Being 18, this is the first election year that I will have the opportunity to vote; therefore, I have become more interested in the race. In the midst of all the recent political debates here at the safehouse, I think it would be cool to set up a simple anonymous poll to gauge who the safehousers would vote for. If we did get one up, we could always throw it to the major news networks because I'm sure the country would be interested in the results! Just a thought of mine, let me know if i'm out of line, retarded, or otherwise inept! Thanks!
Sure... mention a poll on the day of the election :p. (Today Canada is having a federal election; it may end up being the first minority government in about 25 years)
But in regards to any election poll, I don't understand why they're needed - you don't vote for whoever's ahead or behind in the polls, you vote for the person you feel is best qualified to run your country regardless of how many votes you think he's going to get.
I won't be voting.. because honestly, I hate them both. They are both **** choices. And secondly, because I live in Montana, so my vote doesn't really count anyway.. doesn't matter how people here because it's districted up the republican ass anyway. So no ammount of democratic votes will change our 3 (I think we still have 3 at least) electoral votes.
Basically I hate the whole ****ing presidential election; it's all a bunch of **** assed ****.. I do however vote for local issues, where my vote has at least somewhat of a chance to actually count..
/rant off
/wondertwinpowers activate!!
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
- Steven Weinberg
The canadian election is today, and I'm voting for the Liberals
because the Conservatives are Bush brown nosers.
Its actually an extremely close race. ..lets hope its sets the tone for the
american election :D
For someone who lives in the Bay Area, I'd think you wouldn't see the Safehouse as a flaming liberal place.
Didn't we clear this up last time? It isn't a matter of think, its a clear cut fact.. We had a poll before, and the majority of the Safehouse leans to the left.
I have no problem with this fact..
Not sure where you came up with Flaming liberal though..
I don't know whether the Liberals or Conservatives will form the next government, and whether it'll be a majority or minority government, but I predict the Green Party is going to surprise a lot of people this year.
Well, the other day I had to vote for:
A. an egocentrical lying ex-communist bastard who'd happily drive over a dozen little old ladies if it got him his own way
B. an egocentrical nutjob who played on people's fears in the name of peace. Your classical "We are TARGETS!! We MUST embrace PEACE NOW or we will be DESTROYED!" tactic that I absolutely hate with a fiery it's-an-Adam-Sandler-movie feeling.
C. some guy no one knows or has heard about who just wants to be a mindless look-good windowdressing for the nation oh and suck up to the PM
and decide which of these I wanted as my future president. A has been president for the past 8 years.
Naturally I went for the better known of the evils, the bastard ex-commie. He seems to really hate the PM and does a wonderful job of pissing him off, which clearly makes him the best canditate to pick from. That and I'd have to commit ritual suicide bombing if candidate B were ever elected to any major office since he's effing nuts. I mean he was quite seriously asked by an interviewer on the largest radio station if he had ever undergone psychiatric evaluation, and that question was not asked without just cause IMO. I'd honestly rather have Bush as my president than that guy. Thank god he's only ever gotten 1% in any election he's gone into. So that's my answer, it's not anonymous and not applicable anywhere outside of Iceland, but I vote for the ex-commie bastard!
Well he explained that to ya.. he thinks that the canadian election will set the tone for the American election.. and we all know that splendora spends more time worrying about US politics than his own..
you don't vote for whoever's ahead or behind in the polls, you vote for the person you feel is best qualified to run your country regardless of how many votes you think he's going to get.
Sorry, but most people vote for whoever has a chance to win, yet somewhat resembles their own beliefs.
I read a (probably fabricated) story about how, if everyone had voted their conscience in 1992, Perot would have gotten 40 percent of the vote.
Sorry, but I saw Perot for the billionaire nutjob he was; conscience definately wouldn't have gotten Perot elected.
In Canada, a party gets funds based on how many people voted for them, regardless of how many seats they win - your vote earns that party money so even if they don't win this time, they'll be funded better for the next election if more people vote for them.
The Canadian election is going to be... very interesting.
I can say, I don't want a majority government. At all. Sadly, I think our best bet is Liberal-NDP minority, but that's just my take on things.
And Ruccus, I gotta agree. I do think the Green Party will be surprising this year. It's kinda... depressing though. In my eyes, every party has #$@!%ed our country up one way or another... Y'know, except green, since I've never seen them do anything, since they've never had the chance.
I would've rather liked the Conservatives over 100 seats and the Liberals at around 125 or so, but it seems adequate; the results should keep the liberals at least more honest than before. It looks like it's going to be 135 for the Liberals, 99 Conservative, 54 Bloc Quebecois, 19 New Democratic Party, and one independant. That's good because the Liberals and NDP combined don't have the votes needed so they're going to have to work with the Conservatives and Bloc.
And I called the Green Party surprise - from 1,100 votes (less than 1%) in 2000, to around 500,000 (over 4% of the popular vote) this election, which means they get around $875,000 per year government funding.
And lastly, if you think your vote won't count, in my riding the winner was decided by 45 votes (15,635 to 15,590).
1. No WMD
2. No Saddam/Al-Qaeda relationship
3. Iraq posed no threat to it's neighbors let alone the U.S.
4. Billions of taxpayers dollars spent and destined to be spent
5. Over 900 troops killed, thousands wounded and more to come
6. War profiteering and fraud is rampant due in no small part to Cheney's company Halliburton.
7. Torture of Iraqi prisoners.
8. Terrorism is rising.
9. Sovereignty with military occupation and a leader who is no more than a CIA plant.
10. U.S. credibility and trust at an all time low
If Kerry is elected, I'll be closing my bank accounts and putting money in my mattress. The man has ZERO fiscal responsibility. None. His sugar mama has spoiled the child. You do not want John Kerry in office. Trust me on this. Follow his career in Massachusetts and see where he spends his overtaxed constituents tax dollar.
If you choose not to vote for Bush, vote for someone other than Kerry. For the love of all that's Holy. Don't get this man any closer to the White House than the Senate. Think of the children. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
1. No WMD
3. Iraq posed no threat to it's neighbors let alone the U.S.
5. Over 900 troops killed, thousands wounded and more to come
7. Torture of Iraqi prisoners.
8. Terrorism is rising.
And you will vote for Bush why?
1. I coulda sworn they found sarin gas in Iraq a little over a month ago. Also, didn't I hear somewhere that they found some more this week?
3. Hmm...weren't neighboring countries of Iraq in cohorts with terrorist groups? Bin Laden and Afghanistan comes to mind... Additionally, Iraqi neighboring countries are in similar oppressed governments. If those people see a liberated Iraq, what's to stop them from trying to revolt?
7. American civilians working in Iraq captured and beheaded. Weren't there at least 2 this month alone?
8. Why do you think we're fighting this war? To try to stop terrorism...things previous leaders should've done when the WTC got bombed the first time, bombing of the USS Cole, etc... Terrorism rose because Clinton didn't nip it in bud. Surely you don't expect terrorists to just take it up the ass now that we're doing something about it, do you? Of course they're going to retalitate. If I were to pin you down and yank out your toe nails with pliers, wouldn't you try to kick me?
I'll vote for whoever has the cajones to do something about people attacking us it rather than shove it under the rug like some politicians we know have done a few years ago...
why not get all the remaining 3-5 Bush voters in the open to ridicule them? :P it's a fun sport though..
I like it better when nobody reads enough to realize who's actually arguing on their side, and people end up flaming the hell out of those who agree with them because they're just that eager to make every conversation a fight.
No relationship, except that Saddam specifically sought out Al-Qaeda, and made an agreement with them to show some of their propaganda.
Except that members of Saddam's military were involved in training them.
Except that Saddam granted asylum to terrorists.
5. Over 900 troops killed, thousands wounded and more to come
Only 900 troops killed, don't you mean?
Let's look at military casualties over the ages-
Revolutionary War- 4,435 Dead, 6,188 wounded
War of 1812- 2,260 Dead, 4,505 wounded
Mexican War- 1,733 Dead, 4,152 wounded
Civil War- 184,594 Dead, 373,458 wounded
Spanish-American War- 385 Dead, 1,662 wounded
World War I- 53,513 Dead, 204,002 wounded
World War II- 292,131 Dead, 670,846 wounded
Korean War- 33,651 Dead, 103,284 wounded
Vietnam War- 47,369 Dead, 153,303 wounded
Gulf War I- 148 Dead, 467 wounded
This is only for combat casualties. Disease and accident casualties are not included in the above.
Let's compare that to the current Iraq War and occupation of Iraq-
Dead (Including UK) 918
Wounded 5138, of which 2199 returned to active duty immediately after treatment.
Compared to other extended military engagements in our past, we are doing exceptionally well. This is a marker of success, not failure.
7- Torture of Iraqi prisoners.
Torture?
tor·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrchr)
n.
1a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
1b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.
So putting panties on someones head, or photgraphing them naked is what passes for torture these days?
Mistreatment I'd accept. Torture is going way over the line of what actually happened.
So you hate Bush. At least be honest in your reasons for hating him.
Torture is going way over the line of what actually happened.
I'd call having your balls shocked, being clubbed with blunt objects, having attack dogs sicked on you constitutes torture. Is it wide spread enough that I condemn the military as a whole? No. Is it more than mistreatment? Uh, YES.
Compared to other extended military engagements in our past, we are doing exceptionally well. This is a marker of success, not failure.
A success? 918 people died! From a statistical, bar graph look, no this isn't alot. But think about that number a little more... 918 brothers, fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, mothers, etc. died. How many of their families are going "Oh well, i'm sad that Johnny died, but compared to other wars, we're still doing pretty good, guess we just had to take one for the team." I'm betting none, or 1% at most. Hell, can you even comprehend 918 individuals dying (I can't)? Statistical comparison of deaths has no place outside of video games.
If Kerry is elected, I'll be closing my bank accounts and putting money in my mattress. The man has ZERO fiscal responsibility. None. His sugar mama has spoiled the child. You do not want John Kerry in office. Trust me on this. Follow his career in Massachusetts and see where he spends his overtaxed constituents tax dollar.
Unless you know something I don't, the Republicans will still be very much in control of Congress, and they will have no incentive to help Kerry raise taxes or increase spending. Bush (and the neo-cons) has to go before he further damages the Republican Party. We'll let Kerry try and repair our relations around the world for 4 years, and then we'll put a real Republican back in the White House. Unfortunately, I think Kerry is too much of a dumbass to win this election, so I just hope that someone in this administration pounds some sense into the neo-cons.
Only 900 troops killed, don't you mean?
The issue here is that nearly all of those deaths have come since the official cease of hostilities. In all those other conflicts listed, the deaths have come during the war, not the peace. The US has worn out its welcome, encouraged dissidents to continue attacking them, and encouraged many Iraqis to join the dissidents with its poorly planned and executed policies.
And torture is torture. Dismissing those abuses as "putting panties on prisoner's heads" is simplifying the allegations beyond any reasonable degree.
1) The Nazi's didn't just stop fighting during the allied occupation. There was a group of them called the 'Werewolves' that continued to strike at allied targets and participate in terrorism. Eventually the rest of the populace got sick of them. You could read a book called 'The Last Nazi's', or perhaps you could watch the History channel special that I think is runnning this week.
Also, there were numerous articles about how much the Germans hated the Allied occupiers, and how our policy was turning them against us, etc.
2) I disagree with you on what constitutes torture.
We'll let Kerry try and repair our relations around the world for 4 years, and then we'll put a real Republican back in the White House
Translation: He'll make sure we ask permission from France before we take any more action on the war on Terror.
No, over the long run, Kerry probably will do the same sort of thing that bush will. However, Bush is doing them proactively, to stave off more terrorist attacks, and defeat terrorist groups and the nations that support them now.
Kerry will wait until after another attack or three to take those same actions, and be in a reactive mode, rather than preventing terrorist attacks.
As for torture, yes, it happened. It was entirely inexcusable. A few soldiers, low in the chain of command did it of their own initiative, and are now being punished for it. In fact, the Pentagon began the disciplinary proccess long before it became a big story.
In all those other conflicts listed, the deaths have come during the war, not the peace.
So, rather than praise Bush, and the military for having such a clean, fast, effective war, with such a low rate of death, you'd rather bitch and moan that everything isn't perfect. Look where we are after a mere 15 months. 85% of the kids in Iraq are now vaccinated, 2400 schools rebuilt, we are handing control back over to the iraqis, training their police and military, rapidly rebuilding their infrastructure, etc. WTF do you want, a damn pony for every family?
So, rather than praise Bush, and the military for having such a clean, fast, effective war, with such a low rate of death, you'd rather bitch and moan that everything isn't perfect.
/sarcasm on
Yes, and as well all know, the ground war was the big focus here, and it's all thumbs up and slaps on the back under a big sign once you've flexed your military might, right?
Or no WAIT. We're helping people that's right! Er, yeah, and defending ourselves against....them! Yes that's it.
/sarcasm off
Bush got no props on his "fast, effective war" because no one was disputing that the United States would knock Saddam down like a fruit stand in a hurricane. Everyone was concerned with what was going to happen afterwards.
So if you please, enough with the "effective ground war" statements. It's like congratulating yourself for beating up a quadrapoligic.
Bush got no props on his "fast, effective war" because no one was disputing that the United States would knock Saddam down like a fruit stand in a hurricane.
Bull.
Every commentator on every news channel, every editorialist, every one in the media was talking about the thousands and thousands of deaths we would have, about how we would never be able to defeat them without massive, massive losses.
Remember? It was a repeat of the earlier predictions of how the "Brutal Afghan Winter" was going to decimate our ability to win in Afghanistan.
I swear, If Bush woke up tomorrow and walked across the potomac river, some of you would be complaining that he doesn't know how to swim.
Meanwhile, people not trying to garner viewers and readerships by printing bombastic headlines expected loose organized troops, and extensive guerrilla warfare tactics after the dust settled.
I just remember when the ground war was building up all the commentators were seizing on the idea of "urban warfare" and how our military wasn't able to handle it. I remember thinking that they had watched Black Hawk Down too many times. Urban Warfare with light infantry is a problem, Urban Warfare with an armored division is a joke. I don't remember anything about the "Elite Republican Guard" that was anything but complimentary / fearful of them.
I'm sorry, but with our military budget being as high as it is (hundreds of billions more than the 2nd most, Russia) we BETTER be able to beat the crap out of Saddam's forces!
I mean, they didn't even use any air forces! How could they have stood a friggin chance, Meddik? I think a lot of that was sensationalized...
And even if it wasn't exaggerated or sensationalized, what was the relevance of committing at least one generation of youth into a war based solely on misrepresentations and muddled half-truths? (Besides, I miss my friends and colleagues being at the mercy of their commanders and having to stay twice or three times as long as promised... only increasing my chances of never seeing them again)
Sad thing is, people like me who don't care for Bush -OR- Kerry will get screwed this election... (I'll just be voting for Kerry in hopes of not hearing short news bites with mispronounced words riddled through them for the next 4 years - it's scary/sad having a President with no public speaking skills)
Just a thought of mine, let me know if i'm out of line, retarded, or otherwise inept! Thanks!
