Atticus Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 What a fucking idiot...simple as that... LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Floyd Walpole Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 clearly these soldiers do not have the "aptitude" to come up with such a clever sign. i am almost certain that some cagey republican was responsible for setting up this photo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 "Mission Accomplished!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WilcoFan Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Perhaps. But what about next Tuesday? Ha ha! I'm so stupid. I belong in Iraq! (a joke) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 That pic will find it's way into millions of emails and message boards before the day is through. Nothing amazes me any more on what people will latch onto or not...while it'd be ridiculous if it does, I can see how this stupid gaff could sway some undecideds. You may know how you're going to vote and have a pretty solid rationale based on issues, etc as to why that is...but don't pretend you know how others will cast theirs and why. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 clearly these soldiers do not have the "aptitude" to come up with such a clever sign. i am almost certain that some cagey republican was responsible for setting up this photo. I heard caliber was behind it Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Calexico Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I heard caliber was behind it That's him on the end at the left. He has his "weapon" out behind the banner. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 By the way. This will not hurt the democrats next Wednesday. Tuesday. And it will. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 wonderful onion Bush: Thousands Of Registered Democrats Needed For 'Extremely Important' Mission Dems 'Only Ones' Who Can Make Nov. Operation A Success WASHINGTON, DC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 If John Kerry did actually think that all American soldiers were stupid would this actually stop him from running your country properly? What I mean is, do you have to respect a social group to have it's best interests at heart and govern it properly, or not? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I heard caliber was behind it I sent it to my idiot brother in Qatar, who passed it along to the soldiers on the ground. That's their eighth try at making a somewhat-legible banner, and the first one with no visible drool. If John Kerry did actually think that all American soldiers were stupid would this actually stop him from running your country properly? What I mean is, do you have to respect a social group to have it's best interests at heart and govern it properly, or not? I would imagine it would have quite an effect on his ability to use the army effectively if he told them they were all morons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WilcoFan Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 If John Kerry did actually think that all American soldiers were stupid would this actually stop him from running your country properly? What I mean is, do you have to respect a social group to have it's best interests at heart and govern it properly, or not? Interesting philosophical question. My answer is that in reality to have someone's best interest at heart and govern properly you should probably have more than an understanding of them. You should probably be genuinely interested in their welfare and be empathetic of their situation. Probably that's why democracy has done more for people than any other system. -- For the most part, it is made up by the people and not autocratic executors will. "Properly" is arbitrary, but I would say to best govern in a humanitarian sense, yes, you should have some respect for the social group you wish to govern. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EliotRosewater Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I mean, Jesus! it appears that your recommendation was well-received. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jhc Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Your too stupid to be a Wilco fan That's not very nice Quote Link to post Share on other sites
c53x12 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Kerry responds on his website: http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/release.html?id=33 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I would imagine it would have quite an effect on his ability to use the army effectively if he told them they were all morons. Yeah, I agree that would be the case, but should it? If the armed forces were to feel that a politician thought he was above them, does that mean that if he made decision that they were in agreement with, would they automatically wish to go against them and undermine them just because he thought they were morons. What I mean is - which is worse, thinking that they are morons and make the right decisions for them, or thinking that they aren't, and making the wrong decisions for them? Interesting philosophical question. My answer is that in reality to have someone's best interest at heart and govern properly you should probably have more than an understanding of them. You should probably be genuinely interested in their welfare and be empathetic of their situation. Probably that's why democracy has done more for people than any other system. -- For the most part, it is made up by the people and not autocratic executors will. "Properly" is arbitrary, but I would say to best govern in a humanitarian sense, yes, you should have some respect for the social group you wish to govern. I think you can understand someone, but still feel you are above them. It's whether or not the notion that someone who thinks they are above you is just going to screw you in some way, or not care about you, that I am not too sure I have made a decision on yet - or know if it is so black and white or not. There is a kind of superficial equality amongst people in the modern age, which is perhaps not the reality of the situation behind closed doors, and can often allow the bigger picture to go unquestioned that I am rather unsure about myself. I don't know if I am making my point clear here or not, but I can't think of another way of wording it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jhc Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 If the armed forces were to feel that a politician thought he was above them, does that mean that if he made decision that they were in agreement with, would they automatically wish to go against them and undermine them just because he thought they were morons. Who cares? No one called the troops morons Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Kerry responds on his website: http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/release.html?id=33I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 All said, that's good stuff. Indeed. My favorite part is the conclusion: No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq Why aren't more people hammering the administration for cutting and running in Afghanistan? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
owl Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I gotta say, even though what Kerry said is true (and it is, given the well-documented preying on the poor, and the fact that the Pentagon recently reduced the restrictions on ex-cons and low-IQ enlistees), it's certainly something that shouldn't be said. At all. Especially this close to the election. What a dick. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 He's not a dick for saying it, he's just sort of dumb for botching the line that badly. I mean, misspeaks happen, but the omission of one word sure did completely change the meaning of that sentence, and he and his party (and potentially the whole country depending on how this effects the election) are now paying a high price for it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
owl Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Maybe. I haven't seen much of it in the news, to be honest, and I'm a pretty avid reader. It'll definitely be on Fox News tonight, but- It seems like the biggest part of this is that conservatives want it to die because the clarification is much more damning than Kerry's gaffe. Dems want him to keep apologizing and explaining what he really meant. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fickerson Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 there was a segment on this american life not too long ago, wherein ira glass basically yelled at john kerry and told him to shut up and go away. i'm too lazy to look for it, but it was pretty funny. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.