On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:12:21 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:38:39 -0400, hk wrote:

I don't think one day of McCain's military experience is relevant to the
job he is seeking.
You sure as hell did when Kerry was running.
Only in comparison to Bush's dangerous service with the Texas Air
National Guard, and Cheney and Rumsfeld's war mongering in the face of
non-service.

By itself, it has no relevance. What's relevant is having the smarts to
avoid wars or to find a way to extricate a country from an ongoing war.

So let me see if I understand you.

1 - By comparison, Kerry's military combat record was relevant becasue
Bush never saw combat and thus was the superior candidate.

2 - Kerry had military combat experience and the VP and SecDef at that
time didn't thus making him the superior candidate.

3 - Based on one and two, Kerry was the superior candidate because he
had more military experience than the Administration had.

4 - It was relevant then, but not relevant now.

I understand completely.

I know some farmers who would love to hire you to fertilize their
fields because their entire herd of cows aren't as full of what makes
the grass grow green as you are.

Both Kerry and Bush used their military records in their campaigns.
Compared to Bush's holiday with the TANG, Kerry's "military" record was
real. Bush's was b.s. In choosing a POTUS, though, I don't think
either's military record was relevant. Cheney and Rumsfeld were simply
war mongerers, and compared to their non-experience, Kerry's service was
relevant.

The point is, you really don't understand. Too abstract, I suppose.

There's abstract and then there abstractly obtuse.

You clearly specialize in the obtusely abstract.