PDA

View Full Version : Question...



caneproud117
07-31-2004, 12:43 AM
Can anyone explain to me how Kerry can be both the biggest liberal in the Senate and a flip-flopper at the same time. If he's a liberal, doesn't that mean he's going to vote liberal all the time?

PhinPhan1227
07-31-2004, 12:51 AM
Kerry isn't the biggest lib in the Senate. But he is liberal enough to keep a firm grasp on his voter base. As for flip flopping, Kerry has never met a poll that he wasn't happy to vote by.

caneproud117
07-31-2004, 01:04 AM
Kerry isn't the biggest lib in the Senate. But he is liberal enough to keep a firm grasp on his voter base. As for flip flopping, Kerry has never met a poll that he wasn't happy to vote by.

Fair enough, I've seen people try to use both arguments against him especially the super conservative people that try to blame everything that goes wrong in this country on Clinton. I've even had a super conservative friend that tried to tell me that Bush I's faults were because of Clinton.
:roflmao:

AZNeilo
08-01-2004, 05:47 AM
Elected Senators are suppose to represent their constituents. Not big business or union bosses, but the people that elected them. John Kerry is from a State that votes liberal but is divided on many issues statewide. Flip-flopping is a sensationalized buzz word. I personally understand democracy to be the idea that the people come together and discuss issues; they hear all sides of an issue and then draw to a vote based on past and new info brought to light via debate. If our official never "so-called" flip-flopped or changed their vote then we could just put everyones opinions in a computer and run a year of congressional activity in a few seconds...no need for discussion then.

PhinPhan1227
08-01-2004, 09:41 AM
Elected Senators are suppose to represent their constituents. Not big business or union bosses, but the people that elected them. John Kerry is from a State that votes liberal but is divided on many issues statewide. Flip-flopping is a sensationalized buzz word. I personally understand democracy to be the idea that the people come together and discuss issues; they hear all sides of an issue and then draw to a vote based on past and new info brought to light via debate. If our official never "so-called" flip-flopped or changed their vote then we could just put everyones opinions in a computer and run a year of congressional activity in a few seconds...no need for discussion then.


Actually, for a Senator, flip flopping isn't such a bad thing. A Senator afterall isn't a leader, he's a lawmaker. His entire focus is compromise. A PResident however IS a leader. A President is suppossed to have a core set of values with which he is going to lead the nation.

caneproud117
08-01-2004, 10:00 AM
Who's to say Kerry doesn't have a core set of values, everybody knocks Kerry for his voting record in the Senate, but you just said flip-flopping in the Senate isn't such a bad thing because of compromise. His political viewpoints haven't changed since the beginning. He's still for better foriegn relations to ease the burden on the American soldiers and cost us less money, he's still for taxing the people making over 200,000 a year to help get us out of this huge hole, he's still for stem cell research that will help save millions of lives in the future, he's still for energy independance, he's still for cutting college tuition rates so that qualified people can get into college. I haven't seen him waver from any of these ideals.

PhinPhan1227
08-01-2004, 10:28 AM
Who's to say Kerry doesn't have a core set of values, everybody knocks Kerry for his voting record in the Senate, but you just said flip-flopping in the Senate isn't such a bad thing because of compromise. His political viewpoints haven't changed since the beginning. He's still for better foriegn relations to ease the burden on the American soldiers and cost us less money, he's still for taxing the people making over 200,000 a year to help get us out of this huge hole, he's still for stem cell research that will help save millions of lives in the future, he's still for energy independance, he's still for cutting college tuition rates so that qualified people can get into college. I haven't seen him waver from any of these ideals.

Lol...he's so strong for energy independance that he opposed wind farms in Martha's Vinyard because they MIGHT damage the view. Yep, he's SOLID for his core values. As I said, being wishy washy isn't a bad thing for a Senator. But if that's your make-up you should probably STAY a Senator. Compare that to Lieberman. He IS a Senator, but he is less of a "compromiser, and more of a "driver". Honestly he probably has too much backbone to be a REALLY good Senator. He isn't enough about compromise. Same thing with McCain. He has things he wants to accomplish and he goes after them. What has Kerry ever "gone after" as a politician? When has he stuck his neck out? When has he taken a risk? KErry reminds me of the guy that can't stand the thought of anyone disliking him. He'll do anything to keep from pissing anyone off, and as such can never do ANYTHING because whatever you do it's going to piss SOMEONE off.

iceblizzard69
08-01-2004, 10:54 AM
Can anyone explain to me how Kerry can be both the biggest liberal in the Senate and a flip-flopper at the same time. If he's a liberal, doesn't that mean he's going to vote liberal all the time?

Kerry actually isn't the most liberal senator. I know there was some organization that said he was, but their findings were only based on roll call votes. I'm not sure if these votes were during the time he was campaigning and if they were then he obviously missed a few of them. Kerry's record proves that he isn't the most liberal senator, and his policies prove that as well. Kerry is closer to the center than Bush.

caneproud117
08-01-2004, 11:01 AM
Lol...he's so strong for energy independance that he opposed wind farms in Martha's Vinyard because they MIGHT damage the view. Yep, he's SOLID for his core values. As I said, being wishy washy isn't a bad thing for a Senator. But if that's your make-up you should probably STAY a Senator. Compare that to Lieberman. He IS a Senator, but he is less of a "compromiser, and more of a "driver". Honestly he probably has too much backbone to be a REALLY good Senator. He isn't enough about compromise. Same thing with McCain. He has things he wants to accomplish and he goes after them. What has Kerry ever "gone after" as a politician? When has he stuck his neck out? When has he taken a risk? KErry reminds me of the guy that can't stand the thought of anyone disliking him. He'll do anything to keep from pissing anyone off, and as such can never do ANYTHING because whatever you do it's going to piss SOMEONE off.

You seem to forget when he stuck his political neck out by saying Vietnam was a horrible war. Think this scored him points with everyone? No but it was what he believed.

PhinPhan1227
08-01-2004, 12:43 PM
You seem to forget when he stuck his political neck out by saying Vietnam was a horrible war. Think this scored him points with everyone? No but it was what he believed.


Wrong. By denouncing the war he was building a political support base and name recognition. You aren't risking anything when nobody knows who you are. Kerry sold out his brothers in order to build himself a political career in the future. And once he got that career, he hasn't rocked a single boat that might endanger it.

PhinPhan1227
08-01-2004, 12:46 PM
Kerry actually isn't the most liberal senator. I know there was some organization that said he was, but their findings were only based on roll call votes. I'm not sure if these votes were during the time he was campaigning and if they were then he obviously missed a few of them. Kerry's record proves that he isn't the most liberal senator, and his policies prove that as well. Kerry is closer to the center than Bush.


I'd agree that the real Kerry is closer to the middle than President Bush, but not the real Bush. Bush as a governor was much more moderate than Kerry has been as a Senator. When a person becomes President they frequently gravitate towards their power base thus drawing them left or right. It's my hope that once Bush no longer has a reelection to worry about we will see more of Governor Bush re-emerge.

caneproud117
08-01-2004, 01:10 PM
Wrong. By denouncing the war he was building a political support base and name recognition. You aren't risking anything when nobody knows who you are. Kerry sold out his brothers in order to build himself a political career in the future. And once he got that career, he hasn't rocked a single boat that might endanger it.

Explain to me how seeing that something was wrong and voicing his opinion is selling out his brothers?

PhinPhan1227
08-01-2004, 04:39 PM
Explain to me how seeing that something was wrong and voicing his opinion is selling out his brothers?


There is/was a proper methodology in place for reporting criminal acts in time of war. The UCMJ is WELL spelled out in it's terms. Kerry could have reported these criminal acts. He could have refused those criminal orders(as the UCMJ states he MUST). He could have gone after those who gave the illegal orders. e could have done all these things without doing so publicly in front of Congress. He could have done so without labeling ALL his fellow soldiers as baby killers. The ONLY reason to publicly denounce your fellow soldiers is for political gain. Let me give you an example. You are aware of corruption in your company. You can go to the SEC who will root it out and prosecute the offenders quietly, thus eliminating the corruption, but saving the company. Or you can go on CNN and declare that your company is corrupt, thus tanking the stock and putting the company out of business. Kerry killed the company. Kerry killed the company and none of those who issued the orders ever got prosecuted. Kerry sold out his brothers in order to build a political career for himself.

caneproud117
08-01-2004, 05:12 PM
There is/was a proper methodology in place for reporting criminal acts in time of war. The UCMJ is WELL spelled out in it's terms. Kerry could have reported these criminal acts. He could have refused those criminal orders(as the UCMJ states he MUST). He could have gone after those who gave the illegal orders. e could have done all these things without doing so publicly in front of Congress. He could have done so without labeling ALL his fellow soldiers as baby killers. The ONLY reason to publicly denounce your fellow soldiers is for political gain. Let me give you an example. You are aware of corruption in your company. You can go to the SEC who will root it out and prosecute the offenders quietly, thus eliminating the corruption, but saving the company. Or you can go on CNN and declare that your company is corrupt, thus tanking the stock and putting the company out of business. Kerry killed the company. Kerry killed the company and none of those who issued the orders ever got prosecuted. Kerry sold out his brothers in order to build a political career for himself.

There's a very very very good reason to do what he did and that's to end the war. In order to get something done, do you go to the lowest possible group of people you can find? No, you go to a group that can do something about the war and not just the people he saw do these things. He could end the war right then and there by letting Congress know about what was going on. Thus to say the only reason is for political gain is ignorant. You assumed to know what a guy is thinking and then state it as fact. :shakeno:
If he does what you say he should do, he doesn't get his point across to the American people of what actually took place. By doing this you're telling (or not telling) the American public that it's OK to cover these attrocities up. I know as an American I want to know all I can about what's 'actually' going on and not some sugar coated version.

ABrownLamp
08-01-2004, 07:21 PM
I'd agree that the real Kerry is closer to the middle than President Bush, but not the real Bush. Bush as a governor was much more moderate than Kerry has been as a Senator. When a person becomes President they frequently gravitate towards their power base thus drawing them left or right. It's my hope that once Bush no longer has a reelection to worry about we will see more of Governor Bush re-emerge.
And I believe that is why he got elected in the first place. Because everyone perceived him as a moderate. I don't really think he's such a fundamentalist either (unlike Ashcroft) but at the same time you never know. He could be thinking if I'm elected again I can be myself. Or he could say, now I can do whatever my base wants...screw everyone else, there will be no third election. I tend to beleive the latter. Why would he not appeal to the middle right now? It's election time

PhinPhan1227
08-01-2004, 07:49 PM
And I believe that is why he got elected in the first place. Because everyone perceived him as a moderate. I don't really think he's such a fundamentalist either (unlike Ashcroft) but at the same time you never know. He could be thinking if I'm elected again I can be myself. Or he could say, now I can do whatever my base wants...screw everyone else, there will be no third election. I tend to beleive the latter. Why would he not appeal to the middle right now? It's election time


That's the point. In the 2nd term it's not about making ANY group happy. It's doing what YOU want to do. And Bush's history says that he wants to be moderate, and he wants to be less divisive.

PhinPhan1227
08-01-2004, 08:01 PM
There's a very very very good reason to do what he did and that's to end the war. In order to get something done, do you go to the lowest possible group of people you can find? No, you go to a group that can do something about the war and not just the people he saw do these things. He could end the war right then and there by letting Congress know about what was going on. Thus to say the only reason is for political gain is ignorant. You assumed to know what a guy is thinking and then state it as fact. :shakeno:
If he does what you say he should do, he doesn't get his point across to the American people of what actually took place. By doing this you're telling (or not telling) the American public that it's OK to cover these attrocities up. I know as an American I want to know all I can about what's 'actually' going on and not some sugar coated version.

He didn't tell what was "actually going on", not according to an overwhelming number of OTHER Swift Boat captains. What he told were isolated incidents and exagerations. He didn't "end the war" either. Kerry testified in April 1971. The war didn't end until 1973. "If that's your definition of "then and there", you must be thinking in geological terms. Kerry's testimony didn't reverberate back on the higher ups...it reverberated back on his fellow soldiers. The poor guys who, when they got off thw plane were then met by crowds screaming "baby killers". Read some of the letters written by Vietnam Vets concerning how that felt.Find out how much therapy it took for some of those poor guys to get over that trauma. Christ, I read a few that said those guys wanted to turn around and go back to 'Nam because it was lesspainful THERE. And it was Kerry's testimony which did THAT. Ask yourself WHY so many Vietnam Vets DESPISE a decorated 'Nam vet. Ask yourself why so many of them would rather vote for a man who avoided going to Vietnam. Be honest with yourself for TWO seconds and ask yourself that. Then take a look at Kerry's biography. He was politically active even in High School. He was close to the Kennedy's and spent time with Papa Joe Kennedy, the slickest political strategist since Machiavelli. Kerry needed an "in". He needed a way to make a name for himself. Throwing his fellow soldiers under the bus was that method. One last thing...Kerry wanted to end the war right? I assume he wanted to end the war to help his fellow soldiers? I don't see any of them saying 'thank you'...do you? One more thing...the UCMJ isn't "going to the lowest person possible". The UCMJ has provisions for going all the way to the President. You might want to read it before commenting on it.

iceblizzard69
08-01-2004, 08:24 PM
That's the point. In the 2nd term it's not about making ANY group happy. It's doing what YOU want to do. And Bush's history says that he wants to be moderate, and he wants to be less divisive.

Bush would have an easier time getting re-elected if he acted moderate than if he acted far right wing, which is why I don't think he will be moderate if he gets a second term. If he wanted to be moderate, he would be moderate now.

caneproud117
08-01-2004, 08:55 PM
He didn't tell what was "actually going on", not according to an overwhelming number of OTHER Swift Boat captains. What he told were isolated incidents and exagerations. He didn't "end the war" either. Kerry testified in April 1971. The war didn't end until 1973. "If that's your definition of "then and there", you must be thinking in geological terms. Kerry's testimony didn't reverberate back on the higher ups...it reverberated back on his fellow soldiers. The poor guys who, when they got off thw plane were then met by crowds screaming "baby killers". Read some of the letters written by Vietnam Vets concerning how that felt.Find out how much therapy it took for some of those poor guys to get over that trauma. Christ, I read a few that said those guys wanted to turn around and go back to 'Nam because it was lesspainful THERE. And it was Kerry's testimony which did THAT. Ask yourself WHY so many Vietnam Vets DESPISE a decorated 'Nam vet. Ask yourself why so many of them would rather vote for a man who avoided going to Vietnam. Be honest with yourself for TWO seconds and ask yourself that. Then take a look at Kerry's biography. He was politically active even in High School. He was close to the Kennedy's and spent time with Papa Joe Kennedy, the slickest political strategist since Machiavelli. Kerry needed an "in". He needed a way to make a name for himself. Throwing his fellow soldiers under the bus was that method. One last thing...Kerry wanted to end the war right? I assume he wanted to end the war to help his fellow soldiers? I don't see any of them saying 'thank you'...do you? One more thing...the UCMJ isn't "going to the lowest person possible". The UCMJ has provisions for going all the way to the President. You might want to read it before commenting on it.


Kerry testified in April 1971. The war didn't end until 1973. "If that's your definition of "then and there", you must be thinking in geological terms.
Who's to say how long the war would have lasted had it not been brought to the surface.

And it was Kerry's testimony which did THAT.
They were met with boos because of what America did. They disgraced us all, not just the soldiers.


I don't see any of them saying 'thank you'...do you?
My brother thanks Kerry for getting him out of Vietnam. He knew that by doing what Kerry did, he got to go home and away from a war that as he would say 'was the most corrupt in history.' He was there, I don't need you to speculate everything for your own political agenda.

PhinPhan1227
08-02-2004, 01:49 AM
Who's to say how long the war would have lasted had it not been brought to the surface.

They were met with boos because of what America did. They disgraced us all, not just the soldiers.


My brother thanks Kerry for getting him out of Vietnam. He knew that by doing what Kerry did, he got to go home and away from a war that as he would say 'was the most corrupt in history.' He was there, I don't need you to speculate everything for your own political agenda.

#1-The war ended because it was unwinnable. And people were protesting the war YEARS before Kerry got there.

#2-It was the soldiers who had to endure the boos. It was the soldiers who were called baby killers.

#3-Good for your brother. Every Vietnam Veteran organization I know of despises KErry and puts him on a level with Jane Fonda. I suppose in your world Hanoi Jane is a hero as well?

PhinPhan1227
08-02-2004, 01:51 AM
Bush would have an easier time getting re-elected if he acted moderate than if he acted far right wing, which is why I don't think he will be moderate if he gets a second term. If he wanted to be moderate, he would be moderate now.


I personally agree, but that usn't the current political philosophy. The current thinking is that the extreme factions are the ones who actually go out to vote. Being too moderate is what's given the blame for Bush I losing reelection.

Section126
08-02-2004, 09:43 AM
Bush signed every piece of Democratic Pet legislation in his first year in office...and what did he get? They spat on his face....

A question:

"The Patients Bill of Rights" and "The McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform act" were debated for 8 years prior to this president getting in office and SIGNING both measures..........Which president was it?

Never has an opposition party been this hostile to a president...never.....

In 2002....President Bush nominated 47 Men/Women to the federal Bench......of the 47.....25 were PRO-Choice........22 were PRO-Life.........The 25 pro-choice nominees got confirmed..........Only 1 of the 22 PRO-Lifers got in.........

Moderate My A$$..........It seems to me that the Dems want Bush to be a Dem......

He has been Moderate on alot of Issues...and it has gotten him Nowhere.

caneproud117
08-02-2004, 11:19 AM
#1-The war ended because it was unwinnable. And people were protesting the war YEARS before Kerry got there.

#2-It was the soldiers who had to endure the boos. It was the soldiers who were called baby killers.

#3-Good for your brother. Every Vietnam Veteran organization I know of despises KErry and puts him on a level with Jane Fonda. I suppose in your world Hanoi Jane is a hero as well?

Sorry that should read father not brother. In my anger over such claims that an overwhelming amount of Vietnam Veterans out there disagreed with what he did, I mistyped. I do not know a lot of Vietnam Veterans but the ones my dad knows are thankful for the people and Kerry who protested for them.

PhinPhan1227
08-02-2004, 11:50 AM
Sorry that should read father not brother. In my anger over such claims that an overwhelming amount of Vietnam Veterans out there disagreed with what he did, I mistyped. I do not know a lot of Vietnam Veterans but the ones my dad knows are thankful for the people and Kerry who protested for them.

Depending on where you live, people might be supporting KErry even if he had horns growing out of his head. Try this, do a Google search on Veterans against Kerry and see how many hits you get. If you start reading them now you'll probably finish this time next year.