OT: Video: Bush gives Angela Merkel unwelcome massage!

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:42 pm

If Bush could run again, and it was him vs. Kerry or Howard Dean, I would vote Bush again.

Suck on that.

pearsonart.com · Post by **pearsonart.com** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:36 pm

Poster wrote:
kramerica wrote:Curious: Do Europeans think most Americans are like W.?

If so, we're all fucked.
I do not want to believe that, and I don't,
but a president is chosen by the majority of votes..
so to answer your question; yes, theoretically most Americans are..
at least they we're at the moment when he was elected..

just wondering; would he be president at this moment, if there we're elections right now?
In my country (Netherlands) our government would be sent home if there were elections at this moment..

There's still a debate about whether a majority of Americans actually voted for Bush. It's been proven that Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000 and vote tampering in Ohio may have affected the Kerry numbers in 2004.

Even if you concede the Bush election in 2004, he only won 52%. That leaves 48% of the voting electorate who DIDN"T vote for him and are completely disgusted with this administration and what they are doing. Not a majority but a significant (and growing more vocal) minority.

swpspce · Post by **swpspce** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:51 pm

subterFUSE wrote:2008 will be Condi vs. Hillary.

Just wait and see.

obvious isn't it ? That is my predictition for 2008 too! The GWB camp has been hard at work, establishing condi as a fourth right candidate. And she may just win?

pearsonart.com · Post by **pearsonart.com** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:05 pm

It's criminal that 48% of the voters are letft with no voice in the white office. From what I understand, European countries have the parties share power proportionally according to their percentage. We should adopt this here.

Previous presidents that won by small margins included members of the opposition party in their administration but Bush refuses to work with or listen to any dissenting views. I blame Cheney and the other Bush senior cronies who have corrupted aspects of Washington since at least the mid 70's.

Thank God for the Supreme Court. The Law is not subject to political wrangling or popular opinion! Proof at last that the system of checks and balances isn't broken.

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:36 pm

obvious isn't it ? That is my predictition for 2008 too! The GWB camp has been hard at work, establishing condi as a fourth right candidate. And she may just win?

Well, it is no big secret that Hillary is going to be the Democrat candidate. And when you consider who would be a strong opponent to her, it makes sense to put another woman against her.

We are in such a polarized political scene today, that no matter who the candidates are.... the race will come down to a very small % win. These are just the times we are in.

If Hillary ran, she would be a force to content with. She would get 100% of the democrat vote, plus voter fraud. This alone is enough to get almost half the popular vote. Then, if she were running against a man... there's a strong liklihood that some swing votes will come her way from women, who might vote on gender bias.

In what is clearly going to be a close race, swing votes are critical. The candidate who can garner more swings, wins.

So, for this reason... Putting another woman against Hillary may help keep those potential swing votes based on gender. Add to that the fact that Condi is black, and she might get some swing votes from the black voter community, which generally votes democrat.

It's a strategic move... and that's why I would not be surprised to see it. Only time will tell, however. But just wait and see. I think it's far more likely than most skeptics thinks.

Mike Goodwin · Post by **Mike Goodwin** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:20 pm

jackmazzotti wrote:I voted for Bush
and I would do so again

enjoy

sqook · Post by **sqook** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:31 pm

subterFUSE wrote:
Well, we sent the last guy home for getting a blowjob on the job...

What?

Clinton served 2 terms, to completion. What are you talking about?

Ok, so maybe not "sent home", but certainly "impeached" (I chose those words because the parent poster used them). My point was, what the american people view as unacceptable job performance is quite a bit different than the dutch.

jackmazzotti · Post by **jackmazzotti** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:32 pm

D K wrote:
jackmazzotti wrote:I voted for Bush
and I would do so again
fool

any liberal who calls me a fool is a compliment

sqook · Post by **sqook** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:47 pm

jackmazzotti wrote:
D K wrote:
jackmazzotti wrote:I voted for Bush
and I would do so again
fool
any liberal who calls me a fool is a compliment

define 'liberal', please.

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:57 pm

Ok, so maybe not "sent home", but certainly "impeached" (I chose those words because the parent poster used them). My point was, what the american people view as unacceptable job performance is quite a bit different than the dutch.

I was just trying to be accurate.

Impeachment does not mean removal from office. It is a proceeding where the result may be removal from office. It's like an indictment in a criminal case.

Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury, which is a criminal offense.

sqook · Post by **sqook** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:59 pm

subterFUSE wrote:
Ok, so maybe not "sent home", but certainly "impeached" (I chose those words because the parent poster used them). My point was, what the american people view as unacceptable job performance is quite a bit different than the dutch.

I was just trying to be accurate.

Impeachment does not mean removal from office. It is a proceeding where the result may be removal from office. It's like an indictment in a criminal case.

Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury, which is a criminal offense.

Dually noted.

Blomblom · Post by **Blomblom** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:02 pm

BUSH WAR CRIMINAL PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONSIBLE FOR BIGGEST DAMAGE TO WORLD SINCE 3RD REICH HISTORY WILL PROVE HATE CREATES HATE GOVERNMENT OF TORTURE AND IGNORANCE GOVERNMENT OF HYPOCRATS AND CRIMINALS READ HISTORY BOOKS IN 200 YEARS

BLOM BLOM

mike holiday · Post by **mike holiday** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:10 pm

pearsonart.com wrote: Thank God for the Supreme Court. The Law is not subject to political wrangling or popular opinion! Proof at last that the system of checks and balances isn't broken.

we're loosing that to im afraid

pearsonart.com · Post by **pearsonart.com** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:16 pm

The best defense is a good offense...or so they say.

Noone really engages in debate now. When was the last time you saw a serious debate stay on topic instead of being deflected?

Case in point, we're having a discussion about Bush, how the U.S. is seen by the world, majority decision and proportional representation when someone attempts to steal it away with references to the Clinton administration.

Well here's something to chew on, Clinton didn't win a majority in his three way race but he did govern effectively and include members of the opposition party.

The republicans continue to punish democrats for encouraging open government. Either the republicans continue to exploit this or the democrats fight on equal terms. Regardless of who wins, this will result in only one thing - a more closed government.

pearsonart.com · Post by **pearsonart.com** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:26 pm

I think the Supreme Court has only just begun to get involved. This ruling strongly suggests that they will be speaking out on the constitutionality of the NSA programs and more.

It's easy to give up. Have some hope. The American people aren't stupid, just groggy from a long sleep filled with dreams of SUVs and big houses.