Except that you guys never voted for Bush. The Court appointed him. :p

Either way, it's not America's fault. It's his.

Thank you, Cow. You know what I meant though.

Yep.

It's like when we voted for Jean Charest here in Québec. We had no idea of the major changes he was going to make, as he had never dicussed any of them during his campaign. No one expected him to cut wages to subcontractors and to cut $103 million from the student loan/scholarship program, doubling the debt of the poorest college and university students here in Québec.

Please, shut the hell up. The popular vote doesn't mean **** without the support of the electoral college. For example, Bush could still lose the election if one of the swing states' electors decide to support Kerry. And I've always been curios, exactly how did the Supreme Court appoint Bush? I certainly can't think of any way.

And I thought I was supposed to be the stupid one who always gets his *** handed to him in debates. :p

I mean, really, how can you people believe stuff like this? It's one thing to disagree with policy. It's another to border on hysteria.

That was real nice.

Yoshi was talking about the 2000 elections (before the war), not 2004. Because of the problems in Florida, Bush was appointed by the Supreme court, and Google can probably be more elaborate on that for you.

I disagree with almost everything Bush has done in office, and think that, while most of it still had to be done, it could've been done in a lot better of a way. Can I name how? No. I'm 16. I'm not a political science major. I don't know all the ins and outs. But that doesn't mean I can't spot a president I don't like when I see one, especially after a bit of research.

But the thing is, I've come to terms with the fact that Bush may have been our best choice at the time. It sucks, and I hate to admit it, but he was. I just totally disagree with everything he did.

Gee, thanks for ignoring the rest of my post. As I stated before, popular vote doesn't choose the President, the electoral college does. Just because a candidate wins a state in the popular vote does NOT mean that state's electors have to vote for the same candidate. The popular election is basically the government's way of saying, "Thanks for your opinion, it really matters to us. Now we're going to elect the other guy."

Good god the nerds get angry in whats supposed to be a dicsussion around here.

But that doesn't matter. Bush didn't need the Florida vote in 2000, bcause after all the problems, the Court had decided that he had won, and Gore conceded.

I don't take well to being told to shut the **** up. :p

MadCow and JediHunterX, you are both out there on the 2000 election. Sure, theorhetically electors can vote however they choose but Bush won every state whose electors voted for him. And the supreme court never appointed Bush. They shut down the Florida Supreme Courts unconstitutional actions which resulted in the already certified results taking effect. MadCow, you do realize that Bush won every recount of the ballots, don't you?

I know, the person who told you that for no reason was the point behind what I said :p

I wasn't aware of that, I'll take your word for it. Excuse my ignorance.

I...Never mind, it isn't worth getting any angrier about. And CoW, I believe I told you to shut the hell up :p

Why don't you shut the hell up?


...

:p

Ok. I have no problem with Canadians but this is starting to piss me off.

I am an american and as of this election I didnt really care for either candidate. One was an idiot who alienated us from the rest of the world and the other was just a jerk. But until you Canadians have a U.S. citizenship and have a right to vote for a president of US then STFU. What good does it do to complain about our president if you have no choice in it? Honestly go somewhere else and complain with Micheal Moore who plans to live with you all now. It's not your country. Yours is much better run then ours is but if you don't have anything nice to say don't say it.

-Xizor

we arent allowed to have an oppinion? apparently one that disagrees with what you like to hear is "attitude"

i always thought calling us like lumberjacks and stuff was something to be over looked, even though so many of your citizens think we live in cold weather all the time (some even dont think we have proper housing, believe me) so ill call that..ATTITUDE

omQ!! the AMERICANAATTITUDE THEY THINK WE LIKE SNOW

This thread has strayed from it's original itent, to set Canadians upon each other.

What you don't realise it that with the US being such a close neighbour/trade partner, many of the choices made by your president directly affect my country. Bush keeping the ban for such a long time on Canadian beef is a great example. The ban was warranted at first, but keeping it in place AFTER the diseased cow was destroyed? For many, many months? Excuse me while I ***** and complain about your president putting many farmers into the red ink.

Thank you for letting me have my own opinion.

we complain because it affects are economy and hundres of people from your country are coming into our country to get their flu shots (bless their souls, poor cute old people) because your current president thinks that importing our vaccines and perscribtion drugs might be unsafe coz we might have gotten them from a third world country, and then want to trcik americans into taking them. yes thats really it. and why does our complaining bug you so much, if we really couldnt control your election? imean you guys decided what your country wanted/needed at the time. hwo does our opinion affect you? and if it h urts your feelings, well most canadians say, it hurts our feelings that yuo have very little respect for human rights.

[snip]

I make evidence dissapear better than Joseph Stalin.

Huh, what, where???

<.<

>.>

There was no flames here... move along.

And you're getting all huffy DEFENDING that system?

Wow...I can't believe you even think this disproves anything. A dictionary definition of the word "liberal" does not change the fact that most liberals are just about as closed minded as you can get..As wolfy once put it, they are chock full of "closed-minded open-mindness".



You think George Bush should put the financial needs of Canadian farmers above the health of his own people?!? Just becuase the one cow THAT WAS DISCOVERED was destroyed, doesn't mean the outbreak was quashed, and it's damn well better safe then sorry in this case.



I never said you couldn't have an opinion, it's just the arrogant and almighty way that you present it. But nice try with that one.

As for Mikus, you do indeed prove my original point very nicely. Thanks for that.

And DJ_Yoshi, I must say you are a good example of how to be a NON-JACKASS Liberal. It can be done.

And what point did I prove? Because I can't seem to find any of your ignorant bull**** applying to me. If I don't like something, I'm going to damn well make it known, and everyone else should too. None of this "Hey he's not OUR president" crap, because he's the most influential person in the most influential nation, and I think that he's not going to do a good job, and that's my opinion, which is based on 4 years of slaughter. If you don't like what I have to say that's your right, and it's your right to whine and cry about it too, but that doesn't make me wrong in my beliefs, or wrong in expressing them, so get off your high horse.

Edit: Also, the Canadian PM might not be the best man for the job, he might be the worst man for the job, and the fact that we have a poor leader does not make Canadians hypocritical for criticizing another nation for electing a poor leader, because I would hope that if Canada had the capability to destroy the world, and we elected a warmongering government party and leader, that people would have the sense to be outraged. An important part of having power is restraint, and obviously a great deal of people think that this administration does not have that restraint, or is not exercising it. And yes, 59 million Americans voted for Bush, but from the percentages something like 57 million voted against him (Too lazy to get actual figures, someone correct me) And a great deal of Americans are outraged as well, so it's not like Canadians are lone crackpots in their criticism.

Generalizations are never a good way to prove a point.

Hey I said most didn't I? :p

I didn't read the whole thread, but I'll throw in my two cents anyways.

My objection to the choice the Americans made for president is based almost entirely upon the following: The people who have the most to be concerned with in regards to both homosexuality as well as terrorism did not believe Bush could best protect them.

The people who elected Bush were, for the most part, people who live in the midlands of the United States with absolutely no viable military, economic, political or symbolic targets and an extremely low rate of homosexuality. Meanwhile California and New York voted Democratic in a near landslide. This should tell you people something: The people who are actually affected by Bush's decisions don't trust him. Maybe you should be listening to them more.

No, I don't think it disproves anything. My point was solely that something is not right. Either the definition in the Dictionary should be changed, because "liberal" clearly doesn't mean in practice what's said in the dictionary, or the people should call themselves something else than liberals. But as it is, I don't know why they are called liberals if there's nothing liberal in their behavior. It just doesn't make sense, if you try to keep the original meaning of that word in mind.

But I'm certainly not going to keep arguing about something as trivial as this. I guess Liberals is just a name for those people, nothing more.

TOLD.

Oh, and I'd lke to reiterate my orginal point from (what was for me) last night: everybody should just invite the Canadians over for a drink

We'll be there at 7 Martyn.

Tell everyone to bring a crate.

Most Americans simply didn't want to make the transition to a new president in the middle of a war. Especially when Kerry did very little to convince the American people that he could do a better job. I was honestly suprised that he did so well against Bush. You folks may think the American people ignorant, and I'm not going to argue about that, but would it not be more ignorant to vote for a candidate that never really made a decent case to prove that he could do a better job? One could argue that Bush is doing a horrible job, but Kerry was incapable of proving that he could do any better. You don't vote for a candidate because you think there's a possibility that he might be able to do better. You vote for a candidate that you have faith in and know can do better, or you keep the president that you have. THIS is why Bush won the election. More than half of America made the decision that the last 4 years were tolerable enough to vote for him again. This doesn't make them stupid, it simply means that while they may not like everything that Bush is doing, they'd rather take their chances with him, than to go the path of uncertainty (Kerry).



An interesting point, although your logic is slightly flawed. We have no way of knowing thei reasons for voting against Bush. You're simply making assumptions, although I would argue that your opinion may be quite realistic. I have no problem with homosexuals getting married, and many Americans don't, but this nation just isn't ready for such a thing yet, but they will be. We may not always conform, but on this issue, I have confidence that we will, in time. I see this subject to be one of the least important that I've ever seen in a presidential debate. Especially in such troubling times.



Bush won the election both times, and I'm curious to see the evidence that proves otherwise. I hear people saying things like this all of the time, but I have yet to see why.

I don't know why I get involved in these political threads. It rarely ever leads to anything productive. :/

Jon'C ****ing wins.

[url]www.sorryeverybody.com[/url]

I was thinking about posting that link...

Yeah, we aren't very powerful, but thats just being ignorant.

First off, I'd like to say that:

• I am only 13 and cannot vote
• My dad is a Republican and my mom is a Democrat
• I DID NOT support any candidate

But I feel I must comment on this.

My dad, one of the most close-minded CONSERVATIVE people I have ever met, basically considers anyone with a different opinion than he does an idiot. He drives me insane with his babble about Democrats having "no values," and there were some arguments between my parents just prior to the election.