The Kerry Effect

[Unkotare]

Clinton won his first term because of Ross Perot.

 

[kaz]

War crimes. Real War Crimes. Unfortunately there's no one except ourselves to police ourselves.

Which is why the crimes in Vietnam got a free pass.

Unless you hold that genocide, rape and other atrocities didn't occur.

The world knows they did. You would be in a minority. Even in this country.

So our choices are war crimes were committed constantly by everyone or they didn't occur. Another typical sheep post by a devotee of the Holy Church of the Democratic Party.

 

[Unkotare]

Unless you hold that genocide, rape and other atrocities didn't occur.

The world knows they did. You would be in a minority. Even in this country.

Hey Swallow, did every US serviceman who served in the Vietnam War commit atrocities? Did they, you dishonest fuck? How about a majority? Did a majority? No? How many? What percentage? Do you think that maybe it was a minority of the men who served, asshat? Do you think that the majority of servicemen who managed to make it back from that terrible experience appreciate being cast in the same lot as the few who commited crimes just so some douchebag could advance his political career? What do you think?

There are bank robbers, drug dealers, and rapists in the town where you work. Would you appreciate even the suggestion that that makes you a bank robbing, drug dealing rapist? No? What if the guilt by association was cast upon you for the sake of some privileged douchebag's political ambitions? Would that make you feel better about it?

Fuck off.

Listen you fucking faggot. No swallow. I don't let guys suck my dick. Even a stupid fucking flaming glam queer like yourself should appreciate that. So suck it up you little fucking quiffter. Take your hot pants and shimmy somewhere else.

I am sure there a plenty of other fucking faggots out there that would appreciate a good suck from ya. So be a good little conservative and do a wide stance in a public bathroom.

Just make sure the guy standing next to ya..ain't a cop.

No sale, Swallow. Go troll for dates somewhere else. This is not the place for your sort to look for customers.

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan and Clinton were very strong candidates who connected to both Democrat and Republican voters.

The presumption that a president can't win reelection in a weak economy isn't so. Nixon in 1972, Roosevelt in 1936, McKinley in 1900, Maidison in 1812, and Jefferson in 1804 all won reelection in recessions and depressions. Even in a recession, it takes a strong candidate to beat the incumbent.

Nixon didn't have a weak economy in 1972. The unemployment rate was 5.6%, which was worse than when he got in but not horrible.

I took apart your argument about 1936 a couple pages back.

The economy in 1900 was booming. McKinley ran on a platform of "Four More years and a full dinner pail". (Yup, people ate out of pails back in the oldy days.)
McKinley's biggest problem in 1900 was that the War in the Philippines was turning into another Iraq. (Hey, bet most people didn't even know we FOUGHT a war in the Philippines.)

1812- Well, there was a war going on. The "War of 1812" because they couldn't come up with anything more imaginative to call it. They weren't going to vote out a president in the middle of a war.

1804 was also a period of economic boom, and it was a time when only the landed white males could vote. there was a lull in the European Wars, and the new US benefited greatly from trade and the acquisition of Louisiana.


Now, for presidents who got voted out for shitty economies...

George HW Bush
Jimmy Carter
Gerald Ford
Herbert Hoover - The Great Depression
Benjamin Harrison - due to the McKinley Tariff
Grover Cleveland
Martin Van Buren and the Panic of 1837
John Quincy Adams

 

[Sallow]

Hey Swallow, did every US serviceman who served in the Vietnam War commit atrocities? Did they, you dishonest fuck? How about a majority? Did a majority? No? How many? What percentage? Do you think that maybe it was a minority of the men who served, asshat? Do you think that the majority of servicemen who managed to make it back from that terrible experience appreciate being cast in the same lot as the few who commited crimes just so some douchebag could advance his political career? What do you think?

There are bank robbers, drug dealers, and rapists in the town where you work. Would you appreciate even the suggestion that that makes you a bank robbing, drug dealing rapist? No? What if the guilt by association was cast upon you for the sake of some privileged douchebag's political ambitions? Would that make you feel better about it?

Fuck off.

Listen you fucking faggot. No swallow. I don't let guys suck my dick. Even a stupid fucking flaming glam queer like yourself should appreciate that. So suck it up you little fucking quiffter. Take your hot pants and shimmy somewhere else.

I am sure there a plenty of other fucking faggots out there that would appreciate a good suck from ya. So be a good little conservative and do a wide stance in a public bathroom.

Just make sure the guy standing next to ya..ain't a cop.

No sale, Swallow. Go troll for dates somewhere else. This is not the place for your sort to look for customers.

I ain't trolling for dates..you are the fucking faggot boy asking for a swallow you little asshole.

You're the flamer.

Go peddle your cum gargling skills elsewhere, dick smoker.

 

[Sallow]

War crimes. Real War Crimes. Unfortunately there's no one except ourselves to police ourselves.

Which is why the crimes in Vietnam got a free pass.

Unless you hold that genocide, rape and other atrocities didn't occur.

The world knows they did. You would be in a minority. Even in this country.

So our choices are war crimes were committed constantly by everyone or they didn't occur. Another typical sheep post by a devotee of the Holy Church of the Democratic Party.

It's simple enough.

Don't attack countries that don't attack you.

How hard is that?

 

[JoeB131]

No sale, Swallow. Go troll for dates somewhere else. This is not the place for your sort to look for customers.

I ain't trolling for dates..you are the fucking faggot boy asking for a swallow you little asshole.

You're the flamer.

Go peddle your cum gargling skills elsewhere, dick smoker.

Has it occurred to you to get a better screen name rather than going right up the flew every time someone points out that Sallow sounds like Swallow?

Get rid of that awful avi, too. It's freaking ugly.

 

[JoeB131]

War crimes. Real War Crimes. Unfortunately there's no one except ourselves to police ourselves.

Which is why the crimes in Vietnam got a free pass.

Unless you hold that genocide, rape and other atrocities didn't occur.

The world knows they did. You would be in a minority. Even in this country.

So our choices are war crimes were committed constantly by everyone or they didn't occur. Another typical sheep post by a devotee of the Holy Church of the Democratic Party.

It's simple enough.

Don't attack countries that don't attack you.

How hard is that?

We didn't attack Vietnam, we were invited in by one side in a civil war.

Not the same thing at all.

The rational behind Vietnam was if the commies won, they would do horrible things to the people over there.

Well guess what. The Commies won. They did horrible things to the people over there. The Boat people and the Killing Fields and the Re-education Camps.

But you guys are still carping about Mai Lai, even though Rusty Calley went to prison.

 

[Flopper]

Reagan and Clinton were very strong candidates who connected to both Democrat and Republican voters.

The presumption that a president can't win reelection in a weak economy isn't so. Nixon in 1972, Roosevelt in 1936, McKinley in 1900, Maidison in 1812, and Jefferson in 1804 all won reelection in recessions and depressions. Even in a recession, it takes a strong candidate to beat the incumbent.

Nixon didn't have a weak economy in 1972. The unemployment rate was 5.6%, which was worse than when he got in but not horrible.

I took apart your argument about 1936 a couple pages back.

The economy in 1900 was booming. McKinley ran on a platform of "Four More years and a full dinner pail". (Yup, people ate out of pails back in the oldy days.)
McKinley's biggest problem in 1900 was that the War in the Philippines was turning into another Iraq. (Hey, bet most people didn't even know we FOUGHT a war in the Philippines.)

1812- Well, there was a war going on. The "War of 1812" because they couldn't come up with anything more imaginative to call it. They weren't going to vote out a president in the middle of a war.

1804 was also a period of economic boom, and it was a time when only the landed white males could vote. there was a lull in the European Wars, and the new US benefited greatly from trade and the acquisition of Louisiana.


Now, for presidents who got voted out for shitty economies...

George HW Bush
Jimmy Carter
Gerald Ford
Herbert Hoover - The Great Depression
Benjamin Harrison - due to the McKinley Tariff
Grover Cleveland
Martin Van Buren and the Panic of 1837
John Quincy Adams

The primary reason Gerald Ford loss the election was because he supported Nixon and pardoned him. Cartier's strategy was to link Ford to Nixon and to present himself as a Christian that would bring morality back to the Whitehorse. The economy was never a major issue in the campaign.

During most of McKinnley first term, 1896-99 his administration was plagued with economic problems, the panic of 1896 and the recession of 1899. The booming economy never made it's way to working man. Times were not particular good yet he was able to win with very little campaigning.

John Qunicy Adams lost the election of 1828 because of his party's accusations of bigamy lodged against Rachel Jackson. It had nothing to do with the economy.

If you think a weak candidate can win the election, nominate one and we'll see. You certainly have a number of choices.

 

[JoeB131]

The primary reason Gerald Ford loss the election was because he supported Nixon and pardoned him. Cartier's strategy was to link Ford to Nixon and to present himself as a Christian that would bring morality back to the Whitehorse. The economy was never a major issue in the campaign.

There were a whole lot of reasons behind Ford's loss, not the least of which he had no real constituency to start with. Despite that, he only BARELY got edged out by Carter. but the 7.4% unemployment rate he was sporting didn't help.

During most of McKinnley first term, 1896-99 his administration was plagued with economic problems, the panic of 1896 and the recession of 1899. The booming economy never made it's way to working man. Times were not particular good yet he was able to win with very little campaigning.

Actuall, many historians don't even count the 1899 recession as an actual recession. And again, the "Full Lunch Pail" slogan resonated quite a bit with the working man, who rejected Christian Populist William Jenning Bryan.

John Qunicy Adams lost the election of 1828 because of his party's accusations of bigamy lodged against Rachel Jackson. It had nothing to do with the economy.

There was still a recession.

If you think a weak candidate can win the election, nominate one and we'll see. You certainly have a number of choices.

Actually, I think most of the candidates have stronger resumes than the Community Organizer does.

 

[NGSamson]

No sale, Swallow. Go troll for dates somewhere else. This is not the place for your sort to look for customers.

I ain't trolling for dates..you are the fucking faggot boy asking for a swallow you little asshole.

You're the flamer.

Go peddle your cum gargling skills elsewhere, dick smoker.

Has it occurred to you to get a better screen name rather than going right up the flew every time someone points out that Sallow sounds like Swallow?

Get rid of that awful avi, too. It's freaking ugly.

Maybe he should copy yours. Copying things works for you right ?

 

[JoeB131]

You must be a sad and lonely boy to follow me around..

 

[NGSamson]

See any good movies lately ?

 

[Unkotare]

Listen you fucking faggot. No swallow. I don't let guys suck my dick. Even a stupid fucking flaming glam queer like yourself should appreciate that. So suck it up you little fucking quiffter. Take your hot pants and shimmy somewhere else.

I am sure there a plenty of other fucking faggots out there that would appreciate a good suck from ya. So be a good little conservative and do a wide stance in a public bathroom.

Just make sure the guy standing next to ya..ain't a cop.

No sale, Swallow. Go troll for dates somewhere else. This is not the place for your sort to look for customers.

I ain't trolling for dates...

Really Swallow? No one believes that, Swallow. Take your 'tricks' elsewhere, Swallow.

 

[The Rabbi]

No sale, Swallow. Go troll for dates somewhere else. This is not the place for your sort to look for customers.

I ain't trolling for dates...

Really Swallow? No one believes that, Swallow. Take your 'tricks' elsewhere, Swallow.

It's entirely believable. He wants paying customers.

 

[Unkotare]

[

It's simple enough.

Don't attack countries that don't attack you.

How hard is that?

Yeah, just close your eyes and pretend nothing is wrong until the Germans roll into Paris, or some fuckers crash jetliners into skyscrapers, right? Is that the brilliant theory, Swallow?

F U

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

What specifically did the Swift Boat guys say that wasn't true, exactly? .

The Fact is they never proved anything the Swift Boaters were saying was lies. Not once, They just think now almost 8 years later they can get away with dismissing them as liars and blaming Kerry not responding to them on his loss.

Just another Example of Liberals having a real time living with in reality.

I have a buddy that served on a swift boat in Nam. He wasn't on Kerry's boat, but he knew him and hung out with Kerry's men. His only personal comment about Kerry was that he was pretty self absorbed. He confirms what has been said about him. Hearsay, yes, but good enough for me.

This is an aspect of navy life that the Kerry apologists in the media simply refused to bring to light during the campaign: John Kerry did not live with his crew. Nope, he lived in the officer’s barracks and his men lived in the enlisted barracks.

The navy enforces strict segregation between officers and crew. So, except for the hours they are actually on duty together, there is virtually no fraternization between the two groups. They even eat their meals in different places.

So the claim that those who defended him knew him best is, at best, a weak one. Sure, they were in battle with him and they have every right to defend him (I probably would to under those circumstances). But, the sorry fact of the matter is that the decorated swift boat sailors who torpedoed his presidential bid also knew him and they probably knew him much better than his crew did. But they are never given credit for this. I wonder why?

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

I would add to the above that FDR had what Obama doesn't appear to have, command of the public's attention; he spoke to them often, convinced them he felt their pain and was working to right the ship and they believed him. Somewhere along the line, Obama lost that ability, and FDR's personality was more conducive to the belief that though he was a blue blood, he had the peoples best interests at heart.

Personally, I don’t believe Obama ever really had that ability.

Sure, he talked a good talk during the campaign but, unlike FDR, he represents a democratic party that stands only for pitting black against white; women against men; poor against rich; old against young; sick against healthy etc. etc. etc.

Half the people in this country not only do not believe Obama, but they have altogether stopped listening to him at all because they already know what he is going to say every time he opens his mouth.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

War crimes. Real War Crimes. Unfortunately there's no one except ourselves to police ourselves.

Which is why the crimes in Vietnam got a free pass.

Unless you hold that genocide, rape and other atrocities didn't occur.

The world knows they did. You would be in a minority. Even in this country.

So our choices are war crimes were committed constantly by everyone or they didn't occur. Another typical sheep post by a devotee of the Holy Church of the Democratic Party.

It's simple enough.

Don't attack countries that don't attack you.

How hard is that?

You mean countries like Germany and Kosovo?

 

[Dr Grump]

The primary reason Gerald Ford loss the election was because he supported Nixon and pardoned him. Cartier's strategy was to link Ford to Nixon and to present himself as a Christian that would bring morality back to the Whitehorse. The economy was never a major issue in the campaign.

There were a whole lot of reasons behind Ford's loss, not the least of which he had no real constituency to start with. Despite that, he only BARELY got edged out by Carter. but the 7.4% unemployment rate he was sporting didn't help.

During most of McKinnley first term, 1896-99 his administration was plagued with economic problems, the panic of 1896 and the recession of 1899. The booming economy never made it's way to working man. Times were not particular good yet he was able to win with very little campaigning.

Actuall, many historians don't even count the 1899 recession as an actual recession. And again, the "Full Lunch Pail" slogan resonated quite a bit with the working man, who rejected Christian Populist William Jenning Bryan.

John Qunicy Adams lost the election of 1828 because of his party's accusations of bigamy lodged against Rachel Jackson. It had nothing to do with the economy.

There was still a recession.

If you think a weak candidate can win the election, nominate one and we'll see. You certainly have a number of choices.

Actually, I think most of the candidates have stronger resumes than the Community Organizer does.

The fact you see him as a community organiser speaks volumes of your partisanship.

He certainly does have his work cut out for him though. I have found him a weak and ineffectual president because he bends over too much towards the conservatives.

That being said, he is still better at his worst than Bush was at his best..