In the US presidential elections, that is.
For me, I wish I could vote for Bush, but I'm not old enough.
Kerry is terrible. Go on though, vote for Nader! ~:p
Yup, back to politics. ~:argue: ~;)
Printable View
In the US presidential elections, that is.
For me, I wish I could vote for Bush, but I'm not old enough.
Kerry is terrible. Go on though, vote for Nader! ~:p
Yup, back to politics. ~:argue: ~;)
Kerry is a horse. He even looks like one! Would you guys vote for Man-o-War (a famos racing horse) for president? I wouldn't, unless he was running against Clinton, Kerry, DeLay, Oprah, or Pamela Anderson.
Dubya Reloaded, 2004!
If Bush wins again I'm moving to another country. I don't have faith in a country full of people that would not only make such a huge mistake once, but twice. End of story.
I don't like Kerry, and i HATE his wife! ~:mad: , so i'm voting for bush. but it's too bad i can't vote! ~:p
Well I'm from NZ and under voting age but I would go for Kerry (he won 3 purple hearts ROFL ~:joker: ). No way I would vote for Bush, he is an idiot - a study was done, before September 11 he was on holiday for 40% of the time ~:eek: . Atleast Kerry actually has intelligence.
Most political threads are confined to the Tavern ~:cheers: so make sure this stays G-rated, play the ball not the man.
Any abuse and you will be carded and put back to Junior Patron Status.
:knight:
i don't vote, even if i did i still won't
I can't vote, but I'm with the 'anybody but Bush'-camp.
And yes, Kerry is a horse, but at least he believes in evolution theory....
There was a study that showed that Dubya is about as intelligence as John F. Kennedy was, at least by IQ, anyway.hereQuote:
Atleast Kerry actually has intelligence.
Plus, Kerry might be smarter, but his record is terrible. I fear a Kerry administration would let terrorists run right over us (multilaterally, of course). And he would surely abandon Tawain when China tries to claim it (which they surely will). Bush will (I hope) stand by our allies (funny that Kerry, the "multilateralist" would let Tawain go, but...). By the way, the Tawain but is speculation, I don't really know Kerry's position (if he has one).
Yes, sir! But what if Junior Patrons wish to post their opinions? Sorry if this is giving you more work moderating here.Quote:
Most political threads are confined to the Tavern so make sure this stays G-rated, play the ball not the man.
Which has its flaws... and you admitted, it is a theory. That would make Kerry the dumb one, wouldn't it? Believing, putting faith in, what is just a theory.Quote:
And yes, Kerry is a horse, but at least he believes in evolution theory....
By the way, I'm Catholic and I don't believe this "evolution theory" that is so highly esteemed by apparantly you and Kerry. Not that has anything to do with this discussion.
~;)
The Tavern is where I normally hang out at this site... KukriKhan also moderates that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Abuse isn't tolerated at either one... but political threads tend to get heated and that is what the Tavern is for. People go there knowing they may see a post that upsets them. They are ready to bite back a comment... most of the time. Here in the entrance hall it is supposed to helpful and a little more cuddly.
So Tavern for :tomato: ~:argue: followed by ~:cheers:
Entrance Hall for ~:confused: :help: ~:wave: :thinking2: :angel: followed by ~:cheers: ~:grouphug:
Roger that! :policeman:
I shall go hence and do battle there!
I'm Catholic too.
Also, Kerry says he's catholic but he belives in evolution which makes him what rappers and ghetto-shiznit people call a poser.
And his wife is Mrs. Botox of the Year.
-Capo
If I could vote I would vote for anyone but bush.
Capo,
Find me some priests or acedemics who studied theology that does NOT believe in evolution theory, they are few. In denmark, almost all priests or theology scholars acknowledges evolution, it is the normal man on the ground that claims god created the world in a couple of days. It all comes down to how your read the bible, literaly (=fundamentalist) or more casually in a metaphoric way.
fundamentalist trend is getting pretty old and outdated.
*disclaimer, Im just putting forth evidence, nothing except the last line is my opinion.
On the topic: if I were an American, I'd vote Kerry, because in my extremely humble opinion, he is the lesser of two evils. Bush has done nothing, and I truly mean nothing at all, to give me even the slightest impression that he does what he does for the good of his own country, let alone the rest of the world.
I'm not sure about Kerry but there's just no other option, I guess. Lucky me for not having to cast my vote over there.
About the other stuff:
Firstly, I don't see how being Catholic would imply that you can't accept the theory of evolution, as this quote seems to suggest (perhaps unintentionally). I used to be a Catholic (then I grew up ~:p ; that was quite literally the way of it though: as a kid, I was a believer, but as I grew older, I stopped being religious, so no offence intended to Catholics ~;) ), and yet I never believed a single word of Genesis to reflect actual facts.Quote:
Which has its flaws... and you admitted, it is a theory. That would make Kerry the dumb one, wouldn't it? Believing, putting faith in, what is just a theory.
By the way, I'm Catholic and I don't believe this "evolution theory" that is so highly esteemed by apparantly you and Kerry. Not that has anything to do with this discussion.
Secondly, about it being 'just a theory', I'd like to post here a very small part of a post, made a long, long time ago on another messageboard far, far away, which deals with just that.
I will, therefore, gladly adhere to just a theory, if you don't mind. ~;)Quote:
“Evolution is ‘Only a Theory™’”:
(I trademarked the phrase because it’s so common, and because it reflects such a complete misunderstanding of basic science. I want a dime every time some Creationist utters the phrase from now on. I should be able to retire soon on the proceeds.)
People often use the word “theory” to mean a “guess.” This is not what the word means within the sciences. A scientific theory is a thoroughly-tested and well-supported explanation for some observed phenomenon. It is not a guess. It is (in principle) falsifiable, but has not yet been falsified. It is testable and has been thoroughly tested, but has not yet failed the tests. It is predictive, and its key predictions have not been found to be false.
Anyone who claims that evolution is “only a theory,” as if this was somehow evidence that it’s not correct is demonstrating complete ignorance of what the word “theory” means in the sciences. It is, after all, “only a theory” that the Earth is a planet that orbits a star we call the Sun. It is a very well-supported theory, however. So is the theory of evolution – indeed, with the possible exception of quantum mechanics, it is the most thoroughly-tested and well-supported theory in any of the branches of science.
(The entire post can be found here, and is rather long. Don't let the fact that it's in fact a Tolkien fansite scare you away, the philosophy forum there is... interesting. ~:p )
I see I made a bit of a mistake in the above post, and can't go back to edit it. Obviously, the second quote is meant to begin at “Evolution is ‘Only a Theory™’” and not just at the last paragraph.
My apologies for that little slip-up.
I'm legal voting age... but I'm English so I can't vote. This seems a little unfair to me. Personally I think all British people should be allowed to vote in the American presidential election, since whatever their administration decides to do, Tony Blair will inevitably do the same thing over here.
I'm 100% against this 'War on Terror' and I guess that makes me against Bush, though I'm not completely aware of Kerry's stance on the issue. I don't really care that Bush is stupid or bad for the economy, since it doesn't take a smart person to realise that America is not run by the President at all but by the large corporations and the media organisations. The American economy is hideously inefficient and environmentally unfriendly anyway and really does need to modernise itself if it intends to survive into the next century. Sadly it won't because whoever is President is at the mercy of the corporations and they don't really care for their inefficiency because the American policy of 'to hell with the environment, theres enough oil and natural rescources to last forever,' allows them to get away with bad practice. When Clinton tried to sign the Kyoto agreement, the corporations bullied him down and as a result America is allowed to carry on pumping out the fumes.
My main concern in choosing a President would be choosing one who would stand up to the corporations, modernise the economy and reduce emissions.
As for the War on Terror, does America really have a terrorist problem. Count the number of Terrorist incidents committed against the US recently. Hardly serious compared to Sri Lanka or South America. The idea that you can have a war against a concept seems strange to me. Trying to fight a concept such as terrorism is like having a 'War on Jealousy' or a 'Battle against Disobedience.' One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. George Washington was a terrorist.
Its a very strange War on Terror too, since the continent where the most terrorists exist is South America yet America won't go in there - with the exception of Venuzela where the US did interfere with a people's revolution because it intended to put the nations oil production in the hands of the people. Africa is also full of terrorists and anti-government militias, yet it fails to act. The UK was until recently plagued by terrorists, yet America did nothing to help us against the IRA. Many prominent Americans actually spoke in favour of the IRA and gave their support. Hardly the actions of an ally, yet it helped them to keep the Irish vote.
In short, I'd choose the president on those two issues. Anti-War on terror and prepared to cleen up the economy.
Can a mod please move this to the tavern?
"If Bush wins again I'm moving to another country. I don't have faith in a country full of people that would not only make such a huge mistake once, but twice. End of story."
Do you seriously think that Kerry would make a better president than Bush would? Bush made some mistakes, but electing Kerry would be one of the biggest blunders our country has ever made.
p.s. Is there a way to insert quotes on this board like on the others?
I'm not American but if I was the last person I would vote for would be Bush. He's an idiot and a liar. For those that disagree, I suggest you read this very well researched report: www.theboywhocriediraq.com It is actually very interesting and some of it is somewhat eye-opening material.
I won't get into heat of the arguing, because in real life it always comes down to me getting very pissed and wanting to hit the others into whatever part of the body i can get my hands on to. So just a couple of statements which show that Bush is not the man to run a country.
This was at the beginning of Bush's "rein"
Reporter "What do you think about the Taliban?"
Bush "They are a nice rockband"
-----------------
Bush "We need to help eastern Germany"
Reporter "Sir, the country doesn't exist anymore"
Bush "I will have to look into this"
------------
After Bush came to power the US economy has suffered, it is becoming more and more known that the US economy resebles a huge balloon.
It is obvious that the so called "War against terrorism" was failed. Terrorist have always existed and will continue to do so, conquering a country and claiming it to be the centre of terrorism is plain stupid. Terrorism has no goverment, no president and no laws and thus taking a country under control will not stop terrorism around the world.
With Bush becoming president of the US the country has lost many positions in the world. Many in Europe consider the US to be over agressive and acting like chief police in the world. Countries in Asia like China, Asia, Pakistan, North Korea and Russia act against the US whenever they get a chance. All of this causes the US to loose influence around the world, this mostly happens because Bush thinks the United states are the centre of the world.
I will not answer to this topic after this post due to the reasons stated at the beginning.
I say vote for Clinton :thumb:
[QUOTE=Ar7]
Countries in Asia like China, Asia, Pakistan, North Korea and Russia act against the US whenever they get a chance.
QUOTE]
Is Asia really a country in Asia? ~D ~:joker:
Hah, i can't even quote properly. ~:0
If I was 2 years older I'd vote for Kerry. I dispise Bush. And if he wins... well let's just say I'm going to look into going to a foreign college.
You know, a lot of the reasons people have against Bush is that they hate him. They dispise him. It is sad, really. I think he's hated by one side of the political spectrum more than any recent presidents; worse than the hatred for Clinton, and I would contend that that was earned.
Basically, they are angry at Bush for fairly winning the last election, and then actually doing stuff (instead of being a lame duck or being "nice" to the Dems).
http://www.godspath.com/PAGES/FREEDO...rty%20seal.jpg
~:joker:
Very well. Thanks for your contributions, one and all. As before, opinion is about evenly divided between the two leading candidates.
We very carefully prohibit even the whiff of flames in the Entrance Hall. Therefore, topic is closed.