I can see it, why can't they?????

2006-06-01 15:40:29

#1

Major_Spittle: Banned; +276|6883|United States of America

OK, I am a big conservative. I voted for Bush both times. BUT

IT IS OBVIOUS HE IS A MORON.

Before you liberals get all euphoric, remember I voted for him so what does that say about Al Gorilla and John Fuckin Kerry.

So this is to both parties: WE can't afford more Bushs and Clintons being elected, how the hell do they get nominated??????

Is it the Media??? I know people do vote in primaries.

I have not a clue how this happens, but I would like to hear from people that supported Al, John, Bill, Bob, George, or George.

Cause I never thought one of these jerkoffs were anywhere near the best person in any of their primaries.

aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh

2006-06-01 15:43:41

#2

Fredrik: i hate you all; +201|6877|Norway

Because the fucking election was fixed the first time, and the second time the Americans where brainwashed...

2006-06-01 15:44:13

#3

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7000|PNW

I suppose Howard would've just given Bin Laden and Saddam a nice yelling at. Cool.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-06-01 15:46:43)

2006-06-01 15:44:16

#4

kessel!: Peruvian Cocaine; +261|6993|Toronto Canada

You are right. Its not the parties, but the candidates. It seems that they have to pick the worst people possible to run for president, on BOTH sides. Maybe it has to do with their secret society

2006-06-01 15:45:42

#5

JohnnyBlanco: Member; +44|6799|England

Bush probally ain't the best president, but he's advised by more intelligent people so he won't do anything REALLY stupid......

2006-06-01 15:47:49

#6

kessel!: Peruvian Cocaine; +261|6993|Toronto Canada

JohnnyBlanco wrote:
Bush probally ain't the best president, but he's advised by more intelligent people so he won't do anything REALLY stupid......

except invading iraq, wiretapping houses, etc.

2006-06-01 15:48:36

#7

Major_Spittle: Banned; +276|6883|United States of America

JohnnyBlanco wrote:
Bush probally ain't the best president, but he's advised by more intelligent people so he won't do anything REALLY stupid......

yeah, I know. This is what allows me to sleep at night.

2006-06-01 15:50:19

#8

JohnnyBlanco: Member; +44|6799|England

kessel! wrote:
JohnnyBlanco wrote:
Bush probally ain't the best president, but he's advised by more intelligent people so he won't do anything REALLY stupid......
except invading iraq, wiretapping houses, etc.

Hence the .....

2006-06-01 15:51:08

#9

kessel!: Peruvian Cocaine; +261|6993|Toronto Canada

hah true. i am REALLY afraid of those who advise him. Bush is basically just a puppet

2006-06-01 15:51:12

#10

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6860|949

Never supported any of the candidates that you listed.
As for the reason they get elected-
Corporations give both major political parties donations. This is not conflict of interest, this is politics. If you play both sides, either way you win.
Media plays a part because they (the media) refuse to allow anyone but the two favorites of the major political parties any coverage at all.
The electoral college plays a part because they are elected by the two major political parties.

Our political voting process is very messed up, and we need reforms ASAP. How do you reform a system to encourage more political parties when it is not in the interest of the ruling two parties?

2006-06-01 15:51:51

#11

Tarthkin: Member; +-1|6991

Major_Spittle wrote:
So this is to both parties: WE can't afford more Bushs and Clintons being elected, how the hell do they get nominated??????

We cant afford more Clintons?!?!?!?!?! are u kidding me?!?!? we could use another clinton to balence the budget , fix social security and leave something for the next generation. It took Bush all of 6 months to distroy the surplus clinton worked 8 years to acheive. The next election will bring a more "liberal" president because that is the way the country's views are shifting. but I must say im glad you voted. Personaly id be happy with just about any resonable president if more than 2/3 of the country voted for him/her.

2006-06-01 15:54:47

#12

Cactusfist: Pusher of sausages Down Hallways; +26|6796

I, no expert on American politics, but 2 parties surely doesn't help? England only has 3 main ones, and i think even thats not enough. Maybe a solution is just more candidates to choose from?

I don't know, correct me if im wrong people.

2006-06-01 15:55:17

#13

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6778|Southeastern USA

Fredrik wrote:
Because the fucking election was fixed the first time, and the second time the Americans where brainwashed...

You dumb cunt, there were 5 recounts that I'm aware of, 3 official, 2 conducted by the AP, Knight-Ridder and the like, you know why they didn't tell you the results? Because each successive recount widened the margin of victory for the "W". Also, these disputed districts were DNC controlled, that means that the election boards were staffed by DNC employees, the votes were counted by DNC employees, the controversial butterfly ballot was designed by a Democrat, and to the Dem's credit, the instructions say "If you make a mistake, request a new ballot from your polling center staff".

Edit: spittle, you cock, I should neg you for starting this one :p

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-01 15:57:32)

2006-06-01 15:55:33

#14

Major_Spittle: Banned; +276|6883|United States of America

Tarthkin wrote:
Major_Spittle wrote:
So this is to both parties: WE can't afford more Bushs and Clintons being elected, how the hell do they get nominated??????
We cant afford more Clintons?!?!?!?!?! are u kidding me?!?!? we could use another clinton to balence the budget , fix social security and leave something for the next generation. It took Bush all of 6 months to distroy the surplus clinton worked 8 years to acheive. The next election will bring a more "liberal" president because that is the way the country's views are shifting. but I must say im glad you voted. Personaly id be happy with just about any resonable president if more than 2/3 of the country voted for him/her.

Your the biggest moron that ever posted if you haven't figured out the whole "PROJECTED surplus" shit by now. Now go fuckin die you have nothing intelligent to add to this.

2006-06-01 15:56:19

#15

kessel!: Peruvian Cocaine; +261|6993|Toronto Canada

Cactusfist wrote:
I, no expert on American politics, but 2 parties surely doesn't help? England only has 3 main ones, and i think even thats not enough. Maybe a solution is just more candidates to choose from?

I don't know, correct me if im wrong people.

true. changing from the two party system might help. Canada has a decent system that includes about 5 major parties, while 2 have the majority.

2006-06-01 16:05:52

#16

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6860|949

why even post this topic in this section. What is going on here is hardly serious talk. Saying "dumb cunts" and "Now go fuckin die" is no way to have a debate. The only thing talk like that may prove is your age and/or maturity (or lack thereof).

EDIT: I gave reasons why the system is fucked, instead you guys are arguing over a president that hasn't been in power for over 6 years. I know, lets debate the merits of the James K. Polk presidency.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-06-01 16:07:01)

2006-06-01 16:07:09

#17

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|6996

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I suppose Howard would've just given Bin Laden and Saddam a nice yelling at. Cool.

And what is Bin Laden doing now?

2006-06-01 16:09:05

#18

Major_Spittle: Banned; +276|6883|United States of America

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
why even post this topic in this section. What is going on here is hardly serious talk. Saying "dumb cunts" and "Now go fuckin die" is no way to have a debate. The only thing talk like that may prove is your age and/or maturity (or lack thereof).

EDIT: I gave reasons why the system is fucked, instead you guys are arguing over a president that hasn't been in power for over 6 years. I know, lets debate the merits of the James K. Polk presidency.

Please stay on topic or go fuckin die. lol

2006-06-01 16:17:32

#19

Major_Spittle: Banned; +276|6883|United States of America

So far I have only hear from 1 person who still thinks Clinton's policies created a surplus and we should have a 3+ party system.

How about a General Election with a point system for the top 5 candidates. You vote for your top 5 picks and they each get points, ie 5pts for #1, 4pts for #2, ......... then the person with the most points wins. This way if you want to really vote for Ross Perot, but don't want Clinton to win you could have voted: Ross #1 and Bush#2 ......... Or if you wanted Nader to win but not Bush you could vote: Nader #1 and Kerry #2 .......

This seems the fairest to me, but from what I hear from the karma comments I am pretty stupid.

2006-06-01 17:47:20

#20

yerded: Bertinator; +255|6865|Westminster, California

We need to make campaign contribution annonymous so the whores don't know who they are selling their souls to and maybe they would vote like average concerned people.

2006-06-01 17:50:06

#21

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6880|USA

Fredrik wrote:
Because the fucking election was fixed the first time, and the second time the Americans where brainwashed...

Would lovvvvvvveeeeee to see ANY PROOF at all that the election was fixed.

2006-06-01 17:58:12

#22

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6880|USA

kessel! wrote:
JohnnyBlanco wrote:
Bush probally ain't the best president, but he's advised by more intelligent people so he won't do anything REALLY stupid......
except invading iraq, wiretapping houses, etc.

would loveeeeeeee to see proof that any wire taps were made on average american citizens.

He didn't "invade" Iraq, this is a continuation of the war that was started 15 years ago when IRAQ INVADED Kuwait......The UN security resolutions suspended hostilities with Iraq., until Iraq started to violate these resolutions. They violated these resolutions all through the Clinton administration and their empty threats and promises that something would be done about it.

2006-06-01 18:01:58

#23

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6880|USA

kessel! wrote:
hah true. i am REALLY afraid of those who advise him. Bush is basically just a puppet

So since Clinton had a cabinet as well, you must agree that he was also a puppet then, huh???

2006-06-01 18:02:54

#24

CommieChipmunk: Member; +488|6798|Portland, OR, USA

It's all about money, if you have a LOT of money, you can afford to run.. if not you just get stuck voting for these corrupted rich people..

2006-06-01 18:07:14

#25

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6880|USA

lowing wrote:
kessel! wrote:
JohnnyBlanco wrote:
Bush probally ain't the best president, but he's advised by more intelligent people so he won't do anything REALLY stupid......
except invading iraq, wiretapping houses, etc.
would loveeeeeeee to see proof that any wire taps were made on average american citizens.

He didn't "invade" Iraq, this is a continuation of the war that was started 15 years ago when IRAQ INVADED Kuwait......The UN security resolutions suspended hostilities with Iraq., until Iraq started to violate these resolutions. They violated these resolutions all through the Clinton administration and their empty threats and promises that something would be done about it.

I got - karmaed and call retarded..( and you know how much my karma means to me )....but no post with proof of anything to support your post.......lol.

Last edited by lowing (2006-06-01 18:07:26)

BF2S Forums I can see it, why can't they?????

JohnnyBlanco wrote:

JohnnyBlanco wrote:

kessel! wrote:

JohnnyBlanco wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

Fredrik wrote:

Tarthkin wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

Cactusfist wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Fredrik wrote:

kessel! wrote:

JohnnyBlanco wrote:

kessel! wrote:

lowing wrote:

kessel! wrote:

JohnnyBlanco wrote:

Board footer