Kerry? What?

you know, vietnam is over…
who honestly gives a shit about what kerry did in that fucking war 30 years ago?
what about his time in office as governer? or isn;t there anything reputable to complain about?

bla bla bla

fuck bush, end of story.

[quote]zhavas wrote:
what about his time in office as governer?
[/quote]

wha??? Ok, I’m going to vote for the dufus, but I at least know who the fuck he is and what he’s been doing for the last 20 or so years.

We can agree on this point.

[quote]zhavas wrote:
you know, vietnam is over…
who honestly gives a shit about what kerry did in that fucking war 30 years ago?
what about his time in office as governer? [/quote]

Pure gold.

Democrats summed up in a single, short post.

Err…It wasn’t the Republicans who constantly refered to what he did 30 years ago, it was Kerry who started all that; seemed pretty obvious even to me until I saw this post. And as for his years as a politician, I don’t think even he knows what he’s supporting and what he isn’t: “I voted for it, before I voted against it.”

zhavas, tme,

Thanks, your posts on this thread are very illuminating.

I appreciate you living up to most of the worst of the Democratic sterotypes.

Thanks again!!!

JeffR

[quote]zhavas wrote:
what about his time in office as governer? or isn;t there anything reputable to complain about?
[/quote]

uhhhhhhhhhhhh Kerry was a Senator

Kerry was Lieutenant Governor, but never Governor. By the way I think he was Lieutenant Governor under Governor Dukakis. You remember Dukakais, he was the one who ran for President and lost to someone named George Bush! In fact, he only won eight states.

America is not to inclined to vote for an eastern liberal for President.

John Kerry is a moderate, somewhat along the lines of a John F. Kennedy.

You may remember him ZEB, he’s one of our most beloved presidents of all time.

Lumpy:

Yes, actually I do remember John Kennedy. He was strong on defense (wanting to up defense spending at the time). He was also for tax cuts. Did you know that Lumpy? He was not a liberal as far as todays standards go. Do you think that in 1960 John Kennedy would have been for abortion on demand for 14 year old girls without parental consent? Do you think he would have favored gay marriage? Haha, think again!

John Kerry on the other hand is no moderate by any standard. He has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate! Did you know that? He and Ted Kennedy (who is quite liberal) are very close in their voting. Check it out!

Furthermore, Kerry will not be elected President as the next wave of republican adds hit and show him to be the liberal that he is! And that my friend is one reason that he talked about his war record and not his voting record at the democratic convention!

Lumpy,

Was John Kennedy one of the most beloved Presidents during his lifetime?

The answer to that question is no.

After the trauma of assassination and Vietnam, people looked back with more fondness on what could have been. I can’t cite the exact numbers, but I believe that there was a survey done in the 70’s that stated that approximately 80% of the peole claimed to have voted for JFK in 1960. He won by a razor sharp margin in 1960 and wasn’t even close to garnering 80% of the vote.

Please make your remarks and comparisions in context. With the “you know who” cut and paste job earning your approbation, this advice takes on an extra significance for you.

Thanks,

JeffR

[quote]doogie wrote:
zhavas wrote:
you know, vietnam is over…
who honestly gives a shit about what kerry did in that fucking war 30 years ago?
what about his time in office as governer?

Pure gold.

Democrats summed up in a single, short post.[/quote]

That’s like me saying that Republicans can be summed up by any of RangerTabs posts (remember him?). You wouldn’t want to be associated with his thoughts, would you?

Eh, what am I talking about, it’s the same as saying all Republican’s can be summed up by ZEB’s, or Doogie’s, or JeffR’s, or hedo’s posts…all equally extreme and ridiculous at times!

what makes them less likely to vote for a northeastern liberal than for a southern governor–be it Texas or Arkansas (oh, wait, they didn’t vote for the one from Texas)?

And what qualifies you to judge what America is inclined to vote for?

Second terms are not strong elections for Republicans!

I love my RSU!!! He wrote: “Second terms are not strong elections for Republicans!”

My obvious next comment is: And they are for Democrats?

If memory serves, the only Democrat to be elected to a second term since Truman, is Clinton.

In that time, Nixon won twice (unfortunately), Ike won twice, and Reagan won twice. Unless my math is wrong, that’s three to one.

I don’t think anyone would call LBJ’s ascension to the Presidency on November 22nd, 1963 as a first term. He certainly was going to be whipped in '68 trying to run for his second elected term.

Or if you like we can go back to the turn of the last century (if you can). Or since Lincoln won the Presidency.

I’m up for it (off the top of my head) if you are.

By the way, how many degrees do you keep saying you’ve earned?

Thanks,

JeffR

RSU wrote:
“Eh, what am I talking about, it’s the same as saying all Republican’s can be summed up by ZEB’s, or Doogie’s, or JeffR’s, or hedo’s posts…all equally extreme and ridiculous at times!”

Extreme and ridiculous!!! Well I never?!? Ok, I’ve been called that before. Always in the context of winning arguments against liberals. When they run out of facts, the name calling starts in earnest.

Wait, there is something very familiar about this, RSU.

Thanks for the compliments!!!

JeffR

Oh, is there a democratic president running for a second term right now?

Get with the program already.

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
America is not to inclined to vote for an eastern liberal for President.

what makes them less likely to vote for a northeastern liberal than for a southern governor–be it Texas or Arkansas (oh, wait, they didn’t vote for the one from Texas)?

And what qualifies you to judge what America is inclined to vote for?

Second terms are not strong elections for Republicans!

[/quote]

RSU:

If you had just a tad more experience in life you might just realize that the last Northeasterner to be elected to the Presidency was John Kennedy in 1960. That would be forty four years ago.

Shall we take a look at who was elected after that, and where they were from? Johnson-texas; Nixon-CA; Ford-Mich. (but he was appointed so he does not count); Carter-Georgia; Reagen-CA.; Bush-CT, but also known as a Texan. Clinton, Arkansas; G.W. Bush-Texas.

There you have it son! That would be eight straight Presidents. Not one of them is a Northeastern liberal. We can now discuss why this has occurred, or we could save that for another lesson…I mean post.

As for your other comment about second terms not being strong elections for republicans, I think Jeff pretty much pointed out how wrong you are with that one. However, I cannot help but to further clarify: Eisenhower two term President. Nixon Two term President. Reagen two term president. All republican Presidents who were reelected to two terms, and might I add two of the three were elected by landslides! The third one a convincing win.

Democratic President Harry Truman was reelected to a second term. However, he was not elected to his first term as FDR died 83 days into his term in office. Hence, then Vice President Truman became President Truman.

In reality the only democrat in recent times to be elected to two terms was Bill Clinton, who incidentally did not recieve 50% of the vote either time as there was a third party candidate by the name of Ross Perot.

Therefore, contrary to your erroneous assuptions, and in fact history, republican George W. Bush has an excellent chance of being reelected.

Now shut off your computer right now and go crack a history book or two. Oh…and stop listening to those liberal professors. They have steered you wrong once again!