NationStates Jolt Archive

For the poll, I ask that only those in the U.S. vote, though anyone can and should comment.

What's your favorite NHL team?

How can the first option be an answer to your question?

The question deals with opposition to Bush's policies, and the
first choice deals with Bush himself.

GO RED WINGS!!!

How can the first option be an answer to your question?

The question deals with opposition to Bush's policies, and the
first choice deals with Bush himself.

GO RED WINGS!!!
Leafs and Red Wings -----Stanley Cup Final-----game 7-----sudden death overtime--------Ron Francis scores between the legs of Cujo---

Go Leafs Go :lol:

http://www.torontomapleleafs.com/images/bios/action/action_francis_180.jpg

About Bush:

He's wrong for the U.S. and needs to be brought down!

yech a toronto fan. Man, go to America where Toronto belongs
(for those who aren't from montreal/toronto, no offense, this is a pretty big rivalry. I dated a torontonian girl once, just bad news).

What's your favorite NHL team?

how quickly it trails off....

From the way things look, it's going to be Tampa Bay versus San Jose in the Stanley Cup. Those two teams are both part of the Original Six, right?

I can't stand Bush, he's a war lord and other nations leaders can't stand him. Kerry all the way! I've never liked the Republican's much, but especially Bush, messing with the constitution for his own religious reasons, which are weak at best.


Oh btw:

:D GO FLAMES GO :D
:cry: I wish the Oilers were in the playoffs though :cry:

And the original 6 teams were Boston, NY Rangers, Detroit, Chicago, Toronto and Montreal. Tampa Bay and San Jose came in in like 91 or 92.

Great poll, written by someone who obviously hates Bush. What are the choices here? The best one for anyone who likes Bush is that he's going to be re-elected anyway.

Lesson number one: if you want a decent poll try to make the choices a little more impartial.

I can't stand Bush, he's a war lord and other nations leaders can't stand him. Kerry all the way! I've never liked the Republican's much, but especially Bush, messing with the constitution for his own religious reasons, which are weak at best.


Oh btw:

:D GO FLAMES GO :D
:cry: I wish the Oilers were in the playoffs though :cry:

And the original 6 teams were Boston, NY Rangers, Detroit, Chicago, Toronto and Montreal. Tampa Bay and San Jose came in in like 91 or 92.

You're not one for sarcasm are you?

Opposition is good, no matter what, as long as it is voice. Freedom of speech guarantees Americans that right.

I, personally, am opposed to President Bush. I will not vote for him in November, but I do agree that everyone has a right to their opinion about him.

Bush is a can of spam. but hes still the best candidate we'v got.
what has happened to our country :roll:

Since I'm not an American, I haven't voted, but I just have to say that's it's rather tragic when someone feels forced to vote for a guy like Kerry that they may not even like because they generally want "anybody but Bush". It's a lovely choice between Insidiously Evil and Evil In A More Discrete And Harmless Way. :wink:

Since I'm not an American, I haven't voted, but I just have to say that's it's rather tragic when someone feels forced to vote for a guy like Kerry that they may not even like because they generally want "anybody but Bush". It's a lovely choice between Insidiously Evil and Evil In A More Discrete And Harmless Way. :wink:

That is how I have voted in every presidential election I have been able to, except 2. I voted for Bush because I did think he would make a good president and he did. Voted against Clinto twice and against Gore. This time it will be against Bush II.

Actually, Sdaeriji, I thought you were serious because your not the first person i've met to say that. Besides, age of the team doesn't determine skill, look at the BlackHawks.

Honestly, I don't think Bush has done anything worthy of a President. I mean, he took us to war, and hes kept us there for what, 3 years now? And his resolution for the next session? Keep fighting, maybe we'll beat them in another 3 years. Maybe I don't see the whole picture, but it doesn't look to me like he's made much progress. Except, of course, ignoring Intelligence reports and taking us to war with Sadaam/Bin Laden. If you call that progress. But it's not like it matters, almost everyone over 35 is going to vote for him anyway. So whatever.

Bush's pre-emptive war policy is crap. It has to be

a) totally removed

or

b) changed so that the pre-emptive war is done with the consent of the UN, and that some bipartisan group is able to verify the evidence supporting the war

and the same goes w/his patriot act. what good are our freedoms if they must be sacrificed in order to protect them?

Since I'm not an American, I haven't voted, but I just have to say that's it's rather tragic when someone feels forced to vote for a guy like Kerry that they may not even like because they generally want "anybody but Bush". It's a lovely choice between Insidiously Evil and Evil In A More Discrete And Harmless Way. :wink:

That's why I'm working night and day to get the Nader, the Libertarians, the Natural Laws, the Reform Party and the Greens on the ballot.

If there were six major parties then America wouldn't be in a cess-pool!

Here's a Bush=Kerry ad: http://www.infowars.com/print/Secret_societies/american_dictator.htm

The second one 8)

He's almost a fascist.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Great poll, written by someone who obviously hates Bush. What are the choices here? The best one for anyone who likes Bush is that he's going to be re-elected anyway.

Lesson number one: if you want a decent poll try to make the choices a little more impartial.

do you actually read questions when you spout stuff like this. The question was how do you react to the strong anti bush feeling abroad.

...he took us to war, and hes kept us there for what, 3 years now? And his resolution for the next session? Keep fighting, maybe we'll beat them in another 3 years...

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt; generally regarded as the greatest presidents that the U.S. has ever had.

...he took us to war, and hes kept us there for what, 3 years now? And his resolution for the next session? Keep fighting, maybe we'll beat them in another 3 years...

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt; generally regarded as the greatest presidents that the U.S. has ever had.Assuming that you are saying that Bush is like those three presidents because he's a president in time of war, allowme to point out that Washington was not President until after the Revolutionary War ended, and both Lincoln and Roosevelt were forced into wars, Lincoln by the blockade of Fort Sumter and Roosevelt by the attack on Pearl Harbor. Bush was not forced into the war in Iraq, and his execution of both the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan has been subpar to say the least. To compare him to any of the three you listed is laughable at best, an insult at worst.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

Nuff said.

He's a facist. Let's not elect him again...please?

Since I'm not an American, I haven't voted, but I just have to say that's it's rather tragic when someone feels forced to vote for a guy like Kerry that they may not even like because they generally want "anybody but Bush". It's a lovely choice between Insidiously Evil and Evil In A More Discrete And Harmless Way. :wink:

That's why I'm working night and day to get the Nader, the Libertarians, the Natural Laws, the Reform Party and the Greens on the ballot.

If there were six major parties then America wouldn't be in a cess-pool!

Here's a Bush=Kerry ad: http://www.infowars.com/print/Secret_societies/american_dictator.htm

OK, Cromotar you are forgiven for your lack of knowledge on our governments structural make up.

Here is how it works, our government is DESIGNED to only have two parties. We are NOT a parliamentary government. The theory goes thusly, a party that begins to get popular will either be consumed by one of the major parties, or will replace and consume one of the major parties. This promotes compromise within the party and more importantly it promotes stability. In a parliamentary system all the parties can be custom fit and then are forced to form coalitions. So while your vote might get you a better representitive who more accurately reflects your views, your government is substantially less stable because if the ruling coalition collapses then the government basically stops work until a new coalition is created.

For more info please visit:
The governments GREAT website. (http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm) This site breaks the issue down into fairly easily understood concepts and gives historical reasons for the change to the system.

...he took us to war, and hes kept us there for what, 3 years now? And his resolution for the next session? Keep fighting, maybe we'll beat them in another 3 years...

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt; generally regarded as the greatest presidents that the U.S. has ever had.Assuming that you are saying that Bush is like those three presidents because he's a president in time of war, allowme to point out that Washington was not President until after the Revolutionary War ended, and both Lincoln and Roosevelt were forced into wars, Lincoln by the blockade of Fort Sumter and Roosevelt by the attack on Pearl Harbor. Bush was not forced into the war in Iraq, and his execution of both the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan has been subpar to say the least. To compare him to any of the three you listed is laughable at best, an insult at worst.

The statement that Couronne made applied to all three of these American leaders (note that while Washington was not the U.S. President during the revolution he was still the leader of the nation), I was merely pointing out that he should find better reasons to consider a president to be a failure.

...wait...Lincoln and FDR were forced into their respective wars!? The only reason Lincoln let South Carolina fire the first shot was so he could claim moral superiority and FDR, well he was gunning for Hitler while Time Magazine still considered him man of the year. The only thing that held FDR back for so long was not some reluctance to shed blood in the name of freedom but the activism of the isolationists and pacifists in the hoi polloi and people like Joe Kennedy. You can laugh at this all you want, but eventually you'll have to drop you're self-righteous facade and face reality, really, it's not healthy.

Here is how it works, our government is DESIGNED to only have two parties. We are NOT a parliamentary government. The theory goes thusly, [BS follows]...
your government is substantially less stable because if the ruling coalition collapses then the government basically stops work until a new coalition is created.


First of all, NO! The government is not, nor was it ever, DESIGNED to be a two-party monopoly. George Washington warned against factoral parties and Hamilton ignored -- and formed the fascist-bank Federalist Party.

And Second, your bit about the government not being able to work if there were more than two parties is unfounded fiction!

That is how I have voted in every presidential election I have been able to, except 2. I voted for Bush because I did think he would make a good president and he did. Voted against Clinto twice and against Gore. This time it will be against Bush II.

The last time America voted a president out of office, rather than voting another candidate in ( as people are talking about doing now: "Anyone but Bush"), we ended up with Jimmy Carter. He was a stellar president [sarcasm]

I'm Dutch, I voted anyway.

Here is how it works, our government is DESIGNED to only have two parties. We are NOT a parliamentary government. The theory goes thusly, [BS follows]...
your government is substantially less stable because if the ruling coalition collapses then the government basically stops work until a new coalition is created.


First of all, NO! The government is not, nor was it ever, DESIGNED to be a two-party monopoly. George Washington warned against factoral parties and Hamilton ignored -- and formed the fascist-bank Federalist Party.

And Second, your bit about the government not being able to work if there were more than two parties is unfounded fiction!

The U.S. government was not originally desinged to be a two party system, but later it became accepted that, as it is with the courts, the best course for the government can be attained if two contending parties are balance each other. By making it a two party system it prevents monopolies. While having more than two parties could work, it does tend to make things complicated, besides, name one party that is not currently major that deserves to be.

That is how I have voted in every presidential election I have been able to, except 2. I voted for Bush because I did think he would make a good president and he did. Voted against Clinto twice and against Gore. This time it will be against Bush II.

The last time America voted a president out of office, rather than voting another candidate in ( as people are talking about doing now: "Anyone but Bush"), we ended up with Jimmy Carter. He was a stellar president [sarcasm]

Yay, an excuse to talk about Jimmy Carter; he was integral in causing:
1.The rise Ayatola Komeni
2.The rise of Saddam and hence the necessity for
3.The U.S. conflicts with Iraq
4.The Iran Iraq war
5.The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

He also won the nobel peace prize, partially for his efforts, presumed to be successful at the time, to convince the North Koreans to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons. I don't like Jimmy Carter.

While having more than two parties could work, it does tend to make things complicated, besides, name one party that is not currently major that deserves to be.

Wouldn't you expect everyone to say the party that most closely fits their own views?

I would say the AmericanPatriot party.
Platform: Abolish taxes, and take the govt back to the size it was in the very beginning. No welfare, and crime is actually punished!

He's a facist. Let's not elect him...pleas againe?

Do you even know what the definition of a fascism and the fascists are? People that throw nazi and fascist around really demean the word.

The last time America voted a president out of office, rather than voting another candidate in ( as people are talking about doing now: "Anyone but Bush"), we ended up with Jimmy Carter. He was a stellar president
The last time we voted a President out of office we got Ronald Reagan. The last time we voted a Republican out of office, we got Carter.

I'm Dutch, I voted anyway.

You bastard! :P

He's a facist. Let's not elect him...pleas againe?

Do you even know what the definition of a fascism and the fascists are? People that throw nazi and fascist around really demean the word.

We should admire the word? :shock: :wink:

The last time we voted a President out of office we got Ronald Reagan. The last time we voted a Republican out of office, we got Carter.
Hmmmm Ford or Carter?.......Ford or Carter?.......Ford or Carter?

Sounds like a coin toss to me! ;)

Bush's policies have been decent, on the whole. He certainly handled Al-Qaida better than do-nothing liberals would have done.

We should admire the word
No, but the massive amount of times the various words have been thrown around really makes it no more insulting or severe than "idiot".

My opinion:
Bush: He's not wonderful, and he has done some bad for America, but he couldn't be as bad as melon-head Kerry.
Kerry: GOD no! He also wins first prize for lamest, cheesiest campaign commercial.