| | Author | Message |
|---|
Frostbrand 
| | #1 posted November 3, 2004 at 1:12am (EDT) |
Fudge all of you. I hope we get nuked, and I hope it happens here in Denver so I won't live to see what that smirking son of a Bush does to this country that up until about 5 minutes ago I loved. Sieg Heil Herr Bush. I hope you bloodthrsty, oil starved racists are proud of yourselves, you freedom hating chicken rags. | msgman
| | #2 posted November 3, 2004 at 2:09am (EDT) |
If you feel like that, you probably deserve what you get. | Frostbrand
| | #3 posted November 3, 2004 at 2:15am (EDT) |
Gee thanks for the support. My country is spiraling down the toilet and all you can do is mock. Go find a pig to fudge Jethro. | heyzeus1
| | #4 posted November 3, 2004 at 5:21am (EDT) |
Its not over. its 4:20 AM and kerry is only 2 electoral votes behind. | icurok
| | #5 posted November 3, 2004 at 6:56am (EDT) |
So the correct and prudent response to perceived hate, fear and idiocy is even more hate, fear and idiocy is it?
You disappoint me. | moviesnob
| | #6 posted November 3, 2004 at 7:14am (EDT) |
How far behind Kerry is depends on which network you watch.
Move, Frostbrand. Don't project your anger on us. | Wicksy
| | #7 posted November 3, 2004 at 7:16am (EDT) |
Tony Blair wont be too happy, Bush isnt very popular over here in the UK. If Kerry wins, it increases Blair's chances of winning the next UK election! | Glassa
| | #8 posted November 3, 2004 at 7:35am (EDT) |
But I was going to put it a little differently.
Hate? As in equating Bush to Hitler?
Fear? As in scaring Seniors that they won't have SS and scaring kids that they'll be drafted?
Idocy? Still stereotype of Bush that people refuse to give up. | icurok
| | #9 posted November 3, 2004 at 8:25am (EDT) |
Then I'm somewhat relieved that I managed to get my point across first without resorting to your brand of inflammatory rhetoric Glassa. People ought to be gracious in both defeat and victory. | Maarten
| | #10 posted November 3, 2004 at 8:31am (EDT) |
Bush is unpopular everywhere! If the rest of the world could vote in the U.S. Presidential election, John Kerry would win in a landslide. That is the conclusion of an international election conducted by The World Votes.
See: http://www.theworldvotes.org
Kerry: 81.6%
Bush: 6.2%
Nader: 5.3% | Biggles 
| | #11 posted November 3, 2004 at 8:36am (EDT) |
Wicksy: Blair will still win unless something disasterous happens between now and February/May. They'll lose quite a lot of seats, but I don't think enough to lose the election.
Brian: the popular vote looks to be supporting Bush in a year with hugely increased turnout. Last time you complained that anyone might question the will of the people, now you attack the people for exercising their will? I think it's bad that Bush looks to be re-elected. I think the rest of the world is looking on with a complete lack of understanding about the mindset of so many Americans. But you *are* an American, and these people are your countryfolk many of whom voted Bush because they genuinely believe he will protect the American people - and that includes you. Express dismay, a lack of comprehension, disappointment...but Bush and Kerry are so similar at the end of the day, that the people you are attacking are very similar to the ones who voted Kerry...they are very similar to you.
Now work on turning it around in 4 years time. And thank god you live in a country where such a thing is possible! | moonstone
| | #12 posted November 3, 2004 at 8:39am (EDT) |
The "whole world" *should* be able to vote for our president as long as America keeps acting like it rules the "whole world"! | Irene007 
| | #13 posted November 3, 2004 at 8:44am (EDT) |
I've been saying that all along! Just goes to show how insular many Americans are. I guess propaganda really does work. | Irene007
| | #14 posted November 3, 2004 at 8:47am (EDT) |
Here! Here! 
Brian can thank God that he lives in such a country but I still much prefer to be Canadian... 
| FordGuy 
| | #15 posted November 3, 2004 at 10:19am (EDT) |
My God Brian, that's low even for you. | freebird
| | #16 posted November 3, 2004 at 10:47am (EDT) |
I am so disappointed. Well those with the money should be very happy. The rest of us might as well just die.  | cerealkiller
| | #17 posted November 3, 2004 at 12:44pm (EDT) |
If Bush is soooo bad, then why did he get the most popular vote in 16 years, 51%? | cerealkiller
| | #18 posted November 3, 2004 at 12:46pm (EDT) |
Ahh, a sore loser? I would have been scared to death if Kerry had won. But, if he had I would have calmly accepted it as the choice of the people. Apparently you can't. | Wicksy
| | #19 posted November 3, 2004 at 12:53pm (EDT) |
Yeh, but it's easy for non US citizens to hate the US President and support the Kerry when they have no real information on his policies! | Wicksy
| | #20 posted November 3, 2004 at 12:55pm (EDT) |
Exactly. He isnt popular outside the US, but it looks like he is VERY popluar within the US
Go Bush, thats what I say!! | Glassa
| | #21 posted November 3, 2004 at 1:23pm (EDT) |
Just curious. (sarcasm intended) | romkey
| | #22 posted November 3, 2004 at 1:24pm (EDT) |
Partisan issues, aside, I wouldn't describe 51% as "very popular"... | southernyankee
| | #23 posted November 3, 2004 at 1:30pm (EDT) |
is kerry really that much better? | southernyankee
| | #24 posted November 3, 2004 at 1:35pm (EDT) |
reason being is there weren't enough independants. this time around, people were simply voting for the lessor of the two evils like sheep.
in 96, Ross Perot at least got 9% of the popular vote. And Nadar got 3% in 2000. This time around, the independant vote was barely more than 1%. Anyway, for my money, I'd rather have either Dole or Clinton in office than either Bush or Kerry. Man, and I thought things were bad back in 96. Boy was I wrong. We didn't know how good we had it back then, did we. | southernyankee
| | #25 posted November 3, 2004 at 1:37pm (EDT) |
"I would have been scared to death if Kerry had won."
why, what gives. What would have Kerry done different than Bush would have that would mess this country up. | southernyankee
| | #26 posted November 3, 2004 at 1:41pm (EDT) |
I seriously doubt that Islamic militants would support Kerry over Bush.
They again, they would blow us all up indiscrimately regardless of party affiliation.
Besides, last time I checked, the islamic militants were very against gay-marriages  | cerealkiller
| | #27 posted November 3, 2004 at 1:47pm (EDT) |
He wouldn't have been a strong military leader. he would have been wishy-washy, wanna 'talk' too much to our enemies. Even Bush isn't strong enough. We need to blast Iraq with our big weapons, not just fight hand-to-hand. | Frostbrand
| | #28 posted November 3, 2004 at 3:14pm (EDT) |
Bush IS like Hitler in many respects, Soicla Secuiryt IS going to get screwed when it gets privatized, and kids probably will get dreafted (Bush has kept few if any of his 2000 cmapaign promises, why kep any of his 04 ones?), and that particualr stereotype happens to be true.
Tell me Glassa, look deep into your blackened soul and tell me why, the more he fails, the more you defedn him? | Frostbrand
| | #29 posted November 3, 2004 at 3:15pm (EDT) |
It fits with my mood. | Frostbrand
| | #30 posted November 3, 2004 at 3:15pm (EDT) |
Yeah, the thought of a President who reads must have had you shaking and nauseous. | Frostbrand
| | #31 posted November 3, 2004 at 3:17pm (EDT) |
Islamofasicst don't scare me (anymore I mean). It's the Christofasicsts. If you're like me, a straight guy who occaisonally hangs out at gay clubs for the music, stay away, otherwise you might wind up the victim of a red necked suicide bomber, as opposed to a red turbaned one. | msgman
| | #32 posted November 3, 2004 at 3:56pm (EDT) |
I'm not mocking your country. I'm mocking people who have such a polarised view of politics that they can't see any good in the other side at all. | Frostbrand
| | #33 posted November 3, 2004 at 5:37pm (EDT) |
Considering how I've managed to find nice things to say about Richard Nixon of all people, it shows how wrong you are. I don't see a good side in Dubya becuase there isn't one to see. Beleive me, if it was there, I would've found it. I've found on in Colin Powell, in John McCain, even a little tiny one in Ronald Reagen. But Bush has got nothing, no redeemign value to society, expcet maybe the fact that his easy to imprsonate attitudes and moronic antics helpped make Will Ferrel famous.
Well, looking at it that way I guess I can say something good about Bush. Thank you for Will Ferrel, Mr. President! | southernyankee
| | #34 posted November 3, 2004 at 7:36pm (EDT) |
I dont think I agree with that. He probabbly has better diplomatic skills, but if I was a foreig country, I wouldnt want to fudge with him any more than Bush. I think we has that "speak softy, carry a big stick, thing to him."
Bush only comes off as a strongER millitary leader because he dresses the part and does the talk. To make a fair analogy, the Presedency is a job, like any other. And the voters are like the interviewers, and the debates and bullcrap ads we see on tv are like the interviews. You know how the workplace works, when you have two equally qualifed candidates for the job, the one who gets the job is usually the one better dressed for the part. Why the hell you think Men's Warehouse is so successful as a business.
What you dont realize is that Bush is selling himself to you. He uses photo ops dressed as the white-male American cowboy, a Western sheriff if you will. Or a Navy pilot. I give it to him, he is strong on the millitary and wont back down to our enemies, but he also dresses that part well. He knows what he is doing.
Kerry on the other hand, imho, is just as tough (I dont think he's any tougher though) but I dont think he does a very good job coming off as tough. He doesnt understand he target audience very well. Its a marketing flaw on his part. He's that guy with the 4.0 grade point average who cant do very well in a job interview.
"wanna 'talk' too much to our enemies."
the problem with him is that he doesnt use words properly. He says stupid things in his speaches like "a sensitive war" when he trys to come off as a rational common sense touch fighter, but because of poor choice of words, the republicans can twist his words and screw him over like that. Sort of like the guy who sneezes during the job interview, he shoots himself in the foot. His problem is that he trys too hard selling himself as a good diplomat and arbirtator, which he doesnt realize, but simontiaously he is shooting himself in the foot. He has what it takes to fight terror, he just doesnt have what it takes to convince the votes like yourself that he can fight terror.
you also got to understand where these two men are coming from. Kerry was a senator, therefore he thinks like a Senator. Bush was a Governor, thus he thinks like a governer. Two seperate modes of thinking. Senators live in a world of compromize, diplomacy, abritration, and colaboration. Governors live in a world of effective decision making, good leadership skills, and earning respect for themselves and the group they're leading. Now, there is nothing inhearntly wrong with either, and both of these have their function in society. But as Kerry is transforming himself from one mode to the other, he might be able to pull it off, but you cant take the "senator" out of him. He still has those mannarism, if you know what I mean. He is fighting an uphill battle proving that he can do it, but we dont give him a chance because he isnt convinicing. It seems to me like you fail to understand where he is coming from. | Glassa
| | #35 posted November 3, 2004 at 8:14pm (EDT) |
Just curious. | Glassa
| | #36 posted November 3, 2004 at 8:42pm (EDT) |
Clinton never won over 50% of the popular vote. | msgman
| | #37 posted November 4, 2004 at 2:09am (EDT) |
All of which merely shows you to be exactly wwhat you are accusing others of.
As it happens, I wanted Kerry to win. Not because he's so wondeful and Bush is so awful, but because I think that, on balance, he would have been a better choice. There's not a lot to choose between them, but, on some key issues, Kerry is closer to what I believe than Bush is.
But, if I was an American and actually voting in the election, attitudes like yours would have made me more likely to vote for Bush. Never mind the quality of the man himself, the prospect of hatred like yours being rewarded by the electorate is just too much to take. | romkey
| | #38 posted November 4, 2004 at 9:08am (EDT) |
51% is a majority, not a plurality. It's not a mandate. It's 3% more than voted for Kerry. That's not a landslide. I wouldn't have described Clinton's wins as a "mandate" either. | icurok
| | #39 posted November 4, 2004 at 10:21am (EDT) |
In-flam-ma-to-ry
adj.
1. Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire.
Compare....
"So the correct and prudent response to perceived hate, fear and idiocy is even more hate, fear and idiocy is it?
You disappoint me."
.... and contrast
"But I was going to put it a little differently.
Hate? As in equating Bush to Hitler?
Fear? As in scaring Seniors that they won't have SS and scaring kids that they'll be drafted?
Idocy? Still stereotype of Bush that people refuse to give up."
One of those comments was designed to politely and civilly point out that he would be wise to calm down and consider his words more carefully. The other was designed to goad him into losing his temper again. Can you tell which is which?
Brian is passionate and he's upset right now. So decide whether you want to be the kind of person that pours water on a fire or the kind of person that fans it.
Since you are a Christian, the answer should be obvious. | mimind
| | #40 posted November 4, 2004 at 7:17pm (EDT) |
neither is better....none of them are....if you think how they talk and the ads you see are what is being delivered you're mistaken....this country's process is so corrupt im sure just enough votes would have been "lost, misplaced or accidentally destroyed" to make kerry the pres if his character fit into the game...doesnt matter what the people want or this wouldnt have been the first election in 16 years that the "popular vote" actually went to the newly elected official |
Topic Page Hits: 1 today (5 in the last 30 days) |
