Kerry Update and John McCain
Tue June 22nd, 2004 00:17 MSTMany have wondered why John McCain not only turned down Kerry’s offer of a vice presidential slot, to the point of rejecting Kerry after he crawled on hands and knees to get McCain. Instead, McCain but campaigned with Bush this weekend. Kerry and McCain are known as good friends, but the relationship between McCain and Bush was poisoned in 2000.
But unlike Kerry, John McCain was a Prisoner of War in the Hanoi Hilton, and committed an act of great sacrifice when he refused offer of free release early in his imprisonment. On the other hand, Kerry got out of combat as fast as he could, after only 4 months, with three minor wounds, one self inflicted and merely a scratch.
Here are some possible reasons McCain is no longer such a good buddy of John Kerry:
It is possible that McCain finally realized that while he was in the Hanoi Hilton, Kerry was traipsing around the country, slandering all American soldiers and our country’s reputation.
Maybe he learned that two of his fellow POW’s have written letters (here and here)asking people not to vote for Kerry. After all, Kerry’s speeches were played by their captors to demoralize the POWs.
Perhaps he has learned the the communist tyranny in Vietnam has Kerry’s picture in a place of honor - a room dedicated to foreigners who helped the communist victory.
Or maybe he learned that those who knew Kerry best, all of his commanders up to the CINCPAC, and 200 other Swift Boat sailors gave a press conference and signed a letter claiming that Kerry was unfit to be Commander in Chief.
Perhaps he found out that just this month, the communist Vietnamese government attacked US policy in Iraq, in an article which proved that the United States fought using atrocities as a daily routine event, according to their named source: John Kerry.
McCain’s rapprochement with Kerry has always been puzzling. Throughout McCain’s life, his public reputation has swung back and forth, from mildly offensive to excessively offensive. He seemed to grow tired of fighting, however, around the time he settled his differences with Kerry.
Weariness doesn’t last forever, and maybe McCain is allowing his good sense to reestablish itself. The war was over for most of us for a long time, but Kerry wouldn’t leave it there. How can McCain ignore it, and submerge his own experience?
David:
I will be gentle with you David, because you are obviously the product of an incestuous relationship and a failed town health program.
Do you really think that this moronic behavior is a credit to Kerry? Are you so shameless, so utterly lacking in personal pride, so much of a moral degenerate that this is what passes for debate in your camp?
This is a serious question, but you could never answer it. You’re a lowlife, a twisted misfit, a loser, born of them, raised by them, educated by them, and laughed AT all your life. You have no hope, no brains, no character, you maggot.
You’re welcome.
David:
So how many credits do you have toward your MBA? You do realize of course that the “asshole” was shot down over Chichi Jima during what was nearly a suicide mission to help clear the way to Japan? David, I don’t normally flame people, but neither you nor those juvenile talentless morons are worth a pimple on either of the GB’s butts. Semper Fi, kid!
Walt:
You are more fair than these retards deserve. I didn’t do the link, but apparently it is some criticism of Bush Sr., by a gutless pantload who has spent most of his lifetime watching Transformers. My God, like Tim B. said on VAK, did WE cause this?
Dang. I got here late, so I apparently missed David’s obviously goofy postulation.
Might I dare venture a guess as to what the man said? Anything like this, perhaps: “I’m an ‘educated fellow,’ in possession of two college degrees, and I dare say I know a whole hell of a lot more than a bunch of you guys who don’t measure up to my standards. You guys ‘hate’ simply because you’re conservative, you’re out-of-step with what’s cool on and off college campuses, you’re just angry because your president doesn’t know how to talk well…why are you guys a bunch of homophobic bigots…I support the troops, but not the war…why am I considered ‘unpatriotic’ because I’m against the president and the war, but not the troops…yadda, yadda, yadda….”
(So, ‘Kingsmill’–how’d I do on this one? Am I way off-base, or actually clairvoyant?)
I take down the really offensive comments. There were a bunch of them today (as every day since I have gotten active against Kerry).
Actually, Rolf,
..it was worse than that. You described the upper level tier of these DNA-spotted losers. This was worse, a bit of the spongiform dementia inherited from their corrupt and disgusting Lefty parents. The problem was more in the nature of the cowardly pranks that these nitwits practice, and then giggle about in the light of a chianti-bottle candle while they chew their toenails. Sick links elsewhere and The “Fuck Bush” gambit.
In another world, where they weren’t bought off by the sleaze that spawned them, they would be sneak thieves or molesters. All sneak and no guts, but isn’t that a definition of a lefty anyway? No balls and no brains. Kerry’s Children’s Crusade. Too bad you weren’t here for the spectacle. I missed you.
Dear Rolf:
Since you asked, yes. Bewilderingly clairvoyant. I think your description might have been flattering, however. These folks were really the dregs. The worms in the Tequilla.
They, like Michael Moore are not really responsible though. In the same way that a burying beetle lives in a decaying animal carcass, liberalism, being putrescent, has lots of molds and objectionable things growing on it. One of them here was called a “maggot”, which is pretty close.
These leftist-types’ have really gone off the deep end as of late (not that they weren’t already heading in that direction well beforehand), and as much as I hate to admit it, Tom Brokaw was actually quite right–if not downright prescient–about recent Democratic political frustration and Republican ascendency: Just a week ago, as Ronald Reagan was in the process of being laid to rest, Brokaw hypothesized on the evening news, “One can only wonder the political impetus Mr. Reagan’s death will provide Republicans.”
At the time, I sardonically thought–”Now just how does this guy know this?”
Now I’m beginning to think the man was on to something. The Dems’–who for the past three years acted with all the aplomb of enraged biblical demons–have suddenly fallen silent. I wonder: are they demoralized or simply gaining their second devilish wind?
Judging by what a couple of you have described, your lefty writer-posters sound a whole lot like the demons in Peter Blatty’s “Exorcist” (”Demi…Demi….” Father what-was-his-name: “You’re not my mother! You’re not my mother!!”) Incidentally, my wife swears these folk are ‘possessed,’ and that they’re no longer responsible for their behavior. I told her: “Well, a rapid dog is out of his head by the time full-blown rabies has set in; why not just shoot the whole bunch of them, and then we can save money on their depression medications?”
(No offense to anyone currently using such meds; it’s just that it increasingly seems–as Mark said earlier–that libs’ live off the stuff like candy. For them, there’s a synthetic cure for each and every emotional affliction under the sun. For a Republican, on the other hand, a small glass of brandy or whiskey’ll do. Jim Beam’s okay with me. (I’ve personally discovered, too, that the very act of shoving a protesting lib’ to the floor, and then wee-weeing on him, is one hell of a lot more therapeutic than any relief a simple pill can offer!) I urge everyone to try it!
Very refreshing.
One of Bill Clinton’s many alleged rape victims famously referred to the man’s infamous bend in his…well…his…’manhood,’ in describing for investigators the ‘phyical attributes’ of our ‘illustrious’ predator-Arkansas president. And then the matter was mentioned no more.
Funny, the Dems’ despise the very fact that Bush is a happy man, and their singlemost reason for hating him is his ’smirk.’ That smile, the very indicator of an easygoing, confident man, simply slays his demon, leftist detractors, and it’s almost funny to witness their precipitous decline into lunacy, their wholesale slide into babbling, drooling incoherency.
Glad you people found something wholly worthwhile to pick at him for.
A true exhibition of your ‘intellect,’ I must say.
As of late, I’ve begun to wonder if in speaking of primates, Darwin was indirectly (or perhaps directly) referring to Democrats.
As you say, Robert. And your wife’s observation that they are non compos mentis just goes to heart of the matter. There has never been anything comparable to this on the right. Never. And any potential Kerry voters here ought to consider the insanity in your own, and the true face of The Left. If it seems harmless here, in another context it holds the scimitar and decapitates the innocent. I see no difference. Barbarism is indivisible, just busy at different things at different times.
Something important has been removed from them, by their parents, by their teachers, by their heroes in politics and the arts. I thought that insulting them with the truth might make the point, but too much is missing in them. In The West we can contain them with politics, at least for now. Elsewhere we need to kill them without mercy, and good riddance.
This slobbering degeneracy, especially in the young, might have turned McCain’s head, too. Recall that John Moore sees even more of it than we do, including death threats for expressing his views here and supporting a blog. They should know, if enough Reason is present even in the absence of shame and self-respect, that they are playing a dangerous game, and they may someday be swept into a maelstrom of their own making.
All of us here recall the 60’s, and the precursors of Today’s Left. Next time around there will be less tolerance, less indulgence, less ROOM for both because events abroad will overlap here. You can dance on the edge of civlization just so long with your jester’s bell hat, amusing yourself with the material provided by people better than you, until you’re consumed by the monsters that come to watch.
There will be no tragedy in this, but justice.
There is a charnel house down the road, and they don’t see it.
Kerry’s Lies
“I don’t think it’s bothersome to people that John Kerry thinks he’s very smart. That’s fine. I think what’s bothersome is he thinks the rest of us are stupid.”–RNC Chairman…
“Latest News”::
Now that you have progressed to a two word vocabulary, tell us about yourself in three words or less.
On second thought, never mind….we wouldn’t want you to add to your mental deterioration trying to struggle with that third word.
The other day, I had the displeasure of listening to a “conservative” Middle East “scholar” ramble through a lecture on the potential receptivity to democracy in places like Iraq and Iran. His thesis, once I mined it from a wandering trail of endless dead-ends and unanswered “what I mean is…” utterances, amounted to the following: culture, specifically that of the Middle East, is irrelevant to a nation’s capability of accepting democracy as its form of government.
He cited examples of various dictators who have already felt compelled to have “democratic elections”, thereby demonstrating that the need to have a veneer of democracy is sign enough that a free government could be sustained.
Here is the root of the first problem: the equating of democracy with freedom. Democracy is simply the rule of the majority. In a democracy, the minority gets fucked. When the minority complains about said fucking, the majority tells it:
“Fuck you, it’s in the ‘public interest’ that you get fucked. Therefore, shut your trap, get in the voting booth, and let us fuck you once more.”
Sure, democracy might be acceptable to any existing culture in the Middle East. Where you might have a problem, however, is trying to talk to some of those guys about things like constitutional republics. I.e., governments based on objective law that uphold the rights of the individual. Instilling that in the Middle East might not be so easy.
So, here we had yet another Republican who had absolutely no conception of the relationship between ideas, culture, and forms of government. He was actually asserting that dictatorships could be transformed into “democracies” with the simple application of “external pressure”. That pressure coming from (a) military force, or (b) diplomatic “pressure”.
Evidently, whether your culture makes it a habit of stoning people to death for social faux pas like adultery has no bearing on whether or not your culture will appreciate a government that protects individual rights.
There are two possible courses we can take to be safe in the long run. The first, contrary to the aforementioned horseshit, is to be cultural imperialists. That is, eliminate religion from the fucking planet and maybe teach a few people that suicide bombings aren’t the ideal course of action for a human being. The second possible course of action is to keep the barrels of our guns pointing directly at any two-bit dictator and let him know that he will suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussein should he support or harbor terrorists.
So pick your solution. Personally, the cultural imperialism thing is an optimistic choice, but frankly I don’t know if we can handle it. Regardless of what we do, we’re gonna need our finger on the button anyway, so frequent threats of mass annihilation in the Middle East will probably be necessary, and maybe sufficient.
But never mind that. Let me get to the punchline.
After the above limp-wristed conservative finished his tedious sleep-inducing speech, I felt compelled to ask a question. How, I asked, can you argue that culture is irrelevant? How can you argue that “pressure” is enough to change an entire government in the long-run?
His answer?
“I wasn’t really arguing. I was suggesting.”
Yes, he followed that up with other equally pussified language. But that was the only statement that stayed with me. And I was actually ready to semi-forget that statement, or at least not write about it. Then I turned on the news tonight.
On two cable news stations, I heard the following from two paid “experts” in defense of their supposed positions:
“You can make an argument for that.”
Granted, this isn’t as bad as refusing to “argue” in favor of “suggesting”, but Jesus Christ, it’s still pretty goddamn bad. Either make the fucking argument, or don’t make it. What the hell does it even mean to say “you can make an argument for that”? Doesn’t it matter at all what kind of argument you make?
For example, what if the only kind of argument you could make for it was a completely shitty argument? An argument devoid not only of facts, but of all common sense whatsoever? Would it really be relevant that you could “make an argument” for it?
Don’t tell me that some random moron could make an argument for something. And sure as fuck don’t tell me that you’re only “suggesting” something. Either say it, or don’t say it. If you don’t have the balls to stand up for your own ideas, then either shut your mouth, or hire a ventriloquist who has the gonads to “argue” them for you.
Though, come to think of it, I guess in either case you’d need to shut your goddamn mouth. (I like to be accurate.)
interesting article
Leopard does not change it spot.American policy always remain same wether republican or democrat.So as for me nether Bush nor Kerry.
Abdulkadir Musa Bauchi
No, it makes a big difference. Kerry is very different from Bush, which is why I am for Bush.
Kerry would cut back on US intervention, taking the first opportunity to pull out of Iraq (which could causes Iraq to go into civil war).
If you think Republican and Democrat foreign policy are the same, you need to study US history more.
texas hold em
texas hold em texas hold em hold em hold em
texas holdem
texas holdem texas holdem holdem holdem