«

[Maikel]

Both sides suck...period

[xndr2181]

I feel there needs to at least more then one person speaking for the americans here on this post. Lets see where to start, Bush does suck, plain and simple. And to be honest, I really don't think he did win the election, that much is obvious. Second, I think what michael moore did is great, you don't even know how many peoples minds he changed about bush. Half this country wasn't even aware of half the stuff in that movie. Second, I really hope Kerry wins the election, he's not the best candidate but he's a heck of a lot better then bush. The funny thing is especially when it comes to gun laws in America it is really ridiculous. I mean, it's true about how it's not a warzone here, but alas compared to europe and other countries it's really out of control. I think and I'm sure a lot of people will jump on me when I say this, that people should be allowed to carry firearms, mainly because even though we get crazy people with guns, that's a given, people are then able to defend themselves from these crazy people with guns. Outside of that, I don't really know how to solve the problem. If we ban guns, as people said, the bad people are still going to get them, so if people are allowed to carry guns then they can defend themselves. So, ya! that's about it.
-Sean

The problem with the guns-controlling: that would NEVER solve the problem. The core of the problem is to find totally elsewhere - people need to be educated from their birth on in ways of ethics, morale and, most importantly, in love to the nature(plants, animals, insects) that surround them. In this time this is not even possible, as no one in any government in the world thinks seriosly to set such education up. It could take 100 years and more before people begin to think all the same around the world and try to make it a better place to live. So it's just utopical thought now, but I believe this is what could solve such problem.

[Stroggy]

sorry to burst your bubble
but since i'm not an american I don't really care all that much about US internal affairs.
I'm a zionist, so I care more about Israel (more so than about Belgium)
In that regard both Kerry and Bush are rather equal.
so in that case, why change?
according to the polls both candidates suck.
on one side we have a man with the unfortunate reputation of being a moron. while on the other side we have a man whose entire campain was based on "not being Bush" and winning 3 purple hearts, and his running mate is a vain 50 year old who'll probably sue the first newspaper that claims he colours his hair.
Whoever wins it'll be with just a few percent... and thats just bad.
Aslong as Israel bennifits its fine by me.

Second, I really hope Kerry wins the election, he's not the best candidate but he's a heck of a lot better then bush.

There are many canditates that are better than them both, you just don't see them because they are not part of the Democrats nor the Republicans. They are as Micheal Moore calls them, "Green". How about Ralph Nader or Diane Templin (yes a Woman)

The funny thing is especially when it comes to gun laws in America it is really ridiculous. I mean, it's true about how it's not a warzone here, but alas compared to europe and other countries it's really out of control.

How many gunshot kills have to be per year to call it a Warzone? 1000? 5000? 10000? The USA have more than that, yep they have MORE kills by Gunshots...Now, try to convince me that That is NOT a Warzone

I would say, that could be called as "hidden warzone".

[Stroggy]

In my opinion the best candidate was Lieberman.
He knew what was good for the US (besides the gaming issue) and he also knew how to talk without saying something dumb or mentioning purple hearts

Knowing how to talk is not the same as doing something right.

[Stroggy]

Knowing how to talk is not the same as doing something right.

well... this is rather random...
care to explain yourself or will you just reply with
"explaining isn't the same as knowing"?

[rallier]

without reading any page after number one, i was extremely interrested on the crossbow section and felt the urge to share my opinion about it.
First a background check for me..... I served in Special Forces (green Berets or L.O.K. in greek) which are a type of mountain commandos.
In my opinion a crossbow is much more lethal in the hands of an expert than a pistol or even a minigun. The reason is because a crossbow is extremely silent and can be also conceivable if it's possible to dismantle it. Also it doesn't leave anything for the police ballistic department to trace especially if the arrow is removed, while bullets and shell are traceable through ballistics checks done prior to selling any gun etc. And such hits are not made by instable and crazy people (mostly due to lack of intelligence and knowledge to carefully carry an assasination plan), therefore such hits, although not popular by gangs due to limited mass firepower as it's a one hit by one hit, it can be used at extreme effect and become very lethal by individual having certain interrests for killing someone.