Fair point.
Well, if you are get on me about focusing on recruits, you shouldn’t just mention active duty military.
Where exactly should I look to find refutation of anything I’ve said?
Don’t be deliberately obtuse. You don’t need to explicitly state the word “soldiers” to talk about soldiers.
It’s the only reasonable way to interpret his statement.
The evidence is his statement. He said what he said.
You are the one who believes without evidence. In fact there is evidence to the contrary (The statement itself, the apology of the wording by Kerry, the fact that many people interpreted his statement to be just what it sounded like). You are the one who needs to craft elaborate explinations in order to twist his meaning into something other than what it seems to be.
As I stated before: I don’t know what he meant. It’s possible he just mis-spoke. It’s possible he really does think troops are dumb. shrug
I do know what he said, though. Heck, he even apologized for mangling the wording of it. If you are correct, and there is nothing wrong with his statement the way he phrased it, then why did he apologize for it? Why are so many people (including soldiers) offended by it?
I like Kos’ take on Democratic response to this, and particularly to the handwringing concern-troll contingent of Democrats:
You were disingenous in your first post. I am going to quit posting in this thread now, I am not good at playing semantics, I’m too honest. I just wanted to point out that some of your information at a quick glance could be misconstrued, and was outdated as well. I gave a good link, if people are that interested in the demographics, they’ll look for themselves.
Sorry---- my last post was to brickbacon.
Kerry said this:
This is said to have followed several remarks about Bush specifically. So, I believe, that in that context, Sen. Kerry meant it to mean “you get us stuck in Iraq.”
Unfortunately, taking the sentence as given, that’s not how it is read. Indeed, when I first saw the statement out of context, I myself thought is was an elitist smarmy comment about the individuals in the military. (Playing the crownd.) Also, it has been mentioned that even some folks present in the audience “gasped” at the line as given, which indicates that there were some there who failed to insert the required “us” word.
Being that we dont read minds, and that Kerry is supposed to be a 20+ year veteran of national level politicing and a one-time presidential candidate, shouldn’t he be expected that he means exactly what he says?
When GWB goofs lines (and he suxxors at ad-lib public speaking), he is made out to be the dumbest thing since “New Coke”. So, when I am told that I “should have known to add the us word”, can’t you see my confusion?
Is this a big deal to me? No. Just entertaining as all get out.
My ass. Point out to me some statistics that contradict what I am saying. The army is lowering their aptitude test requirements for a reason. They recruit in poor areas for a reason. Nobody is saying that the armed forces don’t help many of the recruits get their education, just that the armed forces aren’t generally full of brainiacs.
You’ve got a lot of nerve calling me disingenous when the same page you pulled your hs stat (pg.52) from also has the number active duty enlisted with bachelor’s degrees.
Percentage with a bachelor’s degree…3.3%
Percentage with an advanced degree…0.4%
Even when you throw in the officers (who are more educated than the average person) there is still a HUGE disparity.
According the Kerry, the text he was supposed to have read was (from the cite I gave earlier):
The ironic thing is that he was trying to take a cheap swipe at Bush’s education, and because he didn’t read the text right, ended up stirring up some shit. Politics is a strange business.
I was being lazy before. If you do the math based on the number on pages 49-51, you will find that the percentage with a bachelor’s (including officers) is 11.16%. The general population has 26.7% (according to your document). That’s a huge difference.
Psssst, brickbacon. The official line of the liberals on this one is that the members of the armed forces aren’t stupid and Kerry didn’t mean what he said. Not that they are in fact stupid and Kerry gets off with a truth defense.
You other guys might want to talk with him. Diogenes is too far gone to be saved, but brick will prbably come around after a stern talking to.
It’s one thing the be the party that rolls thier eyes at yellow ribbons on cars. It’s another thing entirely to be a party of haters who actively bash the military. The former merely costs you guys a few thousand votes every election, the latter will cost you millions of them.
See, we are just playing with the demographics, and being selective for spin purposes, (Why didn’t you mention that the percentage of officers with minimally a bachelor’s degree was 86.1% and the general population 26.7%??)
I really didn’t want to do that, because generally in these kinds of debates, everyone’s minds are already made up, and there isn’t much I or you can do to change them either way. I was just trying to provide the link, clarify you were using statistics regarding recruits, and point out that some of your cites were sub par. If people are really that interested, they’ll research it.
Shit, I previewed, and now I am being dragged into the Debate again.
The percentage of people 25 and under on active duty is 47.4%. I think if the general population numbers reflected the age demographics of active duty personnel, the number wouldn’t be that much different, and would perhaps favor the military.
See? Picking and choosing our stats. God, I hate spin.
The percentage of people 25 and under on active duty is 47.4%. I think if the general population numbers reflected the age demographics of active duty personnel, the number wouldn’t be that much different, and would perhaps favor the military.
Let me clarify this paragraph.
I think that if the general population bachelor or higher number (26.7%) reflected the *same age demographics * as active duty military personnel (highly skewed to 25 years old or younger — 47.4%) that the general population bachelor degree completion rate would be significantly lower, and probably on par with the military.
While your arithmatic might be basically correct, it would be more accurate to say that it’s another thing entirely to (allow yourself to) be portrayed by the other side as bashing the military.
That’s weird to me, because I don’t think that “punchline” wouldn’t make me any more likely to see it as a swipe at Bush’s grades or education. I would probably just be more confused as to what he was talking about, or assume that he meant that Bush would have a better idea than anyone that the dumb ones end up in Iraq, because he sent them there.
It makes no sense to me that Kerry would knock Bush’s academic achievements, since they are practically identical to his, and everyone knows it.
So, not a great defense, IMO, if he is trying to make a case that he was taking a swipe at Bush and not the troops.
I can’t believe this thread has grown to this length.
Can someone explain to me what the greater consequences of this are? What crimes have been commited? How many lives are on the line here? What constitutional protections are being endangered by Sen. Lurch’s poor attempt at comedy? What anything of this has to do with the Democratic party and next Tuesday?
Real integrity check for me. Kerry’s statement could be read the way Republicans claim, but even without the punchline, that reading is ludicruously strained. Most of the candidates Kerry has stumped with are RECENT IRAQ WAR VETS. No matter how you slice it, presenting the “insult the troops” as the one and only possible interpretation of even Kerry’s actual statements is, simply put, dishonest. You can buy Kerry’s interpretation or not, but simply not mentioning it, as many did, was beyond the pale. McCain lost a heck of a lot of the little cred he had left with me for being completely unequivocal or conditional on that score.
The startling thing was how the press reported it: the journalism parts actually said that the remarks were about the troops’ education, implying that this was the one and only possible interpretation of his litteral statements. In other words, they stated as fact the interpretation of only one side. Amazingly coup for the Republicans on that.
Did they? Where?
I just heard it presented as : Kerry said X, the Republicans are blasting him because they say it means Y, but Kerry instist that it did not mean Y, that it meant X where X = Bush.
It wasn’t a swipe at Bush’s academic acheivements, it was a swipe at Bush’s failure to “study” and “do his homework” before invading Iraq.
Uh, some of the Dems are starting to fire back. At Kerry! From CNN:
Not all the Dems, but some. Even Hillary is jumping into ther fray. From FoxNews:
Yeah, Hillary. No one wants to fight the 2004 election over again, do they. Nice little zinger there!!!
Again, it wasn’t about Bush’s formal education, it was a play on “studying” and “doing your homework.”