It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Anti-Kerry Banter

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 06:51 AM
Ever noticed that most people on this board rant and complain about Bush, but never Kerry? I notice that there is a ddefinite anyone but Bush thing going on here. Couple that with the obvious international flair of this site (Which is one of the best things about the site) and I see it's rather obvious that the world, whether beacuse of the nmedia or or not, is strongly anti-Bush. What is the general opinion of Kerry.

Here are a few of my thoughts.

3 purple hearts, not a day of action lost. Either coincidence or he was milking the system of medals.

Admitted to wars crimes in front of congress. What is the statute of limitations on war crimes?

Went to Paris to talk to the North Vietnamese without the consent of the U.S. Government. Odd, if not illegal.

This is a man who vacationed with Kennedy as a child, went to Yale, is a career politician who never worked in the private sector, and married well, very well, twice. Nothing wrong withany of that, but he lacks the life experience of the rest of us. (Not a great argument, most politicians don't)

Has a 20 years record as a tax and spend, cut the military democrat. And, has promised health care for 270 million people, and promised a middle class tax cut. HOw in the blue blazes can we do both. Estimates are that the health care cost will run into the trillions quickly. I have a hard enough time paying the taxes I have, I don't want to spend any more.

Just in interaction with the secret service, and in speeches, he ALWAYS thinks he is right, and nothing is his fault( I DON'T FALL DOWN, THAT BASTARD RAN INTO ME.) NOt a very good trait when dealing with international leaders.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:15 AM
well the truth is that kerry is exactly what the nation needs, if you believe that America should reduce its millitary to the size of a marchng band and have them armed with calvary sabers, turn into a socialistic workers paradise, tax anyone making over 80k a year 95%, and sell our soveriegnity to the U.N. If you believe that France and germany have Americas best interests at heart and should be allowed to make our foregn policy decisions for us, and that Iran will keep ts promise not to nuke anyone. As long as you believe all of the above then yes he is whats best for america.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:28 AM
Kerry sounds like the man the US needs!! Vote Kerry 2004 a real warrior!

mate don't you think you're overexaggerating a little?? I'm sure the US military will still be strong and maybe Kerry can protect US jobs instead of letting the capitalist exploit foreign workers and put US citizens into unemployment and early retirement.


[edit on 3-9-2004 by drfunk]

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:40 AM
Sorry, drfunk, but the "I'll bring you JOBS!!!" line is a bunch of bunk, I don't care which side is serving up that slop. There is little a president can do to effect that, other than lowering taxes. Everything from the fact that the market is so global nowadays to the fact that a private entity (federal Reserve) controls the interest rate of the non-backed federal reserve notes we use.

As far as all the Bantering being against Bush, it goes both ways here, ebbs and flows, comes and goes, etc. Personally, I'm tired of the same old retread crap over and over. I'll just be glad when the Clash of the Knuckleheads is finished. One is a loony-left Dem and the other claimed to be a conservative but has woefully missed the mark in my eyes.

It seems that every 4 years we always end up having a better selection in the next election. Does it never get any better than what we've been served up since 1988?

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:41 AM
When it comes to people in Europe I think the general thought would be that both candidates totaly are unworthy, where Bush has a proven trackrecord of dubious behaviour and decisions as a president and Kerry just looks like a total muppet with no other qualities then being a carreer politician with a load of medals that have been obtained in posibly dishonerable ways. Alot of people just laugh whenever something about the US elections is on TV.

The question then arizes again why there are only 2 candidates considered to be viable for presidency, while there are actualy 2 or more others then Bush and Kerry, in Badnariks case, pritty much represent what most people have been asking for

Multiparty systems are common here, goverments are formed by coalitions and opositions, where multiple party's together rule, with the biggest party providing the prime minister.

In the US it sometimes seems like the winning party just rules the land, with the other party being dumped in the opposition to be quiet and shut up for 4 years, untill the next election.

I know this isn't so and the lawmaking is done by a mix of elected people from several party's, but thats what it looks like to the outside world.

Also one thing imho seems a bit of is that the US president has a mandate higher then most Royal Kings and Queens in country's these days. Things like Presidential Orders for instance that can pritty much override everything.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:50 AM
I am quite aware of the candidates false truth's when it comes to many issues. They just simply promise the world to the working class and never deliver. That is why i used "maybe". I still have hope.

But I am convinced Kerry is the only man who can kick the Bush Administration out of the white house. Nobody else can do it in 2004. So he gets my support.


posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:51 AM
Quoted, in reference to ATS.
What I used to like? People used to offer up arguments that, after weighing them against the data & links other posters provided, added something new or they had the sense of adding something linked to a valid reference source.
That's not done anymore, as evidenced by this drivel; either posted after no reading of the sanitized political issues forum or deliberately ignorant of all things already refuted.
So I guess the impetus is to make this into a mirror Free Republic site with International users, huh?

That's my favorite too, my good DrFunkenstein, like our military will be decimated under Kerry!

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:20 AM
You know, I guess the real reality is that, despite everything that candidates promise, they really have no power to enact those promises. Perhaps those men 200 years ago really did have vision.

No matter who wins, we can all take solace in the fact that no president can do anything without the approval of congress, and neither can do anything that the supreme court views as unlawfull. This inability to radically change keeps the status quo, for good reasons and bad.

Kerry won't create jobs and strip the military, and Bush won't suspend the constitution and the elections..Why? because they can't do it alone, and there will always be detractors to radical change in congress, who benefits from the status quo more than anyone.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:39 AM

Originally posted by soulforge
Kerry won't create jobs and strip the military, and Bush won't suspend the constitution and the elections..Why? because they can't do it alone, and there will always be detractors to radical change in congress, who benefits from the status quo more than anyone.

Right and wrong.

All the FEAR KERRY stuff is pointless as you point out because we have a system of checks and balances in this country.

As for FEAR BUSH? That's dead on when your party controls everything. TOO MUCH POWER.

People used to have the good sense to vote deadlock and MAKE PEOPLE COMPROMISE. Not lately.

The only candidate to "fear" is the one who's party controls everything. That makes him a King, not President.

Either way I pray it works out. If Bush does get re-elected, we'll have to throw some Republican bums out of the house. No more "choirs" in Congress. That's BS.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:51 AM
I don't fear whoever's party runs things because there is a time limit. At most you'll have to put up with 8 years of the leader and since the congress and senate change regularly as well, it means nobody has complete total power for any length of time. No matter how bad it gets, there will be another election, another president, another senator. They all promise things, they rarely deliver on any of it, and they all lie. And they all seem to be rich. I think THAT'S the problem. It's always rich white guys in the Whitehouse. Always either from one party or the other. For anything to really get shaken up, there has to be a big change in our options. It reminds me of the joke of a restaurant being "fancy" if it has BOTH kinds of wine... white AND red. We need a much bigger menu to choose from and more people who are willing to stray from The Devil(s) They Know.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:18 PM
When the democrats had the presidency and both houses of congress it wasn't too much power on their side? Roosevelt and 16 years anyone? Oh, and you need AT LEAST 60 to pass anything in the senate? Ask any bush judge appointee. Additionally, most presidential bills end up so morphed but congress by the time they pass thaty the are usually very dissimilar the original intents. good old gridlock....

At worst, he is a king with either 4 more months or 4 more years. And modern kings can't do anything anyways, because of the law, upheld by the court.

Or does he have control of that?

Anyways, that is what elections are all about. If the majority of the people don't want all that power in the hands of the republicans, then it will be taken away.

new topics

top topics


log in