# Bush-Kerry Debate: Part Deux

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-part-deux/268302>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [October 9, 2004, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-part-deux/268302 "2004-10-09T00:42:08Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 38

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\
**Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-part-deux/268302/741 "2004-10-11T00:59:05Z")

</div>

> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> Yeah, I know: no one’s reading this thread anymore. I’m just doing this out of sheer cussedness at this point.

I’m reading your posts; they’ll come in handy at work tomorrow.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\
**Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-part-deux/268302/742 "2004-10-11T11:22:17Z")

</div>

> [@blowero](#):
>
> I’m not sure which thread _you’re_ reading, but that’s not what happened at all.
> 
> Actually, spooje didn’t believe that Kerry _did_ say it. So I pointed out to spooje that while Kerry didn’t explicitly say “I will federally fund abortions”, he did imply that that would be the case. So you have it exactly backwards. I was arging that yes, Kerry _did_ favor federal funding for abortions.
> 
> And no, despite your claim, Kerry did not explictly say he would federally fund abortions. He _did_ strongly imply it, and my point was that in effect, it’s the same as explicitly stating it. So we are in fact making the same point; you just fail to realize it. Here’s the quote from the debate, provided in an earlier post:
> 
> As you can see, there is no _explicit_ statement that he will federally fund abortion, but there _is_ a very strong implication. Which is why I said it’s a distinction without a difference.
> 
> Please try to read more carefully in the future.

I’m sure you didn’t mean to be so offensive with the last remark as it comes across in writing, because I know you are not an asshole.

I simply must have misunderstood your intent when you said “He refused to say he’s against it.” If you do understand at this time that he explicitly endorsed it, rather than simply refusing to say that he’s against it, then there is no further need for discussion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\
**Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-part-deux/268302/743 "2004-10-11T22:52:14Z")

</div>

> [@This Year's Model](#):
>
> I’m reading your posts; they’ll come in handy at work tomorrow.

Glad this’ll be useful to _some_body!

> [@Early Out](#):
>
> “We’re defending this woman’s honor, which is probably more than she ever did!”

And “love flies out the door when money comes innuendo.”

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-part-deux/268302.md?page=37)