What are we paying John Kerry to do?

You got that right. Kerry is such a douche bag, and hes a horrible canidate and person. But it isn't just him, its all those politicians, right or left i don't care, 99% of politicians are dirtbags, liars, and thieves. I could run as a better presidential canidate than this moron, how do you expect votes from the left and the liberals if you stand for the war that they are all against, what a fucking idiot haha

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

.........most people won't vote for the douche bag, I mean Kerry because they like him. They Vote to get the current douche bag out of the white house.

 

Duck,
I suggest you stop telling people here that they don't know what they are talking about when they say Kerry changes his mind, until you do some real research on him. I've posted already on other threads where he has changed his mind all over the place. He doesn't just change the way he wants to vote for a bill, he changes his whole stance on issues. I'm sick and tired of people telling me that he is a fucking saint. He isn't and if you believe he is, you are STUPID. He is a man. And he does things and will do things that some people do not like. You have to deal with that. You show me now where he has stood by everything that he once did. You show me how he does not flip flop. He doesn't know what he stands for because all he wants to do is please the crowd. Especially at this point. He is not a good representitive and I don't want him speaking for me, because I don't agree with him half of the time.

 

Why do you think Kerry is a horrible person? He doesn't support Bush's war.

For the rest of you, Bush flipflops as much as Kerry, do a search.
There is a difference between thoughtfully changing your mind and being indecisive. Bush may appear to be steadfast, but he's dead wrong.

 

Bush has been both for and against:

Homeland security dept.
9/11 investigation (against, for, against, then welcomed final report)
Giving aid to N. Korea for dismantling nuclear program
Nation building
U.N. resolution for Iraq invasion
comission to study intelligence failures
CO2 emission limits

and others.

 

Yeah, he only voted to go to war, but that doesn't mean he's for it. And when questioned recently, he said he still would have given Bush the authority to go to war, knowing full well that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But I bet the reporter was being sneaky right? I mean, you can't expect career politicians to be able to handle reporters can you?

Bush's flipflop all take place within a several year time period and are isolated to one issue: Iraq. Kerry's fliplops span his entire career on basically every issue from defense to education.

 

Bush's flip flops clearly aren't limited to Iraq. He has a way of being against something until there's enough pressure from the public or what others in his administration tell him to do. Then he changes his mind.

A lot of people confuse Bush's ideological stubborness with leadership. One can be resolute but not have any intelligence or leadership, like a person resolute about going over Niagra falls in a barrel. A hundred people may follow him over the falls because the resolute message sounds good emotionally, even though it doesn't make sense rationally.

 

Bush has made the ultimate flip flop, in a two-word sentence, by calling the situation in Iraq a...

Catastrophic Success!



Can't do much better than that, huh?

Well, ok. Maybe:

Magnificent Failure!

 

Maam, in no way did I say that people on here did not know what they are talking about. I also never said he was a saint. I also never, ever called anyone stupid on this board. I understand the fact that he is a normal man and he has done things that I do not like.
What I am trying to understand is how people pull to one side of the spectrum when dealing with a presidential candidate. There are heavy extremes that people take without anaylizing the information they find. Alot of the time, people grab on to saying something about a candidate and pushing it to the extreme because its the thing to say. Slogans like, "a vote for nader is a vote for Bush" "Both candidates are the same" "______ candidate is going to win anyway" and while some of these statements might have some truth to them, they are not completly correct. They are like stereotypes of the political game.
What does your real reasearch consist of? Post your information sources. I have no problem reading anything and making decisions based on the information I recieve. That includes looking at the source and dates and times. Lets go through this site, www.kerryquotes.com/flipflops.htm..


Abortion"It's a tragic day in the lives of everybody when abortion is looked on as an alternative to birth control or as an alternative to having a child. I think that's wrong. It should be the very last thing if it has to be anything, and I say that not just because I'm opposed to abortion but because I think that's common sense.
... 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)

“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.”


His first statement is made in 1972, I too do not like abortion and I think its wrong, but I fully support the right to choose. I also think differently about this issue than I felt 5 years ago, and alot of things have changed in 32 years. Now there is a law in affect that protects the right to choose and he had decided to back the law and the constitution.

Affirmative Action In 1992, Kerry created a huge stir among liberals and civil rights groups with a major policy address arguing that affirmative action has "kept America thinking in racial terms" and helped promote a "culture of dependency." Today, Kerry's campaign Web site vows to "Preserve Affirmative Action," noting that he "consistently opposed efforts in the Senate to undermine or eliminate affirmative action programs, and supports programs that seeks to enhance diversity." It doesn't mention any downside.
Affirmative actions confuses me. I dont know myself weather it is working or not.
ArafatYasser Arafat is a 'statesman' and a 'role model' according to Kerry's 1997 book, which he sites as proof of his own foresight about foreign policy.Today, he shares Jewish leaders and President Bush's belief that Arafat must be isolated because he's not a partner for peace.
In 1997 Yasser Arafat was a peace role model and won the peace prize, now he seems to break down negotiations on a consistent basis. Everyone is against this guy haha.
Campaign FinanceKerry spends a large portion of his campaign speeches on ridding Washington of "special interests"In terms of money from lobbyists, Kerry takes more than any other sitting U.S. senator.
Kerry needs money to win, Bush has an incredible amount of money and also takes money from lobbyists. If we had some Campaign finance reform it would level the playing field, but until then when in Rome.
CubaEight Years ago, he voted against the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with Castro."I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world."
This is sneaky sounding, I wonder why he voted against the tough on Castro regulation 8 years ago, I would guess out the desire to make money and earn friends. Did he vote on anything else dealing with Castro 8 years ago?
Death Penalty During one of his debates with Weld in 1996, Kerry ridiculed the idea of capital punishment for terrorists as a "terrorist protection policy," predicting that it would just discourage other nations from extraditing captured terrorists to the United States. Kerry still opposes capital punishment, but he now makes an exception for terrorists
Man, I am really pissed off at Terrorists too. Being just a man I would like to see them killed for 911. This is a flip-flop. But I am sure that there isnt alot of nation unwilling to hand over terroists now either.

Im sorry I need to stop now, some of them are total flip-flops, most of them are not good ones. Now if someone wants to send me a link about George Bush positions I can work on that. I am concerned about how many people have died since "Mission accomplished"


However bad Kerry is, I find Bush alot worse, its amazing how America has fallen in the world community since Bush's inauguration. I feel its time to give someone else a try, and Kerry is the only one with a real chance of winning.

and I did like this statement,
"A lot of people confuse Bush's ideological stubborness with leadership. One can be resolute but not have any intelligence or leadership, like a person resolute about going over Niagra falls in a barrel. A hundred people may follow him over the falls because the resolute message sounds good emotionally, even though it doesn't make sense rationally."

 

Too bad the No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded by the Bush Administration, so children are still left behind.

As for Kerry's senate record, it is not unusual for senators to not bother voting unless the results are sure to be close. For example, neither Kerry nor Edwards voted in the Gay Marriage amendment, because they knew there was no way the bill was going to go anywhere.

 

..........He said "No Child Left Behind" ............So they Left Them ALL Behind.

 

Duck,

Real research consists of looking for the bad as well as the good. I am sick of people posting all of this wonderful stuff about Kerry or even reading it and believing it and then as soon as someone post something bad about Kerry the first thing everyone does is say "that is a biased source" or "that isn't the point(excuses follow)" or my personal non favorites "Kerry is bad, but Bush is worse" "At least he is not Bush". To me this shows ignorance and apathy. I know that there are Kerry supporters out there who wholeheartedly believe in him and most of what he stands for, just as there are Bush supporters. However out of ever single person that I know and deal with every day (and that is quite a few), (those who do not let their religion decide who to vote for) have all said to me that they don't know who to vote for or that quite possibly they will not even vote at all simply because they do not like, believe in or trust either candidate." That is sad to me. We are being forced to choose between two people that the majority doesn't want. Why not give us more choices? And I'm sorry if this offends people, but I'm not your teacher, I worked in the school system once and didn't like it. I'm not going to continue to do research for everyone here and have it dismissed as it is nothing simply because people don't like what they hear. I'm sick of spending hours and hours on here looking stuff up to prove to people that Kerry isn't the best choice (and neither is Bush). I want everyone who claims to believe in Kerry so much go out and look up some of the dirt on him, and with an open mind analyze it. Then decide if he is really any better than Bush. If people honestly cared about the direction this country is headed, they would want to find this stuff out and not wait for a major media source to do it all for them and type it up all pretty so they can click a link or turn on the tv. That simply isn't going to happen.

And I want to know what will happen when Kerry is elected and he starts making decisions that people who voted for him do not agree with? Then who are they going to blame? (I bet it will be third party voters, we get blamed for everything.) He is playing the game. He is pretty good at playing the game. But he doesn't really care what you want or what I want. He tells you what you want to hear, to get your vote and he will tell the guy next to you the exact opposite to get his vote. That is how he works it.

 

Yes real research does consist of looking at the bad and the good, thats why when I look at all the things I read I do exactly what I did to the Kerry flip-flop page.

"I am sick of people posting all of this wonderful stuff about Kerry or even reading it and believing it and then as soon as someone post something bad about Kerry the first thing everyone does is say "that is a biased source" or "that isn't the point(excuses follow)" or my personal non favorites "Kerry is bad, but Bush is worse" "At least he is not Bush". To me this shows ignorance and apathy."

I have never posted anything good about Kerry on hipforums, all I did in my first post was to try and challenge another statement that is only partially true "Kerry is Flip-Flopper", "Kerry is bad Bush is worse." that people rally around because they do not actually know anyhting about the polictical system we are dealing with.

My first comments were made after the comparison between Ted Kennedy and Kerry, my answer was to that was trying to explain that Ted Kennedy is a career senator, and Kerry is running for president, and in that I see a difference that acounts for the 72% vs. the 3%. I do not see this as good for Kerry to do, but I see that in some ways it must be nessacary for him to do.

You know nothing about me personally or what I know about Kerry or Bush. I have done the research I felt nessacary to make my choice. Knowing what I know about about each, and about our 3rd party candidates and the realities of our political system right now. I will vote for Kerry. Bush has shown what he about during the presidency and there is a list of things I find wrong with him. Kerry has never been president, so I look at his political record and see many less things wrong and even a few bright spots. I look at Nader and I love him, I want him to run the country and I want it to get better under him. There is no way that this will happen. Until every candidate gets 100% free media access 24/7 and does not have to make large amounts of money to win over the lowest common denominator of American, we will not see a 3rd party president. ESPECIALLY not right now, during this next election. Knowing this, why would I vote for a 3rd party? History has proven that a thrid party with just enough money to get on mostly all the ballots will split the vote in many states. What needs to happen is 4 parties of equal monetary levels on every ballot in every state. But guess what? Its not going to happen this coming election.

Even George Washington hated the 2 party system. Here is an excerpt to leave you with from his farewell address.
have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

 

Duck,
First I wasn't trying to personally attack you or anything I'm sorry if I came across that way. You are right I don't know anything about you personally or what you know about any of the candidates. Second, you and I pretty much agree. We both feel that the two party system isn't working out, we both feel that the issue is money and media attention (I think there are a couple of other aspects as well, and I think you might agree). And we both dig Nader, and quite honestly we both feel that he hasn't got any chance in hell of winning this election. I can respect your decision as I have many others here to vote for Kerry as long as you really do have all of the information, which I think after reading more of your posts, that you might actually have a handle on things.

Unfortunatly, not many people are like us. They don't look at both sides of the coin. That is mostly what makes me angry. I don't know how else to explain it other than the reason I'm voting for Nader, is because I really like him and I want him to run our country. I don't add the but as everyone else does. I know you probabably realize this already, but think about it, with as many people who say, I would rather have Nader, but he doesn't have a chance, if all of those people stood up and voted for what they believe in, Nader, instead of the next best thing (because that is what everyone else is doing) then maybe Nader really would have a chance.

In other words I'm just saying to people in general, either stand up for what you believe in or believe in what you stand up for. What is the point otherwise, to go with the flow, to follow the crowd. Seems like a scary way to have a president elected to me.

 

Unfortunantly the way things are going right now I cannot stand up for what I believe in. Nader is not on the ballot in several key states. Even if everyone who wanted him voted for him, he could not win without those key states. He does not have the money or the media coverage, and the lowest common denominator of people in America does not even know who he is. AND, he wont be able to get the money under this system because doing that means having to become a candidate like Kerry.

Nader right now is only on 32 states ballots, with a potential of being on 42, ***"Potential" means the number of states the candidate would be on, if everything now in doubt is settled advantageously to that candidate. (info by http://www.ballot-access.org/2004/electoral.html)

 

I don't disagree with you in the fact that Nader doesn't have a FAIR chance. But I didn't design the way elections are run or any of the political process. I personally on my own cannot change it. I highly doubt that there is a democrat or a republican out there who wants to change it. That is why I personally would rather see instant run off voting, but again, not my decision, I just try to help people become aware and maybe turn them on to something they didn't know existed. By my being a Nader fan, I have introduced this "Nader dude" to so many different people and given them the opportunity to know that there are other candidates out there. If they find out more about him and decide, hey I don't agree with this guy I'm going to vote for someone else, then that is great, but at least they are given the chance to find out that there are alternatives.


I don't know what to tell you about feeling like you cannot stand up for what you believe in. Nothing has stopped me. Call me stubborn, I agree I am, but in this case, I think its the best trait that I've got. I don't just deal with this crap and ridicule for my beliefs here it is every single place that I go. I've had my life threatened because of my beliefs. My family doesn't get it, my boyfriend disagrees with me (he's more of a libertarian) and his family is downright mean to me and makes me cry over my belief.

Just because Kerry has more people on his "side" doesn't mean he is right or that he will do any good. It just means he has had the capability(money and meida) to convince more people.

Do you suggest we do nothing and settle for what they offer?

 

The problem once again is that the lowest common denominator of people do not know anything about Nader, and he doesnt have the money to show them. In the issue right now, we need to get Bush out of office, and the only one who has the ability to do that right now is Kerry. Maybe after this election, I will be willing to entertain trying to lobby some senators to introduce more campaign finance reform and change the way things are run, but for right now, Bush needs to leave.

 

So what if we get Bush out of office with Kerry. Then what? What if Kerry really doesn't do much different than Bush did. Or worse, what if he does just enough to pacify the people enough to not care anymore, like Clinton. Then what? Then we will be back in the same situation in 8 years probably having the same discussion.

I'm not saying we do not need to get Bush out of office, I believe we do, and I've actually entertained the idea of voting for Kerry. A few months ago, I would have. But after seriously searching within myself and in my heart I decided that I should stand up for what I believe in, not let them beat me in to the submission of voting for the choices that they put forth.

 

..............if you want Bush out then you have to vote for the canidate that will beat him-Kerry. Better to be fucked over by Kerry, then Fuck over twice by bush.