|
Kerry the Dolphin Part 2 (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
"creative way to avoid the topic thread" c'mon you're insulting me here. Kerry fought in Vietnam, he didn't agree with the war after he left. I fail to see why he didn't have that right. Anyone who served in combat in Vietnam earned the right to criticize the conflict. They were there, they fought in the battles, they saw the true ground situation with their own eyes and they cannot question the war:rolleyes: |
LOL funny guys to turn a thread upside down.
but hey i respect the way you guys feel.
We both see the world differently.
So enjoy this video I found for you two:toocool:
Here is the flip flopper.
Not to mention the way he slandered his own platoon in vietnam...which has been discussed in this thread and has yet to recieve any rebuttals.
LINK |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| 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... |
Enjoy the video. |
|
|
| JM |
funny you shold mention a lot of things in the 1st post.
this guy kerry votes in all this health care bull, 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< |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
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? |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
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? |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
I must admit the video is powerful stuff, |
indeed
It lays out the facts so people will know how he stands on issues.
Wait he cant stand on them, he might flip over |
|
|
| Q5echo |
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? 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. |
|
|
| 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:
| 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/
|
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 :rolleyes:, but you raise an interesting point so let's examine the issue!
Rep. Adam Smith (D, WA) on Scarborough Country July 14, 2004:
| 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
|
So why did Kerry veto the bill?
| 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
|
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:
| 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
|
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 . |
|
|
| Renegade |
| Good post Occ. Funny how quickly the mudslinging dies down once pesky little details like "facts" are introduced. ;) |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| Can always count on you Occ for a semblance of reality and the intricate examination of political doublespeak that most politicians are guilty of. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| Indeed, good post occrider :) |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Great post Occrider.. I really give it to ya on this one heh. |
|
|
|
|
