Jump to content

From the horses mouth...

Recommended Posts


Originally posted by Bandus:

.....I have to say that it makes me scratch my head and wonder about all of the people who say that Kerry is honest, exc, exc....

I apologize if this has already been discussed or posted before.

Yeah, that's been posted already. In answer to your first comment, I am also wondering how some can say with a straight face that Kerry is honest. If you read through some of these threads, you will find out alot about Kerry you may wish you never did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Kerry supported the war but voted AGAINST the bill that would equip our troops

Oh, but you convently forgot that didn't you street? Need proof of that? Check the congressional records and look under the year 2000-2001 and 2003-2004.. all right there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

twisting it again,I contend.

Go back as to the "why", and the circumstance surrounding the issue. It's not so simple.

If I propose a bill...we call it:" SAVE the children", bill. It is something Everyone knows is right, and a need. EVERYONE wants it..........

but i put an additional requirement to pass this

bill, and lets say that requirement is something entirely opposite, in its values....but this is on line 1103, as an attachment to this bill.

If you voted, NO, would it not be; because, of the Additional reprocussions added to the bill, you had been too overwhelming opposed?.

If so, I believe any concern, about you having a "flipflop" position, would ALSO require, ALL the included information, as to the "WHY".

To judge you, as a child hater, would be not be appropriate, solely based on the FACT that you opposed a bill, which would have helped the children.

[ 09-11-2004, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gah, sorry about posting right after I did post

To answer you're statements Street

Me, personally.. I don't vote for anything unless I have ALL the information

THAT is what help's me decide, I research stuff before I vote on the subject at hand

Now, on the subject of flip flopping, the reason many people won't vote for Kerry is because he HAS and STILL IS flipflopping on ALL the decision's he made

He say's one thing about something, then changes his mind a minute later

He vote's on something, but decide's NOT to vote on another thing that'll help what he voted on previously


does that make it "OK" to believe the Lies


o it doesn't make it ok to believe a Lie, but if I knew someone was lieing then I'd be werry about them being re-elected

Now you're probably going to ask me this "Why do I want to re-elect Bush since he lied"

Here's my question, you have no proof he lied about anything. Yet, there is proof all around that Kerry lied about a whole slue of things.

It's like I said in another thread, Lieing and Assuming are two completely different things

Now say Intelligence told him about something and he trusted the intelligence, having said that... it was later found out that the intelligence was FALSE.. that DOES NOT mean Bush lied, it mean's the people who compiled the intelligence reports misinformed Bush about the current situation

Having said that, it mean's that Bush didn't lie at all. It mean's he was misinformed about the situation, the intel he was given trusted because of the source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez and here I thought that link was going to present something new.

Kerry voted against the 87 billion for two reasons, the first in his own words:

"It is imperative that we succeed in Iraq. But to do so, we have to tackle the challenge of rebuilding Iraq an effective way, not the Bush AdministrationÔÇÖs failed way. We need a detailed plan, including fixed timetables and costs, for establishing civil, economic and political security in Iraq."

Let me paraphrase, rather than throw money at the problem let's address it in a fashion that will ensure the money we do spend gets put to right and proper use. One that will bring an end to the problem and avoid another 87billion next year.

His second reason was because an amendment he offered that would diffuse some of the cost of the 87b by temporarily repealing the tax cut for those making over 400k a year, was voted down and did not become part of the bill.

Think about that for a minute.

Our politicians felt it was more important for the richest people in our country to retain their tax cut than it was to fund our troops in Iraq!!!

So while the Reppies whip everyone into a frenzy about how Kerry voted against sending body armor to our troops no one stopped to ask what the hell our troops were doing there without it in the first place! (No it's not because Clinton gutted the military, that's another topic)

They were there without body armor because Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Armitage and Rumsfeld tried to pull this off "on the cheap" and failed to draw up adequate plans and funding for the invasion before the actual invasion!

Who's BS'ing who now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


but i put an additional requirement to pass this

bill, and lets say that requirement is something entirely opposite, in its values....but this is on line 1103, as an attachment to this bill.

I understand that Kerry's argument with the bill was in the manner that it would be paid for. Kerry wanted it to be a loan on the Iraqi people, Bush wanted it to be a grant. But, this wasn't just some appropriations bill -- this was the extended funding for the war in Iraq. Kerry himself only weeks earlier said it would be irresponsible to vote against this bill. He only changed his mind because he felt Howard Dean breathing down his neck.

Kerry's flip-flops in the piece weren't just comments taken out of context. They were positions that shifted depending on what his opposition was saying at the time. Also remember that during most of these clips he was reacting to fellow Democrats during the primaries, not Republicans and President Bush.

Let me give you another example like the one you hypothesized -- take the Homeland Security Bill. Many people (including you, I believe) use it as an example of Bush being against something and later for it. Bush wanted more executive control over the department, as well as legal protections against companies providing security functions. He was against it until additional provisions were added.

Yet another example was the TSA Airport Screeners. Republicans were against Democrat attempts to make the workers federalized. Bush wanted the right to fire workers who weren't performing, but Democrats wanted them unionized and protected. Republicans were charging Democrats of using the bill to increase union (and Democrat) rolls at the expense of national security -- Democrats were charging Republicans with opposing airport protections. When one side backs down from a conflict like this, does the other side get to call it a flip-flop?

So, what's the difference between Kerry's "flip-flops" and Bush's "flip-flops?" Simple, Bush is president, and as president he gets to shape the argument when dealing with Congress, including taking hard lines on measures and negotiating from there. Kerry was a Senator who's responsibility was to legislate. He failed to do that. Instead, he showed no core beliefs and only took positions that advanced his candidacy against his Democrat rivals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...