What would happen if Gore would have became president instead of bush? Even though Bush is kinda of a dumbass.... he's had to deal w/a lot of shit since hes become our president [9-11, shitty stock market, enron, n. korea, iraq] How would hav Gore handeled all those situations and would he hav done better?
We will never know. I didn't vote for neither one because I felt neither was good for the US. I do think Bush is leading the U.S. in a way that he wouldn't want to be lead in..
I didn't vote for Gore or Dubya either, though I think Gore is the lesser of two evils. If he was pres (or more particularly, Dubya wasn't pres) then we wouldn't be going to war now. Iraq isn't something Dubya's 'dealing with', it's something he and the people that control him made for themselves. This is about money and power. 9/11 is the best possible thing that could've happened to Dubya; without it people would be quite sick of him already and he wouldn't have had the chance to start all this.
I wish I were more involved with politics, at least enough to care to vote..I do feel though I didnt like either stance this past election and thats why I didnt vote..my dad gets on my back about this. hes conservative, and he thinks I should be too. I have views that kind of reflect both parties. but my main interests, which I dont feel that strong to move on right at this time in my life, I dont see plastered on the umpteen news channels 24 hours a day..I think in a few more years..after experiencing a little more, and planning my future, this will become relevant for me..but till then, lol, I always like to see what people who have interests similiar to mine, are voting and thinking.. edit: both MAIN parties, and other parties, as well..
I voted Libertarian myself. But I wonder..... if 9-11 would have even happened if Gore became presedent. Not that I have some good reason to think it wouldn't have... the weirdest things effect the time line.
anybody would be better than bush. ANyway.........Do you know anybody who can hook up This site is not to be used to get hook ups for anything.. Please do not ask for hook ups. Thank you management.. BH
Do you guys see the same thing as I saw? When ever there's a republican as a president there's a war starting? I mean what was the reason for Bush to send troops to the boarders of iraQ? the're were supposed to be mass destruction weapons and Saddam was supposed to be starting a war against iraqs neighbours, well there's Blix now in there, and have found tarces of these "mass destruction weapons" Ok so saddams supposed to give the weapons away, Bush is knocking the doors and bangind the Doom bells "Times running out!!!" well Saddam isn't goin to start a war when the media all over the world is focused on him and there's Un people inside the country and 100 000 US troops bangind the doors. Mr.Powell said that "if iraqs is concuered the profits of the oil sources will be put in to "fund" (don't know the word) for iraq people" so what this meansd is they won't get the profits of the oil, US is capable of producing some 30 % of the electricity it uses, think about that. Why are there always these war crazy looneys in the leading positions of countries? think about it, if you'd put a normal person in there he/she would definetly NOT start a war. I understand the Afghanistan Bombing in a way, there was a target, ONE man, so why was it important to bomb the whole fucking country? life is miserable there at the moment, People die because they have no homes, no foods or anything. All this because of a ONE man? and the man didn't even capture the target. And if the war against iraq starts Bush is about to send 400 missiles to iraq during the first day of the war, and when you think that ONE missile costs some 100 000 $ then it's goin to be pretty expensive, so if the´war starts expect increasing poverty and depression in there. In fact the most of the world will suffer from this war. And I would like to ask once again, why can't iraq have mass destruction weapons? I mean USA has them, France, Israel, Koreas, Japan and china have them. MaYbe the rest of the world will start demanding USA to give up their nuclear bombs and the mass destruction weapons.
These are simply the people with the means and the will to do it. For some reason they tend to be willing to do whatever is necessary to get what they want; even if it costs thousands of lives. Oh, and for anyone that's wondering why Iraq might have horribly destructive weapons; maybe it's because a country with horribly destructive weapons is doing whatever it can to start a war with them.
yeah, and why are USA so sure that there are those weapons in there? maybe it's because they sold them them some 5 years ago.
whatever, i would of just voted for the one who would make us pay less of our money and who would be more lenient about the no marijuana law in this damn country!!!
Well... I voted libertarian. And, really.... none of us have had the presidential briefings that The President has. He has way more information than he can express to the public. I've had several different gut feeling about this. Something tells me that Bush Jr. wants to finish what his poppa would have liked to do. 9-11 just put the coals under our asses (the American public) enough to allow our president to have a little free reign in the area. I, for one, feel that the President is sincerely trying to make our country safer. And the whole world for that matter. If Iraq is helping those who would try to bring our downfall, then we'll deal with that. (And are) And as far as the WMD and who is allowed to have them... I'm up in the air on that one myself. It seems that if we are not going to allow other to have them.. then we should not as well. I'm also surprised to hear that Japan has any WMD. They know first hand what they are capable of. BTW, I am ashamed that we used the a-bomb on Japan; something that we would now clearly declare an act of terror. I don't know... I'm glad I'm no politician. I can see the "all's fair in love and war" slogan being a good cover.... but when trying to think fairly... why DO we have WMD if they're so fuckin' terrible that other countries can't have them? Hmmmmm are we trying to take over the world? And by "we" I mean all the democratic, republic, capitalist countries that are going along with us and are allowed to have WMD. Die commie bastards! Hey wait... they aren't communist.... it's a dictatorship. So as long as you don't hold elections you can't have WMD? Is that how it goes? Then... Pakistan.. time to give up your nukes! Hell I don't know... **puff puff**
yep bud burner. no more to be said. I'm sure if the politicians read that shit, they'd have the intelect to understand!
I don't know about the part of making the world more safer place, to me it seems that Bush is the #1 enemy of world peace. OK I understand that there will never be an possibility of fire arm free world but at least it would help that they didn't have so much of them. I don't see any logig in owning enough nuclear missiles to blow the whole planet some 15 times. There's no one attacking USA, at least no country or nation, was it afghanistans fault that Osama-was there? OK Saddam is an irritating bastard but there's no proof of iraq "secret" "mobile" weapon labs, or their connections to Al-queida. Only proof of incoming war is the 100 000 Americans waiting to get to blast the shit out off Iraq. I'm not too big on boycoting anycountry but when one of the biggest countries in the worlds start dismissing the rules we've all promised to follow and saying to other countries "YOU give us your weapons".
I hear ya ubik. I don't necessarily think he is making the world a safer place, but I think that's what he believes. The main reason I voted libertarian was to send a message to the democrats and republicans that we're getting tired of their shit. Libertarians are for liberty......... to even do drugs if one wishes as long as they are not hurting anybody else. They just seem to have a lot of sensible philosophies. Libertarians are also of the philosophy that it is the job f the federal government to protect within our boarders only. IIRC, they have a VERY simple foreign policy: Leave them the hell alone. I think I would worry if we actually had a libertarian president because it would mean a lot of huge changes fast. No foreign aide. No more bullying around the other leaders of the world (which might just take their crosshairs off of us right there). I just don't know if that would leave us better off or not. We're so used to being the world's police and spying on everybody I just don't think the gov't can function without such things. (Not that spying would be necessarily against libertarian philosophy) I can understand why lots of other countries feel like we just need to mind our own business some times. But things have been this way for so long..... and a lot of countries would not be the way they are today (for better or worse) if it were not for us not minding our own business. Hell... some countries wouldn't even BE. Man am I glad I'm not a politician. But I do love my country.
LISTEN TO THE MUSIC ON WARP RECORDS.COM http://www.warprecords.com www.thesmokehammer.com: bushwacked. i think it's his best speach yet!
libertarian party would be nice for a chance, at least it would do things deifferently. I just think that the USA has grown too big, too big for a one man to handel too big to be equal with other countries. I dunno, it just seems that the US does what they want to do no matter what laws are against them, 'cos what country has the ability to defend them self agaisnt US? no one, but then again there's the alliances between "lesser" countries. I read this book by Orson Welles wich was an fiction novel about the future and it doesn't seem too far away from reality now the plot was something like this: There are 3 major "countries" in the world wich are in constant war with each other (2 are fighting against each other and then chance the target randomly etc.) this keeps the wolrds in balance and erases the possibility of alliances between any of these three countries. It doesn't seem too far away... but at least the sun still shines and there's alot of good music and nice people to meet. PEACE
the reason we (the US) maintains stockpiles of nuclear weaponsis the threat ofequally-assured destruction. If some crazy out there wants to rule the world, and is willing to use nuclear weapons to attain that goal, they know that if they do, there will be nothing left for them to rule. I'm tired of these French panty-waists and the Russians who only want peace because they think they can salvage their trade relations with the maniacal leader of one of the worlds largest oil producing countries. They are willing to sacrifice world security for their own economic gain. Certainly the US stands to gain economically from ousting Saddam's regime, but he's a lameass who uses chemical weapons against people in his own country. He has shown the willingness to use weapons of mass destruction and it is only logical that he will again if he sees an opportunity. I'm glad that there are people out there with higher ideals, but sometimes violence is neccessary, and I believe that is the case now. Bush's daddy didn't go far enough the first time. Of course, none of this would be happening now if not for our fatally flawed foreign policy during the Cold-War--not just ours, but those of each and every anti-communist country, including France.
my god, you know what we need in the U.S!? A STONER PRESIDENT Not only would he be peaceful, but he'd help out with bud laws!