TranceAddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate Pages: 1 [2] 3  Make Your Own 527 Ad! (pg. 2) View this Thread in Original format Q5echo quote: Originally posted by Nou If our main strategic forces in Europe, the United States and Guam were wiped out then our SLBM force could deliver an equal blow to that of what strategic forces in Guam? Q5echo oh. cool imokruok While we're chatting about old school US air defenses, makes sure you guys check out the coolest missile that we had in our arsenal - the Sprint. http://www.paineless.id.au/missiles/Sprint.html It was meant for total last line of defense, and would knock the incoming nuke out of the sky with its own nuke. The problem was, this thing was so "last line" that it was basically the lesser of two evils. Part of the city under attack would catch the EMP and part of the shock wave from the Sprint. But you really have to hand it to the engineers on this one: --"Sprint was also constructed to withstand shocks up to 25,000Gs which meant it could handle nearby nuclear explosions and their resulting blast" --"Achieved a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds" --"complete interception was expected to take less than 15 seconds" Q5echo double cool Trancer-X quote: Originally posted by Nou The Nike Hercules was also a cool missile... I believe a majority were used on the east coast, around DC and NY, as well as in Luisana at some of the major SAC installations. course the best image I found is of it in the snow :p http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/a...ke-hercules.htm Dude!!! I used to ride dirt bikes and four-wheelers around a then (and now) defunct Nike missile base in Northern Baltimore County, not but a hop skip and a jump from Falls Rd. There was a huge drainage pond there that never had water in it which had nice berms and such around the outer walls in which we used to ride but that's another story. The missile base still had the doors over the in-ground silos and all, but there were ways to get underneath in which we never even bothered to explore. You really just sparked my memory in your post and that's where this all came from. It's been about 15 or 16 years as I'm an old man. ;) Trancer-X Nike's were for short range defense I had been told but I guess you know all that. BYW - occrider, you have my newfound respect for making this thread. imokruok There was a Hercules site in Milwaukee too, right along the lake. It's in a city park now, and there's a group trying to get federal funding to close off that part of the park and restore the site to a mini museum. Milwaukee had some pretty kick ass air defense, considering it wasn't as big as places like Chicago. But the engineering firms downtown (AO Smith, Allis-Chalmers, Whitlock) made some critical parts for every nuclear device, so they got special protection. occrider Sorry for my late reply … it’s been a hectic weekend. Excellent, this should keep me busy over the next few days. It’ll take me time to research all these issues, but right off the bat I’ll address some of the purported flip-flops that I recognize to be false, misleading, or simply retarded: quote: Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.) In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03) Yes he did support the President’s decision to go to war. There is that tiny caveat of him preferring to utilize more diplomacy, but he supported the decision to go to war, no doubt about it. quote: Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03) And in what way is this a flip-flop? The vote in itself was not a vote to GO to war as this statement attempts to mislead, Bush went to congress not for a vote for war but a resolution authorizing him to use force as a threat to force compliance. Read his war resolution speech if you want. quote: Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. Haha not quite. Read the question Matthews poses: quote: CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04) Kerry has stated numerous times that he supported action in Iraq, but not the WAY in which the President took us to war. Namely going to war with too few troops to stabilize the region, and without an exit strategy. quote: Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03) Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03) But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea) Now this is one of those “flip-flops” that is just plain retarded. The geniuses who come up with this stuff are amazing. Can you tell me one difference between 1998 and 2003? Here’s a hint: Look at the trend in income between both periods. Now if you can’t understand why a changing environment leads to changing policy than I hope to God that you’re not in a position where you have to make strategic decisions any time soon. quote: Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea) Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03) Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03) Kerry has made it demonstrably clear numerous times, that he has not taken issue with the Patriot Act itself, but he way in which it has been INTERPRETED by Ashcroft: quote: But in reality Kerry is not so far from Bush in his views on the Patriot Act. The Massachusetts senator claims he not only stands by his vote for the legislation, but that he authored most of the law’s money-laundering provisions and thinks some aspects of the act actually need strengthening (like improving intelligence information sharing). However, the two do differ on which provisions should be renewed, and which revised. Bush has strongly and publicly urged lawmakers to renew all the provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire next year. Kerry, meanwhile, has said he wants to scale back some sections he deems as being too invasive. Kerry has raised concerns in particular about how enhanced police powers granted under the Patriot Act—like the increased ease in obtaining wiretaps, search warrants and access to personal information, for example—have been interpreted under Attorney General John Ashcroft. Kerry accuses Ashcroft of using those expanded police powers “in secret ways and for political purposes” by authorizing his agents to monitor church meetings and political rallies, for example, “without any cause and without the need to get approval.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4839040/site/newsweek/ quote: Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. “Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ‘Notebook’ item from TNR’s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ‘Same Senator, Same Constituent’: ‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991] ‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]” (Noam Scheiber, “Noam Scheiber’s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04) Hehehe this actually makes me smile. Do you know where this story originated? Hehe it came from The New Republic, and if you don’t know what it is, it’s a left-leaning publication. This came out during the primaries when the pro-Dean The New Republic, posted this as an attack against Kerry. Even before the right came up with the whole flip flopping label. The response from the Kerry camp was that the second letter was outdated and should have never been sent. Nowhere in the "unequivocally supported" letter does Kerry mention war or military action. It simply states he agrees with "the policy goals" President Bush had established at that time which, if the letter was from before President Bush's policies included invading Iraq, could be consistent with Kerry's stand as expressed in the other letter. The, "Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait," could easily be a generic type intro line meant to make letters seem more personal. Ultimately, this is really something rather silly to take issue with since: A) It’s a generic form letter mass distributed. And B) Kerry has always been fairly adamant about his opposition to the first gulf war. In reality, that is maybe worse than “flip-flopping” claim since the first Gulf War was fought directly in response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, a just cause. But whatever fits the tagline I suppose … quote: Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment Really are people such simpletons that they buy into this garbage hook-line-and sinker? Read the ing text: quote: In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter “Urging” MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. “We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit ANY legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.” (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02) He just said what he’s against. A constitutional amendment that prevents ANY legal recognition whatsoever. Is that flip-flopping from this statement??? quote: Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” (Susan Milligan, “Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’” The Boston Globe, 2/6/04) No it’s not a similar amendment you ninnies. There’s obviously some difference between the two otherwise they wouldn’t have rejected one in favor of another. For christ’s sake, common sense folks. quote: Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. “Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’” (Glen Johnson, “Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,” The Boston Globe, 3/11/03) But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. “‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’” The Boston Globe, 4/3/03) Now this is an actual flip-flop. One could make a minor point that Kerry stated that he wouldn’t withhold all criticism, but wouldn’t “without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.” Congratulations. quote: Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.” (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96) In 1996, Kerry Said, “You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.” (Timothy J. Connolly, “The ‘Snoozer’ Had Some Life,” [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96) But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02) Factcheck and myself, have addressed this issue quite well. Not a flip-flop. Address the arguments put forth by factcheck or myself if you disagree: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=226 quote: Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea) But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As “Mockery.” “Between now and the time I’m sworn in January 2005, I’m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind.’” (Holly Ramer, “Kerry Wants To Make ‘Environmental Justice’ A Priority,” The Associated Press, 4/22/03) Kerry Trashed NCLB As ‘Unfunded Mandate’ With ‘Laudable’ Goals. “Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ‘unfunded mandate’ with ‘laudable’ goals. ‘Without the resources, education reform is a sham,’ Kerry said. ‘I can’t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words “no child left behind.”‘“ (Matt Leon, “Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,” The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03) This is probably one of the silliest “flip-flops” I’ve seen yet. So because Kerry voted for it, he can’t get pissed off because the program isn’t getting enough funding or is being poorly implemented? I suppose then that you’ve never complained about the quality of work somebody has done for you because than you’d be guilty of flip-flopping huh? Getting desperate? quote: Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action “Inherently Limited And Divisive.” “[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’” (Lynne Duke, “Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,” The Washington Post, 4/8/92) In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action “Divisive.” CNN’s KELLY WALLACE: “We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.” SEN. KERRY: “That’s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don’t end it. He’s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I’ve always supported it. I’ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn’t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let’s not have any politics here. Let’s keep the truth.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 1/30/04) Context please. The reference to the Washington Post only says that Kerry stated that Affirmative Action was “inherentely limited and divisive.” It provides no context whatsoever. Clark attacked Kerry over this statement and Kerry replied: quote: Actually, Tom, that's not what I said," Mr. Kerry said. "What I described was what the critics were saying about it and about the growing questions about it." He added: "There were a great many questions in the country about how it was being implemented. We wanted to keep it. I've always supported it. In the very speech in which I raised what those perceptions were, I said at the beginning, `I support affirmative action.' I said at the end, `I support affirmative action.' " Today, Mr. Kerry continued his defense of his record on affirmative action and said his comments 12 years ago had been misquoted and misinterpreted. In an interview on CNN after a rally here, he asserted that he had not said that affirmative action was divisive but rather that his stance had been "mend it, don't end it." "I have always voted for it, I have always supported it, I've never ever been different," he added. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/p...f24ace9&ei=5070 This slate article confirms the tone of his speech: quote: A more telling and troubling episode is Kerry's speech expressing doubts on affirmative action. The year was 1992, a time when Democrats could expect lots of favorable press for doing heretical things like expressing doubts about affirmative action. (Those were the days!) Kerry had announced a grand initiative on race, including "a promised series" of speeches, the first of which was delivered at Yale. Kerry's heresy was carefully cushioned, however. He felt the pain of whites resentful of reverse discrimination. He noted that "affirmative action has kept American thinking in racial terms." But for him these thoughts had no policy consequences--Kerry didn't call for an eventual phase-out of affirmative action, for example, or a shift to affirmative action based on class rather than race. He didn't want to end it, and he didn't want to mend it either. Instead, within a few paragraphs he safely reaffirmed his support. http://slate.msn.com/id/2096408/ So unless you can find the entire article or find the text of his speech at Yale, taking two quotes out of his speech while providing no context is meaningless. quote: Flip-Flopped On Ethanol Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea) Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay) Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea) On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: “I’m for ethanol, and I think it’s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.” (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03) Ok, let’s look at the first vote. The amendment in question only prohibits foreign refineries to set their own rules about minimum renewable resource content in gasoline. Kerry specifically asked for this clarification on the floor of the Senate: "Mr KERRY: It is my understanding that this proposal does not apply to any other proposal presented by U.S. independent importers and blenders, and being considered by EPA, to eliminate inequities in the final EPA reformulated gasoline rule issued last December. Is this correct? Ms. MIKULSKI: That is correct. The committee's prohibition is limited to EPA's proposal to permit foreign refineries to establish individual baselines for reformulated gasoline . Thus, the provision does not prevent the EPA from making modifications to the reformulated gasoline program that will permit domestic independent importers and blenders to participate in the gasoline market on an equal basis with domestic refiners." More important, this amendment trimmed funding for NASA, and Kerry thought NASA was spending irresponsibly on the space station. This is probably why he supported the amendment. Looking at the second and third items that he voted on, notice how they are amendments that set mandates and liabilities. In each case, Kerry had to determine the primacy of ethanol versus some other issue. In the second amendment it was ethanol versus Clinton's BTU tax. For the third amendment, it was ethanol versus public safety. So the correct conclusion isn't that Kerry “flip-flopped” over ethanol use, only that he valued the BTU tax over ethanol production, and that he values public safety over ethanol production. Make sense? Any which way you look at it, the issues are 10 years apart as well, therefore CHANGING energy needs sometimes necessitate CHANGING policy. Is this whole time variable sinking in yet? quote: Flip-Flopped On Cuba Sanctions Senator Kerry Has Long Voted Against Stronger Cuba Sanctions. (H.R. 927, CQ Vote #489, Motion Rejected 59-36: R 50-2; D 9-34, 10/17/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 955, CQ Vote #183: Rejected 38-61: R 5-49; D 33-12, 7/17/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1234, CQ Vote #189, Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 43-10; D 12-33, 6/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 59-41: R 52-3; D 7-38, 6/20/00, Kerry Voted Nay) In 2000, Kerry Said Florida Politics Is Only Reason Cuba Sanctions Still In Place. “Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview that a reevaluation of relations with Cuba was ‘way overdue.’ ‘We have a frozen, stalemated, counterproductive policy that is not in humanitarian interests nor in our larger credibility interest in the region,’ Kerry said. … ‘It speaks volumes about the problems in the current American electoral process. … The only reason we don’t reevaluate the policy is the politics of Florida.’” (John Donnelly, “Policy Review Likely On Cuba,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/00) Now Kerry Panders To Cuban Vote, Saying He Would Not Lift Embargo Against Cuba. TIM RUSSERT: “Would you consider lifting sanctions, lifting the embargo against Cuba?” SEN. KERRY: “Not unilaterally, not now, no.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03) Kerry Does Not Support “Opening Up The Embargo Wily Nilly.” “Kerry said he believes in ‘engagement’ with the communist island nation but that does not mean, ‘Open up the dialogue.’ He believes it ‘means travel and perhaps even remittances or cultural exchanges’ but he does not support ‘opening up the embargo wily nilly.’” (Daniel A. Ricker, “Kerry Says Bush Did Not Build A ‘Legitimate Coalition’ In Iraq,” The Miami Herald, 11/25/03) Are there think tanks that sit down for hours coming up with new ways to misrepresent and underreport facts in order to fit the agenda? Ok, let’s examine this issue in detail … starting with the first vote, #489. That vote specifically was a vote against strengthening the embargo against Cuba. Kerry did vote against it. Vote #183, #189, and #137 were all votes to make it easier for family members to send money to Cuba or travel to Cuba for family emergencies, and to give humanitarian aid, which would lift all travel restrictions to Cuba, and which would establish a national bipartisan commission to evaluate U.S. policy. Kerry supported all these votes and you can check yourself here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...on=2&vote=00137 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...on=1&vote=00189 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...on=1&vote=00183 While Kerry voted against strengthening sanctions, NOwhere has Kerry voted to lift sanctions or the embargo. So where’s the flip-flop??? Kerry opposes strengthening the embargo, he supports travel to Cuba, he supports family members sending money home, and he thinks U.S. policy toward Cuba should be 'evaluated'. Then, 10 years later he adopts a policy of [shock!!!] supporting travel to Cuba, family members sending money home, and he’s against lifting the embargo completely. Did anybody else spot the flip-flop? I didn’t … maybe I need to get my eyes checked. quote: Flip-Flopped On NAFTA Kerry Voted For NAFTA. (H.R. 3450, CQ Vote #395: Passed 61-38: R 34-10; D 27-28, 11/20/93, Kerry Voted Yea) Kerry Recognized NAFTA Is Our Future. “‘NAFTA recognizes the reality of today’s economy - globalization and technology,’ Kerry said. ‘Our future is not in competing at the low-level wage job; it is in creating high-wage, new technology jobs based on our skills and our productivity.’” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Senate’s OK Finalizes NAFTA Pact,” The Boston Globe, 11/21/93) Now, Kerry Expresses Doubt About NAFTA. “Kerry, who voted for NAFTA in 1993, expressed some doubt about the strength of free-trade agreements. ‘If it were before me today, I would vote against it because it doesn’t have environmental or labor standards in it,’ he said.” (David Lightman, “Democrats Battle For Labor’s Backing,” Hartford Courant, 8/6/03) Hmmm so analyzing the effects of a policy and concluding that it was the wrong decision to make is a flip-flop? Are you kidding me? Are you trying to tell me that Republicans do not look back to analyze the costs and the benefits that a policy yields once they implement it? Hmmm that may explain why Bush calls the Iraq invasion a “miscalculation” rather than a “mistake”. Note to John Kerry: If you ever want to acknowledge a mistake you’ve made, call it a “miscalculation” and people will be too stupid to realize what you’re talking about. quote: Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends December 2002: Kerry Favored Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it’s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02) May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. ‘This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,’ he said.” (“Kerry Says Time Is On Dems’ Side,” The Associated Press, 5/8/03) Hehehe this is another good one folks. Now the AP article references Kerry’s opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. What they don’t tell you, is that that “plan” introduced in the first session of the 108th Congress as S. 1054, incorporated hundreds of changes to the tax code. Now, if you were smart enough to pull up the AP article in its entirety, and look at the rest of the article it states: quote: But campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs said Kerry would approach the question differently. "He would like to see the double-taxation of dividends addressed as part of a larger tax reform that closed loopholes rather than, as George Bush proposes, in a way that would blow an even larger hole in the deficit," Gibbs said. http://www.s-t.com/daily/05-03/05-09-03/a03sr019.htm So Kerry DOES support ending the dividend tax just not in this republican amendment which opens up a million other tax loopholes. Seriously, do the guys who draft these things up have no shame? quote: Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn September 2001: Said Should Not Raise Taxes In Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . .[Y]ou don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01) We Should “Absolutely Not Raise Taxes.” “Well, I think it’s very clear what I favor because we voted for it early in the spring, which was the Democratic budget alternative that had triggers in it where you didn’t wind up spending money you don’t have. It had a smaller tax cut but more tax cut for a stimulus, which is what we need. So you ask me, what do we need now? Yes, we need additional stimulus. We should absolutely not raise taxes. We should not cut spending. What we need to do is drive the economy of this country. The economy is the number one issue. It is the most important thing we should focus on.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 9/8/01) April 2002: Said He Wanted Larger Tax Cut And Was “Not In Favor Of” Repeal. CNN’s TUCKER CARLSON: “Senator Kerry . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush’s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?” KERRY: “It’s not a question of courage. . . . And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year … [T]he next tax cut doesn’t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it’s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I’m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 4/16/02) December 2002: Flip-Flopped, Would Keep Tax Cuts From Taking Effect. NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut … What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.” … RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years …” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” … RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change …” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02) Called For Freeze Of Bush Tax Cuts In Favor Of Year-Long Suspension Of Payroll Taxes On First $10,000 Of Personal Income. “Kerry said Bush’s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush’s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class.” (Tyler Bridges, “Kerry Visits Miami To Start Raising Funds,” The Miami Herald, 12/7/02) Ok this is simple. A) The recession ended in November of 2001. Therefore even IF kerry were trying to raise taxes in 2002 it wouldn’t be a flip-flop. B) Kerry is not trying to raise taxes. He is calling for suspension of FUTURE tax cuts on the basis of current economic conditions, not conditions in 2001. Sigh … quote: Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health In 2001, Kerry Voted Against Amendment Providing $70 Billion For Tax Credits For Small Business To Purchase Health Insurance. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay) Now, Kerry Promises Refundable Tax Credits To Small Businesses For Health Coverage. “Refundable tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage will be offered to small businesses and their employees to make health care more affordable.” (“John Kerry’s Plan To Make Health Care Affordable To Every American,” John Kerry For President Website, www.johnkerry.com, Accessed 1/21/04) Hehe oh you guys are gonna love this. This really made me laugh. You wanna know how dirty politics can get? Listen up. Kerry did vote nay on resolution 83. What does the statement of purpose for Res. 83 say? The statement of purpose says: quote: To provide tax credits for small business to purchase health insurance for their employees and to provide for the deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed and those who don't receive health insurance from their employers and for long-term care. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...on=1&vote=00083 Still looks like a flip-flop right? Ok well let’s dig deeper. Let’s actually find and pull up the text of the resolution shall we? Ok well if we look at the text of the amendment what do we see? You’re gonna love this: quote: SA 349. Ms. COLLINS proposed an amendment to amendment SA 170 proposed by Mr. DOMENICI to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011; as follows: At the appropriate place, insert: SEC. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the revenue levels and other aggregates in this resolution shall be adjusted to reflect an additional $70 billion in revenue reductions for the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2011. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...EFYRa8:e559647: LOL … did anybody else just understand what this says? It’s NOTHING!!! Nothing about tax credits, nothing about health insurance … it’s an EMPTY amendment that simply attempts to reduce the overall budget levels by $70 billion!!!! Ahhh too much fun. Anyway I’ll pick up where I left off tonight or tomorrow. Anybody care to respond to my specific arguments? Well after I’ve had my fun and games, I’ll compile a list of bush flip-flops and somebody from the Bush camp can explain away those right? occrider Now to continue where I left off … quote: Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes Kerry Voted Against Exempting Small Businesses And Family Farms From Clinton Income Tax Increase. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #79: Motion Agreed To 54-45: R 0-43; D 54-2, 3/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea) Three Months Later, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Proposal To Exclude Small Businesses From The Increased Income Tax. (S. 1134, CQ Vote #171: Motion Rejected 56-42: R 43-0; D 13-42, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea) Kerry Claimed He Fought To Exempt Small Businesses From Income Tax Increases. “I worked to amend the reconciliation bill so that it would … exempt small businesses who are classified as subchapter S corporations from the increased individual income tax.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S 8268) Heh, ok it looks like the same shenanigans are going on with the first vote, vote #79 as vote #83 that I described in my last post. Let’s look at it in depth why don’t we? Vote #79 was a vote to table amendment 246. What does that statement of purpose say? Well it says: quote: To shield small businesses and family farms from President Clinton's proposed tax on the wealthy, to make proprietorships, partnerships, and Subchapter S corporations exempt from President Clinton's proposed increase in the marginal individual income tax rates, and to reduce the add-on spending contained in President Clinton's plan by a corresponding amount so that no deficit increase results from exempting small businesses and family farms from the increased marginal tax rates. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...on=1&vote=00079 My my, sounds like lofty goals! Shielding poor small businesses from evil President Clinton! But wait … let’s look at the actual text of the resolution shall we? Looking in the resolution what do we find??? Stuff like this: quote: GRAMM AMENDMENT NO. 246 (Senate - March 24, 1993) [Page: S3664] (Ordered to lie on the table.) Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Pressler) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 18), supra, as follows: On page 2, line 18, decrease the amount by $12,800,000,000. On page 2, line 19, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000. On page 3, line 2, decrease the amount by $9,900,000,000. On page 3, line 4, decrease the amount by $12,000,000,000. On page 3, line 6, decrease the amount by $12,900,000,000. On page 3, line 10, decrease the amount by $12,800,000,000. On page 3, line 11, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000. On page 3, line 12, decrease the amount by $9,900,000,000. On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $12,000,000,000. On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $12,900,000,000. On page 4, line 6, decrease the amount by $12,800,000,000. On page 4, line 7, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000. On page 4, line 8, decrease the amount by $9,900,000,000. On page 4, line 9, decrease the amount by $12,000,000,000. On page 4, line 11, decrease the amount by $12,900,000,000. On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $12,800,000,000. On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000. On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $9,900,000,000. On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $12,000,000,000. On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $12,900,000,000. On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $12,800,000,000. On page 5, line 2, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000. On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $9,900,000,000. On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $12,000,000,000. On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $12,900,000,000. On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $12,800,000,000. On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000. On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $9,900,000,000. On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $12,000,000,000. On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $12,900,000,000. On page 5, line 22, decrease the amount by $12,800,000,000. On page 5, line 23, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000. On page 5, line 24, decrease the amount by $9,900,000,000. On page 5, line 25, decrease the amount by $12,000,000,000. On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $12,900,000,000. On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by $12,800,000,000. On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000. On page 6, line 9, decrease the amount by $9,900,000,000. On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by $12,000,000,000. On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by $12,900,000,000. On page 41, line 17, decrease the amount by $12,800,000,000. On page 41, line 18, decrease the amount by $12,800,000,000. On page 41, line 24, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000. On page 41, line 25, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000. On page 42, line 6, decrease the amount by $9,900,000,000. On page 42, line 7, decrease the amount by $9,900,000,000. On page 42, line 13, decrease the amount by $12,000,000,000. On page 42, line 14, decrease the amount by $12,000,000,000. On page 42, line 20, decrease the amount by $12,900,000,000. On page 42, line 21, decrease the amount by $12,900,000,000. On page 50, line 9, decrease the amount by $12,800,000,000. On page 50, line 10, decrease the amount by $56,100,000,000. On page 57, line 18, decrease the amount by $12,900,000,000. On page 57, line 19, decrease the amount by $56,100,000,000. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...p/~r103pyXbWu:: Hahaha what do we see??? We see that Nowhere in the amendment is there specific language pertaining to small businesses or farms. They’re all lines stipulating spending reductions in the budget. And what’s the bill this amendment is attempting to amend??? Hehehe S.Con.Res. 18 … well why don’t you read the summary of that resolution: quote: SUMMARY AS OF: 4/14/1994--Introduced. Reauthorizes and revises specified Federal law relating to construction of school facilities in areas affected by Federal activities (school construction portion of impact aid program). Provides for financial assistance to federally impacted school districts urgently in need of: (1) school facilities in districts having substantial increases in school membership resulting from new or increased Federal activities and whose membership includes children in need of minimum school facilities; and (2) facility improvements or structural modifications to meet life safety codes, average daily attendance requirements, Federal laws or regulations, or curriculum improvements. Extends the authorization of appropriations. Divides equally between payments to school districts for militarily-connected children (or other children residing on or with a parent working on Federal property) and payments to districts for Indian children (or children with inadequate school facilities due to the revenue impact of Federal property) the remaining funds after the Secretary of Education has determined the portion of funds for temporary school facilities and for children whom local educational agencies (LEAs) are unable to provide education. Prohibits approval of applications for payments based upon increases in the number of students residing on, or residing with a parent employed on, property which is part of a low-rent housing project assisted under the United States Housing Act of 1937 until all other applications for payments relating to militarily connected children and Indian children have been approved for that fiscal year. Revises formulas used in determining: (1) the Federal share for any project; and (2) limitation on total payments to LEAs. Revises application provisions to require: (1) assurance of compliance with Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements, except for emergency relief impact aid; and (2) resubmission of applications after a three-year period. Provides that provisions for certain additional payments shall take effect only when funds are specifically appropriated for such purpose. Requires that, prior to transfer, facilities meet all State and Federal building health and safety requirements. Authorizes the Secretary, in carrying out school construction impact aid, to use and pay for the services and facilities of other Federal agencies and public or nonprofit agencies or institutions. Sets forth criteria for certain determinations. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque...8:@@@L&summ2=m& So why don’t we summarize this flip-flop folks. Kerry voted against an amendment that in no way whatsoever had anything to do with reducing taxes on small businesses in a resolution that similarly had nothing to do with businesses!!! How damning! But wait, there’s also Kerry’s vote “In Favor Of Proposal To Exclude Small Businesses From The Increased Income Tax.” S. 1134, CQ Vote #171. Haha now this is great. This bill is the exact opposite of what we’ve been seeing. If we go to the specific text of the amendment we can find that one part of the amendment is a “Additional tax on nonqualified distributions” and then details the additional amounts of tax. However, if we look at the statement of purpose for the bill, we see that the purpose of the bill is to: quote: To limit the tax rate for certain small businesses, and for other purposes http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...on=1&vote=00171 If we look at the text of the bill we can confirm that the bill sets limits on tax rates for small businesses: quote: SEC. 8203B. MAXIMUM SMALL BUSINESS TAX RATE. (a) In General: Section 1 (relating to tax imposed), as amended by this subtitle, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: `(j) Maximum Small Business Tax Rate: `(1) In general: Except as provided in paragraph (4), if a taxpayer has taxable small business income for any taxable year to which this subsection applies, then the tax imposed by this section shall not exceed the sum of-- `(A) a tax computed at the rates and in the same manner as if this subsection had not been enacted on the greater of-- `(i) taxable income reduced by the amount of taxable small business income, or `(ii) the amount of taxable income taxed at a rate below 31 percent, plus `(B) a tax of 31 percent of the amount of taxable income in excess of the amount determined under paragraph (1). http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...p/~r103D4PQM8:: As a matter of fact, the bill was voted Yay by Kerry AND voted yay by every single Republican present!! Haha so isn’t this great that the republicans are using this for campaign fodder??? Seriously, does ANYBODY bother reading into these things??? Is the public too stupid that they’d fall for this kind of ??? Ok what’s next … quote: Kerry Flip-Flopped On 50-Cent Gas Tax Increase In 1994, Kerry Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. “Kerry said [the Concord Coalition’s scorecard] did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers’ efforts to cut the deficit. ‘It doesn’t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,’ Kerry said.” (Jill Zuckman, “Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,” The Boston Globe, 3/1/94) Two Years Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped. “Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike, nor the 25-cent hike proposed by the [Concord] coalition.” (Michael Grunwald, “Kerry Gets Low Mark On Budgeting,” The Boston Globe, 4/30/96) Factcheck addressed this issue: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=163 http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=165 quote: Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. “I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,” Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (“John Kerry On The Issues,” The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72) Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. “The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85) Hmmm this is also a good one. Notice the date of his first statement was in 1972. Anyone care to remember what happened in 1973? That’s right, Roe v. Wade happened where the supreme court declared that abortion is a constitutional right. Therefore it ceases to become a state decision inasmuch as slavery ceased to become a state decision. quote: Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees Kerry Used To Oppose Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. “Throughout two centuries, our federal judiciary has been a model institution, one which has insisted on the highest standards of conduct by our public servants and officials, and which has survived with undiminished respect. Today, I fear that this institution is threatened in a way that we have not seen before. … This threat is that of the appointment of a judiciary which is not independent, but narrowly ideological, through the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed …” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/86, p. S864) But Now Kerry Says He Would Only Support Supreme Court Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe v. Wade. “The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. … ‘Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/03) Sounds like a legitimate flip-flop to me … I haven’t found the entire text behind the first quote, so until I do I guess it stands. quote: Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits In 1993, Kerry Expressed Doubts That Federal Employees Health Benefits System Worked Well. “Hillary Rodham Clinton today offered a fresh description of one of the most confusing elements of the Administration health care plan, the health insurance purchasing alliances, saying they would let all Americans choose coverage in the way members of Congress do. … Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he was not sure that the Federal program worked all that well.” (Adam Clymer, “Hillary Clinton Says Health Plan Will Be Familiar,” The New York Times, 12/8/93) Kerry Expressed Personal Dissatisfaction With His Coverage Through Federal Program. “Earlier this month, when Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Boston and vowed that average Americans would get as good coverage as that enjoyed by their senators and representatives, Sen. John F. Kerry told Clinton that he thought the country could do better. The Massachusetts Democrat said he was thinking, among other recent disasters, of his $500 dental bill for treatment of an abscessed tooth. ‘Because it was done in the dentist’s office, rather than the hospital, they didn’t cover it. So they were urging me to go spend twice as much in a hospital,’ said Kerry, who is covered by BACE, the Beneficial Association of Capitol Employees.” (Ana Puga, “Lawmakers Talk Health Care,” The Boston Globe, 12/19/93) Now, On Campaign Trail, Kerry Is Enthusiastic About Health Care He Receives As Senator. “As a U.S. Senator, I could get the best health care in the world. Most people aren’t so lucky, and we need to change that. That’s why my plan gives every American access to the same kind of health care that members of Congress give themselves. … Because your family’s health care is just as important as any politicians’ in Washington.” (Sen. John Kerry, “Affordable Health Care For All Americans,” Remarks At Mercy Medical, Cedar Rapids, IA, 12/14/03) Kerry: “I’m Going To Make Available To Every American The Same Health Care Plan That Senators And Congressmen Give Themselves …” (Sen. John Kerry, AARP Democrat Candidate Debate, Bedford, NH, 11/18/03) Another stupid one. Let’s see, two of the quotes are from 1993, and the other two quotes are from 2003. Hmmm could something have happened to Kerry’s health plan that would cause him to change his mind? Well how about a major restructuring of health care companies covering government employees in 1999? http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0998/091798b1.htm Make sense? quote: Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage In 1994, Kerry Said Democrats Push Health Care Too Much. “[Kerry] said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls.” (Joe Battenfeld, “Jenny Craig Hit With Sex Harassment Complaint - By Men,” Boston Herald, 11/30/94) But Now Kerry Calls Health Care His “Passion.” “Sen. John Kerry says expanding coverage is ‘my passion.’” (Susan Page, “Health Specifics Could Backfire On Candidates,” USA Today, 6/2/03) Ummm I’m missing the flip-flop. In 1994 Kerry didn’t say that democrats were pushing health care too much. He said, “Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls.” Reading the ing text, the two are not the same thing. quote: Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform In 1993, Kerry Voted To Kill Bipartisan Welfare Work Requirement. In 1993, Kerry and Kennedy voted against a welfare-to-work requirement that was supported by many Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV): Fiscal 1993 Supplemental Appropriations - Welfare Work Requirement. “Moynihan, D-N.Y., motion to table (kill) the D’Amato, R-N.Y., amendment to sharply cut federal welfare administration aid to states that do not, within a year, require at least 10 percent of their able-bodied welfare recipients without dependents to work. The required workfare participation rate would be increased by 2 percent a year until 50 percent were working.” (H.R. 2118, CQ Vote #163: Rejected 34-64: R 1-42; D 33-22, 6/22/93, Kerry Voted Yea) But In 1996, Kerry Voted For Welfare Reform. (H.R. 3734, CQ Vote #262: Adopted 78-21: R 53-0; D 25-21, 8/1/96, Kerry Voted Yea) Already addressed this and so did factcheck. Not a flip-flop. quote: Flip-Flops On Stock Options Expensing Kerry Used To Oppose Expensing Stock Options. “Democratic Senator John F. Kerry was among those fighting expensing of stock options.” (Sue Kirchhoff, “Senate Blocks Options,” The Boston Globe, 7/16/02) Kerry Said Expensing Options Would Not “Benefit The Investing Public.” KERRY: “Mr. President, the Financial Accounting Standards Board … has proposed a rule that will require companies to amortize the value of stock options and deduct them off of their earnings statements … I simply cannot see how the FASB rule, as proposed, will benefit the investing public.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 3/10/94, p. S2772) But Now Kerry Says He Supports Carrying Of Stock Options As Corporate Expense. “On an issue related to corporate scandals, Kerry for the first time endorsed the carrying of stock options as a corporate expense. The use of stock options was abused by some companies and contributed to overly optimistic balance sheets. Kerry applauded steps by Microsoft Corp. to eliminate stock options for employees and said all publicly traded companies should be required to expense such options.” (Dan Balz, “Kerry Raps Bush Policy On Postwar Iraq,” The Washington Post, 7/11/03) Hahaha ok so let’s see, 10 years ago Kerry made a statement saying that expensing stock options would not benefit the business world … him and about every other financial analyst. What happened since??? Well all those accounting scandals come to mind and as such, Kerry changed his opinion due to the changing environment. Corporate scandals were necessitating a changing policy, not some Kerry flip-flopping whim. quote: Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana Kerry Said His “Personal Disposition Is Open To The Issue Of Medical Marijuana.” “Aaron Houston of the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana said that just a month ago Mr. Kerry seemed to endorse medical marijuana use, and when asked about the content of his mysterious study, said, ‘I am trying to find out. I don’t know.’ Mr. Kerry did say his ‘personal disposition is open to the issue of medical marijuana’ and that he’d stop Drug Enforcement Administration raids on patients using the stuff under California’s medical marijuana law.” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03) But Now Kerry Says He Wants To Wait For Study Analyzing Issue Before Making Final Decision. “The Massachusetts Democrat said Wednesday he’d put off any final decision on medical marijuana because there’s ‘a study under way analyzing what the science is.’” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03) So we are to take the word of one eyewitness account on Kerry’s stance on the issue? That’s somewhat odd that Aaron Houston thinks Kerry’s a flip-flopper on the issue when his organization gave him an A- rating: http://www.mpp.org/candidates/guide/kerry.html Alright, that’s it for now. Please feel free to address any of the points if you feel you can. Oh and while I’m at it, why doesn’t someone address any of the bush flip-flops? quote: 1. Social Security Surplus BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01] ...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02] 2. Patient's Right to Sue GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01] ...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00] ...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04] 3. Tobacco Buyout BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04] ...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04] 4. North Korea BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02] ...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04] 5. Abortion BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78] ...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00] 6. OPEC BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00] ...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04] 7. Iraq Funding BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04] ...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04] 8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04] ...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04] 9. Science BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00] ...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04] 10. Ahmed Chalabi BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03] ...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04] 11. Department of Homeland Security BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02] ...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02] 12. Weapons of Mass Destruction BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03] ...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04] 13. Free Trade BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02] ...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03] 14. Osama Bin Laden BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01] ...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02] 15. The Environment BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00] ...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03] 16. WMD Commission BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04] ...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04] 17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02] ...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02] 18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04] ...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04] 19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04] ...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04] 20. Gay Marriage BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00] ...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04] 21. Nation Building BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00] ...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03] 22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02] ...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03] 23. U.N. Resolution BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03] ...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03] 24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02] ...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03] 25. Campaign Finance BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000] ...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02] Yea some of it’s probably the same type of garbage I’ve been debunking, but we’ll be consistent and assume that they all accurately characterize bush as a flip-flopper. :rolleyes: Yoepus Occrider, since your in the mood, can you debunk these flip-flops for me: Kerry has now flopped his position again - in recent speechs he has proclaimed he would have been against the Iraq war and wants to pull out troops as soon as he elects (slight overstatment but u get the point). Second on the Israel-Palestinian affair, Rudy Juliani pointed out last week that Kerry flip-flops on that issue as well. Last year reportedly in front of an Arab American organization (can't recall the specific one, I believe it is however the largest of the Arab America orgazations) Kerry called the security wall Israel is building as an "obstacle to peace". 3 months after that event, infrot of a Jewish audience speaking at AIPAC, Kerry called the same wall "A necessary step for Israel's security". I mean, although admittedly a lot of the flip-flop issues are slack. Kerry's opponents have been very successful in exploiting the fact that this main changes his stand on issues so considerably. No doubt, every man changes his stand on issues - Bush too. But you have to hand it to Kerry - he does more switching and skirting of issues than Bush does, and they have been masterful in attacking his character for it. Recall also how Kerry since youth was first for serving in Vietnam, than wanted to get his medals, than threw them out in disgusht, and later miracoulsly found his medals again and honorered their worth when running for office... occrider I’d be happy to if I can. quote: Occrider, since your in the mood, can you debunk these flip-flops for me: Kerry has now flopped his position again - in recent speechs he has proclaimed he would have been against the Iraq war and wants to pull out troops as soon as he elects (slight overstatment but u get the point). Let’s see Guiliani’s speech is this: quote: When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War. Later he said he actually supported the war. Then in 2002, as he was calculating his run for President, he voted for the war in Iraq. And then just 9 months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops. He even, at one point, declared himself an anti-war candidate. Now, he says he's pro-war. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position at least three or four more times. My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words when he said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." I’m really disappointed that Giuliani jumped on the bandwagon. I had really thought that the man had some integrity. Well, he’s either dishonest or he’s ignorant of the facts and to me, both are inexcusable. Let’s see, I addressed the first gulf war issue. I addressed the anti-war candidate issue (remember Kerry said he was with the anti-war crowd with how Bush was handling the war, not how it started … see the my rebuttal argument to that “flip-flop”), so you must be referring to the, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Well that’s my favorite “flip-flop” and the first time I looked into one of Bush’s allegations. In reality, it’s not a flip-flop, Kerry would have been flip-flopping if he had voted FOR the $87 billion. I proved my point in this thread: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...in&pagenumber=4 It’s the next to last post on the page. I haven’t really heard very many people make reference to that Kerry quote since :). If anything Kerry could be faulted for poorly communicating what he did, but a fan of Bush can hardly criticize Kerry for such a thing hehe. Anyway now on to your second argument: quote: Second on the Israel-Palestinian affair, Rudy Juliani pointed out last week that Kerry flip-flops on that issue as well. Last year reportedly in front of an Arab American organization (can't recall the specific one, I believe it is however the largest of the Arab America orgazations) Kerry called the security wall Israel is building as an "obstacle to peace". 3 months after that event, infrot of a Jewish audience speaking at AIPAC, Kerry called the same wall "A necessary step for Israel's security". What Rudy does is tricky here. Kerry did indeed make a speech to the Arab American Insitute and the full text of his speech can be found here: http://www.aaiusa.org/NLC/kerry.pdf What kerry actually said was, “I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace.” Now there is a clear distinction between having concerns over Israel building the wall beyond the green zone and objecting to Israel’s right to build a security fence, and the fact of the matter is that Kerry has never said that he was opposed to Israel’s right to erect a fence. He merely doesn’t think the fence should be built on Palestinian territory. It’s that subtle distinction that Giuliani attempts to gloss over. But guess what? What’s hypocritical about this whole thing is that the Bush administration shares the EXACT same stance on the issue: quote: Sharon rejects Bush's concerns on security fence WASHINGTON, July 29: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon insisted on Tuesday that construction would continue on a security fence snaking through the West Bank, despite sharp objections from the United States and the Palestinians. Mr Sharon met President George Bush at the White House, just three days after Mr Bush said he had a "problem" with the boundary, which Israel says it needs to keep out radicals bent on launching attacks against the Israelis. "The security fence will continue to be built with every effort to minimize the infringement on the daily life of the Palestinian population," said the Israeli premier, in a joint press appearance with President Bush during his eighth visit to the White House as prime minister. Mr Bush, who on Friday praised the "vision and courage" of Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas at his debut White House visit, said he understood the fence was a "sensitive issue". But he said he would continue to talk with mr Sharon "on how best to make sure that the fence sends the right signal, that not only is security important, but the ability for the Palestinians to live a normal life is important as well". http://www.dawn.com/2003/07/30/top19.htm You want a flip flop? Well how about this: Bush is against Israeli unilateral steps quote: The Bush administration warned Israel on Thursday that it would oppose any unilateral steps that would undermine implementation of the road map peace plan. Responding to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's comments that he could begin to separate Israel from the Palestinians in the coming months should the road map fail, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The United States believes that a settlement must be negotiated, and we would oppose any effort – any Israeli effort – to impose a settlement." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...721356310%0D%0D Flip-Flop: Bush supports Israel’s unilateral steps quote: President Bush this afternoon embraced a new Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, applauding a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and declaring that Israel can keep some of the occupied West Bank permanently and that Palestinian refugees would not have the right to return to Israel. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...4¬Found=true Man this is easy … I should work for the republican campaign. quote: I mean, although admittedly a lot of the flip-flop issues are slack. Kerry's opponents have been very successful in exploiting the fact that this main changes his stand on issues so considerably. No doubt, every man changes his stand on issues - Bush too. But you have to hand it to Kerry - he does more switching and skirting of issues than Bush does, and they have been masterful in attacking his character for it. He doesn’t change his stand on issues considerably. He votes in the Senate intelligentely for what he believes in like every other senator. And for that reason, that’s why we have never seen ANY senator elected President. Because their opponents can pull of bull such as this. And no I haven’t seen Kerry switching and skirting issues more than Bush has. I’ve addressed nearly every Kerry “flip-flop” and I’ll finish addressing the rest, and nearly ALL of them are baseless. Yet not one person has addressed ANY of the bush flip-flops. Why is that? I mean for christ’s sake put your money where your mouth is and make your case for what you believe in. Otherwise you’re just another mouthpiece for baseless rhetoric. quote: Recall also how Kerry since youth was first for serving in Vietnam, than wanted to get his medals, than threw them out in disgusht, and later miracoulsly found his medals again and honorered their worth when running for office... Recall how Bush, in his youth did all that coke and partying … and now he calls himself a man of God? A man of integrity? Morals? What a flip-flopper :rolleyes: Q5echo i have to address these one at a time do to time constraints. i shouldn't even be here right now. the opening statements of this Flip-flop out line was not meant to be Characterized as a flipflop. just stating frame of mind at the time. quote: Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.) In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03) quote: Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03) CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE Pages: 1 [2] 3

Privacy Statement