[hyteckit]

All you lazy idiots who don't study hard and try to do well in school will end up on welfare or working at mcdonalds.

Oh sh*t, I just offending everyone who is on welfare or working at mcdonalds. I guess everyone who is on welfare and mcdonalds are lazy idiots who don't study hard or do well in school.

If you are a crooked Republican who have accepted bribes, you will end up in jail. What??!!! All criminals in jail are Republican who have accepted bribes? How dare you say all criminals in jail are crooked Republicans.

The converse is always true right?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Bitter Republican: "Can you believe those snobby, elitist, murdering, lying, hypocritical, communist, sex-mongering, terrorist-loving, pedophile-protecting Democrats insult people so much!"

Bitter Democrat: "Can you believe those stupid, unenlightened, murdering, lying, hypocritical, fascist, sexually-repressed, civil liberties-hating, big corporation-protecting Republicans insult people so much!?"

Righteous Democrat: "I believe we should celebrate diversity. All cultures and viewpoints have something to offer. Did you hear what that fatass Rush Limbaugh said the other day? Why do they even let the f*cker on the air. I'd just ban his hate speech."

Just another post pointing out that both sides do the same damn thing.

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Hey where did Simey go?

Don't know, but I miss his insights.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom 

Bitter Democrat: "Can you believe those stupid, unenlightened, murdering, lying, hypocritical, fascist, sexually-repressed, civil liberties-hating, big corporation-protecting Republicans insult people so much!?"

Righteous Democrat: "I believe we should celebrate diversity. All cultures and viewpoints have something to offer. Did you hear what that fatass Rush Limbaugh said the other day? Why do they even let the f*cker on the air. I'd just ban his hate speech."

Just another post pointing out that both sides do the same damn thing.



Don't know, but I miss his insights.

Yep, both sides do it. The difference being that in the case of Republicans, we are right. (LOL). Just kidding. Really, I am just kidding. I'm really actually quite disgusted with the Republican party as a collective bunch. I'm just more disgusted with the Democrats.

[Jawbone54]

"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.'

Why aren't conservatives harping on the racist part of this quote? It's kind of taking a back seat to the uneducated comments.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Why aren't conservatives harping on the racist part of this quote? It's kind of taking a back seat to the uneducated comments.

Because he said it in 1972, not recently.

Yes, he made a sick racist comment. He's in good company with Robert Byrd in that respect.

[itai195]

Color me confused but I don't see what's racist about it? The concept of an all-volunteer military was controversial at the time it was instituted (1973) and disproportionate representation by the poor and minorities was one reason many people opposed it. Turns out those fears were misplaced, but that's hindsight.

[vmarks]

In past wars, the army was not disproportionately poor or black, and people signed up willingly. Blacks are not the ones dying in combat, it's Whites and Hispanics more so- Blacks are less represented in combat, but serve more so in support roles. source - Larry Wortzel, a retired Army colonel and current defense analyst for the Heritage Foundation.

Charlie Rangel and John Conyers both believe this to be not the case and have tried to reinstitute the draft. Conyers said in a statement that "once the conscription process for service in the military becomes universal and mandatory for all those who meet the criteria . . . it removes the long-held stigma that people of color and persons from low-income backgrounds are disproportionately killed and injured while serving as ground troops on the front line."

Even though Conyers is dead wrong.

But you know what: ultimately it is a racist remark. Let's see: we want people to act on their free will, that's what volunteer means. If we respect them as adults, then we respect that choice as theirs. When we try and socially engineer the results, we're no longer valuing that decision, and we're no longer judging people on the content of their character. Meanwhile, Kerry was, and Rangel and Conyers still are, judging people on the color of their skin.

[marden]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

In past wars, the army was not disproportionately poor or black, and people signed up willingly. Blacks are not the ones dying in combat, it's Whites and Hispanics more so- Blacks are less represented in combat, but serve more so in support roles. source - Larry Wortzel, a retired Army colonel and current defense analyst for the Heritage Foundation.

Charlie Rangel and John Conyers both believe this to be not the case and have tried to reinstitute the draft. Conyers said in a statement that "once the conscription process for service in the military becomes universal and mandatory for all those who meet the criteria . . . it removes the long-held stigma that people of color and persons from low-income backgrounds are disproportionately killed and injured while serving as ground troops on the front line."

Even though Conyers is dead wrong.

But you know what: ultimately it is a racist remark. Let's see: we want people to act on their free will, that's what volunteer means. If we respect them as adults, then we respect that choice as theirs. When we try and socially engineer the results, we're no longer valuing that decision, and we're no longer judging people on the content of their character. Meanwhile, Kerry was, and Rangel and Conyers still are, judging people on the color of their skin.

Yup!

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Actually that is incorrect. I think the problem with Kerry's statements is his habitual nature of making blanket indictments about his comrades in the past.

See this confuses me. We all saw what happened at Abu Ghraib. We know atrocities happen...yes even from the good guys. We know this. We know about the My Lai massacre. We know that war crimes were happening during Vietnam...violations of the Geneva Convention [b]were[/] occurring. Just as atrocities have taken place in Iraq..by us.

How is this slandering the troops? Should the Abu Ghraib whistle blower be torn down for doing the right thing? All of this....these blots on America's human rights record...they put the country at more risk..they put the troops at more risk. By calling it out and putting an end to it you are helping the country regain its footing. That these things happen is not a fault of the troops..its because the we've lost our leaders...its because the military has lost its path, its goal, its purpose.

As I see it the guys who outted Abu Ghraib did just what Kerry was trying to do. When you see someone you love has drifted onto a dangerous path of self destruction..you intervene. Sometimes its hurtful but you do it. Most people wouldn't have the balls to put themselves in that situation...Kerry did...what he said was true....denial doesn't change that.

[art_director]

Once again John Kerry has demonstrated that the Democrats exist only to destroy themselves.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Moderator 

See this confuses me. We all saw what happened at Abu Ghraib. We know atrocities happen...yes even from the good guys. We know this. We know about the My Lai massacre. We know that war crimes were happening during Vietnam...violations of the Geneva Convention [b]were[/] occurring. Just as atrocities have taken place in Iraq..by us.

... and of course I agree. All are inconsistent with the image we as Americans would want to portray. However, I believe there is a difference between whistle-blowing particular instances (indictments lodged by Americans, against Americans) with substantive proof and blanket statements perceived to relate to the entire "culture" of the US military.

How is this slandering the troops?

When one is not disciplined in the delivery of their rhetoric, they leave open the possibility of misperception and in fact do their cause a great injustice.

Should the Abu Ghraib whistle blower be torn down for doing the right thing?

Absolutely not. However, should instances of abuses be construed as representative of all military personnel serving in Abu Ghraib? That's certainly was the perception many were trying to suggest.

All of this....these blots on America's human rights record...they put the country at more risk..they put the troops at more risk. By calling it out and putting an end to it you are helping the country regain its footing. That these things happen is not a fault of the troops..its because the we've lost our leaders...its because the military has lost its path, its goal, its purpose.

"the military" See, this is where you are also trying to suggest that this is the pervasive, collective "culture" of the US armed forces. I believe these instances (while having always existed throughout our military during extreme moments of stress and any military you can think of) are not indicative of our military as a whole, but of the need for swifter disciplinary action when it is suspected and/or caught among the few that do.

As I see it the guys who outted Abu Ghraib did just what Kerry was trying to do. When you see someone you love has drifted onto a dangerous path of self destruction..you intervene. Sometimes its hurtful but you do it. Most people wouldn't have the balls to put themselves in that situation...Kerry did...what he said was true....denial doesn't change that.

"Balls" is calling misdeeds to the carpet. "Shameful", "cowardly", and "stupid" is changing your position on matters as the wind blows and relying upon divisive rhetoric to unite for nothing more than personal, political gain.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Moderator 

Obviously by telling troops and thier families that the statement was about them in an effort to stir up rage....Bush is the one who thinks they're stupid. And anyone who genuinely falls for it probably is.

Not only was the original remark by Kerry insulting, but then when he and those apologizing for him say that those who know what they heard, are just too stupid to understand what he meant, are just further demonstrating what they think about the commoners. You know what, all the rewrites of his speech in the world don't change that video footage. It was NOT a joke. He was trying to be funny (in a bitter and angry way) and those snobs laughed, but he meant what he said.

Common sense dictates that if it was a botched joke, he would have said something right after those words "you end up in Iraq" left his mouth, to the effect of........now realize, that I am not talking about the troops, but about the President. Is he not at-least that proficient in the English language, being an Ivy League graduate and all?

[BlueSky]

[Mark Larr]

John Kerry has taken a page from the MullahPlaybook™.

He knew what he was saying or is beyond too stupid to be in office.


Which is it?

[ink]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

John Kerry has taken a page from the MullahPlaybook™.

He knew what he was saying or is beyond too stupid to be in office.


Which is it?

We can equally apply that criteria on Bush's comments, right?

Just makin' sure.

Originally Posted by BlueSky

image stuff..

Speaking of Blue Sky...



Pretty all-right local pilsner. Yum.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by ink 

Speaking of Blue Sky...



Pretty all-right local pilsner. Yum.

Wonder if it's as good as this...



Bought a couple bottles just for the name. Found out it has chocolate in it. One of these days maybe I'll even drink it.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by ink 

We can equally apply that criteria on Bush's comments, right?

.

Except Kerry didn't make it inti office.
In fact he's losing an election he isn't even in.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Except Kerry didn't make it inti office.
In fact he's losing an election he isn't even in.

captian, did you know you just argued in favor of ink's side

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

captian, did you know you just argued in favor of ink's side

I fail to see how. Also, Kerry IS in office. He's a senator.


Beyond that, (as usual) Kerry -like Michael Moore, the race-bait coalition, and much of the pretend non-existant left in general- is just plain wrong about the make up of the military.

* The average reading level of new soldiers is roughly a full grade level higher than their civilian peers’.


* Enlistees’ high school graduation rate was 97 percent in 2003, 2004, and 2005. The civilian graduation rate is seventeen percentage points lower.


* The wealthiest 40 percent of neighborhoods in America are the home of 45.6 percent of 2005 enlistees. For every two U.S. recruits from the poorest neighborhoods, three come from the richest.

* There is no statistical evidence to support the claim that minorities are being targeted or exploited for military service. The 100 zip codes with the highest proportions of African-Americans were actually under-represented among military enlistees in 2005.

*Every U.S. military recruit of the last 33 years has been a volunteer.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

John Kerry has taken a page from the MullahPlaybook™.

He knew what he was saying or is beyond too stupid to be in office.


Which is it?

I think the real story in all of this is that HIS AUDIENCE Laughed at his "joke" EXACTLY THE WAY HE TOLD IT.
That tells volumes about his followers.

John Kerry's biggest mistake is that he assumes that those in the Military and those that support them are as stupid as he is and those are that support him.

[DLQ2006]

POW Lawsuit Could Force Kerry To Come Clean
On Vietnam ‘War Crimes’ Charges
- by George "Bud" Day, Chairman, Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation

(10/15/2006)

Thirty five years ago John Kerry slandered an entire generation of men who fought in Vietnam branding them as a "war criminals." Today, much of the same thing is being said about our young men and women in Iraq.

Now, a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas will test the very foundation of Kerry’s anti-war persona for the first time. It isn’t dubious medals or Kerry’s disputed service record in Vietnam that is being called into question. This time Kerry may finally be forced to answer for the events that launched his public career, one that made him an anti-war hero for many American liberals and a turncoat for millions of Vietnam veterans.

The lawsuit (Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, et al. v. Kenneth Campbell, et al.) challenges the basis, the factual accuracy of then-Lt. (j.g.) Kerry’s acrimonious testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. It was there Kerry’s public career was catapulted with his now ubiquitous portrayal of American soldiers as murderers, rapists and torturers "who ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . [and] razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

Kerry said then his accusations were based on the so-called "testimony" of "150 honorably discharged" Vietnam veterans who, like himself, claimed to have committed or witnessed "war crimes, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Many if not all were members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), an organization led by Kerry and financed by Jane Fonda during the early 1970s. Now, a number of those "witnesses" will be required to testify, under oath for the first time ever, about what they really did and saw in Vietnam.

What these VVAW witnesses say could have implications reaching beyond Kerry’s veracity and reputation. Their lasting portrait of the American soldier as a blood-thirsty butcher, a baby killer, is also at stake. And that picture remains entrenched among their kind, "proof" that those serving in the U.S. military, even today, truly are a "horde of barbarians" capable of unspeakable brutalities. That is the underlying theme, the constant drumbeat from the mainstream media and others as they try to undermine the American military today.

For the anti-war, anti-American protesters, the American soldiers are the "terrorists," and the enemies are the victims of a barbaric U.S. military which tortures and murders defenseless civilians.

That false premise, one of the most vicious and enduring smears spawned by Kerry 35 years ago, will also be put to the test once Kerry’s true "Band of Brothers" are put under oath in a Philadelphia courtroom.

The background to this lawsuit is long and complex, but even a condensed version is rich in irony and poetic justice.

It had it roots in 2004 with the documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal. Many may recall the film, although it is probably best known for not being seen, suppressed after Sinclair Broadcasting Company courageously announced it was going to air the documentary in its entirety. Thanks to Kerry and his liberal colleagues in the Senate and their enablers in the mainstream media, Sinclair was browbeaten into withdrawing the film, its broadcast license threatened by a Kerry campaign manager in 2004.

Stolen Honor focused on Kerry’s venomous diatribe before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971 when he accused Vietnam veterans of "war crimes" on a genocidal scale. (A full transcript is available at www.wintersoldier.com -. ) It examined the impact Kerry’s widely reported statements had on hundreds of Americans who were being held prisoners of war by the North Vietnamese communists. The film’s producer, Carlton Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize and Peabody Award-winning investigative reporter, interviewed former POWs for the documentary.

I was among those whom Sherwood, a decorated Marine combat veteran himself, asked to participate in Stolen Honor. I was a POW for nearly six years, held in North Vietnam prison camps, including the notorious Hanoi Hilton, a place of unimaginable horrors -- torture, beatings, starvation and mind-numbing isolation. When Kerry branded us "war criminals," he handed our captors all the justification they needed to carry out their threats to execute us. Thanks to Kerry, Jane Fonda and their comrades in the anti-war movement, our captivity was prolonged by years. The communists in Hanoi and Moscow couldn’t have had a better press agent to spread their anti-American propaganda.

To guarantee Stolen Honor would never be seen by anyone – not even theatre-goers – the producer was slapped with a libel and defamation lawsuit. That lawsuit was filed by Kenneth Campbell, a University of Delaware professor, Kerry campaign aide, and long-time anti-war disciple of the Massachusetts Senator. Campbell co-founded the Philadelphia chapter of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and, in 1971, he was one of Kerry’s key war crimes "witnesses," one of several on whom Kerry claims he based his Senate testimony.

Campbell was and still is regarded by some as one of the VVAW’s most articulate and published "experts" on U.S. atrocities in Vietnam. He has "testified" before Congress, in Europe, and elsewhere that while in Vietnam he deliberately killed "dozens and dozens" of innocent civilians as a Marine artillery forward observer. He has written extensively about his and others’ atrocities in Vietnam and he even teaches a course on the Vietnam War that showcases his war crime accusations. Campbell, like Kerry, met with enemy delegations -- Vietcong and North Vietnam Communist officials -- in Paris in 1971 while he was still a U.S. uniformed reservist. He was also flown to Moscow that same year to meet with other Communist leaders, all expenses paid by the Soviets.

Campbell’s lawsuit put a unique spin on the definition of defamation: He claimed that Stolen Honor damaged the public reputations of himself, Kerry and others by questioning whether they truly were the baby-killers they claimed to be!

Ignored and censored by the mainstream news networks, Stolen Honor eventually aired on some small local cable outlets. The documentary managed to penetrate Kerry’s blacklisting in rural northern Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and several other places. But, Campbell’s lawsuit against Sherwood continued in 2005, when he even added POWs who appeared in the film to the litigation!

The POWs and the wives of POWs who participated in Stolen Honor refused to abandon the facts conveyed in the film. For some of us, it was the first time since our release by the Communists in 1973 that we were able to have our voices publicly heard, to tell our stories about the consequences of Kerry’s treachery. In 2005, we formed a nonprofit organization, the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (VVLF), to gather records, documents and other materials to form a fact-based, educational repository for students and scholars of Vietnam history and to tell the true story of the American soldiers in Vietnam. The VVLF’s mission is "to set the record straight, factually, about Vietnam and those who fought there."

For our efforts, we were promptly sued by Campbell and another long-time anti-war Kerry follower and VVAW member, Dr. Jon Bjornson. It was clear that Kerry not only wanted to punish us for Stolen Honor; he intended to use surrogates to sue us into permanent silence and financial ruin.

But in lawsuits, even defendants have an opportunity to question the accuser under oath in pre-trial depositions -- even when a lawsuit is filed solely to harass, intimidate and silence and when the legal system is abused for political vengeance, as these lawsuits clearly were.

Our chance came earlier this year when Kenneth Campbell was deposed. Among the first thing he disclosed was that this was the first time he had actually been put under oath in over 35 years of "testifying" about Vietnam "war crimes." Neither he nor any of his fellow "war criminals" – Kerry included – had ever been sworn in at any hearings, not before the Senate, the House of Representatives, or anywhere.

All of the so-called "testimony" the old mainstream media trumpeted for nearly four decades -- graphic, sickening and grisly "testimony" about savage atrocities committed by Vietnam veterans, "testimony" to which Congress and the media gave so much weight and credibility -- wasn’t "testimony" at all! Just propagandist speeches told without limitation or fear of consequences, least of all penalties for perjury. As for the "war crimes" Campbell claimed for years he committed and personally witnessed, he now conceded he didn’t actually see innocent civilians killed by his artillery barrages. In fact, if anyone had been killed or wounded, he admitted, they may not have been civilians at all! Concerning other atrocities Campbell identified in his lawsuits -- things like Marines massacring an entire village, killing surrendering enemy soldiers -- those incidents, too, failed to stand up under questioning. Some were things he said he had heard or assumed happened; others, he acknowledged, were simply "rumors."

That Campbell alleged personal knowledge of horrible atrocities in his complaints and then gave wholly different stories of hearsay and assumption at his deposition is detailed in the recently filed Philadelphia lawsuit, which repeatedly alleges that Campbell lied about supposed war crimes in 1971 and lied again when he claimed in 2004 that his war crime stories were true.

While hard evidence may have been in short supply during his sworn testimony, Campbell did offer the names of "witnesses" who would confirm his stories. Not surprisingly, the first two were Kerry State Veterans Campaign Coordinators and long-time VVAW organizers in Florida and Massachusetts.

Subpoenas were served on both men but, before either could be deposed, one checked himself into a hospital for elective back surgery and the other had himself arrested and committed to a mental institution. At last press reports, he was released from the psychiatric hospital and fled the country to Vietnam via Hawaii.

Both men clearly knew what was coming, as did Campbell. For the first time in nearly four decades they would be forced to answer for their alleged "war crimes," their slanderous accusations against their fellow soldiers finally examined, under oath.

It was just a matter of days before all the lawsuits were withdrawn, nearly two years of costly litigation abruptly ended, Campbell’s libel claims ground to dust under the weight of his own testimony.

Like their leader, John Kerry, his surrogates wanted no part of having to defend these despicable allegations, or for being held accountable for the great harm they and he continue to inflict on our men and women in uniform. They fled the moment the light of truth shined their way.

My fellow POWs and I who were the target of these lawsuits are not willing to quit or surrender. Kerry and his cowardly followers may have achieved their purpose of keeping the American people from seeing Stolen Honor in 2004, but we refuse to allow the truth about Vietnam to remain untold.

Forced to spend huge sums to defend ourselves from these frivolous lawsuits, we have filed a countersuit against these Kerry surrogates and intend to reveal the truth about the lawsuits and their sponsors. We believe that we can prove that the purpose of nearly two years of litigation was to cover up for Kerry’s treachery, to drain us financially and spiritually, and to prevent us from setting the record straight.

At stake is ultimately nothing less than the integrity of the American military in Vietnam, the honor of the men who served their country, the nobility of those who gave their lives, and the truth of America’s history in Vietnam. Until or unless we do correct the existing record, the American military may never be free of the myths and smears of Vietnam, its honor and integrity cleansed as it fights to defend freedom at home and around the world.

Our mission is hardly over. We hope you will join us in fighting this battle . . . for our soldiers, then and now.

Col. George E. "Bud" Day, USAF (Ret.,) was a POW in North Vietnam for five years, seven months and 13 days. He served in three wars (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam) and earned the Medal of Honor. He is the Air Force’s most decorated living veteran. He is the Director and President of the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, Inc., an organization created to better educate and inform the public about the Vietnam War, its events, its history, and the men and women who sacrificed to serve their country.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

I think the real story in all of this is that HIS AUDIENCE Laughed at his "joke" EXACTLY THE WAY HE TOLD IT.
That tells volumes about his followers.

John Kerry's biggest mistake is that he assumes that those in the Military and those that support them are as stupid as he is and those are that support him.

It's this pretentious "eleetism" that loses the left it's elections.

And I don't for one minute buy Kerry's backpedaling explanations. Esp with him having in the past said things just like it.

But there will be those that take it as the truth, because they WANT it to be true.

An example of this is in this thread itself. I've been told the right was too stupid to have gotten the joke. I've been told that We are bad because we didn't fall for Kerry's lame-duck excuses.

I think he meant it as a joke. But I don't buy who the joke was about.

I can't believe such comment was thought "ok" by his writers.

These are people simply out of touch.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

But there will be those that take it as the truth, because they WANT it to be true.

Doesn't this apply to you as well Kev?

When I first heard the joke I percieved it as a jab at Bush, seems pretty obvious to me. I don't think Kerry is any less of a scumbag than Bush, but it seems both sides are exercising their extreme partisan-ness with this little issue.

What IS true is that noone can accurately say what EXACTLY Kerry ment anyways, so what the hell is the big issue here? As far as I see it, this is just another avenue for those who constantly disagree with eachother to take.

It's boring, silly, and completely ludicrous that this statement has been given THIS much debate everywhere.

How many REAL issues get this much coverage? It's f**king sick.

[marden]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Doesn't this apply to you as well Kev?

When I first heard the joke I percieved it as a jab at Bush, seems pretty obvious to me. I don't think Kerry is any less of a scumbag than Bush, but it seems both sides are exercising their extreme partisan-ness with this little issue.

What IS true is that noone can accurately say what EXACTLY Kerry ment anyways, so what the hell is the big issue here? As far as I see it, this is just another avenue for those who constantly disagree with eachother to take.

It's boring, silly, and completely ludicrous that this statement has been given THIS much debate everywhere.

How many REAL issues get this much coverage? It's f**king sick.

Like you guys haven't already mastered the art when bashing Bush these past 6 years???


You guys CONSTANTLY intentionally misunderstand him and twist his words or their meanings. Suddenly you are the innocent victim? C'mon be real!

[Kevin]

Kerry was attempting to belittle the armed forces. He has in the past. So why would this be any different?

Besides, doesn't he have a brain? Wouldn't something like this set a red light off in his head as maybe being a bit tasteless?

I call it a common sense. And it seems Kerry lacks it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

I think the real story in all of this is that HIS AUDIENCE Laughed at his "joke" EXACTLY THE WAY HE TOLD IT.
That tells volumes about his followers.

Uh...have you seen the footage of Bush's audience applauding the 9/11 attacks? Mobs are fickle things.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Uh...have you seen the footage of Bush's audience applauding the 9/11 attacks? Mobs are fickle things.

I'd love to see this video myself actually.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I'd love to see this video myself actually.

YouTube - John Kerry Bush joke

Around the 8 minute mark.

[Kevin]

Ok I didn't hear anyone applauding the 9/11 attacks.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Ok I didn't hear anyone applauding the 9/11 attacks.

Actually, I did. It's quite hilarious. Tune in again, 8 min mark.
Bush says something like "when more than 3000 died on US soil..." Then the applause starts.

-t

[Kevin]

Within context of the entire speech.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Within context of the entire speech.

Oh, you mean there was an entire speech? I thought this thread was all about judging people by their sound bites.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Within context of the entire speech.

Of course, you silly. Did you think Bush was just silent for 10 min, and people would still applaud ?

-t

[hyteckit]

Man, I was watching the video and I know what the black guy and asian guy who are standing behind Pres. Bush, are thinking. They look so agitated. They must be thinking Pres. Bush, still trying to link Iraq and terrorism, and somehow the terrorist who was responsible for 9/11 is from Iraq.

[ink]

One bright point in all this: John Kerry is officially done. He can't possibly hope to win the primary in 2008.

You'd think that the Republicans would encourage him to run/win in '08 instead of crucifying him now.

Thanks, guys.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ink 

One bright point in all this: John Kerry is officially done. He can't possibly hope to win the primary in 2008.

You'd think that the Republicans would encourage him to run/win in '08 instead of crucifying him now.

Thanks, guys.

Actually, I think it's pretty clear that Kerry didn't have the nod anyway. Hillary is the one. I wonder why she was so helpful to the Kerry crucifixion? He was straight thrown under a bus and it wasn't the Repubs doing any heavy lifting.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Oh, you mean there was an entire speech? I thought this thread was all about judging people by their sound bites.

No one took Kerry's joke out of context.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No one took Kerry's joke out of context.

YouTube - Kerrys Comments in Context

Please. Considering he was in the midst of telling other jokes about Bush, that you and others continue to disregard his reasonable explanation and tell yourselves that he told this joke out of malice toward the troops is ridiculous.

[Sky Captain]

Kerry is still a bitter jilted old maid.
And an ass.
And I studied hard. Did well. Got sent to Iraq.
Kerry - **** OFF.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

YouTube - Kerrys Comments in Context

Please. Considering he was in the midst of telling other jokes about Bush, that you and others continue to disregard his reasonable explanation and tell yourselves that he told this joke out of malice toward the troops is ridiculous.

I don't think he told it out of MALICE to the other troops. He was just talking lame rhetoric.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I don't think he told it out of MALICE to the other troops. He was just talking lame rhetoric.

Okie doke. I amend my earlier statement. You clearly did not take his comments out of context. But others clearly did.

[Kevin]

His common sense meter should have went off when reading that "joke"

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

His common sense meter should have went off when reading that "joke"

Or, as most people do when giving a speech, he wasn't literally reading off of the page (or teleprompter, whatever) as he spoke?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Or, as most people do when giving a speech, he wasn't literally reading off of the page (or teleprompter, whatever) as he spoke?

The people writing it should have had a light-bulb go off. Kerrie reading it beforehand should have had a light-bulb go off.

It didn't in either of these cases. And that is what disturbs me more than the actual words he said.

Like I said, no common sense.