Istn’t he asking for them as evidence to use in getting better benefits for veterans?

If all he wants is bad stories for PR purposes or because that suits his agenda, then that is bad. It seems he wants these stories of hardship (of which clearly many face) for a specific purpose, which seems honourable.

Perhaps it would have been better to as for any and all stories. He could then have used the bad ones for this purpose while reflecting on the “good” ones.

Padders, you’re so full of shit that your hair stinks.

Rann, I thought we agreed you weren’t going to respond to my posts until you grew up or actually had a rational argument for something. Lasted almost a fortnight I guess.

Istn’t he asking for them as evidence to use in getting better benefits for veterans?

He isn’t asking for the stories of veterans, he’s asking for stories from the families of current military. So, I’d say ‘no’…

He could then have used the bad ones for this purpose while reflecting on the “good” ones.

Rann was too polite.

He isn’t asking for the stories of veterans, he’s asking for stories from the families of current military. So, I’d say ‘no’…

Right, to show how these families should/could be helped. Whats wrong with that? Would you disagree with what he was suggesting had Bush suggested it? Istn’t it important to know and understand the hardships that military families go through?

Right, to show how these families should/could be helped. Whats wrong with that?

Nothing, but wouldn’t it make more sense to determine the needs of veterans and their families by, I don’t know… maybe, asking the actual veterans and their families?

And he’s not asking the current military, only those family members who are having problems - “suffering and hardship” of those who have to stay here at home.

He didn’t ask about any of the suffering and hardship of those who were serving. Which, that makes sense, seeing as how he didn’t give a shit about them before, so why should he start now that he’s fading back into obscurity?

Would you disagree with what he was suggesting had Bush suggested it?

Betcherass, I would. If Bush is worried about the suffering and hardship among America’s veterans, he can bloody well start by giving us better benefits. If he were doing it for as blatently political a reason as Kerry is doing it, I would be screaming to high heaven.

BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY (to borrow a phrase from Jeff Goldstein).

What worries me is that you seem to think he’s doing it “just because he cares”, when almost everything he has actually done since he got back is to cut the throat of the DoD.

What worries me is that you seem to think he’s doing it “just because he cares”, when almost everything he has actually done since he got back is to cut the throat of the DoD.

Nah, I can clearly see he is doing this for political reasons; it will be part of the 2006/8 push that Republicans are not only warmongers but bad ones (screwed up Iraq, worries over recruitment, stop losses etc). Whether you believe it or not this will I guess be part of their aim position themselves as the party not so keen to start a fight, but when they do they will do it better.

So does this have political purposes - of course; does that mean its a bad thing? no also.

And come on, because he is asking about the families this makes him not care about the people actually fighting? Does that mean if someone only interviews / asks question to military people they don’t care about their families? His argument seems to be about the hardships imposed on a family by their husband/wife serving. With the increased usage of the national guard to fight a war - it is hardly surprising that families at home are finding it tougher.

Padders, we didn’t agree to shit, you pathetic, moronic, idiotic little piece of dog vomit. I just haven’t seen you toting out your crap lately, or I would have made sure to tell you that I hope you and your entire family tree are someday sterilized as an emergency measure for the good of all of humanity to prevent whatever the fuck is wrong with you from spreading.
You’re an intellectually dishonest, prevaricating, pontificating, LYING, excuse-making, agenda-pushing, droning little sack of pig diarrhea, and the world would be better off if you spontaneously burst into flames, save for the stink that would leave.

So does this have political purposes - of course;

But John Kerry’s politics have been thoroughly rejected by the American people, which makes me wonder why he’s stupid enough (or so poorly advised) as to try this nonsense again.

I still get a chuckle out of his “Reporting for duty!”.

Drumwaster,

Thoroughly rejected seems to push it a bit, we are talking about less than 2% of the popular vote difference. I sincerely hope he dosen’t run again and seriously doubt he will; but it dosen’t seem to mean his political career has ended completly - In my mind it seems good having the presidential looser stay in the public eye like this - in the same way McCain has remained pretty vocal despite loosing the primary.

Come on Rann, you couldn’t get any more insults in there than that? Have another go, its trully entertaining; I can almost picture the steam coming from your ears. I do however wonder how I can be both dog vomit and pig diarrhea at the same time they seem to be mutually exclusive. I guess I could be a mixture of the two. Oh, you agreed here by the way.

I said it was pointless to respond to you, you asked why I didn’t stop, I said I would. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination,

Rann, I thought we agreed you weren’t going to respond to my posts until you grew up or actually had a rational argument for something. Lasted almost a fortnight I guess.

For one thing, that isn’t us AGREEING to anything. Second, absolutely nothing was said about me needing to do anything before responding to your bullshit. Third, I’ve insulted you plenty since then.
EVERYTHING that comes from you is a lie, isn’t it? You’re incapable of telling the truth, being honest, or not acting like an idiot.
You’re a loser. That’s the end of it. Your postings are as nothing. You are nothing. You are useless, worthless, and in all ways undeserving of life. Moreover, when you’re gone, no one will remember you, or care what happened.
For all real purposes, you don’t exist, save as a thing of annoyance.

Posted by padders on 04/18 at 08:10 PM (Link to this comment)

Drumwaster,

Thoroughly rejected seems to push it a bit, we are talking about less than 2% of the popular vote difference.

“Thoroughly rejected” still applies since more than 2/3 of the people that voted for him weren’t voting for Kerry so much as against Bush.

“Anybody But Bush” as a political rallying cry doesn’t say much for the candidate being suggested as his replacement.

It also didn’t help that most of Kerry’s positions boiled down to “I’d do everything Bush would do, but different"…

Drum, it seems a lot of people on the right where not voting for Bush but against Kerry and/or terorism. Really its just semantics istn’t it?

But either way, not sure how that affects whether Kerry should be able to make a point. You might suspect his motives and thats fine - he is a politican so you would be insane not to question his motives but it seems what he is actually *doing* here istn’t as bad or even bad at all as some might make it seem. Its easy to demonise something, e.g. Bush on private accounts - and I question Bush’s motives on that but don’t dispute that some of what he says make good sense. Seems to be the same situation perhaps? Sometimes it is worth listening to people we disagree with / don’t like for the valid things they might suggest even if we do question their motives; I guess I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Rann, perhaps you don’t understand the multiple meanings of the veryagree. I would be using the 2nd one. As to the other stuff, I know my girlfriend uses the phrase “quiet time” when the autistic kids she looks after play up. Seems like it could apply to you as well.

Drum, it seems a lot of people on the right where not voting for Bush but against Kerry and/or terorism.

Not true. The stats I saw showed that better than 90% of Republicans voted for Bush, rather than against Kerry.

On the other end it was only about 1/3 of Dems that voted “for” Kerry.

From Indymedia (hardly a conservative source):

What’s more, around 70% of the Kerry voters stated that they voted against Bush more than they voted for Kerry.

Best I could do on short notice… *shrug*

Drum,

Ok, thats fair enough - will give you that. I guess it leads into the question, is that standard in a race against an incumbant - are they not normally a referendum on the incumbant?

In my mind voting against Bush still means you think he is better; saying you are voting against Bush or voting for Kerry just seem to be two ways of describing the same decision, that you think Kerry is better than Bush. Of course its always somewhat of a guess as you don’t really know what Kerry will be like.

I definitely get the point though, Kerry was hardly a strong candidate.

saying you are voting against Bush or voting for Kerry just seem to be two ways of describing the same decision, that you think Kerry is better than Bush.

Not quite. Voting against the incumbent means that you want anybody in his place, even a schlemiel like Kerry. It had its own acronym - ABB, meaning “Anybody But Bush”. They would have gladly voted for Al Sharpton as long as Bush went home. They are commonly known as “Blue Dog Democrats”, because they would vote for a Blue Dog, as long as he was a Democrat.

OTOH, voting for Kerry actually means that you would think that Kerry - specifically Kerry, not “Any Democrat” - would have made a better President than Bush.

While the end result is the same, the motivations behind that action are much different.