why Kerry is going to lose

[spect8or]

Quote from Error 404:


And I also think you agree with me, but would just prefer to argue for argument's sake on this issue. Am I wrong?

Nailed!

RS, this is a great technique! Anytime someone disagrees with me, I'll just claim they really agree and are only arguing for argument's sake. This is going to simplify a lot.


PS -- Pabst, I guess rs7 hasn't heard of "liberals" that want to ban all firearms. (RS, I apologize for the term "liberal"; it just seemed appropriate, as I don't know any "conservatives" that think that way.)

 

[Error 404]

Quote from spect8or:

You've picked on me for this since you first read my posts, yet, do you ever stop to think that if it wasn't for the internet I wouldn't be saying the things I say at all? In other words (and I know you won't believe me), in 'real life', I probably am that paragon of tolerance you think everyone should be, because I don't ever argue politics or religion with anyone, 'cos those are industrial strength friendship breakers and, contrary to your continual accusations, there's nothing I enjoy more than friendly and pleasant relationships with people

News flash...I have NOT "picked on you since (I) first read (your) posts".

Think back buddy. I was perhaps your biggest fan. I told you too many times to think about how I considered you the most clever and well spoken guy on ET.

Somewhere along the line you decided to take on the present persona of obnoxious provocateur. Do I think you are (in real life) a pleasant and reasonable guy? Yes. Not the abrasive brat you have so much fun playing here.

But if you want to play a part, then don't you expect to get the responses you ask for?

Same with me. Same with a lot of us who waste too much time in chit chat.

For example, while I really do think GWB is incompetent to be President. I don't think it matters enough to get in a tizzy about. But sometimes it's fun to ruffle feathers. And I was being honest when I said I may vote for him anyway. If he makes more sense to me in November than Kerry does, I well vote for him. (Hard to imagine now, but anything is possible....November is still a ways off).

You want to call me a 'liberal". That's fine. I think it;s funny. I know people who think I am a conservative. It's all relative.

I think it's just a bit bizarre when people call "liberals" socialists or pinkos or communists. I think it's equally bizarre when "conservatives" get called fascists and nazis. Virtually none of this is true. Just mud slinging. But there ARE indeed people who are real Nazis. And Communists too.. But not the Kerry or Bush supporters. The real nazis...the real communists hate them both. And are enemies of the US. Not people like Candletrader or Maverick or me or you or any of the usual suspects here.

Bottom line D.....I believe you are in fact a decent guy. You get your kicks being the class jerk, that is fine. How many people buy the act, I don't know. But if you don't want your act "bought" then why play the part?

I don't really believe it bothers you that I have mentioned my son. He is who I love most in the world. He is also an exceptional kid and in an exceptional situation. And the fact that he has no mom makes our relationship extra special. So if I over-do my attention to him, well what can I say? Parenthood comes with strong emotions. And I believe you understand that. If not, ask around.

So now what? Do you prefer I think of you as the intelligent and decent human being I really believe you are? Or would you rather I react to you as the foul mouthed hateful, anti-everything and everyone character you play here on ET? And does it matter?

It's all just a soap opera for guys (mostly guys...a sprinkling of females) who are in a profession that gives us an extraordinary amount of down time. ET gives us a break from the boredom of waiting for our chances to trade to come along. Nothing more or less.

I have spoken to guys on the phone who I argue with relentlessly here on ET. In real direct communication (in other words, with NO AUDIENCE), we all get along fine. I have never had any conversation with a single ET guy that wasn't a friendly one. If I really did not like someone, I would just ignore them. Not argue with them for an audience. It's just entertainment.

I even like and respect Max in a lot of ways. I have said this many times before. If he hates me (and I actually think he really does), well that is not my problem. It is his, and I hope he can get over it.


Peace,
RS

 

[TigerO]

Quote from Error 404:


For example, while I really do think GWB is incompetent to be President. I don't think it matters enough to get in a tizzy about. RS

You have got to be joking. The biggest incompetent, deceitful and lying scum bag to ever be president, and the biggest threat to life, democracy, freedom, peace and stability on this planet, and to you it's no big deal if he gets another 4 years to finish blowing up the world!?

 

[Error 404]

Quote from spect8or:



Limbaugh, Limbaugh. You wanna know something? I've never listened to a minute of Limbaugh in my life. I wouldn't even recognize him if I saw him.

You know what? You are missing out on something. If you heard the guy, maybe you would understand why I think he and his "ditto-head" followers really are closed minded black and white extremists.

It isn't the people with "conservative" views I have a problem with. It is the people with reactionary and inflexible and completely pre-programmed brains who have made up their minds about every issue without the details being a factor.

These are the Rush Limbaugh type of "conservatives" that I think are a disgrace. Listen once and let me know what you think.

Bill O' Reilly is another "conservative" commentator. But I find that with many of theissues he brings up, I often agree with him. Probably more times than not. Does that make ME a "conservative"? No, I listen to the guy, and if his argument makes sense, I hear it and consider it. He is a reasonable and more balanced thinker than Rush. He has made me reconsider positions and helped contribute to me changing my mind more than once.

And I guess if one can change their mind, that defines them as a "liberal"?....So I guess I am a "liberal" because I can take a "conservative" point of view on some issues.



See what I mean? Black and white thinking is one thing. Broadmindedness is another. "Liberals" like to think they are "broadminded" and "conservatives" like to think they are.

Who's right? To me, the people who avoid labels are right.

Peace,
RS

 

[Error 404]

Quote from TigerO:

You have got to be joking. The biggest incompetent, deceitful and lying scum bag to ever be president, and the biggest threat to life, democracy, freedom, peace and stability on this planet, and to you it's no big deal if he gets another 4 years to finish blowing up the world!?

I don't think any one guy has that kind of power. I DO think a President has the power to prevent disaster. To bring it on, he needs a lot of help.

So yeah, I think the Bush administration is chock full of dangerous and incompetent scum bags. And no, I don't REALLY see how I could not vote against Bush. My meaning was more to make the point that I would vote for whoever makes the most sense at the time. What I said was all rhetorical bullshit just to make a point. Not to be taken literally. But to have a post read and thought about, it is more effective to be less partisan.

Can it REALLY be Bush I would vote for? Not a chance in a million. But maybe a chance in a billion. Maybe something will happen before election day that would make it seem reasonable to vote for the guy. But as things are, it does seem virtually impossible. But, technically, nothing is impossible. (again, my intended point).

I don't think Bush is a huge factor as President. He is a non thinking puppet. He can't do shit without his advisors telling him what to do. Sept. 11th in the classroom is a classic example.

Hard to imagine a less competent President. And certainly guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rove and especially Ashcroft are very scary.

Thankfully, I doubt very much they will get their chance to further disgrace our nation with another four years. Despite the title of this thread, Kerry is probably going to win. Which will be a victory for America.

Or maybe more accurately, an undoing of a huge mistake. But in our long history we have survived worse (or if not worse, close to as bad). The good news is that all the evil of the current administration can be undone pretty quickly if we have a President with a brain and a conscience. Which would be Kerry or virtually anyone but Bush (and his merry pranksters).

Peace,
RS

 

[TigerO]

Well, ok, RS, I guess we are not far apart.

When I say Bush, I also mean him and his gang of top neocons together, sort of as an inseparable entity, the unholy trinity, antichrist personified, that sort of thing, lol.

 

[Hello_Dollars]

Quote from Error 404:

I don't think any one guy has that kind of power. I DO think a President has the power to prevent disaster. To bring it on, he needs a lot of help.

So yeah, I think the Bush administration is chock full of dangerous and incompetent scum bags. And no, I don't REALLY see how I could not vote against Bush. My meaning was more to make the point that I would vote for whoever makes the most sense at the time. What I said was all rhetorical bullshit just to make a point. Not to be taken literally. But to have a post read and thought about, it is more effective to be less partisan.

Can it REALLY be Bush I would vote for? Not a chance in a million. But maybe a chance in a billion. Maybe something will happen before election day that would make it seem reasonable to vote for the guy. But as things are, it does seem virtually impossible. But, technically, nothing is impossible. (again, my intended point).

I don't think Bush is a huge factor as President. He is a non thinking puppet. He can't do shit without his advisors telling him what to do. Sept. 11th in the classroom is a classic example.

Hard to imagine a less competent President. And certainly guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rove and especially Ashcroft are very scary.

Thankfully, I doubt very much they will get their chance to further disgrace our nation with another four years. Despite the title of this thread, Kerry is probably going to win. Which will be a victory for America.

Or maybe more accurately, an undoing of a huge mistake. But in our long history we have survived worse (or if not worse, close to as bad). The good news is that all the evil of the current administration can be undone pretty quickly if we have a President with a brain and a conscience. Which would be Kerry or virtually anyone but Bush (and his merry pranksters).

Peace,
RS

I always find it humorous in the extreme when those of your ilk incessantly mock the other side for lacking subtlety and sophistication in thought, yet invariably argue on the basis of facile caricatures. Indeed, in droning on about everyone else's stupidity, methinks thou doth protest a wee bit too much.

 

[dgabriel]

Quote from Pabst:

Why should the government have nuclear weapons and I as an individual not be able to possess a handgun? As a liberal aren't you concerned with my rights to be in possession of whatever the Hell I want? Who is big brother to say I can't defend myself?

I am not sure what one has to do with the other, nukes/guns.

Yes I am concerned, I don't want the government to disallow recreational drugs, but I don't want the executive government and the legislatures to renounce controls on plutonium, sarin, ebola viruses, etc.

Society can't deny you the right to defend yourself, but it can deem what is reasonable. Back to the 2nd amendment. At the time of constitutional convention, which came on the heels of the Revol;utionary War, as well as 150 years of conflict with Native Americans. There was no National military force. The ranks of soldiers were filled from able bodied men from the several states, and formed militias, which were states' armies of the citizens. Clearly, the founders had a few concerns in this regard: that militias be raised quickly and be sufficiently armed; that the states not be disarmed by a central government, lest a powerful state threaten a less powerful one; and probably least of all, that individuals be afforded self protection in frontier areas.

The 2nd amendment needs clarification. It should be repealed and the issue of personal arms devolve to the states.

 

[Pabst]

Quote from dgabriel:

I am not sure what one has to do with the other, nukes/guns.

Yes I am concerned, I don't want the government to disallow recreational drugs, but I don't want the executive government and the legislatures to renounce controls on plutonium, sarin, ebola viruses, etc.

Society can't deny you the right to defend yourself, but it can deem what is reasonable. Back to the 2nd amendment. At the time of constitutional convention, which came on the heels of the Revol;utionary War, as well as 150 years of conflict with Native Americans. There was no National military force. The ranks of soldiers were filled from able bodied men from the several states, and formed militias, which were states' armies of the citizens. Clearly, the founders had a few concerns in this regard: that militias be raised quickly and be sufficiently armed; that the states not be disarmed by a central government, lest a powerful state threaten a less powerful one; and probably least of all, that individuals be afforded self protection in frontier areas.

The 2nd amendment needs clarification. It should be repealed and the issue of personal arms devolve to the states.

Actually, that's not the worst idea I've ever heard. I always dig States rights arguments. But as George Will said, "On September 11th, 250 million Americans were deputized."
My gripe with draconian gun laws is that I can neither expect nor demand that the police be able to save my ass in the case of emergency. Here in Chicago handguns are prohibited....but you guessed it, Chicago STILL leads the nation in homicides(we've battled L.A. for the title the past few years). Also I don't discount the notion that someday American's could be in revolution or Civil War. Stranger shit has happened. If I stick someone up, give me twenty years. Possession should be my God given right.

 

[Error 404]

Quote from TigerO:

When I say Bush, I also mean him and his gang of top neocons together, sort of as an inseparable entity, the unholy trinity, antichrist personified, that sort of thing, lol.

Like a flock of birds or a school of fish? All those organs and one organism.

Lot's of room here for some Bush "brains" jokes. Too bad the situation does not lend itself to much humor these days.

Honest to God, I would rather see AAA or Maverick or Pabst have the Republican nomination than Bush. At least they seem to have opinions of their own. If not, they at least can remember their lines.

And when they need to, they can ad-lib. They can "think on their feet"!

Q:" Thank you, Mr. President......

After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?"

THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet. ......


.......I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

How unfair! How can a President be expected to answer a question that isn't submitted beforehand in writing?

Peace,
RS