Bush or Kerry

Home  \  Off Topic  \  Bush or Kerry

Just wanted to know who the American people at this board are going to vote for, or if they dont know yet, u dont have to reply if u wanna keep ur vote confidential.

posted by  speedy266

My vote is always confidential...I never vote.

posted by  BavarianWheels

i dont vote... but i never did like the bush family.... so my vote goes to kerry.. although, i dont like him aswell, i just wish al gore would have ran for president again.

posted by  Ki2AY

politics = bullshit

posted by  SuperJew

Agreed, but Kerry changed his campaign many times so far which makes me think he'll do the same once he's in office. Bush gets my vote....er...if I were 18 he would.

posted by  Satty101

Let me tell you why you should vote for mister Kerry.

1. He's a war criminal.

- He fraudulantly tried to aquire medals for "wounds" he got during the war. He scratched himself on the arm ( I believe it was the arm ) and had it recongnized as a battle inflicted wound. The guy that "took care" of this scratch said it was smaller than a rose thorn scratch. Why would he do such a thing? Well, he figured idiots would think "wow, he was wounded. He has a purple heart. He's a war hero. He gets my vote" Not the case buddy. So he was trying to get perks for his career in politics. He did this not one, not two, but three times.

Quick facts:

Out of all his swift boat group, only one of them will back him up on some of what he says. The other couple dozen will testify against all of his lies. So will the documention of the US millitary.

He is a freaking coward. His commander said he didn't do a damn thing he was told to do and when his group got fired upon, he took off and hid.

He has aquired COMMUNIST HONORS.

He went to an abandoned vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his zippo lighter.

He violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and federal law.

He shouldn't be allowed to be a free man. A canidate for the President of the United States? God, that stupid knob cheese should be in prison for treason.

Anyone that knows the facts about Kerry, and still votes for him is an utter fool. They are bad for this country.


One other thing. If you do some research about what he claims guess what you are going to find? Everything he claims he is for, HE IS AGAINST. Everything he says he's against HE IS FOR.

posted by  DodgeRida67

Amen brother. Kerry is nothing but a liar and a flip flopping post turtle. IF YOU DON'T VOTE, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN!! :smoke:

posted by  lectroid

Hey man I havnt seen you around. Where ya been?

posted by  DodgeRida67

This is different from asking "Republican or Democrat" how?

posted by  JaneiR36

I dont understand? :doh:

posted by  DodgeRida67

Zell Miller is a life long Democrat. He is voting for and publicly endorsing president George W. Bush. What exactly is the point of your question or do you even have one?

posted by  vwhobo

The sad thing is most people don't know what the hell is going on and they don't even care to know. They might as well pick their vote by flipping a coin. All they know is a name and if they are running on

Like this blowjob here:

I'm damn glad you don't vote.

posted by  DodgeRida67


You only point out one side of the story in one of your previous posts where you bash Kerry. You also claim facts yet provide no evidence. Mr. Bush (i refuse to call him President) does not have a glorious past for that matter either. It is well documented that he grew up using his father's influence to do as he wished.

One can go on rambling about each candidate's past but i like to focus on today and what these cadidates propose for tomorrow.

Mr. Bush and his administration started the disaster that is the war on Iraq and have fully destroyed this country's credibility. We went against UN resolutions, used the worst intelligence data as evidence, and made more enemies than we previously had. Furthermore, whatever allies/friends we had in the middle east are surely gone and possibly forever we will be unable to get to the heart of terrorism that exists in the middle east.

^^^ I don't think Mr. Bush has done this country too many favors.

After a disaster like that, can Mr. Bush be trusted with our economy, oil, jobs, healthcare, abortion rights, stem cell research (which i believe in strongly),and our credibility for another 4 years?

posted by  importluva

Who exactly is Zell Miller? Im not too educated in the political scene but i've never heard of him.

posted by  importluva

Im not surprised that DodgeRida67 conveniently skipped the above and went on to bash Ki2AY.

posted by  importluva

Unf*ckingbelievable. First you type a ranting post like this;

Then you follow it up with this;

If the letters in bold font are true, and you have given me no reason to doubt they are, how are you even remotely qualified to make the first rambling statement? Did you see an interview with Michael Moore on TV which made you an expert? Perhaps you've been listening to Al Franken who is funnier as a commentator because of the stupid things he says than he ever was as a comedian. Or maybe you're just like most Democrats who don't have anything useful to bring to the table so they just bash anything Bush.

Let's look at your attempt to appear as though you know what you're talking about step by step.

I haven't seen, nor have you provided, any such documentation. However, let's assume you're correct. How does that differ from ANY young person with influential parents? How does that differ from using your own influence to get a doctor who never even saw you to sign paperwork stating that you were injured in the line of duty, twenty years after the fact, while you're in your forties (no longer a kid who doesn't know better). The Purple Hearts that John Kerry lied to get makes mine absolutely meaningless.

Just like a typical Democrat, and especially John Kerry, you say one thing then do another. "Focus on today", "propose for tomorrow", but we go right back to looking at the past. Wake the f*ck up. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you contradict (some would say flip flopping) yourself.

No we didn't, but Iraq did over and over and over. Check the U.N. records twinkie.

We had the same intelligence as, and even recieved some of ours from, the U.N., France and Germany. Was the intelligence wrong? Maybe, but it was the best available.

Really. Can you name them? Can you name one? That's what I thought.

That is your opinion that I don't think even the most liberal members of the Democratic party share. Pakistan, Kurdistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, U.A.E., Eqypt. Shall I go on? Those are countries who are not only still our allies/friends but due to our (the USA) actions in the middle east have been emboldened to step up thier efforts to curb terror. Stick to the facts and you'll sound much smarter. Of course then you wouldn't have had anything to type.

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong or misguided it may be.

The answer to all of those is YES. Let's pick two out of that buch real quick. Stem cell research, which you believe in strongly, you will no doubt say will help save lives. You may be correct on that point. But abortion rights is also on your list. Abortion, a pretty word for killing unborn babies. Do you see how f*cked up your priorities are? It's okay to kill a human being while they're inside their mother's belly but if they make it out let's see how long we can extend their life.

I just hope you're not old enough to vote. :banghead:

posted by  vwhobo

I wasn't going to respond to what you said importluva because by what you said it's clear you think like a real fool and it's not worth it. But at the end when you said you believed in abortion that just tore it.

Let me tell you something. I don't take lite to people saying it's OK to kill an unborn child. I don't take lite to people saying unborn babies have no right to live. I don't take lite to any f the sick and twisted bullshit like that. If you seriously believe in abortion, you truely and utterly disgust me importluva. You are the kind of crap that f*cks over this entire society. And that is exactly what it makes you if you believe in abortion. Disgusting crap.

Don't responde to this, I don't want to hear or see any sh*t coming out of your sick ass. Don't give me a lecture on opinion crap because this is not an opinionated matter. A lot of things people say are opinionated arent. There is a right and there is a wrong. Learn the difference and apply it.

posted by  DodgeRida67

and thats where you are wrong. Abortion is an opinionated matter. look - you dont believe in abortion, importluva does. on a bigger scale, there are plenty of educated people - doctors, clergy, etc. who feel differently about abortion. some doctors feel that abortion is okay within a certain stage. some clergy members belive abortion is wrong in its entirety. there is no universal "right" or "wrong" in the matter of abortion...whats wrong to one person (dodgerida) could be right to another (imprtluva) and we need to live with this.

posted by  SuperJew


Clearly, it IS a matter of opinion whether or not you're pro abortion or not: some people agree with it, some don't.

I personally think it's right to allow abortions under certain conditions. The world really isn't as black and white as you make out.

There's a LOT of anti-bush feeling in Europe, the opinion polls are very much against Blair's decision to go into Iraq. The big puzzle is why so little is said about the increased intensity or air to ground attacks on Iraq in the 12 months running up to the invasion: it was fairly clear that the decision had been made to go into Iraq long before they tried to sell it to the public.

This article makes interesting reading:


edited highlights:

Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
By Graydon Carter

George Bush: Military man

1972 Year that Bush walked away from his pilot duties in the Texas National Guard, Nearly two years before his six-year obligation was up.

$3,500 Reward a group of veterans offered in 2000 for anyone who could confirm Bush's Alabama guard service.

600-700 Number of guardsmen who were in Bush's unit during that period.

0 Number of guardsmen from that period who came forward with information about Bush's guard service.

0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defence Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove * the main proponents of the war in Iraq *served in combat (combined).

Ambitious warrior

2 Number of Nations that George Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into office.

130 Approximate Number of countries (out of a total of 191 recognised by the United Nations) with a US military presence.

43 Percentage of the entire world's military spending that the US spends on defence. (That was in 2002, the year before the invasion of Iraq.)

$401.3bn Proposed military budget for 2004.

Saviour of Iraq

1983 The year in which Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs as a gift.

2.5 Number of hours after Rumsfeld learnt that Osama bin Laden was a suspect in the 11 September attacks that he brought up reasons to "hit" Iraq.

237 Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by top Bush administration officials between 2002 and January 2004, according to the California Representative Henry Waxman.

10m Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets on 21 February 2003, in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the largest simultaneous protest in world history.

$15m Amount of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq.

$80,000 Amount an Iraqi firm spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from starting it.

2000 Year that Cheney said his policy as CEO of Halliburton oil services company was "we wouldn't do anything in Iraq".

$4.7bn Total value of contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan.

0 Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home that the Bush administration has permitted to be photographed.

0 Number of memorial services for the returned dead that Bush has attended since the beginning of the war.

A soldier's best friend

40,000 Number of soldiers in Iraq seven months after start of the war still without Interceptor vests, designed to stop a round from an AK-47.

$60m Estimated cost of outfitting those 40,000 soldiers with Interceptor vests.

62 Percentage of gas masks that army investigators discovered did Not work properly in autumn 2002.

90 Percentage of detectors which give early warning of a biological weapons attack found to be defective.

Making the country safer

$3.29 Average amount allocated per person Nationwide in the first round of homeland security grants.

$94.40 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in American Samoa.

$36 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in Wyoming, Vice-President Cheney's home state.

$17 Amount allocated per person in New York state.

$5.87 Amount allocated per person in New York City.

$77.92 Amount allocated per person in New Haven, Connecticut, home of Yale University, Bush's alma mater.

76 Percentage of 215 cities surveyed by the US Conference of Mayors in early 2004 that had yet to receive a dime in federal homeland security assistance for their first-response units.

5 Number of major US airports at the beginning of 2004 that the Transportation Security Administration admitted were Not fully screening baggage electronically.

22,600 Number of planes carrying unscreened cargo that fly into New York each month.

5 Estimated Percentage of US air cargo that is screened, including cargo transported on passenger planes.

95 Percentage of foreign goods that arrive in the United States by sea.

2 Percentage of those goods subjected to thorough inspection.

$5.5bnEstimated cost to secure fully US ports over the Next decade.

$0 Amount Bush allocated for port security in 2003.

Giving a hand up to the advantaged

$10.9m Average wealth of the members of Bush's original 16-person cabinet.

75 Percentage of Americans unaffected by Bush's sweeping 2003 cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.

$42,000 Average savings members of Bush's cabinet received in 2003 as a result of cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.

George Bush: Money manager

4.7m Number of bankruptcies that were declared during Bush's first three years in office.

2002 The worst year for major markets since the recession of the 1970s.

$489bn The US trade deficit in 2003, the worst in history for a single year.

$5.6tr Projected national surplus forecast by the end of the decade when Bush took office in 2001.

$7.22tr US national debt by mid-2004.

George Bush: Tax cutter

87 Percentage of American families in April 2004 who say they have felt no benefit from Bush's tax cuts.

39 Percentage of tax cuts that will go to the top 1 per cent of American families when fully phased in.

49 Percentage of Americans in April 2004 who found that their taxes had actually gone up since Bush took office.

88 Percentage of American families who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes.

$30,858 Amount Bush himself saved in taxes in 2003.

Employment tsar

9.3m Number of US unemployed in April 2004.

2.3m Number of Americans who lost their jobs during first three Years of the Bush administration.

22m Number of jobs gained during Clinton's eight years in office.

Friend of the poor

34.6m Number of Americans living below the poverty line (1 in 8 of the population).

6.8m Number of people in the workforce but still classified as poor.

35m Number of Americans that the government defines as "food insecure," in other words, hungry.


2 Percentage of the world's population that is British.

2 Percentage of the world's oil used by Britain.

5 Percentage of the world's population that is American.

25 Percentage of the world's oil used by America.

Image booster for the US

4 Rank of the United States among countries considered to be the greatest threats to world peace according to a 2003 Pew Global Attitudes study (Israel, Iran, and North Korea were considered more dangerous; Iraq was considered less dangerous).

More like the French than he would care to admit

28 Number of vacation days Bush took in August 2001, the month he received a 6 August Presidential Daily Briefing headed "Osama bin Laden Determined to Strike US Targets."

500 Number of days Bush has spent all or part of his time away from the White House at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, his parents' retreat in Kennebunkport, Maine, or Camp David as of 1 April 2004.

Factors in his favour

17 On 17 November 2001, The Economist printed a correction for having said George Bush was properly elected in 2000.

69 Percentage of Americans who believed the White House's claims in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 11 September attacks.

34 Percentage of Americans who believed in June 2003 that Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" had been found.

85 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find Afghanistan, Iraq, or Israel on a map.

30 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find the Pacific Ocean on a map.

11 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find the United States on a map.

70m Estimated number of Americans who describe themselves as Evangelicals who accept Jesus Christ as their personal saviour and who interpret the Bible as the direct word of God.

23m Number of Evangelicals who voted for Bush in 2000.

50m Number of voters in total who voted for Bush in 2000.

46 Percentage of voters who describe themselves as born-again Christians.

5 Number of states that do not use the word "evolution" in public school science courses.

posted by  heebee

What you two are saying is "The matter to murder an unborn baby or not is to be left up to peoples opinions."

Say that outloud and you two will feel like jackasses and fools if you have any conscience.

FOOLS. :banghead:

posted by  DodgeRida67

there we go again with the "standard concience." NOT EVERYONE FEELS THE SAME WAY ABOUT ABORTION. what does it take to drill that into your head?! :banghead:

posted by  SuperJew

Let me drill something into your head, SuperFool

Your right. People don't feel the same. However fool, you see fool, there is something called right (oppisite of how you feel on the subject) and there is something called wrong (that would be how you feel on this subject).

posted by  DodgeRida67

What I'm saying is "The legality of abortion is to be decided by a democratically elected body of people, after considered and lengthy debate".

Personally, I'm for it under certain circumstances:

- It's before a certain 'cut-off' period, before which the child is little more than a collection of cells.

- Where do you stand with a victim of rape?

- Where do you stand if genetic tests show that the child won't live, or will endanger the life of the mother?

- Where do you stand if the child is likely to be ginger, stupid, or both?

I have a conscience, and I'm not a fool. Resorting to insults does nothing for your argument.

posted by  heebee

please see my previous post on this matter. oh yeah, and heebee's.

[edit] i feel the same way as heebee. just think about it.

posted by  SuperJew

So in effect what you're saying is that as long as I follow my conscience whatever I do is okay. If a woman has unprotected sex with a stranger and gets pregnant, then decides five months after conception that she doesn't want the baby it's okay to kill it. If my wife and I concieve a child and two months after it's born we decide we don't like the color of it's eyes it would then also be okay to kill it. If your neighbor really likes your computer it's okay for him to come over and take it and have sex with your 11 year old sister while he's at your house. All these things are acceptable because these people are doing what they think is right. It is after all their opinion.

You see for some people this is a case of religion. Of course being a good Jewish boy, or at least claiming to be one, you would be against it. Since religion isn't part of my life (very unusual for a conservative) for me it's a case of morals or ethics. I can agree with abortion in the case of pregnancy due to rape or incest with a minor. I can also agree with it in the case of a fetus with a severe defect or where it would kill the mother to go full term. Other than those situations the only reason a woman has an abortion is because she's not willing to take resposibility for her own actions. It's easier to kill a baby than it is to do the right thing.

Just think, if your mom thought like you do you might not be here right now.

posted by  vwhobo

The issue of abortion in this country was not decided by a democratic process. It was in fact decided by a body of 12 appointed judges (The Supreme Court) most of whom at that time were appointed by a liberal president and confirmed by a liberal legilative branch because they supported their liberal views. Sorry, but it's a fact.

As for whether or not a child should be aborted because it may be stupid, well... There would be plenty of poster children for abortion on this forum.

Final question. If abortion is so important to all of you, why isn't abstinence, education and birth control on your list. I know, because once again it would require people to take responsibility for their own actions and a liberal could never have that.

posted by  vwhobo

Why yes it does, especially for those who like reading fiction based on a true story. What you have there with all the numbers it provides is proof of the old adage, FIGURES LIE AND LIARS FIGURE.

posted by  vwhobo

Well, the economy seems to be picking up...slowly. But I think in a time of crisis like we've been in, we need a strong president who knows what he's doing, so my vote goes to the big man. I vote Bush.

posted by  STi Guy

well...in response to what you said about my reply to DodgeRida...i was thinking about some long response addressing each of your points. however, ive realized that the devate between you and I will never end, and will end up becoming really pointless. so ive decided to just step out of this...have fun everyone else!

edit: just wondering, but are we still cool? or do you think im a moron now.

posted by  SuperJew

I see that you'll respond to DodgeRida but entirely ignore me. That is no doubt because you think you MIGHT have a chance of out thinking him and you know full well that you're unequipped to even try with me. Then you try to show that you're taking the high road by "stepping out" which is a euphemism for "I don't have any facts to back me up so I'll give up while I'm not too far behind". How sad for you little man, I bet you still get beat up in school too.

But if it's any comfort to you, I don't think you're a moron. Just a candyass.

posted by  vwhobo

uuuuh no...i dont get beat up. never have been. why? because people dont really give a shit in my environment about if you "back things up with facts" or however you put it. and people also recognise that others have different opinons about things.

posted by  SuperJew

Right... So what's your opinion about the creep down the street raping your 11 year old sister. In his opinion it's okay and all his buddies think it's okay so we should all say okie dokie, right. I mean that's the crux of what you're saying here, isn't it?

posted by  vwhobo

The bottem line on abortion is not taking responsiblity of your actions. Instead of taking responsibility, you get rid of the problem. Kill an innocent child. That is disgusting. It disgusts me and everyone else who has their head on straight.

How many times do I have to tell you?

Repeat after me. It is not about who thinks what. It is about right and wrong. Say that over and over until you understand that.

Far to many people in this world don't know right from wrong anymore because idiots keep telling them what you think is all that matters. I hate to burst their bubbles (and yours) but it's not about what you or anyone else thinks. After all good and bad, stupid and smart opinions have been stated, you can flush them down the crapper because they are worthless. Only the truth and whats right is any good.

posted by  DodgeRida67

Take this into consideration.

If and when you have a child (whoever believes in abortion) and you hold it in your arms for the first time think about this: There are millions of people in this world that would kill this baby for no good reason. And have NO problem with it. If you can still believe in your wrong ways after that, then I don't know what could change you.

posted by  DodgeRida67

If I was old enough, I would vote for Kerry.

Fight Terrorism.
Defeat Bush.

posted by  abless

I'm glad the election isn't a popularity contest for the intellectually challenged. And I'm glad you're not old enough to vote.

posted by  vwhobo


posted by  importluva

I love all the assumptions you make in your post.

Anyways, Im sorry to say i don't have as much time as i used to give you an adequete reply. However, one useful fact did come out of this bit of arguing. As knowledgeable as you may be regarding cars, your choices in politics leave be flabbergasted.

As for my eligibility to vote, i am happy to tell you that i will be voting in November, provided i take the oath properly later this month.

posted by  importluva

The only assumption I made was about your reasoning on stem cell research. Your excuse for not having enough time to reply that is once again a dodge tactic commonly used by people who are helplessly over their head. As for my choices in politics, at least I look at the facts before coming to any conclusions. Apparently that's something not taught in college anymore.

posted by  vwhobo

That's rather side-stepping the issue: I still think this sort of issue should be decided by government, and I still support it, with restrictions and reservations. Besides, in the UK, this sort of issue IS decided by Parliament.

That bit was tongue-in-cheek, I don't seriously propose killing gingers, either.

This is a big assumption. This argument started about abortion, not abstinence, birth control or education. I am very much in favour of birth control and education. However, abstinence is unrealistic, and vaguely sinister. Telling the kids 'don't do drugs' doesn't work, so saying 'don't have sex' doesn't strike me as an option: it's preachy and avoids the problem.

It appears that it's so damned easy to get married in the USA, that the 'no sex before marriage' idea is a non-starter. Hell, when I was a teenager, I'd have had a christening, wedding, and sworn an oath to Thor to get laid. But it doesn't really work like that in the real world.

Teenagers have sex. The result of sex can be pregnancy. Pregnancy and disease can be avoided by the correct use of birth control. That doesn't strike me as a hard thing to educate people about.

Unless you're proposing to outlaw sex as an alternative measure, and simply jail the dirty little toe rags?

People do need to take responsibility for their actions, but at the same time, a government should be realistic in its approach to social problems, rather than getting on its fundamentalist Christian high-horse.

posted by  heebee

Has anybody looked at the title of this thread or do they just blindly click their mouse. It's Bush Vs. Kerry not Pro-choice VS pro-life, or anything else.

So getting back on topic, I hate both of them. Both bush and kerry have lied about their past and done things any normal person with honor and morals wouldn't ever consider doing. I find it sick that because neither canidate has anything posotive to say about themselves they instantly resort to putting down their opponent. But we are in a time of need and we do need someone with backbone in office, and because a vote for nader(or any other party except Dem or Rep) is throwing away a vote. And because I know you can't complain if you don't vote, I would probably vote for Bush.

God, that was painful to type. I am a liberal, democrat, and young. Yet I would vote for bush.

But, we need someone with a spine and Kerry will just change his position at the whim of whoever he's nearest at the time. Since Bush sticks to something no matter how wrong or right he might be, he gets my vote.

By the way, how many people are actually voting for bush/kerry as opposed to voting against kerry/bush.

posted by  Zalight

all this reading is giving me a headache..

Listen you guys, you need to stop otherwise this thread is going to be locked. I can't beleive that you guys get so immature when it comes to the election. I mean my god. Just because someone wants/is going to vote for Bush and you don't doesn't mean their wrong nor does it mean you are. But seriously..stop the fighting and be civil and respect each others opinions. PLEASE!!

posted by  Satty101


Bush never actually lied about his past. Kerry has (in fact, lied to a grand jury). Bush basically has always said he was a goof off, chasing skirt and getting drunk until meeting his wife and getting his sh!t together. His military record matches that description with one differnce, he actually did excell at what he joined up to do: fly fighter jets.

A number of peole say he got out of combat by using his influence to get a cushy national Guard position. In fact, official records show that the ANG unit he signed up for in texas was actually flying combat missions in Vietnam, under operation Palace Guard. GWB trained on F102s (which were so hard to fly that they killed 70 pilots, including a couple in GWB's unit). Yet Bush excelled at being a pilot, and actually requested Palace Guard duty, but didn't have the requisite hours of training in yet. When he got out in '72, his unit was being phased out of combat, and the war was winding down (remember, he served a few years AFTER Kerry's 4 month tour...).

Kerry came home from duty with a couple of trophy medals wheich he promptly denounced, called all fellow soldiaers war criminals, and becaem an activist against the war. Our pullout in Vietnam was in large part due to a few high profile protesters like Kerry, and our pullout was directly responsible for huge vietnamese massacres (Google "cambodian boat people")

After years of activism against Vietnam, suddenly Kerry uses a 4 month tour, a few purple hearts (at least two of them given for injuries that didn't even require time off duty), and a fake set of honors to prove he's better suited to be CinC?

Kerry's campaign now says is possible first Purple Heart was awarded for unintentional self-inflicted wound... Kerry received Purple Heart for wounds suffered on 12/2/68... In Kerry's own journal written 9 days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, 'hadn't been shot at yet'

Kerry lied about Cambodia, and what he did and saw there. he lied baout the decorations he got for serving.

Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.

Kerry says everything Bush has done is wrong, and he would have doen everything differntly. Yet he hasn't once said HOW he would have done things diffently (though using Clinton's inability to deal with Osama for the WTC bombings, the Cole attack, and the failure in Somalia, we get a good idea of how he would have done things differently...).

Belief that everything bad can be laid at the feet of a single administration over the last 3 years is ignorant beyond comprehension. To think that another administration will be the savior of us all is the flip side of that same ignorant coin.

I don't agree with the Republican stance on gay marriage or abortion, but their economic and military platforms are more important in the long run, and on that matter, GWB and his advisors tend to be more of what I'm looking for in teh way of leadership.

posted by  ChrisV

It's awfully convenient for me to post this now, but I meant that the questions were quite similar, while assuming it was common knowledge that political conversations usually turn ugly among a diverse group of individuals :cool2: But I see you all are having a blast, carry on :mrgreen:

You know what, though? You're right. At first I thought you were just claiming Zell Miller because he's the public and national figure that epitomizes your point, but after a little bit of research I found out that as many as 10% of voters (if not more) actually vote across parties, not to mention the ~25% who have not declared affiliation with any of the two major parties.

My vote goes to Kerry. I may not be able to write a dissertation on the subject, but it's been four years and I'm not particularly impressed, so Bush needs to get the **** out. Unfortunately, going by poll results, that most likely will not be happening. :roll:

posted by  JaneiR36

Lucky for us!

posted by  vwhobo

Cool! I LOVE this game! Here, try this one: "Women should be used as full-term incubation machines whether they like it or not."

Nooo, I don't feel that strongly about abortion rights. I just feel that re-wording the subject matter to illustrate your own sentiment is pretty damn worthless as an argument.

To me, an abortion is like gun ownership. Totally disgusting and immoral until you need one... And no, I haven't had either.

posted by  JaneiR36

Whether they like it or not. Other than rape or incest (see my post above) those poor women made a choice to have sex. By making that choice they and the father have also taken the responsibility for the outcome. If they don't like it they should have given some thought to the potential consequences BEFORE taking of their pants.

While we're on the subject why should a woman have the "right" to have an abortion if the father doesn't want her to. On the other hand if a woman has a baby and the father doesn't want anything to do with it he is legally responsible, at least for child support. Or is this just another case where women are more equal than men. Yeah, that's it.

Like this little gem below, right?

Those are the two most ludicrous sentences in this entire thread. Legal gun ownership is all about resposibility. Abortion in most cases is all about lack of responsibility, let's just kill a baby.

Just as a side note, maybe you should re-think your support of Kerry. He claims to be more pro-gun than Bush (at least this week) and just accepted one in West Virginia this weekend.

posted by  vwhobo

Hey, if people weren't too busy saying a resounding "NO" to abortion, maybe they'd get with the program and work out the details...

Responsibility for WHAT, exactly?!?! In either case, the end result is the termination of "life". And if abortion is murder, why are you so much more comfortable with the tools of the trade? And as for "target shooting," I'm pretty sure if people tried hard enough, they'd find another hobby that's just as entertaining!

I'm sorry, I forgot that guns are for resurrecting people from the dead.

I wouldn't own a gun. Kerry can do whatever-the-hell he wants. Remember how I said I didn't feel strongly about abortion rights? And then how I feel similarly about gun ownership to the way I feel about abortion rights? Yeah, that means I really don't care. However, you seem to feel the comparison of abortion to gun control is idiotic. I don't.

posted by  JaneiR36

In case you need to be reminded, read my post to someone else in this thread. Abortion was never voted on in this country, it was shoved down our throat by a liberal Supreme Court. If all you liberals are truly interested in freedom of speech, why are you afraid to put it to vote? Because you'd lose and have to shut up about the subject. Elective abortion is wrong and should be illegal.

As for you ridiculous ideas about guns people are killed every day by knives, cars, tobacco products, alcohol, drugs and... abortions. Perhaps we should make them all illegal. I have been around guns all my life as has my wife. I am concealed carry qualified (a qualification I respectfully use) and my wife is a former championship winning skeet shooter. We have never killed anything except poor unsuspecting pieces of clay, empty soda cans and the occasional watermelon. Most guns in this country are owned and used by law abiding upstanding citizens. We don't need more restrictive gun laws in this country, we only need the ones already on the books enforced.

In closing, do yourself a favor and go read the Second Amendment. As a natural citizen of the great United States of America it is my right and duty to bear arms. See if you can find anything about abortions being a right anywhere in the Constitution.

posted by  vwhobo

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll...um...repeat myself...

Belief that everything bad can be laid at the feet of a single administration over the last 3 years is ignorant beyond comprehension. To think that another administration will be the savior of us all is the flip side of that same ignorant coin.

posted by  ChrisV

I'm not particularly needing them to be outlawed, either. But because you people who think guns are toys exist, they continue to be manufactured for use by killers. If you'd just find another hobby then maybe we can focus on the bad guys who use guns to summarily terminate life. Sounds a little idealist to you? Yeah, so does your "abortion is wrong" whining to me.

Why would it? Most of the Constitution, not to mention court laws were written for "The Reasonable man," something women continue to find out when they get screwed over in court and are puzzled because they were law abiding citizens with apparently no laws to protect them in their situation, yet the same laws provide ample protection to their male counterparts. And besides, if just because it's on the books, it's a right, what are you still whining about? Shouldn't you just blindly accept the new right to abortion, then? You're gonna have to choose one topic. Either law, or opinion :smoke:

Well you sure have an active imagination where all that ignorant thinking keeps coming up. Either that, or you're rather insecure in your position, seeing as I never said anything about "everything bad" being blamed on this administration. I just feel we've given one person a chance, now we should give another. If that doesn't work for you, that's fine. You have your vote, and I have mine. DUH.

posted by  JaneiR36

Your logic shows you haven't thought through the situation. You think that this administration caused all sorts of problems, when in fact it didn't. And in fact, many of the current problems can be laid at the feet of teh previous administratin, who were wishy washy about international affairs, and allowed the WTC bombings and Cole attack to go unanswered, and caused the issue in Somalia to turn out the way it did. We could have avoided quite a bit of mess by taking care of that business at the time, but the Dems didn't have the guts to see it through.

Now, you feel that a whim is good enough to remove a wartime CinC and replace him with someone who can't form a coherent position ON the war, and who was parially responsible for our failure to see Vietnam through (thereby indirectly causing the Cambodian massacre).

Opinions are based on what you research, and if you fail to research then your opinion is based on flawed data at best. Right now gun laws and abortion laws are of lesser importance than getting the situation in Iraq squared away properly. And I have zero confidence in John Kerry, who has so far lied about his war record, actively campaigned against the US when coming back from teh war, failed to appear for 90% of the senate votes over the last 20 years of being in the senate, and missed over 75% of the committee meetings when he was part of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sorry, a guy who missed 75-90% of his job over 20 years no wants a promotion? Would you let that happen at work????

Bush's overall record as governor and before isn't the best, but it's still better than anyone the Dems are willing to put in his place. And better than anyone in independant parties right now.

posted by  ChrisV

Guns don't kill people. The people that use guns to kill people kill people. People kill people. Sorry if that's confusing.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

That's right. Guns are manufactured for the soul purpose to be put in the hands of killers. :screwy:

My closet is proud to be an ammo dump and my south-west bedroom corner is proud to be a gun rack. Take the guns away from the people that will use them illegally, not me and others that use them in accordance to the laws. Taking away your protection is very stupid. If you had an intruder come into your home with a knive with the intent to kill you and your family, I'm damn sure you'd wish you would have some type of protection. Preferably a gun.


posted by  DodgeRida67

:clap: :clap: :clap: , Here, Here.

My vote would have to go to Bush, but if McCain was running I would vote for in a heartbeat. That is the white conservative(sp.?) "redneck" in me. There are plenty of gun laws and restrictions on the books already. We don't need any more. Just for your information I have never owned a gun, because of the restriction on gun buying that you need to be 18 of older to buy a gun without parent sign. though I do hunt. I hunt and fish and I eat everything kill minus the bugs and spiders.

posted by  Coffin Type R

Responsibility for WHAT, exactly?!?! In either case, the end result is the termination of "life". And if abortion is murder, why are you so much more comfortable with the tools of the trade? And as for "target shooting," I'm pretty sure if people tried hard enough, they'd find another hobby that's just as entertaining!

I'd like to know how a gun. Period.... is the termination of life. The tools of the trade? Name the last abortion that was performed by anyone "qualified" in which case they busted a cap into a woman's abdomen?
And as far as a habit of target shooting. Do tell- what is that hurting? Oh, and PLEASE tell me that the watermelon has feelings. I'm sure it does. And I'm sure you'd say that innocent animals don't deserve to be killed. Granted, I'm not a fan of those who hunt because they desire to feel death in their hands because they desire the power to kill, but anyone who eats what they hunt- more power to them. Oh, and PLEASE tell me that you shouldn't eat them. Do tell- if God didn't intend for us to eat them, why the hell would he have made animals out of something not only edible, but nutritious? And I'm sure if that weren't the way it were supposed to be, then the Bible wouldn't have used animals as sacrifices for God. I'm sure they could have found something much cleaner, you know. If they tried hard enough!

And about anyone who owns a gun. As VWHobo said, our Second Amendment gives Americans the right to not only own, but use firearms. And as was stated before, guns don't all end up in the hands of murderers. Those are the only guns you hear about. Why do you think guns have such a bad rep? Because they only make headlines when someone wakes up dead.

And about abortion. Yes. Abortion is the termination of "life". And I'd certainly like to see you refute the conservatives here when we say that if you can't keep it in your pants, then be prepared to support a child (with the exception of incest and rape.). People are just looking for another loophole through which they can shirk responsibility and engage in idiotic, neglegant acts only to provide them with some sort of pleasure in their largely miserable existences. So please. Unless you have valid points, shut up. I'm sure if you tried hard enough, you could find another hobby other than being a blind-eyed liberal, that's just as entertaining!

posted by  Patrick

Using a gun. Like which came first, the chicken or the egg. I told ya already, I DO like your games :mrgreen:

Since we're being quite frank in our discussion, I'd have to say you're a complete idiot if you don't realize I've already expressed these sentiments. ie guns are completely disgusting until I need one. Since you're all about explaining what's confusing, that could be, you know, if I had a dangerous stalker and was authorized to shoot him, or if I had reason to believe an intruder could come into my home. That sorta stuff. We done playing games now? " :screwy: "

But then again, since you're so clear on the aspect of gun ownership, how about the woman who is relieved as hell that she doesn't have to carry a foetus to term? The foetus that could threaten her health; her life. The one whose quality of life would make everyone around it (including the baby-to-be itself) wish it were never born. The ones created by rape and incest (but since you're focusing on the baby being an innocent life that's getting terminated, even babies created by such means didn't ask to be born, so who are you to decide that this baby should die and not the others?)

The comparison I'm trying to express to you guys (and hopefully we won't get sidetracked this time), is that just as gun ownership would be a relief to the person looking to protect his life and property, so is abortion to the woman looking to remove a foetus for one "legitimate" (as described above) reason or the other. At the same time, there are the people who would use guns just for "fun" (stupid hobby, IMO), for killing, maiming and murdering, and there are the people who would use abortion for family planning or cover-ups for their own irresponsiblity. Now this is the way I see it, and you don't by any means have to agree, however a few of you have found the need to tell me that I'm wrong or that I'm stupid, just because my opinion differs from yours. Hence this pointless conversation continues in its vicious cycle. Enjoy :smoke:

posted by  JaneiR36

ChrisV, there's no logic to follow. In only one or two sentences I stated why I would be voting for Kerry. Abortion or gun control has nothing to do with it. You seem to have some pretty good reasons for liking Bush, though. I still don't.

Patrick, you seem confused. I'm not (and no where have I told you that I'm) a tree hugger or a vegetarian. So you can step off your soap box 'cos there's no need to give me a history or taste lesson on the deliciousness of animals.

Again, the people who use guns as toys, and even for defense create a demand for guns. NO DOUBT a portion of these manufactured machines will end up in the hands of people who will use them ONLY for illegal purposes. IDEALISTICALLY, if we were to eliminate the supply to people who use guns as toys because they magically developed other hobbies, we wouldn't have to supply the guns, and therefore X% of ZERO guns being manufactured would still equal ZERO guns ending up with murderers. You following me so far? However, this is idealistic, naiive, and will never happen. And that's why TO ME, it compares to the total outlawing of abortion.

"Blind-eyed liberal?" Patrick, now listen to me carefully. Finish eating up your nutritious goats and deer, get your 'A' in English comprehension, then why don't you come back and try to label me :laughing:

posted by  JaneiR36

There's no logic to follow? You SHOULD use logic in a decision this large. And it should be clear, not just "well, I think it's time for a change." Apparently there's a REASON for you to feel it's time for a change, and THAT"S the logic I'm following. If you can't see the reason that making a change now is bad, then you haven't done your research, and your opinion is based on faulty data.

This is an example of faulty data. As it woudn't eliminate the realities of people who want to kill other people (which, if you hadn't noticed, is already against the law), thus not eliminate the demand OR access to weapons to do that. More laws won't stop people who already aren't following the laws already on the books OR being deterred by the harsh punishment for disobeying said laws.

The problem is not in the tool/object or its availability to law abiding citizens, but in the issues that cause people to use them illegally, which are much more varied and complex, so no one wants to (or can) address them. The simple scapegoat is much more appealing, and easier to rally around.

Much like the way people treat GWB. It's easy to rally around a visible scapegoat for everything that is wrong with your life or this country. But he's not the cause of the problems facing you, and changing him out with someone else won't FIX those problems, and will likely (from prior record) add more to the mix.

posted by  ChrisV

First I woulkd just like to say thank you to VWHOBO, Chris, and JaneiR36 for providing me with some quality reading. You all seem to support your arguements well and it appears to me that you believe in what you are posting. It is nice to see the varitey I have by just going through this post and reading everyones.

As for my opinion, I guess I won't bother wasting anyones time with what I think. "Opinions are like a**holes, everyones got one and they all stink" Just kidding, but I just think that the variety of opinions out there is one of the terrific things about this country. That is what makes us Americans. Other countries do not have that freedom like we Americans seem to take for granted. Yes I know that the other the other 176 or so other countries out there are not authoritarian states, but if you do not like how the Sultan of Brunei is running the country you really do not get much of a chioce like you do here in America.

Anyways I have written more than I intended on here. I do not think that either canidate is perfect, but who really is?

Kerry, I can not trust, Bush so far has delayed research on Stem cells. The Ex-National Institutes of Health, Harold Varmus said it best I believe,

Being a Biologist I would love to see what miraculious(sp?) things could be achieved in the future, but also being a catholic I have a hard time with the issue.

Anyways I will get off my soapbox and just say that if you do not wish to vote for either canidate this year, vote Rev. Al Sharpton for Pres. :laughing:

posted by  Voda48

My decision to vote Kerry is based on logic. I just meant that I really hadn't supplied you with any thus far (you've been replying almost to another discussion entirely and trying to tie it back as the influencing factor for my vote). Personally, my highest priority would be jobs in this country. I would like to see a lot of improvement in that area and also for the new president to crack down on outsourcing. I imagine this would be right down there with abortion and gun control as far as you're concernd, but hey, there's a reason why everyone only gets one vote and we sure as hell are allowed to be a little selfish with it.

Same argument can be made for abortion (admittedly to a lesser extent). How else would you explain people getting the procedure done, anyway, in countries where it is not yet a legal right? And since we're sticking to bad guys, I mean the REAL bad girls. The ones who wait for seven months before they finally realize he's not going to leave his wife and raise that kid with them before choosing to have an abortion. Hence the similarity still holds.

I'm willing to take that chance. I want him out.

By the way, are you saying that changing GWB with Kerry would likely escalate poor situations, or are you making a general argument for Presidents staying longer in order to accomplish their goals, aka promises and soundbites? In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm an "I'll believe it when I see it" type of gal :laughing: Which again is why I want Bush out. Let's see if someone else can bring his soundbites to reality.

posted by  JaneiR36

I totally agree with Hobo, and expecially in Wisconin you cant ever get a liscense to carried a concealed weapon!! So you can go out on the street and be raped and be beaten, but if you would happen to have a gun, you flash that thing and the thug with his baseball bat will run away like a panzee.

posted by  Eclipse_2004

All the way BUSH! :laughing:

posted by  mathmom

Actually, the job situation in this country is better than ever. Yes, we lost almost 300,000 jobs to outsourcing. At the same time, we've GAINED almost 9 million jobs from foreign companies setting up shop here or expanding, or from domestic expansion and new business startup. It isn't that we're losing jobs, but that the job market is changing. It does that quite often. You think the railroaders back in the day were upset that truckers arrived? You bet. But the number of JOBS increased, even if they were in a different segment. Again, an example of you not having enough data to make an informed opinion and ONLY listening to soundbites.

I'm saying that changing CinC in this situation would turn a situation that can be controlled into one that cannot. It puts in power someone who already indirectly caused the deaths of 80,000+ people due to ill-advised anti-war activism.

The problem with "believe it when they see it" types of votors is they don't bother LOOKING in any meaningful way beyond a few headlines and soundbites, and disregard any sort of proof that would show them that they SHOULD have seen it if they HAD looked. Things like your job loss info, how if you had looked at the BIG picture, you would have learned that the job market got better, not worse, overall.

Unlike the last Democratic administration, this administration did something when it was attacked. Afghnaistan, the stronghold of Al Qaeda, has been turned into a self governing NATO ally, with freedoms they never had before, and no place for the terrorists to go. Iraq is soon to follow. Due to swift retribution, other ME dictatorships have backed off their positions of belligerence (check out Libya's latest stance on the world is...).

I'd be willing to bet that most of your info has come from Michael Moore's film... (or from people who have seen it...)

posted by  ChrisV

GOD LOVES CHRISV, I kinda like him too. :thumbs:

posted by  lectroid

What jobs are we talking about and where should I be looking? "I'll belive it when I see it" because I'm a college graduate who knows what me and my friends have gone through to find jobs, just how long it took, and how much settling and recycling the jobs among our little network has to be done. How many people who never planned on it have had to struggle to get into grad school. I'm asking because I really want information on all these fabulous new jobs we now have. Since rail-way jobs gave way to white-collar, are we now being sent back to the railway or what? What the hell is happening to jobs that used to be waiting for college grads, and what have they been replaced with?

Sorry but I'm looking into MY LIFE. And isn't that what the right of voting for your own President affords you -- the right to vote for who will make a better life for yourself, not necessarily the one ChrisV endorses. Your problem is that I've told you I'm not impressed with this administration, and you're feeling the need to tell me why I should be impressed over the last four years. How my observations are invalid because I didn't observe them through your eyes. Let it go, man. We are on opposite sides of a coin. Don't see things the same way, probably never will. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. You're gonna have to relinquish control over this one.

Hey, moron, while you're at it, why don't you tell me when was the last time I watched a movie that wasn't on network TV. Damn. Even the level-headed ones will surprise you on this forum :laughing:

posted by  JaneiR36

I was going to start this response with the words "Jane, you ignorant slut" but I figured the humor would be way over your head, so I omitted it.

Anyway, the above excerpt from your last post is precisely what is wrong with you, people like you and unfortunately the country in general. Get over yourself. Mature adults step back and look at the big picture. In this case what's best for the country overall. You by your own admission are only concerned with your own well being, and that is just a little bit selfish, don't ya think? I do.

Well I'd like to keep typing but I have to go do something... to help somebody else... with no payoff for me. You should try it sometime.

posted by  vwhobo

How perfect!! :thumbs: Only the mature audience would understand.

posted by  BavarianWheels

Is this supposed to be some kind of newsflash when I already said this a couple posts ago? :screwy: Get over yourself, loser. If you'd focused on getting to know someone's viewpoint other than your own in this thread, you may have picked up on that when I posted it. Geez...

As usual. On your moral high-horse and on top of the world, insulting everyone who doesn't think the same as you or agree with you, and with your little lackies supporting your insolence. It's okay, dude. I, and several other people on this forum, as I've gathered, will never expect much more out of you " :thumbs: " You can't show respect for people without sacrificing your "payoff", ie, the orgasm you get from regurgitating your daily load of crap, anyway, so you're probably just a garden variety liar, too.

Now it's my turn to wonder if *this* is who will will be voting for our next President. Little boys who after just one week of conversation will throw sand in your face and run from the playground just because you were coming from different places, didn't arrive at the same conclusion, and stood your ground. Some of you desperately need a therapist. And you definitely need to get out more if a conversation that doesn't end with you nodding satisfactorily is this shocking to you. :laughing:

posted by  JaneiR36

Look around. Your IT jobs are still there, just in different industries. Lot's available in the health care industry, for example. Service industries are getting larger, too. it's not all "going back to labor" though that's not necessarily a bad thing, except for candyasses who'd rather get paid a couple hundred grand a year to surf the web from a cushy IT job... Look at companies from outside the US setting up plants here or expanding on them (like Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW). there are tons more, but YOU have to get up off your ass and search. *I* have a job, found just that way. Should I try and find YOU one, too?

Same whining that the railway workers you used as an example must have said about giving up their livelihood to do something else. Same kind of whining about "living the life we chose" that the loggers went on about in teh pacific northwest where I grew up. You can vote for whomever you want, but your selfish "me first" outlook has made you incapable of looking at the long term. Yo'd rather try to get back those IT jobs that went overseas even if it means that millions more here are removed from their new jobs because of the rules changes that the current economic policies created...

*sigh* No, my problem is that you only speak in soundbites and bring up innaccuraciees as reasoning. it's the same thing I have a problem with when people here put down cars they've only heard about, or use outright untruths to put them down with.

There's nothing wrong with making a different choice. But there is something wrong with sticking to inaccurate data just so you can retain your original opinion. This holds true for everything in life, from choosing a president to determining what to have for dinner:

"I'd never have _____ for dinner because it turns your mouth green."

"No, it doesn't."

"You just don't like that I have a different opinion than you."


Ohh, hit a nerve on that one, calling me a moron now. Must have got close, as you didn't bother to answer directly, on the grounds your mistaken facts might get called into question again. Typical.

posted by  ChrisV

It would've been funny though...

posted by  Satty101

Oh, PLEASE! You said I got my info from Michael Moore's film which I interpreted to be a direct assault on my intelligence; you were indicating that I had no mind of my own to the extent of forming my own opinion. I responded to you with the same courtesy (and not even nearly the same level of insolence) that you did me so can we please stop whining and move on?

Hey, if it's better than the one I have now, I just might take it :laughing: Why the immediate assumption about IT? I'm going give you the benefit of the doubt and take it you meant that as an example. Although you have been exhibiting the general trend of *telling* me what situation I'm in, as against finding out what it is and going from there...

You made some very compelling arguments. So I did some quick online research to prove you wrong because I just *knew* you were wrong, and found this:

Ten Myths About Jobs and Outsourcing (http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm467.cfm)

Puzzled out of my mind that you could possibly be right and that the truth was 180 degrees out from what my experience tells me, I did another search. This time focusing on my field. Here's what I came up with:

IEEE-USA Position on Offshore Outsourcing (http://www.ieeeusa.org/forum/POSITIONS/offshoring.html)

Some quick quotes:

(This one's for me): "The offshoring of high wage jobs from the United States to lower cost overseas locations is currently contributing to unprecedented levels of unemployment among American electrical, electronics and computer engineers."

(This one's for all the "prosperity of the nation" folk): "Offshoring also poses a very serious, long term challenge to the nation's leadership in technology and innovation, its economic prosperity, and its military and homeland security."

(And finally, this has definitely been my observation): "It is abundantly clear that many of the jobs being sent offshore were formerly held by U.S. engineers, computer scientists and other information technology professionals."

Take note that this is the IEEE, not just one person whining about their job or one single company. If these jobs were simply popping right back up within the industry, there wouldn't be an industry-wide situation.

Actually, you introduced the railway folk. I just used it as a background and stepping stone to ask questions in order to get to another point in the discussion. Maybe you're still scarred by your childhood, but that doesn't make me the people you grew up with. If you want to know what I think, you're just going to have to ask, rather than *tell* me what I think and then reply to it, which is pretty much what you've done at several points of this conversation.

YAY! It's game-time again! okay. How about:

"I'm gonna have Y dinner tonight because X tends to taste kind of blah."

"No, it doesn't turn your mouth green! You're ignorant! You're gonna run dinner time to hell!"

"Uh... I really don't think we've been having the same dinner, but if X works for you, that's fine."

"Well you're selfish, and I just *know* 300 million people are going to die tonight if you choose to eat Y."

Can we say hop, step, jump? What can I say, perception is reality :)

Finally, may I mention that I find your apparent disgust befuddling? Surely you know that there are MILLIONS of people who vote based only ONE issue. Coming to mind especially would be students who have no plans whatsoever on voting until they find out that one candidate seems to be leaning towards ensuring their tuition funding for the next four years, but the others, not so much. Wow. You must be hurling by now :laughing:

Also, there seem to be a lot of scare tactics floating around on this topic, indicating that if you choose Kerry, America will collapse tomorrow. Even the VP as much as said that in his recent speech. Uh, no, I don't buy it for one second. And since either candidate would work for the Nation, I might as well get something out of it. Scare tactics and mud-slinging (regardless of whom it's directed at) are quite entertaining to watch, but definitely not a factor in deciding my vote.

posted by  JaneiR36

Then why is the government is showing growth in the field of IT. But you probably wouldn't trust THEM, because they are the government. After reading the above post, I check out the website you provided as your edvidence. It is very compelling, but I am going to have to disagree with it. The reason is because I also did alittle "research" on the internet and found this site:


Just some quick numbers from it:

Electrical and electronics engineers,
288,000 jobs currently
11% increase
31,000 new jobs
An Average growth.
Employment growth will stem from
demand for advanced communications equipment and
consumer- and defense-related electronics products.
Growth is expected to be fastest in the services indus-tries,
especially consulting firms. Opportunities are ex-pected
to be favorable.

This is one of the examples you used. I edited the text because the way the copy and paste function worked it would have made no sense.

[\QUOTE]YAY! It's game-time again! okay. How about:

"I'm gonna have Y dinner tonight because X tends to taste kind of blah."

"No, it doesn't turn your mouth green! You're ignorant! You're gonna run dinner time to hell!"

"Uh... I really don't think we've been having the same dinner, but if X works for you, that's fine."

"Well you're selfish, and I just *know* 300 million people are going to die tonight if you choose to eat Y."[QUOTE]

Now here is the best example I have seen of someone using someone elses examples out of context. Read over your words again and Read over ChisV's and compare them. You turned his words around and then morphed them into an attack.

posted by  Coffin Type R

Dude, why are you giving me *projections*? For the course of a whole decade (2000-10), almost half of which has already passed? What's wrong with good ol' fasioned reality? Trust me, I'm not obsessed with being right. Provide me with some real numbers and I'll be happy to reconsider my position. What you've given me isn't actual growth. Maybe you meant to quote another source of data? Also the site obviously tells nothing of the projected relative employment rate. It says number of jobs would increase, but tells you only a little about the number of new engineers being output from colleges (to the order of "they aren't expected to increase significantly"). So they will be increasing, too. Would that be at the same rate the jobs are increasing or...? I mean, this is just a projection, probably done with some fascinating tools, but I'd just as soon take reality any day of the week.

ChrisV was satirically recounting our exchange so far, from what I propose to be his perspective. I simply did the same. Hence perception being reality: his perception is his reality, and the same goes for me. I can pinpoint the exact parts of my summary in the thread, if you'd like. I made no claims that can't be located in this thread, and those were the parts that stood out to me.

posted by  JaneiR36

Hell no. vote for Jesse jackass, Al sharpless or MsMr Clinton, No wait vote for a war criminal that killed women and children(from his own words) What a crock of shit. :cussing: All the ketchup in the world couldn't get that horse face Liar get elected. KERRY IS A POST TURTLE faff

posted by  lectroid

Your Message