News Can You Find an Issue Kerry Has Not Flip Flopped On?

[GENIERE]

To find an issue of some importance that Kerry has not been “for and against”.

You provide the “flip”, I’ll provide the “flop”.

For instance re: "war on terror", you provide (include reference):

‘…It’s basically a manhunt…’

I’ll provide:

‘…This war isn’t just a manhunt…’


Total score: Flip - 1 No flip - 0

 

[Gza]

In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action “Inherently Limited And Divisive.” “[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’” (Lynne Duke, “Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,” The Washington Post, 4/8/92)

An easy one, just to get you warmed up .

 

[GENIERE]

Thank you, but I think they'll all be easy.

“In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action “Divisive.” CNN’s KELLY WALLACE: “We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.” SEN. KERRY: “That’s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don’t end it… (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 1/30/04)


Total score: Flip - 2 Flop - 0

 

[wasteofo2]

John Kerry, not only is he inconsistant, can't stay with a conviction for any amount of time, does whatever is popular at the moment, but he's also THE MOST LIBERAL MEMBER OF THE SENATE AND WAY OUTSIDE THE MAINSTREAM...

Ok, here's some that's pretty consistant with Kerry: he's not George W. Bush.

 

[member 5645]

Ok, here's some that's pretty consistant with Kerry: he's not George W. Bush.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/kerr-a12.shtml

Kerry declared that “even knowing what we now know,” he would still have cast his vote in the Senate to authorize the Bush administration to invade Iraq. “I would have voted for the authority,” said Kerry. “I believe it was the right authority for the president to have.”

FLIP - 3 ??

 

[The_Professional]

*patiently waits for Njorl's response*

 

[GENIERE]

Originally Posted by wasteofo2
Ok, here's some that's pretty consistant with Kerry: he's not George W. Bush.

You might have me on that one, he only wishes he were. Sorry can’t use it w/o reference.

The_Professional
*patiently waits for Njorl's response*

Typical anti-Bush sentiments. I have sympathy for the democratic voter, forced to choose between someone they hate and a pompous ass.

Originally Posted by phatmonky
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/a.../kerr-a12.shtml Kerry declared that “even knowing what we now know,” he would still have cast his vote in the Senate to authorize the Bush administration to invade Iraq. “I would have voted for the authority,” said Kerry. “I believe it was the right authority for the president to have.”

“… but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him… “(ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

“I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

”… Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

Kerry was absolutely splendid. On a single issue He provided us with a pair of flip-flops, a half flip, a half flop, a 'hedge my bet' and was positive about it.



Total score: Flip - 3 No Flip - 0


--

 

[Gza]

I think I have a flip for you. If I'm correct, Kerry never supported the Vietnam war (no flopping there). I don't have any references or the time to find them, so if someone can look this up for me, that'd be great.

 

[The_Professional]

Typical anti-Bush sentiments. I have sympathy for the democratic voter, forced to choose between someone they hate and a pompous ass.

LOL..what have you been smoking? I don't hate nor like Bush.

I'm not crazy about Kerry either, he's not strong on issues. I personally don't think he'll win.

 

[GENIERE]

Professional - Appology tendered!

 

[GENIERE]

I think I have a flip for you. If I'm correct, Kerry never supported the Vietnam war (no flopping there). I don't have any references or the time to find them, so if someone can look this up for me, that'd be great.

Don’t bother looking it up.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service.html… As he was about to graduate from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam - because, as he later said, "it was the right thing to do." He believed that because he had had a lot of privileges in life - for example, attending a great university like Yale - he had a responsibility to give something back to his country.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml… I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."


Total score: Flip - 4 No Flip - 0


--

 

[Gokul43201]

Total score: Flip - 1 No flip - 0

Total score: Flip - 2 Flop - 0

Total score: Flip - 3 No flip - 0

Geniere...this is confusing. Why don't you stick with one scoring system instead of continuously flip-flopping ?

<neutral observer >

 

[GENIERE]

Geniere...this is confusing. Why don't you stick with one scoring system instead of continuously flip-flopping ?

<neutral observer >

Yep - Confused me also.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

"As he was about to graduate from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam - because, as he later said, "it was the right thing to do." He believed that because he had had a lot of privileges in life - for example, attending a great university like Yale - he had a responsibility to give something back to his country."

That statement is referring to the fact he believes giving back to your country is the right thing to do. It doesn't necessarily refer to him supporting the war.

I find it's sad that a candidate has to flip and flop just be be considered over an opposition that clearly needs to be voted out.

On another note: Isn't that new democratic commercial awesome. The one with the broken record is excellent. Bush's monotonous voice echos the point they are trying to make.

Edit:

‘…It’s basically a manhunt…’
‘…This war isn’t just a manhunt…’

Something can be basically a manhunt and still be not just a manhunt. Basically doesn't apply something to be entirely something.

Edit: "Kerry declared that “even knowing what we now know,” he would still have cast his vote in the Senate to authorize the Bush administration to invade Iraq. “I would have voted for the authority,” said Kerry. “I believe it was the right authority for the president to have.”

Kerry knows how to stand by his leader like he would stand by America if President. He can believe the President should have authority and not agree with the war. If everyone spoke out about everything the leader did that upset them then little would get done. Kerry probably realizes this.

It's the lack of common sense among individuals that's forcing Kerry to flip flop. I find it upseting.

 

[Gokul43201]

[PLAIN]http://www.play-hookey.com/digital/images/jkf00000.gif [/PLAIN]

Why do you think they call that a JK Flip-Flop ? :laughing:

 

[BobG]

Don’t bother looking it up.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service.html… As he was about to graduate from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam - because, as he later said, "it was the right thing to do." He believed that because he had had a lot of privileges in life - for example, attending a great university like Yale - he had a responsibility to give something back to his country.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml… I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."


Total score: Flip - 4 No Flip - 0


--

Finding flip-flops is going to be an inherently simple task. You find it in just about any supporter of the Iraq war.

Pat Tillman would be one of the few exceptions. Most war supporters aren't committed enough in their support to quit their day jobs. Obvioulsy, most supporters of the Iraq invasion are flip-floppers.

What you're suggesting is that attempting to serve in the safest manner possible is a flip-flop. Using those ground rules, the only way you can't find a flip-flop is if he volunteers to be designated as the guy officially resposnsible for jumping on top of any grenades that happen to land nearby.

 

[russ_watters]

That statement is referring to the fact he believes giving back to your country is the right thing to do. It doesn't necessarily refer to him supporting the war.

The flip-flop in those quotes isn't his support for the war (in so many words), its his reason for joining the military: he said both that he did and didn't want to go to Vietnam.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

He could want to go for some reasons and not want to go for others.

I both do and don't want to go back to school for example. I do want to learn but I don't want to wake up to go there.

 

[GENIERE]

Originally Posted by Dooga Blackrazor
That statement is referring to the fact he believes giving back to your country is the right thing to do. It doesn't necessarily refer to him supporting the war.

The flip-flop in those quotes isn't his support for the war (in so many words), its his reason for joining the military: he said both that he did and didn't want to go to Vietnam.

I think a pro/con position is inferred but if GZA (originator) wishes I’ll alter the score.

 

[wasteofo2]

Geniere, I wonder if you could come up with a stance Bush's taken that you feel he's been consistant on, and let me see if I can find a flip-flop he's preformed, or an outright lie he's told in regards to it.

One thing that immediately comes to mind is, he used to say nuclear the right way, now he say nukyuhler

 

[GENIERE]

[PLAIN]http://www.play-hookey.com/digital/images/jkf00000.gif [/PLAIN]

Why do you think they call that a JK Flip-Flop ? :laughing:

Yuk- yuk!

Wasteof2 - Start your own thread - I'l play.

 

[wasteofo2]

Yuk- yuk!

Wasteof2 - Start your own thread - I'l play.

Alrighty...

 

[wasteofo2]

“… but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him… “(ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

“I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

”… Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

OK, you're going to have to defend this claim of a flip-flop.

1) Kerry thinks disarming Saddam was a good thing. When the president decided to disarm Saddam, Kerry thought it was good, Kerry supports the fact that Bush disarmed Saddam. So far a consistent set of beliefs, no?

2) Kerry's vote for the resolution was meant to scare Saddam into letting weapons inspectors come, and hopefully find/destroy weapons Saddam had. Kerry seems to have the common goal of disarming Saddam, and he was only explaining his vote. He wanted Bush to threaten Saddam to disarm him, but Bush didn't, and even though Bush went about it a way Kerry didn't like, Saddam got disarmed, which Kerry thought was good. I still see no inconsistancies/contradictions.

3) Kerry qualifies himself as an anti-war candidate because he feels the president lead us to war poorly. Kerry supports the fact that Bush disarmed Saddam of whatever weapons he had, but thinks that the war as a whole has not been waged the way it should. I don't see how agreeing with one aspect of a war, but disagreeing with it as a whole is a flip-flop, it's holding an opinion that isn't totally black and white, it shows he has some complex thought going on.

If someone said: "I supported America getting the Japanese military out of China and undermining their ability to wage war during World War II. I supported means to diplomatically control/stop the Japanese military. I support the fact that the US military won the war against Japan, but I was opposed to the way in which it was won because I would not have used the nuclear bombs on Japan, so I could have been called anti-war, if you take it in the context that I was opposed to how the war was waged.", is that a contradiction, a flip-flop? I think it's just having a detailed opinion about many aspects of a situation, but you can call me crazy.

 

[GENIERE]

1 – Agreed

2 – That is not what he voted for!

3 – Half flip, half flop, and positive about it.

A democratic president authorized the A bomb be used. Whether its use was necessary and/or proper is still being debated today. I’m inclined to think its use then has made it impossible for nations to use it against other nations. Terrorists have no such reservations. Anyhow we can only judge Kerry by what he says or does, not by what we think he means, nor by poor analogies.

 

[GENIERE]

He supported GW's father in the same manner. Apparently in an successful effort to “set up” the senator, one of his constituents wrote two letters to Kerry re Iraqi war (1991).


“Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’’ -- Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 22 [1991]

“Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. …I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.” --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]”

 

[wasteofo2]

1 – Agreed

2 – That is not what he voted for!

3 – Half flip, half flop, and positive about it.

A democratic president authorized the A bomb be used. Whether its use was necessary and/or proper is still being debated today. I’m inclined to think its use then has made it impossible for nations to use it against other nations. Terrorists have no such reservations. Anyhow we can only judge Kerry by what he says or does, not by what we think he means, nor by poor analogies.

Ok, no more discussion needed on point 1

2 - Have you read the actual resolution he voted to pass? It didn't say "George, do whatever you want in Iraq, The Senators". There were a lot of procedures Bush was required to follow and simply didn't. Kerry was explaining his rationale in voting for the resolution. He felt that Bush having the ability to go to war if xyz was done would scare Saddam enough to let weapons inspectors come in and peacefully disarm him. Kerry voted for Bush being able to go to war with Iraq if he exhausted all options besides going to war, which would include sending weapons inspectors to Iraq and using the threat of war to get Saddam to open up, something Kerry figured Bush would have done, but Bush just went to war and disregarded the conditions he was required to follow by the resolution.

3 - You really can't disprove what I said, so you just go for "half flip-half flop", jeez, that's great. It's not that hard to understand that Kerry wanted some of the results that the war got, but is against the war because of the way it was waged and would have achieved his goals by different means. People like you just try to over-simplify things and characterize every stance which has some complexities and isn't 100% black vs. white, us vs. them as a flip flop, when it's really not that hard to understand Kerry's position, you just choose not to.

I'm not trying to start a debate about anything involving WWII, it was just analgous to what Kerry said, just an example of how you could be opposed to something which got what you wanted done because you wanted it done in a different way.

 

[GENIERE]

2 - No! No! No! You or I cannot know what Kerry thought or felt. He voted "for" that's all we can know. You should know that President Bush can take the country into war without consulting congress for a short time;"War Powers Act". Recent presidents have gone to congress as a courtesy. Congress, however, must supply the funds for war. That initiated Kerry's most famous flip-flop; "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it"

3 - I can't parse Kerry's statement. Ask one of you English teachers what it means. Let me know.

 

[russ_watters]

2 - No! No! No! You or I cannot know what Kerry thought or felt. He voted "for" that's all we can know.

See, I've always argued that this flip-flop thing is moot - the fact that Kerry says one thing and does another doesn't mean he flip-flops, it means he has no real opinion (or rather, he tells everyone what he thinks they want to hear).

 

[GENIERE]

See, I've always argued that this flip-flop thing is moot - the fact that Kerry says one thing and does another doesn't mean he flip-flops, it means he has no real opinion (or rather, he tells everyone what he thinks they want to hear).

I agree -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe I have indicated otherwise or perhaps have not, yes, absolutely!

 

[wasteofo2]

2 - No! No! No! You or I cannot know what Kerry thought or felt. He voted "for" that's all we can know. You should know that President Bush can take the country into war without consulting congress for a short time;"War Powers Act". Recent presidents have gone to congress as a courtesy. Congress, however, must supply the funds for war. That initiated Kerry's most famous flip-flop; "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it"

I really love how you completely ignore the content of what I say. When I challenge you on something (as the thread title asked me to do), you just resort to rhetoric and ignoring actual content, what a surprise...

You're right, all we can truly, 100% know is what he voted for. Let's take another look at Kerry's quote, and analyze this resolution he voted to pass, and what it entailed.

“I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.”

""The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.""
So the resolution supported Bush enforcing the UN Security Council resolutions, WHICH IS WHY KERRY SAID HE VOTED FOR IT!

Let's take a further look at this resolution:

"(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq..."

So, to actually use force, the president was required to exhaust all peaceful and diplomatic means of trying to disarm Saddam, unless it could be shown Saddam was an immediate threat. We now Saddam posed NO threat to the USA in the immediate term, so by definition, the resolution Kerry voted to pass required Bush to use every diplomatic/peaceful means of disarming Saddam possible. ONE OF THOSE, would have been threatening the use of force to allow Saddam to let full weapons inspections.

And isn't it ironic that Bush's whole justification of going to war now is that he knows what Saddam thought and felt, the same thing you said I couldn't do with Kerry. Bush says that he knew that Saddam would eventually try to hurt us, and was a threat in that sense, and that is now one of his justifications for going to war with Iraq. If you want to talk about flip-flopping, look at all the different rationales Bush has had for going to war with Iraq.

It's simple, if you actually read my post, read the resolution, and then look at what Kerry said, his statement is totally consistant with what he voted for.

3 - I can't parse Kerry's statement. Ask one of you English teachers what it means. Let me know.

It's not a hard thing to understand, you're just either averse to any analytical thought, or can't accept the fact that the statement you arbitrarily listed as a flip-flop is infact consistant.

I'm going to lay it out as simple as it possibly can be:

Kerry likes one result the war brought (disarming Saddam), but would have done it differently, so he could be qualified an "anti-war candidate" because he is against the way the war was carried out.

It isn't that hard man, really...

 

[GENIERE]

Wasteof 2 - This thread was supposed to be fun. Russ Waters pretty much stated my view. I really don’t have a problem with a politician changing his mind.

I’m not going to debate the issue anymore. The reason I threw in the English teacher bit was too get an inkling of your age. I’m guessing you’re now a HS senior; a very intelligent one. You’ve made good arguments and I think have learned something in the process. Me? In 10-20 years I’ll only be able to rap on a table during a séance. I need to irritate as many liberals as I can in the meantime.

 

[wasteofo2]

Wasteof 2 - This thread was supposed to be fun. Russ Waters pretty much stated my view. I really don’t have a problem with a politician changing his mind.

I’m not going to debate the issue anymore. The reason I threw in the English teacher bit was too get an inkling of your age. I’m guessing you’re now a HS senior; a very intelligent one. You’ve made good arguments and I think have learned something in the process. Me? In 10-20 years I’ll only be able to rap on a table during a séance. I need to irritate as many liberals as I can in the meantime.

hhahahahaha!
I'm about to be a Junior when school starts (on tuesday), can you believe how much time/effort I put into this crap when I won't even be able to vote until 2006?