gdizzle

If we do we'll just be stupid and arm the Iraqis (again) to go after them (again) just like last time, I'm afraid.

←

It wouldn't be just like the last time, Saddam would have to be in power for that to happen. I really don't think this scenerio would take place either... <_<

With the addition of the political forum, this place is slowly getting more and more like swedespeed where all ANYONE does is talk off topic... anyone else feel a little bit that way?

Can't wait for Nov. 2nd...

←

Nothing in the thread has been offtopic except your post and well this one too. ;)

i can understand that, putin is not far away from to become a stalin of 21 century.

←

Thats it, nothing to back it up. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to know more. Is there more than the whole chechnyan conflict?

its funny how in some threads some people write stuff like "fark other countries, we'll do as we please" then in the next "country xxxxxx endorses Bush/Kerry!"

←

All I did was post it. If you read it you would have seen this.

The Bush campaign said "No thanks."

"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

Karlson,

In another discussion about the same topic on hand over at swedespeed, someone said "Americans don't know the difference between Putin and Stalin." What are your thoughts on this? Note...the comment was made by an American.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday the re-election of President George W. Bush (news - web sites) would be in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations Iran harbours al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.

"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.

"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran is supporting Democratic Senator John Kerry (news - web sites) against Bush.

The Bush campaign said "No thanks."

"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

"Iran should stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and if they continue in the direction they are going, then we will have to look at what additional action may need to be taken including looking to the UN Security Council."

Kerry, who said halting nuclear proliferation will be a priority if he becomes president, believes Bush should have done more diplomatically to curb Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. He said Iran should be offered nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes but spent fuel should be taken back so it cannot be used to develop nuclear weapons.

"It is telling that this president has received the endorsement of member of the axis of evil," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Allison Dobson said.

"But Americans deserve a president who will have a comprehensive strategy to address the potential threat of Iran's growing nuclear program."

The United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran after militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Iranian clerics were crucial in determining the fate of the 1980 U.S. election when Republican Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) won in part because Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was unable to secure the hostages' release.

The hostages were freed as Reagan was inaugurated.

The United States supported Iraq (news - web sites) in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war but by the late 1990s, U.S.-Iranian relations were somewhat better. They plummetted again after Bush accused Iran of being part of the "axis of evil" with North Korea (news - web sites) and pre-war Iraq.

The Bush administration also accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and sheltering operatives of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida terror network. Still, Iran was happy to see Bush destroy two big regional enemies - the Taliban in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in Iraq.

Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi said ousting the Taliban and Saddam was the "biggest service any administration could have done for Iran."

And Bush, he said, has learned from his mistakes.

"The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the responsibility Bush had will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran," he said.

Mofidi added: "Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran."

Republican and Democratic presidents have issued executive orders against Iran, with Reagan in 1987 barring Iranian crude oil and other imports, and Bill Clinton (news - web sites) in 1995 banning U.S. trade and investment in Iran.

"We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton," Rowhani said.

"And we should not forget that during Bush's era - despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran - he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran."

Bush has been reluctant to offer Iran any incentives for better U.S.-Iranian relations but in recent days, there have been signs Washington will back European economic incentives if Iran stops uranium enrichment activities.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was quoted by state-run television Tuesday saying Iran is interested in buying nuclear fuel from the West but will not concede its right to the technology.

The nuclear issue has been most sensitive and the Bush administration is threatening to press for sanctions against Iran over it. Tehran said its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, for energy purposes.

Kavoos Emami, another Iranian political analyst, praised Kerry for mentioning the need for dialogue with Iran and said the Democrat would be better for Iran.

"Bush has insulted Iran more than any other U.S. administration. If Kerry is elected, a U.S. military attack against Iran will never happen or will be a very remote possibility," he said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_endorses_bush

Typical example of blind support for candy hand-out politics while the deficit is growing by enormeous amounts every day. One day when the stuff hit the fan it will be the politician's fault...when you're living above your standard the fall is inevitable

←

Are you an american over seas? If not, you pay way to much attention to the politics of America. :lol:

dont think so. last time i was in dc, like 3 weeks ago. mr president was driving cadillac i think, or lincoln. hard to tell. never saw model that model before/

and volvo in texas? dunt about that. and kerry is not an idiot, bush is

←

he was in armored vehicle, which is a caddy. thats not his personal ride.

.......

The Russian leader says a Republican defeat "could lead to the spread of terrorism," but diplomatically adds that he will respect Americans' own choice.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

By Julian Borger and Suzanne Goldenberg

Oct. 19, 2004 |

Russian President Vladimir Putin waded into the American election campaign in support of George W. Bush Monday, declaring that if the president lost, it would lead to the "spread of terrorism" around the world. The endorsement was a significant boost for Bush, who has been under fire from John Kerry for failing to maintain international support for the U.S. "war on terror."

"International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term," Putin said at a Central Asian summit in Tajikistan. "If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire antiterror coalition. In that case, this would give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities, and could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world." He added, however, that he would respect "any choice by the American people."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/...n/index_np.html

i am not in dc, i am from VA, but i cant vote because i am not American citizen.

Kerry served in Vietnam, but George was too scared to go. And george were alcoholic. dont like it at all.

←

Maybe you should leave the politics of this great nation to the informed, which you obviously are not. You can't rely on the media to inform you on what is going on with the nation.

Im sorry, but bush was not elected by 50+1 percent of the people. I was in japan on an air force base, and my vote was made via absentee ballot. So it wasnt even counted at the same time everyone elses was. I guess thats one of the many penalties for serving my country, my vote didnt count, and it wouldnt have anyway.  I guess we will see in november how many people have started caring about lies told to the american people by this president.

   I also think its funny the way you ppl have to resort to banners bashing the republicans competition, they really show your lack of originality. You have sided with a party that wont bat an eye while they lie, so I guess lack of taste just goes hand in hand. I dont need to post any fancy images of bush saying something stupid and totally idiotic just turn on your TV.

←

Man..... lighten up buddy!

why not? i mean everyone want to send butch back to texas, so he can play baseball and etc. and like all other countries in the world want to change Bush.

←

I don't really care what the rest of the world wants done, the fact is though, most of country is in favor of Bush. To me, Kerry is not a viable option and the thought of him in office sends shrills up my spine..... <_<

Matt, 52 and 57 isn't the %, they are the # of votes! Bush 47.71%, Kerry 52.29%, thats the %'s of the poll above.

nice to see  57 votes for kerry!

hope he will win!

←

no, lets not hope. :rolleyes:

How the Electoral College Works

The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates:

Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).

The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.

Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions

traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.

On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).

Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].

On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.

In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).

The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.

The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.

In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.

At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.

Occasionally questions arise about what would happen if the pesidential or vice presidential candidate died at some point in this process.For answers to these, as well as to a number of other "what if" questions, readers are advised to consult a small volume entitled After the People Vote: Steps in Choosing the President edited by Walter Berns and published in 1983 by the American Enterprise Institute. Similarly, further details on the history and current functioning of the Electoral College are available in the second edition of Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, a real goldmine of information, maps, and statistics.

its good to see someone actually using facts(or news articles at least) in the politics section. i appreciate it.

ive never heard of the FOP, but i did a little research on the president(googled him ) and found some entertaing stuff. hes actually got his own section on georgewbush.com called "keeping order" where he answers questions for all the non partisan visitors to his site looking for some direction:0. very sweet of him.

anyhoo, i didnt see any powerful arguements in that that couldnt be made about bush as well, however, i did find this for you. enjoy

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...ice-union_x.htm

←

Thats the IBPO, not nearly as large, nor as important as the FOP.

10/14/2004 6:34:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: State Desk

Contact: Chris Granberg of the Fraternal Order of Police, 202-547-8189

WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today Chuck Canterbury, the President of the nation's largest police labor organization, called on John Kerry to stop making misleading statements regarding his support from the law enforcement community. Both on the campaign trail and in Wednesday night's debate in Tempe, AZ, Senator Kerry has alluded that he has the support of the majority of these brave men and women.

"As the elected leader of the largest organization representing America's Federal, State and local law enforcement officers, I believe it's important to point out yet again that we do not support his candidacy for President," Canterbury said. "And to be perfectly frank, the groups which do support him actually share the same membership rolls and, taken together, probably comprise less than one-quarter of our nation's police officers."

Canterbury further noted that unlike the organizations which Senator Kerry touts, F.O.P. members as a whole decided that the Fraternal Order of Police would endorse the reelection of President George W. Bush. They based their decision, he said, on the record of the Bush Administration in supporting America's first responders-including helping to secure passage earlier this year of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, the organization's top legislative priority. Bush also successfully fought to greatly enhance the benefits for the families of officers killed in the line of duty.

"While Kerry was flying around the country campaigning and leaving the actual work of the nation to his colleagues in the Senate, the President was out there working on our behalf," Canterbury said. "Senators Kerry and Edwa ve there were only 98 members of the U.S. Senate."

Canterbury also said it was the height of irony that Kerry would use his position on the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban as a reflection of his support from police.

"First, if a police officer is killed by an AK-47, Kerry would oppose the death penalty for the killer," Canterbury said. "In addition, where was he when this issue was being discussed in the 108th Congress? Where was he when we were working to pass H.R. 218? When it came time to help push for final passage of legislation important to law enforcement, Senator Kerry was regrettably A.W.O.L."

"Given the facts, I would greatly appreciate it if Senator Kerry would refrain from making similar whimsical assertions regarding his support from the law enforcement community," Canterbury said. "The real majority of my fellow officers are standing behind President Bush, because he has been there for us."

The Fraternal Order of Police is the nation's largest law enforcement labor organization, with more than 318,000 members.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Edwards a Lame Duck for his senate seat, and not even running again as a result?

How can the Democrats pick someone who's own home state hates him to run for vice president?  This is the stupidest democratic ticket ever.

←

Yup, totally agree, Edwards is putz.

So you'd be willing to let them take stem cells from your bone marrow rather than from something that isn't even a fetus yet? Stem cell research has the potential to help people like Reeves. Granted, that kind of technology may have been farther away than Reeves could have utilized but it's there.

And don't tell me an anti-choice president who bowed to the Pope's condemnation of stem cell research a supporter of such a topic. I dare say the first time he heard the term he thought we were going after plants...

←

You have no idea what you are talking about. Embroyic stem cells are a waste of time and life.

And regarding this double murder stuff, an abortion is not performed in a criminal mindset - you don't think "I'm going to kill that baby!"  A murder is performed in criminal mindset.  You can't compare murder and abortion - it's stupid.  Abortions are not performed with intent to harm anyone, they intend to help someone in some way or another.  Clear difference, if you can't see it - I don't care, just stfu and shake your head to yourself, no one here looking at my screen gives two shits what you think.

Regarding this "I guess" you keep going back to, I couldn't come up with the right words to clarify, that's why it says "I guess."  I am sure of my position, the thought just didn't take me where I expected it to.

OK, Done.  And I mean done.  If you bother me I'll be really pissed off, you people need to get over it and move on.

←

Man.....what a load of stuff! An abortion is isn't harming the mother, but it is harming the baby. With that established, a murderer can have the same mindset. They can say, boy, my life sure would be better with out my jerkoff boss of mine. **Bam** he's dead and the murders life is now better, just like the mothers life.

I will certainly have to agree with that.

←

I too would have to agree. I blame it on the hippies. :)