[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Saif wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But America is, and probably never will be ready for a black president.[/QUOTE]
*sigh* How come things can't be like they are in '24'.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think it's pathetic that people pick who to vote for without watching a fuckin' debate. It really opens your mind to the choice you will be making to ensure what candidates you consider capable of running your country instead of saying... "I'll vote for this candidate because he/she seems nicer".[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the majority of people are one-issue voters. The one issue is often "which party are they from again?"
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote: [/QUOTENAME]About Hillary, I don't think she'd be the ideal choice for office because I feel that a President should have prior military experience since they are the Commander in Chief of one of the largest, and most powerful armies in the world. Just throwing that out there.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe the US could finally learn to stay out of other people's business, and then they wouldn't need to have such a huge army to invade other countries unnecessarily. Soldiers who could actually live past age 20... what an interesting concept. Maybe then the US could work on improving their global reputation. At the moment, the only place where the US has a good global reputation is the US. Well, maybe Britain too. Ever wondered why?
Yeah, the majority of people are one-issue voters. The one issue is often "which party are they from again?"
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote: [/QUOTENAME]About Hillary, I don't think she'd be the ideal choice for office because I feel that a President should have prior military experience since they are the Commander in Chief of one of the largest, and most powerful armies in the world. Just throwing that out there.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe the US could finally learn to stay out of other people's business, and then they wouldn't need to have such a huge army to invade other countries unnecessarily. Soldiers who could actually live past age 20... what an interesting concept. Maybe then the US could work on improving their global reputation. At the moment, the only place where the US has a good global reputation is the US. Well, maybe Britain too. Ever wondered why?
What we need is a lesbian Muslim for president. ahh.. the joys of being a felon on probation, it means that I cannot vote... but if I were allowed to vote I think I would cast it for Hillary, just to see what a woman in charge of the country would do... So I would have to agree with my fellow Michigander here (Sasha) and say Hillary for pres..
Still, It would be fun to see someone like Clint Eastwood or a former stripper or porn star run for president..
Still, It would be fun to see someone like Clint Eastwood or a former stripper or porn star run for president..
Well, Megamike, All you'd need is for Hillary to become a Muslim.
She could do one better and divorce that loser of a husband and marry someone that has balls.. like....Bobcat Goldthwait.. hehee.. or even Jesse Jackson..
I guess Hillary in office would beg the question....
Who would bag more women in the Oval Office, Hillary, or Bill?????
Who would bag more women in the Oval Office, Hillary, or Bill?????
Oh, God, almost two more years of presidential talk. Hillary likes to play the blame game - way too partisan. And she is dour, and sour always. Obama seems too slick as in - we all want the same thing, let's all just get along. I am for sure not voting for anyone that says we have to do something about health care because they are all lying because it can't be done. (I wish it could be done!) I heard Hillary say the health care thing yesterday. Perhaps she has forgotten that that's what Bill's first campaign was, in part, based on, and when he was elected, she was the head of it, and it came to nothing. Two years ago John Kerry said we had to do something about health care. Umm, John, how long had you been a U.S. congressman? Why didn't you do something about it for all of those years? The U.S. Treasury which prints our money and spits out our coins has a new program: The First "Spouse" coin series. It's a sign of the times. Years ago it would have been called The First Lady series.
If Hilary was elected president, would that make Bill First Pimp?
After all, Monica was the official U.S. First Mistress.
After all, Monica was the official U.S. First Mistress.
Bill Richardson 08
nuff said
too bad Brian May wasn't born in the US.
nuff said
too bad Brian May wasn't born in the US.
Whoever wins will be able to express some thoughts in a language that makes sense and we will look into eyes which display some sort of intelligence. Thanks to whoever invented the "two terms" rule.
If the world is lucky the new president will respect international law, lead the USA back into the community of civilized nations and put an end to the illegal occupation of other countries, Guantanamo Bay, kidnapping of citizens of other countries and other severe violations of international law. If the world is very lucky the new President will sign the Kyoto protocol and stop the nation using up one forth of the world's energy resources with no mercy for the rest of the world and the future of this planet.
If the world is lucky the new president will respect international law, lead the USA back into the community of civilized nations and put an end to the illegal occupation of other countries, Guantanamo Bay, kidnapping of citizens of other countries and other severe violations of international law. If the world is very lucky the new President will sign the Kyoto protocol and stop the nation using up one forth of the world's energy resources with no mercy for the rest of the world and the future of this planet.
Leave it to the upcoming Dutch government to turn back the clock 50 years. A cabinet of Christian Democrats (who are currently further to the right than they have *ever* been), Orthodox Christians and vote-horny populists who refer themselves as 'labour' but are basically the "we-agree-with-whatever-will-land-us-the-most-votes"-party,
is in the making.
Netherlands, I pity thee.
is in the making.
Netherlands, I pity thee.
Kyoto? Lets read up on the US' position, again, another topic that the Clinton and Bush administrations agree on.
There are way too many things totally wrong with it.
The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The United States is as of 2005 the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol.
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue.[43] Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
"This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change. In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.[citation needed] At the G-8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for "practical commitments industrialized countri
There are way too many things totally wrong with it.
The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The United States is as of 2005 the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol.
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue.[43] Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
"This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change. In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.[citation needed] At the G-8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for "practical commitments industrialized countri
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'd say Sasha for president!
And Poppy for Vice President!
America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~[/QUOTE]
man i can see this place hasnt changed
theres still such imature remarks that make no sense and are not realistic in the least.
i dont think anyone who would support Hilary is fit to be in congress
then again i could be wrong because Hilary is already there herself!
And Poppy for Vice President!
America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~[/QUOTE]
man i can see this place hasnt changed
theres still such imature remarks that make no sense and are not realistic in the least.
i dont think anyone who would support Hilary is fit to be in congress
then again i could be wrong because Hilary is already there herself!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sherwood Forest wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'd say Sasha for president!
And Poppy for Vice President!
America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~[/QUOTE]
man i can see this place hasnt changed
theres still such imature remarks that make no sense and are not realistic in the least.
i dont think anyone who would support Hilary is fit to be in congress
then again i could be wrong because Hilary is already there herself![/QUOTE]
I have made two observations:
1) You are not making any sense.
2) You seem to not have much political knowledge, if any at all.
3) You don't back up any of your opinions with fact, reason, or any of those other good things.
Now tell us, why is Hillary bad, who would you vote for, and why?
And Poppy for Vice President!
America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~[/QUOTE]
man i can see this place hasnt changed
theres still such imature remarks that make no sense and are not realistic in the least.
i dont think anyone who would support Hilary is fit to be in congress
then again i could be wrong because Hilary is already there herself![/QUOTE]
I have made two observations:
1) You are not making any sense.
2) You seem to not have much political knowledge, if any at all.
3) You don't back up any of your opinions with fact, reason, or any of those other good things.
Now tell us, why is Hillary bad, who would you vote for, and why?
Obama! Obama!
Actually, I don't know. I kind of don't care.
And bleh to Chris Dodd! :p
Actually, I don't know. I kind of don't care.
And bleh to Chris Dodd! :p