United States Presidential Election 2004

Watch
This discussion is closed.
drago di giada
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#81
Report 15 years ago
#81
(Original post by PadFoot90)
No, he didnt.
lol, *one lonely tear slides down my cheek.* not a big loss.
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#82
Report 15 years ago
#82
(Original post by drago di giada)
lol, *one lonely tear slides down my cheek.* not a big loss.
yes such a shame isn't it?
0
drago di giada
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 15 years ago
#83
(Original post by PadFoot90)
yes such a shame isn't it?
oh yeah.. definitly *rolls eyes* please tell me you're for bush though.. not kerry.
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#84
Report 15 years ago
#84
(Original post by drago di giada)
oh yeah.. definitly *rolls eyes* please tell me you're for bush though.. not kerry.
I could, but i would be lying
0
drago di giada
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#85
Report 15 years ago
#85
(Original post by PadFoot90)
I could, but i would be lying
*smacks her head multiple times!* but WHY?!?! Kerry's so droopy. Not to mention the fact that he's a complete ass. *see my sig*
0
BloodyValentine
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#86
Report 15 years ago
#86
(Original post by drago di giada)
*smacks her head multiple times!* but WHY?!?! Kerry's so droopy. Not to mention the fact that he's a complete ass. *see my sig*
yeah that doesn't quite work in the uk we say arse lol
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#87
Report 15 years ago
#87
(Original post by drago di giada)
*smacks her head multiple times!* but WHY?!?! Kerry's so droopy. Not to mention the fact that he's a complete ass. *see my sig*
Because Bush has done so much damage! Alienated our allies, lied to the american people, jumped into the iraq war, which has gone terribly imo, it's time for a change.
0
drago di giada
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#88
Report 15 years ago
#88
(Original post by PadFoot90)
Because Bush has done so much damage! Alienated our allies, lied to the american people, jumped into the iraq war, which has gone terribly imo, it's time for a change.
You'd prefer to have a man in office that can't make up his damn mind? He's been on every side of every argument in the 20+ years he's been involved in politics. Personally.. I'd think people would want someone who could make up his mind, and stay on ONE side of an argument.. not EVERY SIDE!
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#89
Report 15 years ago
#89
(Original post by drago di giada)
You'd prefer to have a man in office that can't make up his damn mind? He's been on every side of every argument in the 20+ years he's been involved in politics. Personally.. I'd think people would want someone who could make up his mind, and stay on ONE side of an argument.. not EVERY SIDE!
If he doesnt have an opinion on each issue, why would he run for president? I personly think edwards is by far the best of the four, shame he won't get the nomination.
0
drago di giada
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#90
Report 15 years ago
#90
(Original post by PadFoot90)
If he doesnt have an opinion on each issue, why would he run for president? I personly think edwards is by far the best of the four, shame he won't get the nomination.
Its always been a democrat or republican who has won the election! Have you ever heard of a conservative, green, etc.. person who has won?!? I haven't. Its completely asinine. Why bother having all of these political parties if the only ones that matter are completely stupid. Personally.. I'm conservative. But eh.. who cares right?
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#91
Report 15 years ago
#91
(Original post by drago di giada)
Its always been a democrat or republican who has won the election! Have you ever heard of a conservative, green, etc.. person who has won?!? I haven't. Its completely asinine. Why bother having all of these political parties if the only ones that matter are completely stupid. Personally.. I'm conservative. But eh.. who cares right?
If you are talking about the presidential election, there have been plenty of presidents who were not of either party.
0
Sam2k
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#92
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#92
(Original post by PadFoot90)
If you are talking about the presidential election, there have been plenty of presidents who were not of either party.
There has not been a single U.S president that wasn't a member of a major political party of that time.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#93
Report 15 years ago
#93
(Original post by PadFoot90)
Alienated our allies,
which ones? France and Germany could and did alienate themselves.

lied to the american people,
no, he didnt.

jumped into the iraq war
jumped? or acted in response to an attack on the US, went to the UN twice for international support, built a broad coalition of willing and participating nations and acheived what he set out to do in the country. the funniest thing is knowing that had he been planning this for years, you would use that against him aswell.

which has gone terribly imo, it's time for a change
its on course in terms of timetable, comparably very few american casualties and the principle objectives acheived. but youre entitled to your opinion of war. how many have you had experience of?
0
BloodyValentine
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#94
Report 15 years ago
#94
(Original post by vienna95)
jumped? or acted in response to an attack on the US, went to the UN twice for international support, built a broad coalition of willing and participating nations and acheived what he set out to do in the country. the funniest thing is knowing that had he been planning this for years, you would use that against him aswell.
hmmm as micheal moore (i know you're getting tired of hearing from him) points out the coalition of the willing didn't exactly have too many countries with military though to be fair he did "forget" to mention the uk and spain as i remember which i thought was a bit sad
0
H&E
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#95
Report 15 years ago
#95
Vienna: What do you make of the view that the Iraq war was a mistake because it massively sidetracked the American efforts in the War on Terror? The resources devoted to it far, far outweigh its role in international terrorism, and at present we have a situation where while Saddam is out of power, Iran's nuclear programme is developing and Afghanistan's warlords are reasserting themselves more and more every day.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#96
Report 15 years ago
#96
(Original post by BloodyValentine)
hmmm as micheal moore (i know you're getting tired of hearing from him) points out the coalition of the willing didn't exactly have too many countries with military though to be fair he did "forget" to mention the uk and spain as i remember which i thought was a bit sad
the "willing" covers the broad material contribution to operations in Iraq, represented by some other 30+ countries through contractual work, services, supplies, military personnel and financial support. Moores comment is unsuprisingly short-sighted when you consider that this coalition includes countries such as the UK, Spain, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Australia and Japan.
0
H&E
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#97
Report 15 years ago
#97
Anyhoo, I just voted for Kerry/Edwards, not only because a Bush/Chaney ticket doesn't exist ( ) but because on domestic issues I prefer the Democrats' line of more investment in programmes such as Medicare through taxation over the Republicans' penchant for tax breaks.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#98
Report 15 years ago
#98
(Original post by H&E)
Vienna: What do you make of the view that the Iraq war was a mistake because it massively sidetracked the American efforts in the War on Terror?
Iraq is part of the war on terror. where else would these 'efforts' be applied, if not already?

The resources devoted to it far, far outweigh its role in international terrorism,
Bush wanted to counter terrorism at source. in simplified terms, that is by promoting a progressive and democratic set of nations in the middle east, to marginalise fantatical islam. Iraq was the perfect opportunity in this sense. in the context of this long term vision, resource expenditure seems sound.


and at present we have a situation where while Saddam is out of power, Iran's nuclear programme is developing and Afghanistan's warlords are reasserting themselves more and more every day.
Iran is a problem, but one step at a time. i think whats becoming evident is that the 'American way' is clearly the only one. Afghanistan is still forecast to hold general elections in the coming months. despite its problems, it is nowhere near the permissive environment that Al-Qaeda had previously used as a material and financial base for terrorism.
0
BloodyValentine
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#99
Report 15 years ago
#99
(Original post by vienna95)
the "willing" covers the broad material contribution to operations in Iraq, represented by some other 30+ countries through contractual work, services, supplies, military personnel and financial support. Moores comment is unsuprisingly short-sighted when you consider that this coalition includes countries such as the UK, Spain, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Australia and Japan.
i did point that out however the willing did also cover some very small countries. Very ashamed that australia went to war bloody howard
0
BloodyValentine
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#100
Report 15 years ago
#100
(Original post by vienna95)
Iran is a problem, but one step at a time. i think whats becoming evident is that the 'American way' is clearly the only one. Afghanistan is still forecast to hold general elections in the coming months. despite its problems, it is nowhere near the permissive environment that Al-Qaeda had previously used as a material and financial base for terrorism.
are you referring to the american way of life or the american foreign policy?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (33)
8.19%
Confident (54)
13.4%
Indifferent (57)
14.14%
Unsure (102)
25.31%
Worried (157)
38.96%

Watched Threads

View All