The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

An Observation: Kerry's Nicer than His Fans

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 · >>
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#1New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 16:44:07
*WARNING*: The following is PURELY opinion! 8)

Being the right-wing conservative nut I am, I'm anti-Kerry politically, but beyond that, I have to say, he seems like a pretty nice guy. Ironic, as everyone under him seems meaner than he is!

I think one of the debates last week demonstrated this beautifully. Bush and Kerry gave a very hot debate, with each candidate making some pretty huge claims against the other and pointing some very firm fingers at each other. Despite that, the closing of the debate really fascinated me.

First, the debate ends, and Kerry's "attack" demeanor suddenly loosens as he takes on a comfortable smile, then proceedes to thank everyone for their part in the debate, including the President specifically.

What stood out to me most is that Kerry shows Bush more respect than Kerry supporters do. He acknowledged that his opponent is of strong character, and that the real issue is that they simply disagree on what's right. He doesn't call Bush "evil" or "shady", just says he sees things a different way, and notes that he respects his resolve in following that viewpoint.

So then Bush gets up, and also thanks everyone for the debate, adding that it was "fun".

What happens next? The two candidates approach not once, but twice (so eager to do so they have to step aside to stop blocking the teleprompter) to shake hands with smiles, and the second time Bush even whispers something at Kerry. The two seem pretty darn relaxed and happy to me.

So tell me, why is it those two can at least get along, but no one else below them can?! That's what I like to see: two vehement opponents who are at each other's throats on the political battlefield, but kind and friendly to each other once off of it. Unfortunatley, most people can't do that, as modern politics today is full of hatred and spite, and I find that rather sad. I think a lot of Kerry supporters would do well to emulate their leader a little closer, and maybe some of us "Bus***es" would do well to do the same.

Meanwhile, the bitter attack ads, some of which (on both sides) seem a bit misleading, are much worse -- but keep in mind, these are the products of campaign managers, not the candidates themselves. Bush and Kerry don't write them, they just "approve this message".

So when are people gonna learn to fight hard in politics without getting so full of hatred for the other side over it? Why is it we can't have "fun" like our own candidates can?

When I listen to Kerry supporters, I hear a bunch of nonsense, usually. When I listen to Kerry himself, however, usually I understand where he's coming from, I just disagree. Really, the guy's got some good ideas and values, I just think he's going about them the wrong way -- but at least he knows how to express them. Once he stops filp-flopping and actually says something grounded, you find that underneath it all, the guy's really got something he believes in. I just think Bush has a better grip on the what and how of it all.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#2New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 16:56:54
Quote:
two vehement opponents who are at each other's throats on the political battlefield


I would like to view us as such. I present my perspective and thats all it is. I share the same perspective witheveryone, and strive to be consistant. I am in the process of realizing what I believe. This site is helping me to put into words how I feel. I am sorry that this format presents no emotion, or personal immediate interaction. If it did you would find me quite jovial and contentious at the same time. I am also trying to keep my post down to a size that "sin" would read, though it isn't working to well.

If we were running for office and in front of live TV we would both be nice, or we would lose. Here its just words. Nothing here is to dissuade your opinion.
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#3New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 17:09:31
I agree. What I tend to use these forums for is to give the other side at least an understanding of where my side is coming from. I think one of the biggest issues is that we get labelled "right wing nuts" before anyone really stops to think what we think and why we think it. Forums like this give us a chance to lay it out there. Though you might not sway anyone, you can at least help them understood your view better.

For instance, I can't STAND Michael Moore or Ted Kennedy, but I can put up with John Kerry. I resent those who label Bush as evil, as I don't see Kerry as evil. I think he has strong convictions but weak leadership ability, and I think the presidency would eat him alive. But I respect the man and his resolve, and at least he has a strong belief. I think he's a much, much better candidate than Clinton or Gore ever was.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#4New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 17:16:30
I want to assure you that i don't view bush as evil. I don't believe I have ever dropped that hint. I do however disagree with his conservative views. Iran is a conservative nation. I don't like them either.
To me Bush is dangerous, because he believes himself to be right all the time. his ideology is not mine. Beyond of course the desire for a strong safe america. I know he wants to protect our country, but i differ from him in the approach. He courts the UN on one hand and defies it on the other. To me he forever discredited the UN. That should not have happened. Nations should not have the right to form a coalition and do whatever. Why do i feel that we should respect the UN? Because we want everone to respect the UN.

also i don't label you. never have. nor am i a left wing nut(i can introduce you to some) They are cousins to crazy.

the statement about bush being better than clinton. HAHA.
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#5New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 17:22:04
See? Now I'm cool with that. This is more of what a real solid debate should look like, IMHO.

And my statement was that KERRY is better than Clinton.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#6New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 18:09:36
lol, i still like clinton better.
brandonmacdonald On October 15, 2004




#7New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 22:05:58
Ahhh, Clinton, why could it have not just gone on....?

First, I'll do the Kerry vs. Clinton vs. Bush thing, then come back to who's "meaner" (hint: it's Cheney).

Kerry, as much as we all know - kidding, obviously, James, you don't know just yet - that Bush needs to be out of the whitehouse and he desperately needs to take his band of thugs with him, it's difficult to say whether he will be able to change America too much for the better after the ransacking Bush has given its image.

He'll be able to roll back the tax cuts that Bush still can't seem to explain - mmmm, yeah, those tax breaks for people outsourcing jobs has done f***ing wonders for job creation (data's in folks: first president in 7 decades to lose jobs during his presidency) - and he may be able to regain some of the stature that 'Merka of old used to sustain, even with its foreign policy debacles, but, truly, Bush has f***ed you guys into a hole so deep and so profound it may take more than a Kerry to save it. If he comes in, he won't be able to sway an international coalition into Iraq, face facts. He may be able to do something about the amount of money flowing into America through reconstruction, and with it he might intice other countries to bear some of the burden in-country (While I'm on it, Cheney and Bush touting the Coalition of the Willing is f***ing bogus. Like Kerry said, if Missouri's military counted as a country, it would be the third largest operating in Iraq. How much is the Afgani Army contributing, Mr Cheney? And Denmark's submarine? How is that working out?) the way America used to instead of hogging all the profits to itself. The list is too long, and the mistakes too large to just be swept under the rug by switching to someone whose public character has been degraded with lies the way Kerry's has will allow - yes, lies like taxing small business owners and voting 98 times to raise taxes. These are outright lies, and, again, the need that I need to repeat them as your nations' news companies (maybe that's the problem, news is trying to sell itself!) have yet to run them up the flag pole alongside countless other Bush travesties and falsehoods is unsetlling to say the least. These numbers that your republicans are often touting are complete fabrications, as in those 98 votes, nearly two dozen were repeated votes on identical legislation that was run through more than once. Voting twice for the same thing counts as two separate votes, now does it? I wonder how many times Cheney voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. Taxing small businesses, like Mr Bush's small holding in a lumber company... of course it's true, don't let the Commander and Theif's dimwitted expression tell you otherwise.

What Clinton managed to do was unprecidented in your nation's history. He managed to deliver the material possessions Americans will not live without - oil, for instance - and did it in a way that didn't tarnish America's accountability on the world stage. Did he alienate and destroy the United Nations' credibility? No, he allowed a masacre in East Timor instead. Did he lie about a man he used to do business with, assemble all of his friends and give them jobs that would allow them an inside seat on some of the most lucrative business deals in modern history and misrdirect an outpouring of global sympathy as well as domestic presidential trust during a time of need into an excuse to control the 2nd largest oil reserves on the planet while at home re-regulating what it means to be a "small vehicle" or how many toxins companies are allowed to dump into the atmosphere before penalty? No, he created jobs, balanced the budget, disarmed one of the worst offenders toward humanity without putting a f***ing man on the ground in Kosavo - none of which Bush II comes close to accomplishing in his ridiculous economic and military failures - and banged his intern, something you'll find has a long history in the whitehouse if you'll read some of what your forefathers were doing. Not to mention Kennedy, though his b****es were better looking (that is forgetting of course, that Kennedy, widely perceived as the greatest American president by some 90% of the world is seen as a total failure to conservatives tuning into Rush Limbaugh's pain-pill soaring diatribes).

As for meaner.... The straight-facedness with which the BushCheney administration lies is horrifying, though this, I suppose techincally isn't being "mean."

From "The first time I met you, Senator, was when you walked on this stage tonight," to "He's going to raise taxes on 98% of small business owners," these guys peel off outright untruthes like their livesjobs depended on it.... oh.

Kerry's attacks... What? Hold on, I'm not done with the distortion practiced by his opponents:

Telling Americans that they will be attacked if they elect Kerry is not only fear mongering bulls*** that should be stricken from any public consciousness and filed under the lunacy that has become stock and trade under Bush. "He has weapons." "Weapons." "Weapons." "Bulletproof intelligence." "We know he has weapons." "They might reach the US."

"What are you talking about? We never said he had weapons! We said he had gassed his own people with our concent in the 80's right before Rummy went on a diplomatic visit with my dad! We said he was evil. I don't recall ever saying he had weapons!" Unless you think it's funny, of course: "Are there weapons under my podium? Nope, guess I haven't looked everywhere..."

Hilarious that the view Bush and Co. presented to the world more than a year ago, the very lie that has cost your country more than a thousand of its best and bravest, is now fodder for jokes in the Republican Administration.

Who's meaner? Are you out of your mind?

Kerry, I admit, tries to stay civil, even when Bush is lying through his teeth on national TV. His supporters should be jumping up and down when Bush says, "Senator Kennedy has done blah blah blah..." Dude, you're debating Kerry, pay attention! Kerry has got to keep a straight face and fight clean, even though the Republicans do nothing of the sort - "The Mission Accomplished banner was made by men aboard the ship. The White House had nothing to do with it." Ten minutes later: "Check that. Sure, we brought it, hung it, and made sure it was over Bush's shoulder the whole time he was on deck." - lest he be painted in some other false way. His supporters aren't fearing a smear campaign against themselves, because Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner - responsible for 90% of the news you guys watch - have bigger fish to fry, like keeping their friend W in office.
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#8New Post! Oct 14, 2004 @ 15:59:01
So, if you were such a purist with truth, you'd be supporting NEITHER candidate. Facts have already disproved statements from both candidates. And Clinton -- uproarious laughter -- don't even get me started on him, one of the most corrupt politicians of modern history. Clinton's thugs made Bush's "thugs" look like the Brady Bunch. Thank God Kerry's at least a drastic improvement over the man with the compassionate smile and blood trail behind him a mile wide -- thankfully, Kerry's actually got values.

Of course, from Canada, I'm sure you're not familiar with the Clinton of his governor years and the mysterious chain of deaths of everyone that opposed him. He got a little nicer once he was in the White House.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#9New Post! Oct 14, 2004 @ 16:06:39
Its not about the fact that they lie. We know that. Hell everyone one of us lie or speed or do something wrong. Its about leading the world instead of isolating our country. Its about the fact that things are not better today. Look at the market, blame the oil, blame china, or the war, or the real terrorists, look at healthcare and tuition, and don't forget the deficit. Dude we have a massive deficit and are beginning to raise interest rates. Thats a desperation sign to me. Hell both of those guys owe favors. So would nader, and the clintons(they may get two shots).
Its about changing the way the world views US, because it really does matter.
brandonmacdonald On October 15, 2004




#10New Post! Oct 14, 2004 @ 16:27:44
Ah, yes, well, of course Kerry is so saint either. If elected, he will become the president of the United States, a job that more or less forces you to check most of your scruples at the door. Like I said here or elsewhere, Clinton did some horrible s*** to keep the American people living at the level they're accostomed to.

The fact that Bush and his cronies would go above and beyond this stature and do so with such overwhelming opposition in the world is baffling. Most of what comes out of any of their mouths is.

Like we were saying, about Bush mentioning the article in which Kerry was misrepresented. It's been on the front of the news for three days. We all know he was misrepresented. What does Bush do in the first five minutes of the debate? Mention it in the false light and ask Kerry to defend it. Shameless...

Anyway, yes, James, even in Canada we are familiar with the legacy of Clinton's years as governor. We are also familar with the tactics of the Republican party used over more than a decade to get Clinton into a situation like the impeachment (which isn't to say they stuck the cigar in Monica, only that they had a burr up their a** from loooong ago).

He's killing people, yadda yadda yadda.... prove it. Breezily mentioning something like that is pretty heady stuff. You have to wonder why no major publication or person with a speck of credibility has touched it...

Like you wanting to know more about this alleged "Oil" in Iraq, I'd be very willing to hear some evidence on the Clinton front.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#11New Post! Nov 01, 2004 @ 21:50:05
this thread is complete crap. all you have to do to disprove it is drive around with bush sign for a little while and then drive around with a kerry sign.

I bet you get flipped off by the bush supporters.
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#12New Post! Nov 03, 2004 @ 00:38:09
Ha ha, no, I don't care to prove it here on the forums. Heck, I had my fill of that crap back in the 90's. No sense in dragging that back out, what's come and gone has come and gone. Besides, we're going off topic.

And jeoin -- What in the WORLD are you talking about? :D
harry_valentine On December 06, 2004




Little Rock, Arkansas
#13New Post! Nov 05, 2004 @ 19:22:12
Quote:
.....administration lies.....

And what is even funnier now is that Bush won and foreign opinion doesn't do a damn thing but piss people off. Lovely country I live in AIN'T IT? You must have been loath in the news of Bush's re-election. Seeing that a large majority of the electoral votes were allocated to Bush and that Bush won the popular vote on top of that, and that it would go uncontested (whether you care about this doesn't matter becuase of the margin of victory for Bush) must have, for a second, frustrated you. I'm not implying that you lost sleep over it or even watched the election at home, but that, just for a moment, it frustrated you.

As far as the Lies are concerned you have heard and believed them all. Conjecture and conspirecy theories created in the Church of St. Micheal Moore (to quote your favorite air personality) and the general media that was once the dominant voice of airtime OPINION (still a contributing factor to Canadian ignorance) that were speciffically crafted to discourage the support of an enemy, whomever it may be at the time. I pity you in your ignorance, you helpless skinbag of mis- and disinformation
cheguevara On February 15, 2005




#14New Post! Nov 05, 2004 @ 20:35:53
Quote:
Quote:
.....administration lies.....

And what is even funnier now is that Bush won and foreign opinion doesn't do a damn thing but piss people off.


What is even funnier is that foreign opinion never mattered. Why should it? The United States never cared about how its political choices would affect the rest of the world (namely, the Cold war, the massive support of every dictatorships in South America, the Kyoto Protocol which still isn't signed to this day, the USA's refusal to lower the price of the AIDS tritherapy, etc).

So no wonder the foreign opinion is pissed off. And no wonder the more pissed off they are, the more the USA don't listen to them.

These elections were about domestic issues and private beliefs and uncontrolled fear (and uncontrolled media), but I am sure that in the eyes of the rest of the world, the result were seen as a big 'f*** you' coming from Middle America.

But hey, why should the USA care anyway, about this and that and 'Canadian ignorance'... It's not like the US need them other countries, right.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#15New Post! Nov 05, 2004 @ 20:50:30
Quote:
It's not like the US need them other countries, right.


Anyone remember Eisenhower and NATO?

The US and Reagan did not destroy communism alone. But who cares.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Fri Jul 20, 2012 @ 19:26
0 487
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Fri Jul 20, 2012 @ 19:16
0 502
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Fri Jul 20, 2012 @ 19:39
2 960
New posts   Politics
Thu Nov 02, 2006 @ 19:05
28 1446
New posts   Politics
Fri Oct 29, 2004 @ 06:02
6 682