As requested, a widening of the other Poll....
I hope Kerry gets in.
Not because i even know what his policies are, however I believe GW Bush is the most dangerous person on the planet at this moment in time.
Printable View
As requested, a widening of the other Poll....
I hope Kerry gets in.
Not because i even know what his policies are, however I believe GW Bush is the most dangerous person on the planet at this moment in time.
I'm not American but I don't want either to win... yep i voted for that one.
I don't like politics.. especially the American one's.
It's 1 big show.
:ph34r:
YES, I VOTED FOR BUSH!!!
(dont let the locatin in my profile fool you, I am a southern republican)
was raised by em, will always be one :P
Oh good lord. <_<Quote:
Originally posted by FKDUP74@3 April 2004 - 10:19
YES, I VOTED FOR BUSH!!!
(dont let the locatin in my profile fool you, I am a southern republican)
was raised by em, will always be one :P
Oh good lord. <_< [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+3 April 2004 - 13:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 3 April 2004 - 13:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FKDUP74@3 April 2004 - 10:19
YES, I VOTED FOR BUSH!!!
(dont let the locatin in my profile fool you, I am a southern republican)
was raised by em, will always be one :P
Hey, just because he voted for Bush doesn't mean you have to bow to him. ;)
Hey, just because he voted for Bush doesn't mean you have to bow to him. ;) [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Lamsey+3 April 2004 - 11:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey @ 3 April 2004 - 11:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@3 April 2004 - 13:59
<!--QuoteBegin-FKDUP74
Quote:
@3 April 2004 - 10:19
YES, I VOTED FOR BUSH!!!
(dont let the locatin in my profile fool you, I am a southern republican)
was raised by em, will always be one :P
Oh good lord. <_<
Good one Lam. :lol:
I don't mind this poll at all; in fact, it should be somewhat revealing.
I would like to know, though, what rationale non-Americans would proffer as justification for a vote by an American in favor of their "candidate" (whomever that might be)?
Do they think Americans ought to be swayed by foreign preferences, and why? :huh:
I think it is fair game to have a preference of one over another. I don't believe it is unusual for the left or the right of any particular country to prefer to see parties of their colours do well elsewhere.
Also, regardless of issues regarding wars and rumours of wars, Mr Bush has tended to be disruptive with regards international agreements - including, surprisingly, those concerning free trade - the latter having resulted in rulings against the US.
My only concern is that I know nothing of Mr Kerry, as I suspect is the case with many Americans too. I guess most are working on the principle that he can't be any worse.
I know the Republicans got their fingers burnt once by having an intelligent candidate in Richard Nixon, but surely GW is an over-reaction by anyone's standard. Almost all of GWs cabinet are more capable than he (although the one that looks like Fester from the Adams family is a bit worrying - Armitage, I think).
I believe you may be thinking of Secretary of Energy Seth Abraham, Biggles. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@3 April 2004 - 16:54
(although the one that looks like Fester from the Adams family is a bit worrying - Armitage, I think).
ralph nader. :P
Yomooohhh
The problems with polls in general is honesty.
What non-American would want Bush re-elected.
What bullshit!! :lol: <_<
Spencer Abraham:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government...braham_lrg.jpg
Armitage:
http://www.state.gov/cms_images/Armi...d__bio_200.jpg
I think biggles was right, second guy does bear a striking resemblance, though the first one has an endearingly mad glint in his eyes
I to am intrigued by the non American's of this board wanting Kerry to win. What does everyone see in him? Or is it that he isn't named George W Bush?
By golly, I think you're right, ilw. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@3 April 2004 - 17:57
Spencer Abraham:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government...braham_lrg.jpg
Armitage:
http://www.state.gov/cms_images/Armi...d__bio_200.jpg
I think biggles was right, second guy does bear a striking resemblance, though the first one has an endearingly mad glint in his eyes
Hank-
You have it exactly right.
Yeah...he can at least string a sentence together and doesn't need to take regular "banana breaks".Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 00:38
Or is it that he isn't named George W Bush?
I voted for neither btw (non-American)
J2 I bet the majority have no clue as to where Kerry stands on most issues.
Obviously non-Americans don't like Bush for obvious reasons.Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 April 2004 - 21:38
I to am intrigued by the non American's of this board wanting Kerry to win. What does everyone see in him? Or is it that he isn't named George W Bush?
They happen to be the same reasons that I don't like him.
It's not intriguing at all.
Yeah...he can at least string a sentence together [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by 4th gen+3 April 2004 - 21:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4th gen @ 3 April 2004 - 21:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 00:38
Or is it that he isn't named George W Bush?
......not with correct grammar. :lol: :lol:
......not with correct grammar. :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+4 April 2004 - 01:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 4 April 2004 - 01:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by 4th gen@3 April 2004 - 21:51
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank
Quote:
@4 April 2004 - 00:38
Or is it that he isn't named George W Bush?
Yeah...he can at least string a sentence together
I meant that Kerry could string a sentence together :rolleyes:
I meant that Kerry could string a sentence together :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by 4th gen+3 April 2004 - 22:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4th gen @ 3 April 2004 - 22:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@4 April 2004 - 01:08
Quote:
Originally posted by 4th gen@3 April 2004 - 21:51
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank
Quote:
Quote:
@4 April 2004 - 00:38
Or is it that he isn't named George W Bush?
Yeah...he can at least string a sentence together
......not with correct grammar. :lol: :lol:
Sorry brain fart
Don't call me a brain fart :angry:Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@4 April 2004 - 01:21
Sorry brain fart
:rolleyes:
Kerry has his own trouble with issues, yes?Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 April 2004 - 19:52
J2 I bet the majority have no clue as to where Kerry stands on most issues.
He limits himself to only two stances per issue: "for" and "against". :blink:
:lol: Great Point.
FACE IT, DUBYA SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PRES. IN FIRST PLACE. IF YOU COULD GO BACK IN TIME & ELIMINATE RALPH NADER. WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED??
Kerry has his own trouble with issues, yes?Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+4 April 2004 - 03:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 4 April 2004 - 03:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@3 April 2004 - 19:52
J2 I bet the majority have no clue as to where Kerry stands on most issues.
He limits himself to only two stances per issue: "for" and "against". :blink: [/b][/quote]
As in "you're either with us or against us"?
Oops, sorry, that's GW. ;)
POLITICAL CHANGES IN CANADA! WE LOVE OUR AMERICAN BIG BROTHERS & SISTERS!! 9/11 STOPPED US COLD & WE CRIED & CRIED WITH YOU & WE DON'T
FORGET, ESPECIALLY IN WESTERN CANADA.
PLEASE NO MORE CANADIAN BASHING. BRITAIN PROBABLY IS YOUR BEST FRIEND.
BUT CANADA IS FAMILY!!
Well, there are a number of countries that have been "swayed" by American preference... why not look at it as "Whats Good for the Goose, is Good for the Gander".. :PQuote:
Originally posted by j2k4@3 April 2004 - 20:58
Do they think Americans ought to be swayed by foreign preferences, and why? :huh:
I gave my reasoning in the 1st post.
Pure and simple:
A guy with invasion plans for Afganistan and Iraq on his desk already, uses the largest and most most terrible terrorist outrage for his own political and personal profit of his family and colleagues. This resulted in 10,000's of Deaths, with more to come.
He has taken the USA from the covert to open "change the world in US favour"...(with the 'US Favour' being his family and colleagues business interests, not the US people)..
In his homeland, he uses his power to curtail the Freedom's of its citizens, and to block attempts by various commisions to investigate anything that could harm him and his, inc 9/11. Tell me...why has he blocked 75% of the information that Clinton made available to the commission investigating Al Queda and 9/11? Why has he and his advisors got "No Time" to answer questions from that commission, while at the same time being "On Vacation" for over 25% of his Presidency?
He is, in my opinion, the most Dangerous man on this planet since Hitler (and no, im not claiming he is putting people in Gas Chambers etc..)
Besides which, he wasnt elected President by the American people, but by the Supreme Court....a Bad Precedent for the USA, and made a laughing stock of any claim to be trying to introduce "Democracy" anywhere.....
That is absolutely absurd. You are comparing a dictator who killed who knows how many innocent people with a President going to great lengths to protect the people of his country. Ridiculous.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 April 2004 - 06:17
He is, in my opinion, the most Dangerous man on this planet since Hitler (and no, im not claiming he is putting people in Gas Chambers etc..)
You call him a dangerous man because he is willing to do what it takes to keep Americans at home safe, I call it doing his job. The President knows that we just can sit on our hands and expect the problem of terrorism to just go away something has to be done about it.
He seems to like to execute a lot of them. Children too...Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 16:50
That is absolutely absurd. You are comparing a dictator who killed who knows how many innocent people with a President going to great lengths to protect the people of his country. Ridiculous.
The military is practically bending over backwards not to harm civilians in Iraq. And I have yet to see where American soldiers line up innocent Iraqi people and slaughter them just for the hell of it. Perhaps you may have seen the news where AMERICAN soldiers were executed in Falluja. The body's were desecrated and dragged through the streets. <_<
I'm talking about in Texas <_<Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 17:15
The military is practically bending over backwards not to harm civilians in Iraq. And I have yet to see where American soldiers line up innocent Iraqi people and slaughter them just for the hell of it. Perhaps you may have seen the news where AMERICAN soldiers were executed in Falluja. The body's were desecrated and dragged through the streets. <_<
Oh, also, perhaps you might have seen the footage where Saddam was shown on TV after his arrest, breaking the law :rolleyes:
Are you referring to the death penalty?
YesQuote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 17:23
Are you referring to the death penalty?
The criminals that are sentenced to the death penalty have been convicted by a court of law, beyond a shadow of doubt that they have committed a crime so gruesome that they are sentenced to death. They are sentenced to death for a crime that they committed, not for their religious beliefs.
So, innocent people are NEVER sentenced to death then?Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 17:45
The criminals that are sentenced to the death penalty have been convicted by a court of law, beyond a shadow of doubt that they have committed a crime so gruesome that they are sentenced to death. They are sentenced to death for a crime that they committed, not for their religious beliefs.
How many american states have a child death penalty?
I'm not saying that it isn't possible but it is unlikely.
There isn't a state where a child can be executed. A person to be executed must be at least 18 years are older in which your are in the laws eyes considered an adult.
Right...so you've just said that they're only sentenced to death "byond shadow of a doubt", then admitted it's possible that they may be convicted and killed if they're innocent. Sound policty there... <_<Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 18:08
I'm not saying that it isn't possible but it is unlikely.
There isn't a state where a child can be executed. A person to be executed must be at least 18 years are older in which your are in the laws eyes considered an adult.
"Napoleon Beazley's government executed him on 28 May 2002 for a murder committed when he was aged 17. If he lived in China, or Yemen, or Kyrgyzstan, or Kenya, or Russia, or Indonesia, or Japan, or Cuba, or Singapore, or Guatemala, or Cameroon, or Syria, or almost any other of the diminishing number of countries that retain the death penalty, Napoleon Beazley would not have received the death penalty. But he lived in the United States of America, a rogue state as far as capital punishment is concerned. His government believes that it is above the fundamental principle of international law that no one be subjected to the death penalty for a crime, however heinous, committed when he or she was under 18 years old. As a result, the United States leads a tiny number of countries which flout this prohibition. Within the USA, Napoleon Beazley's home state of Texas - where under 18-year-olds are considered too young to drink, vote, or serve on a jury - is the worst offender.
Texas accounts for 53 per cent (nine of 17) of such executions carried out in the USA since the country resumed judicial killing in 1977. Of the 25 worldwide executions of child offenders in the past 10 years, seven were carried out in Texas. Only Iran comes close to this, with six in the same period. In other words, while Texas has less than half of one per cent of the world's population, it accounts for 28 per cent of the executions of child offenders documented worldwide in the past decade."
Hank i think you're technically correct, but you can still be sentenced to death as a child, they just wait till your older before flipping the switch, which imo is even more stupid
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT500012004
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles.html
Quote:
Stop Child Executions!
As a step towards the total abolition of the death penalty around the world, Amnesty International has launched an international campaign calling for an end to the use of the death penalty against child offenders.
GET INVOLVED!
Since 2000, only five countries in the world are known to have executed juvenile offenders: China, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iran, Pakistan, and the United States. Pakistan and China have abolished the juvenile death penalty, but there have been problems in nationwide compliance with the law
...
The United States and Somalia are the only countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Twenty-one* U.S. states allow for the execution of people who were 16 or 17 at the time of the crime. Out of the 38 death penalty states, 16 have abolished this punishment for juvenile offenders.
Well I have been proven wrong. I didn't think that juveniles were eligible for the death penalty. I thought as ilw stated that if you were convicted that you had to wait until you turned 18. My mistake.
4th gen this is a very interesting topic and I would like to continue it in another thread with you, but I think that we may have strayed a little far from the original thread thought.