Kerry, then much as he is now...

[[AK]Squidly]

"Are we rushing headlong into the next step of those 40 years of progressions by which we do something then they do something, by which we pretend that we're going to build this and it will somehow strengthen our deterrent then they do it, and low and behold, the next thing we know is, the President of the United States is addressing the nation saying, ‘My fellow Americans, I hate to tell you this, but the Soviet Union is deploying more of these, and we have to respond, and I'm asking the Congress for more money in order to respond.’ Star Wars is guaranteed to do that, and it's guaranteed to threaten the heavens -- the one line we haven't yet crossed with weaponry: the heavens." – Senator John Kerry, on SDI, the program that helped to bring the Soviet Union to its knees, August 5, 1986.

Another in a long line of illustrations of why this guy would be an absolute disaster leading the war on terror (or any other war, for that matter.)

[[AK]Hylander]

*Group Huggies* will save the day.








** I am French, hear me surrender **

[[AK]Bribo]

I like this Reagan-era Kerry quote:


"The Reagan Administration has no rational plan for our military. Instead, it acts on misinformed assumptions about the strength of the Soviet military and a presumed ‘window of vulnerability,’ which we now know not to exist."

"The biggest defense buildup since World War II has not given us a better defense. Americans feel more threatened by the prospect of war, not less so. And our national priorities become more and more distorted as the share of our country’s resources devoted to human needs diminishes.”

“If we don’t need the MX [multiple warhead ICBM], the B-1, or these other weapons systems ... ]here’s no excuse for casting even one vote for unnecessary weapons of destruction, and as your Senator, I will never do so,” Kerry vowed.

He just didn't GET it and still fails to get it. That's what scares me.

[[AK]Hylander]

Bribo']I like this Reagan-era Kerry quote:


"The Reagan Administration has no rational plan for our military. Instead, it acts on misinformed assumptions about the strength of the Soviet military and a presumed ‘window of vulnerability,’ which we now know not to exist."

"The biggest defense buildup since World War II has not given us a better defense. Americans feel more threatened by the prospect of war, not less so. And our national priorities become more and more distorted as the share of our country’s resources devoted to human needs diminishes.”

“If we don’t need the MX [multiple warhead ICBM], the B-1, or these other weapons systems ... ]here’s no excuse for casting even one vote for unnecessary weapons of destruction, and as your Senator, I will never do so,” Kerry vowed.


To paraphrase Kerry's quote: "I'M FRENCH!!"

[Slaughter]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.. I'm not voting for either of them.

Instead, write in Colin Powell on your Ballot. ;)

I mean, if we're gonna have someone be President it might as well be the smartest man in the current administration.

[[AK]Palooka]

Hmm. You know that Colin Powell was and still remains a proponent of the Iraq War, right? He has stated that he was just as committed to ousting Saddam as anyone else in the administration. You're starting to remind me of John Kerry, Slaughter. You're just not sure what to think.

[[AK]Devil_Dog]

Palooka']Hmm. You know that Colin Powell was and still remains a proponent of the Iraq War, right?
Pal, you bring up a good point, I wonder what Colin Powell would do if he was in the number seat?

[[AK]Bribo]

Let's not forget this one (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm) from the 1988 Democratic convention.

'John F. Kerry took to the convention hall podium, telling the delegates that the "moral darkness" of President Reagan's presidency will soon end. '

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

Devil_Dog']Pal, you bring up a good point, I wonder what Colin Powell would do if he was in the number seat?

I'm firmly convinced that the smartest men around, Powell and Cheney among them, know that the Presidency is a really crappy job and that the real horsepower lies in controlling a pliable and dim-witted puppet like W.

[[AK]Palooka]

What did you get on your SAT, Sonic? I happen to know what Bush's score was, and his beats mine. Do you consider me a dimwit?

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

Palooka']What did you get on your SAT, Sonic? I happen to know what Bush's score was, and he beat me. Do you consider me a dimwit?

Are you saying you want to be the President?

[[AK]Palooka]

No, I'm saying that few people would call me a dimwit.

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

Likewise.

[[AK]Palooka]

This tired old crap from the left about Bush being a moron has no basis in fact, pure and simple. Bush is not stupid. In fact, he's probably more intelligent than the vast majority of people who rail on his supposed lack of intelligence. How many of those people could get into Harvard's MBA program, much less actually get through it?

So Bush doesn't act the part. So what? Would you prefer a snobby, pretentious intellectual elite as your president, or a guy who can connect with average Americans?

[[AK]Hylander]

Palooka']How many of those people could get into Harvard's MBA program, much less actually get through it?

"A friend of mine was asked to a costume ball a short time ago. He slapped some egg on his face and went as a liberal economist."

I think your answer was in your signature. ;)

[[AK]Palooka]

More on Bush and Harvard from a Harvard professor: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3378

[[AK]Squidly]

People equate his lack of skill at ad-hoc public speaking with complete stupidity. That would be a mistake.

[[AK]Palooka]

Dismissing conservatives ideas by calling the messengers morons, racists, homophobes, sexists, and other mean-spirited, base aspersions is nothing new. The left has been doing it for decades. When you've lost the debate, what else is there to do but strike out against your opponent with personal attacks?

Before GW Bush came along, the left loudly proclaimed (and still does) that Reagan was a dunce. In the '80s, the left lost the debate, which led to Reagan winning in 1984 by the greatest landslide in US history (Mondale only won his home state, Minnesota, and the methods employed to secure that win were questionable -- just ask his campaign manager, Bob Beckel) and the subsequent dissolution of left-wing utopian idealism, embodied by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall. For idiots, Reagan and Bush sure have done much to change the world for the better.

Destroying communism and eradicating terrorism are endeavors best left to men of character, courage, and principle. Kerry displays none of these characteristics. Plain to all those who are not blinded by partisanship is the fact that Kerry will say anything to please the audience to which he is speaking at any given time, regardless of what he has said in the past day or two. He does not have the courage to stick by his principles (provided that he has any), and that shows a terrible lack of character that is likely to utterly debilitate him as this presidential race proceeds to its culmination. The Democrats made a poor choice, and many of them are already beginning to regret it, as has been seen in the writings of more than a few liberal columnists.

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

Palooka']This tired old crap from the left about Bush being a moron has no basis in fact, pure and simple. Bush is not stupid. In fact, he's probably more intelligent than the vast majority of people who rail on his supposed lack of intelligence. How many of those people could get into Harvard's MBA program, much less actually get through it?

So Bush doesn't act the part. So what? Would you prefer a snobby, pretentious intellectual elite as your president, or a guy who can connect with average Americans?


Alright, I'll grant you that Bush certainly isn't the idiot that he's made out to be, but he's no intellectual.

With a 1206 out of 1600 SAT and a "C" average at Andover, he was admitted to Yale. Very impressive.

With grades like a "73" in Introduction to International Relations, and a "C" average for his undergraduate career, he was nonetheless accepted to Harvard Business School.

Interestingly, when he was rejected from the University of Texas Law School in 1973, his father never knew he had applied.

Furthermore, Bush's failing oil company, Spectrum 7, was bailed out in 1988 by Harken Energy in a sweetheart deal that financed his minority stake in the Texas Rangers. Two years later, when Bush learned as a director during a board meeting that Harken was three days from insolvency, "Divine Intervention" occurred courtesy of the Harvard Management Fund, the institutional investor that manages Harvard's huge endowment, which purchased two failing divisions from Harken and kept them afloat. Incidentally, this sort of deal was unprecedented in the investment history of Harvard.

Clearly W. isn't stupid, he's just very good at what he does.

[[AK]Palooka]

In defense of my own intellect, I will say that Bush's SAT score only beats mine by a slight margin. Naturally, I beat him on the verbal portion, but he fairly wiped the floor with me on the math portion. My lack of aptitude in mathematics has always been my fatal flaw. :(

[[AK]Palooka]

I like the end of Lifson's article. For those who haven't the patience to read the entire thing, here's the excerpt:

One final note on George W. Bush’s management style and his Harvard Business School background does not derive from the classroom, per se. One feature of life there is that a subculture of poker players exists. Poker is a natural fit with the inclinations, talents, and skills of many future entrepreneurs. A close reading of the odds, combined with the ability to out-psych the opposition, leads to capital accumulation in many fields, aside from the poker table.

By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, a least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.

Only time will tell whether Saddam ever had any WMDs. Their non-existence has not been proven. Only time will tell whether or not Osama bin Laden (or his corpse) will be taken into custody by American Troops. Only time will tell whether or not Iraq will continue to make progress toward a transition toward a peaceful democratic government. George W. Bush knows much more information about these topics than his domestic political opponents do. At the moment, they are betting a lot of their chips on one side of these questions.

We will see by November who has the winning hand.

[[AK]Squidly]

My SATs were 30 pts off of GWBs. College bored me, and I put up similar grades to GWB. Bribo was witness to my study habits (non existant) first hand. I did only enough to get by, often waiting until the last second to do it.

I'm doing ok for myself now.

Again, GWB is severely "misunderestimated" by the liberal masses, and it's a perception that is happily perpetuated by those who should (and often do) know better. As Palooka said, this sort of attack is all the Libs have left.

Their philosophy is bankrupt.

[[AK]Abaddon]

Libs like to attack W's intelligence ... because they think everyone who doesn't agree with them is a moron.

It's a tired argument.

I prefer to believe that liberals are actively malicious rather than stupid. They're out for my checkbook and my firearms, and they have no moral qualms about how they achieve their aims.

I had 740 English/600 math on my SAT.

[[AK]Devil_Dog]

Sonic Boom']I'm firmly convinced that the smartest men around, Powell and Cheney among them, know that the Presidency is a really crappy job and that the real horsepower lies in controlling a pliable and dim-witted puppet like W.

This is true, which is why I would make a great President... ;)
No one has ever accused me of being the sharpest tool in the shed....

[[AK]Hylander]

I think I had a 1230 on my SATs... but I was NOT the model High School student. :D I missed 10 more days than I went my senior year and they tried to prevent me from graduating... but I had a 89 average (for the 3 classes I was taking as a senior since I had no lunch or study halls my Jr year so I could have 1/2 days as a senior) and would have been a hard sell. Plus I think they just wanted to get me the hell out! LOL

I do not remember what my GMAT score to get into grad school was though.

I didn't start college until I was 21, so I think that helped in terms of maturity (well, uh, at least in theory anyways. :D ) and dedication to studies. I graduated with an overall of 3.3, but my 2 major GPAs were 3.4 (econ) and 3.9 (Finance). Those general Ed, foundation classes weren't my thing. ;)

My graduate MBA gpa was 3.875.

But I know from personal experience and exposure that you can be a 4.0, straight A student and be a complete idiot and moron while I've also known people who barely, or didn't, finish high school and are extremely bright and intelligent. There are different 'kinds' of intelligence and "smarts" such as "street smarts", common-sense, business sense, intellectual smarts, etc.

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

Hey, I'm not the one who equated SAT scores to intelligence.

But since that can of worms was opened, I thought I'd highlight the logical extention that Bush was a "C" student who got into the best schools with Daddy's influence... and also got his ass bailed out of another failing oil company with direct cash from Harvard.

If you want to get into the SEC waiving off their investigaton into his sale of Harken stock after the Harvard bailout, we can go there too.

[[AK]Choozoo]

I'm voting for Mike Porter

[Slaughter]

Palooka']This tired old crap from the left about Bush being a moron has no basis in fact, pure and simple. Bush is not stupid. In fact, he's probably more intelligent than the vast majority of people who rail on his supposed lack of intelligence. How many of those people could get into Harvard's MBA program, much less actually get through it?

So Bush doesn't act the part. So what? Would you prefer a snobby, pretentious intellectual elite as your president, or a guy who can connect with average Americans?

I'm not saying Bush is a moron (though he acts the part well with his inability to speak extremely well).. I'm just saying that I think Colin Powell would be the better man for the job. Kerry isn't exactly better than Bush, likewise the other way around.. but Powell blows them both out of the water, too bad hes too damn smart to actually run for president and put up with all the bullshit the president has to deal with.

[[AK]Squidly]

Sonic Boom']
But since that can of worms was opened, I thought I'd highlight the logical extention that Bush was a "C" student who got into the best schools with Daddy's influence... and also got his ass bailed out of another failing oil company with direct cash from Harvard.

If you want to get into the SEC waiving off their investigaton into his sale of Harken stock after the Harvard bailout, we can go there too.

What's all of this supposed to indicate? Neither side is stranger to privilege. I could go on and on about how Kerry married into money again and again. The fact that he is embarassingly rich and flaunts it. But what does it do to further the argument about who should be President? Nothing.

And that's the real point of this discussion. Libs say Bush is stupid (when he isn't.) They say that he had help getting into Harvard (when that's irrelevant). It'd be more intellectually honest to stick to the issues, but Kerry comes up wanting in that department.

So we get the "Bush Am duMB m0nK3Y (http://www.libertyforall.net/humor/bush-monkey.html)" stuff.

[[AK]Hylander]

Squidly']What's all of this supposed to indicate? Neither side is stranger to privilege. I could go on and on about how Kerry married into money again and again. The fact that he is embarassingly rich and flaunts it. But what does it do to further the argument about who should be President? Nothing.

And that's the real point of this discussion. Libs say Bush is stupid (when he isn't.) They say that he had help getting into Harvard (when that's irrelevant). It'd be more intellectually honest to stick to the issues, but Kerry comes up wanting in that department.

So we get the "Bush Am duMB m0nK3Y (http://www.libertyforall.net/humor/bush-monkey.html)" stuff.


I think that is the most telling story of this election. The libs only point to Bush's negatives. The reason? They can't point to any Kerry positives when they don't exist. You can't point to his position on an issue because it changes with the tide.

Kerry is a proven liar, someone who will change faces to please whatever crowd is in front of him, proven to be the most liberal member of congress, can't even admit he owns an SUV, talks about jobs going abroad when his wife's company is one of the worst "offenders" of that (the issue is a joke anyways), talks about "The Rich" as if he isn't one, was against every policy that eventually won the cold war (Probably because his father was a card carrying Communist), doesn't even come close to having a "presidential" character (as evidenced by his cursing out the agent who 'caused' him to fall on the slopes and flinging the finger to a veteran at the war memorial in front of children), and on and on and on.

The entire Liberal campaign has NOTHING to do with voting FOR Kerry, only voting AGAINST Bush. Not a platform I as an American would be proud to admit I was going to be voting for.