The personality of a D4 player

However, if forced into it, the Tarrasch defence is quite lively.

Chess is too complex and rich to have a single type of game determined by the first move.

In my opinion the d stands for Dope! I always open with e.....

But for serious though, how come Fischer never played D4, what was his beef with it? I mean can't be that bad if Kasparov liked it so much.

I don't think he considered it bad, it is simply he didn't like it.

Because, as you said:

"I have a problem with people who play the move D4 as white. I right away think, this is a weak, timid, untrustworthy, and non-genius person in real life. I automatically lose respect for them."

Fischer didn't want you to think that he's a weak and timid non-genius.

This is probable. 

Maybe you should just watch the whole game before you dismiss the one team

I'd rather just catch the highlights 

Having a general distaste for d4 is not the same as being a genuis.  You might just merely be copying a great mind.  I for one thought it was interested that Bobby Fischer knew all the ins and outs of d4, and the English systems, but never played them.  So I to decided to play e4.  That doesn't necessarily mean I have the same vision as the genius.  Rather, it could also just mean I trust his judgement.

I used to think it was cowardly to play d4, however, playing to avoid tactics like Mayweather could possibly win you over 100 million dollars

If playing to bore your opponent to death by avoiding tactical openings by playing d4 and maybe later even setting up a stonewall is evil then your evil for completely annihilating someone with tactics playing e4.  Mayweather's strategy might be looked at as a cowardly approach, however, it did win him over 100 million dollars.  Who are you to say that e4 is right and d4 is wrong?  

d4 is the way to go now.  Everyone is doing it.  Your rating will sore to new heights by playing d4, and could possibly win you a million at millionare chess if you are a GM, simply because you are learning to avoid tactical oppunities and make it into a more strategic form of play.  If you ask me, learning both e4, and d4, like bobby Fishcer did, is the way to go.  Don't tell me you never play to avoid tactics.  Trading pieces is a form of avoiding tactics VladimirHerceg91

Not to mention d4 can lead to tactical mayhems too.

True, but there are always exceptions to everything in chess.  Just because sometimes d4 can lead to tactical positions does not nessisarily mean it is a highly tactical opening.  I'm sure you agree but I wanted to make that point clear, as others might look at your one sentence response and not know what to think.  More strategy is called for in d4, and less tactics, for the most part.  I personally believe a beginner should learn to play with e4 and only play d4 later on when they are more advanced, but I do know it is possible to acheive a master title without knowing a lot about e4, simply because it's possible to choose an opening repertoire with both colors avoiding all e4 type openings.  

Part of strategy is to get your opponent out of his book.  If he knows you are a e4 player, he is simply not going to play 2. e5.  Plain and simple.

Come the hell on, none of us has any idea about openings, so don't act like you guys know every system and style of play based on one freaking move. At our level, every single game is decided on a piece/pawn blunder, or a three-move tactic, whether you play e4, d4, c4, or even m4. Get off the horses, will ya.

I don't know man, I'm pretty good. 

I don't have to know.  Other's have told me.  I'm sure if you wanted to do detective work instead of just bashing my ideas I would give you more of a forethought.  I give you the task of asking all the masters on my friends list about the difference between e4 and d4 and see what they think.  No bashing, rather, sound evidence.  Quote those masters will you please, and I will know if you are lying, simply because I will check your facts by asking myself.

Also, I know by my own experiences that d4 is more strategic and e4 is more tactical.  I may not understand all there is to know about every single opening, however, I have a general grasp about a lot of different openings, simply because I've played all of them and experimented.  Don't let my chess.com history fool you.  I play a lot OTB, and am better at OTB.  Not by much, but by enough to make a good difference.

This reaction is word by word what I expected.
Take it personal, if you want. I don't mind. None of it was towards you personal, rather general to everyone in this thread.

Seriously, I just like E4 better. Don't know why.