View Full Version : 2004 ELECTION, Who should win?
Dragonlance
07-24-2004, 04:17
Its almost time to vote guys. Who are you voting for, if you are old enough, if not who do you want to win the elction?
I want Bush to win, i cant vote cuz I'm only 13.
Anybody here an Independant? :?: :?: :?:
I didnt bother to add him in for two reasons, i dont know his name...And hes 100% isnt gonna win. No offense if anybody is Independant, its just impossible as there have never been Independant class pres. in the US for all its existance. And the fact that he has around 1.5 %. :lol:
Sigh, it just wasnt smart to put this up. If I see the hint of any heated argument this thing will be locked imedately.
And since your asking, George Bush. Why? We have a job to finish in Iraq and we need to get behind the current President and let him finish that job. I dont care who the Pres. is, you always need to support him in times of war. The economy is sky high. John Kerry has a terrible voting record and doesnt really stand for anything unfortunately. Plus he has voted against major weapons systems for our military, going into the military I'd feel very insecure having him as president.
Alot of the people on here are European though Dragonlance, so I doubt they care much about our politics. Yea, alot of them dont like Bush...but that doesnt mean they give a rip about American politics.
Dragonlance
07-24-2004, 04:42
Congradulations Blake. Good to see people loyal to their country.
going into the military I'd feel very insecure having him as president.
How old are you again? I think Morph was 18, or was that you? Sorry. :?
Thanks, I've wanted to be a Marine since about 9th grade now. Im 18, I think Morph might be around 15 or 16 but I actually forgot his age. I will also have my bday in August.
Dragonlance
07-24-2004, 04:54
Cool. Well then, i might as well say Happy b-day! :D
I havnt heard of Morph for a while...
Wonder where he is?
EDIT1: About eurpeans not caring about our politics, i dont mind. Unless they have backup info however, i DONT like them commenting about how BAD we are lol. Otherwise its their problem.
EDIT2: Do you remember who the Independant class candidate is?
PlayStation 3
07-24-2004, 06:45
Wierd thread this is :| I thought this was a gaming forum not politics lol :mrgreen: btw I voted for the other dude, not George Bush 8)
gaming ultima
07-24-2004, 16:59
being English i couldn’t give much of a crap but i thought I would say bush because i think all the criticisms about him are quite funny and i would like to hear more. plus I don’t think he is that a bad of a guy, just a bit stupid maybe and just slightly *cough cough* to patriotic but hey no 1's perfect
edit : also i dont know anything about the other guy so...
edit 2: i think morph is 17
Every U.S. President gets criticized heavily while in office. It's just something that comes with the job.
gaming ultima
07-24-2004, 17:48
Every U.S. President gets criticized heavily while in office. It's just something that comes with the job.
yea but its more fun to make fun of bush then anyone else
dont know why, just is
Dragonlance
07-24-2004, 18:32
He has a funny face kinda like Mr. Green. I just wanna laugh when i see him lol. He does make a good president though.
PlayStation 3
07-25-2004, 09:29
He has a funny face kinda like Mr. Green.
Lol to that :mrgreen: some of my friends say he looks like a chimpanzee, a bit mean I think but funny none-the less :mrgreen:
He does make a good president though.
BullSh!t to that :?
Thanks, I've wanted to be a Marine since about 9th grade now. Im 18, I think Morph might be around 15 or 16 but I actually forgot his age. I will also have my bday in August.
I'm insulted Blake! I'm 18 in September :roll: .
Its almost time to vote guys. Who are you voting for, if you are old enough, if not who do you want to win the elction?
I'm in my second year of Political study at College so I have quite a few views on Politics, including American Politics. It's sad that I don't think either Bush or Kerry deserve to be President. Most Europeans think Bush is a warmonger, just like many Americans do. Funnily enough in British politics Blair still seems to be the best candidate although I don't think he's best for the job either.
I havnt heard of Morph for a while...
Wonder where he is?
I've been working on the new ps3portal website, so I haven't had as much time for the forum recently, but don't fret once it's up I'll be around the forum a lot more. It's gonna be up soon, but for security reasons I'm not happy about giving the URL out on a public forum. This is what it will look like when done:
http://rock.jazzerace.com/2004/ps3portal.html
Just so you know, its looking almost exactly like that after many, many hours of coding.
Lol to that some of my friends say he looks like a chimpanzee, a bit mean I think but funny none-the less
Ha! go to www.bushorchimp.com :wink:
PlayStation 3
07-25-2004, 12:44
http://rock.jazzerace.com/2004/ps3portal.html
OMG it looks so wickedly kick ass :wink: excellant work Morpheus :D
Ha! go to www.bushorchimp.com :wink:
OMG ROFL !!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
EVERYONE ATTENTION PLEASE! YOU MUST CHECK OUT THAT SITE!!! IT"S SO HILARIOUS IT"LL MAKE YOUR GUTS FALL!!! :mrgreen:
I'm insulted Blake! I'm 18 in September .
Ooops! completely forgot man, sorry about that.
Most Europeans think Bush is a warmonger, just like many Americans do.
You have to understand the reasoning in going to war though. Saddam has consistently been one of the most evil dictators of the past two decades. We could sit there and act like the tourture chambers, raping of women, murdering of inoccent victims wasnt are problem...or we could opt to step in and do something about it. The only reason Bush is considerd a war nut is because his dad originally went into Iraq..and he got a reputation from that because he went in to finish his dads job.
Something that irritates me though, is the media being in Iraq. They dont look for stroies of new schools being built and lifestyle getting better in general, they look for soldiers getting killed or wounded..maybe inoccent people accidentally getting caught in crossfire. I dont know if the media has an agenda or if they just think this kind of news will be more facinating. Either way, it's a sad thing to do.
Evolution
07-25-2004, 16:02
Look at this movie concerning Bush and Kerry its funny
http://www.jibjab.com/
Now i dont live in America but I do have to back up Blake with what he said about the war. The same thing is happening over here. People think Tony blair was wrong to join up with America and fight in the war. What Assholes. Im not voting on that poll cus im english and know nothing about the politics over in the US but if I was to choose it would be bush because I think he has done what a president should do. Just like Tony blair has done the right thing over here, and gets victimised over it.
gaming ultima
07-25-2004, 16:07
I'm insulted Blake! I'm 18 in September .
Ooops! completely forgot man, sorry about that.
Most Europeans think Bush is a warmonger, just like many Americans do.
You have to understand the reasoning in going to war though. Saddam has consistently been one of the most evil dictators of the past two decades. We could sit there and act like the tourture chambers, raping of women, murdering of inoccent victims wasnt are problem...or we could opt to step in and do something about it. The only reason Bush is considerd a war nut is because his dad originally went into Iraq..and he got a reputation from that because he went in to finish his dads job.
Something that irritates me though, is the media being in Iraq. They dont look for stroies of new schools being built and lifestyle getting better in general, they look for soldiers getting killed or wounded..maybe inoccent people accidentally getting caught in crossfire. I dont know if the media has an agenda or if they just think this kind of news will be more facinating. Either way, it's a sad thing to do.
i agree with you on that.
And if you think how many more people saddam and then his sons would of be responsible for the deaths of if we did not go in you will realise that by going in we are actually saving lives, isnt that worth it. and as for the solgers dieing, while its very sad and everything they knew the risks when they signed on so...
and as for the solgers dieing, while its very sad and everything they knew the risks when they signed on so...
Oh, ofcourse. Im just saying the media seems to feed on this type of stuff.
gaming ultima
07-25-2004, 16:19
and as for the solgers dieing, while its very sad and everything they knew the risks when they signed on so...
Oh, ofcourse. Im just saying the media seems to feed on this type of stuff.
yes it does because people care about it and so it makes good news
people don’t really care that much or at all that Iraq is getting better and better and all ready it could be seen to be a better place, their not interested really but they do care if one of their own country's people die's
PlayStation 3
07-25-2004, 16:29
Look at this movie concerning Bush and Kerry its funny
http://www.jibjab.com/
Lol :mrgreen: that's some crack up material you prescribed for us Evolution, nice job :wink:
Anyone one else saw that funny video clip, if you havn't you must check it out now, it's got some funny ass stuff in it lol :mrgreen:
Dragonlance
07-26-2004, 01:45
Aye Blake. And what i dont like are people that go around saying how bad the war is and how bad we torture the iraqi POW, but they dont know JACK about JACK. Do they realize that it is for the good of the country? Or maybe we should torture the samw way as the iraqis do?
FUNNNYFACT: Environmental activists set afire a whole H2 dealership in california US. They said that the exhaust generated from the SUV's were harming animals and poluting...now here is the funny art. The amount exhaust generated from the burning dealership and all its burning cars was studied...and guess what? The exhaust generated from stupid activists burnng the cars was more than if ALL of those cars were driven NON STOP for 100 YEaRS! They ruined the environment in one day more than all the SUV's in the woorld did in the past 20 years. :lol: Stuid idiots :lol:
I like your stance on things but I think you mis understand things a little. In no way, shape or form have we tortured Iraqi prisoners of war. We have done nothing but be civil to them. The photos released were of a few punks causing trouble and not doing their duty as soldiers, making the military and the U.S. Government look bad. Now there are certain tatics that the military may used to get POW's to fess up but they dont even borderline torture. Like water bordering for instance, all that is made up to do is make people believe they are drowing...this is the same kind of training U.S. Navy Seals do. Yet people want to blow something like that way out of proportion. If we have to mess with the prisoners pyscologically then I believe we should be allowed to. Scaring someone out of their wits untill they talk is all that is happening over there if it's even is happening anymore.
Dragonlance
07-26-2004, 05:46
I am sorry. It seems i i didnt write very clearly. I am 100% with ya but what i meant was:
Liberals think the gov. treats POWs so badly (they are treated pretty darn well, considering what other countries would do to POWs...), its however the opposite way around. Iraquis treat us much worse, infact decapitating POWs isnt exactly nicer than what we do.
I hope you understod this time, i doubt it, lol, i write bad when i hurry... :?
PlayStation 3
07-26-2004, 09:44
How irratting is this topic gona be? I mean for god's sake this is a GAMES FORUM not a freakin politics forum :? want to talk politics join another forum :?
So far this thread has been a mixture of opposing political views, yet you guys have still managed to retain a cool and debative attitude when posting, so nice job.
In my opinion it was the right thing to go to war, for the reasons already stated by Blake. He was a ruthless dictator who committed cold blooded murder with no consiquences. Many times in the past he had carried out and supported anti-Western world tendancies, stating quite clearly that he hates the US and everything it stands for. Could they honestly let someone like this rule the country, especially when he had the capabilities of using WMD's against anyone who opposed. Now I know the whole story, and that the 'smoking guns' haven't been found in Iraq, but you must admit that there must have been strong intelligence to suggest there was some there - or else they wouldnt have commited the country to war.
I am from the UK, and there are a hell-of-a-lot of anti Bush people here. However personally I think he and Blair did the right thing here, taking this evil dictator out of power. Theres lots more I could say but frankly cannot be bothered.
How irratting is this topic gona be? I mean for god's sake this is a GAMES FORUM not a freakin politics forum :? want to talk politics join another forum :?
Dur, read the message board title again smilie molestor. It says "General Chit Chat"...that means most anything goes in besides gaming related conversation.
Dragonlance
07-26-2004, 22:46
Aye, thats what i was going to say ;). Yeah, i agree totally with rebonuk (and bessie ;)) Smilie molester lol. No offence PS3 lol. Smilie molester is just a really funny name :lol:
PlayStation 3
07-27-2004, 12:55
How irratting is this topic gona be? I mean for god's sake this is a GAMES FORUM not a freakin politics forum :? want to talk politics join another forum :?
smilie molestor. Angaar Touchay ayy? well if you wanna flame my ass go right ahead. You'll make yourself look bad cause I will not be replying to your bad stuff :cry:
Thank You Very Much ! :cry:
Two are three people including me have already brought up your consistant use and onpour of the smilies. Yet you have not listened, when you are rude and dissrespectfull like that...then I find it hard to respect you back as a member. You look like a 2 year old on smilie crack. When you do this continually it is annoying to all the members, almost as bad as spam. I will say this again, in hopes that you listen...only use the smilies when it is a legitimate time to use them and not every single post! Dont use them just because you can. Thankyou, now back on topic.
Dragonlance
07-28-2004, 00:45
Is blake ever wrong? lol. Yeah, back on topic.
So does anybody know ther name of the independent candidate?!?
Independent candidate...are you talking about Ralph Nader? He's part of the green party I believe.
Dragonlance
07-28-2004, 00:53
Yeah, i think thats who it is. Anyway, bush and kerry were both pissed at him cuz he was taking valuable votes to himself when he wont win anyway. It was on Fox News around a week ago.
Hey this is kinda off topic, but right under the colerd stars thread there is a trivia thread, i wanna see what you guys think about that idea.
He'll take more votes away from Kerry then he will from Bush.
Dragonlance
07-28-2004, 01:09
Yeah, hes more of a liberal than conservative. I dont mind though, Kerry isnt exactly the ideal guy to be a president, reasons in above posts.
I totally respect Kerry for being the war veteran he is. But yea, he's just not fit to lead the country. Im just voting on who I genuinally feel is fit to be president, not what party the come from. Again, Kerry doesnt stand for anything. He thinks the economy can be even better but if it's already sky rocketing...why put someone else in office and hope they can improve it more? He has a pitiful voting record, voting one way and then voting the other. Or voting one way and then speaking against what he voted for. He lied about having an SUV yet he's really huge on the enviroment so to speak. Blah...I wouldnt feel safe with him as president...he seems pyscologically deranged.
Dragonlance
07-28-2004, 01:53
I like your views Blake, as well as greatly respect em. Yeah, he does change his views really quickly. *cough cough* african americans *cough cough*
Evolution
07-29-2004, 19:46
If you absolutely dispise Saddam and osama then go here:-
http://newgrounds.com/collections/osama.html
Dragonlance
07-30-2004, 03:34
Yeah, lol, i played em all a long time ago, newgrounds is funny.
CAUTION, DO NOT ENTER IF YOU ARE BELOW THE AGE OF 18 (only one exception, and thats me!)
i personaly dont agree with the war, i agree with jean chriteien in not going that and making friends with china were the only 2 things he has ever done right other then that he has lost the country billions and he gives quebec what ever they desire. since the canadian election is over and the liberals won(also thiefs), i personaly wanted the conservitive party to win(cant remember leader's name) was going to fix up the already weak canadian military by getting us some air craft carriers, i guess even the liberals are better the the le bloc du quebec somthing
Any war is good to me if it means liberating a whole country that has been under opression for years.
Dragonlance
08-13-2004, 21:21
Im with Blake. But the US could have done better in the war with Iraq. Too many Human Rights activists talking crap. :roll:
It's war, things never go as planned unfortunately.
Dragonlance
08-14-2004, 02:14
I wish Bush was here so that he would know that three people want him to win :lol:
If bush were here i would have a shit load to say to him especialy about the mad cow thing and the war.
Hmm, you like conservatives but you hate Bush..odd. Conservatives and Liberals must be completely different in Canada.
The liberals in canada are lieing thiefs who never do what they say and i Don't remember any conservative leaders in canada since jean chritien was like the only priminister i was old enough to know.
Dragonlance
08-15-2004, 02:33
Hmm, you like conservatives but you hate Bush..odd. Conservatives and Liberals must be completely different in Canada.
Just what i was thinking. Oh and by the way BW, its Englands fault about the Mad Cow thing, or Britain, i forget, so dont blame the US. We didnt know that Britain/england had a serious problem with their cows, but once we DID find out, trade stopped immediatly.
And for Bush to go to war is a miracle for iraq. And some good natured iraquis know this and they agree. Saddam was a horrible Dictator and needed to be destroyed. Im just sad that the US didnt kill Saddam after getting the info they needed.
Bloodywar, if Canada wernt so frikkin liberal then maybe they would allow Fox News into teh country. Maybe you should get satelite and yune in. It can teach what it is like to be patriotic and actually CARE about others.
It's nobodies falt for mad cow, lets not go play the blame game when it comes to that. True, it originated in Europe..but it was out of their controll. And as for the war, anyone who cant see the justice in why we went to war in the first place needs to decide who's side they are on. The good guys or the bad guys.
Dragonlance
08-15-2004, 02:43
Well, actually Blake, do you know how Mad Cow started? A cow got sick (who knows how, true this part was out of their control) and it died. The farmers took that dead cow and put it into the other cows' food. (as gross as it sounds...blech). The other cows then got that dead cows' disease called madcow. The process continued (dead cows into food, while the live ones got the non-sick cows contaminated) and then all the cows were slaughtered and shipped to the US (as part of economic trade) and in the US people ate that food and...well you know the rest.
If the British hadnt fed the live healthy cows the dead one (ugh), there wouldnt have ever been madcow.
By the way, people in the US do that same thing, and continue to do it even after madcow was spread and known. Th farmers dont want to lose money of their cows so they just...you know. Thas why i dont like cheap farmers ;)
Kosher food is the best chance to not get the disease though.
Any ways, nuff about that, back on topic.
It was canada who had the mad cow problem a farmer discoverd one of his cows had it and told the goverment and then the goverment told the world or what ever and then america and japan cut off all cow trade with canada costing the goverment billions and then america found one of there farms has mad cow and said "that cow came from alberta" which is true but it doesnt matter where it came from only the food gives it mad cow and also i am not as mad with states though since they are starting to let beef back through i am still mad at japan though and also about Canada censoring things no offense but the states censors far more such as dill pickle chips(best chips in world) and there are more i just can't remeber them, Dont you ever say that canada doesnt care look at what we are doing in afganistan and we are also helping in iraq so get your facts straight before you post Alex
Well Im sure the U.S. censored beef as a percaution, not to be jerks or anything.
I know i am more mad at japan especialy since they threatend the U.S to make sure they have no canadian beef or they would cut off trade with U.S when i herd that i thought to my self well we should cut off weat trade
Dragonlance
08-18-2004, 16:35
The threateninig part was wrong, but no need for it. Anybody who's smart wont eat beef from a country that has MC. Oh, and BW, it was originated in Erope.
I would vote in the poll in this forum but I don't give a rats butt who wins cause i cant vote.
Bush all he wants is to give his friends and company "friends" money so that they can keep him where he is.
second the only reason he went to get saddam was to make him self look good and make it look like he was doing something good for the country when he was not!
he went for the oil and the money he would make off of it why the hell esle would the people of the thier own land start to burn their own oil minding places ( becuase they didn't want bush to get it!!)
i can go on and on but i will stop here.....................for now
Dragonlance
08-19-2004, 01:40
Stop listening to rumors and get your facts straight pudge. Nobody knows wha Bush was thinking in his head when he went to war, wether or not he did it to make him self look good isnt the point. The point is millions of people are no longer tortured by an evil crazy dictator. Kerry would never do that, and if John were to be president the whole country would fall. And we dont get free oil from iraq, the economy still exists, just saddam is no longer part of it. :roll:
PS: If we got free or low priced oil from iraq, oil prices wouldnt be going up so much? would it?
Saddams Army burned the oil fields pudge, not the citiznes of Iraq
Stop listening to rumors and get your facts straight pudge. Nobody knows wha Bush was thinking in his head when he went to war, wether or not he did it to make him self look good isnt the point. The point is millions of people are no longer tortured by an evil crazy dictator. Kerry would never do that, and if John were to be president the whole country would fall. And we dont get free oil from iraq, the economy still exists, just saddam is no longer part of it.
PS: If we got free or low priced oil from iraq, oil prices wouldnt be going up so much? would it?
wtf are you talking about? bush invaded iraq and when saddam was in power yea maybe there where some problems but now there are more problems then ever since the U.S of A invaded it everyday you hear of their army dieing and yours
and you dont even no what you are talking about John kerry
Saddams Army burned the oil fields pudge, not the citiznes of Iraq
that is what i ment blake in the first place
Then that obviously doesnt mean the citizens were trying to stop us from taking oil. Iraqs oil is they're oil and we're not going to take it. If you dont recall Bush tried to pass a proposal to drill in Alaska where there is plenty of oil reserves. This way gas prices would go down for America..but it was shot down because of the concern of messing with nature. Pretty lame if you ask me...
so you would rather have the world go into disater rather than getting cheaper oil? is that what you are trying to say or are you trying to say that people in other positions are trying to scam your country out of money? am i getting this right blake?
well you can believe what ever you want to believe
America need to research other forms of environmentally friendly energy. North America makes up 40% of the total worlds pollution or there about which is just ridiculous. I know they are looking into other forms of cleaner energy but they need to speed things up. In 50 years time our planet will be mucked up and once the damage is done it can't be repaired.
Pudge your attitude really annoys me, Im as calm as can be about this but you shouldnt bet involved in political debate if you cant handle yourself. First off you put words in my mouth and second I dont think you understood me in the first place.
Fact is, drilling in Alaska wont effect the enviroment at all...also other forms of energy or coming along but are expensive for the average citizen as it stands right now.
are you trying to say that people in other positions are trying to scam your country out of money?
How on earth did you get that out of what I just said up there? That is putting words in my mouth. I say people shot down the proposal to drill in Alaska and didnt agree with it but you get that I think we're being scammed out of our money? My only concern is I dont think people see the importance of finding our own oil reserves instead of having to get it from other Countries. If we had our own gas would be cheaper not only for America but problly for Canada also. I say this because if Canada wanted oil from us we wouldnt have to be shipping it over seas or anything like that.
ok ok im getting off this topic now and sticking to ps2/ps3 things around here
Dragonlance
08-20-2004, 01:09
Wow, Blake just covered the oill thing 100%. Pudge, Bush is a good person, whatever reason he went to iraq, it was a good thing. As for oil, i dont see how drilling in alaska would effect nature, its not like oil is the basis of animal habitat and life. And what morph said, lol, its kind of embarrasing being the most pollutant country in the world.
If i remember corerctly, somebody said that Bush planned 9/11. That is the most sad thing i have ever heard. No president would ever do such a thing. 3000 People, men, women children, were killed slowy and painfully. Families had an extreme loss. My aunt was killed in the 9/11 attack, and my heart goes out to others that have lost po\eople there. For Bush to do such a thing would be even more evil than Osama Binladen. :?
the US is not the most populated
its like china or india or something like that
Dragonlance
08-20-2004, 01:28
And what morph said, lol, its kind of embarrasing being the most pollutant country in the world.
Read more carefully pudge, i said pullutant.
And US has 100million i think? China is the most populated at 1.5Billion people!
As for oil, i dont see how drilling in alaska would effect nature, its not like oil is the basis of animal habitat and life.
That's probably the most stupid thing you've ever said DL. The process of drilling for oil, whilst having minimal direct consequences has severe indirect consequences for the environment.
The oil that is drilled from the ground is the remains of animal fossils that have become oil over millions of years. This process cannot be reproduced in any shorter time scale and as a result oil is a non renewable energy source. Once it's used up it's gone.
Oil is used for nearly everything from fuel in cars to making all things plastic. When America and so many countries are so reliant on it, it really worries me and many other people that at the current rate we are using it, it will all be gone in 50 years. If we are still so interdependent on Oil as an energy resource in 50 years time we will be in a complete mess.
Anyway, back to DL's comment. Carbon Dioxide is a by-product of the combustion reaction in a cars engine when petrol is ignited. Although the bush administration don't regard it as a pollutant - to any environmentalist it is the main cause of global warming
Melissa Carey, a climate policy specialist for Environmental Defence said saying;
"Refusing to call greenhouse-gas emissions a pollutant is like refusing to say that smoking causes lung cancer."
EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant said back in 2000 that;
"Because the [Clean Air Act] does not authorize regulation to address climate change it follows that [carbon dioxide] and other [greenhouse gases], as such, are not air pollutants."
Whilst both have their points the Bush administration seem to be trying their hardest to win the war against nature. Coupled with this and Bush's rejection of the Kyoto treaty (for purely economic and labour force reasons) Bush has slowed global efforts to reduce global gas emissions.
And US has 100million i think? China is the most populated at 1.5Billion people!.
America has 250 million people, China has 850 million and India has over 1 billion inhabitants.
dam morpheus you got the facts on everything down packed form population to the price of $ for almost most countries lol :D
i dont know if bush is getting oil from iraq or not but i do know that there are american citizens working with the oil tanks up there texans to be exact and that makes me question if bush is taking oil or not but anyways the hole reason for this war was to stop sadalm and you hear people saying iraq was so dangerous yet america took it over in 2 weeks you couldnt take over a country like hadies in 2 weeks hell vietnam lasted longer and if you want to attack a country because it is dangerous then why not north korea it is far more dangerous then iraq was but anyways dont think of me as being anti american because i am not i value canadas relationship with the states i just dont agree with bush and this war
Theres a difference between being dangerous and being an imensely powerful nation. Iraq was not incredibly powerfull by any means but they were still dangerous. Saddam was dangerous to his own people and to democratic societies. You have to understand people like Saddam and these radical islams dont think like us, if certain kind of weapons get into they're hands then theres no telling what will happen. We are more logical and caring type people but the guys we had to deal with in Iraq hate us and our society.
As for your comment about North Korea, all I can say is one country at a time...one at a time. We cant get ahead of ourselves here. Plus we have been trying to have diplomatic dicussions with Saddam for 20 years and it hasnt worked...even after one Gulf War. By that point it's time to just realise the guy is not going to cooperate and take him out. We have only been talking to N. Korea for a few years now, I think if they dont cooperate then we'll take them out.
We have only been talking to N. Korea for a few years now, I think if they dont cooperate then we'll take them out.
Lol Is that Americas solution to everything - "Take em' out" lol. :wink:
Dragonlance
08-21-2004, 16:03
Yep. Always works, :P
So wheres the 'Neither' option? ;)
there is no other option with them lol :oops: :roll:
Then you get canada we wont go to war alone with another country we will just go with another country and end up doing most of the work Cough*afghanistan*
Dragonlance
08-23-2004, 00:58
HA! you wish, you didnt do 10% in afganastan!!! :lol: that really cracked me up, thanks for da good laugh BW, HA!
poor poor dragonlance i love it when you say things like that
Alex are you on crack? canada is still in afghanistan we did more then the states did since they left for iraq so canada is the only army still in afganistan so canada did more like 80% in afghanistan plus canada is helping in iraq now maybe not military wise but we have our medics there our resources are rebuilding iraq such as lumber and it isnt even our war
America is still In Afghanistan bloodywar, there are American troops all over that Country.
Dragonlance
08-23-2004, 03:34
Just because Canadian troops are in Afghan territory, dont mean they help. All they do is sit on their asses and sucking their thumbs (no offence to anyone, i just like that expression, makes me happy :D). Not that the US did much either, the war with Afghanasta (if you can call it that) is pertty much at a standstill.
If I were bloodywar dragon I would be deeply insulted, the fact that Canada is helping at all should mean alot to both of us. As for the war in Afganistan being at a standstill, there is no more war in Afganistan...now the country is in it's rebuilding stage. Afganistan was an easy problem to take care of, Iraq will take some time.
Dragonlance
08-23-2004, 04:00
As i said, neither country is doing much there, so i dont see why he oughtta be insulted. Thanks for canada's help, but we STILL need to get Osama, and so far, that part is a standstill.
Deadly Hamster
08-24-2004, 06:44
No one > Kerry > Bush
I hate any canidate with a strong morale code as there idea of politics.
Well if you would read what you said it would make perfect sense to you.
gaming ultima
08-25-2004, 02:13
As i said, neither country is doing much there, so i dont see why he oughtta be insulted. Thanks for canada's help, but we STILL need to get Osama, and so far, that part is a standstill.
he's a damn smart guy, i don’t think its likely they will catch him anytime soon :(
we can always hope and put pressure on our govs to give 10% more then what they are though
Evolution
08-26-2004, 13:17
Check out the political views in this video
Click Here (http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave.jsp?id=sixty_seconds_arnold&preplay=1)
Colin Powell and the Bush Administration said very clearly in 2000 that Sadam Hussain is "Not considered a threat.", and that "There has been no indication of activity in Iraq regarding the development or in obtaining Weapons of Mass Destruction." So why the sudden turn around in opinion, why did Iraq become a sudden threat to the civillised world? I didn't.
This war was about agendas, and Bush's was very simple. They wanted Sadam out of power years before the Sept. 11 events. This was made alarmingly apparent when former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill releavled to 60 Minutes that in the very first National Security Council meeting, merely 10 days after Bush's inauguration, that he wanted Sadam out by any means neccessary: "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this."
So was invading and occuping Iraq brought about by them becomming an imment threat (and If you look through all speeches made by Bush you wont find a single reference of him stating Iraq to be an imment threat, he implied a lot vaguely - but never once claim Iraq to be an immediate threat)? Or was it brought about by deep seeded agendas amongst the Bush administration?
Furthermore throughout the entire Iraq campaign misleading information was used, such as Bush citing a nonexistent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency saying that Iraq was "six months away from developing a weapon", while adding "I don't know what more evidence we need".
And by the time it became clear that the threat from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was based largely on cooked intelligence, Paul Wolfowitz admitted that the administration "settled" on weapons of mass destruction for "bureaucratic reasons".
Is it me or are these facts just not making sense? Blame Sadam Hussein, attack Iraq - why? Becuase he was linked to Sept. 11 when Colin Powell has admitted there is no evidence of a link, or becuase he has WMD's - where the Bush administration conceeded that after months and months of looking there actually arn't any?
Don't get me wrong, Im not in favour of Sadam Hussein and I agree he shouldn't be allowed to stay in power, but the dynamics of this war were based around more than tenious pretenses. I wasn't going going to get involved in this discussion but I felt the need to in the end.
I agree that's why I stated in previous post that I think bush wants the oil for his company and that is why he has texas civilians working the oil facilitys there I also stated that if you wanted to go for a threat then go for north korea which there is proof about having weapons there but the reason bush isnt is because there is no money in korea
Dragonlance
08-27-2004, 00:29
ITS NOT FOR THE OIL BW. TAT IS KIND OF STUPID BECAUSE HE pAYS FOR THE OIL ANYWAY. If he really wanted oil, like blake said, he would get it in alaska. I meAN common sense is worth it here. If he wanted free oil or cheap oil, and went to iraq for that, oil prices would be going down, but unfortunately they have been going UP! Now why would that happen if oil was free???
If he does steal it, it is for his oil company so he will still make money off of it and the reason he doesnt mine it in Alaska is because it is to hard and cost to much money up there to mine.
Dragonlance
08-27-2004, 03:44
Bush doesnt have an oil company
Bush doesnt have an oil company
Bush owns a 17.6% share in the Harken Energy Corporation (http://www.harkenenergy.com/).
When President George W. Bush froze assets connected to Osama bin Laden, he didn’t tell the American people that the terrorist mastermind’s late brother was an investor in the president’s former oil business in Texas. See (http://www.unsaccodicanapa.com/htmlpages/bush.html)
Dragonlance
08-28-2004, 04:42
Find a more respected site and i will believe you. Im with you 100% Bush isnt the best president. But Kerry is the worst liar out there. Wow, great, he served in the military...for four months. Great, so if i go to the military, get three purple hearts and a bronze star i am fit to be president?? NO!
Bloodywar, lets look at this issue like this. You dont like Bush because of iraq. Let me tell you a lil secret. Back in 2000 i think? Yeah, anyway, Kerry voted to go to war with iraq, now he says he doesnt want to. Earlier in his campaighn, he wanted higher taxes. Now hes saying he is for the poor, wtf??
And he has no respect for anybody. Ever heard of the Swift Vets? They go against Kerrys war records, and im 70% for em. I mean, how can a guy get 3 purple hearts, and a bronse star in only four months for saving one guys' ass.
What about that general who shot OVER the head of a iraqi and got info out of him. That info saved 5 doldiers lives. He was later prosecuted, got his retirement plan taken away, three days before he would be retired. His wife had cancer and they got their med insurance takin away. The general was also stripped of his ranks. why? Because he saved five lives. And the iraqi wasnt even wounded. Just a little scared but so what? I put 5 americans and an iraqi terrorist on the scale. Hell, the iraqi might as well not be on the scale!!
But why was that poor General deranked? Because of fools like Kerry and Left Wing Extremists that are for Hesbolah and crap.
Guess whos one of em? The guy who made Farenheit 9/11. You know, that movie that talks about Bush and Osama agreeing on 9/11.
First thing I admit farhenhiet 911 is filled with half truths and as for Osama and bush agreeing about 9/11 that is not true bush was to busy reading winnie the pooh to the children when it happend
2 days before bush got a message from the FBI saying that it is likely assama binladen was going to make a attack through air planes but guess what he didn't read it because he was to busy on vacations just like the 48% of his first 6 months of presidency
Im sure thats just some left wing fib...similar to the "bush concucted 9/11" theories.
What about that general who shot OVER the head of a iraqi and got info out of him. That info saved 5 doldiers lives. He was later prosecuted, got his retirement plan taken away, three days before he would be retired. His wife had cancer and they got their med insurance takin away. The general was also stripped of his ranks. why? Because he saved five lives. And the iraqi wasnt even wounded. Just a little scared but so what? I put 5 americans and an iraqi terrorist on the scale. Hell, the iraqi might as well not be on the scale!!
Any information extracted through fear is unreliable and not tolerable in this day and age. That shot could have killed that Iraqi and just goes to show how irresponsible that so called general was. Remember the ends does not justify the means. If that Iraqi had been killed - would it still have been worth it? There are other ways to extract information in a legal interrogation. That general over stepped the mark and used unnecessary and unsafe tactics to get the information thus making it morally wrong. I'm just commenting on what you said, I personally had never heard that story before.
Whic point do you think is the fib blake? I know this one is true that during the first 6 months of presidency he spened 48% of it on vacation and as for the document from the FBI they even showed a aid carrying it and it isn't just farenhite 9/11 that says that a few magazines(I think the new york times thingy did)
Dragonlance
08-28-2004, 16:33
Any information extracted through fear is unreliable and not tolerable in this day and age. That shot could have killed that Iraqi and just goes to show how irresponsible that so called general was. Remember the ends does not justify the means. If that Iraqi had been killed - would it still have been worth it? There are other ways to extract information in a legal interrogation. That general over stepped the mark and used unnecessary and unsafe tactics to get the information thus making it morally wrong. I'm just commenting on what you said, I personally had never heard that story before.
First, you just said interrogation is useless. Second no one gives a crap how he got the info, but it turned out he saved 5 lives....BEFORE he was prosecuted. And third, when he fired the shot he was holding the iraqi and fired UP. Oh, and if he did kill him, the guy was a member of the....bah forgot what terrorist group. But he was a terrorist (just a infantry. you know, the guys who do all the dirty work for the leaders).
bloodywar, he often went to his ranch in crawford but he was always working. Every President has done this...Regan was always taking time off from the Whitehouse but he was still working. One scource you can never trust is the New York times, they have an agenda. Theres no way Bush or anybody could of known about 9/11 ahead of time and if we want to talk about people that could of helped stop 9/11 lets talk about Clinton. Clinton had a chance to take Osama into custody when he was the President but he wouldnt do it. Somebody actually had Osama detained but Clinton opted out of the chance to put this future murderer in jail for life.
Dragonlance
08-28-2004, 17:28
And as for economy getting bad when Bush came into office, it actually started to drop one month before Bush wsa actually IN the whitehouse as president. I wish people would stop blaming George Bush for everything, he is a great president with a few minor flaws. As for going to iraq for oil that kind of made me laugh. Not everything is a conspiracy you klnow. :roll: Some people are just paranoid over everything. Who says drilling in alaska would be harder than in iraq? Alaska has a better climate to drill in. And you have less of a chance of being blown up by iraqis in alaska. Still want to argue?
The economy whent bad under Clintons plan, so for the first couple months Bush was in office Clintons plan was still in use. Yes the economy whent bad. Since Bush changed plans for the economy things have absolutely surged in America! It's unbelievable how the economy has picked up. And again, like dragon said...Bush is not going to Iraq for oil or money. It's absurd to think anyone would do this...unless you can "absolutely" prove Bush is in Iraq for oil than you have really no firm ground to stand on.
Let me also state one more thing, who would support someone for president that might actually take our freedom of speech away? "John Kerry" Every since the swift boat ads and books have come out, Kerry has had his people calling every major bookstore trying to get them to take the book off the shelf. Hmm thats odd, when there was one book after another slaying President Bush I didnt see Kerry speaking out against those? Also Kerry has lawyers trying to put a stop to the swiftboat ads and asked Bush to condemn these ads. Well...whatabout Gore being apart of moveon.org where Gore made a reference to Bush betraying his country and the other various democrats attacking bush in a very hatefull tone. I dont see Kerry condeming these people. Hypocrit.
Dragonlance
08-28-2004, 18:20
And if he did, he still got rid of saddam which is a good thing. And if he were somehow able to get free oil from there, oil prices would go down, and the economy would boom even more. Once again, to our profit. and i could see Kerry being modest and saying "No, i dont want free oil because i dont like money". No one in their right mind would say no to that.
PS: The above ^^^^^ was not me agreeing with bloodywar. Rather implying how much it wouldnt matter if what bloodywar said wsa true.
Alex since bush has shares in a oil company he wouldn't want the oil prices to go down he would rather it go up so he gets more money through his company
Dragonlance
08-29-2004, 21:01
But he doesnt control the prices so it doesnt matter :roll:
No he doesnt but his company and every other oil company wants to keep prices high
Dragonlance
08-30-2004, 01:07
its kind of a necessity, and if you want to put it that way, so does every other buisness in the world. If you ask me, McDonalds is too expensive, but i dont see their relationship to Bush.
bloodywar, it's already been stated that Bush wanted to drill in Alaska to lower oil prices...now your just shooting in the dark.
Dragon no offense but that last post was kinda dumb. I never said bush had anything to do with mc donalds so where did that come from? as for blake I don't really think I am shooting in the dark considering at least in my opinion there is plenty of evidence to proove he does have a second agenda in Iraq
Im yet to see any, you mention he has a company there (which Im not aware of) yet thats really the only reason you believe Bush is getting oil from Iraq and intending to raise prices. Bush has already said that Iraq's oil is they're oil, thats not going to change.
Actions speak louder then words, there has been alot things being done there which makes me think bush has some alterative plans there more then just "freeing the people of Iraq"
Yet we havent seen any signifcant actions to suggest he is getting oil for himself. But you are right actions do speak louder for words, for instance Bush having guts enough to weed out terrorism and leading in the freedom of Afghanstan from the Taliban...or going after a pyscho dictator in a hostile regime. He didnt just slap these guys on the wrist and say dont do it again, he took actions....which mean alot more than words.
Dragonlance
08-31-2004, 00:07
My last post was showing how just because a certain buisness raises its prices, doesnt mean the president has to do with it (ie Oil and BUsh)
As for Bush stealing iraq's oil, this just occured to me...if he went to iraq for oil, then why hasnt he still not taken it? it has been over a year since the war started, more than enough time to start drilling for oil. The farenheit 9/11 ideoligy has gotten to your head BW. :?
I never said the presdient had to do with the raising of the prices for oil and as for bush stealing oil in Iraq, Iraq already has pumps which are now being operated by texan civilians. Why do you keep blamming everything I say on farenhite 9/11 not everything I say I get from it so you can back off about that
Dragonlance
08-31-2004, 03:14
Why do you keep blamming everything I say on farenhite 9/11
I never said that did I? And i will have you know the Michael Moore Traitor is anti american (even though thanks to us he is rich) and thinks world society should be based on the Taliban's and Hesbola "cultures" (no ladies and gents, taliban is NOT a terrorist group anymore).
And where did you get "Texan Civilians" from? Right, Bush goes to Texas and gets some of his oil industry friends to go work in iraq ignoring the other pros that are willing to do the job. It is so frikkin annoying when people go ranting off (im not talking about you BW, just some other morons i have met...NOT YOU) about bush having Texans do his dirty work. And if Bush was from NY they would go ranting off about how he got some yorkers to plan 9/11.
Michelle Mooron (hehehe) also discussed the issue of Bush and Osmama talking over the 9/11 incident and that Bush was planning it since the beggining. That little cap-obsessed freak. BW, and anyone else that doesnt live in the US doesnt know what i mean when i say people like michal moore are sick, disgusting ******* that dont deserve to live. The treasonus twit...
I dont care if your democrat or republican, anyone who doesnt realise how unpatriotic Micheal Moore is needs a head examination.
Dragonlance
08-31-2004, 03:25
Im not alone in this country yay! :P
No you never said that but as I said before "actions speak louder then words"(I like that phrase now) And as for michel moore he never said bush planned 9/11 and you don't get what I mean do you? texas is one of the few states that mines oil thats why he has texans there to mine oil he says he is doing it to help Iraq but I am sure they can run there own oil plants and don't think I like micheal moore he is a fat bastard and alot of what he said in farenhite 9/11 is half truths but the reason I hate him is because he screwed up the canadian election by saying that if we elected the conservitives it would be like having bush as our priminister which scared the population into voting for the liberals who are money stealing bastard.
Dragonlance
08-31-2004, 03:38
Right...
So Bush says he is helping iraq by mining oil when he is secretly taikng it in all for himself, the whole worlds a conspiracy.
What BW thinks
Bush steals free oil for US
Argument:
, oil prices sky rocket.
What the truth really is:
Bush helps iraqis with oil mining
Argument:
none
ok I am tired of arguing Alex now one knows who is right I am just stating what I think and as for bush stealing oil for US if he is stealing it then he is doing it for himself not his country him self and how do you know he isnt? got any proof I admit I don't got any solid facts eaither but I got wierd things going on in Iraq which means somthing is going on over there and as for your argument about prices sky rocketing? as I said you have no clue how gas sales work so I am not going to go into it but I personally am tired of arguing about what I think so I would appreciate it if Blake or some admin would lock this thread since it is going no where and never is.
Dragonlance
08-31-2004, 04:57
Then lets stop arguing, even though that was kind of the whole point of this thread. :?
I hate political debating threads to begin with because they can divide a forum, I'll leave this up to Morpheus though.
Dragonlance
08-31-2004, 05:25
I still consider a good person, i just dont like his political views. I wont get mad at him for just a analogy. I go to a school full of LIBERALS, they find me awkward when i tell them whats going on (one thought that Bush went to iraq and killed saddam :roll) if i hadnt learned to tolerate that stuff, i wouldnt be here today. I dunno what BW thinks about me at the moment but i dont view him any differently. There is only one prson that got my temper soaring, but i think everybody here knows who im talking about ;)
Anyway enough of my useless chattering. Im off to bed, school tommorow.
A bunch of Liberals in an Arizona school? Im a bit surprised, just watch yourself if you ever go to states like Washington or New York...your basically throwing yourself to the wolves there. Thats why I love it here in Texas...very conservative views here. 8) I am however starting to see the liberals here express themsevles with bumperstickers and what not, actually have a big lib living right across the street from me.
Dragonlance
09-01-2004, 04:08
its hell! aaah! me and a friend are the only politicaly eduacated people there. Its seems like our teacher is trying to brainwash us with pro kerry ads. "social studies. pft.
Sir.Laughsalot
10-17-2004, 00:31
I AM GOING FOR BUSH. HE LOOKS MORE HONEST. JUST HIS FACIAL EXPRESSION. KERRY LOOKS LIKE THE DRIVER FROM THE ADAMS FAMILY OR I THINK HE WAS THE BUTLER. HE JUST DOESNT LOOK HONEST. I DONT THINK HE IS THE RIGHT MAN FOR THE JOB.
Dragonlance
10-17-2004, 00:53
Well its not far now, only a month, more or less.
Why do you have to type in all caps though
Go Bush, screw Kerry
Damn it sir laughsalot this topic was dead you should of left it that way, all it did was cause arguments.......
Please dont bring up old topics, I know it's only a few weeks untill the election but I just dont feel like discussing politics anymore.
I dont really see a problem with him reviving this thread, as the issue is still topical. However, Sir.Laughsalot point clearly demonstrates the flaw with our democracy - that the masses will vote on superificial reasons such as those he stated.
Well at least your country isnt dumb enough to vote for people who continualy loose money *mutters*god damn paul martin and Jean Chrétien should be shot in my opinion
FmanFORPS3
10-19-2004, 02:01
I HATE BUSH ....i dunno y.......i hated bush since the begining and ever since i saw Farenhight 9/11 i hated him even more
so i say ANYONE BUT BUSH
well that's kinda like saying that you hate xbox and blah blah blah the same way...you have no reason why -_-** so I don't really know...
I HATE XBOX...I don't know why...I hated xbox since the beginning of the move of the DOA Series...and I hated it even more
so I say ANYTHING BUT XBOX
basically that's what your saying *or I think your saying*
you have 'no' reason
Well Bush is up in every polls so it looks likely he'll win the election, it's going to come down to the electoral college though.
I've heard the election is going to be decided by the swing voters.
Yea but there arent hardly any swing voters, pretty much everyone has made up their minds.
Finaly some on else who hates bush and has seen farenhite 9/11!
Evolution
10-19-2004, 16:58
Check this:-
http://www.kontraband.com/show/popup.asp?ID=1647&TTVAL=2
Check this:-
http://www.kontraband.com/show/popup.asp?ID=1647&TTVAL=2
Looks to me like a bad attempt at cashing in on the JibJab success!
Yes, it looks like Bush has the upper hand at present. Kerry did experience a nice bounce after coming off the better from the three debates, however it doesn't look like its going to be enough. What makes me sick is the masses of Americans who vote Republican soley for having similar relgious viewpoints. To sum it up nicely is a quote by a republican woman, lifted from the most recent edition of The Economist, "I doesn't bother me a whole lot what he [President Bush] does with the economy or domestic issues becuase I know that he's a good father and devoted to God, and so he cant go wrong." Im not saying thats a representative stance, just that there are a good deal of people like this who are ignorant beyond belief.
It works the same way with Libies though rebon.
Bloodywar, If you were willing to give farenhiet 9/11 a try then may I suggest you be objective and check out a new movie called 411 coming to theaters soon. It's supposed to discredit everything that F9/11 was about and show the lies that Micheal Moore has created.
Hmm I for some reason doubt much of it would be true but then again 9/11 is full of half truths so I don't know I doubt I will go see it I only saw 9/11 cause my dad wanted to and I wanted the pop corn and drinks
It works the same way with Libies though rebon.
It does indeed, so the point I was making is directed not just to Republicans, but to the American electorate as a whole.
Michael Moore is doing his best to destroy America at a time when its being attacked hardest by Muslim fundamentalists. His hatred towards the Bush administration will just be picked up on by terrorists and make them hate Bush and America even more. I don't like Bush much either, but I think his timing is awful. If America falls so does the rest of the free world.
Amerca wont fall, all micheal moore would do is make America improve and as for terrorists well you can never really kill all of them you can try but I doubt you will go anywhere, that is my opinion anyways
Dragonlance
10-23-2004, 08:58
Well yes you can it just wont be humane. Hydrogen bombs. Wipe out masses of population with those, killing off everybody. But thats just not right, and we would also getpwned byt the rest of the world...
Bloodywar, if Moore was president I would be wearing a turban, praying to allah, threatining to destroy the world, and polishing Osama's shoes.
(^^LOL^^)
Yes, the popular vote doesnt really matter unless the electoral vote is a tie. So lets just hope there are repubs in teh college than dems!!
Bloodywar, micheal moore is the one who said that there is no terrorist threat. What the hell? Where was he on 9/11.
Bloodywar, micheal moore is the one who said that there is no terrorist threat. What the hell? Where was he on 9/11.
He said there is no immediate terrorist threat from Iraqi, which has been proven to be completely true.
Iraq has been a threat since Saddam got in power, terrorist or not.
Bloodywar, micheal moore is the one who said that there is no terrorist threat. What the hell? Where was he on 9/11.
He said there is no immediate terrorist threat from Iraqi, which has been proven to be completely true.
What about the Madrid Bombings? The terrorists may not have come from Iraq but they were part of Al-Qaida and attacked Spain for their involvement in the War in Iraq.
Bloodywar, micheal moore is the one who said that there is no terrorist threat. What the hell? Where was he on 9/11.
He said there is no immediate terrorist threat from Iraqi, which has been proven to be completely true.
What about the Madrid Bombings? The terrorists may not have come from Iraq but they were part of Al-Qaida and attacked Spain for their involvement in the War in Iraq.
I don't see why you brought this up? It supports my point if anything, as it wasn't Iraq who are responsible for the bombings - it's Al Qaeda. Don't get me wrong, i'm all for the war on terror - however I do not feel that invading Iraq was really the best option. I also feel there were deeper agendas at work inside the Bush administration when choosing Iraq, it has long been part of Bush's aims to remove Sadam Hussain - he even asked intellegence officials to give him the "the reason".
You said there was no immediate threats from Iraq and I was pointing out why that hasn't proven true unfortunately, because the bombings in Spain were all to do with the war in Iraq.
You said there was no immediate threats from Iraq and I was pointing out why that hasn't proven true unfortunately, because the bombings in Spain were all to do with the war in Iraq.
But that came after the invasion, when he was reffering to the justifications of going to war in the first place.
I never said moore should be president all I said was that his films help improve America and other countrys by showing them the truth(well mostly) which is good for everyone and the reason micheal moore made farenhite 9/11 is becuase he lost a close friend on 9/11
Bloody, moore pretty much took everything that bush ever said and edited it to make F9/11. That's all it is, he's good at sound editing, thats why the movie is full of crock.
I doubt that and he didn't just show you things bush said he showed records and other crap
Dragonlance
10-29-2004, 00:19
Moore showed records and other crap
Which were edited :roll:
and we know this how? I doubt they are edited
Dragonlance
10-29-2004, 01:31
Well here is proof of his lies, it was HIM that befriended osama for 9/11
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v490/alex4415/mike_moore4copy.gif
HAHAHAH!
:lol:
(I luv editing pics)
I doubt that and he didn't just show you things bush said he showed records and other crap
It's a given fact that he took things bush said and edited them...the whole movie is full of that.
Dragonlance
10-29-2004, 05:20
It's a given fact that he took things bush said and edited them...the whole movie is full of that.
Yeah....basically there is no point on watchin that thing unless:
a. you want to critisize how much it sucks
b. you want to see all the lies and laugh your butt off
c. you are planning to take over the world in the next 4 months and you need tips as to how... :?
:lol::lol::lol:
Well Dragon, it looks like Bush has this thing rapped up. Ohio is really the only state that everyone has their eyes on because there are still provisional ballots to be counted but Bush is ahead of Kerry there by over 100,000 votes. I dont want to start celebrating to early but it looks almost certain Bush will be re-elected. He has 269 electoral votes to Kerrys 240somesthing. I just got off work and had to rely on election coverage by my radio and a horrable signal... :?
Kerry needs like 98% of the uncounted votes to win. Bush gots this in the bag. ^_^
Four more years of Bush...
I don't just feel bad for America, I feel bad for the rest of the world.
You could almost hear the rest of the world crying out "NOOO" when the Ohio reports were coming in. Ignoring the obvious war on terror, there are serious implications of this, such as Bush appointing new supreme justices. He will undoubtably select strongly conservative justices, and If more than just the two likely ones (who are both conservative) go, then the power balance would be shifted. Such important things such as the Roe v Wade ruling woud likely be repealed, and that would be a sad day for America indeed.
Great 4 more years of bush.... Canada is going to love this bush would rather make deals with the mexicans then the Canadians......*sigh*
Dragonlance
11-06-2004, 01:58
W007 he won. He got the most electoral and popular votes since reagan (who had the most) which makes kerry a pathetic loser :P. He almost took it like a man till he started crying at the speach he gave after the election :P
See if peopel didnt want bush then obviously he wouldnt have won. So it means people want him. So that means, 4 more years of safety. *phew* hey who wants my story of MM behind the scenes after the election, so far people seem to love it! :D
I think its really unfair to poke fun at Kerry. Your argument that Bush is going to make America safe shows that you got taken in by Bush's Republican propaganda and obviously never listened to Kerry’s views on Terrorism, which were equally as hard-lined as Bush’s in many ways.
> Kerry wanted to go after Bin Laden, (the guy responsible for 9/11), whilst Bush seems to have given up on catching him and instead wants to invade all these other countries like Iraq and Iran etc, which is just plain crazy, and is just him finishing Bush seniors unfinished business.
> Kerry wanted to tax the rich, Bush wants to tax the poor.
> Kerry cares about the economy, Bush cares about his bank account.
The list goes on and you guys have elected someone that 60% of the people in the UK don't like, which is bad news for us, because I really wouldn't be surprised if he messed up trade agreements with the UK etc. Basically people voted for him because he represented 'safety' and 'Christian beliefs', not because of his policies, which is not why he should be president or voted into power. In my opinion he’s not doing what’s best for the world, he’s doing what’s best for himself.
Firstly, terrorism is more then in just one spot..Bush realises this, how can you not. We are still chasing after Osama. Kerry never even said what his plan for Iraq or terrorismn would be and with his record in the senate how could we trust his word anyway?
Bush doesnt want to tax the poor. There is a reason he finds it better to tax the middle class though. This frees up the rich to spend more and more of thier money...thus bettering the economy.
He almost took it like a man till he started crying at the speach he gave after the election
I watched that speech, and he didn't start crying. I know you're just trying to be funny but I felt I should point it out to those who haven't seen it.
If you ask me, American politics isn't about democracy, its about spin and media influence. Sure, all politics are about these things; however the electorate of most civilised and developed countries base their views on more than this, where the bulk (obviously im saying all) of America voters do not. Politicians have done a U-turn in the way they persuade voters - previously it was about grand visions of a strong economy and healthy country, where now it is about fear, and terrifying the voters into thinking they're going to be attacked and shoudl thus vote for them to protect the country.
Off the rant about politics in general, I think that Sept. 11th was a blessing for the George Bush administration. Crazy you might call me, because why would any president want this to happen to their country? Well, up until it happened the Bush presidency was dominated by a declining economy, poor environmental concern and general absense of anything he promised in his 2000 election campaign about reuniting America with the rest of the world and creating more jobs. The orthodox neoconservaties in the adminstration, namely Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz etc... were itching to press their agenda of democratizing the rest of the known world, but had no single enemy under which to unite the American people. This had been the case before when the neocons were in power: think George Bush Senior and his fighting the communists. The neocons lacked a world evil to unite America against. They wanted to go after Sadam in Iraq way before Sept. 11th even happened. If you want proof of this go and watch the 60 Minutes report where one of Bush's ex security advisers was told: "find me the reason to get rid'da Sadam" by George W Bush. This is fact, not leftwing spin. Then, once 9/11 hit, he had his reason. He rallied the whole country going after these terrorists, uniting American against teh evil of the world: Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qai'da network. But what happened? They over threw the Taliban in Afghanistan and installed an American puppet as interim leader, and let Osama get away. The most powerful nation on the earth cannot catch one man? It wasn't America going after him. America outsoucred the job to rebel militans - the very people they had previously been fighting under the last Republican presidency. So, after letting Osama get away, they felt that Iraq was the next logical step in the fight against terror - as they had (how many times have you heard this frase?) weapons of mass destruction and could "unleash them in 45 minutes". Well, as we all know, this was a complete lie and it has been proven without doubt that there are no such WMD's in Iraq, and the weapons program was dead. So, if this wasn't the case then why attack Iraq - as this war costsed tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands (yes, hundreds of thousands) of deaths? Neoconservative agenda. And the subsequent american climate has been carefully orchastrated by the political elites to create a nation who are afraid of these evils, and who need a strong - Republican - government who will go and fight for Americas freedom. The nation of terrifyed people that America has become was intricatly planned by neocon strategists to ensure that they are re-elected and so that they can continue their agenda of imposing their imperialist views on the rest of the world. There is so much evidence backing up every point I make, and its crazy the amount of blind American citizens out there who eat up every word of the Republican propoganda; I guess my rant at the start about politics in general was indeed relevant.
Dragonlance
11-06-2004, 16:44
WOW, thats a helluva long post.
I watched that speech, and he didn't start crying
Nope, he did cry. You can see tears coming out of his eyes and his voice wa trebling.
If you ask me, American politics isn't about democracy, its about spin and media influence.
First off there is NO true democracy. We would all go crazy and die, imagine voting for every damn thing there is.
Second we are a republic, NOT a democracy.
Third, democracy is having the right to cast out your opinion and thoughts. For the media not to do that, then we would be less of a democracy wouldnt we? And peopel still have teh right to shoose who they want.
Politicians have done a U-turn in the way they persuade voters - previously it was about grand visions of a strong economy and healthy country, where now it is about fear, and terrifying the voters into thinking they're going to be attacked and shoudl thus vote for them to protect the country.
Thats their problem, people go ranting off about how people who burn the flag shouldnt go to jail due to freedom of speech. So why cant politicians "terrify" us voters into thinking things that "arnt true"? We dont have to listen if we dont want to.
Off the rant about politics in general, I think that Sept. 11th was a blessing for the George Bush administration
Not really....everyday you hear how idiotic Bush was for not stopping the attack, so obviously 9/11 took votes away from Bush as well as braught him some.
They wanted to go after Sadam in Iraq way before Sept. 11th even happened. If you want proof of this go and watch the 60 Minutes report where one of Bush's ex security advisers was told: "find me the reason to get rid'da Sadam" by George W Bush. This is fact, not leftwing spin.
Who really cares when they wanted to raid iraq? The point is Saddam is out of power and the world is safer, if only a bit, from wrath of terrorists.
And i agree about the war in iraq to some extent. Bush isnt going about it very well. He bombs a mosque, then gets hsi soldiers to rebuild it, which is really idiotic. Bomb the damned place up, war is war, civilian casualties are only a prick in the 100% of satisfaction of completely destrying a live threat.
:)
Sadam wasnt a threat though, he did nothing to any other countries untill he was attacked in my opinion the war is all wrong and as for 9/11 causing bush to loose votes? you would normally think that but obviously bush was a smart enough man to use it to his advantage. In my opinion bush should not be president all he is doing now is focusing on his war he is ignoring any other countries leaders unless they are helping in his war (been proved many times by Canada)
Oh my gosh bloodywar, Im sorry but you are ignorant. Even the Democrats see how much of a threat Saddam was if left in power and most support they war, they just dont like how it was done.
Let's see, in 1979 he attacked Iran for no good reason..simply because he was affraid radical islamic ideas would spread. Which he had already made an agreement with them in the first place in 1975 as long as they didnt support the Kurdish, and he broke that. So the agreement with Iran was out of hatered for another group of people anyways. He also used chemecal weapons against Iran.
Iraq was in dept after this conflict with Iran so what do they do to get Kuwait to forgive them of their debt. He goes on to attack them, this is where we get the gulf war where America had to come in and run them out.
After the end of the Gulf war Suddam supressed shias and Kurds who he felt were a threat to his power. The only reason the Kurds didnt face complete obliteration was because the international community was protecting them.
As years passed Saddam had arrested and killed many of his own family members who he felt threatened by. For years and years he tortured, inprisoned and killed his own people he felt were a threat to him or that didnt praise his every move. The guy was a lunatic, if you dont want to believe than then go look at the grave of millions and millions of kurds who were gased. The Iraqi people of all things lived in supression of a horrable dictator, he rates up there with some of the worst dictators in the world.
What I find funny is that you complain about all the liberals in Canada yet you yourself are a liberal. Liberals are the ones that say we should give horrable dictators a pass, maybe try to be friends with them..buy them lunch and they'll hopefully quit they're evil ways. We waited for 12 years for Saddam to quit acting like a mad man. Bush is conservative to the bone.
Iraq wasnt a imdediate threat though and I do agree that sudam should of been taken out of power but not like that I also don't agree with how bush is running the war, he is spending billions of dollars which could be put to better use and he is running out of soldiers. the only way bush will be able to keep the troops in iraq is if he drafts or finds some other countrys to send some troops. Like I said earlier unless some country is going to help him in his war he doesnt care about them, I admit I was ignorant when I said sadam didn't do anything to other countries But I will stand by what I said about bush he should never be a president the only reason he still talks to Canada is because he wants Canada to supply iraq with lumber, when he was reelected after talking to a few other country leaders bush talked to paul martin to get lumber for Iraq and to set up a meeting date so they can make a deal about mad cow and other things( and will probably again ask martin to join the war)
bloodywar, how else did you expect us to get him out of power? Negotiate with him into stepping down on his own will power. Saddam was a very pridefull and arrogant man, not to mention worth millions..the only thing we could do is attack. How could the millions of dollars be put to better to use? Spending millions on our future security and well being isnt using that money wisely?
Like I said earlier unless some country is going to help him in his war he doesnt care about them,
That's just a random comment lacking any substance, Bush cares about the well being of the entire world or he wouldnt be trying to track down terrorist and kills them or oust awful regimes.
Nope, he did cry. You can see tears coming out of his eyes and his voice wa trebling.
I watched the speech, I never saw this. And becuase its possible I could have missed it, I searched for this being written somewhere on the net - but found nothing. Can you find anywhere that says that he did cry?
First off there is NO true democracy. We would all go crazy and die, imagine voting for every damn thing there is. Second we are a republic, NOT a democracy.
I'm fully aware that true democracy is impossible, and that America is a republic. However, it is a democratic republic, and democracy is exercised on a state-to-state level - with a republic being used overall for practical reasons.
Third, democracy is having the right to cast out your opinion and thoughts. For the media not to do that, then we would be less of a democracy wouldnt we? And peopel still have teh right to shoose who they want.
They have the right to choose obviously, but my was that the media drastically influences those choices with spin - thus diluting this democracy.
Thats their problem, people go ranting off about how people who burn the flag shouldnt go to jail due to freedom of speech. So why cant politicians "terrify" us voters into thinking things that "arnt true"? We dont have to listen if we dont want to.
Huh? Free speech? This comes down to whether its right that politicians twist the truth to manipulate the vote. Im not saying that we should stop them expressing free speech.
Not really....everyday you hear how idiotic Bush was for not stopping the attack, so obviously 9/11 took votes away from Bush as well as braught him some.
The amount he lost out is small compared to what he gained from the incident.
Who really cares when they wanted to raid iraq? The point is Saddam is out of power and the world is safer, if only a bit, from wrath of terrorists.
Its not quite that simple - you can't just invade a country and slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civillians because it suits your agenda. Iraq never killed one one American citizen, they had never expressed the wish to kill American citizens, yet the US inavaded them just in case. The world doesn't work like that, and thats why essentially the rest of the planet wanted Bush out of office. Have a look at http://www.betavote.com/.
Its not quite that simple - you can't just invade a country and slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civillians because it suits your agenda. Iraq never killed one one American citizen, they had never expressed the wish to kill American citizens, yet the US inavaded them just in case. The world doesn't work like that, and thats why essentially the rest of the planet wanted Bush out of office. Have a look at http://www.betavote.com/.
Sigh we went into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people, not kill them. Why do you think we are still there trying to help them build up a strong democratic government. This had everything to do with Suddam and nothing to do with the people. It's time to accept that Bush is president and when it comes to the security of the world is defintally the best man for the job. Honestly I wonder why people from so many other Countries care about who we elect as president. :roll:
Sigh we went into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people, not kill them.
It seems to me you've been taken in by some Republican spin. Do you honestly believe Iraq is a better place now that its occupied by the US? Do you read the news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3990141.stm)?
Why do you think we are still there trying to help them build up a strong democratic government.
So that a stable, American-loving goverment can be installed - just like they did in Afghanistan. They placed Hamid Karzai as interim president, who was basically an American puppet to rule the country. Then during the elections the US ran his election campaign, spending millions on posters, media broadcasts and propoganda to make sure he was legally elected by the people. As you're probably aware he won the election, and owes it all to the US. Why did the US do this? Shouldn't they just leave the country to have a fair and democratly elected goverment? No, becuase if they control who the president is they get easy access to one of the worlds biggest oil exporters. The US want the same to happen in Iraq, becuase they know that all one of these middle east countries has to do is boycott the US with their oil exports and the US is facing a national crisis. Don't just label what im saying as one of those 'extremist oil conspiracy theories', actually think about what i'm saying.
Honestly I wonder why people from so many other Countries care about who we elect as president.
Becuase it directly affects them.
So you think that Iraq should be under a harsh dictatorship, where innocent people are inprisoned, killed and tortured on a daily basis? There is no doubt that things in Iraq are tough right now, we've only been there for about a year or two. You cant just expect things to be a quick fix. Also I say that you listen to to much liberal media bias..because all they'll feed you is the bad and the ugly...not the good. For instance the thousands of Iraqis showing up to join the military or police despite risking they're lives while doing it. The numerous schools that have been refurbished for a better classroom enviroment. Soldiers are taking time out of they're busy schedules to teach these young Iraqi kids the game of basedball for crying out loud. Im done arguing with you are any other liberal on this board, I cant sway you...you cant sway me. But I ask for once that you open your eyes and accept that Americas and Bush's intentions were good when going into Iraq and Afghinistan..unfortunately it's going to take you having a 9/11 like us for your eyes to open to the real world and the hatered there is out there for free countries. As much as I hated 9/11 it really helped change the way we thought about the world..it was a necessary evil I guess. Used to we'd just kick other countries to the curb but now we're trying to help them become sucessfull and able to be productive in the world..and Bush our commander and chief is leading the way. Despite what happens in the next few years we can be assured that Bush loved his country more than himself..sooner or later you'll have to accept that as much as you hate one of the most compasionnate presidents since Regan this country has ever seen.
I agree with the begining of blakes post ( i didnt read the rest).
Bush is not an idiot, he wasright to invade iraq, if saddam had weapons of mass destrucion, n he didnt invade, every1 would say how dumb he was, it was a loose loose situation ffor Bush, but he did the right thing, and captured Saddam.
Most of the people who are anti Bush just watched Michael Moore and his dumb movies about how Bush is terrible etc etc. but most of that stuff is made up, and all of the footage is cut and pasted to make it look like Bush was doing stuff that he wasnt.
Many people do not know, but there are still many americans looking for Osama in afganistan, Bush did not just give up. Its very hard to find one person in the world, i do not think he will ever be found.
As someone else said, if everyone hates Bush, he wouldnt have beaten Kerry in the first place, he is not a bad persident, and just because he cant read stuff off a tv screen well, does not mean that he is an idiot when it comes to being a president.
if everyone hates Bush, he wouldnt have beaten Kerry in the first place
He got 3million more popular votes than Kerry and the most popular votes of any president in the history of the nation. Obviously people feel secure with him as president. The Bush haters are really very minimal they are just very outspoken..the liberals were attacking Bush left and right during the campaign painting this picture that the majority of people cant stand Bush, when in reality that wasnt the case.
Blake, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm glad everyone on this thread has managed to argue points, rather than filling it full of emotionally-fueled attacks on each other. I don't think you should brand me a liberal extremist for having anti-neocon views, i'm actually more towards the centre if anything - I just don't agree with the way this war was fought and the way the american population has been unknowningly manipulated. I agree the way Sadam ruled was unacceptable, and action needed to be taken; however this should have been done through the UN over a period of time. He didn't pose an instant threat which required immediate military action.
Remember that I hold no bitter feelings at all for you Blake (or any other republicans on here), just different views held by different people :)
I find it funny how many Americans, typically Republicans always seem to knock Liberalism. Nearly all modern democratic ideologies stem from Liberalism. Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) the third President of the United States, the man who drafted the Declaration of Independence, was indeed a Liberal.
In fact some of the greatest men in history were liberals:. For Example: John Locke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke), John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maynard_Keynes) and John Stuart Mill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill) were all Liberals.
If you haven't heard of these people then it is a very good idea to read up on them before knocking Liberalism as an Ideology. They helped shape the world we live in!
Liberals have played arguably the most significant role in our intellectual and social development since the early 17th Centaury. The world would be a very different place without these people speaking out for individual freedoms. I am well aware that liberalism can mean a variety of things to Americans, but in this context I mean it to be centrist, advocating minimal state intervention etc, individual self development etc.
As for the comment about Bush Haters being minimal. The majority of people in nearly every country other than America would prefer to have Kerry as President. Kerry had nearly half the vote, so even the Americans are only just Republican in their beliefs. America as a whole wanted Bush, but I would never go as far to say that Bush won convincingly. 3 million votes in a country of 250 + Million is really not what I would call convincing.
Dragonlance
11-08-2004, 23:46
Time for another one of my extremely long and boring posts :P
I watched the speech, I never saw this. And becuase its possible I could have missed it, I searched for this being written somewhere on the net - but found nothing. Can you find anywhere that says that he did cry?
My mistake. Fox News(hannity and kolms) said he cried AFTER teh speach. My mistake, sorry bout that.
It seems to me you've been taken in by some Republican spin. Do you honestly believe Iraq is a better place now that its occupied by the US? Do you read the news?
No offence but do you honestly consider BBC's extreme liberal manipulation news? Meh i am sure Blake knows what he is talkin about.
So that a stable, American-loving goverment can be installed - just like they did in Afghanistan.
I am sorry, but making afghanastan a democrocy isnt on anyones agenda. Main focus: kill Osama ;)
Honestly I wonder why people from so many other Countries care about who we elect as president.
Becuase it directly affects them
Not really...I mean if it directly affects you why hasnt anything bad happened to you in the last 4 years? why just now eh?
Many people do not know, but there are still many americans looking for Osama in afganistan, Bush did not just give up. Its very hard to find one person in the world, i do not think he will ever be found.
As someone else said, if everyone hates Bush, he wouldnt have beaten Kerry in the first place, he is not a bad persident, and just because he cant read stuff off a tv screen well, does not mean that he is an idiot when it comes to being a president.
Hmph, nobody pays attention to that anymore. Liberal extremists think we have NO soldiers in afghanastan when teh other day on Fox they said a helicpter blew up, and more videos of Osama were found. Hmm, now how can they find those videos? Truly i wonder :roll:
He got 3million more popular votes than Kerry and the most popular votes of any president in the history of the nation. Obviously people feel secure with him as president.
Amen to that, obviously people think he is fit for pres. If he really is that bad(which he isnt) than we americans chose are own doom so lets just leave it at that!
Remember that I hold no bitter feelings at all for you Blake (or any other republicans on here), just different views held by different people
Oh shutup we all know i hate your guts...
>.>
<.<
>.<
V.V
lol just kidding rebon, you do have some interesting points ;) And ofcourse i dont hate your guts, i mean you are a ncie funny fella
keep up the good arguing guys....()_()
Edit: Ya umm morph, liberals back then and now are two completely different things. Democrats and liberals, left wing people, they all got completely redefined after the invasion of the hippies in 1960 i think? ya, so Thomas Jefferson was a liberal with the thoughts of modern day conservatives. w007
Well, again Im done arguing..my guy won..Im very pleased with that. I should soak it in and enjoy it instead of trying to fend for him. The American people have spoken. Im going back to talking games and am through with political discussion.
The videos of Osama arent found they are leaked onto the internet or given to the media as for America in Afghanastan Well they don't have very many troops there it is mainly Canada in Afghanastan and I give up on the Bush thing it isant worth it arguing about him the thread would still be dead if *cough* sir laughsalot didn't revive it
Dragonlance
11-09-2004, 02:00
Well, again Im done arguing..my guy won..Im very pleased with that. I should soak it in and enjoy it instead of trying to fend for him. The American people have spoken. Im going back to talking games and am through with political discussion.
Yah me too.
Back to gaming tis
i miss them olden days during the summer though.
Well its best now to let this thread dye *kills thread*
Edit: Ya umm morph, liberals back then and now are two completely different things. Democrats and liberals, left wing people, they all got completely redefined after the invasion of the hippies in 1960 I think? yaw, so Thomas Jefferson was a liberal with the thoughts of modern day conservatives. w007
You don't know what you're talking about Dragonlance. It's true Classical liberals and Modern Liberals differ to some extent, but they still share many common views. Modern Liberalism in America evolved partly out of Roosevelt’s New Deal whereas Modern liberalism today came about through the works of people like Stuart Mill and Keynes. It really doesnt have anything to do with 'hippies invading'. :roll:
BBC's extreme liberal
The BBC are an independent un-biased television organisation. They are not allowed to be politically biased towards anyone party or issue. Also there is no such thing as 'extremist liberals'. Liberals are predominantly central when using the left right ideological spectrum and therefore do not swing to extremes. Examples of extremist ideologies are Fascists, Communists and Anarchists, but never liberals. Saying liberals are extremist is a complete contradiction in itself.
Dragonlance
11-09-2004, 23:17
.....okay this needs a locking......elections over and this, is obviously about the election. So yah, who's with me....
I'm with you. But I gotta say, shame on you for all you Bush people. I'm a Canadian and I feel very strongly about the anti-bush movement. I can't believe he won! And he's so horrible with his power. Giving him the power of the U.S. is like giving your two year old a lit cigarette. You just don't do it!
It doesn't need locking, the thread can die on its own accord. And what Morph said about Liberals is very true, as well as BBC being a completely unpartisan organisation.
yay! another Canadian were in Canada are you from? Ottawa myself
i'm in ontario too! kenora, couple hours from winnipeg!!!
Dragonlance
11-12-2004, 17:09
This thread can die on its own
Jeez people thats a hint that you shouldnt post here any lnger
PeanutButterMunky
11-12-2004, 22:15
Bush Won
/end thread
This thread can die on its own
Jeez people thats a hint that you shouldnt post here any lnger
Dragon, let the kerreyites mope..me and you no longer have to post here. We dont have to defend Bush anymore because the American people have spoken...(inluding me since I voted for Bush). Let's just leave this thread alone and enjoy the victory. There are other things to worry about.
Besides we werent talking about Bush me and chels were talking about where we live in Canada seeing as how it is such a great country and all 8)
mgs_solidsnake911
11-21-2004, 04:07
bush won anyway and the election is already over long ago
Dragonlance
11-21-2004, 06:28
This thread can die on its own
Jeez people thats a hint that you shouldnt post here any lnger
Dragon, let the kerreyites mope..me and you no longer have to post here. We dont have to defend Bush anymore because the American people have spoken...(inluding me since I voted for Bush). Let's just leave this thread alone and enjoy the victory. There are other things to worry about.
Yep this is meh last post here :P
*takes a cup of wine* lets celebrate
Bush doesnt want to tax the poor. There is a reason he finds it better to tax the middle class though. This frees up the rich to spend more and more of thier money...thus bettering the economy.
I was just looking through and must have missed this comment before, so thought I would comment. Bush's policies closely resemble what is known as Reaganomics (as it was used during Reagan's time in office), that is lowering taxes for the rich so they will theoretically invest more - thus bolstering the econmy, create jobs etc... This policy, however, has been proven to be ineffective. It makes the rich poorer by lowering taxes, forces poorer people to pay more taxes and bankrupts the state in the process as there is less tax money coming in. With the current deficits and weakening dollar the country is facing I don't really think the state can afford these policies, especially if Bush's $1 trillion plan to part-privitise social security! The policy does nothing for the American people and appeases the Republican's big business core base; even Reagan's former budget director David Stockman and George Bush senior have admitted that Reaganomics doesn't work!
Eurogamer's Interview with Phil Harrison
By: Justin Pinter
Recently Rob Fahey from Eurogamer.net interviewed Sony's Phil Harrison. The interview asked Phil Harrison mainly on the PS3 itself interms of price and hardware. There were a few questions about how he feels they can handle the competition and other things like Sony's strategy for launch.
Here is the interview:
"Eurogamer: All three companies laid their cards on the table earlier this week - from your perspective, what do you make of the three conferences and the reaction to them so far?
Phil Harrison: Sadly, I haven't actually had a chance to watch the other two conferences, but I've heard enough reports. I think that if we think the industry or the future of the business is defined by this week of press conferences... Then, we're very much mistaken. I think it's going to be defined by what the consumer thinks and what the industry thinks, and what the game developers think. It's not just about the press conferences.
I think the pieces of the PlayStation 3 puzzle are now fully revealed. Obviously we did the hardware last year, this year it's confirming or re-asserting certain elements of it - obviously, people know about Blu-Ray, but confirming that every machine has a hard disc drive in it, I think, was an important step. Confirming that we've got a new controller strategy was an important step, and showing lots of games was an important step. So, those were the main take-outs, and I think that as far as that was concerned, we achieved our objectives.
Eurogamer: Your strategy and Microsoft's strategy are very divergent, in that Microsoft is offering consumers a choice - whether to have HD-DVD or not, whether to have a hard drive or not - while you're putting everything into a very expensive box and saying that they take all or nothing. Why that direction? Why not have a system where people who don't want to pay that premium for Blu-Ray don't have to?
Phil Harrison: Leaving aside the movie debate about Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, purely from a game design point of view and a game production point of view, we have to have Blu-Ray. DVD is just not big enough; DVD9 is nowhere near big enough for the kind of games, the richness that we're going to be putting in the games, the variety, the detail, you name it.
So, we had to adopt Blu-Ray primarily as a game format. The second benefit of it is that it becomes a video format as well. Putting it all in one box, as you say, is also down to the fact that a hard disc drive is necessary to create a totally integrated network platform. We want every consumer to be able to download and install content on their hard disc drive. If you want to put all your music on your hard disc drive, you'll probably go for the 60GB version. If you're a complete music fan and video fan, and you want to have huge amounts of digital content, then you can upgrade to whatever size of drive you like. You can put any in that you like - it is a computer, after all.
Eurogamer: So that hard drive is a standard PC drive?
Phil Harrison: ATA, bog standard, yeah.
Eurogamer: You're not going to be selling Sony drive upgrades?
Phil Harrison: We've got no plan to. We may offer something, but we have no plan to at the moment.
Eurogamer: Talking about software - how many titles do you actually have on the show floor this week? I think we counted a dozen...
Phil Harrison: I think it's fifteen playable games. At the conference, we had three titles from Japan - GT HD, Eye of Judgement and Genji 2, we had three from Europe - Singstar, Heavenly Sword and F1, and two from the US - Warhawk and Resistance. That was pretty evenly split.
Eurogamer: The controller. You showed off the boomerang, then said it was a prototype, and now you've come back and done the Dual Shock but with a twist - no pun intended. How long have you known that this was the plan?
Phil Harrison: [The motion sensing controller] has been thought about since about 1994, but in reality, you can't make some of the ideas that we have because the technology is not available in sufficient quantity or at a low enough price, and you kind of have to wait for certain things to converge. We had the concept of PlayStation Portable for many years before we could actually deliver it at a price and at a standard that was acceptable.
The controller is obviously a surprise to the industry. We've been thinking about it for a while, but it's a relatively recent addition to the format. We didn't show it last year, because we weren't ready to. The boomerang, as you call it, was very clearly designed as a design concept, and was never intended to be the final controller, despite what everybody said about it.
I think we certainly saw the strength of feeling that existed about the boomerang - even though nobody in the world ever held it in their hand. I thought that was very interesting, that people were criticising it for what it looked like, not how it felt.
Eurogamer: When you made the decision to put the tilt functions into the pad, how heavily influenced was that by the great response Nintendo has had to the same kind of technology in the Wii controller?
Phil Harrison: I think that some of the research that we've done, clearly other companies have been doing as well - so there's nothing completely surprising about that. But I know that the strategy was to take what was already a winning formula - to have a controller as well regarded as it, and kind of the de facto industry standard that this PlayStation shape controller has become. If you include the ones that are packed in, the secondary ones and the knock-offs that are the same shape, there are probably around 400 million of these things that have been sold on PSone and PS2.
So, we kind of took an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" strategy - but by adding motion sensitivity to the controller... Well, we didn't start the wave, but we've kind of jumped onto that wave. I'm quite happy to admit that, but that will be one of the defining characteristics of next-generation gaming, the complexity and sophistication of input that you can get from a very simple device.
What I'm really keen to communicate is the fact that by sticking with the PlayStation controller, you have this very comfortable, two-handed approach that gamers are very familiar with - and it allows you to have two channels of input. You've got your primary input that may be normal buttons, normal sticks, nothing particularly revolutionary - no pun intended - but we can also add secondary motion, and we can detect the secondary movement of the pad in addition to the primary buttons.
When you play games, everybody does the same thing - they always move the controller around. Well, we can now start to add that secondary motion into the game design, and the way that the game reacts to the user.
Eurogamer: Is this also an attempt on your part to give a bit of a kick in the teeth to cross-platform development? Now all three next-gen consoles will have different control systems, it's going to make it much harder to port the same games between them while taking advantage of those systems.
Phil Harrison: I think you're right, but I don't think that was actually the plan. I think that that is the outcome - you want to make the games and the experiences that you offer on your platform as unique and as defendable as you possibly can, and obviously that innovation is one of them.
That said, I think that with some exceptions, first party will probably be the majority of the exclusives on PlayStation 3. It's just the reality of the world that we live in - and it was very kind of Microsoft to announce one of those [multi-platform titles] for us.
Eurogamer: Looking again at the software line-up, are you happy with where you are with development on the system at the moment?
Phil Harrison: Happy, but not satisfied. We can always do better, we can always have more - but I think we've shown enough breadth and we've shown enough quality, and we've shown a direction of where we're going to end up at launch. We're six months away from launch, remember, and there are some very polished games on our stand, which I don't think you've ever seen from another platform launch. That includes our own - PSone and PS2 - this far out from launch.
Eurogamer: Aren't you concerned though that in November, your launch titles - which have traditionally been pretty rocky - are going to be going head to head with second and even third wave games on the Xbox 360?
Phil Harrison: Am I concerned... Well, I wouldn't say concerned, but I'm certainly conscious of that. I think that we will have games that are really compelling and are really going to deliver on the promise, but I don't think it'll be an issue.
Eurogamer: On PlayStation 2, we didn't start to see really impressive stuff until a couple of years into the life of the console, because it took that long for developers to get up to speed. The guys at Microsoft make a lot of allusions to how easy their console is to develop to compared to yours; how do you respond to that? Is it true of PlayStation 3, as it was of PS2? Is there going to be a one or two year cycle where developers are still just getting to grips with this platform?
Phil Harrison: I think the PlayStation 2 was a difficult machine to write for, especially to really maximise what it was capable of on the vector units, VU0 and VU1, the proprietary SIMD engines, because they used fairly low-level programming techniques to program for them. However, that didn't stop us selling a hundred and something million, and having a billion plus software units sold for the machine, and global average of 77 per cent plus market share.
On PlayStation 3, however, the Cell SPUs are programmed with high-level programming languages, and that allows us to get great performance with general-purpose programming techniques. So, the short answer is, it's much, much easier to program for. Witness the fact that we've got so much software up and running, and playable, this far out from launch. "
ps3 Wanna be
05-12-2006, 22:49
Ok it's not a good idea to just copy+paste the whole interview.
Really, you should pick out the most important things he has said, and then link to the full interview at the end.
I know....I just got lazy...I ahve been posting articles left adn right and I am just tried, not to mention this is a huge interview to pick apart. I will do it later today and have it up for ya.
ps3 Wanna be
05-13-2006, 09:55
Yeah you've done a lot over the last day or so - take a break! :D
Someone should do this article though! :D
ps3 Wanna be
05-17-2006, 20:40
I think we've covered everthing that's been said in the interview.