Those who pretend that "Uneducated" somehow meant the man who went to the same college and performed better while there... that's who.
Kerry did not even mention the troops, that was Bush!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
uscitizen
Villified User
And of course membership in groups such as "Skull and bones" does not effect grades at all....
LOL. Rubbish. There is only one group involved that could even remotely be considered to be "uneducated" and it isn't Bush.
You may believe that he is unintelligent, but saying he is "uneducated" is foolish considering the person who gave the speech actually underperformed Bush at the very same college!
Bush could not be considered "uneducated" any more than Kerry can.
Of course not. 12 people in a Fraternity cannot effect your grade. This is crazy.
And you should realize that they were BOTH in this same Fraternity.
Neither Bush nor Kerry have an IQ that is worth an argument over.
Bush is an idiot and Kerry can't keep his foot out of his mouth. 6 of one, half dozen of the other. In other words, no matter what Kerry said or how you interpret it, both of them are not worthy of the office of president. Unfortunately, in the last presidential election the worst of two bad choices stole the election. And the other decided to let him do it. Fuck 'em both!
I agree. Both of them are not very intelligent. They are, however, both very well educated.
Sound and Fury indicating nothing! In the Ivy League, the big hurdle is gaining admission. After that, who knows what it takes to complete a course of study. They both went to the same school, Yale, and evidently both were popular enough to get into the exclusive Skull and Bones and one made it through the Harvard MBA course, how we don't really know. The other dropped out of divinity school. I don't know if any of this qualifies one to be "very well educated." They got into good schools. We know how Bush did it (white affirmative action); we don't know how Kerry did it.
Either way, saying that Bush is uneducated would be saying the same thing as "I am an uneducated buffoon"...
YOU ARE CORRECT SIR!
ManU1959
Left Coast
that isn't true....a lesser educated man would certainly think they were better educated than a man who did better than they....jelousy is a fertile ground for insults
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
He slipped up. I do not for the life of me believe he was denigrating our troops. I believe he was making an effort to sucker punch the President and his words came out wrong. In boxing terms, he threw a punch at the President and left himself wide open for a tremendous upper cut that made him see stars.
Only a fool would believe that he would be stupid (should I say Bush enough?) enough to say such a thing about our troops.
Immie, he did it in 1971 and in 2004, as well. I could give him a pass if he had never said anything disparaging regarding the troops, but that isn't the case with Kerry. Each time, he makes a totally outrageous statement, directly insulting or offensive toward the troops themselves, then when the heat comes, he claims he was talking about the leadership. He did it with the Gingus Kahn statement before Congress, he did it again with the Terrorizing women and children remark, and this is the third time he has publicly made such a statement. No one makes this sort of grievous error three times in a political career without it being intentional.
If you want to believe the he misspoke, you can... here's what I think... John Kerry said exactly what he meant to say, it's precisely how he feels. He is reverting to the old Vietnam era mindset, when we had selective service, and if you didn't get a college deferment, you "got stuck" in Vietnam. It is typical of the liberal elite. John Kerry simply revealed his true colors again, and when the heat came, he bailed as always, with the same old excuse... he was talking about the leaders, not the troops. It has gotten old.
Only a fool would believe that he would be stupid (should I say Bush enough?) enough to say such a thing about our troops.
Immie, he did it in 1971 and in 2004, as well. I could give him a pass if he had never said anything disparaging regarding the troops, but that isn't the case with Kerry. Each time, he makes a totally outrageous statement, directly insulting or offensive toward the troops themselves, then when the heat comes, he claims he was talking about the leadership. He did it with the Gingus Kahn statement before Congress, he did it again with the Terrorizing women and children remark, and this is the third time he has publicly made such a statement. No one makes this sort of grievous error three times in a political career without it being intentional.
If you want to believe the he misspoke, you can... here's what I think... John Kerry said exactly what he meant to say, it's precisely how he feels. He is reverting to the old Vietnam era mindset, when we had selective service, and if you didn't get a college deferment, you "got stuck" in Vietnam. It is typical of the liberal elite. John Kerry simply revealed his true colors again, and when the heat came, he bailed as always, with the same old excuse... he was talking about the leaders, not the troops. It has gotten old.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Immie, he did it in 1971 and in 2004, as well. I could give him a pass if he had never said anything disparaging regarding the troops, but that isn't the case with Kerry. Each time, he makes a totally outrageous statement, directly insulting or offensive toward the troops themselves, then when the heat comes, he claims he was talking about the leadership.
Thing is Dixie, he was right on both occasions...
Atrocities were committed in Vietnam and Iraq...by troops....
Why are you opposing those that highlight such atrocities?
Why did you bang on about SH's atrocities, yet decry anyone who applies the same criteria to your own side?
BTW, these are rhetorical questions, we all know the answer...
Thing is Dixie, he was right on both occasions...
Atrocities were committed in Vietnam and Iraq...by troops....
Why are you opposing those that highlight such atrocities?
Why did you bang on about SH's atrocities, yet decry anyone who applies the same criteria to your own side?
BTW, these are rhetorical questions, we all know the answer...
Demwit
uscitizen alternate login
Neither one of those bozos really care about the troops. It is all about them and what the troops can do for them.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
I don't care whether they really care or not. All I care about is what they do. Current emotions -- especially imputed emotions -- are a very bad predictor of future actions where politicians are concerned.
Kerry's joke was, in retrospect, tactically unwise. Okay, bid deal. He's shown a propensity for speaking with too little regard for politcial consequences in the past, so this is nothing new. That tendency may make him a poor politician but, ironically enough, it also probably makes him a better human being.
Don't let the hysteria suck you in. If you look at what he actually said, it was a perfectly reasonable joke. If I were in the position of speaking to a group of high school students today I'd almost certainly say exactly the same thing. Makes a good object lesson: see where you can go if you fuck up?