0
   

Kerry's Top Ten Flip-Flops

 
 
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 11:01 am
Senate's Role In Wars With Iraq

Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in January 1991, Kerry broke with the majority of senators and voted against authorizing the first Gulf War. He said on the Senate floor, "It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote."

Kerry thus voted against war after Iraq took aggressive military action. He said a vote in favor of military action was tantamount to giving Congress "no further say" on the war.

In October 2002, he supported the current war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq took no aggressive action against its neighbors.

In announcing his candidacy for president, in September 2003, he said his October 2002 vote was simply "to threaten" the use of force, apparently backtracking from his belief in 1991 that such a vote would grant the president an open-ended ticket to wage war.

If I Knew Then What I Know Now…

"We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: "[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

The Kerry campaign says voting to authorize the war in Iraq is different from deciding diplomacy has failed and waging war. But Kerry's nuanced position has contradicted itself on whether it was right or wrong to wage the war.

In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the "right decision" though he would have "preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity."

But then in January 2004, Kerry began to run as anti-war candidate, saying, "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have."


The $87 Billion Vote

In September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops.

"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running," he said.

Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush's tax cuts.

But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.

Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

On Wednesday, he acknowledged that his explanation of his Iraq war votes was "one of those inarticulate moments."


The Israeli Security Fence

In October 2003, Kerry said Israel's unilateral construction of a security fence was "a barrier to peace."

"I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line," he told the Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference. "We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis."

But less than a year later, in February 2004, he reversed himself, calling the fence "a legitimate act of self-defense," and saying "President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians."


Patriot Act

Kerry joined with 97 other senators and voted for the Patriot Act in October 2001. Campaigning in New Hampshire in June 2003, he defended his vote, saying, "it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on Sept. 11."

But last December in Iowa, Kerry advocated "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."


Death Penalty for Terrorists

In 1996, then- Massachusetts Gov. William Weld asked Kerry, a longtime opponent of capital punishment, whether the death penalty should be applied to terrorists. Kerry replied that the idea amounted to a "terrorist protection policy."

He said then that such a policy would discourage other nations from extraditing suspects because many U.S. allies preclude extradition to countries that impose the death penalty.

Kerry now favors the death penalty for terrorists, though extradition remains a problem.

Kerry still opposes the death penalty in general, but says if elected he would not interfere with state executions.


Releasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserves

In 2000, Kerry called the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "not relevant" to solving the problem with high fuel prices.

But in recent months, Kerry has pressured President Bush to start pumping oil into the government's emergency reserves. Kerry has called for the release of some of the reserves, as well.

In a switch from his earlier position, Kerry now argues that a sizable release would lessen U.S. demand and thereby fuel lower prices.


Affirmative Action

Though he has long supported affirmative action, in a speech at Yale University in 1992, Kerry called the program "inherently limited and divisive," and said it had "kept America thinking in racial terms." He added that it was failing those most in need of assistance: African-Americans.

At the height of the Democratic primary race in January, Kerry reiterated his support for affirmative action. Kerry's critics question how he can support a program that he once called "divisive." Kerry says he was speaking about racial quotas, which he opposes.


Trade

Kerry backed trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa. In 2000, he voted to grant China most-favored-nation trading status.

Having supported the major trade deals of the last decade - including the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - Kerry was heavily critical of U.S. trade policy during the Democratic primaries.

As the primary race heated up against now vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, who criticized Kerry for supporting NAFTA, Kerry received the prized endorsement of the AFL-CIO by insisting he will insure "workers rights" in trade agreements. Kerry also blamed trade for creating "a race to the bottom" among poverty-stricken nations.


No Child Left Behind

Kerry voted for President Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act" but now campaigns against it. He says Mr. Bush failed to adequately fund the legislation by not linking student-testing requirements with school funding.

Though the legislation requires rigorous testing in the states, Kerry said in August 2004 that the new federal testing mandates were "punitive."

link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,987 • Replies: 79
No top replies

 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 11:07 am
http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/lies/index.html

Social Security Surplus

Bush Pledges Not to Touch Social Security Surplus...
"We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [Bush, 3/3/01]


Bush Spends Social Security Surplus...
The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

Abortion

Bush Supports a Woman's Right to Choose...
"Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal]


Bush Opposes a Woman's Right to Choose...
"I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]


Weapons of Mass Destruction

Bush Says We Found the Weapons of Mass Destruction...
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]


Bush Says We Haven't Found Weapons of Mass Destruction...
"David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, "Meet the Press," 2/7/04]

Osama bin Laden

Bush Wants Osama Dead or Alive...
"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 9/17/01]


Bush Doesn't Care About Osama...
"I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

Gay Marriage

Bush Says Gay Marriage Is a State Issue...
"The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on gay marriage, "Larry King Live," 2/15/00]


Bush Supports Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage...
"Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

For more of Bush's troubling flip-flops, visit the Center for American Progress
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 11:20 am
Re: Kerry's Top Ten Flip-Flops
McGentrix wrote:
Senate's Role In Wars With Iraq

Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in January 1991, Kerry broke with the majority of senators and voted against authorizing the first Gulf War. He said on the Senate floor, "It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote."

Kerry thus voted against war after Iraq took aggressive military action. He said a vote in favor of military action was tantamount to giving Congress "no further say" on the war.

In October 2002, he supported the current war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq took no aggressive action against its neighbors.

In announcing his candidacy for president, in September 2003, he said his October 2002 vote was simply "to threaten" the use of force, apparently backtracking from his belief in 1991 that such a vote would grant the president an open-ended ticket to wage war.

If I Knew Then What I Know Now…

"We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: "[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

The Kerry campaign says voting to authorize the war in Iraq is different from deciding diplomacy has failed and waging war. But Kerry's nuanced position has contradicted itself on whether it was right or wrong to wage the war.

In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the "right decision" though he would have "preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity."

But then in January 2004, Kerry began to run as anti-war candidate, saying, "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have."


The $87 Billion Vote

In September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops.

"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running," he said.

Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush's tax cuts.

But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.

Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

On Wednesday, he acknowledged that his explanation of his Iraq war votes was "one of those inarticulate moments."


The Israeli Security Fence

In October 2003, Kerry said Israel's unilateral construction of a security fence was "a barrier to peace."

"I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line," he told the Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference. "We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis."

But less than a year later, in February 2004, he reversed himself, calling the fence "a legitimate act of self-defense," and saying "President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians."


Patriot Act

Kerry joined with 97 other senators and voted for the Patriot Act in October 2001. Campaigning in New Hampshire in June 2003, he defended his vote, saying, "it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on Sept. 11."

But last December in Iowa, Kerry advocated "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."


Death Penalty for Terrorists

In 1996, then- Massachusetts Gov. William Weld asked Kerry, a longtime opponent of capital punishment, whether the death penalty should be applied to terrorists. Kerry replied that the idea amounted to a "terrorist protection policy."

He said then that such a policy would discourage other nations from extraditing suspects because many U.S. allies preclude extradition to countries that impose the death penalty.

Kerry now favors the death penalty for terrorists, though extradition remains a problem.

Kerry still opposes the death penalty in general, but says if elected he would not interfere with state executions.


Releasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserves

In 2000, Kerry called the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "not relevant" to solving the problem with high fuel prices.

But in recent months, Kerry has pressured President Bush to start pumping oil into the government's emergency reserves. Kerry has called for the release of some of the reserves, as well.

In a switch from his earlier position, Kerry now argues that a sizable release would lessen U.S. demand and thereby fuel lower prices.


Affirmative Action

Though he has long supported affirmative action, in a speech at Yale University in 1992, Kerry called the program "inherently limited and divisive," and said it had "kept America thinking in racial terms." He added that it was failing those most in need of assistance: African-Americans.

At the height of the Democratic primary race in January, Kerry reiterated his support for affirmative action. Kerry's critics question how he can support a program that he once called "divisive." Kerry says he was speaking about racial quotas, which he opposes.


Trade

Kerry backed trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa. In 2000, he voted to grant China most-favored-nation trading status.

Having supported the major trade deals of the last decade - including the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - Kerry was heavily critical of U.S. trade policy during the Democratic primaries.

As the primary race heated up against now vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, who criticized Kerry for supporting NAFTA, Kerry received the prized endorsement of the AFL-CIO by insisting he will insure "workers rights" in trade agreements. Kerry also blamed trade for creating "a race to the bottom" among poverty-stricken nations.


No Child Left Behind

Kerry voted for President Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act" but now campaigns against it. He says Mr. Bush failed to adequately fund the legislation by not linking student-testing requirements with school funding.

Though the legislation requires rigorous testing in the states, Kerry said in August 2004 that the new federal testing mandates were "punitive."

link


Instead of posting propaganda, why don't you try to get into a rational discussions on the debunking of your propaganda? Go to the Questions For Kerry thread and try to formulate a platform based on the reply instead of cut and pasting junk of crap websites.

Anyone who follows politics knows a flip-flop campaign is the result of having nothing else to run on, for any vote can be used as a flip flop because votes aren't line item votes. Every Bill has tons of addendums added into them for special interests, yet you fail to look at this. It's just low smear tactics brought forth by a failing administration who sees not only this election slipping away, but also their stranglehold on the American public. Too many people are starting to see through their myths and falsehoods and they can't stop this steamroller. . . unless they do something completely drastic and unAmerican.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 11:30 am
George Bush is a moron...and his administration is an abject failure.

This group has done more harm to our country during the last four years than Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein did during the several decades before.

Anyone who votes to continue this pathetic administration in office has absolutely no love of country...nor pride in it.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 11:35 am
Why does every thread about Kerry become a Bush hate fest? Is Kerry so despicable that you can say nothing about him, except to declare what a moron you think Bush is?

I post a thread about question for Kerry and Bush becomes the topic for most. I post a thread about Kerry's flip-flops, the first response demonstrates Bush's flip flops. Over and over the same responses.

I wonder what a sociologist would say about that...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 11:45 am
McGentrix wrote:
Why does every thread about Kerry become a Bush hate fest? Is Kerry so despicable that you can say nothing about him, except to declare what a moron you think Bush is?

I post a thread about question for Kerry and Bush becomes the topic for most. I post a thread about Kerry's flip-flops, the first response demonstrates Bush's flip flops. Over and over the same responses.

I wonder what a sociologist would say about that...



If the sociologist had any brains, he/she would probably say:

"George Bush is a moron...and his administration is an abject failure.

This group has done more harm to our country during the last four years than Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein did during the several decades before.

Anyone who votes to continue this pathetic administration in office has absolutely no love of country...nor pride in it. "


Hope that was of help, McG. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 11:57 am
Quote:
I wonder what a sociologist would say about that...


I wonder what a delusionist would say. Actually, McGentrix has already told us.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:17 pm
Objective analysis has no place in the minds of most Bushwackers.

They are sustained by the worst emotional trait...hate.

Why????
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:21 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Why does every thread about Kerry become a Bush hate fest? Is Kerry so despicable that you can say nothing about him, except to declare what a moron you think Bush is?

I post a thread about question for Kerry and Bush becomes the topic for most. I post a thread about Kerry's flip-flops, the first response demonstrates Bush's flip flops. Over and over the same responses.

I wonder what a sociologist would say about that...


It shouldn't turn into that, I agree. It's the point of polarization our country has gone through because of the Bush Administration. If you want me to debunk the flip flops, I will but it would be a waste of time. You see, people whso support Bush will do so no matter what. There is MORE then enough evidence out there which contradicts almost everything Bush has claimed and stood for. People who back Bush are either. . .

a.) Completely ignorant of the facts, or fail to descern facts from spin.

b.) Rich beyond belief, or at least over the 300K per year barrier.

c.) Benifited by some of his subsidies programs.

d.) War mongerers.

e.) Actually honest Americans, but they've been duped by the mass media blitz and controlling propaganda put out by the RNC.

In time history will prove me right, I can see through the BS now. I just hope the majority of Americans will be able to discern the truth from fable.

The RNC by no means has a stranglehold on the propaganda bit, but they're the ones in power who have abused the system almost to the state of disrepair. It's up to us, as Americans, to debunk their myth they've perputrated to the majority of American people and unveil the true Bush. He's out there, people just don't want to see it now because they don't want to believe their government is capible of doing the downright despicable things Bush has done over the past 4 years. I can understand their sentament, but in my eyes, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's not a deer, it's a duck.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:24 pm
woiyo wrote:
Objective analysis has no place in the minds of most Bushwackers.

They are sustained by the worst emotional trait...hate.

Why????


Oh, my...a comment on "objective analysis" from someone who intends to vote to retain George Bush and the most incompetent administration ever .

What a laugh!

Here is something objective for you, Woiyo...

...George Bush and this bunch of miscreants who comprise his administration have done immeasurable harm to this country. They have lowered our prestige throughout the world...even among our most staunch allies.

Through their folly and John Wayne type of diplomacy...they have made our country less safe...and the world less safe. They are all poster children for the recruiting efforts of the world's terrorist organizations.

Get a life...grow a brain...

...anything but give lectures on "objective analysis" or unreasoned hatreds.

All you do with that kind of stuff is cause laughter.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:24 pm
"Bushwackers" have PLENTY to offer in objective analysis.

It is the rightwingers who espouse the hatred towards those who even REMOTELY question George Bush in OFFERING objective analysis in the first place.

When rightwing idiots complain that Kerry looks French, how is THAT objective analysis? When rightwing idiots complain about flip-flops regarding the $87 billion congressional vote without REMOTELY offering an "objective analysis" behind that vote, how is that objective analysis?

Give us a break, woiyo.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:27 pm
woiyo:

Can you even REMOTELY and OBJECTIVELY analyze WHY George W. Bush is one of the most hated U.S. presidents in modern times?

I seriously doubt it.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:29 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:

Here is something objective for you, Woiyo...

...George Bush and this bunch of miscreants who comprise his administration have done immeasurable harm to this country. They have lowered our prestige throughout the world...even among our most staunch allies.


Explain this harm that continuously speak of frank. What is it exactly?

Lowered our prestige? I wasn't aware that the safety of millions of people was a popularity contest. Our most staunch allies? Like Britain? Australia? Or are you referring to France and Germany, who we still do multi-millions of dollars of business with and remain our allies?

Quote:
Through their folly and John Wayne type of diplomacy...they have made our country less safe...and the world less safe. They are all poster children for the recruiting efforts of the world's terrorist organizations.


How is our country less safe? Have there been an increase in terror attacks in the United States? I am at a loss to see how we are less safe now than we were 3 years ago.

Quote:
Get a life...grow a brain...

...anything but give lectures on "objective analysis" or unreasoned hatreds.

All you do with that kind of stuff is cause laughter.


I laugh almost everytime I read one of your replies frank.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:30 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Anyone who votes to continue this pathetic administration in office has absolutely no love of country...nor pride in it.


Frank, you sound like one of those frumpy 1960's government bureaucrats who told the anti-war protesters:

"America, love it or leave it." Smile

You may feel anyone who votes for Bush is stupid, a moron, bald, fat, an idiot, and lousy at golf.

But to question one's love of country is somewhat shrill, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:31 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
"Bushwackers" have PLENTY to offer in objective analysis.

It is the rightwingers who espouse the hatred towards those who even REMOTELY question George Bush in OFFERING objective analysis in the first place.

When rightwing idiots complain that Kerry looks French, how is THAT objective analysis? When rightwing idiots complain about flip-flops regarding the $87 billion congressional vote without REMOTELY offering an "objective analysis" behind that vote, how is that objective analysis?

Give us a break, woiyo.


You use that avatar and dare to make a comment like this? Rolling Eyes

You're a bigger hypocrite than I first gave you credit for.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:33 pm
You're hardly one to talk, McG, given your avatar...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:34 pm
Quote:
But to question one's love of country is somewhat shrill, isn't it?


Rightwingers have contuously questioned those on the left THEIR love of country, accused them of siding with Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and ANYBODY who's a terrorist, agreed with the hateful vitriol of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and all those who say a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists, so let's be honest here, because YOU guys have got the shrill market cornered.

BOY, talk about hypocrisy!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You're hardly one to talk, McG, given your avatar...

Cycloptichorn


LOL!
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:37 pm
I thought this was a footwear thread and instead the same old ass kissing crap from the same bush lovers....I am disapointed...I thought there'd be pictures of flip flops and maybe some sandals.....MAN!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:38 pm
"The good part of being a Democrat is that you can commit crimes, sell out your base, bomb foreigners, and rape women, and the Democratic faithful will still think you're the greatest."

"Indeed, an attack on America by fanatical Muslims had finally provided liberals with a religion they could respect."

"Liberals hate America, they hate 'flag-wavers', they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."

Courtesy of the utter hatred from the mouth of Ann Coulter
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Kerry's Top Ten Flip-Flops
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.24 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 08:40:11