Kerry is an idiot, Bush retorts

I've been telling you all that Biff is a moron for a while now, why are you all acting surprised?

Why are you doggedly arguing with a moron?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

This quote is clearly being taken out of context.

Kerry has stated that he was making a joke about the president: if you don't study and work hard (see: Bush @ Yale), you will "get stuck in Iraq" (read: you'll F things up).

Bush didn't study which is why he's found his administration in this Iraq mess.

---

Which makes no fucking sense since Kerry's GPA at Yale < Bush's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon McShig

Why are you doggedly arguing with a moron?

---

He's like a mirage. At first it looks like he has a point, but the longer the debate goes on the more clear it becomes that it was just an illusion and the oasis you thought you were chasing is just another sand dune.

That and g0zen likes arguing with conservatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Which makes no fucking sense since Kerry's GPA at Yale < Bush's.

---

Kerry knows what the public perception of Bush is, and that not enough people are aware of his GPA versus Bush's for it to matter. Had he not flubbed the line, nobody would give two shits about the joke except the people there who would have given a polite chuckle and promptly forgotten it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

I don't think you read what I said.

---

I read exactly what you said. Dissing Bush as an "uneducated" leader that got us stuck in Iraq when he had a higher GPA than Kerry did makes NO SENSE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

Kerry knows what the public perception of Bush is, and that not enough people are aware of his GPA versus Bush's for it to matter. Had he not flubbed the line, nobody would give two shits about the joke except the people there who would have given a polite chuckle and promptly forgotten it.

---

I wouldn't call it flubbing a line, I'd call it creative damage control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

I read exactly what you said. Dissing Bush as an "uneducated" leader that got us stuck in Iraq when he had a higher GPA than Kerry did makes NO SENSE.

---

It makes sense because most people who would have been listening to Kerry's speech in the first place either don't know or care about this discrepancy, so the joke would work with the crowd it was being delivered to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Do you seriously think that? Wow. I mean just, wow. I mean, sure, Kerry is no prize but atleast he doesn't want to shred the Bill of Rights.

---

Kerry is a flip-flopping ignoramus who has/had no business being in the White House. Bush was the lesser of two evils.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

I wouldn't call it flubbing a line, I'd call it creative damage control.

---

There's really no basis for either explanation beyond how much we trust whoever's making the claim, but given his history with the military I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, even if I really don't like the man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Kerry is a flip-flopping ignoramus who has/had no business being in the White House. Bush was the lesser of two evils.

---

Kerry is an idiot and Bush is an idiot. Given a choice between two idiots, I'd rather have one that congress will keep in check versus one congress will not keep in check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

There's really no basis for either explanation beyond how much we trust whoever's making the claim, but given his history with the military I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, even if I really don't like the man.

---

Which history? The fabricated history? Or the truth? Give me a break Kerry is the liberal version of Bush, both are lying douchebags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

Kerry is an idiot and Bush is an idiot. Given a choice between two idiots, I'd rather have one that congress will keep in check versus one congress will not keep in check.

---

Kerry would be too busy changing his mind on every issue that he would effectively serve to confuddle Congress and render it completely useless.

Hey, maybe that's not a bad idea. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Kerry would be too busy changing his mind on every issue that he would effectively serve to confuddle Congress and render it completely useless.

Hey, maybe that's not a bad idea. ;)

---

Bush changes his mind just as much, he's just done a better job of hiding it and doesn't bother to change it when it would actually be reasonable. ;)

But I stick by what I said. An ineffective idiot is better than an idiot with free reign. And as a bonus, Kerry could have kept congress in check as well so maybe we wouldn't have spending that stereotypical liberals could only dream of. With Bush and a republican congress we've got a total lack of accountability combined with the ability to spend billions of dollars, and we've seen how that's gone.

And yes, this would have applied to Kerry if congress were mostly democratic at the time. Bush would have been the better of both choices because he, too, would have been neutered.

The counter argument, of course, would be that historically when an incumbant has a Congress to deal with that isn't a majority of his own party that absolutely nothing of any significance gets done for the next ___ years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

The counter argument, of course, would be that historically when an incumbant has a Congress to deal with that isn't a majority of his own party that absolutely nothing of any significance gets done for the next ___ years.

---

Right, which is why I said it's the better result if your two choices are both idiots. Obviously the best result would be a good, intelligent president who can work with congress without trying to usurp it, but I don't recall seeing him on the ballot. I'd rather have gridlock than a freefall.

Congress still has to answer to itself, its constituents, and to the Supreme Court on the validity of the laws that it passes. At least some decent legislation will get passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Congress still has to answer to itself

---

Anyone who tries to fight the rampant spending gets ostracized and loses political clout.

Quote:

---

its constituents

---

via pork

Quote:

---

and to the Supreme Court on the validity of the laws that it passes.

---

And I'm infinitely glad for this.

Quote:

---

At least some decent legislation will get passed.

---

Amidst the sea of bullshit spending and asinine issues congress has obsessed over.

I honestly don't even care if a republican majority stays in congress. I just want these republicans out. The revolution of 1994 is long dead, corruption and complacency have taken hold, and frankly I think this congress has done more harm to this country than Bush could ever manage.

I actually agree, the religious right cock suckers in congress do need to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

I read exactly what you said. Dissing Bush as an "uneducated" leader that got us stuck in Iraq when he had a higher GPA than Kerry did makes NO SENSE.

---

It does make some sense. GPA is one thing, but Bush has made a point in his time in office as being pretty anti-intellectual, or at least playing up his image as a regular joe who doesn't read the newspaper, etc. In that way it makes perfect sense, even if it isn't true.

Jack Abermoff wasn't part of the religious right, he just used them to scam the system along with the rest of the Wall Street right. Both are scum, both are corrupt to the gills, nothing the Dems did during their time as majority even remotely compares (Stamp stealing? LOL). Some of you in here like the harp about the 'lesser of two evils', yet you support the Congress that has attacked the very foundations of our Republic? Madness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mman

It does make some sense. GPA is one thing, but Bush has made a point in his time in office as being pretty anti-intellectual, or at least playing up his image as a regular joe who doesn't read the newspaper, etc. In that way it makes perfect sense, even if it isn't true.

---

I'll do you one better, anyone who says that the 'jury is still out' on evolution IS a moron. There is no wiggle room there, if you deny science fact you are an idiot.

They've given nothing but lip service to the religious right. There's a reason gay marriage, abortion and other Christian Coalition talking points aren't really ever going to go anywhere: they're easily manipulated divisive issues that mobilize the base and the republicans will be damned if they'll give those issues up by actually coming to anything resembling a conclusion on them. The religious right is only getting enough attention to get them into the voting booths and no more (and they're beginning to wisen up to this).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

I'll do you one better, anyone who says that the 'jury is still out' on evolution IS a moron. There is no wiggle room there, if you deny science fact you are an idiot.

---

Yeah, because a smart guy like Kerry would've said that what he meant to says was the "jury is still out" on the Bush presidency, not on evolution, and he just memorized his lines wrong.

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean, haoh? If you're going to attempt to make a snide partisan quip atleast try to check it for coherence first. You're teetering dangerously on the edge of SpoDaddy level material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean, haoh? If you're going to attempt to make a snide partisan quip atleast try to check it for coherence first. You're teetering dangerously on the edge of SpoDaddy level material.

---

I don't know where you get off with that comment, you're the leftist version of Spodaddy right down to tactics and whining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean, haoh? If you're going to attempt to make a snide partisan quip atleast try to check it for coherence first. You're teetering dangerously on the edge of SpoDaddy level material.

---

If you couldn't understand that then you're dumber than I thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

If you couldn't understand that then you're dumber than I thought.

---

There's a wide gulf between flubbing a line and / or making a stupid comment and denying a scientific fact. To try and paint them as interchangeable is moronic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spodaddy

There's a wide gulf between flubbing a line and / or making a stupid comment and denying a scientific fact. To try and paint them as interchangeable is moronic.

---

It's uncanny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biff_Pocoroba

It's uncanny.

---

No, he's right. There is a difference between saying something stupid and meaning something stupid. Which is why the "jury's out on evolution" line is about a million times worse than whenever he's tripped over words or mangled sentences, which just indicate he's a bad public speaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

No, he's right. There is a difference between saying something stupid and meaning something stupid. Which is why the "jury's out on evolution" line is about a million times worse than whenever he's tripped over words or mangled sentences, which just indicate he's a bad public speaker.

---

But how do we know that is what happened? Did he flub the line? Or did he say what he meant, realized nobody got it, then furiously pounded his spin team to save his ass?

CAW CAW CAW CAW CAW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

There's a wide gulf between flubbing a line and / or making a stupid comment and denying a scientific fact. To try and paint them as interchangeable is moronic.

---

So, painting a label on someone over what are obviously religious beliefs as stupid is okay? You can present scientific facts to a religious person all day long and you're not going to convince them that you're right based on science. That, my friend, is truly moronic.

And my point, which you obviously are missing, is that Kerry would flip-flop to try to cover something that he said and blame it on a "flubbed line". At least Bush is man enough to stick to what he says instead of pandering to groups after he says something dumb and then going on a damage control mission about how to "fix" it. The subject matter of the flub is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biff_Pocoroba

But how do we know that is what happened? Did he flub the line? Or did he say what he meant, realized nobody got it, then furiously pounded his spin team to save his ass?

---

Given that the man has an elaborate history of flubbed lines and that it would be infinitely more politically adventageous for him to insult Bush than troops, I'm going to go with him flubbing the line on this. Going into a speech with a joke about stupid troops is political suicide and everyone, even Kerry, knows this. It's naive to think he'd go through with it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

You can present scientific facts to a religious person all day long and you're not going to convince them that you're right based on science.

---

And that means fuck-all when you consider that Bush was talking about what should be presented in a science class. Context matters, and given the context it was a stupid thing to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

So, painting a label on someone over what are obviously religious beliefs as stupid is okay? You can present scientific facts to a religious person all day long and you're not going to convince them that you're right based on science. That, my friend, is truly moronic.

---

He wasn't making a religious statement whatsoever. He was trying to say that there is some doubt about evolution's existence, there isn't. To say otherwise is to be voluntarily stupid. If he wants to say he doesn't believe in it, that's fine (still wrong), but to say that the theory itself is in question..THAT is moronic.

Any devoted Christian would've made the same argument. And, no, I'm not one of them.

You mean like..The Catholic Church? Oh wait, that's right..they already said that evolution does not conflict with their faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

You mean like..The Catholic Church? Oh wait, that's right..they already said that evolution does not conflict with their faith.

---

Evangelicals (of which Bush is one and who the right primarily targets) put Catholics only slightly higher than child killers and cannibals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

Evangelicals (of which Bush is one and who the right primarily targets) put Catholics only slightly higher than child killers and cannibals.

---

Partially True,

The Southern Baptist's hate list is as follows

1) Fags
2) Jewish
3) Abortion Doctors and participants
4) Catholics
5) Muslims
6) Child Killers
7) Cannibals
8) Howard Stern
9) Other Southern baptists
10) French

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

Evangelicals (of which Bush is one and who the right primarily targets) put Catholics only slightly higher than child killers and cannibals.

---

True, but irrelevant. Haoh said 'any devoted Christian', and whatever else Catholics may be they are still Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

True, but irrelevant. Haoh said 'any devoted Christian', and whatever else Catholics may be they are still Christians.

---

Do you give yourself a reach around when you post this crap? Wow....

back on topic, Kerry is still getting in the news about this, let it die already, he's a political failure, time to let him slow burn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

The counter argument, of course, would be that historically when an incumbant has a Congress to deal with that isn't a majority of his own party that absolutely nothing of any significance gets done for the next ___ years.

---

I'll take nothing of signifigance compared the shit Bush's done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biff_Pocoroba

Oh yeah, that's right, he's a republican and he hates the right wing christian agenda. I think we'll forgive him for the black baby.

---

No he doesn't. He made out with Falliwell last night in my room.

Wait, are you denying that Catholics are Christians Biff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

You mean like..The Catholic Church? Oh wait, that's right..they already said that evolution does not conflict with their faith.

---

2/3 of all Americans want creationism taught in school. It's not like Bush is way out on a limb here. In fact you should read this article that says Creationism is more popular than evolution:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in657083.shtml

Who gives a fuck if it's popular? I certainly don't. That has absolutely no bearing on whether there is any doubt as to the veracity of evolution. Bottom line, there is no debate in the scientific community as to the existence of evolution. Thus the jury is not out.

If the population wants creationism taught in schools, for whatever reason or religious underpinnings, then Bush wasn't an "idiot" for suggesting it be taught. This is a government FOR the people, after all, and whatever your personal assessments are about the veracity of evolution, they are absolutely meaningless in this debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

If the population wants creationism taught in schools, for whatever reason or religious underpinnings, then Bush wasn't an "idiot" for suggesting it be taught. This is a government FOR the people, after all, and whatever your personal assessments are about the veracity of evolution, they are absolutely meaningless in this debate.

---

Science is not democratic. If they don't want to teach science in schools that's one thing, but people don't get to say "most of us believe [thing x] so it's science and should be taught in science classes."

If most people want creationism taught then there should be a surge in religious schools, not an attempt to redefine what science is. Conflating the two is what makes him an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biff_Pocoroba

Partially True,

The Southern Baptist's hate list is as follows

1) Fags
2) Jewish
3) Abortion Doctors and participants
4) Catholics
5) Muslims
6) Child Killers
7) Cannibals
8) Howard Stern
9) Other Southern baptists
10) French

---

I'm not seeing opinionated women, and people who don't like cornbread and BBQ on that list.

To: Gozen
From: Real Men

Subject: LAWL

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...e/untitled.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

Science is not democratic.

---

Actually, it is. The history of science is not a storey of acceptance. It is one paved with many hilariously bad theories, resistance, and patience. Science only moves forward when most of the apposeres of a theory die. When it was mathematically proven that the earth was not the center of the universe, it did not become scientific fact on that same day. It took a relatively long time. Many scientists still held onto the old view.

But the thing with evolution is, the scientists have kind of voted, and most of them agree that evolution is real.

The question is, should the populous get a say in what their kids are taught, or should that decision be made by experts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttcheeks

Many scientists still held onto the old view?

---

That just means many of them were wrong. If something is mathematically proven, and 90% of the population doesn't accept it, that doesn't mean the 90% are correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nash

That just means many of them were wrong. If something is mathematically proven, and 90% of the population doesn't accept it, that doesn't mean the 90% are correct.

---

I agree with this.

However, please understand that this isn't a creation v evolution thread (lord knows we don't need that)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nash

That just means many of them were wrong. If something is mathematically proven, and 90% of the population doesn't accept it, that doesn't mean the 90% are correct.

---

I don't think that anyone said that popular opinion changes the way reality works. It does however affect our knowledge base.

and btw, something being mathematically proven, is not the end all, be all of science. You can mathematically prove everything Newton ever came up with, but very little of it is true all across the board. Most of his "laws" are just phenomena that holds constant for our reference point.

EDIT: oh, and don't introduce the "population" into my point. I meant specifically that the scientific community did not automatically accept his findings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttcheeks

I don't think that anyone said that popular opinion changes the way reality works. It does however affect our knowledge base.

and btw, something being mathematically proven, is not the end all, be all of science. You can mathematically prove everything Newton ever came up with, but very little of it is true all across the board. Most of his "laws" are just phenomena that holds constant for our reference point.

---

Stop turning this into a god damn creation thread asscheeks, make your own topic if you want to get all faggy about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttcheeks

Actually, it is. The history of science is not a storey of acceptance. It is one paved with many hilariously bad theories, resistance, and patience. Science only moves forward when most of the apposeres of a theory die. When it was mathematically proven that the earth was not the center of the universe, it did not become scientific fact on that same day. It took a relatively long time. Many scientists still held onto the old view.

---

The point is that it was bad science. Holding on to bad science does not make it right, as facts are not subjective like political theories often are.

Quote:

---

But the thing with evolution is, the scientists have kind of voted, and most of them agree that evolution is real.

---

And (here's the important part) they can back it up with mountains of evidence.

Quote:

---

The question is, should the populous get a say in what their kids are taught, or should that decision be made by experts?

---

If the populace wants their kids to be taught creationism then they can home school or send them to religious schools. It is not science, and it will not get accepted as scientific theory just because a large group of people held their breaths and kicked their feet. We also don't teach astrology despite the massive number of people who read horoscopes.

Damnit, this thread is derailed. Closing. This discussion is bound for fight club anyway.