ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:02 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Car Problem Solved - Debate over presidential merit
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:53 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
Atzel wrote:
spiketail wrote:
Just make sure you blame Jack Thompson for your actions. :lol:



If I ever find that I have something inoperable and I will die in a few months or something like that, I'd instantly join some sort of ultra-radical christian right-wing association, preferbly one that wants to ban everything fun, like video games and DnD and the future, or something like that... and then go out guns blazing for thier cause.

...and my friends would be able to say afterwards "Oh, no, he was a very gentle, fun, caring person while he was a gamer, it was after he joined that Christian anti-violence group that he went crazy."

Edit: Furthermore.... awwwww kitty kitty kitty! *pets Spike*


Atzel wrote:
Yorik wrote:
Hey hey hey don't be saying all Christians are like Jack Thompson now.


Atzel wrote:
ultra-radical christian right-wing association


Saturnalia wrote:
Tatsu wrote:
Yorik wrote:
<s>Hey hey hey don't go saying that</s> all ultra-radical right-wing Christians are like Jack Thompson.


.. That is all.


Some of them are like Jerry Falwell.


DarkLight140 wrote:
Yorik wrote:
Tatsu wrote:
Yorik wrote:
<s>Hey hey hey don't go saying that</s> all ultra-radical right-wing Christians are like Jack Thompson.


.. That is all.


Incorrect. Bush, as far as I know, at the very least isn't out to ban videogames.

He might just be hiding it well... and besides, I don't think he quite qualifies as "ultra-radical". A slightly weaker adjective may be in order.


Adam Selene wrote:
OK Computer wrote:
does bush understand how to turn a console on or even recognise one?


Not sure, but apparently Bono can't.


Yorik wrote:
OK Computer wrote:
does bush understand how to turn a console on or even recognise one?


I remember hearing somewhere that he used to own an NES, but the source was dubious at best.


Boss Out of Town wrote:
DarkLight140 wrote:
Yorik wrote:
Tatsu wrote:
Yorik wrote:
<s>Hey hey hey don't go saying that</s> all ultra-radical right-wing Christians are like Jack Thompson.

.. That is all.

Incorrect. Bush, as far as I know, at the very least isn't out to ban videogames.

He might just be hiding it well... and besides, I don't think he quite qualifies as "ultra-radical". A slightly weaker adjective may be in order.

Bush doesn't even go to church regularly. His "born again" experience was apparently non-demoninational. He doesn't seem to fret or vent about the RWC issues the way Falwell or Thompson would. Just talks about them when someone else brings them up.

A testament to religious variety: over the last seventy years, only one American president (George H. Bush) was a traditonal "mainline" protestant, what was once considered the norm for American political leaders. Five out of the last six were from evangelical churches or considered themselves "born again" without being a member of an evangelical church.

Nothing is consistant but inconsistency.


Yorik wrote:
Boss Out of Town wrote:
DarkLight140 wrote:
Yorik wrote:
Tatsu wrote:
Yorik wrote:
<s>Hey hey hey don't go saying that</s> all ultra-radical right-wing Christians are like Jack Thompson.

.. That is all.

Incorrect. Bush, as far as I know, at the very least isn't out to ban videogames.

He might just be hiding it well... and besides, I don't think he quite qualifies as "ultra-radical". A slightly weaker adjective may be in order.

Bush doesn't even go to church regularly. His "born again" experience was apparently non-demoninational. He doesn't seem to fret or vent about the RWC issues the way Falwell or Thompson would. Just talks about them when someone else brings them up.


Yeah. Prez is far from the most competent man for President of the United States, but I don't think he deserves all of the trash-talking he gets. Half of it maybe, hell, even eighty percent of it, but not all of it.


SomeRandomKid wrote:
And let's be honest.
He's a hell of alot better than John Kerry would have been.
Any party / religion / race / species would agree.


Vass wrote:
SomeRandomKid wrote:
This is me:
Image

Much more appropriate.
Whilst we respect your right to your own opinion and to state your opinion, please respect our right to peaceful conversation without horribly broad statements that are likely to incite a flamewar. :/


Slamlander wrote:
OK Computer wrote:
does bush understand how to turn a console on or even recognise one?


Dude! WTF! He used one on Iraq!

Geez!


Tossrock wrote:
SomeRandomKid wrote:
bla bla bla generalizations and unfounded speculation bla bla bla


Yes, because <i>everyone on the internet</i> is a hardkore conservative.

No liberals.

<a href="http://forums.kyhm.com/viewtopic.php?t=6740&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=political+compass&&start=80">None.</a>


Yorik wrote:
SomeRandomKid wrote:
And let's be honest.
He's a hell of alot better than John Kerry would have been.
Any party / religion / race / species would agree.


No shit. If the only alternative hadn't been Kerry, Bush would not be sitting in the Oval Office right now.


Boss Out of Town wrote:
SomeRandomKid wrote:
And let's be honest.
He's a hell of alot better than John Kerry would have been.
Any party / religion / race / species would agree.

So, Kerry would have started <i>two</i> unnecessary wars instead of just one? Run trade and budget deficits up to a trillion dollars instead of a half-trillion. That would have taken some doing.

Kerry's only actual problem was that he was boring on television and didn't understand mordern campaign dynamics. He had a thirty year record of being honest but dull, and that doesn't win elections.


Jasper wrote:
Boss Out of Town wrote:
SomeRandomKid wrote:
And let's be honest.
He's a hell of alot better than John Kerry would have been.
Any party / religion / race / species would agree.

So, Kerry would have started <i>two</i> unnecessary wars instead of just one? Run trade and budget deficits up to a trillion dollars instead of a half-trillion. That would have taken some doing.

Kerry's only actual problem was that he was boring on television and didn't understand mordern campaign dynamics. He had a thirty year record of being honest but dull, and that doesn't win elections.


No, Kerry's problem was that the only thing he had going for him was that he was 'anybody but Bush'. You don't win a campaign on a ticket like that, especially when you spend so much time making sure that every thinks you're on their side that no one understands what you really believe, and you end up looking like you have even less of a backbone than the current President. Honestly, if you think Bush is being controlled by the people around him, how bad do you think Kerry would have been?


I didn't include some posts because they were explicitly quoted in the posts after them. Sorry, didn't mean to offend anybody.

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:45 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Quote:
No, Kerry's problem was that the only thing he had going for him was that he was 'anybody but Bush'. You don't win a campaign on a ticket like that, especially when you spend so much time making sure that every thinks you're on their side that no one understands what you really believe, and you end up looking like you have even less of a backbone than the current President. Honestly, if you think Bush is being controlled by the people around him, how bad do you think Kerry would have been?

Man, I've seen the exact same quote about just about every moderate and liberal politician to run for president in the last thirty years, and a few traditional conservatives as well.

Isn't it quite a bit suspicious that a man like John Kerry can be a popular and respected public servant his entire adult life, get re-elected time and time again to high office, possess an admirable record of accomplishment that he runs on every election cycle, and then . . . and then . . .

And then he runs for president and a solid chunk of the electorate, voting and non-voting, suddenly discover that the man is a spineless moral and intellectual failure who doesn't have an idea in his head and is utterly incapable of taking a solid position or making an ethical judgment.

You could exchange Gore's name for that of Jimmy Carter, Jack Kemp, Walter Mondale, Howard Baker, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George H. Bush, and a dozen or two other worthies who had ambitions to be president since the 1970s.

Somehow a man--or a woman, in a couple of cases--can have an respectable, successful career as a governer or senator, be well thought of most everyone who knows him, can write thoughtful books and attend highbrow political and scholarly conferences, and when he runs for president, all that history disappears and he becomes a worthless piece of human trash you wouldn't trust to take out the garbage.

At some point, I think we should start seeing a pattern here. Possibly the problem isn't with the people running for president at all, but with a political pundit culture that devours reputations and shits them out all over the floor of the TV studio, purely for purposes of entertainment. Then, there is also the cynical spinning of dirty political operatives who know that there is a solid chunk of potential voters who are willing to believe any kind of excrement you throw at your opponent. The source of this social pathology are a little murky, but, as with the punditocracy, we apparently feel better about ourselves if we can be reassured that the people running things are inferior in some way. It's an interesting puzzle for the historians and the sociologists to work out.

I personally had no problem determining what John Kerry would do if elected president; he has a long history of being against corruption and in favor of the left-of-center establishment political agenda. Nothing I've seen in the publlic record of his career suggests he would have the least bit of trouble making decisions. He was never plausibly criticised for this failing all the years he held public office---until he ran for president. Then the Beltway social club and the right wing media machine started chewing on him, and all the years of honorable service meant nothing.

The Beltway picks its favorites, builds them up, and pisses all over people it doesn't like. The right wing noise machine does the same to anyone who isn't supporting their agenda. I would expect that the best way to learn about a political candidate is to bypass the mass media and dig for information on less fashionable sources. You won't get any trustworthy views from Meet the Press, Rush Limbaugh, or Internet forums.

Heck, I'm sure very few people who read this are going to believe everything I've written. You shouldn't, actually, until you have a chance to cross-check it from other sources. Doesn't bother me a bit.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:49 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
What you say makes sense. The man wouldn't have had a job if he couldn't do it, and I'd check up on his political history except for two things: the point is moot in the case of Kerry, and I would have supported Bush anyway.
Image
I didn't vote for Bush simply because he 'wasn't Kerry'. Which is what the large part of my argument was. That's the campaign platform most people gave to Kerry. It was on bumper stickers, with the official Kerry seal of approval. Still is in most cases.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:00 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:14 pm
Posts: 123
Boss Out of Town wrote:
At some point, I think we should start seeing a pattern here. Possibly the problem isn't with the people running for president at all, but with a political pundit culture that devours reputations and shits them out all over the floor of the TV studio, purely for purposes of entertainment. Then, there is also the cynical spinning of dirty political operatives who know that there is a solid chunk of potential voters who are willing to believe any kind of excrement you throw at your opponent. The source of this social pathology are a little murky, but, as with the punditocracy, we apparently feel better about ourselves if we can be reassured that the people running things are inferior in some way. It's an interesting puzzle for the historians and the sociologists to work out.

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAH!

_________________
<a href="http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_019.htm">"God is powered by irony."</a>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: sometimes though the candidates really are huge shitheads
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:25 am 
Offline
YOU SAID YOU LEFT
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:30 am
Posts: 187
Location: <:(
IMPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEACH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:05 am 
Offline
<font color=red><b>STALKER/FAG ALERT.
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:38 am
Posts: 1579
You're an idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:11 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
nick012000 wrote:


He was saying impeach because Bush authorized the leak of an undercover operative. Is that not illegal?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:26 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
It is indeed illegal, but I don't think nick was paying much attention.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group