John Kerry's "gaffe"?

[dant]

I know this is a little late, but this question keep popping up in my mind.

What IF, John Kerry, a skull and bones member, performed with his little "gaffe",
in keeping with his membership responsibility thus triggering a programmed response
in the (greenbaumed) populace to ensure the power of the status quo? Maybe this
really wasn't a freudian slip, which demaned an apology after all? How is it by now that
the race is now "very tight"?

Hmmm.

 

[1/2Hawk]

What do you mean by 'greenbaumed'? Anyways, I dont buy it myself, but an interesting thought nonetheless. Lets say a secretive group behind the scenes is calling the shots as to which candidates make it into office (322 members on both sides of the aisle). It *is* probably in their best interests to have a populace divided evenly 50/50 when voting because the amount of corruption required to sway a vote one way or the other becomes increasingly smaller and easier to pull off. Look at tomorrow's election polls. Look at the last few presidential races. Heck, look at the polls outstanding for Guiliani vs H.Clinton in 2008. Right up to the vote tally, the gap is within the margin of error which means either outcome is plausible. Statistically speaking, how can it be that Americans are so perfectly / evenly divided lately? Can this be tuned in by gaffes and scandals on either side? Anybody have any historical polling data to see if this type of trend existed in the past?

 

[Mr. Premise]

I think it was deliberate. Kerry is just doing his job, doing what he is paid to do: be a token opposition that actually ensures the election of the S&B brother. His reward may be that they are promising the presidency to him down the road. Or just a piece of the action, a place in the underground bunkers, who knows?

I know this is a little late, but this question keep popping up in my mind.

What IF, John Kerry, a skull and bones member, performed with his little "gaffe",
in keeping with his membership responsibility thus triggering a programmed response
in the (greenbaumed) populace to ensure the power of the status quo? Maybe this
really wasn't a freudian slip, which demaned an apology after all? How is it by now that
the race is now "very tight"?

Hmmm.

 

[Beau]

What do you mean by 'greenbaumed'?

You can read about this here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/greenbaum.htm

or here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave11h.htm

:)

 

[anart]

I tend to agree with Donald on this one, it was a rather weak attempt to distract from the election issues and, as usual, to push the 'liberal "intellectual" elite' image that the Democrats used to have with the masses - not that any of them are liberal, or intellectual at this point. It's pure theatre - all of it, on every level, and John Kerry entered stage left and exited stage right, osit.

 

[PopHistorian]

The "Saturday Night Live" comedy show's joke was, "Now John Kerry is losing elections he's not even in!" He is indeed a Skull & Bones sworn brother-for-life with GW. Think what that means. Personally, I think his "straw man" role in the last US presidential election became quite obvious. To stop Bush, all that the top Dems would have had to do was to recount the many documented crimes, deceptions, cases of incompetence, etc., that went relatively unnoticed by the press/public, day after day. Easy. They could have countered the "flip-flop" charges one by one. Not a problem -- but it was not done. John Kerry just sat there, more and more inert, less and less reactive, throughout the campaign.

I don't think the effort that goes into Greenbauming someone is expended on simply telling the victims how to vote :) if that's what you meant, Dant. There are far simpler methods for controlling elections.

"The voters decide nothing. The vote counters decide everything."
-- J. Stalin