Kerry vs. Bush

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Personally I can only hope that the American people have the wisdom to remove our current President come November. I sat down and I tried to think of the a worse President that the U.S. has had. I had to go all the way back to Calvin Coolidge to get one in the same ballpark. Jimmy Carter, although not the typical "strong arm" President, was probably the most caring and sincere one we've had in recent memory. Bush, on the other hand, has reopened global wounds that we've been trying to fix over the last twenty years of so. I'm crossing my fingers and toes that the U.S. can find safety through global cooperation, personal readiness and international goodwill. Sounds corny, but that's the only way to make any success permanent.

Name one wound that this administration has "reopened". Just one. You can't reopen a "wound" that has never healed in the first place. Radical Islamic terrorists declared war on us long long ago and have been attacking us, killing us, and taking us hostage ever since. Since you mention Carter does the term "The Hostage Crisis" not ring a bell with you at all?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Personally I can only hope that the American people have the wisdom to remove our current President come November. I sat down and I tried to think of the a worse President that the U.S. has had. I had to go all the way back to Calvin Coolidge to get one in the same ballpark. Jimmy Carter, although not the typical "strong arm" President, was probably the most caring and sincere one we've had in recent memory. Bush, on the other hand, has reopened global wounds that we've been trying to fix over the last twenty years of so. I'm crossing my fingers and toes that the U.S. can find safety through global cooperation, personal readiness and international goodwill. Sounds corny, but that's the only way to make any success permanent.

and millions will die at the hands of middle eastern terrorists as we play hippy with the Europeans.

-Only love can win.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Personally I can only hope that the American people have the wisdom to remove our current President come November. I sat down and I tried to think of the a worse President that the U.S. has had. I had to go all the way back to Calvin Coolidge to get one in the same ballpark. Jimmy Carter, although not the typical "strong arm" President, was probably the most caring and sincere one we've had in recent memory. Bush, on the other hand, has reopened global wounds that we've been trying to fix over the last twenty years of so. I'm crossing my fingers and toes that the U.S. can find safety through global cooperation, personal readiness and international goodwill. Sounds corny, but that's the only way to make any success permanent.

and millions will die at the hands of middle eastern terrorists as we play hippy with the Europeans.

-Only love can win.

What do you have against global cooperation, personal readiness and international goodwill?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I sat down and I tried to think of the a worse President that the U.S. has had.

There was recently a poll on this topic. Bush won overwhelmingly.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I sat down and I tried to think of the a worse President that the U.S. has had.

There was recently a poll on this topic. Bush won overwhelmingly.

Better call CNN then and let 'em know the results. I'm sure they'll be impressed. *snort*

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Personally I can only hope that the American people have the wisdom to remove our current President come November. I sat down and I tried to think of the a worse President that the U.S. has had. I had to go all the way back to Calvin Coolidge to get one in the same ballpark. Jimmy Carter, although not the typical "strong arm" President, was probably the most caring and sincere one we've had in recent memory. Bush, on the other hand, has reopened global wounds that we've been trying to fix over the last twenty years of so. I'm crossing my fingers and toes that the U.S. can find safety through global cooperation, personal readiness and international goodwill. Sounds corny, but that's the only way to make any success permanent.

and millions will die at the hands of middle eastern terrorists as we play hippy with the Europeans.

-Only love can win.

What do you have against global cooperation, personal readiness and international goodwill?

Nothing, aslong as it doesn't interfere with the devils work of shooting the bad guy with total disregard to those that would harbor them.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Interesting at 41 votes in the poll it stands at 32 Kerry, 5 Bush, 4 Nader. Goes to show ATP&N isn't representative of the country so far today. Well, maybe representative of California or Massachusetts.

I'd agree with that.

the forum used to be split about 50/50 between liberals and conservatives, but we at this forum know alot more about the situation today than the average person so I would say that this poll is more on the informed person than the average person

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: bjc112

Interesting at 41 votes in the poll it stands at 32 Kerry, 5 Bush, 4 Nader. Goes to show ATP&N isn't representative of the country so far today. Well, maybe representative of California or Massachusetts.

I'd agree with that.

the forum used to be split about 50/50 between liberals and conservatives, but we at this forum know alot more about the situation today than the average person so I would say that this poll is more on the informed person than the average person

Or it might be that we don't post any right-wing wako stuff, but we get cosntant tin-foil-hat info every day.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: bjc112

Interesting at 41 votes in the poll it stands at 32 Kerry, 5 Bush, 4 Nader. Goes to show ATP&N isn't representative of the country so far today. Well, maybe representative of California or Massachusetts.

I'd agree with that.

the forum used to be split about 50/50 between liberals and conservatives, but we at this forum know alot more about the situation today than the average person so I would say that this poll is more on the informed person than the average person

Or it might be that we don't post any right-wing wako stuff, but we get cosntant tin-foil-hat info every day.

hehe you dont? well maybe not you but it does happen just like we get the left wing wako posts

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: bjc112

Interesting at 41 votes in the poll it stands at 32 Kerry, 5 Bush, 4 Nader. Goes to show ATP&N isn't representative of the country so far today. Well, maybe representative of California or Massachusetts.

I'd agree with that.

the forum used to be split about 50/50 between liberals and conservatives, but we at this forum know alot more about the situation today than the average person so I would say that this poll is more on the informed person than the average person

When I first started posting in P&N, it seemed like it was split about 90/10: 90% Bush supporters, 10% opponents. Part of this imbalance was due to opponents' fear of speaking up; any anti-Bush post was overwhelmingly attacked. I attribute the rest of the shift to education, as Czar suggests. People here are exposed to more of the story compared to the filtered pap the public gets from the conservative media. With that information comes the realization Bush is bad for America.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stonewall
This poll represents how mostly college-age computer nerds will vote.

^^^ that post represents how a generalization makes someone look like an idiot.

I agree wholeheartedly. And that "someone" is you.

I recommend you read the rules for this forum. You'll see it is for serious discussion and not for name-calling. Also, your fellow neocon FELIXtheCAT has just posted about how he is dismayed by name-calling and rhetoric. Why don't you keep your name-calling off this board? Thanks.

I recommend you pucker up and kiss my ass you sanctimonious self-annointed-and-appointed hall-monitor-mentalitied dumbass. While it may make you FEEL like you're SUMBODY to run around in thread after thread spouting your inane unintelligible bullshit like some referee at a conference of shortbus flunkies I don't feel obliged to indulge you in it every time you've learned a new word for the day, so why don't you STFU, back the hell off, and crawl back under your bridge, toad. Thanks!

LOL, I don't mean to encourage this stuff but that was a rightous flame

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: bjc112

Interesting at 41 votes in the poll it stands at 32 Kerry, 5 Bush, 4 Nader. Goes to show ATP&N isn't representative of the country so far today. Well, maybe representative of California or Massachusetts.

I'd agree with that.

the forum used to be split about 50/50 between liberals and conservatives, but we at this forum know alot more about the situation today than the average person so I would say that this poll is more on the informed person than the average person

When I first started posting in P&N, it seemed like it was split about 90/10: 90% Bush supporters, 10% opponents. Part of this imbalance was due to opponents' fear of speaking up; any anti-Bush post was overwhelmingly attacked. I attribute the rest of the shift to education, as Czar suggests. People here are exposed to more of the story compared to the filtered pap the public gets from the conservative media. With that information comes the realization Bush is bad for America.

Umm - no. When P&N started the WAR support threads may have been 90/10 but it most definitely was close to split ideologically. Now it is heavily Lib ideologically due to a variety of factors. I know there have been many who have stopped posting here because of the level of hate spewed against Bush and the War/troops.
The supposed "enlightenment" or "education" factor is BS and is minute at best as very few have changed ideologically and those that have shown a "political" change seem to have done so on an emotional level not an ideological one.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Umm - no. When P&N started the WAR support threads may have been 90/10 but it most definitely was close to split ideologically. Now it is heavily Lib ideologically due to a variety of factors. I know there have been many who have stopped posting here because of the level of hate spewed against Bush and the War/troops.
The supposed "enlightenment" or "education" factor is BS and is minute at best as very few have changed ideologically and those that have shown a "political" change seem to have done so on an emotional level not an ideological one.

CkG

If it used to be 50/50, but now is heavily Lib, with no to little ideological change, I gather you think the only reason it's gone the way it has is because right-leaning members have stopped posting? Or, I guess you could argue that more left-leaning members have begun posting?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Umm - no. When P&N started the WAR support threads may have been 90/10 but it most definitely was close to split ideologically. Now it is heavily Lib ideologically due to a variety of factors. I know there have been many who have stopped posting here because of the level of hate spewed against Bush and the War/troops.
The supposed "enlightenment" or "education" factor is BS and is minute at best as very few have changed ideologically and those that have shown a "political" change seem to have done so on an emotional level not an ideological one.

CkG

If it used to be 50/50, but now is heavily Lib, with no to little ideological change, I gather you think the only reason it's gone the way it has is because right-leaning members have stopped posting? Or, I guess you could argue that more left-leaning members have begun posting?

Those two would be quite logical answers - yes. Ideologies don't change over-night. War support may, but not ideology. Now again their may be a minute percentage that have infact changed their thinking on enough issues and political governance policies to have made an ideological switch but again that isn't something that happens over-night or happens in a wide spread fashion. War support may have accounted for a few posting changes and also those who are one or two issue politicos may have changed but that isn't an ideological change - just a political wind shift.

I would expect someone like you gaard to understand this.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

I'm just trying to understand you. The reason that there are more left-leaning members is, according to you, because more left-leaning members post? Isn't that what they call 'stating the obvious'?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I'm just trying to understand you. The reason that there are more left-leaning members is, according to you, because more left-leaning members post? Isn't that what they call 'stating the obvious'?

Maybe you need to re-read my reply to Bow if you don't understand. Bow and Czar are trying to further the BS that "education" has changed the "balance" here. Like I said - people don't suddenly change their ideologies. They may change on the WAR, but not their ideology. So yes, by far the biggest and possibly the only reason is because Conservative voices have moved on and there has been an influx of new/louder liberal posters. It has little to nothing to do with "education" or "Conservative media" like they both were trying to claim.

This forum represents this forum at this point - nothing more. Is that "stating the obvious" enough for you gaard

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
I'm just trying to understand you. The reason that there are more left-leaning members is, according to you, because more left-leaning members post? Isn't that what they call 'stating the obvious'?

Maybe you need to re-read my reply to Bow if you don't understand. Bow and Czar are trying to further the BS that "education" has changed the "balance" here. Like I said - people don't suddenly change their ideologies. They may change on the WAR, but not their ideology. So yes, by far the biggest and possibly the only reason is because Conservative voices have moved on and there has been an influx of new/louder liberal posters. It has little to nothing to do with "education" or "Conservative media" like they both were trying to claim.

This forum represents this forum at this point - nothing more. Is that "stating the obvious" enough for you gaard

CkG

I think I get it. It's not that there are more liberal members, it's just that more liberal members post. Is that right?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

It seems to me that most Republicans I know are "born" Republican. They didn't seem to come to that decision by any realizations, rather their family members are Republican and so are they. However, a lot of Democrats I know have "become" democrats. Meaning they had no affiliation to any party, and after coming to an informed decision they chose the Democratic party.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't mean to encourage this stuff but that was a rightous flame

PERSONAL FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. People should make more of an effort to follow the rules of the forum. I understand that a lot of posters, like Format C:, get frustrated during debates. It's a hard thing to be shown to be wrong. Many posters can only resort to flaming and name-calling when the going gets tough. It's the intellectual equivalent of "cutting and running" I guess.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think I get it. It's not that there are more liberal members, it's just that more liberal members post. Is that right?

Possibly.

CkG

 

[Infohawk]

I think a reasonable hypothesis for a shift would be that a lot of neoconservatives have withdrawn due to the lack of facts that could reasonably support their positions. Before the war, a reasonable --albeit still weak-- argument could be made that Iraq was a threat to the US, for example. Now that the WMDs are nowhere to be found, most neoconservatives have retreated. You still have some guerilla fighters like "heartsurgeon" who just make nonsensical posts and rarely defend themselves when challenged. Then you have CADkindaGUY who doesn't usually make any arguments, instead he relies on personal attacks and overabundant levels of sarcasm (just another form of agression). I've run into a couple reasonable conservative posters, but that's it. The way things currently are there just isn't much of argument you could make for Bush or conservatives generally. Basically, if we had found WMDs you'd see far more conservatives posting I think (if it's true they used to be here). As it is, they have no leg to stand on and the majority of conservatives here are fanatical diehards who don't see reason as predicate to posting.

 

[Gaard]

I think a reasonable hypothesis for a shift would be that a lot of neoconservatives have withdrawn due to the lack of facts that could reasonably support their positions.

That's a good point. Alistar7 comes to mind. Poor Ali was shouting from the rooftops everytime the media claimed that WMD was discovered right after the war, er, I mean right after main combat operations...and we all know it was like evry other day that they made that claim. After a while I kind of felt sorry for poor Ali.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I think a reasonable hypothesis for a shift would be that a lot of neoconservatives have withdrawn due to the lack of facts that could reasonably support their positions. Before the war, a reasonable --albeit still weak-- argument could be made that Iraq was a threat to the US, for example. Now that the WMDs are nowhere to be found, most neoconservatives have retreated. You still have some guerilla fighters like "heartsurgeon" who just make nonsensical posts and rarely defend themselves when challenged. Then you have CADkindaGUY who doesn't usually make any arguments, instead he relies on personal attacks and overabundant levels of sarcasm (just another form of agression). I've run into a couple reasonable conservative posters, but that's it. The way things currently are there just isn't much of argument you could make for Bush or conservatives generally. Basically, if we had found WMDs you'd see far more conservatives posting I think (if it's true they used to be here). As it is, they have no leg to stand on and the majority of conservatives here are fanatical diehards who don't see reason as predicate to posting.

Yep, and there we have the old "I'm smarter and more educated" argument folks. I knew we would see a blantant elitist post sooner or later
And some people wonder why people are labeled "elitists" - just take a look and how they present themselves and supposed "arguements".

CkG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I think a reasonable hypothesis for a shift would be that a lot of neoconservatives have withdrawn due to the lack of facts that could reasonably support their positions. Before the war, a reasonable --albeit still weak-- argument could be made that Iraq was a threat to the US, for example. Now that the WMDs are nowhere to be found, most neoconservatives have retreated. You still have some guerilla fighters like "heartsurgeon" who just make nonsensical posts and rarely defend themselves when challenged. Then you have CADkindaGUY who doesn't usually make any arguments, instead he relies on personal attacks and overabundant levels of sarcasm (just another form of agression). I've run into a couple reasonable conservative posters, but that's it. The way things currently are there just isn't much of argument you could make for Bush or conservatives generally. Basically, if we had found WMDs you'd see far more conservatives posting I think (if it's true they used to be here). As it is, they have no leg to stand on and the majority of conservatives here are fanatical diehards who don't see reason as predicate to posting.

Yep, and there we have the old "I'm smarter and more educated" argument folks. I knew we would see a blantant elitist post sooner or later
And some people wonder why people are labeled "elitists" - just take a look and how they present themselves and supposed "arguements".

CkG

Nothing in the post says I am smarter and more educated than others. Education has nothing to do with my hypothesis. Read my post again. While I don't think my argument is "elitist" I'm not sure what that has to do with the hypothesis anyway. Even if the hypothesis were "elitist" it could still be right. Please attack the argument head on if you want to attack it at all.

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
John Kerry, but only because he's the lesser of two evils.