quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ Yes as I've said in the other thread, the main differnce between them is that one is a socially conservative Democrat, and the other is a socially liberal Democrat. The point is that Kerry wouldn't get much of anything through a GOP controlled House.

holy sh*t are you nuts?


did you just refer to Bush as a socially conservative Democrat?
I haven't been browsing the political forum on here long enough to catch that right away if intended as a joke. The only concession on that I will accept is that George, himself, doesn't believe all this shit in his heart. He is merely carrying out orders of those actually in charge on the far right.

the people in power right now couldn't be further from being Democrats if they tried. I myself am slightly left of Center and appear to be a bleeding heart Liberal Socialist in relation to these zealous nuts.

___________________
"All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." --Martin Luther King, Jr.
----------------------------------
CTA #20

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono There are very few people at Cato who are "blindly" for Kerry. Just yesterday Cato released an article that for the most part condemed his proposed medical initiative. There are some things I agree with when it comes to Kerry, just as there are some I agree with when it comes to Bush. In total the things I agree with when it comes to each candidate equal out for the most part, and that is why I see no benefit in having Kerry over Bush. Again, this is when looked at holistically and not on individual issues.

Also, I don't see how this could be possible, whether looked at "holistically" or on individual issues. Granted, for those that do not conform to party lines and tend to be centrally neutral on the whole, I could understand not fully agreeing with one or the other. One of the reasons why a two party system (even one not full entrenched in tradition) is hard to unearth is because it rarely possible to agree equally to two people so diametrical in view.

Sure, to someone on either extreme (extreme in the US-centric POV) they may seem to be too closely related towards the center. But, if you are extreme to either side, it is clear which of the two you most closely side with.

The only other thing I can think of is if someone were to only look at a FEW issues. If they were to say, well, I agree with Bush on being Pro-Life, but I agree with Kerry on Gun Control. Or, if you're a devout Catholic you may side with Bush on being Pro-Life but not on being for the Death Penalty.

I just find it hard to believe that anyone can truly be equal with these candidates with concern to their political views. If the equality was based on something more frivilous like who has a better smile, then okay. But from an intellectually considered view? Please explain this to me. I also apologize for the fact that this post will come across wrong with negativity and almost sound condescending. Unfortunately I don't feel like re-writing it, even though that wasn't my intent. Maybe my overall point will be more vocalized this way, though.

___________________
"All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." --Martin Luther King, Jr.
----------------------------------
CTA #20

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I think if Kerry gets elected the amount of posts on this board will go down about 50%. The obsession with Bush prevailing in this forum is really quite disturbing. I'm almost hoping that Kerry gets elected so I can stop hearing all this trivial bitching ffs.

actually kerry doesn't seem to be the perfect leader either, although much better than bush. so perhaps a drop in 30%?

quote:

Originally posted by tathi anyone giong to convert it to .avi for me?

isn't you a linux guy? mplayer should do it (worked perfect for me)

my servers are all linux, and my servers don't have X

i'm lazy and i need a lazy mans desktop, good ol' windows

quote:

Originally posted by tathi my servers are all linux, and my servers don't have X i'm lazy and i need a lazy mans desktop, good ol' windows

aha okay... but linux ownz the desktop too

i was kind enough to convert it for all you lazy bastards... =)

http://erikenglund.mine.nu/temp/george.avi

haha thats some funny shit

thanks St_Andrew

and yeah linux is a better desktop OS, it just lacks certain software that i need

blackbox > gnome > kde

why couldnt he have wiped his glasses on his own shirt?

(ive never seen bush wear glasses before)