PDA

View Full Version : Anti-Kerrys: What exactly is it you think Kerry will or won't do that you object to?


Volcana
Oct 16th, 2004, 01:55 AM
Just one word of warning. If you say 'flip flop', I'll just post Kerry's positionsm and show that they're consistentm and post all the places BUsh has reversed HIS position. That's all been posted here already. Let's just skip over that and get to one half of the heart of the matter.

What do you think Kerry WILL do, that you object to?

What do you think Kerry WON'T do,that you think needs to be done?

Topics can include

* Water pollution
* Air pollution
* Mad Cow disease
* The War in Iraq
* The War in Afghanistan
* Poverty
* Race relations
* Genocide in the Sudan
* The race war along the Teaxs border
* Immigration on general
* Feminism
* job losses
* Social Security
* Health care
* North Korea
* Russia
* China
* Israel/Palestine
* Iran
* America as theocracy
* make some up

Sam L
Oct 16th, 2004, 01:59 AM
Most people object to Kerry because Kerry won't make their wallets grow bigger by exploiting the environment all they like and treating the world as their playground. It's a simple fact.

Oh also others object to him because he's not a Bible basher like Bush. That pretty much sums up Bush's supporters.

But then that's America and that's Republicans, what more could you expect? :shrug:

switz
Oct 16th, 2004, 07:57 AM
he won't stop the terrorist killers. he can't make the hard decisions like deciding to send a whole lot of planes to bomb countries i don't like. he might try and use diplomacy to solve problems instead of fighting fire with fire. he won't enforce my view of the world on everyone with slightly different beliefs.

switz
Oct 16th, 2004, 07:58 AM
he's a dangerous man.

flyingmachine
Oct 16th, 2004, 11:22 AM
he's a dangerous man.
Nowhere as dangerous as GWB.

switz
Oct 16th, 2004, 03:04 PM
Nowhere as dangerous as GWB.

obviously i was being a little too subtle.

wongqks
Oct 16th, 2004, 03:05 PM
any moron would have done a better job than Bush

cheesestix
Oct 16th, 2004, 03:07 PM
Most people object to Kerry because Kerry won't make their wallets grow bigger by exploiting the environment all they like and treating the world as their playground. It's a simple fact.

Oh also others object to him because he's not a Bible basher like Bush. That pretty much sums up Bush's supporters.

But then that's America and that's Republicans, what more could you expect? :shrug:

Most of you libs only like Kerry BECAUSE HE'S NOT BUSH. :rolleyes:

It's so freaking pathetic when you people say "Well, nobody can be worse than Bush." Some of you just have NO CLUE. Kerry has 2 positions on everything. That's not leadership. Do you really wanna see where a wishy-washy flip-flopper can take this country? You people act like America is some third world country that it's so horrible to live in. :rolleyes: Damn, I wish some of you had some perspective.

And I think you personally just don't like Bush because of the whole gay thing. :rolleyes:

cheesestix
Oct 16th, 2004, 03:13 PM
he's a dangerous man.

Being INDECISIVE is dangerous.

*JR*
Oct 16th, 2004, 03:21 PM
he's a dangerous man.Yeah, Bush HAS kept Hofmann out of the country for 2 years now! Who knows if Kerry would buckle under WTA pressure? :devil:

Sam L
Oct 16th, 2004, 04:54 PM
Most of you libs only like Kerry BECAUSE HE'S NOT BUSH. :rolleyes:

It's so freaking pathetic when you people say "Well, nobody can be worse than Bush." Some of you just have NO CLUE. Kerry has 2 positions on everything. That's not leadership. Do you really wanna see where a wishy-washy flip-flopper can take this country? You people act like America is some third world country that it's so horrible to live in. :rolleyes: Damn, I wish some of you had some perspective.

And I think you personally just don't like Bush because of the whole gay thing. :rolleyes:
Please, I voted for the political party that opposed gay marriage in Australia too.

Bush is wrong on SO MANY levels that it's not funny. You know, I don't know why you some of you Republicans like him so much, he can't even manage the economy properly.

If you mean decisive in that he'll rely on his whims to start wars then I don't want it. Do you realise how Bush has damaged international relations because of his 'decisiveness'?

Aside from the fact that he's the most incoherent US president in living memory - possibly ever. I mean, he really is embarassment to your country and you should realise that.

jbone_0307
Oct 16th, 2004, 07:25 PM
switz, I sense some sarcasm??? Cheesestix you have yet to answer the original question of the thread. Since when does have 2 positions on something make you a bad leader?? It doesn't inhibit you leadership skills just because its either one way or the wrong way. Lets say, Bush was president of an organization and he commited to a program, that researchers concluded that wasn't legit. Doesn't sound like a good leader quality to me.

cheesestix
Oct 16th, 2004, 08:28 PM
switz, I sense some sarcasm??? Cheesestix you have yet to answer the original question of the thread. Since when does have 2 positions on something make you a bad leader?? It doesn't inhibit you leadership skills just because its either one way or the wrong way. Lets say, Bush was president of an organization and he commited to a program, that researchers concluded that wasn't legit. Doesn't sound like a good leader quality to me.

How can you lead when you can't make decisions?

One day, Kerry tells a group of Muslims that he is against the wall that Israel is building. The next day, Kerry tells a group of Israelis that he supports the wall and that they have the right to protect themselves. Which is it?

One day, Kerry is against the war in Iraq. The next day, he says that "knowing what we know now" (including no WMDs), he still would have supported the war. Then, the next day he's against the war again. Where does he stand?

Justeenium
Oct 16th, 2004, 09:00 PM
How can you lead when you can't make decisions?

One day, Kerry tells a group of Muslims that he is against the wall that Israel is building. The next day, Kerry tells a group of Israelis that he supports the wall and that they have the right to protect themselves. Which is it?

One day, Kerry is against the war in Iraq. The next day, he says that "knowing what we know now" (including no WMDs), he still would have supported the war. Then, the next day he's against the war again. Where does he stand?

when did he say that? link?

Volcana
Oct 16th, 2004, 09:02 PM
How can you lead when you can't make decisions?Way to hit those Bush talking points! BUt it simply isn't true that Kerry 'can't make decisions'.

Now, would you mind providing links to quotes of things things so claim Kerry has said? Bush has told so many lies about Kerry's position, I'd like to actually see the quotes.

One day, Kerry tells a group of Muslims that he is against the wall that Israel is building. The next day, Kerry tells a group of Israelis that he supports the wall and that they have the right to protect themselves. Which is it?I 'googled' "Kerry wall Israel Muslim" I got nothing with any such quote in it, one way OR the other. But, just so we're clear. I haven't heard anyone object to Israel building a wall 'INSIDE THEIR CURRENT BORDERS. That's not where it is. You could quite easliy defend Israel's RIGHT to build such a wall, and be AGAINST where they currently plan to build it.

But I still want to see links to quotes. This sounds like more Karl Rove lies.

One day, Kerry is against the war in Iraq. The next day, he says that "knowing what we know now" (including no WMDs), he still would have supported the war. Then, the next day he's against the war again. Where does he stand?You're misquoting Kerry. Deliberately, I don't know.

Kerry NEVER has said "knowing what we know now" (including no WMDs), he still would have supported the war.

He said, knowing what we know now, he still have voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Because, quote "I believe that's the authority the President ought to have", unquote. Something Bush, in turn, promised to do only as a last resort, and NOBODY, not even Bush, actually claims he'd exhausted all his options before invading Iraq. Bush also said he'd only go to war in an alliance with our tradional allies. Turns out Bush lied both times.

Giving the president the authority to invade a country that may be allied with or sheltering a known enemy, and providing that known enemy with CONVENTIONAL weapons (not WMD) is NOT the same thing as supporting an pre-mature invasion against a country that our best intelligence says is NOT Working with that same known enemy.

How can Kerry lead? A lot more easily than Bush. Because for starters, Kerry's telling the truth. Half that country doesn't believe a word Bush says. The question is, how can BUSH lead? Other than into quagmire and fiscal irresponsibility?

Being INDECISIVE is dangerous.You haven't provided any evidence that Kerry IS indecisive. I'd needs quotes from Kerry, or politically neutral source material, to consider something 'evidence'.

And BTW, is getting almost 1100 Americans killed and throwing away 120 Billion dollars and counting on a war we didn't need to be in NOT dangerous?

jbone_0307
Oct 16th, 2004, 09:23 PM
I would rather Kerry switch to a right position, than to be ignorant and stay on the wrong position as your candidate did. I dont know why people think that just because you change your stance on an issue, makes you a horrible candidate for president. You failed to answer the original question of the thread cheesestix.

jbone_0307
Oct 16th, 2004, 09:41 PM
Just one word of warning. If you say 'flip flop', I'll just post Kerry's positionsm and show that they're consistentm and post all the places BUsh has reversed HIS position. That's all been posted here already. Let's just skip over that and get to one half of the heart of the matter.

What do you think Kerry WILL do, that you object to?

What do you think Kerry WON'T do,that you think needs to be done?

Topics can include

* Water pollution
* Air pollution
* Mad Cow disease
* The War in Iraq
* The War in Afghanistan
* Poverty
* Race relations
* Genocide in the Sudan
* The race war along the Teaxs border
* Immigration on general
* Feminism
* job losses
* Social Security
* Health care
* North Korea
* Russia
* China
* Israel/Palestine
* Iran
* America as theocracy
* make some up



I dont know what he would do, but I would.

* Enforce stricter regulations on water pollution, give cities, states incentives based on the improvements of water cleanliness.
* Push for funding for maglev trains as an alternate for traditional Amtrak trains, hopefully it will pressure Amtrak to adjust. Maglev trains produce NO pollution, no oil is needed and have a 99% reliability and on-time arrival. Also support Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Hybrid cars, along w/other demo cars.
* Forget Israel and Palestine. Theres nothing you can do all they do is fight, fight, fight, and their probably going to wipe each other out.
* For the War in Iraq, I would have driven all of the citizens out of Baghdad, captured whoever, and set up temporary camps outside of Baghdad for the people. Then build a blockade around the city and allow contractors to come in, do their job, build capital building, airports, houses, apartments, roads, water systems and other infastructure needs and allow part of the city to open up as they complete the construction. Have them go to an employment building, get ID cards, etc. allow them to rent apartments (1st month) and to get a job helping contractors complete the reconstruction effort and/or maintaining it.. (probably sound stupid)
* Let Iran have nuclear weapons, but if they use them in any way against us, then they will find out the consequences, same way with N. Korea.
* I also think we cant do anything with Sudan, maybe send food and temporary houses and things. They are going to continue to do, as they think it is racial clensing (??)

Volcana
Oct 16th, 2004, 09:45 PM
* I also think we cant do anything with Sudan, maybe send food and temporary houses and things. They are going to continue to do, as they think it is racial clensing (??)We could
a) occupy the place,
b) disarm the militias,
c) let people come back home
d) train and arm a defense for their to fight the militias
e) leave

But I do rather like a lot of your other ideas.

Mariangelina
Oct 17th, 2004, 02:15 AM
This "flip-flop" stuff does amuse me. In any non-politician, changing one's opinions when given new information or noting things have changed is normal human reasoning, while in a politician it seems wishy-washy. If a normal person refused to change her or his stance on things despite major changes in the situation, most would think this person is psychologically less than healthy. Yet toeing the glacially-slowly changing party line as opposed to actual thought seems politically required. Reasoning is career suicide.

And I don't like Kerry's stance on gay marriage either. But it's a hell of a lot better than that of Bush, who doesn't want to recognize any sort of gay union and says he doesn't know if homosexuality is a choice or not.

And no, politics is not all about gay rights for me, not by a long shot. But it is hardly an unimportant issue, and there are many other reasons why people prefer Kerry to Bush.

cheesestix
Oct 17th, 2004, 03:55 AM
You wanted quotes, here they are....

Go ahead an spin it! :rolleyes:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/about34875.html&highlight=

If I Knew Then What I Know Now…

“We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

The Kerry campaign says voting to authorize the war in Iraq is different from deciding diplomacy has failed and waging war. But Kerry’s nuanced position has contradicted itself on whether it was right or wrong to wage the war.

In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the “right decision” though he would have “preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.”

But then in January 2004, Kerry began to run as anti-war candidate, saying, "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have."


The Israeli Security Fence

In October 2003, Kerry said Israel’s unilateral construction of a security fence was “a barrier to peace.”

“I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line," he told the Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference. “We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis.”

But less than a year later, in February 2004, he reversed himself, calling the fence "a legitimate act of self-defense," and saying "President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians.”

cheesestix
Oct 17th, 2004, 04:01 AM
* Let Iran have nuclear weapons, but if they use them in any way against us, then they will find out the consequences, same way with N. Korea.

Now, that's just scary! You're joking, right? :rolleyes:

Volcana
Oct 17th, 2004, 04:48 AM
You wanted quotes, here they are....Go ahead and tell the truth!Well, okay ....
http://www.able2know.com/forums/about34875.html&highlight=This statement Sept 29, 2004

“We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."Three distinct Criteria
* Knowing there was no imminent threat to America
* knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction
* knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."ONE criteria, no WMD. And again, and I explained this in detail earlier, voting to give the Presidnet the authority is NOT THE SAME as supporting the war.

The Kerry campaign says voting to authorize the war in Iraq is different from deciding diplomacy has failed and waging war. But Kerry’s nuanced position has contradicted itself on whether it was right or wrong to wage the war.

In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the “right decision” though he would have “preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.”

But then in January 2004, Kerry began to run as anti-war candidate, saying, "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have."Once more, calling something a contradiction doesn't make it so. What the author is calling a contradiction here is once again voting to give the president the authority vs objecting to how the president USED that authority. Calling something a contradiction doesn't make it so.


The Israeli Security Fence

In October 2003, Kerry said Israel’s unilateral construction of a security fence was “a barrier to peace.”

“I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line," he told the Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference. “We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis.”

But less than a year later, in February 2004, he reversed himself, calling the fence "a legitimate act of self-defense," and saying "President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians.”Saying he reversed himself doesn't make it so. And in fact, what you call a contradiction is the very case I outlined earlier. Kerry object to building the fence OFF THE GREEN LINE. He wasn't vague. "“I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line". He didn't object to the building of the fence. In fact, in the second statement, he specifically refers to altering the route he objected to inthe first statement.

cheesestix - You aren't that stupid. You know perfectly well those aren't contradictions. All you're doing is quoting OTHER people who call them contradictions. But in neither case did Kerry change his position.

1) Authorizing the president to use force is not the same as supporting an invasion.

2) Saying you wouldn't go to war if you knew these three things
* there was no imminent threat to America
* there were no weapons of mass destruction
* there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda

is not the same as saying you'd go to war if all you knew was that Iraq had no WMD. If Iraq was actively collaborating with Al Qaeda (Which Bush knew they weren't) I'd have supported the invasion too.

3) Objecting to building the fence 'off the green line' is not the smae things as objecting to the fence itself.

This is simple, simple stuff. I KNOW you understand it. What's makes you think we's fall for this?

jbone_0307
Oct 17th, 2004, 06:18 AM
I dont see what is scary about it. What is the criteria of a country for it to be able to have nuclear weapons?? They cant have a crazy leader, seems that we need to dismantle our nuclear weapons because our president does fit that criteria. Do you actually think they would ever try anything against us, they fully know the consequences. What is your stance?? Should we invade them because we suspect they may use nuclear weapons against us.

Philbo
Oct 17th, 2004, 08:32 AM
America needs to understand that humans, by nature, dont like to be told what they can and cant do. Humans especially dont like being told what they cant do when the person telling them NOT to, is actually doing the behaviour they are saying not to do.

THe fact that Bush has given funding to a whole new wave of smaller nuclear weapons is such a hypocritical action to take, at a time when they are trying to restrick countries like Norht Korea and Iran from gaining nuclear capability..

I dont want Iran and Nth Korea to have nukes, but I completely understand their inclination to say 'well is usa can have them why not us'? The fact that the USA is acquiring new and better nukes, at the same time telling noone else they can have them (bar Israel lol) is basically like the USA saying "Our national security is more important than your national security' - and no human being is gonna enjoy being told american lives are woth more than Iranian lives..