NationStates Jolt Archive

Statistics:

:Bush he is a republican he can make bad chouses some times but he is also very forceful when it come to issues like gay marriage or abortion. He can get revenge for stuff (like 911) He is honest.



:Kerry is a democrat that does not really have one side to an issue he is not real clear about gay marriage or abortion. And al-Qada backs all most directly.

He can get revenge for stuff (like 911)

He's hardly doing much about 9-11 compared to Iraq. So what if we toppled Saddam? Shouldn't we be diverting more attention to finding Osama Bin Laden?

He is honest.

If he was honest, he wouldn't have told us he was going into Iraq because they had WMD's.

George Dubya Bush - gee, where do I start? At the begiining; what the hell, even before 9/11 with the first of the tax cuts. That money could have been used for a lot of things - paying off the debt, funding his No Child Left Behind program, etc. Cutting taxes didn't seem to do a whole lot; the economy didn't have much of a jolt, I don't believe.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he couldn't have stopped 9/11. I don't think it was Clinton's fault either, though I know he had his eye on bin Laden before 9/11 and didn't have the support to take him out (recall that al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998.) The obvious response to the attack was to invade Afghanistan and boot out the Taliban. Good idea, but at the same time he rushed the Patriot Act through Congress, which, let's be honest, is against the Constitution and probably not necessary. And tell me what's going on in Afghanistan now? Are things much better there now? Not as far as I know. And while I am aware that Rome wasn't built in a day or even two and a half years, a little more help might be a good idea rather than proposing to replace the Taliban as the rulers of Afghanistan, which accomplishes what again?

Our next stop is Iraq. When Bush wanted to invade Iraq, one had to wonder, "WTF does Iraq have to do with the War on Terror?" WMDs? None found. Connection between Saddam and Osama? You might as well accuse the Bloods and Crips of having a gang alliance. Liberating them from a brutal dictator? Well, if another one takes his place, it doesn't accomplish much, and I can't say the Shi'ites in the Middle East have a good track record (I refer to Iran and possibly Afghanistan, and like Iraq, they were reacting to the U.S.) Not to mention the high cost of the mission coming out of our pockets and coming back to the U.S. in caskets.

On the homefront, more tax cuts for the rich (OK, so the economy's up a bit, but happy days aren't quite here again,) insane deficits, John Ashcroft as his Attorney General (he lost his Senate race to a dead man and he's named Attorney General? WTF?) some attacks on Roe v. Wade (and while I am not crazy about abortion, it's horribly impractical to ban it right now,) a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT banning gay marriage (so many reasons to hate this even if you're against gay marriage,) and is anyone helping the college students who are getting gouged with excessive expenses? Hell no.

Kerry may not fix all of these problems, but at least he won't be as terrible at diplomacy, he will probably at least go easier on the Patriot Act, and the gay marriage amendment won't be his baby at all. At worst, he likely leaves it up to the states.

Yeah, your "statistics" are just really short biased descriptions. For a little more info, you can check these pages out and then read the discussions on them.

George W. Bush - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

John Kerry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry

I'm going to vote for Kerry... I mean c'mon.. Sure, Underneath his fleshy exterior beats the heart and soul of a robot... but still he's better than Bush.

I can't vote in the American election because I'm not American, but I'd rater see Kerry as president then Bush.

I'm going to vote for Kerry... I mean c'mon.. Sure, Underneath his fleshy exterior beats the heart and soul of a robot... but still he's better than Bush.

Most likely because Bush doesn't have a heart at all.

Statistics:

:Kerry is a democrat that does not really have one side to an issue he is not real clear about gay marriage or abortion. And al-Qada backs all most directly.

*bold is mine..

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141815&highlight=

Enough said!

I'm going to vote for Kerry... I mean c'mon.. Sure, Underneath his fleshy exterior beats the heart and soul of a robot... but still he's better than Bush.

Most likely because Bush doesn't have a heart at all.That's true.... or a brain.... his IQ was in teh 90's... most people pass up that IQ in middle school.

Funny, you lambast Bush for having a low IQ (which you probably don't know for sure) yet you don't know what IQ is.

IQ is a constant number. You have, more or less, the same IQ your whole life. You can't start out middle school with an IQ of 80 and end it with one of 100.

I'm voting for Bush.

He can get revenge for stuff (like 911)

Revenge is the antithesis of our great society

Funny, you lambast Bush for having a low IQ (which you probably don't know for sure) yet you don't know what IQ is.

IQ is a constant number. You have, more or less, the same IQ your whole life. You can't start out middle school with an IQ of 80 and end it with one of 100.

I'm voting for Bush.

Funny, you lambast others for not knowing what IQ is when you don't seem to know yourself. There are a myriad of tests of IQ and one can have different scores on different tests. Additionally, there has been evidence to show that IQ can indeed change over the lifespan. Therefore, the entire concept of a "constant IQ" is pure hogwash.

Vote for whoever you like.

If I could, I would vote for kerry,he is a much more honest person than bush, and he can speak english.

I see. So if its so variable, then why does Bush having a (supposedly) 90 IQ mean anything?

My point is this : Your IQ does not, or should not by the tests, get higher as you go through more school. A retarded person is defined as someone with an IQ of under 70. Generally speaking, you don't become un-retarded. If your trained for a tests, or certain tests are bad, then your scores will change. If you use the same test (which is the only good way to do it - use all apples instead of apples and oranges) then you'll remember that test from last time. If you use a different test, then the results will of course be somewhat different.

I see. So if its so variable, then why does Bush having a (supposedly) 90 IQ mean anything?

My point is this : Your IQ does not, or should not by the tests, get higher as you go through more school. A retarded person is defined as someone with an IQ of under 70. Generally speaking, you don't become un-retarded. If your trained for a tests, or certain tests are bad, then your scores will change. If you use the same test (which is the only good way to do it - use all apples instead of apples and oranges) then you'll remember that test from last time. If you use a different test, then the results will of course be somewhat different.

Yes, but the studies I referred to showed that heavy alcohol usage and/or drug usage can affect later life IQ scores. This reduction in IQ is observable across a spectrum of tests, so while exact numbers are simply arbitrary metrics used to classify individuals, the "dumbing down" effect is definitely present. So there again, Bush is on the small end of the stick.

Thats dumbing down. People that go through a lot of phyiscal punishment in their careers (like football players) can also lose enough brain cells to become less intellegent. The average person isn't going to go from below a 90 to above one when they're in middle school, though, as thats going up and not going down.

George Dubya Bush - gee, where do I start? At the begiining; what the hell, even before 9/11 with the first of the tax cuts. That money could have been used for a lot of things - paying off the debt, funding his No Child Left Behind program, etc. Cutting taxes didn't seem to do a whole lot; the economy didn't have much of a jolt, I don't believe.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he couldn't have stopped 9/11. I don't think it was Clinton's fault either, though I know he had his eye on bin Laden before 9/11 and didn't have the support to take him out (recall that al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998.) The obvious response to the attack was to invade Afghanistan and boot out the Taliban. Good idea, but at the same time he rushed the Patriot Act through Congress, which, let's be honest, is against the Constitution and probably not necessary. And tell me what's going on in Afghanistan now? Are things much better there now? Not as far as I know. And while I am aware that Rome wasn't built in a day or even two and a half years, a little more help might be a good idea rather than proposing to replace the Taliban as the rulers of Afghanistan, which accomplishes what again?

Our next stop is Iraq. When Bush wanted to invade Iraq, one had to wonder, "WTF does Iraq have to do with the War on Terror?" WMDs? None found. Connection between Saddam and Osama? You might as well accuse the Bloods and Crips of having a gang alliance. Liberating them from a brutal dictator? Well, if another one takes his place, it doesn't accomplish much, and I can't say the Shi'ites in the Middle East have a good track record (I refer to Iran and possibly Afghanistan, and like Iraq, they were reacting to the U.S.) Not to mention the high cost of the mission coming out of our pockets and coming back to the U.S. in caskets.

On the homefront, more tax cuts for the rich (OK, so the economy's up a bit, but happy days aren't quite here again,) insane deficits, John Ashcroft as his Attorney General (he lost his Senate race to a dead man and he's named Attorney General? WTF?) some attacks on Roe v. Wade (and while I am not crazy about abortion, it's horribly impractical to ban it right now,) a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT banning gay marriage (so many reasons to hate this even if you're against gay marriage,) and is anyone helping the college students who are getting gouged with excessive expenses? Hell no.

Kerry may not fix all of these problems, but at least he won't be as terrible at diplomacy, he will probably at least go easier on the Patriot Act, and the gay marriage amendment won't be his baby at all. At worst, he likely leaves it up to the states.

I commend you for your post. I usually only read the first few lines of long posts, but your's was exceptional. Congrats on the good work.