WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines calling all repubs and enemies of Kerry

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
3
38
#1
anyone who has anything bad to say about Kerry regarding "flip-flopping", I would like to see some specific examples of issues where Kerry has "flip-flopped". thanks for your time.
 

Pachyderm

I really did.
802
0
0
#3
"LCR misrepresent Kerry and call it flip-flopping"

I was reading "Outlook" and there was an artical in it entitled "LCR misrepresent Kerry and call it flip-flopping". In a later edition there was a letter to the editor, which I have and can make accurate references from.
John Kerry's stance on the Missouri Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage must be seen in relation to his over concerning states' rights. Both Kerry and Edwards have stated that they believe decisions related to marriage law should rest in the jurisdiction of the states. Their consistency on this position has been demonstrated in their refusal to support Bush's Federal Marriage Amendment. John Kerry did not "flip-flop" in his statement concerning the proposed Missouri amendment; he merely reaffirmed his longstanding commitment to defending the right of the stated to decide the question of marriage amendments on their own.
But I am sure you are referring to anyone who can prove that he is flip-flopping against the war. In my opinion someone can vote for the war but against funding. Perhaps there is too much funding already? As for everything else, I have no proof of anything. I am sure we can all look at those videos that are surfing around the internet, but ideas and issues change with the times. These are not exactly credible. So I agree with you, I would like to be informed on flip flopping.
 

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
3
38
#4
I think that being in the senate for 20 years almost then Kerry has voted on a lot of things. I'm pretty sure that when people accuse him of flopping we will see that it occurs in completly different times, even decades apart.
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#5
~Kerry voted for authorization to use force in Iraq

~on Face the Nation Kerry said that voting against 87 million dollars additional funding for the war in Iraq would be "irresponsible"
~on meet the press TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.”
~Kerry then voted no for additional funding
~Kerry then chastised the Prez by saying that soldiers are dying because they didn't have adequate equipment.
~during the first Democratic primary debate Kerry said "“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.”
~he then claimed only to threaten the use of force "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations."
~on Hardball he claimed to be an anti-war president.

if this is just about the war then here is some.. but I have to go... I gotta be up for Reserves in the morning... I'll post more tomorrow...
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,984
1,399
487
#6
1st i'm not a kerry supporter nor am i a bush supporter. you're looking at that the wrong way.
DanGeo23 said:
~Kerry voted for authorization to use force in Iraq
Kerry voted to authorize the President to make the call when he thought it was right. He should be faulted for delegating his authority, but that does not mean he voted for what unfolded in March of 2003.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,984
1,399
487
#9
DanGeo23 said:
~on Face the Nation Kerry said that voting against 87 million dollars additional funding for the war in Iraq would be "irresponsible"
~on meet the press TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.”
~Kerry then voted no for additional funding
~Kerry then chastised the Prez by saying that soldiers are dying because they didn't have adequate equipment.
The funding issue is nuanced, in my opinion. He first put his foot in his mouth by calling a vote against it 'irresponsible'. I do not know the exact timeline, but perhaps he had not read the text of the bill at that time. Maybe he was expecting the 87 billion to cover specific items regarding the war in Iraq and found out that it covered 'unacceptable' items instead. Who knows. He may have felt it just to chastise the president after voting 'no' to the funding because the funding itself did not allow for the flak jackets or supplies, etc.

DanGeo23 said:
~during the first Democratic primary debate Kerry said "“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.”
~he then claimed only to threaten the use of force "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations."
I understand that he did think that Saddam was a threat, but this was based on many years of CIA intelligence claiming he had WMDs. I also think it understandable to feel like this decision was wrong when you find out [or feel like] you voted because of a 'lie'.

I also think that he still thought that something had to be done about Saddam, and so he holds firm on saying that he would vote again to delegate Congressional power to the President. However, IF he was expecting the invasion to be executed differently AND he was expecting a realistic exit strategy, then he was a fool [IMO] to expect that from this president but I can also see how someone could be upset with the way the particulars were handled.
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#10
jung said:
I understand that he did think that Saddam was a threat, but this was based on many years of CIA intelligence claiming he had WMDs
he had access to the same intel that the Prez did.. he came up with the same opinion... he just didn't have to make the call...



TZ said:
Transcript of Meet The Press

DanGeo - did you just make that stuff up or is it someone else lies?



Transcript of Face the Nation
Face the nation

and how bout the transcript from the actual show... from their site...

Meet the Press
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#11
ohh and, tzedek, heres your " :lol: " back... you might need it somewhere else..
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#12
DanGeo23 said:
~Kerry voted for authorization to use force in Iraq

~on Face the Nation Kerry said that voting against 87 million dollars additional funding for the war in Iraq would be "irresponsible"
~on meet the press TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.”
~Kerry then voted no for additional funding
~Kerry then chastised the Prez by saying that soldiers are dying because they didn't have adequate equipment.
~during the first Democratic primary debate Kerry said "“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.”
~he then claimed only to threaten the use of force "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations."
~on Hardball he claimed to be an anti-war president.

if this is just about the war then here is some.. but I have to go... I gotta be up for Reserves in the morning... I'll post more tomorrow...
DanGeo:

It must be fun not to consider what may be happened in between all of these things. Everything is so simple in your mind, hmmm. Here's a tip, all politicians change their minds.

Here's 40 from your boy:
http://www.flipfloppingbush.com/

Gotta be a little nervous about those Reserves, eh buddy? Ready to die for absolutely nothing?
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#13
VOR said:
Gotta be a little nervous about those Reserves, eh buddy? Ready to die for absolutely nothing?
what a stupid thing to say to someone that may go there.. and may face that possibility... I'm glad to see that things are so simple in your mind... Bush = Bad... Anybody against Bush = Good...
ohh and I didn't look at the link but please let me know how many of the "flips" were from stances before 9-11... that changed afterwards... all politicians change their minds... and we don't know what else the bills contained... however not all politicians blatently play both extremes of every issue depending on whom they are speaking in front of.... like JK..
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,984
1,399
487
#14
Bush does legitimately suffer from a lack of intelligence. Kerry, though not a Rhodes Scholar, suffers more from an absolute adherence to his campaign managers, which causes quite a few of his problems.

DanGeo23 said:
what a stupid thing to say to someone that may go there.. and may face that possibility... I'm glad to see that things are so simple in your mind... Bush = Bad... Anybody against Bush = Good...
I would say it safe to write voice off as a moron, he can't make an intelligent post based on fact, rather weak attempts at flames. but back to bush being bad, it's fairly safe to say that bush has brought much ill to our government, i'm sorry if you don't see this. maybe you should look further than cnn or fox news for your information.

These are not the kind of actions i want carried out in my name.

The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos - Graphic photos of our "relatively small infractions at Abu Grhaib". Again, Saddam may have been worse, but we did not overthrow him to give them Saddam-Lite, right?

International human rights standards continued to be flouted in the name of the "war on terror", resulting in thousands of women and men suffering unlawful detention, unfair trial and torture – often solely because of their ethnic or religious background.

A video of what we do to scrap wood 'looters' - Fast forward to 7:00 if that is all you wish to see.

DanGeo23 said:
please let me know how many of the "flips" were from stances before 9-11... that changed afterwards... all politicians change their minds... and we don't know what else the bills contained... however not all politicians blatently play both extremes of every issue depending on whom they are speaking in front of.... like JK..
you only lessen the credablilty of your previous statements about kerry. I'm not impressed with the bush campain's "playing" with scare tactics either. the bush camp have managed to leverage the 9/11 tragedy as a tool for their campaign. Implying that in bush's absence in office america would become weak and fall to terrorit attack. the sad part is people are naive enough to believe this. fear is indeed a powerful social tool and using fear of foreign threats is a well documented psychological tactic. leaders have historically used this tactic in order to unite people under them. (hitler did it by making it seem as if poland was a threat to germany, for example, when it was all staged)
it wasn't too long ago that I remember hearing george bush (not w) proponents claim that making clinton president would cause the world (especially Iraq) to take the US as less than seriously because Clinton had no military experience and was a draft dodger. well, I could see the appeal in that to some,but now Republicans seem to have found a way to convince many in this country that George W. Bush, who has a meager level of military experience, can handle the terrorist issue better than Kerry, who in contrast has wartime military experience and is a highly decorated soldier. Kerry has also has been involved in politics longer than George W. Bush has been a recovering alcoholic, go figure. maybe it's because Bush can lie so well that he makes a hostile and unwarranted takeover sound like an act of divine liberation. thinking the latter is much more appealing to the emotions, I suppose, although not logically supported.

again just to reiterate my view point, i'm neither a bush nor am i a kerry supporter. i am also a veteran and thankfully i chose not to re-up after afghanistan. the reason for this isn't to avoid war, rather avoid taking part in a senseless and unwaranted occupation.
 

Skitch0o0

Put it in MY butt...
979
0
0
#15
DanGeo23 said:
~Kerry voted for authorization to use force in Iraq
~on Face the Nation Kerry said that voting against 87 million dollars additional funding for the war in Iraq would be "irresponsible"
~on meet the press TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.”
~Kerry then voted no for additional funding
Ok, he voted no for a certain bill that provided additional funding. This bill also provided for other things and had other portions. Unfortunately he doesn't get to for part of the bill and then leave the rest out. This is how the legislature works. A bill goes to vote, it fails, they usually try to rewrite it in a way so that more people will go for it. You can be for more funding and still vote agaisnt a specific funding bill. That's not "flip-flopping". "Flip-flopper" is just one of those nice second-grade name-calling tactics that idiots like to use (yes, even idiots on the Democrat side of the fence).
 

Skitch0o0

Put it in MY butt...
979
0
0
#16
DanGeo23 said:
what a stupid thing to say to someone that may go there.. and may face that possibility... I'm glad to see that things are so simple in your mind... Bush = Bad... Anybody against Bush = Good...
ohh and I didn't look at the link but please let me know how many of the "flips" were from stances before 9-11... that changed afterwards... all politicians change their minds... and we don't know what else the bills contained... however not all politicians blatently play both extremes of every issue depending on whom they are speaking in front of.... like JK..
Holy shit! That almost resembled a logical argument. I mean, all you have to due is strip the rhetoric, name-calling, over simplification and massive amounts of logical fallacies, then you're left with "What _____________ 9-11 ____________ Politicians __________ Bill ..." All you have to do from there is fill in the blanks. Thanks for presenting us with the epitome of a sound argument. We all feel more informed thanks to you.
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#17
jung said:
maybe you should look further than cnn or fox news for your information.
I feel that I do look at most logical sides of issues.. and I come up with my opinions that way...
jung said:
The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos
surely Bush isn't to blame for this... its not how a soldier should act in my opinion.. many people knew it was wrong.. I do however find it amazing that those pictures struck more outrage then the beheading videos... maybe because the US isn't expected to act in such a manner.. and we expect it from the other side...
jung said:
International human rights standards continued to be flouted in the name of the "war on terror", resulting in thousands of women and men suffering unlawful detention, unfair trial and torture – often solely because of their ethnic or religious background.
there are no doubts in my mind that people were detained that were innocent... but the article doesn't draw a line between being held for questioning and being held for months in a prison setting... the ethnic/religious comment in my estimation is based on someones opinion of the war.. that the US is against Arabs and that is there way of saying it..
jung said:
A video of what we do to scrap wood 'looters' -
Wow.. BTW I was a tanker for 4 years while I was on active duty... that was just wrong if all they were doing was stealing "scrap wood".. and then the heart string story about the taxi.. not sure if I believe the extra commentary.. but what the soldiers did in my opinion was wrong.. and I hope they are being disciplined accordingly...
jung said:
Implying that in bush's absence in office america would become weak and fall to terrorit attack.
not an absence of Bush but the presence of Kerry in my opinion... I do believe that if we return to the complacent years of the 90s where terrorist attacks against us were largely overlooked... we will be more unsafe..
jung said:
Clinton had no military experience and was a draft dodger. well, I could see the appeal in that to some,but now Republicans seem to have found a way to convince many in this country that George W. Bush, who has a meager level of military experience, can handle the terrorist issue better than Kerry,
I have always been of the mindset that military service doesn't always mean that you will be a better leader... or that you will handle the tough situations better... Unless you were a General ..
jung said:
contrast has wartime military experience and is a highly decorated soldier
yes he has the wartime military experience.. but I think that anyone that looks at his service upfront would question his record... 4 months 3 purple hearts a silver star.. and I think 2 bronze stars... thats a shitload of awards for a 4 month period.. has to be on par with Audie Murphy... but JK won't allow his records released... I wonder if it would matter to some people if it turned out that he wrote his own awards or lied... all he has to do is release the records to squash questions...
jung said:
hostile and unwarranted takeover
hostile... yes... unwarrented... depends on if you believed the intel or not.. JK did..
jung said:
i am also a veteran and thankfully i chose not to re-up
Thank you for your service... and I am glad to hear that you got out the right way on your terms when you didn't like what was going on... the honorable way..
Ok, he voted no for a certain bill that provided additional funding.
but he stated that it would be "irresponsible" to vote against it... and didn't offer a "rider" as a reason to vote "no"... that would be the easy ... understandable reason to vote against a bill that looks good up front.. if it has BS "riders" tell the people... let them know that people are taking advantage of the situation to pass things you think are BS on the back of a bill that provides improved resources for the troops... they will understand..
Skitch said:
all you have to due is strip the rhetoric
rhetoric is defined as... The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively. that is pretty much what a debate is all about... using language to persuade others... although I am not the best at it.. nor do I feel that I will change anyones minds here... but how else would some of the people here get half of there posts if it wasn't disagreeing with me.. what fun would it be if everybody agreed...
....Bush Sux
... yeah he does
... he blows
... big business sux too
... war monger...
.... you forgot liar...

I think people would get bored quick of that...
Skitch said:
name-calling
... searching previous post.. ... ... .. Searching post... nope no name calling found... WTF are you talkin about...
Skitch said:
over simplification
.. what the "Bush = bad.... etc" comment.. well sorry if I don't play up to your high level of intel... that happens to be the way I feel that alot of people view the current Prez and the campaign...
Skitch said:
massive amounts of logical fallacies
there wasn't massive amounts of anything in a 6 line post.. well maybe grammatical or punctuation errors... what makes sense to one person doesn't always make sense to another person... you are used alot of words when you could have just said "take out the_____" and insert the word Opinion... because thats what the post was my opinion...
Skitch said:
epitome of a sound argument
sarcasm doesn't present well in type... so if this wasn't a sarcastic dig at my opinion.. then you should use Dictionary.com and figure out what the words you use mean...
Skitch said:
We all feel more informed thanks to you.
Your Welcome.. ohh and thanx for your $.02.. too...
 

Skitch0o0

Put it in MY butt...
979
0
0
#18
DanGeo23 said:
rhetoric is defined as...
"Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous" (i.e. fluff).

DG23 said:
... searching previous post.. ... ... .. Searching post... nope no name calling found... WTF are you talkin about...
"what a stupid thing to say" - DG23 Admittedly, "name-calling" would be a bit of a stretch. I was a bit on auto-pilot there.

And yes, the 6 lines of crap contained nothing resembling a logical argument. Evidence? What, so you say that you refuse to look at a source cited by somebody else and that automatically discredits it? You twist somebody's words by saying "Bush = Bad, Not Bush = Good" to show that their argument that you created for them is a bad one to some how try and imply that any argument you have must be better and therefore correct? (False Dillema) Diverting attention? Yeah, "not all politicians blatently play both extremes of every issue depending on whom they are speaking in front of" so vote for Bush! First off, you need to things to hold that "logical" implication. 1) JK must actually be "blatently play both extremes of every issue depending on whom they are speaking in front of" which you provide zero evidence of and 2) Bush must be a viable alternative that does not do so, which you also provide zero evidence of. Hence the Divering Attention fallacy. Yes, I'd say being able to pick apart a mere 6 lines this much would constitute "full of fallcies", but that is my opinion as it is a qualitative analysis and not quantitative, per se.