did John Kerry just call soldiers stupid?
 

Kerry once again proves he's got the communication skills of a writing desk.

But looking beyond whether or not to skewer Kerry, considering that No Child Left Behind included provisions that mandated increased access to students by military recruiters, is it hard to imagine that Bush's educational goals are to steer students away from higher education towards the military?

No, he called the president stupid. The video edit leaves out the preceding line about GW formerly living in Texas, but now living in a state of denial.

Sorry folks, but I agree with Kerry.

So do I. However, as Georgie pointed out to fellow Yalies, even a C student can become president!

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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-

Did he say all military personel are undereducated?

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

Link

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.

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 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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

Nice.

What did he have for breakfast?

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....

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?

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.

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.

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.

Best and brightest?


I'm laughing my azz off over here.

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? :) )

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..)

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

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

Link

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.

ah ha- he flubbed it allright-

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

and what he said was-
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.

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.

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.

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.

..and more

Hmmm....and more

...and some form of apology

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..."

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.)

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

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?

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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

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?

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

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

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.

I thought it was grad or GED.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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)-

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.

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

Spreading the joy.

I believe it is a test of your moderating abilities

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

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.

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.

If this is the line all the hubbub is about ...
... 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

LOL- good catch. :eek: :D

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!

Disclaimer- those who have disdain for the troops know I was referring to them.

(which did not- for the record- include you H ;) )

I don't agree with your view- but I have never seen a disdain for the troops in anything you have posted.

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.

Case in point.

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

Link

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

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?

Oh snap!

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

Laughable.

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.

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

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.

Fair point, Neph.


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


Better?

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-

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.

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.

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.

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.

: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?

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.

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.

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.

Mandated by "No Child Left Behind" (just ocurred to me how much that resembles the informal Marine motto of "No Man Left Behind"...)

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...

:snap: :snap:

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?

:rolleyes:

You are going to twist this however you like.

Have at it.

Because it's so easy?

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?

Dumber than the average soldier, apparently.

Hey, I'm "plenty smart".


Damn. Forget about Kerry. Bush says funnier things.

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)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Low? Compared to Springer?

Ok- there will be no agreement.

Never mind. :rolleyes:

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.

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

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

Not that we need to agree.

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.

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- 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.

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.

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"

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....

and on that we agree-

...and never the two shall meet.

Now THAT is a good statement!

Fine, you didn't say that. Here's what you did say.

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.

Bringing things back towards the original topic for a moment, I present the Wikipedia definition of a Straw Man argument:

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

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...

I would give you some DoDo MoJo if I could.

Next time at DLR... Sidecars are on me!

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

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

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

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

Pay per view! $59.99

I own a calculator.

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

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:

Whaddya mean "show"?

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

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

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

Speak for yourself! :p

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!

The article said they were "furious" ...

or did you miss that?

One can be angry and still rational...as demonstrated.

Like this

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

Sure. That's it. Can't be their honest reactions- NOPE- it's the evil Fox spin machine.

I think Leo's got it in the bag.

Or is that in the sack?

I'm sure it is their honest reaction. Never suggested otherwise. I just find their outrage puzzling, being that Kerry never used the word "troops" at all and wasn't talking about them. If you listened solely to Fox News though, you probably wouldn't know that. Seems like a possible explanation for their outrage to me.

But we've been over this already.

Wouldn't you like to know.:)

Make love, not war.




An old motto ... but a good one.

Why not both?

Well, there's usually explosions and all, but .... ah, um, nevermind.