If you try to put things in perspective, you can get the general stands on the various issues and decide from there. For instance:

-Bush is pro-life and Kerry is pro-choice.
-Bush is for Free trade and job exporting and Kerry is for regulating it.
-Bush is for taking an active military role in the rest of the world and Kerry wants to reign it back in.

etc., etc.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
So you don't believe that the human who SELECTED what blurbs to use had any bias or agenda at all? lol Uh-huh. Man, "Intellectual Honesty R Us" this ain't.

</font> </font>[/QUOTE]What proof do you have of an agenda? What proof of bias? Show me the money ( your subjective opinion doesnt count as hard proof either) and spare us all the lame old 'intellectual honesty attack', it's almost as weak a cop out as whining about a phantom "liberal conspiracy." and providing nothing to back up such claims.


I see a fully referenced site with links to full quotes to support the blurbs provided and equal time given to each and every candidate.
We all know politicians repeat themselves and "stay on message" so I restate:

Any negative connations on that site are in the candidates own words, and probably have been repeated over and over again by the candidate.

Besides, Bush doesnt need any lefties help to damn him with his own words. He does that quite well on his own. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I will say that another reason I like the Dems. better this year is that I haven't been too impressed with Bush as far as his public speaking skills go. Being well spoken and quick thinking are IMPERATIVE traits as President! He is simply not the best figurehead for us. This is not an insult to his intellect, business sense, or personality. Some people simply aren't as gifted in certain areas as others.

[ 10-22-2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

<font color = lightgreen>Unfortunately, I would have to disagree. Being "well-spoken" usually means that you are able to read well the speeches written by professional speechwriters. As far as "quick-thinking"...I doubt anyone would want someone who is impulsive to be President and Commander-in-Chief.
The ideal quality for someone to be President is someone who can surround himself with the best advisors.</font>

I'm writing in Jeb Bartlett. He's well-spoken and quick-thinking. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

So? Who cares if your comment is legitimate? 99.9% of my knowledge comes from biased sources, but I am able to pull the facts out and interpret them for myself.

But, to do something I *loathe* doing, I'll discuss the political slant of that site, which as I noted may or may not add or subtract to its validity. My first quick-check regarding a site's political slant is what books and trinkets it's peddling. That is one of the rare sites (other than Amazon) that sells both the Republican and Democrat publications. Now, after clicking on different pages several times, it is obvious that it peddles way more Democrat publications, swo I'll give you that. However, when reading the lists of positions on the various issues, I didn't see that it was overly kind to Kerry or overly-ill toward Bush. It seems to be one of the more reasonable attempts at fairly summarizing the candidates positions, in their own words.

But again, what does it matter anyway? The site has a LOT of information, and if you want to poo-poo it because it leans this way or that way, go ahead. You're just starting to sound like a broken record, that's all. You could save time by putting that argument into your sig quote.

<font color = lightgreen>Unfortunately, I would have to disagree. Being "well-spoken" usually means that you are able to read well the speeches written by professional speechwriters. As far as "quick-thinking"...I doubt anyone would want someone who is impulsive to be President and Commander-in-Chief.
The ideal quality for someone to be President is someone who can surround himself with the best advisors.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Quick thinking doesn't mean impulsive. It means knowing the right answers at the right time. It means being able to have a well organized thought process and being able to focus and concentrate on what you are talking about. It means you have the ability to think ahead in your conversation.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
So you don't believe that the human who SELECTED what blurbs to use had any bias or agenda at all? lol Uh-huh. Man, "Intellectual Honesty R Us" this ain't.

</font> </font>[/QUOTE]What proof do you have of an agenda? What proof of bias? Show me the money ( your subjective opinion doesnt count as hard proof either) and spare us all the lame old 'intellectual honesty attack', it's almost as weak a cop out as whining about a phantom "liberal conspiracy." and providing nothing to back up such claims.


I see a fully referenced site with links to full quotes to support the blurbs provided and equal time given to each and every candidate.
We all know politicians repeat themselves and "stay on message" so I restate:

Any negative connations on that site are in the candidates own words, and probably have been repeated over and over again by the candidate.

Besides, Bush doesnt need any lefties help to damn him with his own words. He does that quite well on his own. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Trying to get another thread closed Chewie? Not even going to try to enlighten ya.

Edit: used educate instead of enlighten..freudian slip.

[ 10-22-2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Quick thinking isn't very important for a president, neither is being pretty...BEING a Leader is the prime requisite...Choosing a good staff is the next most important thing. Bush is a good leader. He has a good staff. It's the reject leftovers from the previous administration that screwed the pooch when it came to Intel.....can you say Tennent?

Sorry MagiK, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe it is quite important. A leader must posess the ability to quickly and clearly make his point known on any number of position pertinent issues at any given time. He must also be able to effectively argue his point in the event someone disagrees. Consistently using words found in Websters is certainly a plus. ;)