SADAAM HUSEIN CAPTURED


Status
Not open for further replies.
thanks STARWARSNERD, someone who knows the truth! CNN is definitely LEFT wing. If anyone has watched CROSSFIRE, they have a right and left wing person, but no one ever claps for the right person, just the left, almost every time. They put people in there intentionally.
 
They have Hannity and Colmes on Fox, but you don't hear stuff from the audience (if there is one?) clapping for either/or. Alan Colmes ain't too bad for a liberal on Fox, but him saying Clinton was the best U.S. president was a frikkin joke. He is rather extremist left liberal, but atleast the show is less biased than Crossfire and he gets treated more fairly than a conservative would on a liberal channel.
 
zboy9 posted on Dec 20 2003 at 01:35 AM said:
thanks STARWARSNERD, someone who knows the truth! CNN is definitely LEFT wing. If anyone has watched CROSSFIRE, they have a right and left wing person, but no one ever claps for the right person, just the left, almost every time. They put people in there intentionally.
HAHAH, don't even get me started about Crossfire. That generates enough BS that us Canadians know never to watch it! (except for a good laugh now and then) :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
zboy9 posted on Dec 19 2003 at 05:35 PM said:
thanks STARWARSNERD, someone who knows the truth! CNN is definitely LEFT wing. If anyone has watched CROSSFIRE, they have a right and left wing person, but no one ever claps for the right person, just the left, almost every time. They put people in there intentionally.
thats because the lefties on CF might make a bit of sense... :)

oh and starwarsnerd(the freak thing was an honest mistake, sorry 'bout that) i wasnt calling righties Nazis, just saying that sometimes one needs to look at both sides of an argument and not blindly believe that what their leader is doing is right. Thats facism. :) (not that i am calling you facist)

PS: clinton was a real jackass.iam a leftie and even i think that. even if you dont agree with him, read the chapter in Michael Moore's Stupid White Men (and if you cant bring yourself to buy it then go to a library) about the things clinton has done. Thats why i dont like him, but personal relationships have nothing to do with government. After that caught on, the righties tried to cover it up with some treason stuff that i dont know too muichabout... i should go check that out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the freak thing was an honest mistake, sorry 'bout that

That's aight. I just get kinda fired up when it comes to politics. No hard feelings. And seriously, there is no doubt in my mind that CNN is left wing. I understand that MANY Democrats don't like Clinton or the things he has done to our country but let me tell you my problem with CNN. When the multiple Clinton scandals have been going on, they never really focused on making him look bad; they just reported what was going on (remember when I was talking about that earlier; except at this time, the reason for doing it has ceased to be "for the sake of being a good reporter" and was to soften, but not cover up, the scandal). As for thier coverage on the right, I have an example. I was watching CNN this morning and they had a commercial which was meant to thank thier viewers. It just said things like "2003, year with war, captures, saved soldiers, etc.". Well, at the end of this, the last thing they mentioned was "scandals". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush has been President since the very beginning of 2003 so name these "scandals" of the Bush presidency.

Now I just need to get something off my chest that I'm just a little upset with Democrats at the moment. Just last week I found a little something out about my home state of PA. Our governor, Ed Rendell, didn't get something his way (something having to do with the public schools). He has now said that if he does not get his way, he will cut off funding to schools. Now lets analyze this one real quick. He doesn't get his way so he starts taking a fit. Sounds like a 4 year old who doesn't get a toy he want's in a store so he takes a tantrum. As for my little town of Punxsutawney (home of the groundhog Phil), we have enough money to run until the end of January, and if the issue isn't resolved by then, they shut down. I want to know what the hell allows him to do that. When Bush is (or was) focusing so heavily on education, how can he just decide that if he does not get his way, the schools just are not going to get money any more.

Anyways. Merry Christmas and I'll talk to everyone later.
 
I think that Saddam was captured at lest is a good thing, but I hope that the american government will be so clever and let an iraqui tribunal adjudge him!

the point i dont get is, why we shouldnt bring Bush jr. to Den Haag because he attacked Iraq. He told the world that Iraq has wepons of mass destruction but until now there wero absolutly no found.

all americans have my charity because they didnt even want bush for president...
al gore was the real winner of the election
in a way the USA are a banana republic
 
What in the hell are you on? I voted for Bush, I wanted Bush for president. And obviously Al Gore didn't win or else he would've been president now.

And like hell America is a banana republic. I can't even believe you'd dare say some shit like that. Nobody in America would ever let some shit like you say something like to that us, no matter what side we're on. We have more than one commodity, we don't have a dictatorship in our country, we actually get to elect the fuckers we put in power (unlike IRAQ where their original president was ASSASSINATED in order for the now previous leader of Iraq to to rise to power) and they don't stay in power for decades. They get term limitations, for one thing, and they have to be chosen by the people (who decide) to vote for them.

And yes, I, too, would like to know what political scandals went on nationally as well.
 
well in fact al gore had more votes on his side than george bush had. only because of this arcaic electoral college system bush was able to become president cause he was able to win in the states wich had more votes in the end, but noone is talking about how close you win in a single state. if a candidate gets 90% of all votes in a little state he only gets 1 vote in the electoral college, just as many as you he would get if you win with 51%. this is why bush could win with less votes than gore.
btw did you know that only about 10% of all us americans voted for bush in 2000?

with that banana republic thing i mean the events in florida during the election, when thousands of ballots vanished and after a few das appeared again...
that really didnt provide confidence...
i think the most powerful man of the world wich is in my opinion the president of the us should be elected by more than 10% of the populatin of the states
 
Even if you get 50% of all the votes this doesen't mean youve got 50% of the people in your country on your side. with only 60% voter turnout it results in 10% of the people who really voted for bush in 2000.
but do you get what i mean? Bush really had less votes than Gore.
What kind of democracy is this where the one who has less votes than the other wins the election?
your bill of rights 'n stuff is maybe really great but maybe in some points a little old fashioned!
 
OK, 10% of the population. Do you bother to count the people who are considered part of our population that can't vote, such as kids, immigrants, and the homeless. There's a lot of population out there who can't vote. And another thing is that there's a bunch of illegals in America who get to vote because of the less restrictive voting eligibilty standards, we don't need that. They don't deserve to vote for anybody. The elctoral college was created because the government (all sides) don't trust the people to be able to vote for themselves. Maybe it could be used to be revised, but it will take a huge legislative act to be able to remove it, which would never happen. It would require amending the bill of rights and trying to deem it as unconstutional, which it isn't. There have been other cases in the past of presidents losing popular votes but winning the electoral votes, so it's not cheap what happened with Bush because it has happened in the past. Get over this schvitz about wanting the popular vote to decide our presidency, it's not undemocratic.
 
Do you bother to count the people who are considered part of our population that can't vote, such as kids, immigrants, and the homeless.

Exactly. That's crap that " they didnt even want bush for president". Being that I'm 14, and my vote would have been for Bush (and I'm not alone), you can't judge what part of the population wants one thing or another. You cant talk about the population as a whole but instead as two parts; one that can cast a vote and one that cannot. And that 10% garbage is complete crap. If, like you said, "51% is the samne as 90%", how could 10% win it for him. Do you actually watch the news on the night of the election? Try doing that before you make accusations of this 10% crap. They show how many votes there were in each state and it was not even close to 10% and 90% (for Gore in your theory).
 
starwarsnerd posted on Dec 27 2003 at 04:46 PM said:
Do you bother to count the people who are considered part of our population that can't vote, such as kids, immigrants, and the homeless.

Exactly. That's crap that " they didnt even want bush for president". Being that I'm 14, and my vote would have been for Bush (and I'm not alone), you can't judge what part of the population wants one thing or another. You cant talk about the population as a whole but instead as two parts; one that can cast a vote and one that cannot. And that 10% garbage is complete crap. If, like you said, "51% is the samne as 90%", how could 10% win it for him. Do you actually watch the news on the night of the election? Try doing that before you make accusations of this 10% crap. They show how many votes there were in each state and it was not even close to 10% and 90% (for Gore in your theory).
...if you would have watched the news on the night of the election, you would have known that Fox News repotred Bush's "presidency" before the votes were done being counted... <_<

...i would not have voted Bush, Gore or Buchanan...
GO GREEN PARTY!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
if you would have watched the news on the night of the election, you would have known that Fox News repotred Bush's "presidency" before the votes were done being counted

I hadn't really discovered, so to speak, Fow News at the time of the election so I was watching either MSNBC or CNN.

Also, how can you say that the electoral college disqualifies us as being a democracy when the creation of our government basically set the standards for what a democracy is? Considering that America was the first Democracy as we define a Democracy today (at least I think it has been the first; I watch the news, not the History Channel), how can you compare against another government (which, in my theory, is following the precedent set by our form of government) to determine whether or not it can be defined as a democracy. You can't.

One final point for this post. No matter what political discussion I get in, I am almost always accused of "not looking from the point of view of the person I am debating with". When someone tells me that, I will tell you what I am sure they are actually implying. And it is this. You are implying that your argument is right, so your assuming that if I "looked at it from your point of view", then naturally, I would have to agree. And otherwise, if I don't agree, then I must not have looked at it from both sides.

I just hope that, like you said, the next election does not come down to being nobody that I really care for (or nobody with a chance of winning anyway) like last time. At last election, I knew I did not want Gore and Bush wasn't looking much better. But this is what I'm looking at as a Republican now. The democrats are all screwed up with and I hope that they choose the right candidate *cough*Lieberman*cough* and not the wrong one *cough*Dean*cough*. If Lieberman was chosen (as if that's going to happen) I wouldn't have a problem with either him or Bush being elected. But, if Dean is chosen (God forbid but more likely), I'm just going to pray that Bush thinks of a damn good way to convince people he is the right man for the job.... again.

Well, I hope I haven't dragged on too long. Talk to everyone later!
 
thx to thecheat!
at lesat im not the onlyone who sees it like that!
You know it's not like i think the american constitution is bad because the president is elected by an electoral college but still i think that its a bit oldfashioned...
in the times when there were no telephones or the internet or any other "fast" media in such a big country it was right to send men from each state to elect the president.
but today i would be prtty annoyed if i knew that my vote is worth less tan the vote of somebody else in a different state...

i have to admit that maybe i'm i influenced a little by the book "stupid white men" by michael moore which i think shows you some frightening facts about the election of 2000 :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top