SADAAM HUSEIN CAPTURED


Status
Not open for further replies.
I only really suppourt Lieberman more than Dean cause I agree with Lieberman on many things about the war (some even more so than Bush) and Dean, well, he just gives me the "Clinton creeps". I dunno.

Oh, and speaking of Clinton, and speaking of "Stupid White Men", I believe that book has some even more frightening facts about the Clinton presidency.

Oh, and if anybody is intersted in seeing some pretty shocking Clinton books, check out "Unlimited Access" and "Dereliction of Duty".
 
I hate Michael Moore anyways, he's as bad as a fundamentalist Catholic preacher. Does nothing but throws things at you and never gives you a real ooportunity to think. Nor does he supply anything that might be seen from a perspective or opinion different than his. He only likes to support his perspective and opinions on things, not allowing you to think for yourself.
 
I'm so pleased I live in my own little world. As far as politics go in the UK, I just let them happen and I'll adapt around what happens as a result, I just try and keep myself happy. The day I involve myself in the bigger picture of life is the day I consider myself dead.

Politics in the UK is such a joke, I will never use my right to vote.

Call me ignorant, call me what you want but I just know that right now I'm happy and thats all that matters.
 
Al Sharpton is one of those people that, sadly, sets bad stereotypes for his race by his behavior (like John Kerry for white people ;) ).

Oh, and did anybody see that Hillary Clinton is considered the most admired woman in America. First I ask, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY?! And (this one will really surprise you), guess the group of people that came up with that one. Thats right! CNN folks!!!

Heres a funny little commentary by Jay Leno:
"CNN found that Hillary Clinton is the most admired woman in America. Women admire her because she's strong and successful. Men admire her because she allows her husband to cheat and get away with it."

THIS is the link to some more pretty funny Hillary comments. Check it out.
 
NssOne posted on Dec 30 2003 at 03:35 PM said:
It doesn't even seem like voting that useful in the UK anyways, what with being a monarchy and all...
Uhm... it's not like the monarchy set any laws or make any policies. They don't even have any real control over the Government. The Queen's Speech at the end of each year is written by the Prime Minister. I took it for granted that you knew the monarchy were just a figurehead and a way to gain tourism for the UK, not any kind of power structure anymore.

On another note: why do multi-party democracies always tend towards only two major candidates? (My close-minded view only contains the UK and US) What is it about the voting scheme that means we have a traditional 'left' and 'right' pairing instead of a wider spread?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think humans like having the simplest, least amount of choices. It likes a least common denominator.

P.S. I was kind of kidding about the monarchy thing. It's not the president writes all the laws in the US either.
 
It has happened (a candidate from another party winning). I can't remember who it was though. Anybody know?

It's funny that this whole Monarchy topic should come up though cause with Christmas vacation and all the free time I have on my hands, I was just researching that this morning and found that the Prime Minister is the only person with any real power. Do current day Monarchs serve any political purpose?
 
In the UK, the Queen has the constitutional power to sack the Government and declare War through the Royal prerogative. This means that even if the motion to go to War has been defeated in Parliament, the PM could still have gone to war using the Queens royal prerogative. Constitutionally the Queen is unbelievably powerful, and this needs to be changed. We need to take our constitution more seriously like the Americans do.
The voting system in the UK is unbelievably biased towards the main two parties. It would be almost impossible for a third party to make any headway because of the nature of the constituencies.
 
declaration posted on Dec 31 2003 at 04:40 PM said:
In the UK, the Queen has the constitutional power to sack the Government and declare War through the Royal prerogative. This means that even if the motion to go to War has been defeated in Parliament, the PM could still have gone to war using the Queens royal prerogative. Constitutionally the Queen is unbelievably powerful, and this needs to be changed. We need to take our constitution more seriously like the Americans do.
The voting system in the UK is unbelievably biased towards the main two parties. It would be almost impossible for a third party to make any headway because of the nature of the constituencies.
Hmm, imagine if the queen suddenly got a serious case of senility, we could start wars with anybody out of the blue....scotland for example....that would be amusing in its odd little way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
declaration posted on Dec 31 2003 at 04:40 PM said:
In the UK, the Queen has the constitutional power to sack the Government and declare War through the Royal prerogative. This means that even if the motion to go to War has been defeated in Parliament, the PM could still have gone to war using the Queens royal prerogative. Constitutionally the Queen is unbelievably powerful, and this needs to be changed. We need to take our constitution more seriously like the Americans do.
The voting system in the UK is unbelievably biased towards the main two parties. It would be almost impossible for a third party to make any headway because of the nature of the constituencies.
Hmm, imagine if the queen suddenly got a serious case of senility, we could start wars with anybody out of the blue....scotland for example....that would be amusing in its odd little way.
except that she is the head of state of Scotland too.... so it would kinda be like beating herself up, which itself would be no bad thing. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
declaration posted on Dec 31 2003 at 04:40 PM said:
In the UK, the Queen has the constitutional power to sack the Government and declare War through the Royal prerogative. This means that even if the motion to go to War has been defeated in Parliament, the PM could still have gone to war using the Queens royal prerogative. Constitutionally the Queen is unbelievably powerful, and this needs to be changed. We need to take our constitution more seriously like the Americans do.
The voting  system in the UK is unbelievably biased towards the main two parties. It would be almost impossible for a third party to make any headway because of the nature of the constituencies.
Hmm, imagine if the queen suddenly got a serious case of senility, we could start wars with anybody out of the blue....scotland for example....that would be amusing in its odd little way.
except that she is the head of state of Scotland too.... so it would kinda be like beating herself up, which itself would be no bad thing. :)
True, we could do with a bit of unsettlement, seeing as the main newspaper headlines yesterday were about somebodies dog.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What crazy country do you live in ;)

Actually... come to think of it... wasn't that Princess Anne's dog killing one of the Queen's Corgis? Made front page. Ridiculous.
 
clinton is dumb.

i didnt even remotley imply that i wanted you to agree with me, just see it my way. i am not saying this sarcastically, butgive me real proof that we didnt go to war because, well, "he dissed my daddy!"

PS: lieberman sucks. even gore wont support him. as gamers, none of us should support him. know why? he was the head of the campaign a few years back that wanted to put massive restrictions on video games. hell, he'd make it illegal for a minor to play MK! one of the proposed laws was to force arcades into putting all "violent" vids in a separate back room so minors would not be exposed to the violence. thankfully we are protected against that garbagse by our first amendment (well, not anymore thanks to... U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T act.). it might not seem like that big a deal to adluts nut i'm only 14! hello? no street fighter would have killed me.

lieberman should piss off, the senile geezer. <_<
 
Why is everyone attacking Clinton? Under Clinton, the USA was the strongest economically then it has been in a long time, not to mention the many successful programs were implemented, all while getting a long-deserved surplus in the national budget. So what if he was a lying sleeze - if that isn't the definition of a politician, I don't know what is.

Although the point about the national debt may be undeserved. In the USA, it seems the only important differences anymore between the Republican and Democratic parties is that Republicans raise the national debt, while the Democrats lower it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top