What I find funny as European is that on every US presidential elections our media are saying how Domocrats have a new messiah that will turn the country into something far more efficant, logical and in better place to live...
The entire thing works well until few day before election. Then some pro-life activists come into play, there is a scandal of two, some voting machines breake down, some votes get lost in the chaos of voting .......
So in the end Republicans win.
I am not accusing someone (media or Republicans).
Don't forget strategically placed gay marriage referendums.
John Kerry was hardly a "messiah" figure, though.
"I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
That is a major difference between our societies. Al Gore and John Kerry (despite decent electoral showings) were disliked even by large portions of the Democratic base in the country. Michael Dukakis went from near even in the polls to being a late-night TV monologue joke.
Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"
Well, as long as you're aware of it. I was just arguing over semantics. If something is common and easily found, I don't think it qualifies as a "hero". Again, that's regardless of how "good" it is.
Let me put it this way: To me, a hero is not just someone who is extremely good. A hero must be someone who is both extremely good and extremely rare. This is why John Kerry was not a "hero", since you claim that many people could have been better than Bush, therefore Kerry was not "rare". Even Obama cannot be considered a hero by these criteria alone, since people still claim that many possibilities would be better than Bush (or McCain).
Last edited by Cimarron; 10-21-2008 at 07:14 AM.