John Kerry

[ShadowTemplar]

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.

 

Maybe that's because Kerry is a whiner. I have no way of judging that from this side of the Pond. But a more likely explanation is that dubya and his goons are making unfounded accusations. E.g. attacking Kerry for 'lacking patriotism' because he was against continued involvement in Vietnam. Which would be downright untrue, not to say a dirty lie. Anti Vietnam =/= Unpatriotic. Pro Vietnam =/= Patriotic.

 

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.

 

Knowing dubya's - liberal - relationship with the truth (no pun intended), I'd be very much surprised if Kerry could surpass his flames.

 

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)

 

Are we talking 2nd or 3rd Gulf War here?

 

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)

 

Yes. So did France. Did they flip-flop as well?

 

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)

 

For once a quote that looks remotely believable... Hat's off to that. But the key phrase here is as he should have. Kerry does not here say that he is against the war. What he does say is that he is against the way dubya waged the war.

 

Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act

 

The quotes you provided do not directly contradict each other. Granted, Kerry gets carried away in the last one (the Campaign Syndrome), but the two are not in any way mutually exclusive.

 

Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War

 

2nd Gulf War.

 

Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment

 

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)

 

While this is diappointing news from a Democrat, it is not in contradiction to the earlier quote. What he says here is that he does not wish to rule out the possibility that someone could create an acceptable wording. In the previous quote he was attacking a particular wording.

 

Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War

 

That's really cheap. What he said, was that he'd not critizise the war, not that he wouldn't critizise dubya at all.

 

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)

 

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)[/b]

 

The significant difference being that Kerry in the latter quote views the US as being in a state of war. While I don't agree with this interpretation of the situation, such an interpretation does mean that the rules of war apply, which are somewhat different from the rules of peace. In plain English: In the former quote, Kerry views terrorism as a police issue, in the latter he views it as a military issue.

 

Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind

 

No. What he's saying is that dubya 'forgot' to fund the project, not that it's a bad project.

 

Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action

 

Again you make no distinction between the goals of a project and the concrete implementation.

 

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)[/b]

 

In case you failed to notice, the economic situation changed between Dec. 2002 and May 2003. Economic policies are not static, ideological things. Rather they are dynamic, and must be adapted to the current situation. Stagnating is stupid. 'Flip-flopping' as you call it is simply smart.

 

Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn

 

What you have here is simply a stupid and/or lying reporter who can't remember his Keynes. There is no flip-flop here, only sound economic theory. Notice that Kerry is still in favor of tax cuts, only he is not in favor of tax cuts to the richest 10%. Because that's money out of the window, and any Danish High School kid can tell you why!

 

Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees

 

In this particular case there may be a flip-flop. However, we're talking a human rights issue here, so I'd say that making exceptions to your general viewpoints is allowable. One may say that generally it is inadvisible to use litmus tests, however in a particular case involving fundamental human rights, and where the Fascist Catholic Church is strongly involved against said human rights, making an exception to one's general POV is acceptable.

 

Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits

 

In 1993, Kerry Expressed Doubts That Federal Employees Health Benefits System Worked Well.

 

[...]

 

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.

 

If you think that your average gov. worker recieves the same health care protection as your average Senator, then you're more naive than even I thought. Obviously, he is not enthusiastic about the general level of health care, but rather about the health care that he recieves as a part of a small priviliged elite.

 

I'll skip the rest, because I think everyone has gotten the picture by now, and I'm getting tired. But in closing, let me say this: As Skin has remarked, most political decisions are made late at night as part of a larger complex of laws. So using someones voting record to prove a point is extremely dangerous: Politics is a give-and-take situation, and even if a politician is in favor of one part of a particular construction, the compromise as a whole may be unacceptable.

 

And, of course, there is the fact that flip-flopping hardly compares with lying to the UNSC!

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind

[...]

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.’”

 

Kerry says he still supports the goals of Bush's No Child Left Behind Act but wants some changes to improve it, and more money than Bush has provided.

[C'jais]

I've heard some nasty things about Kerry, but none that can possibly come close to the current clusterf*ck in charge.

 

If I were American, I'd be pimpin' an "Anything But Bush" (ABB) choice right now. But since I'm sitting comfortably here in Denmark, I'm tempted to say that I wish Bush would get elected again, just so every American could see for himself what a tremendous dork he is given 8 years of rulership.

 

Then again, I might just get what I wish for, and some part of me doubts that will be the reaction of the majority of Americans.

[Tyrion]

I hope Kerry wins- he's the lesser evil, at least.

[ShadowTemplar]

I'm tempted to say that I wish Bush would get elected again, just so every American could see for himself what a tremendous dork he is given 8 years of rulership.

 

You know, if dubya was just screwing up the US, I wouldn't give a damn, but he's proven to be more than capable of screwing up the rest of the world as well. Besides, screwing up the US would screw up the rest of the world too, at least as far as economy is concerned.

 

Then again, he seems busy in Iraq, handing out fake turkeys, so I guess he's to preocciupied to make too big a mess.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Then again, he seems busy in Iraq, handing out fake turkeys,

 

If you were talking about how later in 2003 Bush went to celebrate Thanksgiving in Iraq- please don't inject politics into it. He was merely doing it to be nice, and he didn't hand out fake turkeys, or what you meant was he was just there to pretend he was nice. He went to Iraq to celebrate with the soldiers, and thanked them. It's disheartening to hear people making it sound like a disgrace. Bush was displaying kindness when he went.

 

Kerry "pointing out who" Bush is.

 

I think he's too preoccupied with flip flopping, and ranting about how he was in Vietnam, then later saying that Bush and others have no right to talk about it.

 

Either way, I don't think you can use military history in the elections- military history has nothing to do with your political standing, and/or the elections... just because you were in a war doesn't mean you're a better qualified candidate. As for me- I'm tired of hearing anti-Bush chanting and "anybody but Bush." Therefore I'm not choosing not to read anymore of this thread; and don't say I'm "some whimp" or "I'm just stupid" or anything of that nature- I'm just simply tired of people dissing Bush.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

I think he's too preoccupied with flip flopping, and ranting about how he was in Vietnam, then later saying that Bush and others have no right to talk about it.

 

You know, a lot of personal things are acceptable for you yourself of even close friends to bring up, but it's taboo for someone you don't know and probably don't really like to say them.

 

Base example, calling black people the 'n word' I can't do it, you probably can't do it, but they certainly can.

[Dirty $outh]

Wow! I have been away from these forums so long that I forgot I started [1] this topic! LOL. I happened to notice part 2 and went back to part 1 link provided. I was shocked to see my post as the first. But anyways...I think it would have taken WAY too long to read all those pages I missed. So I'm off track here. I can only say that I am voting for Bush since I am now 18. YAY! (Since December 16th, 2003) Believe that I have considered many of the pros and cons presented of our president. I used to think that all Republicans held the same views...same for Democrats. With time, I found this to be incorrect. John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman are perfect examples. Or at least they are according to This Site. Let me just say that as far as Bush vs Kerry goes, I must align myself with Bush. There are several reasons for this that I am way too lazy to type at the current time but I will get to that...lol. There was one stand out issue that I read in the previously noted link. It goes as follows:

 

Wednesday, January 28, 2004

John Kerry: Screw the south

 

So those weren't his exact words, but that was the sentiment.

 

Over the last year, Statements from the Senator about the South

 

Last March

 

 

"Al Gore proved that you can get elected president of the United States without winning one Southern state - if he had simply won New Hampshire," he said, referring to the former vice president's near miss in 2000.

 

"Democrats have to stop looking at the small solution that the country is compartmentalized in that way."

 

 

Last week

 

 

In a recent appearance on ABC's "Good Morning, America," he was asked about rival John Edwards' claim that the U.S. senator from North Carolina is more electable with his base in the South.

 

Kerry disputed Edwards' assertion and repeated the Gore example to prove his point.

 

"That's not a real argument," Kerry maintained.

 

If that weren't enough, the senator told a New Hampshire audience yet again on Saturday that Democrats didn't have to appeal to Southern voters in order to win the presidency. He called such thinking a "mistake."

 

"Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South," he said in response to a question about winning the region.

 

 

That's a fantastic way to become the leader of our nation. Tell a huge chunk of the nation, you're not important.

 

Just as a head's up to Mr. Kerry, in case he missed this fact.

 

Some of your Democratic collegues are running for Senate this fall in what's already an uphill battle.

Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana all have open seats this year.

 

That's right, an open shot at retaking the Senate. But I guess that's not part of the plans anymore. After all, we don't want to make the mistake of looking south.

 

At least I know that my source isn't biased seeing as how it was written by a Democrat...lol. But that's not important. Being that I live in the south (Miami baby!) this is very upsetting to me.

 

1 - I moved this and the following post from the "George W. Bush: Pros & Cons Pt. II thread as they pertained to John Kerry not George Bush --SkinWalker

[DiRtY $oUtH™]

Geez...talk about identity crisis. I was wondering why I had only 2 posts and I realized that I had logged in with the wrong user name. What stumps me is that I somehow still logged in and I don't know how that happened. I really doubt that there's another member who has the same password as me and similar name to me. That's creepy...maybe I created that other one because at some point I couldn't remember my own username. Who knows...anyways, this is the real me!

 

Back to topic...I got this in my e-mail:

 

It doesn't happen often, folks: the New York Times editorial board takes John Kerry and Senate Democrats to the woodshed for playing politics with gas prices. The paper finds this line of attack on President Bush especially specious, saying that John Kerry's new position on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "demeans the seriousness of his own candidacy."

 

 

A case in point is the demand made yesterday by 20 Senate Democrats that the government release as much as 60 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the next two months.

 

President Bush is rightly resisting the call. Since 9/11, the administration has been adding to the reserve in a disciplined manner, and it is closing in on its goal of filling up the reserve's capacity, 700 million barrels. Tapping the reserve to assuage motorists at a time of increasing security threats to already tight fuel supplies would be foolish.

 

As the energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, correctly noted yesterday, "The reserve is not there to simply try to change prices." In fact, the law calls for it to be tapped only in the event of supply disruptions. And even if Washington wanted to alleviate rising fuel costs, the reserve is not a very effective instrument for doing so, as President Bill Clinton learned in the fall of 2000. Experts estimate that at most, turning on the spigot now would knock only a few cents off a gallon.

 

Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, knows this, of course, and he demeans the seriousness of his own candidacy when he suggests that President Bush could single-handedly bring down fuel costs.

Kerry's position on gas prices is only his latest flip flop. In 2000, Kerry criticized a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying it "is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market."

 

And of course, Kerry's own record is one of an out-of-touch Senator who has done nothing but make it harder for consumers to get gasoline at low prices. Not once, but ten times, Kerry has voted for higher gas taxes. He even proposed a 50-cent increase in the gas tax! See the Kerry Gas Tax Calculator to see what Kerry's gas tax increase would mean to your family, and watch our ad, "Wacky," that tells the story of Kerry's consistent record of raising gas taxes.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

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

It's actually about 17 or 18 times now. So... yeah.

 

Personally I really don't like Kerry that much either, but I don't really like Bush, If I was 18 I'd probably just vote idependent.

 

Second, you don't need nuclear weapons to defend yourself.

 

Also, a lot of conservatives down here call him Geedubya, it's sort of a Texas accentual phrasing.

 

 

"I'm tired of hearing anti-Bush chanting and "anybody but Bush." Therefore I'm not choosing not to read anymore of this thread; and don't say I'm "some whimp" or "I'm just stupid" or anything of that nature- I'm just simply tired of people dissing Bush."

 

I see, but we have to put up with the conservative "kerry is an flip-flopper" yada yada? Interesting.

 

Also taxes are not for punishment, taxes are caused by importation costs and exportation costs. And your basic profit gathering. kthxbai.

[DiRtY $oUtH™]

I'm just simply tired of people dissing Bush

 

Amen to that. I just want to say that no matter what all of the people supporting Kerry might want to think, Bush is getting re-elected. I will be willing to bet any money on that. I'll even send it to you through the mail. Believe me, there are still (amazingly) more smart Americans than dumb ones in this country and since they are smart, their votes will go to Bush.

 

I know he's getting at least one from LF...that is mine! It's great to be 18 and have a brain!

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by DiRtY $oUtH™

Amen to that. I just want to say that no matter what all of the people supporting Kerry might want to think, Bush is getting re-elected. I will be willing to bet any money on that. I'll even send it to you through the mail. Believe me, there are still (amazingly) more smart Americans than dumb ones in this country and since they are smart, their votes will go to Bush.

 

I know he's getting at least one from LF...that is mine! It's great to be 18 and have a brain!

 

*blinks*

 

Deja vu, you just posted that a few days ago and some of us, including me, responded to you..ahh..I think the space time continium is going wacko. o.O

 

(Heh, sorry about this being off topic. But I swore he posted the exact same thing before..)

[SkinWalker]

Just a note, I deleted the last four or so posts, since they strayed off topic and began a bickering war. If you guys are interested in that sort of thing take it to PMs and email.

 

I left the post above that started it all as a reference point and because DS offered to make a wager, which I would ordinarily be willing to take him up on, but since it was for money, I think perhaps the administration of LF might frown on me taking money from juvenile members

 

But......! I propose the following alternative: I offer a wager to DiRtY $oUtH that Bush is fired in November (for real, not the poll in this thread) and that a new President will be pissing in the private lavatory of the Oval office. If I win, I get to place a banner or text of my choice in his signature for a month. If I lose, DiRtY $oUtH gets to do the same to my signature. All signatures must conform to LF rules and policy and if not can be deleted by a neutral mod without chance of submitting a second one. In other words, the winner has to get it right the first time. The loser will have the period from the concession of the losing candidate until the first Saturday of December before he can change the signature and must place the signature link/text upon receiving it from the winner.

 

Whatdya say?

[toms]

That email sounds like it was sent to you by a highly impartial group and didn't contain any editorialising or anything

 

Kerry supports increasing the US tax of gas? Well good for him.

 

Petrol in the Uk is about 83 - 99p per litre. Spain about 50p, etc..

In the US it is 26p per litre.

 

No wonder they all drive huge, pointless, SUVs that kill people and have terrible MPGs. Maybe higher taxes or higher gas prices might convince US consumers to drive SENSIBLE cars, or at least convince manufacturers to improve their efficiency!

 

Believe me, there are still (amazingly) more smart Americans than dumb ones in this country and since they are smart, their votes will go to Bush.

 

There does seem to be a trend that americans like to have people who are dumber than they are as president, so you may be right. Most other countries prefer to have leaders who are on the smarter end of the scale...

[DiRtY $oUtH™]

I accept that offer Skinwalker. And you know what, I think the stakes should be raised a little...just a little. I suggest a matching avatar. Oh yeah, by the way, I would just like to say that from this post on, as a sign of my good intentions, I will refrain from commenting in the same manner as my previous posts. Cool?

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Just a note, I deleted the last four or so posts, since they strayed off topic and began a bickering war. If you guys are interested in that sort of thing take it to PMs and email.

 

Oh man, I'm glad that you told us, because I was honestly completely uncertain if I'd actually posted a reply to Dirty South in this thread, or if I had dreamt it...

 

anyone else find it odd that I sometimes dream about posting on LF? Anyone? I sure do:(

[toms]

the senate seems to be very quiet.... has skin overthrown everyone and installed himself as emperor???

 

frankly, i've been pretty unimpressed with Kerry recently. He seems to be coming off as a bit undecisive and unwilling to commit himself to any policies (although nowhere near as badly as the opposition in the Uk...)

 

However, it should be noted that it is INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT to run as a challenger during a state of "war".

You have to walk a very very fine line, as you can't criticise the policies or actions without both undermining the troops, weakening their position and being accused of making political capital out of the situation. You therefore have to make "high level" points without ever giving any details, which of course leads to problems.

[OB1 KNOB]

Originally posted by toms

Kerry supports increasing the US tax of gas? Well good for him.

 

Petrol in the Uk is about 83 - 99p per litre. Spain about 50p, etc..

In the US it is 26p per litre.

 

No wonder they all drive huge, pointless, SUVs that kill people and have terrible MPGs. Maybe higher taxes or higher gas prices might convince US consumers to drive SENSIBLE cars, or at least convince manufacturers to improve their efficiency!

 

So you're saying that rather than have prices lowered in other countries, the prices in the US should go up just so everyone can share the misery of high gas prices?

 

I don't want to get too off topic, but it was mentioned... (It will tie in at the end, so I hope it's okay.)

 

On the topic of SUV's ultimately I think it is the driver in the car who is responsible for accidents in many situations. A bad driver in a small car is likely to injure and kill people, along with themselves, in the event of a crash with another small vehicle. A bad driver in an SUV is likely to injure and kill people in another vehicle in the event of a crash as well A bad driver in an SUV that crashes into another SUV can injure and kill in that situation as well, but both parties may ultimately be safer. Basically driving any car, or even riding in a car, can put your life in danger, but so do many other events including natural disasters. You simply can't protect everyone from everything and sometimes it's just a matter of personal responsibility.

 

I believe it can be safer to drive larger vehicles for the drivers and passengers in those vehicles, but there are a lot of contributing factors involved; including speed at impact, point of impact, etc... One main factor involved is seatbelts. Anyone not wearing a seatbelt in any vehicle increases their chances of sustaining injuries or being killed in the event of any crash.

 

With SUV's, rollovers are commonly mentioned as a cause of death and injury.

In the real world, rollover crashes are relatively rare. But when they do happen, they are more likely to be deadly and they are much more likely to happen in an SUV.

In a speech Tuesday, Runge cited statistics that, while rollover accidents accounted for just 3 percent of all U.S. auto accidents in 2001, they caused nearly a third of all vehicle-occupant fatalities.

But also:

Simply wearing seat belts would help protect occupants in SUVs. In a September speech to the Association for Automotive Medicine, Runge pointed out that most rollover deaths in SUVs occur when people are ejected from the vehicle, something which is much less likely to occur with seatbelts buckled.

 

These quotes were taken from this page.

 

Other articles,some pro some con, can be found here.

 

I think seatbelts play an incredibly important role in any accident. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any info/statistics regarding deaths in accidents as a result of not wearing seatbelts. To me that is a very vital piece of information that could easily change the outlook of all automobile related fatalities as in the example above. (Note: Those statistics may be out there. I'm just saying that in my quick search the articles mention deaths related to SUV's but not always whether those in the SUV's were wearing seatbelts or whether the passengers of the other cars involved were wearing seatbelts as well. I just feel that it is an important piece of information.)

 

I do admit that there are pros and cons to owning an SUV, but there are also pros and cons to all other types of cars as well. Ultimately it is the buyer's decision to choose what they want.

 

The reference to SUV's being "pointless" is really entirely relative. For a large family a large car is necessary...end of story. Having siblings myself, sitting in a small car bumping elbows with squabbling siblings is a great way to ruin any trip from something as short as a trip to the store to vacations where hours are spent on the road traveling to the destination.

 

Storage also comes into play as well. With larger families comes the need for a greater capacity for storage. This is also another good way to ruin a trip by spending it with your knees in your face because the floor space in a small car had to be filled with luggage or any other items. (I would imagine that that is also a safety hazard of sorts since your legs aren't where they are supposed to be. )

 

The low MPG's of SUV's was also mentioned. That brings up another interesting point about gas consumption. Many people commute to work, and depending on the area a commute can be well over 100 miles both ways. Now if someone making that commute is driving a smaller fuel efficient car, they use less gas per mile but a large quantity of gas in total for over 200 miles of travel per work day. As a second half of that analogy a parent in the suburbs could own an SUV that they use to drive kids to school, run errands etc... and only drive 50 miles on any given day for example. In such a situation the SUV would actually be using less gas than the smaller car.

 

Should laws be placed on commuters about how far they can commute, or should they be able to decide how far they would like to commute?

 

I think likewise people should be able to decide what type of vehicle they drive. SUV's admittedly come with the disadvantage of requiring more gas but the driver purchases the vehicle knowing that ahead of time.

 

I believe I also read something somewhere in one of the articles linked above about manufacturers working towards making larger cars more fuel efficient. (or it may have been somewhere else. I can't remember. )

 

Also, I should mention that I am by no means an expert on automobiles. These are just observations and conclusions that I've arrived at and the provided links may not be the best ones, but studies and statistics in general are always subject to reflecting personal biases and opinions, such as the absence of seatbelt statistics to reflect a larger number of deaths of which many may have been preventable. I only provided the links as a means of example, since a lot of the information that I receive isn't directly related to the internet.

 

And to get back on topic:

 

There is also the issue of Kerry owning SUV's.

 

This specific site has quotes from news stories and links to those quotes about Kerry's SUV's and gas tax stance. It's currently right at the top of the page.

 

John Kerry SUV's

 

This site seems to be someone who supports Kerry but also lists his differing stances. I'm not really sure since I didn't really look at the entire site, but the quotes are also linked to their respective news sources, including johnkerry.com and cnn.com, and also include links to other sites and articles that support Kerry.

 

I heard about the SUV thing elsewhere but wanted to post related links. So there is the site above but here's a link to a Google search so you can read from a news source of your choosing.

 

Google Search For Kerry SUV

 

For me personally, I don't really care if he has an SUV, or more than one SUV. As I stated above, I think SUV's are a legitimate vehicle choice for anyone who wants one, and smaller cars are legitimate choices as well.

 

For me the whole SUV story, as well as others, brings up an issue of trust. If he feels comfortable being deceptive about what vehicles he owns, how can he be expected to tell the truth the rest of the time about things of greater importance?

 

I don't really agree with him politically anyways, but regardless of your political affiliations, issues such as this, and others mentioned above in previous posts, should raise a concern about his reliability.

 

EDIT: I just fixed a punctuation error that was bothering me.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Well...there's also the minivan that offers good amount of space. It's not a cool vehicle but still...

 

Anyway, the SUV consumes too much fuel which leads to more pollution. Most of the people who have SUVs don't even have a large enough family to really need it.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Noxrepere

The low MPG's of SUV's was also mentioned. That brings up another interesting point about gas consumption. Many people commute to work, and depending on the area a commute can be well over 100 miles both ways. Now if someone making that commute is driving a smaller fuel efficient car, they use less gas per mile but a large quantity of gas in total for over 200 miles of travel per work day. As a second half of that analogy a parent in the suburbs could own an SUV that they use to drive kids to school, run errands etc¡K and only drive 50 miles on any given day for example. In such a situation the SUV would actually be using less gas than the smaller car.

 

And just think of how much less gas that suburban family would have used had they not been in a gas-guzzling SUV.

 

I hate straying off topic like this, but it needs mentioned that we ARE going to run out of oil on this earth, and it is GOING to happen during our lifetimes. (assuming we all live another 20 or so years) So anything that can conserve what's left of our oil would be a good thing.

[OB1 KNOB]

Yes, minivans offer more space than small cars, but not as much as other larger SUV's might. It's just a case of how much room someone wants/needs.

 

As far as people who own SUVs without large families goes, they still made the decision to pay the extra money for their vehicle, as well as knowing ahead of time that they would be required to buy gas more frequently as well. If they bought one because it’s safer then they should be allowed to make that decision for themselves. Again, ultimately it is their choice to decide what is right for them. (And people can still use larger cars for the cargo space as well, even if they don’t need the extra space everyday.)

 

It should also be noted that the term SUV is rather broad and encompasses many different sizes and variations.

 

This article for example makes references to some compact and midsize SUV’s getting better gas mileage than midsize and larger Sedans.(Granted it is apparently one and a half years old.)

 

When Bradsher says that SUVs use more gas than other types of vehicles, he's generally correct, although many compact, and even some midsize SUVs, can get better mileage than midsize and larger sedans.

 

 

 

originally posted by ET WarriorAnd just think of how much less gas that suburban family would have used had they not been in a gas-guzzling SUV.

 

I hate straying off topic like this, but it needs mentioned that we ARE going to run out of oil on this earth, and it is GOING to happen during our lifetimes. (assuming we all live another 20 or so years) So anything that can conserve what's left of our oil would be a good thing.

 

With that same token imagine how much gas the commuter would save by living closer to work. You don’t hear a lot of complaints about people with long commutes using up too much gas. Only if they have a long commute and happen to own an SUV.

 

As the manufacturers begin to make their SUV’s more fuel efficient they continue to not only provide the consumer with size of vehicles they want, but also help diminish the vehicle’s gas consumption.

 

I do agree that pollution is a problem, but there are a lot of contributing factors. Pollution is not a problem because of SUV’s. Any fuel consuming car contributes, including busses and big diesel trucks, as well as factories and planes.

 

If the estimates about the fuel supplies prove accurate, then everyone is going to be in the same boat anyways. If we are running out of fuel it’s going to run out whether people drive SUV’s or not. It’s just more incentive for them to come up with an alternative energy source.

 

My point basically was that owning an SUV does not directly mean that you are “destroying the world” just as much as someone with a smaller car is not directly “destroying the world”. Owning a car has apparently become a necessary evil of sorts because of the distances that people are required to travel. If someone wants a small car they should be able to own one just as much as someone should be able to own a larger car of any variety, SUV or not. I think the fact is that SUV’s have proven safer in crashes and people are willing to pay extra for the vehicle itself and the gas required to keep it running for that extra security, especially among people required to spend a large portion of their time on the road. If Kerry wants to own SUV’s it’s his American right. I don’t think owning an SUV is directly related to hating the environment just as much as owning any other vehicle is not related. If Kerry feels ashamed or guilty about owning them, why does he own them? And why be deceptive about them?

[lukeiamyourdad]

Just so you know, if people used public transportation, pollution would be lower, diesel doesn't pollute as much as the gas we use for our cars.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Also taxes are not for punishment, taxes are caused by importation costs and exportation costs. And your basic profit gathering. kthxbai.

 

Taxes are punishment if you have to pay too much of them, when only a smaller fraction of it is required.

 

Hmm I'm seriously going to make a special car, but I've been thinking about what element to make it powered by. I've thought about hydrogen, but that's already been taking; I could make the hydrogen intake/processing more effective. Or, maybe nitrogen? Hmmm argon may do the trick also.

 

I know he's getting at least one from LF...that is mine! It's great to be 18 and have a brain!

 

[OB1 KNOB]

Originally posted by Noxrepere

With that same token imagine how much gas the commuter would save by living closer to work. You don’t hear a lot of complaints about people with long commutes using up too much gas. Only if they have a long commute and happen to own an SUV.

 

I just wanted to clarify that I was not criticizing people who commute. If they want to commute it's their right as well, and their choice.

 

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Just so you know, if people used public transportation, pollution would be lower, diesel doesn't pollute as much as the gas we use for our cars.

 

Thanks for the diesel info. I know of other vehicles that run on diesel as well, but not all gas stations have diesel pumps, so that would be a bummer for anyone to get stranded because they couldn’t find a diesel pumping gas station.

 

I agree that public transportation can cut back on pollution. It’s just not always a reasonable choice. For example: if someone wants to shop for groceries they have to get to the bus stop and wait for the bus, then ride the bus till they get to a bus stop near the store. Then they have to shop and finish their shopping in time to catch another bus, whether it is the next one or a later bus. They would then need to wait at the bus stop for the bus with their recently purchased groceries, depending on how long it took them to shop and how much time is left until the bus arrives. Then they need to load groceries onto the bus, and ride around on the bus until the bus gets to their bus stop. After that they need to get off of the bus with their groceries and carry them home.

 

That doesn’t even directly take into account that someone can only carry so many bags of groceries. They might have to make a whole day out of just making round trips to the supermarket. (I don’t really know if public busses have any sort of refrigeration on them that could be used to keep frozen items cold until the passenger gets home. That was a serious question, so if someone knows, I’d like to know. )

 

If people take the bus to and from work, they need to be there for the bus. If they have the opportunity to work overtime, for example, they would need to either catch a different bus, if there is one, or refuse the overtime.

 

I’ve also known of people going to college via bus transit that would have to leave class early to catch the bus. They can miss a lot of valuable information if they aren’t there in the class, but they really need to catch that bus. Plus, sometimes college classes can run over their time schedule, which could be difficult as well. If the class is running over, it’s probably for a good reason and most students wouldn’t want to miss it.

 

Fitting one’s life into the confines of a bus schedule could be extremely difficult for lots of circumstances. I’m not saying busses are bad. They just won’t work for everyone.

 

Also, just because someone owns an SUV, they don’t necessarily use more gas than someone with a smaller car. The commute scenario was one example, but someone who likes driving, and owns a smaller car, and goes out driving just for the fun of it, uses gas as well. I think that they should be able to do that too, because it’s still their money and their right.

 

I do think that pollution can be a problem, but getting rid of SUV’s wouldn’t solve that problem by any means. The people who would have been driving SUV’s would then drive cars that still pollute. At best, it would just be a temporary postponement and reduction of the inevitability of pollution. If the estimate of the fuel supply only lasting for around 20 years or so is correct, the world would still run out of oil no matter how it is used. It would either be a problem that the generations of today would have to deal with or the generations of tomorrow. However, I believe that such estimates have been made before that didn’t prove correct, so I don't really know how accurate that figure is as well.

 

And as a quick comment on the tax discussion:

 

Taxes are really another necessary evil. People don't really like having to give up their money, but it is important to pay taxes to the fund the government and the military etc... who in turn protect and serve the people. However, wasted money that leads to tax increases is unacceptable. That can become a punishment to the people who work hard to earn their money and now have to give more of it up because of wasteful spending.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I don't think anyone really wants to get of rid of SUV's. I'd be more profitable if we could educate people in terms of car pollution better then this.

Up to now, progress has been slow and the environment won't live like this forever.