Author Topic: Kerry: Invading Iraq was the right thing to do, even without WMD (Read 1782 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #45 on:** August 10, 2004, 07:38:09 PM »

Not unless you need to believe that he is a centrist..

midnight Target · « **Reply #46 on:** August 10, 2004, 07:41:25 PM »

Half a mo!

Kerry is saying the same thing you cons have been saying since the WMD's were negafound.

Yet this somehow makes him .... more liberal. Yikes!

We are in bizzaro land.

Toad · « **Reply #47 on:** August 10, 2004, 07:48:34 PM »

No, I think we are in "I'll say anything my handlers tell me to say if it will help me win" land.

It's why they are studiously avoiding his Senate voting record and his lack of "leadership" as evidenced by the lack of bills he authored or coauthored.

What the heck happened to Lieberman? During the last campaign, people were saying that he and Cheney were the intelligent parts of the duos and that they should be running for Prez and not VP.

Now Cheney is certainly not well thought of and the Dems couldn't seem to remember what Ol' Joe even looked like.

I could easily have voted for Lieberman this time around against Bush.

Instead, I get someone I just can't vote for at all. Again.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #48 on:** August 10, 2004, 08:11:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Half a mo!

Kerry is saying the same thing you cons have been saying since the WMD's were negafound.

Yet this somehow makes him .... more liberal. Yikes!

We are in bizzaro land.

Yet he's also said the president "missled us into war" How is that so MT. Two completly opposite opinions in less than 6 months time??????

MT explain this one to me.....please

Keeping in mind he's also said that he would never had voted to give the president authority to go to war if he'd had the right info

AND

Since 98 hes contended that Sadam is a threat w/ weapons and needs to be dealt with.

Explain it....I'm sooooooo want to hear the spin on this

EDIT: actually you're kinda right....we have been saying this for months. Kerry will say and do anything to get a vote.

ABB!

midnight Target · « **Reply #49 on:** August 10, 2004, 08:34:16 PM »

Saying we were "missled into war" and still thinking that there are good reasons to fight it are not mutually exclusive and do not constitute a flip flop.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #50 on:** August 10, 2004, 08:37:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Saying we were "missled into war" and still thinking that there are good reasons to fight it are not mutually exclusive and do not constitute a flip flop.

yet he was saying the same thing bush was saying LOOOOONG before bush took office.

AGAIN explain this to me cause I arnt very smart yooo know

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #51 on:** August 10, 2004, 08:44:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
No. But but you must admit that his hands are tied about support for Iraq. He is a centrist no matter how you see him and he will have to deal with Iraq if hes elected. Probably for the whole 4 years at least. So stating now that he is going to pull them out would just cripple his abiltiy to deal with the situation if and when he is in charge.

Its the trap that Bush set for congress.
Vote against the war. Un patriotic or cowardly
Opps the evidence was bogus...but you must support the troops in time of war!
Re election time..well you supported the war too!
New president. denied the luxuy of doing anything but an orderly withdrawl.

I could just say to you that basically you just disagree with anything Kerry does..but I will answer your question. Although you didnt take the time to really think about my post.

Kerry is a centrist?!?!?!?!? You know, you truly are a total idiot. Kerry's voting record is to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy, and Hilary Clinton. Before Kerry, Ted Kennedy was the most liberal senator alive for nearly 20 YEARS. Even now, the only two sentators MORE LIBERAL than Ted Kennedy are John Forbes Kerry and John Edwards. How could anyone so entranced with John Kerry know so little about Kerry? There are no members in the senate or in congress who have a voting record as liberal as the two democratic candidates for the highest offices in the country. Not Boxer, not Feinstein, not Kennedy, not Clinton, not ANYONE. Those two are NOT centrists, study their freaking voting records

Pongo · « **Reply #52 on:** August 10, 2004, 08:47:46 PM »

Im not entranced with him. You hit it right on the head. I just find the slavish attacks on him hillarios/disgusting. And if the most liberal politition in the US voted for the pentegon budget 16 of his 19 years then what is the difference between left and right?

Stringer · « **Reply #53 on:** August 10, 2004, 08:59:27 PM »

As JBA stated, their respective stances on a combination of economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. Not on one single stance on a single issue.

Pongo, you are brighter than you're acting here.

I agree with Toad, MT and others. The debate should be on the candidates stances on the ISSUES.

Kerry and Bush need to start addressing the issues, and let their voting records, etc. be what is used to frame the debate.

Toad · « **Reply #54 on:** August 10, 2004, 09:02:38 PM »

Be forewarned, this is not an unbiased site; they clearly don't like Kerry. However, they do document each vote so you can follow up on a paritcular one. There are always some votes that may have a very good reason for the choice made that is not apparent from a simple title or short descripition of the bill.

OTOH, this will give a good overall picture of how he votes I think.

Learn who JFK is by his voting record

Gunslinger · « **Reply #55 on:** August 10, 2004, 09:05:46 PM »

Toad,

site no workey

Toad · « **Reply #56 on:** August 10, 2004, 09:12:12 PM »

Thanks, Gun. Fixed it; bad copy of the addy.

Stringer · « **Reply #57 on:** August 10, 2004, 09:15:19 PM »

Oh, and one more thing.

If this is the state of how the candidates and those who participate in political debates, including this BBS, then we are truly screwed.

And I don't think it gets any better in Yurop, either, as proven by our Yuropean posters anyway.

demaw1 · « **Reply #58 on:** August 10, 2004, 09:16:20 PM »

AADOG...AADOG....

I do hereby affirm ,that as a middle class tax payer of these formaly United States of America. My family did recieve a tax cut,monies I earned were in legal paper money returned to me .Of said money I did help my daughter repair her car.

Which had the effect of providing stable and profitable work for a small business.

Which in turn provided work for a mech.

Who bought parts for said engine, thus putting to work those who manufacture said parts.

thus putting to work those who clean said parts. Thus putting to work those that deliver said parts. etc .etc. etc.

Now mutiply that by millions of people and the idea becomes simple to understand.

JBA · « **Reply #59 on:** August 10, 2004, 10:16:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Adogg
Misplaced as in aimed at the wrong segment of the economy to stimulate growth.

Were would you "aim Tax cuts. But to those that pay taxes.

Quote

[Tax cuts that benefit the upper tiers of the tax base do not generate consumer spending. You start with people who have to spend money to survive. i.e. the poor and working poor. Its been a basic economic truism since before WWII. Basic needs expenditures like food, clothing, housing work their way through the economy into other forms of spending. You give a tax cut to somone who already has equity in a home or personal savings and you don't really do much, it tends to get put away in more savings where it earns a pittance in interest. No stimulous. No economic growth. You still with me?
[edited for speeling]

the working poor do not pay taxes, It's called earned income tax credits or they are making to little to pay, Secondly I have never heard of the working poor starting a business and employing anyone.

Furthermore since when do those who make enough to pay taxes stop eating, driving, going out to restaurants, movies, theaters, get their cars washed, detailed, shopping for cloths paying tuitions, daycare, baby sitters, you starting to get the picture?
These people employ others, by spending.

Get off the class warfare tactic, and open your eyes, Those that make money, after having avoided having children out of wedlock, staying in high school, passing college and taking on tremendous risk and debt, to achieve a higher stander of living, are not the bad guys. You hanging in there?

They are also the ones whom invest in small companies, stocks,

Quote

Originally posted by Adogg
I suggest you read some of the fine analysis put out by the World Bank and International Monetary fund in Washington. Even the economics journals from any of the top ten Universities in the US should be fairly representative in that regard. [edited for speeling]

The IMF has not helped a single country it has lent money to. That’s not the best source to quote if you’re looking for credibility.