I’ve changed my mind many times over the years on many issues as I get new information and develop more insight. I think it is a positive that Kerry is able to change his mind when necessary. Anyone who can’t or doesn’t do so is a close-minded person who will be unable to learn from experience. As they say - those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
We already know that Bush doesn’t read much more than comic books, so once he sets his mind on something, where would he get any new information to change it? I think the attempt to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper is doomed to failure for the Bush team. Most people are just not going to see a person who changes his mind when new and better information becomes available as a negative.
If anyone accepts your OP as ‘fact’, then I have all the audience I need. Regardless, when you put forth actual ‘facts’ to argue, as oppossed to posting some list in some blog (with nary a bit of supporting evidence), you’ll get your refutations. Until then, your partisan little OP, (Here some cranks website. Comment!), will have to go unaddressed by me.
I haven’t seen anyone dispute the facts yet. Just one example: Don’t you all remember Bush being against the WMD investigation? Didn’t he recently appoint the members? What need is there of cites? I haven’t seen anyone point to one of those examples and state that it isn’t true.
Well, let me break this down for you. Bobi. Friend Brutus, in his capacity as arbiter, has ruled the OP a blog-related program activity. Hence, all such evidence…the fingerprints, the blood, the revolver in the library next to the riddled corpse of Col. Mustard… is entirely inadmissable. Therefore, GeeDubya is innocent of all charges, and retains his status as paragon of civic integrity.
That’s not the way it works around here, and you know it. RJUNG has put a list of bullets about Bush and challenged folks to debunk them. Nope. He first needs to back them up with actual evidence. The person making the claim in GD has the responsibility to verify that claim.
But, as I said earlier, unless someone want to do an exhaustive search of all position changes between the two candidates, all this boils down to is a pissing contest. And we all know where those types of the thread belong.
GeeDubya has decided to make “Kerry wobbles, but he won’t fall down” a campaign theme. We are given to understand that Mr. Kerry waffles on issues, that his public positions are not consistent. This is offered by way of proving Mr. Kerry unfit for the office GeeDubya currently infests.
The lists of positions taken and reversed is not breaking news, this is not a breathless scandal from Drudge. Being as well informed as you are, you no doubt recognize most, if not all, of them. The flip-flop as regards steel tarriffs, for instance, was widely discussed. (Some scurillous persons even suggested that it was an entirely political manuever, meant to shore up support in steel producing states. No, really.)
Of them all, only the one about cutting benefits for the military can fairly be said to be arguable, even slanted. (Check factcheck.org, the Annenberg Foundations project in political whistle-blowing…)
So the points in the OP are more in the way of common knowledge. The issue, after all, is not whether or not GeeDubya waffles, of course he does, we’ve all seen him do it. The point is his blithe hypocrisy in insisting that Sen Kerry is unfit to serve by reason of “waffling”.
Whats the point of this thread? If youre saying that Bushs waffling is wrong then you cant defend Kerrys. If youre saying that Kerrys attackers were being hypocritical (because Bush has done some waffling himself), then now youre being hypocritical.
Then you go on to say that the Republicans are being innacurate and hypocritical by attacking Kerry. What is it you`re doing here? I forget.
Kerry is running on his current stances. Stances that are strategically positioned to gain him the most distance from Bush. Even though some of them are not the same as they were just months ago. Hypocritical.
Bush is pointing this out.
Bush is running on what he actually did. His record is open and everyone knows what he said and what he actually did.
Bush may have waffled, but in the end he chose what he thought was the best option for whatever reason. He cant go back and change what is already done. Kerry has the option of second guessing anything Bush has done for political advantage, because he (Kerry) hasnt actually done anything yet.
Bush may have waffled, but the difference is that he also actually did something, - something he can run on.
Right now, Kerry is just all talk. Since he`s running on his word, and his words change, what are we to believe?
Have you tried that Ginko Balboa stuff? Works wonders, I’ve heard. Or perhaps some remedial post revue? I’ve often found that when things are written down in plain view, its pretty easy to refresh one’s memory.
Sorry, can’t continue…just saw Tom DeLay on CNN, ranking on John Kerry for being too partisan and uncivil. Giggling fits make fingers unstable…
“Bush may have waffled, but the difference is that he also actually did something, - something he can run on.”
What a perfectly splendid idea! Let’s make the entire campaign about Bush’s record of “things he can run on”. Let’s focus entirely on his firm leadership, and the avalanche of good that has flowed onto a grateful nation!
True, in the overall political discussion. Not true in terms of the argument offered by this particular OP-- a list of Bush “waffles” that “Bush supporters” are supposed to dubunk. I say let the OP bunk them before anyone has to debunk them. Even the ones that are “common knowledge” need some context to understand if it’s a waffle (change of mind for purely political reasons) vs a response to changing circumstances.
If you want to debunk the Kerry charges made by the OP, start a thread for that. You’re reading stuff into the OP, like one of those liberal, activist judges that reads stuff into the consitution.
Bush says Kerry’s unfit for office because he (Kerry) waffles? Got a cite for that? I just see him pointing out that a voter might not be sure which side of the fence Kerry is on for a given issue. And of course, Kerry is free to do the same thing as see if it sticks.
It was established in the famous precedent of Cheatum Howe VS M. Green that ordinary members are not empowered to determine the legality or propriety of a thread stark staring decisis (op. Cecil).
This is not true, before Bush invented the Homeland Security Department there was no such discussion of such a bureau, it did not exist.
This isn’t really the case but whatever floats your boat, how about Roosevelt on a Pearl Harbor investigation? Talk about a bunch of politics…
To what are you specifically referring? Obviously he was for a WMD investigation, he just didn’t see the inspectors as being successful and so used force to implement it.
You can’t put this into “nation building” context which specifically refers to a time in the 70s and 80s when America was actively involved in establishing dictatorships for economic security and more or less making arms-dealers rich.
Bush is still against deficits, but how are you going to spend on all the necessary defense budgets now? Tax us 70%? Or Deficit? I choose deficit.
This is also not the whole story, we need massive tariffs if we are going to save our industrial base. Bush recognizes that, Kerry does not.
You’ll have to back this one up, never did Bush try to move away from Clinton’s legacy of US attemtps at bringing peace to Israel.
Uhh … HELLO MORON … Amendments are ratified by the States, it is far from taking away “State’s Rights”. If it were, you’d be looking for a federal law that over-rules all State laws.
God damn…shit…I hate anti-Bush morons.
What can’t you research the validity of your own resources? Crap on this shit thread.
$150 Million in Federal Grant Funds Awarded to First Responders
A simple search of, “First Responders Federal Grants” will result in a list of all the monies given to the “First Responders” in the United States.
No he didn’t, why does everyone say this? Military Benefits have not been cut.
Yeah you really need to check this quote…
Oh shit…look at this, I found the quote! And it’s not what you think you putz!
I hate to be a stickler, but there is no evidence of the quote besides this one and this is the raw meat and potatoes, this is the ONLY THING THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT WAS RECORDED ON MARCH 13, 2002 THE SUPPOSED DAY WHEN HE SAID THE QUOTE EVERYONE IS CURRENTLY CRITICIZING!
**Ugh, with all this said, this is pathetic. You anti-Bush trumps don’t know politics, you don’t know how to verify sources, and you don’t know what the hell Bush has done for our Nation. Furthermore, you idiots and buffoons, certainly don’t know the Difference of Kerry voting against something and then supporting it to try and become president…versus this garbage you presented on Bush.
This is the most sickening and worthless pile of garbage thread ever. Your Waffle is crap.**
Oh, also, about quotes. I’d like everyone to think of the game “Opperator” in which one thing was said, passed through whispers through dozens of people, and the result was nothing like the original.
What I posted above, is the original.
It then seemed to morph in the anti-Bush websites and message boards as:
"I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority." President Bush March 13, 2002
It would say something like, “Ossama is our largest concern…” Then 6 months later Bush says…" blah blah blah "
Now it has morphed again, in this thread here into:
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care."
I’m seriously, very pissed off and I have every right to be.
I was reading the TIMES magazine the other day where it said, “Bush is giving money to faith-based organizations which prosyletize blurring the seperation of Church and State.”
Ugh…
That’s hard to believe considering some of my professors were on one of the research teams that did the study. And the study concluded:
“Federal Grants to Faith-based organizations is not only an efficient way to accomplish the job, but a cheaper way as the infrastructure already exists as well as the work force. This study shows that the organizations are in good measure with Federal regulations to prevent prosyletization and involving their religion in the work they are doing.” (Paraphrased).
Basically, the TIMES magazine flat out lied.
You all lie.
You idiots can find one piece of dirt on Bush if you needed to back it up with your balls.
In fact…that’s a good idea.
I bet that none of you can find one bad thing about Bush or the Policies he’s enacted, that you can legitimately back up.
Well…the race is on…I’m waiting to be impressed. :mad:
Are you just posting to patronize? Or are you sincere and recognize how well I’ve shown the OP to be full of shit…or at least, his source to be full of shit.
What wasn’t vague, I disproved.
And I even found the original source of the Quote that apparently doesn’t exist except in message boards and radical anti-Bush flame sites.
You are right, I should be remembered for this. It’s not every day a liberal message boards is presented with such a good researcher for the Conservative side. The “Classical Liberal” side.
If you have no legitimate reasoning in posting however, I suggest next time you post regarding some hard evidence of Bush’s wrong-doings.
That line was worth having my drink spray through my nose. I’ll give you credit for at least attempting to refute the accusations line by line. You might consider toning down the “moron” language, however.
