Buy our new album “A Brief Crack Of Light” on CD or limited edition vinyl at Amazon.co.uk, or direct from Global Music

George Bush

#

Started by msd

I’m not an advocate of assassination. But I can’t help thinking the world would be a better place without this ignorant war-crazy little fuckwit.

Check this Bush-quotes site out:

http://www.sanfords.net/George_Bush/New_George_Bush_pictures.htm

This was my favourite:

“Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.” —George W. Bush, in Oct.. 2000

Posted on Sat, 18 January 2003 at 21:27

You’re viewing replies 1–30 of 68 by 15 people

·

Page: First | Previous | | Last

#1

White Psycho wrote:

I’ve got a few George Bush quotes on my site <hint> my favourite being “More and more of our imports are coming from overseas”

Posted on Sun, 19 January 2003 at 15:03

#2

hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:

lolol

Excellent site, I also really like http://www.bushorchimp.com/ :D

Posted on Sun, 19 January 2003 at 15:09

#3

Ronald wrote:

I guess the best thing to achieve world peace would be an American president WITH brains…

Posted on Sun, 19 January 2003 at 18:40

#4

msd wrote:

hoochalobster wrote:

lolol

Excellent site, I also really like http://www.bushorchimp.com/ :D

:)

The irony of course being that a chimpanzee President would be far preferable to good ol’ “Dubbya”.

Posted on Sun, 19 January 2003 at 20:03

#5

White Psycho wrote:

no one would want to declare war on the chimp president because people would just go “awwwwwwww!!!”

Posted on Sun, 19 January 2003 at 22:33

#6

Citizen Erased (confused again) wrote:

Chimps tend to shag a lot, in an amazing variety of positions - mothers often initiate their sons, so Clinton would be more like a chimp.

Bush is more like a skunk. Never trust a man named after pubes.

Posted on Mon, 20 January 2003 at 19:33

#7

NanaOsaki wrote:

http://www.00fun.com/dancingbush.shtml

Make sure to check your speakers if you are at the library or other quiet places!

Posted on Mon, 20 January 2003 at 21:15

#8

Dennis (Dudley Less) wrote:

Here’s a great quote from Russell Brand at this year’s MTV Video awards:

“Some people, I think they’re called racists, say America is not ready for a black president,” he said.

“But I know America to be a forward-thinking country because otherwise why would you have let that retarded cowboy fella be president for eight years.

“We were very impressed. We thought it was nice of you to let him have a go, because, in England, he wouldn’t be trusted with a pair of scissors.”

Posted on Mon, 8 September 2008 at 09:55

#9

FNYANKEZ wrote:

The only good thing about this election will be Bush will be gone. But not excited about either candidate.

McCain is 100 years old..but he does have the experience…but nothing to get excited about.

There’s tons of hype around O’Bama, but he’s done NOTHING! He’s a 2 year Senator (the Senate by the way is the most dysfunctional legislative body on Earth), that’s done nothing but immediately run for President. Yes he gives a good speech..but so what. No executive experience of any kind…he’ll he’s never even produed any meaningful legislation.

The Democrats are obsessed with electing another young senator to make him another Kennedy..I don’t know why. Senators suck…get a governor who’s done something.
And having Biden as a running mate isn’t a plus either. He’s just another long-time hack. I guess since he’s run for President 4 times (and won a grand total of 1 state primary by the way, not a great track record) so I guess it’s his turn to get a bump.

Palin is a right-winger to appease the base (since McCain isn’t a hard liner so they’re worried about getting the old time Republicans out to vote) and gives a decent speech, and ain’t too bad to look at. But not hot enough to get excited about either.

For all the talk about this being “The most important election in our lifetime” I would have liked to see better candidates.

All I can hope is that nobody (Republicans or Dems) get 60 votes in the Senate so neither can do too much damage.

Posted on Mon, 8 September 2008 at 22:54

#10

g (Does everything start with destruction?) wrote:

it doesnt matter who’s in control, all politicians are lying, backstabbing arseholes.

anyone who doesnt have these qualities doesnt get far in politics.

Posted on Mon, 8 September 2008 at 23:06

#11

Gav wrote:

Isn’t Palin a ‘creationist’?

Is it really such a hot idea to have someone running the country (once McCain inevitably dies in office) who is willing to dismiss overwhelming scientific evidence and instead rely on fairytail beliefs?

Actually - sounds like you’ve got your man right there :D

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 07:13

#12

mrs h wrote:

Gimme Back My Brainsaw wrote:

it doesnt matter who’s in control, all politicians are lying, backstabbing arseholes.

anyone who doesnt have these qualities doesnt get far in politics.

I’m not sure you’re old enough to use those Cliches yet Gimme… What normally happens is that you get shat on by politicians for being so young and so you become a radical left wing freedom fighter, until such time as you start earning proper money and then you develop more conservative views (it’s my money i’ll do what I like with it).

Don’t tar all politicians with the same brush, either - Neil Kinnock for example - Greatest Prime Minister we never had, and a welshman at that!!

@FNYANKEZ - Could you give me a rough guide as to how the American voting system actually works? (or at least how it’s supposed to work) I get confused about the different states and I don’t understand whether the ordinary people are voting for the party or for a candidate?

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 11:25 in reply to an earlier post

#13

g (Does everything start with destruction?) wrote:

I’ll never develop any conservative views i know that.

then again i dont really like classifying views as left wing / right wing or whatever.

its kinda messed up we have a system to file everyones way of thinking and ideas under.

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 11:33

#14

Gav wrote:

@Mrs H - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

Looks quite straightforward really

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 11:34

#15

fatboy wrote:

Isn’t McCain a bit old for the job. Should he serve two terms he’ll be eighty.

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 12:28

#16

g (Does everything start with destruction?) wrote:

that diddnt stop thatcher

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 13:56

#17

Gav wrote:

No - because she has never been President of the USA.

Plus I’m pretty sure she was only in her mid fifties when she came to power

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 14:15

#18

mrs h wrote:

deadsetgav wrote:

@Mrs H - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

Looks quite straightforward really

Are you serious? It looks bloody complicated to me!!

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 17:40 in reply to an earlier post

#19

mrs h wrote:

Gimme Back My Brainsaw wrote:

that diddnt stop thatcher

Is there no end to your ability to churn out naive cliches? :p

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 17:42 in reply to an earlier post

#20

msd wrote:

Gimme Back My Brainsaw wrote:

it doesnt matter who’s in control, all politicians are lying, backstabbing arseholes.

anyone who doesnt have these qualities doesnt get far in politics.

I’m with you on that one

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 18:43 in reply to an earlier post

#21

g (Does everything start with destruction?) wrote:

MRS H isnt she seeems to think im churning out ‘naive cliches’.

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 19:09

#22

CS (Colin S) wrote:

mrs h wrote:

Are you serious? It looks bloody complicated to me!!

It is indeed very complex. I studied it for AS Level and compared it with UK.. can’t remember the in’s and outs, but basically, the bigger the state (population probably?), the more delegates.. a bit like proportional representation I think.

For example, California is simply massive! If Obama won by, say, 67%, that’d be awesome for him.
However, if McCain won a smaller state such as Seattle by a margin of 97% (for example), Obama would still have more delegates I think due to the size and population of Cali.

I’m pretty sure that’s how it works.. will give you a better answer tomorrow when I’ve read up a bit on it!

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 21:36 in reply to an earlier post

#23

mrs h wrote:

Gimme Back My Brainsaw wrote:

MRS H isnt she seeems to think im churning out ‘naive cliches’.

Aww bless! :D

I wasn’t being mean - it’s just that you are far too young to have any memory at all of the Thatcher years, and so when you used the name in a disparaging way I couldn’t help but suspect that you were regurgitating thoughts that you’ve heard from your parents or someone - and I don’t mean that as a criticism at all, everyone starts out like that - getting their principles and ideas from the people around them. I voted labour for years and then one day I thought “why am I actually doing this?”. I realised that I wasn’t positively choosing to vote Labour, I was attempting to vote ‘socialist’, but that I wasn’t actually bothering to check whether the party I assumed was the right one to vote for was actually going to deliver anything that I considered to be important. I’m a floating voter now, have been for years. I’ve never voted conservative, but I can’t say I never will - it has to depend on policies or what’s the point?

“it doesnt matter who’s in control, all politicians are lying, backstabbing arseholes”
“i dont really like classifying views as left wing / right wing or whatever”
“I’ll never develop any conservative views i know that.”

I’m sure you can see how it’s impossible for all of those statements to be true simultaneously?

Despite his comparatively tender years, Sammy is a bitter and vitriolic conspiracy theorist who is physically incapable of holding any degree of faith or trust in another human being, with the possible exception of Gav. Politicians are a natural target for him. You, however, are so young I think it would be a horrifying waste of democracy for you to form any cast-iron opinions about politics now.

On the other hand I’m really pleased that you give politics any thought at all. So many kids these days couldn’t give a fuck I dread to think what will happen in the future when nobody votes at all. We’ll probably have to play ‘winner stays on’ …

Sorry Sammy, but it’s true! :p

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 23:53

#24

FNYANKEZ wrote:

mrs h wrote:

@FNYANKEZ - Could you give me a rough guide as to how the American voting system actually works? (or at least how it’s supposed to work) I get confused about the different states and I don’t understand whether the ordinary people are voting for the party or for a candidate?

Gladly Mrs H!

For the President and Vice President.
The way it works is actually an electoral college. Each vote isn’t directly for the candidate. It’s really for how your state goes. Each state has an electoral delegate value based on population. In the end all of the electoral college votes are counted up to determine the winner. That’s how you theoretically could end up with someone loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college, winning the presidency. This is one of the issues with the 2000 election and the Democrats wanted to abolish it, yet in 2004 the roles were reversed and it came down to Ohio which was super close. If Ohio went for Kerry, he would have won…even though he lost the popular vote by 5 million votes. So they tried trumping up irregularities to get votes added (or thrown out) so he would win the state and thus the electoral college and the presidency…of course they would have been fine with it then.

The system allegedly was established in the constitution that way to ensure that smaller states still end up with a say in the process. That way California, New York, and Texas don’t have complete say in who’s elected.

Back in the day, each state counted their own votes and determined the electoral college winner. The state would then representatives went to a convention to cast the votes on behalf of their state. That was where the winner was officially named. (I think it still happens, but it’s a formality now).

In the past I could see where this was needed due to the physical complications of counting and collecting votes in such a large country. But in the computer age, it’s kinda antiquated.

As for the actual physical balloting process, it is set up and managed state by state.

In Virginia we have pretty straight forward voting machines, and have yet to have any issues.

Why there isn’t a standardized voting mechanism…I have no clue, and that’s how you end up with the hanging chads and dummies unable to fill out a ballot correctly in Florida which caused so much grief in the 2000 election. (The people who set that up were Democrats by the way..but of course the Democratic party pissed and moaned about the republicans when it didn’t go their way).

I’m not a flag carring republican by the way, but the Democratic Party as an institution and many of their most visible talking heads drive me nuts.
If you asked me about the republican led congress between 2000 and 2006, I’d have plenty of negative things to say.

enough ranting back to your questions.

For congress (and this also answers your question about do we vote for the candidate or the party)
You vote for the candidate you want for Senate and House of Representatives that represents your area. For national elections you can have up to three offices to vote for (President, House of Representatives and Senate), but it depends on where you live and on what cycle your particular Senator or Representative was elected in. (President is up every 4 years, Representatives 2 years, Senators 6 years). We have off year elections where only congressmen are up for election, and not always in every district.

For all votes you select the candidate you want. Many people vote the party line (all the candidates on the ballot who belong to the same party), but that is their choice.
I have in the past split my votes between the candidates of both parties (Dem for President, Repub for House of Representatives and Senate) or some combination thereof, with the occasional third party independent to make things interesting.

I believe once upon a time you could split the presidential and VP ticket. But now (and as far as I know since the 20th century) they’ve gone together.

Hope this helps.

Posted on Tue, 9 September 2008 at 23:57 in reply to an earlier post

#25

mrs h wrote:

Thanks!! I have to go to work but i will get my head round this later.

In the meantime you said “In the end all of the electoral college votes are counted up to determine the winner. That’s how you theoretically could end up with someone loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college, winning the presidency. ” I guess that’s the same way it happens here? ( i.e. The candidate with more votes than the other candidates will win, but will still almost certainly have less votes than the combined votes of the other candidates? Therefore regardless of who gets in you can be almost certain that the majority of the population voted against the winner …

Posted on Wed, 10 September 2008 at 08:14

#26

Gav wrote:

I don’t think so - what you put is hung parliament isn’t it? where there is no outright winner…

In the US you can get a lot less votes than the other guy, but because of the proportional representation of the states means that in certain states, a single vote carries more weight than that of a vote in larger states.

So in a 2 horse race - across the country, a lot more people vote for candidate A than B, but because the people in the smaller states voted B - their vote gets the electorial college vote and means B wins (i think).

Posted on Wed, 10 September 2008 at 09:09

#27

Gav wrote:

As far as I know - In this country if labour got 45% of the vote, conservatives get 35% and libdems get 20% - labour would win the election, conservatives are in opposition, but libdems would almost be running the country by choosing which party to side with on votes…

I think what happened with Bush in 2000 was less people voted him than the other guy (was it Al Gore?) but Bush still won because he won key states

Posted on Wed, 10 September 2008 at 09:14

#28

mrs h wrote:

Your second post is closer to what I meant - in that if labour gets 45%, tories 35% and lib dem 20% then actually 55% of the population have not voted for labour, but they still win. I don’t think there is a fairer way of doing it but it still sucks (sorry Colin! ;)).

So anyway, if a state has less people in it what difference does it make, if each state has one national vote? Or is that why it’s an issue - because it means that the smaller states have a whole vote, whereas the bigger state’s votes are representing a lot more people so they weight it according to bunches of people - eg ‘one vote per 100,000 people’ ?

Posted on Wed, 10 September 2008 at 11:41

#29

Misanthropologist (d) wrote:

“Your second post is closer to what I meant”
But I think the point Gav was making is that that doesn’t usually happen, rather than the winning party “almost certainly” having less votes than the combined. When we get anything close to the Lib Dems actually being ‘kingmakers’, then they’re supposedly going to push for the single transferrable vote. Which can only be a good thing, as far as I’m concerned.

Posted on Wed, 10 September 2008 at 11:52

#30

Misanthropologist (d) wrote:

mrs h wrote:

Despite his comparatively tender years, Sammy is a bitter and vitriolic conspiracy theorist who is physically incapable of holding any degree of faith or trust in another human being, with the possible exception of Gav.

:D Bless!

Posted on Wed, 10 September 2008 at 11:53 in reply to an earlier post

You’re viewing replies 1–30 of 68 by 15 people

·

Page: First | Previous | | Last

and become a member of the message boards. Sign in if you’re already a member.