John Kerry

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Nov 1 2006, 11:40 PM) [snapback]342404[/snapback]</div>

I think the debate about those awards was gone over well enough in the 2004 election cycle. The guy has 3.. maybe he deserved 4... Maybe he was a real hero back then... Maybe he was sitting on the grass with a group of protestors making life harder for the guys who were still fighting in the war. Maybe he helped swing support against a whole generation of warriors who came home to a country that had no place for them.

Maybe he voted for the war before he voted against it and maybe he will vote for it again next time. This depends on what's in it for him at the time of the vote, not really what's best for anyone else who may be in harms way.

Maybe he will be elected president.. oh right.. no chance of that now... how many thousand times would we hear this wonderful sound bite in a new presidential election cycle... hahaha..

If Kerry was some kind of war hero for some things he did in vietnam, he sure isn't acting like a man who knows what it's like to be facing the enemy day to day now. His money and power has clouded that vision.

If it was not so, he would be the biggest champion for the things of the war that would help further protect the men and women fighting and further help them to have superior equiptment and technology. He'd be introducing bills to authorize space age technology for the war effort, to make sure 1000's of new hummers and bradleys are constantly on the way to the war front, to form think tanks to be furthering ideas based on gathered intelligence to possibly find some slick solutions to the war.

There are a lot of people not doing these things. I'm just pointing out that for his 3 purple hearts and experience on the battlefield that is so great, there is absolutely no payoff for it right now. Why? He can not personally benefit from any success in the war in iraq. If he can't benefit, then he won't do it, even if it would save some of our soldiers.

If he had been doing those things from day 1 of the war, he would be president now. If he would have started doing those things 2 years ago after losing the election, he would be the next president.

All he has time for is swinging public opinnion away from our engaged troops further putting them in harms way and potentially making America a hard place for our fighting men once they return. How does this help?

It will be interesting to see what he has to 'say' when he's on all the shows and stuff. More interesting would be for this stupid thing he said to cost the demo's a chance at the house or senate. If it did, it would again prove his ability to swing an election. Unfortunately for the demos it would again be him swinging it to the republicans.

 

As usual Stephen Colbert has the final word. I wish I could embedd the movie..

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/11/us.html

 

Man i love that guy...

"Senator Kerry does not support our troops. If he had won the election, there wouldn't be any troops left in Iraq. President Bush, on the other hand has given our troops and opportunity to fight without end."

He simultaneously points out the flaws on both sides! Kerry would get them all killed quickly, while bush puts them there to fight endlessly!

 

And here is the "fixed" joke..

 

Kerry and Bush had the same GPA at Yale. That said, what courses were each of them taking? Maybe Bush was majoring in under water basket weaving. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Nov 2 2006, 10:50 AM) [snapback]342577[/snapback]</div>

hey now, thats some hard stuff! do you have any idea how hard it is to weave a basket with pruned hands? and to have to hold your breath that whole time... :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 2 2006, 11:21 AM) [snapback]342554[/snapback]</div>

I'm pretty sure what he meant by that is that Kerry would not have sent troops to Iraq in the first place.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(juniper @ Nov 2 2006, 11:02 AM) [snapback]342587[/snapback]</div>

Actually based on the stress of the words, i took it as Kerry would have gotten the troops who were there all killed (of course referring to the semi-famous vote for, and then against the money to support them with better equipment). if he intended that Kerry wouldn't have sent troops in the first place, then he wouldn't have said that word "left" - that word alone implies that there were some there and something happened to them - either killed or pulled out.

I honestly don't think there was a single thing he said that could be described as "support" for any one - unless bashing someones opponent is support - but then he follows by bashing the other side too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 2 2006, 12:27 PM) [snapback]342609[/snapback]</div>

I really don't think he was implying that Kerry would have gotten them all killed. What would be the joke in that? He may have been saying that Kerry would have brought them all home by now. The point of the joke though, is that if Kerry were in office, our troops would be here, not there.

 

-- sigh --

Isn't it just a little desperate so close to an election to cling to and beat into the ground something this lame? It's obvious he flubbed a joke. I doubt that he's ever successfully pulled one off.

Oh! Here's our chance to divert from the real issues. Let's beat this dead horse and maybe everyone will take their eye off the ball.

What does THIS GUY have to do with anything I'll be voting for on Tuesday?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jaybee @ Nov 2 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]342622[/snapback]</div>

nothing

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Nov 2 2006, 01:40 AM) [snapback]342404[/snapback]</div>

Wow three! He must be really beat up. Would you please tell us what he received them for and why?

My Dad was hit by German machine gun fire in France and left out in freezing temperatures (probably saved his life) for 48 hours before help got to him. Severe frostbite in right foot and hand with permanent paralysis in both. He had a floating bone chip in his chin where a bullet hit but didn't penetrate, and multiple hits to his legs. They were barely able to save his right leg but his left wasn't so lucky and had to be amputated. He had periodic nerve attacks in his stump that would keep him awake for days the rest of his life. Never really talked about it much and never complained either.

My Dad only received ONE Purple Heart for the country YOU call home. But then maybe it's inflation, one Purple Heart isn't worth what it use to be. Cute enough for you?

 

I have seen the enemy, and it is us.

[sigh]

I think we are -- right now -- not only witnessing, but participating in the downfall of our country. Right here. It has nothing to do with wars or morals or any of the stuff we think we're supposed to be concerned about.

The dynamic present here in microcosm is everywhere, and it's robbing us of the chance to pull together as a Nation. It's also empowering the few who have the means to take advantage of our differences.

I'm curious if anyone -- ever -- in any of these discussions has actually been able to admit that, just maybe, an opposing view might be worthy of consideration...?

Or, even, if they didn't admit it publically, harbored just the slightest bit of personal doubt...?

I would also suggest that it's lots more likely people will listen to what one is saying, if one's message is delivered in a somewhat more...ummmm...level headed manner.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(koa @ Nov 2 2006, 02:32 PM) [snapback]342700[/snapback]</div>

Your Dad was a member of a group of people who formed a great, great generation of Americans. It seems to me that their dignity and sense of self-sacrifice is, and will always be, awe-inspiring, and forms the core of our current understanding of what it means to be a citizen of this country.

I can easily understand why you'd find glib discussions about Purple Hearts tremendously disrespectful.

 

"I think we are -- right now -- not only witnessing, but participating in the downfall of our country"

The divisions in the US now are exactly like the divisions over the war in Vietnam in the 70's, and for exactly the same reason. The country has been hijacked by an elite oligarchy which wants continuous war and will do whatever it takes to get it. All public policy is distorted to serve the interests of this elite. They own the country, the media, the armed forces, the secret services.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 1 2006, 10:05 PM) [snapback]342342[/snapback]</div>

I didn't say that I support Kerry or his remarks; I think that was quite apparent.

I found myself wondering how you could come to such major conclusions, and what exactly they're based upon. I think that's a reasonable question. I mean, suppose that you *do* know Kerry personally, and have some insights to his qualifications to lead the Country...I certainly wouldn't want to shut you down, so I asked (perhaps in not the best way) how you arrived at your opinions.

Your reply: YouTube(!)

Perhaps it's just me, but that doesn't exactly help your credibility in my eyes.

I'm usually as interested in how an opinion is formed as the opinon itself. The foundation upon which your assertions are anchored, if you will.

Thus, my questions.

Thank you for your reply; you've provided me with the information I was seeking.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Nov 2 2006, 03:15 PM) [snapback]342737[/snapback]</div>

What is apalling to me is the intelectual laziness of people with strong emotions about subjects. When I feel passionate about a subject I read everything I can about it and go to the sources closer to the information. What I see in the conservative side is a willingness to aaccept "facts" as long as they come from their selected sources without any critical thinking. You can see it in every conservative "issue":

Stem Cells
Evolution
War in Iraq
Gay marriage

For each of those the conservative position is not sustained by history or science and still they accept it if it comes from Fox News, Karl Rove etc, etc. Part of the problem is not understanding that all sources are not equal. A study in Science magazine or a frontaline documentary should not be discussed at the same level as a position from Anne Coulter or O'Reilly. And yet they do.... To my utter amazement.

The other more disturbing issue is the people that seem to enjoy the war, whether it accomplishes anything or not. War for war itself. That one I can not begin to comprehend, except that at some level your countries army and their actions make up for personal insecurities (chickenhawk).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 2 2006, 02:42 PM) [snapback]342745[/snapback]</div>

Be very careful here - i see the same thing happen from Liberals as well. I have friends who will tell you, on both sides of the fence, without a doubt, where you should stand on any of those issues. And both the liberal one and the conservative ones won't be able to back up their stance. they won't know the reasons behind it, they won't have done the research.

It's simple human nature to blindly accept what you see as the majority opinion. I firmly believe that this nature is slowly changing as people are "woken up" when they find out about some of the bald faced lies politicians or the media put forth. But it is slow. and the best you can do is just smile and nod when they put forth their uneducated opinions. The second best you can do is argue with them (thus FHOP here ). The worst you can do is... get stuck in iraq? :lol: