for the kerry fans

byndrsn · Post by **byndrsn** » Monday Sep 13, 2004

Sanctify wrote:didn't get my copy in the mail yet... hrm...

Well, I just got mine on Saturday - so I'm sure it is en route.

stonekrow · Post by **stonekrow** » Monday Sep 13, 2004

Actually Lonewolf, here's a more realistic version of your feeble joke.

A man enters the bar, orders a drink, a robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, then asks him, "What's your IQ?"

The man replies, "150." And the robot proceeds to make conversation about Quantum physics, string theory, atomic chemistry, and so on.

The customer is very impressed and thinks, "This is really cool." But he decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the drink and asks him, "What's your IQ?"

The man responds, "100." And immediately the robot starts talking, but this time, about football, baseball, cheerleaders, and so on.

Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one more test. He goes back in, the robot serves him and asks, "What's your IQ?"

The man replies, "50." And the robot says, "So, you have the same exact I.Q. as George Bush?"_________________

You do realize he has the lowest I.Q. of any president ever don't you? That's not a biased jab either, it's a fact, look it up, but don't look where you get all that other nonsense that you post. Im so glad you jarred my memory on the fact that our president is a low I.Q. war monger that can't tell the difference between terrorists in Afghanistan that put a whooping on our enonomy, caused major airlines to go bankrupt, and instilled fear and pain in the hearts of millions of Americans, from a bunch of insignificant animal Iraqi's that had no bearing whatsoever on the terrorist attacks. I Guess the I.Q. thing follows suit, go vote for Bush and his tyrannical cabinet. Im so fucking disgusted by all this bullshit it's unreal, wake up and smell the coffee for christs sake people!!! The strong stand up and fight for whats right and stand behind the idea of change for the better, the weak swallow what shit is handed to them, justify the downward spiral of this country and fear change. period. Who's with me on this? Speak up.

Sanctify · Post by **Sanctify** » Monday Sep 13, 2004

got my issue in the mail today... didn't read the article yet.. but I will asap!!! or at least after I finish looking at the nude college girls!! ha

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Monday Sep 13, 2004

Actually Lonewolf, here's a more realistic version of your feeble joke.

It wasn't my joke. I just copied it from a chain email. Yours is just as lame.

You do realize he has the lowest I.Q. of any president ever don't you?

That's funny, the only I.Q. ever released by a president was Jimmy Carter's at 176. Anything else you read is pure bullshit.

That's not a biased jab either, it's a fact, look it up, but don't look where you get all that other nonsense that you post.

If you mean those sources I posted, I put right-wing sites there to illustrate how left-wing your sources are. The Sierra Club has fallen far from grace. They may as well be Greenpeace.

Im so glad you jarred my memory on the fact that our president is a low I.Q. war monger that can't tell the difference between terrorists in Afghanistan that put a whooping on our enonomy, caused major airlines to go bankrupt, and instilled fear and pain in the hearts of millions of Americans, from a bunch of insignificant animal Iraqi's that had no bearing whatsoever on the terrorist attacks.

The recession started in April, 2001, 5 months before 9/11 and ended in November, 2001, 2 months after 9/11. 9/11 had some effects, but the economic downturn was by and large a hangover from the tech bubble.

The older airlines were already in trouble by that summer and were headed for BK anyway. 9/11 didn't help BUT: Even with the leverage that BK can give a company to hammer down costs, U.S. Air and United still have DOUBLE the overhead cost per seat of upstarts JetBlue and Southwest. Look it up in the Wall Street Journal. Oh, I'm sorry, that's a right wing publication, isn't it?

Iraqis are animals? Letting that real democrat attitude shine thru, are you.

I've worked with several Iraqis and others from all over the middle east and I can tell you that they were a lot more civil than your posts.

The strong stand up and fight for whats right and stand behind the idea of change for the better, the weak swallow what shit is handed to them, justify the downward spiral of this country and fear change. period. Who's with me on this? Speak up.

I'm with you all the way. After 70 years of democrat socialist programs that created a weak pauper class dependent on the government to feed them their "shit", I welcome the republican revolution and their ideas of change for the better.

stonekrow · Post by **stonekrow** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) 132 Harry Truman (D) 122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) 174 John F. Kennedy (D) 126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 155 Richard M. Nixon (R) 121 Gerald Ford (R) 175 James E. Carter (D) 105 Ronald Reagan (R) 098 George HW Bush (R) 182 William J. Clinton (D) 091 George W. Bush (R)

All your other points are not worth debating, I still stand firm on those, all except the Iraqi animal part, you misunderstood that terribly. The "animals" I was referring to were Saddam and his regime, feeding people into wood chippers feet first isn't animalistic and barbaric? then turning then upside down head first when they got bored? Saddams sons were guilty of such barbaric acts. Those were the animals I was referring to, not the innocent Iraqi citizens trying to live a decent normal life. If I recall we the U.S. went over to Iraq to dethrone Saddam not the Iraqi citizens. I thought it was very obvious who my remark was directed towards, guess your republican way of thinking shined through there.

stonekrow · Post by **stonekrow** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

By the way Lonewolf, my cousin is a pilot for U.S. Airways, don't talk airlines with me please. Maybe I should have him post here and clarify your comments.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

stonekrow wrote:The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) 132 Harry Truman (D) 122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) 174 John F. Kennedy (D) 126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 155 Richard M. Nixon (R) 121 Gerald Ford (R) 175 James E. Carter (D) 105 Ronald Reagan (R) 098 George HW Bush (R) 182 William J. Clinton (D) 091 George W. Bush (R)

All your other points are not worth debating, I still stand firm on those, all except the Iraqi animal part, you misunderstood that terribly. The "animals" I was referring to were Saddam and his regime, feeding people into wood chippers feet first isn't animalistic and barbaric? then turning then upside down head first when they got bored? Saddams sons were guilty of such barbaric acts. Those were the animals I was referring to, not the innocent Iraqi citizens trying to live a decent normal life. If I recall we the U.S. went over to Iraq to dethrone Saddam not the Iraqi citizens. I thought it was very obvious who my remark was directed towards, guess your republican way of thinking shined through there.

Yes, I've seen that study in Scranton. As I said, its pure bullshit. You cannot accurately measure I.Q. without direct testing. Public speaking? What do you think Stephen Hawking would get on this study?

Your word "insignificant" led me to believe the common Iraqi, because if you consider Saddam insignificant, you are a fool.

The cost per seat data just came out yesterday. The older airlines ESPECIALLY U.S. Air have to change business plans or die and the pilot's union will be out of business. JetBLue and Southwest are profitable, even after 9/11. I really don't want to hear U.S. Air's business problems from the pilot's perspective. They are the #1 cost driver U.S. Air has.

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

Yea, that study is purely bullshit and liberal based....thus the skewing of all the democrats. Yea ok, Clinton and Carter were real geniouses...please. It doesn't take a genous to figure that out.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, and had no rich family members to make that happen. On the other hand, I doubt GWB would have gotten into an Ivy League school with a 91 IQ, even with the Bush dynasty behind him.----->JMS

banditos · Post by **banditos** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

Message to "Chicksinga","Rob the drummer" and anyone else who feels it's their civic-duty to save me and mine from ourselves,consider this,YOU KNOW NOTHING about abortion,most conservatives think the abortion law should only protect unborn children who's mothers felt the need to hide from or not deal with the responsibility of nurturing the child full-term to a wonderful new life.I think we can ALL agree how wrong that is.However,the law needs to be redefined to protect Mothers like my wife who just 2 months ago(at 20 week's into her pregnancy)was carrying a perfectly healthy baby-boy whom we named Ian.Shortly thereafter she was diagnosed with a severe case of Pre-eclampsia,a disease that's only prognosis is to deliver the baby.(most commonly diagnosed in women 28 weeks or more into their pregnancy who although pre-mature can normally deliver a healthy child)
After being life-flighted to Pittsburgh,we were given a grim CHOICE,lose Ian or try to wait at least 4 more weeks to deliver,our CHOICE was easy,LIFE,wait and hope she can live long enough to deliver.After 2 days her health deteriorated so much we were given another even grimmer CHOICE,lose Ian or lose my wife,again our CHOICE was life,my wife's.Until your family has to make that difficult a decision please keep your so-called ultra-conservative value's and your"killing of innocent children" propaganda to yourselves.Instead maybe consider some legislature that could redefine Roe-vs-Wade to protect Mothers who realistically had no Choice at all.If this post sounds like a personal attack on the 2 of you,you have my most humble apologies,I don't know either one of you,but when you post something regarding an issue that is this serious please,please do some research,try to understand that this law needs to be changed,not banished.My biggest problem leading into this election is that it's not a big enough issue to either party to try to resolve.

esa · Post by **esa** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

banditos wrote:Message to "Chicksinga","Rob the drummer" and anyone else who feels it's their civic-duty to save me and mine from ourselves,consider this,YOU KNOW NOTHING about abortion,

Until your family has to make that difficult a decision please keep your so-called ultra-conservative value's and your"killing of innocent children" propaganda to yourselves.Instead maybe consider some legislature that could redefine Roe-vs-Wade to protect Mothers who realistically had no Choice at all.If this post sounds like a personal attack on the 2 of you,you have my most humble apologies,I don't know either one of you,but when you post something regarding an issue that is this serious please,please do some research,try to understand that this law needs to be changed,not banished.My biggest problem leading into this election is that it's not a big enough issue to either party to try to resolve.

Slow down simbah. I think the difference between your wife and what we are trying to end is this. You didn't have much of a choice. You wanted the kid. You made the kid. And sadly you had to decide what was to come. Save the spouse, lose the child. What so many of us here are against are the men and women that go screw and end up getting pregnant and do not want to accept the responsibility of their actions. "I'm not ready for this, so I'll get rid of it" attitude that everyone seems to have when it comes to unborn babies. There's a big difference between these two incidents. So don't get in a huff. Calm down. No one likes to see babies die (except for certain people who want that sick sick tickle teeshirt they were telling me about) and it's circumstantial.
Sadly.. I doubt that Abortion will ever be gotten rid of. I just want them to have more education about it before they have an abortion.. educate them before anything happens...

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

please,please do some research,try to understand that this law needs to be changed,not banished.

Billy, the sad reality is that there really isn't a law to change. Roe v. Wade, by court order, makes anti-abortion laws "illegal", so anything goes. I'm not so sure that even the 3rd trimester/partial birth bill would get past the courts if it was enacted. I agree with you 100% on situations like yours' (and offer my condolences). There are exceptions where the life of the mother must take precedence and it should be the mother's choice. Unfortunately, abortion-on-demand is the rule rather than the exception. That situation needs to be reversed.

Imgrimm01 · Post by **Imgrimm01** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

Abortion is a matter of freedom ! Lonewolf / Rob I respect that your opinion is " NO ABORTION " But that's not the opinion of many others in this great land of ours as you have said in previous posts freedom isn't free and one of the costs for us as individuals is that we may not agree with everything that our brothers and sisters do BUT that doesn't give anyone the right to outlaw it, I feel safe in saying that the both of you prob. feel like lifting the ban on assault rifles was a great thing and ya know what??? I agree NOT because I believe anyone needs an assault rifle BUT because we cannot pick and choose our freedoms, let the government take away 1 right and sure as shit stinks it's just a matter of time until another goes and another and down the line. We HAVE to accept all freedoms NOT just the ones we like !

byndrsn · Post by **byndrsn** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

Imgrimm01 wrote:Abortion is a matter of freedom ! Lonewolf / Rob I respect that your opinion is " NO ABORTION " But that's not the opinion of many others in this great land of ours as you have said in previous posts freedom isn't free and one of the costs for us as individuals is that we may not agree with everything that our brothers and sisters do BUT that doesn't give anyone the right to outlaw it, I feel safe in saying that the both of you prob. feel like lifting the ban on assault rifles was a great thing and ya know what??? I agree NOT because I believe anyone needs an assault rifle BUT because we cannot pick and choose our freedoms, let the government take away 1 right and sure as shit stinks it's just a matter of time until another goes and another and down the line. We HAVE to accept all freedoms NOT just the ones we like !

I agree - FREEDOM!!!!

<b> But, at what point does someone get to decide to take the <i> chance of freedom </i> from the unborn? </b>

Abortion can't compare to assault rifles, unless someone is using one to kill and take away someone elses freedom.

Assault rifles in and of themselves are not dangerous to our freedoms, and in actuality - could be a defense for freedom (i.e., if our land was under attack from terrorists - I would want many of our countrymen/woman to own such rifles and use them to defend our country's freedom.)

Banditos,
I too want to offer my condolences. I'm sorry that you and your wife had to go through such an ordeal and make such an intense decision. My wife is 32 weeks pregnant right now, and I can tell you that I would have done the same as you if I were in your shoes. But your situation is entirely different than when I proclaim to be Pro-Life.
Urbs

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

Okay, here's a contridiction that I don't understand. Often times, people on the right are anti-abortion, but yet, they're also against socialist programs.* Here's the thing - what if a mother in a poor economic situation gets preganant? The people on the right don't want the child to be aborted, but yet they don't want to pay into any socialist programs that would help the mother raise the child. I know, the mother needs to take responsibility, and I agree with that, but either way, the child is not going to have the same oppurtunities as a child with parents on their feet. I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways.

*I'm actually pro-life, but I just brought up this contridiction because I'm an argumentive mofo.

CHICKSINGA · Post by **CHICKSINGA** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

Billy - I feel very badly if you took my post against the insanely difficult decision you had to make. God Bless you and your family. I agree whole-heartedly with what Esa and byndrsn had to say. What you did preserved a life and it's very sad that you had to choose. That is the only time I believe in Choice.
I think it's a hard decision to most people anyway - unless the person is devoid of a heart. I get asked all the time about Rape and Incest issues and that's a tough one too. All I could pray that if it happened to someone that I knew that we would encourage the continuation of the pregnancy for an adoption.
Paul, I see your point. I do realize that adoption isn't always an easy solution - sometimes race and drug addiction playing a part. But NO MATTER WHAT - it still is a child whose life will be eradicated to avoid a tough situation.
Lone Wolf is right - the politic of it needs revision. Personally, I will always find it amazing that we require licenses to do everything important in our lives, yet nothing but sperm and egg is required to do the most important thing of all.
Bobby, you seem to believe in freedom for freedom's sake. Unfortunately the world now is very different from the world that the authors of the Constitution knew. Our rights are distorted daily by those who stand on the Constitution selfishly without regard to affect on our Nation as a Whole.

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

How can you justify killing someone because their mom got herself into a mess? Also, why the hell should I fork out the dough for this lady? There are systems set up already, the thing is not to make more, but make the ones that are already there more efficient. That's what I think.

Imgrimm01 · Post by **Imgrimm01** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

Abortion can't compare to assault rifles, unless someone is using one to kill and take away someone elses freedom !! Great Quote Byndrsn.. You must mean Like Bush's war is doing to the Iraqui's when you speak of assualt rifles being used to take freedoms or perhaps you meant when gang members use them in drive by's or anyone uses them in senseless crimes and it does happen please lets not try to pretend it doesn't.. BUT I still don't believe they should be banned because as I said NOT my place to tell you or anyone else what they should do , think , say, what or who to worship OR to have a baby if they don't want it even if in your opinion they were irresponsible Because as " God " says ( he , she , it ) will be judge , jury and executioner !! So if these mothers or NON mothers are commiting a crime against humanity let them be judged by the higher power. I have enough to do in my own life I certainly don't need to police the masses for immorality ! I would also LOVE to know how many babies died in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hand of YOUR MORAL leader and his GRUDGE WAR !!

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

CHICKSINGA wrote:Paul, I see your point. I do realize that adoption isn't always an easy solution - sometimes race and drug addiction playing a part. But NO MATTER WHAT - it still is a child whose life will be eradicated to avoid a tough situation.

Trace, I agree with you 100%; I don't believe in killing a child to make ends meet. But even with adoption, it's still the state that takes responsibility of the child. It still takes tax dollars to run an orphange and pay the case worker. Again, I'm pro-life, but that annoying little logical part of me is trying to make sense of these two conflicting values that many people have.

Rob, how do we make the systems more efficient?

As far as the debate on guns - I really don't care either way. I'm not against people owning guns, but I'm not going to fight for gun rights either. I still stand by the comments I made in a previous thread: I don't think private citizens should be allowed to own their own TOW missle systems.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

In government, there are 2 axioms that apply to all things economic:

1. If you subsidize an object, you will end up with more of that object than if you didn't subsidize it.

2. If you tax an object, you will end up with less of that object than if you didn't tax it.

Take it from there.

On another note...

The government must come to a concensus on when life begins. Once beyond that point, the taking of that life is murder, unless that life threatens the life of another. This has nothing to do with economics.

tonefight · Post by **tonefight** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

I can't believe you guys waste so much time on this, there is no truth and the issues are so full fo bullshit that no matter who wins we are gonna see something different anyway.
This country is going to continue to go down hill and its going to take alot more than Bush or Kerry to change things, there isn't even a democratic election here because "we the people" didn't choose the candidates.

tonefight · Post by **tonefight** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

Go to Pa Career Link one time....... lots of jobs on there for 6 to 9 dollars an hour, I even saw one on there looking for a high voltage lineman to work out of town for $8 an hour oh yeah and they prefered someone with a CDL too.

I guess I should go to work and kiss my boss' ass tommorrow since I at least get paid more than that huh?

So wich of your wondeful candidates is gonna fix the economy?
Oh, I forgot the economy isn't bad cause their pockets and all their friends and relatives pockets are full.

Imgrimm01 · Post by **Imgrimm01** » Tuesday Sep 14, 2004

Tone you are correct about a few things I mean will we all get raises the day after the election ? NO of coarse not BUT I can tell you this Kerry will do more for the working man than Bush will that's just the difference between Democrat & Republican Dems look out for the working man ( Blue Collar guys ) that's why the Labor unions are backing Kerry Bush is for BIG business and unless you are pulling down 60 or 70 G's per year there is nothing in the Bush camp for you not financially speaking anyway, Now I know that atleast 2 maybe more people will follow this with replies about how tax hikes this and that BUT do the research and see who the tax hikes will effect . And who the cuts have effected , The cuts saved the top earners in the country a pile of money BUT at what cost ? We went from surplus to Deficit in less than 4 years! What 4 years? Bush's 4 years ! Now as I have said many times in these types of posts, I am done ! Do as you will .

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Wednesday Sep 15, 2004

Democratic tax cuts explained

50,000 people paid to go see a baseball game; but the game was rained out and a refund was due.

The team was about to send out refunds when the Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the democratic interpretation of fairness.

After all, if the refunds were made equally to the people who paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the top 2% of the people that bought tickets.

The democratic plan says:

People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend.

People in the $15 seats will get back $15, because that's only fair.

People in the $25 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money or they would never have paid that much money for a seat.

People in the $50 luxury seats will have to pay another $15, because they obviously have so much to spend.

And the people driving by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn't pay anything in, because they obviously need the most help.

shadesofjuneGuitar · Post by **shadesofjuneGuitar** » Wednesday Sep 15, 2004

First of all... in response to the CHICKSINGA, you brought up the whole Pro-Choice / Life Battle... WHEN THE HELL ARE YOU ALL GOING TO REALIZE THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOTHING BUT A VOTE GETTER??? Do you really think that choosing Pro-Life is going to stop the abortions in this country???? All it will do is make them less safe. This is America, the land of the free. You are never going to stop people from doing what they wish to do.

I am actually a practicing Catholic, and I personally do not believe in abortion at all, but IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO JUDGE THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEM. If you are a practicing Christian, like Bush supposedly is, then you would realize this too. All he is doing by using this pro-life stance is creating a guilt aspect for the vote. Trust me, there will be no fewer abortions if Bush is elected to a second term.

Secondly, I am sick of hearing about the comparison of the pro-life / soldiers dying in the War issue. People are trying to say that it is better for soldiers to die than an unborn child. FIRST OF ALL, both are wrong, can you not see that ? A life is a life and a death is a death. But coming from an individual who has life, it would be much harder for me to lose a long-term friend in the War than it would to lose a child that was not born. Those people have experienced life and have affected others. It cannot be the same.

And lastly, at least for this post, I actually heard on the news the other day, someone say, "IT IS NICE TO SEE THAT THE PRESIDENT CARES ABOUT CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA." This was in response to the President's visit to Johnstown last week. FIRST, We live in Western PA, not Central, I think they should look at a freaking map.

SECONDLY, Do you really think that he cares?? Hell no, he came here to get the votes. PA is a huge battleground for votes, that is the only reason he came here.... OH AND THE FACT THAT THE CAMPAIGN REFUSES TO PAY FOR THE OVERTIME SECURITY REQUIRED FOR THE EVENT - EQUALLING - $10,000.00. This has to come out of JOHNSTOWN'S BUDGET. Nice... Way to build up our economy.

In closing, all I have to say is - As a Republic, or a Democracy, we, as citizens, have lost control of our country. People need to start thinking before they pick a side of the polls..... GWB is a businessman who invaded a country for personal and financial reasons.... He has killed over 1,000 of our boys over there, and there is no sign of it ending. THINK ABOUT IT.

ROCKPAGE

for the kerry fans

Freedom

Re: Freedom

Like Bush's War

Correct

Bush Supporters... (need to look at the whole picture)