Bush

[GrandKenyon]

In all seriousness now, I'm not blinded by anything. I've just been razzing you this whole time. I am a registered Democrat and don't believe Bush has been a very good President. Granted, Clinton would be a tough act for anyone to follow, and Gore is a boob, but he's definetly a one-term kind of guy.

Instead of attacking my intellect, take a step back and realize that my opinions in this thread are obviously laiden with sarcasm. My life has not personally endured any more/less suffering or despair, nor happiness and success then it did the 8 years Clinton was in office. I'm not old enough for Bush's policies and recklessness to affect me personally.

Despite this, he is a one term president that may hang on because Kerry just has a pitiful personality. His New England accent alienates most and he's a poor conversationalist. If he was younger, more handsome and more cheeky...it'd be a landslide. I never claimed to know anything about politics, and most people are truely "Anything but Bush". You admitted it yourself.

I'd be ashamed to be a Republican under this president, and I applaud the fact that you have the guts to stand up for him. Just don't take it too far.

This country needs less religious zealots and big businessmen, and more people that want to make a change.

Bush favors oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. He opposes Clean Air Emmisions Standards, He opposses tougher Fuel Efficiency Standards. He opposes locks on guns, background checks at gun shows...I could go on and on. Look beyond the war in Iraq. He has everybody focusing on that. Sure Bush, you've done a good job convincing people that the war is neccessary...but you've f**ked it all up back at home.

I attended a Michael Moore rally a couple weeks back, and as predicted - a crowd of Jesus Freaks gathered near by going on about how we need the war.

He called out to them "What would Jesus bomb?"

I'm not a big Moore fan, but it shut them up.

[LotharBraunBrownBryant]

GrandKenyon said:

Instead of attacking my intellect, take a step back and realize that my opinions in this thread are obviously laiden with sarcasm.

Your last 2-3 posts were, perhaps, laden with sarcasm. But before that?

I attack your intellect because you can't back anything up. You don't even attempt to address any issues beyond the sound-bite level. You have an opinion on pretty much everything, but you don't seem to have an educated opinion about anything.

he is a one term president that may hang on because Kerry just has a pitiful personality.

He could've been a one-term president if the left had nominated someone -- ANYONE -- who understands the war on terror is bigger than Osama. Joe Lieberman or others of his sort could've won the election, but Kerry doesn't stand a chance.

It's not because of his personality -- it's not because of his accent, looks, or conversational ability. It's because he isn't serious about the War on Terror, and doesn't seem to be serious about any other convictions either. He's simply the Anybody-but-Bush candidate.

most people are truely "Anything but Bush". You admitted it yourself.

"admitted" it? Usually saying someone "admitted" something means they didn't want to.

Most people (ON THE LEFT) are "anybody but Bush" people. You don't have to twist my arm to get me to say that. I relish saying it. A lot of people on the left are so offended by religion, and so offended by war, and so offended by decisiveness that Bush makes their blood boil.

If most people had good reason to be "anybody but Bush" I wouldn't be so proud of saying it. But the simple fact is, most ABB'ers are irrationally so.

I'd be ashamed to be a Republican under this president

*shrug*

I don't particularly like all of his policies. But even if he was a really, really crappy president who I mostly disagreed with, he couldn't make me "ashamed" of my party. One individual couldn't make me ashamed of my party -- especially because so many of us are perfectly willing to come out and say that yeah, we disagree with him on some issues.

What would make me ashamed would be if I was in the party that invites guys like Michael Moore to their convention, and the party whose messages get repeated by Osama. The reason I'd be ashamed is because the whole party seems to have embraced guys like Michael Moore, and messages like Osama's. It'd be like if the right kept giving Pat Robertson a place of honor at their convention. It's shameful, because the whole flock allows itself to be shepherded by such losers.

This country needs less religious zealots and big businessmen, and more people that want to make a change.

What about religious zealots and big businessmen who want to make a change?

Bush favors oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. He opposes Clean Air Emmisions Standards, He opposses tougher Fuel Efficiency Standards.

*shrug* not the most important issues in the world.

I find it funny that a party could get so upset about our dependence on Saudi oil, yet so strongly oppose drilling in the Arctic.

I don't know the story on the emmisions / fuel efficiency standards, but those aren't things I'm particularly concerned about right now.

He opposes locks on guns, background checks at gun shows...

By "he opposes locks on guns" do you mean "he opposes forcing all gun owners to lock their guns at all times" or "he opposes the existance of gun locks"? Those are very different positions. One of them is fairly reasonable, and one is nutty.

I hadn't heard about the background checks at gun shows.

Look beyond the war in Iraq. He has everybody focusing on that.

Back on the first page, you said Bush followers "are people that vote for who mommy and daddy say, or people that don't want their guns tampered with". Now you say it's about Iraq. Make up your mind

I agree, though, everybody *is* focusing on Iraq and the broader war on terror -- because it's the biggest issue in this election. Most policies presidents set don't really matter -- emmissions standards, arctic drilling, taxes, whatever. If a president messes that up, it's an irritation, but not a catastrophe. But if a president messes up the war on terror -- if a president doesn't carry though on CULTURE CHANGE in Asia Minor -- that's a big problem. So of course people will focus on that issue.

But, as for "looking beyond" the war... notice how many other issues I've addressed just in this thread. Abortion, tax cuts, death penalty, Palestine/Israel, the draft (both current draft bills are sponsored by Democrats, BTW), the deficit, etc. I think Bush has handled most of these fairly well. He's not perfect -- and certainly there are times I disagree with him -- but overall, he's done an OK job at home and a superb job in the war on terror. There's no way I'd replace him with someone who'd do a superb job at home and an OK job in the war on terror -- and I really wouldn't replace him with a guy like Kerry, who'll be mediocre at best in both places.

I attended a Michael Moore rally .... a crowd of Jesus Freaks gathered near by going on about how we need the war.

um... your point? Michael Moore shut down some sound-bite pro-war people with an anti-war soundbite. Woohoo, hooray for him.

Chances are, if your position can be shut down by a sound bite, you haven't thought about it enough. Conversely, if your position is always explained through soundbites, you haven't thought about it enough.

[GrandKenyon]

I thought about it for a second...why would the terrorists want Kerry to win? He will bring all the other countries leaders back to the table, and make it virtually impossible to operate under Bin Laden's regime.

He's brilliantly confusing nutty right-wingers like you into thinking he wants Kerry, because, obviously, people will vote for the opposite of what OBL wants.

If Kerry wins, his regime is over!

Clinton spent 8 years in office...the men that bombed the towers during his then brief stint in the office are in prison. The man that orchestrated the hit during W's regime are making videos in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Do you think Osama thought he'd still be alive at this point? Of course he wants the douche that can't catch him to stay put.

[LotharBraunBrownBryant]

GrandKenyon said:

why would the terrorists want Kerry to win?

Because they realize Kerry isn't really serious about them. Kerry only talks about terrorism because he knows he has to talk about it to be elected.

He will bring all the other countries leaders back to the table

Kerry *says* he'll bring other countries and other leaders to the table -- but look at his actions. He's courting France and Germany, neither of which have enough military to matter, and both of which have said they won't contribute troops to Iraq, while he insults England, Australia, Poland, and even the current Iraqi government. While he says he'll bring other countries to the table, he insults the countries that are already at the table.

John Kerry only talks about bringing other countries to the table because he knows people are stupid enough to believe him. What Kerry *really* wants to do is put the US military under UN control. He's said that a number of times (and then suddenly started denying it in the last 2 months.)

The problem with his idea of bringing other countries to the table... is what he *really* means is he'll take us OFF the table unless certain other countries come along. In other words, he'll only get involved if France and Germany get involved too -- which means, essentially, he'll never get involved.

John Kerry says "I'll bring other countries to the table." That doesn't *really* mean "more countries will be involved in the war on terror" -- it *really* means "nobody will be involved unless France and Germany OK it."

... and make it virtually impossible to operate under Bin Laden's regime.

Why do you think Osama is making tapes instead of blowing s*** up?

On the current Bin Laden tape (in particular, the parts they didn't air -- the tape is 18 minutes, but only about 6 minutes aired on Al Jazeera), he says AQ has been hurt by the US's continual manhunt on the Afghan - Pakistani border. He complains about the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan, and how there wasn't enough violence during the elections. And he's making tapes instead of blowing stuff up.

He's brilliantly confusing nutty right-wingers like you into thinking he wants Kerry, because, obviously, people will vote for the opposite of what OBL wants.

Um, no. He did his best to make it sound like he didn't particularly care who got elected. But the simple fact is, he repeated the same exact charges as John Kerry -- he was trying to reinforce Kerry's message, and to make gullible people believe he's really willing to have peace with us.

If Kerry wins, his regime is over!

Osama's regime is already over. The Taliban are gone, Al Qaeda's leadership is decimated. We don't have him, but the simple fact is, he's making tapes instead of blowing stuff up because that's the best he can pull off right now. But if Kerry wins, the pressure will let up on Osama AND on other terrorists.

Clinton spent 8 years in office...the men that bombed the towers during his then brief stint in the office are in prison.

The men that bombed the towers were also *still in the US*. And he never got to the guys who masterminded the bombing -- only the guys who actually undertook it. He got the grunts in the war -- but he didn't take out the enemy commander.

The men who flew planes into the towers are already dead. There aren't any of them left for Bush to "get". But what Bush has done is shut down the government that supported them, arrested or killed a large part of the leadership that planned the attacks, and has Osama hiding somewhere making tapes instead of bombs.

The man that orchestrated the hit during W's regime are making videos in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Yes -- and the men that orchestrated the hit during Clinton's regime are the VERY SAME MEN. Clinton didn't get the guys who orchestrated anything.

Clinton got the grunts -- the guys who actually set off the bombs. He didn't get any of the leaders. Bush didn't have any grunts left to get -- they all died on impact. But he's gone out and taken out the government that supported and harbored Osama, and he has Osama hiding in a cave instead of living in Taliban care in a nice palace somewhere.

Do you think Osama thought he'd still be alive at this point?

At one point in the mid-90's some other country (I forget which one) actually had Osama in custody and offered him to Clinton. Clinton said no, we couldn't prove him guilty. So they let him go.

So Osama *is* alive at this point because Clinton didn't take him out back in the mid-90's when he had a chance.

If Kerry was president, do I think Osama would still be alive? Yes, and more than that, the Taliban would still be in power, and Saddam would still be in power.

I know Kerry says differently in his speeches -- but the simple fact is, he views American power so negatively (listen to his 1971 testimony, or anything else he said before the current campaign) that he never would've sent the army after anyone. The most Kerry would've done would be to fire a couple cruise missiles and try to arrest a few AQ grunts. Bush went straight after the leadership -- and while he hasn't gotten all of them yet, he got a lot more than "none" which is exactly how many Kerry would've gotten.

Of course he wants the douche that can't catch him to stay put.

You mean the guy who led the strike that took out like 3/4 of AQ's leadership, and the government that protected him?

If Kerry was president, not only would Osama be free, but the Taliban would still be in power, and Osama would be actively leading attacks instead of making tapes.

Who would you rather have in power? A guy who hadn't caught you but had you hiding in caves, or a guy who says he'll catch you but doesn't have the slightest clue? Osama knows Kerry's history -- he knows Kerry is reluctant to actually use the military or keep the pressure on. He knows a Kerry presidency would take the pressure off of him.

Kerry talks tough in his speeches in this campaign. He tries to make it sound like he'd be tougher on terror than Bush. But he only says it to be popular. He doesn't believe it -- he thinks the military belongs under UN control, and he thinks if terrorists attack you, you should react by arresting a few footsoldiers. Bush, on the other hand, believes the US should try to get other countries involved but shouldn't let a few reluctant countries hold them back. Bush believes you go after terrorists by shutting down their support networks, not just getting a few individuals. Bush has the right approach in the war on terror, while Kerry simply doesn't.

Kerry can look at what Bush did and complain that there were a few things he would've done differently and "better" -- but the thing is, Kerry wouldn't have ever had the opportunity to do differently, because Kerry wouldn't have gone after Osama in the first place. Kerry would've left the Taliban in power. He would've applied diplomatic pressure, and the Taliban and Osama would've laughed him off.

[GrandKenyon]

One look at your ridiculous webpage destroys any and all credibility. You're a typical religious nut.

I'm not g**, but it's not a choice...I know that much. You're born g**. If a guy wants another guys junk in his mouth, let him. And let him marry said junk if he wants. Don't even get me started on being the meat to two girls bread.

I love how somebody that meets a girl over some Dungeons and Dragons chat room has the audacity to criticize the lifestyle choices of others.

That is the true "Heh"...maybe when your balls finally drop into your prepubescent sack (are you older than 12? geez) you'll be able to form your own opinion not clouded by thousands of hours of some s**tty 8-bit flight simulator.

Props for not bailing on the BIF.

[LotharBraunBrownBryant]

GrandKenyon said:

One look at your ridiculous webpage destroys any and all credibility. You're a typical religious nut.

I'm actually a pretty atypical religious nut. But hey, if half a page of text about "Biblically based marriage" from my website gives you an excuse to discount everything I say, go for it. You haven't been able to argue anything in a sensible manner, so the only escape you really have is to pretend you have good reason not to listen to me.

The arguments I've made can stand or fall on their own. If you have to ignore the arguments I've made here and cite other things I've written elsewhere (that you don't even understand -- you just ASSUMED things from my webpage based on your OWN prejudices) in order to discredit me, that shows how weak your position truly is.

I'm not g**, but it's not a choice

When did I ever say it was?

You're born g**.

Actually, neither "you're born gay" or "it's a choice" is true. The truth is, it's a complicated thing.

The closest analogy I can think of is that of an alcoholic (ONLY in the senses I talk about here -- don't go misusing the analogy and claiming I'm saying gays are alcoholics or some other such nonsense.) Nobody is born alcoholic, and nobody chooses to be an alcoholic. Rather, people are born with some tendencies that way, and their environment growing up gives them some tendencies that way, and there are choices they can make that contribute (though they're not specifically choosing to become alcoholic.)

The same is true for homosexuality (this has been scientifically established, mostly through twin studies.) Genetics, childhood environment, and individual choices all contribute to whether or not someone is gay.

Also, just like alcoholism... it's possible to become gay or become non-gay. Just like alcoholism... it's not easy to change, and the failure rates for people who try to change either way are pretty high (even with counselling). But I do have a friend who used to be gay and is now straight, so I know it's possible for people to change.

I'm not saying they SHOULD change, or that it's easy to change, or anything of the sort. I'm just saying, it's a lot more complicated than "you're born that way" or "you choose to be that way". (And, of course, I haven't even touched the question of behavior -- only the question of desire.)

If a guy wants another guys junk in his mouth, let him.

I agree.

Does that surprise you? Your own prejudices make you think I wouldn't agree. Your own prejudices made you misread my website.

I'm 100% uninterested in telling people who aren't Christians and don't want a Biblically based marriage how to live their lives. If you want some other guy to put his wang in you, I have no problems with that. It's your life. It's not my place to tell you how to live it.

And let him marry said junk if he wants.

I'm OK with that, too. If some guy wants to be with another guy and get the same rights I get for being with my wife, let him. (I actually don't have a problem if some guy wants to get with his sister, either -- I personally think it's gross, but I don't have any reason to stop him.)

One thing that bothers me: the courts are trying to force it on the people instead of letting the people deal with the issue. There needs to be a healthy debate, and society needs to come to a reasonable solution on its own -- society needs to decide if gay marriage is OK, and come to peace with it, rather than having the courts force them to accept it or reject it before they're ready. If the courts try to impose a solution (either way) all they're going to do is get people angry at each other and at the courts. Either way, the courts are just going to get people upset -- whether it's gays who are upset they're being denied rights, or religious people upset they're being told they have to treat homosexuality as socially acceptable.

I think the best solution for the government is to get out of the "marriage" business altogether. The government should only deal with "partnerships" and give out "partnership" rights to any couple (gay, straight, siblings, roomates who don't have any sexual interest in each other but have an economic partnership, etc.) That way, they can give everyone equal rights and not have to deal with the "social acceptance" issue.

I love how somebody that meets a girl over some Dungeons and Dragons chat room

Descent bulletin board, actually. It doesn't even superficially resemble Dungeons and Dragons.

I'd be interested to know where you met your girlfriend / wife, if you have one... and I'd be interested to know why you think where you met her is particularly better than where I met my wife.

... has the audacity to criticize the lifestyle choices of others.

Where did I criticize the lifestyle choices of others? Oh, that's right, you saw the "Christian" thing and your prejudices took over.

maybe when your balls finally drop into your prepubescent sack (are you older than 12? geez)

you'll be able to form your own opinion

I have to wonder if you've even been reading the thread. You've been repeating DNC talking points in pretty much everything you've said. I've been discussing my own perspective on a variety of issues. On some of the issues, I don't think I've ever heard anyone else argue anything even remotely close to my positions (specifically, the deficit and gay marriage.) You pretty clearly don't have "your own opinion" on most of the issues we've discussed -- you just repeat what John Kerry says.

Here's a challenge for you: find ANYONE ELSE, ANYWHERE, who's given the same argument about the deficit as I did. If it's not my own opinion, surely you'll be able to find out someone else whose opinion it really is.

... not clouded by thousands of hours of some s**tty 8-bit flight simulator.

I'm sure thousands of hours of basketball is much better for your brain

I still think it's funny -- all thread, you've been talking smack, and all thread, you've been getting shut down. You think Bush supporters are stupid nutjob sheep and my arguments are weak, yet you can't respond to a single one of them. You have to go digging on my webpage and misinterpreting it just to find something to argue about. If you think my arguments are really that weak, why don't you destroy me in front of everybody, by arguing one of the actual issues that has been brought up? Surely, if I'm a stupid nutjob sheep, you can make me look like a stupid nutjob sheep in front of everybody here.

[GrandKenyon]

LOL, this rules.

Let's go vote tomorrow and shut up.

[GrandKenyon]

The husband is given the responsibility of leadership in marriage. He is not to force his wife to follow him, but rather is to lead by his own example, showing her how to live. He is to love his wife, to protect her from harm and to give himself for her. (Ephesians 5:25, 1 Peter 3:7, Colossians 3:19)

The wife is given the responsibility to accept the husband's leadership, submitting to him and providing support for him in all that he does. She is to respect him, following his lead and helping him grow and learn the ways of the Lord. (1 Peter 3:1-2, Ephesians 5:24)

LOL! This is the type of s**t in the bible that was supposed to go the way of the calendar. You're lucky you found a woman naive enough to subscribe to either of those disgusting passages.

Does she get a shiner if dinner isn't ready on time?

[LotharBraunBrownBryant]

GrandKenyon said:

Does she get a shiner if dinner isn't ready on time?

"Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph 5:25) doesn't leave room for abuse. Take a look at the passages I linked to, in order to get a better understanding of what I'm talking about instead of just reading your own preconceptions onto what I wrote.

You might find the following two articles helpful:
www.themarriagebed.com/headship.shtml
www.themarriagebed.com/submission.shtml

The preconception you have about headship/submission (which is what I wrote about) actually much more closely matches Domestic Discipline (which is something I'm strongly against):
www.themarriagebed.com/dd.shtml

You might also find it interesting to poke around the forums on that site and see the sort of things my wife and I write about each other. I think you'd be surprised.

[Master Yoda]

Your a blind sheep if you think America is any better off with "bringing the other countries back to the table"

Ever hear of WWI and WWII, America dug Europe out of their own hell they dug and GAVE THEIR COUNTRIES BACK TO THEM FREE OF CHARGE.

There wouldn't even be a France without America....and now all of a sudden we OWE them something? Give me a break. America IS powerful enough to stand alone in this world...the fact that we don't and we choose to negotiate with these ass backwards countries says a lot about how well the USA shoulders its responsibility.

America is the big brother of the world, we take care of the world and don't ask for much. It seems really popular to be ashamed to be American. Kerry is a piece of garbage ninny that'll waster 4 years of this countries time.

Go find a decent canidate to be a "leader" than this f***in joke called Kerry

[GrandKenyon]

Nucla  

[GrandKenyon]

Lothar, if you grew up in a normal family, had a normal sex life and dealt with issues that most normal people do these days...you'd be chiming a different tune.

It's apparent that most Bush backers are either Bible nuts or dorks that can't get laid. Or both.

[LotharBraunBrownBryant]

GrandKenyon, I KNOW you didn't even bother reading the articles I linked to, let alone digging around the site. You haven't had enough time to do either.

GrandKenyon said:

if you grew up in a normal family

I don't particularly want a normal family. My family was pretty awesome. Way better than "normal".

...had a normal sex life

I also don't particularly want a normal sex life, for the same reason. Our sex life is pretty darn awesome (and my wife agrees wholeheartedly.) Go poke around in the forums on the site I linked to if you want to read her descriptions of it.

...and dealt with issues that most normal people do these days

What issues are these?

...you'd be chiming a different tune.

Which tune would I be chiming differently, based on the issues you think I haven't dealt with, oh wise one? Since you know so much about my life maybe you can tell me exactly what issue I haven't dealt with and exactly how my beliefs would change if I had.

I notice you didn't actually address anything I said, you just waved your hands and pretended there was some magical issue that would make me change my tune. "Oh, if you'd thought about THE MAGICAL ISSUE all of your beliefs would be different." What a joke.

It's apparent that most Bush backers are either Bible nuts or dorks that can't get laid. Or both.

It's "apparent" only because you refuse to admit the possibility there might be others. Earlier in the thread I mentioned other reasons, but you skipped right over them.

Now, I happen to be a "Bible nut" and a "dork" (though if you go read the forums on the site I linked to, you won't be so quick to try to comment about my sex life.) But there are plenty of Bush supporters who aren't. Here are a few examples from my daily reading list:

www.hfienberg.com/kesher/index.htm (socially liberal Jews)
www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ (read his archive from just after 9/11. Former Bush hater.)
iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ (Iraqi doctors in Iraq.)
www.leanwrite.com/whoiam.html (former liberal, jumped parties after 9/11.)
www.ejectejecteject.com/ (another former liberal, and an excellent writer.)

[rock]

GrandKenyon said:

Lothar, if you grew up in a normal family, had a normal sex life and dealt with issues that most normal people do these days...you'd be chiming a different tune.

leave this judgemental crap out of the discussion. it has no purpose.  

[Master Yoda]

Nucla

What is that about?

[Master Yoda]

It's apparent that most Bush backers are either Bible nuts or dorks that can't get laid. Or both.

You should really show more respect....especially since our tax dollars will be paying for your prison cell one day

[Master Yoda]

Seriously....what do you know about Nucla? Do you live near it or something? No one I've ever talk to outside of Nucla has heard of it

[GrandKenyon]

I was born in Grand Junction, and I've never heard of it. It's tough to value the opinion of a podunk redneck from a one horse town...of course you're going to be conservative.

[Master Yoda]

I was born in Grand Junction, and I've never heard of it. It's tough to value the opinion of a podunk redneck from a one horse town...of course you're going to be conservative.

I though GJ was a conservative town as well...I can understand you view of Nuclal, and agree with your stereo-type becuase its mostly true....but I don't consider myself to be a part of that stereo-type. I'm not a blind redneck conservative, I do have a brain and usually attempt to use it.

I'm one of the few that got out of that town. I'm in Durango right now, as liberal a town as you can find .

[GrandKenyon]

I was born in GJ and moved to Denver when I was 12. The whole state is blindly conservative...and it sucks. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge both candidates as talking heads and not just Kerry, but anything is better than Bush. I'm sure he's a good man, but it's time to move on.