NationStates Jolt Archive

Kerry, last night on Letterman, answered the question "If you were elected President in 2000, would we be in Iraq today?" with a simple one word answer.... "No."

Yet on Aug 8, when asked "Knowing what you know now, would you still vote to support the use of force against Saddam?" he answered "I will answer straight... yes."

It seems, now Kerry is moving more toward the stance Dean had during the primary race. Kerry at that time was quite the hawkish candidate.

blah blah blah
i am right
blah blah blah
liberals are evil blah blah blah
worship bush
blah blah blah
limbaugh is my idol blah blah
blah blha blah blah

Can you cite the August 8 quote? Because my memory tells me that Kerry said he would vote for the President to have the power to use if he desired--there's a difference between what I remember and what you wrote, andI know nuance isn't big with some of you, but it's an important distinction.

Can you cite the August 8 quote? Because my memory tells me that Kerry said he would vote for the President to have the power to use if he desired--there's a difference between what I remember and what you wrote, andI know nuance isn't big with some of you, but it's an important distinction.
for the life of me I can't find a written transcript of his Aug 8, news conference. It was the one at the Grand Canyon, if that helps jog anyones memory.

good

I don't have the link but I remember what was being said, that he thought that the president should have that power. (I don't think he should, but I'm not going to find a guy I agree with 100%). In essence, he believed in that 'bargaining chip' but thought it should be used as a last resort and feels that we had not reached that last resort when it was used. So far that stance has been clear to me and pretty consistant.

for the life of me I can't find a written transcript of his Aug 8, news conference. It was the one at the Grand Canyon, if that helps jog anyones memory.
I found a Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html) on it that contains this quote:
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

But Kerry has charged that the president and his advisers badly mishandled the war, and in the news conference he posed sharp questions for Bush.

"Why did we rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" he asked. "Why did you rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?"

"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war?" he added. "Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way they deserve it and relieve the pressure on the American people?" That's the quote I remember--that the authority was necessary, but that it was misused by Bush.

Politically, I think it was a stupid thing to say, but what he said makes sense in context--problem is, it's easy to take out of context and say he supported the war. That's not what he said.

Indeed. Kerry has never wavered from his position that in that vote, he thought that in order to keep the peace (Bush's own words, by the way, listed at Whitehouse.gov,) the power should be given to the President to threaten the use of force. The reasoning at the time was that it would be much easier to negotiate from a position of power if the President already had authority to use force. Unfortunately the President went back on his promise of using the authority to secure the peace.

Kerry has never said he supported the way or the timing of going to war with Iraq.

It is unfortunate that many can't recognize these fine distinctions. It is these fine distinctions that are needed when negotiating any difficult situation. This is exactly why Kerry will make a much better President than Bush.

Indeed. Kerry has never wavered from his position that in that vote, he thought that in order to keep the peace (Bush's own words, by the way, listed at Whitehouse.gov,) the power should be given to the President to threaten the use of force. The reasoning at the time was that it would be much easier to negotiate from a position of power if the President already had authority to use force. Unfortunately the President went back on his promise of using the authority to secure the peace.

Kerry has never said he supported the way or the timing of going to war with Iraq.

It is unfortunate that many can't recognize these fine distinctions. It is these fine distinctions that are needed when negotiating any difficult situation. This is exactly why Kerry will make a much better President than Bush.
off topic... ever try whitehouse.com? I did by mistake while working on a computer on my ship. The ship monitored everything done on it's systems, and people at the time were getting captain's mast (non-judicial punishment) for visiting porn sites.
lol imagine my surprise.

off topic... ever try whitehouse.com? I did by mistake while working on a computer on my ship. The ship monitored everything done on it's systems, and people at the time were getting captain's mast (non-judicial punishment) for visiting porn sites.
lol imagine my surprise.
Yeah, I've been there--never got in trouble for it, but I have been there.

well that is what he said in that particular quote isnt it. however, hes said numerous times that he did support the war effort, in addition to supporting the war, "i actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before i voted against it". so he did support the war before, and now he doesnt. its plain and simple, he switched his position to make people like him, which is ironic because every time he's had national press speeches, his polls have dropped. i guess thats what happens when your as boring as he is. id rather have a president that, while may not have the best word choice, can at the very least get his message across before putting even al frankin to sleep. ;)

blah blah blah
i am right
blah blah blah
liberals are evil blah blah blah
worship bush
blah blah blah
limbaugh is my idol blah blah
blah blha blah blah

blah blah blah
i'm a liberal
blah blah blah
I don't have any better arguments
blah blah blah
anybody but Bush
blah blah blah
Buck Fush
blah blah blah

* Be aware, this is not a personal attack on all liberals, (the clear thinking ones) this is an attack on the narrow minded socialist ones who decide not to take their thumb out of their ass, and have everything bass-ackwards. And honestly, if you don't have a beter argument, don't embarrass yourself with posts like that*

Anyhow, about the contradiction with Kerry and such. I don't know the exact date, but the big gaping hole in the background is a good clue that it's in the grand canyon, (kudos to whoever said it first) But it's smeared all over the news, if I see it again I'll post it.

well that is what he said in that particular quote isnt it. however, hes said numerous times that he did support the war effort, in addition to supporting the war, "i actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before i voted against it". so he did support the war before, and now he doesnt. its plain and simple, he switched his position to make people like him, which is ironic because every time he's had national press speeches, his polls have dropped. i guess thats what happens when your as boring as he is. id rather have a president that, while may not have the best word choice, can at the very least get his message across before putting even al frankin to sleep. ;)How many of you are there who insist on playing this ridiculous game with the $87 billion package?

Once more--Kerry voted for funding them, voted for a bill that George Bush threatened to veto because it included cancelling some tax cuts and required his administration to account for the money, voted for a bill that the Republicans voted against for the same reason. It was the responsible vote. He voted against a bill that gave the White House a blank check and that kept the tax cuts in place, thereby making our already large deficit even larger.

This is why I bring my questions here. When I first heard the comparison, it seemed clear to me it was another example of.. well.. you know what.

Gymoor, the distinction between your interpretation and mine I had never thought of.

One question tho... what is the point of threats, if you dont plan on following through with it?

off topic... ever try whitehouse.com? I did by mistake while working on a computer on my ship. The ship monitored everything done on it's systems, and people at the time were getting captain's mast (non-judicial punishment) for visiting porn sites.
lol imagine my surprise.

I've never went there because I've heard of what it contains.

Concerning this, the majority of websites involving the government will end in .gov instead of .com, as you may realize now. :)

This is why I bring my questions here. When I first heard the comparison, it seemed clear to me it was another example of.. well.. you know what.

Gymoor, the distinction between your interpretation and mine I had never thought of.

One question tho... what is the point of threats, if you dont plan on following through with it?
Well, the threat worked, didn't it? Hussein had been resisting inspections beforehand and then he got cooperative. Inspectors went in, crushed some missile housings that broke the sanctions, and then got tossed out by the "coalition" so Bush could have his splendid little war. The threat of force worked at getting inspectors in there to do their jobs, and that was the whole point--at least as far as Kerry was concerned. Personally, I thought it was more important to chase down Bin Laden than to worry about a dictator we'd had under control for over a decade, but that's me.

This is why I bring my questions here. When I first heard the comparison, it seemed clear to me it was another example of.. well.. you know what.

Gymoor, the distinction between your interpretation and mine I had never thought of.

One question tho... what is the point of threats, if you dont plan on following through with it?

The WHOLE point of a threat is to make someone back down without fighting. Otherwise you'd just fight them without talking at all.

Furthermore, that was the point of the authorization. To give the threat teeth. Basically, it's saying, "Look, I ALREADY have autorization to bomb the hell out of you, so you better start negotiating."

The fact was, the threat was working. The inspectors had been given much more access, and Saddam was halted in his tracks.

How many of you are there who insist on playing this ridiculous game with the $87 billion package?

Once more--Kerry voted for funding them, voted for a bill that George Bush threatened to veto because it included cancelling some tax cuts and required his administration to account for the money, voted for a bill that the Republicans voted against for the same reason. It was the responsible vote. He voted against a bill that gave the White House a blank check and that kept the tax cuts in place, thereby making our already large deficit even larger.

EXACTLY. Furthermore, since it was the Republican-supported version of the bill that passed and got signed by the President (against Kerry's vote,) then the blame as to who is responsible for the troops not getting the body armor they needed falls squarely in the laps of the Republicans and the Republican-run Pentagon.

So, again this is a case of Kerry taking a position, holding to it, and being proven correct by later developments.

Much the same is true for Kerry's supposedly controversial Senate votes. He wasn't voting against weapon systems per se, he was voting to find better ways to fund those systems, and voting to reduce systems that were less of a priority in post-Cold War scenarios. Also, many of the remaining weapons systems reductions were buried in bills that had nothing to do with defense spending (and this is the norm in Congress.)

EXACTLY. Furthermore, since it was the Republican-supported version of the bill that passed and got signed by the President (against Kerry's vote,) then the blame as to who is responsible for the troops not getting the body armor they needed falls squarely in the laps of the Republicans and the Republican-run Pentagon.

So, again this is a case of Kerry taking a position, holding to it, and being proven correct by later developments.

Much the same is true for Kerry's supposedly controversial Senate votes. He wasn't voting against weapon systems per se, he was voting to find better ways to fund those systems, and voting to reduce systems that were less of a priority in post-Cold War scenarios. Also, many of the remaining weapons systems reductions were buried in bills that had nothing to do with defense spending (and this is the norm in Congress.)
there was an ignorant partisan republcian bitch in the last letter to the editor who had the gall and ignorance to say kerry was "voting against" the weapons plans during the cold war era and cheney was doing it "after it ended, so it was ok for kerry to say we should stop funding them"

blah blah blah
i am right
blah blah blah
liberals are evil blah blah blah
worship bush
blah blah blah
limbaugh is my idol blah blah
blah blha blah blah
there was an ignorant partisan republcian bitch in the last letter to the editor who had the gall and ignorance to say kerry was "voting against" the weapons plans during the cold war era and cheney was doing it "after it ended, so it was ok for kerry to say we should stop funding them"

Chess.....this is coming from a liberal......grow up.
If you can't post like a responsible adult, please don't bother posting. You make the rest of us look bad. :headbang:

Chess.....this is coming from a liberal......grow up.
If you can't post like a responsible adult, please don't bother posting. You make the rest of us look bad. :headbang:
why? no really? she is an ignorant republican bitch who likes double standards and onerule is a bigot who likes to prattle off whatever asinine thing he can find against kerry, whether it was alreayd debunked or not. why try to have an intelligent debate with people who have already formed an unchangeable opinion?

why? no really? she is an ignorant republican bitch who likes double standards and onerule is a bigot who likes to prattle off whatever asinine thing he can find against kerry, whether it was already debunked or not. Why try to have an intelligent debate with people who have already formed an unchangeable opinion?


Settle down, buddy. OneRule is having an intelligent debate in this thread, and he's already admitted that he saw a distinction he's never thought of before. Give hime the benfit of the doubt (and anyone else for that matter,) calling names only weakens your point.

I've been guilty of calling names out of frustration myself, and I get angry at stonewalling, but hey, keep your focus on the discussion at hand.

Everyone take a deep breath. Let it out. Think happy thoughts (such as a long, lingering kiss between Scarlett Johanssen and Kirsten Dunst...or whoever you prefer,) and be at peace.

why? no really? she is an ignorant republican bitch who likes double standards and onerule is a bigot who likes to prattle off whatever asinine thing he can find against kerry, whether it was alreayd debunked or not. why try to have an intelligent debate with people who have already formed an unchangeable opinion?
I wasn't talking about just those 2 quotes - pretty much every post I've seen from you on any thread has sounded like those 2. Overall, this thread has had nothing but intelligent debate and conversation. You're the one doing the name calling and basically acting like a child. Some advice:
1. Even if you don't like someone personally, or disagree with them, don't call them names (ie "ignorant partisan republcian bitch", "onerule is a bigot")
2. Avoid using "blah blah blah blah" to ridicule people.
3. Slow down when typing. Scan when done before posting to check for lazy spelling errors. It makes you look better.

I apologize to OneRule and anybody else Chess Squares may have offended on behalf of the rest of us liberals. :)

Everyone take a deep breath. Let it out. Think happy thoughts (such as a long, lingering kiss between Scarlett Johanssen and Kirsten Dunst...or whoever you prefer,) and be at peace.:shock: :D

*funky porn music plays in the background*

Oh yeah.

Settle down, buddy. OneRule is having an intelligent debate in this thread, and he's already admitted that he saw a distinction he's never thought of before. Give hime the benfit of the doubt (and anyone else for that matter,) calling names only weakens your point.

I've been guilty of calling names out of frustration myself, and I get angry at stonewalling, but hey, keep your focus on the discussion at hand.

Everyone take a deep breath. Let it out. Think happy thoughts (such as a long, lingering kiss between Scarlett Johanssen and Kirsten Dunst...or whoever you prefer,) and be at peace.
Thanks. I'm done now :)

Onto debating and discussing!!! :D

I wasn't talking about just those 2 quotes - pretty much every post I've seen from you on any thread has sounded like those 2. Overall, this thread has had nothing but intelligent debate and conversation. You're the one doing the name calling and basically acting like a child. Some advice:
1. Even if you don't like someone personally, or disagree with them, don't call them names (ie "ignorant partisan republcian bitch", "onerule is a bigot")
2. Avoid using "blah blah blah blah" to ridicule people.
3. Slow down when typing. Scan when done before posting to check for lazy spelling errors. It makes you look better.

I apologize to OneRule and anybody else Chess Squares may have offended on behalf of the rest of us liberals. :)
you must be new here

Let's get back to the topic at hand. Specifically, I would like a conservative-type to respond to my charge that Kerry's two votes on the $87 billion dollar appropriatons bill was exactly the right thing to do.

Personally, I think this was yet another case of Kerry standing up to the administration and being proven right by unfolding events.

Let's get back to the topic at hand. Specifically, I would like a conservative-type to respond to my charge that Kerry's two votes on the $87 billion dollar appropriatons bill was exactly the right thing to do.

Personally, I think this was yet another case of Kerry standing up to the administration and being proven right by unfolding events.
I'm actually surprised there haven't been more posts from conservatives so far.

Well, like Howard Dean said, a gaffe is when you tell the truth and the media thinks you ought not have.

I'm actually surprised there haven't been more posts from conservatives so far.

I've been championing this particular point for a while, and it tends to send conservatives scurrying away. I'm not trying to insult conservatives, I just think that this particular argument makes some of the more vehement rhetoric-parroters uncomfortable.

Lol, so if one is not a vehement rhetoric-parroter, then no insult should be taken!

you must be new here

How have you not been deleted yet?

How have you not been deleted yet?

What does this have to do with the subject of this thread? Please stay on topic. Thank you. I now return you (all) to your regularly scheduled partisan bickering.

What does this have to do with the subject of this thread? Please stay on topic. Thank you. I now return you (all) to your regularly scheduled partisan bickering.
LOL
As much as I would like to stay for the show, I really have to do homework and finish up my resume (job fair tomorrow, dah). I love college, it's just the whole class thing that sucks. :gundge:

How have you not been deleted yet?
havnt you?

Politicans are like the seasons, wait around they will change. It doesn't matter which side of the fence they are on. :sniper:

Lawyers will be lawyers. It is sad that these clowns represent the interests of people that they truely care nothing about. :gundge:

TXAGMAN

havnt you?

No.

Hopefully now that Chess Squares and Sdaeriji have stopped dancing, we can get back on topic?

I would, but I really dont have anything to add at the moment....
still trying to dig a little deeper.

I must admit that at first, my opposition to Kerry was based around my personal opposition to Clinton and perhaps a transference of that dislike to whomever the Democrats put up.

Clinton was often refered to as the wind sock president by the majority of us that served together. He seemed to withhold any policy decisions until the latest poll numbers came in.

Now with Kerry, and his voted for, before voted against (perhaps he did what he felt was right, and perhaps it does reflect his commitment to the issue, but it was a stupid way to say it) the SUV thing, the nuclear power thing, the 2nd amendment thing, the abortion thing.

Personally I prefer someone who has convictions and sticks to them, than to have someone who's convictions are determined by the latest poll numbers.

I would, but I really dont have anything to add at the moment....
still trying to dig a little deeper.

I must admit that at first, my opposition to Kerry was based around my personal opposition to Clinton and perhaps a transference of that dislike to whomever the Democrats put up.

Clinton was often refered to as the wind sock president by the majority of us that served together. He seemed to withhold any policy decisions until the latest poll numbers came in.

Now with Kerry, and his voted for, before voted against (perhaps he did what he felt was right, and perhaps it does reflect his commitment to the issue, but it was a stupid way to say it) the SUV thing, the nuclear power thing, the 2nd amendment thing, the abortion thing.

Personally I prefer someone who has convictions and sticks to them, than to have someone who's convictions are determined by the latest poll numbers.
You know, I can understand that attitude, but I'd rather have a person who questioned his stands rather than one who hangs on to a decision even when it proves disastrous. First rule when you find yourself in a hole is "stop digging" after all. I'll take a guy who sees bad results and tries to find another way over a guy who "holds fast to his convictions" any day--that's the pragmatist in me.

You know, I can understand that attitude, but I'd rather have a person who questioned his stands rather than one who hangs on to a decision even when it proves disastrous. First rule when you find yourself in a hole is "stop digging" after all. I'll take a guy who sees bad results and tries to find another way over a guy who "holds fast to his convictions" any day--that's the pragmatist in me.
I guess it goes back to the day (before my time unfortunately) when politicians laid their cards on the table, we the people decided which one most closely represented our views on things and then voted.
I would like to vote for a person who believes like I do (as would we all) and is able to defend his position.

Of course, a certain amount of flexibility is called for as well.

I would, but I really dont have anything to add at the moment....
still trying to dig a little deeper.

I must admit that at first, my opposition to Kerry was based around my personal opposition to Clinton and perhaps a transference of that dislike to whomever the Democrats put up.

Clinton was often refered to as the wind sock president by the majority of us that served together. He seemed to withhold any policy decisions until the latest poll numbers came in.

Now with Kerry, and his voted for, before voted against (perhaps he did what he felt was right, and perhaps it does reflect his commitment to the issue, but it was a stupid way to say it) the SUV thing, the nuclear power thing, the 2nd amendment thing, the abortion thing.

Personally I prefer someone who has convictions and sticks to them, than to have someone who's convictions are determined by the latest poll numbers.

I agree, the SUV thing was dumb, but Bush has done equally stupid things. Part of the territory of campaigning. The nuclear power thing? Are you talking about Yucca Mountain? Basically, both Bush's and Kerry's flip-flops on that were largely media creations. Bush promised not to set up a temporary site at Yucca, but passed the permanent one. Kerry promised that he wouldn't let Yucca be used if he were in power, and all of his straight up and down, yes/no votes have reflected that. Hidden in other votes on bills for other things was legislation to inspect and research Yucca as a site, for which Kerry voted.

It's another case of fine distinction, but fine distinction is what legislation is all about, which is why basing someone's views on Senate votes is tricky at best. Even the most consistent and independent-thinking legislator is going to have apparent contradictions in his record that creep in because of compromise or unrelated amendments to bills.

It's another case of fine distinction, but fine distinction is what legislation is all about, which is why basing someone's views on Senate votes is tricky at best. Even the most consistent and independent-thinking legislator is going to have apparent contradictions in his record that creep in because of compromise or unrelated amendments to bills.

In most cases this is true. I'm even willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt on some of them. However Mr. "life-long-hunter" has voted effectively exclusive anti-gun, not just limitations or controls, during his entire career.

These things, in my mind, trust does not bring.

In most cases this is true. I'm even willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt on some of them. However Mr. "life-long-hunter" has voted effectively exclusive anti-gun, not just limitations or controls, during his entire career.

These things, in my mind, trust does not bring.

Please show me a link to those bills then. As far as I'm aware, Kerry's only voted for things such as increasing gun license qualifications, limitation on assault weaponry, waiting periods and such. I'm not aware of any bill even being introduced to take guns directly out of the citizen's hands.

Can you cite a bill he supported that would take simple hunter's rifles out of circulation?

Also, most police organizations support gun control legislation. Violent crime rates (as they did under Clinton, every year he was in office) almost always drop when gun laws are strengthened.

The NRA, in my mind, has WAY too much clout.

I'm not for getting rid of guns completely, but I think stronger enforcement, increased training and more thorough qualification practices are only common sense.

Yet another reason I support Kerry.

I guess it goes back to the day (before my time unfortunately) when politicians laid their cards on the table, we the people decided which one most closely represented our views on things and then voted.
I would like to vote for a person who believes like I do (as would we all) and is able to defend his position.

Of course, a certain amount of flexibility is called for as well.Do you really think that time ever existed? I don't--maybe it's the cynic in me, but I tend to think that anyone who would actually want the job of President would have to be a weaselly slimeball. The only candidate I've ever felt anything approaching respect for was Howard Dean and you see how much good it did him.

So instead of idealism, I'll take competence, and after 4 years of pure, Grade-A incompetence, I'll take whatever I can get this time around. I figure Kerry can't do any worse.

i served as a private in the marines for 6 months in iraq if any of you had served in iraq you would be just as devoted to this war and the cause as i am and frankly kerry scares me what might happen to our country under such an undecisive person i love our president he is the best leader we.ve had since reagan i am 100% behind him and behind this war because i dont care if theres no WMDS Saddam killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people and he was evil he deserves to rot in prison ok im done

o one more thing one thing i wont tolerate is someone not wanting to support our troops it doesnt matter if you believe in the war or not you need to support your troops kerry voted against the 87 billion to keep the soldiers safe with weaponry and bodyarmor

i served as a private in the marines for 6 months in iraq if any of you had served in iraq you would be just as devoted to this war and the cause as i am and frankly kerry scares me what might happen to our country under such an undecisive person i love our president he is the best leader we.ve had since reagan i am 100% behind him and behind this war because i dont care if theres no WMDS Saddam killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people and he was evil he deserves to rot in prison ok im done
I'm friends with someone who recently came home from serving in Iraq, and he is completely against Bush. Just to prove you wrong on that one. Please don't make such broad generalizations like that, you know full well that not EVERYONE who served in Iraq supports Bush just because you do. There are plenty who do not.
o one more thing one thing i wont tolerate is someone not wanting to support our troops it doesnt matter if you believe in the war or not you need to support your troops kerry voted against the 87 billion to keep the soldiers safe with weaponry and bodyarmor
Since you apparently haven't read the entire thread, I'll quote:
How many of you are there who insist on playing this ridiculous game with the $87 billion package?

Once more--Kerry voted for funding them, voted for a bill that George Bush threatened to veto because it included cancelling some tax cuts and required his administration to account for the money, voted for a bill that the Republicans voted against for the same reason. It was the responsible vote. He voted against a bill that gave the White House a blank check and that kept the tax cuts in place, thereby making our already large deficit even larger.

You know why we had to use force? Because Saddam didnt take us seriously and our last attack on him under the Clinton administration was beyond pathetic, most people dont even remember it. We tried to remove him from power multiple times in the past and each time we failed so why should he take us seriously?

That was the problem, our military, the most advanced, the best trained, the best army in the world couldnt beat a group of rag tag rebels in the freakin desert because of poor leadership. Bush's father brought Saddam to his knee's but the UN wanted a cease fire, and being a good politician Daddy Bush played along.

Well those bastards on the other side of the ocean are taking us seriously now arent they? You kill us on our turf, embarrass us around the world, you are going down, Kerry's opinion that force should be a empty threat is exactly what Saddam expected of us, he expected no less, he had the UN wrapped around his finger with pay off's and bribery, we werent getting support from them because Saddam was paying them the big bucks, why lose that funding over another counties crusade?

Kerry's idea of using force as a empty threat would make a mockery of us "again" even Clinton could figure that out even though he was a terrible commander in chief (i admit he had good domestic policy though) he couldnt command a boy scout troop. Bush stepped up to the plate and he showed the world what we are really made of, he showed the world that we can walk the walk and talk the talk.Bush is not a talker, thats evident, Bush is a doer, he doesnt waste time talking useless crap, if he says he's gonna do something he's damn well gonna do it.

EVERYBODY complains that politicians say one thing and do another, they never do what they say they are gonna do, thats why so many people dont vote, now finally we have a politician who does what he claims he's gonna do and liberals jump all over him. Thats Kerry's mistake, thinking Bush is like every other politician, you cant take whatever he says literally or seriously, but on the contrary we FINALLY have a canidate who can actually be honest when he says something. Bush can admit his mistakes, Bush does what he says he's gonna do, no hidden message in the background, it takes a lot of guts to do that, i know everybody who reads this has lied to cover up a mistake, or lied to exaggerate a story, or lied to avoid persecution or criticism. I havent seen Bush do that, and that is the main reason he is getting so much criticism, its because he's more open then any other politician i can think of. Thats a admirable trait, one that Kerry doesnt possess.

o one more thing one thing i wont tolerate is someone not wanting to support our troops it doesnt matter if you believe in the war or not you need to support your troops kerry voted against the 87 billion to keep the soldiers safe with weaponry and bodyarmor

Then why didn't thre Republicand support the first bill. They voted against the first one, which is exactly why there was a second one for Kerry to vote against. If you want to point fingers, then point it at the republicans who not only voted against the first bill, but because of their majority vote, caused it to be voted down. How can you fault Kerry, who voted against the 2nd one which, as results have shown, was the inferior bill?

Pure and simple, it was the republican vote that did away with the bill that specified more accoutability and specificity.

Please show me a link to those bills then. As far as I'm aware, Kerry's only voted for things such as increasing gun license qualifications, limitation on assault weaponry, waiting periods and such. I'm not aware of any bill even being introduced to take guns directly out of the citizen's hands.

Can you cite a bill he supported that would take simple hunter's rifles out of circulation?

Also, most police organizations support gun control legislation. Violent crime rates (as they did under Clinton, every year he was in office) almost always drop when gun laws are strengthened.

The NRA, in my mind, has WAY too much clout.

I'm not for getting rid of guns completely, but I think stronger enforcement, increased training and more thorough qualification practices are only common sense.

Yet another reason I support Kerry.


s.1970 (1990) Bill to ban hundreds of types of rifles, shotguns and handguns.
Senate vote 224: 1yr in prison and $10K fine if a juvenile steals your gun and displays it.
S.254. Felony for private transfer of gun at gun show
S.1431: Ban on semi-auto shotguns w/ "pistol grip", including the one he was recently presented.
Senate Vote 28. : attempt to ban most center-fire ammunition.

He openly supports organizations (MMM, IANSA) that are lobbying the UN to impose anti-gun treaties on the U.S.

I have more.

Most police DO NOT support heavy gun legislation. Violent crime has DECREASED in all 38 states that allow concealed-carry.

Of course stronger enforcement is necessary, I never disagreed w/ that.

Most police DO NOT support heavy gun legislation. Violent crime has DECREASED in all 38 states that allow concealed-carry.

Of course stronger enforcement is necessary, I never disagreed w/ that.
really, do you have proof the police dont support it? i was under impression several police unions favored gun legislation, you know its ALOT safer on the streets when every perp doesnt have a gun

and crime has decreased in EVERY state. dont get all smart with your cherry picked information

really, do you have proof the police dont support it? i was under impression several police unions favored gun legislation, you know its ALOT safer on the streets when every perp doesnt have a gun

and crime has decreased in EVERY state. dont get all smart with your cherry picked information

Sheesh. Just goes to show that statistics are easily manipulated.

Still haven't heard back from any righties on the $87 billion dollar issue.

r(R)eally, do you have proof the police don(')t support it? i(I) was under(the) impression (that)several police unions favored gun legislation, you know it(')s ALOT safer on the streets when every perp(.) doesn(')t have a gun(.)

and crime has decreased in EVERY state. dont(Don't) get all smart with your cherry picked information(.)

From one who cherry-picked that post, that's quaint. Gymoor stated:"Violent crime rates (as they did under Clinton, every year he was in office) almost always drop when gun laws are strengthened." That's what I was referring to.

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1006908/posts
www.urbin.net/EWW/polyticks/RKBA/copview.html

and even in Canada:
www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/policequotes.htm

Not perfect sources but better than " I was under impression".

It's obvious that it would be safer if every "perp." didn't have a gun. However, many do and an armed law-abiding citizen is safer than an unarmed one.

Here's the thing, Kecibukia--there's no way to prove that gun laws caused or didn't cause the drop in the crime rate during Clinton's term in office. Sure--it's possible that it had an effect, and I would say it's likely that it was part of the reason for the drop. But there were certainly other factors at play. The economy was doing better across the board, and there's almost always a correlation between a good economy and lower crime rates. There were more cops on the street thanks to the COPS program, and a more visible police presence generally correlates with lower crime rates. The graduation rates for minorities increased, and better education generally correlates with lower crime rates.

So it could have been any of a number of factors, or it could have been a combination of those factors that lowered the crime rates, but nonetheless, crime rates went down.

So if the policies in place looked like they were working, why should we go back to the old policies? Because that's really what we did when we let the assault weapons ban expire and when we defunded the COPS program.

Sheesh. Just goes to show that statistics are easily manipulated.

Still haven't heard back from any righties on the $87 billion dollar issue.
Make a post on the 87 billion issue, just make sure to stop all the really ignorant left-wingers out of it, and deal with the ignorant right wingers as they come.

o one more thing one thing i wont tolerate is someone not wanting to support our troops it doesnt matter if you believe in the war or not you need to support your troops kerry voted against the 87 billion to keep the soldiers safe with weaponry and bodyarmor
Considering the Bill went through, why are some soldiers still waiting for their Body Armour? We talking $60Million here to outfit every soldier. Yet, somehow it's Kerry fault for voting against a Bill (that passed) which had a whole lot of extra padding in it that had nothing to do with the war in Iraq or supplying equipment to the soldiers.
BTW, why isn't it Bush's fault for declaring war on a country when there wasn't enough Body Armour to go round in the first place? 40 000 troops went over there without it. But Kerry's the bastard for not voting on a Bill months after the invasion? WTF?

Here's the thing, Kecibukia--there's no way to prove that gun laws caused or didn't cause the drop in the crime rate during Clinton's term in office. Sure--it's possible that it had an effect, and I would say it's likely that it was part of the reason for the drop. But there were certainly other factors at play. The economy was doing better across the board, and there's almost always a correlation between a good economy and lower crime rates. There were more cops on the street thanks to the COPS program, and a more visible police presence generally correlates with lower crime rates. The graduation rates for minorities increased, and better education generally correlates with lower crime rates.

So it could have been any of a number of factors, or it could have been a combination of those factors that lowered the crime rates, but nonetheless, crime rates went down.

So if the policies in place looked like they were working, why should we go back to the old policies? Because that's really what we did when we let the assault weapons ban expire and when we defunded the COPS program.

Causalities are hard to prove on both sides for the most part except in extreme circumstances, agreed. I also disagree with defunding COPS. I also support EXILE. That they looked like they were working is a matter of opinion. Even the CDC, staunchly anti-gun, has admitted that the CAWB had little or no effect of crime so that arguement goes to "why punish the law-abiding citizen"

Chicago, with which I am most familiar, has very strict control laws , and while overall crime may have dropped, is still 4 times higher per capita than the national average.

Considering the Bill went through, why are some soldiers still waiting for their Body Armour? We talking $60Million here to outfit every soldier. Yet, somehow it's Kerry fault for voting against a Bill (that passed) which had a whole lot of extra padding in it that had nothing to do with the war in Iraq or supplying equipment to the soldiers.
BTW, why isn't it Bush's fault for declaring war on a country when there wasn't enough Body Armour to go round in the first place? 40 000 troops went over there without it. But Kerry's the bastard for not voting on a Bill months after the invasion? WTF?

Well said. It's amazing how many people have bought the Right's completely unfactual spin on this particular topic.

Well said. It's amazing how many people have bought the Right's completely unfactual spin on this particular topic.Well come on--bullshit's easy. Truth is hard.

Well come on--bullshit's easy. Truth is hard.

And it's our unenviable duty to make sure that truth is spread.

Republicans still haven't explained why Kerry's vote for a good $87 billion appropriations bill and his vote against the bad bill (the one that got passed that so woefully equipped our soldiers,) can be labeled a flip-flop.

You know what I call it? I call it being right, both times.

And it's our unenviable duty to make sure that truth is spread.

Republicans still haven't explained why Kerry's vote for a good $87 billion appropriations bill and his vote against the bad bill (the one that got passed that so woefully equipped our soldiers,) can be labeled a flip-flop.

You know what I call it? I call it being right, both times.

On this point you have mostly convinced me. You do have to admit though that his defense on this issue was VERY poorly stated.

On this point you have mostly convinced me. You do have to admit though that his defense on this issue was VERY poorly stated.

True, but part of that is because the only part of that speech ever shown is that one single sentence. You're right, though, that he hasn't stressed that point enough in his follow up speeches.

What sucks is that if defended himself from these reality-twisting attacks every speech, he wouldn't be able to talk about much else. You've got to hand it to the Bush campaign for keeping Kerry on the defensive from the get go.

True, but part of that is because the only part of that speech ever shown is that one single sentence. You're right, though, that he hasn't stressed that point enough in his follow up speeches.

What sucks is that if defended himself from these reality-twisting attacks every speech, he wouldn't be able to talk about much else. You've got to hand it to the Bush campaign for keeping Kerry on the defensive from the get go.

They are at that, but he's keeping himself on the defensive as well. The SUV deal, skipping alost every vote for the past year, his recent grateful acceptance of a shotgun he attempted to ban and now the deal in "Outdoor Life" where after all his railing against semi-auto "assault rifles", it turns out he owns a REAL one.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/092004/09222004/1510706

Even though I don't support him, It's things like this that's keeping him from sweeping Bush.

They are at that, but he's keeping himself on the defensive as well. The SUV deal, skipping alost every vote for the past year, his recent grateful acceptance of a shotgun he attempted to ban and now the deal in "Outdoor Life" where after all his railing against semi-auto "assault rifles", it turns out he owns a REAL one.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/092004/09222004/1510706

Even though I don't support him, It's things like this that's keeping him from sweeping Bush.

Now I may be wrong on this, but aren't retired military personnel generally allowed to keep guns that normal civilians aren't?

i support Bush, but I will admit, back in July I was a little worried about Kerry winning the election. Now, with less than a month and a half until the the election, the DNC could have not picked a better canidate from a republican point of view. Because Kerry is so weak, he even turns the Bush-haters off the Dems and into Nader's camp. it is going to be a great 4 more years.

Now I may be wrong on this, but aren't retired military personnel generally allowed to keep guns that normal civilians aren't?

If they are, I've never heard of it. If someone could post more info, I'ld appreciate it.

You are allowed to own a fully-auto weapon w/ a class 3 federal dealers license but even these are limited by some states.

My point was that he attacked a law that limited production on lesser powered weapons while owning a military grade one himself. I think that's going to hurt him with the pro-gun crowd and, if presented enough, with the anti-gunners also. He should have stopped after the first sentence.

Now I may be wrong on this, but aren't retired military personnel generally allowed to keep guns that normal civilians aren't?
Yes.

You ARE wrong. The only guns any retired military person would be allowed to keep are completely de-militarized versions (i.e., mock-ups or guns that would be impossible to put to use.) And in no case are they allowed to keep foreign weapons as trophies.

Yes.

You ARE wrong. The only guns any retired military person would be allowed to keep are completely de-militarized versions (i.e., mock-ups or guns that would be impossible to put to use.) And in no case are they allowed to keep foreign weapons as trophies.


hmmph, then the various dads of friends I had growing up had a collection of contraband.

hmmph, then the various dads of friends I had growing up had a collection of contraband.

That is very likely. I'm not up on 'Nam vets but I know quite a few WWII vets that brought home items they weren't supposed to.

I'm wondering what the legal ramifications of this might be. If it's not allowed (like I said I'm not 100% positive) he either needs a class 3 license or it was demilitarized, neither point presented in the article. If he/it doesn't/isn't, he could potentially go up on charges.

hmmph, then the various dads of friends I had growing up had a collection of contraband.
Indeed. Unauthorized collection of trophies is forbidden, both in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and by the International Laws of Armed Combat. Quite a few American servicemen in the last few years have been busted for trying to bring their own little mementos from Iraq, Kosovo, etc.

That is very likely. I'm not up on 'Nam vets but I know quite a few WWII vets that brought home items they weren't supposed to.

I'm wondering what the legal ramifications of this might be. If it's not allowed (like I said I'm not 100% positive) he either needs a class 3 license or it was demilitarized, neither point presented in the article. If he/it doesn't/isn't, he could potentially go up on charges.

yeah, but something like that would never be brought up in an article, especially if said article was critical of Kerry.

If he had them illegally, on the other hand, you can bet your last dollar it would have been brought up.

In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War
Challenged by President, Democrat Spells Out Stance

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 10, 2004; Page A01

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

Nuff said. He said then he would have supported the war. Now, on Letterman, he said he wouldn't thats exactly what the other guy said in the original post. So yes, Kerry does do it again.

Nuff said. He said then he would have supported the war. Now, on Letterman, he said he wouldn't thats exactly what the other guy said in the original post. So yes, Kerry does do it again.
And in a few days, he will take the exact opposite position...it all depends on who he is talking to.

Nuff said. He said then he would have supported the war. Now, on Letterman, he said he wouldn't thats exactly what the other guy said in the original post. So yes, Kerry does do it again.

Again. You would be right, except for two things.

1.) He said he would still vote against authorization. He has never once said that he would not vote for authorization, and he has never once said that he supported going to war at that time, or in that way.

2.) In Bush's own words. He promised to use the authorization in order to keep the peace, and to only use the authorization of force as a very last result.

In other words, this is a case of Bush lying and Kerry, in precice language, points out the totality of his opinion.

Kerry thought that giving authorization, at that time, to be used as a barganing chip only, unless there was no other action that could be taken, was the right thing to do. He himself, if he were President, would have basically done the same things, with regard to the war, up to the point where war was actually launched. Kerry was also the recipient of intelligence, which the CIA and various other intelligence agencies collected, but that the Bush administration ultimately reviewed and decided what to include and what to exclude.

Subsequently, the Bush administration, that had prior warning from various sources, that the war in Iraq was going to be a mess, decided to go to war anyway. Those that warned Bush were proven correct as this war, from every source but the Bush administration themselves, is deteriorating at an increasing rate.

Is that clear enough? Kerry thinks in complicated ways, his opinions are (heaven forbid) swayed by new and better information, and his opponents actually use that against him! The Bush people know many Americans have short attention spans, and are impatient with long (though, ultimately more clear and truthful,) explanations. Many of us want "fast-food" politics that can be taken in between bites of our bacon double cheeseburgers and sips of our extra-large-novelty-sized-with-free-toy sodas.

Well, grow up. The world ain't so simple, and you should always look dubiously upon someone who tries to describe a person or a view in a single sentence.

The world is so full of grays and gradients of meaning and bad results from good intentions and comedy snatched from the jaws of tragedy that it can make someone want to retreat from thinking about things too hard. Don't fall into that trap! Power to the people! Can I get a halleluja?

Can I get a halleluja!?

*enters anti-logic zone*
*is zapped of all strength*
*crawls out half-dead*

*enters anti-logic zone*
*is zapped of all strength*
*crawls out half-dead*

And this was in reference to what, specifically?

And this was in reference to what, specifically?
the stuff by panhandlia and HRM and other republicons on the last page

the stuff by panhandlia and HRM and other republicons on the last page

Yeah, my detailed explanation seems to have quieted them for a while though.

Yeah, my detailed explanation seems to have quieted them for a while though.

But all it takes is a sound bite and he has presented many of those.

Apparently his staff is as well. Kerry's office is now denying that the shotgun he received would have been covered under S. 1431 which he co-sponsored even though it has a "pistol grip" by the bills' definition and is semi-auto. "Kerry's campaign has said the gun is a "sportsman's shotgun" and "he would never ban it."
http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2004092329/

It also would have banned any "gift transaction" of firearms.

Everyone take a deep breath. Let it out. Think happy thoughts (such as a long, lingering kiss between Scarlett Johanssen and Kirsten Dunst...or whoever you prefer,) and be at peace.

Thank you very much. I was having a hectic morning, but suddenly it isn't so bad.

Can I get a halleluja!?

Amen!

Hallelujah!

But all it takes is a sound bite and he has presented many of those.

Apparently his staff is as well. Kerry's office is now denying that the shotgun he received would have been covered under S. 1431 which he co-sponsored even though it has a "pistol grip" by the bills' definition and is semi-auto. "Kerry's campaign has said the gun is a "sportsman's shotgun" and "he would never ban it."
http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2004092329/

It also would have banned any "gift transaction" of firearms.
the question is, which shotgun is it

blah blah blah
i am right
blah blah blah
liberals are evil blah blah blah
worship bush
blah blah blah
limbaugh is my idol blah blah
blah blha blah blah

Such words of intelligence, are we in 2nd or 3rd grade now?

Such words of intelligence, are we in 2nd or 3rd grade now?
compared to you? or compared to some one intelligent

t(T)he question is, which shotgun is it(?)

How is that a question? It was a Remington 11-87.

Such words of intelligence, are we in 2nd or 3rd grade now?

Scarily enough, Chess is alledgedly in college.

Scarily enough, Chess is alledgedly in college.
because we all know full well how you type on a message board is the overall deciding factor in how old some one is and what school they are in

and your sad insults don't rank you any higher on the maturity scale bucko

because we all know full well how you type on a message board is the overall deciding factor in how old some one is and what school they are in

and your sad insults don't rank you any higher on the maturity scale bucko
:rolleyes:

because we all know full well how you type on a message board is the overall deciding factor in how old some one is and what school they are in

and your sad insults don't rank you any higher on the maturity scale bucko

So what you're saying is you don't consider consistent language skills to be important?