Vote To Impeach Bush!!

Che was a terrorist.

Alby, I have gotten the impression from reading the forums that most do not care for your posts. I myself could not agree more with this one, and share your sentiments exactly.

The leftist hate it when I'm right. '

SWEET! That would be so cool. They already have 2 wonderful uncles name Juro and Cy.

CHe is a beautiful man. VIVE EL CHE!! HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!! *raises fist high and proud*

Yeah, a real sweetheart

".... Guevara became Castro's chief lieutenant soon after the rebel invasion of Cuba in 1956, in which he proved to be a resourceful guerrilla leader. As president of the national bank after the fall (Jan., 1959) of Fulgencio Batista he was instrumental in cutting Cuba's traditional ties with the United States and in directing the flow of trade to the Communist bloc. He served (1961—65) as minister of industry. At heart a revolutionary rather than an administrator, he left Cuba in 1965 to foster revolutionary activity in the Congo and other countries."

actually 20% of The People chose Bush --and even that's highly debateable. By the way --The United States isn't a democracy ---it's a republic.

Actually its a Democratic Republic. LOL

While I appreciate the passion being shown on both sides of this discussion, I wanted to remind everyone to please be respectful of each others opinions.

Ooooooo, snap!

[edit]In a joking and humerous way... no offense intended

please don't smite me jeska...

Which is to say --It's not a Democracy.

Because if they really wanted him out they should have voted to get him out. They had their chance to do so in November.

So the right to vote and the right to speak out against ones government are mutualy exclusive? As far as I am concerned the fact that the majority of Americans decide not to vote speaks volumes about the sentiment folks have towards the governing powers. I would venture a guess that most non-voting Americans feel powerless against the government and have little faith that voting for either party will make a difference. This does not however mean that they have relinquished their right to speak nor does it invalidate their opinions. I would say that a greater harm is done by the many who race to the polls and pull a party ticket without even the basic knowledge of the party platform or background of the political aspirant.

Can you prove they didn't vote him out?

Seriously, Kendra..

The election is over.

Clinton no more proved his votes than Bush. If anything, voting is more efficient then it was back then.


ok… as you wish El-Libo.


What a load of crap. He conceded because he was able to recognize that he had lost and it was in the best interest of the country to not drag it out like you are doing.


Why don’t you share with us exactly how you will do this and how tearing down President Bush will affect the change that you desire? In an election of this size it is IMPOSSIBLE for “ALL US citizens” to be positive their votes counted.


Waaaaaa… that’s all I hear from you El-Libo. Crying like a little baby because your guy didn’t win. How about doing something novel and actually state a constructive agenda. I am still waiting on that fascism thread btw. To say that the US has a Fascist Govt. a lie, plain and simple.


Oh contraire Kendra… sour grapes seems VERY accurate to me.

Never said it wasn't.

However, the battle for voter verified paper trails has begun.

Man Billy when did you become so hateful. There was a time when you were capable of articulating your point in a tactful manner...I hope this new found egoist aggressive mentality will be short lived before you go the way of another famous 'mudgeon.

That's the shame of it; for all the vaunted Get Out the Vote efforts, the percentage of people in nursing homes who voted was much higher than that of the 18-28 year old age bracket. My sister is in that demographic and she always talks big about going to protests and making a difference but somewhere along the way she winds up getting lost at Starbuck's or the mall.

Uhm ---no. BEFORE there were records that could be recounted. Now with Diebold --there aren't.



lost? absolutely. Lost fairly? who knows.



It's actually very easy to count votes accurately. Why do you say it isn't? Why are so adverse to improving accountability in elections? What could it hurt?



I have stated a constructive agenda, Billy. Election reform and improved accountabilty.
Only a Fascist Government would oppose the people's right to have their vote counted accurately and verifiably. I see no issue as more important to the future of this country.



Not sour grapes, Billy. I'm frankly surprised that anyone would oppose legislation that would assure greater accuracy and accountability in voting. Certainly you don't think people in America should have to wait in line for 10 hours to vote at the very least --do you?

You can 'never' have a 100% Democracy with a population over a dozen people.
Because in a Real 100% Democracy, the entire population has to vote on everything that goes on throughout the government. From approving a FCC license to voting on every court case in which the entire population is the jury.

A representative form of government constructed into a Republic allows representatives to speak for the majority within their segment of the country. And since politics in Vermont aren't the same in Texas, a Republic is the best suited form of structure. Otherwise you'd end up with constant Civil War and regional disputes. If you live in Maine, do you care about illegal aliens in New Mexico? But the people in New Mexico do, and they will elect people who will attempted to wheel and deal to resolve the issue in the government.

Does that make sense to all your Communists, Liberal, Socialist out there? Government is tiered to best serve everybody. Thats why in our Republic, all States get 2 Senators so that each state is balanced in 1 house of government. Then populous states get 1 Congressmen for every 500,000ish. So populous states get more voices in the House and non populated states get very few members.

This one looked fun:



You are aware Christopher Reeve is dead, right? Congrats on that.

The Stem Cell lines permitted to researchers have proven useless. "If you're not going to use that do you mind?" I really don't see the problem if people choose to donate their aborted babies to science rather than having them cremated or buried. People, in fact, donate their bodies to science after death currently. It is not really a question of values as far as Stem Cells is concerned, it is a question of availability. Abortion is, and will remain a choice of the person in question. Like certain drugs, it will just remain a question of whether it is legal or not. What you call it and what moral values you or anyone else place on it are extremely irrelevant. It's purely a decision of the person involved.



Obviously you've never even approached the bottom of the barrel. I have. I never actually needed to make use of government assistance because I was lucky to have some wonderful family members. I did qualify though. Some people aren't lucky and still need the assistance programs. I've known some of them. They're good people and just looking to get back on their feet. They assistance programs are not set up to be used forever, but like any program they can be abused fairly easily. Programs set up for corporations are more easily abused than programs set up for poor people by simple virtue that you can hire people to figure out how to abuse said programs.



Actually the divorce rate is primarily a result of the "No sex before marriage" rule that many religious institutions impose. Young people get married young to someone they hardly know and have never lived with. Naturally a good amount of these relationships will fail over time as one or both partners become dissatisfied, either in bed or with the personal habits of the other. Partners that have lived together for a period exceeding 6 months and have had sex at least once before marriage or a permanent partnership often enjoy very successful relationships.

Now as to the TV being responsible for lack of values; I blame you, the parents. Turn that damn thing off. Read your kid a book, tell them a story. The TV is just there to sell you products or programming. It's not an educator, babysitter, or responsible for your children's moral compass.



Frankly, with your opposition to Superbowl airtime material, I seriously doubt you can consider any material in the press in the "Style" or "Entertainment" sections to be proper. Avoid anything concerning actors or actresses at all costs. Ellen's Coming Out TV Show was about as proper as publicizing the latest makeup/breakup of any Hollywood actor/actress. If I'm not clear here, the improper thing is that the show is about her sexuality, not her orientation. It'd be like Oprah doing one on whether or not she had a snapper. It's just too much info.

Now if you're saying that it's improper that she's gay at all, THAT is improper. Hate speech is bad



Investing in Corporate America with your left hand and strangling American Research and Iinnovation with your right will not result in prosperity in America provided by American companies. It will result in prosperity for American executives and subsidiaries of American companies in Foreign Countries which do not pay any corporate taxes to the US or employ US workers or researchers.

In other words, strangling something like stem cell research (or a number of other things) means some other country will do it first and profit from it the most and we sit on our hands. Trickle down economics was proven, many years ago, to not work.



Fix it now or fix it later, I still don't expect to see a damn nickel of what I'm paying to you old people. Enjoy. I'll work out my own retirement, however hard that proves to be. The Depression is over, we don't need it anymore.



Training diplomats is cheaper, by far, than building a nationwide missile defense program, that works. Also, if a country really felt that we needed nuking for some reason, I would hope that our President would have the foresight, wisdom, and courage, to unconditionally surrender.

I believe -- My information might be flawed, but it has some biases -- that some greek cultures had 100 percent democracy with a few hundred or thousand people. If someone didn't care, they didn't vote.

Granted when population got even larger and Rome took over, a republic looked more appealing. But I just wanted to correct that "dozen" number.

Nobody said that it hasn't been tried.. But obviously, it didn't last, thus it doesn't work. And then Rome comes along and lasts for a thousand years. 753 b.c. to 476 a.d.

So you atleast get the idea that Republics seem to be very good vehicles for government structure and longevity.

Key:
====
b.c. = Before Christ (aka: Jesus)
a.d. = After Death (aka: of Jesus)

Siro:

I was gonna respond in kind, but I think your remarks are self evident. Your a (edited). I suppose under your logic, we'd all be speaking Russian and toasting how much we love our Communist Masters giving us all equal poverty. lol