citizen

so i was watching some of the debates last night and i heard bush say this little gem in response to a question about stem cell research:
"taking life to save life is a real ethical dilemna."
so taking the 'life' from cells to help the sick is not okay, but
killing living people to 'enhance' our (supposed) 'security' is kosher
i have a word for this man and it starts with a big freakin H and ends with a big freakin E (because if i were to use it it would be all in capitall letters roofles =P)
for the lazy of you out there here's a small hint:
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E

Kerry is hardly and improvement...
i don't care if he is the 'lesser of two evils' because he is still EVIL
to paraphrase some of his statements
"I believe the war on terror is the right thing but the president did it the wrong way." F that.

I don't think i heard one CONCRETE answer to any question during the time i listened to the so called debate.

also, if anyone bothered to pay attention to some of the third party candidates you would see why they were excluded from the debates yet again; because they would make both bush and kerry look like bumbling idiots with no real answers to anything.

take a look at Peroutka of the constitutional party, he has REAL answers for the REAL problems.

Var

My favorie was the last question to Bush. "What are 3 instances that you made a wrong decision and what you did to correct them" to which Bush answered


"BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big.

And in a war, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn't have done that. He shouldn't have made that decision. And I'll take responsibility for them. I'm human.

But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions, because I think they're right.

That's really what you're -- when they ask about the mistakes, that's what they're talking about. They're trying to say, "Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?" And the answer is, "Absolutely not." It was the right decision.

The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

We knew he hated us. We knew he'd been -- invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.

On the tax cut, it's a big decision. I did the right decision. Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history.

Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: But history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility."




Cliffs notes. "What are three mistake you made?"

"Fuck you i dont make mistakes bitch, now come over here and bow down to me"

This man wont ever admit his flaws. He's so fuckin arrogant. SHE ASKED FOR 3 MISTAKES..THEN HE STARTED TALKING ABOUT HOW IRAQ WAS JUSTIFIED!!!



Also if you read the statement carfully, the syntax is all wrong. The parts where there are two dahes(--) in the transcript is where he had brain farts. Fuckin idiot

__________________
Hi

RJF

Get real! Kerry is the biggest hypocrite out there. He'll tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear.

I'm surprised he didn't use the line "I feel your pain"

Just look at his record.

Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War

Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. “Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ‘Notebook’ item from TNR’s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ‘Same Senator, Same Constituent’: ‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991] ‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]” (Noam Scheiber, “Noam Scheiber’s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)

Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment

In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter “Urging” MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. “We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.” (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)

Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” (Susan Milligan, “Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’” The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)

Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind

Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As “Mockery.” “Between now and the time I’m sworn in January 2005, I’m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind.’” (Holly Ramer, “Kerry Wants To Make ‘Environmental Justice’ A Priority,” The Associated Press, 4/22/03)

Kerry Trashed NCLB As ‘Unfunded Mandate’ With ‘Laudable’ Goals. “Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ‘unfunded mandate’ with ‘laudable’ goals. ‘Without the resources, education reform is a sham,’ Kerry said. ‘I can’t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words “no child left behind.”‘“ (Matt Leon, “Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,” The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)

Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action

In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action “Inherently Limited And Divisive.” “[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’” (Lynne Duke, “Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,” The Washington Post, 4/8/92)

In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action “Divisive.” CNN’s KELLY WALLACE: “We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.” SEN. KERRY: “That’s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don’t end it. He’s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I’ve always supported it. I’ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn’t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let’s not have any politics here. Let’s keep the truth.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 1/30/04)

Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn

September 2001: Said Should Not Raise Taxes In Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . .[Y]ou don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)

• We Should “Absolutely Not Raise Taxes.” “Well, I think it’s very clear what I favor because we voted for it early in the spring, which was the Democratic budget alternative that had triggers in it where you didn’t wind up spending money you don’t have. It had a smaller tax cut but more tax cut for a stimulus, which is what we need. So you ask me, what do we need now? Yes, we need additional stimulus. We should absolutely not raise taxes. We should not cut spending. What we need to do is drive the economy of this country. The economy is the number one issue. It is the most important thing we should focus on.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 9/8/01)

• April 2002: Said He Wanted Larger Tax Cut And Was “Not In Favor Of” Repeal. CNN’s TUCKER CARLSON: “Senator Kerry . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush’s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?” KERRY: “It’s not a question of courage. . . . And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year … [T]he next tax cut doesn’t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it’s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I’m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 4/16/02)

December 2002: Flip-Flopped, Would Keep Tax Cuts From Taking Effect. NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut … What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.” … RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years …” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” … RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change …” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

• Called For Freeze Of Bush Tax Cuts In Favor Of Year-Long Suspension Of Payroll Taxes On First $10,000 Of Personal Income. “Kerry said Bush’s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush’s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class.” (Tyler Bridges, “Kerry Visits Miami To Start Raising Funds,” The Miami Herald, 12/7/02)

Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes

Kerry Voted Against Exempting Small Businesses And Family Farms From Clinton Income Tax Increase. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #79: Motion Agreed To 54-45: R 0-43; D 54-2, 3/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Three Months Later, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Proposal To Exclude Small Businesses From The Increased Income Tax. (S. 1134, CQ Vote #171: Motion Rejected 56-42: R 43-0; D 13-42, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Claimed He Fought To Exempt Small Businesses From Income Tax Increases. “I worked to amend the reconciliation bill so that it would … exempt small businesses who are classified as subchapter S corporations from the increased individual income tax.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S 8268)

Kerry Flip-Flopped On 50-Cent Gas Tax Increase

In 1994, Kerry Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. “Kerry said [the Concord Coalition’s scorecard] did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers’ efforts to cut the deficit. ‘It doesn’t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,’ Kerry said.” (Jill Zuckman, “Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,” The Boston Globe, 3/1/94)

Two Years Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped. “Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike, nor the 25-cent hike proposed by the [Concord] coalition.” (Michael Grunwald, “Kerry Gets Low Mark On Budgeting,” The Boston Globe, 4/30/96)

Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States

Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. “I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,” Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (“John Kerry On The Issues,” The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)

Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. “The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)

Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits

In 1993, Kerry Expressed Doubts That Federal Employees Health Benefits System Worked Well. “Hillary Rodham Clinton today offered a fresh description of one of the most confusing elements of the Administration health care plan, the health insurance purchasing alliances, saying they would let all Americans choose coverage in the way members of Congress do. … Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he was not sure that the Federal program worked all that well.” (Adam Clymer, “Hillary Clinton Says Health Plan Will Be Familiar,” The New York Times, 12/8/93)

Kerry Expressed Personal Dissatisfaction With His Coverage Through Federal Program. “Earlier this month, when Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Boston and vowed that average Americans would get as good coverage as that enjoyed by their senators and representatives, Sen. John F. Kerry told Clinton that he thought the country could do better. The Massachusetts Democrat said he was thinking, among other recent disasters, of his $500 dental bill for treatment of an abscessed tooth. ‘Because it was done in the dentist’s office, rather than the hospital, they didn’t cover it. So they were urging me to go spend twice as much in a hospital,’ said Kerry, who is covered by BACE, the Beneficial Association of Capitol Employees.” (Ana Puga, “Lawmakers Talk Health Care,” The Boston Globe, 12/19/93)

Now, On Campaign Trail, Kerry Is Enthusiastic About Health Care He Receives As Senator. “As a U.S. Senator, I could get the best health care in the world. Most people aren’t so lucky, and we need to change that. That’s why my plan gives every American access to the same kind of health care that members of Congress give themselves. … Because your family’s health care is just as important as any politicians’ in Washington.” (Sen. John Kerry, “Affordable Health Care For All Americans,” Remarks At Mercy Medical, Cedar Rapids, IA, 12/14/03)

Kerry: “I’m Going To Make Available To Every American The Same Health Care Plan That Senators And Congressmen Give Themselves …” (Sen. John Kerry, AARP Democrat Candidate Debate, Bedford, NH, 11/18/03)

Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health

In 2001, Kerry Voted Against Amendment Providing $70 Billion For Tax Credits For Small Business To Purchase Health Insurance. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay)

Now, Kerry Promises Refundable Tax Credits To Small Businesses For Health Coverage. “Refundable tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage will be offered to small businesses and their employees to make health care more affordable.” (“John Kerry’s Plan To Make Health Care Affordable To Every American,” John Kerry For President Website, www.johnkerry.com, Accessed 1/21/04)

Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage

In 1994, Kerry Said Democrats Push Health Care Too Much. “[Kerry] said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls.” (Joe Battenfeld, “Jenny Craig Hit With Sex Harassment Complaint - By Men,” Boston Herald, 11/30/94)

But Now Kerry Calls Health Care His “Passion.” “Sen. John Kerry says expanding coverage is ‘my passion.’” (Susan Page, “Health Specifics Could Backfire On Candidates,” USA Today, 6/2/03)

Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform

In 1993, Kerry Voted To Kill Bipartisan Welfare Work Requirement. In 1993, Kerry and Kennedy voted against a welfare-to-work requirement that was supported by many Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV):

• Fiscal 1993 Supplemental Appropriations - Welfare Work Requirement. “Moynihan, D-N.Y., motion to table (kill) the D’Amato, R-N.Y., amendment to sharply cut federal welfare administration aid to states that do not, within a year, require at least 10 percent of their able-bodied welfare recipients without dependents to work. The required workfare participation rate would be increased by 2 percent a year until 50 percent were working.” (H.R. 2118, CQ Vote #163: Rejected 34-64: R 1-42; D 33-22, 6/22/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

But In 1996, Kerry Voted For Welfare Reform. (H.R. 3734, CQ Vote #262: Adopted 78-21: R 53-0; D 25-21, 8/1/96, Kerry Voted Yea)

Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana

Kerry Said His “Personal Disposition Is Open To The Issue Of Medical Marijuana.” “Aaron Houston of the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana said that just a month ago Mr. Kerry seemed to endorse medical marijuana use, and when asked about the content of his mysterious study, said, ‘I am trying to find out. I don’t know.’ Mr. Kerry did say his ‘personal disposition is open to the issue of medical marijuana’ and that he’d stop Drug Enforcement Administration raids on patients using the stuff under California’s medical marijuana law.” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03)

But Now Kerry Says He Wants To Wait For Study Analyzing Issue Before Making Final Decision. “The Massachusetts Democrat said Wednesday he’d put off any final decision on medical marijuana because there’s ‘a study under way analyzing what the science is.’” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03)

Flip-Flopped On Military Experience As Credential For Public Office

Kerry: Service Should Not Be “Litmus Test” For Leadership. “Mr. President, you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/08/92, p. S17709)

But Now Kerry Constantly “Challenges The Stature Of His Democratic Opponents” Over Their Lack Of Military Service. “And more than ever, Mr. Kerry is invoking his stature as a Vietnam veteran as he challenges the stature of his Democratic opponents -- none of whom, he frequently points out, have ‘worn the uniform of our country’ -- to withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security.” (Adam Nagourney, “As Campaign Tightens, Kerry Sharpens Message,” The New York Times, 8/10/03)

Flip-Flopped On PACs

Kerry Used To Decry “Special Interests And Their PAC Money.” “‘I’m frequently told by cynics in Washington that refusing PAC money is naive,’ Kerry told his supporters in 1985. ‘Do you agree that it is “naïve” to turn down special interests and their PAC money?’” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)

But Now, Kerry Has Established His Own PAC. “A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates. … Kerry’s stance on soft money, unregulated donations funneled through political parties, puts him in the position of raising the type of money that he, McCain, and others in the campaign-finance reform movement are trying to eliminate.” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)

Flip-Flopped On $10,000 Donation Limit To His PAC

When Kerry Established His PAC In 2001, He Instituted A $10,000 Limit On Donations. “A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates … The statement also declared that the new PAC would voluntarily limit donations of so-called soft money to $10,000 per donor per year and disclose the source and amount of all such donations.” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A Pac,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)

One Year Later, Kerry Started Accepting Unlimited Contributions. “Senator John F. Kerry, who broke with personal precedent last year when he established his first political action committee, has changed his fund-raising guidelines again, dropping a $10,000 limit on contributions from individuals, a cap he had touted when establishing the PAC. The Massachusetts Democrat said yesterday he decided to accept unlimited contributions, which has already allowed him to take in ‘soft money’ donations as large as $25,000, because of the unprecedented fund-raising demands confronting him as a leader in the Senate Democratic caucus.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Shifts Fund-Raising Credo For His Own PAC,” The Boston Globe, 10/4/02)

Flip-Flopped On Using Personal Funds In 1996 Race

In 1996, Kerry And Weld Established $500,000 Limit Of Personal Wealth To Be Used In Senate Campaign. “In 1996, Kerry and Weld gave their already noteworthy Senate race added significance by establishing a spending cap. The candidates agreed to spend no more than $6.9 million from July 1 through the election. Weld ended up spending $6.6 million and Kerry $6.3 million. One key element of the agreement limited the candidates to spending $500,000 in personal wealth, a clause Weld favored because Kerry is married to a millionaire, Teresa Heinz.” (Glen Johnson, “In Kerry’s Plan For A Pac, The Resolution Of Opposites,” The Boston Globe, 12/18/01)

Kerry Broke Agreement By Spending $1.2 Million Over Limit. “[P]ost-election reports showed a last-minute infusion of $1.7 million from Kerry’s wife, heiress Teresa Heinz. … [K]erry denied that his campaign violated its agreement. The money had been loaned--not contributed--by his wife, he explained. ‘There was nothing in the agreement that restricted us from taking a loan … and we paid it back in $1,000 and $2,000 chunks.’” (“Global Ecology Lobby Rocked By Defection,” Political Finance, The Newsletter, 1/02)

Flip-Flopped On 1991 Iraq War Coalition

At The Time, Kerry Questioned Strength Of 1991 Coalition. “I keep hearing from people, ‘Well, the coalition is fragile, it won’t stay together,’ and my response to that is, if the coalition is so fragile, then what are the vital interests and what is it that compels us to risk our young American’s lives if the others aren’t willing to stay the … course of peace? … I voted against the president, I’m convinced we’re doing this the wrong way …” (CBS’ “This Morning,” 1/16/91)

Now Kerry Has Nothing But Praise For 1991 Coalition. SEN. JOHN KERRY: “In my speech on the floor of the Senate I made it clear, you are strongest when you act with other nations. All presidents, historically, his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, did a brilliant job of building a legitimate coalition and even got other people to help pay for the war.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 1/11/04)

Flip-Flopped On View Of War On Terror

Kerry Said War On Terror Is “Basically A Manhunt.” “Kerry was asked about Bush’s weekend appearance on ‘Meet the Press’ when he called himself a ‘war president.’ The senator, who watched the session, remarked: ‘The war on terrorism is a very different war from the way the president is trying to sell it to us. It’s a serious challenge, and it is a war of sorts, but it is not the kind of war they’re trying to market to America.’ Kerry characterized the war on terror as predominantly an intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operation. ‘It’s basically a manhunt,’ he said. ‘You gotta know who they are, where they are, what they’re planning, and you gotta be able to go get ‘em before they get us.’” (Katherine M. Skiba, “Bush, Kerry Turn Focus To Each Other,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/13/04)

Two Weeks Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped, Saying War On Terror Is More Than “A Manhunt”. “This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At University Of California At Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 2/27/04)

Flip-Flopped On Funding For Our Troops In Iraq

Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With “Whatever Number” Of Dollars It Took. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)

Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package. “Passage of the bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in fiscal 2004 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. It also would provide $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90 percent of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has been forgiven by other countries. Separate provisions limit reconstruction aid to $18.4 billion. It also would provide approximately $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care.” (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Later Claimed: “I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)

__________________
Zilvia.net...Where the Truth Hurts and Pain Builds Character

kazuo

RJF, do you have any better defense than the fact that he "flip-flops"?

Have you ever wanted to eat pizza one day but decided to eat hamburgers instead?

Have you ever wanted to see "Star Wars" but instead decided to watch the film adaptation of "the Shawshank Redemption?"

Have you ever wanted to go out and chase some tail but decided to stay home cus you were "too tired?"

FLIP-FLOPPER

*rolls eyes*

RJF

Yes, but my decisions don't affect millions of lives in this country.

__________________
Zilvia.net...Where the Truth Hurts and Pain Builds Character

DriftMonkey

RJF is the man. and yes pizza and hamburgers is almost the same as WAR and politics excpet one has more implications than the other and when u cant make up ur mind its kind of dangerous and im not saying that pizza and hambugers are dangerous... U GET ME

__________________
Coastek240 still owes me a bumper or 82 bucks, which ever he decieds to send first.

mjjstang

when I watched that video of bush tryin to know what soverignty (i may have spelled it wrong but I know what it means) with the american indians was, thats when I just stopped and decided im not votin or caring about this country.

__________________
I was going to, but I can not think of a sig less than 75 characters.

Var

RJF ..this is the sad part. Nobody is saying Kerry is perfect. We know his record. We know he's talking out of his ass just to get elected.

BUT THAT'S JUST HOW BAD WE HATE BUSH!!!!

I LIKE the fact that Kerry flip flops. It shows he's humble enough to realize that things arent black and white all the time. He votes for something, then the government goes and fucks it up, so then next he votes against it. It makes perfect sense to me.

__________________
Hi

citizen

the only reason Kerry is better than bush imho is that he hasn't proven that he will fuck up this country even more. Bush has proven himself an incompenent leader already. give kerry the chance and he very well might do the same. i know no third party candidate is going to get elected this time around so i would rather hazard a chance to see what kerry will do. but, i still believe they are both bad enough that i wouldn't vote for either. in conclusion, they both can suck my lefty!

RJF

Humble? You have to be kidding?

He's an elitist and a snob who thinks he's better than everyone else.

How about the comment last night when they were discussing taxes and how only people who made over $200,000 who have a tax increase. He said that only he, Bush and Charlie Gibson would be affected.

How did he know that? Was he looking at how the audience was dressed and saying to himself "Oh, that's a cheap suit or a tacky blouse, so you must not be successful."

He has stepped on people all his life to get what he wants or to further his political career...it started when he came back from Vietnam and called all soldiers war criminals, just because there was an anti-war sentiment in this country and now he's doing it again.


Smug, arrogant pose

__________________
Zilvia.net...Where the Truth Hurts and Pain Builds Character

citizen

what about bush stepping on entire countries to get what he wants?

what the hell do you see in him? why would you ever vote for the guy? i fail to see any reason...

RJF

I see someone who has led this country for the past four years and is doing everything possible to make sure there isn't another day like 9/11.

As for stepping on countries....When? Where? How? I guess that means you're in favor of Kerry's "Global Test"?

__________________
Zilvia.net...Where the Truth Hurts and Pain Builds Character

SilviaNinja240

O..M..G.. I can't believe you are unaware of whats going on.
Besides Britan (which is about to hang Blair from Big Ben, then once he's gone we really will be alone) the U.S. has no friends in the world.

__________________

Var

You know..he hasnt stepped on any countries really bad except Iraq. But one country is pretty significant. When he invaded Iraq he made one mistake, he didnt have enough troops and no backup. We needed 1 million troops for this job. We needed more troops to do a cleaner job. The only think you can do with insufficient ground forces is blow things up. You cant control people you can only kill them. We needed Russia for this one. At least

__________________
Hi

citizen

global test, uhuh try using context next time. i've seen the full quote and your murduring kerry's intended message.

first and foremost bush is stepping ON THIS COUNTRY to do what HE wants. a majority of people HERE and NOW didn't want to go to 'war' in Iraq but he did it anyways. What we are doing in Iraq is unconstitutional. He stepping on the foundation of our government to do it. You may refer to Artiicle 1 Section 8 of the consitution, congress and only congress may declare a state of war. Bush has forced us into this "war on terror" (war being defined as: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. Terror in this case being defined as: anyone who bushy is displeased with).

i dont think i need even mention how he is stepping on the Iraqi people.

There is NOTHING anybody can do to prevent another 9/11. But, i believe the best way to try and avoid it is better relations with foreign entitiies. The first step to accomplishing this would be GETTING THE FUCK OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS. Stop pissing people off and they have less reason to retaliate. This country has too many problems of its own right now to be interfering with other nations. He is president of the United States first and foremost so he should be dealing with REAL problems facing America right now.

Once Bush is elected Protector of Freedom, happiness and everything rightious in the World then he can go deal with 'liberating' foreign nations and overthrowing tyranical leaders. until then its NOT IN HIS JOB DESCRIPTION!

*edited for poor editing*

Phlip

^^^ You mean the war on terror -- err... The libel campaign against malicious intent won't prevent another 9/11-type event? Well operation Iraqi freedom -- err... Operation America 2.0 HAD to be a good idea, right? I guess this means that we will have to see about getting Bush elected president of the world so he CAN have "protector of freedom" in his job description.

__________________
And I write too!

Var

If Bush had found a rock on the street, it would have been the anti-terror rock. He would have claimed that this rock keeps terrorsist away, and proof would be that no attacks happened since 9/11. And if you don't re-elect him, you're not gonna have the protection of the anit-terror rock.

__________________
Hi

HockeyMatt04

They're both fucking idiots, but I'd rather have somone in the White House with experience, no matter how bad it was, than risk a new idiot in the White House with no experience.

evilimport

several US president havent declared war in this century and have gone to it none-the-less.

Last I checked the terrorists attacked us first REQUIRING a response (war).

this is the opposite of what you wrote in the first quote...

SilviaNinja240

That was Afganistan and its over.

__________________

citizen

1. if i was alive back then i wouldnt have supported those 'wars'
2. going after terrorists to protect our country = ok, overthrowing regimes because we dont like them = not ok
3. writing "without congressional approval" was a mistake. if you notice it was indepedent of the first statement and was obviously out of place. i was editing with copy and paste and missed deleting it
4. i will not refute that i may actually be crazy because i just might be. but the world is a crazy place these days so what's a little more lunacy?

citizen

maybe im just a gambling man, but i would prefer to give chance to the wildcard instead of someone who's actions have already proven to be detrimental to this country.

mrmephistopheles

__________________

Chernobyl

Agreed 100%

At least he knows when enough is enough. I'd rather have a president that is willing to admit he was wrong.

evilimport

please....dont be a tree hugger...Wars arent nice but sometimes they are necessary. Korea and Vietnam were very nasty wars but necessary regardless.

evilimport

right...enough with one side of an issue lets go to the other side to make everyone else happy too....

zero.counter

Neither candidate is worthy, but one must be picked. The lesser of two evils I imagine.

Something to ponder in your free time,
Skull and Bones....

mrmephistopheles

Don't be naive. Vietnam was not necessary. Korea wasn't either, but I'd say it was better justified than Vietnam. The US was fighting Communism because of the Red Scare of the 50s and 60s. We saw Communism as a viable threat to our way of life (much like terrorism today), so we fought against it with any excuse we could. Look at Vietnam. The French got their asses handed to them by the Viet Cong, so when they said 'Fuck it' and bugged out, we sent 'advisors' over there lickety split to train the South Vietnamese. From there, it snowballed into the 'war' (not technically a war since it was never declared - same with Korea, even though military service during those times was considered wartime service).

In Korea, at least we had a fighting chance, in Vietnam, we were pooched from the get-go. The VC had spent ~8 years (iirc) fighting the French (and kicking the shit out of them), so they were already entrenched and battle-hardened. Sending draftees into Cong territory was sending lambs to slaughter.

__________________

RJF

Fighting communism was important, just as this current war on terror is.

I mentioned this in another post, I'm probably alittle older than most of you, but I still remember in elementary school doing drills and marching to the fallout shelter in case of nuclear attack by the Soviets.

Do you want your children today/tomorrow to have to worry about going to school and being taken hostage like just happened in Russia? Or you going to a mall, restaurant or movie theater and being blown up by a suicide bomber.
How about our water supplies? Ricin, anthrax or even worse nerve agents would wipe out thousands in a heart beat.

Because thats what the next methods are going to be. They're not going to use airliners anymore, but go after soft targets. Israel lives with in every day.

Ronald Reagan had the balls to go at the Soviets and Bush has them to go after terrorists.

__________________
Zilvia.net...Where the Truth Hurts and Pain Builds Character

mrmephistopheles

I'm not saying fighting Communism isn't important - just that Vietnam wasn't a very good idea (in retrospect - at the time, I'm sure we thought of the VC as backcountry bushwackers who hadn't the means or motivation to fight the US).
Reagan was a great leader, and was definitely instrumental in the fall of Soviet Communism. What happened to the Soviet Union will most likely happen to all Soviet countries (especially those with embargos). Look at North Korea - their general mindset is stuck in the '50s and '60s. Their armies train as though the US will invade tomorrow. Look at Cuba - they're still driving around 50's cars because they can't get anything new.

__________________