Kerry insults troops: claims only "failures" go into armed forces

[reality_hammer]

Kerry is at it again, attacking the troops:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House accused Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of troop-bashing, seizing on a comment the Democrat made to California students that those unable to navigate the country's education system "get stuck in Iraq."

Kerry's entire insult, word for word:
"You know, education, if you make the

Comments

[minxyroo]

That dirty son of a bitch isn't good enough to wipe the boots of the members of the military.

He should spend his time trying to find those Purple Hearts he so gallanty earned *rolls eyes* instead of spitting on the lifeblood of this country. Fucker.

[2dumb4politics]

Yeah, that dirty son of a bitch. He should never have dressed up as a soldier for the cameras, never skipped out on his service, or made a smug mockery of the National Guard. He should hang himself for what he did to our soldiers, for sending them into battle without a just cause, without a plan. He's mostly a figurehead, though, the people that are truly to blame are the people in his cabinet, no single person should ever be made a scapegoat.

Wait, you were talking about Mr. Bush, correct?

[minxyroo]

If anyone made a mockery of the military, it was John Kerry himself, and his predecessor draft-dodging Clinton.

He should never have dressed up as a soldier for the cameras, never skipped out on his service, or made a smug mockery of the National Guard.

I'm waiting for you to whip out your Dan Rather memo on this! ;)

Apparently, according to your skewed reasoning, 9/11 was just another reason to roll over and play dead, hoping the terrorists would finally leave us alone. If you think that Iraq had nothing to do with bin Laden, al Qaeda, or the attacks on 9/11, you need to rouse yourself from your fever dream.

[2dumb4politics]

You declared that Clinton and Kerry made mockery of the military without giving any reasons, other than calling Clinton a "draft-dodger." Clinton admitted to what he did- who would want to serve in a pointless slaughter like Viet Nam? Cheney, on the other hand, took at least five deferrments. Bush avoided it for as long as he could, then squeezed his way into Champaign Squadron to defend us from Mexico (scary!) before leaving before his time was up. It doesn't take Dan Rather to confirm this, one only has to refer to Bush's military records which suddenly halt after he left early to work in politics (his dog ate his homework, I guess).

This is all understandable, I would probably do the same thing. What makes a mockery of the military is using this service as an excuse to call himself a "decorated war hero."

Why do you presume my response to 9/11? Mr. Bush's reaction was far worse than "to roll over and play dead," he attacked people who had nothing to do with 9/11, knowing that each of his claims was false (WMD, ties to

[minxyroo]

Clinton owned up to something? I must've missed that between his blatant denials of having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

The United States and Japan were mortal enemies long ago, yet they fought side by side in the War on Terror. People change, nations change, and allies change. Amazing what a couple of well-placed nukes can accomplish.

Zarqawi was the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq before his hot date with a bomb. Nope, no connection to bin Laden there.

Saddam had an arsenal of nerve gasses and missiles during Desert Storm, I'm sure he disposed of them according to environmental regulations.

Kerry voted for the war using the same information that was presented to President Bush. Perhaps he should consider hanging himself on the same gallows?

What would've been your response to 9/11?

[2dumb4politics]

Clinton owned up to something? I must've missed that between his blatant denials of having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

He did. Nice way to change the subject rather than acknowledge a fact. Speaking of that, would you list your sexual exploits in detail to an investigator who is supposed to be reviewing your finances?

The United States and Japan were mortal enemies long ago, yet they fought side by side in the War on Terror. People change, nations change, and allies change. Amazing what a couple of well-placed nukes can accomplish.

How does this relate to Saddam and bin Laden? Same leaders, (though bin Laden never lead a nation) same governments, same decade, same two people. Their views likewise remained the same.

Zarqawi was the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq before his hot date with a bomb. Nope, no connection to bin Laden there.

Correct, no connection to Saddam or Iraq. What bomb? This is strike two for your imaginitive speculation.

Saddam had an arsenal of nerve gasses and missiles during Desert Storm, I'm

[minxyroo]

Kerry isn't one to bow to pressure from President Bush. If he was cowed by the President, he wouldn't have made the remarks he made and stood by them. I'm certain he wasn't pressured into voting for the war, that was a decision made by Kerry and Kerry alone. Putting strings on his decision to go to war only if it was necessary is just another way the left refuses to stand behind (or even acknowledge) their decisions.

You don't have to agree with my politics, just please, please accept the bare minimum: acknowledged fact.

Don't worry, there wasn't even a remote possibility I would agree with your politics. :)

I do accept acknowledged fact, but you haven't provided me with any.

[2dumb4politics]

I don't identify with the left, but I did say that it was a foolish vote, done as a compromise between Mr. Bush summarily declaring an invasion through abuse of the War Powers Act. It would have been better to put Mr. Bush (figurehead though he may be, it's not like that single person is responsible) under some kind of censure- but how would that have been possible post-9/11, when someone was congradulated as a hero after one of the biggest security failures in this nation's history?

My point was to correct you when you say he voted for the war, which you did again, even though he did not. No one voted for the war, not even Bill Frist. What was up for vote was the resolution to invade Iraq if necessary, a resolution which Mr. Bush violated.

Don't worry, there wasn't even a remote possibility I would agree with your politics. :)

*Badum-ting!

I do accept acknowledged fact, but you haven't provided me with any.I have presented you with facts, it is up to you to accept them. Saddam did not have WMD stockpiles or connection to

[threefold_quest]

Good luck, no matyter how fun the conversation, you wont get anywhere... For some reason 2dumb is the only one capable of not spewing 'rhetoric' or being mind controlled by a party. The ONLY ONE capable of thinking for himself, and the only one capable of knowing that all right-siders cannot, simply cannot form an individual opinion or think for themself unless they agree with what he says.
Not to mention the superior power to be the lone eye on what facts are facts, and what facts are 'imagined'. No matter how imagined some of his facts seem to present themself as.

[minxyroo]

You're right. I've thrown in the towel, it was fun while it lasted.

Apparently, I have a pretty vivid imagination for making up facts, perhaps I should learn to market that somehow. Wait, does that make me a capitalist pig? ;)

[2dumb4politics]

Good luck, no matyter how fun the conversation, you wont get anywhere... For some reason 2dumb is the only one capable of not spewing 'rhetoric' or being mind controlled by a party.

This, coming from the person who refuses to acknowledge simple facts presented in a non-insulting way? Congradulations.

[threefold_quest]

Thank you!

Actually you have been great to talk to this time, you have been very good about not insulting. Can't say that about our last conversation, I know that when they get going with you, the insults do start. (Some people do find it insulting to be accused of not being able to think for themself or have their facts called rhetoric and unworthy by someone who fails to acknowledge facts as well). We could go over anything all day, but in the end your conclusion is always the same so it's pointless: Republicans/Bush supporters are brainwashed, present no facts ever only rhetoric, and cant see facts when they are presented.

I cant say I blame you, I feel exactly the same way about you.

[2dumb4politics]

It's possible to have a conversation with someone who has a differet opinion without assuming that the person is a zealot or that they'll never change. I have made no assumptions about you, I responded to your words. The one mistake I may have made is in mixing up your opinion with that of Minxyroo, and I apologize for that.

In this case, my position is that Saddam was never a threat to this nation and that the facts support this. As you have provided no links to- nevermind, I did it again

[threefold_quest]

I wanna give you a chance with this punchline thing, honestly

(blarg)

[2dumb4politics]

But we've been through this. Frowney face --> :( The "punch line" of his bad joke is the part that gets played over and over. Hearing only that incomplete part means it's out of context. People who heard the whole speech knew what he was talking about, people who hear only the "punch line" think he's talking about the people who are physically stuck in Iraq.

If a given person were to ask, "How did we get stuck in Iraq?" most people would assume it refers to how did the citizens of this nation get metaphorically stuck in the situation that involves Iraq. Blah blah blah... Context is important. Do you watch The Colbert Report?

Look at what this Democrat Robert Wexler said. Just look at it!

"I enjoy cocaine because it's a fun thing to do."

Now, this actually works as a gag, but it's a similar case of playing the punchline without the setup. Some news organizations actually ran the story as a bombshell, with headlines similar to: "Congressman admits on camera to cocaine us."

Re: (blarg)

[threefold_quest]

Good Lord, I know what out of context means, and I know how in the hell it happens. Thats why I want you to give me some evidence that proves it. You cant just say 'the people who were there knew' that doesnt help me, they had to know somehow, not simply because Bush HAD BEEN talked about.

With Rush's out of context media portrayal, one sentence before or after (or the actual entire sentence itself) was all you needed to prove it. Are you saying that I have to just take your word for it or would have had to have been there to know? If people knew what he meant, there must be a reason for it, give me that reason other than 'he talked about Bush in the speech and bashed him a few times'.