Democracy - a good system?

I see what you're saying. However, that still brings up the question of why? Just because the election was a close one changes nothing; the winner is still president. If the people don't like how he handles the job, they have the option of voting him out of office four years later; this has happened several times in US history. Most recently, when George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.

 

I doubt Bush will lose. He has the whole country whipped up in war fury, all he needs to do is add fuel to the fire, i.e. atrocity by Muslim, terrorist attack foiled (fake?), or fine WMDs in mid-October.

 

Johann,

I sure hope you are correct. While I cannot stand Bush, and I'm republican, Kerry would be a monster.

Once again, it's the choice of the lesser of two evils.

:smok:

 

A sign of biased media: here in Holland, we get all about Bush but nothing on Kerry. I don't even know what the heck this guy stands for!

 

Here's a snippet for you, Roel: When Kerry got back from Vietnam, he publicly called his fellow soldiers "murderers" and "baby killers" and threw away the medals he had won there. Since starting to run for President, he is now proud to have served in Vietnam, and he did not throw away his medals, just his ribbons. According to his campaign staff, he threw away someone else's medals. Interesting, no? He carps at Bush for the Iraq war, but says nothing about what he'd do about the situation. He calls himself one of the "common people", but married into money (twice) and is currently worth over $300 million.

 

The money he married into is not his, its his wife's, he only gets it if his wife decides to sign something that says it is shared. Kerry protested aganist the war when he got back, because he had seen terrible things. He didnt say his men were baby killers, he said he had seen babies being killed, not neccessarily by the men under his command.

 

All we in the UK know about Kerry is that he is the 'other guy', that he has a war career & Bush did not (Please tell me that was not the huge campaign feature that we were told it was!) and that he is against SUVs but owns one!

Ah, the media...

 

Bush faked having served in an active National Guard unit; pics were spread of him sitting in a jet fighter, but these were forgeries. His father kept him out of all potential combat units.

 

kerry had a military career, but did nothing heroic. of his 20 shipmates, only 2 are known to support him, even though that is part of his campaign. he threw his medals over the wall in an anti-war protest (but they weren't really his medals).
basically he flip-flops everywhere on issues (to what is most popular). even if you detest bush, you should not vote for kerry. he would be a disgrace to the country (even if you think bush is one now).
there are many testimonies from men who served with bush that he did fly planes in the national guard.
i love the "find wmd's right before the election" theories. what a load of bull. i also love how all the liberals try to dig up dirt on bush whenever and wherever they can, but can never find anything...maybe that's a sign that there's nothing there? unlike clinton....
ok, well i'm done ranting on this topic for a bit.

 

Kerry has more then 2 shipmates supporting him. There are at least 15! He, along with most of the country, detested the war, whats wrong with him throwing away anyone's medals?

Kerry is not the ideal person to be president of the U.S, but at least will not be a conniving VP's puppet! And he is not a fool who can barely talk!

 

Here's that flawed two-party system again. "You should not vote for Kerry even if you detest Bush!" Then what?? You'd have to vote for Bush even though you hate him, just because the alternative is worse? And you know that there will never be enough people voting for the third party to make it matter.

This isn't right. At an election like this when you have to vote for the lesser of two evils, I'd revolt.

 

His former shipmates have formed a committee opposing him. There are 10-12 in that. 2 support him and the other 6-8 are unaccounted for. The point is that he is flaunting his war service as a campaign advancement, when it is very questionable. It's the duplicity of him. He's saying he's a war hero and then he comes home and is anti-war. Isn't that a bit two-faced?
Cheney doesn't control Bush. Bush may not be the best speaker ever, but at least he's honest (unlike kerry or clinton). But this debate should occur in the Bush thread.

 

You have a point there. But I wouldn't want a full fledged european party system. Maybe a compromise between the 2. maybe less parties than european countries, but more than our present 2 (3?) parties. but for the present, i don't think that is going to happen.

 

Thanks!
Yes, there should at least be a way around the choice of a lesser of two evils. So three parties, four perhaps, that all have serious chances of getting a majority could improve the system a lot IMHO.

 

You can be a war hero and not agree with what you are fighting for. He fought for the U.S. in a stupid war, yes, but he fought. He wasn't for it, but he still fought. Bush hid like a coward behind his fathers protection, and yet he has no qualms about sending the next generation into Iraq.

I agree though, lets take this to the Bush thread.

 

Oh Please!!! Well of course they bloody well were there in 1991, silly boy, and Hussein gassed 50,000 Kurds; men, women and children. Yet the war was about the links to the terrorists and the Iraqi leadership Hello!
I am still waiting for the evidence to be produced, so is a majority of congress.

Now if the now president Bush, had risen up from his temple and said something like, "hey you Iraqi bastards I am going to make you pay for gasing those children and the holocaust you have perpitrated on the 5-7 million murdered Shiites, you placed in mass graves. Make peace with your maker!!!"
I would have supported the last Invasion of Iraq, so would have the rest of the world. But Bush and Blair promised to produce hard evidence of the impending threats of WMD, and they have still yet to do so.

So then, if this is about ending the threats of terrorist attacks then the USA is going to remove the Saudi Royal Family from breathing air on this planet right? Wrong, that won't happen and you know it! So do the Saudis. :angry: :bang:

 

Now there's a statement! Good work MP.

 

Well said young man (angry young man).

 

[quote="Mutant Poodle]
Now if the now president Bush, had risen up from his temple and said something like, "hey you Iraqi bastards I am going to make you pay for gasing those children and the holocaust you have perpitrated on the 5-7 million murdered Shiites, you placed in mass graves. Make peace with your maker!!!"
I would have supported the last Invasion of Iraq, so would have the rest of the world. :angry: :bang:[/quote]

You said it!

 

Well said young man (angry young man).

What I am really angry about is the fact that those American and British soldiers are there bledding and dying for oil. These are men and women, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters that are doing their absolute best to do their jobs. Do I support them, of course I do, do I support the lilly livered :angry: that has sent them there? Not in this life, and not in the next.