Cynical Nation

Where does the line start for expression of fake outrage?
Boy, a dopey throwaway line at a political rally is going to preserve the GOP's congressional control? How lame. Unless within those facocked lines were secret codes that: solved Iraq, solved Iran, solved North Korea, balanced the budget, cut spending, solved Afghanistan, set us on the path to energy independence, etc etc.

Any dolt who says they are changing their vote, or are now more enthusiastic about voting Republican, as a result of Frankenstein's remark deserve to be disenfranchised--or forced to pay a poll tax.

I don't think it'll save congress for the GOP (or even that such an outcome would be desirable.) I do think it's another nail in Kerry's political coffin, however, and that's a very good thing.

As far as voters being influenced by such a seemingly trivial gaffe? I can't say I really get it either. Still, we know from long experience that candidates' poll numbers can easily oscillate in double-digit swings right up until Election Day, on little or no news. Something causes those moves, even if it wouldn't change our minds. We also know that 15-20% of likely voters still claim to be "undecided" right up until time to vote. Like I say, go figure.

It's not so much the gaffe as it truly reflects what Kerry and others such as Rangel believe about the military.

This is now the third time that Kerry has badmouthed the military despite his ludicrous proclamation that he never has and never would do so.

But, again, it is a window into the soul of how Democrats, including Rangel, Murtha and others view the military.

Oh, and Fred, you might want to re-read the cacaphonous bleating of Democrats regarding the Foley scandal - including those who supported an actual child abuser in Gerry Studds. Their 'outrage' along with their allies in the MSM kept up the Foley story for a month.

It's politics, my friend, on both sides.

Those LiveStrong bracelets are a scam. I heard that wearing them does nothing to prevent getting cancer.

One more attempt by John Kerry to stick his head up his own ass.

"It's not so much the gaffe as it truly reflects what Kerry and others such as Rangel believe about the military.

The only ones who needs to apologize to the troops is Bush, Cheney and the rest, and you know it.

Ah, watching Kerry twist in the wind is indeed a sight. What I find so funny is that the good Senator won't even acknowledge his own remarks for what they are, an insult to all who have, and who are serving in the U.S. Armed Services (Not mention the lack of some sort of appology). Furthermore the lame excuse that some how this was ment as a jab at Bush is confirmation that he really does feel that those in the military are stupid. Since I'm just a uneducated Marine type maybe one of you brain children, like say, fred or BNJ, can explain it for me.

I love this one:
"The only ones who needs to apologize to the troops is Bush, Cheney and the rest, and you know it."

Hey, Blue wind. Wrong pinko, it is 5th column scumbags like you who should appologize for stabbing your own country in the back. And by the way. Where did you learn English? When the subject is plural try using "are" instead of "is" moron.

A stupid statement from John Kerry (Herman Munster look alike ) isn't going to change my vote come the 7th. However, it sure makes me glad I didn't vote for Kerry in 04.

Oh, just two more things;

Didn't John Kerry have a D+ average in college?

Didn't John Kerry join the Navy and go to Vietnam?

What a "F"ing tool.

> Didn't John Kerry have a D+ average in college?

I think he scored a bit higher in French.

Hey, Blue wind. Wrong pinko, it is 5th column scumbags like you who should appologize for stabbing your own country in the back. And by the way. Where did you learn English? When the subject is plural try using "are" instead of "is" moron.

Thanks for the kind words. I am glad we have a typo- police. I repeat, the only ones who need to apologize to the troops ARE Bush, Cheney and the rest. Kerry never meant to offend the troops and you know it.

Blue, I do believe that Kerry did not intentionally offend the troops. Nonetheless, many people found his remarks offensive. Even if he offended them unintentionally, it seems an apology is still called for.

Barry,
I am glad to hear someone talking rationally. I agree with you. He never meant to offend the troops, but he did unintentionally. And, in fact, I am not happy with him that he refused to apologize originally.

But, did you know that he apologized earlier this morning? Well, he did! So, explain to me why Snow still keeps asking him to apologize. Who is playing political games here? The republicans are so desperate with the upcoming defeat that they use anything they can to change the subject from the real issues. But it will not work.

> . Who is playing political games here?

The Republicans, of course. But if the roles were reversed, the Dems would be playing it for all it's worth.

But it will not work.

No, it probably won't, if by "work" you mean save GOP control of Congress. Still, it was pretty fun to watch. :-)

Whatever the joke, it wasn't that funny. According to All Things Considered he went on Imus this morning and apologized. But I don't think he's promising to stay home, which I guess Imus wanted him to do.

Kerry simply got confused, misread his cards, and said something stupid. He meant to say that not applying yourself in school would lead to you getting *us* stuck in Iraq, like Chimp, who also didn't really apply himself in school and all that.

However, after he misspoke and it was brought to his attention, he quite retardedly poured kerosene all over himself and lit a cigarette.

So here is my email to John Kerry:

Mr. Kerry,

When you say something you didn't mean to say, and it comes off hurtful to others whom you did not intend to hurt, haul your pompous ass off your high horse, explain yourself, take responsibility, and just give a plain apology.

I did vote for you in 2004, but not because I liked you much. You have this arrogance and a slippery quality that I don't like. If your competition had been any more that an outright traitor, I wouldn't have voted for you.

Please apologize, shut up, and don't run again.

Sincerely,

Bailey Hankins

However, after he misspoke and it was brought to his attention, he quite retardedly poured kerosene all over himself and lit a cigarette.

Great line. :)

"However, after he misspoke and it was brought to his attention, he quite retardedly poured kerosene all over himself and lit a cigarette."

That was the best summary of what happened that I heard so far.

" I do believe that Kerry did not intentionally offend the troops. Nonetheless, many people found his remarks offensive. Even if he offended them unintentionally, it seems an apology is still called for." (BNJ)
"The terrorists never stop thinking up ways harm us and neither do we."

BUT Kerry's was even worse, mostly BECAUSE of his track record on exatly that issue - disparaging American troops and throwing the guys he served with under the proverbial bus. The "joke" has to be looked at in precisley THAT context.

Kerry earlier on called the U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq "terrorists" for engaging in nighttime assaults on "unfriendly" villages.

He, in effect, called his Vietnam war buddies "baby-killers" before Congress in 1973.

The guy mangled his line, but he mangled it in such a questionable way!

Where do you get, "Education, if you stay in school, study hard, do your homework and work to be smart, you can do OK, if you don't you wind up getting stuck in Iraq, from, "Education is very important. If you stay in school, study hard, do your homework and work hard to be smart, you can do OK, if you don't you wind up getting us trapped in a war in Iraq, just ask President Bush?" How f*cked up is that?!

You'd think some internal governor would kick in before mouthing the inane words "...if not, you wind up stuck in Iraq," but apparently Kerry has no such internal governor.

It seemed to take him days to accept how offensive that remark was and he STILL seems to fail to see how inane it is.

The Volunteer Military is NOT comprised of aimless, drooling, GED-holders, in fact 99.9% of all military have a HS diploma compared to 81% of the American youth overall. More than fifty percent of the leadership holds advanced professional degrees and almost forty percent of the comanders hold post-graduate degrees.

So, yeah I agree, John Kerry is a blithering, blathering imbecile, but I also believe that his mis-spoken remarks do give a real window into the soul of the American Left - the Michael Moore's of the world, the AAR types of this world and Cindy Sheehan's believe exactly what Kerry said "mistakenly," of course.

I'm not hearing any screeching about how *unfair* it is that some offhand John Kerry remark has been in the news ALL WEEK.

Kerry isn't even running for office.

I heard you all whining and crying about the Mark Foley incident (child sexual predation). I hear all kinds of bemoaning of the "endless" news cycle perpetrated by the "liberal media" on this poor man.

I'm surprised you think a comment by someone who isn't even running for office is so newsworthy.

Why, it almost seems hypocritical.

wasn't it an opportunity for Dems to prove their bonafides by "reaffirming" their support for the troops, that they are the best and the brightest? It's interesting to see who has done so. Kerry's apology was pretty half-assed if i remember correctly.

It's also a fun topic to discuss, regardless of how it'll affect the election. I think some on the left, like Kerry, actually pity the military and think it victimizes people. Didn't Kerry actually believe that an all-volunteer army would be BAD because then it would all be composed of poor minorities and dropouts. What a dork.

Personally i didn't find the Foley story very interesting, but i'm glad he's outta there.

If anyone bothered to watch the video, it is obvious that Kerry was distracted, looking repeatedly at his notes at trying to put together what he was reading.

Kerry, unlike Chimp, did actually volunteer and serve in the military, and saw action, instead of drinking and coking it up while hiding in the Reserves thanks to daddy and being declared unfit for duty. So if Kerry truly meant what he said, he was insulting himself apparently. If the military is full of losers, well, he volunteered to be a loser.

The truth of the whole matter is that Repugs can't run on anything positive, and they are grasping desperately at anything to stop the endless bad news cycles.

They did a good job keeping the lid on the whole Abramoff thing. I'm surprised the Dems having hit that a little harder.

"as a result of Frankenstein's remark" -fred

I can't help but snicker every time I read this.

Kerry is too ugly to be president.

The better looking candidate always wins, at least since 1960.

"I heard you all whining and crying about the Mark Foley incident (child sexual predation)... (BH)
again!)....Do you ever get anything right?

I actually read other people's posts around here, including your own inane ones and the consensus here from the likes of Barry, Mal, etc was that Foley rightfully resigned over those inappropriate emails and IMs.

There were now, and I have it on pretty good authority, that there never will be any "child sex charges" filed against Mark Foley, as no Pages have come forward to allege any sexual relations with the disgraced former legislator.

One of the many ways you prove your inadequacy is in your persistent misuse of words - "child sexual predation" ONLY applies to actual sexual acts, it is a very specific term.

It's obvious you don't know that, but "ignorance is no excuse when violating the law," as they say.

Calling either Bill Clinton or Mark Foley sexual predators is very close to libel.

Calling Mel Reynolds or Gerry Studds the same, would not be at all libelous, as it wouldn't be at all inaccurate.

Wait!

Actually, in Studd's case, the Page was sixteen (above the age of consent...yulk) and apparently "consensual (as "consensual" as sex between a sixteen year old intern and a forty-something powerful lawmaker could be)...so, as in the Foley case, he really can't be called either a "pedophile" (the partner was above the age of consent)or a sexual predator," (the sex was apparently consensual and between two parties who could legally consent) for those two reasons.

Of course, in the Foley case, there were and are no allegations of any actual sex, so you have that fact that puts Foley's email indiscretions far below the likes of Reynolds and Studds in the pantheon of flawed judgment.

Like you said JMK, the bar should be "suspicion" not "proof".

According to your rules, I should be allowed to abduct and waterboard Mr. Foley to get the "truth" out of him and protect the children.

We really don't know if he banged any kids or not, do we? He might still be doing it. Why are you so anxious to give him a pass when you want people arrested, interrogated at gunpoint, and cavity searched for taking a picture on a New York street?

Would you really support President Hillary Clinton when she uses the new wingnut-passed laws to abduct political enemies, labeling them "enemy combatants" and locking them in dungeons forever, no contact, no representation, no day in court, no judicial oversight -- nothing.

You're just a simple-minded hypocrite.

The "rules" AREN'T that YOU or I could detain or interrogate anyone for any reason whatsoever.

Leave that up to the proferssionals Barely. I very much doubt you'd make a very convincing interrogator any way.

When a fellow passsenger asks me to watch his bag at an airport now-a-days, I refuse and if he still goes off, leaving that package unattended, I call the airport police and report a "suspicious package."

That's the correct protocol in today's dangerous age.

By the by...there is no "crime called "terrorism."

There is a crime called "making terroristic threats," but that statute does not criminalize actual terrorism.

Moreover, I don't support charging any "soldier of Islam" with any U.S. criminal charges, as that would (1) give them a day in court to make their case against the United States over a long list of "perceived past abuses," that most Americans simply needn't concern themselves with and (2) would denigrate the significance of the real, or actual military WoT.

"Would you really support President Hillary Clinton when she uses the new wingnut-passed laws to abduct political enemies? (BH)
(BH)


While I revile many of Mrs Clinton's political views, I don't believe that she'd seek to "abduct any political enemies" any more than G W Bush would.

No "political enemies" of G W Bush have ever been wrongly accused of a crime during this administration's tenure...that too is a fact.

So please stop making such churlish innuendos. You're not deft enough to pull that off. The trick is in not being so transparent...and of course, not being completely wrong on the basic facts.

I've fully read the Patriot Act and I've followed its implementation closely and to date there have been ZERO abuses...you can rest assured about that.

Stop Roving, you know damn good an well that what I am saying is true. The law allows WITHOUT OVERSIGHT, WITHOUT JUDICIAL REVIEW, WITHOUT REGARD TO AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, for a person to be labeled an "enemy combatant" and be secreted off to a secret prison forever.

How do you KNOW it hasn't been abused? The president does not have to notify anyone, ever. The president never has to prove anything. American citizens are not exempt.

This is the day our founding fathers feared most of all. The day we gave away what they died for.

The best you can do is say "It hasn't been abused yet ... er, that we know of".

That's just brilliant. And Hitler hadn't killed any Jews yet when he put them on trains and sent them to "work camps", either. It was the law that they get on those trains, so I guess it was OK. After all, they hadn't been murdered yet. Why not go along and let things play out. I mean, a politician would never abuse power.

LOL!

If you don't follow the news (except in Left-wing blogs) you're going to remain hysterical Barely.

The SC recently upheld such American citizens' rights to a Military Tribunal.

Indeed most of the cases HAVE been made known to the American people - by the government!

In one such case, "Yaser Esam Hamdi, born in Louisiana and raised in Saudi Arabia, is being held in a Navy brig in Norfolk without charges or access to an attorney. The administration says he was fighting for the Taliban and can be held as an enemy combatant out of reach of the civil courts."

You don't believe that Hamdi should be given a forum in an American courtroom do you?

Of course not.

He'll get a better hearing before a Military Tribunal, better because they'll better understand the situation and better because any classified information Hamdi may seek to use in his defense will be out-of-sight in this secret proceeding.

If you believe, as I do, that Lynne Stewart, John "Taliban Johnny" Walker-Lindt and Adam Gadahne have ALL breached their American citizenship by "aiding and abetting an enemy during wartime," than Hamdi is guilty of even far worse - fighting with that enemy in open battle.

No, Barely, those folks don't need a day in an American court.

I am talking about the law, JMK.

You know I'm right, so you Rove around, squawking incoherently about anything else.

The law does NOT require anything other than Bush, without oversight or court review of any kind, to label an American citizen an "enemy combatant" and that person is GONE.

There is no provision for any trial or notifcation. There is no oversight of any kind.

If there was, you would have quoted it already, but there isn't, so you gibber and squeak, flapping your arms as a diversion.