make a great vice-President.

I like Barack Obama.

As far as Hillary, I would rather vote for a slug then see that woman in office.

She has no desire to know about our country, she just wants to see herself as the first woman president.

That is not good enough to be president. She has only been a senator for a bit, being the First Lady does not count for experience.

[wildcat]

Hillary Clinton as president would be awful! Thats like having Kathleen Blanco as governess! Wait, too late!

[Horatio]

Hillary Clinton as president would be awful! Thats like having Kathleen Blanco as governess! Wait, too late!

Glad we agree on this!!!

[The Grim Hamster lord]

Woah!!!!! I really need to get out more as far as the hamster boards go! So this is where TGHL lurks! man, i thought you died or something! This is my first time posting in the 'Hampton' section for like two years!

 

My crazy english teacher would just explode in happyness if Hillary Clinton (ick) even ran for president!

Hillary Clinton would make an awful President.

Barack Obama would make a great vice-President.

I like Barack Obama.

As far as Hillary, I would rather vote for a slug then see that woman in office.

She has no desire to know about our country, she just wants to see herself as the first woman president.

That is not good enough to be president. She has only been a senator for a bit, being the First Lady does not count for experience.

Surely she is the best out of a bad bunch?

[Horatio]

Woah!!!!! I really need to get out more as far as the hamster boards go! So this is where TGHL lurks! man, i thought you died or something! This is my first time posting in the 'Hampton' section for like two years!

 

My crazy english teacher would just explode in happyness if Hillary Clinton (ick) even ran for president!

Hillary Clinton would make an awful President.

Barack Obama would make a great vice-President.

I like Barack Obama.

As far as Hillary, I would rather vote for a slug then see that woman in office.

She has no desire to know about our country, she just wants to see herself as the first woman president.

That is not good enough to be president. She has only been a senator for a bit, being the First Lady does not count for experience.

Surely she is the best out of a bad bunch?

She is the worst out of a bad bunch.

[Jesse]

She is the worst out of a bad bunch.

Who would you like to be the democratic nominee?

[lexxscrapham]

You know, I Think we should find a couple of borderline sociopaths and get them to run.. make politics about the lesser of evils again..

Debating the evils of lessers is just not that much fun.

[Horatio]

She is the worst out of a bad bunch.

Who would you like to be the democratic nominee?

Let me think on this one.

[Horatio]

You know, I Think we should find a couple of borderline sociopaths and get them to run.. make politics about the lesser of evils again..

Debating the evils of lessers is just not that much fun.

Borderline sociopaths... now that would be interesting.

Except add a couple things to the mix, pathological lying and a criminal record would be good.

[Jesse]

Let me think on this one.

I just saw that the democrats are going to hold a debate in New Hampshire on Tuesday, I don't know what time it is but if I catch it then that should be some food for thought (assuming the debate is in anyway productive, which is probably a big assumption).

[Horatio]

Let me think on this one.

I just saw that the democrats are going to hold a debate in New Hampshire on Tuesday, I don't know what time it is but if I catch it then that should be some food for thought (assuming the debate is in anyway productive, which is probably a big assumption).

*waits for a report from Jesse on the upcoming debate*

[The Grim Hamster lord]

Let me think on this one.

I just saw that the democrats are going to hold a debate in New Hampshire on Tuesday, I don't know what time it is but if I catch it then that should be some food for thought (assuming the debate is in anyway productive, which is probably a big assumption).

*waits for a report from Jesse on the upcoming debate*

Advantage of living in a different time zone you see...

 

Faced with the challenge of standing out in a crowded field, the eight Democratic presidential hopefuls seemed keen to focus on their differences - and were more than willing to clash over them.

 

John Edwards

Edwards went in hard on Iraq - a war he had voted for

 

With the latest polls putting New York Senator Hillary Clinton top of the field, closest rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards know they need to stake out a position of attack.

 

Last month's Senate vote on a contested Iraq war funding bill provided the ammunition for an early salvo.

 

Mr Edwards, former senator for North Carolina, accused Ms Clinton and Mr Obama -who voted against the bill but were among the last to do so - of not showing the kind of leadership expected of a president.

 

Mr Obama, senator for Illinois, shot back: "The fact is I opposed this war from the start. So you're about four-and-a-half years late on the issue."

 

Ms Clinton was quick to point the finger of blame elsewhere, reminding viewers it was "George Bush's war".

 

Striking a conciliatory note, she added: "The differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don't want anybody in America to be confused."

 

But Mr Edwards was not to be deterred, stressing again that "there are important differences between us on this. And the voters are entitled to know that."

 

High stakes

 

Ms Clinton, coming under pressure over her refusal to apologise for having approved the invasion of Iraq, stuck to the line that it was a "sincere vote" based on the information she had at the time.

 

Mr Edwards - who has repeatedly said he regrets his own 2002 vote in favour - used the opportunity to praise Mr Obama's long-term opposition to the war at Ms Clinton's and his own expense. "He was right. I was wrong," he said to applause.

 

Asked why he alone among the four Democratic senators in the race had voted to authorise the Iraq war funding bill last month, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden said he had had no choice when the safety of troops was at stake.

 

 

"I knew the right political vote, but I tell you what: some things are worth losing elections over"

Joseph Biden

Delaware Senator

 

"And I knew the right political vote, but I tell you what: some things are worth losing elections over."

 

Speaking to reporters after the debate, Mr Biden pointed out that his son, Beau, was the captain of a National Guard unit that may be posted to Iraq next year. He would not endanger troops' safety just to send a political message, he insisted.

 

Both Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, also long-shot candidates, joined Mr Edwards in criticising the front-runners for doing too little to stop the war.

 

With no decisive indications yet emerging on who will be the Democrats' chosen nominee at the primaries, the game remains in play.

 

Mr Obama, who left some observers disappointed with a rather stilted performance at the first debate in South Carolina in April, was back on form and dominated the air time.

 

Meanwhile Mr Edwards seemed sharper on the attack than before, while Ms Clinton managed to maintain her poise under attack and address the wider battle to beat the Republicans in November 2008.

 

'Rock star' trio

 

The positioning by host CNN of the three main contenders next to each other heightened the impression of a three-way rivalry, with the second tier candidates often left out of shot on the fringes of the stage.

 

 

DEMOCRATIC CONTENDERS

Joe Biden

Hillary Clinton

Chris Dodd

John Edwards

Mike Gravel

Dennis Kucinich

Barack Obama

Bill Richardson

 

Several complained afterwards that they had been given far fewer questions than the main contenders, adding to the challenge of matching the "rock star" status of the big three.

 

Apart from Iraq, questions focused on domestic issues including national security, immigration, taxes and healthcare, plus the question of how to tackle the threat of a nuclear attack from Iran.

 

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said he was one of those disappointed by how few questions he had been asked in the first half of the debate.

 

But he did earn praise for his foreign policy experience from Ms Clinton, one of the few concessions in a fiercely fought contest.

 

The 10 official Republican contenders will take their turn in the New Hampshire spotlight on Tuesday.

 

And the Iraq war may well once again be the issue that won't go away.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

I failed to mention that I think that Edwards is a pathetic opportunist who will do anything in an attempt to seize votes? In this debate at least he is. And Clinton may also be an opportunist, but at least she's got a decent senate record behind her in terms of what she has done for New York that is.

 

Look, the 3 main runners are as follows for the Democrats:

Edwards

Obama

Clinton

 

Edwards is an idiotic, limp popularist and opportunist. So no Presidency for him.

 

Obama is too inexperienced, he wasn't even in the Senate when Iraq was being voted on.

 

That leaves us with Clinton which, while she has plenty of negatives, may be a good thing if she keeps on doing what Bill did up until his Lame Duck years.

 

Clinton for President, Obama for Vice-President. Let Hillary have her years in office, then when she steps down, put up Barack Obama who will be experienced from 8 years of Vice-Presidency and lead America with some enthusiasm and liberalism. Best option available.

 

Well actually, not quite...

 

You know the socialist member of the House? I forget his name, but he is one of the two independent candidates. He should be President. Why? The socialist bit. XP You have no idea what you are missing out on with a free health service and functioning welfare state. The Laissez-faire attitude of the Republicans on social and economic issues leads only to inequality, destitution and exploitation after periods of hollow economic glories. The 1920s serves as an excellent example of this; Supposed prosperity for Americans followed by a disastrous and spectacular economic crash which destroys the economy until a convenient war breaks out which allows you to exploit your allies. The prosperity was a myth for a start, as ethnic minorities and farm workers and members of the old industries suffered in the 1920s, and what everyone forgets is that this meant that over half the population was living in poverty, while the other half got rich on consumerism and even that didn't last that long.

[Jesse]

You know the socialist member of the House? I forget his name, but he is one of the two independent candidates. He should be President. Why? The socialist bit. XP You have no idea what you are missing out on with a free health service and functioning welfare state. The Laissez-faire attitude of the Republicans on social and economic issues leads only to inequality, destitution and exploitation after periods of hollow economic glories. The 1920s serves as an excellent example of this; Supposed prosperity for Americans followed by a disastrous and spectacular economic crash which destroys the economy until a convenient war breaks out which allows you to exploit your allies. The prosperity was a myth for a start, as ethnic minorities and farm workers and members of the old industries suffered in the 1920s, and what everyone forgets is that this meant that over half the population was living in poverty, while the other half got rich on consumerism and even that didn't last that long.

That's a great point you made there.

 

Now that I've seen the democratic contenders together, it doesn't look very exciting on that side. Although the republicans are not too much hotter. Who's the other independent guy? I need to find more information on both of them, actually.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

You know the socialist member of the House? I forget his name, but he is one of the two independent candidates. He should be President. Why? The socialist bit. XP You have no idea what you are missing out on with a free health service and functioning welfare state. The Laissez-faire attitude of the Republicans on social and economic issues leads only to inequality, destitution and exploitation after periods of hollow economic glories. The 1920s serves as an excellent example of this; Supposed prosperity for Americans followed by a disastrous and spectacular economic crash which destroys the economy until a convenient war breaks out which allows you to exploit your allies. The prosperity was a myth for a start, as ethnic minorities and farm workers and members of the old industries suffered in the 1920s, and what everyone forgets is that this meant that over half the population was living in poverty, while the other half got rich on consumerism and even that didn't last that long.

That's a great point you made there.

 

Now that I've seen the democratic contenders together, it doesn't look very exciting on that side. Although the republicans are not too much hotter. Who's the other independent guy? I need to find more information on both of them, actually.

One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive.

 

I say this:

 

Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP

 

I wonder...

 

Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

[Horatio]

You know the socialist member of the House? I forget his name, but he is one of the two independent candidates. He should be President. Why? The socialist bit. XP You have no idea what you are missing out on with a free health service and functioning welfare state. The Laissez-faire attitude of the Republicans on social and economic issues leads only to inequality, destitution and exploitation after periods of hollow economic glories. The 1920s serves as an excellent example of this; Supposed prosperity for Americans followed by a disastrous and spectacular economic crash which destroys the economy until a convenient war breaks out which allows you to exploit your allies. The prosperity was a myth for a start, as ethnic minorities and farm workers and members of the old industries suffered in the 1920s, and what everyone forgets is that this meant that over half the population was living in poverty, while the other half got rich on consumerism and even that didn't last that long.

That's a great point you made there.

 

Now that I've seen the democratic contenders together, it doesn't look very exciting on that side. Although the republicans are not too much hotter. Who's the other independent guy? I need to find more information on both of them, actually.

One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive.

 

I say this:

 

Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP

 

I wonder...

 

Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

Well, Fred Thompson announced he is running. I am interested in learning more about him.

Who do I think is best...

I wish I knew.

[Jesse]

One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive.

 

I say this:

 

Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP

 

I wonder...

 

Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive.

 

I say this:

 

Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP

 

I wonder...

 

Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not.

I'm not entirely sure. The American political system confuses me due to its large amounts of bureaucracy and slightly sinister electoral system. Sinister in the sense that the electoral colleges smell easily exploitable and easily rigged.

 

Fred Thompson... I don't know. He likes McCain (helping him in 2000), dislikes Cuba and Michael Moore, led Citizens United and made this stupid statement: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." Helped Bush pack the Supreme Court, serves on the International Security Advisory Board and helped the now convicted felon Libby.

[Cheesus]

One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive.

 

I say this:

 

Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP

 

I wonder...

 

Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not.

I'm not entirely sure. The American political system confuses me due to its large amounts of bureaucracy and slightly sinister electoral system. Sinister in the sense that the electoral colleges smell easily exploitable and easily rigged.

 

Fred Thompson... I don't know. He likes McCain (helping him in 2000), dislikes Cuba and Michael Moore, led Citizens United and made this stupid statement: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." Helped Bush pack the Supreme Court, serves on the International Security Advisory Board and helped the now convicted felon Libby.

 

 

I'm curious as to how the government can get away with being so corrupt.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive.

 

I say this:

 

Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP

 

I wonder...

 

Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not.

I'm not entirely sure. The American political system confuses me due to its large amounts of bureaucracy and slightly sinister electoral system. Sinister in the sense that the electoral colleges smell easily exploitable and easily rigged.

 

Fred Thompson... I don't know. He likes McCain (helping him in 2000), dislikes Cuba and Michael Moore, led Citizens United and made this stupid statement: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." Helped Bush pack the Supreme Court, serves on the International Security Advisory Board and helped the now convicted felon Libby.

 

 

I'm curious as to how the government can get away with being so corrupt.

Quite easy, all the things relating to corruption go through a series of secretive bank accounts in Switzerland and if the media does find out about them they won't tell because its all controlled by uber-Fascist Murdoch.

[Cheesus]

One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive.

 

I say this:

 

Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP

 

I wonder...

 

Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not.

I'm not entirely sure. The American political system confuses me due to its large amounts of bureaucracy and slightly sinister electoral system. Sinister in the sense that the electoral colleges smell easily exploitable and easily rigged.

 

Fred Thompson... I don't know. He likes McCain (helping him in 2000), dislikes Cuba and Michael Moore, led Citizens United and made this stupid statement: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." Helped Bush pack the Supreme Court, serves on the International Security Advisory Board and helped the now convicted felon Libby.

 

 

I'm curious as to how the government can get away with being so corrupt.

Quite easy, all the things relating to corruption go through a series of secretive bank accounts in Switzerland and if the media does find out about them they won't tell because its all controlled by uber-Fascist Murdoch.

 

 

If only that weren't reality. >.<

[The Grim Hamster lord]

One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive.

 

I say this:

 

Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP

 

I wonder...

 

Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not.

I'm not entirely sure. The American political system confuses me due to its large amounts of bureaucracy and slightly sinister electoral system. Sinister in the sense that the electoral colleges smell easily exploitable and easily rigged.

 

Fred Thompson... I don't know. He likes McCain (helping him in 2000), dislikes Cuba and Michael Moore, led Citizens United and made this stupid statement: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." Helped Bush pack the Supreme Court, serves on the International Security Advisory Board and helped the now convicted felon Libby.

 

 

I'm curious as to how the government can get away with being so corrupt.

Quite easy, all the things relating to corruption go through a series of secretive bank accounts in Switzerland and if the media does find out about them they won't tell because its all controlled by uber-Fascist Murdoch.

 

 

If only that weren't reality. >.<

I have a solution:

Don't vote Republican.

Don't vote Democrat.

Vote Independent or other party.

 

Oh and don't watch, listen or read any of that propaganda Murdoch vomits out onto his various media networks. It's bull.

[Cheesus]

One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive.

 

I say this:

 

Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP

 

I wonder...

 

Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not.

I'm not entirely sure. The American political system confuses me due to its large amounts of bureaucracy and slightly sinister electoral system. Sinister in the sense that the electoral colleges smell easily exploitable and easily rigged.

 

Fred Thompson... I don't know. He likes McCain (helping him in 2000), dislikes Cuba and Michael Moore, led Citizens United and made this stupid statement: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." Helped Bush pack the Supreme Court, serves on the International Security Advisory Board and helped the now convicted felon Libby.

 

 

I'm curious as to how the government can get away with being so corrupt.

Quite easy, all the things relating to corruption go through a series of secretive bank accounts in Switzerland and if the media does find out about them they won't tell because its all controlled by uber-Fascist Murdoch.

 

 

If only that weren't reality. >.<

I have a solution:

Don't vote Republican.

Don't vote Democrat.

Vote Independent or other party.

 

Oh and don't watch, listen or read any of that propaganda Murdoch vomits out onto his various media networks. It's bull.

Well, I have to get to 18 before I can vote.

I would vote independent if everyone else would. However, nobody votes independent cause they think no one else will.

[Horatio]

One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive.

 

I say this:

 

Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP

 

I wonder...

 

Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not.

I'm not entirely sure. The American political system confuses me due to its large amounts of bureaucracy and slightly sinister electoral system. Sinister in the sense that the electoral colleges smell easily exploitable and easily rigged.

 

Fred Thompson... I don't know. He likes McCain (helping him in 2000), dislikes Cuba and Michael Moore, led Citizens United and made this stupid statement: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." Helped Bush pack the Supreme Court, serves on the International Security Advisory Board and helped the now convicted felon Libby.

 

 

I'm curious as to how the government can get away with being so corrupt.

Quite easy, all the things relating to corruption go through a series of secretive bank accounts in Switzerland and if the media does find out about them they won't tell because its all controlled by uber-Fascist Murdoch.

 

If only that weren't reality. >.

I have a solution:

Don't vote Republican.

Don't vote Democrat.

Vote Independent or other party.

 

Oh and don't watch, listen or read any of that propaganda Murdoch vomits out onto his various media networks. It's bull.

Well, I have to get to 18 before I can vote.

I would vote independent if everyone else would. However, nobody votes independent cause they think no one else will.

You should vote for who you want to vote for and NOT change your vote because others might not vote a particular way.

[Cheesus]

One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive.

 

I say this:

 

Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP

 

I wonder...

 

Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not.

I'm not entirely sure. The American political system confuses me due to its large amounts of bureaucracy and slightly sinister electoral system. Sinister in the sense that the electoral colleges smell easily exploitable and easily rigged.

 

Fred Thompson... I don't know. He likes McCain (helping him in 2000), dislikes Cuba and Michael Moore, led Citizens United and made this stupid statement: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." Helped Bush pack the Supreme Court, serves on the International Security Advisory Board and helped the now convicted felon Libby.

 

 

I'm curious as to how the government can get away with being so corrupt.

Quite easy, all the things relating to corruption go through a series of secretive bank accounts in Switzerland and if the media does find out about them they won't tell because its all controlled by uber-Fascist Murdoch.

 

If only that weren't reality. >.<

I have a solution:

Don't vote Republican.

Don't vote Democrat.

Vote Independent or other party.

 

Oh and don't watch, listen or read any of that propaganda Murdoch vomits out onto his various media networks. It's bull.

Well, I have to get to 18 before I can vote.

I would vote independent if everyone else would. However, nobody votes independent cause they think no one else will.

You should vote for who you want to vote for and NOT change your vote because others might not vote a particular way.

 

 

I am fully aware. I'm not gonna waste a vote on someone that isn't gonna win.

just because your voice is heard doesn't mean that is aknowledged, unfortunately.

[Horatio]

One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive.

 

I say this:

 

Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP

 

I wonder...

 

Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not.

I'm not entirely sure. The American political system confuses me due to its large amounts of bureaucracy and slightly sinister electoral system. Sinister in the sense that the electoral colleges smell easily exploitable and easily rigged.

 

Fred Thompson... I don't know. He likes McCain (helping him in 2000), dislikes Cuba and Michael Moore, led Citizens United and made this stupid statement: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." Helped Bush pack the Supreme Court, serves on the International Security Advisory Board and helped the now convicted felon Libby.

 

 

I'm curious as to how the government can get away with being so corrupt.

Quite easy, all the things relating to corruption go through a series of secretive bank accounts in Switzerland and if the media does find out about them they won't tell because its all controlled by uber-Fascist Murdoch.

 

If only that weren't reality. >.

I have a solution:

Don't vote Republican.

Don't vote Democrat.

Vote Independent or other party.

 

Oh and don't watch, listen or read any of that propaganda Murdoch vomits out onto his various media networks. It's bull.

Well, I have to get to 18 before I can vote.

I would vote independent if everyone else would. However, nobody votes independent cause they think no one else will.

You should vote for who you want to vote for and NOT change your vote because others might not vote a particular way.

I am fully aware. I'm not gonna waste a vote on someone that isn't gonna win.

just because your voice is heard doesn't mean that is aknowledged, unfortunately.

That is exactly the problem. Vote for the candidate you want... not who you think will win. If more people voted for who they wanted,

perhaps we would have better politicians.

[The Grim Hamster lord]

If you never vote Independent, nothing is ever going to change. Its like saying that you shouldn't go on a protest march because only one million people are out of a country of 300 million. But wait, what if that protest march is on a key issue (yes it is coming) like Civil Rights? Still won't go?

[Horatio]

If you never vote Independent, nothing is ever going to change. Its like saying that you shouldn't go on a protest march because only one million people are out of a country of 300 million. But wait, what if that protest march is on a key issue (yes it is coming) like Civil Rights? Still won't go?

TGHL... you asked about the US Government... I suggest you read Niall Ferguson's book Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire.

More specifically, the last chapter. Niall also has some great books on your homeland.