Looking forward to after the election - end of stupid posts

[Klaus Vestergaard Kragelu]

Hi

Getting fed up with all those posts about the upcoming election, I just
wanted to add an europeans appinion on this topic:

Bush or Kerry?

Bush is stupid, and he shows it
Kerry is equally stupid - but doesn't show it as much

My choice would be Bush as he doesn't keep changing his mind as Kerry does
and he isn't such a wimp. (just not so great with his ties to the church)

Many europeans actually find theese and the last elections very amusing. ow
can anyone of those two contenders be allowed to rule such a well
functioning country? Just look at the former VP Dan Quayle - isn't there an
minimum IQ to get into the government administration?

Regards

Klaus

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:29:18 +0100, "Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund"
<klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi

Getting fed up with all those posts about the upcoming election, I just
wanted to add an europeans appinion on this topic:

Bush or Kerry?

Bush. I applaud his stance on stem cell research because it will leave
Little Britland as the world leader in this exciting new field.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Klaus Vestergaard Kragelu]

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:41850666.7000307@nospam.com...

Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:


My choice would be Bush as he doesn't keep changing his mind as Kerry
does
and he isn't such a wimp.

You need to read George Soros and understand that refusing to change
one's mind is not such a good thing. Bush is "belief driven" and will
not accept any *reality* that would challenge those beliefs. This is
tantamount to belief in one's infallibility. By favoring Bush on the
grounds you stated, you are supporting the idea that Bush is infallible.
We now have ample evidence to disprove that Bush is infallible, he has
made numerous and colossal mistakes, and he has failed to accomplish any
of his stated objectives, many of which have been exposed as a
subterfuge for seriously corrupt ulterior purposes such as enriching
large weapons industry corporations and service providers, and illegal
conversion of oil reserves of a sovereign state.
Bush is clearly a wimp- and that is why he makes such an issue of it
with his false bravado. The record on his life is clear, he is a
cowardly draft dodger and a business failure, he has never done anything
right in his entire life. And above all there is no question that he
lacks the intellectual strength to defend his belief-driven positions,
he fires and dismisses anyone who would question him, and he abuses his
powers as President to suppress protest and dissent. If you think these
are characteristics of a strong and brave man, then maybe you need
therapy yourself.

Was my point that he was strong and brave? Read my post again

Cheers

Klaus

 

[xray]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:07:16 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

Fred Bloggs is the resident village idiot and should be plonked by all

...............

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

If Bush does get elected, I'm sure there is a place for you as
Secretary of Plonking.

Plonk, plonk, plonk, plonk,
plonk, plonk, plonk, plonk.

Plonk, wonderful plonk.

Plonk, plonk, plonk, plonk,
Plo... We interrupt for an important message! ...
This just in.
Bush is a dangerous idiot.

 

[Klaus Vestergaard Kragelu]

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:tq6ao0tk65vl7rv5f4o705a9tigggdfvos@4ax.com...

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:01:10 +0100, "Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund"
klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:


Repeat after me...

Fred Bloggs is the resident village idiot and should be plonked by all

Fred Bloggs is the resident village idiot and should be plonked by all

Fred Bloggs is the resident village idiot and should be plonked by all



Cheers

Klaus

 

[john jardine]

"Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund" <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4184da56$0$255$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...

Hi

Getting fed up with all those posts about the upcoming election, I just
wanted to add an europeans appinion on this topic:

Bush or Kerry?

Bush is stupid, and he shows it
Kerry is equally stupid - but doesn't show it as much

My choice would be Bush as he doesn't keep changing his mind as Kerry does
and he isn't such a wimp. (just not so great with his ties to the church)

Many europeans actually find theese and the last elections very amusing.
ow
can anyone of those two contenders be allowed to rule such a well
functioning country? Just look at the former VP Dan Quayle - isn't there
an
minimum IQ to get into the government administration?

Regards

Klaus

As a casual European opinion, I'd say they're both rich kids from privileged
backgrounds. Either of whom when elected, will act primarily in the best
interest of their sponsors.
regrds
john

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:01:10 +0100, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:41850666.7000307@nospam.com...


Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:


My choice would be Bush as he doesn't keep changing his mind as Kerry
does
and he isn't such a wimp.

You need to read George Soros and understand that refusing to change
one's mind is not such a good thing. Bush is "belief driven" and will
not accept any *reality* that would challenge those beliefs. This is
tantamount to belief in one's infallibility. By favoring Bush on the
grounds you stated, you are supporting the idea that Bush is infallible.
We now have ample evidence to disprove that Bush is infallible, he has
made numerous and colossal mistakes, and he has failed to accomplish any
of his stated objectives, many of which have been exposed as a
subterfuge for seriously corrupt ulterior purposes such as enriching
large weapons industry corporations and service providers, and illegal
conversion of oil reserves of a sovereign state. Bush is clearly a wimp-
and that is why he makes such an issue of it with his false bravado. The
record on his life is clear, he is a cowardly draft dodger and a
business failure, he has never done anything right in his entire life.
And above all there is no question that he lacks the intellectual
strength to defend his belief-driven positions, he fires and dismisses
anyone who would question him, and he abuses his powers as President to
suppress protest and dissent. If you think these are characteristics of
a strong and brave man, then maybe you need therapy yourself.



Was my point that he was strong and brave? Read my post again

It seems to me that your main point is that you don't want to read about

politics.

But then you say that you prefer Bush, and the reason you give is exactly
the reason that he is exactly the wrong man to lead the United States.

I think the US is at the stage Germany was when they LOVED their new
leader, that turned the economy around and kept the homeland secure.

Personally, I prefer to NOT see the US overrun by nazis.

Please, don't encourage American voters to put the antichrist in power
again.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:01:45 +0100, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:tq6ao0tk65vl7rv5f4o705a9tigggdfvos@4ax.com...
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:01:10 +0100, "Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund"
klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:


Repeat after me...

Fred Bloggs is the resident village idiot and should be plonked by all

Fred Bloggs is the resident village idiot and should be plonked by all


Fred Bloggs is the resident village idiot and should be plonked by all

Polly wanna cracker?

 

[Clarence]

"john jardine" <john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cm3dcj$du$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...

"Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund" <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4184da56$0$255$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
Hi

Getting fed up with all those posts about the upcoming election, I just
wanted to add an europeans appinion on this topic:

Bush or Kerry?

Bush is stupid, and he shows it
Kerry is equally stupid - but doesn't show it as much

My choice would be Bush as he doesn't keep changing his mind as Kerry does
and he isn't such a wimp. (just not so great with his ties to the church)

Many europeans actually find theese and the last elections very amusing.
ow
can anyone of those two contenders be allowed to rule such a well
functioning country? Just look at the former VP Dan Quayle - isn't there
an
minimum IQ to get into the government administration?

Regards

Klaus



As a casual European opinion, I'd say they're both rich kids from privileged
backgrounds. Either of whom when elected, will act primarily in the best
interest of their sponsors.
regrds
john

So your saying that the European opinion is at the level of the village idiot?

 

[john jardine]

"Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote in message
news:6Zbhd.15912$6q2.306@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

"john jardine" <john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cm3dcj$du$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...

"Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund" <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4184da56$0$255$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
Hi

Getting fed up with all those posts about the upcoming election, I
just
wanted to add an europeans appinion on this topic:

Bush or Kerry?

Bush is stupid, and he shows it
Kerry is equally stupid - but doesn't show it as much

My choice would be Bush as he doesn't keep changing his mind as Kerry
does
and he isn't such a wimp. (just not so great with his ties to the
church)

Many europeans actually find theese and the last elections very
amusing.
ow
can anyone of those two contenders be allowed to rule such a well
functioning country? Just look at the former VP Dan Quayle - isn't
there
an
minimum IQ to get into the government administration?

Regards

Klaus



As a casual European opinion, I'd say they're both rich kids from
privileged
backgrounds. Either of whom when elected, will act primarily in the best
interest of their sponsors.
regrds
john

So your saying that the European opinion is at the level of the village
idiot?


Nah. TBH, on my side of the pond and despite massive UK media coverage of

the US elections, I suspect there is little interest (amongst the masses)
in the final outcome.
It's difficult enough to get a decent turnout for the UK version, so foreign
issues accrue even fewer interested observers.
But, politicians is politicians. Nowadays pretty much the same flavour the
world over. All seem to have a background of being the kid that was bullied
at school. All seem to look for admiration. All enjoy the power trip.
The 'real' politicians of old, those who had a selfless vision for the
future and a fire in their belly, have done their good work and are now
long dead.
Maybe modern societies have no further need for those kind of men. A sort
of 'satisfied apathy' seems now the name of the game.
regards
john

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:11:33 -0000, "john jardine"
<john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

Nah. TBH, on my side of the pond and despite massive UK media coverage of
the US elections, I suspect there is little interest (amongst the masses)
in the final outcome.
It's difficult enough to get a decent turnout for the UK version, so foreign
issues accrue even fewer interested observers.
But, politicians is politicians. Nowadays pretty much the same flavour the
world over. All seem to have a background of being the kid that was bullied
at school. All seem to look for admiration. All enjoy the power trip.
The 'real' politicians of old, those who had a selfless vision for the
future and a fire in their belly, have done their good work and are now
long dead.
Maybe modern societies have no further need for those kind of men. A sort
of 'satisfied apathy' seems now the name of the game.
regards

You know somethin', John? You're bloody well right!

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:30:24 -0800, Steve Sands wrote:

When this is all over what will you do with your miserable lifes?

Oh, I guess that depends.

But at least I can look at myself in the mirror, and know that I
campaigned against the most corrupt and murderous regime the country
has yet seen.

Do the ghosts of the victims of your lord and master haunt your
dreams?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"john jardine" <john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote

Either of whom when elected, will act primarily in the best
interest of their sponsors.

An honest politician is one who when bought, stays bought.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:49:00 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:

little droplet of a voice is drowned out in an ocean of Kerry support in
California, so he feels weak, worthless, and ineffective- or maybe more
so than usual.

The Redskins lost, and you can use a swing vote:
http://www.votepair.org

Remember, Bush is a dangerous liar.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Klaus Vestergaard Kragelu]

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:418646A0.5060402@nospam.com...

Klaus Kragelund wrote:
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<4185A236.1020904@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<41850666.7000307@nospam.com>...


Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:



My choice would be Bush as he doesn't keep changing his mind as Kerry
does
and he isn't such a wimp.

You need to read George Soros and understand that refusing to change
one's mind is not such a good thing.


By that standard Kerry leads Bush by orders of magnitude: Kerry
changes his mind during commercial breaks. The only consistent stand
Kerry has taken is his Vietnam War Atrocity position.

That is another of your partisan lies. I have been following Kerry
closely for months now, and he is rock solidly consistent. You are too
much of a brainwashed idiot to listen to anything Kerry says- and I mean
listen in the sense of comprehend- so how would you know what positions
Kerry takes.


Hmm - the news media in Europe that covers the Kerry/Bush campaign
often talk of Kerry twists and turns. I have only followed it with a
minimum effort, but even I can see he's changing his mind all the time

Cheers

Klaus

I keep hearing this but never with an example. Do have just one example
of this twist and turn? What is your problem that you avoid specifics? I
am only interested in factual detail- generalization and ideology are
for the lower intelligence types. Give me a specific "twist and turn"-
because Kerry is from Massachusetts, his English is much more complex
than that of the Wyoming and Texas crowd- and this may be your problem.

I understand English fine

Specifics:

Regarding the attack on Iraq he belonged to an overwelming majority of the
congression that voted for the attack. BUT: later he voted against a
suggestion to use 87 trillion $ to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan

Isn't this correct Fred?

Well, wrote this before I read the lines below. I rest my case, I won't get
smart on US elections because I would not be the one to have sufficient info
on this, but I was just fed up with the both of them. In my oppinion they
should get Bill Clinton back.....

Regards

Klaus

The most common lie promulgated by the right wing is that Kerry voted
down the $87B appropriations bill for the Iraq war. This is true, but
what they are not telling you is that Congress was pushing a competing
appropriations bill simultaneously in competition which did not contain
the hotly contested $20B Halliburton funding, it is was then standard
Congressional practice to vote one bill down in order to advance the
alternative bill. So the "dangerous idiots and liars" have taken that
vote out of context and made it look like Kerry was against
appropriating money for the troops, when he was engaging in standard
strategic voting and voting for appropriating money for the troops all
the time. We now see in retrospect, that if the administration had been
forced to answer Kerry's objections to the appropriations bill, we would
not be in the mess we are today over there- it would have been made
known at the start that the administration had no realistic plans for
the post-invasion phase.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 19:27:25 +0100, "Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund"
<klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

Regarding the attack on Iraq he belonged to an overwelming majority of the
congression that voted for the attack. BUT: later he voted against a
suggestion to use 87 trillion $ to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan

Billion.

John

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:41850666.7000307@nospam.com...


Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:


My choice would be Bush as he doesn't keep changing his mind as Kerry

does

and he isn't such a wimp.

You need to read George Soros and understand that refusing to change
one's mind is not such a good thing. Bush is "belief driven" and will
not accept any *reality* that would challenge those beliefs. This is
tantamount to belief in one's infallibility. By favoring Bush on the
grounds you stated, you are supporting the idea that Bush is infallible.
We now have ample evidence to disprove that Bush is infallible, he has
made numerous and colossal mistakes, and he has failed to accomplish any
of his stated objectives, many of which have been exposed as a
subterfuge for seriously corrupt ulterior purposes such as enriching
large weapons industry corporations and service providers, and illegal
conversion of oil reserves of a sovereign state.
Bush is clearly a wimp- and that is why he makes such an issue of it
with his false bravado. The record on his life is clear, he is a
cowardly draft dodger and a business failure, he has never done anything
right in his entire life. And above all there is no question that he
lacks the intellectual strength to defend his belief-driven positions,
he fires and dismisses anyone who would question him, and he abuses his
powers as President to suppress protest and dissent. If you think these
are characteristics of a strong and brave man, then maybe you need
therapy yourself.




Was my point that he was strong and brave? Read my post again

Cheers

Klaus

When you say he "isn't such a wimp", where "wimp" has been a frequent
Bush supporter slur against Kerry, you adopt their inflammatory
rhetoric, then the context implies you also agree that Bush is
unwavering, steady, strong, brave etc...and all the other clearly
deceitful and wrong characterizations of Bush. It is not inflammatory to
describe Bush as weak, shallow, confused, and stupid- 65 million
Americans have observed this during the debates.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:01:45 +0100, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:


"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:tq6ao0tk65vl7rv5f4o705a9tigggdfvos@4ax.com...

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:01:10 +0100, "Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund"
klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:


Repeat after me...

Fred Bloggs is the resident village idiot and should be plonked by all

Fred Bloggs is the resident village idiot and should be plonked by all



Fred Bloggs is the resident village idiot and should be plonked by all




Polly wanna cracker?

It's amazing how being commanded to do something is so compelling to the
Bush supporters. Now here is one for Thompson and all the other vacuum
heads.

Do as I say:

Do not cast your vote this year.

Do not cast your vote this year.

Do not cast your vote this year.

Do not cast your vote this year.

Do not cast your vote this year.

Do not cast your vote this year.

Do not cast your vote this year.

Do not cast your vote this year.

Do not cast your vote this year.

Do not cast your vote this year.

And remember- Bush is a dangerous liar and idiot.

 

[Terry Given]

<snip>Clarence wrote:

Clarence, have you ever paid any attention to any politicians? It doesnt
really matter what party, country or race, they all seem to be tarred
with the same brush - self-interest (which is, of course what JJ was
talking about). Show me a selfless politician, and I will show you a
politician who is campaigning (read as: lying). It is standard political
practice to say (and do) pretty much whatever the hell it takes to get
(re-)elected, so for the next 3-4 years they can do precisely as they
(read as: their back-room lobbyists) please. Which is usually far, far
from what they said during campaigning. Not that I give a fuck about US
politics, but GHWB's "Read my lips, no new taxes" is a fairly well
publicised example of this phenomenon - how long did that last, 6
months? there is ALWAYS some excuse for the abrupt policy reversals so
often performed in public service (hey, now I get it - "service" as in
"servicing the missus" ie they are their to roger us...)

Cheers
Terry (who doesnt give a shit about the US election)


Or much else.

on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Congratulations - have you
considered a career in TV "journalism" ?

But thank you for verifying that your view is not much use to anyone.
Yes, you view is pretty much the village idiot!

What, you are too dumb to notice that all politicians tell outrageous lies?

moron.

Kill yourself, thereby increasing the national average IQ of USA.

Terry