ELEZIONI PRESIDENZIALI USA 2004 - OFFICIAL MEGATHREAD

[GioFX]

cosa dovrebbe dirmi questo paracleto? che esistevano WMD? dico, non ti sono bastate le ricerche della CIA-FBI? cosa vuoi di più per capire che questa guerra illegittima ha causato migliaia di morti che si potevano evitare?

[tati29268]

Originariamente inviato da GioFX
cosa dovrebbe dirmi questo paracleto? che esistevano WMD? dico, non ti sono bastate le ricerche della CIA-FBI? cosa vuoi di più per capire che questa guerra illegittima ha causato migliaia di morti che si potevano evitare?

ah.. si,le decine di iracheni scannati in coda per arruolarsi,chi li ha scannati?
la CIA?
bucolici,fuori dalla realta...

[jason79]

non so se la domanda è stata già fatta....è possibile seguire i dibattiti tra bush e kerry in tv????(via satellite o via web)

[GioFX]

Originariamente inviato da tati29268
ah.. si,le decine di iracheni scannati in coda per arruolarsi,chi li ha scannati?
la CIA?
bucolici,fuori dalla realta...

Non ho capisto il senso del tuo post... io parlavo delle ricerche delle WMD da parte degli uomini delle squadre speciali e servizi segreti americani, che c'entrano adesso i poliziotti?

Vuoi che parliamo di loro? BENISSIMO... chi lai ha ammazzati? quel terrorismo che, assieme ai ribelli delle diverse parti che ha creato la guerra?

Cosa ha comportato la guerra?

1. Una guerra civile (secondo la CIA)
2. L'instabilità della regione (secondo la CIA)
3. L'insorgenza del terrorismo (secondo la CIA)
4. L'arrivo in Iraq di Al Qaeda, con Al Zarqawi (che, sempre secondo i rapporti della CIA, prima della guerra non aveva 1 sola cellula attiva nel paese)
5. La morte di (al 30/09): 1053 soldati USA, 68 britannici, 19 italiani, 13 polacchi, 11 spagnoli, 8 ucraini, 6 bulgari, 6 canadesi, 2 tailandesi, 2 olandesi, 1 estone, 1 salvadoregno, 1 danese, 1 ungherese, 157 civili occientali, 32 suicidi tra i soldati USA e 19 giornalisti occidentali, nonchè circa 30,000 (stima) soldati iracheni, e un mininmo di 12952 (stima con un massimo di 15000) civili iracheni.
6. Un costo di 137,6 miliardi di dollari (ad oggi).

[GioFX]

Da Nytimes.com:

In Debate on Foreign Policy, Wide Gulf or Splitting Hairs?

By JAMES BENNET

Published: September 30, 2004

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 - It is an axiom of the two presidential campaigns that their candidates offer a stark choice about America's role in the world.

On Thursday night, voters will have their best chance yet to judge that choice when President Bush and Senator John Kerry meet in their first debate, on foreign policy.

"I don't think we've had as clear-cut a difference between two presidential candidates on international issues since 1980," said Richard C. Holbrooke, a former United Nations ambassador and now a top adviser to Mr. Kerry.

There are "clear differences on the biggest priorities facing the American people, first and foremost on the war on terrorism," Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said on Wednesday.

Yet, in the view of some politicians and policy analysts, this race has done little so far to clarify the major issues of foreign policy. "I was a little more hopeful this year that we'd get a robust debate on these issues," said Lee H. Hamilton, the former Democratic representative from Indiana who served as the vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission. "It's just appalling, if you look at what is not being addressed. You confront not just terrorism in the world, but you confront turmoil, chaos."

One reason the candidates have not discussed a wide range of issues is that - for all the talk about stark differences - on many foreign policy subjects, from relations with China to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, the two differ only slightly, if at all.

Even on Iraq, the candidates' sharpest stated differences are retrospective, rather than prospective. Mr. Bush defends the war as central to the struggle against terrorism; Mr. Kerry criticizes it as a diversion. As they look ahead, though, neither man is calling for the immediate departure of American troops; both advocate accelerating the training of Iraqi forces.

Both want to create similar conditions for an American withdrawal; Mr. Kerry argues he will find a way to do that more quickly.

Concerning China, both candidates speak of building a cooperative relationship while promoting internal reform. Susan Rice, another Kerry national security adviser, argued that the candidates had "fundamental differences" on foreign policy, but said that on the specific question of China, "the differences are more of nuance than fundamentals."

On Israel and the Palestinians, both candidates support Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, in building a barrier against West Bank Palestinians and planning to evacuate settlers from the Gaza Strip without a peace agreement.

Sam Nunn, the former Democratic senator from Georgia who is co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which focuses on threats from unconventional weapons, noted that both candidates had called controlling such weapons the No. 1 foreign policy challenge. "But I don't think there's enough discussion," he said.

For example, Mr. Nunn asked, could the United States simultaneously build a strong relationship with Russia to control such weapons and press the Russians to move ahead with internal democratic reform? "If there's a conflict between those two goals," he asked, "which is more important, and how do you deal with it?"

Both men have proposed plans to restrict more countries from producing potential fuel for nuclear weapons. Mr. Kerry has said he would sharply step up a program, which he argues Mr. Bush has underfinanced, to secure nuclear stockpiles in Russia.

Senator Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican, said, "I think both these campaigns have let down this country." He said that the most important issue to address was how "to put back together America's standing in the world."

In modern presidential campaigns, candidates tend to pick foreign policy issues at least as much for what those issues say about them as for what they might have to say about the issues. They marshal policy differences as symbols, as markers of values, judgment or style.

When they debate Iraq, the candidates are clashing over matters of real moment - over whether, for example, the insurgency is growing stronger - but also trying to cement specific images. Call it character versus competence: Mr. Bush wants to present himself as a leader with the courage to go it alone, facing a rival who wavers; Mr. Kerry wants to present himself as wise and prudent, better able to judge threats and enlist allies against them.

In discussing what he described as major differences between the two candidates, Mr. Holbrooke argued that "the core issue is that John Kerry is a real internationalist." He added that from Mr. Bush's speeches, "you could put him right up there with Woodrow Wilson," but that there is no "connection between his speeches and his performance."

White House officials continued to cast the foreign policy debate primarily as a way for Mr. Bush to make his case that Mr. Kerry is not a suitable commander in chief.

"We are a nation that is still at war, and it's important that the president speak with clarity and show resolve,'' Mr. McClellan said. "And that's what this president has done.

"He will talk about his optimistic vision and his resolve and his clear strategy for success. And that stands in stark contrast to Senator Kerry, who has offered pessimism and uncertainty and defeatism during a time of war."

There are substantive reasons for the candidates to emphasize their styles in foreign policy, for it is no easy matter to anticipate what crises will astonish the next administration. Four years ago, during the three debates between Vice President Al Gore and Governor Bush, "terrorism" was mentioned only once - by Mr. Gore.

And even when it comes to approaches, presidents have often found themselves prompted by circumstances to modify or reverse a stance they promoted as candidates. "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building," Mr. Bush declared in 2000.

James B. Steinberg, the director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, argued that the questions of character and policy were entwined this year to a degree they had not been since 1972, during the Vietnam War. "There is a big character issue being debated here," he said. "But people are also really lining up around two very different world views, and two very different responses to 9/11."

Those two worldviews are easily caricatured, with Mr. Bush mocked by Democrats as a trigger-happy loner and Mr. Kerry lampooned by Republicans as wanting permission from the United Nations to protect the United States. Yet behind the cartoons are unmistakable philosophical differences, with application across the range of foreign policy. Mr. Bush has a record of breaking with allies to act in what he perceives as vital American interest; Mr. Kerry is more comfortable operating with consensus.

The debate on Thursday is likely to focus on Iraq. Mr. Bush's advisers have identified what they think is a major vulnerability in Mr. Kerry's arguments: The Democrat, they say, is far more interested in talking about plans to withdraw American troops than in describing how he would stabilize Iraq and bring democracy to the region. They have hinted that Mr. Bush will make that a key point. One senior Bush official called Mr. Kerry's arguments "a slow version of cut and run."

Mr. Kerry has seized on Mr. Bush's admission of a single "miscalculation'' in the post-invasion phase in Iraq, and regularly ticks off other miscalculations that he argues have cost lives and money. His advisers have discussed how long a list Mr. Kerry should present in the debate.

Iraq is also likely to serve as a gateway to other issues. Already Mr. Kerry's claim that Iraq is a diversion has led him to accuse Mr. Bush of neglecting other matters. Speaking at Temple University on Friday, he cited independence from Middle East oil and relations with the Muslim world among those areas of neglect, and he called for debt reduction to support social progress in "the most vulnerable nations."

Mr. Kerry also argued that the Bush administration had failed to address "the nuclear danger" posed by the advancing nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

Some foreign policy analysts argue that Iran has been an accidental beneficiary of the two American-led wars of the last four years, which removed hostile governments in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq. The 160,000 American troops in those two nations are preoccupied, at least for the moment. Oil prices are at record levels, a boon to Iran, and Iran's fundamentalist religious leaders have tightened their hold on power.

"I don't care who wins the election - Bush or Kerry - Iran will come right to the top of the agenda, right under Iraq," said Geoffrey Kemp, director of regional strategic programs at the Nixon Center.

Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry call Iran's nuclear program unacceptable, and both speak of pursuing diplomacy to choke it off. Mr. Kerry says he would also pursue sanctions, though there is little sign that European nations would join that course.

North Korea's nuclear program is more advanced than Iran's; the C.I.A. has warned that North Korea may conduct its first nuclear test before the election. Again, both candidates call for diplomacy. But while Mr. Bush wants to continue the "six nation" talks toward North Korea's disarmament, Mr. Kerry says he would also pursue direct talks with Pyongyang.

Neither man has said what he would do if diplomacy failed.

[GioFX]

Fox News beats all rivals

Tue Sep 28, 6:23 PM ET

Add to My Yahoo! Television - Variety

Pamela McClintock, STAFF

NEW YORK -- For the first time in its history, Fox News Channel beat the combined competition in primetime during the third quarter of 2004, with major headlines of the summer including the national political conventions and a brutal string of hurricanes.



According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News averaged 1.8 million viewers, while CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News averaged a combined total of 1.7 million. The quarter ended Sunday.

CNN came in a distant second, averaging 882,000 viewers, while MSNBC drew 421,000. Headline News averaged 226,000 in primetime, and CNBC attracted a paltry 133,000.

Most of the cable news nets were up significantly vs. Q3 2003 thanks to a busy news cycle. The one exception was CNBC, which was down 13%.

Buoyed by the Olympics and convention coverage, MSNBC saw the most growth in its primetime aud, up a hefty 55%. Fox News came in second in terms of growth, up 39%. CNN was up 19% and Headline News 17%.

In the key news demo, Fox News averaged 405,000 viewers in 25-54, a 44% improvement on the same period in 2003. CNN averaged 195,000 viewers in the demo, up 17%. At 115,000, MSNBC was up 34%.

Headline News averaged 75,000 viewers in the demo, up only 6% from the same frame last year. CNBC improved its performance in the demo, averaging 53,000 viewers, a 36% jump.

Fox News' third-quarter performance further solidified its dominance in the field of cable news, as well as its increasing strength against even the broadcast nets. During the Republican National Convention in late August, Fox News won out over ABC News, CBS News and NBC News, also a first for a cable news net.

Earlier this week, Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Bush (news - web sites) on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" drew a whopping 4.6 million viewers.

Fox News had nine of the 10 top programs during the third quarter, with O'Reilly remaining at No. 1, averaging 2.4 million viewers. The one exception was CNN's "Larry King Live," which was No. 6, averaging 1.3 million viewers.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...eats_all_rivals


Non c'è da stupirsi se la gente risponde così nei sondaggi... se la grande maggioranza degli spettatori vede Faux News solo per i titoloni giaganti ad effetto e la propaganda neocon, è ovvio che finisca per avere una visione totalmente distorta della realtà.

E il bello è che, nel tentativo di riprendere il "fair and balanced" networkd di Murdoch, tutti gli altri stiano sempre più portandosi sugli stessi toni, e quindi più a destra...

[GioFX]

Da http://www.nola.com/newsflash/topsto...st=topstories:

GOP mailing warns liberals will ban bibles

By WILL LESTER
The Associated Press
9/17/2004, 6:22 p.m. CT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November.

The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said Friday that he wasn't aware of the mailing, but said it could be the work of the RNC. "It wouldn't surprise me if we were mailing voters on the issue of same-sex marriage," Gillespie said.

The flier says Republicans have passed laws protecting life, support defining marriage as between a man and a woman and will nominate conservative judges who will "interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."

"The liberal agenda includes removing `under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance," it says.

It does not mention the names of the presidential candidates.

Jim Jordan, a spokesman for American Coming Together, described the mailing as "standard-issue Republican hate-mongering."

Gillespie said same-sex marriage is a legitimate issue in the election. President Bush has proposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Democratic Sen. John Kerry also opposes gay marriage but said a constitutional amendment is going too far.

The RNC also is running radio ads in several states urging people to register to vote.

"There is a line drawn in America today," one ad says. "On one side are the radicals trying to uproot our traditional values and our culture. They're fighting to hijack the institution of marriage, plotting to legalize partial birth abortion, and working to take God out of the pledge of allegiance and force the worst of Hollywood on the rest of America."

"Are you on their side of the line?" the ad asks before making the plea to "support conservative Republican candidates."

[tatrat4d]

http://www.repubblica.it/2004/h/sezi...el/tvduel.html

Gli sfidanti per novanta minuti davanti alle telecamere della Fox
Bush e Kerry match in diretta tv
Frasi taglienti, gaffe in agguato
44 anni di confronti in diretta, tutte le frasi celebri
Come questa: "Nel XX secolo solo guerre democratiche"

WASHINGTON - Novanta minuti di colpi bassi, battute sferzanti, accuse. Il primo dei tre match tra i due sfidanti alla Casa Bianca va in diretta tv alle 21, ora locale. Telecamera della Fox. Un unico moderatore, Jim Lehrer, giornalista della tv pubblica. Più arbitro che moderatore: sono i 90 minuti più adrenalinici di tutta la serata tv. Niente recuperi, né supplementari anche se finisce in parità. E' l'Iraq a tenere banco, a mettere in difficoltà George W.Bush, impantanato in un conflitto che non riesce più a governare, e a impegnare lo sfidante, il candidato democratico alla Casa Bianca John Kerry, che conta sul dibattito per avviare la rimonta. Nei sondaggi Kerry è ancora distante da Bush, ma il faccia a faccia gli offre la più grande audience nella campagna elettorale. Regole ferree per i due sfidanti: non potranno rivolgersi la parola, potranno rispondere solo al moderatore.

In 44 anni di storia di dibattiti, alcune battute sono entrate nel folklore politico. Battute, ma anche gaffe, lapsus, che stendono perché suscitano l'ilarità o smascherano l'incompetenza.

La più celebre fu quella del presidente Gerald Ford, che nel 1976 affermò: "Non c'è alcun dominio sovietico dell'Europa Orientale e mai ci sarà mentre sono alla Casa Bianca". Correva lo stesso anno e il candidato alla vicepresidenza Bob Dole, a una domanda sul Watergate, rispose in modo aggressivo, eccedendo, però, nella misura dell'attacco al partito rivale: "La Seconda guerra mondiale e tutti gli altri grandi conflitti del XX Secolo sono state tutte guerre democratiche".

Nella galleria delle battute cattive George W. Bush, ha già un posto. Nel 2000, disse di Al Gore, suo rivale, che citava una sfilza di cifre: "Sto cominciando a credere che non ha solo inventato Internet, ma ha anche inventato il calcolatorino".

Nel 1984 Ronald Reagan, che cercava la rielezione a 73 anni contro Walter Mondale, più giovane di lui di 16 anni, affrontò così le polemiche sulla sua non più verde età: "Prometto di non sfruttare a fini politici la gioventù e l'inesperienza del mio rivale".

Quattro anni prima, criticato per l'ennesima volta da Jimmy Carter per le sue idee moderate, Ronald Reagan, che sapeva bene come recitare in scena, sbuffò un beffardo e teatrale: "Ecco, ci siamo un'altra volta".

Era il 1988, invece quando il democratico Lloyd Bentsen colpì il rivale repubblicano alla vicepresidenza Dan Quayle (che puntava su alcuni paralleli con JFK): "Senatore, io lo conoscevo bene: lei non è un Jack Kennedy".

Nel 1992 fu Gore, nel dibattito con Quayle, a sferrare un colpo basso al rivale: "Dan, voglio farti una promessa. Se eviterai di paragonare Bush (il padre, ndr) a Harry Truman, io eviterò di paragonarti a Jack Kennedy".

Nel 1996, nel dibattito con l'ex campione di football Jack Kemp, Gore trovò un modo perfido per mettere in risalto la loro differenza di peso specifico: "Jack, se prometti di non raccontare stasera aneddoti sul football, io prometto in cambio di non raccontare le mie allegre storielle su come diminuire il tasso di clorofluorocarburi nell'aria".

Quasi una crisi d'identità invece per l'ammiraglio James Stockdale, vice di Ross Perot, che nel 1992 rispose a una domanda con uno sconcertante: "Chi sono io? Ma cosa ci faccio qui?"

(30 settembre 2004)

[Paracleto]

Originariamente inviato da John Cage
Sei dovuto passare al 1998 per dare una qualche giustificazione da parte dell'onu. Però ti dimentichi che siamo nel 2004 e che l'onu le ispezieni non le ha mai completate.
Suvvia, rinuncia a questa storia e basta. Neanche Bush ormai difende quelle posizioni. Ci manca che lo faccia un italiano. Che sei, un petroliere che deve investire laggiù?

non devo dare "giustificazioni"
ho semplicemente fatto notare che TUTTI in europa erano ragionevolmente convinti che Saddam le armi le avesse e cercasse di svilupparne, ragionevolmente perchè le aveva usate, perchè aveva scienziati che ci lavoravano, eccetera, troppo comodo dire adesso "le armi erano una balla", quando TUTTI continuavano a chiedere tempo

tempo per cosa? se gia sapevate che non c'erano, a cosa serviva il tempo?
semplicemente, tutti pensavano che ci fossero, visti i precedenti


Giofx, se tutta la stampa è di parte e controllata, gli articoli che posti valgono zero.

[GioFX]

Da http://www.theunionleader.com/articl...article=44657:

Why I will vote for John Kerry for President

By JOHN EISENHOWER

HE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.

[Paracleto]

http://www.untoldiraq.org/story/index.cfm

[tatrat4d]

Dalle 03:00 diretta in chiaro su Rai3, Rai News 24 e Sky 24.
Patatine, Coca Cola e Thermos di caffè in perfetto stile Luna Rossa.

[GioFX]

United States of America House of Representatives - Iraq on the Record

www.costofwar.com

www.iraqbodycount.net

[GioFX]

Originariamente inviato da tatrat4d
Dalle 03:00 diretta in chiaro su Rai3, Rai News 24 e Sky 24.
Patatine, Coca Cola e Thermos di caffè in perfetto stile Luna Rossa.

Lo fanno in chiaro? dalle 3.00 alle 4.00? Se mi dai conferma lo registro!

[tatrat4d]

Originariamente inviato da GioFX
Lo fanno in chiaro? dalle 3.00 alle 4.00? Se mi dai conferma lo registro!

Appena letto su corriere.it
Dovrebbe esserci pure una replica domani mattina.

[GioFX]

Originariamente inviato da tatrat4d
Appena letto su corriere.it
Dovrebbe esserci pure una replica domani mattina.

Non credo di riuscire a fare una tirata, domattina devo pure lavorare... tu divertiti anche per me, e non ingozzarti con i popcorn!

[tatrat4d]

Originariamente inviato da GioFX
Non credo di riuscire a fare una tirata, domattina devo pure lavorare... tu divertiti anche per me, e non ingozzarti con i popcorn!

Io ci provo, per una volta vedo di rinverdire i fasti di Cino Ricci e del Golfo di Auraki. Spero poi che tra le 34 pagine di regolamento non sia previsto li ketchup sul pop-corn in nome della par condicio.

[von Clausewitz]

Gio, a meno di sorprese Bush ha già vinto, mettiti il cuore in pace
e se Shwarzeneggher o come accidenti si scrive, riesce nell'impresa di traghettare la California solitamente democratica fra i repubblicani, Kerry rischia un bel cappotto

per cui:

George W. Bush president of the United States of America 2001-2008
Dick Cheney vicepresident of the United States of America 2001-2008

[GioFX]

Originariamente inviato da tatrat4d
Io ci provo, per una volta vedo di rinverdire i fasti di Cino Ricci e del Golfo di Auraki. Spero poi che tra le 34 pagine di regolamento non sia previsto li ketchup sul pop-corn in nome della par condicio.

Mitica America's Cup.. non vedo l'ora che torni, peccato però, la notte era uno spasso con stuzzichini e bibite!

Cmq penso che sarà un bel bordello, quel regolamento è peggio della legge marziale!

Imposto il video e vado... notte tat!

[GioFX]

Originariamente inviato da von Clausewitz
Gio, a meno di sorprese Bush ha già vinto, mettiti il cuore in pace
e se Shwarzeneggher o come accidenti si scrive, riesce nell'impresa di traghettare la California solitamente democratica fra i repubblicani, Kerry rischia un bel cappotto

già, come nel 2000, poi ha "vinto" per una sentenza della Corte Suprema...

ROTFL, la California?!? Guarda che è data stronger democrat, non esiste che voterà per Bush, forse non l'hai capito che l'elezione di Schwarzenegger è stata resa possibile dalla mancanza di avversari degni di questo nome, dalla sua popolarità e dall'appoggio della moglie...

George W. Bush president of the United States of America 2001-2008
Dick Cheney vicepresident of the United States of America 2001-2008

Preferisco che il mondo salti in aria piuttosto che vederlo lentamente collassare a causa di un gruppo di folli neocon iper-reazionari e così immersi nei peggiori legami tra politica ed affari... certo, i loro soci sauditi fanno un gran tifo...