George Bush does not care about black people.

[bwind22]

Originally posted by Deposable
I am open for opinions and views. Right wingers are known for only listening to the sound of their own voice. Do I make it clear where I stand, yes. Is having a strong opinion narrow minded, sure it is.

Democrats and rebulicans do the same thing here. They both have their minds set before any given issue even arises.

see, how you fail to mention England. Which I was referring too in my original post.

That's because I was pointing out where you were inaccurate. England's currency is stronger than ours, so there was no need to mention it. You had it right.

I call the whole Republican Party as Nazi's. So if they are all Nazi's, he must be Hitler. Not a great comparison but I use that reference because of their beliefs not the whole "Killing Jews". They are against human choice and Pro-Control like the Nazi's were. I guess fascist is a better word.

Calling them fascist would be MUCH more appropriate than calling them nazis in my eyes.

The same thing happens to people in the U.S. The loophole's in HMO's kills people all the time. HMO's cover this but not that. Our Healthcare system is just as fucked up as Canada's but least everyone is equal. There is not blatant classism in Canada.

I have nothing good to say about HMO's here in the US. IF there are bigger crooks than politicians (That's a big IF), it's them. All I was really saying there was that the Canadian 'free' healthcare system isn't nearly as great as I often hear it made out to be.

Pleeassee :rolleyes: You gotta stop acting like your bipartisan. You clearly lean to the right. If someone praised George Bush, you wouldn't think twice. But if someone is speaking against him or our government (besides yourself), you wouldn't think twice about jumping on your high horse.

Obviously, since we are forced to only have 2 parties to select from, people are naturally forced to gravitate to one side or the other depending on the issue. I lean right on some issues and left on others. But in the overall scope of things, I realize they are both crooked parties controlling out government. They refuse to allow any third parties to even get into the race with any decent chance of winning. If Nader ever had any shot of winning, he'd have had my support in a heartbeat, but he didn't have a chance because the Dems and Repubs keep him out. (He wasn't even on the televised debates or even the ballot in some states.) Anyways, you should practice what you preach because you've been hanging from Clinton's dong this whole thread while saying that you are bipartisan too.

What Bill Clinton did was a Moral decision. Not being wholesome or trustworthy is getting votes from the "Blind Moral voters", then exploiting the people of 9/11 for a cause of War. Then recalling soliders to duty from the first Iraq war stating they didn't "Complete their services". Leaving thousands of families without fathers and mothers. And you can say having affair is "untrustworthy".... ? Only to his wife it is.

The military is comprised of volunteers, a massive amount of which signed up AFTER 9-11 knowing damn well they'd be going to combat.

If Clinton lied under oath is debatable from which side you look at it. Undeserving of the Witch hunt Republicans caused. Also, it seems very unimportant compared with the mess we have TODAY.

BR already covered this. It's not debatable. He lied under oath and then admitted it later on. He should have been impeached.

Lil Kim did lie under oath. Also, I believe it was a violent crime. correct ? which she was protecting her friends. Bill Clinton was only trying to save his own ass from his Wife. haha, I am sure you could understand why.

Lying under oath, no matter what you are lying about, is called perjury. They both commited exactly the same crime.

Like I said before, Clinton was a perfect president COMPARED to Bush. Just depends which issue is more important. Lying about getting a BJ or exploiting a horrible event for your own benefit.

Here we go again :cool:

To my knowledge, Bush hasn't commited any felonies while in office. Clinton did. Clinton also never had to deal with half the shit Bush did. It's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't say either one of them are ANYWHERE near a perfect president no matter who you compare them too. (Except maybe Hitler.)

[MichaelMyers]

Originally posted by bwind22
Popular vote is one good option...

Or how about this.... (I think Colorado is actually considering this.)

Split the electoral votes from each state by percentage of people that vote either way...

Let me explain... Say a state has 10 Electoral votes. 60% of the stae votes democrat, 40% votes republican. 6 of that states votes go to the democrat, 4 to the republican.

That would be a HUGE step in the right direction. Because as it is right now, if you are a democrat living in a state that always votes republican (like Texas or something) then your vote is worthless. You may as well stay home on election day because your vote isn't going where you want it to anyways.

I think a point system, like that, would be the best option...

I don't think strictly going by popular vote is a good idea, because politicians would then only campaign in urban areas...

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by bwind22
Clinton also never had to deal with half the shit Bush did.

A good bit of the stuff he's had to deal with is because of himself.

[Deposable]

Okay, maybe fascist is a better word for you right-wingers. haha. Since, we have made our points. There is nothing left to talk about.... for now. But still, look at this picture. here is proof !

[ChEEbA]

Oh, you big bad anarchist you....you're SO cool:rolleyes:

[bwind22]

Originally posted by Deposable
Okay, maybe fascist is a better word for you right-wingers. haha. Since, we have made our points. There is nothing left to talk about.... for now. But still, look at this picture. here is proof !

NOw that's pretty funny.

[bwind22]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
A good bit of the stuff he's had to deal with is because of himself.

Well, to a certain extent, yes (Iraq War mainly.). But 9/11 wasn't his fault. (And immediately after it, the majority of the population was pro war on terror.) And neither is this Hurricane Katrina mess now his fault.

[bwind22]

Originally posted by MichaelMyers
I don't think strictly going by popular vote is a good idea, because politicians would then only campaign in urban areas...

That's an excellent point. It would be a bad idea because that rural part of the country is a lot bigger than we in the urban areas realize or care to acknowledge, but you are probably right.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by bwind22
And neither is this Hurricane Katrina mess now his fault.

True, but the heat he's getting from the shitty response is his fault.

[bwind22]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
True, but the heat he's getting from the shitty response is his fault.

I gotta disagree with that. I think most of the heat was (correctly) placed on the director of FEMA and Bush acted pretty quickly in replacing that dude.

His public image is definately taking a hit because of it, but I kinda get the feeling that it's a lot of democrats looking for anything and everything they can to pin on him and make him look worse than he makes himself look.

The slow response wasn't his really his fault, it was FEMA's because that's who is supposed to respond to stuff like that and it was also the Governor of Louisiana's fault because they waited a week before asking for federal help.