The Warring States of NPF

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)
-   Dead threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91)
-   -   Who would win if it were up to us? (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=8393)

Less Than jake 01-21-2005 04:44 PM

Who would win if it were up to us?
 
Yes it is now officially Bush's second term. Being a Democrat yesterday was sort of a day to mourn. BUt who would've won here?

Robot Jesus 01-21-2005 05:06 PM

I think nadir would have been the best choice. He could help the US catch up with the rest of the world socaly.

Lucerin Red 01-21-2005 05:49 PM

I voted W, I was no way in hell gonna vote for kerry, he would run our economy into the ground just as bush has started to fix all the problems with it. Plus Kerry voted against the law that banned partial birth abortions. And even though Kerry was just a puppet of the democratic party to try and get bush out of the office, puppets still have power

Dynamite220 01-21-2005 07:37 PM

I voted Bush. I'm not realy into the whole social conservative thing, but I know when a man is serious. He is doing what he thinks is best for his country. Others may not agree with him, but his motivations are pure. Also, while I may not be anti-gay or anti-abortion, I am a political conservative who is all for small government, lower taxes, and trickle-down economics, all of which are Bush positions.

Sock_Munkey 01-21-2005 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucerin Red
he would run our economy into the ground just as bush has started to fix all the problems with it.

Hvae you noticed the 37 trillion dollar deficit bush has created? Hes a total dumbass.

Lucerin Red 01-21-2005 09:09 PM

War = expensive, but I was talking more along the lines of our economic polices and the recession we hit and the rise of unemployement.

Also yeah, I am definitely for smaller government, I hate loosing literally close to half my pay to taxes

Vicious 01-21-2005 09:40 PM

Not Bush. He refuses to admit when he's wrong. For some reason, I know a few people that somehow see this as a positive quality.

Anybody but Bush '05, baby.

AerodynamicHair 01-22-2005 01:36 AM

My support would have to go to Nader. I just generally love the guy, and he's the only "politician" I really feel isn't trying to screw me over so he could get his own. It's about time the US had a consumer advocate for a president, instead of rich-boy ceo.

About Bush, I disagree with him, but I understand that other people really beleive in what he's doing. It's not that I think that Bush is evil, or that he's stupid, its just that I don't believe in his positions, and I don't like what he's doing and what he's done. Neither do I like Kerry. I wish the democrats would get back on the ball and stop this whole "we may not have the best guy for the job, but he sure isn't Bush!" crap. The democrats don't even try anymore, in my opinion.

Dragonsbane 01-22-2005 02:15 AM

Personally, I hated all three of them; Bush, Kerry, AND Nader. If it was up to me, and be grateful it isn't, I would put all three of them into an arena with weapons, and force them to fight to the death for my amusement.

The winner would then have the privelege of leading the charge in the next attack in Iraq.

Dynamite220 01-22-2005 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious
Not Bush. He refuses to admit when he's wrong. For some reason, I know a few people that somehow see this as a positive quality.

Anybody but Bush '05, baby.

He doesn't admit that he's wrong because he doesn't believe that he's wrong. If you stated an oppinion of yours and someone said that you were obviously wrong and demanded you apologise, would you, even though your oppinion is just as lagitamate as his?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.