Advertisement
QUOTE: "If Kerry hadn't conceded, the right wingers would have screamed bloody murder. But what else is new?"
Well, and while "playing" "conspiracy theorist", I'd say that the answer to that rhetorically indented question of Mr. Wasserman's is or at least may possibly be that the two most likely candidates to win the 2004 US presidential election - Bush and Kerry - were two Bonesmen - "Order of Skull & Bones" - facing or - pretending, anyway - confronting each other. And the allegiance the members of S&B members have amongst each other is stronger, given a considerably higher priority than duty to nation, honesty, fairness, etc.
As you have already guessed, I certainly don't know the above fact(s) actually had anything to do with the 2004 election; however, there's certainly at least reason to carefully consider the possibility that this indeed was a present element.
Kerry, starting I'd say like last spring or end of winter 2003-2004 had already begun to give me the serious impression that he really did not want to replace Bush - one of his Bonesmen brothers; after all, Kerry barely carried on any real campaign for the whole duration of his primaries' campaign, and then for most of the remainder, after he was wrongly nominated by the DP.
And his awfully hasty, inexplicable, and rather unAccounted-for concession which has rocked the nation and probably all of the people who voted for him, as well as those who voted for Nader while encouraging Greens in swing states to vote for Kerry, well, it certainly "smells" of "secretly" played out treason to this citizen.
That concession is so treasonous, or at least borderline that, that the suspicion that the S&B factor actually was involved becomes only ever more closer to certainty, for me anyway.
Of course we can't really know that unless Kerry admits that this is why he conceded as quickly as he did, and for the fact that he carried on an almost undiscernable campaign all along; however, just because we will surely never get such Accountability from him, this certainly does not mean that we should naively believe that this is pure "conspiracy theory" of the nonsensical order. After all, S&B is a criminal "secret" society, both Bush and Kerry admitted to being members, and both refused to answer any additional questions; while Kerry did that through an intermediate spokesperson, prefering to hide himself, and Bush answered - as reported, anyway - something to the effect of "Yes, I'm a member, but can't tell you anything more about S&B". And, in my opinion anyway, there's absolutely no valid reason for them to not answer additional questions, if S&B is not [criminal]. Even private "societies", clubs, etc., should answer questions pertinent to the public domain; at least if the organisations are honest, not criminal. ELSE, everyone has the right to demand to know more details; particularly when an organisation is exclusive and rather soundly suspected of being criminal.
They've done nothing to answer the questions of doubters, and the latter have been on the voting electorate, so .... They thus deliberately leave us no non-naive thing to believe other than S&B is indeed very criminal, and we can add that this brothership between Bush and Kerry was a motive for Kerry's unacceptably quick concession.
Heck, his v.p. running mate had stated the very same morning that they were going to maintain, honour their promise to see this election through all the way, to ensure and insure that the election results are actually on the "up-and-up". Kerry then, just a few hours later, growled and said something to the effect of "NO, we're not going to make sure that this election is of a valid nature: I, the king of the DP running mates against Bush and his running mate, declare immediate concession"; quite tyrannically, despotically in my opinion.
So, that leads me to the personal question of "well, what if Kerry actually won, this is determined with the counting between now and December x; would we want someone whom we can rather justly perceive, now, as a traitor, having betrayed all of his voters and campaign workers, including volunteers who provided serious contributions of time, energy, and finances, to be installed as president; or do we then say, "No, Kerry, you betrayed us, thus we determine that while the DP was chosen, you're out, and we'll then decide how to handle who's to be the presient and v.p.; either Edwards then gets promoted from v.p. to p., and someone else selected for v.p.; or one of the other candidates who campaigned, like Dennis Kucinich who did the most honourably, will be p., while Edwards remains v.p.". Something like that, anyway.
Imagine that: Kerry betrayed all of his voters, supporters, and campaign workers, thus rather committing treason, he is determined - finally - to have actually won, and we get just yet another traitor replacement for president. LOVELY SICK JOKE.
And that's only in addition to the already known fact that Kerry is a rather wicked warmonger.
Respectfully,
Mike Corbeil
Well, and while "playing" "conspiracy theorist", I'd say that the answer to that rhetorically indented question of Mr. Wasserman's is or at least may possibly be that the two most likely candidates to win the 2004 US presidential election - Bush and Kerry - were two Bonesmen - "Order of Skull & Bones" - facing or - pretending, anyway - confronting each other. And the allegiance the members of S&B members have amongst each other is stronger, given a considerably higher priority than duty to nation, honesty, fairness, etc.
As you have already guessed, I certainly don't know the above fact(s) actually had anything to do with the 2004 election; however, there's certainly at least reason to carefully consider the possibility that this indeed was a present element.
Kerry, starting I'd say like last spring or end of winter 2003-2004 had already begun to give me the serious impression that he really did not want to replace Bush - one of his Bonesmen brothers; after all, Kerry barely carried on any real campaign for the whole duration of his primaries' campaign, and then for most of the remainder, after he was wrongly nominated by the DP.
And his awfully hasty, inexplicable, and rather unAccounted-for concession which has rocked the nation and probably all of the people who voted for him, as well as those who voted for Nader while encouraging Greens in swing states to vote for Kerry, well, it certainly "smells" of "secretly" played out treason to this citizen.
That concession is so treasonous, or at least borderline that, that the suspicion that the S&B factor actually was involved becomes only ever more closer to certainty, for me anyway.
Of course we can't really know that unless Kerry admits that this is why he conceded as quickly as he did, and for the fact that he carried on an almost undiscernable campaign all along; however, just because we will surely never get such Accountability from him, this certainly does not mean that we should naively believe that this is pure "conspiracy theory" of the nonsensical order. After all, S&B is a criminal "secret" society, both Bush and Kerry admitted to being members, and both refused to answer any additional questions; while Kerry did that through an intermediate spokesperson, prefering to hide himself, and Bush answered - as reported, anyway - something to the effect of "Yes, I'm a member, but can't tell you anything more about S&B". And, in my opinion anyway, there's absolutely no valid reason for them to not answer additional questions, if S&B is not [criminal]. Even private "societies", clubs, etc., should answer questions pertinent to the public domain; at least if the organisations are honest, not criminal. ELSE, everyone has the right to demand to know more details; particularly when an organisation is exclusive and rather soundly suspected of being criminal.
They've done nothing to answer the questions of doubters, and the latter have been on the voting electorate, so .... They thus deliberately leave us no non-naive thing to believe other than S&B is indeed very criminal, and we can add that this brothership between Bush and Kerry was a motive for Kerry's unacceptably quick concession.
Heck, his v.p. running mate had stated the very same morning that they were going to maintain, honour their promise to see this election through all the way, to ensure and insure that the election results are actually on the "up-and-up". Kerry then, just a few hours later, growled and said something to the effect of "NO, we're not going to make sure that this election is of a valid nature: I, the king of the DP running mates against Bush and his running mate, declare immediate concession"; quite tyrannically, despotically in my opinion.
So, that leads me to the personal question of "well, what if Kerry actually won, this is determined with the counting between now and December x; would we want someone whom we can rather justly perceive, now, as a traitor, having betrayed all of his voters and campaign workers, including volunteers who provided serious contributions of time, energy, and finances, to be installed as president; or do we then say, "No, Kerry, you betrayed us, thus we determine that while the DP was chosen, you're out, and we'll then decide how to handle who's to be the presient and v.p.; either Edwards then gets promoted from v.p. to p., and someone else selected for v.p.; or one of the other candidates who campaigned, like Dennis Kucinich who did the most honourably, will be p., while Edwards remains v.p.". Something like that, anyway.
Imagine that: Kerry betrayed all of his voters, supporters, and campaign workers, thus rather committing treason, he is determined - finally - to have actually won, and we get just yet another traitor replacement for president. LOVELY SICK JOKE.
And that's only in addition to the already known fact that Kerry is a rather wicked warmonger.
Respectfully,
Mike Corbeil