NationStates Jolt Archive

Throughout the 2004 campaign, I can't even count the number of democrats I heard saying that John Kerry should be elected for spending four months in Vietnam. Will the press call any of these people on this, or will it just be ignored completely?

I'd bet a good chuck of my money that absolutely no one brings this up.

Throughout the 2004 campaign, I can't even count the number of democrats I heard saying that John Kerry should be elected for spending four months in Vietnam. Will the press call any of these people on this, or will it just be ignored completely?

I'd bet a good chuck of my money that absolutely no one brings this up.
You mean in relation to McCain's service in 'Nam?

And, though I may well be wrong, I doubt many people were calling for Kerry's election because and only because he had army service under his belt. More, that it was one reason.

Which was countered by his lack of any excitement or emotion whatsoever.

I don't know. Did they call the conservatives who had made military service important before 2004 who then suddenly decided it didn't matter?

So all the democratic pundits and officials who spend the entire last campaign saying that John Kerry should be elected for serving in Vietnam, should not be exposed and dismissed as complete hypocrites if they don't support McCain?

Or are we actually going to pretend that didn't happen? Is that where this is headed? No one has enough brain cells to remember the 2004 campaign and how this was such a major issue with democrats?

And once again, I'm 2-3 spaces from the last comment. Is this forum just too difficult to fix this problem?

Throughout the 2004 campaign, I can't even count the number of democrats I heard saying that John Kerry should be elected for spending four months in Vietnam. Will the press call any of these people on this, or will it just be ignored completely?

I'd bet a good chuck of my money that absolutely no one brings this up.

Except you of course.

Support for Kerry in the 2004 election is pretty fucking irrelevant to the 2008 for anyone who isn't a brainpicked Bushevik like you.

Plus, unlike Your Beloved Dear Leader, Kerry actually spent time serving in Vietnam unlike Your Beloved Dear Leader who went AWOL in a bar somewhere pretending to be Daddy downing Kamikazes if you get my drift. And knowing first-hand what hell war can be does tend to sharpen your foreign policy decisions a lot more than shot after shot of the good schtuff.

:confused:

So all the democratic pundits and officials who spend the entire last campaign saying that John Kerry should be elected for serving in Vietnam...
Once again, show that they said Kerry should be elected because and only because of his Vietnam experience.

As opposed to it being only one (poor) reason.

So all the democratic pundits and officials who spend the entire last campaign saying that John Kerry should be elected for serving in Vietnam, should not be exposed and dismissed as complete hypocrites if they don't support McCain?

Or are we actually going to pretend that didn't happen? Is that where this is headed? No one has enough brain cells to remember the 2004 campaign and how this was such a major issue with democrats?

And once again, I'm 2-3 spaces from the last comment. Is this forum just too difficult to fix this problem?

How about every conservative spouting Johhny Mac's awesome serving record and assuming it counts now and not in 2004?

Nothing?

this thread p|-|41lz.

Why does anyone listen to this wackjob? Honostly, Ive learned to just ignore his posts, because they are nothing of substance and hes an ignorant little tool.



But, Ill respond just to my post isnt just a flame. No one wanted Kerry because he served in nam. We wanted Kerry because he was less retarded than Dubya. Also, the issue was not Kerry's Vietnam service, it was Bush getting special treatment cause of Daddy and than going AWOL, showing that him being a moron and an awful leader wasnt just a recent development.


And why does military service matter to right wing nuts unless a democrat has the military service? It mattered up till 2004. Then it was irrelevent, and now it matters again.

So all the democratic pundits and officials who spend the entire last campaign saying that John Kerry should be elected for serving in Vietnam

Prove it. I never heard anyone say he should be eleceted just because of that.

And once again, I'm 2-3 spaces from the last comment. Is this forum just too difficult to fix this problem?

Nice. Imply the guys who run the forums are tards.:rolleyes:

And why does military service matter to right wing nuts unless a democrat has the military service? It mattered up till 2004. Then it was irrelevent, and now it matters again.

It's called convenience. Like how Dear Leader didn't think much of Bin Laden until he needed to drum up support for that crumblind quicksandbox called Iraq. Then all of a sudden "Al'Qaeda-Al'Qaeda-Al'Qaeda-Terror-Terror-Terror-BinLaden-BinLaden-BinLaden-9/11-9/11-9/11-Etc-Etc-Etc."

Is this forum just too difficult to fix this problem?

Jolt is free/cheap, therefore we put up with it. *shrugs*

Throughout the 2004 campaign, I can't even count the number of democrats I heard saying that John Kerry should be elected for spending four months in Vietnam. Will the press call any of these people on this, or will it just be ignored completely?

I'd bet a good chuck of my money that absolutely no one brings this up.

It's 2008 now. Why should we still be harping about the 2004 election?

It's called convenience. Like how Dear Leader didn't think much of Bin Laden until he needed to drum up support for that crumblind quicksandbox called Iraq. Then all of a sudden "Al'Qaeda-Al'Qaeda-Al'Qaeda-Terror-Terror-Terror-BinLaden-BinLaden-BinLaden-9/11-9/11-9/11-Etc-Etc-Etc."

Assuming that because this guy likes John McCain means he must love George Bush is pretty narrow-minded on your part.
In fact, the guy who started this thread hasn't even said he likes John McCain. He just thinks it's ridiculous that last election, John Kerry's service record was hoisted up as a huge strong point for him, and now, the same people who adored Kerry for his (largely falsified) Vietnam history are saying John McCain's service is irrelevant. And I agree with him.
Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they're brainwashed ;).

It's 2008 now. Why should we still be harping about the 2004 election?

So because something happened four years ago, it becomes irrelevant? I think it shows something important about a lot of Democrats- they see what they want to see. They liked to gloss over the fact that Kerry was a worse student than Bush, but liked to publicize that he was a "war hero." They like to gloss over that McCain also served in Vietnam and endured much harder times, but they want to publicize that he's... umm... Republican, I guess. I mean, that's their principle problem with him.
Not to imply that you could expect anything different of a rival party, since that's what rivals do.
It's not obsessing over the past- it's making an interesting observation.

Assuming that because this guy likes John McCain means he must love George Bush is pretty narrow-minded on your part.
In fact, the guy who started this thread hasn't even said he likes John McCain. He just thinks it's ridiculous that last election, John Kerry's service record was hoisted up as a huge strong point for him, and now, the same people who adored Kerry for his (largely falsified) Vietnam history are saying John McCain's service is irrelevant. And I agree with him.
Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they're brainwashed ;).
I'd say Bush's service record is worse.

Except you of course.

Support for Kerry in the 2004 election is pretty fucking irrelevant to the 2008 for anyone who isn't a brainpicked Bushevik like you.

Plus, unlike Your Beloved Dear Leader, Kerry actually spent time serving in Vietnam unlike Your Beloved Dear Leader who went AWOL in a bar somewhere pretending to be Daddy downing Kamikazes if you get my drift. And knowing first-hand what hell war can be does tend to sharpen your foreign policy decisions a lot more than shot after shot of the good schtuff.

Not to sound like a broken record but... jeez. This isn't about Bush.

I'd say Bush's service record is worse.

Like I said... this thread isn't about Bush. It's about people whose values change with whatever letter politicians have after their names... a D or an R.

Throughout the 2004 campaign, I can't even count the number of democrats I heard saying that John Kerry should be elected for spending four months in Vietnam. Will the press call any of these people on this, or will it just be ignored completely?

I'd bet a good chuck of my money that absolutely no one brings this up.
I;m still waiting for all those who said they would leave America if Bush was elected and then re-elected.

funny, only Madonna left...

Wow, you're so off the mark of that comment's point I'm certain you didn't bother to read the context.

:rolleyes:

The point is, that the OP as a Republican is bitching about how the Democrats who brought up Kerry's military service probably will keep quiet about McCain's service... yet was likely awful mum about McCain's military experience back when McCain was campaigning against Bush.

Hence the word "convenience" It's only important an issue to bring up when it best suits the user's needs.

Why do you assume he's a Republican, rather than just someone who hates hypocrisy? Again. You're seeing things in black and white. Or blue and red, whichever you prefer.

Assuming that because this guy likes John McCain means he must love George Bush is pretty narrow-minded on your part.
In fact, the guy who started this thread hasn't even said he likes John McCain. He just thinks it's ridiculous that last election, John Kerry's service record was hoisted up as a huge strong point for him, and now, the same people who adored Kerry for his (largely falsified) Vietnam history are saying John McCain's service is irrelevant. And I agree with him.
Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they're brainwashed ;).

Wow, you're so off the mark of that comment's point I'm certain you didn't bother to read the context.

:rolleyes:

The point is, that the OP as a Republican is bitching about how the Democrats who brought up Kerry's military service probably will keep quiet about McCain's service... yet was likely awful mum about McCain's military experience back when McCain was campaigning against Bush.

Hence the word "convenience" It's only important an issue to bring up when it best suits the user's needs.

Like I said... this thread isn't about Bush. It's about people whose values change with whatever letter politicians have after their names... a D or an R.

Funny. I've never seen you talking about people who flip flop on values unless they were of a certain political persuasion, even on threads where similar issues of the other political persuasion were raised. In fact, weren't you defending them?

Funny. I've never seen you talking about people who flip flop on values unless they were of a certain political persuasion, even on threads where similar issues of the other political persuasion were raised. In fact, weren't you defending them?

I have no clue what you mean by that.

Not to sound like a broken record but... jeez. This isn't about Bush.

You can't evoke the 2004 elections and then say that half that equation is off limits.

You can't evoke the 2004 elections and then say that half that equation is off limits.

Considering that the issue is about McCain and Kerry, not Bush and Kerry, yeah, maybe it is a little irritating to see people coming in and hijacking the thread with Bush hate.
I notice that many people here seem more anxious to make this an anti-Bush thread than actually deal with the issue: why was Kerry's Vietnam record so important to people in 2004, yet they dismiss McCain's in 2008?
Why not just answer the question?

Which was countered by his lack of any excitement or emotion whatsoever.

As if Bush had any more? Don't give me that shit.

personally my biggest reason to support kerry in '04 wasnt his military service-- it was his not being george bush.

Throughout the 2004 campaign, I can't even count the number of democrats I heard saying that John Kerry should be elected for spending four months in Vietnam. Will the press call any of these people on this, or will it just be ignored completely?

I'd bet a good chuck of my money that absolutely no one brings this up.

I think the point here is not that hoardes of followers were proclaiming Kerry should be elected on only those grounds, but rather, that Kerry's service was indeed an issue.

And Kerry's service was a huge issue. I heard so many adds recounting his heroism (and, media-coverede stupidity... seriously, who gets three purple hearts in four months? That's just clumsy). I also recall a Bush add that had soldiers that served alongside Kerry that didn't want him to be president.

I have yet to hear much at all of McCains military experience as a swaying factor.

I think that was the OP's point, not to suggest that it was everything in '04, and it's nothing now.

To respond directly to the OP, I think Kerry used it as military experience, implying he could run the war better, McCain might be hesitant to use his experience for the same reason, unpopularity of the war in Iraq....

Considering that the issue is about McCain and Kerry, not Bush and Kerry, yeah, maybe it is a little irritating to see people coming in and hijacking the thread with Bush hate.
I notice that many people here seem more anxious to make this an anti-Bush thread than actually deal with the issue: why was Kerry's Vietnam record so important to people in 2004, yet they dismiss McCain's in 2008?
Why not just answer the question?

I think if you ask yourself why conservatives attached such importance to service before 2004 then dismissed it when it was Kerry you might be closer to an answer.

But I'm sorry, this isn't about anything that would deflate your self righteous little tirade, is it?

Not to mention you haven't sourced or proven the weight people assigned to Kerry's service, nor have you sourced the dismissal of McCain's.

But bullshit doesn't need a source.

I voted for Kerry because he pledged to fix Jolt's goddam time-warps.

Considering that the issue is about McCain and Kerry, not Bush and Kerry, yeah, maybe it is a little irritating to see people coming in and hijacking the thread with Bush hate.
I notice that many people here seem more anxious to make this an anti-Bush thread than actually deal with the issue: why was Kerry's Vietnam record so important to people in 2004, yet they dismiss McCain's in 2008?
Why not just answer the question?

Because Bush is teh ebil! He is 2 ebil 4 us to talk about anything else!!!

ZOMGBUSHISTEHEBIL!!!1!1!one!!!eleven!

To actually respond to your question, because people think that they can be seen as cool if they take every opportunity to run ever more into the ground every last Bush insult.

Plus, our time is running out, only a few months left to repeat all of those lame Bush insults that are only like, 5 yrs old....

:D

I voted for Kerry because he pledged to fix Jolt's goddam time-warps.

Really? That would've almost been enough to sway my vote!

So because something happened four years ago, it becomes irrelevant? I think it shows something important about a lot of Democrats- they see what they want to see. They liked to gloss over the fact that Kerry was a worse student than Bush, but liked to publicize that he was a "war hero." They like to gloss over that McCain also served in Vietnam and endured much harder times, but they want to publicize that he's... umm... Republican, I guess. I mean, that's their principle problem with him.
Not to imply that you could expect anything different of a rival party, since that's what rivals do.
It's not obsessing over the past- it's making an interesting observation.

No one who ran in 2004 is running in 2008.

The reason for pointing out that Kerry was a war hero, was that it revealed Bush's hypocrisy, as he got a cush spot in the in the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL to get drunk and do cocaine.

I'm not going to say McCain's service is a bad thing. If anything, it's good, as it gives him an idea of what it's like on the ground, and he's anti-torture, having been tortured himself. I like him a hell of a lot more than Bush. But just his military service isn't going to make me vote for him when I disagree with him on the vast majority of the issues.

I think if you ask yourself why conservatives attached such importance to service before 2004 then dismissed it when it was Kerry you might be closer to an answer.

Umm, if you'll note, the OP was about Kerry's military service being overplayed, and McCain's being underplayed.

Meaning that apparently the Dems in '04 were trumpeting the service record, rather than it being underplayed. Also meaning that even though McCain is a Rep, his service record is being underplayed.

Also Also, he mentioned the media, not the Rep party.

But I forgive you, a lot of people have trouble reading.

I'm not going to say McCain's service is a bad thing. If anything, it's good, as it gives him an idea of what it's like on the ground, and he's anti-torture, having been tortured himself. I like him a hell of a lot more than Bush. But just his military service isn't going to make me vote for him when I disagree with him on the vast majority of the issues.

Right, but the OP's question is: Why has the media been all but silent about it? John Kerry flaunted his service record as though it were the only thing that mattered (or at least it felt that way)

Umm, if you'll note, the OP was about Kerry's military service being overplayed, and McCain's being underplayed.

Meaning that apparently the Dems in '04 were trumpeting the service record, rather than it being underplayed. Also meaning that even though McCain is a Rep, his service record is being underplayed.

Also Also, he mentioned the media, not the Rep party.

But I forgive you, a lot of people have trouble reading.

Because the world began in 2004 and there is no history of exactly the same thing with roles reversed before 2004. Because that would render this whole thing cartoonish.

Right, but the OP's question is: Why has the media been all but silent about it? John Kerry flaunted his service record as though it were the only thing that mattered (or at least it felt that way)

Because John McCain flaunting his service record wouldn't make sense. He's not running against someone who started a war, or against someone who basically bought their way out of serving in one.

Why was military service important to Republicans before 2004 but not during 2004?

Assuming that because this guy likes John McCain means he must love George Bush is pretty narrow-minded on your part.
In fact, the guy who started this thread hasn't even said he likes John McCain. He just thinks it's ridiculous that last election, John Kerry's service record was hoisted up as a huge strong point for him, and now, the same people who adored Kerry for his (largely falsified) Vietnam history are saying John McCain's service is irrelevant. And I agree with him.
Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they're brainwashed ;).


No, but hes openly proclaimed his love for fearless leader. There is no assumption required.

Because John McCain flaunting his service record wouldn't make sense. He's not running against someone who started a war, or against someone who basically bought their way out of serving in one.

Well... you shut me up.

Umm, if you'll note, the OP was about Kerry's military service being overplayed, and McCain's being underplayed.

Meaning that apparently the Dems in '04 were trumpeting the service record, rather than it being underplayed. Also meaning that even though McCain is a Rep, his service record is being underplayed.

Also Also, he mentioned the media, not the Rep party.

But I forgive you, a lot of people have trouble reading.


McCain's service is underplayed? The only reason McCain is anymore than a pimple on the democratic processe's ass is because of his service and his experiance as a POW.




Everyone is reacting to the OP in the manner we are because HSH is...a moron. And we've read his posts. He doent know anything, and hes basically Jolt's Bill O'riely. We are taking what he says in the contxt of his other posts. Thats how we know he loves Bush and is a right wing republican.

I have no clue what you mean by that.

When Republicans do the same, you are strangely quiet.

Throughout the 2004 campaign, I can't even count the number of democrats I heard saying that John Kerry should be elected for spending four months in Vietnam. Will the press call any of these people on this, or will it just be ignored completely?

I'd bet a good chuck of my money that absolutely no one brings this up.

You lose because of this:

I don't know. Did they call the conservatives who had made military service important before 2004 who then suddenly decided it didn't matter?

You also lose because of this:

So all the democratic pundits and officials who spend the entire last campaign saying that John Kerry should be elected for serving in Vietnam, should not be exposed and dismissed as complete hypocrites if they don't support McCain?

Or are we actually going to pretend that didn't happen? Is that where this is headed? No one has enough brain cells to remember the 2004 campaign and how this was such a major issue with democrats?

And once again, I'm 2-3 spaces from the last comment. Is this forum just too difficult to fix this problem?

1) I recall nobody claiming Kerry should have been elected SOLELY on his military service. Also, the only reason McCain's isn't being played to the hilt right now in 2008 is because it was all anyone could talk about when the guy ran in 2000. I think we're still saturated from that race. Besides, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and the rest of the gang are all decidedly anti-McCain. I'd like to hook up a generator to catch the energy created when they flip that flop during the general election season when McCain wins the nomination and they'll forget how they stomped all over McCain for not being a "true conservative" -- whatever the fuck THAT means.

2) Jolt is free. We live with the timewarps and even enjoy their occasional serendipity. It's fun. Lighten up.

So because something happened four years ago, it becomes irrelevant? I think it shows something important about a lot of Democrats- they see what they want to see. They liked to gloss over the fact that Kerry was a worse student than Bush, but liked to publicize that he was a "war hero." They like to gloss over that McCain also served in Vietnam and endured much harder times, but they want to publicize that he's... umm... Republican, I guess. I mean, that's their principle problem with him.
Not to imply that you could expect anything different of a rival party, since that's what rivals do.
It's not obsessing over the past- it's making an interesting observation.

Kerry was a worse student than Bush? Really? You sure it wasn't because Kerry took actual classes and Bush had basket weaving 101? Meh, forget it.

I said it before and I'll repeat it, in deference to your demonstrated perception speed, McCain's war record is old news, and was old news in 2004 when Kerry ran. McCain's record was used extensively during the 2000 primary campaign...or have YOU forgotten something only EIGHT years old as opposed to helping HRHPE try to remember FOUR years ago? When McCain was campaigning as a war hero, it mattered. When Kerry did, those Republicans for whom it mattered then suddenly became silent on the issue or else joined the horseshit swift boat smear brigade.

Besides, are you honestly going to tell me that a Democrat should vote for a Republican JUST because that republican has a war record? I tell you what -- you tell me how many Republicans voted for Kerry based on that same criterion. You can't, because none of them did. And I don't wanna hear any of that "falsified" bullshit. Service in a forward area in a time of war COUNTS.

I simply cannot believe that you are acting so naive as to believe that someone should switch parties based on an opposing party candidate's war service record. That's just completely silly.

I think the point here is not that hoardes of followers were proclaiming Kerry should be elected on only those grounds, but rather, that Kerry's service was indeed an issue.

And Kerry's service was a huge issue. I heard so many adds recounting his heroism (and, media-coverede stupidity... seriously, who gets three purple hearts in four months? That's just clumsy). I also recall a Bush add that had soldiers that served alongside Kerry that didn't want him to be president.

I have yet to hear much at all of McCains military experience as a swaying factor.

One more time. 2000. Primary campaign. McCain v Bush. War record ALL OVER the place. End of this line of reasoning. Please?

No, but hes openly proclaimed his love for fearless leader. There is no assumption required.

HAHAHAHHHAHAH!!!!!!!!

This should be fairly easy to prove. Which post did I do this in? I don't think I have said a nice thing about Bush since 2000 when I pointed out to people how the media turned his great fund raising efforts into a bad thing by portraying it as the candidate for the rich, when people can only donate a certain amount each.

But please, I'd love to know which post of mine you are referring.

And as for the people asking me to start listing a bunch of names, there's no reason at all for you to bother. Anyone that paid any attention whatsoever to the 2004 election knows damn well that all of these same democrats who are going to support Obama or Hillary over McCain were on every damn news station saying that John Kerry understood the situation better and people should elect him because he served in Vietnam. I'm not going to spend hours compiling a list of names for your ignorance or willful stupidity.

Well... you shut me up.

I did? Or is that sarcasm? I can't tell, I might need to install a more recent version of the sarcasm detection software I use.

Everyone is reacting to the OP in the manner we are because HSH is...a moron. And we've read his posts. He doent know anything, and hes basically Jolt's Bill O'riely. We are taking what he says in the contxt of his other posts. Thats how we know he loves Bush and is a right wing republican.

Have you ever read any of my posts? If so, you'd know how hilarious that is.

I'm not asking you to do hours of research to prove something like the sky is blue.

What posts do I say I love Bush in, or which post do I say anything nice about social conservatives?

I did? Or is that sarcasm? I can't tell, I might need to install a more recent version of the sarcasm detection software I use.

No, not sarcasm, lol. You brought up some pretty valid points.

I had nothing to say... and somethign to the effect of "Neener neener neener" would hardly have seemed appropriate.

Everyone is reacting to the OP in the manner we are because HSH is...a moron. And we've read his posts. He doent know anything, and hes basically Jolt's Bill O'riely. We are taking what he says in the contxt of his other posts. Thats how we know he loves Bush and is a right wing republican.

Well, I'm glad that you can be nothing more than an unoriginal poser who only finds validation in following the masses.

Also, insulting people as a main form of argument tends to suggest that it is you, yourself that is stupid... just saying.

Have you ever read any of my posts? If so, you'd know how hilarious that is.

I'm not asking you to do hours of research to prove something like the sky is blue.

What posts do I say I love Bush in, or which post do I say anything nice about social conservatives?

Its not so much that, as opposed to how anyone remotelly progressive or who doesnt have an American flag draped over their pickup is *insert liberal attack here*.


I could dig up several posts in the past if you would like me to.

But for starters, lets talk about your love for Condi Rice and Colin Powel (see Obama thread), or that you said that all the lawyers who are provided legal counsel for unconvicted terrorists at Gitmo were probably terrorists themselves (I believe it was something like..."the government needs to pay attention to these guys!") and the fact that you were totally (conveinently) ignorant of the decision made in Rasul V. Bush in 2004 saying that they were protected under the constitution as they were being held on US soil. When I pointed out to you that the court required them to have the rights Bush was denying them, you attacked that decision and defended Bush's policies

Well, I'm glad that you can be nothing more than an unoriginal poser who only finds validation in following the masses.



Mmmm...reading too much into a post.


And, how may I ask is calling me an "unorginal poser" putting yourself above name calling? And for the record Ive thought Dubya was a basket case since he ran against McCain in the primaries for 2000, so Ive harldy been following the crowd. When his approval rating was in the 80s aftr 9/11, I wasnt one of them.

And as for the people asking me to start listing a bunch of names, there's no reason at all for you to bother. Anyone that paid any attention whatsoever to the 2004 election knows damn well that all of these same democrats who are going to support Obama or Hillary over McCain were on every damn news station saying that John Kerry understood the situation better and people should elect him because he served in Vietnam. I'm not going to spend hours compiling a list of names for your ignorance or willful stupidity.



So in other words....you have no proof for you fictitious claims?

Its not so much that, as opposed to how anyone remotelly progressive or who doesnt have an American flag draped over their pickup is *insert liberal attack here*.


I could dig up several posts in the past if you would like me to.

You specifically said that I was a Republican who loves Bush.

Yes, I'd love for you to dig up several posts where I say this or anything nice at all about the religious right?

And no, in other words, anyone who's opinion I care about would remember these people and their claims about JK's Vietnam service being such a big issue, the sole issue in many cases.

Mmmm...reading too much into a post.


Neocons stick together I guess.

I am not a neocon!

I may be a communist, a homosexual, a mason, a neocon, but I am not a communist!

(sorry, Simpson's reference....)

I think if you ask yourself why conservatives attached such importance to service before 2004 then dismissed it when it was Kerry you might be closer to an answer.

But I'm sorry, this isn't about anything that would deflate your self righteous little tirade, is it?

Not to mention you haven't sourced or proven the weight people assigned to Kerry's service, nor have you sourced the dismissal of McCain's.

But bullshit doesn't need a source.

There you go. Call my argument bullshit and call me self-righteous. That means I must be wrong and you must be right. Give yourself a pat on the back, champ ;).
I can't speak for Republicans, but I for one wasn't against Kerry despite his military service, I was against him because he filed the reports for his medals himself, because he was witnessed performing acts of cowardice, because he was dishonorably discharged, and because people who served alongside him weren't impressed enough to vote for him.
And even then, he never shut up about his heroism in war. When he began a speech with "I am reporting for duty," I nearly cried. Someone noted the numerous ads trumpeting Kerry's record- don't pretend you didn't see those. Vietnam was almost all he ever talked about. In Barack Obama's address at the Democratic convention in '04 he made sure to mention Kerry's "heroic service in Vietnam." Every Democrat I saw supporting Kerry was always careful to remind us that he was a war hero.
Saying that Democrats weren't using Kerry's record as a HUGE reason to get him elected is, as someone eloquently put it before me once, "flat-out revisionism."

When Republicans do the same, you are strangely quiet.

I've posted in maybe seven threads since I came here. Of those threads, most have been religious.
On these boards, I'm quiet in general.
Still, I'd like to know if I did something specific that you'd like to remind me of, in case there's a certain incident I need to apologize for. I'll gladly talk about it.

You specifically said that I was a Republican who loves Bush.

Yes, I'd love for you to dig up several posts where I say this or anything nice at all about the religious right?

But for starters, lets talk about your love for Condi Rice and Colin Powel (see Obama thread), or that you said that all the lawyers who are provided legal counsel for unconvicted terrorists at Gitmo were probably terrorists themselves (I believe it was something like..."the government needs to pay attention to these guys!") and the fact that you were totally (conveinently) ignorant of the decision made in Rasul V. Bush in 2004 saying that they were protected under the constitution as they were being held on US soil. When I pointed out to you that the court required them to have the rights Bush was denying them, you attacked that decision and defended Bush's policies

As I mentioned, you tout the supperiority of a former Bush aide and a current Bush aide, both of whom are social conservatives. You are also strongly protective of many of Bush's policies. So maybe you dont like Bush as a person, but you like who he surrounds himself with, and you like his policies.

And no, in other words, anyone who's opinion I care about would remember these people and their claims about JK's Vietnam service being such a big issue, the sole issue in many cases.



"I know the answer but Im not going to tell you!!!!"

If it was true, youd have no problem find us one name.

HRH, Tortue, I don't mind that you ignored my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13431081&postcount=43). In fact, I'll take it as tacit acknowledgement of it's accuracy.

Thanks, fellas.

I am not a neocon!

I may be a communist, a homosexual, a mason, a neocon, but I am not a communist!

(sorry, Simpson's reference....)


Nice. ;)

So in other words....you have no proof for you fictitious claims?

He's got witnesses... that is, people who weren't in a coma during the election.
If you don't remember Kerry's constant mention of his war record, then you were either far too removed from the events of the time to comment on them, or you have a very selective case of amnesia. I leave the choice to you.

But for starters, lets talk about your love for Condi Rice and Colin Powel (see Obama thread), or that you said that all the lawyers who are provided legal counsel for unconvicted terrorists at Gitmo were probably terrorists themselves (I believe it was something like..."the government needs to pay attention to these guys!") and the fact that you were totally (conveinently) ignorant of the decision made in Rasul V. Bush in 2004 saying that they were protected under the constitution as they were being held on US soil.

1. Are you that blind? My love for Condi and Powell? I said that I believed that they were the kind of black candidates that mainstream America would vote for. I think very little of either of them myself, both being social conservatives and supporters of affirmative action.

2. I said the FBI should be looking at all the lawyers who would volunteer their time and money to defend terrorists. Given the history of the kind of people that do that. Lynn Stewart for one. I don't understand how that makes me a Republican. They are too gutless to say that.

3. That's complete nonsense. They have zero rights under the constitution and that's like arguing that Wednesday follows Tuesday. I won't debate an idiot on common sense.

Throughout the 2004 campaign, I can't even count the number of democrats I heard saying that John Kerry should be elected for spending four months in Vietnam. Will the press call any of these people on this, or will it just be ignored completely?I was one of the 50million USAmericans who said we should' have elected Kerry because his name is NOT Bush.

I dont have a clue about long did Kerry spend in Vietnam, and I dont give a rats ass about it.

HRH, Tortue, I don't mind that you ignored my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13431081&postcount=43). In fact, I'll take it as tacit acknowledgement of it's accuracy.

Thanks, fellas.

I dont know about Tortue, but HSH is ignoring it because he is incapable of a rebuttle, cause you nailed him.

He's got witnesses... that is, people who weren't in a coma during the election.
If you don't remember Kerry's constant mention of his war record, then you were either far too removed from the events of the time to comment on them, or you have a very selective case of amnesia. I leave the choice to you.

True, Kerry did milk his "war hero" record to death. Although in fairness to his supporters (as well as those who voted for him because he wasn't Bush), I have never met a single person who voted for him because of his military career.

3. That's complete nonsense. They have zero rights under the constitution and that's like arguing that Wednesday follows Tuesday. I won't debate an idiot on common sense.


Look up Rasul V. Bush.:headbang:


The supreme courts disagreed with you.


Im more inclined to believe them, sorry.

Lets see....bunch of old guys who have been lawyers and judges their whole adult lives...or....you.


Thats not a tough one

EDIT: If you continue to argue this point, Im just going to start spamming Look up Rasul V. Bush over and over again until you get it through you heard that because of the Court's decision, THEY ARE PROTECTE UNDER THE CONSTITUION!!!

1) I recall nobody claiming Kerry should have been elected SOLELY on his military service. Also, the only reason McCain's isn't being played to the hilt right now in 2008 is because it was all anyone could talk about when the guy ran in 2000. I think we're still saturated from that race. Besides, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and the rest of the gang are all decidedly anti-McCain. I'd like to hook up a generator to catch the energy created when they flip that flop during the general election season when McCain wins the nomination and they'll forget how they stomped all over McCain for not being a "true conservative" -- whatever the fuck THAT means.

I said it before and I'll repeat it, in deference to your demonstrated perception speed, McCain's war record is old news, and was old news in 2004 when Kerry ran. McCain's record was used extensively during the 2000 primary campaign...or have YOU forgotten something only EIGHT years old as opposed to helping HRHPE try to remember FOUR years ago? When McCain was campaigning as a war hero, it mattered. When Kerry did, those Republicans for whom it mattered then suddenly became silent on the issue or else joined the horseshit swift boat smear brigade.

Besides, are you honestly going to tell me that a Democrat should vote for a Republican JUST because that republican has a war record? I tell you what -- you tell me how many Republicans voted for Kerry based on that same criterion. You can't, because none of them did. And I don't wanna hear any of that "falsified" bullshit. Service in a forward area in a time of war COUNTS.

I simply cannot believe that you are acting so naive as to believe that someone should switch parties based on an opposing party candidate's war service record. That's just completely silly.

One more time. 2000. Primary campaign. McCain v Bush. War record ALL OVER the place. End of this line of reasoning. Please?

Ok, you can believe what you want Intangelon. I didn't mean to ignore you, I just kind of skipped over some.

1. Then you have a bad memory or you didn't watch much of the elections. I regularly get news on the internet and watch the networks and as I said, I can't even count the number of DNC operatives who said John Kerry should be elected for the sole reason that he understands war because he served in Vietnam.

2. I'm not discussing McCain's war record. I don't think it matters at all to the campaign. My question is why the hell are people not ever called on this kind of bullshit. Going around saying that Kerry should be elected for serving in Vietnam and then supporting a different candidate without military experience over another veteran. I'm just wondering if anyone else ever noticed these kinds of things.

[QUOTE]You lose because of this:

Because the Republicans did it too, nah nah nah nah nah nah!


1) I recall nobody claiming Kerry should have been elected SOLELY on his military service.

I recall no one saying he was. Way to take down the straw man, though.

Kerry was a worse student than Bush? Really? You sure it wasn't because Kerry took actual classes and Bush had basket weaving 101? Meh, forget it.

They took standardized tests. Standardized... as in the same. Bush did better.

I said it before and I'll repeat it, in deference to your demonstrated perception speed, McCain's war record is old news, and was old news in 2004 when Kerry ran. McCain's record was used extensively during the 2000 primary campaign...or have YOU forgotten something only EIGHT years old as opposed to helping HRHPE try to remember FOUR years ago? When McCain was campaigning as a war hero, it mattered. When Kerry did, those Republicans for whom it mattered then suddenly became silent on the issue or else joined the horseshit swift boat smear brigade.

McCain's record wasn't important enough for him to get the nomination, clearly. Eight years ago, I think I was eleven. I didn't stay up late watching CNN.

Besides, are you honestly going to tell me that a Democrat should vote for a Republican JUST because that republican has a war record? I tell you what -- you tell me how many Republicans voted for Kerry based on that same criterion. You can't, because none of them did. And I don't wanna hear any of that "falsified" bullshit. Service in a forward area in a time of war COUNTS.

Counts in whose book? He went to Vietnam like a bunch of other Average Joe's, his worst injury resembled a fingernail scratch, he shot a kid in the back for a Silver Star... what the hell do you want me to say about him? And no, I'm not honestly going to tell you a Democrat should vote for a Republican JUST cuz of a war record. In fact, I never even said I was voting for McCain, which I'm not.

I simply cannot believe that you are acting so naive as to believe that someone should switch parties based on an opposing party candidate's war service record. That's just completely silly.

Considering I never, ever said that, your disbelief is well-founded, son.

That's why I ignored your post. Because it was wrong ;)

Ok, you can believe what you want Intangelon. I didn't mean to ignore you, I just kind of skipped over some.

1. Then you have a bad memory or you didn't watch much of the elections. I regularly get news on the internet and watch the networks and as I said, I can't even count the number of DNC operatives who said John Kerry should be elected for the sole reason that he understands war because he served in Vietnam.

2. I'm not discussing McCain's war record. I don't think it matters at all to the campaign. My question is why the hell are people not ever called on this kind of bullshit. Going around saying that Kerry should be elected for serving in Vietnam and then supporting a different candidate without military experience over another veteran. I'm just wondering if anyone else notice's these kinds of things.

First things first, please watch your tags. Quotes become hard to determine when you leave off a bracket. Thanks!

1) Starting your rebuttal with a veiled insult isn't the way to make me reply with civility. You have made the claim about DNC operatives several times in this thread without a single shred of evidence. If your "news" is regularly consumed "on the Internet", then surely posting a link to these DNC operatives' statements would be simple enough? You claim you "can't count" them, how's about counting just one?

2) You won't discuss McCain's war record? Why not? It's wholly relevant if Kerry's is. You're DEMANDING that Democrats avoid hypocrisy by supporting McCain (nevermind that this would mean switching parties...hello), but yet you don't agree that your very statement itself is hypocritical unless you can show that even ONE Republican voted for Kerry because of HIS war record. That seems disingenuous at best and downright dishonest at worst.

Your question is not "why the hell aren't people called on this", but rather "why the hell aren't Democrats called on this". I can answer that -- it's because NEITHER Democrats NOR Republicans are called on it, and it's endemic to BOTH parties. Your assertion that it's only Democrats who don't get called on their hypocrisy is in itself hypocritical.

KOL, I'm not going to argue your interpretation of some of the court's decisions.

Stop editing past posts, which I'm not going through and please post where it is I talked of my love for Bush or any Republicans?

1. Then you have a bad memory or you didn't watch much of the elections. I regularly get news on the internet and watch the networks and as I said, I can't even count the number of DNC operatives who said John Kerry should be elected for the sole reason that he understands war because he served in Vietnam.



If it was so numerous it wouldnt be hard to post just one name. Just a name.

KOL, I'm not going to argue your interpretation of some of the court's decisions.



Interpertation? Are you serious? Theyre decision isnt open to interpertation, they say waht they mean based on their interpertation of laws. Do you know how the Supreme Court works?

I'm still waiting on those posts where I declare my love and support for Bush and the GOP Mr. KOL.

I'm not a GOP hack. I'm not going to let you weasel out of the statements you made by starting an argument on another issue. Back up your words.

I'm still waiting on those posts where I declare my love and support for Bush and the GOP Mr. KOL.

I'm not a GOP hack. I'm not going to let you weasel out of the statements you made by starting an argument on another issue. Back up your words.



Ok. I wont even need to prove my point. Be honost. How may times have you voted for Bush? In fact, how many times have you ever voted for a democract? And based of statements youve made on issues you disagree or agree with, Ill know if your lying.


You dont need to be a Republican to be a conservative, and your constant ripping on democrats shows you probably arent liberal or a registered demorat.

Because the Republicans did it too, nah nah nah nah nah nah!

In this case, given that HSHPE is claiming that ONLY Democrats are guilty of hypocrisy, that argument (childishy expressed as you did or not) is valid.

I recall no one saying he was. Way to take down the straw man, though.

I do my best.

They took standardized tests. Standardized... as in the same. Bush did better.

:rolleyes: Seriously? You're gonna use the SAT or Iowa Achievement Exams or some other bubble-filling exercise to tell us who's the better STUDENT? You MUST have taken them, surely you know that the SAT or other tests are about as accurate a predictor of college scholarship as pig innards (and only slightly less distasteful). As a prof, I've seen 35 ACT score students go on to shitty marks and rotten scholarship and 27 ACT score students earn the highest marks. All a test does is tell you how well the student takes that test.

McCain's record wasn't important enough for him to get the nomination, clearly. Eight years ago, I think I was eleven. I didn't stay up late watching CNN.

Wait, so just because McCain didn't get the nomination in 2000 means his flogging of his own war record back then doesn't count? Wha? How's that?

Counts in whose book? He went to Vietnam like a bunch of other Average Joe's, his worst injury resembled a fingernail scratch, he shot a kid in the back for a Silver Star... what the hell do you want me to say about him? And no, I'm not honestly going to tell you a Democrat should vote for a Republican JUST cuz of a war record. In fact, I never even said I was voting for McCain, which I'm not.

Again, front line service counts. I'm not going to argue that because I've never been there and I hope to God I never have to go. You have listened to sources that claim the "fingernail scratch" and the "shooting a kid in the back", but neither you nor I were there. Also, if your source is the Swift Boaters, I'm not about to trust a bunch of bitter, bought-out glory seekers. Regardless, until you've served on the front lines, you should have the sense to not presume to know how anyone else's service went. I haven't, so I won't.

That's why I ignored your post. Because it was wrong ;)

Believe what you like, but you've defended a boy (the OP) who believes that we should all switch parties whenever a war hero runs. If calling you on that is wrong, then I'm a completely fucktarded moron.

Ok, you can believe what you want Intangelon. I didn't mean to ignore you, I just kind of skipped over some.

1. Then you have a bad memory or you didn't watch much of the elections. I regularly get news on the internet and watch the networks and as I said, I can't even count the number of DNC operatives who said John Kerry should be elected for the sole reason that he understands war because he served in Vietnam.

Great. Being on the internet you'll have no problem finding these sources.

We'll wait, but we won't be holding our breath.

Ok. I wont even need to prove my point. Be honost. How may times have you voted for Bush? In fact, how many times have you ever voted for a democract? And based of statements youve made on issues you disagree or agree with, Ill know if your lying.


You dont need to be a Republican to be a conservative, and your constant ripping on democrats shows you probably arent liberal or a registered demorat.

Heh, you sound like Bush. I know I'm wrong, but I won't say that I am. Is it that hard to just say that you know that I never said that I loved Bush or was a Republican? Because obviously you've looked at my posts and know your claims are bullshit. I'll have more respect for you if you just admit you said that without really thinking.

I've never voted for Bush. I've never voted for a Republican or a Democrat, because I'm a realist and there has never been a candidate that I would support. I won't support the current American system because it's been out of date since the PC era began.

I'm a socially liberal person. In any kind of quiz, I would be much closer to the Democrats on the issues than the Republicans, but I'm a registered independent, because you can't register as a realist.

And to reaffirm for Cannot and his ilk. I'm not interested in the opinions of anyone that either didn't pay attention or remember the 2004 campaign, or is willing to lie and say that the DNC and their hacks weren't saying that Kerry's military service in many cases as the sole reason for voting for him.

I'm a socially liberal person.


If that were true, we wouldnt be arguing over the court's decision that unconvicted muslims at Gitmo have the right of habeous corpus or not.


And, we still are waiting for an answer. If it was really as prevelent as you say that everyone thought Kerry should win soley because of his service, you could just provide ONE name.


Keep saying how we all clearly didnt pay attention all you want, but that doesnt make you right. Youre getting called on your BS. Step up.

In this case, given that HSHPE is claiming that ONLY Democrats are guilty of hypocrisy, that argument (childishy expressed as you did or not) is valid.

I didn't see him make that argument. You did.




:rolleyes: Seriously? You're gonna use the SAT or Iowa Achievement Exams or some other bubble-filling exercise to tell us who's the better STUDENT? You MUST have taken them, surely you know that the SAT or other tests are about as accurate a predictor of college scholarship as pig innards (and only slightly less distasteful). As a prof, I've seen 35 ACT score students go on to shitty marks and rotten scholarship and 27 ACT score students earn the highest marks. All a test does is tell you how well the student takes that test.

What would you like to use to gauge their aptitude? It's not about college scholarship, it's about who did better. They both went to Yale. What does talking about scholarships have to do with anything?
In fact, what does Bush have to do with anything? I don't know. I got sidetracked too easily and I apologize for that. I tried to stick to the main point of this thread, that is, why does the media turn a blind eye to hypocrisy... but whatever. I might as well keep fighting now.


Wait, so just because McCain didn't get the nomination in 2000 means his flogging of his own war record back then doesn't count? Wha? How's that?

You mentioned how important McCain's war record was to Republicans in 2000. If that's the case, why did they pick Bush over him?


Again, front line service counts. I'm not going to argue that because I've never been there and I hope to God I never have to go. You have listened to sources that claim the "fingernail scratch" and the "shooting a kid in the back", but neither you nor I were there. Also, if your source is the Swift Boaters, I'm not about to trust a bunch of bitter, bought-out glory seekers. Regardless, until you've served on the front lines, you should have the sense to not presume to know how anyone else's service went. I haven't, so I won't.

So he went to Vietnam for four months, and maybe you don't dispute his claims (just because numerous people who were there dispute them) at heroism, but in your book, it doesn't matter if he was a hero or not. Someone could go to Vietnam and just stand around during a war, and that would "count," whatever the hell "count" means.


Believe what you like, but you've defended a boy (the OP) who believes that we should all switch parties whenever a war hero runs. If calling you on that is wrong, then I'm a completely fucktarded moron

Defended him against people making baseless accusations and hijacking his thread? Yes. He never said he believes people should switch parties based on a war record. You're seeing what you want to see.
Fucktarded is fun to say.

So a socially liberal person cannot believe that foreign terrorists should be killed without a trial? Ok.

Well forgive me then.

On most social issues, I am very progressive. When it comes to criminal justice and dealing with foreign enemies, I subscribe to the Roman and Machiavellian methods of solving the problems.

And KOL. Are just unwilling to admit that I never said that I loved Bush or the GOP or do you still stand by those accusations, despite having looked at my posts? I'm honestly curious.

You mentioned how important McCain's war record was to Republicans in 2000. If that's the case, why did they pick Bush over him?






Playing stupid doesn't win you arguments.

So a socially liberal person cannot believe that foreign terrorists should be killed without a trial? Ok.

Well forgive me then.

On most social issues, I am very progressive. When it comes to criminal justice and dealing with foreign enemies, I subscribe to the Roman and Machiavellian line of thinking.

I'm sorry, but such thinking is not only murderous, it is downright suicidal. Giving that much power to the State is never a good idea. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia should have made that abundantly clear.

Your question is not "why the hell aren't people called on this", but rather "why the hell aren't Democrats called on this".

First off, again, you're seeing what you want to see. You WANT to see an attack on the Democratic party, because that makes contradicting HSH easy. But when you can't find such an attack, you have to invent one.
Second, don't you wonder why people aren't being called on it? I mean, isn't it a good question? Just because the OP isn't mentioning every other time every other person has said something hypocritical doesn't mean he's ignoring those times, and it doesn't mean he doesn't care.
If politicians do something I think is stupid, I shouldn't have to make a negative comment about politicians from another party just to avoid being attacked by people like you.

Playing stupid doesn't win you arguments.

Being vague and insulting me won't win you any, either.

I disagree with you Ashmoria. I don't think any of the political talking heads for the DNC will be called on their hypocrisy of supporting Kerry for serving in Vietnam then someone else over another veteran.

I despise Jon Stewart and Olberman, but I hope I am wrong and they will call some of their guests on it.

Throughout the 2004 campaign, I can't even count the number of democrats I heard saying that John Kerry should be elected for spending four months in Vietnam. Will the press call any of these people on this, or will it just be ignored completely?

I'd bet a good chuck of my money that absolutely no one brings this up.

ok to answer you question.

its too early to wonder about it. it wont be a factor until mccain gets the nomination. THEN you can ask why no one is emphasizing mccains war record. (if thats the case since his war record is touted quite often already)

it is, of course, not the oppositions job to bring up the good points of mccain. that is an unrealistic request. should the democrats jump on the "mccain sold out the pow/mias" bandwagon then you can cry hypocricy.

if that sort of thing DOES happen you can expect it to be brought up in at least 2 forums. the daily show and countdown with keith olbermann

The proponents of this thread's thesis appear to have buried their heads so deep in the sand to make this flimsy premise work that they must think they're digging for fucking truffles.

If you had military experience and you were applying for a job you can bet your fucking ass you'd put it on the resume. You'd be a fucking moron not to. If you were applying for a leadership position and you had a leadership role in the military you'd be extra fucking stupid not to.

So yes, Kerry made his service an element of his campaign. An element. If for some reason that's all you saw of his candidacy your viewing had to be remarkably selective. In fact, it wasn't the Kerry campaign that made it a central issue, but rather the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that made it a central issue.

McCain has also made his service an aspect of his campaign, and it wasn't the Democrats that tried to suggest that his interment had made him some sort of Manchurian Candidate, but it was in fact the campaign of Bush in 2000.

In fact, most Democrats do in fact respect McCain's service because it has informed his opposition to a subject near and dear, torture.

What further makes this little tirade a farce is that Bush, too, had a military service background, so it wasn't in fact that Kerry had one, but that the quality of Kerry's was much better than Bush's. More fail. It is in fact perfectly legitimate when comparing two choices to compare their function and performance in related fields, in this case military service. To not do so is, again, fucking stupid.

Additionally, in the previous three campaigns, two against Clinton and one against Gore, much was in fact made by the Republicans about the service history of their candidate in direct relation to the Democratic candidate, especially with Clinton who had opted out of service through college deferment. Suddenly, in 2004, the Republicans insisted that service didn't matter...it didn't matter, but let us talk endlessly about the Democratic candidate's service...The fact is that this inconstancy was far more blatent when it happened in 2004 because of the Republican's tendency to lionize military service. When faced with someone whose service record was far more impressive, suddenly the importance of service was downplayed.

So the premise of this thread is flawed. The Democrats and Kerry did not make service his sole platform and we have yet to see any evidence of this. He made it an aspect. Democrats respect McCain's service, especially since it informs his opposition to torture, something that Democrats feel strongly about that issue. So there is no inconstancy to be had. Further, Republicans have often in the past made a great deal about military service but suddenly dropped it in 2004, so if this was truly an issue bringing it up is 4 years too late. But even with that, no one on any side has said that military service is the sole qualification for public office. It is especially stupid to insist that was the case in 2004 since, again, both candidates had military service backgrounds.

This is a non-starter and the constant weaseling to keep the argument alive is evidence of how flimsy it stands.

First of all, swiftboating is nonsense. It was used by the media to discredit military critics of Kerry, who were tired of him using his military service as a huge campaign issue. Most of them were veterans of full and multiple tours who were attacked for objecting to Kerry's bullshit lies. Funny that the term was never used for complete fabrication and organized media lies about Bush's service.

And the issue isn't about people talking about McCain's service. It's all of the democratic hacks were saying that John Kerry should be electing for serving in Vietnam who will be supporting Hillary or Obama over McCain and not be confronted with their hypocrisy.

I disagree with you Ashmoria. I don't think any of the political talking heads for the DNC will be called on their hypocrisy of supporting Kerry for serving in Vietnam then someone else over another veteran.

I despise Jon Stewart and Olberman, but I hope I am wrong and they will call some of their guests on it.

of course they will. if a guest comes on to one of those shows and tries to "swiftboat" mccain (practically jon stewarts boyfriend) he will call them on it.

olbermann will name such a person "the worst person on earth"

First of all, swiftboating is nonsense. It was used by the media to discredit military critics of Kerry, who were tired of him using his military service as a huge campaign issue. Most of them were veterans of full and multiple tours who were attacked for objecting to Kerry's bullshit lies. Funny that the term was never used for complete fabrication and organized media lies about Bush's service.

And the issue isn't about people talking about McCain's service. It's all of the democratic hacks were saying that John Kerry should be electing for serving in Vietnam who will be supporting Hillary or Obama over McCain and not be confronted with their hypocrisy.
So, do you have pot over your head that you're just banging with a spoon or what?

Tell ya what, you find this Democrat who was saying that he should be elected simply because of his service and we'll ask him. While you're at it we can ask Bigfoot where he's been hiding and Amelia Erhart what life was like on the islands...

I think the point here is not that hoardes of followers were proclaiming Kerry should be elected on only those grounds, but rather, that Kerry's service was indeed an issue.

And Kerry's service was a huge issue. I heard so many adds recounting his heroism (and, media-coverede stupidity... seriously, who gets three purple hearts in four months? That's just clumsy). I also recall a Bush add that had soldiers that served alongside Kerry that didn't want him to be president.

I have yet to hear much at all of McCains military experience as a swaying factor.

I think that was the OP's point, not to suggest that it was everything in '04, and it's nothing now.

To respond directly to the OP, I think Kerry used it as military experience, implying he could run the war better, McCain might be hesitant to use his experience for the same reason, unpopularity of the war in Iraq....

That is how I read the OP also. It is interesting how people read things so differently.

Btw, clumsy is so right. I had never thought of it that way, but my hubby and I are having a nice chuckle. Thanks!

So, do you have pot over your head that you're just banging with a spoon or what?

Tell ya what, you find this Democrat who was saying that he should be elected simply because of his service and we'll ask him. While you're at it we can ask Bigfoot where he's been hiding and Amelia Erhart what life was like on the islands...

Just to be clear. You are saying that this didn't happen? That a large number of democrats didn't go on the television and say that people should vote for Kerry because he served in Vietnam? Not talking about other issues, but that just didn't happen? I want this to be clear.

Just to be clear. You are saying that this didn't happen? That a large number of democrats didn't go on the television and say that people should vote for Kerry because he served in Vietnam? Not talking about other issues, but that just didn't happen? I want this to be clear.

I'm actually done with you. I have dissected your premise, you have long long long ago been asked to provide these people who thought that the only reason that Kerry should be elected because of his service. I'm tired of it. You've only convinced the echo chamber, at this point continuing is akin to arguing with a pig.

I don't understand why you bothered. I said clearly that I didn't care for the opinions of those who either didn't pay attention to the last election or were willing to lie about the fact that so much of the DNC's campaign had to do with John Kerry's four months in Iraq.

I don't understand why you bothered. I said clearly that I didn't care for the opinions of those who either didn't pay attention to the last election or were willing to lie about the fact that so much of the DNC's campaign had to do with John Kerry's four months in Iraq.

If you want to make up history, there's a whole section for role-playing here.

That was never my thing. Thanks for the input though.

Now back to the topic. I'm still waiting on those posts KOL.

I'm actually done with you. I have dissected your premise, you have long long long ago been asked to provide these people who thought that the only reason that Kerry should be elected because of his service. I'm tired of it. You've only convinced the echo chamber, at this point continuing is akin to arguing with a pig.

Your insults aren't getting you anywhere. True, no one has provided any evidence that there were people saying the ONLY reason John Kerry should be elected was because of his cowardice and murder in Vietnam, but then, we never claimed there were. You, however, insisted that we were claiming such people existed. Despite being swatted down and corrected numerous times, you're still trying to defeat an argument that you made up.
More alarming to me is your ranting about how Republicans decided military service doesn't matter in 2004, yet you provided no sources. How ironic, in a thread about hypocrisy. True, Republicans did discredit John Kerry as a lying chicken-shit looking for glory, but I never heard anyone say that serving in Vietnam doesn't matter.
So, your dissection of this premise really amounted to nothing. You managed to say "fuck" a lot, though. That made me take you seriously :rolleyes:
Have a nice life, moron.

There's a lot of echoing going on in here...

There's a lot of echoing going on in here...

Seriously guys, give it up. This is the most minor issue in the world, and it's hardly hypocritical...

Seriously guys, give it up. This is the most minor issue in the world, and it's hardly hypocritical...

I agree. Dumbest thread I've seen in a long time. The hard righties are so bored with McCain, they are digging out their old swiftboat Kerry smears and reminiscing about good times.

That was never my thing. Thanks for the input though.

Now back to the topic. I'm still waiting on those posts KOL.


I actually gave up on you long ago. If you dont have to provide evidence for your outragious (lies) claims, why the fuck should I?


You live in your fantasy world, Ill live in the real world. I just will keep in mind in the future that you dont live in reality.


In my mind, you remain disconnected from logic and reality, as well as being incapable of defending your ludacris arguements.

I actually gave up on you long ago. If you dont have to provide evidence for your outragious (lies) claims, why the fuck should I?

I know that HSH hasn't cited any specific instances of people using Kerry's Vietnam record as a vote-catcher, but I have. Something everything in this thread conveniently ignored.
I guess you don't have any reason to back up your outrageous lies, which you just accidentally implied that you were telling, because you can't be bothered to reread your own posts. Hm.

You live in your fantasy world, Ill live in the real world. I just will keep in mind in the future that you dont live in reality.

In the real world, saying something that could be interpreted as negative about the Democratic party doesn't make you a hard-line rightie and it doesn't make you a Bush-lover. That's the world you get from Bill Maher and Alan Colmes, son. Snap out of it.
In the real world, people can spell.

In my mind, you remain disconnected from logic and reality, as well as being incapable of defending your ludacris arguements.

Talking about something that every American who was conscious in the year 2004 remembers isn't being disconnected from logic and reality. Pretending not to remember said event, however, is the definition of denial.
Stop trying to talk down to people. It only works if you're smart.

*cough*
Echo...
Echo...
Echo...
Echo...

Why does anyone listen to this wackjob? Honostly, Ive learned to just ignore his posts, because they are nothing of substance and hes an ignorant little tool.



But, Ill respond just to my post isnt just a flame. No one wanted Kerry because he served in nam. We wanted Kerry because he was less retarded than Dubya. Also, the issue was not Kerry's Vietnam service, it was Bush getting special treatment cause of Daddy and than going AWOL, showing that him being a moron and an awful leader wasnt just a recent development.


And why does military service matter to right wing nuts unless a democrat has the military service? It mattered up till 2004. Then it was irrelevent, and now it matters again.

Speaking as someone from the land of warm beer and black pudding, we did at one point have a leader of the "third party" in politics, the Liberal Democrats, with some years of service (http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Author/AuthorPage/0,,1000031812,00.html). While he's certainly respected for that, it didn't get the Lib Dems into government. Unfortunately, think some.

Jolt is free/cheap, therefore we put up with it. *shrugs*
Nah, s/he should put all of his/her effort and $ into one that costs more and puts up a reasonable amount of competition for such a free-thinking forum like this one.
All of it.

No, not sarcasm, lol. You brought up some pretty valid points.

I had nothing to say... and somethign to the effect of "Neener neener neener" would hardly have seemed appropriate.

Oh, okay, cool. It's sometimes hard to tell online. Especially on this forum.

I can't even countWe'll stop there.
spending four months in Vietnam.
http://www.squadron13.com/JackDresser/servicerecords.htm
Better than none, like Shrubya.
Upon review, it would appear that military experience really *DOESN'T* matter much to republicans - as so many of the blowhards so aptly avoided it like the cowards they are.

It's 2008 now. Why should we still be harping about the 2004 election?Conservative drama-prerogative.
Everything is supposed to be the way it was at some point in the past, and everyone else is wrong for allowing change to fulfill its natural course.

This is just the same damn argument over and over again:

OP: It's interesting to see how differently people treat Kerry and McCain.
EVERYONE ELSE: RAWR SCREW BUSH!!

I'm out.

I have no clue what you mean by that.

Surprise.

This is just the same damn argument over and over again:

OP: It's interesting to see how differently people treat Kerry and McCain.
EVERYONE ELSE: RAWR SCREW BUSH!!

I'm out.
No stamina, eh?

You liberals are so offensive, Bush DID DO WAR SERVICE, he was defending the skies of Texas in the national guard against VietCong fighter jets, he scored 100 kills singlehandedly and saved America from the communist horde.

He doent know anything, and hes basically Jolt's Bill O'riely.He even has a great imposter act!
Ever seen it?

You liberals are so offensive, Bush DID DO WAR SERVICE, he was defending the skies of Texas in the national guard against VietCong fighter jets, he scored 100 kills singlehandedly and saved America from the communist horde.

C'mon, it's pronounced, "libruhls"!
:mad:

When Republicans do the same, you are strangely quiet.His/her mouth is probably full then, and the fingers are otherwise previously engaged.

You liberals are so offensive, Bush DID DO WAR SERVICE, he was defending the skies of Texas in the national guard against VietCong fighter jets, he scored 100 kills singlehandedly and saved America from the communist horde.

Or to be more precise, protecting the local airmen's club by constantly downing Kamikazes like Daddy used to.

I'm not going to spend hours compiling a list of names for your ignorance or willful stupidity.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13431002&postcount=30
bullshit doesn't need a source

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13431002&postcount=30

We have a winner!

If only they would read what the opposition rights instead of mentally screaming "libruhls!"

His/her mouth is probably full then, and the fingers are otherwise previously engaged.

Way to prove me wrong with your logic there, buddy. It's interesting that once I say I'm leaving, you suddenly come along with an answer to everything I've said in this thread.
Whatever. I guess that doesn't make you a pussy.

We have a winner!

If only they would read what the opposition rights instead of mentally screaming "libruhls!"

Have you READ the rest of this thread? Of course not. That would distract you from hearing yourself talk while breaking your own arm giving yourself a pat on the back.
Among all the things I enjoy doing, sitting here watching three or four dumbasses take turns agreeing with each other is certainly one of the more entertaining pastimes.

I'm not going to argue your interpretation of some of the court's decisions.

Smart move, what with your record so far.

Way to prove me wrong with your logic there, buddy. It's interesting that once I say I'm leaving, you suddenly come along with an answer to everything I've said in this thread.
Whatever. I guess that doesn't make you a pussy.I'm here now. Keep it up.
Right now.

I got here when i did, because .. guess this ... i have a fucking life, and this is merely a forum for amusement. Too bad you think it's more than that - that assessment is as disproportionate as your ego.
Keep up with the "pussy" language, too, just as you assessed the intellect of someone above you in manners and sensibility before with your "fuck" statement.

Have you READ the rest of this thread? Of course not. That would distract you from hearing yourself talk while breaking your own arm giving yourself a pat on the back.
Among all the things I enjoy doing, sitting here watching three or four dumbasses take turns agreeing with each other is certainly one of the more entertaining pastimes.

One thing I do not take kindly to is when people insult my academic ethic. I've been paying attention to this whole thread the entire time. Cannot Think of a Name asked a question that undermined your entire hair-brained thesis, and it was never answered.

I have continued to say that this is the most ridiculous thing in the world to argue about. This should never have made it into this forum. Get over yourself. The fact that you will not listen only undermines your argument. Find something real to argue about, like *gasp* the issues.

One thing I do not take kindly to is when people insult my academic ethic. I've been paying attention to this whole thread the entire time. Cannot Think of a Name asked a question that undermined your entire hair-brained thesis, and it was never answered.

I have continued to say that this is the most ridiculous thing in the world to argue about. This should never have made it into this forum. Get over yourself. The fact that you will not listen only undermines your argument. Find something real to argue about, like *gasp* the issues.Now they're gonna think of an insult or two to tie the two of us together, again, since that's all they've got. What do you think it'll be?

You liberals are so offensive, Bush DID DO WAR SERVICE, he was defending the skies of Texas in the national guard against VietCong fighter jets, he scored 100 kills singlehandedly and saved America from the communist horde.

Our hero! :eek:

Funny that the term was never used for complete fabrication and organized media lies about Bush's service.

What are those again? You got anything?
A.L.A.B.A.M.A.
TWO physicals.
Records lost, found lost, found, BURNED, lost, found again. Then, no more words of it.

I'm here now. Keep it up.
Right now.

I got here when i did, because .. guess this ... i have a fucking life, and this is merely a forum for amusement. Too bad you think it's more than that - that assessment is as disproportionate as your ego.

Speaking of ridiculous assessments, that one you just made about me since you first realized I existed five seconds ago... nice. I'm not gonna say anything about this life you claim to have. But being bored and getting on a forum at ten on a Thursday... that's not the paragon of commitment for me. I'm on here maybe once every 2 r 3 weeks- and I'm on here for amusement, too. It amuses me to watch people come at me with the same argument again and again, get curb-stomped, and then say I never addressed their argument... and then break down into insults.
But c'mon. We're not here to talk about each other's social lives. You don't ask me what I do on campus, and I don't ask you what you do late at night when you and Bill Maher check into those sleazy motel rooms.
As for the "pussy" language... sorry. I guess I only said it because you're the most monumental, cowardly pussy I've seen in years. Not as a personal thing.

First of all, swiftboating is nonsense. It was used by the media to discredit military critics of Kerry, who were tired of him using his military service as a huge campaign issue. Most of them were veterans of full and multiple tours who were attacked for objecting to Kerry's bullshit lies. Funny that the term was never used for complete fabrication and organized media lies about Bush's service.

http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com/JebBushSwiftBoatLetter.jpg
http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/bushdischarge.htm

Now they're gonna think of an insult or two to tie the two of us together, again, since that's all they've got. What do you think it'll be?

Probably something about being blind to "liberal media bias" or being "too PC"

One thing I do not take kindly to is when people insult my academic ethic. I've been paying attention to this whole thread the entire time. Cannot Think of a Name asked a question that undermined your entire hair-brained thesis, and it was never answered.

Either you're lying or you're high- I adressed everything he said in that post at one time or another.
The most interesting thing to me is that I ended a post with "Why don't you just answer the question?" and instead, he dodged it with a question of his own... a question I actually answered. But you're not going to acknowledge that. That would make you wrong.

I have continued to say that this is the most ridiculous thing in the world to argue about. This should never have made it into this forum. Get over yourself. The fact that you will not listen only undermines your argument. Find something real to argue about, like *gasp* the issues.

I don't disagree on any particular point. I, too, found it ridiculous when people came into a thread about Kerry and suddenly made it about Bush. Just because I won't concede to people when they lie and throw around words like "argument" and "undermine" as if they know how to use them, doesn't make me the pathetic one for staying.

Now they're gonna think of an insult or two to tie the two of us together, again, since that's all they've got. What do you think it'll be?

Lactators.

Speaking of ridiculous assessments, that one you just made about me since you first realized I existed five seconds ago... nice. I'm not gonna say anything about this life you claim to have. No, have it at. You've got an answer for everything, no matter how completely bumbling and self-congratulatory it may be. You simply don't understand the post, like most of your responses here tonight.

But being bored and getting on a forum at ten on a Thursday... that's not the paragon of commitment for me. I'm on here maybe once every 2 r 3 weeks- and I'm on here for amusement, too. It amuses me to watch people come at me with the same argument again and again, get curb-stomped, and then say I never addressed their argument... and then break down into insults.That would be why you lead by example. People have owned your whelp ass five ways from Sunday here. You should focus on me, i'm sure it's cathartic.

But c'mon. We're not here to talk about each other's social lives. You don't ask me what I do on campus, and I don't ask you what you do late at night when you and Bill Maher check into those sleazy motel rooms. Oh, if only ... :rolleyes:
As for the "pussy" language... sorry. I guess I only said it because you're the most monumental, cowardly pussy I've seen in years.That's the kind of stuff mods live for. Again, must be the honourable part of me coming through here to be such a shining enactment of the last bittersweet visage of your daddy and his special "relationship" to you.
Not as a personal thing.You're probably whackin' off to your sweet, sweet text right now ... and i'm sure there's nothing personal there either, since you probably can't maintain any personal relationships with anyone anyway (if your posting history is any indicator) ... but then, that same history also says you're a liar as well as a maladroit, so meh.

Here. Let's get this part out of the way once and for all.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm
Obama's address, citing Kerry's heroic service in Vietnam

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=892390867996643379&q=Kerry+ad&total=410&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
Kerry's campaign ad, which starts with... guess what? You'll see.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/service
He still has it on his website. He STILL doesn't know how to quit.

Our hero! :eek:

You bet, without the military heroism of Dubya you and everyone else would be living under Communist tyranny today!

You bet, without the military heroism of Dubya you and everyone else would be living under Communist tyranny today!

Thank you for pointing that out. I feel so ashamed for never recognizing his heroism. Now I know better. Thanks! :)

Communist Tyranny? Oh please, that is so Cold War. Without the military heroism of Beloved Dear Leader everyone would be living in T3h Caliph8te!

He's a bigger hero than I thought! :eek:

He's a bigger hero than I thought! :eek:
Yeah, he's An Hero.

You bet, without the military heroism of Dubya you and everyone else would be living under Communist tyranny today!

Communist Tyranny? Oh please, that is so Cold War. Without the military heroism of Beloved Dear Leader everyone would be living in T3h Caliph8te!

No, have it at. You've got an answer for everything, no matter how completely bumbling and self-congratulatory it may be. You simply don't understand the post, like most of your responses here tonight.

Why, because most of my responses have been on-topic? It's a hard job, but someone has to do it.
I seriously don't want to imagine your social life. I don't have enough Prozac to soothe the pain that would accompany such an action. Let it go. The fact that you keep bringing it up only shows me that you have something to prove.

That would be why you lead by example. People have owned your whelp ass five ways from Sunday here. You should focus on me, i'm sure it's cathartic.

Pfft. It's been the same thing all day:

IDIOT: I have this argument that is irrelevant, this argument that is irrelevant, and this one.
ME: Your arguments are all wrong. And irrelevant. Here's why. (I proceed to take their argument point by point and show them why they're not only wrong, but hijacking the thread.)
IDIOT: I'm going to present the same argument again and act like you never addressed it.
ME: Sweet.
IDIOT: Then I'm going to make a blow job joke.
ME: I need a gun.

That's the kind of stuff mods live for. Again, must be the honourable part of me coming through here to be such a shining enactment of the last bittersweet visage of your daddy and his special "relationship" to you.

So my dad molested me? That's what you've got? Does it seem odd to anyone else that he would say something like that... totally unprovoked?

You're probably whackin' off to your sweet, sweet text right now ...

Am I in middle school again? Do people come up to you on the street and tell you what a clever guy you must be? I think your attempts at argument are, if nothing else, giving us some serious insight into your daily life, at least.

and i'm sure there's nothing personal there either, since you probably can't maintain any personal relationships with anyone anyway (if your posting history is any indicator) ...

Y'know, the more you try to do that, the less secure you sound. Do you not realize that when two guys who don't know each other start talking about how neither of them has a life... they both end up looking like complete idiots?
I'll pass. For the hundredth time, I'll pass. Stop trying to turn this into a flame war where two guys are on a message board... insulting each other for being on a message board. It ain't gonna work.

but then, that same history also says you're a liar as well as a maladroit, so meh.

Saying that doesn't make every single point I've made any less true. But y'know, this is the best part of every thread. The arguments have all been addressed. Most of the retards have given up hope and retreated.
And one or two people still remain to fling shit around, hoping that they can piss everyone else off until they feel like they've won some major victory.
It's a great way to single out the exceptionally stupid from the just plain stupid.

Communist Tyranny? Oh please, that is so Cold War. Without the military heroism of Beloved Dear Leader everyone would be living in T3h Caliph8te!
He also personally liberated Europe from the Nazi's, founded Israel and personally punched down the Berlin Wall (which apart from popular misconception is what ended the Cold War).

Here. Let's get this part out of the way once and for all.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm
Obama's address, citing Kerry's heroic service in VietnamHeckuvajobBrownie-points for providing ONE example, which is approximately +/-1 greater than the OP's.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13430530&postcount=1
Your link, thankfully, also pointed out a bunch of OTHER things he was talking about at the same time.
And what prominence, exactly, did Kerry have in the democrat party at the time?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=892390867996643379&q=Kerry+ad&total=410&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
Kerry's campaign ad, which starts with... guess what? You'll see.Shame on them for being campaign oriented and under his employ, trying to accentuate something he wants ... for $.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/service
He still has it on his website. He STILL doesn't know how to quit.Perhaps he really, really doesn't have very much to run on, a point which had been well illustrated by both democrats and republicans and other parties alike LONG before you ever graced this place with your insipid presence.

He also personally liberated Europe from the Nazi's, founded Israel and personally punched down the Berlin Wall (which apart from popular misconception is what ended the Cold War).

Wow, he's almost as powerful as Chuck Norris.

HeckuvajobBrownie-points for providing ONE example, which is approximately +/-1 greater than the OP's.

Someday, you will learn to count, and you will notice that those other two links, plus this ONE example... make three.


Shame on them for being campaign oriented and under his employ, trying to accentuate something he wants ... for $.

Waitwaitwait. So before, when people were arguing that I couldn't provide ONE example of people placing huge importance on Kerry's Vietnam role... you filed that under "getting my whelp ass handed to me five ways till Sunday" or whatever. But now that I end up being right, all you can say is: "Well, it's okay- they were PAID to do it! They're sellouts, not true believers!"
Inspiring, pal.

Perhaps he really, really doesn't have very much to run on, a point which had been well illustrated by both democrats and republicans and other parties alike LONG before you ever graced this place with your insipid presence.

See, except for the totally useless, pointless insult at the end that didn't make either of us more or less correct, that was exactly the kind of post that could have prevented this entire, long fight. All people have to do is admit I'm right RIGHT AWAY. But instead, we end up with this bickering, and it's so long and tiresome... blah. Boring.
So basically, you have: conceded that John Kerry placed enormous importance on Vietnam because he had very little else to go on. That's more maturity that I first credited you with, and clearly I was wrong. Way to accomplish so much in such a short post- basically confirming my previous claims about Kerry, while still acting like you're against me!

I've posted in maybe seven threads since I came here. Of those threads, most have been religious.
On these boards, I'm quiet in general.
Still, I'd like to know if I did something specific that you'd like to remind me of, in case there's a certain incident I need to apologize for. I'll gladly talk about it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13411463&postcount=37

Here is an example of you vouching for a big republican doing two things that are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Killing people and by your standards, saving them. No sense of disconnect there hmm?

I'll take it back. You weren't quiet. You were defending them. Not as bad as some of the others who have come by on this board. But that doesn't mean you're completely off the hook.

Either you're lying or you're high- I adressed everything he said in that post at one time or another.
The most interesting thing to me is that I ended a post with "Why don't you just answer the question?" and instead, he dodged it with a question of his own... a question I actually answered. But you're not going to acknowledge that. That would make you wrong.

I assure you that I am neither. In fact, I did you the service of going through the entire thread one more time just to make sure that I was in fact not high. Cannot Think of a Name's question was not answered by you, nor by anyone. Furthermore, CTOAN noted that most liberals in fact like John McCain and have praised his military service.

But, if you'll excuse me now, I need smoke one right now to keep on going with this asininity.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=892390867996643379&q=Kerry+ad&total=410&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
Kerry's campaign ad, which starts with... guess what? You'll see.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/service
He still has it on his website. He STILL doesn't know how to quit.

Wait, that's it? The first five second of a minute long ad where he spends more time talking about his opposition to the Vietnam war than his service in it? The one where he spends the rest of his time talking about what he's done in politics and in office? Thats what you're bitching about? Really?

Sweet fucking Jesus...

Once again-if you're applying for a leadership position and you have leadership experience in the military then you'd be a sucker not to include it in your credentials. Kerry did it, McCain has done it-no one slights him for it (far far fucking less than can be said about how Kerry's service was handled by the opposition)- but the remainder of that ad focuses heavily on his fighting special and big business interests in relation to George W.

That's what you are all on about? Talk about a tempest in a teapot.

Why, because most of my responses have been on-topic? It's a hard job, but someone has to do it.Again with the self-congratulatory bullshit, and a dodge too. You didn't understand the post. Admit it and move on, the adjustment is smoother that way.

I seriously don't want to imagine your social life. I don't have enough Prozac to soothe the pain that would accompany such an action.Good of you to show your coping mechanism, since your social skills are so painfully lacking. Don't give up with it, you'll find the right COCKtail sometime to fix it all for you, just leave a beautiful corpse.
Let it go.Oh, you brought it, "pussy". Deal with it.
The fact that you keep bringing it up only shows me that you have something to prove.You're still so focused on genitalia that i don't care to compete. It's good to keep some memories of your family in there somewhere, just not healthy to project it.

IDIOT: I have this argument that is irrelevant, this argument that is irrelevant, and this one.
ME: Your arguments are all wrong. And irrelevant. Here's why. (I proceed to take their argument point by point and show them why they're not only wrong, but hijacking the thread.)
IDIOT: I'm going to present the same argument again and act like you never addressed it.
ME: Sweet.
IDIOT: Then I'm going to make a blow job joke.
ME: I need a gun.Where you're wrong - "point by point" isn't very accurate.
It's cute that you have to resort to violence at the end there, though. And how everyone else is an "idiot" ... again illustrating your woefully disproportionate and fractured ego.

So my dad molested me? That's what you've got? Does it seem odd to anyone else that he would say something like that... totally unprovoked?Like the term "pussy"? Ask the mods what they think. Your act is pathetic.

Am I in middle school again?What do you mean, "again"? Evidence leans towards you having never left .. or perhaps left too early ... again, another casualty of public education. *sigh*
Do people come up to you on the street and tell you what a clever guy you must be?As compared to people on internet forums who come up to you and DON'T?
I think your attempts at argument are, if nothing else, giving us some serious insight into your daily life, at least.Analyst Hector/Eliza here needs more Prozac. There's all the insight you need, as you've evidenced so readily. Back to your drugs and happy world, hippy, you're not making it here.

Y'know, the more you try to do that, the less secure you sound.As compared to someone who punctuates most of their posts with insults, *and* gives fallacious examples of previous debates with everyone else as "IDIOT" :p
Do you not realize that when two guys who don't know each other start talking about how neither of them has a life... they both end up looking like complete idiots?I'm really, really afraid of that idea .... especially since you decided to hang on longer to argue this. :D
I'll pass. For the hundredth time, I'll pass. Stop trying to turn this into a flame war where two guys are on a message board... insulting each other for being on a message board. It ain't gonna work.Reap what you sow. You don't want it that way, then show some backbone AND maturity and stop the sophomoric bullshit with everyone elses' posts.

Saying that doesn't make every single point I've made any less true. Uhm, the "liar" part might. *shakes head*
Most of the retards have given up hope and retreated.Again with the ego.
And one or two people still remain to fling shit around, hoping that they can piss everyone else off until they feel like they've won some major victory.
It's a great way to single out the exceptionally stupid from the just plain stupid.FINALLY a decent post. :p
Besides, why else does anyone come here? To make friends?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13411463&postcount=37

Here is an example of you vouching for a big republican doing two things that are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Killing people and by your standards, saving them. No sense of disconnect there hmm?

Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
So now his being in Vietnam was a bad thing? Or is there something else you meant?
I swear to God, if this becomes a fight about whether the Vietnam War was justified or not, I'm totally out. This thread has rambled waaaaaaaaaay too much.

I'll take it back. You weren't quiet. You were defending them. Not as bad as some of the others who have come by on this board. But that doesn't mean you're completely off the hook.

Defending who? People who fought honorably in Vietnam and suffered for their country? Yeah. Yeah, guilty as charged. Don't let me off the hook too soon, I probably haven't paid enough for the terrible things I've said.

Someday, you will learn to count, and you will notice that those other two links, plus this ONE example... make three.Don't portray such an imbecile. COMPREHEND my post. Counting isn't enough. :rolleyes:

Waitwaitwait. So before, when people were arguing that I couldn't provide ONE example of people placing huge importance on Kerry's Vietnam role... you filed that under "getting my whelp ass handed to me five ways till Sunday" or whatever.Note carefully that i said *nowhere* that this thread alone is the sole constituency of your posts. I'd already read through the rest of the thread, and if i were addressing YOUR point IN THIS SENTENCE i would've said as much.
all you can say is: "Well, it's okay- they were PAID to do it! They're sellouts, not true believers!"I said "they're sellouts, not true believers"? Quote me. Did i say, "employ"? Why don't you bring a definition of that here for everyone?

See, except for the totally useless, pointless insult at the end that didn't make either of us more or less correct, that was exactly the kind of post that could have prevented this entire, long fight.That, right there, is the indicator of what you really meant, which people have been alluding to at other posts along this thread. By your own assessment, you are saying that an insult against Kerry is what would prevent the thread from going this long.
Doesn't have much to do with McCain, does it?

All people have to do is admit I'm right RIGHT AWAY.I'm sure someone will have to remember that tactic at a future juncture.
But instead, we end up with this bickering, and it's so long and tiresome... blah. Boring.And you're still here, winning brownie points, making friends, and being reminded that your ego is seriously messed up! :p
So basically, you have: conceded that John Kerry placed enormous importance on Vietnam because he had very little else to go on. If i was joking, would i need to put a smilie on it?
That's more maturity that I first credited you with, and clearly I was wrong. Way to accomplish so much in such a short post- basically confirming my previous claims about Kerry, while still acting like you're against me!Is this the part where we spoon?

*lights another one*

This is going to be a long one. And apparently, Isle said I must be high to be making these arguments. Might as well see if anything changes.

Again with the self-congratulatory bullshit, and a dodge too. You didn't understand the post. Admit it and move on, the adjustment is smoother that way.

Has it occured to you that by now, I'm doing it to piss you off?

you'll find the right COCKtail sometime to fix it all for you
Oh, you brought it, "pussy". Deal with it.
You're still so focused on genitalia that i don't care to compete.

That's not what every post you've made so far suggests, including the first one I saw of yours, which was a joke about a B.J. Interesting. You know what's even funnier? When I said "insecure" I was talking about you socially. But again, you pretty much defeat yourself for me... immediately jumping to the conclusion that I'm talking about genitalia.
I'm clearly not the one here with the problem... and this is getting tiresome.

Where you're wrong - "point by point" isn't very accurate.

Here's a more accurate description: Taking the first point they made, debunking it, taking the second point they made, debunking it, taking the third point they made, debunking it- wait a sec. This is the definition of point by point.
You sly bastard. You almost fooled me. (Sarcasm. You didn't almost fool me. Don't go celebrate.)

It's cute that you have to resort to violence at the end there, though.

I was thinking something more along the lines of suicide, but since it was a joke anyway and jokes only apply to people with a sense of humor- I didn't expect much of a reaction from you. In fact, I assumed you would take it seriously. Wow.

And how everyone else is an "idiot" ... again illustrating your woefully disproportionate and fractured ego.

Keep reading me, Freud.
You're so easy.

Like the term "pussy"? Ask the mods what they think. Your act is pathetic.

Should I be following your lead and using cleaner language? Please. You started this. Maybe you should go to the mods and show them this thread.

What do you mean, "again"? Evidence leans towards you having never left .. or perhaps left too early ... again, another casualty of public education. *sigh*

Evidence such as me driving you completely insane with a few taunting words? I got you out here, trying to validate your macho image, making a complete fool of yourself, saying things like: "Let's go. Right now," as if we were about to have a goddamn knife fight... it's seriously hard to keep my sides from splitting. Do you think you're tough or something? And the constant cock jokes... Jesus... of all the people on this board, no one I've met has been more juvenile than you. I think I knew kids in middle school who were actually superior debaters. (Waiting for you to make a joke about that one. Come on. Your laugh track is waiting.)

As compared to people on internet forums who come up to you and DON'T?

Oh, boy... it pains me to have to explain this. When I asked: "Do people come up to you and tell you what a clever guy you are?" I was asking because I knew no one did. I did this to point out that you had just made an exceedingly bland remark, like what I'd define as something that is the opposite of clever... something dull, unoriginal, and uninspiring. Something any twelve-year-old could've thought of faster and phrased better. So you see, I was in fact making fun of you when I said that.
Tough break there, kiddo.

Analyst Hector/Eliza here needs more Prozac. There's all the insight you need, as you've evidenced so readily. Back to your drugs and happy world, hippy, you're not making it here.

What? It's like your thoughts consist of forty or fifty cookie-cutter retorts, and there's a little spinning wheel in the middle, selecting which stupid thought will come out of your keyboard next. Whether it fits or not, you jam it into the argument and then lean back, smirking with pride at another mission accomplished.
Does it occur to you that people are actually out here, READING the stupid things that you say?

As compared to someone who punctuates most of their posts with insults, *and* gives fallacious examples of previous debates with everyone else as "IDIOT" :p

You clearly haven't read this whole post. I've been pretty civil from the beginning. It's only after about seven or eight pages of the same bullshit that I just stop caring about your sensitive feelings and I have to tell you the truth: you're not intelligent. You don't know what you're talking about and you keep pretending to.
Someone had to break it to you sooner or later.

Uhm, the "liar" part might. *shakes head*

Now who's totally missing the point of posts? The emphasis wasn't on what you were saying, it was on the fact that all you could do was say it. You calling me a liar doesn't change the fact that I'm right and you're wrong. See, watch: You're not a fat white guy in your Mom's basement.
It didn't work, did it? You're still there, aren't you?

Again with the ego.

YOU ARE ALL LIKE ANTS TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... oh, shit that was definitely my true nature and it was definitely just showing.

FINALLY a decent post. :p
Besides, why else does anyone come here? To make friends?

... do you have friends anywhere else?

Is this the part where we spoon?

Screw Nietzsche, I'm sigging this!

Don't portray such an imbecile. COMPREHEND my post. Counting isn't enough. :rolleyes:

You have to learn sometime, though. You can't keep avoiding it.

Note carefully that i said *nowhere* that this thread alone is the sole constituency of your posts. I'd already read through the rest of the thread, and if i were addressing YOUR point IN THIS SENTENCE i would've said as much.

I think you're confused. I don't think you know what I was talking about.

I said "they're sellouts, not true believers"? Quote me. Did i say, "employ"? Why don't you bring a definition of that here for everyone?

What you actually said was that they were trying to accentuate something that Kerry wanted for money. Since they were trying to showcase Kerry's nonexistent bravery in Vietnam (lying), and they were doing it under his "employ" (for money), they were lying for money. Giving away their integrity for Kerry's sweet moolah. Sellouts. There's your definition.

That, right there, is the indicator of what you really meant, which people have been alluding to at other posts along this thread. By your own assessment, you are saying that an insult against Kerry is what would prevent the thread from going this long.
Doesn't have much to do with McCain, does it?

Ahem. Quote me. I said it would've prevented this whole long fight... this fight that I have repeatedly said is irrelevant, is hijacking, and is pointless. Thank you for admitting that ANOTHER one of the points I made, despite your arguing against it, was correct.

I'm sure someone will have to remember that tactic at a future juncture.

Don't bother. No one ever learns.

And you're still here, winning brownie points, making friends, and being reminded that your ego is seriously messed up! :p

"Winning brownie points"? With who? Making friends with who? I'm completely alone right now. It's me against three or four people who completely contradict almost every word I say. You're the one crowding around one guy with your posse, hurling around juvenile insults, demeaning people who disagree with you by implying that they suck cock... and I'M the one going with the crowd? I'M the one with the ego?
Get your head checked.

Is this the part where we spoon?

Jesus Christ... I can't make myself any clearer. I'm too good for you. I'm definitely not leading you on so don't accuse me of it later. Don't get your hopes up. I don't want your number. Just go sit in the corner like you've been doing since you went to your first 5th-grade dance.

Anyway. It's late. If this thread hasn't been closed by tomorrow morning, maybe I'll say a few words.
But probly not. You're fighting a fight you've already lost, and I can't keep trying to convince you.

I'm too good for you.

You know it's funny, it's one of those phrases that is often rendered untrue merely by uttering it.

To borrow from Tacitus, they have made a mess and called it a debate.

Someday, you will learn to count, and you will notice that those other two links, plus this ONE example... make three.

Oh, fuck, yeah, the website. Because we're pretending that Kerry is the only one who makes use of his military background, not George W. Bush (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html)
He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard.
(now you might argue that there isn't much there, but there's only so big a bow you can put on that) or Bob Dole (http://www.bobdole.org/bio/wwII.php) who has a whole chapter-
Bob Dole was twice decorated for heroic achievement, receiving two Purple Hearts for his injuries, and the Bronze Star Medal for his attempt to assist the downed radio man. (this after a dramatic telling of some of his adventures) or George H.W. Bush (http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/bios.php) -
Mr. Bush graduated from Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts on his 18th birthday, June 12, 1942. That same day, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy as a Seaman 2nd Class. (that's half of his bio...now, I'm old enough to remember his campaign which included photos of him next to his plane and stories of his heroism in WWII)...

So, I'm wondering, what's the relevance of Kerry putting his military service on his website? Wouldn't it be more conspicuous if he didn't? Why are you not calling out the last 20 years of Republican candidates for lauding their service on their websites?

I'll tell you why, because doing it makes perfect fucking sense.

Anyway. It's late. If this thread hasn't been closed by tomorrow morning, maybe I'll say a few words.
But probly not. You're fighting a fight you've already lost, and I can't keep trying to convince you.Actually, i logged out with my response.
I have a quicker one, and let's have a witty comeback for it.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13432007&postcount=1
Nice playing.

Screw Nietzsche, I'm sigging this!

*bows*

To borrow from Tacitus, they have made a mess and called it a debate.
*I* don't think i can call so much attempted character assassination a "debate".

*I* don't think i can call so much attempted character assassination a "debate".

Indeed. But they seem to think it's a debate. In other news, 1+1=3, and freedom is slavery.

I really wish I had some illicit drugs for this thread. Isle asserted that I had to be either lying or high to make such arguments. And I wanted to prove him wrong!

Indeed. But they seem to think it's a debate. In other news, 1+1=3, and freedom is slavery.

I really wish I had some illicit drugs for this thread. Isle asserted that I had to be either lying or high to make such arguments. And I wanted to prove him wrong!
He inferred as much as he needed to about what he thought of having an argument worth being proven wrong or right, i think.


Has it occured to you that by now, I'm doing it to piss you off?

Freedom is slavery! Big Brother says so! *nod*
Suppose you're going to be on that thread you put in modforum?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13432007&postcount=1

Curious.

I didn't flame anyone... :confused:

Addendum.
Not saying you did.
Just thought it quirky for you to post the "Big Brother" comment afterwards.

Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
So now his being in Vietnam was a bad thing? Or is there something else you meant?
I swear to God, if this becomes a fight about whether the Vietnam War was justified or not, I'm totally out. This thread has rambled waaaaaaaaaay too much.

This is about politicians being two faced, and still being supported by those who throw stones against two faced politicians who are not their favored ones for being two faced.


Defending who? People who fought honorably in Vietnam and suffered for their country? Yeah. Yeah, guilty as charged. Don't let me off the hook too soon, I probably haven't paid enough for the terrible things I've said.

Did you even read the link?

As if Bush had any more? Don’t give me that shit.
I’m sorry, I forgot we lived in a world where the lack of support for a Democrat candidate automatically indicated support for a Republican candidate.

Kindly extricate yourself from the nonsensical polarised land you inhabit.

today's corporate media won't call anyone on anything as long as they toe the mafia line and continue to kiss the corporate ass.

anyone who looks like they might not, tends to be expeditiously removed from any bennificial public spotlight they might otherwise have enjoyed.

this goes for both parties and even nonpartisan accademics.

=^^=
.../\...

Anyway. It's late. If this thread hasn't been closed by tomorrow morning, maybe I'll say a few words.


1. You've already said too many of the wrong ones, as has Straughn. The two of you have 24 hours to think it over. Others might care to check their TGs.

2. It has been.