John Kerry

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It was brought up in another thread, but how about our '04 nominee, eh?


http://www.drudgereport.com/irak.jpg

[mburbank]

And here I'd thought as a community we'd been mature enough to ignore this cynicval hoo-hah.

[ItalianStereotype]

were we, "as a community," mature enough to ignore the whole Cheney hunting thing?

[mburbank]

I'm sorry, that was way funnier.

[Geggy]

Remember the time when Cheney threatened...er...warned that there would be a terror attack if Kerry won the 04 election...? Good times.

[derrida]

Is his comment really that difficult to understand? It's clear Kerry was attacking George Bush's policy on Iraq.

Kerry has had a pretty solid track record of never saying what he means. Not surprisingly he's incapable of telling a joke right, too.

[mburbank]

See? That was funny too. That's Kerry's problem, he has no gift for comedy.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yeah, I heard a guy try to spin it that way the other day. He was like "No! No! What he meant to say was blah blah blah blah!"

It's a wonder the man ever ran for president.

[derrida]

Don't you understand? The man is a war hero.

[Preechr]

Yeah, yeah... and Michael J Fox and Max Cleland are victims of tragedy, and thus invulnerable to criticism. I know you were being sarcastic, derrida, but isn't it funny how the new left loves to pre-shield their spokesmen from any criticism by choosing only victims to mouth their talking points? You're a philosophic guy, and I suppose a post-modern thinker, given your s/n... Is the race to the moral bottom getting noticably worse from your perspective?

[Chojin]

wait, what did kerry say?

[Preechr]

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wmv/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/Video/KerryRipsTroops.asx

From Rush Limbaugh's site, no less, so you know it's eeeeeeevil!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

wait, what did kerry say?

He was trying to tell a joke, but it came out like he said get an education or you'll end up in Iraq.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/02/kerry.remarks/

[Chojin]

I don't understand the problem?

[Emu]

It kind of implies that we ship our retards off to die.

[El Blanco]

When in fact we have them run for office.

[mburbank]

See? We all understand.

Preech, I don't think it makes the immune to criticism at all. I do think however, that it gives them some authority.

If I have a question of Physics, the opinions of Stephen Hawking and say, me, are NOT equal. His carries more weight.

Someone who got their limbs blown off serving their country has more to say about service and sacrafice then someone who drafted the doge. If John Mccain critcizes Max Cleland stance (no joke intended) on these issues (and he has) I'm going to find him more credable than Rush. Well. That goes for pretty much anything.

Now if Max Cleland is holding forth on, say, comic books, his limblessness does not make him any more credable than me. But if he's tlking about prostethis, he's kind of got the edge on me. Not immunity. Maybe I've really done my homework on prosthesis. But he's got the edge.

[Preechr]

Just because someone is afflicted with an illness or disability does not make them an expert on their condition. Even if Mike has done all the studying required to be considered an expert on Parkinsons, are we to assume his strategic goals toward finding a cure will be morally acceptable to the rest of us? I say he showed his desparation, or maybe something else, when he went on record as supporting one candidate over another because only one of them wanted to help toward a cure for his condition.

I've not seen anyone make the case yet that Amendment 2 has anything at all to do with curing Parkinsons. Fox either did or did not know that when he filmed the ad, and in either case, his opinion on the subject is not only morally flawed but also factually flawed. That turns his ads into regular old, "Hi, I'm so and so, and I say vote for Candidate X!" except this time, Fox deliberately tugged some heart strings by allowing himself to be portrayed as a victim of disease first, second rate movie star second. He came off as Little Timmy giving a dying wish.

Fortunately, the only one hurt in this is Fox, probably, so I'm not all that bothered by it.

[Juttin]

Michael J. Fox wasn't having spasms/suffering

HE WAS BEING WACKY

[RectalWart]

Juttin, you wobbling, jiggling, tank-assed tub of lard, you are not as funny as you think you are.

Besides, I thought you were going off to kill yourself. Shame on you for giving us all false hope! >:

[Juttin]

Ugh.

I have to admit, even YOUR attempts at " BEING HIGHLARIOUS"
are really...kinda.....repetitive. And embarassing. Go away.

[RectalWart]

I wasn't trying to be hilarious. I was stating fact. :)

[Juttin]

lol :|

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

were we, "as a community," mature enough to ignore the whole Cheney hunting thing? I doubt that, cause my Dick Hunt pic got on somethingawful.com

[derrida]

sup preechr.

I can't really say shit is truely worse, I mean, have you ever read the shrieking that went on during Lincoln's time? (ok. wait. that example is terrible on so many levels) I do think that things are evolving to become way more insidious though. There are a couple names for it: identity politics, symbolic politics, media politics, etc. The fact that we are even discussing this at a time when there is actual, substantive news coming from Iraq is indicative of this. On the same day that Kerry made this utterance Iraq's government managed to coerce American troops into abandoning an operation to recover a captured soldier... So yeah, shit is nasty, but maybe not worse. Although I kinda liked the old corruption better, back when it was kickbacks to constituencies instead of lobbyists.

[Preechr]

I'm not sure your comparison to the days of Lincoln wasn't so apt. I'd venture there's a lot of similarities, and I'm not alone. I wonder if you've heard the former NJ governor's recent comments trying to compare Hillary's virtually non-existent commitment to the gay-marriage movement to Lincoln's similarly reluctant (and entirely only convenient) "push" for the rights of slaves?

Well, being a Southerner, I guess I could see Lincoln in just about anything, so I'll try to not go off on a tangent there...

The reason I was asking for your perspective is that I think a post-modern guy is better prepared to see the nuances in our predominantly post-modern era than would be a more romantic person as I tend to be. I can empathize, but I still don't quite get it. Post-modernism is just alien science to me. I suppose I'm just not that practical of a person.

While practical relativity (a phrase I'm making up just for this) has always existed among the elite classes, we are just now living through a time where it is the dominant social and political philosophy among, well, everybody. Didn't your namesake forsake his own deconstruction model in his later years? When you say way more insidious, I just see out of control.

The Civil War was a kickback to lobbyists moreso than to any particular contistuency when you look at it in terms of numbers. Hell, who's to say Ben Franklin and Tomas Jefferson were no more than lobbyists for some cause? What was it, like 12% of Americans estimated to have been ideologically behind the Revolution itself?

Post-modernism could not be the name of our era if Stoicism were not in fact dead. Practical relativity is so obviously flawed a way of existence (to me, I supose) I can't see around waiting for everybody else to figure that out to witness it's evolution toward that eventual end.

"So yeah, shit is nasty..." Is it nasty enough now to change for the better... finally?