| Welcome to NationStates Texas Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Who would you vote for? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 8 2004, 09:43 AM (1,280 Views) | |
| Ukroatia | Mar 9 2005, 12:36 AM Post #41 |
|
Former SecDef
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You've got to be kidding? The reason we didnt go after Saddam until George W, was because Clinton was too big of a military pussy. I like Clinton I really do, but when it came to military action, he was horrible. How long did it take for us to take down Slobidan Milosevich? I think the number was over 100000 before we intervined. The question is are we supposed to wait. If we are going to take action take action now instead of waiting until hundreds of thousands are dead. and with afganistan. major fighting ended quickly. I dont even know how long its been since an enemy kill over there. the only people over there right now are near the pakistan border searching for Osama. oh and the taliban has not been in control of anything since the US arrived. the taliban has some influence in some small towns in pakistan but thats it. they are almost completely extinct. There are members of Al Quieda in almost every country in Europe the middle east, north america and asia. how are we supposed to wipe them out??? |
![]() |
|
| Donald Trump | Mar 9 2005, 01:16 PM Post #42 |
![]()
Cowpoke
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
my hubby and i have very different political views.....but, despite that, i think it is virtually impossible to eliminate all terrorism regardless of how much money you spend or how many bombs are thrown. i think our current government is very scary, but thats another story |
![]() |
|
| Fatsos Bastardos | Mar 10 2005, 05:41 AM Post #43 |
![]()
Mr. President
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Look I live in Britain and I'll tell you what they stand for: Labour: People's party for the middle-lower class (I'd go with these) but their leader, Tony Blair is a complete and utter idiot. However his policies are good ones. Conservative: First-class, believe everyone should be taxed at the same rate, also believe the rich should keep their money. They do make a good point about hospitals but they intend to make people pay for their operations. The last time they were in power, Britain was in anarchy thanks to Maggie Thatcher (the leader then). Liberal Democrats: Nobody knows what these stand for but they just tend to lean towards the other parties good policies. Practically they're for the person who can't decide who to vote for. Thank you for reading!!!!
|
![]() |
|
| Skanky Lima Beans | Mar 10 2005, 07:54 AM Post #44 |
Texas Elite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I thought that humaitarian issues didn't mean anything here? In that case, Melosevich didn't really matter to US interests. He was trying to dominate an area of the world where our interests are not that strong. Just like sub-saharan Africa, except in this case it was Europe, where pressure was stronger to intervene. And after the Gulf War was the time to take care of Saddam, when his intentions were clear and he was weakened from the war, and that fell during Bush Sr's administration. But of course this isn't the issue, because who cares? If people are dying it's their problem, let them deal with it. Right? And, if you listen to Bush, the whole purpose of the war on terror is to cripple terrorists. Someone needs to tell him that it's a worthless cause to be over there if that's not the case. And Donald, you're absolutely right that bombs and money aren't going to eliminate terrorists. As long as the extreme hatred for the US is still there, there will be terrorists. What we need to do is foster relationships that try to curb this hatred, including relationships with governments in terrorist-harboring areas. Sure, this is damn hard to do. But what will eventually have the better effect? Bombing a country sure doesn't seem to get rid of a lot of hatred. But now we're getting into general US foreign policy, which is really an entirely different debate. |
![]() |
|
| El Pat | Mar 10 2005, 03:55 PM Post #45 |
![]()
Texas Commander
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In 1998 when W was first looking at running for President, I stated to my friends that before the end of his first term we would invade Iraq and take out Sadaam because he felt insecure about the way it was handled and portrayed under his father's administration. I think that holds true now. Sadaam is a bad man, nobody is going to argue with that. But we have to decide if we are going to be the police of the world and go after all the bad guys on our own without prejudice or if we are going to go the other way and try to be isolationist. My first problem with Iraq is that we went into Iraq on shady intelligence that said that Iraq had WMDs. They didn't. We don't know if they ever had them after Reagan sold Iraq chemical weapons in the early 1980s. From where did this faulty intelligence come? Was it just manufactured by someone at the Pentagon so that Bush could hear what he wanted to hear? Second, after WMDs were not found and that story and coverup were underreported, Bush came out saying that they were not actually looking for WMDs, they were trying to capture bin Laden, whom Bush said was hiding in Iraq. The problem was that Sadaam had such a high price on Osama bin Laden's head that would've made it sheer idiocy for bin Laden to enter Iraq! Sadaam viewed Osama as a genuine threat to his power and therefore wanted nothing to do with him. This was also common knowledge. Third, after no link to Al Qaeda was found and that story and coverup were underreported, Bush came out saying that Sadaam was committing crimes against humanity and that we were doing the world a favor by getting rid of him. Yes, the Iraqi people are better off without Sadaam, but that was not the reason for the war. The ends do not justify the means, and lies and deceit are no way to go about conducting war business. Bush lied to the American people and the world: to paraphrase the Austin Lounge Lizards, "He's stupid if he didn't know, dishonest if he did." We were not finished in Afghanistan, we still are nowhere near finished in Afghanistan, yet Bush found an opportunity to do something that he had wanted to do ever since George H. W. Bush ended the Persian Gulf War without capturing Sadaam. He needed something to take the public's eye off the fact that Osama bin Laden had not been captured. And honestly, how often do we hear about bin Laden on the news any more? He is rarely mentioned, it is as if we have forgotten what our main objective was. Well screw that, Bush unlawfully invaded a soverign nation to accomplish his own agenda. He did not prepare adequately for the war, he does not have an exit strategy, he has no idea what his next move is or what it should be. And for that, my friend is being fired upon. Bush got to spend his time during Vietnam sitting around getting high in Alabama, and now he sends my friends to fight for his personal vendetta. Ok, I'm too worked up now to make much sense or go above petty namecalling. Time to stop this. Sorry about the rant. Pat Edit: Note that I do not blame President Bush for this: I blame Congress (both Dems and Repubs or, as I like to call them, Republicrats) and the Secretary of Defense as well as others |
![]() |
|
| hunington beach | Mar 10 2005, 09:50 PM Post #46 |
![]()
Native Texan
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
same...:-P |
![]() |
|
| Alien Reign | Mar 11 2005, 04:01 PM Post #47 |
Native Texan
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It Must Be Labour and , the Alternatives are RidiculousAn Example from the 'Ridiculous' Link
|
![]() |
|
| HotRodia | Mar 13 2005, 11:47 AM Post #48 |
|
Texas Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A very useful law.
|
![]() |
|
| Fatsos Bastardos | Mar 14 2005, 12:46 PM Post #49 |
![]()
Mr. President
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh yes an intriguing law indeed!!
|
![]() |
|
| cheesey krabs | Mar 20 2005, 12:57 PM Post #50 |
![]()
True Texan
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i'm a very happy person that enjoys fine foods, and i feel we should kill every politic alive. HERE HERE!!!! LOOK I HAVE A CAPS LOCK AND EVERYTHING!!!!!!!
|
![]() |
|
| Palcon | Mar 21 2005, 04:39 PM Post #51 |
![]()
Palcon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
hey Krabby, politicians are good people with good intentions. The more corrupt ones are evil but without politicians there would be chaos. However I feel certain politicians should never lead to begin with. Telegram or emai lme if you want a list of them. PM of Palcon
|
![]() |
|
| Ukroatia | Mar 21 2005, 11:52 PM Post #52 |
|
Former SecDef
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
With out politicans??? You don't have to be a politician to be a government leader, George W is not a good politician, Ulyssess Grant was not a good politician, yet they made fine leaders and presidents. A politician in my opinion, is someone running for or in office (doesnt matter which) and says one thing to please the people but really has intentions for something else. |
![]() |
|
| Palcon | Mar 22 2005, 03:52 PM Post #53 |
![]()
Palcon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeh politics is based on lies and fantasy stories/unkept promises, but what u gonna do? |
![]() |
|
| Gazaia | Mar 23 2005, 08:40 AM Post #54 |
![]()
True Texan
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As I am from Britain also, I would vote for Lib Dems, but as in real life it would'nt get them in power, I feel that a protest vote against Labour is in order, so i vote for Conservatives. Despite economic stability under Labour and Gordon Brown, things are not being done in this country and that could only be solved with another Maggie Thathcer in power. No, not michael howard, but I still think his policies beat Blairs. |
![]() |
|
| Palcon | Mar 25 2005, 05:46 PM Post #55 |
![]()
Palcon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Conservatives (laughs), Howard Flight sure showed their evil plans for the budget. Lib Dems are the way forward, but in real life i wouldnt be surprised if Mr Blair's gov't won again. |
![]() |
|
| Leg-ends | Mar 29 2005, 01:28 PM Post #56 |
![]()
Native Texan
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm suprised at the level of Conservative support is so low, but then again I imagine most of the Americans here would of voted Blair as that's the only name they know - especially since the majority of Britain probably hasn't heard of the other two either! Palcon -
The thing is the supposed plans (which sadly don't exist) are exactly what is needed. At the moment the only spending difference between the two parties is 1% of GDP in 2012 or something, hardly like the Tories are arguing for massive spending cuts. The last 20-25 years gov. spending as a % of GDP has been between 33-37%, now it's generally accepted that 40-42% is the best level! What ever happened to the debate about small government? Don't get me started on the Lib Dems, but lets just say thank God that they are nowhere near getting into power, they'd bring the country to it's knees! |
![]() |
|
| The Anti Commi Clan | Mar 30 2005, 12:17 AM Post #57 |
![]()
Honorary Texan
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hmmm... You only mention who leads the party for the New Labour... and you mention the war bit. Seems a little bias to me... is someone not a huge supporter of Blair? |
![]() |
|
| Leg-ends | Mar 30 2005, 07:50 AM Post #58 |
![]()
Native Texan
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Blair is very much a polarising figure nowadays. The "old" Labour (i.e. socialists) used to grin and bear him until he took the country to war so they now hate him. The Conservatives pretty muched hated him from the start. The real question is, and this will decide the political landscape after the election (because Labour will win), will the people (normally used to vote Conservative) who switched to "New" Labour in 1997 stick with Blair this time, not vote, or go back to voting Conservative. If enough people switch back or don't vote then Blair will be weakened and most likely stand down sooner than he planned. |
![]() |
|
| Pablicosta | Mar 31 2005, 02:34 PM Post #59 |
![]()
Texas Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am English, but I cant vote yet-damned underage voting laws. I conscribe to the theory that if you dont find WMD's, and you said you would, you should be fired ASAP. You lie, you loose, or in this case, countless British, US Australian etc troops loose. So, Blair sucks. The Conservatives, now, they are unstable bunch! They went through a good few leaders in a matter of years, so I dont trust them. I also wouldnt vote Conservative because I hold pretty far left wing views, so "Toryism" isnt for me. Charles Kennedy and the Lib Dems are probably the best bet then, being as far left wing as you can go in "The Big 3", although I would love to vote for either the BCP (Brittish Communist Party) or the Monster Raving Loony Party. But Charles Kennedy is just cool, look at him, he shouldnt be a politician. If you ever hear one fo his speaches, he's a proper person! He's one of us, not a toff. So, essentially, a vote for Charles is a vote for yourself. W00h00! "We fully back the government’s policy of discouraging binge drinking by opening pubs for 24 hours. We believe that 24 hours is not quite long enough and propose to make the length of a day 32 hours long so that the pubs can be open for even longer." Moster raving Loony Party Manifesto 2005 |
![]() |
|
| Palcon | Mar 31 2005, 03:27 PM Post #60 |
![]()
Palcon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well i must simply agree with a fellow Lib dem ssupporter |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Texas News Center · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





, the Alternatives are






12:45 AM Jul 13