[Low spark]

[quote=pest]

Originally Posted by "Capt. John Miller":ff9cc

......but we all know alot of racism is down south =/

[quote="Cpt. Zapotoski":ff9cc]......Trust me... I've lived in the "Deep South" for many years of my life and the Southereners are STILL rascits... they preach about how the "South will rise" and what not. I was scared to say I was from the "North"... haha, I think a friend of mine was dragged to a field and beaten because he was a "Yankee". Heh [/quote:ff9cc]

oOo:

Please explain how these comments are not prejudical. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. I have been all over the country and do not find southerners to be any more or less racist than people from the north, midwest, sw, nw or california. These posts are proof of that.

BTW Miller - Virginia is in the south.[/quote:ff9cc]

You are right pest, I lived in the mid-west most of my life, I had no problem finding racist there, now, I live in the northwest, and I a can assure that there are plenty of racist here.... Racism is a nationwide problem.

[Milla]

North is no where near as racist as the south, ok here in the northern part of virginia isnt redneck land, but out west, if they can tell your a yankee they will probably kill you

[Pfc.Green]

Well I know if I ever go to Georgia, I'm not telling anyone about my ancestors. Bad things would happen to teh Green bad things ed:

[quote="Pfc.Green":581a9]It really all depends on who wins the Democratic nomination. ewww the thought of Joe Lieberman as pres is just.... oOo: I can see it now... "I'm putting this bill forward, that would ban all games with any manifestation of violence in them" anyway it really does depend on who the Dems go with and it does also depend on how Bush's first term goes. The two major problem I can see with the Democratic party is that they have no clear party leader and no real focus to there agenda (at least not at the moment).[/quote:581a9]

I doubt it, there's way too many real issues (economy, education, environment) that Bush has not done too much about.

[[RA]ZdaN]

how in the hell did a George W thread turn into a raceism thread

[[LoNe R@nGeR]]

I like W. I think he has done a pretty good job considering everything that has happened in his first term. It's been pretty rough. I think the only reason people don't like him is the whole war thing. I mean, i really don't see much else he has done wrong. In my eyes, people just don't like him because they think he is "stupid" or because they are just liberal or against the war. Personally, the fact that Iraq was supposed to provide proof that they destroyed their weapons and now they can't prove this really makes me suspicious. Personally, that fact alone justifies war for me, especially with all this stuff they have been saying about Iraq supporting terrorists and giving them stuff. Last time we went into Iraq, they determined that the Iraqi specialists were within 3 years of having nuclear capabilities. This was in the early '90s, now we are in 2003 and Iraq can not show that they have destroyed their actual weapons and the means of manufacturing these weapons. That kinda scares me. Plus, as I always like to say, I really don't think that Iraq could withstand a strong military force that we could plan. And I think everyone should watch the movie "Three Kings" 'cause it shows accurately how the Republican Guard of Iraq is more afraid of Saddam himself than our troops. I'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome so I'm not gonna go into why we need a regime change right now... happy:

[Innoxx]

Fuck there's hardly any bigots up here. If I ever saw a bigot I'd pick up the nearest blunt object and beat that ignorant fuckers head into pulp. I think of it as agressive eugenics.

[Pfc.Green]

[quote="Sgt Stryker":77707][quote="Pfc.Green":77707]It really all depends on who wins the Democratic nomination. ewww the thought of Joe Lieberman as pres is just.... oOo: I can see it now... "I'm putting this bill forward, that would ban all games with any manifestation of violence in them" anyway it really does depend on who the Dems go with and it does also depend on how Bush's first term goes. The two major problem I can see with the Democratic party is that they have no clear party leader and no real focus to there agenda (at least not at the moment).[/quote:77707]

I doubt it, there's way too many real issues (economy, education, environment) that Bush has not done too much about.[/quote:77707]

And if the Democratic party does not present itself as a united front with a clear and consice leader and a clear message they have no chance, Bush is quite popular and a popular president usaually does very well. I can see him not winning if the economy REALLY goes in the toilet, I dont see that happing though, I really believe though that for the dems to have any real chance of winning, they need a leader, a clear message, and to be united, right now I see no clear leader, no clear message, and waffling.

[[LoNe R@nGeR]]

What everyone has to remember is that the first signs and beginnings of an economic recession occurred way back when Clinton was still president. But that's over with now, so whatever.

[Sparrow]

Whoever the arrogant fuck was that said that American politics didn't involve Canada was wrong! I usually don't get into politics to much but that has to be the stupidist thing I have ever heard. Of course Canada will get involved, even if we don't want to. Canada will always be the 'little brother' to the U.S.A. I have great respect for America, but Bush scares the hell outta me. I think if war breaks out, N. AMERICA will be involved *period*.

[intrestedviewer]

If the war in iraq goes well, like desert storm and if the economy goes up again, maybe all this new oil will help somehow, i see manyy people voting for him again. oOo:

[Eight Ace]

Originally Posted by Germ

hawaian balck?

Germ, his folks are from Jamaica, Powell was born in the Bronx.

[Drew]

The outcome should be entirely clear on what's going to happen in 2004. I'll break it down very, very briefly:

Republicans: Bush, of course.

Democrats: Lieberman. Why? Name recognition. People are stupid. They'll vote for the most popular person. Even in the primaries.

Independants: Nader. He's the only well-known independant.

The Race: Bush hands down, barring some sort of amazingly huge fuck-up where he decides to not even run for re-election. There are a few reasons Lieberman has no chance, a few I don't like, but it's facts. First of all, he's jewish. That sounds terrible, but that will very adversely affect him against a staunch Christian, being that Christianity is the main religion by an overwhelming majority. He also will be seriously disadvantaged by his stature. Joe Lieberman comes across as very "soft" to many people, including myself. In times like these, "soft" simply is not going to cut it. The American people want safety, and I think a large majority of them find that in Bush's mannerisms. Another thing hurting Lieberman is Nader, his fellow liberal. Last election, Nader fell just shy of the percentage required to receive federal funding, but he isn't giving up. Look for Nader to come back strong this year. He got a lot of air time and name recognition from the role he played in the 2000 elections. Expect him to take a strong 7-10% of the vote. Unfortunately for Lieberman, that 7%-10% chunk is going to come almost entirely out of his demographic, and destroy and already crippled candidate.

Other scenarios: The American people may actually think, and go with Kerry or some other Democrat shooting for the top spot (please, if there is a God, not Al Sharpton). Unlikely as it is, this would present a more considerable challenge for Bush, whose success in the economy and his wars would become much more vital to his re-election. Still, expect to see Nader crush Democratic hopes for the White House in the end.

[Low spark]

[quote="Captain Noctis Aeternus":73dec]The outcome should be entirely clear on what's going to happen in 2004. I'll break it down very, very briefly:

Republicans: Bush, of course.

Democrats: Lieberman. Why? Name recognition. People are stupid. They'll vote for the most popular person. Even in the primaries.

Independants: Nader. He's the only well-known independant.

The Race: Bush hands down, barring some sort of amazingly huge fuck-up where he decides to not even run for re-election. There are a few reasons Lieberman has no chance, a few I don't like, but it's facts. First of all, he's jewish. That sounds terrible, but that will very adversely affect him against a staunch Christian, being that Christianity is the main religion by an overwhelming majority. He also will be seriously disadvantaged by his stature. Joe Lieberman comes across as very "soft" to many people, including myself. In times like these, "soft" simply is not going to cut it. The American people want safety, and I think a large majority of them find that in Bush's mannerisms. Another thing hurting Lieberman is Nader, his fellow liberal. Last election, Nader fell just shy of the percentage required to receive federal funding, but he isn't giving up. Look for Nader to come back strong this year. He got a lot of air time and name recognition from the role he played in the 2000 elections. Expect him to take a strong 7-10% of the vote. Unfortunately for Lieberman, that 7%-10% chunk is going to come almost entirely out of his demographic, and destroy and already crippled candidate.

Other scenarios: The American people may actually think, and go with Kerry or some other Democrat shooting for the top spot (please, if there is a God, not Al Sharpton). Unlikely as it is, this would present a more considerable challenge for Bush, whose success in the economy and his wars would become much more vital to his re-election. Still, expect to see Nader crush Democratic hopes for the White House in the end.[/quote:73dec]

I Don't think Lieberaman will get the nomination. I do believe that Kerry has a better chance. I would agree the Bush will probably win. Alot depends on what happens in the next year and a half.... Bush is either going to come out of this Iraq mess looking brillant, or he going to turn it into another Nam. He has shown no sign of having a clue on what to do about the economy, a big minus for him. People don't re-elect people when they think those people are the reason everyone is losing there job. He is alieninating minorities, unintentionally, but alienating them non the less. With a environmental policy written by the energy company he is winning many friends in that arena either. I have a feeling that this is going to be a lot tighter race than people would have thought.

And you are right Nader probably will bleed enough votes from the Democrats to kill there chances of winning.

[pest]

[quote="[RA]ZdaN":b002d]how in the hell did a George W thread turn into a raceism thread[/quote:b002d]

It pretty much started when a couple of prejudiced people made blanket statements about any region of the country that they werent from.