October 31, 2006
— Ace According to Ace of Spades digital brownshirt WickedPinto.
Retracted? See below.
I've alerted Allah to look for it. Hopefully he'll repeat the comments on Hardball.
I knew someone, like Bill Maher, would say "Hey, it's true" (right before denying that John Kerry intended to speak the truth).
I should have figured Chris Matthews too. He's been on this Army of Losers thing for a while.
Smart, college-educated chappies like him dodged the draft by joining the Peace Corps.
I just find it pretty ballsy that liberals are going to try the two-track strategy of 1) Kerry would never have said something so heinously awful and 2) what John Kerry said was 100% spot-on accurate.
Matthews Is Claiming... that what Kerry said isn't what he said. He's claiming, flat-out, that Kerry said Bush's lack of education on the Middle East got us "stuck in Iraq."
He may have meant that this quote -- this non-quote, what wasn't said but which the liberals are claiming was said -- is true.
Not sure. Having not seen the earlier remarks, I don't know.
Uses Jennifer Loven's Dowdified quotation of Kerry, seguing the attacks on Bush directly into the remarks about a lack of education prompting military service.
Seems to be hosting a debate between two people wo agree Kerry did not mean what he said, and in fact probably never even said it.
The assertion, without any evidence, is that this was an attack on Bush. It is not even mentioned that Kerry actually slighted the military-- a viewer who only gets his news from Chris Matthews (God forbid) would wonder what the fuss is about.
He played very bad audio of Kerry's actual remarks where you could barely hear what he said -- ergo, for anyone watching Hardball, Kerry not only intended to make an attack only on Bush, but actually did only make an attack on Bush.
Not a voice of dissent at
In a surprise move, Chris Matthews has finally relocated out of John McCain's asshole over this, now wondering what psychological demons could have caused McCain to accuse John Kerry of saying precisely what he said.
His "attack" was "very deliberate." One of his "debaters" says this is pure political opportunism, courting the conservative base.
It's amazing that Chris Matthews looked far and wide and could not find a guest to say a bad word about John F'n' Kerry.
Having found unanimity between his liberal "debaters" (Johnathan Alter and some flake from MSNBC) that Kerry didn't say what he said, they've now moved on. The topic doesn't need to be discussed further, because John Kerry simply never said what he said, and certainly didn't mean to say what he said, which may make no sense, but that's there story and they're sticking to it.
David Schuster now dutifully offers up a bunch of Democratic political ads, inculuding one against Heather Wilson, apparently finding Wilson's brilliant ad against her opponent unfit for viewing.
So don't bother watching; there you go.
Rectracted? While WickedPinto may be correct in his report that Chris Matthews was saying "that's true, that's true" about Kerry's remarks, the 7:00 version of Hardball demonstrates that Matthews is simply flat-out lying about what Kerry said, claiming that Kerry actually made an attack on Bush's education and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Ergo, he's agreeing with a false statement. It doesn't appear that Matthews is even willing to acknowlege what John Kerry actually did say, so we can't take his saying "that's true, that's true" as an endorsement of those words. According to Matthews, they simply weren't said at all.
Some Video... of Matthews' stalward defense of Kerry.
Greg Tinti wisely cut the clip before Matthews picked up Kerry upside down by his ankles and put his penis in his mouth.
(In fairness, it was an act of love and respect, not a sexual act. Jennifer Loven's AP report proves it.)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 02:36 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 02:36 PM (QTv8u)
It's damn near exact, but please, buy me some space.
And use the lindsay lohans catchers mitt as a counter argument if I misinterpreted.
I'm all about train of thought.
THIS is why I don't blog.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 02:40 PM (QTv8u)
Or, stated as an SAT question:
John Kerry::Summers Eve <--> Chris Matthews::Massengill
The correct answer, of course, is "True"
Posted by: Patton at October 31, 2006 02:41 PM (ItE79)
And what is it with the Lohan pooter? Now J'Lo, THAT'S a pooter.
(cue up "Baby Got Back")
Posted by: Timothy S Carlson at October 31, 2006 02:45 PM (uV/vg)
Posted by: jj at October 31, 2006 02:45 PM (AdvuV)
Posted by: jj at October 31, 2006 02:46 PM (AdvuV)
Any sympathy coming from anyone from the left or Hollywood in regards to the military should be taken with a grain of salt. They really don't care about them at all. That and black people...they'd rather keep them under their thumb rather than let them get along on their own.
Posted by: Steve of Norway at October 31, 2006 02:47 PM (T8tYH)
I applaud and echo your comments on Lindsay Lohan's thang. We definately should devote the rest of the evening on this blog to her bottleopener and John Kerry's "joke".
Posted by: eman at October 31, 2006 02:49 PM (FWrFx)
Posted by: harrison at October 31, 2006 02:51 PM (niodd)
In the next comment, DO-NOT CLICK, unless you want to look at the man behind the curtain. You asked for it.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 02:54 PM (QTv8u)
in fact, this is a VERY dangerous link no matter the situation because the broad is only 19, maybe 20, and this is her pooter.
That link is only safe for women who have been neglected by their husbands cuz their husbands have been rubbing one off to lindsay, while neglectling their wives.
Too you ladies? I say make it a baclground and screnesaver, so that you can guilt your husband into realizing that his semi-a-sexual actions are completely out of line cuz his fantasies look like lindsay lohans pooter when he has a wonderful and beautiful and thoughtful woman like you next to him.
I'm just say'n.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 02:59 PM (QTv8u)
I'm recording the show, will review in a second.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 03:02 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: its old at October 31, 2006 03:05 PM (yHvEo)
Posted by: Wickepdinto at October 31, 2006 03:07 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Ruth at October 31, 2006 03:11 PM (DTwYZ)
Posted by: Shivv at October 31, 2006 03:14 PM (phyWH)
The offensive part comes soon.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 03:23 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Kanelin at October 31, 2006 03:23 PM (Sbaq1)
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2006 03:25 PM (ai6A/)
What were we talking about? Oh yeah, JFK, the anus inspector.
There were 58 million votes for that guy in 2004.
According to the spinners, this genius screwed up a simple crappy joke meant to attack President Bush. According to the spinners, there is no way JFK meant to say that US service members are a bunch of desperate, uneducated, stupid suckers. According to the spinners, JFK is right to strike back against those who claim he is not too stupid to screw up a simple crappy joke.
Posted by: eman at October 31, 2006 03:25 PM (FWrFx)
thanks, I'll tell Allah (but he doesn't seem to have recorded it).
The problem is that Matthews seems to be claiming that Kerry simply never said what he plainly said, so his "that's true, that's true" may be referring to Matthews' false gloss on what Kerry said, not what Kerry actually said.
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2006 03:26 PM (4qddO)
either I'm late, or I'm early.
Either I missed it at the beginning of THIS hour, or it happens at the end of this hour.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 03:26 PM (QTv8u)
If you add one word, the sentence suddenly makes sense in the way he claims he meant it:
... "if you [don't study, etc.], you get stuck in Iraq"
should have been "you get US stuck in Iraq," making the reference to Bush clear.
It's either that, or else Kerry decided to commit political hari-kiri. Again, he's dumb, but is he really THAT dumb?
Which is more likely - that he'd throw what little political future he has away like this, or that he'd accidentally omit one word from a speech?
Okay, I'm done. I feel dirty ...
Posted by: Knemon at October 31, 2006 03:27 PM (k4zdv)
I can't upload video, but I'm recording, so that I can transcribe exactly rather than just paraphrase.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 03:28 PM (QTv8u)
I didn't know that... haven't watched MSNBC in a year.
So the comments should play this hour on the 7 pm repeat?
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2006 03:32 PM (4qddO)
Posted by: kevlarchick at October 31, 2006 03:33 PM (RVvNi)
You're kidding. I thought this would be front page for 3 weeks, like if a republican said something this stupid.
Oh, THAT liberal bias.
Posted by: fugazi at October 31, 2006 03:33 PM (smQov)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2006 03:33 PM (AuPsg)
I have yet to offer a blogpost PERIOD, but you have offered many, why haven't you included a single one on your ever brilliant personal blog which we are all waiting to awaken.
Don't play with me KC, I'm much more devious than thee, because I'm not always a nice person.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 03:45 PM (QTv8u)
Same think with "the situation" which is kinda funnay, cuz the situation playes at 4pm eastern and again at 6 pm eastern, which means that Carlson is giving you the "Situation" from 2 hours ago.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 03:48 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 03:49 PM (QTv8u)
I can't review till about 7:30.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 03:51 PM (QTv8u)
He is lying because he knows this is the death knell.
Is it knell or nell. I don't like to look up words.
Posted by: Stormy70 at October 31, 2006 03:52 PM (7WJsV)
If the Dems can spend days on Mark Foley, we can spend a few of the days left before Nov. 7 focusing on this.
Posted by: Vyce at October 31, 2006 03:54 PM (nEOKu)
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at October 31, 2006 03:57 PM (8eDwd)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 03:58 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Sinistar at October 31, 2006 03:59 PM (fzmgK)
Posted by: ahem at October 31, 2006 04:00 PM (21n49)
Is the entire transcript/video available?
Posted by: BFD at October 31, 2006 04:01 PM (ZNQkp)
Posted by: Jim "Tangled" Webb at October 31, 2006 04:05 PM (ZNQkp)
Posted by: at October 31, 2006 04:06 PM (idRyD)
Olberman played the longest excerpt I've seen. In it Kerry makes the remarks about living in denial, etc then he says thanks for having me, I am here to talk about education and then makes the famous attack.
There's no way watching that it was a slip or a mangled joke. He clearly ended his lame joke section, paused and then began his talk on education. There was a clear break between the jokes and the slap.
Olberman's own video is the most damning I've seen.
I didn't think Kerry could be worse but, wow, I am just infuriated.
Posted by: Drew at October 31, 2006 04:06 PM (Y2fNF)
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2006 04:08 PM (ai6A/)
Posted by ryan at October 31, 2006 09:08 PM
It took Kerry 24 hours to come up with that lie.
Posted by: BFD at October 31, 2006 04:11 PM (ZNQkp)
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
OK, so the cover story is that the "stuck in Iraq" line was about President Bush. That would mean that Kerry was trying to say something like:
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you can be elected President and get us stuck in Iraq."
The cover story does not fly. Or maybe it does-- that statement would make no sense and since Kerry often makes no sense, it would fit.
But anyone listening to the tape can hear-- he was not making any joke. He was droning in his most affected self-important Senatorial tenor.
The only joke involved was John Forbes Kerry.
Posted by: Gerry at October 31, 2006 04:12 PM (UD5mq)
If this is true, then why hasn't Kerry apologized to them for any offense they may have taken from his comments? Why go on the attack with no regard for the harm his words created?
Posted by: Slublog at October 31, 2006 04:13 PM (bFvfU)
Oh, and on that slip of the tongue thing you just mentioned, I just heard Olbermann call Allen, Senator Macaca. Now that you have seen the light on the shift key, is the point starting to sink in about the dishonesty of the left?
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2006 04:15 PM (t+mja)
I seem to remember hearing that Bush got better grades too.
Posted by: rsp at October 31, 2006 04:17 PM (i66Th)
Be reasonable. If he was saying what you claim, he was saying "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you can be elected President and get us stuck in Iraq."
That makes no sense. Kerry was showing that he thinks the military are a bunch of idiots. Plain and simple.
Posted by: Gerry at October 31, 2006 04:19 PM (UD5mq)
If he really meant that our soldiers are stupid and that's why they are soldiers, then he is a rotten bastard and deserves every recrimination you can think of.
I truly believe he was speaking of Bush, not the troops.
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2006 04:27 PM (ai6A/)
Why is the smartest man in the world so fucking stupid?
Posted by: BFD at October 31, 2006 04:27 PM (ZNQkp)
I do not think you are that dense. I do not think you are that unintelligent. I think that you are trying to grab on to anything you can to defend a politician who comes from the same side of the aisle as you.
Posted by: Gerry at October 31, 2006 04:31 PM (UD5mq)
I don't like Kerry. I really don't. But I think it's wrong to crucify the guy for what I think was an error in his speech.
In the end, even our leaders and almost-presidens are human. They are just as likely to make a slip of the tongue as any of us. You all know you've done it before. Why is it so hard to believe that's what he did?
It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2006 04:36 PM (ai6A/)
Let's also consider something, this isn't a first offense for Kerry. There's the who Winter Soldier testimony 35 years ago and the whole 'terrorizing kids and children, you know, women' thing.
He insulted the troops before and he did it again last night.
Posted by: Drew at October 31, 2006 04:37 PM (Y2fNF)
But I do not believe you are being honest when you claim to believe he was talking about President Bush. As I pointed out, for that to be the case he would have been saying "if you study, you can do well. Otherwise, you might get elected President."
I would rather believe you to be a partisan trying to rescue someone on your side of the aisle, even one you dislike, than believe you are that big of an idiot.
Posted by: Gerry at October 31, 2006 04:39 PM (UD5mq)
So now millions of Americans, veterans, and active-duty soldiers are "crazy".
Keep talking, pretty boy.
Posted by: BFD at October 31, 2006 04:40 PM (ZNQkp)
"Jesus Christ, I'm a fucking moron..."
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2006 04:51 PM (AuPsg)
Eat me, jagoff. I believe he said what he said.
This is not new to the left -- they are always claiming our soldiers fight only out of economic desperation, i.e., because they have no other career choices. On O'Reilly tonight, a Democratic spinner said exactly that even while disclaiming Kerry meant anything of the sort.
Furtther, Kerry himself did not join the military for patriotic reasons. He joined because he was about to be drafted and his deferrments had run out. Ergo, this idea that he was one of the soldiers serving truly of his own volition is ludicrous.
He did serve, and therefore he fulfilled his duty (except, you know, for faking up the Purple Hearts to get a very early exit). But he did not serve voluntarily, out of patriotism.
Hence, he continues to believe no one does. People either are in the army because they're poor and uneducated or because they're drafted or about to be drafted (as Kerry was). As the latter doesn't apply, the former is the cause.
Posted by: at October 31, 2006 04:57 PM (4qddO)
Hmmm....there are so many possibilities....craven will do to start
Posted by: eman at October 31, 2006 05:02 PM (FWrFx)
It may not be fair to accuse Bush of being unpatriotic because he was in the National Guard instead of active duty in Vietnam, but it is more obscenely unfair to attack Kerry's patriotism in light of his combat duty.
I just don't get you, man.
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2006 05:05 PM (ai6A/)
Posted by: Knemon at October 31, 2006 05:10 PM (k4zdv)
Holier-than-thou? (It's hyphenated so it's one word, dammit.)
That's all I got for the moment. I'm busy raiding my niece's trick or treat bag. Pardon me.
Posted by: ErikW at October 31, 2006 05:15 PM (0K8Xe)
Posted by: geoff at October 31, 2006 05:15 PM (2d9Ny)
Well, usually we call that a Freudian slip.
Posted by: geoff at October 31, 2006 05:17 PM (2d9Ny)
No, not necessarily. Remember, Kerry has a history of making "jokes" that don't make any sense. He obviously didn't think the joke through, he just thought "these are college kids I'm talking to. Education - good. Bush - dumb."
He made a similarly bizarre "joke" a few weeks ago - that weirdness about "going to 1600 Pennsylvania and killing the real bird with one stone."
I defer to no one in my general contempt for the guy, but I think he did intend it to be about Bush (and his advisors generally).
BUT - but but but - he screwed up the "joke," which was ambiguous to begin with, and he should have realized that and apologized as soon as the controversy began. It wouldn't have completely stopped the angry reaction, but it would have helped blunt it.
He turned what would have been a 1-day story into at least a 2-day story, and may have provided a rallying point for the Republican vote next week. In other words, he took a potentially minor screwup and turned it into a Royal Flaming Fuckup.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you John Kerry.
Posted by: Knemon at October 31, 2006 05:20 PM (k4zdv)
Oh, you have no idea girlfriend!
Posted by: Slublog at October 31, 2006 05:21 PM (mWiMX)
Kerry must resign his Senate seat.
It would be for the best.
and if Mitt Romney has to appoint a replacement?
Well, so be it.
Posted by: billy at October 31, 2006 05:21 PM (7zlSx)
Fair enough. How about in light of his subsequent treasonous activities? Can we question his patriotism then?
Posted by: Meekrob at October 31, 2006 05:21 PM (UKek4)
Her father was killed there, and Kerry could have been just as easily killed. Bush was safe state-side.
And Bill Clinton was at Oxford learning how to inhale while writing that he "loathed" the military.
About which you're utterly silent.
Shocking, I know...
Posted by: BB at October 31, 2006 05:29 PM (8z3Ks)
Posted by: BFD at October 31, 2006 05:30 PM (ZNQkp)
"How do you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips move."
Same joke told by John Kerry (abridged version):
"By what mechanism is it determined that the words spoken by a member of the bar are not truthful? The said member of the bar is seen to be articulating the tissue directly above and below the mouth."
Posted by: eman at October 31, 2006 05:31 PM (FWrFx)
I really don't. But I think it's wrong to crucify the guy for what I think was an error in his speech.
In the end, even our leaders and almost-presidens are human. They are just as likely to make a slip of the tongue as any of us. You all know you've done it before. Why is it so hard to believe that's what he did?
Hahaha, coming from the side that talks endlessly about the "is our children learning"
You hypocrites are unreal.
Posted by: BB at October 31, 2006 05:31 PM (8z3Ks)
Resigning would be the honorable thing to do but I am pretty sure Kerry doesn't know the meaning of the word. And besides it's not like he drove off a bridge and killed a woman. Surely that would prohibit someone from representing Massachusetts in the Senate.
Oh, never mind.
Posted by: Drew at October 31, 2006 05:39 PM (Y2fNF)
But shouldn't every candidate for the Senate be forced to say clearly:
Do you stand by the Senator's hate speech?
Or, should he resign?
Posted by: billy at October 31, 2006 05:46 PM (7zlSx)
(Hint: It's not.)
Posted by: Mrs. Peel at October 31, 2006 05:49 PM (AR+EO)
Posted by: Drew at October 31, 2006 05:54 PM (Y2fNF)
The difference between the two, of course, is that Bush has respect for our soldiers, while Kerry has spent the last 30+ years demonizing them, while simultaneously puffing up his own service to assert that he is beyond reproach, no matter how many assinine remarks he makes.
Posted by: Vyce at October 31, 2006 05:55 PM (nEOKu)
Posted by: PattyAnn at October 31, 2006 05:55 PM (ZNOKZ)
How about because the asshole only managed to kill one baby, that we know about? Underachiever.
Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 31, 2006 05:58 PM (F6aWf)
Instead, this asshole has been saying the same anti-American shit for nigh on what? 40 years or so? Christ, I'm only 31 and I know that Kerry is an opportunistic aristocrat with nothing else in mind but power and uber-expensive dinner parties. The fucker probably even raises his right pinky while enjoying a glass of chablis.
I don't wish any politician to come to harm but I'd like to smack Kerry across the face, just to see if he cries.
Okey dokey, back to the discarded Jolly Ranchers.
Posted by: ErikW at October 31, 2006 05:59 PM (0K8Xe)
Olberman knows how to get Democrat politicians to ejaculate what needs to come out. Olberman has the skill and the experience to suck out the truth.
Posted by: eman at October 31, 2006 06:02 PM (FWrFx)
Posted by: tmi3rd at October 31, 2006 06:04 PM (mVDzw)
He's just too over the top damn arrogant to ever know it.
Pitiful. Jes pitiful.
Posted by: TaterCon at October 31, 2006 06:10 PM (ViBPz)
However, after I heard his explanation, I thought it was perfectly reasonable and thus worthy of consideration. I'm not going to apologize for that. Kerry is an American veteran. His daughter is an American, as are Bush's. They both must care about the future of the country because their children are going to live it.
You know, if we think everybody on the opposite side of the aisle is a traitor, we are in for some very rough and unpleasant times, my fellow citizen.
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2006 06:12 PM (ai6A/)
The President's military service deserves respect, not the scorn heaped on him by an arrogant jerk like John F'n Kerry. But then War Hero Kerry has a long history of denigrating veterans other than himself.
Posted by: Border Reiver at October 31, 2006 06:17 PM (t7pa5)
We're already there, ryan. And yeah, it sucks.
Posted by: Knemon at October 31, 2006 06:21 PM (k4zdv)
Hey! You two guys have something in common!
Ryan, I don't know you from Adam but you seem to be a Dem apologist. Kerry is pretty much a deserter, he was just smart enough to make his discharge honorable. You can rationalize all you want but anyone with half a brain knows he's a piece of shit.
By the way, Kerry isn't a traitor. You should know that. He's just a slimy politician that weasels out of uncomfortable and unfortunate situations.
In the worst way.
Posted by: ErikW at October 31, 2006 06:25 PM (0K8Xe)
Posted by: Barry at October 31, 2006 06:28 PM (QrzWy)
So is Kennedy.
Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2006 06:30 PM (Uh5fR)
Yeah, I believe him. Don't you?
Posted by: JannyMae at October 31, 2006 06:35 PM (DjIu8)
Posted by: ErikW at October 31, 2006 06:47 PM (0K8Xe)
Well, I won't lose any sleep over the answer...
Posted by: JannyMae at October 31, 2006 06:52 PM (DjIu8)
The F-106 was apparently a pretty sweet airplane. It was also Steve Canyon's favorite mount in the old TV series, for whatever that's worth! It was considered the best dogfighter in the USAF... until someone decided to have a fly-off against the Navy's much bigger and heavier F4 Phantom II, which was supposed to be a sitting duck for the nimble 106. Ooopsie! That's why the F4 became an AF legend too.
The much earlier F-102 (as flown by W) was indeed known as "The Widowmaker"... a nickname which was accurate, but generally not used as a term of affection.
Something seldom mentioned about W's records is that they show he was rated by his instructors as an excellent pilot. Having taught flying for a number of years, I observed that the "natural" pilots invariably exhibited one trait above all others - the ability in a dangerous situation to focus on the handful of critical pieces of information that were required to be mastered, while ignoring the many irrelevant items of trivia, despite all forms of distraction and general mayhem around them. Sound familiar?
Posted by: Sherlock at October 31, 2006 06:56 PM (pBbVV)
Since you're such a genius at decoding Kerryspeak, what did the following mean?
"I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone. (Laughs)"
The guy is gaffe prone and often makes no sense.
Your explanation of the most recent gaffe makes no sense either. George Bush is well educated: Yale and Harvard degrees with grades better than Kerry. The only possible point, if you are a Bush hater, is that formal education is no guarantee that you won't make poor decisions -- something I myself believe -- but it is quite the opposite of what you claim Kerry meant. If Kerry meant what you say he meant, there is no way the audience would have been able to figure out what he was getting at.
Watch that section of Farenheit 911 again on military recruiting. Michael Moore hammers the point home that the US military recruits from the loser pool, and he plays it for laughs just like Kerry. Oh, how elite New Yorkers laughed at that. Hardy, har, har. Look at the recruiters trolling the mall for fresh meat. How come liberals laugh their asses off when Michael Moore says it, but act as though that couldn't possibly be what Kerry meant? It because an election is coming up and liberals have to hide their natural contempt for the common man because they need to persuade swing voters. If it weren't right before an election, Democrats would be laughing right along with Kerry.
Posted by: caspera at October 31, 2006 07:14 PM (jylGY)
I love all you guys! We are the best society ever, which all of you constitute as members.
I love you guys!
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2006 07:19 PM (ai6A/)
To respect someone *less*, one must first have to have respect for that person to begin with.
Fortunately for me, when it comes to Kerry and Matthews, that's never been an issue.
Posted by: Vyce at October 31, 2006 07:20 PM (nEOKu)
Posted by: Vyce at October 31, 2006 07:25 PM (nEOKu)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 31, 2006 07:27 PM (hNyWr)
Posted by: Bart at October 31, 2006 07:35 PM (xsU2a)
He didn't appear in blackface.
I don't know what your point is.
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2006 07:38 PM (ai6A/)
Posted by: LCDR MacKay at October 31, 2006 07:38 PM (gv2wC)
Kerry - 40 years ago? Yes. But alot of people deserved the noose back then and we didn't have enough rope.
Kennedy - 20 years ago? Yes. Today? Probably, but it's just a suspicion. I've got no proof he's still a traitor, now that the USSR has bellied up.
Posted by: Entropy at October 31, 2006 07:46 PM (Uh5fR)
Posted by: spurwing plover at October 31, 2006 07:53 PM (Dutrh)
Not necessarily. Remember, there's always France.
Posted by: wiserbud at October 31, 2006 08:02 PM (56ssE)
Strong. Tough. Layers and ALTERNATE. FUCKING. UNIVERSES.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2006 08:17 PM (AuPsg)
My two cents: When I first heard the Kerry quote, I assumed he was talking about Bush simply because that is the context within which Kerry's entire life is based these past few years: Attacking Bush.
I think it's silly to make a big deal out of this based on my interpretation of it (which I admit could be wrong).
However, given the Big Deal that is made of every Bushism and every malapropism of any politician with an (R), I can understand and even applaud to some degree the piling on that is happening. It seriously couldn't happen to a more deserving asshole than Kerry.
Seriously, just when you thought a Republican has done the ultimate in stupid, Kerry perks up and shows us what stupid truly is.
Run Kerry, Run!
Posted by: krakatoa at October 31, 2006 08:20 PM (uUtzg)
Thanks for the clarification- wasn't sure which. The 106 sites that I've read seem to have varied opinions on its safety, but... it must turn like a pig. The F-4 was a pretty dominant aircraft in the vertical, but every Rhino jock I ever talked to told me that he'd never get into a turning duel in an F-4... unless against a MiG-23 or 25...
John Kerry- the gift that keeps on giving...
Posted by: tmi3rd at October 31, 2006 08:27 PM (mVDzw)
Now where did I put that?...
Posted by: Rosetta at October 31, 2006 08:29 PM (CTqCo)
This is just personal hunch, but I think the -106 turned really good - it had a low wing loading, due to being relatively light and having a large wing surface. What it did not have was gobs o' power, like the F-4. A light aircraft with lots of wing, especially a delta, can pull great G's - for a while, but it runs out of poop unless it has high thrust-to-weight. It loses energy quickly when doing high-G turns, and maintaing high energy is the key to victory in air combat manuevering (from what I read).
Imagine a Spitfire up against a P47 Thunderbolt. The Spit can turn on a dime, but the T-Bolt has more power and punch, and used properly, can win.
Actually, that's the whole secret - training. Our guys were way better at using what they had, and if the two sides had switched planes, but with us holding the same training advantage in those planes, our guys would probably still have won.
Good news: at least one well-known Republican veteran DID get his F-4 into manuevering fights with 3 Migs in one day, and they were the nasty little ones, a couple of -17s and a -21 if I recall correctly. Shot them down, one at a time. Every. Friggin. One.
Bad news: It was Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Damn.
Posted by: at October 31, 2006 08:59 PM (pBbVV)
Pity all the dead South Vietnamese and Cambodians can't join in. They'd sear his ass.
Posted by: MlR at October 31, 2006 09:10 PM (TrMUD)
please don't go off on an anti-France tangent!
As if the country hasn't been maligned enough! You're above and beyond such easy attacks. You are an intelligent and sophisticated man. Don't simplify yourself to the lowest common denominator. Without France, the United States may never have achieved independence. They are a flawed society, but so are we.
France is full of beautful and decent folks who have very much in common with ourselves--like a common Western tradition! A lot of them voted for Le Pen as a protest against what is happening there. The French elite may be out of touch, but the French are much more competent and aware than some would have us believe.
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2006 09:23 PM (ai6A/)
This from an organization full of frauds.
No, Kerry would never slander his band of brothers. Don't you dare question his patriotism! Never mind the fact he was negotiating, while an officer in the naval reserve, with the Communist Vietnamese even while the President of the United States was trying to save South Vietnam.
Shit, you're right. Bush's Guard service doesn't add up to that. Whatever will we do to find someone suitable to criticize his service.
Let's dig Benedict Arnold and Lord Haw Haw up out of their graves. It is Halloween, after all.
Him and Fonda should have been sent to prison. We'd have to deal with less of these idiots today.
Posted by: MlR at October 31, 2006 09:25 PM (TrMUD)
Oh well, we are soon to have plenty of Iraqis who will be able to join them in the "you supported and trusted America and now you're fucked" on the first Tuesday of November.
Democrats in Congress will cut funding for Iraq.
Those Iraqis who supported us will die.
That's the way it will be.
The polls all say so.
2,500+ soldiers "died for the biggest nothing in history"
Posted by: billy at October 31, 2006 09:30 PM (7zlSx)
Now you're sticking up for the fwench.
Who the fuck are you trying to kid?
The only part of fwance that's worth a damn happens to be a graveyard full of Americans at Normandy.
The rest is full of pussies like you.
Are you aware that fwance is the most hated country in the EU, as voted by the other EU countries??
How shitty do you have to be if you're voted as the asshole of the assholes?
Yeah, so fwance helped us out over 200 years ago...and has been a stalwart enemy and/or biter of the hand that feeds it since then.
Fuck fwance, and fuck you.
PS: fwench wine sucks.
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at October 31, 2006 09:31 PM (vh+iP)
It wasn't all for nought, the Democrats have got their Presidential candidate for 22 years from now.
Posted by: MlR at October 31, 2006 09:34 PM (TrMUD)
But then we have Mr. Kerry's combative non-apology.
And his post-Vietnam history of Ghengis-slandering the military.
And his stated desire to go to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to "kill the real bird" (who we all know to be Spurwing Plover).
And the similar non-joke comments about the military from some of his political soulmates who hope to gain political power.
And the balanced and thoughtful press coverage of the Rush Limbaugh / Michael J. Fox (aka "The Evil Anti-Elvis") dispute.
And the balanced and thoughtful press coverage of the Foley revelations.
And the Macaca incident.
And so on and so forth.
So, all told, I'm not very sympathetic. In the immortal words of the esteemed Mr. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, "fuck 'em".
Posted by: pbrown at October 31, 2006 09:49 PM (O+9Yg)
That doesn't sound like courage to me.
Posted by: ryan at October 31, 2006 09:56 PM (ai6A/)
And fuck Markos too.
Posted by: at October 31, 2006 10:20 PM (TrMUD)
Past (deep, deep past) performance is no indicator of present worth, especially given their behavior from the 1930's through to today.
The French people are at a turning point. They edge closer to a civil war, and how they deal with their increasing problem with Islam will determine whether they are worthy of any respect.
Frankly, I think they will go one of two ways:
- Abject submission.
Either one gives earns them no respect IMO.
Posted by: krakatoa at October 31, 2006 10:33 PM (uUtzg)
The French and ourselves have many common values and some values that aren't quite so common. That doesn't make the French people our enemies. They've done nothing to hurt you, and you are being unfair.
Posted by: ryan at November 01, 2006 12:04 AM (ai6A/)
you are a moron.
Posted by: billy at November 01, 2006 12:29 AM (7zlSx)
Posted by: billy at November 01, 2006 12:30 AM (7zlSx)
One difference between the French and us is we have precisely the right to disparage them over their true failings.
In France, doing such a thing gets one prosecuted for Libel.
An interesting exercise would be to make a list of things we as a liberal democracy have in common with France, and a list of things the French have in common with their previous Nazi masters, and with the former USSR. I'm guessing those lists might turn up more even than you might think.
You can love 'em all you want Ryan. That's your prerogative. I choose to despise them (as does the rest of Europe I might add), and that is mine.
Posted by: krakatoa at November 01, 2006 01:56 AM (ArLFq)
"Eat me, jagoff. I believe he said what he said."
I assume you mean that you believe he meant something different than what he said.
Ok, you convinced me. You are not just saying what you hope might work politically. You really are a complete and utter imbecile who is more gullible than a toddler.
I apologize for giving you more credit than that. It won't happen again.
Posted by: Gerry at November 01, 2006 02:30 AM (UD5mq)
a - he said what he said
b - if he was having a stab at bush working his name in might have been an idea
c - worst thing he could voluntarily say
d - at the worst possible time
And most of that everyone could figure out for themselves without the explanation.
Posted by: Tank at November 01, 2006 03:07 AM (aOeXm)
Yes, it will. The eatme jagoff comment was by ace, not ryan. You and ace seem to have misread/misunderstood each other.
Posted by: jj at November 01, 2006 03:20 AM (AdvuV)
You are wrong. Scroll up to the comment posted with the timestamp of October 31, 2006 09:57 PM. It begins thusly:
Eat me, jagoff. I believe he said what he said."
This time, I take Ryan at his word. He's not blindly partisan. He's a maroon, as Bugs would say.
Posted by: Gerry at November 01, 2006 03:36 AM (UD5mq)
And most of that everyone could figure out for themselves without the explanation.
Yeah, but I came for the funny.
Posted by: toby928 at November 01, 2006 03:37 AM (PD1tk)
Posted by: jj at November 01, 2006 03:40 AM (AdvuV)
Ryan then re-asserted that he believes Kerry was Bush-bashing, "I don't like Kerry... But I think it's wrong to crucify the guy for what I think was an error in his speech."
Then I screwed up by not starting my next reply with "Ryan, " starting it "I understand that you do not like Kerry. He is a very unlikable man, so I empathize.
But I do not believe you are being honest when you claim to believe he was talking about President Bush. As I pointed out, for that to be the case he would have been saying "if you study, you can do well. Otherwise, you might get elected President.""
Then Ace hit me with "Gerry,
Eat me, jagoff. I believe he said what he said. "
So I owe you an apology, jj. You were right and I was wrong. And I guess I have to ask Ace, WTF? I also believe Kerry said what he said and meant exactly what he said. And I think that his rabid attack dog defenders are full of it, or unbelievably stupid. That's been my point all along.
Posted by: Gerry at November 01, 2006 03:55 AM (UD5mq)
The F-102, the "deuce" was a POS, as were most of the Century Series. It was indeed known as a widowmaker. I know of at least one pilot that threatened to resign his commision when he was going to train on them. The 106 was an okay fighter, but was most known for the fact that it was built around a nuclear air-to-air missle. Niether of them were around for long, which says something about them.
We used to say that the F-4 was proof that you could get a brick to fly if you had enough thrust. It had a glide ratio of something like 12 to 1. Nevertheless, those of us who worked on it loved it. The men who flew them did as well. It was, for its time, an amazing aircraft, one that would do whatever you asked of it. To this day, when I see one on static display, I want to go up and touch it. I could also launch one from memory, to this day. I am still proud of my days as a Phantom Phixer.
Oh, and ryan? Youre a maroon!
Posted by: Kanelin at November 01, 2006 04:03 AM (Sbaq1)
I have read that the barrels they age their wine in are full of bacteria because, quelle surprise, the fwench don't ever wash them out.
Posted by: max at November 01, 2006 04:10 AM (wnhfk)
There's no WTF. Things were happening fast and furious and Ace typed your name when he meant to type ryan's. That's all.
Posted by: jj at November 01, 2006 04:11 AM (AdvuV)
Posted by: jj at November 01, 2006 04:13 AM (AdvuV)
Who on planet earth has a better defence that what came out of their mouth wasn't what they meant to say.
Spent several hundred million dollars securing that excuse in a rather large public education campaign in 2004.
Posted by: Tank at November 01, 2006 04:24 AM (aOeXm)
Posted by: Entropy at November 01, 2006 04:42 AM (m6c4H)
The local news did this earlier today. It struck me as odd that they kept cutting the audio before the actual comment, or that the reporter would talk over it. Basically you couldn't hear what he actually said, only what the reporters were saying he said.
End of story.
Posted by: J at November 01, 2006 04:53 AM (xkl0e)
Posted by: jj at November 01, 2006 04:56 AM (AdvuV)
A liberal's exact words convey a controversial message but they insist that those exact words are not really what was meant.
A conservative's statement is innocuous but is interpreted to convey a controversial message and even though those words were not used, everyone knows what they really meant.
Posted by: roc ingersol at November 01, 2006 05:12 AM (m2CN7)
The man just loves his inverted oral man-love. And who can blame him for that?
Posted by: Gerry at November 01, 2006 06:07 AM (pjusE)
The fwench sold the world on their wine as being the gold standard, so many people are used to this spoiled wine as being what wine is supposed to be. Some producers actually cultivate different strains of brett in order to give their wines (especially cabernets) a level of complexity, and indeed, some brett (in small doses, in my opinion) do add some interesting characteristics (leather, tobacco). Fwench barrels are also known to have more sugar in the wood, which feeds brett that is present in the wine, encouraging brett growth during and after the initial fermentation, so monitoring and maintaining the wine in the cellar is very important to control brett bloom as well. You can test for brett (I can smell it a mile away), and then make sure to sterile filter your wine before bottling, to ensure it doesn't bloom in the bottle and ruin the wine there.
Bottom line is that waayyy too much fwench wine if full of brett, and winemakers influenced by the fwench tend to have brett oftentimes.
Fwench wines suck.
And Ryan, the fwench have done everything they can to hinder America around the globe, while denigrating us at every turn as well, even when their long-term survival is at stake.
Just like the democrats.
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at November 01, 2006 06:30 AM (vh+iP)
Thanks for the info.
That it's mold, not bacteria, that's the problem makes sense. After all, France is at least as rotten as it is diseased.
Posted by: max at November 01, 2006 12:19 PM (K7zjl)
That's cool with me because I have plenty of time to sip my coffee.
I'm sorry, Kerry is fuck-off and what else?
Posted by: ErikW at November 01, 2006 06:09 PM (SLkM0)
As the fwench stink, so does their wine.
It is not mold, however, but a yeast strain that takes the fermentation in the wrong direction. We use sacchromyces yeasts to ferment sugars into alcohol, CO2 and heat.
Brettanomyces is another strain of yeast, that's all.
Mold is another issue altogether, but with it's own problems.
Save that one for another time.
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at November 01, 2006 07:01 PM (vh+iP)
62 queries taking 1.1337 seconds, 381 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.