What do Bush & Kerry have in common?


PDA






firearms_instructor
July 4, 2004, 02:59 AM
Pop quiz, guys & girls: What do Bush & Kerry have in common?

Extra credit for correct and/or original/amusing answers.

If you enjoyed reading about "What do Bush & Kerry have in common?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Delmar
July 4, 2004, 03:51 AM
Yale

firearms_instructor
July 4, 2004, 04:13 AM
That's true, but can we get a little more specific?

The_Antibubba
July 4, 2004, 06:59 AM
Kerry


Son of privilege and wealth
Attended Yale
Did as little military service as possible
Can't take a stand without poll data
Left-wing Authoritarian who wishes to deprive you of your Rights
"Lesser of two evils"
Out of touch with ordinary Americans
A measure of how low we've sunk as a nation





Bush

Son of privilege and wealth
Attended Yale
Did as little military service as possible
Takes a position, then insists that the polls support him
Right-wing Authoritarian who wishes to deprive you of your Rights
"Lesser of two evils"
Out of touch with ordinary Americans
A measure of how low we've sunk as a nation



How's that to start with? :mad:

stevelyn
July 4, 2004, 07:10 AM
Skull and Bones.

RED-DOG 40
July 4, 2004, 07:57 AM
What do Bush & Kerry have in common?


They are both running for President of the US of A.....:scrutiny:

rick_reno
July 4, 2004, 11:48 AM
Antibubba hit the nail on the head...

Justin
July 4, 2004, 05:13 PM
Ok, I'll bite.

They're both a couple of authoritarian statists who spend taxpayer money like a drunk on eBay with a new credit card.

firearms_instructor
July 4, 2004, 06:52 PM
and stevelyn got the answer I was looking for: Bush and Kerry were both members of the same elite fraternity, Skull & Bones. BTW, Clinton also went to Yale Law School, but he wasn't a Bonesman.

That's right, we have two Bonesmen running for president. Those of you who are curious, Google for Skull and Bones.

Monkeyleg
July 4, 2004, 07:19 PM
Ooooohhhhh, that's scary! Maybe we should try to find out if they're members of the Freemasons, the Trilateral Commission, or maybe even the ultra-secret Himalia Society (named after one of Jupiter's moons, membership is restricted to space aliens).

DTLoken
July 4, 2004, 07:26 PM
++ Antibubba.

Don Gwinn
July 4, 2004, 07:39 PM
I have it on good authority that both were made honorary members of the Girard Kiwanis as well. The conspiracy possibilities are mind-boggling.

FedDC
July 4, 2004, 08:18 PM
Yeah and back in the day, I was a Phi Psi...so was Bloomberg...and I even went to NY once...it must be a conspiracy.

jojosdad
July 4, 2004, 08:27 PM
I agree with Antibubba and Justin.

We have a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Standing Wolf
July 4, 2004, 09:39 PM
They're both going to have to do without my vote this November.

firearms_instructor
July 4, 2004, 09:41 PM
Monkeyleg, Don Gwinn, FedDC:

Am I to understand y'all have, umm, limited appreciation for a nice conspiracy theory?

I don't know about the Girard Kiwanis, Himalia Society or Phi Psi, but if half of what's printed about about Skull & Bones is true, those surreptitious Yalies are into some real wierdness. If it's not true, then it's really inspired paranoid fiction, and has some entertainment value nonetheless.

Cheers,

Richard

Happy Independence Day!

FedDC
July 4, 2004, 11:03 PM
I always wonder about that cerimonial crap. My Frat had a mountain of stuff like that with candles and robes...even sites that were suposedly "Sacred" and we had to be taken there blindfolded etc. There were all the secret handshakes and signals, words etc that we had to tell who was a brother and whatnot... So what does it mean now? Not too much. It is good to meet up with buddies and have a beer while we laugh about that stuff. All the conspiracy crap about how the secret societies run the world is just that, crap. I have talked it over with a LOT of my buddies from other chapters and other houses and it is all the same, being part of a "Secret" society may be a nice way to say hi, but it doesn't mean that you will jump when they "brother" calls you and it sure as heck doesn't mean that someone would run a country a certain way bc the society wanted it that way. I have met a lot of guys from my house that know all the secret handshakes...and I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

Monkeyleg
July 4, 2004, 11:50 PM
firearms_instructor: "Monkeyleg, Don Gwinn, FedDC:

Am I to understand y'all have, umm, limited appreciation for a nice conspiracy theory?

I don't know about the Girard Kiwanis, Himalia Society or Phi Psi, but if half of what's printed about about Skull & Bones is true, those surreptitious Yalies are into some real wierdness. If it's not true, then it's really inspired paranoid fiction, and has some entertainment value nonetheless."

This "story" has been on 60 Minutes for perhaps the third time. The woman who wrote the book about Skull and Bones is herself a Yale graduate. She's interviewed--in secret :what: --former members of the Skull and Bones society.

Hats off to her for making some $$ off the book, but it's nothing more than an exclusive Yale frat club, complete with songs, rituals, and all the other crap that makes me question the value of Ivy League fraternaties.

The_Antibubba
July 5, 2004, 05:51 AM
I can easily see Kerry in S&B.


HE'S ALL SKULL!!!!!


:evil:

shermacman
July 5, 2004, 10:51 AM
OK, we all got the cheap shots in about Bush and Kerry's similarities. However, on November 2 one of them will be elected president. (Unless Herself muscles in, which is a possibility and another thread...) Therefore, we ought to focus on the differences between Bush and Kerry. Those are much more important. Those differences will have a far greater consequence to the future of our country and the world than the endless yack about who served more honorably during Vietnam. There are significant events that both men have been involved with now, currently. Those events matter more than the 'secret Skull and Bones handshake' thirty years ago.

Foreign Devil
July 5, 2004, 11:24 AM
deleted by poster

Ric
July 5, 2004, 01:29 PM
They are both male (I think Kerry is still a male, Teresa might have taken care of that)

bountyhunter
July 6, 2004, 03:15 PM
Neither one should be in charge of this country.

rock jock
July 6, 2004, 03:30 PM
In a small room somewhere, someone is asking John Kerry what the average gunowner in America and Timothy McVeigh have in common. His answer is just as predictable and shortsighted as those on this thread.

Assuming that someone wants a real answer, here we go:

Bush:
- pro-life
- capitalist
- favors low taxes
- pro-defense
- pro-gun (for the most part - that little license in my wallet proves it)
- pro-family
- favors US sovereignty

Kerry:
- pro-abortion
- socialist
- tax and spend liberal
- favors a weak national defense
- anti-gun in the extreme
- positions weaken the American family
- favors UN sovereignty

That's enough of a contrast for me.

Gordon Fink
July 6, 2004, 04:52 PM
Bush … pro-gun (for the most part—that little license in my wallet proves it)

Irony! :D

Here’s the way I see it.

Bush:
- anti-abortion
- petty fascist
- favors low taxes for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class
- pro-war
- supports some gun control
- pro-Christian
- favors U.S. hegemony

Kerry:
- pro-choice
- casual socialist
- favors low/no taxes for the poor at the expense of the middle class
- anti-war
- supports most gun control
- favors separation of church and state
- favors international cooperation

~G. Fink

rock jock
July 6, 2004, 05:02 PM
favors low taxes for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class
Oh sure, the Democrat definition of "wealthy" - any family with a combined income of $30K or more. Yup, gotta hate those filthy rich secretaries and laborers driving around in their luxury Honda Civics and beat up F150's. How dare they?

bountyhunter
July 6, 2004, 05:11 PM
Oh sure, the Democrat definition of "wealthy" - any family with a combined income of $30K or more. Yup, gotta hate those filthy rich secretaries and laborers driving around in their luxury Honda Civics and beat up F150's. How dare they? That is truly funny.... back in 1982 when reagan "cut" everybody's taxes, it was the upper middle class (dual income) families who had their taxes go up. Out here in the bay Area, a family with two parents working and a couple of kids qualifies as the people who are "starving slowly". But, the first year I was married (1981 under Reagan) I was introduced to the "marriage penalty" and my wife and I paid an extra $2000 in federal taxes for the priviledge of being married (compared to what we paid as singles).... under the regime of the man screaming about family values.

Then when the reagan tax "cuts" were put into law, it shifted the break points on the tax brackets and also raised the itemized deductions "deductible line" and we got screwed out of an ADDITIONAL $2000. But, those "deductions" we were trying to claim were just frivolous expenses...... the $6000 a year my wife and I paid out of our own pockets to cover the air fare, rental cars, uniforms, etc it cost for my wife to drill in her unpaid Navy reserve position every month after they had reposted her into a billet 1500 miles away. Yeah, tell me that one about how much the reagan administartion did for the military and the working class.......

rock jock
July 6, 2004, 06:11 PM
under the regime of the man screaming about family values.
Reagan didn't write the tax laws - the dems did. The only way he got any tax cuts was to bypass Congress and go directly to the American people. In the end, he got the best deal he could based on the fact that he had to negotiate with the enemy. Your alternative would have been Carter. You should shudder trying to envision those possibilities.

Dave R
July 6, 2004, 07:01 PM
Gordon Fink, two questions:

1. How do you figure Bush supports tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the midle class? Any legislation or positions to back that up? I got a nice tax cut from Bush this past tax year, and I'm sure not wealthy...

2. How do you figure Kerry is in favor of 'some' gun control? He's got positively the worst anti-gun rating a politician can get.

I think rock jock nailed the differences perfectly.

BryanP
July 6, 2004, 07:10 PM
Pretty much say it all.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1102197

Gordon Fink
July 6, 2004, 07:23 PM
Ha-ha! You G. W. Bush apologists only seem to take exception to my taxation comments, which were my most flippant. On general principle, I would support the President’s tax cuts, if they went along with cutting government spending. However, someone will have to pay for his wars, secret police, steel tariffs, farm subsidies, and Medicare drug benefits.

I said Kerry favors most gun control—almost everything but outright confiscation. Oh, he’ll leave your skeet guns alone, but not much else. G. W. Bush, on the other hand, favors just some “reasonable” gun control, like the “assault-weapons” ban. He’ll let you keep your skeet guns and your revolvers.

~G. Fink

If you enjoyed reading about "What do Bush & Kerry have in common?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!