Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    Forum Regular Widowmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    95

    A fair criticism of John Kerry

    Everyone already knows that John Kerry served in Vietnam and earned a Silver Star and multiple Purple Hearts but this may be something that people don't know. After his service, while military operations were continuing, Kerry joined the anti-war protestors and played an active part in the protest movement.

    I don't know about you guys, but while I think that Vietnam was wrong, I would have a hard time joining a "peace" movement that greeted returning soldiers by pelting them with rotten eggs, tomatoes, etc., and calling them baby killers. I'm big on the team concept and even though I might not like what the upper management is doing, I would NEVER go against the team or my teammates. Apparently, John Kerry thinks otherwise.

    Furthermore, in 1971, Kerry testified before the Senate that it was official U.S. policy to carry out atrocities in Vietnam even though subsequent investigations showed that the people that Kerry got his information from were either never in the military, never in Vietnam, or did not have proof for their claims. That's outrageous and shows what a fair-weather flip-flopper that John Kerry really is (also, isn't it ironic that Kerry joined the political party of the man most responsible for U.S. policy in Vietnam, LBJ? How principled of him.).

    So, when you're going to the polls in November, ask yourself if this is really the kind of man you want directing this country.

  2. #2
    Forum Regular jeskibuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Widowmaker
    when you're going to the polls in November, ask yourself if this is really the kind of man you want directing this country.
    From Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry:Kerry's betrayal of American prisoners of war, his blatant disrespect for the families of our missing in action, Vietnam veterans, the military, his support for communist Vietnam and his waffling over the issue of use of force in Iraq proves he is a self promoting Chameleon Senator who cannot be relied on to protect the best interests of the United States
    Click here to see my system.

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    583
    Did you ever find out why Kerry protested the war?
    Also, how do you feel about how both Bush and Clinton running away from Vietnam?
    Remember, different isn't always better, but it is different.
    Keep things as simple as possible, but not too simple.
    Let your ears decide for you!

  4. #4
    Forum Regular jeskibuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    338
    Somewhat appropriate to the topic at hand, this picture was taken of a couple of FreeRepublic protesters at the Gridiron Dinner (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...ts?q=1&&page=1)


    The second picture isn't as appropriate for the topic, but came from the same thread:
    Click here to see my system.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Widowmaker
    Everyone already knows that John Kerry served in Vietnam and earned a Silver Star and multiple Purple Hearts but this may be something that people don't know. After his service, while military operations were continuing, Kerry joined the anti-war protestors and played an active part in the protest movement.

    I don't know about you guys, but while I think that Vietnam was wrong, I would have a hard time joining a "peace" movement that greeted returning soldiers by pelting them with rotten eggs, tomatoes, etc., and calling them baby killers. I'm big on the team concept and even though I might not like what the upper management is doing, I would NEVER go against the team or my teammates. Apparently, John Kerry thinks otherwise.

    Furthermore, in 1971, Kerry testified before the Senate that it was official U.S. policy to carry out atrocities in Vietnam even though subsequent investigations showed that the people that Kerry got his information from were either never in the military, never in Vietnam, or did not have proof for their claims. That's outrageous and shows what a fair-weather flip-flopper that John Kerry really is (also, isn't it ironic that Kerry joined the political party of the man most responsible for U.S. policy in Vietnam, LBJ? How principled of him.).

    So, when you're going to the polls in November, ask yourself if this is really the kind of man you want directing this country.

    Here is a more detailed account:

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...0/131219.shtml

    -Bruce

  6. #6
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    218
    Man you guys always draw me in to this political stuff...

    Once Bush gave his first speech knocking Kerry, it was clear how the right was going to try and portray him. Reading all of this thread confirms that. It almost sounds like robot talk at this point, and the race hasn't even started yet. Have any of you ever been for something, but yet, had doubts about it at the same time? Have any of you ever changed your stance on a belief? Anyone who has read my posts knows I'm fairly consistent about trying to see both sides of a topic and I've actually changed my stance a few times. Yet, on many of the topics, I don't take a hard line either way - and I'm sure if some rightwing guy went through my posts, he could make me "appear" to be two-faced like the right is doint with Kerry. That's why I find the picture people are trying to paint so humorous.

    My suggestion to everyone here - don't allow the propoganda that will fill this forum and many other online destinations sway you one way or the other. Do your own research. If someone quotes something - find the source and see what they conveniently left out of the quote. If someone states that a candidate did something, find out why he did it. Context is everything. If Kerry was against the Vietnam war when he got home, do some research on your own as to why. Don't automatically assume that just because there's a "Vietnam Vets against Kerry" group, that all or even most Vietnam vets are against him. Do your research. And yes, out of fairness, do the same for Bush. The difference in this campaign though, is that Bush's 3-4 year history is what will be the focus, compared to Kerry's past 35-40. You'll have to dig deeper on Kerry to find context. You've already seen Bush's actions first hand.

    It's funny - the title of this thread sounds ironic to me. You forgot to add the "from the right" to the end of it. I'm reading a book called Lies and the Liars who tell them. It's supposed to be a "fair and balanced assessment of the right" - but it's written by the left, so you know it's going to have some bias. In some cases, it does sound fair. But in others, it just sounds like the opinion of a left-winger who was able to pick and choose his points which can prove almost anything, or sometimes nothing at all. The same can be done by both sides... and you'll see this over and over and over..... and over again this election year. Find the truth. Look past the marketing and the hype.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    583
    One question for you: Do you feel it is appropriate to discuss why President Bush, instead of serving his country in Vietnam, decided to join the National Guard?
    Joining the National Guard, which we all know, is a great way to get out of risking your life for your country. One of the other alternatives was to do what Clinton did. Of course Bush wasn't smart enough for that route!

    Seems to me that by actually fighting in Vietnam, Kerry did more for both this country, and the veterans of that war, than Bush did!

    Hell, that is just my opinion, what is yours?
    Remember, different isn't always better, but it is different.
    Keep things as simple as possible, but not too simple.
    Let your ears decide for you!

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Do your own research. If someone quotes something - find the source and see what they conveniently left out of the quote. If someone states that a candidate did something, find out why he did it. Context is everything. If Kerry was against the Vietnam war when he got home, do some research on your own as to why. Don't automatically assume that just because there's a "Vietnam Vets against Kerry" group, that all or even most Vietnam vets are against him. Do your research. And yes, out of fairness, do the same for Bush. .

    You don't want much, do you Do independent research?
    mtrycrafts

  9. #9
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Man you guys always draw me in to this political stuff...

    Once Bush gave his first speech knocking Kerry, it was clear how the right was going to try and portray him. Reading all of this thread confirms that. It almost sounds like robot talk at this point, and the race hasn't even started yet. Have any of you ever been for something, but yet, had doubts about it at the same time? Have any of you ever changed your stance on a belief? Anyone who has read my posts knows I'm fairly consistent about trying to see both sides of a topic and I've actually changed my stance a few times. Yet, on many of the topics, I don't take a hard line either way - and I'm sure if some rightwing guy went through my posts, he could make me "appear" to be two-faced like the right is doint with Kerry. That's why I find the picture people are trying to paint so humorous.

    My suggestion to everyone here - don't allow the propoganda that will fill this forum and many other online destinations sway you one way or the other. Do your own research. If someone quotes something - find the source and see what they conveniently left out of the quote. If someone states that a candidate did something, find out why he did it. Context is everything. If Kerry was against the Vietnam war when he got home, do some research on your own as to why. Don't automatically assume that just because there's a "Vietnam Vets against Kerry" group, that all or even most Vietnam vets are against him. Do your research. And yes, out of fairness, do the same for Bush. The difference in this campaign though, is that Bush's 3-4 year history is what will be the focus, compared to Kerry's past 35-40. You'll have to dig deeper on Kerry to find context. You've already seen Bush's actions first hand.

    It's funny - the title of this thread sounds ironic to me. You forgot to add the "from the right" to the end of it. I'm reading a book called Lies and the Liars who tell them. It's supposed to be a "fair and balanced assessment of the right" - but it's written by the left, so you know it's going to have some bias. In some cases, it does sound fair. But in others, it just sounds like the opinion of a left-winger who was able to pick and choose his points which can prove almost anything, or sometimes nothing at all. The same can be done by both sides... and you'll see this over and over and over..... and over again this election year. Find the truth. Look past the marketing and the hype.
    Chris -

    Thanks for bringing some measure of sanity to the discussion. My opinions are a bit more partisan, but your points are dead on. Both sides have their hypocrites and extremists who do nothing but presume that they "know" what the other side's dark intentions are. I went to high school in conservative Orange County, and personally know a lot of people that would be conventionally classified as the "religious right." Some of them were my closest friends. Just as I would never accuse them of somehow trying to destroy this country, they don't resort to name-calling and inflammatory verbiage to characterize my positions, as much as they disagree with me. That kind of hateful crap is what talk shows and internet mudslinging are for. It's easy to be "brave" when one's in front of a microphone or safely situated behind the anonymity of a computer screen.

    Here's an interesting commentary from today's LA Times that looks at how the extemist noise on both sides has done all of us a tremendous disservice. This thread seems like just another manifestation of the phenomenon that the column talks about.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,4438352.story

  10. #10
    Forum Regular jeskibuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Man you guys always draw me in to this political stuff...
    Consider it a cleansing process, Chris. Just good, rational debate is what's needed to rid your system of that faulty liberal logic!

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Once Bush gave his first speech knocking Kerry, it was clear how the right was going to try and portray him.
    Uh...maybe you saw something that I didn't, but all throughout the primary process the Democrat candidates were deadset on bashing Bush. When they found they were bashing each other, they took a breather, said "Hey...let's not hit each other...BUSH is the bad guy", and got "back on track". It was smart for the Bush team to hold their response at that time. They knew there would be plenty of bashing among the candidates, so why not sit back and let them tear each other up until the nomination seemed sewn up? That happened recently - Kerry is the obvious winner. Now the Bush team no longer has a moving target - there's ONE candidate running against him and a focused campaign can begin. But Bush's "first speech knocking Kerry" was NOT the first volley, Chris. The Bush camp was silent during all the Bush-bashing during the primary process. Now that it has responded, you're quick to assess the "nastiness" blame on Bush and ignore the assaults he has quietly put up with for months. It actually shows a good deal of fiscal responsibility - campaign money wasn't wasted on retaliation until the target was clearly defined.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    It almost sounds like robot talk at this point, and the race hasn't even started yet.
    Sorry Chris, but this race is on. It's got an early start, and you can blame the Democratic leadership for that. They shifted the primary process so that a winner could be defined at an earlier date. And robot talk? Sorry, but there are some obvious discrepancies with Kerry. If the Democratic side believes they can attack Bush non-stop but then they cry and wail "UNFAIR!" when the Bush camp responds, they've got a few lessons to learn. This is a classic case of "they can dish it out, but they can't take it".
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    My suggestion to everyone here - don't allow the propoganda that will fill this forum and many other online destinations sway you one way or the other. Do your own research.
    Mtrycraft had the perfect response to this statement as it was written. I think your wording was just extreme, Chris. We all need to judge the veracity of information. It's especially essential to assess the motivations of the sources. But to do the "research" ourselves is like expecting Bush to have verified all the intelligence first-hand before acting on Iraq. It's not my job to be a reporter, but I can make good judgements about a reporter's assessment. There are two (or more) sides to every story, and that's what's good about these kind of debates - getting the different perspectives.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Don't automatically assume that just because there's a "Vietnam Vets against Kerry" group, that all or even most Vietnam vets are against him.
    Likewise, just because two 9/11 widows state their case on national TV against Bush ads using WTC images doesn't mean that ALL 9/11 victim's families are against such ads.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    The difference in this campaign though, is that Bush's 3-4 year history is what will be the focus, compared to Kerry's past 35-40.
    Then why all the dredging of the National Guard issue?? That's a bit older than 4 years!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Find the truth. Look past the marketing and the hype.
    Good advice. It would be nice if EVERYONE made such an effort!

    I really like the analysis done by
    Here's another good article by Cliff Kincaid: http://www.aim.org/publications/medi...004/03/10.html
    The article talks about the hypocritical coverage of The Washington Post. It's summed up nicely in the last sentence: "The pattern has been established: the Post will seize on anything to use against Bush but will tread lightly when it comes to Kerry’s lack of credibility."
    Click here to see my system.

  11. #11
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Man you guys always draw me in to this political stuff...

    Once Bush gave his first speech knocking Kerry, it was clear how the right was going to try and portray him.
    Okay, lets look at Kerry's record on Defense:

    1991

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Discontinue production of B-2 bomber.
    S 1507 (Fiscal 92-93 Defense Authorization);
    Amendment;
    8/1/91

    1992

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Cut $2,686,572,000 from the bill for production of additional B-2 stealth bombers, halting production of the B-2 fleet at 15 planes instead of the 20 planes requested by the administration.
    S 3114 (Fiscal 1993 Defense Authorization);
    Amendment;
    9/18/92

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Reduce the defense spending levels for smaller weapon projects by $8.8 billion in fiscal 1993.
    S Con Res 106 (Fiscal 1993 Budget Resolution);
    Amendment;
    4/9/92

    1993

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Postpone the 1995 military base closing round until 1997.
    S 1298 (1994 Defense Authorization);
    Amendment;
    9/10/93

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Cut the Ballistic Missile Defense program from $3.4 billion to $3 billion.
    S 1298 (Fiscal 1994 Defense Authorization);
    Amendment;
    9/9/93

    1994

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Cut $150 million for additional B-2 stealth bombers.
    S 2182 (Fiscal 1995 Defense Authorization);
    Amendment;
    7/1/94

    1995

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Table amendment to delete making a multiple-site national missile defense policy.
    S 1026: 1996 Defense Authorization

    1996

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Vote to adopt the joint House-Senate conference report authorizing $265.6 billion for defense activities in fiscal year 1997.
    HR 3230: National Defense Authorization Act, 1997

    (This one should be under JOBS!)
    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Vote to table an amendment to require that all work done under Defense Department contracts be performed in the U.S.
    S 1894: Fiscal 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Vote on an amendment to reduce the authorization for defense spending.
    S 1745: 1997 National Defense Authorization Act

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Vote on an amendment to reduce funding for a national missile defense program.
    S 1745: 1997 National Defense Authorization Act

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Vote on an amendment to reduce 1997 defense budget authority in the bill by $8.3 billion.
    S Con Res 57: 1997 Budget Resolution

    1997

    (This could also be under Terrorism)
    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Vote to pass a bill making unlawful the acquisition, transfer or use of any chemical or biological weapon, among other provisions.
    S 495: The Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act

    1998

    (This could also be under JOBS)
    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

    Vote on an amendment to make it more difficult for the administration to close bases without Congressional approval, that have at least 225 civilian employees, and to prohibit closing bases within four years after realigning them.
    S 2057: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

    1999

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Vote to allow one round of military base closures beginning in 2001
    S 1059: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Vote to state it is the policy of the U.S. to deploy a National Missile Defense system as soon as it is technologically possible.
    S 257: National Missile Defense Act of 1999
    (The above is a great example of Kerry being on both sides of an issue. Of course he can vote for this, he voted against every authorization of developing one in previous years)

    2000

    (This could be under Foriegn Policy)
    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would require sanctions against China or other countries if they were found to be selling illicit weapons of mass destruction.
    HR 4444: A bill to authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment [normal trade relations treatment] to the People's Republic of China.

    2002

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Vote to pass a joint resolution that would authorize the use of force against Iraq.
    H.J.RES.114 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq

    (Can you say hypocrite!)

    -Bruce

  12. #12
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Once Bush gave his first speech knocking Kerry, it was clear how the right was going to try and portray him.
    How about Social Security:

    1992

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Motion to waive the budget act to raise Social Security benefits for notch babies, individuals born after 1916 and before 1927, at a cost of about $22 billion over five years.
    HR 5488 (Fiscal 1993 Treasury-Postal Appropriations);
    9/10/92

    1993

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Allow consideration of amendment to increase Social Security earnings test limits.
    HR 5488: Fiscal 1993 Treasury-Postal Appropriations
    Vote on a procedural motion to allow consideration of an amendment to increase the amount someone 65-69 could earn before their Social Security benefits decreased.

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Table amendment to delete the Social Security benefit tax increase.
    S 1134:
    Vote on the motion to table an amendment that would delete language in the bill that made individuals earning more than $32,000 and couples earning more than $40,000 subject to an increase in the percentage of Social Security benefits subject to taxation.
    (And this guy is for the middle class???)

    1998

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Vote on an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that the Finance Committee should consider legislation to use the federal budget surplus to establish personal retirement accounts as a supplement to Social Security.
    S Con Res 86: Budget Resolution FY 1999-2003

    1999

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Vote on a cloture motion on a bill to require a super majority vote to pass any legislation that would use Social Security or Medicare trust funds to pay for any other government expenditure.
    HR 1259: Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999

    2000

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Vote to pass a bill that would allow senior citizens ages 65 through 69 to continue to earn money without a reduction in their Social Security benefits.
    HR 5: Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000

    (Here's and example of Kerry being on both sides of an issue. In '93 he voted against a similar measure)

    2001

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Vote to pass an amendment that would make up to $300 billion available for a Medicare prescription drug benefit for 2002 through 2011.
    H Con Res 83

  13. #13
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Man you guys always draw me in to this political stuff...

    Once Bush gave his first speech knocking Kerry, it was clear how the right was going to try and portray him.
    Vetrans:

    1996

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Vote on an amendment to require the VA to allocate its health care resources equally in all regions of the country.
    HR 3666: Fiscal 1997 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations
    Vote to adopt an amendment that would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement a plan to assure that health care resources are allocated nationwide so that veterans in all regions of the country have equal access to medical care and facilities.

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Vote on an amendment to add $13 billion to the president's budget for veterans benefits and services between 1997 and 2002, paid for by reducing welfare spending.
    S Con Res 57: 1997 Budget Resolution

    (Is this robbing Peter to pay Paul?)

    2001

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

    Vote to pass a concurrent resolution to set the framework for the fiscal 2002 federal budget. The 10-year budget plan calls for tax cuts of $1.18 trillion over the ten years and $85 billion in fiscal 2001.
    H Con Res 83
    Vote to pass a concurrent resolution to set the framework for the fiscal 2002 federal budget. The 10-year budget plan calls for tax cuts of $1.18 trillion over the ten years and $85 billion in fiscal 2001. The publicly held dept would be reduced by approximately $1.1 trillion and discretionary spending would be capped at $670 billion from fiscal 2002-2011. Among other provisions, the resolution would eliminate the marriage penalty tax by increasing the tax cut by $69 billion, increase funding for veterans health care by $1.7 billion by redirecting the same amount from the proposed tax cut, and provide for an increase of $967 million in fiscal 2002 for veterans discretionary spending.

  14. #14
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    Consider it a cleansing process, Chris. Just good, rational debate is what's needed to rid your system of that faulty liberal logic!

    Uh...maybe you saw something that I didn't, but all throughout the primary process the Democrat candidates were deadset on bashing Bush. When they found they were bashing each other, they took a breather, said "Hey...let's not hit each other...BUSH is the bad guy", and got "back on track". It was smart for the Bush team to hold their response at that time. They knew there would be plenty of bashing among the candidates, so why not sit back and let them tear each other up until the nomination seemed sewn up? That happened recently - Kerry is the obvious winner. Now the Bush team no longer has a moving target - there's ONE candidate running against him and a focused campaign can begin. But Bush's "first speech knocking Kerry" was NOT the first volley, Chris. The Bush camp was silent during all the Bush-bashing during the primary process. Now that it has responded, you're quick to assess the "nastiness" blame on Bush and ignore the assaults he has quietly put up with for months. It actually shows a good deal of fiscal responsibility - campaign money wasn't wasted on retaliation until the target was clearly defined.
    Sorry Chris, but this race is on. It's got an early start, and you can blame the Democratic leadership for that. They shifted the primary process so that a winner could be defined at an earlier date. And robot talk? Sorry, but there are some obvious discrepancies with Kerry. If the Democratic side believes they can attack Bush non-stop but then they cry and wail "UNFAIR!" when the Bush camp responds, they've got a few lessons to learn. This is a classic case of "they can dish it out, but they can't take it".
    Mtrycraft had the perfect response to this statement as it was written. I think your wording was just extreme, Chris. We all need to judge the veracity of information. It's especially essential to assess the motivations of the sources. But to do the "research" ourselves is like expecting Bush to have verified all the intelligence first-hand before acting on Iraq. It's not my job to be a reporter, but I can make good judgements about a reporter's assessment. There are two (or more) sides to every story, and that's what's good about these kind of debates - getting the different perspectives.
    Likewise, just because two 9/11 widows state their case on national TV against Bush ads using WTC images doesn't mean that ALL 9/11 victim's families are against such ads.
    Then why all the dredging of the National Guard issue?? That's a bit older than 4 years!
    Good advice. It would be nice if EVERYONE made such an effort!

    I really like the analysis done by
    Here's another good article by Cliff Kincaid: http://www.aim.org/publications/medi...004/03/10.html
    The article talks about the hypocritical coverage of The Washington Post. It's summed up nicely in the last sentence: "The pattern has been established: the Post will seize on anything to use against Bush but will tread lightly when it comes to Kerry’s lack of credibility."
    My faulty liberal logic? Hey, I think for myself and I base my beliefs heavily on what I feel is right and wrong. That's all I can say. If the way I think is considered "liberal", well, I guess I could then say that anyone who disagrees with me is using "faulty conservative logic" - but that's not me. I don't think people who believe in conservative ideas are wrong. I do believe that people who criticize others who lean one way ore the other are wrong. I'm not anti-war. I don't believe whole heartedly that we shouldn't be doing something in Iraq. And I don't think Bush is an evil liar (at least no more than most other presidents). I'm not a Dem or a Rep but I can pull a few ideals from each party that I like (maybe a little more from the Dems ). I won't vote for Kerry just to get Bush out - he's got to prove to me that he's got a better plan than Bush. Attacking Bush alone isn't enough to get my vote. I want to hear 4 year plans from both of them.

    Now on to your replies to my statements.... yes, Dems were dishing it out to Bush in the primaries. What did that have to do with my statement about Bush's plan to portray Kerry a certain way? I was pointing out that Bush's initial speech (once it was clear that Kerry was going to be the opponent) set the tone for how the Reps were going to battle Kerry the whole way. Once that speech aired, you started hearing EVERYONE (or at least all the Bush-alites) talking about Kerry's credibility much more than before. Look at all the posts about Kerry's credibility in this forum alone recently. Of course the Dems were attacking Bush in the primaries - there was much to question. Everyone knows that Bush's only way of losing this election depends on how many Americans believe in him and his actions the past 3 years. Not everyone was comfortable with the war, and even more are not happy with the job market's extremely slow recovery (or non-recovery depending on how you look at it). The question is, how many? The Dems know this and that's what they're basing their campaigns on. If you're lumping me in with those who are crying "unfair" because Bush is firing back, you must have mistaken me for a whiny liberal. I know both sides need to state their case. I never said they shouldn't. I never said Bush was wrong for questioning Kerry's credibility - he's smart for doing so. It will definitely help his chances. I'm just getting a kick out of all the right-wingers who are now trying to dig up every quote, news article, etc they can find which sides with Bush's point - then they call it a "fair criticism". I'm sorry, I just find it humorous.

    One other thing I find kind of funny... Kerry is getting blasted for wanting to cut defense spending before the attacks. How many people thought there was a real chance we would be attacked? How many people thought we needed more money dedicated to defense before we were attacked? In hindsight, it's easy to say that those who voted against defense spending before the attacks don't understand the importance of national security... then again, would spending more money on missile defense and military bases have made us less vulnerable to an attack? And just because someone votes yes on some defense initiatives but not all of them, does that make them a hypocrite? Or should the state of the nation's needs be considered at the time of the vote? I'm not defending Kerry's voting record, but instead, playing devil's advocate. I do this a lot with my conservative friends and liberal wife. It helps me balance things out

  15. #15
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Man you guys always draw me in to this political stuff...

    Once Bush gave his first speech knocking Kerry, it was clear how the right was going to try and portray him.
    And yet is was HOWARD DEAN who first said Kerry was on both sides of the Iraq issue by voting against the use of force in 1991, then for it in 2002.

    -Bruce

  16. #16
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    I'm tempted to say....

    That's a wrap!! :)

    Being that I tend to be viewed as a GOP partisan I've tried, very hard!, to stay out of recent discussions, 'cause I'm worried that the swing voters that usually decide elections will think that, if I'm for it, it must be evil. EVIL haha.

    However it appears that this election is cut & dry (boy, I sure could regret saying that!).

    I haven't met anyone who's truly fired up for Kerry, he was picked 'cause he was the "strongest candidate available". This bodes ill for him and by extention Dems. It's a shame Dean made such a huge tactical error.

    As zapper has shown, his record is consistent only in its gutting of the armed services (and SS? He's going to be creamed over that!). In light of recent events, what do ya'lls think is going to happen to him? This is only Bushs' opening salvo! And a tame one.

    He's saying bad things about our candidate! is pretty weak, after all. There's going to be more mud than even the unwashed masses can stand soon. Better pull out the old hose so we can be clean again!!

    Perhaps Billery will join his ticket as VP. Now THAT would make it interesting. But I just can't believe that she will take that cruise on a sinking ship.

    Free advice to the enemy :) : Keep pushing his Vietnam service, most people don't get the nuance. Think up some BS about his military funding, something like, those were all cold war issues that no longer apply. That money was needed at home. And when they say, well then why did he vote against the SS issues, something like: those were wasteful special interest bills, he was looking out for our wallets. Hope like heck they (GOP) doesn't figure out what programs he wanted to push for that money. Hit Bush hard on Iraq, perhaps the biggest intellegence failure since the USSR stole the bomb. Say the side issues like Libya were incidental, and would have happened anyway. Unless something bad happens in the international scene, stay away from the rest of his foreign policy. Continue to try to paint him as Radical with a capital R. And remember, it looks like we, overall, have grown somewhat more conservative in our outlook since 9-11, enron, tech bubbles. So keep the radicals in your party in check. You can throw them a bone or two AFTER you're back in power.

    "enjoying the show" pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  17. #17
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Dang Zapped,


    Nice post. I was just saying I wish I had a nice neat list of all Kerry's inconsistencies. You da man!

    Thanks,

    JSE

  18. #18
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by JSE
    Dang Zapped,


    Nice post. I was just saying I wish I had a nice neat list of all Kerry's inconsistencies. You da man!

    Thanks,

    JSE

    It's all a matter of public record. Enough searching and you can find most everything.

    I'm almost tempted to purchase a Lexus-Nexis subscription, which has an exhaustive database. The one I used, isn't complete, for example, even though it went back to the 80's, the '91 vote on the first Iraq war was missing.

    One author summed Kerry's position up nicely on this - I'm paraphrasing.....

    He voted against the use of force the first time, even though he agreed we should. He voted for the use of force the second time, even though he didn't believe we should.

    He's tried to explain this away saying he thought that the first vote was for immediate action, while the second vote he believed wasn't for immediate action.

    *shrug*

    -Bruce

  19. #19
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    "enjoying the show" pete
    Me too pete - just throwing a few firecrackers in there for the conservatives to get fired up about. Seems everytime I thought I made a good point, it gets overlooked though... I'll sit back and enjoy it a little more.

  20. #20
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740

    Found it!

    The original Gulf War vote was filed under Foriegn Policy, of all places:

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Vote on the passage of a joint resolution to permit military force in Iraq under specific Congressional instructions.
    S Joint Res 2: Use of Force against Iraq

  21. #21
    Forum Regular tugmcmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Now on to your replies to my statements.... yes, Dems were dishing it out to Bush in the primaries. What did that have to do with my statement about Bush's plan to portray Kerry a certain way? I was pointing out that Bush's initial speech (once it was clear that Kerry was going to be the opponent) set the tone for how the Reps were going to battle Kerry the whole way. Once that speech aired, you started hearing EVERYONE (or at least all the Bush-alites) talking about Kerry's credibility much more than before.
    Actually, the White House was late in arriving to this dance. Criticism of Kerry's inconsistencies had been talked about for weeks before Bush came out fighting. In fact, Bush waited to long to start the criticism in a lot of repub's opinions.

    I just want to know what Sen. Kerry DOES stand for. I've tried reading some his writings and speeches and looked at his voting record but there is no clear vision for anything except maybe the environment.

    T-

  22. #22
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Man you guys always draw me in to this political stuff...

    Once Bush gave his first speech knocking Kerry, it was clear how the right was going to try and portray him.
    Kerry's record on Haiti:

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Prohibit funding for U.S. military operations in Haiti without congressional authorization.
    HR 3116 (Fiscal 1994 Defense Appropriations);
    Amendment;
    10/21/93

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
    Reject a proposal to establish a congressional commission on Haiti.
    HR 4426 (Fiscal 1995 Foreign Operations);
    Motion to table an amendment;
    7/14/94

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
    Require the president to seek congressional authorization before ordering military action against Haiti.
    HR 4426 (Fiscal 1995 Foreign Operations Appropriations);
    Amendment;
    6/29/94

    So, Kerry is/was opposed to unilateral action for the Iraq war, yet seems to have no problem with us sending the military into Haiti without so much as a second glance from Congress - much less the UN. He was also against looking into the corruption of the Aristede(sic?) government.

    -Bruce

  23. #23
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Man Zapped,

    Your a machine.

    Thanks again for the info.


    JSE

  24. #24
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    So, Kerry is/was opposed to unilateral action for the Iraq war, yet seems to have no problem with us sending the military into Haiti without so much as a second glance from Congress - much less the UN. He was also against looking into the corruption of the Aristede(sic?) government.

    -Bruce
    Well I've just read an article on why he voted yes for the second Iraq invasion, which helps me to understand his position a little better. I'll save my breath and just be content with being more informed, and hopefully others will read the same article. Keep pointing out voting records and I'll do my own research as to why he voted the way he did. If I don't find good explanations/answers as to why, then maybe I'll buy into the whole hypocrisy thing. Sorry man, voting records don't explain everything. Sure, they make me have some reservations and qustions, but they're not enough to define a candidate without learning more.

  25. #25
    Forum Regular tugmcmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Well I've just read an article on why he voted yes for the second Iraq invasion, which helps me to understand his position a little better. I'll save my breath and just be content with being more informed, and hopefully others will read the same article. Keep pointing out voting records and I'll do my own research as to why he voted the way he did. If I don't find good explanations/answers as to why, then maybe I'll buy into the whole hypocrisy thing. Sorry man, voting records don't explain everything. Sure, they make me have some reservations and qustions, but they're not enough to define a candidate without learning more.
    Hey Chris, could you point me to where you read that article? I'd be interested in reading it. I think i know why he did, but maybe you found something i haven't seen before. Thanks.

    T-

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Question for the anti-pre-emptive policy folks...
    By tugmcmartin in forum Off Topic/Non Audio
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-27-2004, 11:35 AM
  2. Will on Kerry
    By piece-it pete in forum Off Topic/Non Audio
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-22-2004, 05:13 PM
  3. Friday funnies
    By jeskibuff in forum Off Topic/Non Audio
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-30-2004, 03:37 PM
  4. A heartwrenching letter from a Kerry supporter
    By jeskibuff in forum Off Topic/Non Audio
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-29-2004, 05:12 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-24-2003, 08:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •