did John Kerry just call soldiers stupid? [Archive]

LSPoorEeyorick

10-31-2006, 02:54 PM

There's probably a more tactful way to phrase that. But it's true that a majority of soldiers haven't had collegiate-level education. And it's true that it'll be harder for them to find a well-paying job than if they'd had collegiate-level education.

Speaking from personal experience, the people in my extended family who served in the military in the last fifteen years did so because they were not at the top of their class, and did not have the ability to secure a job that paid as well as the military did. I'm certainly not saying that this is true in all cases; just the cases in my life.

Gn2Dlnd

10-31-2006, 02:56 PM

Please read the article, the jab was not being made at soldiers.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/31/D8L3OTV00.html (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/31/D8L3OTV00.html)

Ghoulish Delight

10-31-2006, 02:58 PM

Some more circumstantial evidence - the biggest difficulty military recruiters have had in recent times is that only 1/3 of potential recruits can actually pass the qualifying exam. So, again I point to No Child Left Behind and the fact that it's entire emphasis is on teaching students how to pass exams rather than on actually improving and teaching a curiculum.

Ghoulish Delight

10-31-2006, 03:01 PM

I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium.Crap John, if you'd had passion like that during your campaign, some people might have actually given a crap and voted for you. Sigh.

Jupiter

10-31-2006, 04:32 PM

so what about the people that went to college to become officers that are over there? i have say that kerry is an idiot. i so disagree with him.

wendybeth

10-31-2006, 04:41 PM

I don't really like John Kerry, so I'm not going to try and defend him. I still think much ado about nothing- I've far more serious things to be upset about than whether or not Kerry misspoke during a speech. If he did screw up on delivery, he's in good company. If he truly meant that only stupid people join the military, I can prove him wrong. Some of them get to be Presidents, Senators and Congresspersons!

Nephythys

10-31-2006, 05:04 PM

Besides that- if it was a bad "joke" or a flub- then he should be apologizing anyway- but NO, instead he turns it into a flame attack because he can not and will not take responsibility for his words.

What a farkin irony- even on a forum many of you hold people to how they word things and hold them responsible no matter their INTENT- yet you excuse this idiot who puts his foot in his mouth and make him NOT responsible for his words.

All I see is a pretty vivid double standard based on your own political bias-which undermines any validity you have in complaining about someone's words every again-

Ghoulish Delight

10-31-2006, 05:11 PM

so what about the people that went to college to become officers that are over there? i have say that kerry is an idiot. i so disagree with him.Did he say all military personel are undereducated?

Nephythys

10-31-2006, 05:12 PM

aww look-more people who just don't "get it"

Link (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2619383&page=1)

What's unclear is if Kerry's comments will help rally Republican voters or help their party portray Democrats as against the troops to score victories next Tuesday. A Democratic congressman told ABC News, Tuesday, "I guess Kerry wasn't content blowing 2004, now he wants to blow 2006, too."

Someone especially of his public profile needs to be accountable for his words- if he can't do that WTF would he do with anything else he needed to be accountable for. I shudder to think-

This is not a neo-con freak out or a conservative "thing"-he said a stupid thing- no matter what you think of his intent- and then he putzes out on taking any responsibility.

He's a turd- always was and always will be. Flaky, double talking- gah

No- I don't like him and won't pretend I do for anyone's benefit.

Ghoulish Delight

10-31-2006, 05:30 PM

He still never said that all military people are idiots. He said that people who don't succeed in Bush's hand-designed "education" system are left with one path.

scaeagles

10-31-2006, 05:43 PM

Nephythys

10-31-2006, 05:46 PM

He still never said that all military people are idiots. He said that people who don't succeed in Bush's hand-designed "education" system are left with one path.

Bush's education system? You mean the one he set up with Ted Kennedy and many other libs and dems?

Oh-that one?

Yeah- sure. Spin more excuses for this guy. Impressive-:rolleyes:

Nephythys

10-31-2006, 05:47 PM

I think the man is a pompous idiot. I also think he didn't mean to call soldiers idiots. He was poking at Bush. However, I believe that he really does think all soldiers are idiots. He thinks anyone who isn't him and doesn't agree with him is an idiot. He's a pompous fool, but this is being overblown. Call it karma.

For those paying any attention he has a habit of backhanding the troops- or outright accusing them of things-

So color me not all that surprised.

Ghoulish Delight

10-31-2006, 05:52 PM

Bush's education system? You mean the one he set up with Ted Kennedy and many other libs and dems?

Oh-that one?

Yeah- sure. Spin more excuses for this guy. Impressive-:rolleyes:
Hmm, except that the majority of the provisions were taken straight from the system Bush created in Texas...of course that was because it "worked so well" in Texas where it was later proven the results of the "imporvement" were due to rigging the system.

Motorboat Cruiser

10-31-2006, 05:53 PM

Bush's education system? You mean the one he set up with Ted Kennedy and many other libs and dems?

If we are talking about the one that has been underfunded to the tune of billions of dollars a year by the president and a republican led congress, then yes, that is the one.

wendybeth

10-31-2006, 06:35 PM

She's not the only one with a headache- sheesh.

Scrooge McSam

10-31-2006, 09:52 PM

I believe that he really does think all soldiers are idiots. He thinks anyone who isn't him and doesn't agree with him is an idiot. He's a pompous fool...

Nice.

What did he have for breakfast?

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

10-31-2006, 10:53 PM

My .02. feel free to pass over.

I heard Kerry's comments on the radio and what I got out of it was that he was saying that if you don't go to school and study you're dumb. or you will end up in Iraq, meaning, (to me) that the guy who put us there is dumb. It really can be taken both way, IMHO.

ANyway....

scaeagles

11-01-2006, 05:23 AM

Here's the thing....Kerry could have ended this so easily and come off sounded like less of a pompous fool.

"Yes, I can completely understand why what I said was construed as saying that our best and brightest are not so bright. I am very sorry. I misspoke, and it was not my intended meaning at all. What I meant was...."

And Scrooge, does that mean anytime someone in here calls Bush a name that they're just in a bad mood or someone peed on their Cheerios?

Scrooge McSam

11-01-2006, 06:59 AM

And Scrooge, does that mean anytime someone in here calls Bush a name that they're just in a bad mood or someone peed on their Cheerios?

No, sorry for the confusion.

It means since you're obviously so possessed of the power to know mens' souls, I was curious how far your powers extend.

Is it just a spiritual thing or can you see the physical too?

Cuz if you can see that, I'd like to know what John Kerry had for breakfast that morning that made him stand up and tell the right wing noise machine to stuff it.

scaeagles

11-01-2006, 07:07 AM

Oh, I see. So every time someone calls Rove evil or Bush hateful or whatever, they must also possess such a power. Or perhaps they say such things based on their perception of actions they see and make a judgement.

Scrooge McSam

11-01-2006, 07:18 AM

No person has the ability to know another's mind and that's the last bit of energy I'm wasting on this piece of manufactured controversy.

Have a nice day.

SacTown Chronic

11-01-2006, 07:57 AM

Best and brightest?

I'm laughing my azz off over here.

Jughead P. Jones

11-01-2006, 09:35 AM

I obviously can't say much about Bush or Kerry, because for obvious reasons, I can't vote for either one. But, I can say that they are both human, and I don't care what anyone says...all humans are flawed. They say or do things that others might not understand, such as the comments Kerry made. I think that there has been a lot of misinterpretations on both sides, that neither side really wishes to address. I think that when Kerry made those comments (whether or not they were skewered), people automatically ran with it and slammed him (be it just or unjust), and you know, that's nothing new. Look at all the negative campaign ads that are out there.

Maybe it's just my own thoughts, but I know that seeing all the negative ads out there, it makes me less inclined to vote in my own Canadian elections. Personally, (regardless of whether they are made or broken), I prefer candidates who will talk more about the promises they will make, rather than throw mud on the other person, of which the arguments are all fluffed up and embellished in itself in a lot of cases. I know that in some political aspects, you have to do a little bit of research on your opponent so that you can try to fix any errors they may have made, but there are ways to do that without resorting to nasty campaign ads, or taking a comment and running with it all over the press.

I seem to have somehow lost the original focus of this thread, so I shall hush up now, hoping that I came across as well as I hoped.

(And, if it makes you guys feel better, one of our female Canadian politicians reportedly broke up a marriage of a Toronto Maple Leaf player by having an affair with him! Who says Canadian politics can't have scandal? :) )

blueerica

11-01-2006, 09:46 AM

(And, if it makes you guys feel better, one of our female Canadian politicians reportedly broke up a marriage of a Toronto Maple Leaf player by having an affair with him! Who says Canadian politics can't have scandal? :) )

Niiiccceee... OK, not nice - but a nice derail. Good to know the female politicians can get a little 'action' too... ;) (Not condoning anything, just... niiiccee..)

Nephythys

11-01-2006, 10:30 AM

More people who don't "get" the joke-

DES MOINES, Iowa A Democratic Congressional candidate from Iowa is canceling a campaign event later this week with Senator John Kerry.

Brucy Braley says Kerry's recent comments about the Iraq war were inappropriate.

Braley is running against Republican Mike Whalen in Iowa's First District congressional race. It's a contest considered to be one of the most competitive House races in the country.

Braley's decision to distance himself from Kerry came as a furor grew from comments Kerry made about the Iraq War during a campaign stop in California on Monday.

Kerry said if you make the most of your education, you "can do well." The Democrat went on to say that is you don't, (quote) "you get stuck in Iraq."

The remarks prompted sharp criticism from some Republicans, including President Bush and Arizona Senator John McCain.

Kerry refused to apologize.

A Dem no less- I thought this was a GOP faked up outrage?

Link (http://www.eyewitnessnewstv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5616595&nav=F2DO)

Strangler Lewis

11-01-2006, 10:34 AM

I sense no genuine outrage here. Just another politician avoiding controversy. People wouldn't campaign with Bush or Clinton at various times for fear of being associated with them.

Nephythys

11-01-2006, 10:36 AM

ah ha- he flubbed it allright-

Original script-
“I can’t overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.”

(funny- Bush got better grades than Kerry- so I wonder where Kerry would have gotten us stuck)

and what he said was-
“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Which can be- and has been- taken in a totally different context.

He blew it, took NO responsibility (which is such a great quality in a man who wants to be President ain't it?) and comes off looking like a jerk.

No surprise there.

Some are also saying the transcript of the original was written AFTER the fact- as a CYA.

MouseWife

11-01-2006, 10:38 AM

While he may have said it in a way that totally pissed everyone off, I have to agree with him.

But, the education thing is right on. The testing issue. I have kids in school, up and down the grades and into college.

I've seen the system change where, yes, they are being geared to pass tests and that is the main focus. They have cut so many other programs just to make sure they focus on passing these tests.

But I digress. The issue of being educated or not. Well, I would imagine the educated ones 'over there' are not the majority of the people going into the towns to do battle. That would be the difference.

I know young men/women who have gone there and they do use them to do things that are not told to the general public.

I also know a few who have been told they would not be going over to Iraq but would instead be going to school first and then bam they are sent over to Iraq. Young people, 18, 19.

Ever look at the casualty ages?

So, while I don't agree with his wording I think he is saying what a lot of people think. But it seems people can't say anything against the war or the prez because then we are being un-American.

I can love my country and not the president. Or his actions. And too many of his actions are overlooked.

Nephythys

11-01-2006, 10:39 AM

So if a member of the GOP demands an apology- it's overworked outrage.

If a Dem wants him to apologize or wants to distance himself from Kerry- it's just being prudent- no outrage.

Nephythys

11-01-2006, 10:50 AM

...and more (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/31/153527.shtml?s=lh)

wendybeth

11-01-2006, 11:13 AM

Oh, for shyt's sake- Bush has trashed the English language and misspoken on too many occasions to count. How's about a sampler?:

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

"I've reminded the prime minister-the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship." George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006

"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?" --George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

President Bush: "Peter. Are you going to ask that question with shades on?"
Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times: "I can take them off."
Bush: "I'm interested in the shade look, seriously."
Wallsten: "All right, I'll keep it, then."
Bush: "For the viewers, there's no sun."
Wallsten: "I guess it depends on your perspective."
Bush: "Touche.
--an exchange with legally blind reporter Peter Wallsten, to whom Bush later apologized, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany." --George W. Bush, D.C., May 5, 2006

"I was not pleased that Hamas has refused to announce its desire to destroy Israel." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 4, 2006

"No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 22, 2006

"People don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." --George W. Bush, on the deal to hand over U.S. port security to a company operated by the United Arab Emirates, Washington, D.C., Feb. 23, 2006

"And I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company." --George W. Bush, defending a plan to allow a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates to manage ports in the United States, aboard Air Force One, Feb. 21, 2006

"You see, not only did the attacks help accelerate a recession, the attacks reminded us that we are at war." --George W. Bush, on the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington, D.C., June 8, 2005

I could go on and on, but the point here is that Kerry does not have a corner on the idiot market.

Nephythys

11-01-2006, 11:56 AM

..and more (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226584,00.html)

Hmmm....and more (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061101/D8L4CD9O2.html)

...and some form of apology (http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/11/01/511371.html&cvqh=itn_kerryremark)

"Of course, now Senator Kerry says he was just making a joke, and he botched it up. I guess we didn't get the nuance. He was for the joke before he was against it," Cheney said in a line meant to recall Bush's skewering of Kerry in their 2004 race for saying he had voted for war funds before he voted against them.

GOP Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam veteran and possible 2008 contender, said Wednesday he wasn't sure "how you could construe" Kerry's comment as a joke.

And White House spokesman Tony Snow said Kerry's apology on Imus didn't pass muster. "He's insisting on pointing fingers at the president," Snow said. "Just say you're sorry. It's not hard."

Prudence

11-01-2006, 12:03 PM

Ghoulish Delight

11-01-2006, 12:07 PM

I think I personally would have respected him more if he'd just gone with what it sounded like he said. Seems to me the soliders are essentially the red shirts for the country. Which isn't as much a criticism of their worth as it is of how we value them and their service. Yup. And with all the hooplah, I STILL have yet to see someone articulate what exactly is offensive about the way he said it. They just say it's offensive and that he should apologize, but no one's, so far as I've seen, been able to say, "It's offensive because..."

Not Afraid

11-01-2006, 12:08 PM

All I see is a pretty vivid double standard based on your own political bias-which undermines any validity you have in complaining about someone's words every again-

So, why do you continue complaining, because you obviously have your own political bias which undermines any validity YOU have in complaining?

With that blanket attitude, the entire discussion is not even necessary.

(Of course, I think the whole damn thing is a waste of time and energy, but such is the ay of petty politics filled with as many distractions away from the real issues as possible.)

Jughead P. Jones

11-01-2006, 12:16 PM

Niiiccceee... OK, not nice - but a nice derail. Good to know the female politicians can get a little 'action' too... ;) (Not condoning anything, just... niiiccee..)

LOL! I think I understand the context of what you were saying, blueerica! :D

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

11-01-2006, 12:18 PM

(Of course, I think the whole damn thing is a waste of time and energy, but such is the ay of petty politics filled with as many distractions away from the real issues as possible.)

Yah, like the Senitor that's molesting Pages???? :evil:

Not Afraid

11-01-2006, 12:21 PM

Yah, like the Senitor that's molesting Pages???? :evil:

Yes, that's aother waste of time - at least in the political arena. I mean, what does that scandel have to do with politics other than it was a politician who did it? If a priest molests a teen, does that make the enture Catholic church a falicy?

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

11-01-2006, 12:23 PM

It's all about distraction, plain and simple.
Yes, Kerry said something in a stupid way.
Yes, That Senitor is a perv and got his due
Yes, the Catholic Church is a falicy..

Moving on! ;) hehehe

Not Afraid

11-01-2006, 12:25 PM

It's all about distraction, plain and simple.
Yes, Kerry said something in a stupid way.
Yes, That Senitor is a perv and got his due
Yes, the Catholic Church is a falicy..

Moving on! ;) hehehe

Agreed. Distraction - at least as far a politics goes.

(and I'm with you on the Catholic Church.)

Strangler Lewis

11-01-2006, 12:40 PM

Agreed. Distraction - at least as far a politics goes.

(and I'm with you on the Catholic Church.)

I have seen the Catholic Church, and I don't think it's a fallacy. It is certainly not a falicy. Sometimes, it is a bit phallusy.

Not Afraid

11-01-2006, 12:47 PM

Nice to see you've jumped on the typo-spello bandwagon. ;)

JWBear

11-01-2006, 02:23 PM

Yup. And with all the hooplah, I STILL have yet to see someone articulate what exactly is offensive about the way he said it. They just say it's offensive and that he should apologize, but no one's, so far as I've seen, been able to say, "It's offensive because..."
I would like to hear that as well.

It’s a sad reflection on our society that he can be attacked so viciously for telling the truth. Some people will go to any lengths to keep their heads in the sand.

I have no respect whatsoever for anyone, either Democrat or Republican, who condemns him and demands he apologize.

Jupiter

11-01-2006, 02:47 PM

Motorboat Cruiser

11-01-2006, 03:08 PM

hey goulish. he may not have said that. but tht was the implementation that i got. hey call it me if you want. but that is the impression i got. but this is also from a guy who is appearntly in his own world.

If you had heard the quote, just the quote, by itself without any of the feigned outrage from the republican spin machine, would you have come to the conclusion, on your own, that he was dissing the troops?

Because, personally, I just don't see it. I'm not a Kerry fan at all and yet, I'm having a really hard time understanding how it could be perceived that way. I completely understand that the right demands that it be perceived that way but I have a hard time believing that this is the interpretation that most people would have come to, had they simply heard the quote in context, without all of the commentary that accompanied it, telling them that they should be outraged.

To me, it sounds like he was dissing Bush and potentially dissing the abysmal educational system that was created with "No Child Left Behind". And again, saying that uneducated people tend to join the military IS NOT the same as saying that everyone in the military is stupid.

Tramspotter

11-01-2006, 05:26 PM

http://homepage.mac.com/wittywolf/mylinks/irak.jpg

Motorboat Cruiser

11-01-2006, 05:34 PM

The sad fact of that picture is that they are indeed stuck in Iraq until the US develops a better strategy other than "stay the course".

Not Afraid

11-01-2006, 05:37 PM

Plenty smart!? Bush actually said that? Talk about making a joke come to life!

scaeagles

11-01-2006, 05:57 PM

What I find interesting is that studies put the high school graduation rate of enlisted recruits at over 96%. General populace is around 80%.

So I don't believe it is true.

Ghoulish Delight

11-01-2006, 05:59 PM

What I find interesting is that studies put the high school graduation rate of enlisted recruits at over 96%. General populace is around 80%.

So I don't believe it is true.
Don't believe what is true?

wendybeth

11-01-2006, 06:48 PM

I thought being a HS grad was a requirement for enlistees- am I mistaken?

CoasterMatt

11-01-2006, 06:50 PM

It might not be, if they keep lowering the standards anymore

Not Afraid

11-01-2006, 07:32 PM

The Army, Air Force and Navy sites all ask for HS diploma or GED upon applying. The Marines site was too convoluted for me to wade through. I'm not plenty smart enough.

katiesue

11-01-2006, 07:32 PM

I thought it was grad or GED.

Tramspotter

11-01-2006, 08:32 PM

He still never said that all military people are idiots. He said that people who don't succeed in Bush's hand-designed "education" system are left with one path.

I realize that you are defending someone elses miss statement which on the face of it is not easy to do. But when taking down an argument using strictist set of greek rules of logical absolutes what is wrong with your version of what Cary "actualy ment to say?" :cool:

MouseWife

11-01-2006, 09:00 PM

Kind of ironic, this topic of 'No Child Left Behind'.

Today I received a mailing from the school district.

It says "...the local education agency receiving money, under federal law, to provide military recruiters with access to student's names, addresses, and telephone number."

It also states that 16 schools are designated "Title I" schools becasue they receive federal funding to improve the reading and/or math schores of their underperforming students.

Funny I received this because my sons' school isn't on the list but...

But, it claims that it requires districts to notify parents of all children in Title I schools that you have the right to request and receive timely information on the professional qualifications of your child's classroom teachers. And it goes on to list different things you can ask.

Okay. Why do they have to give the information to military recruiters? And the schools have to allow recruiters on the campus to meet with the children. If they don't they don't receive funding. Why these 'Title I' schools that are in need of funding for underperforming students are on the list to have their names given to recruiters?

We do have the option to send in a paper to refuse to allow our sons name be given. Even though he is in a different school I am still going to send it in to avoid any problems.

So. How does this fit in with the topic? Go at it.

scaeagles

11-01-2006, 10:07 PM

Don't believe what is true?

To paraphrase, I don't believe that the members of the military are 1) dumber than the average citizen or 2) only in the military because they couldn't find a different job or 3) that they are less educated so that the military was their only option.

DisneyFan25863

11-01-2006, 10:24 PM

Kind of ironic, this topic of 'No Child Left Behind'.

Funny thing is...they give the info to the military anyway. We have recruiters on campus all the time, and we are no where near Title I requirements.

Not to mention there is ROTC, which is basically a giant recruiting vehicle for the military.

Nephythys

11-01-2006, 10:58 PM

wendybeth

11-01-2006, 11:04 PM

It just seems to me that you are willing to give credence to the one who says what you agree with- and dismiss as disingenuous the one you do not.

Something we all do, including you.

innerSpaceman

11-01-2006, 11:35 PM

Oh, I think anybody is responsible for the words they say ... but how can anyone be responsible for other people's reactions or upset? Those reactions are completely up to the persons having them ... or do they have no free will while the speaker has complete free will? (don't answer that, Alex).

In a very real sense, I feel a speaker bears a certain responsiblity for how his or her words are taken ... in that if they are not taken they way the speaker meant, then the speaker has failed in some way. I think John Kerry failed in a big way. But even that failure does not make him, or anyone, responsible for reactions. He is only responsible for his words, not what others make of them.

If, based on reactions, a speaker judges to adjust his words, that is wisdom. If anyone claims a speaker responsible for the reactions to those words, that is folly.

So why is Neph talking about Kerry is the Random thread when there are two perfectly good specifically Kerry threads in progress?

wendybeth

11-01-2006, 11:36 PM

Spreading the joy.

€uroMeinke

11-01-2006, 11:37 PM

So why is Neph talking about Kerry is the Random thread when there are two perfectly good specifically Kerry threads in progress?

I believe it is a test of your moderating abilities

innerSpaceman

11-01-2006, 11:38 PM

Nephy's entire presence here is a test of my moderating abilities.

Motorboat Cruiser

11-01-2006, 11:42 PM

I don't get it MBC- who are you to call any outrage "feigned"?

You seem willing to give Kerry a pass- and trust to his intent and not his words- which even he say were "botched" but you throw out the reaction as being feigned (and it is not simply on the right)-

Well, here's the thing . I'm not choosing intent over words. I heard the same words that you did and, for the life of me, have no idea how one can surmise that he was saying that the troops are stupid. I just don't see it. His words, in context, suggest to me that this was a slam on Bush, not on the soldiers. And, as of yet, I have not heard one person explain how he could have possibly been talking about the soldiers. Y'all have been asked numerous times to explain this from numerous posters but I have yet to see a response.

What I have heard is republicans shouting from the mountaintops in unison that Kerry thinks that the troops are stupid. Until they can logically explain how his words could possibly mean what the right says they do, I'm going with feigned outrage, especially considering the circumstances. It is a tactic well known to both sides of the political spectrum, as you well know. And yes, I understand that some democrats are "outraged" as well. I simply don't understand where they are coming from either.

I think a lot of people are reading a hell of a lot into his words that just isn't there. You have every right to your own interpretation but I just don't agree with it. If that is "giving Kerry a pass", then so be it.

Ghoulish Delight

11-01-2006, 11:50 PM

To paraphrase, I don't believe that the members of the military are 1) dumber than the average citizen or 2) only in the military because they couldn't find a different job or 3) that they are less educated so that the military was their only option.Good, then I agree. And fortunately, my list of what I was saying is short (though has been repeated many times thus far)

1) People who do not succeed in the education system have little choice other than the military.

innerSpaceman

11-01-2006, 11:58 PM

If this is the line all the hubbub is about ...
You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.

... then, taken completely out of context, I have to honestly say I find the sentence to imply that people who don't do well in school join the military ... and yes, I find a correllary implication that most people in the military didn't do well in school.

Further, I think the logic exercise of finding the concept "all stupid people become soldiers" not equal to "all soldiers are stupid people" to be inapplicable to this situation. The vast majority of soldiers are people of a certain age ... school age, to be precise. Even assuming that a great many smart people, or rather those who do well in school, join the military ... I find it ludicrous to assume that such people are not in the extreme minority.

I am mindful, btw, that John Kerry served in the armed forces of the United States, and knows a bit more about the composition of those armed forces than do I .... or I daresay, most of the critics lambasting his remarks.

But unless the lead-in to that controversial sentence lays the blame for not doing well in school squarely at Bush's No-Child-Left-Behind program, I honestly don't see how Kerry was talking about Bush and not about soldiers.

And frankly, if Kerry does lay all blame for doing poorly in school on the NCLB program, I find that an absurd position. Much as I regard the program a dismal failure, I believe innate intelligence still to be the determining factor in how well one does in school ... no matter what weight is given to standardized tests.

I think Kerry said soldiers are dumb. But so what?

Motorboat Cruiser

11-02-2006, 01:43 AM

I am mindful, btw, that John Kerry served in the armed forces of the United States, and knows a bit more about the composition of those armed forces than do I .... or I daresay, most of the critics lambasting his remarks.

I have heard a number of servicemen in the last couple of days state that many of people they served with were people who chose the military because they truly felt that they had no other options in life. It would seem that that this isn't a big secret among soldiers. And yet, there are some that still think that every soldier signs up because of a compelling patriotic duty. It just isn't so and these people need to face reality.

I lived with one of these people about 6 years ago. He couldn't hold a job, did not have the skills necessary to be successful in college, and saw the military as his only hope. He signed up about 3 months before the 2000 election and was absolutely certain that he would never going to see combat. He had been promised that if he joined, numerous opportunities would become available to him.

I often wonder about him and how he is doing. One thing I know for sure, he did not sign up out of any sense of patriotic duty. He signed up because his life was falling apart and he was desperate. Anyone who thinks that he is in the minority is, I feel, sorely mistaken.

Motorboat Cruiser

11-02-2006, 02:09 AM

I think Kerry said soldiers are dumb. But so what?

With all due respect, I find this idea to be ludicrous. You are asking me to believe that, in the middle of a speech that was an all out bush bash, he suddenly decided to switch gears and call the troops stupid, one week before perhaps one of th most important elections in our lifetime.

I can easily buy that Kerry screwed up the wording of a Bush joke. I cannot buy that someone that was a soldier would basically attack himself and his fellow servicemen, knowing the political backlash that would follow. Would someone who went through the swiftboat experience like he did, and who has presidential aspirations actually think it would go over well to insult the troops. It makes no sense, especially given the context of the rest of the speech. I'm just not buying it.

Jughead P. Jones

11-02-2006, 05:16 AM

I think quite a few people are forgetting that there are several levels of intelligence. Sure, the soldiers might not have book smarts, but their levels of street smarts might be quite high...higher than that of even a Harvard grad.

Something to chew on, at least.

scaeagles

11-02-2006, 05:45 AM

I can easily buy that Kerry screwed up the wording of a Bush joke.

I think it was a Freudian. Like I said earlier, I don't think he meant to say that soldiers are stupid, and I don't think it was his intent, but I think he believes it.

Kerry is someone who prides himself on debating skills and his ability to use the spoken word. How many times have we heard him misspeak while pubically addressing a crowd? Could be that he does all the time and we don't hear about it, but he prides himself on his speaking ability.

I had friends that went the military route not because they were stupid, but because they wanted training and college money. I see noproblem with that whatsoever. Before I got a scholarship I considered the same thing.

LSPoorEeyorick

11-02-2006, 07:43 AM

How many times have we heard [Kerry] misspeak while pubically addressing a crowd?

Oh. Oh, oh. Glass houses, Bush fan. It kills me that we're having such a blown-out debate about someone who lost an election two years ago, when the president himself says things like "You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." That wasn't a few year ago, y'all, that was Sept. 6, 2006. Where is our outraged debate about that?

Nowhere did Kerry say that soliders were stupid. He said "if you don't do your homework, your choices will be limited to the military." YOU are implying that all military = didn't do their homework. Not him.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 07:50 AM

I believe it is a test of your moderating abilities

Actually it's because I started the topic in the Random thread before Tramspotter started the new thread- that's why.

I suspect there are time stamps that show that-yup, by almost 90 minutes.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 07:55 AM

With all due respect, I find this idea to be ludicrous. You are asking me to believe that, in the middle of a speech that was an all out bush bash, he suddenly decided to switch gears and call the troops stupid, one week before perhaps one of th most important elections in our lifetime.

I can easily buy that Kerry screwed up the wording of a Bush joke. I cannot buy that someone that was a soldier would basically attack himself and his fellow servicemen, knowing the political backlash that would follow. Would someone who went through the swiftboat experience like he did, and who has presidential aspirations actually think it would go over well to insult the troops. It makes no sense, especially given the context of the rest of the speech. I'm just not buying it.

How can you not buy that when he maligned the troops before- accusing them of war atrocities that he never actually saw, and may not have even happened?

Just earlier this year, or late last- he accused them of terrorizing people in Iraq.

Kerry has a history of slamming the military- I agree with Leo- he may have flubbed the joke- but I suspect a freudian slip.

SacTown Chronic

11-02-2006, 08:10 AM

I do not think Kerry was talking about Bush. But I also do not think he called the soldiers dumb. What Kerry said is the exact same fvcking thing I've said to my children untold times. Mind your business or you might end up a soldier or some such. And I don't believe there is a parent on this board who hasn't used some variation of this theme on their children. The military IS a last chance for many people. The military is also a means to an end as scaeagles says, I admit. But the number of people using the military to achieve their goals is a hell of a lot smaller than the number of people being used by the military.

For the record, I think you must be some sort of dumb phuck to enlist while GWB controls the military. Sux to be the person MbC described, certainly. Sux to be someone who enlisted after 9/11 to go to Afghanistan only to have Bush pull the ol' bait-and-switch on yer sorry azz and send you to Iraq. But if you enlisted specifically to fight in Iraq, well, I think you stoopid.

Funny how this entire faux outrage produces not one iota of debate over the merits of being in Iraq to begin with. Even the neocons take it as a given that the war is fvcked and they can only split hairs over someone who is NOT EVEN UP FOR ELECTION next week. Telling stuff.

Where was all this defense of our soldiers when Bush first floated the idea to invade Iraq? Neocons will make hay all day long over a non-issue but won't lift a finger to, you know, actually save a soldier's life.

Strangler Lewis

11-02-2006, 08:18 AM

Nice bit on The Daily Show last night recalling a tuxedoed Bush's jokey speech about how hard he was looking for WMDs. He played a series of pictures of himself crawling around nooks and crannies of the White House. Got a good laugh. As the Daily Show correspondent pointed out, the man knows how to deliver a joke.

LSPoorEeyorick

11-02-2006, 08:21 AM

How many times have we heard him misspeak while pubically addressing a crowd?

derail
Um, also, if we want to talk about Freudian slips...
/derail

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 08:24 AM

Gee Sac- guess there are alot of dumbfvcks since they keep meeting recruitment and retention quotas.

I begin to see why people don't have a problem with what he said- there is already a base disdain for the people who join the military- so why would it be a problem?

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 08:25 AM

derail
Um, also, if we want to talk about Freudian slips...
/derail

LOL- good catch. :eek: :D

LSPoorEeyorick

11-02-2006, 08:29 AM

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 08:33 AM

innerSpaceman

11-02-2006, 09:06 AM

I have compassion for the troops; I'm sorry they found themselves in the position to have to go to war. I'm sorry that many of them felt like they didn't have any other choice. I'm sorry that some of them were pulled unwittingly into Vietnam: Now! With more Iraq!
As human beings, I have compassion for soldiers as well, and I don't want to see them blown to bits.

Still .... we haven't been on the "good" side of a war in 60 years and, hmmm coincidence? - we haven't won one since then either. Plenty of time, even for people born only 20 years ago, to figure out the U.S. military is a malevolent force that, btw, loses every war it gets into. It's a VOLUNTEER army ... these young men and women CHOSE to become warriors at the disposal of a questionably-intended military juggernaut.

That they may have seen little other option is also true of most criminals.

That is not merely "disdain" for the troops; it is loathing and hatred.

Oh, and I feel that for all "troops" everywhere and all people who commit violence for whatever purpose other than personal, immediate self-defense.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 09:31 AM

Case in point.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 09:44 AM

well- someone did some digging. Kerry's history of taking digs at servicemen and women....

Link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061102/D8L4QH580.html)

During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."

In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.

Gee- he seems to share the same disdain for a volunteer army as some people here.

innerSpaceman

11-02-2006, 09:45 AM

Yes, case in point indeed. I find your support for warriorism to be horrid and disgraceful.

Who's right? Let's ask Jesus, shall we?

SacTown Chronic

11-02-2006, 09:45 AM

Oh snap!

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 09:46 AM

LOL- really? You think that was a snap Sac?

Laughable.

Strangler Lewis

11-02-2006, 09:52 AM

My only disdain is for the president, for sending troops to die for a cause that seems to be the oil business. I have compassion for the troops; I'm sorry they found themselves in the position to have to go to war. I'm sorry that many of them felt like they didn't have any other choice. I'm sorry that some of them were pulled unwittingly into Vietnam: Now! With more Iraq!

On the other hand . . .

When it suits their purposes, the powers that be are perfectly capable of arguing that enlistees are not a bunch of stoic Cincinnatuses (Cincinnati?), but, rather, culturally unaware mutants who are bred for killing. This from a history of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":

"DoD officials and members of Congress contended that integration would lead to violence and harassment against gay and lesbian service members. For instance, Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that he would "fear for the lives of people in the military themselves" if the ban were lifted too quickly. [206] Marine Corps Colonel Frederick Peck testified that a main reason he would not want his gay son to join the Marines was fear of violence: "I would be very fearful that his life would be in jeopardy from his own troops. . . . Fratricide is something that exists out there, and there are people who would put my son’s life at risk in our own armed forces." [207] One Army official testified, "There is a large percentage of individuals who have a propensity toward violence in that regard." [208] Likewise, a spokesperson for the National Guard asserted that the "sanctioned integration of homosexuals . . . will create explosive situations both in the work and living environments." [209]

I remember watching Colonel Peck's testimony on the news at the time. I found it rather chilling.

SacTown Chronic

11-02-2006, 09:55 AM

LOL- really? You think that was a snap Sac?

Laughable.
Yes I do. The Christian love of war has always perplexed me. It runs counter to EVERYTHING i understand about Jesus and his teachings.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 09:57 AM

Only you think it is a love of war- that is your misinterpretation- not my view.

But thanks for playing. Love this game- really I do.

Make the assumption that a willingness to go to war means we LOVE it- encourage it, seek it- want it. But that is your spin, not the reality.

SacTown Chronic

11-02-2006, 10:03 AM

Fair point, Neph.

The Christian willingness to go to war has always perplexed me.

Better?

Ghoulish Delight

11-02-2006, 10:04 AM

Make the assumption that a willingness to go to war means we LOVE it- encourage it, seek it- want it. But that is your spin, not the reality.It's the reality of our current "faith-based" administration. The one that has documentation from day 1 in office that they were actively looking for a path to war with Iraq. Not looking for ways to minimize the threat, not looking for defense against attack, looking for ways to start a war. Not spin, reality.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 10:09 AM

It's the reality of our current "faith-based" administration. The one that has documentation from day 1 in office that they were actively looking for a path to war with Iraq. Not looking for ways to minimize the threat, not looking for defense against attack, looking for ways to start a war. Not spin, reality.

And that means they LOVE war- and that anyone who happens to share politics with them does too.

Check.

Though I doubt the premise.

Does anyone believe there will ever be a "meeting of the minds" as it were ever again- I feel as if the differences that divide us in these matters will divide us forever. The democrats will never bring us together- nor has the GOP. I suspect that those on opposite sides will never be able to truly work together or come together-

Ghoulish Delight

11-02-2006, 10:12 AM

As long as there are people who would rather approach things as "Liberal issues" vs. "Conservative issues" rather than "Issues", no.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 10:13 AM

As long as there are people who would rather approach things as "Liberal issues" vs. "Conservative issues" rather than "Issues", no.

I don't think that will ever change.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 10:14 AM

Fair point, Neph.

The Christian willingness to go to war has always perplexed me.

Better?

No-because it makes the assumption that non-Christians are not willing to go to war and that is also an untrue blanket statement.

Ghoulish Delight

11-02-2006, 10:15 AM

No-because it makes the assumption that non-Christians are not willing to go to war and that is also an untrue blanket statement.
Where does it imply that? Seriously, where? He says he is perplexed by Christians that are willing to go to war. That statement has NOTHING to do with non-Christians.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 10:24 AM

Where does it imply that? Seriously, where? He says he is perplexed by Christians that are willing to go to war. That statement has NOTHING to do with non-Christians.

Why is it a Christian willingness to go to war- I don't see that anywhere either. That is a mocked up construction in the minds of some people- not based on anything or anyone I know.

So - what about Non-Christians willingness to go to war- seems just as relevant.

JWBear

11-02-2006, 10:37 AM

Why is it a Christian willingness to go to war- I don't see that anywhere either. That is a mocked up construction in the minds of some people- not based on anything or anyone I know.

So - what about Non-Christians willingness to go to war- seems just as relevant.
Not at all. STC made a valid point. Why are so many people who purport to follow the teaching of Christ so pro war? It seems to me that war is the antithesis of Christ’s teachings.

Then again… actually following what Christ said has never been all that popular among most Christians, so it’s not all that surprising IMO.

Ghoulish Delight

11-02-2006, 10:37 AM

Why is it a Christian willingness to go to war- I don't see that anywhere either. That is a mocked up construction in the minds of some people- not based on anything or anyone I know.

So - what about Non-Christians willingness to go to war- seems just as relevant.
It's not relevant because the comment that spawned the discussion is how willingness to go to war can jive with claiming to believe the teaching of Jesus. Yes, there are people who aren't Christian who are willing to go to war, but that's not relevant to the question of, "If you believe in Jesus's teachings of peace, how can you support war?"

That's a discussion I'm not going to take part in, but that's the discussion Sac wants to have. Simply saying, "Well, other people want to go to war" is not answering the question posed.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 10:43 AM

:eek:

I did not say that GD- I never said "well other people want to go to war."

What were you saying about let's pay attention what Kerry ACTUALLY said- not an "interpretation" of it?

Ghoulish Delight

11-02-2006, 10:52 AM

:eek:
What were you saying about let's pay attention what Kerry ACTUALLY said- not an "interpretation" of it?That's EXACTLY what you said. The question was, "Why would Christians, who believe in the teachings of Jesus, be willing to go to war," and your response was, "What about Non-Christians who are willing to go to war?" Can't be any clearer.

MouseWife

11-02-2006, 10:54 AM

Using a quote of Kerry's:

Quote:
In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job."

I have to say, I can't believe he said this because he is white and priveledged. Not because I don't see truth in it. It's rare to hear someone admit to such things. Some people seem to turn a blind eye and think everything is just great.

It has been many years since Vietnam and I've had many conversations with 'the poor, black and brown'. They feel like they were thrown out to the front lines. They were used.

I think they feel this way now as well.

And, the recruiters are making their quotas because the economy is so fvcked up. What do they have? {the majority, sure, some join because it is their life long dream to follow in their fathers footsteps} They are offered medical, dental, room and board. What do they get if they stay at home? The average high school grad must live at home to make it. Work and get benefits? Not likely.

Bush was talking about how people were complaining there was no work. He proudly brought up this woman who, Wow, she has two jobs! WTF?? Is that a good thing? How blind can he be?

And yes, you are right, I forgot about ROTC. And, I do recall other schools around here having the recruiters visiting the campus regularly. But, this flyer I received specifically stated these schools and I don't get why the military needs to be involved because the schools are under achieving? All of the schools on the list are full of Spanish speaking students, either from here or transported across daily. That surely fits in with brown, black, and poor.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 10:57 AM

That's EXACTLY what you said. The question was, "Why would Christians, who believe in the teachings of Jesus, be willing to go to war," and your response was, "What about Non-Christians who are willing to go to war?" Can't be any clearer.

That's rich.

I did not say- "well other people want to go to war" - I just turned the question from the so-called Christian willingness to go to war- and asked if there was a Non-Christian willingness to go to war.

I can't begin to imagine how you can tell me what I meant and insist it is clear and accurate- yet turn around and insist that everyone who thought what Kerry said was outrageous and inappropriate are all wrong.

Ghoulish Delight

11-02-2006, 10:59 AM

But, this flyer I received specifically stated these schools and I don't get why the military needs to be involved because the schools are under achieving?Mandated by "No Child Left Behind" (just ocurred to me how much that resembles the informal Marine motto of "No Man Left Behind"...)

Ghoulish Delight

11-02-2006, 11:00 AM

That's rich.

I did not say- "well other people want to go to war" - I just turned the question from the so-called Christian willingness to go to war- and asked if there was a Non-Christian willingness to go to war.Right, so you avoided participating in the conversation by turning it to an entirely different subject. Glad we agree. Just like you, and everyone else who is outraged about Kerry, took what he ACTUALLY said, changed the meaning, and created the outrage based on that. Now that we're all caught up...

MouseWife

11-02-2006, 11:04 AM

Not at all. STC made a valid point. Why are so many people who purport to follow the teaching of Christ so pro war? It seems to me that war is the antithesis of Christ’s teachings.

Then again… actually following what Christ said has never been all that popular among most Christians, so it’s not all that surprising IMO.

:snap: :snap:

Not Afraid

11-02-2006, 11:11 AM

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 11:16 AM

Right, so you avoided participating in the conversation by turning it to an entirely different subject. Glad we agree. Just like you, and everyone else who is outraged about Kerry, took what he ACTUALLY said, changed the meaning, and created the outrage based on that. Now that we're all caught up...

:rolleyes:

You are going to twist this however you like.

Have at it.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 11:17 AM

Not Afraid

11-02-2006, 11:21 AM

SacTown Chronic

11-02-2006, 11:22 AM

Dumber than the average soldier, apparently.

Not Afraid

11-02-2006, 11:24 AM

Hey, I'm "plenty smart".

Damn. Forget about Kerry. Bush says funnier things.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 11:25 AM

So, all newsworthy events must be easy? Who cares what Kerry said, let along what he meant. He's such a non-entity at the moment. Well, I guess that's changed. He's got all eyes on him now. What a way to get publicity, and how dumb are we all for giving it to him?

I suspect mainly because as a high profile dem- it can be considered a concern that maybe more high profile dems in the Senate are akin to him in views- which is certainly a point to drive home during an election.

I don't want people like him running the country- of course there are people who do. I want them to lose. They want me to lose-

It would be a mistake to think that if a member of the GOP had made a verbal gaffe like that, that it would be ignored. The left would use it in their campaign too.

(is it any coincidence that the word campaign has "pain" in it)

MouseWife

11-02-2006, 11:26 AM

I'm still trying to figure out the REAL reason for the outrage and popularity of Kerry bashing. It seems like such a non-issue when you look at the scope of shyt going on.

Can someone tell me WHY this statement is so news worthy?

Because the news is so full of election crap and so many Republicans are in hot water for so many things this is an opportunity to jump all over his shiet.

Never mind that he isn't actually running for anything.

And, it takes the heat off of them. Notice that? Gives them someone else to talk about while the others are swept away.

I don't get it either how people are so supportive of bashing him. Where are these people when Bush says some fvcking stupid insulting things? Just laugh nervously and change the subject? Because he is the president? I think he needs to be held to a higher standard.

And he called in to Rush Limbaughs' show? OMF'ng gawd. That is embarrasing. Our president called Rushs show.

I need a paper bag. Not sure if I am going to barf into it or wear it on my head in shame.

SacTown Chronic

11-02-2006, 11:27 AM

You may be smart NA, but our soldiers are Mensa, baby!

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 11:28 AM

Yeah- how embarrassing- the POTUS calling the highest rated talk show in the country.

What a shocker.

It's just like going on any kind of interview- and reaches out to his base.

Seems like a good idea to me.

MouseWife

11-02-2006, 11:28 AM

You may be smart NA, but our soldiers are Mensa, baby!

LOL Call a Mexican a 'mensa' and she'll smack ya!

Not Afraid

11-02-2006, 11:30 AM

I suspect mainly because as a high profile dem- it can be considered a concern that maybe more high profile dems in the Senate are akin to him in views- which is certainly a point to drive home during an election.

Well, that's a stretch! First, the statement was misinterpreted. Find something a bit more factual if you want to be effective with the argument. Second, I doubt Kerry speaks for all Dems.

The outrage still doesn't make sense.

MouseWife

11-02-2006, 11:31 AM

Yeah- how embarrassing- the POTUS calling the highest rated talk show in the country.

What a shocker.

It's just like going on any kind of interview.

Not really. Not to me. Rushs' show is low. I am sure it is amusing to some but is he someone I want representing my country as an interviewer? I think not.

I'd like my country represented by the Peter Jennings, Walter Cronkites, Barbara Walters types. Class. Not circus.

It may be the highest rated but so was Springer. And I wouldn't let my kids watch that, either.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 11:32 AM

Well, that's a stretch! First, the statement was misinterpreted. Find something a bit more factual if you want to be effective with the argument. Second, I doubt Kerry speaks for all Dems.

The outrage still doesn't make sense.

Yes, it is a stretch- but right now- with the election on the line- everything is going to be fair game.

Every word- action and misdeed- anything that could sway one vote the other way.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 11:33 AM

Not really. Not to me. Rushs' show is low. I am sure it is amusing to some but is he someone I want representing my country as an interviewer? I think not.

I'd like my country represented by the Peter Jennings, Walter Cronkites, Barbara Walters types. Class. Not circus.

It may be the highest rated but so was Springer. And I wouldn't let my kids watch that, either.

Low? Compared to Springer?

Ok- there will be no agreement.

Never mind. :rolleyes:

Not Afraid

11-02-2006, 11:35 AM

Yes, it is a stretch- but right now- with the election on the line- everything is going to be fair game.

Every word- action and misdeed- anything that could sway one vote the other way.

I had no idea the Republicans were that desparate. Grasping at straws is the appropriate phrase here.

Oh, and next time someone calls out the "liberal media" I will point to how much publicity Kerry has gotten over virtually nothing. Liberal? I think not.

MouseWife

11-02-2006, 11:37 AM

Low? Compared to Springer?

Ok- there will be no agreement.

Never mind. :rolleyes:

In that Springer was tops in the ratings as you say Rush is.

You must have missed that........

Not that we need to agree.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 11:40 AM

I had no idea the Republicans were that desparate. Grasping at straws is the appropriate phrase here.

Oh, and next time someone calls out the "liberal media" I will point to how much publicity Kerry has gotten over virtually nothing. Liberal? I think not.

I would still call it liberal- they may be giving him coverage, but alot of it is defending him.

Everyone is desperate during elections- this is not a partisan trait.

Ghoulish Delight

11-02-2006, 11:40 AM

:rolleyes:

You are going to twist this however you like.

Have at it.Twist? You flat out said you were doing exactly what I said you were. A question was asked, you "turned the question".

"How can you call yourself a Catholic if you don't take communion?"
"Well, what about all those non-Catholics who don't take communion?"

"How can you call yourself an engineer if you are terrible at math?"
"What about people in other professions who can't do math?"

"How can you consider yourself Christian if you are willing to support war, something Jesus preached against?"
"What about people who aren't Christian who support war?"

Those aren't responses. Those are misdirections, and changing the subject (to which you flatly admitted).

Go ahead and talk about how your interpretation of Jesus' words brings you to a different conclusion, but changing the subject does you no good.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 11:41 AM

In that Springer was tops in the ratings as you say Rush is.

You must have missed that........

Not that we need to agree.

No- we certainly will not agree. Having listened to Rush for years I am well aware of what his show is like- and it is neither low nor a circus.

But perhaps this is the place to drop it.

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

11-02-2006, 11:41 AM

I had no idea the Republicans were that desparate. Grasping at straws is the appropriate phrase here.

Should be grasping at Pages! :cool:

IMHO, the facts are the REPS are being overpowered by the Page Scandel, so the first thing to come along is Kerry's "joke." So they ran with it. Had that not happend, I'm sure they would have found someother bandwagon to jump on to divert attention from the other stuff. I'm not saying either party, person or situation is better than the other, that's just what I see.

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 11:42 AM

Twist? You flat out said you were doing exactly what I said you were. A question was asked, you "turned the question".

"How can you call yourself a Catholic if you don't take communion?"
"Well, what about all those non-Catholics who don't take communion?"

"How can you call yourself an engineer if you are terrible at math?"
"What about people in other professions who can't do math?"

"How can you consider yourself Christian if you are willing to support war, something Jesus preached against?"
"What about people who aren't Christian who support war?"

Those aren't responses. Those are misdirections, and changing the subject (to which you flatly admitted).

Go ahead and talk about how your interpretation of Jesus' words brings you to a different conclusion, but changing the subject does you no good.

No thanks.

I did turn the question- I did NOT say "well, other people want to go to war."

What I SAID- not what you choose to "interpret"

MouseWife

11-02-2006, 11:42 AM

No- we certainly will not agree. Having listened to Rush for years I am well aware of what his show is like- and it is neither low nor a circus.

But perhaps this is the place to drop it.

I am guessing you feel that way because you support what he says.

Yeah, it is dropped.

I see where this whole 'twisted' thing goes round and round....

Nephythys

11-02-2006, 11:44 AM

I see where this whole 'twisted' thing goes round and round....

and on that we agree-

...and never the two shall meet.

Not Afraid

11-02-2006, 11:45 AM

I see where this whole 'twisted' thing goes round and round....

Now THAT is a good statement!

Ghoulish Delight

11-02-2006, 11:47 AM

No thanks.

I did turn the question- I did NOT say "well, other people want to go to war."

What I SAID- not what you choose to "interpret"Fine, you didn't say that. Here's what you did say.

what about Non-Christians willingness to go to war-So, what relevance does that have to the question of how willingness to go to war makes sense in the context of Jesus's teachings?

Not Afraid

11-02-2006, 11:48 AM

So, what relevance does that have to the question of how willingness to go to war makes sense in the context of Jesus's teachings?

Don't you know that answering a question with a question is the proper way to hold a discussion? Where did you learn your debate skills, mister? DEFLECTION. That's how to hold a real discussion.

Ghoulish Delight

11-02-2006, 12:01 PM

Bringing things back towards the original topic for a moment, I present the Wikipedia definition of a Straw Man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man):

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

CoasterMatt

11-02-2006, 12:02 PM

Forward, backward, inward, outward
Come and join the chase
Nothing could be drier
Than a jolly caucus race

Backward, forward, outward, inward
Bottom to the top
Never a beginning
There can never be a stop

:D

This thread just has me singing, that's all...

Prudence

11-02-2006, 01:10 PM

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to CoasterMatt again.

I would give you some DoDo MoJo if I could.

Scrooge McSam

11-02-2006, 01:52 PM

Jughead P. Jones

11-02-2006, 02:43 PM

Hey, I'm "plenty smart".

Damn. Forget about Kerry. Bush says funnier things.

You really should have come to Canada anytime between 1993 and 2003 when Jean Chretien was prime minister. I bet he'd give Bush a run for his money in the contest of "funniest things said." :D

SacTown Chronic

11-02-2006, 03:04 PM

I learned last night that when religion ends it will be rival atheist factions who start all wars. Bummer.

€uroMeinke

11-02-2006, 08:20 PM

I think we need to summon Jesus, and the islamists can summon Mohammed to meet in a celebrity death match to put an end to all this fuss. Perhaps the Buddah can be the ref

Not Afraid

11-02-2006, 08:28 PM

Maybe the WWWF can sponser it. Just think of the costumes!

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

11-02-2006, 08:33 PM

Pay per view! $59.99

Tramspotter

11-02-2006, 08:37 PM

"How can you call yourself an engineer if you are terrible at math?"

I own a calculator.

Strangler Lewis

11-02-2006, 10:12 PM

I think we need to summon Jesus, and the islamists can summon Mohammed to meet in a celebrity death match to put an end to all this fuss. Perhaps the Buddah can be the ref

Carlos Mencia did it battle royal style. Buddha competed, as did Moses and Vishnu. Like all wrestling main events, it was inconclusive.

Strangler Lewis

11-02-2006, 10:15 PM

Maybe the WWWF can sponser it. Just think of the costumes!

WWWF? Holy 1970s. They dropped one of the "Ws" and were the WWF for about twenty years until the World Wildlife Fund won a trademark dispute. Now they're the WWE.

Not Afraid

11-02-2006, 10:17 PM

WWWF? Holy 1970s. They dropped one of the "Ws" and were the WWF for about twenty years until the World Wildlife Fund won a trademark dispute. Now they're the WWE.

Hey, I was patting myself on the back for coming up with WWWF. I'm not plenty smart about glitzy show wrestling.:cool:

Strangler Lewis

11-02-2006, 10:58 PM

Whaddya mean "show"?

Not Afraid

11-03-2006, 12:00 AM

Whaddya mean "show"?

By using the word "show" here, I mean gold lamme, costumes and characterization. Sort of like politics, without the gold lamme.

Tref

11-03-2006, 02:03 AM

WWWF? Holy 1970s. They dropped one of the "Ws" and were the WWF for about twenty years until the World Wildlife Fund won a trademark dispute. Now they're the WWE.

And in the 1960s they were the WWWWF, until they took out the word, "wiener".

Ghoulish Delight

11-03-2006, 11:11 AM

I learned last night that when religion ends it will be rival atheist factions who start all wars. Bummer.
We're all just a bunch of retarded frog-monkeys anyway.

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

11-03-2006, 11:11 AM

We're all just a bunch of retarded frog-monkeys anyway.

Speak for yourself! :p

Nephythys

11-03-2006, 04:10 PM

Ghoulish Delight

11-03-2006, 04:21 PM

Story about the soldiers with the sign- mocking Kerry (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11032006/news/nationalnews/inside_unit_that_outwit_ted_kerry_nationalnews_nil es_lathem_in_d_c__and_todd_venezia_in_n_y_.htm)
And good for them for having a sense of humor and not responding with the inane bile that most pundits have been spewing, even if they skirted military rules by getting involved in politics.

Not Afraid

11-03-2006, 04:25 PM

And good for them for having a sense of humor and not responding with the inane bile that most pundits have been spewing, even if they skirted military rules by getting involved in politics.

They have responded exactly how they should've responded - ante up another joke. Perfect!

Nephythys

11-03-2006, 04:30 PM

The article said they were "furious" ...

or did you miss that?

Ghoulish Delight

11-03-2006, 04:35 PM

The article said they were "furious" ...

or did you miss that?
One can be angry and still rational...as demonstrated.

Tramspotter

11-03-2006, 06:27 PM

Like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjXCVJaElM&mode=related&search=)

John should have listend to him.

Nephythys

11-03-2006, 08:23 PM

Like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjXCVJaElM&mode=related&search=)

John should have listend to him.

Wow- and one video links to another and another. Guess it's just more dolts who did not "get" the joke.

wendybeth

11-03-2006, 09:37 PM

I could post a bazillion links to soldiers and relatives of soldiers who are mad as hell at the way things are going and it wouldn't change the warhawks attitudes one bit, pretty much like your links won't change mine. I wish you could summon up some of that outrage at things that are really hurting people, but I am not going to hold my breath. :rolleyes:

Motorboat Cruiser

11-03-2006, 09:44 PM

Wow- and one video links to another and another. Guess it's just more dolts who did not "get" the joke.

Do we know how these soldiers even heard about this story? Perhaps their only source was from the likes of Fox News. I know if that were my only source, I would have been misled as well, as to the context of his words.

JWBear

11-03-2006, 10:28 PM

I'm still waiting for an explanation of what was offensive in what Kerry said. Please... Someone.... I just don't get it.

wendybeth

11-03-2006, 11:01 PM

I think you have to first listen to Hannity, Rush and then read the Drudge Report. Then, when you start feeling cranky, drop a bowling ball on your left foot. At that point, you should have the edited version of Kerry's statement at hand, and once you read it you will .....

.....probably be too nice of a guy to get the outrage. You'll just be irritated that you spent an hour of your life in such a meaningless and eventually painful manner.

scaeagles

11-04-2006, 06:59 AM

Moonliner

11-04-2006, 07:19 AM

I find this all to be very amusing. It's politics. Politics is spin. Remember Trent Lott? All he did was praise an old man at his birthday party and it became just as big if not bigger than this. That was all about spin. However, when Robert Byrd a while later used the N word a few times in an interview, well, he was just tired.

Someone says something. It can be interpretted in different ways (and as I have said, I can see it being interpretted as meaning soldiers are stupid, but I don't interpret it that way). So of course political enemies are going to spin it to their advantage.

Wow....words in politics being said to have a different meaning than intended. I'm shocked.

Damn, I hate it when Scaeagles is right but I have to admit he has a point. All this brouhaha over a few silly words is taking the focus off the real issues.

A president that lies, violates the constitution of the United States, is responsible for starting the only war of aggression in the modern history of the US, and most importantly is personally responsable for the deaths of over 3,000 coalition soldiers. Thanks Leo for keeping us all focused.