| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Why Not Kerry?? |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
We have certainly seen plenty of discussions here critical of Bush expressing desires that he not be re-elected but I have seen no discussions about why Kerry SHOULD be elected. The major thing that Kerry seems to have going for him is that he is NOT Bush!  It's as if people are saying, "It couldn't be worse!" To those people I would like to say, "Yes, it could." Since 9-11, there have been no terrorist attacks on the United States. Bin Laden and other terrorist groups have declared war on the US, in particular, and would like nothing more than to launch another 9/11. There are those would would say that the terrorist groups are after the US due to Bush's actions. To those people I would remind them that there were seven attacks on the US, here and abroad, during the 1990's, including the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center. Their goal is, and has been, to destroy the United States and all democratic countries, using whatever means necessary. To think that 9/11 was to be their last terrorist action would be foolhardy indeed.Kerry has now chosen a VP candidate he chided in the Democratic primaries as having no international experience and was "running around in diapers" when Kerry was serving in Viet-Nam. Is this the time for on-the-job training? I will certainly say there are things about Bush I con't care for. I don't like his stance on stem cell research, his policies on immigration and his failure to have an exit strategy for Iraq, among other things - but I, like many voters, will take into account the point I mentioned above plus the fact that no one is FOR Kerry (as opposed to being against Bush) and vote for what I believe is best for the country. Could it be worse? Oh, yes, it could..... For those who would rather see Kerry as president, I would like to see your viewpoints on why you feel John Kerry would be better for the United States. I've not seen it here and I've not seen it in any newspapers or on any news stations. Why not Kerry? Tell me WHY Kerry, please... |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Actually, although I'm really pissed at the Bush administration, my mind is not completely made up. I'm still hoping for miracles. Like a Lone Ranger. (and no, Ralph Nader would like that job, but it ain't happenin' for me.) but bless you my buddy for seeing the obvious. Being a citizen of LOUISIANA, and having had the choice of Edwin Edwards & David Duke, I can appreciate your point. (The state of Louisiana welcome the rest of the nation to our nightmare.) gawd I do love this place  sheesh. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! I can understand the David Duke dilemma!  Well, the Bayou State has one thing going for it.....it's got you!  If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Well I have been well I know. Basically war is bad. Bush started the war. Kerry is a demacrate. well fair. Bush is "illiterate" as aenimal says. I think He meant stupid or speech inpediment. Its been amusing. I am very conservative. But not an neo conserv. You know when I pick who to vote for I right down the things I believe in and compare it with the canidates. personally Edwards was Kerry's second choice and they said some nasty things. They weren't even civalized. Now there to gether. This worried me. I tell you later its getting late to be continued.... Juju |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
I can't say I really like Kerry, while he's not a great choice, held up against Bush's track record the choice becomes clearer. It's not simply a mtter of Bush, it's the administration he's surrounded himself. The ethically challenged Cheney, Rumsfield's shiftiness, and the once greatly respected Powell's handling of intelligence. Why Kerry? A rethinking of foreign policy Stem cell research shouldn't even be an issue, but it is, and an incredibly important one. Environmental issues |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
First, let me make it clear that I do not necessarily like Kerry either. I also find it troubling that we keep torturing ourselves under this rigid two-party rigmarole into forcing to vote for candidates such as these two. Here we are caught in this "lesser of two evils" debate as many have been considering it. I personally don't like to consider anyone evil in definition, just simply wronged. I've already made it clear that I am against war, and I am aware that Kerry did also decide to support action against terrorists in the beginning. I also recognize that he has a tendency to lean both ways on some issues so he doesn't exactly stand firm on what he believes. Nevertheless, I am voting for Kerry, as I recognize the tough climate right now that if so many vote for Nader then Bush may take the election. It is tough for me, but I consider it a small price to pay for the much larger cost Bush has put on many. Edwards is actually the person I look up to on the ticket, not Kerry himself. It's true Edwards doesn't have much political experience, but experience isn't everything in politics. Spirit is also an essential quality, and Edwards has an engaging, enthusiastic personality that I think many have been yearning for in a leader. When Kerry seems to be a lackluster face, Edwards will give him a strong shoulder I believe, and his nimble, charismatic self will be capable of filling the presidental seat in the near future. My vote for Kerry-Edwards is really a default move. Bush ruined the opportunity to establish stronger ties to the world after 9/11 in choosing to go to war upon misleading intelligence, in a country that wasn't even directly impossible (if even at all) for the attacks, and I personally don't feel safe having a war profitter as the VP. In addition, he is one of the worst environmental presidents we've ever had, his desire to draft a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage could cripple gays and lesbians as secondary citizens, the No Child Left Behind Act is shameful and disrespectful to the rights of our teachers and treat our children like fast food hamburgers on a conveyer belt, and on top of all that, the Patriot Act has devastated civil liberties and freedoms here, encouraging racial profiling, police brutality and wrongful accusation, already resulting to 14,000 wrongful deportations of those innocent of terrorism convictions. John Kerry is not my ideal leader, but I understand the consequences here. It is heartbreaking indeed what options we're reduced to. We need a change, and we need it now, and where I can't see it in Kerry, I see something in Edwards I can only hope is not fools gold. But knowing what Bush has wronged, I've got to take that chance. I feel the least Kerry could benefit over Bush is keep to his word in improving worldly relations. That is vital in establishing a worldly community. There I have faith. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
What Noah has to say here is what I believe the majority in the country may see, as well, including me. Noah, that was eloquently put, by the way. Edwards is a winner and his addition to the ticket just may pull it off for Kerry. It is so hard to see the truth through all the fog that surrounds Bush. We just have the results to weigh....and they are not good. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Here is some of the fog or not -- judge for yourself.....I will probably do some simiilar research on the democrates but not tonight. http://isuisse.ifrance.com/stopcarlyle/uniteddefenseCPI.htm http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id2942/pg1/ http://www.unsaccodicanapa.com/htmlpages/bush.html http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/report.aspx?aid=65 http://www.populist.com/03.01.burns.html http://www.fact-index.com/b/be/bechtel_corporation.html http://ickevald.net/catholicworker/english/boforsdefence.htm http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/26515.php http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/content/issue12/features/bushempire.php |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Okay, so I couldn't sleep. To be fair, here are some more links....these are the other side of the story, mostly. There's a lot of information out there discrediting both candidates, much the same way. Really makes one wonder. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp? http://www.realchange.org/kerry.htm http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread60637/pg1 http://www.nojohnkerry.org/oped.htm http://www.crushkerry.com/article59.html http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml http://www.california-recall.com/candidate-pages/john-kerry.html http://www.conspiracyworld.com/index0090.htm http://www.conspiracyworld.com/index0084.htm |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I mostly agree with Noah. Isn't it funny, so many people hate having Bush in office so much that we'll vote for a guy we don't even like just because he's not Bush? Balladeer, you might see that as a flaw in those who will vote for him, and maybe you're even right... but look at that for a second. What kind of president drives us to do such a thing? |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
Maybe it is as simple as Hillary said: Two Johns are better than one. Is that a New York street lady for you or what? |
||
Greeneyes 
since 2000-09-09
Posts 9903In Your Poetic Mind |
why not DEER???? thats who I am voting for! sorry I dont really like either one, and like Karen said I am hoping for a miracle! who knows it could happen right? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
LOL, Icebox! |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
hehehehhee, icebox, your bad. I'm with the majority, I don't care for either candidate...and in the long run...you know we've got to pick one of the candidates "They've" given us....I for one, would like to nominate your average everyday man/woman, whose down here with us...you know, someone who'd be more concerned about doing his job "for" the people. Left or Right or inbetween, I'm not happy with either party.... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Juju...thanks for your input. Aenimal...A "rethinking" of foreign policy" doesn't tell me much. He has stated he wants to develop more ties with the UN, disregarding the fact that Bush tried for 14 months to work with them over Iraq, but he doesn't say how. Environmental Issues - What exactly are Kerry's views on environmental issues? I looked and I can't find any that deal with any specifics. Try this site and see what you come up with (not a conservative site, btw). http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm You had mentioned once your disgust at Bush pulling out the Kyoto Protocol. This was the reasoning he gave... As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns. Actually, he is right. China is the largest contributor of the greenhouse effect (National Geographic, March 2004) and yet it is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol, being defined as a "developing nation." Ditto for India. The Kyoto Protocol cannot work without the biggest contributors to global warming being excused from it. Actually, for Bush to tell them to go take a hike, a very unpopular thing to do, showed a good amount of intestinal fortitude, in my opinion, placing the interests of the US over personal popularity. Stem cell research.....I agree completely. Noah, it's always a pleasure to read your comments because there is never a doubt in the sincerity of your replies. Experience may not be everything in politics but it is certainly important and one doesn't command respect simply by having an engaging, pleasing personality. As the leader of Qatar said on 60 Minutes in describing Arab respect for Bush, "This is not Mr. Roger's neighborhood over here. We respect power, strength and action. Bush has the respect of the Arab world, even among those who hate him." The rest of your reply is anti-Bush and not pro-Kerry, which is the topic of this thread. You appear to be one of the "It couldn't be any worse" thinkers, which is fine. I hope you are right, my friend.  Iliana...Edwards may be a winner but his entrance on to the ticket has not shown to make any difference at all. The polls actually went up for Bush after the announcement. The country may well indeed see it the way you think they will but I find that unlikely, security being such an important topic in today's world. If a thug accosts you in an alley, who do you want defending you - a Hell's Angel or a soap opera actor? Thanks for the fog but the thread is still on the subject of "Why not Kerry?" and not anti-anyone. Hush...It is Bush's fault that we not going to vote for him because he is forcing us to by being what he is...thanks for such an innovative approach. icebox....LOL! True enough if you're dealing with toilets! ( you sure Hillary didn't say "Jane"'s )Greeneyes....no thanks!! I have slunk (or is that slinked) down from the platform...who needs it??? I appreciate your vote, though, and I,too, hope for miracles |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Lee J....I think you've said it all and expressed the views of many. It all goes back to my "Could it be worse?" question. If one doesn't think it could, Kerry might be the way to go...who knows? Thanks for responding |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: My views on Bush's policy are available in other threads, at this point doing the opposite of what Bush has is good enough But I too wish Kerry would be a little more specific. quote: Deer, Deer, Deer, you have to get your facts straight. You've absolutely picked the wrong guy, that was j0n4th4n's thread, I simply popped in and joked: Well, in considering that: A. methane negatively effects the ozone layer B. a major source of methane is manure C. Bush and administration have been shovelling it for years now, we can in fact conclude that George Bush is responsible, at least in part, for global warming As for Kerry's views he's supported environmental bills in the past and i assume he will continue in the future. quote: It happens from time to time..lol |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Balladeer: The polls went up for Bush not because of Edwards being selected as Kerry's running-mate but because of his growing numbers on the economy. When I look at the coalition in Iraq right now, I notice there's only one Arab nation representing it. It shouldn't explain everything, but it can argue a lot. You may think that this war has made the world safer and is not inciting terrorists, while I think that this war has only angered terrorists and in fact has only encouraged further recruitment and divisions in the region. This is a huge question that will be central to this years election, and we are perhaps on opposite ends of the spectrum here. I believe in the latter personally, and Bush in the former. Kerry at first did vote in favor of taking action, but I believe regrets it now with the weak intelligence theses in claiming the need for action, which the turning point may be evident in his voting against the $87 billion bill, and says in his administration they'd only go to war when they have to. Though me and Kerry may differ in definition over situations in which we "have to", his belief in reason over ideology when it comes to war and serious matters in the world is one big step closer to me. Kerry is all over the place on some issues I agree it is hard to keep up. But I do know he's had a history of being pro-environment and he can definitely recover from Bush's huge anti-environmental administration I imagine. And though he originally voted for the Patriot Act, he is now critical of it and I believe he's going to make profiling and security more fair instead of bothersome. At least I hope so, but I've got to take a chance. I actually feel it helps to try and venture all over the place on some issues. Changing positions can be kind of annoying, but it says to me that perhaps Kerry actually thinks the issues over a lot. Some may argue he only flip-flops selfishly in the pursuit of potential votes, but Kerry apparently feels on some issues I believe. I feel he wants some conservatives to know he is doing all he can to adhere to their values as well. Though flip-flopping can be dangerous sometimes, I believe I'd prefer a contemplative leader over a stubborn one. I agree that it helps to have a leader who is firm and puts his foot down on some stances, but Bush to me is incredibly stubborn, sacrificing hearing others opinions in keeping "strong". I understand everyone has their own opinion of what "strong" is, but stubbornness is not a synonym of it in my book. As I've already mentioned, I'm aware of the title of this thread, and I don't fervently support Kerry and am voting for him by default. When I see one wrong very much, my philosophy is "Give the other guy a chance!". Why not Kerry? You'll just have to trust me and find out! It's not much of an answer, but decent enough I believe. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah... Kerry at first did vote in favor of taking action, but I believe regrets it now Kerry is all over the place on some issues I agree it is hard to keep up. though he originally voted for the Patriot Act, he is now critical of it and I believe he's going to make profiling and security more fair instead of bothersome I think that sums it up pretty well, Noah. my philosophy is "Give the other guy a chance!". Why not Kerry? Chance involves gambling. Think of what you're gambling, Noah. It's not a ball game where you are going to let the fat, little kid who never gets a chance to play pinch-hit in the ninth. It is the security and lives of your fellow Americans....I hope you're right. Again, you have answered "..because he is not Bush". That's fine, Noah. It's your right to feel that way  |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Where did I specifically say "because he is not Bush?". I intend that point somehow, but I never actually said that. It kind of sounds to me when you read my last response, those parts you bold-faced screamed out at you while around it hummed in bass. I say very well within there that I am aware and even critical of Kerry's contemplativeness, sometimes indecisiveness perhaps, but that feeling the issues and being contemplative is also a benefit above stubborn qualities in someone. What you quoted indeed explains something, but it didn't explain all I said. I do criticize Kerry's gumby-neck but I would prefer a gumby-neck over a chrome-plated foot. This decision is not merely by chance but by the beliefs and doctrines I follow. I know, I know, I said "I've got to take that chance!". But it isn't all just a gamble. I'm aware Kerry isn't an excellent, perhaps even great candidate to me, but some of his beliefs match me better in comparison to Bush, and what Bush has done contradicts a number of my beliefs. In addition, I have already explained why Edwards brings me hope to his ticket, and that gives me more reason to pick his ticket. It's not like I'm taking my choices and hammering them in a Yahtzee cup. I take them to heart too, and my decision is based very much out of an aesthetic response, but I take time to think also. Much of what Kerry lacks, Edwards will help him I'm sure. Of course that discussion should belong in another thread! Anyone want to open up a Why not Edwards thread?  Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Balladeer, the fear is, which might be the lesser of two evils? We won't know until he's in office, if he's voted in? And then, it won't be as simply as a dry run...yes, it could get worse... My concerns are immigration...corporate leaders, theft of our freedom, slowing chipping away to gain control.... I heard a story, and I don't know how true it is...but a 60 year old man was working out in the gym with his buddies...he made some dirogatory comment about Bush, the next day, guess who was knocking at his door? Give up? The FBI, can you imagine....so I'm wondering just how free we really are... also have to laugh to myself about their statements against each other, instead of patitioning what each of them intend to do. We have so become a world of gossip looking for the absolute worst in others....Blame it all on Soap Operas...who the heck cares? I mean, that show ET about all the movie stars...and they call that entertainment...I call it an insult to our integrity? Then there is the immigration issue...how long will we be able to continue to pay for these people? I mean, I have no problem with people becoming a citizen of this country, but without pride, without respect for our language, or our laws? Taking advantage of every free handout they can get? To me, so many people should be allowed through immigration per month...maybe only 15 people. Keep it small so that records can be kept straight. They must obtain a job within so many days...they must go to school to learn our language and our laws. And becoming a US Citizen to them should be a priviledge. And if you are not a US Citizen, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote? How can someone who is not learned of our ways, laws, language, possible vote in a responsible way? To me, everyone makes this situation out to be such a horendous task...to me, its a simple no brainer?????? Anyway, thank you kindly for allowing me to express my opinion....again...give us someone appropriate to vote for....I fear this country has been in danger for many many years...I mean, keeping so many secrets, is kinda like a lack of education... isn't it....not to mention, we're they're bosses, are we not? Things have become indignat, these guys actually think they deserve the wasteful spending and hey, why not, they're not paying for it, are they? Please remember, always..."One line veto votes" and whenever they promise to make things better, where is the money coming from? If you ask me...hehehhehe, those guys should come down from their high horses, do they're jobs for less pay. Now that would be a humble gesture. Can you imagine...the President stands on national TV and says, this year, there will be no more taxes, b/c there will be frugle spending methods...and...we are going to accept less pay...just like the working class of the US. They've forgotten, we're the ones that make them look good? Right... OK...I'll shut up now |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
LeeJ, I think I may just write you in.....lol! |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
(giggles) Is it too late to sign her in? Love, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Very good, 'Deer. Weighing the lesser of the two evils [as I, for one, do not think that Bush "started" the war - he only "re"-acted to motions put into place by previous and other powers, and not only that, with less military than we had prior to Clinton's regime...] How am I going to vote? Wisely. However, Kerry's selecting Edwards as VP was a knee-jerk reaction to his read on his unpopularity; and I have never yet understood how they can say in the primarys one thing - and turn around and hug each other in the next moment. That sounds like a bad marriage to me... I had hoped Edwards would turn him down, because I WOULD like to see Edwards in office, but I DO think he needs more time as a Senator in order to get the clear picture, and STILL RETAIN his own moral, educated thoughts. [He does come across to me as someone who can't be bought...] I'm sure you can realize by now which way my vote will swing...ok, so we'll have for more years of Bush - but I refuse to run the potential of having eight years of Kerry...and Mrs. Heinz. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah.... First, let me make it clear that I do not necessarily like Kerry either. Nevertheless, I am voting for Kerry, as I recognize the tough climate right now that if so many vote for Nader then Bush may take the election. My vote for Kerry-Edwards is really a default move. John Kerry is not my ideal leader, but I understand the consequences here. It is heartbreaking indeed what options we're reduced to I can only hope is not fools gold. But knowing what Bush has wronged, I've got to take that chance. I'm aware of the title of this thread, and I don't fervently support Kerry and am voting for him by default. Where did you specifically say "because he is not Bush, Noah? In every line mentioned above. The polls went up for Bush not because of Edwards being selected as Kerry's running-mate but because of his growing numbers on the economy. Well, by all means, get Bush out of there. We can't have that happening!!! I do criticize Kerry's gumby-neck but I would prefer a gumby-neck over a chrome-plated foot. Well, I can't disagree with THAT!! LOLOL!!! As always, Noah, I appreciate your input... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Lee J, I'm with you!! But let's not just limit it to presidents...bring the congress in. Let them have to live under the laws they pass. Let them have to rely on the health care in which they prescribe for the rest of the country....I'd LOVE to see that!!! |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Ok, now I can finish my point of vewi Basically when they where in the primaries they passed some nasty propaganda to each other. Nastier then whats going on between Bush and Kerry. Kerry does not like Edwards and Vise Versa. This could cause mistrust(or more) among voters. Why I don't like Kerry(attacking his plat form): He wants more money for schools. Nice plan * Not original. polititions have been saying more money for schools years, but only improvements in quality education was standerdize testing. Remember bush sujjested no child left behind, and the congress made it have no budget. bush has been pushing money for eduacation, but you realize if the state funded the rules and the school had no consequences, then it wouldn't help. He wants to hand over Irack to UN and hae better relations. *Iraq is it's own contry *well having better relations is nice, but he doesn't say how * We are part of the UN, in fact The USA is in the top five. * Us soldier will still be there, only control would be by generals who are not familiar with the war *I am sure none of you remember Sudan. Well once apon a time in a place called Sudan, Civil war among different tribes spread throughout the country. "fighter poeple" would steal food from neiboring vilages to feed the fighters. Because there was no food famine covered the land. So the peace keeping marines came and delivered food, organized the leaders and got them to agree not to fight any more. So the poeple injoyed are stay here ecause we stablized there society. So we hand it over to the UN. ONe terrist was stealing food from villages, so what do they do? THey start Barging in to homes looking for the terrerist. well doesn't sound bad, until you realize that When they were doing this they failed to in form the public and do it with care. Because they didn't inform the public the terrorists did blaming americans (even though it was the un, but the poeple didn't understand, cause the still saw some americans) and the comanders did a sloppy job at not killing civillians. Sudan's poeple were angry and blamed america. American's were tageted; war brock out against the US. This was a horible war in a similar location same debate. If this still doesn't ring a bell, "black hawk down." * we have as good as were gonna get with The UN Because of the scandel situation. more protecting the envirement *The guy has 6-8 suvs, later he said they were his wives. heh, kinda like buying a boling ball and ultimate fishing magazine for her birthday * There is really no plan. He ACTUAL has flunctuated in envirement issues Ever one deserves fair health care. *tHE people with out health care chose to be. Thye gov. already funds HMO's to welfair, adopted and foster children, and some other cases. every one else pays really low premiums. Now there are some bad things, like because of an unbalence in poeple, providers and medication is limated. Idealy Hmo's are a great plans if you take atvantage of them, or if you want to pay much more money for full coverage. ------------ Now I could be wrong cause every week and a half his p[latform changes........ The only reason the democratic party picked Kerry is becaus e bush is an uncertain grounds for winning the elections. What worries me is that kerry won't debate with bush. You would think Kerry would have an atvantage over Bush's public speaking skills... this leads me to believe the party must not want him too. Bush adm. has been using terrer alerts as propaganda..... Yeah I highly doubt it. For those who ead this, you like to read. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
spellings, my friend, spellings... they matter a lot... |
||
|
suthern
since 1999-07-29
Posts 20723Louisiana |
I know this is off topic... but the comments about primary opponents becoming a political team bother me... It's not exactly the first time this has happened... Does anyone remember Reagan-Bush?? They were opponents in the primaries and disagreed vehemently on some issues, too... Would there be any real benefit to having the ideological equivalent of identical twins on a ticket? |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
I'd like someone to prove to me how the economy is growing, not just say so,,,but give me proof...and why is it growing? How could it be growing? And so quickly? What is the cause of the turn around...could someone be so kind as to explain that issue to me? I'm with ya Deer on the voting issue...feel the same way and yes, absolutely make ALL politicans responsible or oust em....at this rate, all they've succeeded in doing is cause great hate between the left and the right groups, which is what they want...lets be honest, no man is perfect, there is good an bad in everyone...and inbetween (I'm saying that because I don't want to see things black and white) anyway...every politician is crooked, and more concerned about what's in it for them rather then the people. Isn't anyone out there apalled at what is being done...I mean, neither candidate engages in what they intent to do on their agendas to clean things up....what they do is deliberately attack each other, pointing fingers like little kids...he did this or that...my gosh...and one of these men is going to be leader of our country????? That scares me! My name is Lee J. and I approve this message. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I don't disagree with you, Lee, but I don't see a problem with finger pointing...as long as the facts are accurate. When people serve in public office there is a record on file of their choices and abilities. They can't really deny them because they are there in black and white. If a candidate says "I'm gonna do this...." on a topic in which he has NEVER done that and even votes against it, I see nothing wrong with pointing that out. In Bush's last commercial he points out that John Kerry has failed to vote on 92% of the bills in congress - that he has the worst voting record of everyone in congress. Is it wrong to point that out? I don't think so. Look at the example of last week when the director of Homeland Security offered him the latest briefing on national security. He said - on television - that he just didn't have time to read it. The interviewer almost fell of his chair! We could entrust the our security to this man and he doesn't have time for reports on the status of national security? Seems to tie in to never having the time to vote, either. Wrong to point that out? I don't think so. The topics of things he "didn't have time" to vote for would astound you. I can assure you if it were Bush with that voting record he would be being barbequed on front pages all over the country and the Democrats would have a field day with it. Since it's Kerry and not Bush, people will only know it by Bush's commercials. People SHOULD be called on to answer for their record. If it comes out negative, that's not the fault of the exposer as long as the facts are accurate. When it becomes pure innuendos with no facts given to back it up, then it's garbage. Even this reply is not "anti-Kerry". These are just simple facts which are verified by his record and his own words. It's like the old Spanish saying..."What you are speaks so loudly that I can't hear what you're saying." If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier. |
||
|
Purple Poet On Wheels Member
since 2002-06-21
Posts 145Pittsburgh/Edinboro, PA |
Kerry is the lesser of two evils Vote Kerry/Edwards |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Deer I stand corrected, and was trying more so to point out the garbage...but...your reply had it's impact...and your correct in what your saying...but...once again...don't you want to hear what they are going to do, I'd much rather hear the hows and whys, and answers to them. What I mean is this...I wonder if you went around and spoke to every American, including me....asking us all, Why did you vote for that man? And if they answered truely, maybe those answers would astound you. We are so politically ignorant...to some degree... Stating the facts is ok, and there is a time and a place, but to, there must be something more constructive and informative...and neither one is doing so. But to actually waste money on TV commercials, and to me it's a waste...I'd rather see them and hear them, telling me what they're going to do, and how they're going to do it. I want to know their agendas. My point being is people actually feed off of some of that stuff and they forget other more important issues at hand. You know...why is it that I don't hear to many people asking about what is going to be done about the over 300,000 illegals in this coutry? And where are we going with this, as far as welfare, as far as medical insurances and as far as them abiding by the laws? To me, this is a big issue that must be addressed? Thanks for reading and considering...and also for your point of view... |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Hearing a politician telling "what he is going to do" is misinformation and completely useless. This is particularly true when what he says completely contradicts his voting record, or record of not voting as the case may be. Don't waste your time listening to their rhetoric and BS. Instead look at what they have done so far. That is a much more reliable indicator of what to expect from them in the future. It's something like "a tiger's stripes don't change" or "a rose by any other name..." The same applies to a snake. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Lee, I have the perfect solutions for the 300,000 illegal aliens they can't seem to keep track of. During the last "mad cow" incident we had in the US, the cow's lineage was traced to a farm in Canada and even all of the offspring of that cow were tracked to every area where they were currently residing. All we have to do is give every illegal alien a cow when they reach the US and we'll be able to find them with no problem!! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I actually wish that were true, Lee. Dishonest men never scare me because their limitations are imposed by their own fears of getting caught. They won't do anything that will hurt them. Men of misplaced conviction, however, have no such limitations. They can justify anything and everything they do because they truly believe in a greater good that only they can see. Whether they are strapping bombs to their chest or blatantly lying to the public, they are convinced they are right. Such men can sometimes be avoided, but they can never be stopped. quote: LOL. So you're suggesting Governor Bush voted on more Congressional bills than Kerry? quote: Then my innuendo above that Bush has a MUCH worse record than Kerry is also a simple fact verified by the records? My point, of course Mike, is that simple facts are invariably misleading when presented out of context. And they are *always* presented out of context in a political campaign! |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Sorry, Lee, a better candidate has come along. Instead of you for president, I think you should be VP and we should write in Ron's name! You rock, Ron! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I have absolutely no idea what your example represented. Stating that Kerry didn't vote 92% of the time is not misleading - it's public record that means Kerry didn't vote 92% of the time....period. It is not made to be a comparison to Bush - it's meant to state that Kerry didn't vote 92% of the time...nothing misleading and nothing out of context....just a simple, verifiable fact concerning John Kerry. Of course my statement about what if Bush had that record would carry the natural inference that Bush as a congressman with that record....so obviously you're just funning me |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Deer, you had me rolling on the floor with your mad cow comment.... Both of you have added some very good point of views to this discussion...especially your last one Ron...good! I have learned something here today...thanks to both of you for taking the time to share... JO...I would never ever make a good President, or VP...I'd miss my friends, going to the Dairy Queen, and heck... my big mouth would get me in oddles of trouble...they'd hang me from the pillars of the front of the white house....hehehehehhehe |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Not a poet...thank you, point well taken with room for thought. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ron said: "Dishonest men never scare me because their limitations are imposed by their own fears of getting caught. They won't do anything that will hurt them. Men of misplaced conviction, however, have no such limitations." That is exactly why I campaigned for Edwin Edwards in that infamous election. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: If that's an important criteria, Mike, then it stands to reason Kerry would make a better President than would the incumbent. Bush, of course, failed to vote 100 percent of the time. Better yet, tell us which Senator or Congressman has participated in every single vote. It would stand to reason that he or she should sit in the oval office next. Or give us some equitable numbers for comparison. What was JFK's voting record? Ford's? Since about 95 percent of all proposed legislation is crap (and half of that is "for the record" and never intended to pass), maybe Kerry's 92 percent record makes perfect sense? It might be more reasonable to point fingers at someone who is wasting time on bills meant only to justify a lawmaker's existence? Simple facts are rarely simple, often irrelevant, and almost always misleading. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
But then Bush was not being paid with the public's money to assist in making laws. In fact, he was not authorized to vote on any of those bills and would not have been allowed to any more than you or I would have. An important part of that job is voting on bills. Those that are crap deserve a NO vote. A senator who is "too busy" to even look at the intel on possible terrorism should be removed from office and certainly does not have the credentials or moral makeup to be president. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Actually Lee Jay Bush has adressed about illegal immegrants. He pushes bills that allow them to go for their citizen ship. You see Mexican' and some other cebtral american imegrants aren't allowede to. Kerry the lesser of the two evils? Well don't complain if you vote for him. Funny you say that. You just put your self in ballideers genarlization. Congrats. As for Why I thought THe "Two John ticket" was weird. They have different veiws. And they said some nasty stuff to each other. Yeah I know its not the first, but so is handing over the fate of a country to the UN, after the Sudan incident is wierd top me too. Its just a personal opinion really, and not an argument. The one Bad thing about Bush is he has not been sticking upo for him self. Thats really to bad. Juju Juju |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I have to assume you're just pulling my leg, comparing Kerry's voting to Bush's, who is not a congressman able to vote. The rest of your reply I must assume is more leg-pulling since it is all composed of smoke and mirrors and sleight-of-hand. Better yet, tell us which Senator or Congressman has participated in every single vote We are not talking every single vote....we are talking 92% failure to vote. There is one hell of a difference between 92% failure and 100% compliance. Smoke and mirrors. Since about 95 percent of all proposed legislation is crap (and half of that is "for the record" and never intended to pass), maybe Kerry's 92 percent record makes perfect sense? Ok, since Kerry's percentage makes perfect sense then you are saying it makes no semse for other congressmen who DO vote on legislation a greater part of the time. You really believe that, Ron? Or does throwing the "maybe" in there give you the out of saying you may not have really meant that? Ok, I will investigate the voting record of other, like you suggest, and I have a request of you. You say that 95% of all proposed legislation is crap, I would like to see some factual evidence to back up that statement. Let's face it. A voting record like that is lacking. Any rational person, for or against Kerry, would acknowledge that. It doesn't mean that Kerry would make a horrible president. It just means his voting record sucks. For you, or anyone, to try to justify it or make excuses for it instead of simply acknowledging it for what it is and moving on is proof positive why these discussions never go anywhere... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Well, golly gee, someone actually gets it! You mean, Pete, that simply saying Bush had a 100 percent failure to vote isn't enough upon which to base my conclusion? We need *more* than one simple fact if we're to be accurate? Knowing the REASON for his abysmal record makes a difference? Who'da thunk? I'm not arguing the integrity of the facts, guys, I'm arguing the presentation. There is no such thing as a simple fact. Without a yardstick against which to measure it, 92 percent tells us nothing. If Kerry is the only Senator to miss so many votes, that tells us one thing. If no Senator in recent history ever makes even half the votes, that tells us something else entirely. I honestly don't know the truth, and clearly one "simple fact" isn't going to reveal it, either. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, the presentation was simple. Kerry missed 92% of the votes. That represents the worst record of any congressman. How can that be more simple??? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Can't compare Dole's voting record to Kerry's. Dole resigned from his Senate seat to run for president. Kerry didn't. I even think there was an ex-president who ran for governor of Arkansas on the theme if you hold an office and get paid for it, you ought to show up once and a while. It seems his opponent didn't resign from Congress and spent very little time in Washington while campaigning in Arkansas for governor. It appears to me to be a matter of integrity, but then again, integrity is in the eye of the beholder. Not meant as an endorsement for either candidate, but don't try and sell the idea you go on hiatus from your U.S. Senate seat and expect to be able to rationalize your absence. Don't know of many jobs you can say, heck fire, I am seeking another job and will be gone for a year, but keep sending the paycheck. |
||
|
Fisherman Junior Member
since 2000-04-14
Posts 46 |
* |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I stand to be corrected, but I recall back in the primaries, Gephart got blasted for his poor voting record when Lieberman's and Edwards were both about the same percentage, just that they were voting the percentage Gephart was not. Kerry stayed out of the fray because his voting record was a poor 60% of votes cast. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I honestly doubt it could be made more simple, Mike. Trouble is, I don't want simple, especially at the possible cost of deeper understanding. A simple fact is like sugar candy, attracting many, but offering little sustenance. I want more complex carbohydrates in my diet. I crave meat. quote: How about a hiatus from being governor of Texas, Tim? Does that work for you? Of course, if we follow that thought through to its logical end, we should have the same problem with *any* incumbent running for any office. Operating from a position of greater power, incumbents can typically spend less time campaigning than their opposition, but few incumbents can spend zero time campaigning. Maybe Presidents, Senators, and Governors should all be forced to resign in their third year, so they can spend their fourth one getting re-elected? Actually, I kind of like that idea, not because it would give the job to someone more willing to focus on it (I trust good leaders to delegate wisely), but because it might eliminate some of the short-term, bread-and-circus thinking we often see from incumbents as an election draws near. quote: That's certainly getting better. The yardstick offered is still a little murky, but at least we have something available for comparison. It's not meat yet, but at least it's moved a bit beyond simple sugars. As one delves more deeply, the question might arise as to why NONE of our Senators in recent history even approaches a hundred percent voting record. Is there an inherent problem with the system itself? Or might it be that counting votes isn't a very useful criteria for measuring worth? Imagine for a moment that you are one of only three people in the whole U.S. Senate and a vote is fast approaching. You have to choose between going to the floor to vote or, perhaps, meeting with a major employer in your state. You with me so far? Now, imagine that you KNOW, with a fairly high degree of certainty, how the other two Senators are going to vote. I put it to you that it would be illogical -- and irresponsible -- to cancel that important meeting UNLESS you suspected your vote was going to be a tie-breaker. It doesn't matter which way the vote goes, if the other two Senators vote in unison with each other the result will not be changed by your vote. A poor voting record might well mean someone isn't doing their job. Or, it might mean they've been in Washington long enough to have the lay of the land so well mapped they can better direct their efforts where it will do the most good. Unfortunately, a "simple" percentage doesn't differentiate and, too often, can just be misleading trivia. We need some meat. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
more like meat and potatoes both... you all have made some very good points...and I'm especially greatful for all your assistance in taking the time to elaborate on these issues... It has definately helped, but I'm still a wash at a stale mate...about who I'm voting for, one thing, it is not going to be Bush, I can't even begin to imagine what another 4 years of him would accomplish...but Kerry???? Thanks guys...all of you for your patience knowlege and taking the time to credibly bring your views into focus. |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
OK, so Kerry's voting record sucks. Why not look at the votes he did cast and what issues were so strong for him that he got his ass off the bus and went back to Washington to vote. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
ice, you rock! grins |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
icebox....I think he's changed his mind about most of those..two or three times... |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Oh, you mean as in "I voted for it before I voted against it?" |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, I'll concede the fact that Kerry's voting record was better than Bush's. It was also better than Wally Cleaver, Don Knotts, Madame Theresa and the Backstreet Boys. I'l also accept that Kerry is so smart he doesn't need to waste his time voting when there are so many other avenues to channel his efforts. Nor does he have to devote time reading homeland security reports since there are obviously other things more important to him......like trying to get elected. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Excellent suggestion, icebox! Let's have a look at his voting record... From the Congressional Quarterly... As a senator with the responsibility to cast a vote on a variety of contentious issues, Kerry has had many opportunities to square off with the president. Yet an analysis of Kerry's 2003 Senate voting record shows that he did not show up for most of the Senate's confrontations with the White House. The publication Congressional Quarterly examined 119 recorded votes held in 2003 in which the president had taken a position. CQ found that Kerry was present for just 28 percent of those votes. In contrast, Kerry's colleague from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, was present for 97 percent of the votes. When Kerry showed up, he did indeed vote against the president a significant number of times. In 2003, according to CQ, Kerry sided against the president 70 percent of the time. Kennedy, usually viewed as the gold standard of liberal orthodoxy, voted against Bush 53 percent of the time. On the issue of showing up for Senate votes, CQ found that Kerry's fellow senators running for president, John Edwards and Joseph Lieberman, also missed a significant number of votes, although far fewer than Kerry did. According to the CQ analysis, Edwards was present for 53 percent of the recorded votes in which the president took a position, while Lieberman was present for 45 percent. Most senators were present for more than 90 percent of the votes. From the National Journal... NATIONAL JOURNAL on Friday claimed Democrat frontrunner John Kerry has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate. The results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. NATIONAL JOURNAL's scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. "To be sure, Kerry's ranking as the No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003 -- and his earning of similar honors three times during his first term, from 1985 to 1990 -- will probably have opposition researchers licking their chops," NATIONAL JOURNAL reports. Developing... [The ratings system was first devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator at CNN, and a contributing editor to National Journal, who continues to guide the calculation process. Data processing and statistical analysis were performed by Information Technology Services of the Brookings Institution. A panel of National Journal editors and reporters initially compiled a list of 140 key congressional roll-call votes for 2003 -- 63 votes for the Senate and 77 for the House -- and classified them as relating to economic, social, or foreign policy. Roll-call data was drawn from the Congressional Record.] Excerpts from the New York Times... The record is susceptible to two broad strands of attack. Mr. Kerry's rival Democrats point to a series of shifting stands on issues, like his qualified praise for the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress and his vote authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. They say these are are at odds with his campaign claim to be the "real deal" Democratic alternative to Mr. Bush, capable of "standing up for people and taking on powerful interests," as he says in his stump speech. "When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal, his voting record was that," said Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman. "When it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be against it, and he's against it. This is a voting record that is a big vulnerability against Republicans in the general election. He's all over the place on this stuff." By contrast, the Republicans seek to paint Mr. Kerry as voting in lock step with, or even to the left of, his fellow Massachusetts Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, long a Republican target and a perennial party fund-raising bugbear. "Whether it's economic policy, national security policy or social issues, John Kerry is out of sync with most voters," the Republican national chairman, Ed Gillespie, said in a speech on Friday. . . . . But on many issues, Mr. Kerry has often struck more nuanced, politically cautious positions than those broad rankings might suggest. After the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, Mr. Kerry proclaimed himself "delighted with seeing an institutional shake-up because I think we need one." A few months later, with President Bill Clinton locked in combat with the Republicans, Mr. Kerry voiced some doubts in a closed-door meeting of senators about the wisdom of trying to raise the minimum wage. And as Mr. Kennedy later recalled, he told Mr. Kerry, "If you're not for raising the minimum wage, you don't deserve to call yourself a Democrat." . . . . Like every member of a body that takes thousands of votes a year in committee and on the floor, Mr. Kerry has a detailed record of positions on scores of topics — a potential handicap for any incumbent senator running for the presidency. That may be one reason no one has made the leap directly since John F. Kennedy in 1960. But unlike some of his colleagues with long records to defend — including Mr. Gephardt, the former Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, who dropped out of the race after his disappointing Iowa finish — Mr. Kerry has never been especially popular with his Democratic colleagues in Congress and the party establishment. They have accused him of being too eager to be in the majority, too quick to position his vote for political advantage. The rap on Mr. Kerry's Senate career, according to fellow senators and Congressional aides, has been that he is more interested in high-profile investigations — like those into the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and Gen. Manuel Noriega of Panama — than in the grinding details of legislative procedure. He has deferred to his colleague Mr. Kennedy on most bills involving health and education and has few major bills to his name; when asked to summarize his legislative accomplishments, he often seems to struggle. But among the details of his legislative record, there is fertile ground for attacks. Mr. Kerry voted for the USA Patriot Act, Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind education bill and the Congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq, only to sharply criticize all three once he became a presidential candidate last year. Mr. Kerry counters that his quarrel is with Mr. Bush's execution of the policies, but he struggled for months to explain his shifting stance on the Iraq war. To see a review of what issues Kerry delt strongly enough about to cast his few votes on, one can go to... http://issues2002.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I think it was good to pull out facts..... I think I should work on my spelling hehehe....... just thoughts |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Balladeer's figures are pretty well indicative of voting percentages. Most Senators, notwithstanding the perception of certain members of the public, are very dedicated and committed public servants without regard to their political bent. No matter how you want to spin it, joke about it, or rationalize it, Kerry has taken a hiatus from being a Senator and is not even making a feeble effort to perform his Senatorial duties. Each person will have to decide whether that is right or wrong. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
I find it amusing how people keep pointing out that Kerry voted for force against Iraq, saying it's hypocritical he's changed his views on the war. Kerry was misled with the same false information many of us were. He now knows differently and is attacking the administration and it's tactics. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), whose campaign demanded to know on Wednesday whether President Bush (news - web sites) read a key Iraq (news - web sites) intelligence assessment, did not read the document himself before voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, aides acknowledged. ..from today's news. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Let's see a brief synopsis on Kerry's thoughts on Iraq over the years... October 1990 Kerry Said “Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability.” “Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. ... The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330) January 1991 Kerry Acknowledged Saddam Working Toward Development Of WMD “For Years.” “If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years ....” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 1/12/91, p. S369) November 1997 Kerry Warned U.S. Senate Of Saddam’s WMD Capabilities. “It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255) December 1997 Kerry Urged U.N. To Eliminate Iraq’s “Suspected Infrastructure For Developing And Manufacturing Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” “Democratic Senator John Kerry has said: ‘The Security Council should authorize a strong UN military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.’ He added that ‘Saddam Hussein has intentionally or inadvertently set up a test which the entire world will be watching, and if he gets away with this arrogant ploy, he will have terminated the most important multilateral effort to defuse a legitimate threat to global security.’” (“US Lawmakers Threaten Military Action Against Iraq,” Agence France Presse, 12/12/97) Kerry Said That If Saddam’s Weapon Capability Was Not Eliminated “We Will Be Called On To Send Our Ships And Our Troops At One Point In The Future Back To The Middle East.” “Saddam Hussein has violated … that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people's expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98) February 1998 Kerry Said Saddam Had Already Used WMD And Had Intent “To Do So” Again. “[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98) December 1998 Kerry Defended Clinton’s 1998 Attacks Because Saddam “Is Pursuing … Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” “Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction.”(Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98) Kerry: “I Am Prepared To Hold Saddam Hussein Accountable And Destroy His Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Ronald Brownstein, “Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Differ On War In Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, 10/6/02) Kerry Said “Threat Of Saddam Hussein With Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Real.” “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171) Kerry Called It “Naive To The Point Of Grave Danger” To Leave Saddam “To His Own Devices.” “It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171) Kerry Questioned Saddam’s Actions With Respect To His WMD Capability. “Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171) October 2002 “Mr. Kerry … Said Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Posed ‘A Real And Grave Threat’ To The United States.” (Dave Boyer, “Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War,” The Washington Times, 10/10/02) Kerry Described Threat Of Saddam Hussein With WMD As Real, But Not New. “[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03) January 2003 Kerry Said, “If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03) Kerry Described Secretary Of State Colin Powell’s Evidence Of WMD In Iraq As “Real And Compelling.” “[Kerry] said the Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, ‘but nonetheless I am glad we’ve reached this moment in our diplomacy.’ Kerry added: ‘Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling.’” (Wayne Washington, “Kennedy, Others Question Timing Of Attack But Presidential Hopefuls Back War With Iraq,” The Boston Globe, 2/6/03) Kerry Said Saddam Hussein’s WMD “Are A Threat.” “I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to …” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03) March 2003 As War Began, Kerry Said Saddam Chose “To Make Military Force The Ultimate Weapons Inspections Enforcement Mechanism.” “Senator John F. Kerry … had lambasted Bush’s diplomatic efforts, despite voting last fall in support of a congressional resolution authorizing military action to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. ‘It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism,’ Kerry said.” (Glen Johnson, “Critics Of Bush Voice Support For The Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/20/03) June 2003 Kerry Said “It Would Be Irresponsible … To Draw Conclusions” That Suggest President Misled On WMD. ABC’S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “I know you said you’re agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?” KERRY: “George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 6/15/03) Decipher it for yourself and draw your own conclusions... |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Hey Deer....EASY on the Backstreet Boys...ok...sheeeeshhhhh!  Just kidding. If I may, I have a question...regarding 9/11 and Weapons of Mass Destruction...excluding Iraq for a moment but keeping in mind, Bush's reasoning for invading Iraq Don't you think, if at that time, the terrorists would have had privy to any Weapons of Mass Destruction on 9/11 they would have readily utilized those resources, and yet...they hijacked "our" planes???? My thoughts tend to lean toward the fact that they did not possess these resources...or they would have utilized them, then to their greatest capacity??? Yes? Therefore...Bush played his cards and conveyed a totally dishonest representation using the Terrorists as a ploy to invade Iraq. Which I might add, like a fool I trusted our government to do the right thing when it comes to war...I no longer possess that trust. I'm a patriot...but if we go to war, I want to be certain it is for the freedom of our country and others. Not for the profit of material gains! Most of us agree on that issue I believe, but my question is...this further war on terror, is it, or is it not propaganda due to it being an election year....b/c I'm swaying back and forth here that IF the terrorist had biochemical bombs or nuclear bombs, they would have used them at that time? Yes Another theory is, even if they had nuclear bombs, why would they use them? They want our land, in tact, do they not? So, my question is, will this be a guise for any upcoming President to use in the future? Forgive me...I've just so thoroughly lost trust within our Governmental procedures, not to mention the media. What is one to believe...lest we remember, when reading any article, we are reading an opinion...so are the facts clearly being stated in a biased article, or...are we reading something which has been swayed to the left or the right depending on the party of the writer?????? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Deer how does that change my statement that Kerry was misled with the same false information many were? You use many pre-war and pre-Bush administration quotes on Iraq. Kerry, along with the rest of the world understood and recognized Iraqi possesion of WMDs and materials before the war. That's why resolutions and inspections were put into action. The question is, at the time of war, was there valid information that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had not disarmed and that he posed a significant threat. Enough to force an attack? NO. THIS is what Kerry is arguing against and has changed his mind about, the use of false intelligence and allusions to an immenent threat by the administration. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (07-15-2004 11:44 AM).] |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
It doesn't change your statement, but I'm going deeper then that...please read again...and remember, I'm curious as to what others think...it's not pro-Bush or Kerry...but more so about the terrorists and if in fact there are these kinds of weapons available to them? If so, wouldn't they have used them already? I don't believe so....I think, they used what they had available...our planes. Which helps me further lean toward the idea that this terrorsit thing is blown way out of porportion by both media and government? Is that, could that also be a likely scenerio? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Oh not you Lee, was referring to Deer's Kerry quotes. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
whoops, so sorry |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Aenimal: Just curious ... is this the sole criterion for the Iraq War being just? Did the U.S. have other legitimate interests in the overthrow of Saddam (who was indisputably a tyrant)? WMD and collusion with terrorist organizations aside, from a human rights perspective, don't you think Saddam's overthrow was justifiable? Jim |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: No, not the sole criterion, but it's pretty important to have just cause & irrefutable evidence before undermining the UN and more importantly sacrificing the lives of your countrymen. It took more to join the war against facicsm then it did to attack Iraq. quote: jboulder if you are going to take out WMD/terrorism links, NO. They would have been justification, had they been true, to undermine the UN ruling and launch an attack. Without the immenent threat of either the attack is hollow. Launching an unjustified war against a muslim country is simply insane. The human rights perspective is a secondary issue, it wasn't the reason for the attack. And while I applaud the ousting of a tyrant it doesn't justify lying to the public, undermining the UN and surging into an all out war. There are many undisputed tyrants walking the face of the earth today. Consider China's treatment of Tibet(which the world turns a blind eye to), Fidel Castro's grip over Cuba, and choose any number of Dictators and tribes causing havoc in Africa. Should Saddam have been ousted? Yes. But at the cost of human lives, world diplomacy and truth? No |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I absolutely agree with Aenimal. There is no argument that Saddam was an unjust leader who afflicted harm and malice upon hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Already having discovered four hundred thousand graves in Iraqi of innocent victims, getting away with murder is always wrong whatsoever and should be denounced. However, the fact that the Administration keeps using this argument as wallpaper alone, and saying that he had the potential to build weapons of mass destruction in attempting to justify an invasion is beyond pitiful. There is no clear evidence that Iraq was involved behind 9/11, or even that they have any fraternal connections to al-Qaeda. Tony Blair has already confessed that they may never find these "weapons of mass destruction" and Bush has admitted they haven't found any yet, yet he continues to use this cardboard frame of Saddam being a malevolent dictator to justify the war. And while I don't believe in war, it's even hypocritical for those for the war in their own reasonable respects to believe that yet have no concern about Iran continuing their nuclear-weapons program, building closr talks with North Korea, etc. I'm glad Saddam can't torture any civilian anymore, but two or more wrongs don't make a wrong. There could have been a secret operation to capture and arrest Saddam and his top aides, anything like that without the need of war. But lies, exaggerations, and impatience are the three major pillars to this invasion, and no matter what the argument here, three wrongs do not make a right. (whew) Oh, right, back to Kerry now! Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Lee, I'll try to answer you... Don't you think, if at that time, the terrorists would have had privy to any Weapons of Mass Destruction on 9/11 they would have readily utilized those resources, and yet...they hijacked "our" planes???? Yes, I certainly feel that, if Bin Laden had nuclear weapons, he would have used them. I don't think anyone felt he had them. Bush's reason for invading Iraq was to make sure he, or others, DIDN'T get them. Every rational person in the 90's, including the UN, felt Iraq had WMD's by the facts that a certain percentage of the gases he used on the Kurds were unaccounted for plus the runaround he kept giving the UN weapons inspectors plus other indications leading in that direction. Remember the scenario which many appear to dis regard. We had been attacked by a terrorist group with thousands of Americans dying. This was an unadulterated declaration of war by the terrorist groups on the United States. Basically the only weapons they used were box cutters and our own planes. Do you feel that the terrorists would like to have WMDS? Of course. Well, there's Iraq, run by a dictator who has expressed his hatred of the US and who has WMDs unaccounted for....a nasty combination. Is it feasable to believe he may be willing to provide WMDs to terrorists for the right price and for revenge against the US for Kuwait? I would certainly think so. That, in my opinion, is why Hussein was taken out...to prevent the possibility of that scenario happening. Another theory is, even if they had nuclear bombs, why would they use them? They want our land, in tact, do they not? No, Lee, they could care less about having our land intact. Their only goal is the destruction of the United States and other democratic countries. They have made that clear. They will willingly die in order to kill Americans....and they do. Yes, there are those here who will pick apart my explanation for flaws and that's ok...they are my opinions. Let me pose another scenario to you, Lee. Thousands of people die on 9/11. Terrorist groups state they will destroy the US. We do not go after Hussein. Sometime in the future Hussein provides WMDs to a terrorist group and there is another attack on the US in which tens of thousands die. You can bet your bottom dollar that everyone, including the people screaming for Bush's head now, would scream, "What the hell did Bush do?? We had been attacked! He KNEW terrorists would strike again! He KNEW Hussein had WMDs! Why didn't he stop him??? Why didn't he get Hussein out of power??? BUSH is responsible for these tens of thousands of deaths!!!!!!" You think it wouldn't happen that way? Don't believe it for a second. If Bush erred on his actions against Iraq, he erred on the side of safety for the country. If he was correct, we will never know because the future attack will not have happened. The fact that nothing HAS happened is a very good sign, in my opinion... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Aenimal, I made no claim that my entry was meant to change your statement nor did I make any reference to you at all. The compilation of Kerry statements were simply meant to show that, since 1990 Kerry has stated in no uncertain terms that Hussein possessed WMDs and must be removed from power. Kennedy, Hillary, Dashell and others made the same statements and I have listed them specifically in other threads here, which most of you have ignored. These "certainties" were based on the intelligence gathered at the time. This was long before Bush was around. Yet I hear no one complaining about that "errant" information. They prefer to claim that it was solely BUSH who came up with the bad intelligence, as if the decade of Democrats calling for Hussein's head due to their certainty of his WMDs never really happened. It's all Bush's fault. If the intelligence which occured mostly under Clinton's presidency was incorrect somehow that's Bush's fault. I find that incredible... I've seen no one respond to the egg Kerry is wiping off his face right now about those intelligence reports. As I stated above, seems he lambasted Bush about whether or not Bush had read all of the intelligence reports when Kerry himself had not read them, according to his own people. They say he had asked for a one-page, cliff-notes type of summary instead of having to read the full 90 pages. Apparently he didn't have time, sort of like the way he didn't have time to vote or didn't have time to read the latest report on homeland security. Anyone see a recurring theme here...? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, I see once again that your only way of promoting Kerry to to attack Bush. Obviously you are still in a "...because he's not Bush" mode. Thank you. That's was this thread was designed to be |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
While it is true that nothing is going to make me vote for Bush now and I am voting for Kerry by default, how many times do I have to hammer down that I also have an optimistic intent on voting for the ticket because of Edwards re-invigorating the political climate and because the least Kerry could do is improve international relations? I can agree that it is wrong that Bush should be the sole person to blame in this whole mess, since Bush Sr, Clinton and their administrations were involved in their own ways also, and that people are inclined to believe only Bush should be blamed. Though I have said before that we haven't had a "great" president in many years and said Clinton is probably the best president we've had since the time I was born, I have admitted that I too was disappointed with Clinton's scandals and that he should have treated defense than more just salt on the rim of his coffee mug. But, let's face the facts. 9/11 occurred during Bush's term. You can go on all you want and say it's all because the Clinton Administration leaving us vulnerable that this happened, but anything can happen in nine months and him and his administration should have been more responsible regardless. Not all the matter should be put on Bush's shoulders, but a considerable part is, and using previous administration excuses can't lift the whole mass off. Frankly, I also am amazed that you seem to refuse listening to my other reasons in my vote for Kerry besides the obvious Bush default. Though you know I am against his policies, I never once specifically wrote "because he is not Bush" anywhere in this thread, you pulled that out yourself. It's not solely because I believe our country needs a change of direction, it's that I believe I have noticed a direction that's worth following. Behind Kerry's shoulder I see a man who I already see many seeing promises in that are not empty. And while I believe no politician can fulfill all promises, Edwards is very genuine in the way he speaks and approaches the public and that well reflects his agenda too I'm sure. Where Kerry stumbles, he will keep the nation upbeat and comfortable, and will make a fine president I imagine. So, let me get this by one more time. My justifications go beyond just five words, my reasoning is a thesis of twelve words: "Not only because he is not Bush, but because he's with Edwards!" Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah... I am voting for Kerry by default Why can't you realize that those words translate directly into "...because he is not Bush"? You were for Kerry and against Bush long before he selected Edwards as a running mate so what was your reasoning then? As far as "But, let's face the facts. 9/11 occurred during Bush's term", that statement makes absolutely no sense at all. It was years in the planning. If it had happened during Clinton's term, you would have blamed Clinton then? If those evil Republicans had not stolen the election and Gore had been elected, 9/11 would have been Gore's fault then? C'mon, Noah..... |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
No! You were only half right in the following statement: "You were for Kerry and against Bush long before he selected Edwards as a running mate" I was clearly against Bush but I hadn't really made up my mind how I was going to vote. Kucinich and Edwards were the two Democratic nominees I looked up to, but Kerry turned me off a bit. It's possible had Kerry chosen someone other than Edwards I might still had voted for him, partially in faith of foreign relation improvements and policy, but I would have also refused to vote over voting for Nader, in that otherwise he didn't illuminate at all. Not voting for everyone is a choice too, that alone is a political statement. Believe me, I think over things just as you do and my reasons aren't so shallow. Edwards really gave me the full courage in voting for his party. And, c'mon, you know well what terrorists want! You know they don't care how they do it or when they do it, all that matters is that they do it. And, yes, I am aware of the 1993 attempt to blow up the World Trade Center, not to mention the several other al-Qaeda efforts prior to the Clinton Administration. But, let's face it, the Bush Administration was just as lazy-eyed as the Clinton Administration was entering office up till 9/11, and I think anyone can agree more could have been done as defense is considered. So, according to your argument, if this was planned for years prior to 9/11, then shouldn't the Bush Administration had set an example and taken our domestic security and defense more seriously? Now you're probably going to say it's unlikely I would have said the same thing had Al Gore, who should be in office now, been leading the nation during 9/11, because you'll never witness the caption. No, I would have made the same criticism to any administration, as I had criticized the Clinton Administration on domestic defense. Every minute means a lot, and I believe myself 9/11 didn't have to happen. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, Noah. We'll leave it at that. For this thread I would like to get back to the main topic, which is the support anyone has for Kerry and what initiates it... |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I agree, Balladeer. Even if we digressed a bit here, I very much enjoy talking to you over these matters, I deeply appreciate it, yay! Now, here's another thought on Kerry. I believe by the time the debates roll around, we'll probably then know some of Kerry's true stances on some issues, and perhaps those who do see something particular in Kerry's eyes will justify some broader conclusions in voting for him. When you're in a square-horse stance, then it is easier to look someone in the eye and judge the character in earnest. Kerry is apparently still getting his priorities organized, so when you're wobbling like a hula-skirt dancer doll you only get a glimpse of the person's eye and you tend to miss something. By the time he gets organized, then I think we'll know the general position. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You have a point there, Noah. Kerry is obviously a more-polished speaker than Bush. If he comes across as believable, his chances of coming out ahead in the debates is possible. Personally,I have a hard time envisioning him as coming across as believeable but who knows? Gore was a more-polished speaker, too, but he was his own worst enemy by lying in the debates...it will be interesting to watch. Peace, my friend |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Ron, you assumed most Senators do not have a good voting record. I believe that to be a false statement. I agree one should not jump to false assumptions. "As one delves more deeply, the question might arise as to why NONE of our Senators in recent history even approaches a hundred percent voting record." You also assumed by your responses that I was supporting Bush by my comments. Or at least that is the only logical conclusion I could draw from the Governor Bush comment. I never indicated nor implied leanings towards President Bush. The only other politician I did mention was Dole who in my opinion did the honorable thing and resigned his Senate seat to run for President. Am I to assume that since Bush ran for president while governor that makes it right for Kerry to neglect his Senatorial duties to run for President? Don't think so. I do not know if Bush neglected his duties as governor or not. If he did, my position is the same as towards Kerry. Does an incumbent have an advantage? Without doubt. Does an incumbent campaign? Without doubt. Does the average politician neglect his or her duties when they run for reelection? Got some doubt there. Does an exfootball player or coach have an advantage in winning political office? Or how about a television or movie star? Does a wealthy individual have an advantage running for office? (take you pick on Kerry or Bush, Cheney or Edwards, I don't care) Can a Joe Schmo make it as a politician? Clinton certainly made it. An incumbent has name recognition, but they also have to defend their performance. Lot easier to attack and not defend, especially when you do not have anything to defend against. Ask Kerry or Bush on that one. I suspect the average politician, even with his or her incumbency, would not like to run on the platform I was gone from the job over 90 per cent of the time. And it doesn't matter a whit whether you are Democrat or Republican. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
quote: Ron, you took the words right out of my brain. Thank you! A circus is exactly what the presidential elections are, and a third rate circus at best. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Precisely my point, Michael! As of right now, it may be a bit unfair to label him as a big fat liar while he's all over the place on some certain issues. BUT, by the time the debates come around, there's a golden opportunity for Kerry. Kerry can either have his conscience cleared by being loyal to his positions, or then we can truly criticize him as a liar if he continues to contradict himself. And believe me, if he does the latter, I will be speaking in response to him in the same disapproving convincing tone I have been over Bush for three years now. I believe that is fair enough. So, with that said, I suppose it's not all too suprising there hasn't been a lot of illumination to this thread. But there'll be a lot to talk about in the four months ahead, we can count on that! Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I did a google search on "Kerry" and "positions" It came back to "John Kerry's principled positions" I clicked on that and was told no web pages fit that description but did I mean John Kerry's flip-flops... Heck, anyone who wears flip-flops gets my vote. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Well, I guess that's as good a reason to vote for Kerry as any other I have heard so far  |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
I'm sure I'll take some heat for this, but I'd like to remind you all of a political truth ... In partisan politics, you're not really voting for the person, you're voting for the party. Charisma and character and voting record are all well and good, but the truth is that members of the Democratic and Republican parties are going to act along party lines 99% of the time. Their ideas are not their own, really ... they only get labeled as such because of political support given. You don't have to like everything about a given party, but my advice would be to examine the respective party platforms in lieu of the candidates, and vote according to which one of them more closely matches your views. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
ROTFLMAO at Tim's above 'flip-flops' reply. You just gotta love that image! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yahoo search, first call, "John Kerry +postions" http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/ |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
http://nytimesfaux.com/GoogleKerry.html |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Cute. But, at least miserable failure is an *actual* Google result, rather than a manipulated page on a different domain. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Cute, I agree, manipulation is manipulation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
ewwwwww!! That had to hurt! |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Ok, Al right the whole if they had it why didn't they use it thing is weird. By not using the chemical weopons they most likely have they are doing whats called psychological war fair. Many poeple need to see it to believe it; when you are fighting a war on the premise of enforcing un policy and (How the media protrays it.) that that they have weopons of mass destruction,(Which they did) by not using the weopons of mass destruction, they plan to put doubt in our mind. The excuse of "they haven't used it so they must of not of had it," is no different then "If I cant see it, It can't be real" Do you realize if they did, we would have more support against terrism. Funny how people don't realize the threat until its to late. Funny about the taLK OF prevention of 9/11 and in the same sentence you critisize such measures taken to prevent anouther horrible event. I know some of you will disagree with me, but I just think differently.............. sometimes different ideas aren't alwatys bad. Juju |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, juju, sometimes different ideas are not always bad. I agree with you on your thoughts....with the exception of spelling warfare war fair....it is anything but that  |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
It's official I am the worst speller in this site................... ---You know I wasn't implying anything, I just canj't spell. Juju |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Vote for Kerry!!!...Abort the kids, save the whales!!! |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Is that sarcasm, or are you actually serious...... Juju |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
JUJU....this is Toerag...of course it's sarcasm....I'm as sarcastic as one can be..LOL...Kerry's not even committed to his chosen religious beliefs... |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Yeah well now I have heart problems............... I am too young.. Juju |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Heh about that camment about voting on parties, I am very conservative, so thats why I lean to the republican side..... alot. Besides if I was an independent I wouldn't vote for kerry, because he doesn't have a solid plat form. His speeches make me dizzyy.... I really hate that. Does any one know why. I don't know what he is saying? Juju. Juju |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I really have no idea what Kerry's stance is on whaling (presumably we are talking about the Japanese practice), but that a person could personally be against abortion but believe that a government shouldn't legislate either for or against certainly isn't a flip flop -- in fact most of the evidence presented here aren't flip flops. Is it really difficult to understand? I don't think prostitution is a good thing, but I think it should be legalized. Is that a flip flop? Juju, You can't say anything about Kerry's position because, as you said yourself, you don't understand what he's saying (he makes you dizzy), so please don't pretend that you know whether or not Kerry has a solid position -- you don't know. "I'm a uniter, not a divider" "You're either for us or against us" --George Bush Face it, the Bushmongers are grasping for straw right now. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, if you're trying to make some comparisons to claim Kerry is not a flipflopper, I'd say you're the one grasping. His waffles are too well documented for even you to rationalize as rational... Now, excuse me while I stuff some documents down my shorts and socks....accidently, of course Talk about grasping!!  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Unfortunately, the documentation you've provided contradicts itself (More on that later.). But is it a flip flop to have religious beliefs and not believe that they should be government policy? Somehow, the idea that "Everybody knows . . ." doesn't strike me as a particularly persuasive or solid retort. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
most of the ones presented here are not flip-flops? Well, let's see what we can find... .............................................................. In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. “Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China … ‘I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,’ Kerry said.” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status,” The Boston Globe, 6/15/91) In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea) Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. … On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.” (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04) ........................................................... 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) 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) Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. 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 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) ........................................................... 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) .............................................................. “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) ........................................................... 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) 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) ............................................................ 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) ............................................................ 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) ........................................................... 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) ........................................................... 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) ........................................................... 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) ........................................................... 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) ........................................................... 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) ........................................................... 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) ........................................................... 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) * 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) ............................................................. 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 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) ........................................................... 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) ............................................................. 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) ........................................................... 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) .............................................................. 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) ............................................................ Kerry Used To Decry “Special Interests And Their PAC Money.” “‘I’m frequently told by cynics in Washington that refusing PAC money is naive,’ Kerry told his supporters in 1985. ‘Do you agree that it is “naïve” to turn down special interests and their PAC money?’” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01) But Now, Kerry Has Established His Own PAC. “A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates. … Kerry’s stance on soft money, unregulated donations funneled through political parties, puts him in the position of raising the type of money that he, McCain, and others in the campaign-finance reform movement are trying to eliminate.” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01) ........................................................... AND THEN WE HAVE THE ONE THAT TOPS THEM ALL>> Kerry: Service Should Not Be “Litmus Test” For Leadership. “Mr. President, you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/08/92, p. S17709) But Now Kerry Constantly “Challenges The Stature Of His Democratic Opponents” Over Their Lack Of Military Service. “And more than ever, Mr. Kerry is invoking his stature as a Vietnam veteran as he challenges the stature of his Democratic opponents -- none of whom, he frequently points out, have ‘worn the uniform of our country’ -- to withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security.” (Adam Nagourney, “As Campaign Tightens, Kerry Sharpens Message,” The New York Times, 8/10/03) ........................................................... If none of those convince you, I have more....... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Oh, and you mentioned abortion, Brad... The Washington Post via the Seattle Times reports: But even as he tried to avoid making news, Kerry broke ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, daily, the Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat recently from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper: "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." Captain Ed, at Captain's Quarters explains that this completely belie every vote Kerry has ever taken on the subject of abortion, including his support of the late-term abortion procedure sometimes called partial-birth abortion. If life begins at conception, why then does Jon Kerry not only agree to allow abortion, but campaigns on its behalf? Good question, huh? If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hey, keep them coming. Why you think an opinion ten or thirty years ago compared with today is a flip flop is beyond me and a lot of the other stuff self destructs if you actually read what was said (though, I admit, not all). Still, I'm trying to figure out why separating your religious beliefs as you participate in a secular government is a flip flop? I would call that good government as the alternative is theocracy. As you well know, I love a good, nuanced position and that's exactly what I see Kerry trying to do. Unfortunately, nuance doesn't seem to be in favor these days, nonsense seems to be the order of the day. How you can accuse Kerry of these things (comparing opinions over the course of thirty years) and remain silent when Bush can use justice and "Wanted: Dead or alive" in the same breath just goes to show that you don't really care about Kerry's stance, you just want four more years of the self-appointed anointed one. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Raph hugs Brad grins |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
How you can accuse Kerry of these things (comparing opinions over the course of thirty years) and remain silent when Bush can use justice and "Wanted: Dead or alive" in the same breath Thank you, Brad. You have just proven the point of this thread, which was what I expected. The thread is about Kerry, pro or con, and the only way people seem to be able to respond to any Kerry negativity is to ignore it and flip the accusations to Bush. For you and those who would hug you, my thanks... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Was Brad's last comment you quoted about Bush, Mike? Read it again and see if you can find the subject/verb being used … |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
when Bush can use justice and "Wanted: Dead or alive" in the same breath Yes, Ron, I would say that refers to Bush.....just because it is not the grammatical subject and verb of the complex sentence doesn't mean that it's not an object (and a direct one) to to set up a "not as bad as Bush" comparison. to show that you don't really care about Kerry's stance, says nothing. Brad has not described Kerry's stance anything he knows or likes about Kerry's stance. The object of this thread was to ask those voting for Kerry if they were doing it as a "he's not Bush" or a "lesser of two evils" stance or, if not, what characteristics or positions of his do they admire enough to want him to be President. Out of 108 responses, we have come down with Aenimal stating (1) stem cell research (2) a rethinking of foreign policy (which says nothing) and (3) environmental issues - and he followd up with stating that he, too, wished Kerry were more specific. Noah would vote for Kerry because he admires Edwards and acknowledges that he doesn't like Kerry. That's it....the rest of the entire conversation deviates down other avenues unrelated to the initial subject of the thread. All I asked for was a "I would like for John Kerry to be President because...." and it seems to be too difficult for anyone to answer except for the "He's not Bush" way of thinking. They may as well mark the ballots FOR BUSH or NOT FOR BUSH. Kerry is a non-entity, placed there only because the other party is required to put up a contender. Well, if the contender were to win, then he would be in charge of our safety and our country....this man who is too busy to even read the homeland security bulletin when offered. At as political rally last week, a young boy asked him what he would do about Iraq (the film clip was on tv). His response was, "Well, son what would YOU do?" and then he proceeded reverse the tables, asking the boy questions and basically evading the question. Well, that boy isn't running for President....Kerry is. He is supposed to have some plan but, apparently no one seemd to have any idea what it is. So if your dislike of Bush is so deep that you will take anyone in his place without even being able to list reasons why you feel they would be good at the job, then fine. Recognize it for that and hope for the best. I would be hoping right along with you, believe me.... |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Senator Kerry professes a very strong position in regards to whaling. Opposition to whaling is one of the those issues where he has taken on a leadership role in the Senate. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
"a rethinking of foreign policy (which says nothing)" No it says everything, take everything I've mentioned on the Bush administration's. Now do the absolute opposite and you have Kerry and the Democratic stance. Diplomacy. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I didn't read it as a comparison between Bush and Kerry, Mike. I read Brad's post as a comparison between your views on Bush and Kerry. Objectively (yea, right), what is good for the goose really should be good for the gander. When people argue factions, however, that very rarely is the case. As for Kerry … IMO, what ever this country faces in the next four years will necessarily be laid at Bush's feet. National elections don't occur in November, or even in the final year of a Presidency, so much as they culminate. The foundations of both party's campaigns were already laid long before the first primary, and Bush's unprecedented popularity riding the waves of 911 insured there would be NO viable opponent to face him in 2004. Anyone with a realistic shot at the office decided to wait until 2008 and, frankly, I have to dig deeply to find fault with their cowardice (though cowardice, in my mind, it remains). When the makeup of this election was being decided, Bush appeared unbeatable. Kerry has done very little as a Senator and there's every reason to suspect he will continue to do very little as a President. I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. When you're in the middle of the ocean in a row boat, a companion who sits still is often preferable to one who insists on making waves. A leader who equivocates is better than one who lies. As much as I would like to have a good President for the next four years, failing that, I'd at least like one we can survive. I haven't entirely made up my mind yet, and likely won't for several months, but I can say with some certainty that should I vote for Kerry it WILL be a vote against Bush. I might like a better reason, but I don't *need* a better reason. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Raph, I'm assuming you were saying that in a humorous vein....the part about taking the exact opposite of Bush policy and you have the Democratic policy. Obviously it would not be that way and the Democrats have never claimed that they would do exactly the opposite. Kerry DID say he would work at getting cooperation from the UN, as if the 14 months Bush tried for that same cooperation never happened. Yep, the UN - that group that can't even get volunteers from their own members to provide support to the UN delegates in Iraq, the UN that is monitoring closely the murder of millions in the Sudan and shaking their heads. Did he say how he was going to manage this? Nope? If the Democratic foreign policy were exactly the opposite, then Libya would still be working on their nuclear weapons program, I suppose....nice thought. Ron, I don't know that I have set up comparisons between Bush and Kerry in this thread. What Brad failed to recognize, or ignore, was the subject of this thread. It was created to discuss Kerry, good or bad. We have certainly had enough threads condemning Bush. I created one to discuss the good and bad of Kerry. The fact that Brad found it necessary to mix Bush negatives into his comments show to me that he couldn't discuss Kerry on his own. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Kerry would be a good President. If he were to win the election, Bush would be gone and guess what? We would have Kerry. WOuld that be a good or bad thing? That's all I was asking. IMO, what ever this country faces in the next four years will necessarily be laid at Bush's feet. National elections don't occur in November, or even in the final year of a Presidency, so much as they culminate. That's an interesting theory but I'm not sure I understand it completely. Yes, I understand that, because of the Bush popularity, the Democrats didn't want to waste any of their candidates with promise in a losing cause...and yet here we are. That unpromising candidate is the one people are cheering. That may make him popular but I fail to see where that makes him more promising. He's the same fellow they were prepared to throw to the lions. As far as the next four years being laid a Bush's feet, did it work that way for Clinton? Any economist worth his salt will tell you that the stock market responds to stimuli that has happened in the past several years. Yet Bush was blamed for the stock market going down as soon as he took office. About 9-11, Noah here says, "Well, Bush WAS in office when it happened." and he is not alone in that way of thinking. Will Bush be responsible for the next four years? No, sir. If the Democrats get in and make a mess of things and America comes under further attack, it will be all theirs. Nobody can cover their bases this early by claiming Bush will be responsible, whatever happens....although I know that, in the case of emergency that is the exact tactic they will try to use. No, Ron, you certainly have no "need" to defend your position. I was simply asking people to either acknowledge that position or explain what other facts make them Kerry supporters. Lesser of two evils is certainly a valid reason...too bad that's our choice sometimes Oh, and as far as your comparison is concerned, that fellow that is sitting quietly in the boat is obviously not rowing. That's fine if you don't care about going anywhere but, should there be a shark attack, I think you'd like to see a little more out of him If you don't think the sharks are circling, think again..... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Again with criticism of the UN. The UN was of no help so the coalition was forced to move in against the threat of Iraq. Yet after the attack what have we learned? That evidence was inaccurate or in some cases outright fabrications. So what exactly was the UN so wrong about that the war was neccessary? If the main reasons for the attack were mistaken that what justifies the disregard of the UN? As for the Kerry comment about the opposite, yes it was sarcasm actually. I have very little faith that the Kerry government will be that much different. However there are ENOUGH differences that make me swing towards Kerry. The issues I've listed earlier and the promise of more diplomatic solutions which is a good step in mending foreign relations. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I think you missed my point, Mike. I'm assigning responsibility to Bush for the next four years, regardless of who wins the election, because our choices in November (or lack, thereof) are a direct reflection of Bush's earlier popularity. If we get a lousy President in November, no matter who it is, it will be Bush's fault. (But not solely his fault, of course. Those without the courage to run against him will share in the blame as well.) And, yes, it is indeed too bad our choice sometimes resolves to the lesser of evils. Not since 1860 has this country faced a more critical fork in its road. Sadly, I see no evidence of a Lincoln on our horizon. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: That's easy. It would be a good thing. I posted Kerry's website. Do you want me to explicate it for you? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, since Bush Senior's popularity numbers were astronomical after the invasion of Kuwait then we must assume he was responsible for Clinton, by your formula. You have just turned me against Bush!!! Bread, no there's no need for that. Just respond to the many flip-flops I listed - and the majority of them are current, not 30 years old. Just take on the last one and I'll be happy. They were in response to a question from you so I'd appreciate a response there and not a shuffle and a detour...if you feel like it. Otherwise, what's the point? If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Hmm.... So you won't vote for a flip flopper? Bush Flops and Flips all over the place. ----- 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] ----- 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] ----- 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] ----- 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] ----- 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] ----- 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] ----- 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] ----- 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] ----- 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] ----- 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] ----- I have more. Lots more. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well, one thing I have question about, regarding Mr. Kerry, is his military record. Yes, I know he's trumpeted it, paraded it, made himself a diehard patriot. But that belies too many things, such as his record. Yes, he volunteered for Vietnam. Many people did. I think he learned that he had made a mistake, and thought to extract himself. 3 Purple Hearts is a ticket home, and there has been much debate into the nature of his medical medals. One such incident was when he went to the medic, and had a splinter removed from his arm. All it took was a pair of tweezers. Kerry said they had come under enemy fire. His shipmates said Kerry fired a mortor at a shoreline and hit a large rock. Also that no engagement happened. And indeed, the medic agreed with them, due to the nature of the wound. Kerry got his Purple Heart though. And then, upon returning to the States, Kerry promptly demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, vehemently. Even being part of a group espousing the overthrow of the government. Now, there may be some that argue on to the nature of 'the fallacy of youth', but Kerry was 27 at the time, not 18. His stumping about his military record and patriotism belies his actions. I, for one, will not be voting for him, as I don't trust him. At least Bush sticks to his guns, by and large. He makes a choice and lives with the consequences. Kerry though seems to dodge, obfuscate, and attempts revisionistic history. On a side note, someone prior mentioned the Patriot Act as the most damaging thing to civil liberties under Bush. Any recall a president known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Alicat the Persnikitty  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Enlightening, LR, but irrevalent to this thread. There are any number of Bush bashing threads here that would be appropriate for it...this one is Kerry's, pro or con. Thought I had made that clear....anyway, thanks for your participation. Right you are, persnickity one. That's why there are so many Viet Nam Vets against Kerry organizations. Don't forget the destroying of the medals but he just happened to forget his so he borrowed others to complete the ceremony while his still rest on his wall to this day...... typical of the man, I would say. If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If you're trying to draw distinction between Kerry and Bush by pointing out Kerry's flip-flops then Bush's flip-flops are perfectly relevant to this thread Deer. The point is -- flip-flopping isn't the evil the right always attempts to point it out to be. Compromise is the engine of politics and government. It merely shows someone who is willing to make adjustments in the face of new information and circumstances -- and occasionally it reveals one pandering. So, big surprise. Politicians fib if it might get them a vote. It's just a pretty easy sport to play the flip-flop game which makes me wonder more about Carl Rove -- I thought he was smart. Every re-election campaign is first and foremost about whether or not the incumbent deserves re-election. Bush 41 pissed away his lead just like 43 is pissing his away. The question is -- does a guy who can come off of approval ratings as high as these two guys did and lose the lead deserve to be re-elected? But if you want to know the positives on Kerry -- I'm happy to oblige. Access has been posted here by both Brad and ME. If I can find his website -- anybody can. A few position points: Economy -- Tax cuts for corporations that don't move jobs out of the country More Tax cuts for middle-class Americans Roll back tax-cut for those making more than 200k... 3% of the population. Eliminate capital gains taxes for long-term venture capital investments in small businesses with an emphasis on new technologies Health Care -- The Kerry Edwards plan will cut premiums for middle class families up to $1,000 Give every American access to the same health care plans covering Congress Cover 100% of America's children Provide affordable prescriptions -- allowing re-importation of drugs from Canada..(oh God not Canada... Canada? Who knows what they put in the drugs up there?  )National Security -- Alliances of the able -- um... you seen the list of the willing? Increase the military by 40,000 Modernize the military a head to head comparison with GW National Security Comparison (ever so -slightly biased) Education -- National Education Trust fund to make sure every school is funded Offer teachers better pay and better training in troubled schools and make sure teachers who don't belong in the classroom don't stay there. Keep schools open till Six o'clock and offer better transportation to keep kids out of trouble $4000 tuition tax credit College for public service programs http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_service/ Environment Reverse the Bush-Cheney roll-backs to the Clean Air Act Science 'will let scientific findings drive scientific decisions and make scientific reports public so all Americans can make informed decisions.' You can expect a more detailed roll-out after the convention when the General Election officially starts. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Military should not be a litmus test for public office. If one has served, why not tell people about it? No flip flop. And since others have already mentioned his military service: quote: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040726fa_fact |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Sigh. LR, your last post only serves to remind me why Democrats usually scare the crap out of me. Can anyone spell bread-and-circuses? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Yes Ron, I know what you mean... it's just a good thing the liberals weren't elected in 2000 -- had they been, we'd have soaring deficits, a recession, and have our military spread out all over the globe in nation-building campaigns? Which programs do you not want funded Ron? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Rebel, the purpose of this thread was never to pose a distinction between Kerry and Bush nor was it described as such. It's purpose was to have participants describe why they think Kerry is the man they would like to have for president.....period. That has absolutely nothing to do with Bush, unless, of course, the reason for wanting Kerry as president is to not have Bush for president. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Tax-cuts, in time of deficit spending, are typically (though not necessarily) short-term thinking. Political goals should benefit the country, not just garner votes. I am not and have never been an advocate of socialized health care. Cheap medicine is, well, cheap. And in every nation with socialized medicine, even the cheap, non-quality health care available is only available after a months-long wait. I have no problem with a stronger military, as THAT is the primary role of government. I might question the necessity, but that's an entirely different issue. I would also like to see a much stronger educational system, but have seen very little evidence to suggest throwing money at it will help. On the contrary, my personal experience in recent years indicates that our current system of grants attracts *exactly* the kind of people we don't want teaching our kids. (Education probably deserves its own thread.) quote: Mike, if this post of yours earlier in this thread is indicative of your stated purpose, I have to admit you've managed to confuse the heck out of me. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ron, just to be consistent I'm going to quote myself from this thread /pip/Forum6/HTML/000672.html quote: and quote: If we look at American politics over the last 50 years what is fascinating is how our system has become more European in how the ideologies have become lodged in the parties. The Republican and Democratic parties used to have wings.. now they are just pseudonyms for the liberal party or the conservative party. But what is even more interesting is that in practice you had George W. campaigning in 2000 on Social Security and Medicare -- the two major pushes of liberalism in the New Deal and the Great Society. And you have him spending like a drunken sailor. Clinton, on the other hand, is the only President to ever repeal an entitlement program with welfare reform. And he balanced the budget. (And if anyone wants to claim credit for that from Newt's Republican revolution -- who's in charge of Congress now?) Cutting taxes in time of deficit spending? Hmmm... sounds like Reaganomics to me. The middle class tax cut is a clear pander. But I'd agree to the economic engineering with the tax cuts for on shore jobs and small business investment.... Spending more on education can't do more harm than spending too little. One can always go back and argue that spending it right is the best -- but putting 'No Child Left Behind' into play and not funding it can hardly be good. I've put up both those issues because tax cuts are always a conservative favorite... the question is what is the right amount of tax? Certainly it isn't zero. And taxing the lower incomes makes little sense. Education spending was the favored issue of one single-issue voter. There are parts of Kerry's platform that I support strongly -- but if I vote for him -- it will be because he poses the ultimate check and balance to the Republican lock on the house and Senate. I don't believe in a unified government. We don't have a parliamentary system and frankly -- I'm glad we don't. Gridlock is good. Very, very, good. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I m confused at your confusion. The response of mine you quoted has nothing to do with Bush at all, nor is he mentioned in it. It's a Kerry thread... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Emphasis added. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I DIDN'T SAY THAT! SHOVE IT!! LOL! Sorry, Ron. That was my imitation of Mrs. Kerry Yes, I wanted it to be about the why's or why nots of Kerry as president based on his own qualifications. That would, of course, come with explanations, defenses, and rebuttals....but the important part being Kerry based on what Kerry is or represents. There have certainly been enough critical and even sarcastic comments aimed at Bush all over this forum. I wanted to see a thread based on Kerry and his positions alone, without Bush being a factor, unless of course Kerry support would simply be a non-Bush support. We can ask which would make the better pet - a tarantula or a snake? I wanted some tarantula supporters why they felt a tarantula would make a good pet - taking the snake out of the equation because, when you get it home, the snake is out of the picture and you still have the tarantula. That's all I asked for. Until Brad and LR made fashinably late appearances few people had anything positive to say about Kerry, reverting to finger-pointing at Bush instead. They just couldn't keep him out of it, apparently. Brad and LR's input were informative as to what Kerry's goals are. All politicians make promises, of course, and few of them seem to come to pass. If someone feels that John-John will indeed follow up on these lofty goals, then that's what I was looking for. Recalling how Clinton's major promise to the people for votes was a strong national health plan (and then hearing him on 60 Minutes after his book came out stating that his biggest disappointment was not coming up with a good national health plan) - it's interesting to see Kerry promising the same thing. Will these things come to pass? Who can say? They are political promises, creatures which seldom see the light of day. The key to gambling is to minimize one's losses. It seems to me our major questions here should be, not to select the hand which promises the most, but to make the bets intelligent enough to lose the least amount possible should the hand not succeed. Which candidate would give us the smallest loss? Good question.... |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Actually, (to the person who burned me) I was refering to his speeches. I know what he stands for, I checked out the D- platform. I also know that changing platforms is actually normal. I just think the platform and his voting record are incongruent, but on the other hand polititions do that. I just think because he is changing his platform so much he has his own agenda, as for the whales............ do I even have to say any thing? But I do have a question What has more wild life the gulf of mexico or alaska? Bush wants to get oil in alaska and Kerry says he plans to get some in the gulf. I can't remember which state he was in, but I saw it on fox. Kerry's education plan is not origanal, More funding won't fix problems. Schools are funded locally, and also the state, sometimes. PERSONALLY Bush has made two mistakes as president: he is too loyal and he didn't send enuff troops, but other then that, he accomplished alot. I supose I could explain why he was too loyal and how that hurt him, but you all should know that. Ron.... you would rather want some one who would sit there and do nothing? One of myt teachers one said "regardless of what happens is cruel or wrong, its even worse to do nothing about it" -Just a thought Juju |
||
|
catalinamoon
since 2000-06-03
Posts 9543The Shores of Alone |
OK here is my 5 cents..I am voting for Kerry and Edwards. I am proud of it, I wish more people would be. Kerry was a super privileged young man who volunteered to go to vietnam. He came home after, and said it was wrong, and that we needed to withdraw. He stood up for his extremely unpopular opinions. I admire that. I also believe that he wants to bring the country together, and that he cares about childrens issues and the elderly. And on the anyone but Bush scenario, the entire world HATES us these days, that will improve with a new president, I am sure of it. I have a close friend in England and she tells me the prevailing opinion of Bush there, and it is scary. And they are our "allies". Imagine what our enemies think of him. Not to disagree with anyone here, but I feel strongly enough about this to get my head bitten off. John Edwards is a good guy too, why the picking on of him? He has stood up for people against big companies for years, and has a lot of caring attitudes.(compare to Cheney..) Sandra |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Catalina...without responding to anything you've said...go look at what his fellow soldiers say about him www.drudgereport.com/dnc82.htm if it won't open...go to drudgereport and look for the book that's coming out from his fellow vets that served side by side with him next week....Who would know him better? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Juju, Sorry to be picking on you the last few days, nothing personal, but since you brought up the oil thing twice, I found this: http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/8488649.htm Here's the quote from Kerry: quote: The Kerry campaign immediately issued a denial that Kerry intended to reopen older drilling areas or to expand current drilling areas, but only intended to use current drilling areas. The article (from the college newspaper) goes on to ask why only Florida's coastline was mentioned and not other states. I think that's an easy one. Because he was in Florida at the time. I also read a blog that seemed to present the same dichotomy between the Gulf's and the Alaskan reserve. It must be one or the other? The thinking here is clear. Bush supports the opening of the Alaskan reserve, but, upon the request of his brother, has helped shut down several drilling spots near the Florida coast. It would have been nice to have Kerry want the opposite, wouldn't it? Sorry guys, wishful thinking at its best. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, snopes comes to the rescue concerning Kerry's purple hearts: http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp quote: Don't you think that many of these men are a little more upset with Kerry's actions after his military service than during? |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Heh brad your not picking on me at all, just putting your opinion down. When I heard him say that he was not in florida, It was south but not floria. "Thats why I have supported oil drilling in the gulf" Is what I Heard him say in reference to or dependence on foriegn oil. Heh we could be talking about the same thing, buton the other hand that was not what I heard him say. I am sure that he took it back too. oh well Juju |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
