Who is the most powerful person in the world?

[Almighty Colin]

Your thoughts?

[Nickatilynx]

If you found out who it was , you'd probably be dead. ;-)))

[Diamond Jim]

Nah, I wouldn't kill him...

[dig420]

I would say Bill Gates can probably effect more change with the stroke of a pen than anyone else in the world right now.

[Bishop]

HU JINTAO - President of China.

China - 3rd largest country by land mass, largest population, communist(minus Hong Kong), probably the worlds fastest growing economy, and NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

[Bishop]

What do you think Colin? Who do you believe is the most powerful person in the world?

[Hooper]

in the world huh?

tough call. i'd lean towards the pope only because he has so much influence on a large # of people's emotions and pesronal beliefs.. and those arent logical.

[masterp74]

some russian guy

[Vick]

Personally - me

I decide my fate and am end responsible for the effects

Beyond my sphere of influence - the obvious choice GW Bush

[clemsontiger]

I would have to say Queen Elizabeth II. Even though she does not use it to its full potential, she probably has the most power of a single individual in the world. She can wage war and make laws without consulting another form of government. She does not need a second opinion from any other individual.

[Biggy]

Greenspan.

[Peaches]

Originally posted by clemsontiger@Mar 8 2004, 11:01 PM
I would have to say Queen Elizabeth II. Even though she does not use it to its full potential, she probably has the most power of a single individual in the world. She can wage war and make laws without consulting another form of government. She does not need a second opinion from any other individual.
What about the Prime Minister, Parliament, etc.? Granted it's been a while since I studied any kind of history (and I probably skipped most of the classes any way), but I don't recall her or any other member of royalty having omnipotent power these days. :unsure:

I'm going to agree with Vick and vote Vick and GWB. :)

[sharky]

Originally posted by Peaches+Mar 8 2004, 10:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Mar 8 2004, 10:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--clemsontiger@Mar 8 2004, 11:01 PM
I would have to say Queen Elizabeth II. Even though she does not use it to its full potential, she probably has the most power of a single individual in the world. She can wage war and make laws without consulting another form of government. She does not need a second opinion from any other individual.
What about the Prime Minister, Parliament, etc.? Granted it's been a while since I studied any kind of history (and I probably skipped most of the classes any way), but I don't recall her or any other member of royalty having omnipotent power these days. :unsure:

I'm going to agree with Vick and vote Vick and GWB. :)[/b][/quote]
Geez mom. You are so critical!

:moon:

[Winetalk.com]

for me it's Boca's mayor.
;-)))

[TeenGodFather]

Depends, in what sense.
Economical point of view most like monsieur Gates, or some underground arab-sheik who secretly controls oil prices alone.. points gun at opec leaders heads... :P
Militarily issues are harder. Any nutcase with a nuke is someone who should be taken seriously.

[David Duke]

GOD is!!!

Accept Jesus Christ and repent your evil ways.

[JR]

Originally posted by David Duke@Mar 8 2004, 10:11 PM
GOD is!!!

Accept Jesus Christ and repent your evil ways.
exactly.

i can't imagine what must be running through the minds of you cocksuckers that blinds you from the fact that God be the head pimp up in this muthafucker

[Vick]

Originally posted by David Duke@Mar 9 2004, 01:11 AM
GOD is!!!

Accept Jesus Christ and repent your evil ways.
Warning - Rude post while intoxicated
Feel free to skip if easily offended




David Duke - is your christ was really cute ....

.... would you consider having sex with him?

Honestly?


and would you tape it and sell it on the 'net for $$$?

[JR]

If God is all powerful, could he shoot a girl/girl scene that was so hot that even he could not resist jerking off to it?



Last edited by JR at Mar 8 2004, 11:43 PM

[el pres]

Originally posted by clemsontiger@Mar 8 2004, 10:01 PM
I would have to say Queen Elizabeth II. Even though she does not use it to its full potential, she probably has the most power of a single individual in the world. She can wage war and make laws without consulting another form of government. She does not need a second opinion from any other individual.
No she cant.

She has no real power and everything has to be agreed by parlament.

She's there so that Americans and Japanese
can take photos outside her house, :biglaugh:

[Dravyk]

The head of the Illuminati, of course. :rolleyes:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by TeenGodFather@Mar 8 2004, 11:07 PM
Depends, in what sense.
Economical point of view most like monsieur Gates, or some underground arab-sheik who secretly controls oil prices alone.. points gun at opec leaders heads... :P
Militarily issues are harder. Any nutcase with a nuke is someone who should be taken seriously.
How about Soros on the economic side?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by TeenGodFather@Mar 8 2004, 11:07 PM
Any nutcase with a nuke is someone who should be taken seriously.
Uhh , that would be George Bush.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Bishop@Mar 8 2004, 08:59 PM
What do you think Colin? Who do you believe is the most powerful person in the world?
All of the above.

[chodadog]

Originally posted by clemsontiger@Mar 8 2004, 07:01 PM
I would have to say Queen Elizabeth II. Even though she does not use it to its full potential, she probably has the most power of a single individual in the world. She can wage war and make laws without consulting another form of government. She does not need a second opinion from any other individual.
Her duties are more ceremonial than anything. There's no doubt that she has a fair bit of influence on the government, especially in the house of lords, but the power of the royal family is not what it once was, thankfully.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Colin+Mar 9 2004, 02:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 9 2004, 02:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--TeenGodFather@Mar 8 2004, 11:07 PM
Any nutcase with a nuke is someone who should be taken seriously.
Uhh , that would be George Bush.[/b][/quote]
ahahaahahahahaha!

Didn't expect that from you Colin.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Mar 9 2004, 06:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Mar 9 2004, 06:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Mar 9 2004, 02:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--TeenGodFather@Mar 8 2004, 11:07 PM
Any nutcase with a nuke is someone who should be taken seriously.
Uhh , that would be George Bush.
ahahaahahahahaha!

Didn't expect that from you Colin.[/b][/quote]
We're voting Bush out now. He has served his purpose - like Churchill during World War II who went on to lose the '45 election to Atlee.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Colin+Mar 9 2004, 03:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 9 2004, 03:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Joe Sixpack@Mar 9 2004, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by -Colin@Mar 9 2004, 02:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--TeenGodFather@Mar 8 2004, 11:07 PM
Any nutcase with a nuke is someone who should be taken seriously.
Uhh , that would be George Bush.
ahahaahahahahaha!

Didn't expect that from you Colin.
We're voting Bush out now. He has served his purpose - like Churchill during World War II who went on to lose the '45 election to Atlee.[/b][/quote]
Nah... I bet Bush gets re-elected.

Americans love a president who isn't afraid to spend money on war.

[Winetalk.com]

Joe, you know NOTHING about Americans...in this country WALLET is what determines the vote.

[spazlabz]

Originally posted by Dravyk@Mar 9 2004, 02:22 AM
The head of the Illuminati, of course. :rolleyes:
OH MY F&%$KING GAWD!! I was going to say the exact same thing

weird.....................

Oh, and to anyone who is even a moderate conspiracy buff, I believe 100% that the iluminati exist. Just wish they would invite me heh heh


spaz :matey:

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Mar 9 2004, 04:04 AM
Joe, you know NOTHING about Americans...in this country WALLET is what determines the vote.
American love war just as much as money, Surge.

Doesn't matter whether it's a war on Iraq or a war on drugs - Americans aren't happy unless they're kicking the shit out of something they think is bad.

[spazlabz]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Mar 9 2004, 04:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Mar 9 2004, 04:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Mar 9 2004, 04:04 AM
Joe, you know NOTHING about Americans...in this country WALLET is what determines the vote.
American love war just as much as money, Surge.

Doesn't matter whether it's a war on Iraq or a war on drugs - Americans aren't happy unless they're kicking the shit out of something they think is bad.[/b][/quote]
shut up! or we'll kick the shit out of YOU!!


j/k :yowsa:


spaz :matey:

[Winetalk.com]

true.
but...Americans do NOT like paying for it, and the bill for it is coming NOW.

we'll see, should be one of the most interesting elections and choices made in recent history

[Winetalk.com]

this is the MOST powerful praise of Australian Army I ever seen in my life:

http://nocomments.com/Turkey01/images/Gallipoli23_20A.JPG

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@Mar 9 2004, 06:58 AM
Nah... I bet Bush gets re-elected.

Americans love a president who isn't afraid to spend money on war.
I wouldn't bet either way in March.

1. There are still many possible world events to be played out.

2. There are still many internal questions for most people (state of the economy) that are ambiguous. Can Bush convince people that the recovery is HIS recovery? Can Kerry convince people that it is not enough of a recovery? So far, I think the Democrats are winning this marketing battle much like they were during the 1992 recovery and election. "It's the economy, stupid!"

3. It remains to be seen who will run a better campaign. Kerry is still putting his together. His choice of running mate could be either a positive or negative factor.

4. Kerry still has to face the trials of the election. Any dirt in his past someone is waiting to unleash at the proper moment?

5. Debates are still ahead (I bet only one. Bush will probably limit it and control the format for his participation - pre-determined questions?).

6. The conventions can be very influential. Some presidential candidates (like Clinton) gained more than 10 points at his convention. Sometimes these bounces can be maintained, sometimes not. The American voter is familar enough with Bush. The Democratic convention will be important. This is when people will really tune in to see what Kerry is all about.
Will they like what they hear?

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Colin+Mar 9 2004, 04:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 9 2004, 04:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Joe Sixpack@Mar 9 2004, 06:58 AM
Nah... I bet Bush gets re-elected.

Americans love a president who isn't afraid to spend money on war.
I wouldn't bet either way in March.

1. There are still many possible world events to be played out.

2. There are still many internal questions for most people (state of the economy) that are ambiguous. Can Bush convince people that the recovery is HIS recovery? Can Kerry convince people that it is not enough of a recovery? So far, I think the Democrats are winning this marketing battle much like they were during the 1992 recovery and election. "It's the economy, stupid!"

3. It remains to be seen who will run a better campaign. Kerry is still putting his together. His choice of running mate could be either a positive or negative factor.

4. Kerry still has to face the trials of the election. Any dirt in his past someone is waiting to unleash at the proper moment?

5. Debates are still ahead (I bet only one. Bush will probably limit it and control the format for his participation - pre-determined questions?).

6. The conventions can be very influential. Some presidential candidates (like Clinton) gained more than 10 points at his convention. Sometimes these bounces can be maintained, sometimes not. The American voter is familar enough with Bush. The Democratic convention will be important. This is when people will really tune in to see what Kerry is all about.
Will they like what they hear?[/b][/quote]
It's all about marketing and that's why Bush will win.

Kerry isn't as marketable as Bush in the current political climate.

Bush kicked Saddam's arse. Americans will remember this at the ballot box and cast their vote accordingly.

Kerry was photographed at an anti-war rally with Hanoi Jane. He doesn't stand a chance.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/images/kerry01.jpg

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp

:D

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Mar 9 2004, 07:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Mar 9 2004, 07:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Mar 9 2004, 04:04 AM
Joe, you know NOTHING about Americans...in this country WALLET is what determines the vote.
American love war just as much as money, Surge.

Doesn't matter whether it's a war on Iraq or a war on drugs - Americans aren't happy unless they're kicking the shit out of something they think is bad.[/b][/quote]
Human nature. Attendance and intensity at the stadiums of the best sports teams is greater on average than at the stadiums of the worst teams. Americans like war because they are good at it. They expect to "win".

At the onset of World War I, huge crowds gathered in the cities of those nations that expected to win the war - and win it quick. This happened in Austria, Germany, Britain, France, and Russia. Many of the men were eager and the the atmosphere in many cities was holiday-like.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@Mar 9 2004, 07:28 AM
It's all about marketing and that's why Bush will win.

Kerry isn't as marketable as Bush in the current political climate.

Bush kicked Saddam's arse. Americans will remember this at the ballot box and cast their vote accordingly.

Kerry was photographed at an anti-war rally with Hanoi Jane. He doesn't stand a chance.
I don't think Bush is very good at marketing himself or his causes. He's somewhat similar to his father in that way - though probably for different reasons. Bush I was humble. He was more capable but less willing to self-promote. His entire life was spent "serving his country". Neither is/was a Ronald Reagan in that regard. Truth is and we all know it, Bush is better off not talking in public at all. Rove is talented though and has the campaign experience of a national election behind him now.

No one really knows how a guy will stand up to a national election. Clinton was relatively unknown going into 1992 and turned out to be great. They had a well-run campaign and great slogans. Bush I was incapable or unwilling to respond. Going into the Republican National Convention the media hit home over and over again that Bush would need the speech of his life to win. He appeared nervous and the speech was nothing special. George W. would probably be even worse in that situation.

War victories are not the ballot box winner people think it is. Churchill lost election at the end of World War II. Bush I couldn't win re-election after an unprecedented 3 day victory in the desert against one of the world's largest armies. He kicked Saddam's ass too. I think Americans are tired of war. For now. We just want to concetrate on the pursuit of happiness - which is of course, the pursuit of money. The American way.

Again though, I have no horse.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Peaches+Mar 8 2004, 07:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Mar 8 2004, 07:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--clemsontiger@Mar 8 2004, 11:01 PM
I would have to say Queen Elizabeth II. Even though she does not use it to its full potential, she probably has the most power of a single individual in the world. She can wage war and make laws without consulting another form of government. She does not need a second opinion from any other individual.
What about the Prime Minister, Parliament, etc.? Granted it's been a while since I studied any kind of history (and I probably skipped most of the classes any way), but I don't recall her or any other member of royalty having omnipotent power these days. :unsure:

I'm going to agree with Vick and vote Vick and GWB. :)[/b][/quote]
Technically he is right.

The Prime Minister is chosen by the Queen.He/She is asked by the Queen to form a Parliament.

All British armed forces are loyal to the Queen. A British Officer holds his/her Commission from the Queen.

ahahahahaha perhaps that is the true mark of power.

Having it , but never using it. ;-))))

[Carrie]

Why, me, of course.
I don't care about which candidate says he's the future... I am *raising* the future.

Moms are the most powerful people in the world.