Gore or Bush

[BaldGuyWithaHat]

Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

[reddeadrevolver]

Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

I really didn't like any of the candidates that ran for president. Al Gore tried to win the election by cheating, by only wanting to recount the ballots in the counties that favored democrats. George Bush is just plain stupid, saying things like "An increasing number of imports are coming from outside the United States". Ralph Nader wasn't very good, and Pat Buchannan wasn't exactly a good choice either. More than those four ran for president, but hardly anybody payed attention to them. Hopefully by next election, better candidates will show up. But it's doubtful. But to answer question: I'd rather have Bush in office than Gore.

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote: Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

Fag...? I didn't want either to win, I just went with Gore to keep Bush out of office. I couldn't really do much since I can't really very well vote... but what the hell...

[Ethiopian-Fat-Camp]

At 6/4/01 11:35 AM, GameboyCC wrote:

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote: Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

Fag...? I didn't want either to win, I just went with Gore to keep Bush out of office. I couldn't really do much since I can't really very well vote... but what the hell...

I think George Carlin said it best by saying "I hate it when people tell me that I don't have the right to talk about politics if I didn't vote. Thats bullshit. THEY elected the stupid motherfucker (in this election, it goes for both candidates) who is ruining this country now. THEY should shut the fuck up for voting.

[KaneOfNod]

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote: Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

George W. Bush.

He clearly is the right one for this country. However, he is being hindered by partisan democrats, who now have a senate majority because of Jeffords' disenfranchisement of Vermont voters. They also choose to now ignore the previous power-sharing bill they passed when the Republicans held majority.

[Ahimsa138]

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote: Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

Ralph Nader. I believe Nader would have done much better in the election had he been allowed to participate in thedebates with Bush and Gore. It's simple really, fuck the two party system.

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

At 6/4/01 07:43 PM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote: Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

George W. Bush.

He clearly is the right one for this country. However, he is being hindered by partisan democrats, who now have a senate majority because of Jeffords' disenfranchisement of Vermont voters. They also choose to now ignore the previous power-sharing bill they passed when the Republicans held majority.

But he's a moron!

[Slizor]

Well on the one hand Bush is likely to blow america up, which would be nice, on the other he is likely to take the world with him...

Gore

[Adambomb]

I wanted Mickey Mouse to win

[Bucephalus]

I sort of wanted Nader except that he was too stupid to realize that there was a difference between Gore and Bush. My choice would be Steve Jobs. Apparantly he got a lot of votes over in Cupertino. Bush really is a moron though...You can't argue otherwise. If he was really a Christian he would not want to fuck over the environment. When it comes to actual policymaking his "Christianity" doesn't show thorough. I don't see how he duped all the idiots who watch CBN and call themselves Christians. Bush is...urgh...words just can't describe it.

[HornedReaper]

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote: Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

Before I wanted Bush, because Gore had a gay policy towards violence in T.V./videogames, Now I wish Gore had won because Bush Jr. is just fucking up bad...

[KaneOfNod]

At 6/6/01 09:26 AM, GameboyCC wrote:

At 6/4/01 07:43 PM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote: Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

George W. Bush.

He clearly is the right one for this country. However, he is being hindered by partisan democrats, who now have a senate majority because of Jeffords' disenfranchisement of Vermont voters. They also choose to now ignore the previous power-sharing bill they passed when the Republicans held majority.

But he's a moron!

He merely has an accent and isn't so good with words; that does not a moron make.

[KaneOfNod]

At 6/6/01 08:56 PM, SilverHammer wrote: I sort of wanted Nader except that he was too stupid to realize that there was a difference between Gore and Bush. My choice would be Steve Jobs. Apparantly he got a lot of votes over in Cupertino. Bush really is a moron though...You can't argue otherwise. If he was really a Christian he would not want to fuck over the environment. When it comes to actual policymaking his "Christianity" doesn't show thorough. I don't see how he duped all the idiots who watch CBN and call themselves Christians. Bush is...urgh...words just can't describe it.

He doesn't want to fuck over the environment, he is merely being slandered and lied about by partisan liberals. Especially via the media.

In fact, he has a strong record on the environment.

[KaneOfNod]

At 6/6/01 10:54 PM, HornedReaper wrote:

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote: Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

Before I wanted Bush, because Gore had a gay policy towards violence in T.V./videogames, Now I wish Gore had won because Bush Jr. is just fucking up bad...

How so?

I unfortunately think that thanks to Jefford's disenfranching of the voters in Vermont to defect to the liberal democrats, the partisan democrats may, in effect, block most of Bush's plans.

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

At 6/7/01 04:26 AM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/6/01 09:26 AM, GameboyCC wrote:

At 6/4/01 07:43 PM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote: Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

George W. Bush.

He clearly is the right one for this country. However, he is being hindered by partisan democrats, who now have a senate majority because of Jeffords' disenfranchisement of Vermont voters. They also choose to now ignore the previous power-sharing bill they passed when the Republicans held majority.

But he's a moron!

He merely has an accent and isn't so good with words; that does not a moron make.

That's not what I ment, he's using his power to make money from his oil investments, he rigged the election, and he taught his daughters that getting drunk is alright (of course it was by example, but he still had a part in it).

[Bucephalus]

At 6/7/01 04:28 AM, KaneOfNod wrote:

[Bush] doesn't want to fuck over the environment, he is merely being slandered and lied about by partisan liberals. Especially via the media.

In fact, he has a strong record on the environment.

To the first part: In this country "liberal" is not a party like it is in Canada. Thus you can't really be a partisan liberal. You can be partisan and liberal, but there are many liberals (and conservatives) who are not partisan to their respective parties that think that Bush is doing terribly with the environment.

To the second part: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....heh heh.......heh. Ah, excuse me.

[KaneOfNod]

At 6/8/01 05:39 PM, SilverHammer wrote:

At 6/7/01 04:28 AM, KaneOfNod wrote:

[Bush] doesn't want to fuck over the environment, he is merely being slandered and lied about by partisan liberals. Especially via the media.

In fact, he has a strong record on the environment.

To the first part: In this country "liberal" is not a party like it is in Canada. Thus you can't really be a partisan liberal. You can be partisan and liberal, but there are many liberals (and conservatives) who are not partisan to their respective parties that think that Bush is doing terribly with the environment.

To the second part: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....heh heh.......heh. Ah, excuse me.

Liberal is how a party identifies. The names Democrat and Republican mean next to nothing. The Democrats are not for empowering the people but are for empowering the government and removing responsibilities from the people. Republicans are for empowering the people and giving them responsibilities. Liberal (left) and conservative (right) are more correct.

[BaldGuyWithaHat]

lotta replies.. im also scared that bush will be the end of america. (possibly world)

GORE.

"The other guy got more votes but whatever duh hehe" - Bush

[Bucephalus]

At 6/8/01 10:08 PM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/8/01 05:39 PM, SilverHammer wrote: To the first part: In this country "liberal" is not a party like it is in Canada. Thus you can't really be a partisan liberal. You can be partisan and liberal, but there are many liberals (and conservatives) who are not partisan to their respective parties that think that Bush is doing terribly with the environment.

Liberal is how a party identifies. The names Democrat and Republican mean next to nothing. The Democrats are not for empowering the people but are for empowering the government and removing responsibilities from the people. Republicans are for empowering the people and giving them responsibilities. Liberal (left) and conservative (right) are more correct.

How about this: you missed my entire point. My point is that there are a lot of liberals who are not partisan to the Dems, Greens, etc. who hate Bush. Argh, nevermind....Anyway the Republicans are only for holding people responsible for their actions if they don't have ties to the oil industry. If you do you can snort all the coke you want and still be president.

[loudog888]

I wanted Bush to win, under protest. If I really had my pick, it would have been Ralph Nader. He has already proven that he cannot be bought. Plus, I agree with many of his politics. As for the other candidates, I thought George W was going to be a weak president, but I have been pleasantly surprised by his actions thus far. Al Gore, on the other hand, is a liar, a cheat, and a bad sport. He is so full of shit. While he was a United States Senator representing my neighboring state of Tennessee, He had a total of 29 pro-life votes in the Senate. Then, after having sold out what he believes so he could be more in line with the Democratic Party and advance himself up the political ladder, he lies to the american public and tells them that he has always been pro-choice. Bullshit. There is a very long paper trail to refute that. But you know what happened? Many americans simply opened wide and swallowed that and much other fucking horse shit that issues profusely from his mouth. I seriously cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would even throw rocks at him, let alone allow him to be your president. I mean, come on!
Holy shit! You want this hollow, soulless, shell of a man to be your president? But then I realized why anyone would give him a moments' thought. The media is simply cramming their opinions down the throats of every american who will tune in. And the fact is, most of them are liberal. There is nothing wrong with this, but when someone like Katie Couric or anyone gets up on their soapbox and turns millions of gullible ears towards them and tries to affect the direction of the nation, that is wrong. So do me a favor, and more importantly do yourself a favor. Get informed. Learn the facts. Do not let the media do your thinking for you. Make your own decisions, not just what the characters in your favorite sitcom or Saturday Night Live or the MTV vjs tell you to do. By the way if you are wondering what my political orientation is, it is not to the left, nor to the right, but to the outside. Radical liberals and radical conservatives are basically the same. They go about it different ways, but they both have the same end in mind. Something has to change because our goverment is corrupt.

[KaneOfNod]

At 6/9/01 10:18 AM, SilverHammer wrote:

At 6/8/01 10:08 PM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/8/01 05:39 PM, SilverHammer wrote: To the first part: In this country "liberal" is not a party like it is in Canada. Thus you can't really be a partisan liberal. You can be partisan and liberal, but there are many liberals (and conservatives) who are not partisan to their respective parties that think that Bush is doing terribly with the environment.

Liberal is how a party identifies. The names Democrat and Republican mean next to nothing. The Democrats are not for empowering the people but are for empowering the government and removing responsibilities from the people. Republicans are for empowering the people and giving them responsibilities. Liberal (left) and conservative (right) are more correct.

How about this: you missed my entire point. My point is that there are a lot of liberals who are not partisan to the Dems, Greens, etc. who hate Bush. Argh, nevermind....

Ahh...that can be true. However, the a bias to the liberal (left) side is essentially a bias helping the democrats, from a media POV.

Anyway the Republicans are only for holding people responsible for their actions if they don't have ties to the oil industry. If you do you can snort all the coke you want and still be president.

Well, that was rather subjective and non-abstract.

[Bucephalus]

At 6/11/01 03:43 PM, KaneOfNod wrote:

Well, that was rather subjective and non-abstract.

ho ho ho, I am santa. I can understand economic conservativism, (I haven't done enough research to fully take sides), but I like what I heard once that a good deal of social conservativism is based on aesthetics instead of real values. My main problem, to be honest, is the environmental issue. Japan, in several years, is planning to have 20% of its power coming from solar plants. I have no idea why we are advocating a return to coal...The people who now say that global warming is unproven are like the people who even in the 1990's said there was no established connection between smoking and lung cancer...

[DeKaRzOmBiE12]

Bush sucks my mom. What a dumb mother fucker. And his policies suck! I mean, maybe if he was ambassedor to Texas I'd respect him a small amount but his stupid election rigging and having that anti-black voter campaign was too much. Plus he did coke, the fuck.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/6/01 06:06 AM, Momar wrote:

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote: Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

Ralph Nader. I believe Nader would have done much better in the election had he been allowed to participate in thedebates with Bush and Gore. It's simple really, fuck the two party system.

DAMN STRAIGHT! I don't think Nader should have won, And I don't think Nader thought he should either, But He's thought as well as mine Is FUCK THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM! I'm tired of stupid Bitches complainging about " I didn't like either candidate "! GUESS WHAT ASS HOLE YOU HAVE MORE THAN TWO OPTIONS... YOU CAN VOTE FOR ANYONE! SO SHUT THE FUCK UP. Nader was the first step to bringing back some sence of rightiouness back to politics but we were too fucking stupid to take it.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/7/01 04:28 AM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/6/01 08:56 PM, SilverHammer wrote: I sort of wanted Nader except that he was too stupid to realize that there was a difference between Gore and Bush. My choice would be Steve Jobs. Apparantly he got a lot of votes over in Cupertino. Bush really is a moron though...You can't argue otherwise. If he was really a Christian he would not want to fuck over the environment. When it comes to actual policymaking his "Christianity" doesn't show thorough. I don't see how he duped all the idiots who watch CBN and call themselves Christians. Bush is...urgh...words just can't describe it.

He doesn't want to fuck over the environment, he is merely being slandered and lied about by partisan liberals. Especially via the media.

In fact, he has a strong record on the environment.

I don't know where you fucking got this fucking idea of a strong record on the enviroment. Maybe your fucking mommy told you some shit like this or you heard it on some bull shit radio program, becuase it's obvious that you didn't look up any facts but are just repeating some stupid shit that some retard said. Let's hear some REAL FACTS > Texas - 49th state in spending on the enviroment ( < Newsweek ) hmm largest state in the US but 49th in spending... yah that seems like a good record. So Shut the Fuck Up Unless you can Come Up With Some Real facts! ANd If you Still Think He has a good record you should be FUCKING SHIT IN THE GOD DAMNED HEAD... But I wouldn't becuase I'm pro-dun control :P ( J/k )

[KaneOfNod]

At 6/14/01 08:31 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 6/6/01 06:06 AM, Momar wrote:

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote: Who did you want to win, Bore or Gush? I mean Gore or Bush.. You know what I mean! FAG!

Ralph Nader. I believe Nader would have done much better in the election had he been allowed to participate in thedebates with Bush and Gore. It's simple really, fuck the two party system.

DAMN STRAIGHT! I don't think Nader should have won, And I don't think Nader thought he should either, But He's thought as well as mine Is FUCK THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM! I'm tired of stupid Bitches complainging about " I didn't like either candidate "! GUESS WHAT ASS HOLE YOU HAVE MORE THAN TWO OPTIONS... YOU CAN VOTE FOR ANYONE! SO SHUT THE FUCK UP. Nader was the first step to bringing back some sence of rightiouness back to politics but we were too fucking stupid to take it.

Hey, it's all Jefferson's fault. Whiny Democrat bastard ;)

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/14/01 09:17 AM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/14/01 08:31 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 6/6/01 06:06 AM, Momar wrote:

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote:

Hey, it's all Jefferson's fault. Whiny Democrat bastard ;)

I don't under stand, explain.

[KaneOfNod]

At 6/14/01 12:28 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 6/14/01 09:17 AM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/14/01 08:31 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 6/6/01 06:06 AM, Momar wrote:

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote:

Hey, it's all Jefferson's fault. Whiny Democrat bastard ;)

I don't under stand, explain.

The US didn't originally have political parties. Washington was very much against them.

Anyway, 2nd election, Adams beats Jefferson, and Jefferson becomes VP. There had been much friction between two halves of congress more or less led by both Adams and Jefferson. Jefferson forms the Democratic party.

The Republicans were formed in the 1850's, I think. 1858 maybe? 1st (or 2nd?) candidate was war hero Fremont.
Anyway, first Republican president was the great Abraham Lincoln.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/14/01 12:50 PM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/14/01 12:28 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 6/14/01 09:17 AM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/14/01 08:31 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 6/6/01 06:06 AM, Momar wrote:

At 6/2/01 10:51 PM, baldguywithahat wrote:

Hey, it's all Jefferson's fault. Whiny Democrat bastard ;)

I don't under stand, explain.

The US didn't originally have political parties. Washington was very much against them.

Anyway, 2nd election, Adams beats Jefferson, and Jefferson becomes VP. There had been much friction between two halves of congress more or less led by both Adams and Jefferson. Jefferson forms the Democratic party.

The Republicans were formed in the 1850's, I think. 1858 maybe? 1st (or 2nd?) candidate was war hero Fremont.
Anyway, first Republican president was the great Abraham Lincoln.

Interesting... But Still, I think That formed political parties are the degradation of the american democratic system.

[Slizor]

Interesting... But Still, I think That formed political parties are the degradation of the american democratic system.

What about the electoral college? What about the stupidness of the electorat? What about poor beginnings?