Vote Kerry...or don't..?

[SwampGas]

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=10>http://www.zophar.net/personal/swampgas/hsrun.gif</marquee></P>

[Disch]

That is, quite possibly, the absolute worst page design in the history of the internet. Needless to say it didn't work as it was supposed to, and I didn't feel like going through all the trouble to fix it, so I didn't get to hear this spectactular ad.

Whoever made that page needs a slap in the face.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

I think it's funny how many of these accusations of "flip-flopping" are simply instances of the accuser being incapable of understanding complex ideas. I hope, for their sake, that these things were taken out of context on purpose.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Lillymon]

> That is, quite possibly, the absolute worst page design in
> the history of the internet. Needless to say it didn't work
> as it was supposed to, and I didn't feel like going through
> all the trouble to fix it, so I didn't get to hear this
> spectactular ad.

> Whoever made that page needs a slap in the face.

It was restating the 'constant flip-flops' that John Kerry has made. On my many treks over the internet, visiting various pages, I've seen about an equal amount of accusations and rebuttals.

Hence, I'm chalking this lot up to Republican propaganda. It's probably the best believed bit of propaganda, but that doesn't make it any more true. Most quotes are taken out of context, paraphrased to tweak their meaning slightly, or just plain made up. (I'm not sure which ones this site tried, I didn't feel like listening to them all). The rest could be interpreted as 'flip-flops', if you consider changing your mind after over a decade to be a 'flip-flop'.

I'm a bit disappointed that SwampGas would choose to bring this up.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Lillymon]

> http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

We know you're a Bush supporter (your poorly resized avatar is an example of this) but there's better ways to support Bush than garbage propganda like that.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[SwampGas]

> We know you're a Bush supporter (your poorly resized avatar
> is an example of this) but there's better ways to support
> Bush than garbage propganda like that.

Only a moron would think I'm basing my support off of something like that.

It's FUNNY. Byebyenow.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=10>http://www.zophar.net/personal/swampgas/hsrun.gif</marquee></P>

[Danoz]

Oh, come on. These "complex ideas" you talk of are nothing more than cleverly written excuses for inconsistencies. It’s laughable to say John Kerry and his supporters are on some intellectual pedestal above all his critics. Hah, quite an answer! "You just don't understand what he's really saying." That sounds very arrogant.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> "You just don't understand what he's really saying."
> That sounds very arrogant.

Well, ok, let's look at the facts then. Many sites like this will quote him saying that he supports increasing funding for the war in Iraq and then claim that it's inconsistent with his declaration that the war was a mistake. I think we should increase funding for the soldiers in Iraq. I think the war was a mistake. There's no inconsistency there.

Another example they give is how he used to support the war, but now thinks it was a bad idea. He believed that the war was justified if Saddam was amassing weapons of mass destruction, but that was when they thought he actually had them. Bush led the country to believe that we had strong intelligence indicating this fact, but when this was discovered to be untrue, the war seemed like a much worse idea. This makes perfect sense to me. Not only is his change of position reasonable, but it's a consequence of Bush's deception. Ironic that they would use that to attack Kerry.

Anyway, yeah, if the people who make these things really believe them, they're being idiots. Criticize his policies all you want, but I'm not going to apologize for calling "moron" when somebody takes his quotes out of context.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Lillymon]

> Only a moron would think I'm basing my support off of
> something like that.
>
> It's FUNNY. Byebyenow.

When you have a 'Bush-Cheney '04' avatar, are a well known Bush supporter, then post a link that criticizes John Kerry, it may be a good idea to state what you just did in your initial post.

Misunderstandings happen very easily on the internet where we don't have voice tone or body language to help use discern wether people are being serious or not.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[SwampGas]

> When you have a 'Bush-Cheney '04' avatar, are a well known
> Bush supporter, then post a link that criticizes John Kerry,
> it may be a good idea to state what you just did in your
> initial post.

I forgot. ZMD requires a 10 page disclaimer clearly stating intent, incidential and consequential damages, liabilities and warranties (either express or implied) <img src=smilies/upeyes.gif>

I don't like you. Have sex with me and then I'll like you again. Byebye.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=10>http://www.zophar.net/personal/swampgas/hsrun.gif</marquee></P>

[Lillymon]

> I forgot. ZMD requires a 10 <s>page</s> word disclaimer clearly stating
> intent<s>, incidential and consequential damages, liabilities</s>
> <s>and warranties (either express or implied)</s>.

There, I fixed it for you. Make it rule and we'll have a lot less confusion here. If I'm expected to trim down quotes (figuring out which places to keep, wether to split it up and make multiple points rather than one rebuttal) I want to at least know what people mean to say so I don't end up wasting my time responding to percieved rather than actual points.

> I don't like you. Have sex with me and then I'll like you again.
> Byebye.

Sorry, not in this lifetime.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Well, ok, let's look at the facts then. Many sites like this will quote him saying that he supports increasing funding for the war in Iraq and then claim that it's inconsistent with his declaration that the war was a mistake. I think we should increase funding for the soldiers in Iraq. I think the war was a mistake. There's no inconsistency there.

<hr></blockquote>

There would be if you voted against the 87 billion to fund the soldiers. Now he supports increasing funds for the war and he criticizes the president for not sending them the supplies they need. This is an inconsistency.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Another example they give is how he used to support the war, but now thinks it was a bad idea. He believed that the war was justified if Saddam was amassing weapons of mass destruction, but that was when they thought he actually had them. Bush led the country to believe that we had strong intelligence indicating this fact, but when this was discovered to be untrue, the war seemed like a much worse idea.

<hr></blockquote>

He saw the same intelligence the president did, and made the same decision, in fact—he supported it at the time. He’s even stated that he would do the same thing, despite what we know now. Of course he has since gone against these words.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

This makes perfect sense to me. Not only is his change of position reasonable, but it's a consequence of Bush's deception. Ironic that they would use that to attack Kerry.

<hr></blockquote>

You still really believe that the President lied? Have you read the most recent reports? Saddam was intentionally making it appear that he had WMD, and he never thought the US would do anything about it (after all, after 18 failed resolutions he felt like he figured he could push the envelope). He shoved inspectors around like cattle.

Only now, because of the Iraq war, are we finding the mass corruption of the United Nations to begin with—that thier veto threats were protecting self-interests. Do you know what's really illegal and deceptive? Stuffing your pockets with oil for food money! And these are the people John Kerry wants to appeal to for "international support"... good luck Superman. It’s really scary that this organization founded on human rights is nearly as corrupted as Saddam himself.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[Lillymon]

> There would be if you voted against the 87 billion to fund
> the soldiers. Now he supports increasing funds for the war
> and he criticizes the president for not sending them the
> supplies they need. This is an inconsistency.

More bullshit propaganda. Doing some research (http://www.factcheck.org/article155.html) into the subject rather than eating what the Bush administration is feeding you would help your credibility.

> It’s really scary that this organization founded on human rights is
> nearly as corrupted as Saddam himself.

That was uncalled for and you know it (or at least you should). Besides, what's the alternative? Scrap the idea of the United Nations altogether and let every nation go its own way? With the US and UK taking on the dutes the UN performed before of course.

Sounds like a sure thing for starting World War III to me. Are you looking to initiate the second coming or something?

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

More bullshit propaganda. Doing some research into the subject rather than eating what the Bush administration is feeding you would help your credibility.

<hr></blockquote>

I've read that article, and I read factcheck all the time. It's great for showing how ads on both sides manipulate facts. Factcheck shuts down a lot of the propaganda on both sides, but I'm not spewing it here. He DID vote against the 87 billion, and as such, I don't believe he has any right to criticise the president for lack of funding for the war.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[Danoz]

Also. If he did change positions because of new information, why would he say that he's only had ONE position on Iraq?

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> There would be if you voted against the 87 billion to fund
> the soldiers. Now he supports increasing funds for the war
> and he criticizes the president for not sending them the
> supplies they need. This is an inconsistency.

Refer to Lillymon's post. I remember watching the debates and thinking ridiculous it was the extent to which Bush was quoting Kerry's voting record without context.


> You still really believe that the President lied?

He didn't flat out lie (I never accused him of that and you know it). He deceived. He tried to deliver an impression to the american public that he knew to be on shaky ground.


> Saddam was intentionally
> making it appear that he had WMD, and he never thought the
> US would do anything about it (after all, after 18 failed
> resolutions he felt like he figured he could push the
> envelope). He shoved inspectors around like cattle.

No, I haven't read the latest reports, but it's more or less what I was saying all along. Saddam was an impotent child, shattered to pieces after the Gulf War. I believed that he had some WMDs, but I never would have granted him any major significance on the world political scene. The administration rushed into Iraq. They should have known better.


> Only now, because of the Iraq war, are we finding the mass
> corruption of the United Nations to begin with—that thier
> veto threats were protecting self-interests. Do you know
> what's really illegal and deceptive? Stuffing your pockets
> with oil for food money!

I'm not going to dignify this bullshit with a response.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> Also. If he did change positions because of new information,
> why would he say that he's only had ONE position on Iraq?

Could you give me some more context on this (i.e. a reference)?

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Goku]

He DID vote against the
> 87 billion, and as such, I don't believe he has any right to
> criticise the president for lack of funding for the war.

Correction: He voted against the 87 billion dollar version of the bill that PAST!!. He voted for a failed 87 billion dollar version of the bill. That is within his rights as a senator AND shows that he does support the troops and supports funding the war. Read the bloody article.

<P ID="signature"><center>
<IMG SRC = "http://www.angelfire.com/droid/google/temp.txt">
</center></P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Gokuh on 10/25/04 10:31 PM.</FONT></P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

He didn't flat out lie (I never accused him of that and you know it). He deceived. He tried to deliver an impression to the american public that he knew to be on shaky ground.

<hr></blockquote>

Blatant deception and exaggeration for the sake of deceiving is lying. Why are critics of the president so afraid of that word? John Kerry edges away from it yet he implies it over and over again the same way you just did. Gore said he “concocted a war for political gain”… but he didn’t lie? What would the President have to gain from delivering a false impression? If he actually did what you’re accusing him of, I’d call him a liar in a heartbeat.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

No, I haven't read the latest reports, but it's more or less what I was saying all along. Saddam was an impotent child, shattered to pieces after the Gulf War. I believed that he had some WMDs, but I never would have granted him any major significance on the world political scene. The administration rushed into Iraq. They should have known better.

<hr></blockquote>

It’s not what you’ve been saying all along. Saddam was an impotent child getting back on his feet. The fact is, he had weapons of mass destruction, and he dismantled and destroyed them to move along inspections. He didn’t want Libya and other surrounding nations to know this so he pushed them around. The plan? Make it appear that he had them, but satisfy America at the same time. All this, so he could resume the same programs that he was very capable of running.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I'm not going to dignify this bullshit with a response.

<hr></blockquote>

Of course. Why would you address the most important issue in this thread? Don’t be so blind to the truth. I’d like to see you argue against what I just said, with evidence. We know that the United Nations let Saddam pick and choose who he dealt with in Oil for Food. That he skimmed millions of dollars right off the top, and gave million dollar gifts to our “allies”. We know that we also gave Saddam complete jurisdiction over what he would do with the money. Half of that money went towards the Hussein media machine, while the rest went to rotten food and bad machinery mysteriously looked over by UN inspectors overlooking the project in Iraq. We know that sanctions were working, and Saddam’s regime was on the verge of crumbling before corruption in the UN helped put him back on his feet. Do you have answers? Or are you just “not going to dignify this bullshit with a response.” I hope you answer, because that’s a cheap way to hide out of an argument Spacetiger.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[Danoz]

Sure.

"I've Had One Position, One Consistent Position [on Iraq], That Saddam Hussein Was A Threat." -- "My Position Has Been Consistent: Saddam Hussein Is A Threat. He Needed To Be Disarmed." (first presidential debate (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html))

However, he also said...

"We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security." (Speech at New York University (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html))

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> "I've Had One Position, One Consistent Position [on Iraq],
> That Saddam Hussein Was A Threat."

Here's the rest of that quote: "There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way."

To me, it sounds like he's saying we should have pursued inspections and/or peaceful disarmament, waiting until it's absolutely necessary to wage war. This is consistent with what I understand his position to be on this issue.


> "We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction
> and posed no imminent threat to our security." (Speech at
> New York University)

Rest of the quote: "It had not, as the Vice President claimed, “reconstituted nuclear weapons.”"

He's saying that Saddam did not pose an "imminent threat" in that he wasn't about to develop nukes and launch them at us. This is also true and makes perfect sense when you read the whole speech.

The words are similar, but Kerry is clearly saying different things when you put it in the proper context. I could play these word games with Bush's speeches and I have little doubt that I could come up with equally compelling and seemingly contradictory quotes, but I have better things to do.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> Blatant deception and exaggeration for the sake of deceiving
> is lying. Why are critics of the president so afraid of that
> word?

Probably because there are two commonly understood definitions:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

They want to say the second, but not the first. So, rather than create any confusion, they just use words that communicate what they want to say. Nothing insidious about it.


> What would the President have to gain from delivering a false
> impression?

It gives him a pretext for an invasion that he has other reasons for. The problem is that his reasons are not as acceptable to the general public, so he has to spin it.


> It’s not what you’ve been saying all along. Saddam was an
> impotent child getting back on his feet. The fact is, he had
> weapons of mass destruction, and he dismantled and destroyed
> them to move along inspections.... All this, so he could
> resume the same programs that he was very capable of
> running.

What are you basing this on? Do you have a reference?

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[IceWolf20]

> http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/
>

VOTE KERRY (http://www.needlenose.com/win04/vote2.htm)


<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[CEpeep]

> > http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/
> >
>
> VOTE KERRY
>

<img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

Needlenose = Win.

<P ID="signature"><hr>
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Eisenhower</P>

[Danoz]

I'd be glad to respond to the rest of that post had you not dodged my entire last paragraph, yet again. It's a cop-out. You're so easy to blame the President for anything that goes wrong anywhere, but the second there's evidence that the precious UN may have corrupt leaders, you instantly dismiss the idea as ridiculous. Ever think you may be totally closing your mind on this issue simply because you don't want to believe it? I don't want the United Nations to be morally bankrupt, either... but I'm not ignoring it.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[SpaceTiger]

The United Nations had nothing to do with our argument, Danoz. It's called a red herring and it's a nasty rhetorical trick. I'm not going to spend time responding to whatever random garbage pops into your head.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Reaper man]

> Sorry, not in this lifetime.


what about with me? <img src=smilies/liefde.gif>

<P ID="signature"><center>
sig not found...</center></P>

[Danoz]

It's not off subject, and I didn't avoid any other part of the argument. Expanding into a new and totally relevant subject after addressing previous points is hardly a fallacy. The only nasty trick here is using rhetorical jargon that doesn't apply. Whether or not Bush "deceived" is certainly the issue, but when the state of Saddam is directly tied to the United Nations, it raises an question you refuse to address by ignoring this topic; did the president really even deceive at all? John Kerry, looking at the same intelligence (as you may know, Senators do have access to many classified material) came to the same conclusion. He believed that we needed to bring more nations "to the table"; you know, I only know of one table, the United Nations. Tony Blair and President Bush worked very hard at getting international support, and they did ultimately bring together the best possible coalition.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[mrfreeze]

and they did
> ultimately bring together the best possible coalition.
>
What coalition? The only major country besides Britain and Spain was Poland. And we all know how good Poland is at winning battles.

<P ID="signature">Are you doing nothing? Or something?</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> It's not off subject, and I didn't avoid any other part of
> the argument.

Yes you did. You avoided all of my other responses in the last post and threw a fit because I didn't respond to your "expansion" on the subject. I don't have an infinite amount of time to waste in arguments with you, Danoz, and I'm not going to have you squash arguments you're losing by trying to throw in a new one you think you might win.


> Whether or not Bush "deceived" is
> certainly the issue, but when the state of Saddam is
> directly tied to the United Nations, it raises an question
> you refuse to address by ignoring this topic; did the
> president really even deceive at all?

I think so, yes.


> John Kerry, looking at
> the same intelligence (as you may know, Senators do have
> access to many classified material) came to the same
> conclusion.

I find it hard to imagine that senators spent anywhere near as much time analyzing the intelligence concerning Iraq as Bush and his administration did. You're right that, in theory, Kerry could have done an exhaustive analysis of his own (I wish he had), but it wouldn't have been a good use of his time, seeing that he was only 1 vote of 100 on a bill that was sure to pass.

For the most part, senators and citizens alike were trusting Bush and company on their word. Yes, I think they deceived. No, I don't think they told a direct falsehood.


> He believed that we needed to bring more nations
> "to the table"; you know, I only know of one table, the
> United Nations. Tony Blair and President Bush worked very
> hard at getting international support, and they did
> ultimately bring together the best possible coalition.

This still has nothing to do with whether or not Bush deceived the American public about intelligence reports. I don't deny that the issue of UN corruption is related to the Iraq War, but that alone doesn't warrant its inclusion in our discussion. There are a million other things related to the Iraq War that I don't have time to discuss with you and I'd rather we just got to the point on whatever we're talking about in the beginning.

If you must know, I think that there are corrupt elements in the UN, just like any institution. I certainly don't think, however, that it invalidates everything they do, just as a scandal in the US government doesn't invalidate everything it does. Is it a problem if UN programs could result in money of the pockets of its members? Of course. Do I think France would have joined the coalition otherwise? Of course not. Do I think that Russia would have? No. I take offense to the enthusiasm with which you generalize about the UN when the US has had equally bad scandals in its history.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[icenine0]

Sheet mang, you don't want that beetch. She'll cut your balls off, mang.

> what about with me?
>

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

[IceWolf20]

> and they did
> > ultimately bring together the best possible coalition.
> >
> What coalition? The only major country besides Britain and
> Spain was Poland. And we all know how good Poland is at
> winning battles.

Actually, initially it was America, Britan, and Australia....Spain and Poland came later....and now Spain's gone and Poland is leaving.

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[mrfreeze]

> Actually, initially it was America, Britan, and
> Australia....Spain and Poland came later....and now Spain's
> gone and Poland is leaving.

Well then my point still more or less stands. But then again, with Poland and Australia on our side, how could we have ever doubted victory?

<P ID="signature">Are you doing nothing? Or something?</P>