See post #6. Apparently I’m not the only one who heard it.
I know someone who argues there is no significant difference between the two. He insisted that if Al Gore were in office instead of Bush, the situation in Iraq today would be exactly the same. At that point I decided there was no point in discussing the matter with him.
Max, you’ve eloquently stated exactly what pisses me off about those idiots. I’d love to backhand some of 'em, frankly - the smug ones who act as though those of us who actually follow the issues and vote based on them are caught up in silly, pedestrian non-issues. I’d like to go back to every idiot I knew who proudly claimed that they were voting third party or not voting before the election and smack 'em up, and then ask them if 1,100 of our own troops and 100,000 Iraqi civilians don’t count for anything.
Here’s post #6:
And here’s your post:
One of these things is not like the other…
Here’s an analogy for ya’:
Person A: I just bought a Lincoln Navigator.
Person B: I would never buy a Lincoln Navigator.
Person A: You mean you’d never buy a car?
Person B: I might buy a car, but I’d buy a Toyota Prius.
Person A: So you’d do exactly the same thing as I did?
:smack:
NO HE DID NOT!!!
ARGH
I don’t know about the tax points, but the abortion issues only appear once for me (using Mozilla on Win XP).
I have a test that I apply to the candidates, after I’ve considered everything else.
Remember that scene in Superman II, when the three Kryptonians march into the Oval Office, and General Zod says, “Who is the one they call President?..Kneel before Zod.” Someone does, and he sneers, “You are not the President. No one who leads so many would kneel so easily.” Then the real Prez steps forward, and says he’ll kneel, but only because, as president, he’s responsible for the safety of the popluation.
So that’s my test: Would the candidate maintain his leadership if so challenged, and more importantly, would he concede for the good of the country?
I don’t think either Bush or Kerry would show fear in that situation. But, I also don’t think Bush would be shrewd enough to realize that he was in a no-win situation; he’d probably keep blustering. Kerry’s been in combat; he probably knows that there are times when the enemy just has you by the balls, and you have to make a sacrifice for the greater good.
Again I say, this is not my only criterion. But it is something to think about.
I’d actually be willing to say that romantic ideal would not happen with any President, short of possibly Lincoln.
Just my own thoughts, though.
At least a giant douche can do some good.
Provided you’ve got a giant pussy that needs cleaning.
Actually, I realized yesterday that, for the first time in nearly 20 years of voting, I’m not going to vote for the Libertarian candidate for president. Kerry’s got himself one more vote in a swing state.
It’s not that I don’t see any differences between the Republican and Democrats. It’s just that I feel both parties have lost touch with ordinary working people and, frankly, have behaved incredibly stupidly. I’m very much a centerist, and I have some quite conservative positions, especially when it comes to economics. I want something different, and, especially four years ago, I wanted something better. The Libertarian party is closest to my beliefs, although I’m no more a hardcode Libertarian than I am a hardcode Republican or Democrat. Among other things, I happen to like public schools, and the roads around here are bad enough without relying on private businesses to maintain them! :eek:
There are differences between the parties, but I’m not happy with either one. I also still have an anarchist streak in me, and I like the idea of keeping both parties on their toes. Today, on my way home from work, I’ll stop by my polling place, driver’s license and other ID on hand, and do my bit to overthrow the government. I’ll be the one in red, white, and blue, wearing a button which says “Just once, I’d like to vote for the greater of two goods.” If they try to keep me from voting, things could get interesting. (I’m not that worried – I’ve voted in every election since I moved here, including primaries!)
CJ
Vote Cthulu – why settle for merely the lesser of two evils?
Bingthefuckingo! Add to that, the fact that both Bush and Kerry seem willing to say anything if they think that it’ll get them elected and you’ve got a recipe for mistrust.
A poster on another board claimed to have seen a survey which stated that if the Republicans gave up on certain hot button issues (like abortion), they’d gain a lot of Democratic support, and if the Dems would back a pro-gun candidate, they’d gain a lot of Republican support. The same, I think could be said of the Libertarian Party, if they’d ditch their hatred of nearly all government programs, they’d gain a number of supporters.
And if they don’t let you vote, be sure to shout, “Help! I’m being repressed! Come see the oppression inhereint in the system!”
So tell me, genius, what is John Kerry’s position on guns?
I think they are different in some ways but I think they both suck.
Kerry sucks for not offering any concrete solutions to our problems. His “I have a plan but I can’t tell you what it is” strategy is absolutely laughable. And the plans he has outlined have no basis in reality. A national health care is an interesting idea in theory. Ask Hillary Clinton. She tried to do something and failed miserably because Congress wouldn’t work with her. If you think the gun lobbyists have Congress in their back pocket, wait until you try to mess around with health care. Kerry’s other grand ideas (education, SS) are unworkable because he’d have to raise taxes. You raise taxes and you risk stalling the already floundering economy. Kerry gets major points taken away for choosing a weasly trial lawyer as a running mate.
Bush sucks on domestic policy, the economy and his Texan Shoot 'Em Up Commander in Chief style. He gets points taken away for his strident positions on stem cell research and gay marriage, for granting Haliburton a multi-billion dollar contract with no bidding, for being in bed with the oil companies. He gets major points taken away for not admitting his mistakes in Iraq and for alienating us from the rest of the world. He gets points taken away for being the worst public speaker to hold office since Richard Nixon.
The White House was in the Democrats’ pockets this year because a majority of Republicans were ready, willing, and able to vote for a Democrat this year. Had someone like Bill Clinton been running this year, he would have won by a complete landslide. Kerry blew his lead because he’s simply not a leader. He is now running neck to neck with the most incompetent Republican president since…hell, I can’t think of anyone more incompetent to be President. Kerry has run the most inept campaign I’ve seen since Al Gore’s “How to Lose the White House in 9 Months” campaign. Who is running the democratic party these days and why haven’t you Democrats run him out on a rail?
There IS a difference between two men. But the biggest similarity is that neither has what it takes to be a great leader.
MaxTheVool: Fuck you.
I pit you back, you who see such big differences.
I am absolutely fucking sick of people like you saying they see big differences between the two major party candidates, and, even though they may think the candidates are both less than perfect, are going to vote for “the lesser of two evils”. The lesser of two evils is still evil, jack.
So where’s your pretty fucking big difference?
Let’s address your little list:
(a) So voting for Kerry changes the past … how? What’s done is done. Tell me what Kerry is going to do that is so fucking different from Bush.
(b) See (a).
(c) I don’t see Kerry doing anything all that damn different from Bush in the next four years. Again, commenting on the past doesn’t change it.
The difference is 100,000 dead Iraqis. The difference between being alive vs. being dead is a big one for those people and their loved ones.
Gee, Einstein, did I say that Kerry was anti-gun? No. Certainly he’s tried to court the hunting vote by going goose hunting, but he’s not exactly a card carrying member of the NRA.
And again I ask, this affects the next four years … how? Whether you like it or not, Kerry is stuck with Iraq. If some bizarre set of circumstances leads to someone else being president, that person will have to deal with Iraq.
If you want to convince me Kerry is going to be different, tell me what he’s going to do different, not what he might have done different. FWIW, in hindsight I think Al Gore would have done better with the crises of the last four years.
Where would Bush’s next war be? He calls himself the “war president”, and we’ve seen his track record. Give him four more years and he’ll take the opportunity to kill innocent people in another country with an unpopular leader.
Oh, how I wish I had been the one to invent that slogan. I am so having that button made for 2008.