Obama is not going to win.

The economy is starting to tank. I predict people won't vote for Obama, he talks about change but never really talks about what policies he will change. He doesn't have much of a track record to run on.

People will vote for Clinton, as the economy tanks, just because they desperately want Bill's influence back in the white house.

I predict that the Republican will lose the Presidency after the primaries for the very same reason. Bush has destroyed the Republican's credibility on the economy.

And frankly, I'm kind of in that camp. I think Obama is full of hype and his "change" message is really annoying and disengenous. I don't particularly like Clinton, but I can't stand the Republicans either. So most likely I'll vote for her ... just for Bill's influence.

I don't want anyone who will swear-in with the quran and refuse to say the pledge.

Quote:

---

And frankly, I'm kind of in that camp. I think Obama is full of hype and his "change" message is really annoying and disengenous.

---

I actually believed some of his bipartisan ideas until he proved to be just another lying politician.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

I don't want anyone who will swear-in with the quran and refuse to say the pledge.



I actually believed some of his bipartisan ideas until he proved to be just another lying politician.

---

<sigh>
Obama is not Muslim, he's Christian.

Seriously, you conservatives are just retarded. I really can't stand it anymore.

Edit: Deleted comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

<sigh>
Obama is not Muslim, he's Christian.

Seriously, you conservatives are just retarded. I really can't stand it anymore.

---

That is honestly the first blatant flame I have ever seen on VBF.... Sad.

I don't exactly follow American politics, but no one can mess things up as bad as Bush, so I don't really care who wins.

Bush takes the cake, that's for sure.

Well, the last part of that statement was a flame, but the conservative attack machine has begun spreading the word that Obama is muslim, and System repeated it without ever really explaining whether he was making a joke or was actually confused on the point.

I don't care if I was right or wrong (liberals think they are right, conservatives think they are right.. blah blah). Seeing people get mad on the internet is hilarious... Maybe I'll create more random comments to piss off the whiny members who are easily offended (oh, and I won't need to flame to do it). We need some excitement around here, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfcSmitty

That is honestly the first blatant flame I have ever seen on VBF.... Sad.

---

Actually he has called conservatives "scum" as well. I wear it as a badge of honor. :afrog:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Well, the last part of that statement was a flame, but the conservative attack machine has begun spreading the word that Obama is muslim, and System repeated it without ever really explaining whether he was making a joke or was actually confused on the point.

---

From what I heard it was just some people on the internet spreading rumors about it, and some people think that Hillary and her people have something to do with it, not the "vast right wing conspiracy" :p

X

Some people think....hmmm, I actually can't come up with the most crazy viewpoint I have heard, there have been so many, therefore, insert your own example of 'novel' thinking, and continue..... The point here is which people. Some people also say that this came from the conservative attack machine. Somehow, I don't think the 'some people' are the same in this case, though perhaps that's not true, either. When it comes to internet slander campaigns, the biggest names in that game are conservative (Lee Atwater-Karl Rove are probably the Hall of Fame nominees), but that's not to say that they have a monopoly. Still, none are demonstrably better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

I don't want anyone who will swear-in with the quran

---

Regardless of the innacurracy of applying this to Obama, which has already been covered.... are you okay with them swearing in on the bible? If so, isn't that a bit hypocritical. i.e. In your view anyone can become president of the USA, as long as they are Christian.... given that approx 25% of the country are not Christian, doesn't that stink of religous intollerence*?

*Or are you one of these hopelessly misinformed people who think that Muslim=Terrorist?

Actually, it means he'll vote for anybody who knows what a bible is and knows how to swear. I could add a witty comment after that, but there really isn't any need, is there?

Australia already has minority religious groups that try to change our culture and our way of life - and that's when they are not elected.

There is no way I'd vote for candidates from minority religious groups for fear of the influence they will have on my country - not theirs.

Are you aborigine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SurfDemon

Regardless of the innacurracy of applying this to Obama, which has already been covered.... are you okay with them swearing in on the bible? If so, isn't that a bit hypocritical. i.e. In your view anyone can become president of the USA, as long as they are Christian.... given that approx 25% of the country are not Christian, doesn't that stink of religous intollerence*?

*Or are you one of these hopelessly misinformed people who think that Muslim=Terrorist?

---

So what if I don't want a muslim president? You liberals bash any candidate to death that are Christian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Some people think....hmmm, I actually can't come up with the most crazy viewpoint I have heard, there have been so many, therefore, insert your own example of 'novel' thinking, and continue..... The point here is which people. Some people also say that this came from the conservative attack machine. Somehow, I don't think the 'some people' are the same in this case, though perhaps that's not true, either. When it comes to internet slander campaigns, the biggest names in that game are conservative (Lee Atwater-Karl Rove are probably the Hall of Fame nominees), but that's not to say that they have a monopoly. Still, none are demonstrably better.

---

Wow so you think its "crazy" that political opponents dig up dirt on each other and spread rumors about their rivals? Talk about not having any understanding as to how the political system works in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). The Clintons play the game the best I've seen in a long while, thinking that they couldn’t have possibly started this rumor is just plain naive if you ask me.

X

After watching the debate, I wouldn't put anything past Clinton. I couldn't believe how nasty she got!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

So what if I don't want a muslim president? You liberals bash any candidate to death that are Christian.

---

First point: I'm not a liberal.

Secondly: Yes, it concerns me that you do not want someone based only on their religon, regardless of how good their policies are. You are showing yourself up as a bigot. I grew up with people like you who classified people based on what religon they where...... to be honest, it disgusts me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SurfDemon

First point: I'm not a liberal.

Secondly: Yes, it concerns me that you do not want someone based only on their religon, regardless of how good their policies are. You are showing yourself up as a bigot. I grew up with people like you who classified people based on what religon they where...... to be honest, it disgusts me.

---

You've missed my point. There are a lot of people on this forum who like I said, bash Christian candidates to death because of the influence they think they will have. What's the difference in me being worried about a muslim candidates influence and other's being worried about the influence a Christian might have?

Foxer made a comment that he wouldn't vote for any candidate form a minority religous group. Do you consider him a bigot? (I don't, but it would be hypocrital for you to say no).

So please tell me why others can express their fear of Christian candidates and the influence they think they will have, and I can't express the fears I have of other groups I think will have a negative influence?

If you are disgusted by classifications, then you should watch doing so yourself.

Quote:

---

Foxer made a comment that he wouldn't vote for any candidate form a minority religous group. Do you consider him a bigot? (I don't, but it would be hypocrital for you to say no).

---

Yes, if thats his/hers only criteria for not voting for someone. Then how can you argue that its not bigotry?

Quote:

---

So please tell me why others can express their fear of Christian candidates and the influence they think they will have, and I can't express the fears I have of other groups I think will have a negative influence?

---

Actually, I am disgusted by anyone who wouldn't vote for a candidate because they are Christian. That too is bigotry.

Now, (in my view) it okay to not vote for a Muslim candidate because they are actively promoting or relying on Allah, the same way that it is okay not to vote for a Chrsitian candidate because they are actively promoting or relying on Jesus to guide them.... But that is totally different from not voting for a candidate just because of their religon.

What if there was a fantastic candidate, with great policies, who just so happened to be Muslim, though he didn't mention it much and it certainly didn't have any effect on the decisions he made in office. His opponent (in this hypothetical situation) is a bumbling idiot, corrupt as hell, who openly promotes Christianity and makes no bones about it that he seeks divine guidance on policy matters, rather than judging the facts....... are you honestly saying that you would vote for the Christian candidate over the Muslim one.... just because of their religon????

Quote:

---

are you honestly saying that you would vote for the Christian candidate over the Muslim one.... just because of their religon????

---

No, but read my next response.

Quote:

---

Now, (in my view) it okay to not vote for a Muslim candidate because they are actively promoting or relying on Allah, the same way that it is okay not to vote for a Chrsitian candidate because they are actively promoting or relying on Jesus to guide them.... But that is totally different from not voting for a candidate just because of their religon.

---

This is what I'm talking about... But I do think a truly religous person will always let their religion influence their decisions, values, etc.

Quote:

---

are you honestly saying that you would vote for the Christian candidate over the Muslim one.... just because of their religon????

---

No and I'm only bringing up the issue with Christians to show you that most of the people bashing me because of what I said are in fact hypocrites (after all, comments they've made against Christians in the past extend far beyond what I've said). And remember, I'm only bringing up the Christian issue as an example. The liberals on this forum astound me at how they label people and don't consider some of their own views to fall under that such label.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

I don't care if I was right or wrong (liberals think they are right, conservatives think they are right.. blah blah). Seeing people get mad on the internet is hilarious... Maybe I'll create more random comments to piss off the whiny members who are easily offended (oh, and I won't need to flame to do it). We need some excitement around here, right?

---

Typical of a conservative, they really don't care about the facts. If it feels right, they don't question it. It's the same sympton of ultra liberals as well.

At any rate, I'm not mad as much as I'm astounded by how often, many conservatives will take ridiculous rumours as fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

The liberals on this forum astound me at how they label people ......

---

:) When you label people liberal, what do you actually mean.

You thought I was a liberal..... yet I doubt if I can be so easily classified. I'm not a conservative/republican either as I'm not entirely sure what these labels mean, and how you can pigeon hole people into one of only two camps..

I'm an ex-soldier, I was 100% behind the Falklands and First Gulf Wars, strongly believing that a good war is required every now and then for the right reasons. I strongly, strongly believe in a free economy, and think that the bulk of welfare should be handed out in the form of food stamps (not redeemable for booze or anything else).

I also strongly believe in free health care for all, that the second gulf war was a stupid move, that destabilised the world, and that protectionism in industry is a false economy.

I do dislike leaders who invoke gods name as part of their rehtoric, I have no problem with deeply religous leaders who don't. I'm not convinced global warming is because of the green house gases, but I do think it's daft not to be trying to control the gases we pump into the atmosphere. I absolutely hate racial discrimination, especially "positive discrimination" and think the Oprah Winfrey is one of the biggest racists on the planet....... I think Bush is an idiot.... and can't believe it's taken you guys so long to work it out... the rest of the world knew straight after 9/11.

I think that terrorists should be given no quarter, but don't think that you can label 1 billion people as terrorists because they are Muslims......

I drink copious amounts of beer, play rugby, and piss in the street. I swear profusely (when not at home), yet I dote on my three young daughters.

So, where do I fit in with your labels of liberals and conservatives....?

Am I limp wristed, tree hugging liberal or a war mongering conservative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

Wow so you think its "crazy" that political opponents dig up dirt on each other and spread rumors about their rivals? Talk about not having any understanding as to how the political system works in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). The Clintons play the game the best I've seen in a long while, thinking that they couldn’t have possibly started this rumor is just plain naive if you ask me.

X

---

I know very well how the system works, but it has only been working the way it currently works for a very short time. The use of third party rumor spreading to slander the reputation of a candidate has only been around for about twenty years. Prior to that time, what was considered a negative ad would be incredibly lame by today's standards. In general, this new trend of "ends justify the means" politics has been attributed to Lee Atwater, though he repented of where he had taken politics just before he died. There is no example of dems using that tool as effectively as Karl Rove (actually, I know of no example of anybody using the third party rumor campaign as effectively as Rove), but that means little, as Rove has only been active for a relatively short time. There's plenty of time to learn.

However, the whole concept is highly detrimental to the US in general. Once somebody gets elected, they have to work with both parties. We really haven't seen true partisan politics yet, as bad as it has gotten at times. If those who get elected feel that there is no limit on how they twist the truth as long as they win, then we will all lose, because compromise ends up being equated with surrender, a phenomenon we are beginning to see in Congress these days.

As for Obama's faith, there's not much to be said. You believe it was Clinton, I've heard pundits reporting that it is conservative talk radio that is the source. Which one is right? It doesn't sound like either of us has any proof. As far as I can see, the only reason to say that it comes from the conservative side is that they have done it before, whereas Dems have not....yet, that anybody can demonstrate. Not exactly proof of culpability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Are you aborigine?

---

No - but goes to show, they shouldn't have voted for European Christianship!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SurfDemon

:) When you label people liberal, what do you actually mean.

You thought I was a liberal..... yet I doubt if I can be so easily classified. I'm not a conservative/republican either as I'm not entirely sure what these labels mean, and how you can pigeon hole people into one of only two camps..

I'm an ex-soldier, I was 100% behind the Falklands and First Gulf Wars, strongly believing that a good war is required every now and then for the right reasons. I strongly, strongly believe in a free economy, and think that the bulk of welfare should be handed out in the form of food stamps (not redeemable for booze or anything else).

I also strongly believe in free health care for all, that the second gulf war was a stupid move, that destabilised the world, and that protectionism in industry is a false economy.

I do dislike leaders who invoke gods name as part of their rehtoric, I have no problem with deeply religous leaders who don't. I'm not convinced global warming is because of the green house gases, but I do think it's daft not to be trying to control the gases we pump into the atmosphere. I absolutely hate racial discrimination, especially "positive discrimination" and think the Oprah Winfrey is one of the biggest racists on the planet....... I think Bush is an idiot.... and can't believe it's taken you guys so long to work it out... the rest of the world knew straight after 9/11.

I think that terrorists should be given no quarter, but don't think that you can label 1 billion people as terrorists because they are Muslims......

I drink copious amounts of beer, play rugby, and piss in the street. I swear profusely (when not at home), yet I dote on my three young daughters.

So, where do I fit in with your labels of liberals and conservatives....?

Am I limp wristed, tree hugging liberal or a war mongering conservative?

---

Fair enough on your part. You have proven yourself a well spoken individual with a lot of common sense. Shaggy is the only other member I can honestly say that about. The rest are ......

Quote:

---

especially "positive discrimination" and think the Oprah Winfrey is one of the biggest racists on the planet

---

What about Sharpton? He's the one that annoys me to death about racism. I know there's some issues he provides the right stance on, but he seems to go overboard very often and attacking people for the wrong reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

Fair enough on your part. You have proven yourself a well spoken individual with a lot of common sense.

---

Thank you very much. I do enjoy these discussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

What about Sharpton? He's the one that annoys me to death about racism. I know there's some issues he provides the right stance on, but he seems to go overboard very often and attacking people for the wrong reasons.

---

Sharpton gets my blood boiling. Everytime he speaks on a subject it comes down to race, specifically blacks vs. whites. I believe that people like him deliberately try to drive a wedge between the races, to justify their feelings of hatred and injustice.

Quote:

---

We really haven't seen true partisan politics yet, as bad as it has gotten at times.

---

Interestingly, this is one of the underpinning priciples of the British system. It's considered to be the oppositions duty to work against the government of the day - even if they agree with it. The idea is that, if they oppose every motion it will recieve a rigorous debate and analysis. Because the government always has a majority, the motions still get passed, but they've been thoroughly examined first. We call it a 'confrontational' system and it works pretty well on the whole. Of course, there are times when a motion is so clearly in the national interest (particularly when going to war, althought the last Iraq war was something of an exception) that the opposition will back the governement, but that's exceptional.

That's not quite the same as slandering the opposition, of course, but there's a fine tradition of barracking in parliament and it makes things kind of fun. Interestingly, when Cameron took over the Tories he made great play of calling this 'Punch and Judy Politics' and said he wouldn't engage in it. He then promptly started barracking Blair and Brown like a good 'un.

He also said he wouldn't be opposing every issue but would support them when he agreed with the policy. The press kicked up a stink about it and I don't think he's actually agreed with the on anything since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

Fair enough on your part. You have proven yourself a well spoken individual with a lot of common sense. Shaggy is the only other member I can honestly say that about. The rest are ......

---

Thanks.

Quote:

---

What about Sharpton? He's the one that annoys me to death about racism. I know there's some issues he provides the right stance on, but he seems to go overboard very often and attacking people for the wrong reasons.

---

Sharpton has some good things to say, too bad he doesn't say them. Whenever he gets off the soapbox, he shows himself to be a man of original and insightful ideas, like them or not. The problem is that almost nobody ever gets to hear him except when he is up on the box, and then he's parroting a line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I know very well how the system works, but it has only been working the way it currently works for a very short time. The use of third party rumor spreading to slander the reputation of a candidate has only been around for about twenty years. Prior to that time, what was considered a negative ad would be incredibly lame by today's standards. In general, this new trend of "ends justify the means" politics has been attributed to Lee Atwater, though he repented of where he had taken politics just before he died. There is no example of dems using that tool as effectively as Karl Rove (actually, I know of no example of anybody using the third party rumor campaign as effectively as Rove), but that means little, as Rove has only been active for a relatively short time. There's plenty of time to learn.

However, the whole concept is highly detrimental to the US in general. Once somebody gets elected, they have to work with both parties. We really haven't seen true partisan politics yet, as bad as it has gotten at times. If those who get elected feel that there is no limit on how they twist the truth as long as they win, then we will all lose, because compromise ends up being equated with surrender, a phenomenon we are beginning to see in Congress these days.

As for Obama's faith, there's not much to be said. You believe it was Clinton, I've heard pundits reporting that it is conservative talk radio that is the source. Which one is right? It doesn't sound like either of us has any proof. As far as I can see, the only reason to say that it comes from the conservative side is that they have done it before, whereas Dems have not....yet, that anybody can demonstrate. Not exactly proof of culpability.

---

Not sure if you remember Dan Rather and the last election and his false story about Bush and his National Guard service? Seemed like awful perfect timing and an attempt to influence the presidential election. Now if you think Democrats have never done anything like you claim conservatives have done, I got some swamp land in Florida for sale….

As far as the rumors about Obama they came at a time when all polls pointed to Hillary being the nominee by a large margin. What purpose would it serve to waste time in destroying the person who isn’t going to be the nominee anyway; you would think these “conservative hit men” would concentrate on Hillary. Knowing the Clinton’s and their political “expertise” it wouldn’t surprise me in the least that they would want to make sure Hillary got the nomination by taking out the nearest rival.

While no proof can be provided either way, to me it just makes more sense. Now if this was to come out while Obama was the nominee you might have more of a leg to stand on, but even then I think such a rumor could easily come from some other groups.

I can remember reading books where there were plenty of hotly contested presidential campaigns with a lot of name calling. I just did a quick search on the internet to find a few quotes:

• 1800: Jefferson hired a writer named James Callender to attack President Adams. He wrote that John Adams is "a repulsive pedant," a "gross hypocrite," and "a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensiblity of a woman."
• 1876 the opponents of Rutherford B. Hayes spread around a rumor that he had shot his own mother in a fit of rage.
• A Democratic newspaper told voters that Lincoln should not be elected president because he only changed his socks once every 10 days.
• 1828: a Republican pamphlet said Democrat Andrew Jackson was "a gambler, a cock fighter, a slave trader and the husband of a really fat wife," an insult for which he never forgave his opponents.
• 1844: Democrats call Whig candidate Henry Clay on his "supposed baggage train of gambling, dueling, womanizing and "By the Eternal!" swearing." Clay lost.
• 1836: Congressman Davy Crockett accuses candidate Martin Van Buren of secretly wearing women’s clothing: “He is laced up in corsets!”

I just think people think it worse now because of the ability to spread a story across the internet and TV is a lot quicker. The name calling and mud slinging hasn’t changed in American politics, only the ability to deliver that dirt to a greater number of people quicker has changed.

X

True, I hadn't thought of that century. Some of those critisisms may mean something other than what you expect, most notably Davy Crockett's allegation. Corsets were womens clothing, but not exclusively. The early mud slinging with Jefferson is a well known example, though.

Frankly, I except the conservatives have all the ammunition they want for Hillary, and would prefer her to win the nomination. Of all the nominees, she's probably the easiest target.

Dan Rather is an example of the TV media at its finest, which is another reason I don't have a TV. Compared to the swift boat campaign, that was a pretty pathetic attack that started nowhere and went nowhere. To this day, conservatives stand behind the swiftboat attacks, and generally call any evidence contrary to their position a lie. A news media jumping on a false allegation with weak evidence isn't even in the same league. The major news media organizations have done just as bad in non-political situations. Do you remember the security guard whoes life they pretty nearly ruined after the Atlanta Olympics bombing? It's just cut throat media competition, rushing stories out before there really is a story. Maybe it's best that they can just spend their time going after Britney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SurfDemon

:) When you label people liberal, what do you actually mean.

I'm an ex-soldier(so is George), I was 100% behind the Falklands and First Gulf Wars (so was George), strongly believing that a good war is required every now and then for the right reasons. I strongly, strongly believe in a free economy (so does George), and think that the bulk of welfare should be handed out in the form of food stamps (not redeemable for booze or anything else) (George would agree)

I also strongly believe in free health care for all (George would state that contradicts with your immediately previous statement), that the second gulf war was a stupid move,(George disagrees) that destabilised the world(George would argue fanatical Islam was destabilizing the world), and that protectionism in industry is a false economy (George, the-free-trade-evangelist, agrees wholeheartedly).

I do dislike leaders who invoke gods name as part of their rehtoric, I have no problem with deeply religous leaders who don't. I'm not convinced global warming is because of the green house gases, but I do think it's daft not to be trying to control the gases we pump into the atmosphere (sounds like George Bush policy to me). I absolutely hate racial discrimination, especially "positive discrimination" and think the Oprah Winfrey is one of the biggest racists on the planet....... I think Bush is an idiot (George would strongly disagree).... and can't believe it's taken you guys so long to work it out... the rest of the world knew straight after 9/11 (George asks: The rest of the world that gave a solidified 'please do' to the US to take out the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan?).

I think that terrorists should be given no quarter (George agrees), but don't think that you can label 1 billion people as terrorists because they are Muslims...... (George asks if you remember when George asked Americans not lash out at American muslims? )

I drink copious amounts of beer (George says - so did I!), play rugby (George did too), and piss in the street (George doesn't recall). I swear profusely (when not at home),yet I dote on my three young daughters (George has two daughters he dotes).

So, where do I fit in with your labels of liberals and conservatives....?

Am I limp wristed, tree hugging liberal or a war mongering conservative?

---

You're a George Bush.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/..._righthook.gif

LOL! Too funny.

X

:p Good one.

Although, I would have to sum it up with....

Quote:

---

I'm an ex-soldier(so is George)
I'm not even going to touch this, but suffice to say I don't want to be compared to a coward. So -1 Bushlike point

I was 100% behind the Falklands and First Gulf Wars (so was George),
Okay +1 Bushlike point

I strongly, strongly believe in a free economy (so does George),
Then why does he insist on protectionist practices (Canadian Lumber anyone... what about Canadian Beef? - Steel?) So, I gotta say that he only believes in it when it helps the US - So minus another Bushlike point

and think that the bulk of welfare should be handed out in the form of food stamps (not redeemable for booze or anything else) (George would agree)
Plus 1 bushlike point

I also strongly believe in free health care for all (George would state that contradicts with your immediately previous statement),
George couldn't use a word like "contradicts" in a sentance, so minus 1 bushlike point

that the second gulf war was a stupid move,(George disagrees)
Minus another Bushlike point

that destabilised the world(George would argue fanatical Islam was destabilizing the world)
Fanatical Islam doesn't have the power to destabilize the world. It took the might of the US army to do that. Minus another Bushlike point.

, and that protectionism in industry is a false economy (George, the-free-trade-evangelist, agrees wholeheartedly).
Yet, he still insists on "Tariffs" etc. (see above). So minus another Bushlike point :)

I do dislike leaders who invoke gods name as part of their rehtoric, I have no problem with deeply religous leaders who don't.
Mmmm. George seems to invoke Gods name quite a lot doesn't he? Minus another Bushlike point.

I'm not convinced global warming is because of the green house gases, but I do think it's daft not to be trying to control the gases we pump into the atmosphere (sounds like George Bush policy to me).
I'll go with +1 Bushlike point because he doesn't believe in global warming, but minus 1 because he doesn't seem at all prepared to do anything about it (Kyoto anyone?)

I absolutely hate racial discrimination, especially "positive discrimination" and think the Oprah Winfrey is one of the biggest racists on the planet....... I think Bush is an idiot (George would strongly disagree)
Yay minus 1 Bushlike point

.... and can't believe it's taken you guys so long to work it out... the rest of the world knew straight after 9/11 (George asks: The rest of the world that gave a solidified 'please do' to the US to take out the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan?).
Yes, the rest of the world that had sympathy for the US (Note: Not George Bush) after 9/11, and thought that humouring George with a war might help calm him down. So minus 1 Bushlike point

I think that terrorists should be given no quarter (George agrees), but don't think that you can label 1 billion people as terrorists because they are Muslims...... (George asks if you remember when George asked Americans not lash out at American muslims? )
American Muslims..... not any of the others then? So +1 Bushlike point for making an effort, but minus 1 Bushlike point for qualifying it to American Muslims

I drink copious amounts of beer (George says - so did I!),
+1 Bushlike point for that, but -1 Bushlike point, because unlike him, I'm not a quitter!!

play rugby (George did too)
Doh. +1 Bushlike point,

and piss in the street (George doesn't recall).
I swear profusely (when not at home),yet I dote on my three young daughters (George has two daughters he dotes).
+1 Bushlike point, because his daughter appear to be goer's who like to party.

So, where do I fit in with your labels of liberals and conservatives....?

Am I limp wristed, tree hugging liberal or a war mongering conservative?

---

I got -5 on the Bushlike quotient.... which I'm pretty happy with... I just hope that I'm not John Kerry. :)