Debate about who will be the next president.

I gotta give this next election to the Democrats. All the anti-Bush sentiment i htink is going to influence the polls.

most deffinatly, I say Hillary Clinton.

Hilary Clinton: Bill is a great speaker of ENGLISH, which Bush can't say well but he wants it to be the official language of this country, he'd be exonerated for not knowing the language well enough

most deffinatly, I say Hillary Clinton.good luck with that.

Hilary Clinton: Bill is a great speaker of ENGLISH, which Bush can't say well but he wants it to be the official language of this country, he'd be exonerated for not knowing the language well enoughPublic Speeches are different than social speaking. you try and give a speech to 800 million people. no pressure...right?

good luck with that.
I don't mean who I think will be the next president, I mean who I think should be the next president.

I don't want a democrat, but I do beleive Hilary will win, sadly.

I know that Bush isn't going to be the next president!!

I don't want a democrat, but I do beleive Hilary will win, sadly.
No one wants Democrats,no one wants Republicians.How about we just abolish the whole ****ing goverment and let anarchy reign?!

Vote Ryu for president!

Hillary won't win; even though she's a democrat, most people won't be open to the idea of a female president.

Hillary won't win; even though she's a democrat, most people won't be open to the idea of a female president.
Sexism wins again.

Sexism wins again.
I myself won't vote for Hillary, not because she's a woman, but because I disagree with her politics.

Vote Ryu for president!
Yeah sure.

I would, he's all around kick ***

If I ever became Pres, my first order of business would probably be to have a drinking party with all the other world leaders. :P

Okay! I'll be sure to be a world leader now!

most deffinatly, I say Hillary Clinton.
agreed

I know that Bush isn't going to be the next president!!

Even I know that. If Hilary Clinton goes for president, then she's probably going to win.

I love how the majority of the posters debate the presdiency, and can't vote because they're underage.

Yeah, lol.

I love how the majority of the posters debate the presdiency, and can't vote because they're underage.
Or aren't residents of the United States; I myself will not be voting for Hillary in 2008.

I won't be voting at all. Our votes don't matter. >_<

That's too bad; you're not missing that much anyways.

Too bad America's a two-party system.

There's actually more than two parties, they're not known because of the fact their candidates were not voted for president in a long time. Those parties should be the Green and Whig party.

Yeah, there's two main parties.

Whig and Green are still parties, there really isn't a "main" party. It's just that Democrats and Republicans have mostly been dominating presidency for a long time, so they seem to be better known for that.

Exactly.

any of the democrats. Although, Gore and Kerry both beat Bush, but the elections were fixed. So I'd pick Kerry.

I think pretty much anyone would be better than Bush.
Oh, and we couldn't do the anarchy thing bacause many people would rebel and fight against it and It just wouldn't work. no freedom.
But like led said, what do I know, I'm under voting age.

There's actually more than two parties, they're not known because of the fact their candidates were not voted for president in a long time. Those parties should be the Green and Whig party.

We still have a "two-party system" though, no matter how many parties there are. Thats because only a Republican or Democrat could win. A third party canidate will not win anytime soon.

I'd pick someone who actually showed some decency and linguistic skills, Bill Clinton was a great president, he had great linguistic skills

He was da best of them all.

I'd actually have to say George Washington was the best, too bad he can't run again

http://www.tvnewslies.org/bushbudget.gif

bill clinton good, george bush bad.

http://www.tvnewslies.org/bushbudget.gif

bill clinton good, george bush bad.
Bill Clinton didn't fight a war or donate money to 3 world Disasters. Stop being stupid and open up your mind.

stop being stupid terrelbot and do research, he was a great leader, and he did fight against terrorism on our homefront

President Clinton took the oath of office January 20, 1993. February, 26 - barely a month later - terrorists detonated more than 1,000 pounds of explosives under the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring about a thousand people. Bill Clinton and the Democrats never dreamed of trying to blame the outgoing George Herbert Walker Bush Administration. They just began working to keep us safe from terrorism. But Republicans sabotaged Clinton's efforts to combat terrorists.

stop being stupid terrelbot and do research, he was a great leader, and he did fight against terrorism on our homefront

President Clinton took the oath of office January 20, 1993. February, 26 - barely a month later - terrorists detonated more than 1,000 pounds of explosives under the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring about a thousand people. Bill Clinton and the Democrats never dreamed of trying to blame the outgoing George Herbert Walker Bush Administration. They just began working to keep us safe from terrorism. But Republicans sabotaged Clinton's efforts to combat terrorists.

Frookie, I did do research. I didn't say Clinton didn't fight terrorism. The guys who are posting this graph are to doing it to make it look like the other presidents waited money and blew our enconomy. But they forget we had to fight wars. But it doesn't matter to them, as they will keep on waving their flag.

Look, EVERYONE CALM DOWN.

they didn't blow money, they made budgets and stuck to them, Bill Clinton took us from a huge defecit to a surplus during his administration

Which is good?

Frookie, I did do research. I didn't say Clinton didn't fight terrorism. The guys who are posting this graph are to doing it to make it look like the other presidents waited money and blew our enconomy. But they forget we had to fight wars. But it doesn't matter to them, as they will keep on waving their flag.
but the war didn't start in 2000 when the graph went down. The war started in 2003 where the budget was lower than before Clinton's hard work had begun. And if you look on the graph, it continues to go down. I'm not one to think that losing nearly $500BILLION on the budget, after it had been the highest in a loooooooooooong time, isn't a bad thing when it clearly is something we should take notice of.

You're right there.

we're off topic:

next president: Mr. T, everyone likes him that I know of

nah, I vote for Yoda!

You're right there.

Actually he is wrong. All he did was prove how little he remembers and pays attention to world events. XYZ forgets there are 2 wars going on. The war in Afghanistan began in 2001 right after 9/11. But xyz probably didn't want to mention it.

well talking about the war on terror IMO is unrelated. Yes it is a war, but you seem to ignore the fact that America gets millions if not billions of dollars on wars because they invest a lot of money into the army/navy/air force.

Seeing as xyz is 14 and not even a U.S. citizen, I wouldn't take his opinion seriously.

A large deficit is not necessarily negative for the U.S. or the countries we work with. It's not the same thing as a person being in debt, being a nation we don’t have to pay it back right away and it also helps to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

how can lowering taxes make more money?

how can lowering taxes make more money?

hyperinflation?

Probably. It makes no sense but that's probably how it happened.

well talking about the war on terror IMO is unrelated. Yes it is a war, but you seem to ignore the fact that America gets millions if not billions of dollars on wars because they invest a lot of money into the army/navy/air force.

Dude, you know jack **** about economy and wars. Please stop talking about them. Lowering taxes raises money because it encourages people to spend more money. Thus they are reinvesting in the American economy.

I'll just stay out of this one.

Ya know who I think is going to be the next president?

ME BABY, ME!

Dude, you know jack **** about economy and wars. Please stop talking about them. Lowering taxes raises money because it encourages people to spend more money. Thus they are reinvesting in the American economy.

people wont spend more money than they have... lowering taxes isn't a sure fire way of increasing money, it's just a long process, and if taxes raise again later, people will stop spending as much, or even start to buy cheap imported products, rather than being fully supportive of the american economy. It wont raise as much money as raising taxes would, but it's a lot more crowd pleasing.

people wont spend more money than they have... lowering taxes isn't a sure fire way of increasing money, it's just a long process, and if taxes raise again later, people will stop spending as much, or even start to buy cheap imported products, rather than being fully supportive of the american economy. It wont raise as much money as raising taxes would, but it's a lot more crowd pleasing.

I don't know why im arguing this with you. You are a 16 year old kid who hasn't taken a single economics class. Of course its not a sure fire way to make money but its the republican way to make money and raising taxes is the democratic way to make money.

the only shop americans go to is wal to wal mart.

the only shop americans go to is wal to wal mart.
No, but the avarage majority of Americans shop at Wall-Mart, not all. I for one, don't, even though my family is dirt poor.

http://www.brianedwards.co.uk/b3ta/bushfinger.gif

I don't know why im arguing this with you. You are a 16 year old kid who hasn't taken a single economics class. Of course its not a sure fire way to make money but its the republican way to make money and raising taxes is the democratic way to make money.

And how old are you? Why come to a forum full of kids?

The thing is, what i said was right. You've not contradicted anything i've said... Tell me where i'm wrong. And yes, i have taken economics. It's part of the british learning system.

And how old are you? Why come to a forum full of kids?

The thing is, what i said was right. You've not contradicted anything i've said... Tell me where i'm wrong. And yes, i have taken economics. It's part of the british learning system.
It's not full of kids. I came here back when I was in high school, it had some pretty cool videos and fun games that I could access while at class. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say you were right.

I also apologize that the British education system teaches poor economics classes.

Edit: I kind of see what you are talking about. But you are still sadly not right. There is no best way toe generate money by either raising or lowering taxes. It all depends on where the economy is at, at the time of raising or lowering to make a best judgment. Raising taxes doesn't generate near enough revenue as a influx in spending does. You have no idea how the American taxing system works, but you still want to debate it. It's like when the government re-evaluates the percentages of interest on home equity loans. They lower the rate and people go out and get loans and spend money, which causes re-investing in the economy. They raise it when they want people to save their money. Same thing goes for taxes. If you took economics you would know there are two theories, and its really a matter of personal bias, but there is a right and wrong time for either.

It's not full of kids. I came here back when I was in high school, it had some pretty cool videos and fun games that I could access while at class. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say you were right.

I also apologize that the British education system teaches poor economics classes.

First, It is full of kids.

Second, If i'm wrong, prove me wrong.

edit: How old are you, by the way?

First, It is full of kids.

Second, If i'm wrong, prove me wrong.

edit: How old are you, by the way?

Re-read my post. I don't want to post my age, it's not important and Ive already mentioned it once on this board. The person I communicate most with is HeyYou who at least act's like the adult and has the mental fortitude of one. Ryu Nacho occasionally falls in this category, and I'm sure kewmat is a cool guy (for other reasons).

Re-read my post. I don't want to post my age, it's not important and Ive already mentioned it once on this board. The person I communicate most with is HeyYou who at least act's like the adult and has the mental fortitude of one. Ryu Nacho occasionally falls in this category, and I'm sure kewmat is a cool guy (for other reasons).

I could have my age kept undisclosed, yet you still attack it, while not allowing to have your own age be criticised. Just becuase what i said about the taxes thing might not happen, doesn't mean it wont or can't. I'm still only 16, as you said, and although you're probably correct about what you said, you still didn't directly contradict anything i said, merely stated "it depends when". Don't critisise what i've learnt about economy anyway; it wasn't a chosen subject, and it was most definately toned down from what you've probably learnt, as it was being taught to 14 year olds.

Edit: I kind of see what you are talking about. But you are still sadly not right. There is no best way toe generate money by either raising or lowering taxes. It all depends on where the economy is at, at the time of raising or lowering to make a best judgment. Raising taxes doesn't generate near enough revenue as a influx in spending does. You have no idea how the American taxing system works, but you still want to debate it. It's like when the government re-evaluates the percentages of interest on home equity loans. They lower the rate and people go out and get loans and spend money, which causes re-investing in the economy. They raise it when they want people to save their money. Same thing goes for taxes. If you took economics you would know there are two theories, and its really a matter of personal bias, but there is a right and wrong time for either.

I could have my age kept undisclosed, yet you still attack it, while not allowing to have your own age be criticised. Just becuase what i said about the taxes thing might not happen, doesn't mean it wont or can't. I'm still only 16, as you said, and although you're probably correct about what you said, you still didn't directly contradict anything i said, merely stated "it depends when". Don't critisise what i've learnt about economy anyway; it wasn't a chosen subject, and it was most definately toned down from what you've probably learnt, as it was being taught to 14 year olds.

I don't attack your age. Age is a barrier and always will be... when you get older you will understand this. But because of my age, I have been through the education system longer than you have. I also have seen things you haven't seen. Ive been able to experience things you haven't experienced. All you need to know is I'm in college. Also you didn't say it "depends when", all you said was lowering taxes is a bad way to generate money because taxes will be raised again. You were incorrect in that idea and I corrected you.

I don't attack your age. Age is a barrier and always will be... when you get older you will understand this. But because of my age, I have been through the education system longer than you have. I also have seen things you haven't seen. Ive been able to experience things you haven't experienced. All you need to know is I'm in college. Also you didn't say it "depends when", all you said was lowering taxes is a bad way to generate money because taxes will be raised again. You were incorrect in that idea and I corrected you.

yes. you did correct me, but i wasn't completely wrong. i left out a detail.

And i already understand that age is a barrier. But it's not just one way. I feel that i can sometimes get pretty narrow minded, and although i'm willing to learn, i don't change my mind without a good reason, which is why i argue in order to find the truth. I think that "you grumpy old grownups" are also sometimes too unwilling to take what i say seriously. It's frustrating, i must admit, when i'm labled as a stupid child because other people who don't have the same understanding of things that i do. I think that that the proportion of people that do have this understanding increases over age, but it's not limited by age. Some kids limit the connection, by being unwilling to learn or are naive, and some adults do, by being patronising or underestimating some youthes. I also think that it's hard to tell the difference between who's on 'our (mine and your)' level and who's not, and it's easy to just class all kids as being stupid (which i sometimes do with younger kids than me, which is a bit hypocritical, but natural, i suppose). I'm learning all the time. We all are. I've learnt a lot about how people think in particular, and i hope that i've let you see a bit of what it's all about. The problem for me, is when i'm in this forum environment, it's hard to talk intellectually, as everything gets drowned out by the immature insults flying around, and the 'natural kid' in me sometimes gets out in my posts. I get a high of making good arguments, but it's useless here when nobody really understands what i'm saying fully.

I think terrelbot's 13 or below

I think terrelbot's 13 or below

Hey man, whatever you want to think. I really don't care.

then why did you reply if you don't care terrelbot?

terrelbot is like 22. Acts like a 13 year old though.

We should re elect ronald regan. Who would mess with america if we had a dead president? no one

the only shop americans go to is wal to wal mart.
It's better than buying your imported tea, and buying from your imported British shop goods.

I'M GOING TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT!

I'M GOING TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT!
No, now shut up.

MrNapalm is just jealous that I wouldn't date him. Be careful though... hes been trying to hack my aim account for months being the bad *** that he is and all.

I think that Hilary Clinton is going to be the next president. She's smarter than her husband, but she's not as good as a talker as Bill.

If I ever became Pres, my first order of business would probably be to have a drinking party with all the other world leaders. :P
I bags being prime minister of Australia so I can come to that party, we all know there is no party without me I am the party

I'll take China then.

I'll take China then.
nah take new zealand they eat fish and chips

I'm chinese thats why.

Then I shall be PM of the UK. With my superior wit and leadership, the party'll never end!

I won't be voting at all. Our votes don't matter. >_<
You're one of the ones who put a bad taste in my mouth.

I get Mexico!!!


...nobody cares about Mexico :( **cries**

*gives Mexico £300,000*

*gives Mexico £300,000*
WOO! We're rich!

now you can join the party, and smuggle us some illegal drugs and fireworks! :D but keep it a secret

I get Mexico!!!


...nobody cares about Mexico :( **cries**
If Australia had money to spare I would give it to you but I have to buy lots of stuff

No, now shut up.
I SAID SOMETHING REALLY STUPID AND RACIST AND SO I GOT MY POST DELETED!!!

I AM GOING TO RULE THE WORLD WHEN I'M PRESIDENT! I'M GOING TO KILL ALL OF THE JEWS BECAUSE IT'S THEIR FAULT. AND, ALSO ALL OF THE BLACK RAPPER WANNA BE'S AND HIP HOP DOUSCHE BAG FAGS.
Pr0n, you are less than one post away from getting banned.

:eek: quick pr0n post! Make fun of asians, gays and blacks! :D No-one'll mind. :D

I'll take Japan because it's so technologically advanced in terms of new hi-tech stuff

:beer:

:beer:

And what does that have to do with the next President?

nothing, the UN is having a party atm.

But for next pres I'd say Hillary Clinton, with Kerry, Gore (maybe), Wesley Clark and Barack Obama with other jobs in the white house.

nothing, the UN is having a party atm.

But for next pres I'd say Hillary Clinton, with Kerry, Gore (maybe), Wesley Clark and Barack Obama with other jobs in the white house.

Show's how little you know about american polotics.

riiiiiiight.

I'll take Japan because it's so technologically advanced in terms of new hi-tech stuff

but teh chicks are teh ugleh!~!!1 awwsz with teh slitz for eysz and ****.

riiiiiiight.
He is right.

im wit napalm - democrats

nah take new zealand they eat fish and chips
true. But I'll eat all the fish and chips here before you can take over!
==============================
GORGE BUSH SUKS HERES PROOF!!!!:

http://abs.gprime.net/chart.gif
==============================
Afghanistan got its *** kicked
Iraq got its *** kicked
Iran's about to get its *** kicked

Surely this could be a sign for North Korea to not start WW3 so soon....

I'll take Japan because it's so technologically advanced in terms of new hi-tech stuffJapan does nothing besides make cars, playstations and steel.

And Sushi!

Japan does nothing besides make cars, playstations and steel.
and killing whales

And dancing robots.

I love how everybody from foreign countries pretends they know everything about American politics.

I love how the Yanks like to think they know everything about the rest of the world

I don't know the first thing about American politics, but I do know it has resulted in Mr Bush being voted in twice so it must be rather crap

==============================
Off topic but
http://picardlovescakesong.ytmnd.com/

That's meant to be in the YTMND thread.