The W
Views: 99936079
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.10.07 2257
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Kerry's Records have Discrepencies Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(972 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (67 total)
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 326/2266
EXP: 7348032
For next: 120909

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 days
#21 Posted on 23.4.04 1605.04
Reposted on: 23.4.11 1605.18
    Originally posted by Grimis
    As far as I'm concerned, when I vote I'm voting for the person I trust to do a better job than the other guys. Why would anybody waste a vote on John Kerry when he says such brilliant things as "I voted for the war, before I voted against it."


I don't think you should be chastising the occasional stupid things Kerry says when you're voting for guy who can't open his mouth without something stupid falling out.

Understand that when most people vote for Kerry, they aren't voting FOR Kerry, but against Bush. At this point, I truly believe someone could accidentally do a better job as president than Bush has.... and if Kerry's the only guy an a position to win, then that's where I'm reluctantly putting my vote.

(edited by Leroy on 23.4.04 1405)
astrobstrd
Bockwurst
Level: 52

Posts: 560/612
EXP: 1027572
For next: 56276

Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 2580 days
Last activity: 2547 days
AIM:  
#22 Posted on 23.4.04 1640.41
Reposted on: 23.4.11 1641.08
    Originally posted by Grimis
    As far as I'm concerned, when I vote I'm voting for the person I trust to do a better job than the other guys. Why would anybody waste a vote on John Kerry when he says such brilliant things as "I voted for the war, before I voted against it."

      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      If given the choice of a man who I KNOW will lead me the wrong way or a man who I KNOW will at least consider both paths, I'll choose the man who considers both paths. That way, he is at least bendable enough to reconsider his actions if he makes the wrong move.
    It's one thing to 'consider' both paths, but somebody who has changed position on damn near every issue of importance, and will lie to you about it, doesn't deserve anyone's vote.

    It's bad enough he is a major party nominee, but John Kerry is a disgrace to the United States Senate as well.


"I voted for the war, before I voted against it," could (and should) be lengthened to, "I voted for the war, because intelligence indicated weapons of mass destruction and a capability to use them, before I voted against the war, when this intelligence (and hence our reason for invasion) was proven faulty." So...yeah I guess I could vote for that guy...you know the one who DOESN'T believe he has a divine mandate, and thus is infallible.

I guess I'll vote against the evil of two lessers.

(edited by astrobstrd on 23.4.04 1741)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 677/2703
EXP: 8923993
For next: 64826

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#23 Posted on 23.4.04 1839.33
Reposted on: 23.4.11 1841.40


Thanks. Talk about a brainfart. He served with distinction in the Pacific and was shot down.
Doc_whiskey
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 453/777
EXP: 1446539
For next: 39398

Since: 6.8.02
From: St. Louis

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
#24 Posted on 24.4.04 0724.41
Reposted on: 24.4.11 0724.53
    Originally posted by Leroy

    Understand that when most people vote for Kerry, they aren't voting FOR Kerry, but against Bush.

    (edited by Leroy on 23.4.04 1405)


And to me that is just wrong. You should vote for a candidate because you think that person is right for the job, you believe in what they say, and you feel they can lead this nation into a time of safety and economic stability. Not because he isnt the other guy. If many feel this way about Kerry than do you think there may be a chance someone else gets the nomination at the convention? I dont think so just because that may piss off some consituents who acutally participated in the primaries, but if people wont vote for Kerry like has been mentioned because of his flip flopping, or will because he isnt Bush, then maybe the democrats should go with someone else.

(edited by Doc_whiskey on 24.4.04 0725)
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 1721/3059
EXP: 11570029
For next: 292136

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1986 days
Last activity: 1920 days
#25 Posted on 24.4.04 0743.02
Reposted on: 24.4.11 0743.24
"You should vote for a candidate because you think that person is right for the job, you believe in what they say, and you feel they can lead this nation into a time of safety and economic stability. Not because he isnt the other guy."

So what are people who loathe Bush but are indifferent toward Kerry supposed to do? Forgo their right to have a say in the presidency just because their feelings toward Kerry aren't strong enough?
Doc_whiskey
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 454/777
EXP: 1446539
For next: 39398

Since: 6.8.02
From: St. Louis

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
#26 Posted on 24.4.04 0751.36
Reposted on: 24.4.11 0754.44
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    "You should vote for a candidate because you think that person is right for the job, you believe in what they say, and you feel they can lead this nation into a time of safety and economic stability. Not because he isnt the other guy."

    So what are people who loathe Bush but are indifferent toward Kerry supposed to do? Forgo their right to have a say in the presidency just because their feelings toward Kerry aren't strong enough?


And that is why I brought up the point of maybe if a lot of democrats feel that way about Kerry they should nominate a different candidate at the convention or at least put him with someone the party can get behind as his VP
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 244/810
EXP: 1523451
For next: 54104

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 1 day
#27 Posted on 24.4.04 0906.12
Reposted on: 24.4.11 0907.52
I think that someone should point out that there are more than two options in the campaign (and, I'm not talking about Nader). The two parties are more alike than different, as evidenced by the fact that they are completely unable to have any type of discussion about actual issues or positions. Maybe if more people would look outside the two main parties then they could come up with better candidates and we would have better politicians. At a minimum, we would at least have more interesting campaigns.

Personally, I could give a rat's ass if Kerry was commanding a boat or not at some date in January 1969, 35 years ago. Maybe he trumped up his record a little, but who doesn't do that when they post a bio. There's a difference between that and lying. He was there; he served, received honors and should be commended.

Similarly, I could give a rat's ass if Bush was a coke fiend 20-25 years ago. He's turned his life around and, by any measure has become successful (unless you think that someone who becomes POTUS cannot be defined as professionally successful--if you think that, I'd be interested to know what YOU do for a living). Give him credit too.

Still, I am not going to vote for either of them because both are flip-floppers who cannot maintain consistent policies. Kerry is more 'nuanced' because he has more of a politician's soul so it comes more naturally to him (plus he has that condescending thing going). And, for someone who has such strong beliefs, Bush sure does have a hard time sticking to them (nation building, free trade, immigration agreements, reigning in government spending, medicare reform, etc.).
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 679/2703
EXP: 8923993
For next: 64826

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#28 Posted on 24.4.04 1056.25
Reposted on: 24.4.11 1057.46
I am also looking into other candidates. No it isn't a wasted vote. If all the people disaffected with both parties started voting elsewhere, things could change. I agree that in oh so many ways, the two major parties just aren't all that different when push comes to shove.

My vote is too important to hold my nose and vote for the candidate I dislike least or becasue I hate candidate X so musch I will vote for another that I dislike less.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1629/2108
EXP: 6615488
For next: 35202

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 52 min.
#29 Posted on 24.4.04 1759.13
Reposted on: 24.4.11 1759.30
    Originally posted by Corajudo
    I think that someone should point out that there are more than two options in the campaign (and, I'm not talking about Nader).


Who are you talking about?
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 327/2266
EXP: 7348032
For next: 120909

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 days
#30 Posted on 24.4.04 1803.52
Reposted on: 24.4.11 1805.30
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I am also looking into other candidates. No it isn't a wasted vote. If all the people disaffected with both parties started voting elsewhere, things could change. I agree that in oh so many ways, the two major parties just aren't all that different when push comes to shove.

    My vote is too important to hold my nose and vote for the candidate I dislike least or because I hate candidate X so Mischa I will vote for another that I dislike less.


I think there are times to vote with who you can get behind, and there are times to bite the bullet and vote for the lesser of two evils. Ideally, I would vote for someone else - Nader, most likely - but I really think that it's too important to get Bush out.

And Kerry could still surprise me... although my expectations are low.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 108

Posts: 765/3390
EXP: 13459899
For next: 60644

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#31 Posted on 24.4.04 2211.20
Reposted on: 24.4.11 2211.20
    Originally posted by MoeGates
      Originally posted by Corajudo
      I think that someone should point out that there are more than two options in the campaign (and, I'm not talking about Nader).


    Who are you talking about?


You got your Losertairians - in the race specifically to lose.

You have the opportunity to run for delegate and vote at convention against one or the other.

You got your Lyndon Laroche (Gosh, a touch choice between him and Nader for me..)

And, you could move to Canada or some other country. There are other options.

Just not good ones.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1066/1528
EXP: 4084431
For next: 106717

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2829 days
Last activity: 2672 days
AIM:  
#32 Posted on 24.4.04 2245.08
Reposted on: 24.4.11 2245.17
    Originally posted by spf2119
      Originally posted by Grimis
      But that does not diminish the fact that the Democratic Party as a whole is weak-kneed on defense and would rather turn our security over to the UN rather than take care of it ourselves...

    Oh for the love of cake that is ridiculous. Even for a straw man this one is devoid of any tie to reality. Find me one prominent Dem who has ever put forward anything while in high office (as opposed to drudging up something they said in a student newspaper 30 years ago) about turning US security over to the UN, or any prominent Dem who has ever proposed serious cuts to the military to the point where we would no longer be able to be interventionist. Apparently there are only two options in this worldview: arm to the teeth and invade anyone who looks at you cross-eyed, or sit in a circle singing folk songs and hugging your enemies. But wait, I forgot that's from the same camp that says anyone who is against the war in Iraq is in favor of terrorism.


“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

If Kerry's words and actions re: Vietnam are relevant, then surely that is. You can't just cherrypick pieces of Kerry's past.

(edited by PalpatineW on 24.4.04 2346)
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 525/763
EXP: 1440223
For next: 45714

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 581 days
Last activity: 196 days
AIM:  
#33 Posted on 25.4.04 0052.30
Reposted on: 25.4.11 0054.53
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

    If Kerry's words and actions re: Vietnam are relevant, then surely that is. You can't just cherry pick pieces of Kerry's past.

    (edited by PalpatineW on 24.4.04 2346)



Palp, by your Bio you are 22 years old. I can GUARANTEE you 35 years from now you will feel differently about a great many things than you do today.


The absolute arrogance of some Republicans to me is horrifying, and hilarious at the same time. I cant believe some of you actually BELIEVE the shit you say. And some of you seem so easily led. Some of you actually believe that Demos don't give a shit about American security. But Karl Rove puts on a commercial and all of you believe it. Let me let you in on a secret, EVERYONE cares about National Security. Every single Demo In Washington. The thing is we don't agree with the way GWB is going about it. Some Demos don't believe that going into Iraq has made us one bit safer. Especially since this administration has totally fucked up the Iraq occupation. I'm tired of watching Donald Rumsfeld waste my tax dollars. I'm tired of the President saying nothing but "lets stay the course" when hes asked what the hell is going on in Iraq. You want to cut and paste me an article Grimis? Find me one on that and lets discuss it. And don't even get me started on the whole WMD thing.

Kerry a flip flopper? The man has served in the Senate for 20 years. I'm sure you can take the Voting record of any long serving Senator and pick it apart and call him a flip flopper. I admire the fact that he can change his mind if it turns out hes wrong on something. But I guess this is why we haven't elected a President from the Senate since 1960. I guess its a pain trying to explain how you felt about a vote that happened 15 years ago.


I go back to something Ive said in earlier threads, the GOP has tried to steal the defense issue and hide behind it. Kerry has to put his Vietnam service in the forefront. Why? because the GOP will try and convince you that the Democrats know nothing about defense and if they had their way as soon as John Kerry is sworn in next January hes going to disband the US Military in time for the Super Bowl. Fucking ridiculous.

And Purple Hearts for scratches? Grimis, thats low even for you. Why dont you tell us about the times you served in Combat and the "real" wounds you got. Kerry served, with honor, in Vietnam. Thats the story. Just like your President served with honor in the skies over Texas.


Maybe 35 years ago the Navy figured they would just give him the Purple hearts when he didnt deserve them JUST to help his 2004 Presidential Campaign.



(edited by rockdotcom_2.0 on 25.4.04 0208)
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 247/810
EXP: 1523451
For next: 54104

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 1 day
#34 Posted on 26.4.04 0759.06
Reposted on: 26.4.11 0800.28
    Originally posted by MoeGates
      Originally posted by Corajudo
      I think that someone should point out that there are more than two options in the campaign (and, I'm not talking about Nader).


    Who are you talking about?


I'm not talking about anyone specifically. But, if every person who complained about the two main candidates actually did some research and found a candidate who more suits their beliefs, then maybe we'd see better options and politicians from the two parties who actually cared about issues and the future of the country and their constituents. I'm naive enough to think that people should vote with their conscience and that fighting the good fight is better than settling for the lesser of two evils.

What can I say; I'm idealistic enough to hope that this might happen someday. So, I'll continue to hold out hope for a viable third party. And, I will continue to hate hearing that 'well, X is the lesser of two evils so s/he will get my vote.'
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3089/4700
EXP: 21582666
For next: 253996

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#35 Posted on 26.4.04 0817.09
Reposted on: 26.4.11 0817.13
That right-wing scandal monger ABC News has uncovered more evidence....

The bold parts of the story is why this is relevant...

* * * * * * * *
(image removed)
Videotape Contradicts John Kerry’s Own Statements Over Vietnam Medals
April 26— Contradicting his statements as a candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry claimed in a 1971 television interview that he threw away as many as nine of his combat medals to protest the war in Vietnam.

"I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals," Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints on Nov. 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNEWS.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Kerry has denied that he threw away any of his medals during an anti-war protest in April 1971.

Calling it a "phony controversy" instigated by the Republican party, Kerry said on Good Morning America today that he has always accurately said what took place. "I threw my ribbons. I didn't have my medals. It is very simple."

He also said he — and the military — didn't make a distinction between medals and ribbons. "We threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through," he said.

And in an interview with ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings last December, he said it was a "myth."

But Kerry told a much different story on Viewpoints. Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said "they decided to give them back to their country."

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.

The statement directly contradicts Kerry's most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday. "I never ever implied that I did it, " Kerry told the newspaper, responding to the question of whether he threw away his medals in protest.

"I'm proud of my medals. I always was proud of them," he told Jennings in December, adding that he had only thrown away his "ribbons" and the medals of two other veterans who could not attend the protest.

Flip Flop?

The disputed incident happened 33 years ago this past weekend, on April 23, 1971, when Kerry led the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War in a protest against the war they fought.

Many veterans were seen throwing their medals and ribbons over the fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. The Boston Globe and other newspapers reported that Kerry was among these veterans.

"In a real sense, this administration forced us to return our medals because beyond the perversion of the war, these leaders themselves denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives," Kerry said the following day.

But in 1984, when he first ran for the U.S. Senate, Kerry revealed he still had his medals. According to a Boston Globe report on April 15, 1984, union officials had expressed uneasiness with Kerry's candidacy because he had thrown his medals away. Kerry acknowledged the medals he threw away were, in fact, another soldier's medals. He reportedly invited a union official home to personally inspect his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, awarded for his combat duty as a Navy lieutenant.

In the 1971 Viewpoints interview, he made no mention of the ribbons or the medals belonging to another veteran.

And in 1988, Kerry again clarified his statement by saying he threw out ribbons he had been awarded for three combat wounds, but not his medals. "I was proud of my personal service and remain so," he told the National Journal.

Eight years later in 1996, Kerry said while he did throw out his ribbons, he didn't throw out his own medals because he "didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them," he told The Boston Globe.

Kerry's campaign Web site says he "is proud of the work he did to end the war. The Nixon Administration made John Kerry one of its targets and Republicans have been smearing him ever since. John Kerry threw his ribbons and the medals of two veterans who could not attend the event, and said, 'I am not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.'



(edited by Grimis on 26.4.04 0917)
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 1727/3059
EXP: 11570029
For next: 292136

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1986 days
Last activity: 1920 days
#36 Posted on 26.4.04 0829.05
Reposted on: 26.4.11 0830.13
How come whenever someone wants to talk about Dubya's checkered past we're told that "a man can change" and "it was twenty-five years ago!", but Kerry's past is a feeding ground for smear campaigns?
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 680/2703
EXP: 8923993
For next: 64826

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#37 Posted on 26.4.04 0836.26
Reposted on: 26.4.11 0838.15
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    How come whenever someone wants to talk about Dubya's checkered past we're told that "a man can change" and "it was twenty-five years ago!", but Kerry's past is a feeding ground for smear campaigns?


And the same holds true for the other side. It's politics. Maybe it is disgusting but as long as polls show that negative campaigning works, the machines will roll.

It is always more effective to launch ad hominem attacks than to deal with issues.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3090/4700
EXP: 21582666
For next: 253996

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#38 Posted on 26.4.04 0859.45
Reposted on: 26.4.11 0900.29
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    How come whenever someone wants to talk about Dubya's checkered past we're told that "a man can change" and "it was twenty-five years ago!", but Kerry's past is a feeding ground for smear campaigns?
Last time I checked, John Kerry lied about it this morning.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 558/641
EXP: 1104544
For next: 52582

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3701 days
Last activity: 3360 days
#39 Posted on 26.4.04 0910.42
Reposted on: 26.4.11 0911.27
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by oldschoolhero
      How come whenever someone wants to talk about Dubya's checkered past we're told that "a man can change" and "it was twenty-five years ago!", but Kerry's past is a feeding ground for smear campaigns?
    Last time I checked, John Kerry lied about it this morning.


[Devil's Advocate}

Kerry may have lied about this...

But Bush lied about WMDs that lead to full public support of the war in Iraq.

Kerry's lie = 0 deaths

Bush's lie = about 1000 American deaths, many Iraqi soldier deaths and unknown number of Iraqi civilian deaths.

[/Devil's Advocate]

Weird how things look when you paint each person in the worst light possible.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3092/4700
EXP: 21582666
For next: 253996

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#40 Posted on 26.4.04 0924.18
Reposted on: 26.4.11 0924.40
We have proof Kerry lied.

Please direct my to proof(not left-wing conjecture) that Bush lied.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: Enemy combatants
Next thread: Another story concerning the corruption of Kofi Annan
Previous thread: Terrorist attacks down.
(972 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Kerry's Records have DiscrepenciesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.196 seconds.