TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Kerry the Dolphin Part 2
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX Could you please lay out on what issues is he a Flip Flopper please?. And dont say him voting for war, and then saying he is against it is a flip flop.. hopefully I have to save time and energy on that because is just obvious on the why... |
funny you shold mention a lot of things in the 1st post.
this guy kerry votes in all this health care bullshit, cos thats what he stands for. then he says he'll cut all the "overhead" spending that was a result of something he helped achieve.
what a contradictory tool that kerry.
>JM<
not to mention he voted against the LACI PETERSON LAW
that protects pregnant women.
But yet he still holds women as part of his constituency?
I must admit the video is powerful stuff, however keep it in perspective of the situation in our country. In the Clinton years he made mention of pressure on Saddam Hussein, in the Bush tenure after September 11 what self respecting politician short of being deeply liberal would have voted against the "authorization to go to war" The ultimate decision lay with the Bush administration however. John Kerry didn't give the command for our troops to enter Iraq, The greater failure lay in our intelligence but what does it say when our leaders are all presented with that information and it is so off base that the 9/11 Commission considers our Intelligence as a serious failure, lacking in proper oversight.
I was for the Iraq war myself, however I will hold the current government accountable for the intelligence gaff because they pushed very hard that these were factual information day after day in the buildup to Iraq, remember while telling the inspectors the time is up. Who should be held accountable for no weapons in Iraq, when a large part of America was convinced of this. Does the buck ultimately stop with the administration?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NYCTrancefan I must admit the video is powerful stuff, |
Iraq was ONE of many means to an Global, Islamic Facist end....a TACTICAL decision in a STRATEGIC battle.
Tactical = Iraq
Strategic = Islamic facism
this is how we have fought and won wars in the name of HUMANITY time and time again. i can not explain it to you people in any more basic terms. if you want a clearer picture of the goals for an Islamo-Facist end, look at a map of the greater Middle-East. take a look at the map through a generals perspective on how we have divided the theater after the sovereignty of Iraq and Afganistan. look at what countries have now been isolated and think of the possibilities that were never there before. is it over? fuck no. we will exhaust every political, diplomatic and god forbid ecery military means necessary to finish now? yes, and we'll need all the help we can get.
i wouldn't lock myself into the idea that Iraq was just about WMD's or the lack thereof. it would be wrong and it would be risky. plain and simple. if you want to piss about "well thats what Bush gave us as an excuse to go to war in the first place blah, blah, blah". you would be wrong also because you only heard half of it and the haters have been pushing that half down your anti-war throat for over a year now.
meanwhile the war still on. goals have been met. goals have been exceeded. men have died. families lost. desperation sets in. and all we care about is trapping the man that made the decsion to take on the fight, into a battle of semantics.
if you are anti-war, more power to you. if you are anti-Bush, great, but i must warn you. close your eyes when the dogs of war come running because it will not be pretty or perfect. it never has and never will be.
Normally I would excuse myself from party bickering, however, the RNC has simply reduced themselves to new levels of idiocy, and I feel that I should step in (as I've stepped in to defend Bush a number of times).
I love how conservatives attack Kerry on the vote to give Bush the authority to go to war (note not a vote to go to war, but a vote to give Bush authority to go to war as a last resort) and his purported "flip-flopping" on his subsequent veto of the $87 billion package for Afghanistan and Iraq. Well hey, guess what guys? It turns out Bush is a flip-flopper himself!!! It turns out that Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion as well!!! What a startling turn of events! Don't believe me? Here:
| quote: |
White House threatens veto of Iraq aid bill over loans House, Senate compromise bill in the works Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Posted: 1033 GMT ( 6:33 PM HKT) The House and Senate hope to reach compromise on a final version of the bill next week. WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration threatened for the first time Tuesday to veto an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress converts any Iraqi rebuilding money into loans. White House officials issued the warning even though many lawmakers agree that the bill's final version is likely to bow to President Bush and omit any loans. By underscoring Bush's opposition to loans, the administration threat could make it easier for congressional Republican leaders to nail down enough votes to help the president prevail. The House bill included $18.6 billion to help Iraq rebuild its water supplies, health clinics and Army, and made the money a grant that country would not have to repay. The Senate included $18.4 billion but would require Iraq to repay about half -- unless Saudi Arabia, Russia and other countries forgave 90 percent of the debt Baghdad ran up under Saddam Hussein's regime. Bush and a host of administration officials had repeatedly expressed their opposition to loans in recent weeks, but had not issued a veto threat before. A letter written Tuesday reiterated White House arguments, but contained the first such veto warning. "If this provision is not removed, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," wrote White House budget director Joshua Bolten. "Including a loan mechanism slows efforts to stabilize the region and to relieve pressure on our troops, raises questions about our commitment to building a democratic and self-governing Iraq, and impairs our ability to encourage other nations to provide badly needed assistance without saddling Iraq with additional debt," the letter said. Loan supporters say that with some of the world's richest oil reserves, Iraq should be required to eventually repay some U.S. aid. That is especially true with the United States facing record federal deficits, and many members of Congress hearing requests from their home districts for more funds for local roads and other projects. House-Senate bargainers hope to reach compromise on a final version of the bill next week. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLI...ngress.iraq.ap/ |
, but you raise an interesting point so let's examine the issue!| quote: |
SMITH: It is absolutely wrong to say that John Kerry wants the troops to not have funds. He voted against a version of the funding for the troops. He made it clear that there were other versions that he supported. The president himself said that if the funding package was different�if, for instance, it included loans; if, for instance, it included some additional funding for our National Guardsmen in terms of benefits�the president said he would veto it. So there were versions of the funding for troops that the president himself would oppose...It�s dead wrong, it�s dead wrong to say that John Kerry doesn�t support funding the troops. [Rep. Duncan Hunter (R, CA)- spreading confusion about the veto's ramifications on troops] SMITH: Just one final comment on Duncan's comment. If we had voted down the $87 billion package, the idea that voting down that package would have meant that we would not have funded the troops, that�s what is ridiculous. What it would have meant was, We�ve got to fund the troops, now let's do it right. And we would have done it, no matter what. And I think that�s the big point here. John Kerry, John Edwards, myself, we all support funding the troops. We want to do it the right way. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710 |
| quote: |
KERRY: When say I voted for it, I was willing to vote for the $87 billion providing we paid for it! Providing we asked Americans to sacrifice, all of us together. So Joe Biden and I...brought an amendment to say, Hey America�rather than have a $690 billion tax cut for everybody over the next ten years who are earning over $200,000, why don�t we take just $600 billion, and that way we pay for the war right up front and not add it to the deficit. Guess what? George Bush said no. The Republicans said no. And what they�re doing is trying once again to mislead America as they do so effectively, make a joke out of something that�s serious. - Don Imus Radio Show FRIDAY, JULY 16, 2004 |
| quote: |
| Bush Ad Claims Kerry Voted Against "Protections for Pregnant Women" It's a misleading ad. What Kerry really voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act." July 12, 2004 Modified: July 12, 2004 eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version Summary In an ad released July 8 the Bush campaign attacks John Kerry for missing many Senate votes but still finding time " to vote against the Laci Peterson law that protects pregnant women from violence." It's literally accurate, but artfully worded to avoid tipping off viewers to the real controversy over the bill Kerry opposed -- the legal right to abortion. What Kerry and 34 other Democrats actually voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act ." The new law recognizes an "unborn child" as a second victim if injured or killed during certain federal crimes of violence against the mother. The bill was backed by anti-abortion groups while opponents called it an attempt to undermine abortion rights. Kerry voted for an alternative measure to accomplish the same end but without making specific reference to an "unborn child." The ad is also misleading when it says Kerry "missed a vote to lower health-care costs by reducing frivolous lawsuits against doctors." It is true that Kerry missed that vote -- two, actually. But as we've noted before, most studies show that capping damage awards to victims of medical malpractice won't do much to slow the rising cost of health care. Besides, Kerry's vote would not have made a difference either way. And when the ad faults Kerry for missing a vote to fund our troops, it leaves out the fact that the bill passed both houses of Congress without a single vote against it. Analysis The ad is true enough when it says Kerry has missed the great majority of Senate votes while campaigning for President. Where it twists the facts is in its descriptions of the bills it cites to support its argument that Kerry's priorities are misplaced. It�s a fact that Kerry voted against what the Bush ad refers to as the Laci Peterson law (H.R. 1997). The measure passed and Bush signed it into law April 1. However, what the new law actually does is increase penalties for violence against a "child in utero" by making it a separate federal offense when the mother is the victim of certain federal crimes of violence -- such as an assault in a federal park or on a military base. Its sponsors even named it the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," and anti-abortion groups that lobbied for it call the crime "fetal homicide." Kerry and other abortion-rights advocates called the measure a backdoor attempt to challenge legal abortion by defining a fetus as a human being with legal protection. Kerry (and nearly half the Senate) supported a different measure that would have had the same effect without making reference to an "unborn child." That measure -- called the "Motherhood Protection Act'' by its sponsors -- would have made it a separate offense to inflict violence that �causes the termination of a pregnancy or the interruptions of the normal course of pregnancy.� It failed in a 49-50 vote with 43 other Democrats supporting it, along with Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords and four Republicans. When the Senate passed the "unborn victims" measure, Kerry was among 38 senators voting against it, including 2 Republicans. Missing in Action on Healthcare Costs? Kerry did miss two votes on bills to limit medical malpractice awards, but there's little support for the claim that the bill in question would have lowered health-care costs as the ad states. Kerry's absence made no difference in the outcome anyway. The President says that putting caps on damage awards in medical malpractice lawsuits would reduce healthcare costs by 5-9% without adversely affecting the quality of care. Yet most studies show that capping malpractice awards would have little overall impact on medical spending. For a full discussion of this, see our earlier article . Kerry's vote would have made no difference in the outcome. Each bill would have failed with or without his presence. He missed a vote Feb. 24 on a motion to invoke cloture and thus cut off a Democratic filibuster against a bill to place caps on damage awards in medical malpractice lawsuits against obstetricians and gynecologists. And April 7 he skipped a cloture vote on a similar bill to curb awards against emergency and trauma center personnel as well as obstetricians and gynecologists. Senate Democrats did not need Kerry�s vote to block either bill � the President fell far short of the 60 votes needed on both occasions. The February vote was 48 for, 45 against, and the April vote was 49 for, 48 against. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=215 |
Good post Occ. Funny how quickly the mudslinging dies down once pesky little details like "facts" are introduced. 
Can always count on you Occ for a semblance of reality and the intricate examination of political doublespeak that most politicians are guilty of.
Indeed, good post occrider 
Great post Occrider.. I really give it to ya on this one heh.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Normally I would excuse myself from party bickering, however, the RNC has simply reduced themselves to new levels of idiocy, and I feel that I should step in (as I've stepped in to defend Bush a number of times). I love how conservatives attack Kerry on the vote to give Bush the authority to go to war (note not a vote to go to war, but a vote to give Bush authority to go to war as a last resort) and his purported "flip-flopping" on his subsequent veto of the $87 billion package for Afghanistan and Iraq. Well hey, guess what guys? It turns out Bush is a flip-flopper himself!!! It turns out that Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion as well!!! What a startling turn of events! Don't believe me? Here: Look everybody, definitive proof right in front of your eyes that Bush is a flip-flopper! On the one hand he criticizes John Kerry for vetoing the bill, and on the other hand HE THREATENS TO VETO THE VERY SAME BILL! Not only is he a flip-flopper but he's a HYPOCRITE who obviously doesn't want to support the troops. But wait ... you want to actually analyze the issue intelligentely for once??? Oh, you mean there's a REASON why Bush threatened to veto the bill? You mean he's actually NOT a flip-flopper and there's a rational reason for him to threaten a veto??? You don't say!!! Hmmmm now that I think about it, maybe Kerry had a reason to veto the bill as well??? Normally I'm too stupid to comprehend details , but you raise an interesting point so let's examine the issue!Rep. Adam Smith (D, WA) on Scarborough Country July 14, 2004: So why did Kerry veto the bill? Well, well ... vetoing a bill because of fiscal responsiblity? Who ever HEARD of such a thing? Fiscal conservatism ... hahahahaha what an ALIEN concept! So somebody tell me, is Bush a flip-flopper or not? Second. Kerry's opposition to protecting pregnant women ... well fact check did a good job of addressing that issue: The reason why Senators never get elected as Commander and Chief is because they are penalized for voting with their hearts and minds rather than voting politically. And the only way pundits can take advantage of this is because the public is TOO STUPID to know any better than what the 5 second soundbite implies. Rather pathetic actually . |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by speedracer_mec Hmmm I really dont find this post any different than any of the other partisan posts. Thing to note here is, Bush may have flip flopped, But Kerry has been flip flopping throughout his political career..something I dont see as a good quality for a future leader I'd call president. Basically what you are saying can be simplified to me saying, ""Kerry never sticks to a position and has no message" "Kerry claimed to have commited war crimes" "Kerry stabbed his fellow veterans in the back and claimed they were all monsters" "Kerry went to vietnam but then collected 3 purple hearts as fast as he could for minor scratches and the ASKED to be sent home rather than stay for the rest of his tour" "Kerry at one time thought the UN should control the US Military" "Kerry only marries women for their $$$" "Kerry is a douch bag" Each of those can be supported by "conservatives" with raw data, But this post is short. As with the video I posted, documents listing his departure from vietnam,timetable of voting(video)/interviews,marriages he left due to money/political gain, and so forth. Its a quite partisan Post that i respect. But when it comes down to facts...both parties have laid out their cards with facts on both sides. Posts with videos,statistics,movies,charts,data/facts But in the end My vote ,as many Americans as well,will go to BUSH because he appeals to us. Sorry I hadn't replied...It was a long read and it was the weekend. Plus I thought some of the few conservatives in here would reply BUt sure ill reply anytime baby |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX Bush has flip flopped throughout his career also.. what you talking about!! hehehe.. he even vetoed a bill that he once voted for in Texas that actually helped him, while he was president.. now thats been a cock! heh. And those comments about Kerry getting married for money and douch bag comments seem more like a personal off opinion. Is like me saying.. " Bush doesnt care about their daughters getting FAKE ID's and getting alcohol while been underage" .. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by speedracer_mec Shall we dance in a circle again and talk about Kerry Slandering his own soldiers he was with when he committed war crimes as well? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX allright, but to trance music please... My whole point is, is funny how one pin-points while your own candidate has flip flopped on worst, severe issues or has and does the same stuff.. |
| quote: |
| I love how conservatives attack Kerry on the vote to give Bush the authority to go to war (note not a vote to go to war, but a vote to give Bush authority to go to war as a last resort) and his purported "flip-flopping" on his subsequent veto of the $87 billion package for Afghanistan and Iraq. Well hey, guess what guys? It turns out Bush is a flip-flopper himself!!! It turns out that Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion as well!!! What a startling turn of events! Don't believe me? Here: |
| quote: |
| WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration threatened for the first time Tuesday to veto an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress converts any Iraqi rebuilding money into loans. |
in saying Bush is Waffling on the issue. He says Bush "threatened" to veto, it doesn't say he vetoed it and threatened to do so because he was standing by his word to not turn the money into a loan. He was standing by his initial word. This is waffling?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by speedracer_mec But let me point out one more thing on Occ's soo called "brilliant" post He is stretching it a bit there in saying Bush is Waffling on the issue. He says Bush "threatened" to veto, it doesn't say he vetoed it and threatened to do so because he was standing by his word to not turn the money into a loan. He was standing by his initial word. This is waffling?Kerry says "I voted against it before I voted for it" That is waffling in its purest form. On video in other thread |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Well seeing how arrogant Bush is he would veto it, also Occ made other commentaries as well why select only one paragraph from the entire text, hmmmn. |
| quote: |
| Hmmm I really dont find this post any different than any of the other partisan posts. Thing to note here is, Bush may have flip flopped, But Kerry has been flip flopping throughout his political career..something I dont see as a good quality for a future leader I'd call president. Basically what you are saying can be simplified to me saying, ""Kerry never sticks to a position and has no message" "Kerry claimed to have commited war crimes" "Kerry stabbed his fellow veterans in the back and claimed they were all monsters" "Kerry went to vietnam but then collected 3 purple hearts as fast as he could for minor scratches and the ASKED to be sent home rather than stay for the rest of his tour" "Kerry at one time thought the UN should control the US Military" "Kerry only marries women for their $$$" "Kerry is a douch bag" Each of those can be supported by "conservatives" with raw data, But this post is short. As with the video I posted, documents listing his departure from vietnam,timetable of voting(video)/interviews,marriages he left due to money/political gain, and so forth. Its a quite partisan Post that i respect. But when it comes down to facts...both parties have laid out their cards with facts on both sides. Posts with videos,statistics,movies,charts,data/facts But in the end My vote ,as many Americans as well,will go to BUSH because he appeals to us. Sorry I hadn't replied...It was a long read and it was the weekend. Plus I thought some of the few conservatives in here would reply BUt sure ill reply anytime baby |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by speedracer_mec We are who we are(party wise) and nothing will change that, unfortunate for some |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade What a ridiculous thing to say. Are you saying that nothing whatsoever can sway you against voting for Bush? That no evidence of a blunder on any scale will demonstrate to you that Bush is not worth voting for? What would it take for you to vote against Bush? What would it take for you to vote for Kerry? Political alliances should always be mallaeable. You should never so blindly entrust yourself to a political party that, despite glaring incompetence on their behalf, you will still guarantee them a vote, no matter what. That's grossly anti-democratic. You seem to have very little grasp on the issues, and no willingness to listen to ideas that go against your own pre-conceptions. Why should any constitution - let alone the constitution of the most powerful country in the world - assure you the right to participate in the political process when you show absolutely no interest in how this political system is operating? "I've said it before and I'll say it again, folks. Democracy just doesn't work." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by speedracer_mec Hmmm I really dont find this post any different than any of the other partisan posts. Thing to note here is, Bush may have flip flopped, But Kerry has been flip flopping throughout his political career..something I dont see as a good quality for a future leader I'd call president. Basically what you are saying can be simplified to me saying, ""Kerry never sticks to a position and has no message" "Kerry claimed to have commited war crimes" "Kerry stabbed his fellow veterans in the back and claimed they were all monsters" "Kerry went to vietnam but then collected 3 purple hearts as fast as he could for minor scratches and the ASKED to be sent home rather than stay for the rest of his tour" "Kerry at one time thought the UN should control the US Military" "Kerry only marries women for their $$$" "Kerry is a douch bag" Each of those can be supported by "conservatives" with raw data? As with the video I posted, documents listing his departure from vietnam,timetable, and so forth. Its a quite partisan Post that i respect. But when it comes down to facts...both parties have laid out their cards with facts on both sides. Posts with videos,statistics,movies,charts,data/facts But in the end My vote ,as many Americans as well,will go to BUSH because he appeals to us. Sorry I hadn't replied...It was a long read and it was the weekend. Plus I thought some of the few conservatives in here would reply BUt sure ill reply anytime baby |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by speedracer_mec He is stretching it a bit there in saying Bush is Waffling on the issue. He says Bush "threatened" to veto, it doesn't say he vetoed it and threatened to do so because he was standing by his word to not turn the money into a loan. He was standing by his initial word. This is waffling?Kerry says "I voted against it before I voted for it" That is waffling in its purest form. On video in other thread |
| quote: |
BUSH (7/14/04): Now, when Senator Kerry tried to explain his vote, here�s what he said. He said, �I actually did vote for the $87 billion�before I voted against it.� (Laughter.) End quote. It sure doesn�t clear it up, does it? (Laughter.) Now he�s offering a different explanation. Earlier this week, he said he is proud he and his running mate voted against the funding for our troops. AUDIENCE: Booo! BUSH: No, he�s entitled to his view, but here�s mine: Members of Congress should not vote to send troops into battle and then vote against funding them. (Applause.) As the Commander-in-Chief of this great military, I will see to it they have what is needed to complete their mission. (Applause.) http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/15/pzn.00.html |
| quote: |
BUSH (7/16/04): I assure you, ladies and gentlemen, the cause of freedom is in really good hands. (APPLAUSE) BUSH: I'll make sure our troops have the best. They deserve the best. And that's why last September I proposed supplemental funding to support our military in its mission. This legislation provided funding for body armor and other vital equipment, for hazard pay, health benefits, ammunition, fuel, spare parts. In the Senate, only a small, out-of-the-mainstream minority voted against the legislation. And two of those 12 senators, two of the 12, are my opponent and his running mate. AUDIENCE: Booo. BUSH: When asked to explain his vote, Senator Kerry said this, �I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.� (LAUGHTER) BUSH: End quote. Now he's offering a different explanation. Earlier this week, Senator Kerry said he is proud that he and his running mate voted against the funding for the troops. AUDIENCE: Booo. BUSH: And yesterday, he said that his vote against funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan was complicated. No, there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops. (APPLAUSE) BUSH: As the Commander-in-Chief of a great United States military, I will make sure they have what is necessary so they can do their jobs. (APPLAUSE) http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?U...ces/17bush.html |
| quote: |
�No, there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops� |
| quote: |
| �No, there's NOTHING COMPLICATED about supporting our troops� |
God damnit it's always fun to have a centrist put the hammer down for your side every now and then!
I honestly didn't know the details of that particular quote with Kerry; I always kinda bought into the whole flip-floppin' thing on that one, and I'm a freakin' lefty!
Bah, Kerry still has some weaknesses, to be sure, but what I want to know is, why does Bush's shoulders move up and down when he chuckles?
I think that's the really important question we should all be focusing on here. So let's discuss, please.
Kerry is a jackass, Bush is a jackass. Out of two jakasses, I would pick Kerry, because this will be Bush's last term. Therefore, he will not care about fulfilling his promises.
Good site by the way:
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbut...rhimanyway.com/
WoW Occ.. you do know how to put down a good research.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I'm afraid I don't understand your post here. If you're stating that my accusations that Bush is a flip-flopper is nothing but partisan drivel characteristic of the uninformed oversimplifications typified by the many examples that you�ve listed above than you'd be absolutely correct. Of course I thought that the sarcasm in my post was more than enough to indicate otherwise, and that the fact of the matter is that Kerry is no more of a flip-flopper in this regard than Bush is. |
| quote: |
Hehe, one thing I must admire about Republicans is how incredibly talented they are when they strive to be disingenuous. It�s something the dems really need to pick up if they every want to effectively compete against republicans. So, waffling in its purest form eh? Well first of all, your quote is incorrect. The actual Kerry quote reads, �I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Secondly, it really does seem awfully equivocating doesn�t it? As a matter of fact, it seems like it�s SUCH an indefensible statement that that should be your first clue that something�s wrong and that MAYBE we�re making a contextual miscalculation � as we seem so prone to do. Well it would be my pleasure to clear up the �muddy� waters so to speak. Allow me to introduce to you senate amendment 1796: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SP1796: If you don�t want to read the text of Senate amendment 1796 it essentially amends bill 1689 (supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction) to pay for the $87 billion by suspending a portion of the reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers. Now this amendment, which was co-sponsored by Kerry, was tabled by congress on October 2, 2003 by a 57-42 vote. Kerry voted against tabling it so he effectively cast a vote for it. Bill 1689 eventually passed on October 17, in which Kerry cast a vote against it. Now, in case you haven�t put 2 and 2 together by now, allow me to connect the dots: Kerry: �I actually did vote for the $87 billion (Bill 1796) before I voted against it (Bill 1689).� Did you catch that? Kerry: �I actually did vote for the $87 billion (Bill 1796) before I voted against it (Bill 1689).� Kinda tricky but I�m sure you can comprehend that simple concept. But here�s the best part, if you can grasp the implications of this concept we can conclude that not only is Kerry not waffling, but by voting against bill 1689 he is doing the exact OPPOSITE of waffling. Not only is he sticking to his original amendment that he introduced, but he�s willing to stick to his original amendment by voting against 1689 against OVERWHELMING odds. Teehee that�s not the best part though. The best part comes from the rhetoric of the Bush campaign with respects to this issue. What do they say? Hahahaha but apparentely it�s ok for the President to threaten veto of a bill to fund said troops if the version doesn�t agree with him! Can you believe this guy? But wait � it get�s better! |
| quote: |
Lets examine John Kerry's position on numerous issues. Some he has stood by them but the fact is he has jumped around like a madman. Lets begin. Issue:Kerry's Stance on Numerous Issues [quote] Welfare Reform Before: In 1988, Sen. Kerry voted against a proposal to require at least one parent in any two-parent welfare family to work a mere 16 hours a week, declaring the work requirement "troublesome to me." Revised Position: During his 1996 re-election campaign, when his Republican challenger, Gov. William Weld, was calling him soft on welfare, Kerry voted for the much stricter welfare reform law that Clinton signed into law Mandatory Minimums Before: In 1993 and 1994, the senator from liberal Massachusetts voted against mandatory minimum sentences for gang activity, gun crimes, drug trafficking, and drug sales to minors, explaining in an impassioned speech that long sentences for some dealers who sell to minors would be "enormous injustices" and that some convicted drug offenders were "so barely culpable it is sad." He also said congressionally imposed mandatory minimums made no sense and would just create turf battles between federal and local prosecutors. Revised Position: Today, presidential candidate Kerry strongly supports mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, including the sale of drugs to minors. Affirmative Action Before: In 1992, Kerry created a huge stir among liberals and civil rights groups with a major policy address arguing that affirmative action has "kept America thinking in racial terms" and helped promote a "culture of dependency." Revised position: Today, Kerry's campaign Web site vows to "Preserve Affirmative Action," noting that he "consistently opposed efforts in the Senate to undermine or eliminate affirmative action programs, and supports programs that seeks to enhance diversity." It doesn't mention any downside. Death Penalty Before: During one of his debates with Weld in 1996, Kerry ridiculed the idea of capital punishment for terrorists as a "terrorist protection policy," predicting that it would just discourage other nations from extraditing captured terrorists to the United States. After: Kerry still opposes capital punishment, but he now makes an exception for terrorists. Education Reform Before: In a 1998 policy speech the Boston Globe described as "a dramatic break from Democratic dogma," Kerry challenged teachers unions by proposing to gut their tenure and seniority systems, giving principals far more power to hire and fire unqualified or unmotivated teachers Revised Position: Today, Kerry once again espouses pure Democratic dogma on education. His Web site pledges to "stop blaming and start supporting public school educators," vowing to give them "better training and better pay, with more career opportunities, more empowerment and more mentors." It doesn't mention seniority or tenure. Double Taxation Before: In December 2002, Kerry broke with Democratic dogma yet again in a Cleveland speech, calling for the abolition of the unfair "double taxation" of stock dividends in order to promote more investment and more accurate valuations of companies. After: Five weeks later, after President Bush proposed a second round of tax cuts that included an end to this double taxation, Kerry changed his tune. He voted against the dividend tax cuts that were ultimately enacted by Congress and now hopes to roll them back as president, along with Bush's other tax cuts for upper-income Americans. Gas Taxation Before: In 1994, when the Concord Coalition gave Kerry a failing rating for his deficit reduction votes, he complained that he should have gotten credit for supporting a 50-cent increase in the gas tax. After: Today he no longer supports any increase in the gas tax Can u say Political Gain? Social Security Before: During the 1996 campaign, when I was a Globe reporter, Kerry told me the Social Security system should be overhauled. He said Congress should consider raising the retirement age and means-testing benefits and called it "wacky" that payroll taxes did not apply to income over $62,700. "I know it's all going to be unpopular," he said. "But this program has serious problems, and we have a generational responsibility to fix them." After: Kerry no longer wants to mess with Social Security. "John Kerry will never balance the budget on the backs of America's seniors," his Web site promises. Trade Before: Kerry has been a consistent supporter of free trade deals, and as late as December, when reporters asked if there was any issue on which he was prepared to disagree with Democratic interest groups, Kerry replied: "Trade." Slate editor Jacob Weisberg came away impressed by the depth of Kerry's commitment to the issue: "Unlike Edwards, he supports international trade agreements without qualification." Revised Position: But that was three months ago! In recent weeks, when Kerry has talked trade, he has talked nothing but qualification, calling for "fair trade" rather than "free trade," claiming to agree completely with the protectionist Edwards on trade issues, and vowing to "put teeth" into environmental and labor restrictions in agreements like NAFTA. |
| quote: |
| By his own admission during those four months, Mr. Kerry continually kept ramming his Swiftboat onto an enemy-held shore on assorted occasions alone and with a few men, killing civilians and even a wounded enemy soldier. One can begin to appreciate Zumwalt's problem with Mr. Kerry as commander of an unarmored craft dependent upon speed of maneuver to keep it and its crew from being shot to pieces. Mr. Kerry now refers to those civilian deaths as "accidents of war. "And within four days of his third Purple Heart, Mr. Kerry applied to take advantage of a technicality which allowed him to request immediate transfer to a stateside post. |
| quote: |
Nothing complicated??? Then why the fuck did you threaten to veto supporting our troops if there�s NOTHING COMPLICATED about it???? Hahahah isn't he great folks? Let's give him a round of applause!! (appluase) So let�s summarize: Republican criticism of Kerry�s flip-flopping on the Iraq vote: BASELESS AND HYPOCRITICAL. |
| quote: |
| Key Vote Fiscal04 Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan-Passage Bill Number: S1689 Issue: Defense Date: 10/17/2003 Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Stevens, R-AK Roll Call Number: 400 Bill Passed Full Member List Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO. Vote to pass a bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Fiscal 2004. S 1689 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004 Vote to pass a bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Fiscal 2004. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, this includes $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. It would allocate $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care. $10 billion would be provided as a loan that would be converted to a grant. For this to happen, 90 percent of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, would have to be forgiven by other countries. Note: Senate then Vitiated previous passage of this bil and it was returned to the Calendar. Vivate means to undo or negate a previous action. Vitiation requires the unanimous consent of the Senate. (Bill sponsored by Stevens, R-AK) Bill Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11 (ND 31-8, SD 6-3); I 0-1 on 10/17/2003. Bill Status: As of 05/25/2004 Bill Number: S 1689-108th Congress (2003-2004) Senate Passage Vote:10/17/2003-Outcome: Passed For further status information, call the Voter's Research Hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART (1-888-868-3762) |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.