President Kerry?

Tolya · Post by **Tolya** » 2004-03-16 04:15pm

I watched the news about an hour ago. Strangely enough, it was on one of our polish channels. And it concerned the candidate for the upcoming elections in US - John Kerry (orwhatisnameis). From what I have seen and heard, Kerry's grandmother lived in Poland in a small town in the southwest. Glogowek is the town's name (dont laugh;).
Some journalist did some digging in that family's past and dug up that Kerry's ancestors were Jewish, not catholics from Ireland (thats what they said).

And they even invited Kerry to visit them.

Now, IF this isnt bullshit - small town trying to gain attention - and IF the info is true, that would mean Kerry's family has jewish roots. And that could mean a whole lotta of support for him.

What do you think?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-16 04:38pm

This stinks so heavily of BS I can barely breathe.

In any case, if it were true, I doubt it would make much of a difference either way. Jews have historically tended to vote Democratic anyway, and anti-Semitism is too marginal in America to affect a significant portion of the electorate.

m112880 · Post by **m112880** » 2004-03-16 04:46pm

it could be a problem if people start going on about him lying about his past. But since i like Bush better i dont care.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-03-16 05:59pm

Kerry has had so little coverage on his somewhat questionable past that this is more than likely just a trickle compared to what will be found later in the campaign. The guy simply has not been under the same kind of scrutiny during the primaries and I don't think he is ready for it.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-16 08:01pm

KrauserKrauser wrote:Kerry has had so little coverage on his somewhat questionable past that this is more than likely just a trickle compared to what will be found later in the campaign. The guy simply has not been under the same kind of scrutiny during the primaries and I don't think he is ready for it.

What exactly is quesitonable about his past?

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-03-16 08:08pm

Vympel wrote:
KrauserKrauser wrote:Kerry has had so little coverage on his somewhat questionable past that this is more than likely just a trickle compared to what will be found later in the campaign. The guy simply has not been under the same kind of scrutiny during the primaries and I don't think he is ready for it.
What exactly is quesitonable about his past?

You just asked a question about Kerry's past, thereby proving that his past is questionable.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-16 08:12pm

Vympel wrote:
KrauserKrauser wrote:Kerry has had so little coverage on his somewhat questionable past that this is more than likely just a trickle compared to what will be found later in the campaign. The guy simply has not been under the same kind of scrutiny during the primaries and I don't think he is ready for it.
What exactly is quesitonable about his past?

Yes, I am curious about this as well. Are you referring to his votes in the Senate? Because that's about all that the Republicans have been attacking him with lately.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-16 08:45pm

Maybe it's his record as an opponent of the Vietnam war, which is supposed to be blasphemy in Republican "stab in the back myth" circles.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2004-03-16 08:49pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:You just asked a question about Kerry's past, thereby proving that his past is questionable.

That seems a bit of presupposed logic to me. You make your statement based on his question, when his question is in regard to the original statement. To make such a claim is fallacious.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-16 08:55pm

Kerry often falls under fire because of his spouse's great wealth. He's also under the guns for his position against the Vietnam War. Another favorite target is his Senate voting record, which is dotted with items worthy of opposition (i.e. his decisions on the topic of defense spending and weapons development).

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-16 10:06pm

Axis Kast wrote:Kerry often falls under fire because of his spouse's great wealth.

You can hardly fault the man for marrying rich, especially given Bush's financial status.

He's also under the guns for his position against the Vietnam War.

Which is total bullshit since the anti-war movement was a central part of that era and he is hardly the only politician who was involved on either side. Bonus points also go to the fact that he actually served in Vietnam before joining the movement.

Another favorite target is his Senate voting record, which is dotted with items worthy of opposition (i.e. his decisions on the topic of defense spending and weapons development).

This is a legitamate area of criticism, even if I don't necessarily agree with the criticism.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-03-16 11:12pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:
Vympel wrote:
KrauserKrauser wrote:Kerry has had so little coverage on his somewhat questionable past that this is more than likely just a trickle compared to what will be found later in the campaign. The guy simply has not been under the same kind of scrutiny during the primaries and I don't think he is ready for it.
What exactly is quesitonable about his past?
You just asked a question about Kerry's past, thereby proving that his past is questionable.

Hold on, blood just came out my ears.

What?

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-03-16 11:30pm

Damn, I thought he was Irish

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-03-16 11:33pm

No, it's obvious. He's Martian!

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-03-16 11:53pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote:
Vympel wrote: What exactly is quesitonable about his past?
You just asked a question about Kerry's past, thereby proving that his past is questionable.
Hold on, blood just came out my ears.

What?

If his past was not questionable, the it would stand to reason that no one would be able to ask questions about it. Vympel demonstrated that that was not the case. Therefore, his past is clearly questionable. It's not that complicated, really.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2004-03-17 12:01am

Drooling Iguana wrote:If his past was not questionable, the it would stand to reason that no one would be able to ask questions about it. Vympel demonstrated that that was not the case. Therefore, his past is clearly questionable. It's not that complicated, really.

Questionable is being used in two different ways. First, it is defined by KrauserKrauser following the widely accepted definition of something that is suspect in nature, yet later you use it in terms of something being able to be questioned. The problem is that you try to imply that Kerry falls under the first definition because his past falls under the second. I'm afraid that just won't work.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2004-03-17 12:20am

Go away, oh crazy semantics gods.

I am also wondering what is questionable about his past though? I have heard it said on this board about 5 or so times, and I haven't seen anything past his voting record and 'nam that come out that questionable. Am I missing something?

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2004-03-17 01:46am

Dark Hellion wrote:Go away, oh crazy semantics gods.

I am also wondering what is questionable about his past though? I have heard it said on this board about 5 or so times, and I haven't seen anything past his voting record and 'nam that come out that questionable. Am I missing something?

He voted no on many DoD projects, such as the F-14, Phoenix, etc.

And IIRC, he voted in favor using force to overthrow Saddam in Iraq.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-03-17 02:16am

Dark Hellion wrote:Go away, oh crazy semantics gods.

I am also wondering what is questionable about his past though? I have heard it said on this board about 5 or so times, and I haven't seen anything past his voting record and 'nam that come out that questionable. Am I missing something?

The Bush administration is doing everything in its power to combat Kerry and will raise even minute points to try to strike him down with. I also agree with Howard Deans saying that Kerry should NOT reveal the names of those in world-wide goverments who want him and not Bush in office for 2005; Bush will only make their lives hell, as he has proven so capable of doing since 9/11. I mean, come on - the situation in the Middle East is worse than it ever has been, we've lost all respect and credibility, and many believe that the U.S. is trying to go for global domination.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-03-17 02:32am

JME2 wrote:
Dark Hellion wrote:Go away, oh crazy semantics gods.

I am also wondering what is questionable about his past though? I have heard it said on this board about 5 or so times, and I haven't seen anything past his voting record and 'nam that come out that questionable. Am I missing something?
The Bush administration is doing everything in its power to combat Kerry and will raise even minute points to try to strike him down with. I also agree with Howard Deans saying that Kerry should NOT reveal the names of those in world-wide goverments who want him and not Bush in office for 2005; Bush will only make their lives hell, as he has proven so capable of doing since 9/11. I mean, come on - the situation in the Middle East is worse than it ever has been, we've lost all respect and credibility, and many believe that the U.S. is trying to go for global domination.

Yeah I believe everyone should be able to make statements and not be able to back them up. That sure does make good sense to me. Kerry said he had talked to foreign leaders that wanted Bush out, when asked who and when he had no reply other than to ask the questioner's political affiliation. Both his reaction to the question and lack of an answer gives me in my oh so humble opinion the right to call bullshit.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-17 02:55am

KrauserKrauser wrote: Yeah I believe everyone should be able to make statements and not be able to back them up. That sure does make good sense to me. Kerry said he had talked to foreign leaders that wanted Bush out, when asked who and when he had no reply other than to ask the questioner's political affiliation. Both his reaction to the question and lack of an answer gives me in my oh so humble opinion the right to call bullshit.

Hey dumbass, guess what? Kerry never said that. He said there were MANY leaders who wanted to see him in office, not foreign leaders (the journalist in question fucked up the quote). I think even you can agree that the ACTUAL quote is true.

Invader ZIm · Post by **Invader ZIm** » 2004-03-17 05:20am

The Kernel wrote: Hey dumbass, guess what? Kerry never said that. He said there were MANY leaders who wanted to see him in office, not foreign leaders (the journalist in question fucked up the quote). I think even you can agree that the ACTUAL quote is true.

It is irrelivant whether Kerry was misquoted in the Boston Globe for two reasons.

1) the insertion of the word "many" for "foregin" does not change the subsatance of his statment. Follow along if you can...

Kerry (Version 1):"I've been hearing it, I'll tell ya. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I've met foregin leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, whereever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute" - John Kerry, Hollywood FLA Speech March 8, 2004

Kerry (Version 2):"I've been hearing it, I'll tell ya. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I've met many leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, whereever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute"- John Kerry, Hollywood FLA Speech March 8, 2004

Do you see the problem? Its not the word "many" or "foregin", its the use of "American abroad" and the reference to news in other countries. That phrase clearly indicates he is speaking about leaders outside the United States and not some local head of the AFLCIO, City Councilman, Chief of Police, Mayor, Tax Assesor, Dog Catcher, School Board Administrator, Fire Chief, ect, ect...

2) The Second reason it is irrelivant is that Kerry has repeated the "misquote" as if it were indeed his own.

Kerry:"No, wait, wait, wait, wait you asked me if I'd met with any leaders. Yes. I have had conversations with leaders, yes, recently. That's not your business, it's mine. I've met with foreign leaders for any [inaudible] purpose--I never said that. What I said was that I have heard from people who are leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration approach and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States." - John Kerry Bethlehem, Pa Town Hall Meeting responding to a question from the crowd.[/qoute]

Misquote or not, now that Kerry has repeated it (on camera no less) it's his to live with.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-17 06:46am

Invader ZIm wrote:*snip*

Interesting, and I'll grant that it was an overreaction on my part pointing it out.

In any case, I'm not really concerned about it. I'm quite certain that just about all foreign leaders aside from perhaps Tony Blair would be ecstatic at having Kerry in office, so I really don't think there is any doubt he is lying about this. You may want to hear the list of names, but I think we both know that if he were to give them up, these countries would soon find themselves on GWB's hit list.

Invader ZIm · Post by **Invader ZIm** » 2004-03-17 10:13am

The Kernel wrote:Interesting, and I'll grant that it was an overreaction on my part pointing it out.

In any case, I'm not really concerned about it. I'm quite certain that just about all foreign leaders aside from perhaps Tony Blair would be ecstatic at having Kerry in office, so I really don't think there is any doubt he is lying about this. You may want to hear the list of names, but I think we both know that if he were to give them up, these countries would soon find themselves on GWB's hit list.

What I find interesting is that Kerry is esentially asking people in the United States to make a choice for the elected head of their Goverment based on what people in France, or <Insert Country Name Here> or some other foregin country want.

Perhaps he should contrast what benifits we can expect to see from these countries when he is President as opposed to what we see now. You know, how much more cheese can we get from Belgium? Will the French be less condesending to American tourists arriving in Paris?

Its funny actually - the US in relation to other countries is as strong as it has ever been, in defense, trade, ect. Despite Mr. Bush's low opinion poll numbers in other countries, they still line up to do buisness with and in the US. Exactly how much better will things get if these foregin leaders "like" our President?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-18 12:25pm

What Kerry says makes sense, but I find it upsetting that the average American has a "fuzzy wuzzy" desire that makes them crave the acceptance and agreement of people who are in logically different - sometimes radically different - circumstances, and thus could not possibly make their assessments of how "good" or "bad" are Presidents are from the same point of view as a voter in this country.