BS: neither candidate is an asshole

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:35 PM

Today Tim Russert said that the election will be decided by three states: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Whomever takes two of those shall be the President.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:49 PM

Basically it looks as if it is going to be down to Florida. And Jeb Bush has been sorting that out for the last four years to ensure the count goes to Bush anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:38 PM

It's even better today. The grand totals shown at the top include the numbers for "barely Kerry" and "barely Bush," which shouldn't be done, as those numbers are statistically insignificant. Today (for the first time I believe) excluding those statistical ties still gives the majority to Kerry- 228:183.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 06:54 PM

Go team, GO!


A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 05:11 PM

The map's color pattern has changed almost imperceptibly in the few months I have been watching. But today is the first day I've noticed Kerry with the advantage in the electoral college.

As for regional voting, many people have quipped that the Bush style neocons represent the Revenge of the South.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:47 PM

Interesting if the predictions are right. It's not something I've looked at before but:

1: There seem to be solid blocks, eg. West coast and NE blue and a huge red block in the middle. Are there big regional divides in the US?

2: On the random sample of states I have looked at, there doesn't seem to be too great a change from last election. This of course again makes me wonder about 1. but also suggests to me that by in large it doesn't really matter what a politician does or may do but many people are "born" either repubulican or democrat. It's one I think I have heard raised here before but...Is that a reasonable suggestion?

Happens in the UK BTW, there are traditional Labour or Conservative areas and voters.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:28 PM

look Look LOOK

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:06 PM

Kerry has made statements that indicate to nme that he does not value the Bill of rights. I do not trust him, his view of what he has done in the past, or his ability to lead this country.


BB:

I challenge you to quote such remarks and compare them to Bush's impulse to legislate morality through the Constitution, Ashcroft's mayhem on the Bill of Rights through the Patriot Act and related offenses, and tell me you think Kerry is a threat to the Bill of Rights.

A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:50 PM

And fully in keeping with the style of this election, from what I've seen from a distance.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 09:08 AM

Echoes of playground days.. "You're stupid!", "Oh yeah, YOU'RE stupid!" "I am not!" "Yes you are!", "Stupid, stupid, stupid!"

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 12:23 AM

Good point, Greg.( And Matt.)

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 11:29 PM

Is too!

IS NOT!

Is TOO!!

IS NOT!!!!

Looks to me that Matt T. hit it right on the head.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:03 PM

No, clint, it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 09:57 PM

"Bush may be a rotten guy, but that's not a reason for voting for Kerry. "

It's a real good start.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 09:30 PM

Bush may be a rotten guy, but that's not a reason for voting for Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM

But, hey, bb, they're NOT running against Bush. I hoped you'd notice that.

I don't object to your views, I object to your arguments.

Like telling me what I'd say in some circumstance. Countering some statement you just know I'd make isn't a discussion; it's a monologue. Bill Clinton may be a rotten guy, but that's not a reason for voting Bush.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 09:04 PM

But if they were running against Bush, you would be saying otherwise.


Kerry has made statements that indicate to nme that he does not value the Bill of rights. I do not trust him, his view of what he has done in the past, or his ability to lead this country.

I disapprove of the Patriot Act- because it establishes a precedent. I will defend YOUR right to free speech, because to do otherwise would endanger my own. I do not like for ANY group to be given a special status that makes them exempt from the laws of the land.

I am tired of people who feel that because I have a different viewpoint than they do, I must be sick, stupid, or insane. I have tried not to make personnel attacks, but there are those on here that I consider to have proven that they are not worth the effort of responding to. I listen to outragous statements about Bush, with no justification other than hate, of both his politics and seemingly himself, and when anyone dares to criticize the Chosen One, Kerry, hard evidence is demanded- if a single point is not proven, the entire statement is thrown away. When an attack is made on Bush, there seems to be no requirement to even pay lipservice to the facts.

If you cannot apply the same standards of proof to both sides, there is no pont in even having a discussion. I hope all of you here are happy that Bush WILL win, not because he is right, or the better person, or even has a better grasp of reality:, but because the Democrats have not run anyone FOR president, just against Bush. How much more negative can you be? And the majority of voters will look at both sides with disgust, and vote Bush back in for four more years.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:48 PM

They're all lies, bb, every damn one of them, and nobody in their right mind would vote for Bill Clinton or Neville Chamberlain this November.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:47 PM

Speaking on behalf of my friend jimmy, he is a very reasonable man with a different perspective than I have on politics (and not much else, I might add.) On social issues he is probably more "liberal" than many Democrats in this pond, and more importantly, he puts his beliefs into action, giving generously of himself with very little desire for recognition. Jimmy is open to discussion and re-evaluation and doesn't immediately leap to insults when faced with someone who disagrees with him.

Jimmy is like all of us... far more three-dimensional than can be expressed by the limited glimpse we get of each other in here. It is the people who immediately start heaping insults on others who are the closed doors.

I am proud to call jimmy a friend. He is one of the most gracious, generous people I know. I know that it makes life simpler to label everyone and divide us all into opposing camps. But, it's a nasty way to live and doesn't allow room for seeking common ground.

And I am a liberal Democrat who cringes when I think of George Bush, and the thought of him being re-elected.

U DA MAN, jimmy. Don't let anyon tell you otherwise..

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:38 PM

That aspirin factory is a real threat .

There might have been someone in that camp we wanted to kill.

It is too dangerous to get involved in Bosnia. We might have casualties.


Peace in our time....


Ok, how would you classify these, Clint?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:34 PM

I quite agree with jimmyt about it being futile to work ourselves up into a fury about these kinds of things and people. Getting in a temper just blunts the edge of justifiable anger, and reduces outr ability to direct it effectively.

The actual character actors who strut around on the public stage aren't in themselves all that important. If they weren't there, someone essentially similar would be in their place, and if they were lives had led them in a different way, so that they were private acquaintances rather than public figures, I doubt very much if we'd think of them as anything special, definitely not special enough to hate.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:28 PM

All lies are not created equal.

Some lies are social: You're looking well today, bb. (As if I knew.(

Some are exaggerations: A zillion jobs have been lost under the Bush administration. (Although it's true he's the first president since Hoover to have a net loss during his administration.)

Some are hypocritical: I'm sorry your husband is dead, but it's worth it. (But my children aren't going over there. Nor is any member of my family, or any member of Mr Rumsfeld's family. or Mr Wolfowitz's, or Karl Rove's, or…)

And some are damned lies: The Clear Skies act will give you clean air. Saddam is connected to Al Quaeda and 9/11. These lies are homicidal.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:19 PM

Akenaton, You are very welcome to question my views all you want. It is a free country, well at least this one is. If you think I am an extreme right wing person, you are hopelessly mistaken. To the groups I am around I am considered a liberal. I am happy to share my opinions on issues I have opinions on.

I do not see how it makes you feel any better by putting another person down. But, I guess, whatever makes you happy. I started this thread merely to state that there are other people out there who have very different views than those you have, and they have reasons for why they feel this way. I did not intend to be sanctimonious, merely to try to let folks know my views. I do not pass judgment for people who feel differently than I do. I know there are many instances in which I would probably be right in the middle of the liberal group. I have my reasons for feeling like I do, and religion is not one of them and neither is greed. I would like to think that stupidity is also not the explanation. But for a group who touts the slogan "Celebrate diversity," you sure have a funny way of showing it. I am honestly quite surprised that you have all this anomosity to someone you have never met, nor has ever spoken nor written a word about you.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 07:59 PM

Akneton:

Would you be willing to expand a bit on what you are saying? I am a little lost in the thread. Thanks,


A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:49 PM

Well thanks for your good wishes JIMMY, and I would like to present you with the Mudcat 2004 award for sanctimony and hypocricy.
An award which is extremely difficult to win, given the quality of the opposition.
Lest anyone is fooled by your current Mr nice guy personna, I can remember quite a few snide comments on other threads,to anyone who questioned your extreme right wing views.
Personally, I feel that when the actions of our "representatives" involves the massacre of innocent women and children in our name,I am entitled to show a bit of fury now and then.
Perhaps you and your kind just dont care very much....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:43 PM

ANd neither is O'Reilly, or the Swift Boat vets, or any number of others criticised here...

I already showed Kerry to have lied.

You have showed Bush to have lied.

So, what exactly are you saying, Greg F? Since one lie invalidates everything a person says, how can you believe anyone???

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:38 PM

'Scuse me, there, Mr.BB, Sir, but you're apparently unaware that Mrs Kerry isn't a candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:17 PM

"But when someone says "I don't think I said that", when in fact they do know they said it, it's still a lie. "

Like Ms Kerry, when asked about saying "unamerican"....

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:05 PM

In RE: BB's ever more frantic flailing, (click here)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:30 PM

So, in closing, ladies and gentleman, I come back to my original premise that neither candidate is an asshole. I still feel that they are both motivated by some, if not all statesmanlike attributes. It is just a matter of which side you come out on this.

I hear you ranting about the evilness of one candidate or the other.   I have other forums where I canhear the exact opposite, by people just as intelligent as this forum.

By and large, you have conducted this thread with not too much pushing and shoving, with the exception of only a couple who abviously only feel they can make their point by downgrading and humiliating their opponent. For those people, I really hope something pleasent comes along in their lives to help them deal with their bitterness.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 11:25 AM

The man is a natch'l liar...

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:45 AM

"I just don't think I said that" is smarter than saying "I didn't say that", since there is objective no way of ever proving what someone thinks.

But when someone says "I don't think I said that", when in fact they do know they said it, it's still a lie. If it had been a genuine mistake, surely Bush would have subsequently apologised for getting it wrong in the debate, when he implicitly accused Kerry of telling a lie and fabricating a quote?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:45 AM

"I just don't think I said that" is smarter than saying "I didn't say that", but there is objective no way of ever proving what someone thinks.

But when someone says "I don't think I said that", when in fact they do know they said it, it's still a lie. If it had been a genuine mistake, surely Bush would have subsequently apologised for getting it wrong in the debate, when he implicitly accused Kerry of telling a lie and fabricating a quote?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:48 PM

…but in case you really don't know "why not," it has to do with many deaths resulting from Bush's lies and those of his administration. Not to mention the damage to the environment and to our civil rights.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:43 PM

"Hey, it is good enough for the Clintons and for Kerry- so why not?"

I think you know why not.

But my point is this: you asked for proof from a reliable source that Bush lied; you got the proof, and now you dismiss it as ok because Clinton did it. What's *your* point?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:40 PM

Who is in possession of WMDs is really not an issue. Many countries have had them for a long time. Iraq doesn't seem to have any (that could be found, anyway). Saddam Hussein is no longer the ruler of Iraq. The USA is still there. And it seems it won't be leaving anytime soon. Why?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:49 PM

"Though strictly speaking Bush used an old politicians trick there - he didn't say "I never said that", he said "I just don't think I ever said..." So when he's pinned down he can blame his Reaganite menmory."


Hey, it is good enough for the Clintons and for Kerry- so why not?

BTW, the thread about Kerry lying ended after I put the QUOTE of him saying MACHINEGUNS. I think that I have proved my point- BOTH of them lie- Both will continue to lie to get (re)elected, and to curse one while ignoring the other is a hypocritical thing to do.


Some people consider the Bill of rights to be an important part or our ( US ) freedoms- Just not Kerry.

And, NO, I DO NOT like the Patriot act, as I have stated before.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:41 PM

Gee, I've been having a fast & furious argument and I ain't even been here.

That was the first example I ran across, I wanted to go to bed and it sounded good to me. It still doesn't sound bad, even if you scratch the aircraft carriers. What kind of drones, launched how & guided how? Did Saddam have buzz-bomb technology? But perhaps I, like George was deceived by my intelligence sources. The difference is I was right on this one and George was wrong.

Still, the idea's not preposterous. The Japanese in WWII launched balloons with fire bombs on the jetstream, and I believe a few of them did get here to the Pacific Northwest, but they didn't work properly. it's the (possibly ship-launched) drones that I boggle at. If George'd talked about something like a plan to send shipping crates containing dirty bombs from non-Iraqi ports I would've been nervous. That'd be cheaper & more practical. I could believe in low-tech from Iraq.

In any case, McGrath has a much better example. I will gladly yield if you'll address his post on 16 Oct 04 - 02:09 PM.

And please, don't call me "some liberals."

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:19 PM

brucie,

How does that negate the falsehood of requiring an aircraft carrier when one is not needed, and then saying that since there was no aircraft carrier, ,...etc?
I KNOW how easy it is to place a WMD anywhere- it seems to me that most here do not.

What exactly did clint nail? That his source in the post about the aircraft carrier was incompetent?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:14 PM

Beardedbruce:

You are allowed to determine what YOU think is a fact. However, that allowance does not extend to a carte blanche wherefrom you determine what I think is a fact. Clint nailed it. You didn't.

Hell, bb, the 'man wearing a grey suit and carrying a suitcase' means ANYONE can walk around with a nuclear device. Such a suitcase could be CANOED into the USA from Canada. Or from the sea. The world thinks airplanes. Forget airplanes. Think canoes and grey suits and suitcases. Don't complicate things more than they have to be.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:00 PM

So, brucie, Clint has not yet brought in any facts. I eagerly await them...

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:51 PM

"Now, Bush may be too dumb to know how far Iraq is from the US, or that Iraq never had aircraft carrriers, but his "darn good intelligence" isn't. He cannot have been told this by the CIA and they cannot have approved it; it's too dim even for them. He must have been trying to con us.

It's because of this kind of crap that I never believed Iraq was an imminent threat, and neither did anyone else that wasn't swept up in Bushite propaganda. Including far too many members of Congress."


The crap is on the part of ther person saying an aircraft carrier is required, and that because Iraq did not have one, the Bush administration "must be trying to con us"

They may or may not be trying to con you, but the posting by Guest ,CLint Keller is not a valid reason to state that.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:46 PM

My point was that the statement that an aircraft carrier was required is an example of poor thinking- it is not required. By stating it was, the person made a point that the Bush administration was wrong- but based on an incorrect set of conditions.

If it takes a blue widget to x, and Saddam did not have a blue widget, then Sadddam could not...


BUT THE BLUE WIDGET WAS NOT REQUIRED.

Thus, the comment in
From: GUEST,Clint Keller - PM
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 12:35 AM

has no relationship to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:29 PM

I'm not sure I get the sense of that comment, bearded bruce.

I think it means that you believe that the conclusions that some people have reached, about what is likely to happen in the way of attacks upon the USA by far weaker enemies, is different from the conclusion that you have reached, and that people who disagree with you on such matters are foolishly mistaken.

You also seem to be saying that at least some of the people with whom you disagree with on this matter are what you would describe as "liberals". Though surely that is beside the point. What would be significant would be the disagreement over these matters, not the general political opinions of the people with whom you disagree.

It all seems a little abstruse. You'd have to put a little more flesh on the bones before it would be possible to either disagree with it or agree with it.

But, so far as I can see, there just doesn't appear to be any evidence of any foreign governments attacking the USA since Pearl Harbour. That isn't the direction to look.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 08:11 PM

Ake,

I thought my comment DID address McGrath.

Stop wriggling and address MY comment.

the presumption on the part of some liberals that the enemies of the US are required to use the weapons and techniques that those liberals decide is a foolish one.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 08:05 PM

Well of course he might have been daft enough to think that, but then so could the leader of any of the other countries in the world.

But no evidence has come to light that suggest that he had any such intention.

If Bush has it in mind to launch pre-emptive wars against all the people who might, if they had a brainstorm, attack the USA, he's got an awful lot of wars to wage.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:59 PM

BB....Stop wriggling and address Mcgraths response.

I find it incredible that there are still people around who are prepared to defend UK...US actions in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:44 PM

" but because there could have been no possible advantage to him from doing it"

I am glad you are so certain of this- but I think Saddam might possibly disagree with you. IMO, of course... and of course it would have been HIS decision, NOT yours.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:40 PM

Virtually any government on the planet could, if it wished to, carry out an attack on the USA which would kill an awful lot of people. And as has been demonstrated pretty decisively, you don't need to be a government to do that.

And there is no reason whatsoever to think that Saddam Hussein had any intention whatsoever of doing that, not because he was or is a nice bloke, but because there could have been no possible advantage to him from doing it, and an extremely heavy price to pay. Why even when a bunch of his most hated enemies did it, off their own bat, the upshot was the invasion and devastation of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam's regime. (Which was very probably one of the hoped for consequences of September 11th on the part of those who planned it.)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:30 PM

Ake,

I was commenting that the presumption on the part of some liberals that the enimies of the US are required to use the weapons and techniques that those liberals decide is a foolish one. To say "Unless Iraq has an aircraft carrier we don't know about, that scenario is equally implausible. " when no aircraft carrier is required is stupid.


I SAID "But I guess if is not the way that you have decided he HAD to do it, it does not count. "

THAT is what the airliner comment refers to- since we all knew that the terrorists could not get a big enough car bomb into the WTC, there was no danger of it being blow up...

I think that perhaps it is you, and your friends that have "lost the plot completely,". If you care to make comments about what I am posting, feel free- but "his posts are becoming more eratic,and Im sure he'll end up in the recycle bin along with Doug R, JimmyT,ect ect" does not exactly address any of my post, now does it?