How Will Kerry Be Any Different As President?

For all those folks out there who like to see me as a liberal, I hate to break to you: I ain't. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life! Before I realized what a joke this whole partisanship charade is, I thought liberal ideology and policy, for the most part, was highly destructive for the nation as a whole. At this point, I see that both parties are equally bought and paid for. I now support individuals who are not bought off, rather than any party.

Bush has got to go. That's a fact. (And I voted for the guy. I apologize profusely for that error in judgement.) I just couldn't deal with another four years of the same shyte. Clinton disgusted me to no end.

The only alternative, of course, is Kerry. (Snooze) I personally think he'd be a much more effective President - on the surface, anyway. If you pulled back the curtain, however, you'd find he serves the same masters as Bush, basically (CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg). It's an illusion to think he would be any better. Afterall, we're talking about a fellow Skull & Bonesman - who supported the invasion of Iraq. That disgusts me. He supported it b/c he didn't want to come off as a peacenik coward. Not b/c he believed the hype. That's ridiculous. He abdicated his constitutional responsibility in giving Bush authority to make war at his whim. DAmn A-hole.

I just wondered what other ATS folks thought about Kerry as president.

At this point, I don't even know if I will vote. Should I vote for Manson or should I vote for Bundy? Hmmm.... Perhaps I will go to the beach instead.

If nothing else vote Kerry/EDWARDS just to get CHENEYBURTON out of mix.

That's fine if someone hates Kerry because they hate the environment, or love guzzling gas and lining the Bush family pocket or hate abortion or whatever warms the cockles of a dead black Republican heart these days...

But for God's sake... don't allow Bush back in just because you're not sure about Kerry's Skull & Bones affiliation. If you're unsure about Kerry, but KNOW Bush is a self serving extremist NWO SOB... duh.

I'm not talking to Bush voters. You're gone already. But the NADAR nerds and abstainers are pissing me off lately. YOU PEOPLE WILL PUT BUSH BACK IN.

Nader needs to be bitch-slapped for his idiocy. He used to be a decent guy. Now he seems to just be an egomaniacal twit.

I may vote for Kerry - just to vote against Bush. Never thought I'd stoop to such shyte. But these are, indeed, strange times.

Why the F**K can't Republicans think for themselves? It's all blinde flag-waving and rhetoric. I am so disgusted with them I can't stand it. I am going to register as either unaffiliated or Independent.

I used to think Republicans were a smart bunch. Now I just see them, for the most part, as a bunch of brain-dead zealots.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The only alternative, of course, is Kerry. (Snooze) I personally think he'd be a much more effective President - on the surface, anyway. If you pulled back the curtain, however, you'd find he serves the same masters as Bush, basically (CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg). It's an illusion to think he would be any better. Afterall, we're talking about a fellow Skull & Bonesman - who supported the invasion of Iraq. That disgusts me. He supported it b/c he didn't want to come off as a peacenik coward. Not b/c he believed the hype. That's ridiculous. He abdicated his constitutional responsibility in giving Bush authority to make war at his whim. DAmn A-hole.

ECK, you gotta vote, or we won't allow you to bitch anymore

One to my real reply to the above quote. He is a spineless, peacnik coward. To have him in the WH would further the cause of Those Who Rule. It would give them carte blanche. You would look back at Dubya's tenure and long for the good old days. Remember how you felt about the country after 8 years of Clinton????? Kerry's presidnecy would shred the republic further and faster than 4 more years of Bush.
I kid you not!!!

No mather who is the next puppet at the whitehouse, things won't be different.

Originally posted by m0rbid
No mather who is the next puppet at the whitehouse, things won't be different.

I wanted Dean to win the nomination. He was brave enough to stand solidly against the war when no one else would. And I felt that he was not being controlled by the Octopus. O well!

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I wanted Dean to win the nomination. He was brave enough to stand solidly against the war when no one else would. And I felt that he was not being controlled by the Octopus. O well!

The only way you get to the finals in the presidential race is to be controlled. Sad but true.
Some who got there and didn't work out either weren't re-elected (Carter) or died.

At one time I thought he would be diffrent, but he is a puppet, like morbid pointed out.

His policy on Iraq is basically the same as Bush's. So, I really don't see any difference. At least, not where it counts.

I've heard the people who served with him speak to his character. While it can be questioned as to it's status now, that still would put him leagues ahead of Bush...who never had any.
To win the nomination, the presidency & a possible second term, that individual had to run on a populist platform. Kerry has done that, and given the way someone ho is president once wants to be president twice, he'll keep to it throughout his tenure to get a second term.
If we don't elect Kerry, we are royal screwed in terms of domestic prosperity/saftey/social climate and dead in the water as a vendor to the world peddling our wares.

We had a valuable, well expereinced, deep strategic thinker as presidentwho got that same reaction because he was not the showman. Look where we would have been had Gore not suffered from that "exciting - not" label and won by 2 million instead of a 1/2 million votes?
I don't want to be entertained by my president - I want legitimate leadership & someone that can regain our respect in the world.

It's definitely past time for a third party to rise and shake things up. I'm sick of only having the corporate-approved "left" and "right" candidates.

I dont see any real difference


If you want a change you will have to vote third party or independent

Libertarian is my choice (in case I havent mentioned it)

The money thing's gotta be broken. It's so outrageously expensive, one has to be a millionaire or better to compete. That ain't democracy. It's PLUTOCRACY.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
If you pulled back the curtain, however, you'd find he serves the same masters as Bush, basically (CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg).

You get an amen from me on that one. The CFR is the starting point for the socialization of the US.

Originally posted by Bout Time
I've heard the people who served with him speak to his character. While it can be questioned as to it's status now, that still would put him leagues ahead of Bush...who never had any.

You are so right about character. I mean, Kerry actually served in Vietnam an his record shows:
His body count included-- a woman, her baby, a 12 year-old boy, an elderly man and several South Vietnamese soldiers.

"It is one of those terrible things, and I'll never forget, ever, the sight of that child," Kerry later said about the dead baby. "But there was nothing that anybody could have done about it. It was the only instance of that happening."

Whan the commanding Admiral was asked about his character, part of the reply was young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets. 'We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control'.

No doubt. Great character.
Don't forget the killing of a wounded, retreating enemy soldier...

More info on this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

everyone should vote Nader or Kunich just for the hell of it.

I really see no difference between Kerry and Bush and I rather waste my vote as some of you will say than to vote for either one of them.

We can talk all the bulls**t 3rd party wishes we want: but it's not going to do anything in the coming election except hand a majority to Bush.
No one took the reigns of forming a legitimate 3rd option: Nader did not seize the opportunity to grow the Greens into a viable political machine. McCain lost his stomach for the presidency - he would have had a stellar chance to unite independents/disallusioned Republicans/conservative Democrats, but chose not to.
As for death counts in wartime: I don't hold anyone responsible unless it was a full on genocide rage, which Kerry's wasn't. Armchair quarterbacking is ridiculous unless you've been in country & can speak to the conditions.
Thankfully, Bush kept those keg killing sprees off the Texas coast quiet & we can remain convinced that his character has been ordained by the Lord.

ECK: Another 10 vote here.

You know as well as I do that there will never be a dime's bit of difference between the candidates of the two major parties until the over-arching control by the Satanist/Globalists over our entire political system is overthrown.

Question for you: If it did not happen in a Bilderburg meeting did it really happen?

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by Bout Time
I've heard the people who served with him speak to his character. While it can be questioned as to it's status now, that still would put him leagues ahead of Bush...who never had any.

You are so right about character. I mean, Kerry actually served in Vietnam an his record shows:
His body count included-- a woman, her baby, a 12 year-old boy, an elderly man and several South Vietnamese soldiers.

"It is one of those terrible things, and I'll never forget, ever, the sight of that child," Kerry later said about the dead baby. "But there was nothing that anybody could have done about it. It was the only instance of that happening."

Whan the commanding Admiral was asked about his character, part of the reply was young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets. 'We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control'.

No doubt. Great character.
Don't forget the killing of a wounded, retreating enemy soldier...

More info on this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

WELL SAID ZEDD

What gives people the idea that Kerry has ANY character. Has he EVER took a stance on ANYTHING?! NO! He ssays what will get him into the white house. He is far worse then Bush. At least with Bush you know where he stands. Kerry is the ultimate backspeaker. He'll say anything and then change his mind an instant later. You people are so obsessed with hating Bush you don't realize the guy you are voting for is FAR worse.

[Edited on 22-4-2004 by American Mad Man]