Kerry's Problem

[kerrysproblem]

Mr. Kerry does not have a firm standpoint on important issues. The greatest example of his problem was that he voted in favor of the war against Saddam Hussein of Iraq, but then he voted against the neccesary funding for the American troops in Iraq.

Kerry's flip-flopping can lead to a shameful FAILURE of our country like that in Vietnam, if he's elected Commander-in-Chief.

In tough times, Kerry's undecisiveness can only compromise the security of America.

On economical issues, Kerry's problem is that he does not have any clear policy plans whatsoever. He doesn't tell anyone what he plans to do to make more jobs.

On other issues, eg, ban or support of abortion, he seems to be on both sides, too. He voted against the ban of abortion in the Senate, but he also said he "personally oppose" abortion. Neither side of people can expect to win his sincere support.

He simply changes his mind flexibly according to the political weather and his needs.

Kerry's most famous words: "I acually voted in favor of the bill before I voted against it." /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Dynasty]

Why would a person sign up to a poker forum simply to bash a Presidential candidate? Nothing in your post is useful.

[kerrysproblem]

Is it irrelevant? I want to have Bush in the oval office so I can have more money in my pocket.

[Dynasty]

If you want more money in your pocket, stop posting on a message board and start working more hours.

I've voting for Bush myself. But, when I post something here I make an effort for it to be useful to anybody reading it rather than just partisan jibberish.

People who read this forum recognize the garbage you put up. There's a pro-Kerry poster named "Grey" who puts up similar kinds of trash. He's got no credibility whatsoever. You're the same.

[Non_Comformist]

I'm not going to vote for Kerry but this post is really stupid.

[tolbiny]

you know there are hundreds of ways to attack either candidate, and you chose some of the most pathetic arguments out there. If you want to vote for Bush, fine. But at least put some individual thought into your posts.

"he voted in favor of the war against Saddam Hussein of Iraq, but then he voted against the neccesary funding for the American troops in Iraq"

NO- Kerry's position is that he voted to give Bush the athority to invade Iraq if he felt it nessecary, when Bush made that decision Kerry then believed he had made it in error and voted against the funding in an effort to stop the war. Please tell me (without going into the justness of the war) why this is an untenable position.

"On economical issues, Kerry's problem is that he does not have any clear policy plans whatsoever. He doesn't tell anyone what he plans to do to make more jobs."

Any literate person with a computer connection can go to his website and read his plans. Weather they are good or not you can decide, but they are at least as detailed as anything the incumbent has put forth.

"On other issues, eg, ban or support of abortion, he seems to be on both sides, too. He voted against the ban of abortion in the Senate, but he also said he "personally oppose" abortion. Neither side of people can expect to win his sincere support."

Quite clearly he has stated that as a public servant he has a responsibility to respect the Supreme Courts decision to reject the illegality of abortions. A public servants personal beliefs must often be tempered by the laws of the country in which they serve.

[mmbt0ne]

Wait, you're calling Kerry a flip-flopper. ALERT THE MEDIA!! CALL RUSH LIMBAUGH!! WE GOT US A FLIP-FLOPPER!!

[MaxPower]

All you have proven is that you are easily brainwashed. If you don't like Kerry that's fine, but try to come up with reasons that are more substantial than the same old campaign rhetoric.

I wouldn't be suprised if you were hired by the Bush campaign to spam message boards.

[sfbruin]

Just wanted to point out that the reason Kerry voted against the $87 billion was because he was opposed to part of the literature included in the bill that granted no-bid contracts to US companies. He didn't vote against it because he wanted the war to end and the troops to be pulled out. He knew he was going to be crucified in the media for doing it (Hillary Clinton had warned him) but he did it anyway in protest.

[tolbiny]

you are correct sir, i was in to much of a hurry and took a cheap short cut while typing.
thanks for pointing out the error.

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
NO- Kerry's position is that he voted to give Bush the athority to invade Iraq if he felt it nessecary, when Bush made that decision Kerry then believed he had made it in error and voted against the funding in an effort to stop the war. Please tell me (without going into the justness of the war) why this is an untenable position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the second half of this is wrong as well. Kerry voted against PAYING for the additional 87 billion by borrowing it. He voted for a plan that would be revenue neutral to the US Gov, by repealing part of the Bush Tax Cut to the Wealthy, at which point GWB threatened to veto the bill.

And the question that few have asked: why the hell were all the soldiers sent over there without the needed equipment in the first place????

[kerrysproblem]

All you have proven is that you are easily brainwashed. If you don't like Kerry that's fine, but try to come up with reasons that are more substantial than the same old campaign rhetoric.

I wouldn't be suprised if you were hired by the Bush campaign to spam message boards.
**************************************

A crucial requirement for a qualified president is that he must have his own independent mind, and be able to make informed decision out of complicated and even conflicting evidences. After he has made the decision, he should hold on firmly to it, before the situation has changed significantly so that corresponding changes in policies become necessary.

Mr. Kerry failed this test. He was too easily fooled.

Before we invaded Iraq, even Colin Powell was able to doubt the reliability of our intelligence regarding the existence or not of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But as a secretary of state, he could do nothing but conform with Bush's decision.

In contrast, Mr. Kerry changed his mind so readily, signifying his lack of acute insight in important issues like decisions about wars.

I like a presidential candidate who is either firmly opposed to a war "at the wrong place" at the beginning, or firmly in favor of a thorough war from begin to end until the targeted terror regime is completely toppled down.

Flip-flopping can only send a message of weakness to our enemies. Remember, if you had pulled out the troops from Iraq before the goal had been achieved, Saddam might well have interpreted this as the cowardice of the free world, and the terrorists around the world might well have been encouraged by that.

Using or not using war against an enemy is a serious thing. The decision must be made very cautiously. Before starting the war, we must calculate with a cool head what outcomes we will have after starting the war. And if we have decided to use war, and the troops have already been sent out, we must hold on to our informed decision with the greatest braveness, and never think of retreating before the enemies are thoroughly defeated.

[busguy]

Feel free to come back and give us your latest thoughts when you reach your sophmore year.

I can't even begin to tell you how underdeveloped your thought process is when it comes to the issues that you are attempting to discuss.

Brutal

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif busguy

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to come back and give us your latest thoughts when you reach your sophmore year.
.
I can't even begin to tell you how underdeveloped your thought process is when it comes to the issues that you are attempting to discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can back off a little on this guy now. I thought it was fair to call him out for blatantly partisan posting. But, insulting his intelligence when nobody here knows him is out of line.

[busguy]

I don't think sophmores are any less intelligent than anyone else. I didn't call this guy a moron. I was mearly getting a little tired of the "I'm 19 and I know everything . . . so I think I'll wade into a discussion that I'm ill prepared for" drivel.

This guy comes off like the university student (just as we all did at one time) that just finished Econ 100, Psych 101, and PoliSci 105 and now figures that he and he alone knows how the world works.

His first post could be excused, as you said, for not really being familiar with this forum, but to come back here a second time with more garbage like . . . " I want my leader to not blink regardless of how dire things get . . " . . . come on.

There isn't anything in either of his posts that gives me the impression that he put more than a passing thought into anything that he said.

If it comes across as harsh then so be it. As I stated above it was not my intention to question the poster's intelligence.

my 2 cents

/images/graemlins/blush.gif busguy