Douglas Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:oIwGEmKpC6YJ:www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html+%22John+Wilkes+Booth,+Lee+Harvey+Oswald,+John+Hinckley+Jr%22&hl=en&start=1 On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you? What say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_73 Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 well all i have to say is if Bush does win then what does that say about the Americans as a whole for voting for him, talking about idiocy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I think the last sentence from that quote was unasked for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 And completely out of line. That's the kind of thing I was talking about a few weeks ago when I said that over-the-top opposition to Bush over in Europe actually drives people back to voting for him. Be careful what you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I have an Idea, if the UK likes Kerry so much, why dont you invite him over there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I have an Idea, if the UK likes Kerry so much, why dont you invite him over there? You think one Sunday paper columnist is representative of our nation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 No, just a huge whomping majority of it. Unless you meant the part about the assassins -- I'm sure most folks wouldn't agree with THAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 The Guardian newspaper represents a whopping majority of the British population? Strange that it has a circulation of around 400,000 whilst the pro Bush, pro war Daily Telegraph has a circulation of more than 1 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 If Bush is elected again, and I think he likely will, He will have a hard time invading another country. His legacy will be 9/11 and Iraq. Iraq will probably vote for an Iyatollah Dip-Shit and eventually become a radical islamic "democracy". People will really be ready for a change next time and guess who will run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 If Bush is elected again' date=' and I think he likely will, He will have a hard time invading another country. His legacy will be 9/11 and Iraq. Iraq will probably vote for an Iyatollah Dip-Shit and eventually become a radical islamic "democracy". People will really be ready for a change next time and guess who will run?[/quote'] Hillary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 You think one Sunday paper columnist is representative of our nation? Seems to be a popular belief though from others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 People will really be ready for a change next time and guess who will run? Who? My opinion on bush is it is a double edged sword. Either way you look at it he would have been wrong, but the situation could have been handled better. As for the topic of the original post, it's really terrible what the world is coming to. And I don't blame it on anyone but the media. The media has screwed up society in so many ways, but what can you do? It's a downfall of freedom I guess, anyone can say anything about nothing in the media, and everyone gobbles it up as truth. (well most people do anyways) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Who? I would like to see a third party take more effect on the race. Micheal Badnarik is my choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I would like to see a third party take more effect on the race. Micheal Badnarik is my choice. What do you mean by third party? Sorry Ive never understood the differences between political party's, Not up to snuff on my politics I just look at a man for who he is and what he represents, ive never paid much attention to party's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 The writing has been removed and replaced with this:- Screen Burn, The Guide Sunday October 24, 2004 The Guardian The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer. "Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind." I'll point out that it was a TV critic commenting on a TV show, and not a political commentry. I'll also point out the contribution was to the website, and not in the newspaper. The Guardian does not simply print out it's web page for the newspaper edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 People will really be ready for a change next time and guess who will run?If Kerry wins this year and Schwarzenegger runs against him in 2008, Schwarzenegger will win, no question. If Bush wins this year and Hillary and Schwarzenegger run against each other in 2008, it would be about a tie... but probably go to Schwarzenegger. If Bush wins and for some reason Schwarzenegger doesn't run, Hillary will probably win. Of course this is mostly speculation. We leave for California in a couple hours though and I'll be there during Election Day, so I'll see if I can't pick up a few things about the politics there and make a better guess. I've heard Arnold is a talented politician, but even if he wasn't he'd still be voted in in 2008 because, well, he's the Terminator. But there are a lot of people cheering for Hillary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Is Kerry only planning a 4 year term? I know the republicans are having pressure put on them for Geb Bush as candidate for 2008, to keep the nepotism in the frame and further mock the 'democratic' system in America. I'd also like Hillary to run in 2008, but I doubt she'll get past the old guard. African americans and women only become president in movies, it seems. Margert Thatcher was the first woman world leader since the 19 century, and it looks like she'll be the last for a good while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I think he's planning on two terms (all presidential candidates seem to), since there was constroversy over Bill Clinton backing Kerry becasue, if he got in, a second term for Kerry would get in the way of his wife running for president, whereas if he was only looking for one term it would help her as the country would be effectively "primed" for another Democratic candidate. I hadn't heard that about Jeb Bush, but I still don't think he'd have a chance against Schwarzenegger in the primaries. There's just so much good will for Schwarzenegger that it's not much of a contest. There have been quite a few female world leaders, but yeah, not quite as many "major" ones if that's what you mean. There almost was with Sonia Gandhi, but she pulled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Arnie wasn't born in the US, so unless there's a change to the constitution, he can't be president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Which is precisely why many people have been trying to change the constitution to remove that as we speak. http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles5/president_arnold.htm http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/23/MNGJ7566RN1.DTL http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/columns/kadner/x08-pkd1.htm Those are just a few links from the first page of a Google search for "change constitution arnold president", but there are lots more. Apparently there's one website campaigning for it so that Arnold in particular can run, but there have been other people from both parties calling for the change to the cinstitution since before Arnold ran for Governor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Margaret Thatcher was the first woman world leader since the 19 century, and it looks like she'll be the last for a good while.In the interests of historical accuracy we might wish to consider Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel from 1969, and Indira Ghandi in India from 1966. Edit: And consider that women are heads of state or government in Sri Lanka, Ireland, Latvia, New Zealand, Finland, Phillipines, Bangladesh, Sao Tome and Principe, and Mozambique. Source: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4642/ [i know you don't like geocities Sayonara.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Yeah, but 'world leader'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Thanks for passing that along, atinymonkey. FWIW, I support a constitutional amendment to allow naturalized citizens to run for office. The amendment was always dubious anyway -- something that would never have withstood a Supreme Court constitutionality test if it were a mere law. Specifically, I support the ones that suggest a 20-year term of citizenship prior to running for president. I also believe there should be a clause about this country being the citizen's primary residence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_73 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 OK the american President is not the World leader, for that to happen he will have to rule all countries which is exactly what can not and will not happen, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Yeah, but 'world leader'?Well, I rather think someone who was prime minister of approximately 1/6 of the world's population (not to mention the world's largest democracy) is entitled to fit that category. And if you were prime minister of a country that is centre stage of many of the disputes and wars of the lasts forty years, then that could be argued for also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now