BF2S Forums Why was Kerry disliked?

I am not an american citizen, so I have little insight into US inernal affairs, but I have heard americans say that one reason not to vote for Kerry was the idea that you don't change leadership during a military conflict.

wether that is true or not, I cannot really tell.

Because he's a big Herman Munster looking mutha-f'er. That big scary head a drab dull fekkin voice. Horse jawed ugly muthaswanger.

You honestly can't figure this out?  Kerry had no actual ideas of his own.  He never actually stated any concrete facts.  Such as,

"... we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight." 

When George W. was coming in to the election with a plan and a clear path for the war on terror.  Kerry is well known for not actually having an agenda or plan in the US.  In fact, for the past 5 to 6 years the Democratic party has been falling apart and is simply a smear party now.  They watch for the president to make a mistake and then smear him for it.  While producing no actual ideas themselves.  It is a recipe for disaster for that party.

Another example of Kerry not being very reliable are his statements reguarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's).  He, like many other Democrats, including Hillary and Bill Clinton, stated that there were WMD's in Iraq and action needed to be taken.  That was in 2001 when the popularity of fighting the war was high after 9/11.  However now, John Kerry is saying there are no WMD's and there never were.  He simply changes his stance with public opinion, while George W. stays with what he believes in.  And that quality in Bush is something that you need at a time of war. 

If you want to know how a politician can get anywhere without actually stating their stance on issues, look at Hillary Clinton.  She does not take stance on MANY important issues, yet people say she is a canidate for president. 

My best advice is to listen to Bill O'Reily.  He states the truth, unlike the mainstream media, which is primarily liberal left and will only make the President look bad.  Not actually state the positive things in Iraq.  If you want to know about Iraq, ask a soldier and they will tell you that the people are great and they appreciate us being there giving them freedom.

LOL

Debate and serious talk - are you sure?

Do you know how to frame a question into a serious one? Yes(?) No(?). . . I am thinking no.

First OFF - Kerry is not president; doesn't matter this far after the fact. . .

Second there is a lot of evidence of election tampering in both G.W. presidential wins,. as well as many other Republican wins. . . or do you NOT know who DIEBOLD Co. is (?); who runs it/is affiliated with it (?); how there are 2-sets of results; actual vote-site results are discarded (TRUE!) and not compared to the uploaded (2nd set) and potentially tampered results (!); and the history related to how (exit-)polling is done and election results are monitored - most likely NOT!

You generally framed the question as: "Why didn't Americans like Kerry (and vote for him) a reasonable/intelligent man when compared to Bush?"

1.) Mr.Pieeater’s post is a red-herring out of context response; nothing more than a rhetoric acquired response - pointless, thoughtless and even more stupid than I thought upon a second re-read of it - it requires no response.

2.) Many Americans DID vote for him (48.3% of the Votes-Cast; so-called official count), and exit-polls showed Kerry was the winner of the Presidential Election - so what happened? Between Midnight and the AM? When G.W. (50.7%) was declared the winner? The Diebold Election Results (where electronic machines were used of course) were uploaded (on the internet EVEN!) and the AT-SITE results were discarded (what a manipulation of the SYSTEM!). . . This is only
a FACT that the Average American is ignorant of (not because the information of such is available and truthful - it is; but); because the mainstream media is a JOKE, a mouthpiece for ONE-SIDED ideology. The media is supposed to be liberal - and allow all information in - a media that discards information is a failed source.

The strange facts are - Bush won the registered Democratic vote by as much 60%-80% in Counties where Diebold systems were used.

Here is some 2 year OLD NEWS for you:
“Election night, I'd been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the radio stations that carries my syndicated show, and, just after midnight, during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, I was startled to hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the AP report. But then the computers reported something different AM. In several pivotal states. . . .
. . . But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."

Google this if you want - learn something please (Kerry election results Diebold).

3.) The G.W. win over Gore was - basically the same. In fact the Majority of Americans DID NOT vote for G.W. in this Election. . . the win was an Electoral College manipulation of the system; at the hands a Republican insiders who manipulated the Florida results by discarding votes - and disenfranchising Americans.

At this point in History; the Orwellian (liberal) sounding words of past President Dwight D. Eisenhower's (a decorated military General, 2 term president, a Republican none-the-less) ring as - too true - and woefully as a prophecy fulfilled:

“. . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--economic, political, even spiritual---is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or  unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist .  . .”

You live in a time - were influence - district gerrymandering - and manipulation of technology is more than possible - it is commonplace.

My impression of Kerry was that he was dull and uninteresting. This isnt to say that he isn't a smart guy, which I'm almost sure of, but he tended to say everything in long, drawn out sentences, and used alot of words that probably arent used outside of universities too often. Contrast this with President Bush, who despite being as dumb as a post is quite charismatic and likeable, and its easy to see why many people voted republican.

And as for the Democratic party being a smear party, give me a break. I was absolutely disgusted by the smear campaigns the republican party (and the supporters of the republican party) ran during the last election, and these days its hard to listen to the white house press secretary and keep a straight face.

Also, I have heard it said that as much as 10% of the voting public will vote for the incumbent in a time of military crisis, as a matter of course. If thats true, its amazing Bush did not win by a larger margin.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but grades do not mean a hell of a lot in terms of intelligence. Remember Einstein? Funny looking guy, genius in all respects? He got a few failing grades too. Grades are more a measure of effort and time-spent than real intelligence, though in Bush's case I'd say its a little of both.

And as for researching, I've done plenty of research on Bush's intelligence. Its called watching him speak on the news, and it took me about 10 minutes to realize he wasnt the sharpest knife in the drawer, if you know what I mean.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but someone's ability to speak does not mean a hell of a lot in terms of intelligence. 

Geniuses often fail in school because they are bored.

I used to be terrified of speaking in front of large crowds and would often misspeak.  I would like to see you address the nation.

lolephant!!!!11!one!11!!

Dayamn, I thought kerry was a funny headed freak today, that class picture is fuggin hilarious!

Coming from just a little north of this debate, I wasn't surprised as to GWB winning the election. In politics, it is almost taboo that you don't change leaders in the midst of a war, unless they have had the maximum number of terms (which that rule doesn't exist in Canada, so we had Chretien for way too long).

That, coupled with the media blitzkreg that occured from both sides, it became who could deface the other the fastest. They weren't competing for the Presidency, they were competing in a popularity contest. A glorified "American Idol" contest, but the ramifications last 4 years!

This last election was the first time there has been such a heavy use of "right wing" tactics from the the democrats however. These include entertainment talk radio (Air America vs Rush Limbaugh), comic lighthearted jabbing at the Republican leadership, etc. These, and alot more funds that aren't linked to the Democratic party could turn the marketing for your vote.
If they can get behind a theme, and an image, and push that one theme for the next campain, it could have a different result.

We'll all find out starting this November. It doesn't change much for us in Canada, as we have our own leadership troubles.

whittsend wrote:

Kerry is a lying dirtbag who would sell his own mother to win an election.  Want proof?  Watch the video of him out hunting (HUNTING!) during the election, and then look at his voting record on Gun issues.

Disgraceful.

Mind you, I think GWB is a lying dirtbag too, but even so, I suspect we got the lesser of two dirtbags (it's impossible to call either one of them a good choice).

Kerry knows what's best for you.  Only an elitist like Kerry can own a gun.

topal63 wrote:

1.) What the meaning of things are: elite, liberal, etc - all just simple rhetorical ideological pills you’ve swallowed whole.

I think wannabe_tank_whore used 'elitist' perfectly.  What is ok for a 'master of the Universe' like Kerry, is not ok for common folks like us.  Kerry lives by this attitude...so does Kennedy and others.  Do you think all these wealthy Democratic Politicians send their kids to the crappy public schools they don't want you to have the tax vouchers to opt out of?  Elitism.  Read stories about Kennedy's armed guards (carrying illegal fully automatic weapons), and then look at HIS voting record on gun issues.  Elitism.

Talking about elitism...do some research on Labor laws...and then do some research on the number of them which Congress has exempted itself from.  Very sad.

whittsend wrote:

topal63 wrote:

1.) What the meaning of things are: elite, liberal, etc - all just simple rhetorical ideological pills you’ve swallowed whole.

I think wannabe_tank_whore used 'elitist' perfectly.  What is ok for a 'master of the Universe' like Kerry, is not ok for common folks like us.  Kerry lives by this attitude...so does Kennedy and others.  Do you think all these wealthy Democratic Politicians send their kids to the crappy public schools they don't want you to have the tax vouchers to opt out of?  Elitism.  Read stories about Kennedy's armed guards (carrying illegal fully automatic weapons), and then look at HIS voting record on gun issues.  Elitism.

Talking about elitism...do some research on Labor laws...and then do some research on the number of them which Congress has exempted itself from.  Very sad.

Often issues - hardly get a fair debate - in the climate of the current American political landscape. . .

It's all about false-pretenses, lobbying, sound-bytes, dumb-ing it down, pandering, etc. . .

Elite: common vernacular usage from a right-wing ideological perspective = out of touch with the common joe = pandering.

As far as being "Elite" - the truth is all of congress is "Elite" - every president is "Elite" - every super-rich person is "Elite" - all who share in holding the reigns of power are "Elite."

And each is out of touch in some form or the other once that perspective is gained.

Is G.W. a member of the Elite or the current pinnacle of such? Quoting the Bush-inator himself on the concept of the “elite” at a fund-raising dinner:
“. . . the people call you the elite…I call you my base!”

Last edited by topal63 (2006-03-14 14:02:38)