Defining difference between Bush & Kerry

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:58 am

Bush has stated that he is adamantly against gay marriages.

Kerry is ambivelant about gay religious unions but would marry a gay if it would help him be elected president.

This is a troll post, just so you all understand better what I consider trolling.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:50 am

Good, now maybe a mod can demonstrate what they consider locking a thread.

This is what I consider troll-feeding.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:56 am

It's what I consider "funny". I'd be surprised if the general reaction is anything other than "LOL"...

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:55 am

Bush: Currently Lying and ripping off Americans
Kerry: Wants to become the Liar in Chief

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 1:07 pm

Woodchip, you should at least give proper sitation to the person your ripping off.

It's what I consider "funny". I'd be surprised if the general reaction is anything other than "LOL"...

heh!!!!

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 1:33 pm

Birdseye wrote:Bush: Currently Lying and ripping off Americans
Kerry: Wants to become the Liar in Chief

Cute. Cynical and threadbare, but cute. Is this representative of how far you've failed to come since we last conversed? Or more an indication of slummin it among lazy thinkers?

This country's been pretty good to me. I'm free, well fed, have plenty of opportunity to make real choices in my life, have received compassion from strangers when I genuinely needed it, and overall I'm happy.

That's a good enough record to have earned my loyalty and patriotism.

Our government has lots of room for improvement, but witty cynicism is not going to get us there. You're a bright lad. Maybe you should run for office and see if you can't kick the system in the ass enough to get a few things done that otherwise wouldn't have.

- Sirian

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:40 pm

This country's been pretty good to me. I'm free, well fed, have plenty of opportunity to make real choices in my life, have received compassion from strangers when I genuinely needed it, and overall I'm happy.

Hey, hey, hey ... we'll have none of that optimism and happiness stuff in here. The CIA must have put narcotics in your orange juice. I'll start an activist group to save you before rampant joy sets in. We'll get the message out and drag you down in no time. Hang in there.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:57 pm

Yea, lifes good here for the downtrodden proletariat.
If you think about it, we drive our SUV's down to Kinko's, get a few protest signs made up in blazing colors while we scoot next door to Starbucks to soak up some air conditioning while we buy a LatteGrandeWhatever-the-heck and jabber to no-one important on our cell phones.
Scurry back to Kinko's, pick up the signs and do a few hours at the government protest scene and hurry off in time to catch the Sonic's game and then a late dinner.
Rush home to bed in our $145,000 condo and wake up to start another day at our $85,000 a year part time union job.

Contrast that with a Buhddist monk dousing himself with gasoline and setting himself on fire to protest his situation...

Sometimes we need to take time to remember the system we protest still kicks major butt over the alternatives.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:34 pm

It's interesting how being disallusioned with the two major political candidates and making a joke about them is suddenly equated with being unpatriotic and ungrateful.

Where did I say I do not like America? I have some older indian friends who tell stories about living in India and having to bribe people just to do business. I enjoy the freedoms we have. I am grateful for those freedoms, and the people who have fought in wars like my grandfather. I simply currently disagree with you on many political issues. That is not the same thing as being ungrateful. Shame on me for trying to improve things, I guess. How American of me.

"Our government has lots of room for improvement, but witty cynicism is not going to get us there. "

Again, not sure why this is directed at me, especially in a joke thread started by woodchip.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:43 pm

Politcial Patrotism is the adherrenace to mainstream thinking.

Sirian thinks it be better for you to run as either a democrat or a Republican Canidate, rather than trying the convince people to vote for a party that barely stands a chance of winning.

Interesting that the two leading parties in the current Canadian election have been throwing that mantra around too:

"vote for party x cus party y will barely stands a chance of forming a majority government."

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:43 pm

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:22 pm

Birdseye wrote:Bush: Currently Lying and ripping off Americans
Kerry: Wants to become the Liar in Chief

You wonder why Sirian's jab was directed at you? You make stupid generalizations, you get retorts. Simple enough.

You don't offer anything. You bring nothing to the table. You sit and whine on a silly Internet bulletin board about how evil the government is and how corrupt our officials are. You know what? You want change so bad, you fix it.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:30 pm

Wow, how seriously we take a joke thread. Only on the DBB

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:31 pm

can you believe it? I actually agree with Birdseye.

(The real question is, was that a joke? :) )

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:07 pm

This entire thread is undeserving of existence.

Either that or whenever someone is about to post a useless repetition of rhetoric they should just post it in this thread and save us a lot of trouble.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:11 pm

DCrazy wrote:This entire thread is undeserving of existence.

Either that or whenever someone is about to post a useless repetition of rhetoric they should just post it in this thread and save us a lot of trouble.

I know you love me Dcrazy. C'mon just admit that you really wish that you started this thread

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:13 pm

Difference is that if I had posted this thread, it would have been locked.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:31 pm

not if you posted it here, DCrazy

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:33 pm

Ok, HAHAH @ joke and a HMMMMM @ the intelektual reading.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:42 am

Birdseye wrote:It's interesting how being disallusioned with the two major political candidates and making a joke about them is suddenly equated with being unpatriotic and ungrateful.

That I feel loyalty to this governmental system and was able to list reasons why speaks only to me and my position. My criticism applies not to you as a person, but only to your joke, which turns out not to be much of a joke after all, but a thin facade, if you are using it to express political disillusionment.

Birdseye wrote:Again, not sure why this is directed at me, especially in a joke thread started by woodchip.

You put both disillusionment and a joke in the same post, then express befuddlement at why your joke is being targetted, when the disillusionment is what got targetted.

Come on, Birds. You can do better than this. If you don't want to converse, just say so. I'll leave you alone. Otherwise, step up and engage, in whatever way you see fit. Who knows how long I'll be around.

- Sirian

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 6:15 am

While many here bemoan the choice of candidates for our national leadership, in the end one must realise that whomever winds up in the presidential office is controlled to a great degree by the office. Their actions are held in close scrutiny and their policies are limited in a large part by congress. Even the most die hard Bush hater has to understand that the congress granted Bush war powers and not that Bush just decided to push the button all on his own.
Our govermental system has endured for 300 years with 43 different men hold our nations highest office. Each man left a mark but not a bruise (well maybe Jimmy Carter is the one exception) and as the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

One thing that might be of concern is the whole secret society "Skull and Bones" thing. I for one am curious what that is all about (both Kerry and Bush belong to it) and object to any elitist organisation controlling positions of high office through influence and a old boy network. No time to pursue this now. Meeting a few biker buddies for a ride.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 7:07 am

There was a thing about that in the israeli press recently. It's sort of a "boys round the bikeshed" kind of thing where they get to tell all their sexy secrets and are beholden to each other for life.

A fellowship of the "swing" if you will.

Saying that, the Israeli press isn't renouned for it's journalistic exactitude.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:31 am

woodchip wrote:While many here bemoan the choice of candidates for our national leadership, in the end one must realise that whomever winds up in the presidential office is controlled to a great degree by the office. Their actions are held in close scrutiny and their policies are limited in a large part by congress. Even the most die hard Bush hater has to understand that the congress granted Bush war powers and not that Bush just decided to push the button all on his own.

Theoretically, yes. But the GOP dominated both the House and the Senate at the time, as far as I know.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 11:08 am

Birdseye wrote:Bush: Currently Lying and ripping off Americans
Kerry: Wants to become the Liar in Chief

Interesting point Birdseye. This may not be the point you were trying to make, but it alludes to it.

It would seem that whenever a candidate takes office, he gets about a month or two before someone starts screaming "impeachment." ..or other things that the forum filter would ****** out. Reagan was no exception to this. He had all sorts of apponents that were running him down that made it sound like he was sell the country down the river. Now that he is dead, he is suddenly a "great man". I say this only to show how fickle the general media is. He didn't get it as bad as some because there was the assisination attempt; and he was popular with the people. But others, since about Carter, have really suffered from horribly slanted media reports or just out-right lies. (it could be that I'm too young to remember anything before Carter on this topic

).

Bush, regardless of what kind of man ge truely is will, in the media's eyes. be labeled as a "bad President" because of a couple of things. (these are generalizations, I don't care to debate finer points right now)

1. He got us into a foreign conflict
2. His family is involved in oil and everyone knows that's an evil thing.
3. His dad was the former head of the CIA.
4. He prefesses Christ as his savior. (this is only second to being in the oil business.)

These are just 2 guys that are/were in office. Each has his "list of evil deeds" Clinton had a thing (still might, who knows) a thing for young school girls... not THAT young.

Oh, and a hair cut on the runway.

All in all, it just seems that it is popular and, anymore, Expected to cast stones at those in office. Regardless if it's founded or not.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:22 pm

"That I feel loyalty to this governmental system and was able to list reasons why speaks only to me and my position. My criticism applies not to you as a person, but only to your joke, which turns out not to be much of a joke after all, but a thin facade, if you are using it to express political disillusionment." - Sirian

...and so was woodchip's post. But this wasn't a thread about political ideas, it was about little jokes. I've posted thousands of words on well thought out detailed positions in other threads. Picking on me here is quite unfair. Woodchip even admitted this was a 'troll post'!

Solrazor said:
"You don't offer anything. You bring nothing to the table. You sit and whine on a silly Internet bulletin board about how evil the government is and how corrupt our officials are. You know what? You want change so bad, you fix it. "

Do you really believe I offer absolutely nothing? I've posted detailed, well thought out positions multiple times. I'm one of the most contributing members of this forum. I am trying to fix it. I vote, I tell others of my opinions and urge them to vote.

I certianly do offer plenty. I've made several posts about specific policy changes I'd like to see happen for a positive benefit to america. I remember the last time we got in an economics argument-you got schooled and stopped replying.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:20 pm

Kyouryuu wrote:
woodchip wrote:While many here bemoan the choice of candidates for our national leadership, in the end one must realise that whomever winds up in the presidential office is controlled to a great degree by the office. Their actions are held in close scrutiny and their policies are limited in a large part by congress. Even the most die hard Bush hater has to understand that the congress granted Bush war powers and not that Bush just decided to push the button all on his own.
Theoretically, yes. But the GOP dominated both the House and the Senate at the time, as far as I know.

So you are saying it is not Bush's war but more correctly it is a republican/conservative war?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:37 pm

It can't be called Bush's war because the demo-wimps all voted for it. Hell, even some reps admitted they didn't read the whole patriot act!