The Kerry-Edwards Rhetoric Decoder
By Easton Weston
Those who have watched the past two debates might find it
difficult to understand where senators Kerry and Edwards stand
on today's most important issues. So Spolitics has hired the
world's most brilliant linguistic mathematicians to construct a
decoding paradigm that – after inserting Kerry-Edwards rhetoric –
produces a simplified construct from which it is possible to
determine what the candidates believe in. We call it the KERFU:
Kerry Edwards Rhetoric Formula for Understanding, or KE(r)
/T=BS.
By applying the KERFU, Spolitics has been able to decode key
aspects of The Kerry Edwards platform. We've illustrated five
examples below.
1. When Senator Edwards says, "We will find terrorists where
they are and kill them before they ever do harm to the American
people," he is talking about everywhere they are except in Iraq.
Because we were driving the terrorists out of Afghanistan, we
should have stayed in Afghanistan and not considered the
possibility that terrorists would try to find a safe haven elsewhere,
like the country of one of our sworn enemies, because the dictator
there was bribing the French and Russians and they are our allies,
despite the fact they were selling weapons to our enemy. As
Edwards pointed out, "There are 60 countries who have members
of al Qaeda in them. How many of those countries are we going to
invade?" Clearly, Kerry and Edwards will find terrorists wherever
they are and destroy them as long as they are in Afghanistan and
not in Iraq or any of the 60 other countries because terrorists in
Afghanistan are the ones who attacked us on September 11th and
it would be "a grand diversion" to move any troops from
Afghanistan, unless we are moving those forces to Haiti or Sudan
to deal with humanitarian situations, which is something Kerry
would consider doing. Therefore, Halliburton.
2. Senator Kerry is against nuclear proliferation, especially in Iran
which is now "more dangerous" unless the United States is the one
supplying Iran with nuclear fuel under the condition that we get to
monitor their bomb-making. Senator Kerry also proposes turning
North Korea's nuclear program into a television show.
3. President Bush did not build a strong enough coalition before
invading Iraq like his father did during the first Gulf War. So why
did Kerry vote for G.W. Bush to go to war but voted against the
first Gulf War? The KERFU tells us that Kerry voted for the war
because Saddam Hussein was a threat who needed to be dealt
with, so long as he wasn't dealt with "at the wrong time" and "the
wrong place," namely, Iraq. If Saddam Hussein had traveled to
Afghanistan, the U.S. would have been able to pass the "global
test" that would authorize them to serve Saddam with a subpoena
and drag him before the world court where the French could
prosecute him for being a threat to the United States.
4. Now the $87 billion. As valuable as the KERFU is, sometimes it
is not enough on its own. In these cases, one must apply the Dean
Equalization Quotient, or DEQ. After applying the DEQ, we see
that because the troops were bogged down in Iraq with "targets
on their backs" and no "plan to win the peace," it was perfectly
acceptable for Kerry to vote against the money to pay for body
armor and ammo because he had already voted for it in a vote that
didn't count. Votes that don't count are important and matter
unless the Senator is voting to raise taxes, in which case President
Bush is lying about his record -- an attack on Kerry's patriotism
because the senator has shrapnel in his buttocks from when he
blew up rice during the Vietnam War. Dean has no shrapnel in his
buttocks, which in a Democratic primary means Dean is
"unelectable." Therefore, Kerry's position is not contradictory and
Bush failed to fulfill his guard duty, as forged documents indicate.
5. Kerry criticized the President for backing out of global treaties
like Kyoto. Even though Kyoto would cripple the United States'
manufacturing capability by imposing harsh environmental
restrictions, while at the same time not imposing any restrictions
on China or India because they are third world countries, thereby
making those two countries magnets for manufacturing jobs, this
in no way contradicts Kerry's assertion that CEOs who outsource
jobs overseas are traitorous Benedict Arnolds and that he would
prevent the outsourcing of American jobs. Clearly, Kerry would
solve this problem by ratifying Kyoto, causing a mass exodus of
manufacturing jobs to China and India, then closing the loophole
that says U.S. companies do not have to pay taxes on overseas
earnings, thereby causing them to pay taxes both in foreign
countries and the U.S. In this event, said companies will simply
move their headquarters out of the U.S., since most other
countries do not have such a double taxation policy. After doing
this, they will no longer be U.S. companies and Kerry will have
stopped the exporting of American jobs.
See also:
Kerry-Edwards Rhetoric Decoder Bursts into Flames after
Friday Night's Debate
By Easton Weston
Those who have watched the past two debates might find it
difficult to understand where senators Kerry and Edwards stand
on today's most important issues. So Spolitics has hired the
world's most brilliant linguistic mathematicians to construct a
decoding paradigm that – after inserting Kerry-Edwards rhetoric –
produces a simplified construct from which it is possible to
determine what the candidates believe in. We call it the KERFU:
Kerry Edwards Rhetoric Formula for Understanding, or KE(r)
/T=BS.
By applying the KERFU, Spolitics has been able to decode key
aspects of The Kerry Edwards platform. We've illustrated five
examples below.
1. When Senator Edwards says, "We will find terrorists where
they are and kill them before they ever do harm to the American
people," he is talking about everywhere they are except in Iraq.
Because we were driving the terrorists out of Afghanistan, we
should have stayed in Afghanistan and not considered the
possibility that terrorists would try to find a safe haven elsewhere,
like the country of one of our sworn enemies, because the dictator
there was bribing the French and Russians and they are our allies,
despite the fact they were selling weapons to our enemy. As
Edwards pointed out, "There are 60 countries who have members
of al Qaeda in them. How many of those countries are we going to
invade?" Clearly, Kerry and Edwards will find terrorists wherever
they are and destroy them as long as they are in Afghanistan and
not in Iraq or any of the 60 other countries because terrorists in
Afghanistan are the ones who attacked us on September 11th and
it would be "a grand diversion" to move any troops from
Afghanistan, unless we are moving those forces to Haiti or Sudan
to deal with humanitarian situations, which is something Kerry
would consider doing. Therefore, Halliburton.
2. Senator Kerry is against nuclear proliferation, especially in Iran
which is now "more dangerous" unless the United States is the one
supplying Iran with nuclear fuel under the condition that we get to
monitor their bomb-making. Senator Kerry also proposes turning
North Korea's nuclear program into a television show.
3. President Bush did not build a strong enough coalition before
invading Iraq like his father did during the first Gulf War. So why
did Kerry vote for G.W. Bush to go to war but voted against the
first Gulf War? The KERFU tells us that Kerry voted for the war
because Saddam Hussein was a threat who needed to be dealt
with, so long as he wasn't dealt with "at the wrong time" and "the
wrong place," namely, Iraq. If Saddam Hussein had traveled to
Afghanistan, the U.S. would have been able to pass the "global
test" that would authorize them to serve Saddam with a subpoena
and drag him before the world court where the French could
prosecute him for being a threat to the United States.
4. Now the $87 billion. As valuable as the KERFU is, sometimes it
is not enough on its own. In these cases, one must apply the Dean
Equalization Quotient, or DEQ. After applying the DEQ, we see
that because the troops were bogged down in Iraq with "targets
on their backs" and no "plan to win the peace," it was perfectly
acceptable for Kerry to vote against the money to pay for body
armor and ammo because he had already voted for it in a vote that
didn't count. Votes that don't count are important and matter
unless the Senator is voting to raise taxes, in which case President
Bush is lying about his record -- an attack on Kerry's patriotism
because the senator has shrapnel in his buttocks from when he
blew up rice during the Vietnam War. Dean has no shrapnel in his
buttocks, which in a Democratic primary means Dean is
"unelectable." Therefore, Kerry's position is not contradictory and
Bush failed to fulfill his guard duty, as forged documents indicate.
5. Kerry criticized the President for backing out of global treaties
like Kyoto. Even though Kyoto would cripple the United States'
manufacturing capability by imposing harsh environmental
restrictions, while at the same time not imposing any restrictions
on China or India because they are third world countries, thereby
making those two countries magnets for manufacturing jobs, this
in no way contradicts Kerry's assertion that CEOs who outsource
jobs overseas are traitorous Benedict Arnolds and that he would
prevent the outsourcing of American jobs. Clearly, Kerry would
solve this problem by ratifying Kyoto, causing a mass exodus of
manufacturing jobs to China and India, then closing the loophole
that says U.S. companies do not have to pay taxes on overseas
earnings, thereby causing them to pay taxes both in foreign
countries and the U.S. In this event, said companies will simply
move their headquarters out of the U.S., since most other
countries do not have such a double taxation policy. After doing
this, they will no longer be U.S. companies and Kerry will have
stopped the exporting of American jobs.
See also:
Kerry-Edwards Rhetoric Decoder Bursts into Flames after
Friday Night's Debate
| The stories on Spolitics.com are made up for entertainment purposes. Spolitics maintains that nothing on this site is accurate. Anything that happens to be accurate is purely accidental, coincidental or both and Spolitics will fire the writer responsible. Copyright © 2004 Spolitics.com. All Rights Reserved. |