Election 2004: Settling Things

[JMHX]

1. This election is going to be either a large push towards Bush or a close push towards John Kerry.

2. It is going to come down to the debates.

3. Convention bounces do not indicate nationwide support for a Candidate in any long-term way.

4. Kerry and Bush both have flip-flopped on issues, and both have questionable pasts concerning Vietnam.

5. This election, if anything, will be referendum on George W. Bush's first four years in office.

6. It will not be so much being pro-Kerry as being anti-Bush on November 2nd.

7. The Vice Presidential debate will play a larger part than normal in this election.

8. George W. Bush's unwillingness to compromise hurts and helps him, as well as John Kerry.

9. This election will be decided by the small amounts of swing voters in the battleground states.

10. If John Kerry wins it will not be by a decisive margin.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/4/04 03:04 PM, Transkar wrote: I pray that Kerry doesn't bring up Veitnam during the debate. I'm so sick of it.

You hope that Bush doesn't either. I just hope they stick to the real issues, not the pseudo pop issues.

[JMHX]

At 9/4/04 03:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/4/04 03:04 PM, Transkar wrote: I pray that Kerry doesn't bring up Veitnam during the debate. I'm so sick of it.

You hope that Bush doesn't either. I just hope they stick to the real issues, not the pseudo pop issues.

Hahahahahahahahahaha....issues...that's great...what, you're actually hoping for a legitimate DEBATE?

[CI-Lain]

At 9/4/04 03:04 PM, Transkar wrote: I pray that Kerry doesn't bring up Veitnam during the debate. I'm so sick of it.

... I love how everyone blames the rhetoric of vietnam on him. I seem to remember it getting attacked before he brought it up. BUt alas.

If Kerry brings it up. It will probably be in regards to The Republican swift Vets. Or asking him to denounce them as liars.

The debates will be nice.

I KNOW! Kerry should ask Bush what a catastrophic success is!!!!

[Camarohusky]

At 9/4/04 02:59 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: 1. This election is going to be either a large push towards Bush or a close push towards John Kerry.

That seems correct

2. It is going to come down to the debates.

Yet the true point of the debates will be overlooked, people will vote on who looks cuter.

3. Convention bounces do not indicate nationwide support for a Candidate in any long-term way.

True.

4. Kerry and Bush both have flip-flopped on issues, and both have questionable pasts concerning Vietnam.

Why are these even issues? Neither of them has any relevence to the election at hand.

5. This election, if anything, will be referendum on George W. Bush's first four years in office.

Ah, retrospective voting, the way of the lazy... Don't you love it?

6. It will not be so much being pro-Kerry as being anti-Bush on November 2nd.

True.

7. The Vice Presidential debate will play a larger part than normal in this election.

But still negligable...

8. George W. Bush's unwillingness to compromise hurts and helps him, as well as John Kerry.

Well, you could say that about everything...

9. This election will be decided by the small amounts of swing voters in the battleground states.

Let's just hope it's clean this time...

10. If John Kerry wins it will not be by a decisive margin.

I say if he wins it'll be by 15-25 elec votes.

[Joeytho]

i think this eliction is the lesser of two evils who ever wins we will still have a bad presedant.

[thekinman]

At 9/4/04 03:22 PM, Joeytho wrote: i think this eliction is the lesser of two evils who ever wins we will still have a bad presedant.

no, its the lesser of either a reatrded, murderous psycho whos bought off by oil barons andweapon contractors, or a dull flip flopper whos just not as good as kukinich, sharpton, dean or nader.

[snapper0505]

i think bush would be better....in every way..hes smarter than kerry, but no body will admit to it cause they dont want him to be. and lets face it, kerry is the second choice to a man who went psycho...twice...he is the best the decomrats have, next to a crazy dude.

and you who think that kerry is smarter than bush, take a look at their final gpas at yale, the school they both went to, and took close to the same classes:
bush: B+
kerry: C-

big difference. and kerry never went after his master's. bush did. and dont try and say that his dad bought him his grades, cause kerry's daddy coulda done the exact same thing.

[JMHX]

Oh. Kerry was in Vietnam. It interrupted things.

[snapper0505]

At 9/4/04 05:07 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Oh. Kerry was in Vietnam. It interrupted things.

if you knew anything, then you would know that he wasnt in vietnam while he was in college. thats how come he got a final grade at all and didnt drop out.

ownage.

[JMHX]

At 9/5/04 01:14 PM, snapper0505 wrote:

At 9/4/04 05:07 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Oh. Kerry was in Vietnam. It interrupted things.

if you knew anything, then you would know that he wasnt in vietnam while he was in college. thats how come he got a final grade at all and didnt drop out.

ownage.

I know. I was just being an ass.

[manoftheman6]

At 9/4/04 05:03 PM, snapper0505 wrote: i think bush would be better....in every way..hes smarter than kerry, but no body will admit to it cause they dont want him to be. and lets face it, kerry is the second choice to a man who went psycho...twice...he is the best the decomrats have, next to a crazy dude.

and you who think that kerry is smarter than bush, take a look at their final gpas at yale, the school they both went to, and took close to the same classes:
bush: B+
kerry: C-

big difference. and kerry never went after his master's. bush did. and dont try and say that his dad bought him his grades, cause kerry's daddy coulda done the exact same thing.

Whoa, your actually saying that grades even matter when being a president? It really has nothing to do with education when your in office, its all about your views, education just gives you skills at certain things, being president is just being the person that thinks things through and exicutes them.

[Just-Think]

At 9/4/04 02:59 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: 1. This election is going to be either a large push towards Bush or a close push towards John Kerry.

Either way, the American people will still be divided almost 50/50 during and after the election

2. It is going to come down to the debates.

Lets hope the debates are worthy enough to sway the election

3. Convention bounces do not indicate nationwide support for a Candidate in any long-term way.

True, but any support is better than no support, and so far the Republicans have an advantage

4. Kerry and Bush both have flip-flopped on issues, and both have questionable pasts concerning Vietnam.

Vietnam should just be dropped. Military service has squat to do with how good of a president you will be.

5. This election, if anything, will be referendum on George W. Bush's first four years in office.

I agree with you 100%

6. It will not be so much being pro-Kerry as being anti-Bush on November 2nd.

I agree with you more than 100%

7. The Vice Presidential debate will play a larger part than normal in this election.

Yes. Also, I believe that who will become our first lady for the next four years will also hold a larger influence than in past elections

8. George W. Bush's unwillingness to compromise hurts and helps him, as well as John Kerry.

Therefore they are both about the same in that category.

9. This election will be decided by the small amounts of swing voters in the battleground states.

Isn't that almost always the case?

10. If John Kerry wins it will not be by a decisive margin.

Well, lets just say that if Kerry wins, the protesting you've seen by Demcrats for the last four years will be done by the Republicans for the next four.

[JMHX]

I really don't imagine protests on John Kerry being anywhere near those protests we saw against George W. Bush.

[Just-Think]

That may well be true, but we have to wait and see don't we. Whoever becomes our president, lets hope that he does a good enough job that there is no need for excessive protesting

[bumcheekcity]

At 9/5/04 04:29 PM, manoftheman6 wrote:

and you who think that kerry is smarter than bush, take a look at their final gpas at yale, the school they both went to, and took close to the same classes:
bush: B+
kerry: C-

Yeah, but then again, Kerry CAN string 6 or 7 words together without sounding like a 5-Year Old, so it swings both ways.

[JMHX]

At 9/5/04 04:50 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 9/5/04 04:29 PM, manoftheman6 wrote:

and you who think that kerry is smarter than bush, take a look at their final gpas at yale, the school they both went to, and took close to the same classes:
bush: B+
kerry: C-

Yeah, but then again, Kerry CAN string 6 or 7 words together without sounding like a 5-Year Old, so it swings both ways.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says 'Fool me once, shame on, shame on you...you fool me, you can't get fooled again.'" - G.W. Bush.

[Raptorman]

At 9/4/04 02:59 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

:: 3. Convention bounces do not indicate nationwide support for a Candidate in any long-term way.

True, but Kerry's lack of a bounce while Bush bounces nicely shows that kerry is so singularly unispireing that even a with a week's worth of free press he couldn't fire anyone up that wasn't behind him anyway.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/5/04 05:50 PM, Raptorman wrote: True, but Kerry's lack of a bounce while Bush bounces nicely shows that kerry is so singularly unispireing that even a with a week's worth of free press he couldn't fire anyone up that wasn't behind him anyway.

That's cause these people are morons, the kind of fools who acctually think terrorism is a threat to their daily lives.

All the RNC talked about was how terrorism will kill us all, and how voting Bush will save everyone from terrorism and make them comfortable under his wing.

And by the way, haven't you been laid off yet? If, not I think you're lying in your profile...

[Just-Think]

At 9/6/04 04:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote

That's cause these people are morons, the kind of fools who acctually think terrorism is a threat to their daily lives.

They are not fools. On the morning of 9/11, i was at school three blocks away from the World Trade Center. Now come and tell me that terrorism doesnt threaten my life? What if the towers had toppled to their side and crushed my school building? I would not be here today. So yes, terrorism did and does threaten my life.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/6/04 08:05 AM, Just_Think wrote: So yes, terrorism did and does threaten my life.

Then I pity you... And hope that some day you may realize that you're totally safe.

[solusek]

That's cause these people are morons, the kind of fools who acctually think terrorism is a threat to their daily lives.

No threat?Tell that to europe and russia.I'm in the airforce and trust me there is a threat.

[cheshirepus]

Solusek, since you're in the military, you of all people should be aware of how much this war on terrorism is nothing but a bunch of bullshit... or are only the grunts in the Army the ones ever forced to realize that?
Anyway, I'd seriously suggest that those of you who feel strongly about removing Bush from power start sending a flood of letters to your state representatives stating why you want Kerry to win and that if Bush gets "re-elected" this year, you won't vote for whichever representative you write to. Stop pretending your votes are going to mean anything. Write your representatives... they're the ones who are going to vote for our next President.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 9/7/04 12:36 PM, cheshirepus wrote: Solusek, since you're in the military, you of all people should be aware of how much this war on terrorism is nothing but a bunch of bullshit...

How is it a bunch of bullshit? Explain, please.

[cheshirepus]

I'm not too interested in arguing, sorry. Especially if you're not or never have been in the military.
My arguments have already been itterated all over the BBS time and time again by either myself or countless other people. I suppose if you want to hear my argument, pick an intelligent anit-Bush/anti-War post and read it. It will probably reflect my own feelings rather well.
I will say this though; that while I was in the Army, I was constantly fighting an internal conflict where I knew what we were doing was wrong, but forced myself to believe in our actions in order to justify my potential death in combat. That's not a good thing... trust me.

[JMHX]

At 9/7/04 12:09 PM, solusek wrote:

That's cause these people are morons, the kind of fools who acctually think terrorism is a threat to their daily lives.

No threat?Tell that to europe and russia.I'm in the airforce and trust me there is a threat.

I knew several people on Flight 11. Terrorism sure threatened their lives.

[Raptorman]

At 9/6/04 04:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
That's cause these people are morons, the kind of fools who acctually think terrorism is a threat to their daily lives.

Staticly speaking, terrorism is not a major threat, nor are guns, knives, or nuclear weapons. Are you telling me you don't cocern yourself with any of these?

Remember people act about 30% with their head and 70% with their gut. Let me tell you how my gut acts. I take it real personal when someone starts killing my countrymen for no other reason than that they are from my country. You do this and am likely to respond very badly. Telling me not to worry about it because it probably won't happen to me will not cut it.

And by the way, haven't you been laid off yet? If, not I think you're lying in your profile...

Yup, and rehired for more money. Lesson, before laying someone off, make sure you have someone who understands the technology you are useing.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/7/04 04:28 PM, Raptorman wrote: Remember people act about 30% with their head and 70% with their gut. Let me tell you how my gut acts. I take it real personal when someone starts killing my countrymen for no other reason than that they are from my country. You do this and am likely to respond very badly. Telling me not to worry about it because it probably won't happen to me will not cut it.

Hmm, I guess thats where we differ. I personally am a person who will act upon a direct attack against me or my people, but once that has been dealt with I move on and go do my own thing. I'm not an aggressor, I prefer to be more reactive. Saves me lots of stress and energy. Really I don't fear terrorism... The moment I will fear it is the moment I die from it.

Yup, and rehired for more money. Lesson, before laying someone off, make sure you have someone who understands the technology you are useing.

Hehe, way to show them. Did you go office space on them? Well, at least one engineer in Seattle still has a job...

[JMHX]

At 9/7/04 04:28 PM, Raptorman wrote:

At 9/6/04 04:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
That's cause these people are morons, the kind of fools who acctually think terrorism is a threat to their daily lives.

Staticly speaking, terrorism is not a major threat, nor are guns, knives, or nuclear weapons. Are you telling me you don't cocern yourself with any of these?

Well spoken.

[General-Scar]

What I don't get, is why everyone seems to leave out the fact that George Bush and his administration lied about Iraq. LIED. They said that Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destuction, and that he could easily strike at the U.S. with these weapons, and that he PLANNED to strike with these weapons. The Bush administration also said that there were connections to al-qaida, and no evidence of that has been found. In fact, Bush officials have said that there never were ties to Al-qaida. So far no links to terrorists and weapons (and almost no evidence of weapons) have been found, which means that Iraq did not pose a threat to the U.S. and that it was invaded for nothing besides alterior motives. Over 10,000 U.S. soldiers died and continue to die for a lie. That's why George Bush won't get my vote.