John Kerry vs. George W. Bush

Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by Faint.09, Jun 19, 2004.

  1. #21
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,051
    Likes Received:
    99



    Clinton's only crime was boning Monica. He wasn't perfect, no one is. But while he was boning Monica, he also had the best economy in recent times; the highest budget surplus and the lowest unemployment rate. Everyone had jobs and few were poor. Let him bone all he wants because no body should give a shit about his own personal life anyways, especially when he's doing an excellent job. Clinton pardoned 3 murderers? Big deal. Look at the casualties in Iraq. Bush IS a murderer. Clinton pardoned drug dealers? Not the smartest move IMO but Bush used to be a cocaine user, not to mention heavy drinker.

    And Bush's IQ has a lot to do with the matter. My 13 year old brother going into 8th grade can probably locate more countries on a map than George Bush, and as president, if someone asks you to locate a certain country, you should be able to. Bush is just a dumbass. I've got a Bushisms desk calendar and every day its another stupid Bush quote. 365 Bush quotes where he screwed something up. Big deal? Yes, THE MAN IS LEADING OUR COUNTRY FOR FUCKS SAKE! Do you really want some moron who's grammar is worse than a 10 year old's running your country? Do you want someone who probably couldn't name all 50 states and their capitals and locate them on a map running your country? I sure don't. So thats why his IQ does matter.
     
  2. #22
    Jila

    Jila Super Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    0



    go todd
     
  3. #23
    enfestid

    enfestid Guest




    Clinton's only crime was "boning" Monica? Are you joking? He stole from the White House! Is stealing a crime, or isn't it? And how about lying under oath? Is that not a crime anymore?

    Give me reasons why Clinton is the only one responsible for the budget surplus during that time and why the economy was good. The surplus, possibly, but his aides did the majority of the work for that. And the economy at the time would have been skyrocketing no matter who was president. There was a demand all over the world for technology, and America had a growing technology industry which needed more jobs. It's just simple math :)

    How exactly are you telling me that Clinton pardoned 3 murders is not a big deal? And, just so you know, I never said the only pardoned 3 murders. I said he pardoned more people in his term than the previous 3 presidents before him, which is a proven fact. Clinton actually pardoned around 47 people, a good amount of which were murderers. Bill Clinton also sold pardons. Clinton also did not allow the Department of Justice to review these pardons at all -- he pardoned them without review, the first president ever to do so. Tell me how selling pardons (yes, I literally mean that he sold pardons for money -- some for over $50,000!). Is that really fair?

    If you're going to bring Bush's drug history up, then it's only fair to bring Clinton's up. Clinton and his brother, Roger Clinton, were known to be cocaine addicts.

    You failed to bring up the international court of law document that Clinton signed -- even though no major nation at the time endorsed it. What do you think of that? Would you consider that a fair option? Good thing Bush was President to find a way to get us out of that or else Kerry would be SOL.

    Calm down before you get in a tissy over the IQ situation. For one, I highly doubt that your son would score anywhere near as much as Bush on the same IQ test, nor could he mention more nations. The IQ test is administered by the secret service, I believe it is, and actually isn't much of an IQ test, just so you know. Look it up. It goes off how a president uses language in speeches for a good amount of the test. Clinton was a good speaker... Bush isn't as good of a speaker. What a revelation there. Please, if you're going to claim that Bush is a dumbass give some facts to back it up. You obviously don't know about the IQ test that presidents go through. Please, Bush not knowing all the states and capitals and having horrible grammar? His grammar seems to be good to me, he just has pronounciation problems. Tell me why his grammar is so bad and back up your claim of him being a dumbass.

    And, stop with the whole "Bush is a murderer for Iraq!" bit. If that's your stance, then FDR is a murderer for getting involved in World War II. Wasn't his fault, you say? He cut off the oil exportation to Japan on purpose. How about Woodrow Wilson? The Zimmerman telegraph has never been proven real, and is highly doubted. Is he a murderer for wanting to get involved in World War I? Iraq would have been invaded with Kerry, too. So, tell me how Kerry is better off as president because of Bush invading Iraq when Kerry has said numerous times he would have done the same thing. Everyone wants to criticize war and say it's never an option now-a-days... com'n, peace would be nice, but Saddam staying in power vs Saddam not being in power... which do I pick?
     
  4. #24
    ass_kicker

    ass_kicker Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,695
    Likes Received:
    0



    definately Kerry. mainly because im strongly against Bush and his politics.
    is that a crime? i dont think it is. its just an affair. but yeah he was a illegitimate offspring of unmarried parents.
     
  5. #25
    enfestid

    enfestid Guest




    Yes, I know. Look at his post. He referred to it as "his only crime", so I took his figure of speech and made it literal by giving real crimes he comitted.
     
  6. #26
    savetomorrow

    savetomorrow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    0



    How bout this question that Bush had to face, should I go after North Korea with a running program of nuclear weapons who is threatening us with nuclear missiles and other "weapons of mass destruction", or should we go after Saddam and take revenge on him because he tried to kill Bush Senior..... plus Saddam has oil..... Cheney will like that.... oil is good and we can overprice the oil and Halliburton (a company which Cheney was the CEO of and still gets checks from) can get tons of money from the oil.
     
  7. #27
    Link04

    Link04 Ambient

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0



    I'd rather have neither in office. I'm moving to Scotland with my girlfriend, lol.
     
  8. #28
    ass_kicker

    ass_kicker Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,695
    Likes Received:
    0



    you wont understand anybody there :lol: i think its time to move to canada.
     
  9. #29
    enfestid

    enfestid Guest




    How bout this question that Bush had to face, should I go after North Korea with a running program of nuclear weapons who is threatening us with nuclear missiles and other "weapons of mass destruction", or should we go after Saddam and take revenge on him because he tried to kill Bush Senior..... plus Saddam has oil..... Cheney will like that.... oil is good and we can overprice the oil and Halliburton (a company which Cheney was the CEO of and still gets checks from) can get tons of money from the oil. [/b][/quote]
    Oh great, another oil conspiracy theorist to join in on the fun. Considering that Bush and Cheney wouldn't gain money from the oil industry by getting Iraq's oil, I find it amazing that people even bother to bring that up. Bush and Cheney have connections with the Texas oil industry, yes... but they gain much more money using Texas' oil supply, not Iraq's. They'd be losing money by using Iraq's. So, tell me again how that factors into things. And, considering that North Korea had stated that they weren't making WMDs or anything nuclear at the time of the invasion of Iraq, I'd love to know how you came with the situation of invading one or the other. North Korea came out with that after Iraq's invasion to get attention. Nothing new... that's North Korea for you.

    Link04, I agree! I'd rather have John McCain or Wesley Clarke than either Bush or Kerry.
     
  10. #30
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    Oh great, another oil conspiracy theorist to join in on the fun. Considering that Bush and Cheney wouldn't gain money from the oil industry by getting Iraq's oil, I find it amazing that people even bother to bring that up. Bush and Cheney have connections with the Texas oil industry, yes... but they gain much more money using Texas' oil supply, not Iraq's. They'd be losing money by using Iraq's. So, tell me again how that factors into things. And, considering that North Korea had stated that they weren't making WMDs or anything nuclear at the time of the invasion of Iraq, I'd love to know how you came with the situation of invading one or the other. North Korea came out with that after Iraq's invasion to get attention. Nothing new... that's North Korea for you.

    Link04, I agree! I'd rather have John McCain or Wesley Clarke than either Bush or Kerry. [/b][/quote]
    Here's a thought; maybe they could get the oil, overprice it, and totally pay back and level off the increasingly HUGE defecit that they created in only 3 years? Sounds like a plausible plan to save the day, and boost the economy.
     
  11. #31
    Canadian Joe

    Canadian Joe Bacon strips LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    8,796
    Likes Received:
    0



    Ok, you can all move to Winnipeg, so we'll have some interesting people in here!
    [rant]
    Right now, we're just stuck with that snake Glen Murray for mayor(albeit only for a few more days...god forbid he gets in federally with the Liberals, in MY RIDING of course), who just talks over everyone else just so he can get his way. The only good thing I think he's done is consider approving (and it'll probably go through too) the construction of Canada's (and probably North America's) largest indoor waterpark on the site of the old Winnipeg Arena (to be torn down this summer...R.I.P., there's some good memories of the Jets there). At least that goes good with me...but spending taxpayer's money for a Gay Pride flag to fly at City Hall during Gay Pride week (not trying to be homophobic...he actually did that)...just ridiculous!
    [/rant]

    Anyways, if the USA goes to hell, you're all welcome in the Great White North! Ain't that right, Doug? It is, eh? What? Another beer, eh? Go get it yourself, ya hoser!
     
  12. #32
    enfestid

    enfestid Guest




    Sounds fun! lol

    It's a good idea, yeah, but it'd never happen -- OPEC would go absolutely crazy. I doubt it'd ever happen. (Iraq is in OPEC, too, for those who don't know, and their representatives would never let it happen, let alone their oil industries.)
     
  13. #33
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    It's a good idea, yeah, but it'd never happen -- OPEC would go absolutely crazy. I doubt it'd ever happen. (Iraq is in OPEC, too, for those who don't know, and their representatives would never let it happen, let alone their oil industries.) [/b][/quote]
    Touché.
     
  14. #34
    Will

    Will bread crumbs & white stones LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
    Messages:
    35,486
    Likes Received:
    0



    As far as I'm concerned, I don't want either of them in office.

    When I first heard that Kerry was going to be running, I thought it would be a great way to get Bush out of office. But after a while, I noticed that he was using doublespeak, and kept going back on things that he originally said, and then he'd go back to them. Shortly thereafter, I saw the whole Bush ad where they blasted Kerry for doublespeak. I don't want a President who can't even make up his mind.

    As for Bush: He did a great job at first of keeping the Americans unified and trying to get the economy going again after the September 11th attacks. However, I think that he used that as his soapbox to get at Iraq. If you ask me, he was planning on going after Iraq at some time during his stay in office. I mean, it was as if he knew everything he wanted to do the second he told the nation we were going after Saddam Hussein. But maybe that's just me.

    I'm not a big politics person and I really tend to stay out of political conversations because I usually have no idea what the hell's going on. I have no idea who my parents are going to vote for this year. It's going to be a tough choice, I think.

    So yeah.
     
  15. #35
    Shade

    Shade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2003
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    3



    Anybody but Bush, so in this case Kerry. Kerry is not my top choice however, I much preferred Dean and Clark. It really bothers me that Kerry supported the War. I'll stop here before I end up typing for hours on reasons and thus not getting any sleep. :D
     
  16. #36
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    And bringing it over here;

    Whoa, whoa, whoa... Kim Jong Ill endorsing Kerry is not a good thing. North Korea was just trying to get attention during the Iraq situation by stirring up trouble. And the only reason Ill wants Kerry is because he has him wrapped around his finger -- it's the same kind of game Saddam played: try to look like a good guy in front of the press and foreign leaders, be ruthless when they leave.

    EDIT: Also, no, Bush never found a loophole. He served his time in the armed forces, just like anyone else. People were claiming that he didn't, but they released proof that he did. Also, you do realize that Bin Laden's family have shunned him, correct? Bin Laden's family hates the man... that's something people don't seem to understand when talking about the Bin Laden family. They think they're all terrorists, when they couldn't be farther from that.

    Whoops... just saw your other post, yeah, we'll use that topic.[/b][/quote]

    The document released by the American government (and the one Michael Moore had way back in 2000) both say that Bush and Bath were suspended for not taking their manditory medical examinations back in 1972. But my mistake, he was not sent home, he was suspended from flying, thus making him virtually unusable. :lol:

    Of course all ties with the 'Saudi bin Laden Group' have been cut off with ever helpind Bush again, but that was back in 1992. I'm talking pre-Sept 11th, pre-"presidency". I know Osama bin Laden is the one crooked/evil member of the family, because in an interview with the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the US with Larry King, he talked about how the bin Ladens are actually very nice people, and that Osama is the one bad apple.
     
  17. #37
    Anthony.

    Anthony. .Orestes LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2003
    Messages:
    5,600
    Likes Received:
    0



    Whoa, whoa, whoa... Kim Jong Ill endorsing Kerry is not a good thing. North Korea was just trying to get attention during the Iraq situation by stirring up trouble. And the only reason Ill wants Kerry is because he has him wrapped around his finger -- it's the same kind of game Saddam played: try to look like a good guy in front of the press and foreign leaders, be ruthless when they leave.

    EDIT: Also, no, Bush never found a loophole. He served his time in the armed forces, just like anyone else. People were claiming that he didn't, but they released proof that he did. Also, you do realize that Bin Laden's family have shunned him, correct? Bin Laden's family hates the man... that's something people don't seem to understand when talking about the Bin Laden family. They think they're all terrorists, when they couldn't be farther from that.

    Whoops... just saw your other post, yeah, we'll use that topic.[/b][/quote]

    The document released by the American government (and the one Michael Moore had way back in 2000) both say that Bush and Bath were suspended for not taking their manditory medical examinations back in 1972. But my mistake, he was not sent home, he was suspended from flying, thus making him virtually unusable. :lol:

    Of course all ties with the 'Saudi bin Laden Group' have been cut off with ever helpind Bush again, but that was back in 1992. I'm talking pre-Sept 11th, pre-"presidency". I know Osama bin Laden is the one crooked/evil member of the family, because in an interview with the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the US with Larry King, he talked about how the bin Ladens are actually very nice people, and that Osama is the one bad apple. [/b][/quote]
    Very bad think Kim Jong Il endorses him. Very bad. That guy's a moron, just read a bit about him and you'll see. Just to give you an exemple, he always wears sunglasses cause people don't deserve to see his eyes or something like this.
     
  18. #38
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    Yes, I notice that fact. It's a grave concern. But wouldn't it be more comforting to have someone unstable with nuclear warheads supporting your president, rather than hating him?

    Useless tidbit: Kim Jong is a HUGE movies buff. Micheal Moore wrote this huge thing about settling the tense releationship with Jong Il and it was hilarious. Give him spots on movie directing boards and let him star in John Wayne films. :lol:
     
  19. #39
    enfestid

    enfestid Guest




    No... because you don't know what influence he'd have. It'd be like the Hitler-Stalin relationship. Plus the United States is one of the few countries legally allowed to have nuclear weapons, so being friends with North Korea wouldn't exactly behoove us. Plus, North Korea pretty much has zero chance of getting a nuclear missle to hit North America. He can't do much, he's just full of threats :lol:
     
  20. #40
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    No... because you don't know what influence he'd have. It'd be like the Hitler-Stalin relationship. Plus the United States is one of the few countries legally allowed to have nuclear weapons, so being friends with North Korea wouldn't exactly behoove us. Plus, North Korea pretty much has zero chance of getting a nuclear missle to hit North America. He can't do much, he's just full of threats :lol: [/b][/quote]
    Well, the fact that he can't touch us (yet), is comforting. :lol:. Now I see.
     

Share This Page