:unsure:
Printable View
:unsure:
well you wait until all the votes are cast and the time limit is reached and you count them..... anything else is just conjecture. :lol: :lol:
What I meant was, is it possible to see who is winning so far? :blink:
if u mean b4 the voteQuote:
Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@10 July 2004 - 00:35
What I meant was, is it possible to see who is winning so far? :blink:
the only it can be done is by Internet Polls ;)
well the "so far" aspect doesn't really count for much..many times one party has been ahead in the opinion polls yet got a thorough butt kicking come the actual election.
Besides it's no good leading the race if you run out of gas just before the chequered flag. :P
Besides at the moment it seems to be more a case of...."it's not who we want to win rather who we want to lose"
So you guys are telling me I have to wait eh? Whens the voting over again? :unsure:
@vidcc
Great signature. :lol:
well that or invent a time machine :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@9 July 2004 - 17:08
So you guys are telling me I have to wait eh? Whens the voting over again? :unsure:
@vidcc
Great signature. :lol:
thanks.... i found myself with time on my hands and it's been so long since that has happened i didn't know what to do with myself...that was the result :lol:
Try keeping an eye on Prez Track 2004.
This site not only keeps upto date polls on the popular vote:
very close at moment 9th July 2004:
Bush 46%
Kerry 47%
Other 3%
Not Sure 4%
but also translates these into the electoral college votes:
Kerry leading Bush at the moment 226 Electoral Votes to 203...
Like all polls though, there is a margin of error of Plus/Minus 5%...
ie: "Its too close to call"
Thanks for the link RF. :)
Whens the voting end?
Well, I have trouble answering that.... there are those that say they havent finished counting the last elections votes yet ;)
.....and im not sure it actually matters who votes for whom in the USA these days...
both are, to me...the same party
(much as the UK, except our 3 party system does actually give the choice Tory, Tory or Liberal.. rather than the Republican/Republican 2 party system :P )
:ph34r: :ph34r:
RTJ are you a registered voter?
No actually I'm not. I'm 17 years old.
The gist of the figures would appear to be that little has changed from Nov 2000 and that it will go to the wire.
Will you be 18 before election time? You have to be registered 6 weeks before the election to be able to vote.Quote:
Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@10 July 2004 - 02:39
No actually I'm not. I'm 17 years old.
And don’t put to much weight in political polls. It’s way to early in this thing to tell.
It's good to see that a 17 year old is taking interest in the elections ( to whatever degree it might be). It is important to follow these things. Not just the electorial process but also the manifesto of each party. It matters not that a 17 year old won't vote, the outcome of the election has a direct affect upon this person beyond his/her control and come the next election that will be paid for.
Politics effects everyone, in everything they do.
If more people realised that, and gave it the attention that something that effects them so greatly deserved, there would be no low turnouts in elections.
Its good to see anyone, whatever their age, realise this.
I used to think that, but the older I get, the more I think voters should be means-tested, so we could at least get away from such phenomena as females with moist panties voting for Kerry just because Edwards is so cute.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@10 July 2004 - 14:16
Politics effects everyone, in everything they do.
If more people realised that, and gave it the attention that something that effects them so greatly deserved, there would be no low turnouts in elections.
Its good to see anyone, whatever their age, realise this.
That would be tremendously unfair to Democrats, though, as it would probably disqualify eight out of ten of them. <_<
Oh I dont know...
It depends what type of "Test" you set up..
The Republicans may suffer with the Rednecks not voting, if it was an IQ test as an example.....
True enough, but I suspect a much higher percentage of Republicans would qualify as informed.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@10 July 2004 - 15:37
Oh I dont know...
It depends what type of "Test" you set up..
The Republicans may suffer with the Rednecks not voting, if it was an IQ test as an example.....
Just a guess.
Oh good grief......how silly is this becoming?...sexist comments on one side and intelectual doubts from the other..... this sounds like the childish element of the campaign name calling trail is infecting the board.... this isn't the lounge chaps
I dont think so, apart from the usual sniping that is ;)Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@10 July 2004 - 21:01
Oh good grief......how silly is this becoming?...sexist comments on one side and intelectual doubts from the other..... this sounds like the childish element of the campaign name calling trail is infecting the board.... this isn't the lounge chaps
I dont think myself and J2K4 were attacking each other, in fact we appeared to agree that any type of test would favour one party over another.
ergo: Should be no "Tests"
(Ok there was sniping too...but thats the top and bottom of it all, nothing serious.... :rolleyes: )
I've been getting more political lately, I think its because I took an annoying Sociology class, either that or the fact that I dislike George Bush.
I just turned 17 a month ago, so I won't be voting...
I’m probably going to regret this but I have to ask. Why does a 17 year old dislike Bush? Not that age has anything to do with it but young people usually don’t care too much about politics.
In answering my question RTJ I have only one request: No copy and pasting articles. I want your thoughts not what some article that you agree with.
My daughter's boyfriend (who is 29, and should know better) told me he's going to vote for Kerry because "I think Kerry will do a better job than Bush."
"A better job? How?" I asked.
"I don't know; I just like him better" he replied.
I queried further: "What do you like about him?"
Again he said, "I just like him better."
A deep thinker, there.
I think if I had brow-beaten him, it might have proven fatal, but my daughter would have objected.
She will cancel out his vote, in any case. ;)
probably for the same reasons anyone else dislikes Bush.Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 18:15
I’m probably going to regret this but I have to ask. Why does a 17 year old dislike Bush? Not that age has anything to do with it but young people usually don’t care too much about politics.
J2 that seems to be the general consensus of Kerry supporters. They know nothing of him or his “proposals” but they’ll vote for him anyway.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@10 July 2004 - 20:34
My daughter's boyfriend (who is 29, and should know better) told me he's going to vote for Kerry because "I think Kerry will do a better job than Bush."
"A better job? How?" I asked.
"I don't know; I just like him better" he replied.
I queried further: "What do you like about him?"
Again he said, "I just like him better."
A deep thinker, there.
I think if I had brow-beaten him, it might have proven fatal, but my daughter would have objected.
She will cancel out his vote, in any case. ;)
On a side note how old is your daughter? :D
hmm...... well Hank seeing as you are making this comment about Kerry voters being somehow unaware of anything and apparently Bush voters are right on the button perhaps i could get an answer for a question i asked from a previous thread.Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 19:11
J2 that seems to be the general consensus of Kerry supporters. They know nothing of him or his “proposals” but they’ll vote for him anyway.
original post
:DQuote:
(BigBank_Hank @ 2 July 2004 - 10:03)
Quote:
. Kerry has nothing to run on and does nothing but attack the President.
The personality attacks are a 2 way street so i won't debate them as you know i look at policy not personality and i find this character assasination tactic beneath contempt whoever the target.
you say Kerry has nothing to run on. Have you read his manifesto and compared it to Bush's point for point? If you could debate the merrits of each issue for us so we can assertain why you feel this way it would be appreciated....well i would appreciate it
What exactly are you looking for that is missing from the Kerry manifesto that Bush has in his?
The issues are the same for all candidates so could we have a reason why you feel the candidate lacks on their stance not just say they lack.
I remember that thread and I wanted to comment on it but never got around to it with that being the 4 of July weekend and all. But that’s no excuse so here goes.
The beauty about Kerry is he’s been in the Senate for 20 years so he’s voted on lots of things. Most of the things that he’s “proposing” now he’s was voted against in the past. I’ll give an example. “I John Kerry served in Vietnam so I’m going be strong on national defense” (not an actual quote BTW). In reality Kerry voted against all the major weapon systems that are helping us win the war on terror. For example he voted against: F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter), M1A1 Abraham’s Tank, also he voted against upgrading body armor for our troops.
I’ve said a lot of things about Kerry but so far I haven’t hammered him on his voting record
I don't want this to turn into an arguement, but here is my answer.Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 17:15
I?m probably going to regret this but I have to ask. Why does a 17 year old dislike Bush? Not that age has anything to do with it but young people usually don?t care too much about politics.
In answering my question RTJ I have only one request: No copy and pasting articles. I want your thoughts not what some article that you agree with.
1. He is a liar.
2. He seems rather dumb, making grammatical errors and inventing his own words.
3. For bombing civilians and children for oil profits.
I know that you don’t want to turn this into a big debate but I think that you are misguided.
1. The President never lied about our cause for invading Iraq. He looked at the evidence he was given a made a hard decision. Remember that congress had to vote to authorize the war.
2. You make think he sounds dumb but he does have a degree from Harvard and an MBA from Yale. He makes while speaking and so do you and I, no one is perfect.
3. We still haven’t taken 1 drop of oil from Iraq.
1. Not about the war. Bush was arrested for drunk driving, and lied about it.
2. C' mon, lets think about this. How many presidents make up their own words? He is, after all, the "misunderestimated" man.
3. Oh... then why did he kill the children?
Again, no pun intended.
EDIT: By the way, have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet? Just wondering...
Okay, Rip-Quote:
Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 01:38
3. Oh... then why did he kill the children?
Take this one assertion and back it up, figuratively, literally, or any other way you think you can.
Please do not presume to offer Fahrenheit 9/11 as proof.
Also be aware that qualifiers such as "indirectly responsible" will not suffice either. ;)
I'm just saying that I've seen very graphic photos/videos of killed Iraqi children, because of this war, and I never did find out why...
No, I think what you just said is that Bush "killed the children".Quote:
Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 03:13
I'm just saying that I've seen very graphic photos/videos of killed Iraqi children, because of this war, and I never did find out why...
Am I wrong? :huh:
No, I think what you just said is that Bush "killed the children".Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+11 July 2004 - 03:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 July 2004 - 03:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 03:13
I'm just saying that I've seen very graphic photos/videos of killed Iraqi children, because of this war, and I never did find out why...
Am I wrong? :huh: [/b][/quote]
Actually, never mind; it's very late, and I am very tired.
Just be advised you would do well to forego the use of such rhetoric for it's own sake; that alone would place you far above your cohort, although you might often find yourself with nothing to say, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Actually, never mind; it's very late, and I am very tired.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+11 July 2004 - 00:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 July 2004 - 00:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 03:17
<!--QuoteBegin-Rip The Jacker
Quote:
@11 July 2004 - 03:13
I'm just saying that I've seen very graphic photos/videos of killed Iraqi children, because of this war, and I never did find out why...
No, I think what you just said is that Bush "killed the children".
Am I wrong? :huh:
Just be advised you would do well to forego the use of such rhetoric for it's own sake; that alone would place you far above your cohort, although you might often find yourself with nothing to say, which it not necessarily a bad thing. [/b][/quote]
Man, its late, I'm sleepy, and those big words are not what I needed lol.
I think you are trying to say "You should shut up, for your sake."
I probibly should. Nevermind. I just wanted to know if it was possible to see who is winning so far.
Do you want to do your homework?Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@11 July 2004 - 02:41
In reality Kerry voted against all the major weapon systems that are helping us win the war on terror. For example he voted against: F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter), M1A1 Abraham’s Tank, also he voted against upgrading body armor for our troops.
Or rely on a Bush Advertisement?
SourceQuote:
Kerry did not, in fact, vote specifically against "13 weapons systems" as the ad claims. The bills shown on screen are actually Pentagon appropriations bills Kerry voted against in 1990 (H.R. 5803, S. 3189) and 1995 (H.R. 2126 ). Of course, voting against overall military spending bills does amount to voting against everything in them, but even so it isn't quite the same as voting to eliminate specific weapons. We've addressed similar attacks by the Bush campaign in earlier articles, Feb. 26, March 16 and April 26 .
PFA's ad also fails to mention that Kerry voted for Pentagon money bills in 16 of his 19 years in the Senate. By that measure, Kerry was much more a supporter of "weapons systems our troops depend on" than he was an opponent.
Furthermore, Bush's own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." So if Kerry opposed weapons "our troops depend on," so did Cheney and the elder President Bush.
1. All politicians are Liars, or at the least are economical with the Truth... its their Job. They cant help it any more than a Skunk can help its odour.Quote:
Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 05:53
1. He is a liar.
2. He seems rather dumb, making grammatical errors and inventing his own words.
3. For bombing civilians and children for oil profits.
Try the link from the above post for anaysis of the crap coming out of both camps in this election for example...
You have to decide for yourself on each issue you feel strongly about, then see where the Parties stand on those issues. Do not follow any Party blindly, and only join one if your goning to try and change its policies to fit what you want.
Remember when you read Boards like this, that the people in them have already got their beliefs... dont let them hoodwink you with bullshit. Check everything out for yourself, and always remember to check your sources to find out what THEIR agenda is.
2. Yes, he is rather Dumb for a "World Leader". Dont let his grammer fool you though, he is actually of "Average Intelligence" going off IQ.
He is the 1st to tell you he was not much of a student, but he isnt as thick as everyone makes out either. He is no more stupid than the average person, just no more intelligent either. I do think he's easily lead though... as hes supposed to be the Boss, then that is a no no in my book.
3. Yes. Spot on. Despite what Hank says, every drop of profit from the Oil is controlled by the USA... even now, despite "Sovereignity". The US Oil companies profit by having more control over the "Price of Oil", and they make more money by having the Price high. The Oil revenues themselves pay for US companies to "Rebuild" what the coalition destroyed.
In effect, the US Taxpayer has paid for a war which has benefited and made huge profits for:
The Arms Industry (eg: Carlyle Group)
The Energy Industry (Oil Companies in particular)
The Construction Industry (Haliburton in particular)
Look at the companies that are the big winners, then look at who are the people involved with those companies over the last 10 years.
The whole thing is nothing more than revenge and a re-distribution of money from the US Taxpayer to the coffers of the friends and family of the current administration.
At the same time, "normal" investors have had to live with huge swings in the StockMarkets, as companies not involved with all of this take the flack for an unstable investment environment. Investment Money goes to the Companies making big profits, not those that just try and get by.
Answer 3 is, of course, my opinion. ;)
Well time zones give others a quicker chance to view and answer replies, it bloody 5 am. at the moment and i can't get back to sleep after my daughter woke me :angry:Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 19:41
I remember that thread and I wanted to comment on it but never got around to it with that being the 4 of July weekend and all. But that’s no excuse so here goes.
The beauty about Kerry is he’s been in the Senate for 20 years so he’s voted on lots of things. Most of the things that he’s “proposing” now he’s was voted against in the past. I’ll give an example. “I John Kerry served in Vietnam so I’m going be strong on national defense” (not an actual quote BTW). In reality Kerry voted against all the major weapon systems that are helping us win the war on terror. For example he voted against: F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter), M1A1 Abraham’s Tank, also he voted against upgrading body armor for our troops.
I’ve said a lot of things about Kerry but so far I haven’t hammered him on his voting record
i did see a similar worded republican campaign advert
It appears to have been answered by someone more awake than I.
Oh please.Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 19:41
In reality Kerry voted against all the major weapon systems that are helping us win the war on terror. For example he voted against: F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter), M1A1 Abraham’s Tank, also he voted against upgrading body armor for our troops.
Not only is The War on Terror a completely useless and stupid phrase (just like The War Against Drugs and The War on Crime, it defines nothing and is so beautifully amorphous that it can mean anything that is politically expedient), but by almost any standard you wish to apply, we can hardly be said to be "winning".
Since the terrorists that we can identify refuse to wage war in the manner that Patton would recognize, the fighter jets and tanks are of little use anyway.