Why politics is so much fun

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Yes it sucks when it's your guy getting slammed but that's part of the game.

FoxNews said:
BOSTON — Republicans think they've found the ideal person to explain in detail the Democratic presidential candidate's evolving position on the war in Iraq — John Kerry himself.

Using video clips of Kerry discussing Iraq on various talk shows, the Republican National Committee has put together an 11-minute video that traces how Kerry struggled with the issue of Iraq through 2003 and early 2004 as he competed for — and finally won — the Democratic presidential nomination.

Republicans plan to publicly unveil the video Wednesday morning and send it by e-mail to about 8 million supporters. GOP officials also are pondering how to make the video, produced by Laura Crawford of the Texas firm Crawford Creative, available to the general public.

In the video clips, Kerry gradually shifts from harsh anti-Saddam Hussein rhetoric in 2001 and 2002 to more cautious comments about Iraq in late 2003 and then to anti-war comments by early 2004.

"We've all reached a judgment the United States has to protect its interests," Kerry says on one talk show in early 2002. Saddam "may even slide these weapons off to terrorist groups, it's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat," he says on a September 2002 talk show.

The video reminds that Kerry voted in October 2002 to authorize President Bush to use force.

Through 2003 and early 2004, Kerry became more cautious and talked against the war, as problems grew in Iraq and his primary campaign against anti-war candidate Howard Dean became more intense.

The video notes that Kerry voted against $87 billion for the troops in October 2003.

And it plays, then replays, Kerry's comment on the campaign trail about voting for the $87 billion, before he voted against it.

Kerry has since explained he voted against the $87 billion for the troops because he supported a separate measure that would have rolled back tax cuts for the wealthy to help pay for the expense.

While that explanation may make perfect sense to colleagues in Congress, it may not to voters with little time or patience for the legislative process.

"There's no question that comments here or there, taken out of context and thrown together, are intended by Republicans to try to simplify or dumb down a crucial issue of war and peace into a simple yes-no question," said James Rubin, a senior foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign.

While the video clips are often brief and lack context, they do appear to show Kerry evolving from a harsh critic of Saddam to an anti-war candidate by early 2004 at the height of the campaign for the nomination.

In early January 2004 with the critical Iowa caucuses looming, "Hardball" host Chris Matthews demands to know if Kerry is an anti-war candidate.

Kerry hesitates, then says, "I am ... yes."

At that point, the theme song about the lovable TV porpoise "Flipper" chimes in.

"They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning. No one at sea, is smarter than he."

Rubin said Kerry always believed the way the United States went to war was the critical question — giving inspections in Iraq a chance and building alliances first. "John Kerry showed he understood the complexities about going to war the right way," said Rubin.
Click to expand...
 
Well, all I can say is that my view on the war in Iraq has changed dramatically since 2002 as well.
 
PuterTutor said:
Well, all I can say is that my view on the war in Iraq has changed dramatically since 2002 as well.
Click to expand...

If you were running for President & had used the exact same arguments as the sitting President using the exact same evidence to come to your conclusions & as your base got shifty you started sidestepping the issue you'd be the one on tape.
 
So, the Republicans have decided to do their own Michael Moore piece?

Big deal. You either already knew Kerry was a waffler, or you are going to continue to choose not to see it.
 
That's the thing, though. He was for the war, at first. But now he knows that we're just throwing money away, and Bush has no real solution in sight.

I'm not going to argue that Kerry's a good person, but I will argue that he's better then the alternative.
 
"They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning. No one at sea, is smarter than he."

Kerry pledges to use force when necessary with or without help
Thu Jul 29, 6:16 PM ET

BOSTON, United States (AFP) - Senator John Kerry, gearing to slug it out with George W. Bush for the White House, pledged to beef up US forces and take military action alone if necessary to protect the country.

"Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required," Kerry, a decorated Vietnam war hero, said in excerpts of the address released in advance of his appearance.

"Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military."

"We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom."
Click to expand...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...9/ts_afp/us_vote_democrats&cid=1503&ncid=2043

Senator Kerry Voted Against B-1 Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against B-2 Stealth Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against F-14. (H. R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against F-15. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against F-16. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff And Landing Jet Fighters. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against AH-64 Apache Helicopters. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Patriot Missiles. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Aegis Air Defense Cruiser. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Trident Missile System For U.S. Submarines. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against M-1 Abrams Tanks. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Bradley Fighting Vehicle. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Tomahawk Cruise Missile. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=3941


In 1991 Kerry voted to cut defense spending by 2 percent. Only 21 other senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated.

In 1991, Kerry voted to cut over $3 billion from defense and shift the funds to social programs. Only 27 senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut.

In 1992, Kerry voted to cut $6 billion from defense. Republicans and Democrats alike successfully blocked this attempt to cut defense spending.

In 1993, Kerry voted against increased defense spending for a military pay raise.

In 1993, Kerry introduced a plan to cut the number Of Navy submarines and their crews; reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force; terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program; force the retirement of 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year; and reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one. The plan was DOA.

In 1995, Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for seven years, cutting over $34 billion from defense. Only 27 other senators voted with Kerry.

In 1996, Kerry introduced a bill to cut Defense Department funding by $6.5 billion. Kerry’s bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote.

In 1996, Kerry voted yes on a fiscal 1996 budget resolution – a defense freeze that would have frozen defense spending for the next seven years and transferred the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training. The resolution was rejected 28-71.

Kerry on the Record: Defense
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2004
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/16/132851.shtml

Senator Kerry also voted against the first Gulf War in 1991
Click to expand...


:lol2:

Kerry Eager to Meet Candidate Edwards Described
(2004-07-29) -- John Forbes Kerry said that he's eager to meet the man John Edwards described in his speech last night to the Democrat convention.

"I look forward to shaking hands with the strong, decisive leader that Senator Edwards talked about," said Mr. Kerry from the living room of his Boston home. "I didn't catch his name, but his character reminds me of a young John Kerry--the kind of man I was in Vietnam."

Mr. Edwards, who delivered a stirring emotional speech on populist themes, insisted that he spoke of Mr. Kerry himself, despite the latter's image as a stoic, aloof elitist.

After hearing the speech, Mr. Kerry said, "Edwards almost had me believing that 'hope is on the way.' He gave me that warm, Clintonesque feeling all over again. I nearly smiled."

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards are also U.S. Senators.
Click to expand...
 
Before I start this I'd like to say: Thanks. It's people like you that make me enjoy research. It's also because of this, that I shall refrain from using my signature counter-argument statements of: 'Are you on crack?!', 'WTF are you smoking?' or 'Change your dealer!' :la: (I fuckin' love that Emoticon!)
I love how you guys site republican-biased facts. (Remember: It was once a fact that the world is flat. We all know the truith now)
Ok, first off, these are not INDIVIDUAL bills. You're looking at 2 different bills dating back in 1990. (S. 3189 and H. R. 5803) Back when George Senior was in office. Both bills where brought to the board only months after Iraq attacked Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. They where also put on the board when we where talking about liberating Kuwait from the hands of Iraq. SO, now that that this is all clear, (Want a website about the Gulf War? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB39/) we know Kerry is against the war. He does NOT want us to invade Iraq. And at that moment we where having a bit of a problem with our economy, and it's in dire need of fixing. Now unlike previous wars, war could not strengthen our Economy. We already had a huge surplus of arms, and a fair amount of troops. (WWII, and I believe Vietnam, actually helped our economy. I could be wrong about Vietnam.)
Now, ponder this for a moment: Or leader wants us to help put someone in check, but in order to do so he needs some actual funds for the Military. (They don't run on wishes and hopes, ya know?) Now this is all fine-and-dandy, but we where in a depression at the time. So calling for funds that isn’t really there would just create a deficit. Which, in turn, would HURT us, instead of HELP us. So, I could see why he was against the war.
Hell, even with all of that aside we could even say that USA has no right to be the World’s 'Bigger Brother. We have problems of our own, (Unemployment, homelessness, crime, and white-collar scandals) does that mean other countries should come in and fix ours? Does it? No, but it does mean that we should fix ourselves before we try and fix other people.
Oh yeah...
Here's the OFFICIAL site for the S.3189:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:SN03189:@@@D&summ2=m&
And for the H.R. 5803:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:HR05803:@@@D&summ2=m&
Now, for the H.R.2126:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR02126:@@@D&summ2=m&

Well, read it yourself.
 
Dandy. Why then did he vote for action this time, but then vote against funding it? After all, armies don't run on wishes and hopes, you know?
 
$3.9 Billion per month - estimated cost for the war in Iraq

Currently, the Cost of War calculator is set to reach $135 billion on September 30, 2004. This is the lowest estimate of what Congress has appropriated for the war in Iraq in two supplemental appropriations. The first, Public Law 108-11, signed on April 16, 2003, appropriated $79 billion, and the second, Public Law 108-106, signed on November 5, 2003, appropriated $87 billion. (The texts of the bills can be found through the Library of Congress’ legislative database.)

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953
Click to expand...

Imagine what almost $4billion/month could do for health-care, schools and infrastructure. Now, ask yourself why it's about to be spent on rebuilding Iraq instead.

WASHINGTON - The U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of just 3 percent in the spring, a dramatic slowdown from the rapid pace of the past year, as consumer spending fell to the weakest rate since the slowdown of 2001, the government reported Friday.
Click to expand...
Source

All this in a weakened economy. :Shrug: Maybe Kerry has a point?
 
Weakened economy? I think you're confusing now with 2002. The growth slowed a bit last quarter, but it's still growth, and jobs (the main bitching point) are on the rebound.

It's tough to feed, cloth, and house dead people, which is the goal of terrorism. You do remember that presky war on terror, right? The one Kerry won't fund, even though he votes to invade? :rolleyes:
 
Bish said:
Imagine what almost $4billion/month could do for health-care, schools and infrastructure. Now, ask yourself why it's about to be spent on rebuilding Iraq instead.
Click to expand...

Imagine the work required to change the US Constitution to make those legal federal programs. In a near two trillion dollar government, $4,000,000,000. ain't a big thang.
 
:winkkiss:

Kerry's Job Application

======================

NAME: John Kerry

RESIDENCE:
7 mansions, including Washington DC, worth multi-millions.

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Law Enforcement. I voted to cut every law enforcement, CIA and defense bill in my career as a US Senator. I ordered Boston to remove a fire hydrant in front of my mansion, thereby endangering my neighbors in the event of fire.

MILITARY:
I used three minor injuries to get an early discharge from the military and service in Vietnam (as documented by the attending doctor). I then returned to the US, joined Jane Fonda in protesting the war, and insulted returning Vietnam vets, claiming they committed atrocities and were baby killers. I threw my medals, ribbons, or something away in protest. Or did I? My book; Vietnam Veterans Against the War: The New Soldier shows how I truly feel about the military.

COLLEGE:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. Unlike my counterpart George Bush, I have no higher education and did not get
admitted to Harvard nor graduate with an M.B.A

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for U.S. Congress and have been there ever since. I have no real world experience except marrying rich women and running HJ Heinz vicariously through my wife Teresa.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
As a US Senator I set the record for the most liberal voting record, exceeding even Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. I have consistently failed to support our military and CIA by voting against budgets, thus gutting our country's ability to defend itself. Although I voted for the Iraq War, now I am against it and refuse to admit that I
voted for it. I voted for every liberal piece of legislation. I have
no plan to help this country but I intend to raise taxes significantly
if I am elected.

My wealth so far exceeds that of my counterpart, George Bush, that he
will never catch up. I make little or no charitable contributions and
have never agreed to pay any voluntary excess taxes in MA, despite
family wealth in excess of $ 700 million.

I (we) own 28 manufacturing plants (Heinz) outside of the U.S. in places
like Asia, Mexico and Europe. We can make more profit from the cheaper
cost of labor in those Countries, although I blame George Bush for
sending all of the jobs out of Country.

Although I claim to be in favor of alternative energy sources, Ted
Kennedy and I oppose windmills off Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard as it
might spoil our view of the ocean as we cruise on our yachts.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
None.

PERSONAL
I ride a Serotta Bike.

My Gulfstream V Jet, I call The Flying Squirrel.

I call my $850,000 42-foot Hinckley twin diesel yacht the "Scarmouche".

I am fascinated by rap and hip-hop and feel it reflects our real
culture.

I own several "Large" SUVs including one parked at my Nantucket summer
mansion, though I am against large polluting inefficient vehicles and
blame George Bush for the energy problems.

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.
Click to expand...
 
HomeLAN said:
Weakened economy? I think you're confusing now with 2002. The growth slowed a bit last quarter, but it's still growth, and jobs (the main bitching point) are on the rebound.

It's tough to feed, cloth, and house dead people, which is the goal of terrorism. You do remember that presky war on terror, right? The one Kerry won't fund, even though he votes to invade? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's still not the glory years of the powerful American economy....can you really afford to spend close to $200 billion in a war with no end in sight and almost the same amount in rebuilding the coutry you just bombed the crap out of?

I remember the war on terror...I also remember the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on AIDS, the war or hunger etc etc... What happened to those? The war on drugs has been going on since 1970 -Nixon era. America...still the place to sell and buy drugs.

Can you seriously see an end to this occupation?
 
MrBishop said:
It's still not the glory years of the powerful American economy....can you really afford to spend close to $200 billion in a war with no end in sight and almost the same amount in rebuilding the coutry you just bombed the crap out of?
Click to expand...

Can we afford not to? The result of that is a recurrence of howling barbarism in the country. The other side argues that we're incubating terrorists now, wait and see the result if we simply pull out.

The economy goes through cycles. This one bears a strong resemblance to what happened in the early 70's. Boom times eventually returned at that time, and they will again. While this isn't exactly 1999, it ain't 2002 either. Don't confuse slowing growth for contraction, OK?

As for the war on drugs, don't preach to the choir.

Yes, I do see an end. It's going to be a few years yet, but it will end. We need to make sure it ends in a way that gives everybody a shot at a stable (or at least stabler) situation over there. No matter how much anyone whines to the contrary, you ain't gonna get that by simply yanking the troops out and letting the chips fall where they may.
 
Lilith said:
Bullsh*t that Politics are fun, They are boring as he**!
Click to expand...

There's no swear filter here, Lilith. If you meant that they are boring as hell, or something is bullshit...feel free to type as much, m'kay? :D
 
Granted HL...pulling the carpet out of the country would cause more havok than it's worth...but there doesn't seem to be a pull-out strategy at all. Permanent bases? 140k semi-perma troops?

How about a pullout over the next year or three...with the UN holding up some of it's end for a while. or a five year plan....something.

You gotta know that the parents and spouces/kids of those soldiers over there are starting to ask "When are they coming home?"
 
Gonz said:
Imagine the work required to change the US Constitution to make those legal federal programs. In a near two trillion dollar government, $4,000,000,000. ain't a big thang.
Click to expand...

In comparison to $2trillion..it's peanuts. In comparison to the $56B budget for education in America...with cuts on their way for 2005...$4B/month is one fuck of a large number!
 
MrBishop said:
How about a pullout over the next year or three...with the UN holding up some of it's end for a while. or a five year plan....something.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what Bush wants, I think. He's attempting to get a more international force in there long term, and the recent elections were a big step in the "2-3 years" direction.

BTW, France finally pulled its head out of its ass today, and so NATO will now begin to train troops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top