So the good part about Bush winning...

[speeds]

Originally posted by speeds@Nov 3 2004, 11:43 PM

I'm still hoping the US amends the constitution with regards to having to be born in the USA, because then Arnold can run and fulfill the prophecy from the great action movie "Demolition Man"

While they are at it, get rid of the electoral vote system and just decide the presidency based on popular vote. And if everyone wants to feel included, then go ahead and close all precincts at the same time nationwide, say, 11 pm EST.

speaking of, found this on imdb.com:

Schwarzenegger Refusing To Campaign for Constitutional Change

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is refusing to campaign for the opportunity to run for presidency in America - despite his willingness to lead the nation. Currently, the Constitution doesn't allow foreign-born citizens to run for presidency in the US, and the Austrian muscleman has expressed his support for an amendment. But Schwarzenegger, who entered the realm of politics late last year, admits that while he'd revel in the chance to vie for presidency, he's not going to press for changes. He says, "I won't campaign for it. It will become too political with me as part of it. I don't want it to be the Arnold Amendment." Schwarzenegger is seen by some as the greatest boost for the campaign, as the Constitution has only been amended 27 times in America's history.

http://imdb.com/news/wenn/#1

*******

and the quote from demolition man:

LeninaHuxley : I have, in fact, perused some newsreels in the Schwartzenegger Library.
JohnSpartan : Hold it. The Schwartzenegger Library?
LeninaHuxley : Yes. The Schwartzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor when you...
JohnSpartan : But how? He was President?
LeninaHuxley : Yes! Even though he wasn't born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment which states...
JohnSpartan : I don' wanna know. President.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0106697/quotes

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 3 2004, 03:24 PM
Here's my thoughts on the election result.

The American people have spoken. They have once again proven their ignorance of the facts and made yet another uninformed decision that impacts billions of people. Once again the people of the world will look at the United States, scratch their heads and ask, "why"?

And once again, what Lanny believe is right,......everybody else, to quote Lanny and this is a quote, verbatim....."YOU'RE WRONG!"

Sigh...you make it too easy Lanny.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 3 2004, 07:35 PM

Actually Bingo, I was never for going into Iraq until Afghanistan was done and al Qeada was smoked out and finished. If at that time there was a link to Iraq, then go for it, as long as the UN agreed. I've been dead set against Iraq from the begining because the UN was not on board. WMDs, terrorists or what ever has not been the point for me, the UN saying no was the sticker. There's a big difference.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?
You sure about that? I seem to recall a very venomous reaction from you and one that reached much further than the borders of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. Am I wrong?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Pileon+Nov 3 2004, 09:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pileon @ Nov 3 2004, 09:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 01:50 PM
I wonder if our American readers will be surprised to hear they are ...

are proud that they are "ignorant", "self absorbed" and focussed on "style".

That is just plain silly. 51% of a huge nation voted strongly for a party that some on this site don't like. That doesn't make this massive group of people any less intelligent than the other 48% that voted Kerry.

To think so makes one as ignorant as one reports Americans to be.

My comment has nothing to do with their election. Again your focussing on the negative connotations that "you" attach to them. Americans care about themselves. Period. They are offended when others say anything about them. They believe that they are always right and what others say has no bearing on them. That's the way they live and it works for them. The only time it runs into conflict is when they take this attitude out into the larger world.

Ignorant means that they only know and care about themselves. Same wth self absorbed. Maybe the focussed on style comment isn't totally fair, but they do appear to be wrapped up in appearing to be right (whatever that is) as opposed to actually being right.

None of this is a surprise to me given the country's slant to rugged individualism. Why should they care about anyone else. They are who they are. They ahve learned to live with it. So should we. [/b][/quote]
What a crock.

I'm so sick of being stereotyped.

I'll tell you this, in my experience Canadians are far more boisterous about their nationality than Americans, and I've met plenty of both.

Then again, maybe I'm just an ignorant, backward, self-absorbed hick. Did I get all the stereotypes in there?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On@Nov 3 2004, 09:31 PM

Who cares if americans interperate the word in whichever way. If I think many are ignorant of the issues, showing a number of how many voted for your man, has zero relevance. By many americans own admition, much of the victory was thanks to evangelical leaning people, whom Carl Rove specifically wanted to bring in to play. What are those sorts of people, but faith based? Ergo they voted on faith over fact.
I agree that Americans often spout off that they don't care what the rest of the world thinks. Heard it here....
So why care when they think that large sections lean toward being virtually ignorant of the facts (read bible belt).

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying the election was won because of the evangelical christian turnout? These are people who ALWAYS vote. Not people who are apathetic.

Wow.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Bingo+Nov 3 2004, 09:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Nov 3 2004, 09:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dangler22@Nov 3 2004, 03:43 PM
Naaaah Bingo, I prefer to label them mentally ######ed.

Why post something like that? Even if joking (and I don't see a smiley face attached) it's in poor taste. [/b][/quote]
That's his M.O.

He's #2 on the list right after Bertuzzied.

Pathetic.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by speeds+Nov 3 2004, 11:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (speeds @ Nov 3 2004, 11:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 08:50 PM
That is just plain silly. 51% of a huge nation voted strongly for a party that some on this site don't like. That doesn't make this massive group of people any less intelligent than the other 48% that voted Kerry.

To think so makes one as ignorant as one reports Americans to be.

It doesn't NECESSARILY mean they are less intelligent, but it doesn't not mean it either. You'd need to have some way to test it.

This is probably a trivial example, and perhaps not even valid, but if we assume teh majority of people in the States like reality TV, and some don't, that doesn;t necessarily mean one group is more stupid than the other.

But it could. [/b][/quote]
Careful Speeds...there is a reality TV cult that uses this very forum, dominated by superior Canadian intelligence. :P

[Thunderball]

Its not a matter of intelligence or anything... its a matter of perception and priorities. Saying 50m+ people are ignorant is committing a grave fallacy and makes one also appear quite naive and ignorant.

The President of the United States is that, President of the UNITED STATES, not the world, and if we choose to dislike him, fine, don't expect any favours. I'm personally impressed that the American electorate refused to let people like Moore, "Old Europe" and left wing media guilt them into voting someone else.
Bush is not a stupid man, and whether or not you like his actions, grasp his actions or suspect conspiracy, he was the better choice. I wasn't sure what exactly Kerry even stood for. Maybe he'll move to Canada and become the next Liberal PM, cause even Martin and Chretien had to be impressed with his flip-flopping and vague ideas that encompass everyone's views.

Furthermore, there is NOTHING controversial about this election. The media did their best to make Iraq an issue and in the end, moral values (which likely included clarity and honesty) were considered the #1 issue. Good for Bush who is blunt, straight forward and honest (assuming he really thought Iraq had WMDs on premises. States were won fairly, he has the popular vote by a wide margin, and really, if the best people can do is a conspiracy theory about the evangelical christians who didn't show up to support their man Bush the first time, that shows just how fair this election was.

This could be very good for Canada if played properly. If Martin treats Bush as an equal and not a tyrant, we might see things open up real soon and see some improved relations... We might also see our prescription drugs stay in country, which is VERY GOOD for us. If the US bought our pills, it would dramatically raise the price and hamper our system... and good for T.O. cause the trash import continues... but Canada loves Kerry... maybe we're the ignorant ones?

[sbailey924]

I do not want Guiliani to run. I do not like the guy one bit. I find it funny that New Yorkers did not like him, and then 9/11 happened, and he took a huge leadership role across the country. I know this sounds crast and maybe a little insensitive, but I seriously think the reason he has such nationwide support is because his name is Rudy, and people think that's cute. Policywise, I see nothing that makes him a good politician other than his leadership after 9/11, which I think MOST elected leaders in that situation would pretty much do the same thing, since they have advisors and the like. I'm not a New Yorker, so I really don't have a valid opinion on his policy anyway.