I knew the guy was a weasel - Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/02/kerry.remarks/index.html)

He got a big enough laugh for the joke. Fair play.

Either way, the intended or unintended versions are both humourous at heart. And rather true.

I don't see what the big deal is. But the Republicans can't have much to say for themselves if they need to make a mountain out of this molehill.

How many of your friends or relatives have ever served in the military?

He got a big enough laugh for the joke. Fair play.

Either way, the intended or unintended versions are both humourous at heart. And rather true.

I don't see what the big deal is. But the Republicans can't have much to say for themselves if they need to make a mountain out of this molehill.


Exactly the Republican spin machine tried to make it about the military personnel, when it was actually addressed to their idiot boss.

Exactly the Republican spin machine tried to make it about the military personnel, when it was actually addressed to their idiot boss.

Take away the spin, etc. Is it acceptable for a leader of the country to have this kind of opinion and make this kind of remark?

How many of your friends or relatives have ever served in the military?

Quite a few. My father, my uncle. My sister's fiance. Some other friends. Why? Their military involvement has nothing to do with John Kerry or Iraq.

It was a simple joke by Kerry saying that if people didn't study hard enough then they'll end up in the military. It's probably a rather true statement. While many soldiers may be of some intelligence, it would seem that many join up because they messed up school, whether through their own fault or being from a deprived area background. Indeed, while Fahrenheit 9/11 may have had a certain bias, there can be no denying that the US military does actively try to recruit the dead-enders for its (non-existant) cause.

Is it acceptable for a leader of the country to have this kind of opinion and make this kind of remark?

Let's not forget, the leader of your country (and the 'free world' :rolleyes: ) did not make the remark. John Kerry did.

Quite a few. My father, my uncle. My sister's fiance. Some other friends. Why? Their military involvement has nothing to do with John Kerry or Iraq.

Guess your father, uncle and sister's fiance should have studied harder. ;)

I knew the guy was a weasel - Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/02/kerry.remarks/index.html)

To go back to the original statement.

It was a stupid thing for him (Kerry)to say, only so far as the Dems should be very focused on winning and nothing else.

Let's not forget, the leader of your country (and the 'free world' :rolleyes: ) did not make the remark. John Kerry did.

Which, (on this issue at least), makes Bush the better man. IMHO ;)

To go back to the original statement.

It was a stupid thing to say, only so far as the Dems should be very focused on winning and nothing else.

So if it wasn't election time it would be ok to say?

Which, (on this issue at least), makes Bush the better man. IMHO ;)

IMHO Are you sure you didnt' meen LMAO

IMHO Are you sure you didnt' meen LMAO

I know, he doesn't have much going for him, still I think he's better than Kerry... Hard to comprehend those are two of the best we can come up with huh?

I know, he doesn't have much going for him, still I think he's better than Kerry... Hard to comprehend those are two of the best we come with huh?

When we were in the election of 2004 I used to say 300 million Americans and this is the best we can come up with.

When we were in the election of 2004 I used to say 300 million Americans and this is the best we can come up with.

I honestly think we'd do better if we just got a president using a lotto...

Oh wait that wouldn't work, the guys with all the money would just buy more tickets...:rolleyes:

The brother of a good friend of ours was recently killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb. He had a degree in Psychology, was a Tulsa Police Officer and a Marine reservist because that's what he wanted to do. If he had survived one more month he could have returned home to his wife when his unit finished their tour. True, some in the military are from the bottom of the barrel (just like anything else), but many more aren't. They are serving because that's what they choose to do for their reasons. I personally thought the "joke" was in very poor taste. If he wants to take a crack at Bush so be it, but leave the military out of it.

When we were in the election of 2004 I used to say 300 million Americans and this is the best we can come up with.

I saw somewhere that the Democratic candidate that you wanted to run for President had dropped out of the race. I can't remember his name now, Mark something? It seems like neither party can come up with a decent candidate. :rolleyes:

I saw somewhere that the Democratic candidate that you wanted to run for President had dropped out of the race. I can't remember his name now, Mark something? It seems like neither party can come up with a decent candidate. :rolleyes:

Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia.

I knew the guy was a weasel - Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/02/kerry.remarks/index.html)I actually read the entire joke that Kerry was supposed to use and while quite scathing, actually did exactly what it was intended to do, not what the Republican spin machine has created here.

If you still feel the need to dig, though, the whole "too dumb to stick with the teleprompter" argument is quite valid IMHO ;)

You kind of lost me here - When you say he was 'supposed' to say something, makes me think he in fact did not say what he was supposed to. In which case how could what he was 'supposed' to say do anything?

I actually read the entire joke that Kerry was supposed to use and while quite scathing, actually did exactly what it was intended to do, not what the Republican spin machine has created here.

If you still feel the need to dig, though, the whole "too dumb to stick with the teleprompter" argument is quite valid IMHO ;)

Where did you read that? I would be interested to know. Also, is it really spin if they are upset about what he said and not what he was supposed to say? I mean, I know both sides are spinning stuff all the time but having read what he said, I can see why people are upset. I personally think the guy is a moron. :D

You kind of lost me here - When you say he was 'supposed' to say something, makes me think he in fact did not say what he was supposed to. In which case how could what he was 'supposed' to say do anything?The actual joke in the speech was directed at Dubya, and essentially boiled down to "if you're not smart, blah, blah, blah... you get us stuck in places like Iraq, just ask GWB". I want to say I found it on NPR ...I'll not be able to verify it 'till I get home and away from smart filter, though.:( Basically, he just didn't give the speech as written...I would assume that means they had a teleprompter there that he managed to somehow ignore. I thought he should have stayed on the campaign trail and stuck to his guns, explain the mistake, play human, and keep going, but instead they decide to run away and give the battle to the repubs.

Also, is it really spin if they are upset about what he said and not what he was supposed to say? I mean, I know both sides are spinning stuff all the time but having read what he said, I can see why people are upset. I personally think the guy is a moron.I suppose the deciding factor is intent. You have to admit, most will react differently if they perceive the slight out of shear maliciousness as opposed to just a stupid mistake. The repubs are trying desperately to get everyone on the "he did it on purpose" bandwagon, trying to rally emotions, etc, etc. What he said, taken in context, without knowing what was written, is a lot out of bounds, but should be seen as a mistake instead of an intentional foul.

The actual joke in the speech was directed at Dubya, and essentially boiled down to "if you're not smart, blah, blah, blah... you get us stuck in places like Iraq, just ask GWB". I want to say I found it on NPR ...I'll not be able to verify it 'till I get home and away from smart filter, though.:( Basically, he just didn't give the speech as written...I would assume that means they had a teleprompter there that he managed to somehow ignore. I thought he should have stayed on the campaign trail and stuck to his guns, explain the mistake, play human, and keep going, but instead they decide to run away and give the battle to the repubs.

I'll take your word on it and apologize for not researching it further. If that was what he was supposed to say then it appears to have been a simple goof up on his part. My bad - :o

Kerry is off the hook on this one - Sorry gang. :( At least I have mud on my face here instead of in front of my boss :eek: :p

I'll take your word on it and apologize for not researching it further. If that was what he was supposed to say then it appears to have been a simple goof up on his part. My bad - :o

Kerry is off the hook on this one - Sorry gang. :( At least I have mud on my face here instead of in front of my boss :eek: :p


Meh...I still have to say he's a moron for saying what he said rather than what he was supposed to say, if that's the case. Either he said it maliciously, or he said it because he was too stupid to follow the teleprompter. Not looking good for him either way. Any time fellow Democrats are backpedaling to distance themselves from the stench and try to save their own elections, you know it has to be bad. :D

I just found another reference here (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/31/kerry.mccain/index.html?eref=rss_politics):

Kerry was supposed to say, "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq." I also heard Lieberman in an interview talking about Kerry's status as a veteran, asking the rhetorical "do you really think a man with his experience and background" questions.

The only mud I see on your face Ken is the collateral damage from all the Republican slinging...don't worry about it:)

Meh...I still have to say he's a moron for saying what he said rather than what he was supposed to say, if that's the case. Either he said it maliciously, or he said it because he was too stupid to follow the teleprompter. agreedNot looking good for him either way. Any time fellow Democrats are backpedaling to distance themselves from the stench and try to save their own elections, you know it has to be bad. :Dbut you have to admit, he's got a point:But Kerry refused to relent, calling the criticism part of the "classic GOP playbook."

"I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed-suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq."

He further expressed disgust with "Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country."

Kerry added that President Bush and Vice President Cheney "owe our troops an apology" because they "misled America into war."

Bush and Cheney "have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it," the senator said.
Isn't it amazing that with this on his side, the spin machine continues to work so well? Politics gives me a headache:D

Politics gives me a headache:D

Agreed on that one. :D

By the way, I still think the joke in it's original form was probably a bad idea (although not as bad as how it came out). Like I said earlier, if he wants to take a dig at Bush go ahead, but the military shouldn't be part of any joke. Just my opinion...

If he wants to take a crack at Bush so be it, but leave the military out of it.
But doesn't Bush drag the military into it when it suits, and in any case isn't it true that Americans only elect those with a military backround to high office?

But doesn't Bush drag the military into it when it suits, and in any case isn't it true that Americans only elect those with a military backround to high office?

Did Clinton have a military background? Reagan?

Did Clinton have a military background? Reagan?
Raygun was a puppet of the military

But doesn't Bush drag the military into it when it suits,

For a joke? No, I don't think so.

Raygun was a puppet of the military
How about Clinton then?

How about Clinton then?

Clinton was just a puppet. :D

Did Clinton have a military background? Reagan?

Assuming this information is correct, Reagan did (and made Captain), Clinton didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_rank# Did_not_serve

Clinton was just a puppet. :D
Then elect another one:cool:

Assuming this information is correct, Reagan did (and made Captain), Clinton didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_rank# Did_not_serve

Thanks Matt -- that's some interesting info. I guess the facts got to Rich again. :rolleyes:

Thanks Matt -- that's some interesting info. I guess the facts got to Rich again. :rolleyes:
Yes you're right I should have said most, or the vast majority, take your pick if you want to nit pick and search for the very few exceptions

Yes you're right I should have said most, or the vast majority, take your pick if you want to nit pick and search for the very few exceptions

Well if W is the 43rd president, and there are 12 (according to Wikipedia) that did not serve, that means 28% did not serve. "Very few exceptions" doesn't seem like the proper term.

Edit: I counted incorrectly. There's 11 that didn't serve (26%)

Well if W is the 43rd president, and there are 12 (according to Wikipedia) that did not serve, that means 28% did not serve. "Very few exceptions" doesn't seem like the proper term.
It does when you compare the figures with those of a normal country

What would you consider a normal country?

The UK, Australia,NewZealand,Canada, how many do you need?

Exactly the Republican spin machine tried to make it about the military personnel, when it was actually addressed to their idiot boss.
Sorry, I was offended (being ex-military) and took it as an insult to the military.
And I saw the address on the news, and right after that President Hillary came on and basically said what a dumb $hyt. SO republican spin, (well DUH), but the dems are back pedalling also. Of course it would be the same if the reverse were true also. I mean, admit it, everyone says something stupid now and then. It seems as a world population we are just more teechy on it any more.
I mean look at that Falkland islands war the British started over a stupid (It's Mine) quibble.

Do you have facts to back up the notion that they elect less military figures?

Do you have facts to back up the notion that they elect less military figures?
You'll have to research it for yourself

Why should I? You're the one who said:

"It does when you compare the figures with those of a normal country."

I'm assuming you have some figures. It'd only make sense that I base my response on the same figures, no?

I mean look at that Falkland islands war the British started over a stupid (It's Mine) quibble.
We didn't start it, Argentina did and the Islanders in a free and not rigged vote elected to stay British
Oh and by the way we won that one, how did you do in Nam?

We didn't start it, Argentina did and the Islanders in a free and not rigged vote elected to stay British
Oh and by the way we won that one, how did you do in Nam?

Yea, OK, still look how many died for no reason! BUT it's OK cause it was the British, not the US right? I mean almost as many military as the WHOLE POPULATION of the islands died in that little squabble (OK closer to half) so how can you defend that? And all over the "It's Mine, Not Yours" mentality. There was no genicide, there were no terrorist, pretty much nothing. Makes GWB look like a frigg'n genius in comparison!

Yea, OK, still look how many died for no reason! BUT it's OK cause it was the British, not the US right? I mean almost as many military as the WHOLE POPULATION of the islands died in that little squabble (OK closer to half) so how can you defend that? And all over the "It's Mine, Not Yours" mentality. There was no genicide, there were no terrorist, pretty much nothing. Makes GWB look like a frigg'n genius in comparison!
There were no terrorists in Iraq, what's your point?:confused:

Yea, OK, still look how many died for no reason! BUT it's OK cause it was the British, not the US right? I mean almost as many military as the WHOLE POPULATION of the islands died in that little squabble (OK closer to half) so how can you defend that? And all over the "It's Mine, Not Yours" mentality. There was no genicide, there were no terrorist, pretty much nothing. Makes GWB look like a frigg'n genius in comparison!

Only if you take genius to mean something markedly different from the usual definition.

Spot the difference:
Situation 1: A group of islands belonging by choice to one country is claimed and invaded by another country. The 'owner' (for want of a better word) moves in to defend its citizens living on those islands.

Situation 2: A group of terrorists attack a country. After serious attempts by the victim country and its allies, the leader of the terrorists isn't found. The leader of said victim country is under pressure to provide a victory of some sort so war is declared on a completely unrelated country which may possibly at some undetermined point in the future pose a threat.

Yes, both had political undertones and both involved countries with vastly superior forces attacking countries with vastly inferior forces, but there is no real comparison. Unless, of course, you believe that the US would stand back and allow, for example, some country to invade Long Island without retaliating? It's not as if the UK attacked some third party country who hadn't initiated the aggression.

It's just unlucky for GWB that it's damn hard to fight a guerilla war at sea, so Iraq is dragging on way longer than the Falklands conflict did.

It's just unlucky for GWB that it's damn hard to fight a guerilla war at sea, so Iraq is dragging on way longer than the Falklands conflict did.
and of course Iraq doesn't share the American dream

I'm assuming you have some figures.
No, just an education outside of the US:rolleyes:

There were no terrorists in Iraq, what's your point?:confused:
1825 Britain and the Government of Buenos Aires sign a Treaty of Amity, Trade and Navigation which makes no reference to the Islands
1829 The United Provinces of Rio de la Plata appoint Vernet Governor of East Falkland;
Britain formally protests Vernet's appointment and reiterates its sovereignty claim
1833 British warships force departure of Don Pinedo and warship Sarandi, then depart leaving William Dickson in charge until Matthew Brisbane's return;
1834 British warships HMS Challenger and HMS Hopeful arrive at Port Louis;
Lt Henry Smith supported by a boat crew is left in charge as British military administrator;
Antonio Rivero and his gaucho gang are arrested and taken to England for trial;
Colony at Port Louis re-established and re-named Anson's Harbour;
now does this sound familiar
1884 Argentina asks that the sovereignty dispute be submitted to international arbitration but Britain ignores the request;
1960 UN Resolution 1514 calls for an end to colonialism;
Britain lists the Islands as a colony and Argentina objects
1961 Antarctic Treaty comes into effect freezing sovereignty over Antarctica for 30 years;
Establishment of local political party National Progressive Party;
UN establishes Decolonisation Committee by Resolution 1654
1973 Newly-elected Argentine Peronist government renews sovereignty claim in the UN which passes Resolution 3160 urging sovereignty negotiations;
Britain refuses to discuss sovereignty;
1981 British Nationality Act removes British nationality from any Falkland Islander who does not have a parent or grandparent born in Britain;
Argentina protests to UN over lack of progress on sovereignty dispute;
I like that "Liberated", almost sounds like Iraq :p
1982 2 April to 14 June 1982 Islands occupied by Argentine army until liberated by British Task Force - 257 Britons including 3 Islanders killed in the Conflict
1984 Talks between Argentina and Britain in Berne fail because Britain refuses to discuss sovereignty
1994 Amendment to Argentine Constitution ratifies Argentina's 'legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty' over the Islands and makes their recovery 'a permanent and unrenounceable object of the Argentine people';

1994 and makes their recovery 'a permanent and unrenounceable object of the Argentine people';
Not if we have anything to do with it they won't:p

No, just an education outside of the US:rolleyes:
My education is outside the US as well.

My education is outside the US as well.
Too close for comfort though

The UK, Australia,NewZealand,Canada, how many do you need?
Woohoo, we're normal! ;)

I honestly think we'd do better if we just got a president using a lotto...

Oh wait that wouldn't work, the guys with all the money would just buy more tickets...:rolleyes:
...as opposed to buying more votes, like they do now? :rolleyes:

...as opposed to buying more votes, like they do now? :rolleyes:
Especially the current one :rolleyes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/

Especially the current one :rolleyes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/

And that, from American censored news.

Why did FoFa start his history of The Falklands in 1825 , it started a couple of centuries before that and has been very complex. Good grief we even had the US throwing Argentinians off at one time.

Brian

Why did FoFa start his history of The Falklands in 1825 ,
Brian
He's clutching at straws