Good ol' American debate.. 36 replies

Please wait...

Orpheo

TaMa x2

50 XP

8th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,011 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

Well I'm talking to my friend whos devoted to our idiot leader. I tell him how much smarter Kerry was then Bush (intelligence wise) and all he can reply with is "Kerry is gay.".. I've held this exact same arguement so many times with other people and it's really annoying. Do people have that much pride that they can't admit how stupid their "role-model" is?




Inyri Forge VIP Member

[Insert User Title Here]

55 XP

15th March 2005

0 Uploads

25,940 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

I wouldn't go so far as to call Kerry gay, because that's just something people call each other to be insulting and hardly has any meaning any more, but I definitely wouldn't consider Kerry a better choice than Bush. This last election sucked - vote for one bad guy or the other - so honestly I don't blame people for voting Bush, because I don't think Kerry would've been any better.

You know all the "promises" they make in their campaign are lies anyway. There's no proof Kerry wouldn't have kept us in Iraq just like Bush has.

Not to say I support Bush. I don't. I just wouldn't have supported Kerry either.




Dipship

Smarter than your average stump.

71 XP

26th June 2003

0 Uploads

26,967 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

Not being american I don't really have a say, but I found this both interesting and funny: 2004electionbyiq11.jpg


When in doubt, gas it!



Red Menace

SCHOFIELD DID 4/30

415,758 XP

10th August 2004

0 Uploads

40,364 Posts

1 Threads

#4 12 years ago

John Kerry got C's at Yale just like Bush. Bush however only received one D, Kerry received five. The chart on the other hand is hard to dispute being that the table was published in the Economist. However, a few issues later on, the Economist published a retraction, saying the data was unable to be verified and possibly a hoax. IQ tests are voluntary as well as confidential and therefore not a just representation of statewide intelligence.


sigpic82523_3.gif</div></body></html>



EON_MagicMan

Lumpy

50 XP

27th September 2005

0 Uploads

1,042 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

Judging by the presidential debate, while both candidates were weak, I'd say Kerry is far more fit for office-- he's far more articulate and sounds like he knows what he's talking about, which to me means he probably does-- at least more so than Bush.




Pb2Au

Droolworthy

50 XP

4th October 2004

0 Uploads

8,461 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago

Both candidates were very weak, and a bad choice of president. We have no clue what 'could have been' had the votes been different. However, let's compare what we DO know (and what we did in 2004) -Bush is the lesser of the two evils. He'd been president before, so at least the public and congress knew what type of problems to expect. Kerry was uncharted territory, no one knows what errors he might have made in office. -Kerry is a hypocrite, more so than Bush. The man flaunts his Catholicism, but is the most liberal Catholic candidate America has ever known. I don't agree with a lot of Catholic political (paradoxical term, isn't it?!) stances, but I believe that a candidate should only give himself a label if he acts according to the description. -Both men might have gone to Ivy League universities, but as Red points out neither were anywhere near the top of their class. -Bush might sound dumb, and often makes stupid decisions, but he is actually a fairly intelligent man. He was born with a speech impediment and an attention disorder. While some of you might believe that should have barred him from running for the highest office, I actually admire the man for getting that far on so little gas. *Apparently* he works very hard, and even though he works very hard to acheive very horrible outcomes, the work ethic in itself is commendable. There are other arguments, but most are even more subjective to arguing than the ones I listed. So, in summary, while both candidates were not what you would want leading your country (like a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich), Bush was the lesser of the two evils. I believe that, and apparently the majority of the country believed so too...




Fortune

something to believe.

50 XP

19th February 2005

0 Uploads

7,750 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

PB2AUBoth candidates were very weak, and a bad choice of president. We have no clue what 'could have been' had the votes been different. However, let's compare what we DO know (and what we did in 2004)

-Bush is the lesser of the two evils. He'd been president before, so at least the public and congress knew what type of problems to expect. Kerry was uncharted territory, no one knows what errors he might have made in office. -Kerry is a hypocrite, more so than Bush. The man flaunts his Catholicism, but is the most liberal Catholic candidate America has ever known. I don't agree with a lot of Catholic political (paradoxical term, isn't it?!) stances, but I believe that a candidate should only give himself a label if he acts according to the description. -Both men might have gone to Ivy League universities, but as Red points out neither were anywhere near the top of their class. -Bush might sound dumb, and often makes stupid decisions, but he is actually a fairly intelligent man. He was born with a speech impediment and an attention disorder. While some of you might believe that should have barred him from running for the highest office, I actually admire the man for getting that far on so little gas. *Apparently* he works very hard, and even though he works very hard to acheive very horrible outcomes, the work ethic in itself is commendable.

There are other arguments, but most are even more subjective to arguing than the ones I listed. So, in summary, while both candidates were not what you would want leading your country (like a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich), Bush was the lesser of the two evils. I believe that, and apparently the majority of the country believed so too...

That was a good post, and well said. I seriously just dont think Kerry would be a very good president, there is also always the issue of Iran in the future, and i doubt he could take it...




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

Both sucked hardcore, however Bush is the lamest duck of them all...




GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

Red MenaceJohn Kerry got C's at Yale just like Bush. Bush however only received one D, Kerry received five.[/quote] Correction: Bush failed all of his classes. But his dad pulled some strings and made the university give him "gentlemens C's" Bush was a party man, just like most college kids ;)

[QUOTE=PB2AU]*Apparently* he works very hard, and even though he works very hard to acheive very horrible outcomes, the work ethic in itself is commendable.

Thats why he takes so many vacations eh?

According to an August 2003 article in the Washington Post, President Bush has spent all or part of 166 days during his presidency at his Crawford, Texas, ranch or en route. Add the time spent at or en route to the presidential retreat of Camp David and at the Bush family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation.

in comparison:

What about Clinton? As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had spent only 152 days on holiday during his two terms, according to CBS News. A former staffer noted Clinton was such a workaholic that "it almost killed Clinton to take one-week vacations during August."
The man flaunts his Catholicism, but is the most liberal Catholic candidate America has ever known. I don't agree with a lot of Catholic political (paradoxical term, isn't it?!) stances, but I believe that a candidate should only give himself a label if he acts according to the description.

Bush pulls the im religious charade just to get the religous right on his side. Its a common political tactic. They are both guilty of doing it. Kerry didnt do it right. ;)




EON_MagicMan

Lumpy

50 XP

27th September 2005

0 Uploads

1,042 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago
PB2AU -Bush might sound dumb, and often makes stupid decisions, but he is actually a fairly intelligent man. He was born with a speech impediment and an attention disorder. While some of you might believe that should have barred him from running for the highest office, I actually admire the man for getting that far on so little gas.

I'm sorry, but when the president of the United States says "too many OB/GYNS arent' allowed to practice there... there love with women all accross their country"-- that suggests to me more than a grammatical error or a speech impediment.