Mickey Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 You know, I vaguely remember you standing up for the terminally stupid in Florida who couldn't figure out how to punch a fuggin' ballot that NYC fourth graders handled with ease. Oh, that's right. They agreed with your political view. 96984[/snapback] If what you are saying is that I refused to conclude willy nilly that thousands of people I do not know must be "terminally stupid" because they disagreed with my political views as you apparently have done, that is true, I did refuse to reach such a conclusion. I also pointed out, if I recall correctly, that the right to vote does not depend on IQ or the ability to manipulate a tiny pin. I did argue that people with arthritis, missing fingers, poor eye sight and other physical disabilities should not have to worry that those disabilies would be the basis for them losing their right to vote. I was not standing up for the "terminally stupid" anymore than you are attacking arthritic amputees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 So in other words, you would NOT vote for the GOP candidate in this election and would sit back and do nothing but accept that Al Gore was re-elected, that your taxes were raised, that Saddam was terrorizing the U.S., that liberals were running the Supreme Court, that government was expanding and gay marriage was being promoted by the President you weren't opposing with your vote. Hmm... I don't know you well, but that non-vote and appearance that all is well in the political world is kind of surprising. 97219[/snapback] Once again... What is it about... "I continue to vote for someone who represents my interests... sometimes that person doesn't win... but I never vote for someone who I don't know what they will do just because he is running against someone I don't like... Thats just stupid!"... that you don't understand? who said anything about a non-vote? You do understand the theory of checks and balance don't you? There are Local, State and Federal offices at stake that act to "Check & Balance" anything the president could do and visa versa.... No president has carte blanche.. I rather cast my vote to support someone than to simply vote for anyone but... thats a slippery slope.. Have you ever thought for one second that your vote for anybody but Bush could lead to severe consequencies for the U.S.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 2, 2004 Author Share Posted November 2, 2004 Once again... What is it about... "I continue to vote for someone who represents my interests... sometimes that person doesn't win... but I never vote for someone who I don't know what they will do just because he is running against someone I don't like... Thats just stupid!"... that you don't understand? who said anything about a nonvote? You do understand the theory of checks and balance don't you? There are Local, State and Federal offices at stake that act to "Check & Balance" anything the president could do and visa versa.... No president has carte blanche.. I rather cast my vote to support someone than to simply vote for anyone but... thats a slippery slope.. Have you ever thought for one second that your vote for anybody but Bush could lead to severe consequencies for the U.S.? 97236[/snapback] I am not voting anyone but Bush, I just understand it. I think Kerry will make a good President. I think he's run a shoddy campaign at times, and says stupid things at times, and is a political opportunist when he doesnt need to be because he is smart, and I would prefer Joe Biden, and perhaps one or two others, but I have no problem with Kerry as a President as of now. If he makes global errors of judgment I will change my mind. I don't see that happening. I just want you to say, honestly, in public, right here, that you would NOT vote for the GOP candidate in this example if you absolutely hated Gore and your vote could be the decider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I am not voting anyone but Bush, I just understand it. I think Kerry will make a good President. I think he's run a shoddy campaign at times, and says stupid things at times, and is a political opportunist when he doesnt need to be because he is smart, and I would prefer Joe Biden, and perhaps one or two others, but I have no problem with Kerry as a President as of now. If he makes global errors of judgment I will change my mind. I don't see that happening. I just want you to say, honestly, in public, right here, that you would NOT vote for the GOP candidate in this example if you absolutely hated Gore and your vote could be the decider. 97248[/snapback] One last time..... What is it about... "I continue to vote for someone who represents my interests... sometimes that person doesn't win... but I never vote for someone who I don't know what they will do just because he is running against someone I don't like... Thats just stupid!"... that you don't understand? I think you have issues to deal with... earlier you said.. "We don't know what Kerry is going to do. We do know what Bush is going to do. A lot of people hate the way the country is going, so it is "anyone but Bush". Remember, I said in the example it is your opinion that those things have been wrong, please don't respond that Bush didn't do these things. " So by your own words you are voting for someone who you don't know what they are going to do? That's smart.... Don't try to project your inadequaties on me.. I think I have been pretty clear on what I said.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 2, 2004 Author Share Posted November 2, 2004 One last time..... What is it about... "I continue to vote for someone who represents my interests... sometimes that person doesn't win... but I never vote for someone who I don't know what they will do just because he is running against someone I don't like... Thats just stupid!"... that you don't understand? I think you have issues to deal with... earlier you said.. "We don't know what Kerry is going to do. We do know what Bush is going to do. A lot of people hate the way the country is going, so it is "anyone but Bush". Remember, I said in the example it is your opinion that those things have been wrong, please don't respond that Bush didn't do these things. " So by your own words you are voting for someone who you don't know what they are going to do? That's smart.... Don't try to project your inadequaties on me.. I think I have been pretty clear on what I said.. 97300[/snapback] Kerry hasn't been president yet. That is why we don't know what he will do as President. If you say you know how he will govern, and what he will do about taxes and the war on terror and with a divided congress and about social security you are totally full of schitt. You have no idea what he will do. You had no idea what George Bush would do before he became President either. It's impossible to know with ANY degree of certainty about any candidate from any party, especially in the world the way it is today, with its myriad of unknowables. I think you have been pretty clear, too. You would vote for the Republican candidate in that hypothetical. But that is just my opinion. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that I am wrong about that, and you are so rightoeus and above it all that you wouldnt vote Republican if you didnt know exactly what he would do in the White House instead of Gore. But I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Kerry hasn't been president yet. That is why we don't know what he will do as President. If you say you know how he will govern, and what he will do about taxes and the war on terror and with a divided congress and about social security you are totally full of schitt. You have no idea what he will do. You had no idea what George Bush would do before he became President either. It's impossible to know with ANY degree of certainty about any candidate from any party, especially in the world the way it is today, with its myriad of unknowables. I think you have been pretty clear, too. You would vote for the Republican candidate in that hypothetical. But that is just my opinion. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that I am wrong about that, and you are so rightoeus and above it all that you wouldnt vote Republican if you didnt know exactly what he would do in the White House instead of Gore. But I doubt it. 97314[/snapback] The fact that noone knows what Kerry will do is scary... I have a strong idea of what he would do based on his abysmal record in the Senate for the last 20 years. Kerry has a track record of saying what it takes to be elected. He voting record contradicts half of what he says.... We had a very good idea of what GWB would do based on his limited time as governor of Texas.. Seems he continued to do those things he said he would do.. I have voted for democrats, idependendants and republicans in my life for many different offices.... I have voted predominately for republicans for president as I have believed they best represented my views. Bush was a better candidate than Gore and I am glad I voted for GWB then.... Thank God Gore was not President when 911 happened.. Bush was and is the right guy for this time,... even staunch democrats like Ed Koch believes this ..... and he doesn't agree with most of what GWB does but he agrees with him on the primary reason he should be president.... the war on terror.... every other issue is meaningless if we don't get thta right... Koch has said.... ""However, you are misinformed on my position as to why I support President Bush for reelection. I support him because of the Bush Doctrine, "we will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them." He has demonstrated that he means it by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, both threats to their regions and to the U.S. I do not believe that the Democratic Party, which is now dominated by those who preferred Governor Dean for president, but decided he could not win, has the stomach to take on worldwide terrorism. Indeed, a New York Times-CBS poll of the delegates at the Boston Convention demonstrated their opposition to John Kerry's position which is not to get out of Iraq now. It is the party activists who the candidate has to rely on to get elected and whose positions generally prevail. "I have held public office for 23 years. I was elected five times as Congressman and three times as Mayor with super majorities after the first election for each office. New Yorkers trusted my insights and common sense, and I believe they still do. The Islamic terrorists, in the words of Lee Hamilton, "want to kill us," and there are hundreds of millions of them. I want a President who is willing to go after them before they have the chance to kill us. "There is nothing wrong with American Jews, concerned for the safety of all Americans, to be grateful that President Bush supports the State of Israel when European states in fear of terrorism capitulate to the demands of the terrorists and are hostile to Israel." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...11/145903.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 2, 2004 Author Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well I hope you are not using Ed Koch as an example of a typical Democrat. And Koch doesn't love Bush as much as he doesn't like Kerry. But that's cool, he is entitled to his opinion. I saw Ed Koch live last night say flat out that he would be voting for Dick Gephart today if DG were the Democratic candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts