Dean or Bush???

47 replies · 18553 views · Started by what's_on_my_mind · Jan 2004

Howard Dean has won the primaries!! Now, the question is, who will win the president office??? I'm sorry to say, but I feel Bush might get back in Oops

We really don't have a strong democrated canidate! Here is the story!! Dean Wins Nonbinding D.C. Primary Associated Press ----------------------------- WASHINGTON - Howard Dean won the nonbinding District of Columbia primary, more a voting-rights rally than a chance to express a preference for one of the major candidates for the Democratic nomination for president. Dean, the former Vermont governor, won Tuesday with 43 percent of the vote. Al Sharpton had 34 percent, Carol Moseley Braun 12 percent and Dennis Kucinich 8 percent. The other five major candidates did not participate. City leaders moved the primary up from May to call attention to the city`s lack of voting rights for its representative in Congress. The Democratic Party insisted that the vote be nonbinding in order to protect the New Hampshire primary`s standing as the first of the season. Caucuses will be held in the district`s eight wards on Feb. 14 to choose delegates to the party convention in July. Turnout was nearly twice as large as in 2000. Twelve percent of registered voters and 16 percent of the city`s 257,000 Democrats cast ballots after city officials promoted voting as a show of support for full representation in Congress. The district`s elected delegate to the House is allowed to vote in committee but has no privileges in the full House. The city has no voting representation in the U.S. Senate. Associated Press

Page 3 of 5 First <1 234 5 >Last

Hahaha · Jan 2004

#21 Reply

hot_coco wrote:
^^^Keeping in mind that I don't believe the war with Iraq is a plan for dealing with ****........the democrats don't seem to have a better plan (if there is one at all). Although the democrats have expressed a need for better foreign relations, we're going to need a little more than that now that we are involved with Iraq. The democrats' main focus is to get our troops out of Iraq and let them rebuild their own country, which may or may not be such a good idea (with all of the different factions growing within that country).

so...ahem...i'm confused...so are you just...just angry with...with eh...with...so you thnk there might not be a possibe plan to deal with terrorsim? and how is bush's plan not working? by kicking saddam out of power, he showed the middle east that he was serious about his war on ****. if they where defiant, like saddam was, they would be dealt with. so now, you have countries like pakistan, and even the backstabbing saudis coroperating with us. i'm not saying that they're thinking us americans are the greatest thing in the world, but now they're sharing intelligence and helping us to catch these terrorist. and we have reduced al-qaida to just about a boy scout group. we where able to stop most of thier funding, **** alot of it's top members, and disuade countries from harboring and supporting them. another reason why bush's war on **** plan is sucessful is because look what just happened in lybia. through intense negotiations, it's president has decided to girve up it's arms programs. i belive this is also possible for **** too. the MAIN reason why bush's war on **** is sucessful is because ...well...um... THERE HASN'T BEEN ANOTHER ****ATTACK IN THE US SINCE 9-11! and don't let the liberal spin fool you, there has been many attempts. but thanks to CIA intelligence and GOD'S GRACE, we haven't been attacted. AND BY THE WAY, HASN'T THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG THAT THE TROOPS WILL COME HOM ONCE THE COUNTRY IS STABLISED? WHEN THE THREATS ARE REMOVED, THE TROOPS WILL COME HOME. OTHERWISE, YOU COULD HAVE A COUP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AGAINST THE NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT, AND OUR EFFORTS WOULD HAVE BEEN IN VAIN. as long as we don't sit there and appease the ****and "be nice to them so that they won't hate us" (which is the liberal approach to any problem), we can eliminate them and reduce them so that a future generation doen't have to fight an even more powerful and more organise al-qaida. the deomcrat plan to fight the war on **** is to basically pull out all of our troops, be nice to these terrorist, and put america under the largest metal detector that you've ever seen in your life... the republicans want to completely eleminate them at whatever cost neccesssary. that's basically it. appeasing ****and just being friendly? having your nations security rest in the hands of the UN? these are basically what the **** want. and by doing that, you leave our future generations to deal with an even larger ****problem. I really don't see any candidate (Republican or Democrat) with a structured plan for dealing with ****. Bush has not been able to prove Iraq's links to 9-11 and has yet to find the thousands of WMDs that he clearly stated Iraq possessed. However, he still plans to continue with US involvement with Iraq and on top of that want's to increase the funding for the war. The democratic candidates play on the fact that Americans hate the phrase "increased spending" (especially since that often means either an increase in taxes or a decrease in funding for public programs). So, instead of actually coming up with a semi-valid plan for the current situation, they just suggest that the US wipes its hands clean of a situation we obviously created. Unless we can get the UN to intervene or at least get the help of several key nations, I don't see the Iraq situation getting any better. welp, it's not his fault that he recieved bad intelligence. plus, he really wanted to get rid of the saddam problem once and for all. bush is a wise man, and he knew that the war would do more good than harm. so he acted, and we went. a few thousand lives is a sacrafice that has to happen for the betterment of 24 million people, not to meantion a safer middle east region...and world. would you just rather us find saddam and put him back in power????? UN intervention? um...nope. we are strong enough to complete this task on our own with the support of the 60 other nations that have helped us from the beginning. on top of that, the countries in the UN that chose not to support us obviously want to help us now because they want a piece of the bread that will be coming from the rebuilding of iraq...it's kina like that little red hen tale...and i'm glad bush told them "haaaayyyyullll naw!" the number of troops there is sufficient, and we don't need anymore there. they have the country completely under control, it's just that you have a few rebels running around with **** and crap. the only thing that's going bad in iraq is that about 500 out of 500,000 soldiers there have been ****...well...IT'S A WAR! slowly but surely, the iraqi people lives are getting back to normal. what i'm upset with bush is the way it took so long for him to restore thier basic services. some people we without running water for like 6 months. these people who were jubulent during saddams fault, began to become displeased with the US efforts. so you get protest..and whatnot. but many good things are happening in iraq, and it's not as bad as the media reports it. once we get everything stabalized, the troops will leave, and the iraqis will rebuild thier country with thier own sugary ****. WE SHOULDN'T LEAVE UNTIL EVRYTHINGS STABLIZED, CAUSE THAT WOULD BE DUMB.THAT'S ALLS I WAS GETTING AT THERE.

miss fine future republican wrote:
Although Sharpton agrees with the other democrats that the US should remove troops from Iraq, at least he puts some emphasis on looking beyond the popular propaganda going around and getting a hold of the culprit who actually orchestrated the **** attacks (Bin Laden and members of the Al Queda). The "War on ****" can't be fought properly unless we are fighting the actual terrorists.

WE'RE WORKING ON IT! HE WILL BE CAPTURED...IT JUST TAKES TIME. why do the democrat scream about this like if they where to get in office, that could just snap thier fingers and he would magically appear??? there's more than enough emphasis on catching bin laden. bush just hasn't said anything about him because it would make him look bad if he where to talk about this cat all day when he hasn't been captured yet. but so what if laden is caught...he's not the only or the MAIN threat. and that's why the war on **** is much broader than that. SO DO YOU WANT US TO JUST CATCH BIN LADEN AND END THIS WAR ON ****? that would be very very very....not smarties. even a middle school kid can see how ths is just a really dumb plan to deal with this problem...YOU JUST CAN'T **** ONE CANCER CELL AND EXPECT YOUR **** TO BE BETTER, EVEN IF IT'S THE LARGEST, FATTEST CELL. you have to go after the entire thing, or else it's gonna come back.

miss fine future republican wrote:
It's funny how the US is so worried about the "under-developed" countries giving up their WMD programs while we eagerly keep ours up and running and show no concren with our allied superpowers doing the same :? I guess it's that old "make the rich richer by keeping the poor poor" routine.......seems to work every time

DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY "ALLIED SUPERPOWERS"? plus...UH....cause we need them to defend ourselves, and our allies need them to defend themselves. it used to be because of russia...but since the end of the cold war, we've reduced our arms number significantly. now, the threat is china. just incase communist china thinks it could do whatever the heck it wants in it's region, we must have a big ****..ahem...i mean an answer to them. would you feel safe in america if we had no nukes and other countries with different beliefs (china) had 'em? we're a clear thinking nation and we must defend ourselves from the other nations who call themselves "clear thinkinkers" with the same capabilities that we have. so we're working hard to keep them out of the hands of countries that would be like 2 year olds with guns...we already have **** (a DIRECT result of clinton and his appeasement policy...NOW DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN I SAY THAT WE CAN'T APPEASE PEOPLE?), and we don't need another. as for us going after smaller, maybe even friendly countries...well, look what happened when india and pakistan got a hold of nukes. DON'T YOU REMEMBER WHEN THEY WERE ON THE BRINK OF NUCLEAR WAR? MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WERE POSSIBLY GOING TO DIE JUST BECAUSE OF A DIPUTED TERRIROTY CALLED KHASMIR...some friggin' hindu holy land for goodness sakes! 100,000,000 people get nuked to death just because of a little bit of sand...DO YOU SEE WHY? WAIT A ****: so what if a country like ur...ghana had nukes? "hot co-co"... you're a cutie, but you're a silly-billy... 8) :arrow: