Reply #82: Nevertheless, it would be more pertinent if a knowledge of past history was evident [View All]

You may not have thought exposing the Iran/Contra scandal was anything even remotely great, but I thought it was pretty spiffy. It is said he was always to be counted on in 2006 for money for candidates in 2006 as well, which means he was a big part in our gaining a majority.

When he was a young pup, he once made a statement that is still quoted today by some, and he helped stop a war. That's pretty great. He's helped to start a war as well, so perhaps you think that cancels the first incident out. But he has apologized for that, and is not working to end the war.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against civilly stated criticism, especially when the person offering it has something to back up their statements.

But just calling the man an asshole and saying he's never done anything worth talking about ever doesn't really qualify.

As for comment above you, I reacted because there is a tendency by some to bring up their grievances with Kerry every time they see his name, regardless of what the thread is actually about. I don't think asking what the election of 2004 has to do with the topic at hand is such a bad question. And if this person is indeed new and not someone who's been lurking around for a while, they may not know how often the subject of the election has been brought up ad nauseum. When something is brought up over and over, even in threads that have nothing to do with the election, it tends to wear on a person.

Meanwhile, I wouldn't be too hard on some of the Kerry people here. You see, many of us got a chance to hang out with the man, and that tends to up our emotional investment.

Also, wanting to hold the Iranian president accountable for his actions is different from wanting to go to war with him. Don't over simplify.