Who do you want to win this election?

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Who do you want to win this election?

  • Obama-Biden

    Votes: 69 65.7%
  • McCain-Palin

    Votes: 14 13.3%
  • Jackal

    Votes: 10 9.5%
  • The People

    Votes: 11 10.5%
  • Ron Paul

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bob Barr

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ralph Nader

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Cynthia McKinney

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pat Paulsen

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    105
  • Poll closed .

Poker

Anus Retentus
Apr 17, 2006
310
0
0
We'll see.

Also, if you don't think that people who hang around IRC/Forums/Digg/Slashdot/etc lean left... well.. okay.
haha no no, I'll certainly agree with you on most of that ... when it comes to politicrap digg for example is little more than a mirror for that huffington site which is of course very hard left. And I could imagine a perfectly valid argument that some—certainly not all—of the more bleeding-edge sites and tech phenomena are often developed by young, progressive, geographically coastal, left-of-center people, and their respective followings and subcultures may develop from there to some degree.

But I think there are also huge droves of prominent right-leaning and hard right sites and blogs as well. I feel it's pretty proportional, though precisely whether it's just as many, or more, or whether there's even a way to measure that, I can't say. But basically, you know, I'll put it this way: everybody poops their fair share, and what we've clogged our beloved Series of Tubes with is fairly reflective of what the population in general "puts out" as far as politics. :)
 

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
Here's how another Iraq War Veteran wants you to vote, except this guy doesn't confuse support for our guys/gals in uniform with support for a war started on false pretenses.


Here's another, and a couple more, and some more, Etc...




.
There were no false pretenses. I get sick of hearing this crap. WMD components were found in limited numbers, except for the mass amount of chlorine that could have been easily weaponized on a HUGE scale. Saddam's regime was causing problems in the region by funding monies to suicide bombers. We could have ignored it but Saddam was like one of those bullies who just won't stop ****ing with you until you strike back. Also, Bush admitted early on that the WOT was going to be long and costly. If he lied and was such a horrible President, why was he re-elected?

If you want someone else to believe the war in Iraq is unjust, I suggest you take your argument to someone who does not know any better and has not actually seen the intel reports.
 

GG-Xtreme

You are a pirate!
Mar 12, 2008
332
0
0
Saddam's regime was causing problems in the region by funding monies to suicide bombers.

Saddam did a pretty good job at blocking the spread of terrorism into Iraq, actually.

Also, Bush admitted early on that the WOT was going to be long and costly.

The war in Iraq is not the war on terror. There were no terrorist threats to us in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is, because that's were Al Queda terrorists who attacked us are.

If he lied and was such a horrible President, why was he re-elected?

Good question. To this day, scientists are flabbergasted at this.
 

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
Saddam did a pretty good job at blocking the spread of terrorism into Iraq, actually.
Yes, within Iraq's borders, you would be correct. But, the fact is that he funded terrorists who committed their acts outside Iraq's borders.

The war in Iraq is not the war on terror. There were no terrorist threats to us in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is, because that's were Al Queda terrorists who attacked us are.
Since when was the WOT only about Al Qaeda? It is about erradicating the precepts to all global terrorism that affects the US and its allies. Governments that harbor and fund terrorism are essentially terrorist governments.

Good question. To this day, scientists are flabbergasted at this.
Has nothing to do with science, my friend. Kerry was a laughable choice as an opponent.
 

Firefly

United Kingdom is not a country.
I want boobs in this thread or it is useless :)

[edit] real boobs

NP

:D
picture.php
 

Poker

Anus Retentus
Apr 17, 2006
310
0
0
There were no false pretenses. I get sick of hearing this crap.
:con:

Really. Still? I mean, ... wait, really? Just ... wow.

I do wonder sometimes just who the 20-some percent is and how they still manage to muster their approval. Nice to have a reminder once in awhile, I guess.

Kerry was a laughable choice as an opponent.
He would have been better for the country than George the incurious little failmonkey, but you're certainly right that Kerry was serious weaksauce as a candidate. Probably wouldn't have been much as President himself either, tbh, but ... given the alternative....

Why oh why did you all not nominate McCain in 2000.... *sigh* :(
 
Last edited:

R34P3R

BUF Lurker
Oct 31, 2008
345
0
0
I want Obama to win.
If Bush = Crap and
McCain = 90%Bush then
McCain = 90% Crap
 

N1ghtmare

Sweet Dreams
Jul 17, 2005
2,411
12
38
Where least expected
Since when was the WOT only about Al Qaeda? It is about erradicating the precepts to all global terrorism that affects the US and its allies. Governments that harbor and fund terrorism are essentially terrorist governments.

If we had gotten rid of Al-Qaeda we would have gotten rid of our biggest threat. Iraq nor Iran would use nukes directly. They would give it to another group. Al-Qaeda is the largest and strongest.
 

Gambit84

New Member
Oct 17, 2004
427
0
0
Why oh why did you all not nominate McCain in 2000.... *sigh* :(
He lost funding after negative attack adds crippled his chances in southern states. Its probably the primary reason why he reason why he pushed the 'approval message' campaign bill.

Incensed,[135] McCain ran ads accusing Bush of lying and comparing the governor to Bill Clinton, which Bush said was "about as low a blow as you can give in a Republican primary".[121] An anonymous smear campaign began against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, and audience plants.[121][137] The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter was adopted from Bangladesh), that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" who was either a traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days.[121][131] The Bush campaign strongly denied any involvement with the attacks.[131]

McCain lost South Carolina on February 19, with 42 percent of the vote to Bush's 53 percent,[138] in part because Bush mobilized the state's evangelical voters[121][139] and outspent McCain.[140] The win allowed Bush to regain lost momentum.[138] McCain would say of the rumor spreaders, "I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those."[84] According to one report, the South Carolina experience left McCain in a "very dark place".[131]
 

GG-Xtreme

You are a pirate!
Mar 12, 2008
332
0
0
Yes, within Iraq's borders, you would be correct. But, the fact is that he funded terrorists who committed their acts outside Iraq's borders.

That's why we should have stayed focused on the terrorists. Attacking Iraq hasn't weakened terrorism, it has given it time to grow.

Since when was the WOT only about Al Qaeda? It is about erradicating the precepts to all global terrorism that affects the US and its allies. Governments that harbor and fund terrorism are essentially terrorist governments.

Iraq was not affecting the U.S. If we had taken out terrorist groups, they still wouldn't be a threat. Taking out Saddam hasn't made the situation better in the Middle East, it has allowed the Taliban to rebuild and has empowered Iran.

Has nothing to do with science, my friend. Kerry was a laughable choice as an opponent.

And Bush was somehow better? If that's not enough, we now have McCain, who would stay in Iraq for 100 years, driving us into bankruptcy and leaving us vulnerable from the actual threats, even though the situation has improved, Iraq has a surplus, and we should be focusing our combat troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan.