|
| 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
 |
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: | 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 |
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?
| 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
|
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: |
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
|
Wait … what did this guy just say???
| quote: |
”No, there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops”
|
| quote: |
“No, there's NOTHING COMPLICATED about supporting our troops”
|
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.
___________________
Retro ...
Last edited by occrider on Aug-02-2004 at 13:43
|
