The Presidential Race -- Results in First Post
Author |
Message |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
Chris wrote: How about Condoleezza Rice? 
 I think she's a very intelligent woman, but I wouldn't want to wish it on her.
I pray for someone like Obama to have a shot at it (he'd lose, but still...). What a charming man, well-spoken and charismatic. Let's see how he does in Illinois (I'll keep track, as I have relatives there).
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:52 pm |
|
 |
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am Posts: 13347
|
After Clinton defeated Dole in 96, he made a bipartisan gesture in appointing Republican William Cohen to be defense secretary. Can you guys imagine Bush doing something similarly classy? I can't.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 pm |
|
 |
bABA
Commander and Chef
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am Posts: 30505 Location: Tonight ... YOU!
|
box_2005 wrote: bABA wrote: I agree with your last statement about the type of people in Canada ... but I do disagree with you on the other thing ... I'm more than willing to vote FOR gay marriage (cause really, at the end of the day, does it effect me!??. I mean ofcourse, I'm not equating everyone as being me or whatever, but I would have a more serious issue with giving a gay group funding from my own tuition money on multiple number of basis: a) The questions i psoted above b) Could my tuition money be spent on something much more important.
the 'little' thing you mentioned has too many variables and most canadian kids finance their own education, as cheap as it is ... I dont know much of UofT but at Concordia and Mcgill here, how the tuition money is spent is taken very seriously by the Student union as well as the students and the administration as well ...
72 cents. That's how much it would have cost the students. It was just an example. But I think that there is a huge difference for people to choose between giving rights to some people without it coming at their expense (as they see it), and something they feel threatens their values, etc. That's why so many support civil unions but are against gay marriages. The difference lies in the terminology, but that's a huge deal, no?
box, its 72 cents to you.
What if every society at UofT came and asked for the same 72 cents .. what then .. i mean there are over 200 societies again in Concordia, even more in Mcgill, i would not expect any student to pay an extra 140 bucks a semester for these societies .. like i said, in the end, i think there are too many variables .. how justified was the increase .. how badly did they need it and for what reason ...
At Concordia, the Muslim Student Association asked for extra funding during Ramazan because they host Iftar dinner for students who havent eaten all day and wish to break their fasts. Though a smaller percentage of that funding was granted, the main reason why the whole amount wasn't provided was because it was unfair on the non Muslim students there ... people can still go outside and eat or bring their own food, a decision I completely agree with ...
In the end, most of the Muslim community around downtown (who have lots of restaurants) donated a percentage of their food everyday for the duration : )
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:57 pm |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
Krem wrote: timothy wrote: lol believe me
if it meant my tuition going up, i would not give funding to a gay student group on campus.
i'm not saying i don't support it, just saying that monetarily i have higher priorities at the moment. i could donate things other than money, also, if i felt compelled to do so.
Tim Same thing here. Voting "no" for more funding to a gay group (even if it means only 72 cents) does not correlate well with voting no to gay marriage.
I know, it was a bad example. I worked away from the assumption that others would agree that 72 cents were less important than personal beliefs regarding marriage. That's why I used it as an example of how, if they'd vote no on such a relatively petty issue, they'd probably be more in the negative regarding something like marriage. Obviously, I was wrong in assuming that.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:58 pm |
|
 |
Chris
life begins now
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:09 pm Posts: 6480 Location: Columbus, Ohio
|
timothy wrote: Chris wrote: box_2005 wrote: Rod wrote: I was thinking about how much I'd like to see that within my lifetime.
Espcially a woman president. Sheesh they account for over 50% of the population!
I really, really doubt anything like that will happen before 2050. It would take an extraordinary change of events, or an extraordinary woman. It's not impossible, but it's very unlikely, imo. How about Condoleezza Rice?  janet reno perhaps Tim
Hmm...that would be interesting, to say the least.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:02 pm |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
Chris wrote: timothy wrote: Chris wrote: box_2005 wrote: Rod wrote: I was thinking about how much I'd like to see that within my lifetime.
Espcially a woman president. Sheesh they account for over 50% of the population!
I really, really doubt anything like that will happen before 2050. It would take an extraordinary change of events, or an extraordinary woman. It's not impossible, but it's very unlikely, imo. How about Condoleezza Rice?  janet reno perhaps Tim Hmm...that would be interesting, to say the least.
I believe I said WOMAN
Btw, I just heard on CNN that the Deomcrats had 17,000 lawyers (!!!) ready to file lawsuits in case something like 2000 happened again (in Ohio, etc.).
Wow...17,000 lawyers 
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:06 pm |
|
 |
Maximus
Hot Fuss
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 am Posts: 8427 Location: floridaaa
|
All I have to say today, is, go Bush. A well earned win. The people have spoken.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:08 pm |
|
 |
FILMO
The Original
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:19 am Posts: 9808 Location: Suisse
|
Ok.Bush is now President. I respect that but im not happy.
Fact is that a huge part of the world doesnt like the way Bush is doing his Job. (Thats not against American People, its only about Bush).
A lot things went wrong the last 4 Years. I wished to have a change that could be like a new start (Actually I know that it wouldnt be a complete change but perhaps some new ideas new ways???)
For me it can not go one like the last 4 Years. The world is now pretty unstable and theres a lot of work to to. New ways and solutions must be found now. I hope Europe and the USA will work better together in the Future.
_________________Libs wrote: FILMO, I'd rather have you eat chocolate syrup off my naked body than be a moderator here.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:08 pm |
|
 |
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 9247
|
Some stuff that brought the first smile to my face in 24 hours:
The America of my dreams:

|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:18 pm |
|
 |
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am Posts: 13347
|
makeshift_wings wrote: Some stuff that brought the first smile to my face in 24 hours:  The America of my dreams: 
I understand how bad you feel about the election but honestly it's that kind of attitude towards the south that leads to things like yesterday.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:26 pm |
|
 |
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 9247
|
Archie Gates wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Some stuff that brought the first smile to my face in 24 hours:  The America of my dreams:  I understand how bad you feel about the election but honestly it's that kind of attitude towards the south that leads to things like yesterday.
The south didin't vote the way they did yesterday because they felt alienated or mocked by the north and the coasts. I've heard that from several different places, and it's complete bullshit. They voted the way they did because they'll believe anything anyone says if they have a southern accent and talk about the bible a lot. They deserve everything they get for their incessant will to turn this country into a theocracy and in the process hurt millions of other people. I don't want to take anything away from the religious right. I just wish they would stop trying to take things away from me.
BTW - The pictures were a joke.
Last edited by makeshift on Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:33 pm |
|
 |
BJ
Killing With Kindness
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:57 pm Posts: 25035 Location: Anchorage,Alaska
|
makeshift_wings wrote: Some stuff that brought the first smile to my face in 24 hours:  The America of my dreams: 
How on Earth did Alaska make it onto JesusLand :?
_________________The Force Awakens
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:35 pm |
|
 |
El Maskado
Arrrrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhh!
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:17 pm Posts: 21572
|
BJ wrote: How on Earth did Alaska make it onto JesusLand :?
Offshore oil. Its probably why people there voted for Bush since one of the main reasons to live in Alaska was to drill oil.
Well we can look at the bright side of Bush being elected because this time he will have no other party or former president to blame in the next few years when the recession continues to grow and the deficit becomes even larger. If poor Kerry would of been elected, he would of been blamed for the whole Iraq fiasco which is beyond repair. Let Bush take all the blame for the next four years and it will hurt the republican image big time come 2008
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:08 pm |
|
 |
Amer
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:35 pm Posts: 1912 Location: Texas
|
Well guys....BUsh is our president....Nothing more to say.....4 more years.......I think that Bush will have to hope that in 2006 that the Senate stays in the Repub party, if not then Bush will have another hard 4 years of getting things done. I think these 4 years will be harder then the last, so Bush better try hard.
Also about the campaigns. I think both teams ran amazing campaigns, you cant take that away from them, but when people voted, they voted on morals and that of course went to Bush. If the young voters would have got out there and voted things could have been differant. Other then thatl, Bush won.
Now the question is in 2008 who will represent both parties?
_________________ The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.....
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:23 pm |
|
 |
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 9247
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1104/p09s01-codc.html
A great article from... THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR?!?!?!
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:26 pm |
|
 |
Anonymous
|
makeshift_wings wrote: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1104/p09s01-codc.html
A great article from... THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR?!?!?!
CS MOnitor is a very good, although slightly liberal, newspaper, that has very little to do with Christian Science, other than funding and a mandatory column, I believe.
Maybe Mike V can elaborate more; he lived in Boston.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:37 pm |
|
 |
Anonymous
|
roidrage wrote: BJ wrote: How on Earth did Alaska make it onto JesusLand :? Offshore oil. Its probably why people there voted for Bush since one of the main reasons to live in Alaska was to drill oil. Well we can look at the bright side of Bush being elected because this time he will have no other party or former president to blame in the next few years when the recession continues to grow and the deficit becomes even larger. If poor Kerry would of been elected, he would of been blamed for the whole Iraq fiasco which is beyond repair. Let Bush take all the blame for the next four years and it will hurt the republican image big time come 2008
I, personally, intend on blaming Kerry for not being elected.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:39 pm |
|
 |
Coasterman2002
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 6:23 pm Posts: 1010 Location: New Yawk
|
Amer wrote: Well guys....BUsh is our president....Nothing more to say.....4 more years.......I think that Bush will have to hope that in 2006 that the Senate stays in the Repub party, if not then Bush will have another hard 4 years of getting things done. I think these 4 years will be harder then the last, so Bush better try hard.
Also about the campaigns. I think both teams ran amazing campaigns, you cant take that away from them, but when people voted, they voted on morals and that of course went to Bush. If the young voters would have got out there and voted things could have been differant. Other then thatl, Bush won.
Now the question is in 2008 who will represent both parties?
Easy...Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani......Hopefully Rudy because Hillary is one crazy commie bwahaha but anyways if that does happen...new York state will be a battleground state
_________________ Michael Savage's "The Savage Nation" On Radio Monday through Friday 8pm-11pm (Eastern Time)
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder - BUY THE BOOK NOW!!! On New York Times Best Seller List 9 Weeks in a Row
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:40 pm |
|
 |
Amer
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:35 pm Posts: 1912 Location: Texas
|
Everyone says Hillary....I think that Edwards may run in 2008 and has a legit shot. I think the 2008 election will be more important that this one. Again, Bush has to hope that in 2006 the Senate doesn't swing democratic.
_________________ The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.....
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:43 pm |
|
 |
torrino
College Boy T
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:52 pm Posts: 16020
|
Hilary would be a stupid choice. There's still quite a few who wouldn't vote for her because, well, her sex. And, there's a lot of people who dislike her. She definitely has the background though.
How old is Edwards?
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:45 pm |
|
 |
Chris
life begins now
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:09 pm Posts: 6480 Location: Columbus, Ohio
|
I want to add that I'm very impressed by the number of people who voted. I know it seems like your vote doesn't always count, but it does. And it really says a lot when the losing candidate gets over 5 million more votes than the winner of the previous election. America did a good thing, no matter who won.
Last edited by Chris on Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:47 pm |
|
 |
Passionate Thug
Top Poster
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:01 am Posts: 5264 Location: Wakanda
|
It is amazing after almost 150 years after the civil war, the North and the South are still divided. Why won't southerners vote for someone from the North? I guess they still consider them "carpetbaggers" and that's a shame. Same could be said for the north though 
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 pm |
|
 |
Rod
Extra on the Ordinary
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:50 pm Posts: 12821
|
BOYFRESH wrote: It is amazing after almost 150 years after the civil war, the North and the South are still divided. Why won't southerners vote for someone from the North? I guess they still consider them "carpetbaggers" and that's a shame. Same could be said for the north though 
'Cept the North/West is right
Hehe no.
But can I ask people who dislike Hillary....why?
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:51 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Well, as a foreigner, you see it all from a different point of view of course, hehe as you don't have to deal with any of the candidates being the boss in your country.
However, I have been saying for over a year that Bush will win and that happens. Now am I glad that Bush won? Yeah, I guess so. Would I have been majorly upset if he lost? No, I highly doubt that. I mean, seriously, I don't even really care anymore who is reigning Germany because, well, all have proven that they have no clue how to revive the economy. Therefore, the US-elections don't touch me much.
However, there is a good thing for Germany about Bush winning. Kerry wanted alliances whereas Bush just prefers to do without them, hehe. Kerry would probably have led to Germany being involved in rebuilding Iraq etc. That is not exactly what Germany needs right now, in the Dark Ages of Germany's economy.
And as my Social Science teacher said today...one of the only reasons why the Euro is so strong and we don't look that bad nowadays is that Bush and his war policies spend too much money on war. If the USA spent much less, our Euro wouldn't look good, hehe.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:55 pm |
|
 |
Amer
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:35 pm Posts: 1912 Location: Texas
|
Personally for the Democratic party, I think that Barrack Obama would be a great choice. He would make an amazing candidate.
On Hillary, I dont think the US is ready for a women president. I am saying this right now that we will have a Black President before we have a women president.
Also Edwards is in his late 40's I believe. So still relatively young. He could run.
Now the problem is going to be for the Repubs. Who will run for them? McCain? Maybe, but hes getting pretty old. No real stars are coming out. Giuliani wouldent do well, IMO.
I think the Demo will have 2008 in the bags as of now, unless a good candidate comes out from the Repubs.
Also, I think that IF THE candidate for the Demo's was Howard Dean or Edwards, then they would have won.
_________________ The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.....
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:58 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 38 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|