Thank you Sen. Kerry.

Kristofer wrote: pattison wrote: if he is implying that most military people are dumb, he is right. there is, of course, a certain percentage that are not dumb, but it is below 50 without question. political views aside, that is a valid statement. Where did you get this information? I know a lot of people in the military. I dont know that many who are dumb. Not many at all. Most are intelligent.

yea alot of people who are in it are in it for the college scholorships

Tae Kwon Do wrote: I agree with what he said.

What who said?

Edited Addition:

pattison wrote: if he is implying that most military people are dumb, he is right. there is, of course, a certain percentage that are not dumb, but it is below 50 without question. political views aside, that is a valid statement.

Where do you get your information? The rate of high school graduates or equivalent among enlisted members in the DoD is 99.1%, the civilian rate is 89%. Note that this does not include the officer corp, which all posess college degrees. The percentage of college educations is higher in the civilian world (56.2 compared to 10.4), but this number becomes less significant when the age groupings of the military and civilian groups are compared. Over 40% of enlisted members are between the ages of 17-24 (prime college attendance age) while less than 10% of the civilian labor force is in this age group. 


Edited by Mack - 31 October 2006 at 7:24pm

Mack wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: I agree with what he said. What who said?

Senator Kerry


Edited by Tae Kwon Do - 31 October 2006 at 7:16pm

Mack wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: I agree with what he said. What who said?

Pfft. You must not konw very much if you can't realize what he means.

phillll227 wrote: .Ryan wrote: phillll227 wrote: .Ryan wrote: phillll227 wrote: .Ryan wrote: Still wish he would have won by a bigger margin though..... ???? Yeah, he got screwed out of Ohio and the presidency....if he would have won by a little more they may not have been able to steal it.... I think if there was a list of unbiased news sources, Rolling Stone would probably be second to last, only ahead of Al-Jazeera. Oh for christ's sake....just read it. It's all backed up and sited..... No, that argument is not valid. Just because something is cited does not make it fact. I think that you are blind to the bias in that article because you want it to be true. The Rolling Stone article might as well be an editorial. One search in Google will find a hundred rebuttals.

If you want to talk argument validity, your committing the "ad hominem" big time right now. Just because it's from a source that is labeled "liberal" doesn't mean the article is any less factual. Did ya read it yet?

Oh and a quick search on Google will find thousands of rebuttals on anything you want....means nothing.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Kristofer wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: Mack wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: I agree with what he said. What who said? Senator Kerry. So you think. If people do bad in school, they have no choice but to go to Iraq because they arent smart enough for anything else? I think the military is a popular option by people who do not have many other choices, yes.

Thats not the question. Thats not what Kerry said. He said: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq". Thats not about options. Thats about being intelligent and doing well in school. Answer that question. Do you believe he is saying you are lacking intelligence if you serve in the military?

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Kristofer wrote: Answer that question. Do you believe he is saying you are lacking intelligence if you serve in the military? No.

Thank you for the answer.

Have no idea why he would put foot in mouth like this 1 week before elections. Just activated the military vote, not a good thing for dems.

It does go with a recent series of statements from the left. I do remmember the only the poor and uneducated join the military statements of a few months ago.

The spin mysters are on it, it will go away here soon, as Kerry tap dances over someone elses political career.

.Ryan wrote: phillll227 wrote: .Ryan wrote: phillll227 wrote: .Ryan wrote: phillll227 wrote: .Ryan wrote: Still wish he would have won by a bigger margin though..... ???? Yeah, he got screwed out of Ohio and the presidency....if he would have won by a little more they may not have been able to steal it.... I think if there was a list of unbiased news sources, Rolling Stone would probably be second to last, only ahead of Al-Jazeera. Oh for christ's sake....just read it. It's all backed up and sited..... No, that argument is not valid. Just because something is cited does not make it fact. I think that you are blind to the bias in that article because you want it to be true. The Rolling Stone article might as well be an editorial. One search in Google will find a hundred rebuttals. If you want to talk argument validity, your committing the "ad hominem" big time right now. Just because it's from a source that is labeled "liberal" doesn't mean the article is any less factual. Did ya read it yet?Oh and a quick search on Google will find thousands of rebuttals on anything you want....means nothing.

Do you honestly believe that if President Bush "stole" the election the national media would let it slip by for one second? DO you have any idea how big the cover up would be? This is almost as ridiculous as the people that believe that President Bush is directly responsible for 9/11.

Rolling Stone is not a source that I trust to be fair and balanced when it comes to a Republican President. Period.

DBibeau855 wrote: I guess there arent any officers in Iraq, just chock full of sergeants? K, gotcha.

NCO's are pretty smart too dont forget. I had a Staff Sergeant that had a Masters. He didnt want to be an officer. He liked being a Grunt. I had a Sergeant who was in the process of getting his masters.