John Kerry

[MennoniteHobbit]

And here I always thought it was a source of income for a government.

 

I would say it's both, in different perspectives. For us, the taxpayers, taxes are punishments when they are annoying to pay, and to the government, taxes are a source of income to support the nation. So, what rccar said about taxes being punishments is right, but what SkinWalker said how taxes are a source of income for the government is correct also.

 

as well as remove some of the perception that the Iraqi people have of U.S. colonialism/expansionism.

 

This would be perfect; but, I don't like the U.N. much. But if they can help the U.S. with all of this and do it well, then I would appreciate this.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

but, I don't like the U.N. much.

 

Why don't you "like the U.N. much?"

 

I take issue with several United Nations policies and decisions myself, but I know precisely what they are and can also place a value on many of the other attributes of United Nations.

 

I'm not saying you haven't thought it through (I really wouldn't know), but too often I hear and read where people "don't like the U.N." without understanding what the U.N.'s mission is as well as past accomplishments. In fact, most of the time, these people cannot even voice the specific issues that have with the U.N., only that they don't like it.

 

This, however, is a symptom of the false dichotomy that exists in our nation with regard to politics. Automatically it is assumed that one is either Republican or Democrat. And that people who are religious are conservative while people who are not particularly relgious are liberal.

 

That paradigm is pure hogwash. Extremists and fanatics often fit those molds, but the people in between have much more diversified perspectives, agreeing and disagreeing in varied amounts.

 

It's also amazing how we value the santity and effectiveness of scientific method when it comes to empirical research, but fail to apply it to government and politics.

 

When a scientist revises his hypothesis (his position) in light of new information, he is honored and respected. When a polititian revises his position (his hypothesis) in light of new information, he's considered a "flip-flop."

 

When a scientist fails to revise in the face of evidence, he's considered a pseudoscientist. When a polititian fails to revise (remains conservative) he's considered a good polititian.

 

Which is why the term political science might indeed be an oxymoron.

 

Conservatism in science is pseudoscience.

 

Liberalism in science is logical positivism.

 

Right-wing fanatics cling to the idea that "liberal" equals a profanity and use it as such. These people are actually ignorant of the true meaning and history of the term.

 

Liberal - a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.

 

Conservative - resistant to change; opposed to liberal reforms.

 

Clinging to a partisan viewpoint, therefore, is ignorant in itself. Change must occur if society is to progress... all positive, social institutions and ideas of our nation are the result of liberal ideas. But always looking for change is also ignorant and misguided, as many ideas deserve to endure a test of time.

 

The dichotomy of partisanship in this country will be its undoing.

 

So when you say, you "don't like the U.N. much," say it because of reasons that are your own and not simply repeating the rhetoric of others.

[MennoniteHobbit]

So when you say, you "don't like the U.N. much," say it because of reasons that are your own and not simply repeating the rhetoric of others.

 

I never repeat the rhetorics of others...

 

I don't like the position the U.N. puts over the U.S., like we have to answer to them always. Don't we fund the U.N.? By this I don't mean the U.S. should control the U.N., I'm just saying that I see a projected superiority over the U.S. that the U.N. casts. I never said that the U.N. is always bad. Of course the U.N. has done a lot of positive accomplishments in the past (like passing Security something something 441 was it? The one the Bush endorsed I believe that led to a unanimous vote.) I just don't like the U.N. in general.

 

Oh, and you didn't have to make such a long section of your post dedicated to telling me that I shouldn't repeat the rhetorics of others and such... I would pick it up from the quote above. And, I don't think it really matters if I don't like the U.N. much. I won't be convinced to like them. Of course you're only asking why, so I guess I answered that partially above.

 

Conservatism in science is pseudoscience. Liberalism in science is logical positivism.

 

What the... this is bias right here, no "empirical data." Ok I'm just messing around, but... it sounds more of an opinion that was supposed to sound like a fact.

 

When a scientist revises his hypothesis (his position) in light of new information, he is honored and respected. When a polititian revises his position (his hypothesis) in light of new information, he's considered a "flip-flop."

 

Welcome to John Kerry's world.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Welcome to John Kerry's world.

 

I would rather have a President that is willing to yield to the constituency or revise a personal opinion based on evidence than one that will cling to dogma.

 

In other words, Kerry is a better choice than Bush.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

I would rather have a President that is willing to yield to the constituency or revise a personal opinion based on evidence than one that will cling to dogma.

 

Not when you reverse your opinion so many times no one can keep count, and also for the purpose of "satisfying everyone" by giving one person an opinion that matches theirs, and another a different one that also satisfies them. I never said admitting your wrong is bad. I'm saying that changing your mind every single darn second to please everyone around you is.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Not when you reverse your opinion so many times no one can keep count,

 

Well... lucky for us all Kerry hasn't done that. Not that I've noticed anyway. I see a few issues in which he's changed his official position on over the last 20 or so years, but nothing on the order of the "anti-Kerry" rhetoric's claims.

 

In addition, some of the so-called flip-flop issues reside on his voting record, which has been misconstrued and taken out of the context of the complete bills.

 

For instance, opponents say, "Kerry voted for this at that time, then against this at this time."

 

That sort of statement fails to take into consideration that legislation within the House or Senate rarely includes a single, specific issue. There are typically additional provisions, riders, etc., some with the distinct purpose of affecting the willingness for legislators to vote on other, perhaps primary, provisions of the bill.

[MennoniteHobbit]

At the same time, Kerry was the one who stated something very similar to this in a conference: "I voted for that, before I voted against that." 0_o

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

At the same time, Kerry was the one who stated something very similar to this in a conference: "I voted for that, before I voted against that."

 

And Bush is the man who said

"In an economic recession, I'd rather that in order to get out of this recession, that the people be spending their money, not the government trying to figure out how to spend the people's money."—Tampa, Fla., Feb. 16, 2004

 

Looks like Kerry isn't the only who can say stupid things. And if we really want to get into a match of who has said more stupid things in Press Conference, G.W. has given me a lot more to work with.

 

Furthermore, your original point in attacking Kerry was that his opinions have changed so drastically every second he must not have his own beliefs, but then after seeing that his political stance has only made serious change a couple of times within the past 20 years, how are you going to attack him now?

 

And...in parting, a quote from G.W. for us all to think about.

 

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

FNC is not a crap sender. If you want an example of one look at CNN.

 

Yes, CNN is a crap sender. Yes Fox is a crap sender. Fox because it'd Murdoch, CNN because it's bland.

 

So... the fact that education where you're from comes free doesn't really matter as this is the US...

 

Just putting a few things in perspective.

 

That's right you read it. From the way everyone is saying "let's take away every single penny from the rich to support the poor," it does sound like punishing them.

 

You know, nobody's saying all the money. Only about 66%

 

Well, at its core, a tax is a punishment or deterrent.

For example, the tobacco tax is supposed to be a deterrent to people buying tobacco producs.

The gas tax is a punishment for buying gas and "ruining the environment"

et cetera.

 

Likewise, a property tax is a penalty for owning property, and an income tax is a penalty for earning income.

 

No, these are two different things. AFAIK there is no good way to describe it in English, but in Danish we have two different words for the two different kinds of taxation. The best approximation I can give would be 'tax' and 'point tax', 'tax' being a source of income to the state, and 'point tax' being a deterrent to certain kinds of behavior. Income tax is an example of a 'tax', because it serves as a significant source of income for the state. Tobacco tax is an example of a 'point tax', because it doesn't impact much on the state budget, but does impact significantly upon consumer behavior.

 

And the issue with taxing corporations stems from that.

 

If a corporation is taxed in the US, it will be more likely to move its operations overseas, to someplace where it will not be taxed as much.

 

That's just the way it works.

 

And that's why you'll want to tax its income. Then it'll have to pay tax every time it sells stuff in the country. That way they can't move 'overseas', simply because the American consumers don't live overseas.

 

But the point of tax cuts is to get businesses to expand, thus creating more jobs (which we are now seeing happen in America), thus creating more taxpayers, thus creating more tax revenue. It's not instant gratification - it takes time to work, but it is working!

 

And the best (not to say only) way to get business to expand, is giving money to those who buy consumer goods. Domestically-produced consumer goods. If you simply give money to business owners, without giving any to their custumers, then they are not going to expand anything. They'll just pocket the tax cut (preferable on overseas accounts).

 

And on a different note, I'm getting tired of Europeans complaining about American conservatives speaking out against American liberals - let's face it, American left-of-left liberals like John Kerry want America to move toward a socialistic society. It may not be as liberal or as socialistic as wherever you live, but that doesn't matter. American conservatives don't want to move toward socialism or communism. And that is exactly where the American liberal party in America would like to take us.

 

And I'm getting tired of American Fascists & Conservatives who think that John Kerry wants to make American Socialistic. Kerry is far cry from being a Socialist. He's a freaking liberal, by the Throne! He's a right-wing politician. And I'm getting increasingly pissed at the fact that you can't seem to tell a moderate right-winger from an extremist left-winger. There's a world of difference between the two.

 

I don't like the position the U.N. puts over the U.S., like we have to answer to them always.

 

You do have to answer to them. Always. That's the point of having the UN. To prevent big bullies like the US and the USSR (before they went defunct) from doing whatever they damn well want in blatant disregard of the rest of the world. Like dubya is doing now. And like Kerry is likely to do as well. The US has veto rights, exactly because of the attitude you display.

 

Don't we fund the U.N.?

 

Actually, you don't. You're lagging severely behind in your payments of membership fees, and dubya has made clear that he does not intent to make up for this lack.

 

By this I don't mean the U.S. should control the U.N., I'm just saying that I see a projected superiority over the U.S. that the U.N. casts.

 

Which is a problem why?

 

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."

 

Wauw. So that means that dubya plans to scratch the nuke stash? Or something...

[MennoniteHobbit]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Wauw. So that means that dubya plans to scratch the nuke stash? Or something...

 

Well, I don't think minimizing the U.S.'s nuke stash (I'm not even sure how big it is, or small) is bad, as long as we have enough to defend ourselves.

 

Which is a problem why?

 

Eventually the U.S. may be bullied into doing something we don't want to do.

 

p.s. I just would like to ask everyone why they call President Bush "gee dubya" or "dubya." I dislike Kerry but do not call him anything of the sort.

[rccar328]

And I'm getting tired of American Fascists & Conservatives who think that John Kerry wants to make American Socialistic. Kerry is far cry from being a Socialist. He's a freaking liberal, by the Throne! He's a right-wing politician.

He may be a right-wing politician to you, but he's on the extreme left-wing of American politics.

 

And we are, after all, talking about American politics here.

You do have to answer to them. Always. That's the point of having the UN. To prevent big bullies like the US and the USSR (before they went defunct) from doing whatever they damn well want in blatant disregard of the rest of the world. Like dubya is doing now. And like Kerry is likely to do as well. The US has veto rights, exactly because of the attitude you display.

But if the US has to answer to the UN, shouldn't Iraq have to, as well? Yet the UN allowed Iraq to play it's little games through 12 UN resolutions.....

 

I say, if the UN won't take action on it's own resolutions, it renders itself irrelevant, and we shouldn't have to answer to them. After all, what are they gonna do, pass a resolution?

With their record of backing their own resolutions, that's very frightening... [/sarcasm]

p.s. I just would like to ask everyone why they call President Bush "gee dubya" or "dubya." I dislike Kerry but do not call him anything of the sort.

It's a petty term that amounts to nothing more than stupid cheap shots against a President that they disagree with.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Well, I don't think minimizing the U.S.'s nuke stash (I'm not even sure how big it is, or small) is bad, as long as we have enough to defend ourselves.

I believe I've heard something along the lines of enough nukes to destroy the world like, ten times over. Can you say overkill?

 

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

p.s. I just would like to ask everyone why they call President Bush "gee dubya" or "dubya." I dislike Kerry but do not call him anything of the sort.

 

That's because it wouldn't make any sense to call Kerry "dubya".

His name doesn't even HAVE a w in it.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Ironically, that was what I meant. We can destroy all the nukes we have until we have the minimum needed to defend ourselves.

 

It's a petty term that amounts to nothing more than stupid cheap shots against a President that they disagree with.

 

definitely.

 

 

That's because it wouldn't make any sense to call Kerry "dubya".

His name doesn't even HAVE a w in it.

 

When I said that, I should have rephrased it to this: "No one ever name-calls Kerry something like that." Which does NOT mean that we should call Kerry something that sounds similar to "gee dubya" or "dubya." Hopefully you already knew this.

 

That's the point of having the UN. To prevent big bullies like the US and the USSR (before they went defunct) from doing whatever they damn well want in blatant disregard of the rest of the world.

 

And I thought that the U.N. was formed to unite nations together, to prevent fighting each other from happening, and to create joint-task forces when called upon by every nation with membership. Otherwise the U.N. should be renamed the "United Nations for Bully Taskkeeping Force."

[ShadowTemplar]

Eventually the U.S. may be bullied into doing something we don't want to do.

 

Somehow I fail to see how that's the case here. In the current situation the US was asked to refrain from doing something they wanted. They were not asked to do anything they didn't want to. Besides, how on Earth do you think that the UN could force the US to do anything? Right now it's the US that's doing the forcing.

 

He may be a right-wing politician to you, but he's on the extreme left-wing of American politics.

 

Which simply means that the American political spectrum is in serious need of revision. If a Liberal can be the extreme left, then I wonder what a Fascist would be... Middle of the road?

 

But if the US has to answer to the UN, shouldn't Iraq have to, as well? Yet the UN allowed Iraq to play it's little games through 12 UN resolutions.....

 

That is an issue between Iraq and the UNSC.

 

I say, if the UN won't take action on it's own resolutions, it renders itself irrelevant

 

There was no resolution mandating use of armed force in dealing with the current situation in Iraq. Everyone agreed on that when res. 1441 was passed. 1441 did not mandate use of armed force, and as such the US invasion did not serve to back any resolution. The US had no business in Iraq.

 

It's a petty term that amounts to nothing more than stupid cheap shots against a President that they disagree with.

 

Calling him 'President' is rather rich, considering that he wasn't even elected.

 

And I thought that the U.N. was formed to unite nations together, to prevent fighting each other from happening, and to create joint-task forces when called upon by every nation with membership.

 

Which is essensially the same thing. Only more elonquently phrased.

 

Otherwise the U.N. should be renamed the "United Nations for Bully Taskkeeping Force."

 

Yeah, but the abbreviation UNfBTF sounds rather silly.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Calling him 'President' is rather rich, considering that he wasn't even elected.

 

President Bush... "was not elected"...

 

*I laugh*

 

Which is essensially the same thing. Only more elonquently phrased.

 

Preventing countries from bullying another... and uniting nations for a common goal... the same?

 

and it's spelled eloquently

 

Yeah, but the abbreviation UNfBTF sounds rather silly.

 

Can you people tell sarcasm? I was sarcastic about that, because it DOES sound silly. The UN's goal isn't, or wasn't originally, created for "bully task-kepping." Though if it is, they really should change their name, silly or not.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

and it's spelled eloquently

 

Can you people tell sarcasm? I was sarcastic about that, because it DOES sound silly.

 

Firstly, it was obviously a simple mis-typing error, and pointing it out in a serious debate is childish and petty.

 

Secondly, his response was MORE obviously a light-hearted and sarcastic response to YOUR suggestion, meaning that YOU should be the one to learn how to read sarcasm, because WE get it, and make our jokes accordingly.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

President Bush... "was not elected"...

 

*I laugh*

 

I don't. I find it galling that the world's Hyperpower is led by a person who was instated by his brother and five judges who were instated by his father.

 

Preventing countries from bullying another... and uniting nations for a common goal... the same?

 

From the POV of a small country like Denmark, it is.

 

and it's spelled eloquently

 

Thx

 

Firstly, it was obviously a simple mis-typing error, and pointing it out in a serious debate is childish and petty.

 

If a mistake is never discovered, it can never be learned from.

 

I for one appreciate such corrections as chances to improve my spelling/typing.

[rccar328]

I just had to bring this one up...

[MennoniteHobbit]

Nice comic there, rccar.

[ShadowTemplar]

*cough* Cheap shot *cough*

[rccar328]

*cough* Cheap shot *cough*

Maybe so, but it rings true...Kerry is basically running on 2 platforms - his Vietnam service and his hatred for Bush...and as much as he protested the Vietnam war back in the day, he surely LOVES to flaunt his "war hero" status...yet whenever President Bush's campaign brings up his past activities, be it his bringing unsubstantiated accusations against Vietnam veterans (then soldiers) or his liberal voting record, he calls them "unprecedented attacks" and whines and complains.

 

It makes me laugh - Kerry has done nothing but attack President Bush from the beginning of his campaign, even during the primaries, but as soon as President Bush releases some adds simply pointing out just who John Kerry is, he can't seem to take the heat.

[toms]

Originally posted by rccar328

It makes me laugh - Kerry has done nothing but attack President Bush from the beginning of his campaign, even during the primaries, but as soon as President Bush releases some adds simply pointing out just who John Kerry is, he can't seem to take the heat.

 

You may have a point, but the way you phrase it is hardly unbiased.

 

Kerry "attacking" Bush. Bush "pointing out who" Kerry is.

 

You could equally say:

 

Bush "attacking" Kerry. Kerry "pointing out who" Bush is.

 

Politics these days is about attacking the other guy, bringing up as much dirt (substantiated or unsubstantiated, doesn't really matter) as you can while attempting to not committ yourself to any policies (because then the other side might attack you on them or find a weakness in them).

 

Unfortunately that is how it is in most countries at the moment, and i don't think you can say one side is worse than the other... it just depends where you are standing.

----

Personally I don't care enough to know how much of the stuff is true, but i feel a lot of the attacks thrown in both directions are false, but a few are probably true.

I happen to think charges that Kerry flip-flops his position are completely stupid, given the time periods involved and the way politics works in the US. However I do think he should stop sitting on the fence. However i happen to believe more of the dirt thrown at bush than the dirt thrown at kerry, but that is probably because of where i sit.

 

I do at least TRY to keep an open mind though.

[rccar328]

Flip-Flopped On Iraq War

 

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

 

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

 

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

 

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

 

 

Flip Flopped On Trade With China

 

In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. “Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China … ‘I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,’ Kerry said.” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status,” The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)

 

In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea)

 

Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. … On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.” (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class

 

Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03)

 

Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)

 

But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act

 

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

 

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)

 

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)

 

 

Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War

 

Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. “Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ‘Notebook’ item from TNR’s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ‘Same Senator, Same Constituent’: ‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991] ‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]” (Noam Scheiber, “Noam Scheiber’s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment

 

In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter “Urging” MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. “We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.” (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)

 

Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” (Susan Milligan, “Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’” The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War

 

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. “Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’” (Glen Johnson, “Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,” The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

 

But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. “‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’” The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists

 

In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.” (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)

 

In 1996, Kerry Said, “You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.” (Timothy J. Connolly, “The ‘Snoozer’ Had Some Life,” [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)

 

But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind

 

Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

 

But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As “Mockery.” “Between now and the time I’m sworn in January 2005, I’m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind.’” (Holly Ramer, “Kerry Wants To Make ‘Environmental Justice’ A Priority,” The Associated Press, 4/22/03)

 

Kerry Trashed NCLB As ‘Unfunded Mandate’ With ‘Laudable’ Goals. “Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ‘unfunded mandate’ with ‘laudable’ goals. ‘Without the resources, education reform is a sham,’ Kerry said. ‘I can’t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words “no child left behind.”‘“ (Matt Leon, “Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,” The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action

 

In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action “Inherently Limited And Divisive.” “[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’” (Lynne Duke, “Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,” The Washington Post, 4/8/92)

 

In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action “Divisive.” CNN’s KELLY WALLACE: “We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.” SEN. KERRY: “That’s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don’t end it. He’s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I’ve always supported it. I’ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn’t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let’s not have any politics here. Let’s keep the truth.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 1/30/04)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends

 

December 2002: Kerry Favored Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it’s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02)

 

May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. ‘This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,’ he said.” (“Kerry Says Time Is On Dems’ Side,” The Associated Press, 5/8/03)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn

 

September 2001: Said Should Not Raise Taxes In Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . .[Y]ou don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)

 

 

We Should “Absolutely Not Raise Taxes.” “Well, I think it’s very clear what I favor because we voted for it early in the spring, which was the Democratic budget alternative that had triggers in it where you didn’t wind up spending money you don’t have. It had a smaller tax cut but more tax cut for a stimulus, which is what we need. So you ask me, what do we need now? Yes, we need additional stimulus. We should absolutely not raise taxes. We should not cut spending. What we need to do is drive the economy of this country. The economy is the number one issue. It is the most important thing we should focus on.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 9/8/01)

 

 

April 2002: Said He Wanted Larger Tax Cut And Was “Not In Favor Of” Repeal. CNN’s TUCKER CARLSON: “Senator Kerry . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush’s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?” KERRY: “It’s not a question of courage. . . . And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year … [T]he next tax cut doesn’t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it’s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I’m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 4/16/02)

 

December 2002: Flip-Flopped, Would Keep Tax Cuts From Taking Effect. NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut … What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.” … RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years …” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” … RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change …” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

 

 

Called For Freeze Of Bush Tax Cuts In Favor Of Year-Long Suspension Of Payroll Taxes On First $10,000 Of Personal Income. “Kerry said Bush’s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush’s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class.” (Tyler Bridges, “Kerry Visits Miami To Start Raising Funds,” The Miami Herald, 12/7/02)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes

 

Kerry Voted Against Exempting Small Businesses And Family Farms From Clinton Income Tax Increase. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #79: Motion Agreed To 54-45: R 0-43; D 54-2, 3/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

 

Three Months Later, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Proposal To Exclude Small Businesses From The Increased Income Tax. (S. 1134, CQ Vote #171: Motion Rejected 56-42: R 43-0; D 13-42, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

 

Kerry Claimed He Fought To Exempt Small Businesses From Income Tax Increases. “I worked to amend the reconciliation bill so that it would … exempt small businesses who are classified as subchapter S corporations from the increased individual income tax.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S 8268)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees

 

Kerry Used To Oppose Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. “Throughout two centuries, our federal judiciary has been a model institution, one which has insisted on the highest standards of conduct by our public servants and officials, and which has survived with undiminished respect. Today, I fear that this institution is threatened in a way that we have not seen before. … This threat is that of the appointment of a judiciary which is not independent, but narrowly ideological, through the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed …” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/86, p. S864)

 

But Now Kerry Says He Would Only Support Supreme Court Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe v. Wade. “The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. … ‘Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits

 

In 1993, Kerry Expressed Doubts That Federal Employees Health Benefits System Worked Well. “Hillary Rodham Clinton today offered a fresh description of one of the most confusing elements of the Administration health care plan, the health insurance purchasing alliances, saying they would let all Americans choose coverage in the way members of Congress do. … Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he was not sure that the Federal program worked all that well.” (Adam Clymer, “Hillary Clinton Says Health Plan Will Be Familiar,” The New York Times, 12/8/93)

 

Kerry Expressed Personal Dissatisfaction With His Coverage Through Federal Program. “Earlier this month, when Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Boston and vowed that average Americans would get as good coverage as that enjoyed by their senators and representatives, Sen. John F. Kerry told Clinton that he thought the country could do better. The Massachusetts Democrat said he was thinking, among other recent disasters, of his $500 dental bill for treatment of an abscessed tooth. ‘Because it was done in the dentist’s office, rather than the hospital, they didn’t cover it. So they were urging me to go spend twice as much in a hospital,’ said Kerry, who is covered by BACE, the Beneficial Association of Capitol Employees.” (Ana Puga, “Lawmakers Talk Health Care,” The Boston Globe, 12/19/93)

 

Now, On Campaign Trail, Kerry Is Enthusiastic About Health Care He Receives As Senator. “As a U.S. Senator, I could get the best health care in the world. Most people aren’t so lucky, and we need to change that. That’s why my plan gives every American access to the same kind of health care that members of Congress give themselves. … Because your family’s health care is just as important as any politicians’ in Washington.” (Sen. John Kerry, “Affordable Health Care For All Americans,” Remarks At Mercy Medical, Cedar Rapids, IA, 12/14/03)

 

Kerry: “I’m Going To Make Available To Every American The Same Health Care Plan That Senators And Congressmen Give Themselves …” (Sen. John Kerry, AARP Democrat Candidate Debate, Bedford, NH, 11/18/03)

 

Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health

 

In 2001, Kerry Voted Against Amendment Providing $70 Billion For Tax Credits For Small Business To Purchase Health Insurance. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay)

 

Now, Kerry Promises Refundable Tax Credits To Small Businesses For Health Coverage. “Refundable tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage will be offered to small businesses and their employees to make health care more affordable.” (“John Kerry’s Plan To Make Health Care Affordable To Every American,” John Kerry For President Website, http://www.johnkerry.com, Accessed 1/21/04)

 

Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage

 

In 1994, Kerry Said Democrats Push Health Care Too Much. “[Kerry] said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls.” (Joe Battenfeld, “Jenny Craig Hit With Sex Harassment Complaint - By Men,” Boston Herald, 11/30/94)

 

But Now Kerry Calls Health Care His “Passion.” “Sen. John Kerry says expanding coverage is ‘my passion.’” (Susan Page, “Health Specifics Could Backfire On Candidates,” USA Today, 6/2/03)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform

 

In 1993, Kerry Voted To Kill Bipartisan Welfare Work Requirement. In 1993, Kerry and Kennedy voted against a welfare-to-work requirement that was supported by many Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV):

 

Fiscal 1993 Supplemental Appropriations - Welfare Work Requirement. “Moynihan, D-N.Y., motion to table (kill) the D’Amato, R-N.Y., amendment to sharply cut federal welfare administration aid to states that do not, within a year, require at least 10 percent of their able-bodied welfare recipients without dependents to work. The required workfare participation rate would be increased by 2 percent a year until 50 percent were working.” (H.R. 2118, CQ Vote #163: Rejected 34-64: R 1-42; D 33-22, 6/22/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

 

 

But In 1996, Kerry Voted For Welfare Reform. (H.R. 3734, CQ Vote #262: Adopted 78-21: R 53-0; D 25-21, 8/1/96, Kerry Voted Yea)

 

 

Flip-Flopped On Israel Security Fence

 

October 2003: Kerry Calls Fence “Barrier To Peace.” “And I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel’s security over the long- term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks Before Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference, Dearborn, MI, 10/17/03)

 

February 2004: Kerry Calls Fence “Legitimate Act Of Self-Defense.” “US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, described Israel’s construction of a security barrier as a ‘legitimate act of self defense’ after Sunday’s suicide bombing in Jerusalem, clarifying a position he took in October when he told an Arab American audience, ‘We don’t need another barrier to peace.’” (Janine Zacharia, “Kerry Defends Security Fence,” The Jerusalem Post, 2/25/04)

[Tyrion]

In defense of Kerry, the reason why he votes for one bill and not for another is because they can tack on different things to the bills when they have to renew it. For instance, let's say the big portion of the bill- that is, the part shown in the media- is to improve body armor funding. Fair enough, but let's say they have a few other mini-bills within the bill, saying that they will give more money to both weapon funding and less funding to civilian public services. That's why he fliped-floped on most of them, I assume.

 

Still, I don't particularily like either Bush or Kerry, so I'm glad I can't vote this year.

[toms]

It could be worse, you could have our system where the opposition refuses to detail any policies as they say that they can't know the details of the situation until they get into power. More like they don't want any polices to be picked apart.

 

Flip-Flopped On Iraq War

 

I don't see any sign of flip flopping there. he basically supported it with reservations on how it was handled, and now doesn't think it was handled well. Sounds like most of america.

 

Shows the danger of the wave of nationalism that swept america after 9/11 where sensible people allowed their emotions to overide their common sense and didn't want to be seen as "unamerican" by making a fuss.

 

 

Flip Flopped On Trade With China

 

Can't claim to understand the details of "most favoured" status or the currency claim, but it doesn't sound like flipflopping, more like argueing over the details.

 

Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class

 

looks to me like he voted for it, or am i being confused by double negatives? Unless he was the 1 democrat who voted against his party it looks like he voted on the party line.

 

Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act

 

Again, the patriot act was a terribel idea born out of inflamed passions, and i think you will find that most politicians are starting to realise they went too far with it and need to reign back it's power and scope.

 

Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War

 

hah hah!. That rules.

Looks like a load of standard letters sent out to keep everyone happy to me.

 

Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment

 

You call that a flip flop?

He is being sensible ad saying he won't rule something out until he sees the fine print. If he did the opposite and definitively ruled it out, then found that it had been cleverly worded to include other stuff he supported then you guys would accuse him of flip lopping on those issues if he then supported it.

 

Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War

 

Exact same thing happened over here with our opposition. You see everyone is "supposed" to rally behind the troops when the war is on, but it gets hard to keep quient when they are making such a mess of it. Never lasts more than a few weeks. He didn't make those comments on national TV though did he? Only to a select audience.

 

note: got bored about here, but i still haven't found anythig i'd count as damning. Most of these supposed flipflops are more about semantics, wording and not wanting to commit wothout exact details. I'm sure you could find exactly the same for Bush (if we knew WHERE he had been, or he had any political history before his dad bought him in) or any other politician.

Add in the fact of changing situations, needing to vote with your party on many issues, bills with riders and deals made to egree to one bill you aren't keen on if you get your way on another bill and i can see nothing wrong so far.