Ace: At this rate its "He hasn't invaded Canada or Mexico yet".

I mean our boder policy is soo weak, Canada really is a haven for terrorists as it is...

The fact is that no-one currently in office bears comparison to Hitler (I think maybe Pol Pot and Pinochet are candidates, but the former is dead and the latter is safe from prosecution at home), but conversely it isn't like the USA doesn't have a history of invading and colonising neighbours. Like Mexico. Or Hawai.

I guess we'll have to wait and see whether Bush ever withdraws from Iraq or not. If he decided to keep Iraq under American rule indefinitely and also were to invade, lets say, North Korea and Iran, how would people feel about comparisons then?

Yes, rather than continuing reading to children after the first tower was hit then disappearing underground for at least 24 hours while the 'brains' of the administration did actual work, he might have done something useful. However, Gore might not have been worse due to the high level of prejudice against Jews in the middle east on account of the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict and the religious status of Gore's running mate Lieberman.

Yes, the press mention this quite a lot. The leadership of John Howard is never spoken of in positive terms, and every 'crackdown on human rights' is reported (such as the police intervention at the screening of that banned film the other day).

What, in as much as the detainees undergo sensory depravation, are to be tried in a military court (i.e. without jury) with the potential of a death sentence in an environment where the prosecution openly intends to keep large sections of evidence secret from the military provided defence and defendants, but make it known to the judges so that they can better consider their verdict.

In other words: whether to kill the detainees or not is a decision that will not be made in a court as anyone would recognise one. Furthermore the average military man's idea of a person worth detaining seems to have been anyone who was sort of Arab looking. In Afghanistan.

He certainly put more police on the streets in order to scare off the minorities (who routinely suffer oppression at the hands of the police force), feeling that Gore had done quite a lot to secure the minority vote.

By the way, there is a story commonly repeated here that the Bush dynasty chose George W rather than Jeb as the one to seek presidential nomination because they decided Jeb wasn't smart enough... is that just anti-american propaganda or is Jeb really really really thick?

Now, for people like Sirocco to whom a conversation along the lines of "isn't this person annoying?" "yes, I don't like his attitude" is much less acceptable than a conversation along the lines of "isn't this person annoying?" "yes, and here is a list of several other people I consider to be annoying in the same way...":

• the UK's foreign secretary David Blunkett is no less of a right wing wannabe dictator than the various members of the Bush administration, having brought in indefinite detainment without trial and a heavily draconian 'anti-terrorism' law, apparently unaware that terrorism has been successfully fought without that law for at least thirty years

• Silvio Berlusconi is probably worse even than Bush as he has a similar attitude towards other areas of the world, but also has an incredible lack of tact and explicitly controls the media in his country

• Jacque Chirac faces trial for corruption as soon as he is out of office

• John Howard I've already touched upon

• Jorg Haider and his freedom party are similarly low end politicians, having paid policemen to reveal files on political opponents, and the man himself being prepared to do business with both Iraq (as was) and Libya - travelling happily to both of them

And these are just off the top of my head...

EDIT:

And this is the result of the USA practice of brainwashing their children (i.e. swearing allegiance to the flag). Would you have had everyone blindly support Nixon also?

The thing with that particular ballot design is that it was approved by the committee, which was represented by Democrats and Republicans alike. So, if there needs to be complaining, then it should have happened right then. The ordering of who goes first always has to do something with what party holds the majority of offices somewhere... but I cannot remember exactly. (Edit: It's based on who's governor.)

As you can see, it had happened before. So, to come back after 4 years and complain about that particular design costing you the election - well, that's a crying shame.

I agree that the staggered design is confusing if you don't pay attention - but then again, so is just about everything else in life if you're in lala land. If you're going to do something, RTFM and look twice before punching away...

s/God/Allah/ ?

Then shame on them. Heh, If I let my frustration get the best of me, I'd never go into work. I really cannot comment on that quote. People have always said politicians are professional crooks.

To me, he does appear to be driven much more by emotion than other people - but I don't think it's because of his religious views. Ie, It's unfair to think he's going to Iraq to "drive out the heathens"; if he were to do that, he'd be better off starting with USA.

From X-G: "s/God/Allah/ ?". That's actually very true with Bush. He's not an "absolutist" when it comes to his religious views. He's very open to other beliefs, including Muslim's.

Whether or not he does things because he believes he's "divinely inspired", I don't know. It's very common phrase to hear "God willed", which really means nothing more than he's content with what happened - win or lose. Some of his rhetoric I think people read too much into. Although, I think it is safe to say he is driven at least partially by his sense of morality.

Way to miss a point, Matthew.

What makes me sick about the whole voting thing was that they threw out those votes that were done incorrectly, but showed the clear intention of the voter. I was shocked AND awed to hear about. badda badda cha-ching

This wasn't the first election where the people voted for one guy, but another become the president. In the 1824 election, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote (why didn't they fix this thing at this point in time?). Andrew Jackson later came back fired up and won the 1828 and the 1832 election.

The person who stole the election from Jackson was none other than John Q Adams, the son of a former president... ooooooh. Seems Q & W have a lot in common.

- Ace

The butterfly ballot - or what yo u call it - is stupid. First I thought only stupid people can punch the wrong spot. But after a second thought I believe it is a question of Gestaltung, how you see figures. People with dyslexia or similar problems might simply not see the whole graphic structure of the ballot as they are supposed to. In Finland we have a very reliable system. You simply draw a number with a pencil on a piece of paper with a circle. Anyone who can do that is very aware of their ability to do that. And anyone who is disabled in some way can get an assistant. And anyone who fails to draw a proper number can get a new vote bill. I believe they still have scanners that read the vote bills, at least in bigger cities. And votes that the scanner discards are counted by hand.

OMG!:P:-/;) I'm from Iowa...that stupid b4574rd!
It doesn't beat teh kids in North Dakota for stupidity (where I lived last year>:(...I think it's all the marijuana...there were a lot of pot-heads::)), in our Geography class, a lot of them insisted there were 56 states...and they thought Canada was "North America" (even though they lived ~1 hour away from Canada!)...and Mexico was "South America"!! The United States wasn't part of North America...we were "Central America"...:-/ Of course, my Geography teacher corrected them (this is 9th grade, though...you should know this stuff)...even though some students said "No, US has 56 states!"...
(Oh yeah...Antarctica is a country, according to the ND geography students.:P):o

Surprisingly enough...the Iowan kids are a lot smarter...! Ah...I'm glad to be out of there...back in Iowa...

Hahahahahaha!;D I'm dumb!...!;D

X-G: what do you mean "that 'He's a leader' is a silly point"? if he wasn't a leader then why would he be elected. he is LEADING the country of course. being a leader is one of the things that makes him a good president.

the only reason people look down on is because he came into office right before a major time in our country's history. and if the united states didn't want him as the president they wouldn't have voted for him. the florida vote was just a stupid ploy because Gore was too stubborn to admit that he lost. it was a fair vote, he knew it, and it still came out against him. bush is far from a terrible president. those who say that really need to rethink. and people who say there is no reason to invade iraq need to rethink too. there have been weapons before, there were still weapons, the weapons have been found. iraq was a threat that needed to be taken care of and bush took care of it. yes, people died .... it's war, people die in wars. and if you say that people didn't have to die in the attack, then think about how many more people would have died if Sadam had used the weapons that he had and those that he would make.

Look, I hate to burst some people's bubbles, but the weapons they had were of the bio/chem type, which would have broken down and become useless after less than half a year. Did he have weapons? Yes. Does he have them now? Hell no, and you are invited to point them out to me. Especially after that "the weapons have been found" comment. He doesn't have them, he didn't use them, no one's found them ... hell, we're not even looking anymore. People died in a pointless war. At least 4 American troops a day are STILL dying because Iraqis keep attacking them. It's really weird; you'd think they'd enjoy being "liberated" ...