ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Kerry wasn't a president. And yes, A.B.O...especially when the other guy is infinitely more qualified and the country is in the crapper under O after 4 years as prez. But one reason he lost was because of his war record (swiftboated)... And Kerry's record is more honorable than Mitt's. Bush qualified? Obama is more qualified! LoL... Where do you think this whole "qualified" schtick got started? You conservatives have totally no shame when it comes to memory recollection. JFK - a war "hero" solidly put our azz in Vietnam. LBJ - a Naval officer in WWII ramped up that god damned abomination till over 58,000 Americans died and a few million others were !@#$ed over. Nixon - like LBJ, was a Naval commander and HE ENDED the Vietnam war. Harry Truman dropped the big one - twice. And he was a WWI vet. Yeah, it's a great predictor. You gotta be joking? You are getting nuttier than a Mormon on steriods. Not quite Jim McMahon (non-Mormon) material though... :-P I am just !@#$ing with you Nanker! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 But one reason he lost was because of his war record (swiftboated)... And Kerry's record is more honorable than Mitt's. Bush qualified? Obama is more qualified! LoL... Where do you think this whole "qualified" schtick got started? You conservatives have totally no shame when it comes to memory recollection. Kerry lost because he absolutely sucked as a candidate. To borrow a gem from our resident wise man, he had all the brains of a rock but none of the personality. He had all the charisma of a dead moth. He couldn't argue policy b/c he had nothing but a plan to have a plan. He was going to follow the Bush war plan except he was going to do it smarter. So that left him with 1 selling point - he fought in Viet Nam. And he might have pulled it off had he been a little more smooth - been the guy who casually draws attention to his Rolex by checking the time rather than the guy who keeps loudly announcing that he's wearing one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Kerry lost because he absolutely sucked as a candidate. To borrow a gem from our resident wise man, he had all the brains of a rock but none of the personality. He had all the charisma of a dead moth. He couldn't argue policy b/c he had nothing but a plan to have a plan. He was going to follow the Bush war plan except he was going to do it smarter. So that left him with 1 selling point - he fought in Viet Nam. And he might have pulled it off had he been a little more smooth - been the guy who casually draws attention to his Rolex by checking the time rather than the guy who keeps loudly announcing that he's wearing one. You're right, Kerry was terrible. He was a boring, un-charismatic, aristocratic suit who ran on the "I'm not the other guy" platform without offering any of his own plans. On that we could not agree more. I'm curious how--by this definition--Willard isn't Kerry 2.0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Kerry lost because he absolutely sucked as a candidate. To borrow a gem from our resident wise man, he had all the brains of a rock but none of the personality. He had all the charisma of a dead moth. He couldn't argue policy b/c he had nothing but a plan to have a plan. He was going to follow the Bush war plan except he was going to do it smarter. So that left him with 1 selling point - he fought in Viet Nam. And he might have pulled it off had he been a little more smooth - been the guy who casually draws attention to his Rolex by checking the time rather than the guy who keeps loudly announcing that he's wearing one. If Howard Dean doesn't "bbbbyaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!" his way out of the race, Kerry loses handily. Fortunately for John Heinz Kerry he was running against the only guy with less charisma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 If Howard Dean doesn't "bbbbyaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!" his way out of the race, Kerry loses handily. Fortunately for John Heinz Kerry he was running against the only guy with less charisma. I must be the only one who actually liked Dean more after going nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 You're right, Kerry was terrible. He was a boring, un-charismatic, aristocratic suit who ran on the "I'm not the other guy" platform without offering any of his own plans. On that we could not agree more. I'm curious how--by this definition--Willard isn't Kerry 2.0? Besides the economy not being a mess back in 2004, the deficit, unemployment, and gas prices not being sky high, Dubya not dividing the country, Romney actually having run a company, an Olympics and a state, you're right, there is no difference at all between the two. Oh wait, they are both rich, reserved white guys, so there's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I must be the only one who actually liked Dean more after going nuts. Must have been a slow news cycle... Refresh me again why it was so bad? Of course not as bad as having a horse in the Olympics... ;-) I mean God forbid, Barry sneaks out the back door of the Oval Office to have a ciggy break... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Besides the economy not being a mess back in 2004, the deficit, unemployment, and gas prices not being sky high, Dubya not dividing the country, Romney actually having run a company, an Olympics and a state, you're right, there is no difference at all between the two. Oh wait, they are both rich, reserved white guys, so there's that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGRPtOZ8PMk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 youtube.com/watch?v=YGRPtOZ8PMk There's no fiction there. Unless you were trying to compare Kerry to Lois Einhorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) You're right, Kerry was terrible. He was a boring, un-charismatic, aristocratic suit who ran on the "I'm not the other guy" platform without offering any of his own plans. On that we could not agree more. I'm curious how--by this definition--Willard isn't Kerry 2.0? I kind of get the similarities - both guys greatest strength is that he's not the other guy; neither garnered much enthusiasm from the base - but that's about where the similarities end. Romney hasn't been terribly specific, but he's offered more than a declaration of having a secret plan (and has any campaign line ever relied on the idiocy of the target audience like "I'll invest in job creation"? ). Romney has said he wants to cut corporate taxes, wants to offer stronger solidarity with Israel (which I have reservations about, but it is a discernable difference from Obama), wants to scale back social spending, and repeal Obamacare. That's four significant differences off the top of my head and I haven't really been paying that much attention to his campaign. Edited August 6, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 You're right, Kerry was terrible. He was a boring, un-charismatic, aristocratic suit who ran on the "I'm not the other guy" platform without offering any of his own plans. On that we could not agree more. I'm curious how--by this definition--Willard isn't Kerry 2.0? I'm going to go with: executive experience and knows money doesn't grow on friggin' trees. Couldn't care less about his plan, since it won't survive his hypothetical first post-election presidential briefing. Obama's didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I'm going to go with: executive experience and knows money doesn't grow on friggin' trees. Couldn't care less about his plan, since it won't survive his hypothetical first post-election presidential briefing. Obama's didn't. That's one thing you have to hand to Bush; he made good on all his campaign promises. I wish he hadn't, but he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 That's one thing you have to hand to Bush; he made good on all his campaign promises. I wish he hadn't, but he did. Except that whole "no nation building" promise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Except that whole "no nation building" promise... Yeah, that's a good point. I was referring to his positive actions like "No child left behind" and the like; every feel-good campaign compassionate-conservative "do-something" promise he made good on, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Yeah, that's a good point. I was referring to his positive actions like "No child left behind" and the like; every feel-good campaign compassionate-conservative "do-something" promise he made good on, unfortunately. True. Aids would be better off if we just did nothing. Kind of like the '08 crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I'm concerned what someone who has a hypocritical pro-war attitude but goes to great lengths fighting them (to the point of abusing his religion in avoidance) may do as president; the position with the greatest influence on what conflicts we engage in. im concerned that we have a president who wont share his grades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 im concerned that we have a president who wont share his grades im concerned that the Bills may not have a good second option at WR according to the general forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 im concerned that the Bills may not have a good second option at WR according to the general forum The Bills will be good this year. Watch out AFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Every time I see this thread title, I can't help thinking of My Lai. Joe, you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 True. Aids would be better off if we just did nothing. Kind of like the '08 crash. Dude, come on. You're smarter than that. "No Child Left Behind" and the Medicare expansion does dick **** to prevent AIDS. Issues like that are amusing insofar as the ignorance of the vocal activists is so easily exposed; just ask them how much we currently spend on <fill in cause> and how much we should be spending; the inevitable answers are not enough and more. And I've yet to hear which Dems were pushing for action that would have averted the '08 debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts