Like I told him in the PM i sent him, I have no hard feelings toward's you Tenshu. I do not judge you, nor do I think you to really be a stupid person. You have proven yourself to have your own opinions which you can actually back up with intelligence. But what Avenger said is true.


But yeah, there are no hard feelings

You're asking a non-supporter of Bush as to what qualifies him to be in office.



If you meet the requirements, and have been legally elected or appointed into office, yes, you do.



Then you won't be in office. People aren't forced into political office.



Fallacious comparison. They are barred from those organizations because they fail to meet stated physical requirements. You're comparing personal priorities to enforced policy and requirements.



Bush does not lack intelligence.



Sieg heil, der fuhrer. You just described a nice fascist dictatorship there. Unfortunately, the U.S. is a rather non-fascist and non-dictatorship government.



It's asinine because you're saying that a person only has credibility if they agree with your argument.



You're saying that, if Private Pyle served in Vietnam but never went through college, he's more qualified than John Doe who graduated from college but has not yet served in a military or in office?



Oh, kill the Jews. And the blacks. White power. The Holocaust never happened. Sieg heil, sieg heil. Down with capitalism. Kill the towelheads.

You took me seriously? Why on earth would you take something I put in jokingly at the end of a completely serious and sober post seriously? Context? What is that?

Yay Wolfy!!!!

Ahem...


Politically, yes, most people are. Everyone has intelligence areas that balance out though, so writing them off as morons is kind of judgemental.


How do you feel about Bush saying that Kerry is not fit to be president? Does he need to get off his high horse too?


<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3


He was talking about the best for the people in need. Bush is the best for the rich, the greedy, racists, and homophobes.


:/
You are actually right, I guess. I know that Bush is wrong like Tenshu does, but it would be unfair to call it an objective fact. If he didn't use the word 'objectively' though, it would be fine.


Women can become president in theory. It's unlikely though.
You are right on the second count. Personally, my objection against Bush is what he does, not who he is.


You have a faulty sarcasm detector.


Are you serious?

You may agree with Tenshu, which means you have similar political opinions. That's not the issue here. The issue is Tenshu trying to pass off his opinion as fact. I hope you can see that.

Also, you have no way to measure George W. Bush's intelligence. You may think he's dumb, but you have no way of telling how smart or dumb he really is.

The simple fact that I know you makes me want to post a stream of profanity. I used to post crap like that here when I was mocking liberals. Maybe, though I doubt it, you're doing similar.

Again, I want to emphasize how much I would like to insult you at this point in time but the simple fact that I despise personal attacks on anyone online causes me to refrain. Just be advised that your repeated bravo-sierra is about to be met with my ignoring any post you ever direct to me here or elsewhere.

Yes, I see it. I am positive it is a fact, but I can't say it objectively is because it would be unfair to do so.


Thank you for showing restraint, at least.
Fine. I won't take back what I said, I still think he is best for those people. But I'll grudgingly admit that perhaps in some warped way he might be legitimately best in the eyes of good people.
I don't think you can get anything better than that out of me because I have strong moral objections to many things that Bush has done.

This is why I'm not as political as I was in high school. I am so sick and tired of that bull****. You just called every Bush supported a racist and a homophobe. I support GWB and I'm NONE of those. I was talking to a fellow CS major about a class she had that I'm in now. She's a lesbian. I particularly didn't care about that. I just wanted to know how to survive CS 433. My track coach, Wes Williams, Best. Coach. Ever. He seriously views us as his children. When one of our teammates is having personal turmoil that's impeding performance, he pulls you aside and listens (believe me we had drama on that team). Oh yeah, he's black too.

No. Don't pull that garbage. You're better than that. Debate the issues, don't throw mud. You proved one of my classmate's point today to. the. letter. Politics has become so meanspirited. It's no longer about the issues. It's all about the fact that one opposes another.

It's getting old!

That was not my intent. I said Bush is best for those people.
My parents are voting for Bush. I do not have anything against Bush voters.

Perhaps not intent, but you still implied it. Bush is no racist nor homophobe. He wouldn't be best for those type of people. Racists and homophobes want people who support their views. That would not be Bush. With great certainty that neither candidate is best for racists and homophobes.

Tom Metzger is best for racists and homophobes.

And that's where Tenshu has failed miserable on this thread

Just thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention that Tenshu apologized for his apparent arrogance before. Time to calm down now :p

Racists would like his bombing Iraq, homophobes would like how he wants to use the constitution to ban gay marriage. Even the Log Cabin Republicans don't endorse him- and that's saying a lot. A vote for Bush is a vote against gay rights, in my eyes. Maybe not intentionally, but it ends up the same.

*cough* Kerry opposes gay marriage too *cough*

Is he saying that he is objectively unfit to be president?



What? While I can see why you'd say rich, greedy, and homophobes, why racists? The Bush campaign has been pushing on how (comparatively) racially diverse his cabinet is.



To call it fact is still wrong. Objectively, Bush is fit to be president, as he meets all the requirements stated by our legal system. Subjectively, no, he is not fit for the presidency.



Context: serious post made by a (seemingly) very self-impressed poster
Content: a very self-impressed statement.

My "faulty sarcasm detector" doesn't work when the content fits the context.



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=intelligence

Specifically:



The fact that he graduated with a C-average negates the claim of a lack of intelligence. He may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but neither is he completely lacking a blade.



Fact: Bush's economic and financial policies have resulted in a [number]% decrease in the economy.
Opinion: Bush's economic and financial policies are bad for this country.

Notice the difference? The fact was quantitative, while the opinion was qualitative. An opinion can be true, yes, but for it to be true it must be drawn from fact. An opinion can not be fact because it is simply what a person thinks or believes based off of evidence (or lack thereof in some cases).



Snake's right.

[ Damn it, it won't parse the URLs correctly. Copy and paste the below into your browser address bar. ]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/27/
romney_calls_kerrys_stance_on_gay
_marriage_confusing/

I supported and still support our going into Iraq. Does that make me a racist?

But Kerry doesn't support a constitutional amendment to BAN gay marriage. He has the foresight to look ahead to a time when gays will have those rights. In other words, Bush wants to make it more permanent than Kerry does.

He simply supports a ban on marriage at a state level as opposed to a federal level. The end result is the same, though I'm unsure as to whether or not Bush supports equal rights for civil unions.

Wolfy, he wants states to choose, thus, some states will be able to marry gays and some will not. That's making more progress than nationally forbidding gay marriage.

Kerry may support gay marriage, but it would be stupid for him to admit so, as he'd lose votes.

I think it was Nixon who said that in the primaries, a candidate has to act more extreme than any other, and then to be elected must shift all the way back to the middle.

Kerry supports civil unions, and the benefits of marriage for such unions, which is basically the same thing. Sure, it's not "marriage", officially, but do you really think people will say, "Oh, yes, Mary and I are civilly unioned"? Pfft.

It's a step, at least. A step forward. Not like Bush's step back.

Wookie: I think you're taking what Frog says a bit too personally. Look at it objectively. Whose platform would a homophobe support more? Kerry's, who wants to bring about civil unions (and that's just what he's willing to admit while a candidate), or Bush, who wants to pass a constitutional amendment to ban them across the country?

And I think it's pretty undeniable that the Republicans are traditionally the party for the rich, and the Democrats the party for the poor. The Republicans' greatest trick was convincing poor social conservatives that they had more in common with the Republicans than the Democrats, when they'd probably be better off under the Democrats. But there are a lot of "one issue voters", and so a poor guy from a rural town might vote Bush because of his apparent harsher stance on abortion (which the guy feels strongly about), even when Bush's tax cuts won't help him at all.

I'm unsure about racists, but those who hate muslims and arabs would certainly find more in Bush's "holy war" against terrorism, than Kerry's slightly more moderate stance (though I don't believe he's against the war, he doesn't seem jonesing for foreign military intervention, either).

Incidentally, what are your reasons for voting Bush?

This "opposing gay marriage but supporting gay civil unions" sound like more flip flopping. Can the man make a decision and go one way or the other. If he supports a civil union that "is pretty much marriage" then he supports gay marriage! But no, by saying he doesnt support "marriage" he's just looking for votes from people on the other side of this debate.

Well, there are a surprisingly large number of people who have issue with the word "marriage" itself being used, rather than the concept itself. Seems like a stupid thing to get worked up about, myself, as words change meaning all the time. Terrible, Horrible, etc. etc. No one sees a constitutional amendment stating that everyone must understand "terrible" to mean "inspires terror", though.

It'd be a funny amendment though. Hell, I'd ratify it! And while they're at it, ban "irregardless" and "orientated"!

I support full rights for civil unions, homosexual civil unions, and am against marriage, because I believe that marriage has a religious connotation, and that supporting homosexual marriage would be a conflict of my personal beliefs. However, civil unions are completely wholly government-endorsed, and, thus, are not in conflict with my personal beliefs.

Sure, homosexual people can say "we're married." I'm not going to hold it against them if they use the wrong terminology.

He said that was his personal belief, but that doesn't mean he'll try to ban it.


He isn't using the word objectively [insert cheap shot about Bush's vocabulary]. You tell me, when you don't state it as an opinion, do you think that the objectively part would be implied, and why? I'm asking because I'm not sure.


Against middle-easterners. Bush himself may or may not be racist against them (I don't want to argue about it either way), but his actions might please those who are.


All right. You officially have proven that he is objectively fit to be president. I will from now on argue against anyone claims otherwise.


I guess we'd disagree about the context and content then. It would be up to Tenshu to defend himself about that, because I don't know. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt though.


Not entirely of course, but I personally think his intelligence areas do not include what is needed to be a good president.


No. (I believe) you said it well earlier: A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. A lot of racists support going into Iraq, not everyone who supports going into Iraq is a racist.


I don't know for sure either, but awhile ago there was that link that compared the views of the two candidates, and according to the site Bush is against gays in the military. That's homophobic.

BTW, I think "let the states decide" is stupid. Imagine the outcome if they took that approach to black rights.


Yep. Everyone does this, including Bush.


I agree.


I agree.


Marriage isn't exclusively a religious thing, and I don't think it's even originally from religion.
I'd only support civil unions if it meant that some day the possibility for actual marriage will exist. Otherwise, I think not letting them actually marry is wrong.

To say someone is unfit for the presidency if they meet the official requirements is an opinion. As I said, opinions are typically more qualitative than facts, with respect to this issue, anyway.

Bush saying that Kerry is unfit for the presidency, as long as he is not stating that his opinion is fact, is in his entire right to say so. He may be wrong, he may be right -- but he's definitely not objective.



It's a fallacious argument, though. White supremacists would be opposed to a non-white president in the oval office; thus, wouldn't any white elected into office please the racists?



And I agree with you. But to say he "lacks intelligence" is rather...incorrect.



http://www.pickyourpresident.com/

Huh. They've added Nader. Anyway, there's no mention of his views on gays in the military.



Why wouldn't it be originally from religion? Why would an atheist feel the need to be recognized by religious leaders and government leaders (who were often one and the same) and get married in Biblical times or before?

Regardless, my personal beliefs aren't based on the contemporary definition of marriage. I, personally, believe that marriage is a religious ceremony bonding a man and a woman together.

There isn't a 'president' of the EU. The European Parliament is made up of representatives from various different political parties, directly elected every 5 years. The European Parliament shares legislative power with the European Council, made up of representatives of the governments of European countries. The European Commission does most of the day-to-day work, following budgets and organising meetings and press statements and things. There is a president of the European Commission, voted in by the European Council and approved by the European Parliament. I think Prodi is the guy there now.

He's basically just a figurehead, and all decisions are usually proposed by the European Commission (who Europeans vote for indirectly), and voted on by the European Parliament (who Europeans vote for directly).

I believe Bush has supported the notion of civil unions as have I. Kerry has said he believes in states rights on the issue, I believe, to avoid taking a firm stand. I do not think either candidate would be best for homophobes as both are tolerant towards homosexuals although both would refrain from pushing a homosexual agenda (although I think it is debatable just how many homosexuals share this "agenda")



I disagree. The truly rich, those who already have their money are nearly unaffected by any Democrat tax increase on income. The rich already have their money and any income they do have is usually channelled through the most tax advantageous means. Bush created a lower tax bracket reducing the burden on the lowest income tax payers and the upperclass still pays a far higher percentage rate on income than the lowest. The tax credits Bush passed also benefit middle and lower income tax payers as the upperclass makes too much to qualify for them. I know these things as facts from doing my own taxes. I could go on about your "trick" point but will refrain for now.



Again, I disagree. Those who hate muslims and arabs would be disgusted by our presidents policies because we are essentially on humanitarian missions. Of course we are killing many arabs and muslims but they tend to be the bad guys. The Hussein brothers were killed and many non-racists here were happy. But Afghanistan and Iraq are receiving much in the way of humanitarian aid and are being brought into the modern, democratic world.



Good question.

First I'll briefly explain why it is that I'm conservative. Not too many years back I probably couldn't explain left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, or democrat vs. republican. I really didn't care. But I always did have a feeling that no matter what I accomplished, or failed to, it was always my responsibility. That if I was going to succeed or fail it was totally up to me. That nobody besides me is going to determine what I accomplish (incidentally, that is why I "struggle" with the topic of religion, but I digress).

It wasn't untill I, accidentally, started to listen to talk radio that I actually got a grasp of American political ideology. Now, don't take this to mean that I learned why liberals are bad from Rush Limbaugh. I just honestly learned the differences between our two primary ideologies and I also realized that my philosophy of self-reliance is basically what American conservatism is all about. Now certainly there are areas where good people can disagree between conservatives and liberals but when it comes right down to it, most people personally conduct themselves conservatively. My point is that I doubt many people on this board are going to say that they need government handouts to be successful. I would hope they accept responsibility for their own fate.

So, in a very short nutshell, that is the basis for my beliefs. Why would I vote for Bush over Kerry?

1) The war. Trust me, I have very little desire to leave my family again to go to a place that I do not like and could possibly die but I feel it is extremely important for our future generations that we see this thing through not just in Iraq, but where ever we must to extinguish this threat of terror. We already failed throughout the nineties to take the actions that may have prevented 9/11 despite all of the attacks against us. We cannot allow this threat to go unchallenged ever again. Never forget.

2) Domestic policy. We need to ensure that taxes stay where they're at or lower. It does not seem right in my eyes to raise taxes on employers or those that are successful simply because they earn more money. Employers will have less to spend on their employees and individuals will be saving less for their family's future. That is not what America is about and Kerry has already said he will raise taxes on these groups. Bush also wants to allow people to invest in their own healthcare and social security.

I could have said more or, probably, said what I did better but I think I've typed enough.

It's not the same thing. It's Bush's actions that I'm talking about. He is actively harming people over there.


Read it again.


He's running in the middle. If you want to see someone avoid taking a firm stand on the issue, you can watch Bush answer the question about whether homosexuality is a choice in the last debate.


Tolerant? What about the attempt for a constitutional ban on gay marriage? Not wanting gays to openly serve in the military? Spouting all the BS about the institution of marriage needing to be protected?


The rich got the biggest tax break http://www.factcheck.org/article281.html


How do you like living in your fantasy world?

My mistake. I assumed the text on the site was text, not images, and so, when I simply did a search of "gay", "homosexual", and "military", nothing came up (for now-obvious reasons).



You don't think there are any humanitarian efforts being made in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I think it's a bit difficult to give any humanitarian aid when the country is in the middle of a war. I just read today that a suicide bomber blew himself up inside the "green zone", which is apparently the safest place to be in Iraq.



That's what it should be about. Such a party would be pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-criticising the president, pro-burning the flag, and so forth. Even if you don't like those things, a true "let me manage my own affairs party" would allow those things. The current government is socially conservative (which means restricting people in what they can do) and (theoretically) fiscally conservative (meaning less government, lower taxes, freer market, etc.). Of course, it's debatable how fiscally conservative Bush is when he keeps introducing spending increases for various things; and money the government has to spend really only comes from one place. In fact, I saw an amusing story where Kerry accused Bush of having too much government, when Democrats are traditionally the "larger government" party.

Have you done that political test where it plots you on a 2 dimensional graph? Your views on self-reliance would be fiscally-conservative but I don't think the social conservatism of Bush fits in very well with it at all.

Incidentally, Rush??? Come on, Steve, no-one will admit talking to you if you admit that sort of thing in public! What you do in the comfort of your own rich, white, country club is up to you, but please, leave it there, OK?

How are you defining "break"? As in they got more money back? Or they got a bigger precentage break?

If it's the more money back stance, do I really need to explain how it works? Of course people who have large incomes and pay more taxes are going to get the bigger breaks overall, but that's because they pay more to begin with.

If you're looking at percentages, I'm not sure I really buy that either. The lowest tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%, or their tax percentage was lowered 33%. he next bracket was lowered from 28% to 15%, or a 46% break. The richest bracket was lowered from 39.5% to 33%, or their tax percentage was lowered 16%. From that perspective, the low and middle class got the biggest breaks.

Got my info on the tax plan here

I didn't say all was well and going according to plan. But there does exist an attempt at humanitarian aid.

I'm sure there are, but what's going on is far from humanitarian. They used cluster bombs, even in areas populated by civilians.

I agree with what Matthew said.
Not to mention that this administration is infamous for refusing to take responsibility for their actions.


You looked at the cite I gave, right?

I did, but it doesn't define what "most of the tax cuts" is. They way I'm reading it, it's saying more total money went to the top 10% of income earners. As I already explained, the people who pay more into the system are going to get more back. That's simple numbers.

My math on the size of the tax cuts still stands, and I can say that they lowest brackets got the biggest tax cuts by percentage of income taxed.

The top 10% or so are a LARGE part of this nations income. The reason why Kerry wants the rich taxed is because of all his social programs he wants. Those are going to cost lots and lots and lots of $$$. This is what happens when you spend spend spend and tax tax tax. Corporations are outsourcing more because it's getting more and more expensive. The higher taxes passed on to them means they have to cut costs somewhere and so they outsource. Or they raise the price of manufactured item to meet rising cost of production.

Don't see it yet? See California. California is a prime example of what tax and spend liberalism does. This state had bustling income. Then Davis and the very liberal state legislature got spend happy. Also Davis' policies was VERY business unfriendly. Companies packed up and left California for Nevada and Arizona. This was also a blow to our income and economy. Not a good idea to piss off the guys that fund your uberbig social programs. Now California is trying to recover itself. Things have gotten better but not out of the woods yet. The state legislature is still very liberal and still wants to spend spend spend. I hope there is a drastic change in the legislature this election.

In a democracy, a large government is highly beneficial. You have direct (or indirect) control over the government. The more power and influence the government has, the more power and influence the people have. But the people have no power or influence over corporations. It is the 'philosophy of self-reliance', of the government 'not meddling', that results in ridiculously powerful corporations. If this continues, America will end up being governed by Halliburton, Microsoft and Kellogg, Brown and Root. You didn't vote for them.

By helping them become democracies and expanding human rights to include women? Bad things happen in wars but peace has never come about without them.




By watching him admit something he doesn't know that not even scientists can prove? Hell, we KNOW some people choose homosexuality so it obviosly isn't a black or white issue anyway.





So you disagree with his opinions on the issue which are shared by most American (according to polls). That doesn't mean he's intolerant.



Factcheck.org pisses me off. Why? Because they spin. I'll discuss that some other time. The fact is that if you make $20,000 a year and go from 15% to 10% tax bracket you are paying a far lower rate than a guy making $1,000,000 a year that went from 39% to 33%. Of course the difference in the return will show the rich guys taxes were reduced more but the fact is that he is still paying a vastly higher tax rate and much more in taxes. This argument is so bogus and is designed to divide America. What the hell business of mine is it if a rich guy pays a lower rate than he did before. He is still subsidizing my taxes. I qualify for tax credits he doesn't because he makes too much. Where is this money coming from? It's coming from the rich! You, like many I've heard speak on this issue here, no not what you are speaking of.



This is why I'm having a hard time dealing with you anymore. You have become an insulting little cuss. Was I living in a fantasy world when I was in Iraq having RPGs and mortars fired at my compound? Was I living in a fantasy world when I called medevacs for wounded soldiers? Was I living in a fantasy world when I left my family?

Who's living in the fantasy world?

You mis-speak a little there. First, pro-abortion? Most reasonable people should be anti-abortion. You obviously mean pro-choice. That's why I said that people can disagree on these issues. I fail to see why supporting the killing of unborn life should be considered conservative. If the pro-choice crowd cannot understand why the pro-life crowd opposes abortion then they have the bigger problem. I'm not saying agree. Just understand and it is a terrible thing to ridicule those who just want to protect unborn children. Next, pro-gay rights. Homosexual marriage is not a gay rights issues. It is an issue of expanding the definition of marriage. I believe the president supports civil unions. Next, pro-criticizing the president. You mean freedom of speech which the president has done nothing (except sign stupid campaign finance reform) to stifle. People criticize the president ALL OF THE TIME here (obviously). Yeah, Fahrenheit 911 was playing, right? Lastly, pro-flag burning? You mean pro- right to burn the flag. I support ones right to do so because I can foresee a time when I would burn our flag if we follow the wrong path. Of course I don't *think* it would be within our lifetime. I believe it is fundamental that a person be able to speak out against our country. Unlike others. You all remember the clip in China of the man standing in front of the tank, right? Well, what do you think happened when the clip stops?

The tank stopped, and he climbed on top of it. He said something like "Why are you here?" and then walked off. The Tiananmen 'tank man' was never identified or arrested and has never been heard of, official documents show the Chinese government don't even know who or where he is.

Quit ruining my implication that he got squished. It works better that way!

Hee.