I did. I excused any of his flip-flops that occurred as a result of the very nasty business of law making. I've not claimed for example that Kerry both supported the billions for Iraq and opposed it. (The infamous I voted for it before I voted against it bit) I understand that riders, amendments, etc can suddenly make a bill untenable.
I can also look at votes in a historical context. For example when Kerry didn't vote for certain weapons or other such programs during the early 90's, I know that had declared a peace dividend and were shrinking our number of military bases and programs. So I'm not claiming Kerry changed his mind on such issues as defense for example.
I mentioned very recent votes on very recent bills where the support appeared to change for no other reason than he is now running for president. They were finalized bills he helped become law, but now stands against. I said I was fully willing to consider Bush being a flip-flopper under the same context.
OK, I went back and looked and you mentioned three things.
1. No child left behind: My understanding is that Kerry still supports it, but Bush hasn't funded the state mandates. That sounds more like a Bush flip-flop than a Kerry flip-flop, if true.
Quote:
By neglecting his promise to provide the funding necessary to help each student to reach high standards, George W. Bush has made a mockery of the phrase ?leave no child behind.? The Bush Administration sought to cut funding for school reform and issued restrictive guidelines._ Our public schools are too important to be left in the lurch without adequate resources. That is why John Kerry is proposing an Education Trust Fund that makes sure ? with mandatory funding ? that we meet the promises in the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
2. Patriot Act: On this page Kerry goes on and on about how there are great things in the PATRIOT act. He supports most of it, as does just about everyone else.
Quote:
The Patriot Act took some important steps against terrorism in the wake of September 11th, including increasing information sharing among law enforcement and creating important tools and mechanisms to cut off terrorist financing. However the spirit of the law has been abused by the Ashcroft Justice Department, which has taken every opportunity to limit freedom and civil liberties. Given these abuses, John Kerry believes it is necessary to scale back several provisions in the Patriot Act to assure our enhanced security does not come at the expense of our civil liberties.
3. Iraq war: Where's Kerry's flip-flop? He is criticizing Bush's conduct of the war, while supporting, in principle, the use of force against Iraq. Only a very either/or approach suggests a flip-flop. I disagree with Kerry voting against the funding, but he said he did it because it wasn't paid for, and he did vote for an amendment that would have paid for it.
OK, I went back and looked and you mentioned three things.
1. No child left behind: My understanding is that Kerry still supports it, but Bush hasn't funded the state mandates. That sounds more like a Bush flip-flop than a Kerry flip-flop, if true.
Take a read here about the reasoning behind what you found on the Kerry site.
As you will see the reasoning required to arrive at the Kerry position is quite tortured.
Bad writing doesn't mean it is too difficult for the reader. It means the writing is bad. Live with it.
Bush claimed that tariffs were put in place against said countries because they were dumping steel to destroy the domestic steel industry. Dumping is not tolerated whether you are a free or fair trader. Dumping is not about competition but rather about selling products below the cost of even producing it in hopes of outlasting the competition and then gaining more price control once you have a monopoly position or at a minimum far less competition.
Bush did not give up free trade. He imposed two specific tariffs. Also the tariffs were understood to last three years at which the U.S. steel industry understood it needed to consolidate and strengthen their position.
The issue was appealed to the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization declared that Europe could impose billions of dollars in tariffs if the United States did not remove the steel tariffs. So Bush had to remove them under duress.
You can call it anything you wish, but perhaps you should look at how a Democratic free trader, Bill Clinton, decided to handle this situation.
I suppose Clinton was flip-flopping as well on this issue.
The second part of your post, well it doesn't even merit my consideration. I've explained the steel issue in a manner than anyone not seeking pure partisanship and personal attacks can easily understand.
Nick
Nice try . .
Clinton is not a free-trade Republican. Allthough I will admit that NAFTA does run somewhat counter to his expressed, or at least party's expressed, ideology . . . so that might constitute a Fl.
As for "dumping"? . . . Dumping is de rigeur for the US federally subsidized goods onto small developing economies . . . its part and parcel of the free-trade demands of the WTO and party line tactics.
Bush's defense through tarriffs was a surprise move, I actually liked it. However, it clearly was not a move supported by the verbal posturings of the party-ideology.
His removal of tarrifs for whatever excuse then made the original gesture seem false and calculated for PR appeal, -especially in place lke Pittsbugh, where I was at the time, and showed him to be another political opportunist.
But this is only one of the long list of flip-flops taken at random. each one of your, dare I say, extremely lame excuses can be easily contested.
I'll try not to advertise the fact that you constantly claim the multiple people who disagree with you must all be one person posting from multiple accounts.
Right pfflam, I mean giant, I mean Gilsch. Heaven knows all this ignorance could be generalized. It must be one extreme person posting from ten different accounts.
Or at least that was your claim.
But we'll try not to advertise the weird allegations you continue to make about others Gilsch, I mean giant.
Clinton is not a free-trade Republican. Allthough I will admit that NAFTA does run somewhat counter to his expressed, or at least party's expressed, ideology . . . so that might constitute a Fl.
Try some reading comprehension. I said DEMOCRAT, not republican. Clinton didn't just back NAFTA, he signed the bill. He also negotiated to get fast trade trade authority.
Good lord, you are totally disconnected from reality. I showed you POINT BLANK how Clinton handled the same situation the same manner and still you prattle on about how it doesn't apply to Bush because, well dumping is okay with Bush, and we all know he is evil and btw what about those other points I didn't bring up..etc..etc...
You no longer warrant my time. Live in your ignorance.
I'll try not to advertise the fact that you constantly claim the multiple people who disagree with you must all be one person posting from multiple accounts.
Apparently the joke went right over your head on its way to murbot. I guess you would have to be aware of what goes on outside of AO on .com.
Try some reading comprehension. I said DEMOCRAT, not republican. Clinton didn't just back NAFTA, he signed the bill. He also negotiated to get fast trade trade authority.
Good lord, you are totally disconnected from reality. I showed you POINT BLANK how Clinton handled the same situation the same manner and still you prattle on about how it doesn't apply to Bush because, well dumping is okay with Bush, and we all know he is evil and btw what about those other points I didn't bring up..etc..etc...
You no longer warrant my time. Live in your ignorance.
Nick
HAHAHA
here we go again . . . misreading and denial, followed by persistent but perpetual refusal to engage . . . . and I thought the 'personality meltdown' was over-with
I pretty much agreed with you on CLinton . . . get over that . . we are not talking about Clinton
Whatt a tried and untrue strategy . . . when all else fails, pull Bill CLinton out of your ass!
here we go again . . . misreading and denial, followed by persistent but perpetual refusal to engage . . . . and I thought the 'personality meltdown' was over-with
I pretty much agreed with you on CLinton . . . get over that . . we are not talking about Clinton
Whatt a tried and untrue strategy . . . when all else fails, pull Bill CLinton out of your ass!
Right pfflam, I mean giant, I mean Gilsch. Heaven knows all this ignorance could be generalized. It must be one extreme person posting from ten different accounts.
Poor fool. Now he's paranoid...suffering from persecution delirium.
Yeah Trumpy, we're all one and the same. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.
I wonder if they'll let you keep your "Mission Accomplished" poster in the pretty pink room with padded walls.
To those saying the two parties are very much the same I really have to disagree. If Kerry is elected I imagine there will be huge differences in judicial appointments (especially to the Supreme Court), huge differences in environmental policy, huge differences in pollution regulation, differences in funding for the military, etc.
Grover Norquist is one of Bush's main advisers. Google his name and see for yourself what he has planned for the US economy.
One thing that has particularly irked me about the Bush administration is the politicization of scientific committees. The Bush administration has been replacing non-partisan scientists with industry and political supporters. Just yesterday there was a story that Bush wants the selection of scientists who will participate in WHO panels to be approved by a Bush political appointee. This is just wrong. No politician of either party should be in charge of interfering with scientific discussions.
Kerry is at least repect women enough to leave medical decision in their hands. Kerry is Pro-Choice and it is a big different from the dickhead to try to force all women to carry their pregnancies to term.
Kerry was cool enough to be in a band when he was young.
OK thank you neutrino23. Can we stick to things we can agree on, it'll be easy. Hey Nick who do you think would be a better environment President, Bush or Kerry? OK we have one key difference right there! Like I said, in the long run it's hard to think of anything more important.
I think we should on a national and global level also start considering population controls. People should not have the right to have 10 kids, be a burden on our tax system, environment, and pursuit of happiness damnit. I'm not saying go Communist or anything, but incentives to have under 3 or 4 kids and extra taxes for more would be reasonable right?
Overpopulation is the root of almost all problems we face today as a race and a global ecosystem.
OK thank you neutrino23. Can we stick to things we can agree on, it'll be easy. Hey Nick who do you think would be a better environment President, Bush or Kerry? OK we have one key difference right there! Like I said, in the long run it's hard to think of anything more important.
I think we should on a national and global level also start considering population controls. People should not have the right to have 10 kids, be a burden on our tax system, environment, and pursuit of happiness damnit. I'm not saying go Communist or anything, but incentives to have under 3 or 4 kids and extra taxes for more would be reasonable right?
Overpopulation is the root of almost all problems we face today as a race and a global ecosystem.
Hey Aquatic.
Better environmental president, well environmentally I think Bush has done quite well. I mean when you get past the people flinging rhetoric around just because they could never see more than one party holding a certain value and look at the record, it is a pretty good one. For example Bush has been chastized for allowing the thinning of forests. I live near multiple national and state parks where you could see one out of every three trees dying due to over crowding. The weakened trees were attacked by bark beetles who turned them into perfect fuel for huge fires.
The whole arsenic debate was nonsense. Out standards are lower than they every were.
Now I look at John Kerry's site. I see some nice boogie man type rhetoric that plays on people's fears, but I don't see any true environmental promises. I don't see any promise to raise CAFE standards for example.
So I certainly cannot believe Kerry would do anything more for the environment.
As for population control, we already have it. One out of four births is terminated via abortion. The native population of the United States has a birth rate of 1.8, which is a level that only sustains, but does not grow the population. Countries like Italy and Japan have a birth rate of 1.2 and are looking at shrinking populations.
The difference between us and them is that we have record legal immigration and massive illegal immigration. In addition to this immigration, the birth rate of immigrants is much higher than the native population.
So if you want to address population control, we already have it here at home. The birth rate is 1.8 and dropping. Neither candidate has properly addressed immigration and border control. In fact I suggested in threads far back that it would be the true way to win the white male vote and also the vote of many minorities while showing true progressivism. Unlimited immigration makes it hard to unionize and keeps minorities on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Neither Kerry nor Bush have addressed this any differently.
Comments
Talk about "tortured explanations."
Originally posted by trumptman
I did. I excused any of his flip-flops that occurred as a result of the very nasty business of law making. I've not claimed for example that Kerry both supported the billions for Iraq and opposed it. (The infamous I voted for it before I voted against it bit) I understand that riders, amendments, etc can suddenly make a bill untenable.
I can also look at votes in a historical context. For example when Kerry didn't vote for certain weapons or other such programs during the early 90's, I know that had declared a peace dividend and were shrinking our number of military bases and programs. So I'm not claiming Kerry changed his mind on such issues as defense for example.
I mentioned very recent votes on very recent bills where the support appeared to change for no other reason than he is now running for president. They were finalized bills he helped become law, but now stands against. I said I was fully willing to consider Bush being a flip-flopper under the same context.
OK, I went back and looked and you mentioned three things.
1. No child left behind: My understanding is that Kerry still supports it, but Bush hasn't funded the state mandates. That sounds more like a Bush flip-flop than a Kerry flip-flop, if true.
By neglecting his promise to provide the funding necessary to help each student to reach high standards, George W. Bush has made a mockery of the phrase ?leave no child behind.? The Bush Administration sought to cut funding for school reform and issued restrictive guidelines._ Our public schools are too important to be left in the lurch without adequate resources. That is why John Kerry is proposing an Education Trust Fund that makes sure ? with mandatory funding ? that we meet the promises in the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
2. Patriot Act: On this page Kerry goes on and on about how there are great things in the PATRIOT act. He supports most of it, as does just about everyone else.
The Patriot Act took some important steps against terrorism in the wake of September 11th, including increasing information sharing among law enforcement and creating important tools and mechanisms to cut off terrorist financing. However the spirit of the law has been abused by the Ashcroft Justice Department, which has taken every opportunity to limit freedom and civil liberties. Given these abuses, John Kerry believes it is necessary to scale back several provisions in the Patriot Act to assure our enhanced security does not come at the expense of our civil liberties.
3. Iraq war: Where's Kerry's flip-flop? He is criticizing Bush's conduct of the war, while supporting, in principle, the use of force against Iraq. Only a very either/or approach suggests a flip-flop. I disagree with Kerry voting against the funding, but he said he did it because it wasn't paid for, and he did vote for an amendment that would have paid for it.
Originally posted by BRussell
OK, I went back and looked and you mentioned three things.
1. No child left behind: My understanding is that Kerry still supports it, but Bush hasn't funded the state mandates. That sounds more like a Bush flip-flop than a Kerry flip-flop, if true.
Take a read here about the reasoning behind what you found on the Kerry site.
As you will see the reasoning required to arrive at the Kerry position is quite tortured.
NCLB funding
As for the others, I will get to them, but it is a beautiful day. I hope you enjoy it as well.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You can continue to enjoy fondling your lower member while reading my posts.
Oh that's another sexual joke right?
Believe it or not this is a California school teacher guys. We can only hope there's not many of them like this.
For your sake trumptman I hope none of the parents of the kids at your school read these bizarre posts of yours.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Believe it or not this is a California school teacher guys.
I had no idea. If a teacher speaks so cavalierly of pudenda, who is thinking of the children? My God, the children!
Originally posted by trumptman
Bad writing doesn't mean it is too difficult for the reader. It means the writing is bad. Live with it.
Bush claimed that tariffs were put in place against said countries because they were dumping steel to destroy the domestic steel industry. Dumping is not tolerated whether you are a free or fair trader. Dumping is not about competition but rather about selling products below the cost of even producing it in hopes of outlasting the competition and then gaining more price control once you have a monopoly position or at a minimum far less competition.
Bush did not give up free trade. He imposed two specific tariffs. Also the tariffs were understood to last three years at which the U.S. steel industry understood it needed to consolidate and strengthen their position.
The issue was appealed to the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization declared that Europe could impose billions of dollars in tariffs if the United States did not remove the steel tariffs. So Bush had to remove them under duress.
You can call it anything you wish, but perhaps you should look at how a Democratic free trader, Bill Clinton, decided to handle this situation.
I suppose Clinton was flip-flopping as well on this issue.
The second part of your post, well it doesn't even merit my consideration. I've explained the steel issue in a manner than anyone not seeking pure partisanship and personal attacks can easily understand.
Nick
Nice try . .
Clinton is not a free-trade Republican. Allthough I will admit that NAFTA does run somewhat counter to his expressed, or at least party's expressed, ideology . . . so that might constitute a Fl.
As for "dumping"? . . . Dumping is de rigeur for the US federally subsidized goods onto small developing economies . . . its part and parcel of the free-trade demands of the WTO and party line tactics.
Bush's defense through tarriffs was a surprise move, I actually liked it. However, it clearly was not a move supported by the verbal posturings of the party-ideology.
His removal of tarrifs for whatever excuse then made the original gesture seem false and calculated for PR appeal, -especially in place lke Pittsbugh, where I was at the time, and showed him to be another political opportunist.
But this is only one of the long list of flip-flops taken at random. each one of your, dare I say, extremely lame excuses can be easily contested.
Originally posted by trumptman
You can continue to enjoy fondling your lower member while reading my posts.
Like I said, try not to advertise it.
Originally posted by giant
Like I said, try not to advertise it.
I'll try not to advertise the fact that you constantly claim the multiple people who disagree with you must all be one person posting from multiple accounts.
Right pfflam, I mean giant, I mean Gilsch. Heaven knows all this ignorance could be generalized. It must be one extreme person posting from ten different accounts.
Or at least that was your claim.
But we'll try not to advertise the weird allegations you continue to make about others Gilsch, I mean giant.
Nick
Originally posted by pfflam
Nice try . .
Clinton is not a free-trade Republican. Allthough I will admit that NAFTA does run somewhat counter to his expressed, or at least party's expressed, ideology . . . so that might constitute a Fl.
Try some reading comprehension. I said DEMOCRAT, not republican. Clinton didn't just back NAFTA, he signed the bill. He also negotiated to get fast trade trade authority.
Good lord, you are totally disconnected from reality. I showed you POINT BLANK how Clinton handled the same situation the same manner and still you prattle on about how it doesn't apply to Bush because, well dumping is okay with Bush, and we all know he is evil and btw what about those other points I didn't bring up..etc..etc...
You no longer warrant my time. Live in your ignorance.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll try not to advertise the fact that you constantly claim the multiple people who disagree with you must all be one person posting from multiple accounts.
Apparently the joke went right over your head on its way to murbot. I guess you would have to be aware of what goes on outside of AO on .com.
Originally posted by trumptman
Try some reading comprehension. I said DEMOCRAT, not republican. Clinton didn't just back NAFTA, he signed the bill. He also negotiated to get fast trade trade authority.
Good lord, you are totally disconnected from reality. I showed you POINT BLANK how Clinton handled the same situation the same manner and still you prattle on about how it doesn't apply to Bush because, well dumping is okay with Bush, and we all know he is evil and btw what about those other points I didn't bring up..etc..etc...
You no longer warrant my time. Live in your ignorance.
Nick
HAHAHA
here we go again . . . misreading and denial, followed by persistent but perpetual refusal to engage . . . . and I thought the 'personality meltdown' was over-with
I pretty much agreed with you on CLinton . . . get over that . . we are not talking about Clinton
Whatt a tried and untrue strategy . . . when all else fails, pull Bill CLinton out of your ass!
Originally posted by giant
Apparently the joke went right over your head on its way to murbot. I guess you would have to be aware of what goes on outside of AO on .com.
Or maybe I would just have to be a pathetic little turd who attempts to belittle people in EVERY forum to make themselves feel better.
I check and post in all the other forums quite regularly. I post here most often but so plenty of others.
Get over yourself.
Nick
Originally posted by pfflam
HAHAHA
here we go again . . . misreading and denial, followed by persistent but perpetual refusal to engage . . . . and I thought the 'personality meltdown' was over-with
I pretty much agreed with you on CLinton . . . get over that . . we are not talking about Clinton
Whatt a tried and untrue strategy . . . when all else fails, pull Bill CLinton out of your ass!
/ignore
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Right pfflam, I mean giant, I mean Gilsch. Heaven knows all this ignorance could be generalized. It must be one extreme person posting from ten different accounts.
Yeah Trumpy, we're all one and the same. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.
I wonder if they'll let you keep your "Mission Accomplished" poster in the pretty pink room with padded walls.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Yeah Trumpy, we're all one and the same. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.
I wonder if they'll let you keep your "Mission Accomplished" poster in the pretty pink room with padded walls.
/ignore
Nick
Grover Norquist is one of Bush's main advisers. Google his name and see for yourself what he has planned for the US economy.
One thing that has particularly irked me about the Bush administration is the politicization of scientific committees. The Bush administration has been replacing non-partisan scientists with industry and political supporters. Just yesterday there was a story that Bush wants the selection of scientists who will participate in WHO panels to be approved by a Bush political appointee. This is just wrong. No politician of either party should be in charge of interfering with scientific discussions.
Kerry is at least repect women enough to leave medical decision in their hands. Kerry is Pro-Choice and it is a big different from the dickhead to try to force all women to carry their pregnancies to term.
Kerry was cool enough to be in a band when he was young.
http://www.theelectrasrockandrollband.com/theband.htm
Couldn't say the same about the coke-head Bush.
Originally posted by Sundae
Kerry was cool enough to be in a band when he was young.
http://www.theelectrasrockandrollband.com/theband.htm
not only that, but he was the bassist! 8) /mebassist
I think we should on a national and global level also start considering population controls. People should not have the right to have 10 kids, be a burden on our tax system, environment, and pursuit of happiness damnit. I'm not saying go Communist or anything, but incentives to have under 3 or 4 kids and extra taxes for more would be reasonable right?
Overpopulation is the root of almost all problems we face today as a race and a global ecosystem.
Originally posted by Aquatic
OK thank you neutrino23. Can we stick to things we can agree on, it'll be easy. Hey Nick who do you think would be a better environment President, Bush or Kerry? OK we have one key difference right there! Like I said, in the long run it's hard to think of anything more important.
I think we should on a national and global level also start considering population controls. People should not have the right to have 10 kids, be a burden on our tax system, environment, and pursuit of happiness damnit. I'm not saying go Communist or anything, but incentives to have under 3 or 4 kids and extra taxes for more would be reasonable right?
Overpopulation is the root of almost all problems we face today as a race and a global ecosystem.
Hey Aquatic.
Better environmental president, well environmentally I think Bush has done quite well. I mean when you get past the people flinging rhetoric around just because they could never see more than one party holding a certain value and look at the record, it is a pretty good one. For example Bush has been chastized for allowing the thinning of forests. I live near multiple national and state parks where you could see one out of every three trees dying due to over crowding. The weakened trees were attacked by bark beetles who turned them into perfect fuel for huge fires.
The whole arsenic debate was nonsense. Out standards are lower than they every were.
Now I look at John Kerry's site. I see some nice boogie man type rhetoric that plays on people's fears, but I don't see any true environmental promises. I don't see any promise to raise CAFE standards for example.
So I certainly cannot believe Kerry would do anything more for the environment.
As for population control, we already have it. One out of four births is terminated via abortion. The native population of the United States has a birth rate of 1.8, which is a level that only sustains, but does not grow the population. Countries like Italy and Japan have a birth rate of 1.2 and are looking at shrinking populations.
The difference between us and them is that we have record legal immigration and massive illegal immigration. In addition to this immigration, the birth rate of immigrants is much higher than the native population.
So if you want to address population control, we already have it here at home. The birth rate is 1.8 and dropping. Neither candidate has properly addressed immigration and border control. In fact I suggested in threads far back that it would be the true way to win the white male vote and also the vote of many minorities while showing true progressivism. Unlimited immigration makes it hard to unionize and keeps minorities on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Neither Kerry nor Bush have addressed this any differently.
Nick