Will You Watch the Debate?

What's the confusion, BrandX? The "voted for it before I voted against it" was the awkward sentence construction that got him in trouble. He made a mistake in how he talked about it. His core positions have been consistent.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Another great line that Kerry used, from the ABC news poll article:

"Repeating a line he has used countless times to show his opponent is inconsistent, Bush tweaked Kerry for saying he voted for an $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan before he voted against it.

Kerry shot back, "Well, you know, when I talked bout the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"

Kerry danced around that one pretty good, totally avoiding the question of why he didn't support the troops.

How he 'talked about the war'? Give me a break.

I'm glad you're really looking at the point he made, and not just discounting it out of hand because of partisanship. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Brand X wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Another great line that Kerry used, from the ABC news poll article:

"Repeating a line he has used countless times to show his opponent is inconsistent, Bush tweaked Kerry for saying he voted for an $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan before he voted against it.

Kerry shot back, "Well, you know, when I talked bout the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"

Kerry danced around that one pretty good, totally avoiding the question of why he didn't support the troops.

How he 'talked about the war'? Give me a break.

I'm glad you're really looking at the point he made, and not just discounting it out of hand because of partisanship.

Kerry said he voted against it as a protest, he abused the troops with his no vote for a political protest. He has poor judgement now in protesting this war the same as he used poor judgement protesting the Vietnam war when he returned.

He's all over the board when it coms to Iraq, it's detrimental to the effort.

On that vote it wasn't how he talked about it, it was how he acted on it he avoided that little tid bit.

0 Replies

I will agree with you on one point. He did use poor judgement. He used poor judgement in voting to allow an incompetent to decide on the course of action in Iraq.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Another great line that Kerry used, from the ABC news poll article:

"Repeating a line he has used countless times to show his opponent is inconsistent, Bush tweaked Kerry for saying he voted for an $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan before he voted against it.

Kerry shot back, "Well, you know, when I talked bout the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"

Kerry danced around that one pretty good, totally avoiding the question of why he didn't support the troops.

How he 'talked about the war'? Give me a break.

i"m really surprised how few people picked up on, or remember, or choose to forget the issue of the "iraq reconstruction" $$ being doled out as a loan or non-repayable gift.

here's what kerry pointed out at the time of the bill....

Candidates' votes on Iraq bill may mean difference in polls
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAYand here's how the conservative white house responded when...

small group of Democratic and Republican senators defied Bush and sought agreement Wednesday on an amendment to make part of the $20.3 billion a loan, rather than a grant. Bush countered by sending Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell to lobby Republican senators.

usa today/ iraq spending

rnc fact check

it seems to me that the point kerry was trying to make is this;

if you support war you should be willing to sacrifice something and pay for it.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Russian TV stations censored all criticism of Putin when they broadcast the debate ...

That's scary. I hope more people read that thread too.

0 Replies

Kerry says he made a mistake in what he SAID about the 87 billion and then in the same breath said a person needs to admit that they have made the wrong DECISION. He didn't admit THAT!

So he just dodged the issue that he did NOT support the troops in HIS VOTE by some rhetoric about misspoken words when the issue was CLEARLY his vote and not his flip flop words. He tries to shift the blame to Bush rather than concede he MADE A MISTAKE! Sending troops into Iraq is not as grave an ERROR as sending them in then not funding them with the gear necessary to stay safe...

It was not what Kerry SAID so much but it was what he did not DO in supplying armor to the troops, when necessary, that were in desperate need of it. Is Kerry so conceited in his core that he cannot see that? Bush says he still would take out Saddam... good! I am in agreement with that!

Kerry counters that he did not support the 87 billion because he did not agree with the way it was being appropriated. In effect he tried to delay the sorely needed support, create red tape and turn the issue into a partisan debate. Then he insults Bush for, as Kerry puts it, sending the troops into the Iraq war unprepared. Well with Kerry attempting to stall the 87 billion going to the troops was only leaving them in the battle field LONGER with no armor while the radical left democrats quibble over every penny spent.

Kerry is so twisted in his logic he is chasing after his own tail. I cannot stand to even hear him talk his dribble and people think he won the debate? Once people take a moment to think about the issues they will realize Kerry lost by a vast margin.

Kerry veto's major weapons systems and then expects us to trust him militarily? He is against most major weapons systems... He wants international approval to go to war from the same people that were turning a blind eye to the vast corruption in the oil for food program?

I am sure Bush wants to clean up the nuclear weapons in Russia too but ALSO lets clean up the terrorists that can fire them? If there is no one to push the button and no network to raise the money to buy them then they are much less of a threat... I much more agree with Bush's multi prong approach than Kerry's blind sided kiss up to our enemy and then let them walk all over us behind our back strategy.

0 Replies

whoo hoo! you go rex. solid post!

0 Replies

This is one of many things you have wrong:

Quote:

Kerry counters that he did not support the 87 billion because he did not agree with the way it was being appropriated. In effect he tried to delay the sorely needed support, create red tape and turn the issue into a partisan debate.

The first sentence is true. The second is FoxNews spin, the reality is that Kerry offered an amendment which would have paid the 87 billion dollars plus by reversing part of Bush's massive tax cuts, not all of them, just part. It's called paying as you go which at one time was a firm plank of the Republican philosophy. Now it appears forgotten as Bush sees firming up his financial base as more important than reducing the federal deficit.

There's more you have wrong, but I'm on my way to a dinner so I'll let others have a chance.

Joe

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

I am sure Bush wants to clean up the nuclear weapons in Russia too but ALSO lets clean up the terrorists that can fire them?

And Kerry doesn't want to "clean up the terrorists"? Straw man argument. Which in this case is a nice way of saying, "you're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?".

It's Bush who let Osama get away for three long years now, putting the overwhelming majority of US soldiers and resources into the one place where Osama never was and is not now: Iraq. Osama was once holed up in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, and now he's hiding in the caves of Pakistan and what did the President do? Underfund the Afghanistan operation to where Karzai barely controls the city of Kabul and nothing else, with Osama's former Taliban allies once again roaming free. And cosy up to Pakistan's dictator, who just pardoned the man who leaked nuclear secrets around the world.

Meanwhile, Kerry is right. We've had the fear put into us enough by the current US government about the danger of terrorists digging up some nuclear material on the black market and using it against us. And it's a real enough threat. Where would they get that nuclear material? The former Soviet Union. Lots of stuff there, guarded merely by a corrupt and ineffective system. What did the President do? Actually spend less money on securing it than the previous administration did, before 9/11.

Bush seems to be unable or unwilling to either "clean up the nuclear weapons in Russia" or "clean up the terrorists that can fire them".

0 Replies

Nimh

Osama is probably dead in a cave... due to an American bunker bomb that Kerry is so much against us having. Now what do you have to say to that? Have you not wondered why Osama cannot take a cheap one hundred dollar cam and rally his thugs with a special video message to the press? How long has it been since we have even heard a peep? Yet I am the one with fox news spin...

If you had listened to the debate carefully you would have heard Bush say that Kerry's numbers were WRONG... The non proliferation money has been increased 30%. Then Kerry looked down dumbly to his podium and marked something down. Probably a note to fire another advisor. But the liberal democrats are not interested in the TRUTH just their own accusations about how Bush LIED. Well Kerry worked in intelligence and he backed up the presidents decision to take out Saddam at the time. But "WRONG WAR WRONG TIME"... Kerry is not fit to be president. He is a traitor and the vets will prove that on election day.
Kerry had nothing good to say about the boatloads of nuclear materials that we are transporting from Libya as they were debating.

The day after the debate the city I live in was barraged by the slime bags that follow around Kerry holding signs and showing just what morons they are. These people are the dredges of society and they come out and stand on the street corners and hold their signs like bums begging for change. They shout their obscenities and and give people the finger and bully people that support Bush.

What has Kerry really done for Massachusetts? Ask anyone who lives there... Nothing? Wind surfing, spray on tans, flip flops and strolling the beach...

0 Replies

Wow, Rex, I can see that nobody will persuade you to change your mind. Sheesh! Slime bags, morons, etc... you might want to seek some counseling for that anger management problem you seem to have.

0 Replies

Kickycan

Well if they could present themselves a bit better I would not have the occasion to say that. They hold signs with barely literate writing on it and look like they are on prozac and about to go berserk. They push their signs in your face as if they are the worlds last hope. I expected to see Michael Moore there but he must have been busy on another street corner.

0 Replies

I can't answer you with specifics, Rex, but I can say that, generally, Kerry is all for environmental conservation, workers rights, and civil rights here in MA. Those are all great things to stand for in my view.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

It was not what Kerry SAID so much but it was what he did not DO in supplying armor to the troops, when necessary, that were in desperate need of it.... .....

Well with Kerry attempting to stall the 87 billion going to the troops was only leaving them in the battle field LONGER with no armor while the radical left democrats quibble over every penny spent.

an interesting comment. for 2 reasons.

1). with or without kerry's vote, the 87b (68+ billion was for military) was approved. yet, the soldiers still don't have the flak jackets, they are scrounging for scraps of armor plate for the sides of the hummers. the pentagon is sniffing around to buy foreign made ammo for cryin' out loud.

2). the most vocal supporters of the iraq war that i come across are usually just as vocal about the big tax cuts. they want to have a war, but they don't want to give up "any" pennies of their own. despite a huge deficit, which money is being borrowed to pay for by the way.

so who's really the penny pinchers around here? the guys that don't want to bankrupt the country, or the pseudo-patriots that refuse to sacrifice anything in their personal lives to "do what's right"??

Quote:

Kerry veto's major weapons systems and then expects us to trust him militarily? He is against most major weapons systems... He wants international approval to go to war from the same people that were turning a blind eye to the vast corruption in the oil for food program?

for one thing, a senator cannot "veto" a weapon system, he votes against it. also, i keep hearing this stuff. but it is nearly always from people who have not read the facts. i'm tired of posting the backup, so you'll have to look it up yourself. but you can start with bush sr.'s 1992 state of the union address where he outlines some of the weapons to be discontinued or eliminated as part of his 30% reduction of defense spending. kerry voted with the republican president.

kerry has not said or even hinted that he wants to or would kiss up to the enemy or anyone else in america's defense.

and by the way. it was the "the radical left democrats" that added the provision for body armor in the 87 billion.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Kickycan

Well if they could present themselves a bit better I would not have the occasion to say that. They hold signs with barely literate writing on it and look like they are on prozac and about to go berserk. They push their signs in your face as if they are the worlds last hope. I expected to see Michael Moore there but he must have been busy on another street corner.

and that was just the republican convention.
Laughing

jeez kid, try to ratchet down the anxiety a little, will ya?

0 Replies

Well when I don't have to endure the anti American posts about how we are "occupiers" of Iraq and worse than Saddam and the Taliban then I will ratchet down my posts. That burned my onion and I am still fuming. Also, I am just being frank and speaking my mind I am not as angry as I may seem.

True he did not "veto" them I noticed that "mistake" after I posted

Correction, voted against.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Kickycan

Well if they could present themselves a bit better I would not have the occasion to say that. They hold signs with barely literate writing on it and look like they are on prozac and about to go berserk. They push their signs in your face as if they are the worlds last hope. I expected to see Michael Moore there but he must have been busy on another street corner.

You are correct that the extreme left is completely insane and annoying. But don't confuse them with the people here who simply disagree with you. Don't let your anger with them turn you into a raving right wing nut! Smile

0 Replies

kickycan good advice... I will consider it, thx

0 Replies

yep, kicky, that's about it.

rex, if it helps any, most of my liberal friends think i'm too conservative and the conservatives think i'm too liberal.

in truth, i see myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

as far as the islamists and iraq go, i think that it's not so much what you do, but how ya do it.

and i just don't see us getting the right results with the bush team.

and to be able to say so without getting a lot of hostility and invective is "democracy".

0 Replies

Will You Watch the Debate?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know