BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Post Reply
Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Nov 4th at 12:10am 2004


laying your personal opinions of me aside for a moment, i assume that the three things i heard about kerry were true since no one stated otherwise?

no one said i had to give logical reasons, or humane ones, or even realistic ones, i was asked why i thought kerry was evil..

now, since i crawled out on that limb and exposed myself to your ridicule, will someone please tell me why kerry was OK???

i am not asking why he is better than bush either, because you may only think he is the lessor of the two evils as well.. i want to know why he is OK?

[addsig]




Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by gimpinthesink on Thu Nov 4th at 12:47am 2004


I think that anyone that want to run a country is evil eg:

-Maggy Thatcher - Privetised the coal mines as well as other industrys and put milions out of work
-Bush - for attacking Sadam when aparently (i say it in bold cos this source may be as reliable as Blairs) he was told that it would not do anything to help him win the war on terrorism.

those are just a coupple I could think of at the min. [addsig]




Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Leperous on Thu Nov 4th at 12:59am 2004


? quoting Orpheus

now, since i crawled out on that limb and exposed myself to your ridicule, will someone please tell me why kerry was OK???

1) Decent foreign policy- he had the vision that other countries would help more in Iraq, that he'll work more with the Israel/Palestine issue, and basically not to piss off the rest of the world. I imagine this would work out better for all of own safetys instead of bombing foreign countries because "there's a nasty man in charge who we once gave chemical weapons to when we liked him" (in which case, why are North Korea, Sudan, Russia etc. etc. who are s**tting on their own people being ignored?) or scaring the population into submission over some "war against terror" that opens up oh so many horrible precedents for other countries and probably just makes everything worse.

2) Decent energy policy- he's quite keen to develop alternate energy sources, which is such a good idea in so many ways.

3) He supports stem cell research, unlike Bush The Goon who'd rather impose his religious views on the whole world via the UN (which usually he's quite quick to ignore)

4) Edwards seems like a nice chap. Unlike Cheney, who I'm surprised is still around...

5) I'm a bit sketchy on this one, but I think Kerry was quite keen to stop giving such huge tax-cuts to the richest in society... Both of them would be able to handle the economy otherwise, anyway.

I'd go research some more, but it's 1am :/





Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by fishy on Thu Nov 4th at 1:09am 2004


As far as killing someone goes, I believe you only need to convince the jury that you felt your life was in immediate danger of ending.

[addsig]




Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Nov 4th at 1:39am 2004


? quoting Leperous
? quoting Orpheus

now, since i crawled out on that limb and exposed myself to your ridicule, will someone please tell me why kerry was OK???

1) Decent foreign policy- he had the vision that other countries would help more in Iraq, that he'll work more with the Israel/Palestine issue, and basically not to piss off the rest of the world. I imagine this would work out better for all of own safetys instead of bombing foreign countries because "there's a nasty man in charge who we once gave chemical weapons to when we liked him" (in which case, why are North Korea, Sudan, Russia etc. etc. who are s**tting on their own people being ignored?) or scaring the population into submission over some "war against terror" that opens up oh so many horrible precedents for other countries and probably just makes everything worse.

2) Decent energy policy- he's quite keen to develop alternate energy sources, which is such a good idea in so many ways.

3) He supports stem cell research, unlike Bush The Goon who'd rather impose his religious views on the whole world via the UN (which usually he's quite quick to ignore)

4) Edwards seems like a nice chap. Unlike Cheney, who I'm surprised is still around...

5) I'm a bit sketchy on this one, but I think Kerry was quite keen to stop giving such huge tax-cuts to the richest in society... Both of them would be able to handle the economy otherwise, anyway.

I'd go research some more, but it's 1am :/

now, i may be a complete dips**t but, doesn't every presidential candidate make such promises as these? i mean really, could someone win an election and have morals and policies that would be anything but exemplery..

now don't misunderstand, i am not calling you a liar, far be it, but you don't think much of this can happen in just 4 years do you? still lets say his heart was in the right place, but we will never know since he didn't win..

i wish i could remember exactly what bush promised 4 years ago and compare it to what actually occured...

anywho's.. those were good answers, truly, but i still see abortion/pro-choice as pure evil.. it over shadows all other good intentions.. it wouldn't be the first time good intentions went horribly astray..

thanx for the info though.. it was...enlightening.

[addsig]




Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by NotLagur2 on Thu Nov 4th at 1:55am 2004


Kerry supports gay marriage because he is obviously a flame king with John Edwards.

http://kerrylove.ytmnd.com/ <----Proof





Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Spartan on Thu Nov 4th at 2:29am 2004


? quoting NotLagur2

Kerry supports gay marriage because he is obviously a flame king with John Edwards.

http://kerrylove.ytmnd.com/ <----Proof

I am sick and tired of all these redneck Bush supporters flaming Kerry. I would've voted for Bush if I could've voted, but I think Kerry is a smarter and better person. It's just that Bush had slightly better plans. The election is over and we have our president so lets drop these damn presidential threads.





Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by NotLagur2 on Thu Nov 4th at 2:30am 2004


Im not a redneck..But yea, this thread should be locked.



Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by SnarkSephiroth on Thu Nov 4th at 2:37am 2004


I just got to this thread and I would like to address something I've read so far and correct someone.

Posted By half-dude:

Well, looks like Kerry gave up on us. Crap, I better not get drafted to the Iraq war.

thought anyone?

First off, if you even payed any attention about anything having to do with the draft, you would not have said that. Most people so far think that the draft was going to be brought back and people would start getting drafted again like back in Vietnam. Wrong. A while ago, a democrat named Charlie Rengal proposed a bill that would bring back the draft. This bill was so stupid that everytime it was brought to the floor, the house would kill it. In recent news, the republicans brought the bill to the floor once again to kill it once and for all. Democrats then took that information and twisted into a lie. They told everyone that the republicans were bringing back the draft by bringing the bill to the house floor. Wrong again. The republicans were simply trying to get rid of the democratic sponsered bill. As you can probably tell by now, I am republican and pro-bush. So please, before posting something, please do a little research on it.

/2 cents

[addsig]




Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by MisterBister on Thu Nov 4th at 2:50am 2004


Its really interesting too se how you Americans talk about politics and wich issues you seem to be conserned about.
We Swedes see it in a totally different way.
Since Sweden has the highest taxrate in the world the most important issues around our elections is about where to put all the money that the state gets.
Most of the parties goes for better education, healthcare, and so on but there are still very big differences between them in how to achieve these goals.

The moderats, for example, wants to achieve this by boosting the economics and companies so that they can get more money to the state.

The party in charge right now, and has been so for quite a long while, is the the social democrats who cares about the workerclass and are a bit more right than the left guys (the comunists by american standards) but they are allied with them since they are more "red" than "blue".



(offtopic)
I thought it is time that you yankies get some real facts about Sweden instead of going after all the "crap" you hear about us .

First: Sweden is making ALOT of music in all the different styles (deathmetal is only a little part of it). Ive heard that sweden is making the most music per capita in the whole world but i cant confirm that. Personally i dont really need to listen to many bands from other countries since there are so much great stuff from here =).
But there always a backside of everything... Sweden is also the number one bigseller in nazi music in the world. Which is a terribly big shame.

Second: This is not a thing that i am proud of as a swede but i thought you might wanted to know. Sweden is the absolute best country in the world in Counter-strike and has a team that has won almost all the biggest competitions in the world.
I think this is because sweden has put alot of money to let everyone in sweden acces to the internet via broadband, and because of the cold weather of course .

Third: The "heellooo im Inga from sweeedeeeen" bulls**t is totally retarded. Firstly the swedish school is putting alot of effort in teaching us as proper english as possible.
Secondly the name inga is definitly NOT an extremely common name.

Fourth: No matter what you think, there ARE more brunettes here than blondes.

Fifth: THERE ARE NO f**kING POLARBEARS ROAMING THE STREETS!
In fact there are no polar bears in Sweden at all.




Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Spartan on Thu Nov 4th at 2:53am 2004


I don't think the thread should be locked just that we don't make 10 more threads that bitch about Bush getting elected. Both candidates gave America two good choices to choose from. The closeness of the race shows this. We got Bush and posting more threads isn't going to change that.



Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Wild Card on Thu Nov 4th at 2:59am 2004


? quoting Spartan 34
I don't think the thread should be locked just that we don't make 10 more threads that bitch about Bush getting re-elected. Both candidates gave America two bad choices to choose from. The closeness of the race shows this. We got Bush and posting more threads isn't going to change that.

Sorry, had to correct a few spelling mistakes

[addsig]




Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Spartan on Thu Nov 4th at 2:59am 2004


WHAT!? ME KNOW SPILL RONG.



Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Wild Card on Thu Nov 4th at 3:04am 2004


I bet you speak better French then you do type English lol

[addsig]



Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Cassius on Thu Nov 4th at 3:15am 2004


? quoting Wild Card

I bet you speak better French then you do type English lol

Lol spelin arrer





Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Tracer Bullet on Thu Nov 4th at 5:38am 2004


Note: the Rape rate for Canada came from 1990 because there was no value listed for 2000

Oh... I'm sorry? Does that burst the bubble all of you non-Americans have been blowing about how violent we are? Certainly we are not the best in the world, but you cannot make the case that America is a more dangerous place then England because of gun laws. It isn't, for whatever reason, and that's a fact.

I've included Israel because it is the perfect example of zero gun control. Army service is mandatory there, and the soldiers take their guns home with them. Please note that they have the lowest rape and theft rates of the lot. Assault is strikingly high, but 100-1 that is due to terrorism. Canada takes the cake for rape (at least it did in 1990), and the U.S. leads only in violent theft.

[addsig]




Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Crono on Thu Nov 4th at 6:41am 2004


I love how flawed that graph is. But I think the support is needed.

Jeff, I'm not against gun bans. I'm saying they wont have as much of a profound effect as everyone is saying. Think about it: for over 200 years the entire nation has had the right to own guns. I guarantee you creating a law to ban guns (not only wouldn't pass) would force more people to get guns illegally. You have to understand that the people who own guns and are fanatics about them (not to say all gun owners are fanatics) will probably break the law to get their weapon back.

Also, An example of a weapon that has been banned here is the AK-47. That was just an example. You said that the gun is easier to get illegally here because it was legal at some point, so, how would a gun ban make it any different for any other gun? I mean, s**t, it's not like anyone goes around carrying a gun. Even though, you can, legally. However, if any one person became uncomfortable from you doing that, then an officer can remove the gun from you. You wont be arrested because you have a legal right to have that gun. By the way you can't conceal a weapon without a permit. Not that they'd know or anything in most cases.

Anyway my entire point was, you can't change this. I mean s**t, son, it's amendment number TWO. It comes before search and seizure. Technically the only thing more important than it (based on when they wrote what amendment) is freedom of speech. [addsig]




Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Tracer Bullet on Thu Nov 4th at 6:44am 2004


? quoting Crono
I love how flawed that graph is. But I think the support is needed.

How would you suggest it be improved?

[addsig]




Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Cassius on Thu Nov 4th at 6:48am 2004


? quoting Crono
I love how flawed that graph is.

Do continue.





Quote
Re: BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Posted by Crono on Thu Nov 4th at 6:54am 2004


Oh, nothing. It's just there's no confidence interval or anything like that. It seems like the only credible element is that the data is from Interpol taken in 2000 (except Canada's rape amount).

The criminal groups are fine for a general estimate, but it's probably pretty misleading.

It was just a comment. [addsig]





Post Reply