|
Kerry the Dolphin Part 2 (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LiquidX |
| WoW Occ.. you do know how to put down a good research. ;) |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| 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. |
Key Word "this regard"
Nice choice of words because I agree with you.
But the fact of the matter is that we are only highlighting one sentence from the video and his overall duty in the senate.
You've boiled the video down to one statement. The video clearly shows Kerry making pro going to war statements repeatedly then he gradually changes his stand and makes claim that he was anti war from the get-go
John Kerry supported the war, until he realized that he had little chance of winning the nomination if he didn't court anti-war pacifists.
For example:
I listened to his statements in the video and here are some indirect quotes.
explain Kerry's refrences to Saddam Hussein as 'dangerous....a threat to the United States...' as far back as 1995. I recall Kerry claiming that Iraq '...posed a serious threat to national security...,' and went as far as saying that a'... preemptive strike may be neccessary...' (not direct quotes)
Also, please explain why John Kerry said that 'Russia, France and Germany lacked a backbone when dealing with Iraq....and this would only seek to hurt to coalition agaist Iraq...' (not direct quotes)
| 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.
|
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540#ContinueArticle
This are issues he has "waffled around" in.
This doesnt even take into account his switcharoos he pulled in Vietnam. Which i stated earlier in the thread with documents depicting his attrocities he commited while in duty. But yet he left his troops and came back to slander them all.
But if you want to read more about that then read back...because I have yet to recieve any liberal response to his behavior he engaged in while over there including the film footage of himself while in duty and begging his general for the last purple heart.
This war mongol shifted positions quite quickly.
For instance let me take an excerpt from the first document in this thread dealing with vietnam.
| 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. |
Maybe thats the reason why only 3 people from his original swiftboat squad support him today. He even admitted to killing innocent civilians. Explain why most people in his swiftboat call him , "an unfit leader". I much rather have a president who did not go into war than a president who was known in his squadran as an unfit commander who commited numerous unhumane attrocities. Theres even a book where the commanders speak out about him.
An Individual who lives off self created blunders in his political career.
http://25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id15.htm
| quote: |
Nothing complicated??? Then why the 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. |
Lets look at one of his actual voting records held publically.
An actual document.
| 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) |
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_key...can_id=S0421103
Fact of the matter is either way you look at it, Kerry has made the mistake of publically showing his position on numerous occasions. Whether by voting or by being in interviews. The interview footages have came back to haunt him and its only a matter of time that it will come back and bite him in the rear end.
Even worse he harped on a military themed speech last week and with his past catching up to him....the GOP will harp on these differences in a matter of weeks. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
Most of the stuff you have yanked off of other websites that clearly have an agenda directed at John Kerry astounds me because if you dig deep enough you can find the dirt on someone. In classic Republican style as though the Bill Clinton outcome didn't teach them a good and proper lesson they continue on the path of trying to label their opposition instead of operating from their position of strength since they don't have one. Instead they possess an ideological, war and terror driven administration that believes America is a safer place by isolating others and pursuing a policy of we know what's best for the world attitude.
Ironically here is what I find to be so interesting however about your articles, many of Kerry's positions(I use the term lightly based on the articles presented) are dated before 9/11 vis a vis post 9/11 yet Republicans love to highlight how the world is a different place since September 11th so why wouldn't John Kerry's positions be a reflection of those changes as well, answer this question for me please and take your time instead of searching for articles that have a clear focus on not realizing that politics isn't about being stagnant in one's ideals to your detriment or the nation's, hint hint about the current President. You call Kerry a war mongol and Bush is ? I wouldn't blame you for not being able to offer a credible defense of this administration, I pity the individual who would attempt such a task.
If Bush was doing such a good job of making America better then why are so many of his ads and campaign speeches not focused on tangible outcomes of his administrations tenure in power, instead like you he has to deliver flip-flop, fearmongering texts. Accentuate your positives over your opponent is a sure way to demonstrate your strength in politics, usually:haha: You don't even try to on behalf of Bush and you are a Bush supporter, okay. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
Most of the stuff you have yanked off of other websites that clearly have an agenda directed at John Kerry astounds me because if you dig deep enough you can find the dirt on someone. In classic Republican style as though the Bill Clinton outcome didn't teach them a good and proper lesson they continue on the path of trying to label their opposition instead of operating from their position of strength since they don't have one. Instead they possess an ideological, war and terror driven administration that believes America is a safer place by isolating others and pursuing a policy of we know what's best for the world attitude.
Ironically here is what I find to be so interesting however about your articles, many of Kerry's positions(I use the term lightly based on the articles presented) are dated before 9/11 vis a vis post 9/11 yet Republicans love to highlight how the world is a different place since September 11th so why wouldn't John Kerry's positions be a reflection of those changes as well, answer this question for me please and take your time instead of searching for articles that have a clear focus on not realizing that politics isn't about being stagnant in one's ideals to your detriment or the nation's, hint hint about the current President. You call Kerry a war mongol and Bush is ? I wouldn't blame you for not being able to offer a credible defense of this administration, I pity the individual who would attempt such a task.
If Bush was doing such a good job of making America better then why are so many of his ads and campaign speeches not focused on tangible outcomes of his administrations tenure in power, instead like you he has to deliver flip-flop, fearmongering texts. Accentuate your positives over your opponent is a sure way to demonstrate your strength in politics, usually:haha: You don't even try to on behalf of Bush and you are a Bush supporter, okay. |
Once again you tend to show your partisan side and highlight the other side which is the only argument you can come up with. I have yet to see anything nice spill onto any of your posts about Mr.Kerry regarding accomplishments of his senate duty or vietnam or anything else.
Most of your posts have been liberal whinings about the "disastrous" adminstration in control right now which I completely respect because your a liberal and you see things differently.
Let me explain to you a little about partisanship.
Republicans will view Iraq's scenario as an accomplishment.
Democrats will view Iraq's situation as a disaster.
Fact of the matter is I see Saddam put away as the best thing ever happening in that region.
I could tell you I have talked to several friends who are stationed in Iraq and they will tell anyone the situation over there is completely the opposite as to what your are saying or any liberal. For instance most people are joyous that they have been liberated from the dictator of Saddam.
You would say otherwise because of your findings in CNN and the footage that comes out on tv or just news item about casualties.
You could call me a liar but do i care? Of course not.
They asked Kerry if Bush is a liar? He said thats too strong of a word and refrained from using it. Why? who knows.
Iraq to me has been a great success at the end of the day.
could of it been handled better? Of course , all wars are never pretty and could be commanded to a much more efficient extent.
Iraq to you has been a disaster..what do i say? I respect your opinion and really could care less.
But let me highlight one more thing about your little dribble.
| quote: | | I wouldn't blame you for not being able to offer a credible defense of this administration, I pity the individual who would attempt such a task. |
pity? for showing support and feeling different towards a particular situation? Do you even think before you type?
I totally lost respect for you with that comment. And as other people from this forum have mentioned before about your radical comments. You have sunk to new lows with pitying the individual who would stand by their party and defend it and you feel indifferent towards that defense.
Wow...such ignorance and blindness. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Once again you tend to show your partisan side and highlight the other side which is the only argument you can come up with. I have yet to see anything nice spill onto any of your posts about Mr.Kerry regarding accomplishments of his senate duty or vietnam or anything else.
Most of your posts have been liberal whinings about the "disastrous" adminstration in control right now which I completely respect because your a liberal and you see things differently.
Let explain to you a little about partisanship.
Republicans will view Iraq's scenario as an accomplishment.
Democrats will view Iraq's situation as a disaster.
Fact of the matter is I see Saddam put away as the best thing ever happening in that region.
I could tell you I have talked to several friends who are stationed in Iraq and they will tell anyone the situation over there is completely the opposite as to what your are saying or any liberal. For instance most people are joyous that they have been liberated from the dictator of Saddam.
You would say otherwise because of your findings in CNN and the footage that comes out on tv or just news item about casualties.
You could call me a liar but do i care? Of course not.
They asked Kerry if Bush is a liar? He said thats too strong of a word and refrained from using it. Why? who knows.
Iraq to me has been a great success at the end of the day.
could of it been handled better? Of course , all wars are never pretty and could be commanded to a much more efficient extent.
Iraq to you has been a disaster..what do i say? I respect your opinion and really could care less.
But let me highlight one more thing about your little dribble.
pity? for showing support and feeling different towards a particular situation? Do you even think before you type?
I totally lost respect for you with that comment. And as other people from this forum have mentioned before about your radical comments. You have sunk to new lows with pitying the individual who would stand by their party and defend it and you feel indifferent towards that defense.
Wow...such ignorance and blindness. |
You term John Kerry a war mongol his wife a lunatic and you try to act as though you have not engaged in the same name callings and dumb down posts, look up the term sanctamonious please.
And I am the melodramatic, Dude double check your posts please Iraq has been a great success, you have lost respect for me yet you put forth this statement "I respect your opinion and really could care less" somehow I doubt I ever had your respect and didn't ask for it so you can spare me the real melodrama about your respect. Your comments have been no less radical about John Kerry than mine's about George Bush. You speak from both sides of your mouth and then term John Kerry the flip-flopper. You make it sound as though you are a beacon of bipartisan thoughts, yet Iraq is a great success, I would laugh if it wasn't so sad, who is truly ignorant and blind to the reality of what is occuring in Iraq.
Maybe you should read some other news sources(International) to gain a better understanding of what is occuring on the ground since Fox isn't enough for you. How insulting that you assume I watch only CNN and liberal media :stongue: I'm so offended, well not really because I have mentioned all the places I get my news from maybe I can enlighten you on some, too bad they are in other languages as well.
If you are offended that I pity your lack of defense of Bush then demonstrate his strengths please. This is a political forum and just because I pity something doesn't make me the be all that ends all, I welcome rebuttals and look forward to yours.
:stongue: |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
And I am the melodramatic, Dude double check your posts please Iraq has been a great success, you have lost respect for me yet you put forth this statement "I respect your opinion and really could care less" somehow I doubt I ever had your respect |
| quote: | | i respect your opinion |
I respect your different views and where you are coming from.
I wont engage in a mudslinging contest
| quote: | | i really could care less |
The way you feel about this subject really has no profound impact on me personally and won't change the way I feel....even if you "pity" us.
| quote: | | beacon of bi-partisan |
me, this? oh come on..thats ridiculous.
I do not watch Fox news network.
I enjoy watching CNN.
You assuming I watch Fox news further implies your ridiculous assumptions on us conservatives.
I guess you should pity us.:rolleyes: Your such an amazing guy:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You ask of me to highlight a success of Bush's adminstration and I gave it to you. You obviously disagree and we will continue to walk in circles on this issue. I asked you to state some of kerry's accomplishments as well...but you asked me once again to state some of Bush's accomplishments. I stated his Iraq success but unless you are down there in the trenchs you really can't speak. I told you about some people in there right now. I guess you overlooked it and came straight to attack the rebuttal on your "pity" comment. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
I respect your different views and where you are coming from.
I wont engage in a mudslinging contest
I do not watch Fox news network.
I enjoy watching CNN.
You assuming I watch Fox news further implies your ridiculous assumptions on us conservatives.
I guess you should pity us.:rolleyes: Your such an amazing guy:rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
You assumed that I watched CNN so what's your point, another ridiculous assumption about us liberals. I suppose we shall agree to disagree, not respectfully however:D |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
You assumed that I watched CNN so what's your point, another ridiculous assumption about us liberals. I suppose we shall agree to disagree, not respectfully however:D |
We'll leave it at that:D
Ill wait for occ's long ass reply tomorrow, that I feel breathing down my neck.
Now i will go play WARCRAFT3 frozen throne. :cool:
seeya |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| Funny thing is I wasn't even a liberal, Bush managed to turn me into one. When I arrived at the TA Politics forum in my infancy I was a defender of him, preaching the rhetoric of objectivity and good intentions, as many on here can point out, boy has that changed:stongue: :stongue: The reason I emphasize Iraq is because that is what changed my view of the administration, based on the after events of the war, which we are all keenly aware of by now. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
Funny thing is I wasn't even a liberal, Bush managed to turn me into one. When I arrived at the TA Politics forum in my infancy I was a defender of him, preaching the rhetoric of objectivity and good intentions, as many on here can point out, boy has that changed:stongue: :stongue: The reason I emphasize Iraq is because that is what changed my view of the administration, based on the after events of the war, which we are all keenly aware of by now. |
you've said that numerous times... |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
you've said that numerous times... |
I was directing that directly to you should you believe that I was Che Guevara or something of that elk. I gave the Bush administration a full opportunity of fairness and support in the past, I doubt you could ever do that with John Kerry based on your own commentaries in this forum, think about it. You might have missed the purpose of that commentary, not all "liberals" are born that way, actions on the part of government tends to influence positions just a little. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
We both in live in different circumstances.
The Gop has always appealed to my family and I.
So you can not compare you and I. |
|
|
|
|
