For or against?

How and why will you vote?

  • I will vote for Bush because I like Bush

    Votes: 5 17.2%
  • I will vote for Kerry because I like Kerry

    Votes: 5 17.2%
  • I will vote for Bush because I don't like Kerry

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • I will vote for Kerry because I don't like Bush

    Votes: 11 37.9%
  • Undecided/Other

    Votes: 5 17.2%

  • Total voters
    29
  • #26
467
1
Kerry wouldn't have murdered Iraqis, put to death unnecessarily 1000 of our troops and wasted billions on a Operation:Murder Iraqis.
No, but he might have burned their villages, or shot them in the back, or opened fire on them with fifty caliber weapons. :)

The rest of your post is just illogical ranting.
 
  • #27
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
What the #^@* is wrong with you ? Why are you trying to make a stupid brawl out of a harmless non-partisan post ?

JohnDubYa said:
Remember this statement? "It's not what's proven that matters. It's what the people think (or know)." Well, what do the people think? And how do you know this? Or was your point (ahem) pointless?
Yes, I remember that statement. It was in response to your demand for proof of this and that. All I'm saying is that the people don't need proof.

Harvard?
Yeah, I always get the Harvard and Yale mixed up. That was a slip of the ... brain.

You have lost track of the topic. We were talking about wretchedness.
Yes...and you possess an absolute scale for that ? Also you said that Bush and Kerry are likeable people...and I objected to that out of the feeling that the country is much more polarized now than before.

From what I now understand, he requested early leave so he could attend an Ivy League institution. Doesn't sound so "wretched" to me. Do you consider such a request wretched? How does it compare to torturing Algerians?
Do you enjoy twisting things like this ? I'm sure nothing Bush does will sound wretched to you. And why do you say "Ivy League Institution" as though that makes him more deserving than someone else who goes to a non-Ivy League Institution ? Everyone knows Bush was a lousy student. I never said his early discharge was by itself a wretched thing.

All I was trying to say is that a large number of people believe that Bush used his father's influence to dodge the draft and the guard. And in their opinions, that might be a wretched thing.

Care to quote me? I don't recall making any such claim.
Care to read ? I never said you made any such claim !

Why don't you just simmer down eh ? I simply suggested that Kerry and Bush were not very likeable, and compared to say, a McCain or Gephardt, these people had relative more wretched pasts.

The primary system ensures that a nominee will be liked by about half the country. In this case, both nominees are detested by a large fraction of the other half.

<I'm just stating my opinion on this here. Please don't attack me again..or ask for proof...it's too tiresome.>
 
Last edited:
  • #28
467
1
I will drop the first two matters, as I think we are going nowhere.

Yes...and you possess an absolute scale for that?
I think we need some understanding about what constitutes wretchedness, especially since I originally compared our two candidates with an apparent Nazi who tortured Algerians. Come on, how can anyone say that ASKING for an early release to attend an Ivy League school compares to anything like that?

Also you said that Bush and Kerry are likeable people...and I objected to that out of the feeling that the country is much more polarized now than before.
I specifically said likeable on a personal level. Both have unpopular politics, but no one that knows either one has ever said (to my knowledge) that they were mean-spirited or nasty. How about "amiable"?


Do you enjoy twisting things like this?
What twist??? What is so twisted about my statement that he asked for an early withdrawal to attend an Ivy League institution? As far as torturing Algerians is concerned, read the previous posts -- that is exactly the benchmark that started this argument.

I'm sure nothing Bush does will sound wretched to you.
I think I have been more than fair with John Kerry as well. I specifically stated he did nothing wretched in his past that would compare with the French Nazi.

And why do you say "Ivy League Institution" as though that makes him more deserving than someone else who goes to a non-Ivy League Institution?
It had nothing to do with whether he should have received the early release, but it has everything to do with his motivation to request the early release. Obviously if Abilene Christian University offered him a chance to attend college, he would be less likely to apply for early release than if Harvard offered.

Everyone knows Bush was a lousy student. I never said his early discharge was by itself a wretched thing.
And being a lousy student has what to do with this issue? Or is that another example of how wretched he was?

Care to read ? I never said you made any such claim !
Oh really? "For someone who seems to know exactly what Kerry was doing and where on some arbitrary day about thirty odd years ago, you seem to know precious little about the Military duty performed by Bush, the man you hold in such high esteem."

Just who is that someone?

The problem is that you have completely lost track of the topic. Originally someone voiced an opinion that one of their candidates was a professed Nazi (or something to that effect) that had killed Algerians. The other had broken laws that would land him in jail if he didn't stay elected. Those are pretty bad apples. I asked how that was possible, and offered Bush and Kerry as two people who did not have particularly wretched pasts. And in return you post every pecadillo that Bush was ever accused of commiting as an example of wretchedness, as if any of them could hope to compare to the acts committed by the French politicians.

So keep the topic in focus, will ya'?
 
  • #29
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
I'm not going to argue this...but in my opinion, among the field of possibilities, Bush and Kerry were likely the pair that raise the strongest negative emotions from the people. I'm not comparing them to the choices the French made. I'm only comparing them to the other choices America could have made. Americans really didn't have any terrible nasties among the possible choices.

I said "For someone who seems to know..."
 
Last edited:
  • #30
467
1
I guess we agreed more than we originally thought.

Americans really didn't have any terrible nasties among the possible choices.
That is all I was trying to say.
 
  • #31
187
0
JohnDubYa said:
No, but he might have burned their villages, or shot them in the back, or opened fire on them with fifty caliber weapons. :)

The rest of your post is just illogical ranting.
Obviously you haven't listened to what Kerrys theory implies during these last few years. It's not perfect, but it isn't promoting an against the world opinion in a murderous go it alone theiving attitude.

Sorry, you're words are being used like Bushes propaganda artists. There main signature is to try to rerepresent the physics of a situation with a antithesis theory (BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PHYSICS OF BUSHES ACTIONS!), which confuses everything and drains the meaning common understanding has established. Freedom is not freedom to murder and steal. Patriotism is not an offensive lifestyle. Defense is not offensive. Intentional collateral damage that is this whole war is TERRORISM! Diplomacy is superior leadership not killing!

Bush doesn't call it like it is and can't handle the truth. The world doesn't want his physically terrorizing obvious example. We want a physicaly diplomatic example running the presidency, not a hotheaded murderer! That alone instills fear in the population! That's his leadership! But that isn't what people want! Guaranteed human instict, human will and superior intelligence will remove him, with diplomacy not by his murdering style. WATCH! You'll see sane Americans in action. We are good people, not stupid and murderous like Bush wants to represent us in Arabia, as well as the fanatics that do exist in Arabia.

In priciple in reaction to 911, Bush is nothing but a petty Hitler and his followers are like the people we just didn't understand in Germany, why did those Germans alow it we ask today? THEY ARE THOSE WHO SUPPORT BUSH! Petty Nazis for a petty Hitler who both took advantage of situations that needed action, but not murderous action. Diplomacy was our answer, not murder. They don't want you to think diplomacy works, that's why they're answer is murder cloaked as defense!

Bush is a coward who acts out in fear. That's why his plan is murder and theft. His terror is a physical example of fear, murder and cowardice and insures a defensive payback (Bush want's you to think Arabs don't have a defensive nature of love for their people and nation. He wants you to think there defense is lunacy and terrorism!)

We of intelligence know humans defends themselves and it's honorable, not a form of insanity (like Bush want's you to think!), so we promote the superior theory which is far more efficient, cooperative and progressive: Diplomacy. This trait is far more prevalent in Kerry's theory and attitude.

Diplomacy will set a superior example, which is a different insurance plan for America. And that's what I see in Kerry. He's the better man for president. You can tell this man will talk to people rather than pull out a gun and kill anybody he don't like. We need a man who has intelligence and knows how to talk, not a proven coward with fear who murders the childlen, mothers and defenders of Iraq for billionaire chump change.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
kat
26
0
omin said:
Recently Cheney accuses Kerry of guaranteeing a terror attack upon America if Kerry makes it in to office.
Really..."guaranteeing"?? Oh MY, could you please give me the in context quote of this...I'm just Duhyyying to read it!
 
  • #33
kat
26
0
omin said:
Obviously you haven't listened to what Kerrys theory implies.
Oh, I must have missed both Kerry's theory and what it implies...could you please fill us in. Oh, and leave out the hyperbole this time, it makes for a far better reading.
 
  • #34
187
0
kat said:
Oh, I must have missed both Kerry's theory and what it implies...could you please fill us in. Oh, and leave out the hyperbole this time, it makes for a far better reading.
It's in the first paragraph. It's diplomatic vs. go it alone. It's general tone which is a natural tone for a leader. That's all I'm looking at. The specifics will condense from that.

Do I want somone who's genral tone is murder or or whos general tone is diplomatic? I trust the intelligent one.

Leave out the hyperbole? Come on, that personality, that's vigor, that's spice! It's fitting for this forum, right?
 
  • #35
467
1
Obviously you haven't listened to what Kerrys theory implies during these last few years. It's not perfect, but it isn't promoting an against the world opinion in a murderous go it alone theiving attitude.

Sorry, you're words are being used like Bushes propaganda artists. There main signature is to try to rerepresent the physics of a situation with a antithesis theory (BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PHYSICS OF BUSHES ACTIONS!),
Again, as long as you just rant I am not going to bother responding to your posts. Physics? Sheeesh!
 

Related Threads for: For or against?

  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
8K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
24K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Top