johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

[davidm]

I thought about putting this in GD since its liable to lead to that but my intent isn’t to start a Kerry versus Bush debate (there’s plenty of those available already) so I’m putting it here. I love the name of this website and I just wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention:
johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com
It strikes me as an interesting take on things. Rather than try to defend every little thing about your candidate, just admit that he’s not perfect but point out that his opponent is much worse.

[Diceman]

Rather than try to defend every little thing about your candidate, just admit that he’s not perfect but point out that his opponent is much worse.

That they was I do it. All politicians are amoral sleazebags; you just go with the one who’s the least amoral and sleazy.

[Diceman]

@Diceman

That they was I do it. All politicians are amoral sleazebags; you just go with the one who’s the least amoral and sleazy.

“That they was” ??? :smack:

Let’s try that again:

That’s the way I do it.

[AskNott]

The link didn’t work for me. Maybe I’ll try again later.

[Gatopescado]

Let’s not bother electing someone who is qualified and can do the job. Let’s just pick two schumcks and then give the job to the “least schmuckiest” of the two. :rolleyes:

What a great strategy.

[Chefguy]

Hey, this guy seems to be well-written, well-read, and able to present a cogent argument with humor and insight. He should be invited to join the board.

[Exgineer]

@gatopescado

Let’s not bother electing someone who is qualified and can do the job. Let’s just pick two schumcks and then give the job to the “least schmuckiest” of the two. :rolleyes:

What a great strategy.

This has pretty much been my complaint since I’ve been eligible to vote. I don’t see things changing any time soon.

[Capt_B.Phart]

@gatopescado

Let’s not bother electing someone who is qualified and can do the job. Let’s just pick two schumcks and then give the job to the “least schmuckiest” of the two. :rolleyes:

What a great strategy.

The French had a starker choice in 2002 -

“Vote for the Crook, Not the Fascist”

[Doomtrain]

Louisiana residents had a similar choice a while back: The asshat racist (Duke) or the criminal (Edwards). Yay for politics!

[UncleBill]

@Chefguy

Hey, this guy seems to be well-written, well-read, and able to present a cogent argument with humor and insight. He should be invited to join the board.

Where we could nitpick! I just sent this e-mail to the person:

You may wish to check the cites you use, and modify your text a bit. You say on the page called
http://students.cs.tamu.edu/blevinsa/kerry/fuckednow.html

“On February 15th, 2003, the largest protest in the history of the world was held. Estimates of the number of protesters demonstrating range from 6 to 15 million.”,

but your reference in the link says,

“Between six and 10 million people are thought to have marched in up to 60 countries over the weekend - the largest demonstrations of their kind since the Vietnam War.”

Your website will catch a lot of attention, for it’s url and its message. Please make the message factual.

[davidm]

@gatopescado

Let’s not bother electing someone who is qualified and can do the job. Let’s just pick two schumcks and then give the job to the “least schmuckiest” of the two. :rolleyes:

What a great strategy.

Looking back at my OP I can see where you might think I was saying that but that wasn’t what I intended. I guess I could have worded it better. In any case I don’t get the impression that the guy is saying anything like that. From the site:

John Kerry is a douchebag, but I’m voting for him anyway. Well, not really. That is to say, he’s not actually a douchebag, or not nearly as much of one as what the media, George W., and even perhaps John Kerry himself have made him out to be. It seemed that every time I saw, heard, or read something about Kerry, his doucheness factor increased. It wasn’t until I did just a little research on my own that it became clear that most of these occurrences could be explained as lies, deception, media excess, or simply poor campaigning strategy. It is beyond vital that we all overlook these minor blemishes and unpleasantries, and unite in electing John Kerry to be the next president of the United States of America.

I think the URL is very much tongue in cheek and intended to get attention rather than to be taken literally.[sup]*[/sup]

[sup]*[/sup]For the pedants here, I realize that “literally” might not be exactky the right word. I’m sure that nobody would believe that the author is saying that Kerry is a bag used for the purpose of douching; but you get my point.

[Larry_Mudd]

@davidm

[sup]*[/sup]For the pedants here, I realize that “literally” might not be exactky the right word. I’m sure that nobody would believe that the author is saying that Kerry is a bag used for the purpose of douching; but you get my point.

For those keeping score at home, John Edward is the Biggest Douche in the Universe, John Edwards is running for president, but John Kerry is the Keeper.

[davidm]

@UncleBill

Where we could nitpick! I just sent this e-mail to the person:

Nitpick is right. Estimates are just that. Is that the best criticism you could come up with?
In any case, esitmates have run as high as 15 million. Google turns up a number of references to this figure. Just because one of his links uses the 10 million figure and he uses the 15 million figure it doesn’t follow that he’s being non-factual. If some sources estimate 6 to 10 million and others say 15 million then I think that you can safely say that estimates range from 6 to 15 million without being incorrect or misleading. We can question how accurate these kinds of estimates are but it’s hard to dispute that some parties have estimated that high.

[Cisco]

The URL of that website completely sums up my feelings about this year’s election.

[UncleBill]

@davidm

Nitpick is right. Estimates are just that. Is that the best criticism you could come up with?
In any case, esitmates have run as high as 15 million. Google turns up a number of references to this figure. Just because one of his links uses the 10 million figure and he uses the 15 million figure it doesn’t follow that he’s being non-factual.

When you link to ONE site to support your position, it is good form to have that site support your position. I am not quibbling about whether or not that date WAS the largest or not, he/she should have referenced a respectable site that agreed with the statement, or modified the statement to agree with the cite.

I don’t disagree with the gist of the website, my criticism is constructive.

[davidm]

@UncleBill

When you link to ONE site to support your position, it is good form to have that site support your position. I am not quibbling about whether or not that date WAS the largest or not, he/she should have referenced a respectable site that agreed with the statement, or modified the statement to agree with the cite.

I don’t disagree with the gist of the website, my criticism is constructive.

I don’t see any reason for you and I to fight about this since we apparently agree overall. But I will just say that the link is in the sentence before the one that gives the 15 million figure. I didn’t personally get the impression that the link was being used as a cite for that figure, but just as a cite about the protests in general. And I don’t think that his position is based on, or affected by, whether or not the estimate was 10 or 15. But we can agree to disagree on that. I should add that I have seen instances where someone linked to a news story only to have some detail in that news story later updated or changed in a way that made the link less applicable. I don’t know that that’s what happened in this case but it is a possibility. In that case your email will have alerted the author to that fact. And I think that most people would agree that the BBC website would qualify as “respectable” at the very least.

[UncleBill]

To be more precise, my issue with the link was the discrepancy between the website’s “largest protest in the history of the world” and the (respectable) link’s "the largest demonstrations of their kind since the Vietnam War."

I tend to look closely at statements such as “Largest in the History of the World” and the like. Both ends of the political spectrum are fraught with hyperbole and almost-but-not-quite lies, and I like my information factual.

[davidm]

@UncleBill

To be more precise, my issue with the link was the discrepancy between the website’s “largest protest in the history of the world” and the (respectable) link’s "the largest demonstrations of their kind since the Vietnam War."

I tend to look closely at statements such as “Largest in the History of the World” and the like. Both ends of the political spectrum are fraught with hyperbole and almost-but-not-quite lies, and I like my information factual.

“Largest in the History of the World” does seem kind of overblown and unsupported.