I'm surprised this isn't more controversial!

[PlagueBearer]

I've heard, several times now, something that seems pretty scandalous to me.

John Kerry apparently shot babies while he was in Vietnam.

And yet we're still talking about Bush's 'secret deal' to lower gas prices? What the hell? I don't know how valid this is, but I can't get over the fact that no one is paying any attention to it. Sure, Bush served in the nation guard instead of going to vietnam... but to my knowledge, he didn't shoot any babies!

Why isn't this talked about more often? If Kerry is elected, won't that make him the first American President to have shot a baby? Maybe the first to have shot an enemy civilian? I mean, sure, some of our other Presidents have made orders like "burn that Indian villiage," but can any of them say that they personally put a bullet into a human child?

[Kazee]

John Kerry was apparently VERY overzealous to the point of being called down for it. I read some stories earlier this year about him 'pacifying' Vietnamese villiages. BUT, you can't take shots at him with this ammo as the GOP, because they count on a lot of military votes. (War is an ugly, ugly business. But freedom isn't free.)

I don't like Kerry at all, but I'm not tremendously crazy about Bush either. I'm voting for Ralph Nader just so I can tell my European friends, "You know that President So-and-so? What a piece of work. I didn't vote for him, you know." ;-)

[Booms]

I don't like Kerry at all, but I'm not tremendously crazy about Bush either. I'm voting for Ralph Nader just so I can tell my European friends, "You know that President So-and-so? What a piece of work. I didn't vote for him, you know." ;-)

Noooooooooo. A vote for Nader is essentially a vote for Bush.

[Essex]

what booms just said. I hadn't read about kerry shooting babies, could you provide a link please? Besides Vietnam was hell we all know that... well cept bush cause daddy got him a cush job with the national guard which he may or may not have even went to.

[Eiger]

Here's the story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-12-kerry-vietnam_x.htm

If you've seen Apocalypse Now and remember the sampan scene, then you'll find this quite familiar as it's pretty much the same situation.

These things tend not to be too controversial since once people understand the truth behind the comments they dismiss it.

[Eiger]

I don't like Kerry at all, but I'm not tremendously crazy about Bush either. I'm voting for Ralph Nader just so I can tell my European friends, "You know that President So-and-so? What a piece of work. I didn't vote for him, you know." ;-)
Ya, that'll work only so long as Kerry's elected. If Bush is elected, you voted for him.

[Essex]

besides you know Nader won't win, you admit you don't like bush... do you consider kerry worse then bush? I know its sad to say but in this election that's what you have to ask yourself.

[PlagueBearer]

Here's the story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-12-kerry-vietnam_x.htm

If you've seen Apocalypse Now and remember the sampan scene, then you'll find this quite familiar as it's pretty much the same situation.

These things tend not to be too controversial since once people understand the truth behind the comments they dismiss it.

God, I had to wade through paragraph after paragraph telling me what a great, fantastic guy Kerry is (was) before it finally came to the part about shooting the baby, and that was dismissive and uninformative, or at best left a lot unsaid. It says that Kerry ordered "warning shots" fired into the civilians, but that the crew was caught in the confusion and all began firing. Now, the "warning shots" aren't neccesarily forgiveable, but what I really want to know is: is Kerry included in the firing? Did he join in shooting those civilians?

I think he did; he said that the child's face "would haunt him forever."

Now do we really want a haunted president?

[Essex]

umm plauge I didn't see you offering a link to a more (in your opinon) detailed story. Please feel free but from what I read it sounded more like an accident.

[Eiger]

God, I had to wade through paragraph after paragraph telling me what a great, fantastic guy Kerry is (was) before it finally came to the part about shooting the baby, and that was dismissive and uninformative, or at best left a lot unsaid. It says that Kerry ordered "warning shots" fired into the civilians, but that the crew was caught in the confusion and all began firing. Now, the "warning shots" aren't neccesarily forgiveable, but what I really want to know is: is Kerry included in the firing? Did he join in shooting those civilians?

I think he did; he said that the child's face "would haunt him forever."

Now do we really want a haunted president?
I'd suggest that if you're really that interested, that you find evidence that Kerry actually did the killing. Otherwise, you're just spreading rumors.

[Lord Archaon]

Noooooooooo. A vote for Nader is essentially a vote for Bush.

I agree completely.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Now do we really want a haunted president?

Being haunted by past demons doesn't prevent someone from going on with their life. Until the actual details are heard about the events that led to the shooting, I'm not going to waste my time calling Kerry a baby killer. Anything I've ever read or seen having to do with vietnam and how horrible it truly was makes me dismiss things that others would call atrocities.

I can deal with a haunted president, but do we really want a president who is going to continually drag us into wars toppling Muslim regimes while our country continues to be dragged deeper into debt as a result of our war costs, while american soldiers continue fighting and dying for false causes? I vote no.

[Lord Archaon]

Kerry was in war...war can do crazy thing to people. A total different state of mind. Ive never been in myself but My good friend was over in Iraq, he said you can trust women and children just about as much as the guy whos shooting AT you.

He has told me stories about the un-warrented violence he saw and took part in. Im guessing the same was for Vietnam. I wouldnt ground Kerry for something that one of us may have not done in the same situation.

[Havard]

Kerry was in war...war can do crazy thing to people. A total different state of mind. Ive never been in myself but My good friend was over in Iraq, he said you can trust women and children just about as much as the guy whos shooting AT you.

He has told me stories about the un-warrented violence he saw and took part in. Im guessing the same was for Vietnam. I wouldnt ground Kerry for something that one of us may have not done in the same situation.

I may not love Kerry, but killing babies is not an issue I will attack him on. If that did even happen. If he did it, well... I'll be praying for him.

[Essex]

plus you say killing babies, it was one baby... not any better but if you did the reverse and said Hitler killed a jew and not 6.5 million it changes the story as well.

I really think this is a non-issue

[Lord Archaon]

I really think this is a non-issue

I agree. :thumbsup:

[Lilly.m]

Noooooooooo. A vote for Nader is essentially a vote for Bush.

Unless enough people vote for Nader :winner:

I'm voting for Nader because it's my vote and that's who I want to win. I won't not vote for him just because he won't win, that's kinda crazy :flip:

[Eiger]

Unless enough people vote for Nader :winner:

I'm voting for Nader because it's my vote and that's who I want to win. I won't not vote for him just because he won't win, that's kinda crazy :flip:It's only crazy if you don't mind having Bush as president. The reality of this election is that either Kerry or Bush will win - there is third party candidate like Ross Perot that has a chance. So, once again, if you vote for Nader, you might as well just check that old Bush box instead.

[Havard]

Yesss, we trickses the masters to vote for Nader.... tricksey little liberalsss, vote for Nader, vote for Nader (cackles) it's ours it is, and we wants it! We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious! :lol:

[niteshade6]

Not voting for somebody if it's a wasted vote is a big part of what our current political system is based on. There is a reason why political parties choose one candidate to run, instead of having several at once. It's so they don't canibalize their own votes. I personaly consider it a major strike against Nader that he's willing to jeapordize the entire future of our country by stealing democratic votes in such an important election when he knows he won't win. It would be different if we were talking about two unknown factors like in the last election.

As for the issue on hand, I would definetely consider it a plus that Kerry has seen the horrors of war up close. Maybe he won't use it as a political tool the way our current president does, who seems to think it's mostly an oppurtunity for good photo shoots in a flight suit.

[Essex]

Yesss, we trickses the masters to vote for Nader.... tricksey little liberalsss, vote for Nader, vote for Nader (cackles) it's ours it is, and we wants it! We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious! :lol:
thats freaking funny

[Dementor]

Not voting for somebody if it's a wasted vote is a big part of what our current political system is based on. There is a reason why political parties choose one candidate to run, instead of having several at once. It's so they don't canibalize their own votes. I personaly consider it a major strike against Nader that he's willing to jeapordize the entire future of our country by stealing democratic votes in such an important election when he knows he won't win. It would be different if we were talking about two unknown factors like in the last election.

As for the issue on hand, I would definetely consider it a plus that Kerry has seen the horrors of war up close. Maybe he won't use it as a political tool the way our current president does, who seems to think it's mostly an oppurtunity for good photo shoots in a flight suit.

Nader believes that either choice is equally poor; there's a reason he waited till after Kerry was the clear nominee to announce his candiacy. I tend to agree with him; Bush is too far to the right (despite how he marketed himself before his first term), and Kerry is too far to the left (or so we assume; it is hard to tell.) Nader, being further to the left than Kerry (in some respects) probably sees them both as being too far to the right, but I degress.

And I don't think PlagueBearer means to imply that this is actually an important issue; but it seems he's asking why this hasn't gotten any cover by the media. The fact that it's not important isn't a good enough reason; they make a HUGE ruckus over unimportant details that make Bush look bad, so why don't they do the same to Kerry?

"KERRY SHOT A BABY!" would sell papers.

[Essex]

in the 2000 election the ratio of good stories about Bush compared to good stories about Gore was like 3:1 I believe. The media has given Bush a LOT of leway... especially the way his adminstraion treats them, if you say something negative your cut off from information.

[Dementor]

Also, a note:

Presidents who have been in combat are, on average, worse presidents than those that haven't, even (and especially) if those presidents' terms are during wartime.

I think having the negative experiance of combat (Kerry's certainly was negative) would impair a President's ability to make logical decisions about war, based on the data rather than their own emotional baggage. I personally wouldn't trust Kerry to be Commander in Chief; could he lead this nation to war if it was ACTUALLY necessary? I don't think he could. I think he'd see that baby's face time thousands and he couldn't give the order.

Which is okay; it'll mean he won't lead us into another Iraq. But what happens if North Korea decides to "reunify" with the South? Could he give the order for another Vietnam? What if we find out (for real this time) that Iran is making nukes. After the criticizing the Iraq war, could he lead us into another one?

No, I really don't think he could. That might be a good thing from some of your viewpoints, but to me it just means the world doesn't have a police force, and things will just get worse.

[niteshade6]

Well I would personaly think that he could make a decision based on the knowledge of what the stakes were more then somebody who had not been in combat. Bush has made it pretty clear that he has no clue how to run a war, and that he thought it would all be happy photo ops people welcoming to victorious soldiers as heroes. I'm not sure about the statement that presidents with a combat background have general been bad at it, I'd need to see more to back that up. Even if it is true, it's very likely to be coincidental. And I might remind you that Bush was in the military too. Sort of.

Certainly one reason why the republicans aren't attacking Kerry on this one, is it could blow up in their face. Bush's orders have killed hundreds of children and babies, so it probably wouldn't be a good idea for them to attack Kerry if it is in fact true that he gave orders that were responsible for the death of one.

[Essex]

would you say Eisenhower was a bad president? just curious

EDIT: also Kennedy was in WWII. I wouldn't call him a "bad" president

[Jondar]

I dont think Dementor meant that presidents wwho were in wars are *bad,* they just arent as good.

Anyway, I have nothing constructive to add to the arguement, I just wanted to commend Dementor on his words. Well put :thumbsup: I agree completely.

And killing a child (baby, at that) is pretty friggin disgusting, no matter what circumstance. I just dont know if that claim has any credibility, however.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

And killing a child (baby, at that) is pretty friggin disgusting, no matter what circumstance. I just dont know if that claim has any credibility, however.

Alot of babies were accidently killed in Vietnam. In a village where there are gunmen and your enemies look exactly like every other innocent village, a stray bullet is not uncommon. That's why after going through hell alot of vietnam vets come home to a bunch of random idiots with no grip on reality outside of their college dorms calling them "baby killers". It was a popular term.

It's sad, and it is incredibly unfortunate, but I seriously doubt any U.S. soldier ever killed a baby on purpose. It wasn't like "OMFG a GoOk!!111!11!!! KilLzOrZ TeH BabY G00K!!!111!!11" so I wouldn't really use disgusting. A disgusting act to me would be the killing having a purpose.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I also have to heavily disagree with the idea that presidents who served in or during war were typically "worse" presidents. Let's run down the list-

George Washington - Commander in Chief of Continental Army during the American Revolution.
James Monroe - served in American Revolution
Andrew Jackson - American Revolution, War of 1812, First Seminole War
William Henry Harrison - Indian wars in the NW territory, War of 1812
Thomas Jefferson: Tripolitan War, 1800-1805, against the Barbary pirates John Tyler - War of 1812
Zachary Taylor - War of 1812, Black Hawk, Second Seminole, and Mexican wars
Franklin Pierce - Mexican War
James Buchanan - War of 1812
Martin Van Buren - Aroostook War, 1839; Second Seminole War - ended 1842
Abraham Lincoln - Black Hawk War
Andrew Johnson - Civil War
Ulysses Grant - Mexican War, Civil War
Rutherford Hayes - Civil War
James Garfield - Civil War
Chester Arthur - Civil War
Benjamin Harrison - Civil War
William McKinley - Civil War
Theodore Roosevelt - Spanish-American War
Harry Truman - WWI
Woodrow Wilson - WWI, 1914-1918
Warren Harding - Concluded WWII
Dwight Eisenhower - WWII General
John Kennedy - WWII
Lyndon Johnson - WWII
Richard Nixon - WWII
Gerald Ford - WWII
Franklin Roosevelt - WWII, 1941-1945
Ronald Reagan - WWII
Gorge Bush - WWII

Presidents with no military experience
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Grover Cleveland
William Taft
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Bill Clinton

......k guys, I'm looking but I don't see it.

[Essex]

think of how many children have been killed in Iraq, no one is claiming that anyone over there wanted to do it.

[Lord Archaon]

Hell, Ive never been in war but I might turn into a total psyco if put in a war situation. Any of us could. I say if we werent there we cant criticize someone for there actions becuase the circumstances are unknown to us.

[Essex]

I think people would say Grant was a bad president, horrible alcoholic, and scandals abound

[Echod16]

i believe it was on the simpsons where major qimby said "go ahead, waste your votes!" when the town started talking about voting for the 3rd party

[Eiger]

I also have to heavily disagree with the idea that presidents who served in or during war were typically "worse" presidents. Let's run down the list-

George Washington - Commander in Chief of Continental Army during the American Revolution.
James Monroe - served in American Revolution
Andrew Jackson - American Revolution, War of 1812, First Seminole War
William Henry Harrison - Indian wars in the NW territory, War of 1812
Thomas Jefferson: Tripolitan War, 1800-1805, against the Barbary pirates John Tyler - War of 1812
Zachary Taylor - War of 1812, Black Hawk, Second Seminole, and Mexican wars
Franklin Pierce - Mexican War
James Buchanan - War of 1812
Martin Van Buren - Aroostook War, 1839; Second Seminole War - ended 1842
Abraham Lincoln - Black Hawk War
Andrew Johnson - Civil War
Ulysses Grant - Mexican War, Civil War
Rutherford Hayes - Civil War
James Garfield - Civil War
Chester Arthur - Civil War
Benjamin Harrison - Civil War
William McKinley - Civil War
Theodore Roosevelt - Spanish-American War
Harry Truman - WWI
Woodrow Wilson - WWI, 1914-1918
Warren Harding - Concluded WWII
Dwight Eisenhower - WWII General
John Kennedy - WWII
Lyndon Johnson - WWII
Richard Nixon - WWII
Gerald Ford - WWII
Franklin Roosevelt - WWII, 1941-1945
Ronald Reagan - WWII
Gorge Bush - WWII

Presidents with no military experience
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Grover Cleveland
William Taft
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Bill Clinton

......k guys, I'm looking but I don't see it.
Umm, I think Dragon pretty much ended that particular conversation... Presidents with military background are the rule rather than the exception - more than likely to include combat experience as well.

I find it interesting to note that both Coolidge and Hoover lacked military experience and served just before the Great Depression. If it weren't for Clinton, you could say that a lack of military experience leads to economic recession, hehe.

[Dementor]

Umm, I think Dragon pretty much ended that particular conversation... Presidents with military background are the rule rather than the exception - more than likely to include combat experience as well.

I find it interesting to note that both Coolidge and Hoover lacked military experience and served just before the Great Depression. If it weren't for Clinton, you could say that a lack of military experience leads to economic recession, hehe.

Clinton also served before a depression.

And I would argue that Kennedy was not a particuarly good president, despite being very popular. If he were not assassinated, I doubt he would've been remembered fondly at all.

[Eiger]

Clinton also served before a depression.

And I would argue that Kennedy was not a particuarly good president, despite being very popular. If he were not assassinated, I doubt he would've been remembered fondly at all.
Well not exactly a depression - recessions and depressions are very different. But Bush gets to benefit - woohoo!

I agree on Kennedy. He wasn't nearly as good as his rep. However, I do like his stare down with Krushchev over the Cuban missile crisis. On the other hand the Bay of Pigs was a complete fiasco...

[Bartleby]

You guys need to get off the back of those that want to vote for Nader. It's our goddamn right to vote for whoever we want.

I am all for breaking up this idea that it's a two party system and it will always be a two party system. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, no more, no less. To say otherwise is unbelievably cynical.

The other parties deserve to see the light of day and if I could get behind Nader I would, but he's not for me.

If the Libertarians put together a good slate then I'll probably vote for them. Personally I'd vote for almost anyone who is 100% opposed to negative rights.

[Eiger]

You guys need to get off the back of those that want to vote for Nader. It's our goddamn right to vote for whoever we want.

I am all for breaking up this idea that it's a two party system and it will always be a two party system. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, no more, no less. To say otherwise is unbelievably cynical.

The other parties deserve to see the light of day and if I could get behind Nader I would, but he's not for me.

If the Libertarians put together a good slate then I'll probably vote for them. Personally I'd vote for almost anyone who is 100% opposed to negative rights.
Ok, I'm cynical then and proud of it. hehe But I'm not getting off their backs. Nice try - just cuz you want them to vote for Nader, hehe. We got your angle covered... :surprise:

[Bartleby]

Nice try, but you fell short of the mark. My angle is breaking up this crappy two party system. I voted for Clinton and Bush, so I'm probably just more open-minded than you Eiger :)

Edit#1 - Originally I preferred McCain to Bush; annd if Edwards had been given the nod I would have considered him. As it stands Kerry is worse than Bush. I'll take the evil I know, over the evil I don't know.

Edit#2 - If Kerry didn't persist in being an elusive flip-flopping con artist I might have cared to look into his candidacy further. At least I know what Bush is going to do that will piss me off.

[SpiritWalker]

besides you know Nader won't win, you admit you don't like bush... do you consider kerry worse then bush? I know its sad to say but in this election that's what you have to ask yourself.
It's really sad if you have to choose from bad or worse to be leader of your country..

[Essex]

well that is what you have to look at in my opinon. I really really don't think we can take four more years of bush I think a lot of progress will be lost and I think we will be hurt in the long run. I know its romantic to vote for a third party canadate but it is pointless, it is a symbolic action which carries no weight. You might as well back the canadate who comes closer to what you believe in whether its bush or kerry. Plus your sorta voting for the party not just the man because the President isn't just one man, he's one branch.

With the president you are also picking the type of person you want as Secretary of State, Defense, Treasury, ect. Your picking the type of judges he will try to get put into office, heaven forbid one of the Supreme court were to die or retire you have to replace them and the Supreme court is one of the most powerful postions in the world, the president picks them (basically) and if its Bush picking you are going to get a VERY different person than who Kerry will pick.

Plus it means a lot to me because it means a lot ot my lifestyle and the things I care about. If I was a big business man, or pro-lifer I'd be out working for Bush as much as I currently do about Kerry. I'm not overwhelmed by Kerry he's not special but I'm ****ing terrifed of Bush.

[SpiritWalker]

US president elections is too much about who has the most money to host a campaign. Seriously you people have no choice at all what kind of president you want. 3 candidates? Lmfao...

[Essex]

yeah its sad, I really wish that more stict campign finance reform was passed because our system right now only rewards the rich, and those who have rich friends. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington could NEVER happen

[Havard]

It's really sad if you have to choose from bad or worse to be leader of your country..

Where is that not the case? :lol:

[Sage the Mage]

Ok this does not make sense to me at all:
"Don't vote for Kerry! Kerry is a flip flopper!"
"Don't vote for Kerry! Kerry's too far to the left!"

As I said, I hate that the Bush camp has already painted Kerry's personality for him.

[Lilly.m]

It's only crazy if you don't mind having Bush as president. The reality of this election is that either Kerry or Bush will win - there is third party candidate like Ross Perot that has a chance. So, once again, if you vote for Nader, you might as well just check that old Bush box instead.

No it's not a vote for Bush!

You're assuming I'd rather have Kerry as president over Bush. I don't want Kerry as president. I don't want Bush as president. I wouldn't vote for Kerry even if there were only those 2 candidates. I wouldn't vote for Bush either, I just wouldn't vote at all. My vote for Nader is exactly that, a vote for Nader :)

[Essex]

yes but in a race where there is an incumbent when you don't vote its pretty much a vote for him.

as tight as this race is gonna be every vote counts and thats why everyone is saying all this :)

[Lilly.m]

yes but in a race where there is an incumbent when you don't vote its pretty much a vote for him.

I understand Eigers point, but you've completely lost me Essex. As far as I can tell roughly 50% of those eligible to vote, do. So the incumbent already has "pretty much" 50% of the votes? Not trying to be dense, just lost on this point...if Bush or Kerry were the only 2 parties running I wouldn't vote at all. Since there is a 3rd party running, I will vote for him...this is a vote for Bush either way?

If so, I'm moving to fuggin Canada or somewhere, this isn't a democracy T_T

[Cale The Dark]

a couple observations.

1.) to Essex. "plus you say killing babies, it was one baby... not any better but if you did the reverse and said Hitler killed a jew and not 6.5 million it changes the story as well.

I really think this is a non-issue" I pray to God that i am missinterpreting this because....ugh....

2.)I don't think you can say that war makes or breaks a pres. it could turn him into a pacifist p*ssy or it could turn him into a fascist "war is the answer for everything...including world peace" kinda guy. or it could just leave him with a better view on how to react to a war situation.

3.) i find it HIGHLY amusing that the people who want to vote for Nader are getting more flak than those who want to vote for Bush. see, that's the great thing about a vote...it's OURS. we can do whatever we want and anyone who says "don't vote Nader...it's a vote for Bush" i say blow it out a tailpipe. in fact i say "don't vote for Kerry....it's a vote for Kerry!" and that is no better or worse than dogging those who want Nader. someone is missing the whole point of a vote. A.B.B. has got some of you so blinded that you are losing sight of some very important things, like the founding priciples of this country.

that's about it for now.....I don't think that I would let a thing like this affect my vote at all. not that i would vote Kerry anyhow, i see it as a terrible mark against him personally, but not as far as being president goes. i see it as a mistake, kinda like a guy who gets drunk and kills a baby by hitting some family. fortunately for him, it was war, they were the enemy and there is considerable leeway. so i can't say i want him executed as i would the drunk. i appologize for all these late night rambling posts...it's 2:00 a.m. here in Colorado. i think i'm closer to some of you now that i'm working out here for the summer.

[Essex]

I understand what everyone is saying, I just find it odd that the people who are gonna vote for nader, who is very liberal more so than kerry, don't realize that its not their individual vote i'm talking about. I'm talking to everyone who's gonna vote nader the 5% that is mentioned in some poles.

If you are already involved in the process enough to realize that you want to vote for Nader then you need to realize that Kerry is MUCH MUCH closer to nader in terms of policy, also if you are already going to go register, vote, participate then clearly you don't like bush. If you don't like bush then why vote for a guy who is helping Bush to win inadvertently?

I'm not talking about anyone's one choice i'm talking about the group as a whole.

Plus you say you shouldn't choose between the lesser of the two evils. Well if someone asks me, I'm going to kill you in two ways, three shots to the head with a glock, or I'll drag you down a dirty road behind my truck then get out and beat you with a bat till you die.

Granted I may not like either choice, in fact I hate both of them, but I'm gonna pick the one that is better, the shots in the head.

and cale I really don't know what I was saying then lol I've slept since then.

[SpiritWalker]

Plus you say you shouldn't choose between the lesser of the two evils. Well if someone asks me, I'm going to kill you in two ways, three shots to the head with a glock, or I'll drag you down a dirty road behind my truck then get out and beat you with a bat till you die.

Granted I may not like either choice, in fact I hate both of them, but I'm gonna pick the one that is better, the shots in the head.
You can vote blanco, can't you? Or just don't vote at all.. :innocent:

[Essex]

not voting at all is the most ******** thing I've ever heard, even if your going to vote bush I want you out there voting. **** it should be mandatory in my mind, if you don't vote you don't get to eat or something... or like you don't get any government services.

[SpiritWalker]

not voting at all is the most ******** thing I've ever heard, even if your going to vote bush I want you out there voting. **** it should be mandatory in my mind, if you don't vote you don't get to eat or something... or like you don't get any government services.
Well I was supposed to vote for some European parlement thingy last Thursday, but I have no freaking idea what those chaps do there and who to vote for. So imo, when I don't even know what or who I am voting for, I think it's pretty much acceptable to not vote. I think it's also acceptable to not vote if you don't like any of the parties/people participating (or vote blanco, which is a vote for no one, which could be interpretated as that you don't agree with any of the parties).

[Essex]

eh I just hate voter apathy.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Alot of babies were accidently killed in Vietnam. In a village where there are gunmen and your enemies look exactly like every other innocent village, a stray bullet is not uncommon. That's why after going through hell alot of vietnam vets come home to a bunch of random idiots with no grip on reality outside of their college dorms calling them "baby killers". It was a popular term.

It's sad, and it is incredibly unfortunate, but I seriously doubt any U.S. soldier ever killed a baby on purpose. It wasn't like "OMFG a GoOk!!111!11!!! KilLzOrZ TeH BabY G00K!!!111!!11" so I wouldn't really use disgusting. A disgusting act to me would be the killing having a purpose.

Hahaha. Nice one. :lol:

But we do have to take into account the pure hatred for the 'gooks' the U.S. soldiers developed. It is not that far fetched that some U.S. soldiers went on personal killing sprees. It did happen. I remember a piece on 60 minutes a few months back, about an American helicopter pilot by the name of Hugh Thompson who saved a group of Vietnamese villagers from being slaughtered by American troops in My Lai. The villagers were marched into a ditch and shot. Men, women, and children. Thompson landed and got in the way of the soldiers when they were going to kill some villagers hiding in a bunker and managed to get them into his chopper and fly to safety.

Anyway, heres the story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/60minutes/main615997.shtml

Thompson was recently inducted into the Amry Aviation Hall of Fame after the army had spent decades covering up the massacre and refusing to recognize his heroic act.

So the 'baby killer' shouts at soldiers were often misdirected by overzealous anti-war demonstants but they had good cause for anger as there were quite a few true baby killers. It was just that no one but the soldiers themselves knew who was guilty of such things and who was not.

Our societys morals can not be applied to war situations. It simply cant. Innocent people get killed in war. Usually by accident. Sometimes by soldiers who give in to misdirected hatred.
Ask any Vietnam vet and he would say there is no cause of outrage because Kerry accidentally killed a child. Those things happen in war. When people get stuck on this it is simply because they do not understand the true nature of war. Atleast not a hell on eart war like in Vietnam where you could not tell a VC soldier apart from an innocent villager.

[PlagueBearer]

Our societys morals can not be applied to war situations. It simply cant.

Then how can we complain about the torture issue? We have made a clear decision to apply morals to war, and if we're going to make that decision (as I beleive we have through such agreements as the Geneva Convention) then we need to make that decision across the board. Soldiers are responsible for their actions, period. That's the decision our society has made, for better or for worse; Kerry can't be forgiven just because he killed the baby in a war.

If he killed the baby. I still have only read that one article; I wish people would link to more. I'm not neccesarily going to vote for Bush; I'm still up in the air. Convince me that Kerry deserves my vote and he'll get it.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

then we need to make that decision across the board. Soldiers are responsible for their actions, period. That's the decision our society has made, for better or for worse; Kerry can't be forgiven just because he killed the baby in a war.

Convince me that Kerry deserves my vote and he'll get it

Correction, If Kerry saw a baby, put the gun to its head then pulled the trigger then yes he should be held accountable.

If in the middle of a firefight a stray bullet happened to hit a baby, then no, especially in vietnam he should not.

As far as voting, I won't try to convice as I'll not be voting for him either. However it won't be cause he might have killed a baby, it's because he dances around issues more than the guys from Riverdance. I have no idea who'll I'll be voting for yet. I'll probably just do what I always do and wait for the debates until making my decision.

[Dementor]

Plus you say you shouldn't choose between the lesser of the two evils. Well if someone asks me, I'm going to kill you in two ways, three shots to the head with a glock, or I'll drag you down a dirty road behind my truck then get out and beat you with a bat till you die.

Granted I may not like either choice, in fact I hate both of them, but I'm gonna pick the one that is better, the shots in the head.

Interesting.

If given this choice, I'd choose the one that I'd have a chance of surviving. Will it be painful? Yes, another four years of Bush was not something I was planning on voting for, but then the Dems pick this turd... now I've got to go with the dragging behind the truck, and hope that I survive the ordeal.

I was kind of planning on voting Nader... but ya'll are right, that's a waste. Voting for Bush now...

[Jondar]

I was kind of planning on voting Nader... but ya'll are right, that's a waste. Voting for Bush now...

lol.

Anyway, Dragon, I still say that the killing of a baby, regardless of the situation, is disgusting; you might think thats the wrong term, but to me, its not. It appalls me - a tragedy might be the word youre looking for, but either way, to me its a disgusting act, even if it were a stray bullet, as you put it.

"Stray bullet" is a term I wouldnt use; if it were stray, how did they link it to Kerry?

[Essex]

they linked it to someone from his group not him as far as I could remember.

[Essex]

Interesting.

If given this choice, I'd choose the one that I'd have a chance of surviving. Will it be painful? Yes, another four years of Bush was not something I was planning on voting for, but then the Dems pick this turd... now I've got to go with the dragging behind the truck, and hope that I survive the ordeal.

I was kind of planning on voting Nader... but ya'll are right, that's a waste. Voting for Bush now...
what is so bad about kerry that if you were planning on voting against bush you suddenly do want to vote for him.

[CTM]

if a vote for nader is a vote for bush, then whose fault is it?

is it naders fault for running at the risk of one of his opponents not winning? oh no, someone he is campaiging against didn't win :(

is it my fault for voting nader, and having your candidate not win? oh no, your candidate didn't win :(

or is it Kerry's fault for being a lousy alternative?

[Graav Wolfsong]

Then how can we complain about the torture issue? We have made a clear decision to apply morals to war, and if we're going to make that decision (as I beleive we have through such agreements as the Geneva Convention) then we need to make that decision across the board. Soldiers are responsible for their actions, period. That's the decision our society has made, for better or for worse; Kerry can't be forgiven just because he killed the baby in a war.

If he killed the baby. I still have only read that one article; I wish people would link to more. I'm not neccesarily going to vote for Bush; I'm still up in the air. Convince me that Kerry deserves my vote and he'll get it.

There is a big difference between torturing prisoners in the relative safety of a prison and killing people in a combat situation.

Like Dragon said, if he walked up to the baby and put a gun to its head and executed it, there would be a serious issue.
But if a child, or any civilian for that matter is killed in combat, it is simply a casualty of war, its sad but that is what happens in war, it cant be avoided. Soldiers are trained to attack without a moments hesitation if they percieve a threat to themselves or their fellow soldiers. Thus, in a war like the Vietnam war, alot of innocent people died because American forces couldnt tell them apart from VC troops, most didnt know the language and felt insecure and threatened. And the vast majority of soldiers sent to Vietnam were inexperienced to the point where they shouldnt have been there in the first place.
A baby would hardly be a threat so quite obviously it was killed by American forces in a gunfight or a situation about to turn into a gunfight. With actual VC troops or civilians mistaken for VC troops.
The rules change in combat, the pencil pushers will say all sorts of pretty things to the people for good PR but there is no rules of society in a combat situation. You have your morals of course but when enemy forces shoot at you, those morals mean nothing in the heat of the moment. You either shoot back or die.
Quick note: Many of the American rookies that were killed in vietnam died with full magazines, they froze up or hesitated and got killed.

During my time in the army I have met quite a few Vietnam vets, and the stories they tell are truly horrifying.

Someone 30 someting years later that have never seen combat and barely ever even been in a fistfight have no right to sit and pass judgement on a soldier forced to fight in a war like that because they happened to kill a civilian.
Because they have no understanding of the situation these soldiers were put in.
The death of a baby is always a tragedy but blaming Kerry for it is just wrong. I'm sure he has spent his share of sleepless nights going over what happened and what he could have done differently.

[Bhs Crew]

You vote for the candidate you like or the one you hate the least. If that happens to be a third party candidate or independent then vote for him. I will be sad if Bush wins another term, but a vote for Nader is hardly a vote for Bush. If anything a vote for Nader is like not voting.

I don't mind it if people don't vote. It's a free country. If you don't know the facts and don't care about politics then STAY HOME. The last thing you should do is go and cast a ballot if you don't know or care about the candidates or issues.

None of us know the situation with Kerry in Vietnam. If a few of the people who fought with him are coming out and saying that Kerry was a baby-killer who shouldn't be president then that is different, but I haven't seen that happening.

[Cale The Dark]

I think we should all just agree that the American people are getting the shaft this upcoming term. there is no good candidate. it's very sad that the most anyone can say is that the person they are voting for is the "lesser of the two evils" in their eyes. where have the good presidents gone? anyway, everyone should vote how they want because we are gonna get a ****ty pres no matter what. we can get the guy with a history of poor decisions or the wishy-washy lord of the (political) dance. i can't wait for the political debates. it will be amusing watching Bush try and defend some of his more questionable decisions and seeing Kerry dodge the questions and issues like poo flung by a pissed off republican monkey.

[Essex]

i agree cale and the worse thing is whoever gets elected thinks they have a mandate... only the 96 elections and the 84 elections could really claim mandates as of late.

Bush had to go to the supreme court to offically be declared the winner but hes ran the country like he won every ****ing state. He has never been compassionate, and he's divded a hell of a lot more than he ever united.

[Leon[fp]]

not voting at all is the most ******** thing I've ever heard, even if your going to vote bush I want you out there voting. **** it should be mandatory in my mind, if you don't vote you don't get to eat or something... or like you don't get any government services.

By voting you give your personal legitimization to the way politics work in your society. I don't think it should be mandatory since that would force people to legitimize the current system of politics. What if you don't think any of the candidates will do your country good?

Anyway, while I do vote, I don't mind other people not voting. What I DO mind, is people who vote for one of the major parties and afterwards complain about how bad politics is, how bad their policies are etc. If you vote for one of the major parties you should, by now, know what's coming to you (these parties have made policy for decades upon decades now) and it's your own damn fault things turn out the wrong way. You knew what the major parties would do, if you paid attention to politics and society for the last few years, and still you voted for one of the major parties. If you find reason to complain, then don't vote for those parties! Try another party for a change. You may think they won't do it well either, but you don't know (which is not the case with major parties), so you might as well give it a shot.

In conclusion: if you don't vote, you may still complain about the major parties, though you could have voted for some other party; if you voted for a major party, then you simply should not complain or you should agree that next time you'll have to vote for another party.

[Bartleby]

I'm with Leon on this one.

If more people voted for a party other than the dominant two we have now then maybe, just maybe, other parties would be formed that could find the funding, talent and connections that are necessary to get into the whitehouse.

If we resolve ourselves to accepting the status quo, then the one thing that is sure is that it will NEVER change.

[PlagueBearer]

If in the middle of a firefight a stray bullet happened to hit a baby...

There is a big difference between torturing prisoners in the relative safety of a prison and killing people in a combat situation.

"Firefight"... "Combat situation"...

You guys act like these guys were responding to enemy fire and a baby jumped in the way. That's not how it happened, at least not according to Eiger's article. Without any shots being fired at them, a group of US soldiers including and under the command of Kerry 'accidentally' opened fire on a group of civilians. Three died; one of them was a baby.

The baby was not holding a gun. None of the people being fired at were holding guns. The only people with guns were Kerry and his men. It wasn't a 'combat situation' or a 'firefight'.

[George Bush]

you know what?
vietnam was a horrible war. they had little kids carry in bombs to usa camps and just blow up. you couldnt tell who was after you.you have no clue how horrible that war was. hell my father still cant manage to talk about it all these years after it.
all that said i dont believe kerry intentionally shot some baby. mabey by accident but i doubt he jumped in some town and said "hey let's kill some baby for fun!" .
let this crap die. this thread is idiotic .

[Graav Wolfsong]

Well said Dubya. :thumbsup:
That pretty much sums up my stance on this thread as well.

[the_guse]

You guys need to get off the back of those that want to vote for Nader. It's our goddamn right to vote for whoever we want.

I am all for breaking up this idea that it's a two party system and it will always be a two party system. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, no more, no less. To say otherwise is unbelievably cynical.

The other parties deserve to see the light of day and if I could get behind Nader I would, but he's not for me.

If the Libertarians put together a good slate then I'll probably vote for them. Personally I'd vote for almost anyone who is 100% opposed to negative rights.

i agree with you compleatly. the right to choose is about who you think would make the best president, not who you think will win. i plan on voting for nader because i like his views more than i like kerry's or bush's. no i dont think nader will win, but that is never a reason to not vote for him.

[Leon[fp]]

"Firefight"... "Combat situation"...

You guys act like these guys were responding to enemy fire and a baby jumped in the way. That's not how it happened, at least not according to Eiger's article. Without any shots being fired at them, a group of US soldiers including and under the command of Kerry 'accidentally' opened fire on a group of civilians. Three died; one of them was a baby.

The baby was not holding a gun. None of the people being fired at were holding guns. The only people with guns were Kerry and his men. It wasn't a 'combat situation' or a 'firefight'.

Such things happened all the time in Vietnam. It's not like Kerry was the sole 'evil' guy over there. In fact, you can hardly put all the responsibility on the soldiers doing the dirty work in the field. The orders came from above and the adverse conditions only worsened it all. The orders were to quelch any 'communist resistance,' which meant destroying entire villages since the NLF (Vietcong) was supported by most of the rural population. It wasn't like the soldiers got orders to free the Vietnamese people in all those villages and try keep them all alive. So putting the responsibility on the soldiers and commanders in the field, like Kerry, isn't really fair to them.

[Essex]

I'm with Leon on this one.

If more people voted for a party other than the dominant two we have now then maybe, just maybe, other parties would be formed that could find the funding, talent and connections that are necessary to get into the whitehouse.

If we resolve ourselves to accepting the status quo, then the one thing that is sure is that it will NEVER change.
i agree I wish we could support third, fourth parties in this country. I'm all for working towards that goal, but during a closely contested very important, in my eyes, election. Now is not the time for Nader to be running for president.

You know he doesn't even have the support of the green party, or any party for that matter. To get federally matched funds a party has to pull what 3, 5% in the race for the white house? Well even if Nader got 10% no party would get those funds, because he's running on his own.

The green party realized what they did last time, it was a nobel cause but cost Gore the win plain and simple you can argue it didn't but I'm sure that there were 530 something votes out there that he lost to Nader.

So go ahead vote for nader but you aren't helping out third parties your just pumping up Ralph Nader's ego.

[Havard]

In the recent San Francisco mayoral election, the race was between a Green and a Democrat. It was so close that there was a run-off!

*Yes, I know Nader isn't running under the Green Party. Just reporting how Green is becoming more popular in some places.

[Bartleby]

i agree I wish we could support third, fourth parties in this country. I'm all for working towards that goal, but during a closely contested very important, in my eyes, election. Now is not the time for Nader to be running for president.If not me, then who? If not now, then when? ~Hillel (a ver. of the original)

You know he doesn't even have the support of the green party, or any party for that matter. To get federally matched funds a party has to pull what 3, 5% in the race for the white house? Well even if Nader got 10% no party would get those funds, because he's running on his own.Strength of numbers is the delight of the timid. The valiant in spirit glory in fighting alone. ~Ghandi

The green party realized what they did last time, it was a nobel cause but cost Gore the win plain and simple you can argue it didn't but I'm sure that there were 530 something votes out there that he lost to Nader.
To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice. ~Confucius

So go ahead vote for nader but you aren't helping out third parties your just pumping up Ralph Nader's ego.
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary. ~Albert Einstein

[Bartleby]

I voted for a Democrat and then a Republican and guess what, it was the same ****, different day.

Now I vote for who stands for me, not for who stands to win. If more people did the same, our government wouldn't be the "lesser of two evils" it is today.

“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?” ~Hillel (original version of previous quote)

[Eiger]

Hehe - that's pretty good. Nice try.

Ya, basically there are lots of good reasons to vote your conscience and blah blah blah. There are also lots of good reasons not to vote for someone who doesn't have the slightest chance to win and more pragmatically place your vote to ensure that a certain someone else doesn't win. There's offensive and defensive voting. This election's all about defensive voting.

[Bartleby]

Congratulations, you're a conformist.

[Bartleby]

Actually, I take that back, but you have to know that your thinking is reactive and not proactive and that the world was never changed by people who thought reactively.

[Bartleby]

Man, I suck for the multi-posting, but these thoughts come to mind after the fact.

There are also lots of good reasons not to vote for someone who doesn't have the slightest chance to win and more pragmatically place your vote to ensure that a certain someone else doesn't win.
You never know until you really try. Perfect analogy, nobody expected the Pistons to even challenge the Lakers second line, but look at them... How about the Angels, the Dodgers or the teams playing for the Stanley Cup (sorry been reading waaaay too much sports lately)

The point is, there's a time and a place for practical decisions and you should always consider the history of similar events, but you can't stand on the information you've collected and say that you can predict the future, because you can't. It's an educated guess, but still just a guess.

And here's a quote for you overly pragmatic people :D
The question of the [N.azi] movement's inner organization is one of expediency and not of principle. ~Adolf Hitler

[Eiger]

You never know until you really try. Perfect analogy, nobody expected the Pistons to even challenge the Lakers second line, but look at them... How about the Angels, the Dodgers or the teams playing for the Stanley Cup (sorry been reading waaaay too much sports lately)

The point is, there's a time and a place for practical decisions and you should always consider the history of similar events, but you can't stand on the information you've collected and say that you can predict the future, because you can't. It's an educated guess, but still just a guess.
Nah, it's more than an educated guess. Typically, third party candidates do their best the first time they run. Their vote tallies decline significantly the second time around - Ross Perot is a prime example. According to polls, which are reasonably accurate for the moment that they're taken, Nader's doing really bad - as in less than 10%. There's no way he can recover and he's lost a lot of his base from 2000, as a reaction to Gore's losing.

Elections are not like sporting events at all. If they were the Lakers would be winning at this point, because most basketball followers out there thought they would. Sporting events are dependent on athletes' performances on a given few nights. Elections span over a year and it's the "fans" who get to determine who wins. In this case, a resounding majority of "fans" have said many times over in polls that they aren't going to elect Nader. An election is the perfect time and place to make a pragmatic decision.

Maybe, there will be an election in the future where there is a viable 3rd party candidate, as there has been in the past (1992, 1968 to name a couple). In that case your comments would be more valid and I'd support them, but not for the 2004 election.

[Bartleby]

Nah, it's more than an educated guess. [snip] There's no way he can recover and he's lost a lot of his base from 2000, as a reaction to Gore's losing.
Right now he may have lost more than he has gained (I don't know, but I'm guessing based on your zeal) but he still attracts new voters to his cause. You can add up all the statistics you want, but you cannot predict the future. You're guess is highly probable and more likely than other possible outcomes, but until all the votes have been cast you still are just guessing. Any attempt to say otherwise is fallacious and you know it.

Elections are not like sporting events at all.
Granted, that was not a good analogy because one is based primarily on public opinion and the other is based primarily on physical skill. But being a Laker fan you can understand why they're on the forefront of my mind.

Maybe, there will be an election in the future where there is a viable 3rd party candidate, as there has been in the past (1992, 1968 to name a couple).It's funny how in the cases where you said the 3rd party candidate was viable, they were conservative candidates: Ross Perot, and George Wallace (although Wallace was really a fascist)
The 3rd party is not viable when it's a Democrat, but is viable when it's a Republican eh?.. Interesting... and a bit ironic, at least to me, seeing as how I had assumed you might have been a bit more open-minded.

In that case your comments would be more valid and I'd support them, but not for the 2004 election.My comments are valid and thankfully they don't require your support, seeing as how you believe there are only two ways to vote:

Defensively: Well, I KNOW that the candidate I think is best can't win so I'm going to settle for someone that might cover some of the issues that concern me. -Referred to as, the lesser of two evils-
Offensively: I KNOW that the candidate I think is best has a chance of winning so I'm going to vote for him. -this is not offensive, this is merely an intersection of a heavily supported candidate and your conscious-
In my opinion, you will never change the world with that kind of thinking. I may or may not leave an enduring, positive mark on the world, but I'll be damned if I don't do my best make it happen. And I certainly won't stand for anyone minimizing the valid opinion of someone else because it doesn't conform to their way of thinking. /rant

Edit#1 - Oh yeah, and "your momma" for bagging on my Laker pride in the NBA playoffs thread. :D

[Eiger]

Right now he may have lost more than he has gained (I don't know, but I'm guessing based on your zeal) but he still attracts new voters to his cause. You can add up all the statistics you want, but you cannot predict the future. You're guess is highly probable and more likely than other possible outcomes, but until all the votes have been cast you still are just guessing. Any attempt to say otherwise is fallacious and you know it.


Granted, that was not a good analogy because one is based primarily on public opinion and the other is based primarily on physical skill. But being a Laker fan you can understand why they're on the forefront of my mind.

It's funny how in the cases where you said the 3rd party candidate was viable, they were conservative candidates: Ross Perot, and George Wallace (although Wallace was really a fascist)
The 3rd party is not viable when it's a Democrat, but is viable when it's a Republican eh?.. Interesting... and a bit ironic, at least to me, seeing as how I had assumed you might have been a bit more open-minded.

My comments are valid and thankfully they don't require your support, seeing as how you believe there are only two ways to vote:

Defensively: Well, I KNOW that the candidate I think is best can't win so I'm going to settle for someone that might cover some of the issues that concern me. -Referred to as, the lesser of two evils-
Offensively: I KNOW that the candidate I think is best has a chance of winning so I'm going to vote for him. -this is not offensive, this is merely an intersection of a heavily supported candidate and your conscious-
In my opinion, you will never change the world with that kind of thinking. I may or may not leave an enduring, positive mark on the world, but I'll be damned if I don't do my best make it happen. And I certainly won't stand for anyone minimizing the valid opinion of someone else because it doesn't conform to their way of thinking.

I'm not trying to change the world, I just don't want Dubya to win. I'm not claiming to be clairvoyant obviously, but feel free to persuade yourself all you want that Nader has a chance, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know he doesn't.

As for the 3rd party candidates stuff I just noted the only two I could think of from the past 50 years that got 25% of the vote or so in the general election. That's the only criteria I used in 0.5 seconds it took me to think of them...

[Bartleby]

If all you want is GWB gone then fine, that's your agenda; now I respectfully ask that you and those with similar inclinations get off the backs of those who have the equally valid agenda of ending politics as usual. Nobody is on your *** about not voting for Bush or Kerry to break up the status quo, so reciprocate the same respect.

I don't know what the historical percentage of the votes received by all third party candidates are, but since you decided that it was fair game to say that I was an ardent GWB fanboy based on the fact that I thought you guys should get off people's back about voting for Nader, I see no reason not to draw the equally logical conclusion that you are a Kerry fanboy based on the selection of viable third party candidates that you noted.

[Havard]

Yeah, I wish there was a third party that based it's policies on the Cato Institute. :grrr: Though it's not likely, darn it.

[Eiger]

If all you want is GWB gone then fine, that's your agenda; now I respectfully ask that you and those with similar inclinations get off the backs of those who have the equally valid agenda of ending politics as usual. Nobody is on your *** about not voting for Bush or Kerry to break up the status quo, so reciprocate the same respect.

I don't know what the historical percentage of the votes received by all third party candidates are, but since you decided that it was fair game to say that I was an ardent GWB fanboy based on the fact that I thought you guys should get off people's back about voting for Nader, I see no reason not to draw the equally logical conclusion that you are a Kerry fanboy based on the selection of viable third party candidates that you noted.
Nope, not gonna get off their backs. So sorry.

It wasn't a logical conclusion - especially since I told you how I picked them. Think about who all the third party candidates over the past 40 years have been - there's only a few (not counting the loonies like the libertarians) that have generated mass appeal - those were George Wallace in 68, John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 92 and to a certain extent in 96, and Ralph Nader in 2000. Nader and Anderson (who was a Republican running as an independent) got far less votes than Perot and Wallace. Main point is that I didn't have a whole lot to choose from...

[Bartleby]

Nor was your conclusion that I was a GWB fanboy logical (you just assumed and wrot e me off) and to be accurate, you didn't say how you picked the 3rd party candidates until after I called you on it, and while some might view that as convenient, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you seem to have the statistics on it.

As for being a Kerry fanboy, well that's what it looks like to me, and that's your prerogative, I will view your political remarks through that filter. You do not appear interested in real political change, I know you're not alone and that's fine by me. If I see you minimize someone else's opinion in order to get them to conform to yours I'll attempt illuminate what I see to be your errors and I'm sure we'll go back and forth a bit, but such is the stuff of debates. I may not be as versed as you in political history, but you know as well as I that just because you can argue your position better than I can, doesn't mean you are arguing the better position (otherwise you would have to concede to AoA on the religious forums) Now I'm just rambling, anyway, I'm done for now.

[Dementor]

what is so bad about kerry that if you were planning on voting against bush you suddenly do want to vote for him.

This is how I see things right now.

Nader seems like a smart guy. Sure he's theoretically an uber-liberal, but he's always seemed really level-headed to me. The fact that the Green Party dumped him makes him even MORE palatable to me; he was willing to put himself on the line ALONE for something he believes in. That takes balls. That takes a real man.

Bush is a dumbass. He surrounds himself with shady characters and probably doen't have a damn clue what's going on. I imagine he really thinks he's doing some good in Iraq... Hell, maybe he is, history will tell. His economic policies seem to be working in a slow way... it could be alot worse, at any rate. I'm not an economist; for all I know Bush is the only thing keeping us afloat (I've used this analogy before) and for all I know Kerry's going to pull that out from under us and we'll drown. Maybe Kerry will help the economy; we'll find out if he wins, but I don't like taking that chance. I don't think Bush should be President, but I hear this "Anything is better than Bush." retoric and I want to punch people; that's a damn dangerous mindset.

Kerry... who the f*ck knows. He voted for all the bad crap Bush and the shady people wanted, so why the Hell should I count on him for change? How can I count on him to vote for anything but what's politically popular at the time... kneejerk reactions to placate the masses. Why does he deserve my vote? At least Bush seems to have some guiding principles, but Kerry wants what's best for Kerry it seems. It seems to be he spun the Vietnam war for his own political gain... it seems he does everything for his own political gain... I suppose that makes him valuable as a president from a purely democratic standpoint, but I don't want some schmuck who's going to play to the damn mob.

So my choices: Vote for a damn good man I know won't win, vote for a simpleton with shady friends, or vote for a shady guy who tries to please the simpletons.

SO WHAT THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?

So I think "Thing's aren't so bad now; things could be worse. I can live with this for another four years."

And that's my answer. Deal with what we've got, because it could damn well get worse.

Then again, I praise Nader for running alone, despide the odds, despite public opinion against him. Maybe I should vote Nader, and try to reflect his courage in the face of insurmountable odds. Maybe we should all vote Nader. Stranger things could happen, right?

But what if Kerry wins? Or Bush? Hell, neither is acceptable to me.

I hate this crap.

-Dementor

[Essex]

ok dementor that sounds totally resonable to me I'm gald you broke it down like that.

I would say one thing though, the president has nothing whatsoever to do with the economy he can have a very miniscule effect but in reality nothing the president does can directly effect the economy but other than that everything you said makes complete and total sense to me. (for what you want to do that is)

using your terms I'll say that to me Bush is not a simpleton in fact I think he's rather smart and he uses this perceved stupidty to his advantage to do things he wants to do. His friends at Haliburton get underhanded deals in Iraq oil bush puts on that stupid face and we all laugh, give Dick a tsk tsk tsk and let bush off the hook, he's a simpleton right?

I think that Bush is a shady man surounded by out right shadowy men and Kerry is a shifty guy who may potentially surround himself with some decent people. That's just my opinon I didn't really read what Bart and Eiger got into a fight over so I can't comment. I just saw dem's comments and wanted to reply :)

[Cale The Dark]

[QUOTE=Eiger]Nope, not gonna get off their backs. So sorry.



Eiger, normally I respect your opinions even when I don't agree with them. Normally....but I gotta tell ya. You are being a real dick about this. I mean HUGE dick. Your very idea that a vote for a candidate that a person truly wants to win is worth less than a "winning vote" is ludacris (sp). I find it offensive and a betrayal of the founding principles of both democracy in general and this country. I suggest you think long and hard about where your reasoning is coming from and try to remove the A.B.B. blinders you seem to be wearing. This is my honest heartfelt opinion and I hope this is taken for more than a meer flame.

Essex~ Anti-Bush people need to get it straight. Either the man is a moron who snorted a barrel of coke in his youth and got C's in college, or he is "pretty smart". Decide please.

[PlagueBearer]

Oh, and I think I've figured out why this isn't more controversial...

Because no one can talk about it for more than about five seconds without talking about Nader!

Such things happened all the time in Vietnam. It's not like Kerry was the sole 'evil' guy over there.

Okay, so what if he was just one of many evil guys? That still leaves him as evil. Your words, not mine.

In fact, you can hardly put all the responsibility on the soldiers doing the dirty work in the field. The orders came from above and the adverse conditions only worsened it all. The orders were to quelch any 'communist resistance,' which meant destroying entire villages since the NLF (Vietcong) was supported by most of the rural population. It wasn't like the soldiers got orders to free the Vietnamese people in all those villages and try keep them all alive. So putting the responsibility on the soldiers and commanders in the field, like Kerry, isn't really fair to them.

'I was just following orders' is a cliche that the world is tired of hearing. Soldiers and commanders are responsible for their actions, period. If we can find some extenuating circumstance that makes it not Kerry's fault, fine, but it cannot be the tired Na-zi excuse of 'following orders'. War sucks. That's basic and I'm not arguing with that. War definently sucks. But it doesn't forgive anything.

[Essex]

your right cale, and of course I'm not the voice of the left (sadly) but thats just my opinon... its probably an easier sell to say he's stupid than to say he's diabolical (sp)

eh who knows.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

If we can find some extenuating circumstance that makes it not Kerry's fault, fine,

Incorrect, that is why in america you are innocent until proven guilty(unless you're muslim), so no one has to prove it isn't you fault. You have to prove it is if you wish to accuse him of something.

[Eiger]

Nor was your conclusion that I was a GWB fanboy logical (you just assumed and wrot e me off) and to be accurate, you didn't say how you picked the 3rd party candidates until after I called you on it, and while some might view that as convenient, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you seem to have the statistics on it.

As for being a Kerry fanboy, well that's what it looks like to me, and that's your prerogative, I will view your political remarks through that filter. You do not appear interested in real political change, I know you're not alone and that's fine by me. If I see you minimize someone else's opinion in order to get them to conform to yours I'll attempt illuminate what I see to be your errors and I'm sure we'll go back and forth a bit, but such is the stuff of debates. I may not be as versed as you in political history, but you know as well as I that just because you can argue your position better than I can, doesn't mean you are arguing the better position (otherwise you would have to concede to AoA on the religious forums) Now I'm just rambling, anyway, I'm done for now.
Oh I'm interested in real political change, but voting for Nader's not going to effect that. You can draw all the conclusions you want for the sake of argument. If you've paid any attention to my posts, you'd know that I'm not too fond of Kerry, but I do tend to back Democrats.

Oh, I'll never concede to AoA on the religious topics - since I feel I'm arguing the better position. We just have completely different world views which aren't at all compatible. Doesn't mean one of us is arguing the better position, though he does know his side of the topic very well, he doesn't yet completely understand my side. I have a basic understanding of his, as it's a rather classic, traditional and well known perspective, but frankly don't have the energy to do the homework necessary to really go after him. Philosophy is his forte and politics is mine. It's cool, though.

[Eiger]

Eiger, normally I respect your opinions even when I don't agree with them. Normally....but I gotta tell ya. You are being a real dick about this. I mean HUGE dick. Your very idea that a vote for a candidate that a person truly wants to win is worth less than a "winning vote" is ludacris (sp). I find it offensive and a betrayal of the founding principles of both democracy in general and this country. I suggest you think long and hard about where your reasoning is coming from and try to remove the A.B.B. blinders you seem to be wearing. This is my honest heartfelt opinion and I hope this is taken for more than a meer flame.

Essex~ Anti-Bush people need to get it straight. Either the man is a moron who snorted a barrel of coke in his youth and got C's in college, or he is "pretty smart". Decide please.
Oh I grant that you and Bartleby have a point. However, if half those Nader votes in 2000 had gone to Gore (arguably nearly none would have gone towards Bush), we wouldn't have Bush as President. Sometimes, you have to sacrifice a small principle for a pragmatic end.

[Havard]

your right cale, and of course I'm not the voice of the left (sadly) but thats just my opinon... its probably an easier sell to say he's stupid than to say he's diabolical (sp)

eh who knows.

I'd give Bush an INT of 10 and a CHA of 10. :uhhuh: Kerry probably an INT of 13 and a CHA of 8.

Clinton: INT 15, CHA 17... too bad I can't stand his policies.

[Dementor]

I'd give Bush an INT of 10 and a CHA of 10. :uhhuh: Kerry probably an INT of 13 and a CHA of 8.

Clinton: INT 15, CHA 17... too bad I can't stand his policies.

And he has a Superior Wang of Quickness +2

[Eiger]

I'd give Bush an INT of 10 and a CHA of 10. :uhhuh: Kerry probably an INT of 13 and a CHA of 8.

Clinton: INT 15, CHA 17... too bad I can't stand his policies.
That's great! Gave me a good laugh. I'd probably up Bush's CHA a point or two, but otherwise I think you're on the money.

I'll add Reagan - INT 11 and CHA 20

[Bartleby]

Oh, I'll never concede to AoA on the religious topics - since I feel I'm arguing the better position. [snip] though he does know his side of the topic very well [snip] {I}frankly don't have the energy to do the homework necessary to really go after him. Philosophy is his forte and politics is mine.My point exactly. Just because one can argue their position better than their opponent can argue theirs does not necessarily mean that the better debater has a more valid position. It does however mean they are a better prepared debater.

And as principles go, to me principles are fundamental truths or ideas at the core of a philosophy. Like bricks in a building each one affects the integrity of the structure as a whole. A building can be built with a few bricks missing, but it is ultimately more unstable and sometimes irreparable. Maybe that's my age showing through, but I don't believe there are any small, minor, or inconsequential prinicples.

I understand where you and many others are coming from on this issue. I was there, I voted for Bush to keep Gore from winning. In my mind he was the lesser of the two evils, I may have been wrong, but we'll never know unless Gore runs, wins and shows us what he would do at the helm. I have since moved on from there, because I believe my efforts are better spent by trying to do my part to improve our system, which in my mind having more parties would do.

I apologize, for effectively calling you a Kerry fanboy. I was a bit pissed off at the time and I am ignorant of your position on Kerry as I don't follow your posts, I'm not an Eiger fanboy :surprise:

[Essex]

I'd give Bush an INT of 10 and a CHA of 10. :uhhuh: Kerry probably an INT of 13 and a CHA of 8.

Clinton: INT 15, CHA 17... too bad I can't stand his policies.
yeah but what is Bush's class? I would say theif personally but I can also see him as an illustionist.

Clinton.. I dunno is there a pimpbot 5000 class?

[Bartleby]

And he has a Superior Wang of Quickness +2
Casts Level 3 Stains of Indescretion on a successful hit.

[Havard]

yeah but what is Bush's class? I would say theif personally but I can also see him as an illustionist.

Clinton.. I dunno is there a pimpbot 5000 class?

Bush = peon, Clinton = satyr, Kerry = undead.

[Dementor]

Bush = peon, Clinton = satyr, Kerry = undead.

NICE


(ten letters)

[Leon[fp]]

Even though this is an interesting discussion, I think we've kind of deviated from the original thread, which was about the fact that Kerry was a baby-killer and that everyone should howl in agony while en masse turning away from that murderer and vote for Bush the holy...

[Havard]

']Even though this is an interesting discussion, I think we've kind of deviated from the original thread, which was about the fact that Kerry was a baby-killer and that everyone should howl in agony while en masse turning away from that murderer and vote for Bush the holy...

A thread deviation... THIS CANNOT BEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

[Bartleby]

True, but come on... DnD + Politics = Funny

[Leon[fp]]

A thread deviation... THIS CANNOT BEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

One would suspect it would have never happened - not here, not in this age of reasoning. But aye, I must bring you bad news for it has happened. A dark age of topic deviation is upon us; we must heed the coming times and hope to make the best of it. That is all.

[Bartleby]

And in the Off Topic forum no less... /sarcasm

[Eiger]

']Even though this is an interesting discussion, I think we've kind of deviated from the original thread, which was about the fact that Kerry was a baby-killer and that everyone should howl in agony while en masse turning away from that murderer and vote for Bush the holy...
Yup those things happen, though I think we burned out on the original discussion. :yawn: Presidential D & D proved to be far more interesting.

[Essex]

so does hillary get a two class penalty? senator/first-wife?

[Bhs Crew]

so does hillary get a two class penalty? senator/first-wife?
More of a dual class situation. She used to be a first lady, now she is a senator.

[Eiger]

More of a dual class situation. She used to be a first lady, now she is a senator.
Cleric/bard?

[Cale The Dark]

Sometimes, you have to sacrifice a small principle for a pragmatic end.


That's funny, because that's the exact same arguement I made in the Patriot Act discussion when I was arguing with you (and others).

[PlagueBearer]

Incorrect, that is why in america you are innocent until proven guilty(unless you're muslim), so no one has to prove it isn't you fault. You have to prove it is if you wish to accuse him of something.

'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the qualifier that's neccesarily attached to 'innocent until proven guilty'. And in this humble juror's eyes, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kerry was responsible for the shooting of a baby in Vietnam.

Maybe the papers are waiting until after Kerry wins the election to print.

[Leon[fp]]

Maybe the papers are waiting until after Kerry wins the election to print.

Yes, maybe they want Kerry to win and hide such facts so that Kerry is assured of a clean campaign. The media are indeed liberal - just look at how they denounced Bush with posting all the knowledge about lies being told for going to the war in Iraq. Can you remember how the media severely criticized the war in Iraq even before it started?




Indeed, neither can I.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the qualifier that's neccesarily attached to 'innocent until proven guilty'. And in this humble juror's eyes, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kerry was responsible for the shooting of a baby in Vietnam.

Maybe the papers are waiting until after Kerry wins the election to print.

But what proof is there? Where is the forensic evidence linking the bullet from the baby to Kerrys gun? Where are the eye-witness testimonies? Where is the video tape of Kerry pulling the trigger and shooting the baby? Where is the blood on Kerrys glove that just happens to be to small(O.J.)?

That is proof and I haven't seen it. Until I do I will call anything else speculation.

[Essex]

that and if I remember correctly kerry gave the order to fire a warning shot, some solidiers didn't hear the order, heard someone shoot and so they starting fireing.

I never heard it say one time in that article that kerry fired a gun I think your jumping to conclusions.

[Graav Wolfsong]

That's funny, because that's the exact same arguement I made in the Patriot Act discussion when I was arguing with you (and others).

I would hardly say the Patriot Act is giving up a small principle.

[Eiger]

That's funny, because that's the exact same arguement I made in the Patriot Act discussion when I was arguing with you (and others).
I'm talking about small principles. Choosing not to vote for a third party candidate because he ain't gonna win is pretty darn small - doesn't get much smaller actually.

Patriot Act stomps on far far bigger ones.

[Eiger]

'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the qualifier that's neccesarily attached to 'innocent until proven guilty'. And in this humble juror's eyes, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kerry was responsible for the shooting of a baby in Vietnam.

Maybe the papers are waiting until after Kerry wins the election to print.
Hehe, I'm suspecting that that humble juror hasn't seen a shred of evidence - in print or otherwise.

[PlagueBearer]

Hehe, I'm suspecting that that humble juror hasn't seen a shred of evidence - in print or otherwise.

*sigh*

Alright, alright. Hung jury.

[PlagueBearer]

*sigh*

Alright, alright. Hung jury.

Shut up, Plague. You know he shot babies.

[Tyran_Harasvelg]

...Wow... Er... spam... yea...

[Andarcel]

*sigh*

Alright, alright. Hung jury.
Hung my ***. 1) He wasn't shooting, and 2) he didn't oreder them to fire into the civilians. Give it up.

Now, what's really mysterious is why the liberal media hasn't talked more about the way Bush drove businesses into bankruptcy. His own businesses. Haven't seen a single headline on that in the last five years. Then again, he openly declared in the 2000 campaign that he would not discuss anything in his life before he turned 40, and the press let him get away with it.

[Raistlin Majere]

Someone will Die for this Horrid act of Necromany.....

[Booms]

Noo! We can't kill Plague!

Without Plague, these forums wouldn't be half as fun as they are.

But to get back on topic, I've heard that Bush drinks a glass of baby's blood before he goes to sleep.