Kerry, What Were the Lies?

What Exactly had the "Attack Squad" Done?

from JoeUser Forums
I honestly want to know what the lies were that Sen Kerry was referencing in his remarks. I have heard Bush reference Kerry's history of flip flopping. Those weren't lies. If it is about his plans for our taxes, please be specific about what those plans are. I want to hear more from Kerry than Bush bashing and about his Vietnam Vet record. Dole was an honorable veteran. It didn't warrant his becoming president.

What is it that Kerry will do for us other than reversing the Bush tax cuts? What is he for other than being "not Bush"?

These are genuine questions. This is not meant to get anyone defensive.
politics
15,267 views 39 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
enough with the "flip flop" already.  He didnt flip flop on anything.  He had one opinion when he was told that there was proof of WMD in Iraq, and another when he found out that was bogus....just like the rest of us.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
That just shows hes flexible with the times...
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sometimes being too flexible is a bad thing.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
yeah just trying to lie to myself so I can at least somewhat like Kerry since I cannot stand Bush
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's the thing, Kerry's mantra seems to be "I'm not Bush! I'm not Bush!"
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kerry's mantra seems to be "I'm not Bush! I'm not Bush!"


A fact of which I would be similarly proud. And enough reason for me to vote for the man.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
anyone could win with that mantra.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, if Kerry is simply nothing but "not Bush" you people will vote him in? That is a very sad statement indeed. I still haven't had the questions of my article answered except possibly the answer simply is that he isn't for anything solid other than being "not Bush".
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well if you really want to know where he stands let's see what I can name...

Kerry wants to repeal the tax cuts for people that earn $200,000 a year but wants to keep them for the middle class. He says he will halve the deficit in one 4 year term and spend $72 billion a year to offer health insurance to 27 million that are uninsured.

Kerry's foreign policy includes "a new era of alliances" to sidestep the current go solo style the White House has been doing. His foreign policy advisers include some of Clinton's people.
In 2002 he voted in favor of going to war with Iraq but changed his opinion and has attacked Bush for misleading the public with the actual threat Baghdad posed and he also voted against the $87 billion for the U.S. campaign in Iraq which led some people to call him a hypocrite.

He wants to send some sort of special presidential envoy to try and establish new peace talks in the middle east

For the trade market he promised a 120 day review of all U.S. trade agreements and he plans on using the world trade organization to put a check on China's currency practices

as for using immigrants as temporary workers here is what he said

"As president, I will support sensible reform of our immigration system that protects workers and also provides employers with the employees that they need. I will immediately resume our dialogue with President Fox and put in place an earned legalization program that will allow undocumented immigrants to legalize their status if they have been in the United States for a certain amount of time, have been working, and can pass a background check. This makes sense for the economy, provides fairness to people in our communities who have worked hard and paid taxes, and will also allow us to strengthen our homeland security by bringing undocumented workers out of the shadows and into the light of greater accountability."
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0107b.html

I hope this sheds some light on some of his stands
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, if Kerry is simply nothing but "not Bush" you people will vote him in? That is a very sad statement indeed.


Correct. I would vote for a rock or an old tire or a lump of coal before I voted for Bush.


he isn't for anything solid other than being "not Bush".


Again, this is virtually all the qualification I need.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

How exactly will Kerry reduce the deficit? He makes vague statements. Raising taxes on "the rich" won't have much affect on the deficit.

The US is already working with most countries quite effectively. I don't see why France and Germany's "help" is very critical for really anything.

I would rather the US do things based on what is good for the United States rather than subverting our interests to that of France and Germany.  Does Kerry sweat whether California and Texas (which each have a similar GDP to France and Germany) agree with his policies?

Most of the European nations actually supported US action in Iraq. You wouldn't know that from the spin from the left. But UK, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Poland, Czech, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Hungary -- to name a view, supported us.  No one seems to bother noticing that Japan has been supporting us as well with cash and troops. Australia has troops on the ground as well. So much for "unilateralism".

Of course Kerry cares about France, he's French.

Kerry has an easy ride right now. The zealots on the left like Bulbous will back anyone but Bush. But most Americans want to know what Kerry wants to do. They aren't melodramatic and don't see Bush as god or satan. They see a mixed bag and want to know whether Kerry is offering anything better. 

So far all Kerry has made clear is that he'll raise taxes and subvert our interests to that of the UN and France/Germany. I don't see that as an improvement over Bush. It's too bad those on the left frothing at the mouth can't articulate why they despise Bush's policies since then it would be easier for them to articulate how they think Kerry would change those policies.

 

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kerry's mantra seems to be "I'm not Bush! I'm not Bush!"


No, that's the mantra of some of his supporters.

This is silly. Bush has been in the national spotlight for four years--of course everyone has an opinion of him, positive or negative. Kerry hasn't really been in the spotlight for more than a month or two--remember Howard Dean was getting all the press until Iowa. Very few people--even political junkies--know Kerry's positions in real detail, especially since media coverage of the primary tended to focus on the horse-race aspects of the campaign rather than candidates' positions.

I am sure if you wait a couple months there will be plenty of discussion of the details of Kerry's positions. They exist--just look at his campaign website. But for now, it's still March. There's over half a year until the election. Most people haven't really tuned in, and those who have tuned in are those who feel strongly enough about Bush they don't really need to find out much about Kerry to make up their mind which way to vote.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Presidents can't win a campaign by not firmly establishing their plan of action. In 2000 I paid attention to the news and read up a lot but I still couldn't understand what Gore was actually for. I remember that he was a very boring man like Kerry, and that he lost the election after several recounts which still showed him losing. Yes, Bush sued to end the recounts, but that was most likely due to being tired of hearing recounts every day. The liberal ideal has always been to 'raise the taxes on the rich,' and I think that's crap. First, you're punishing people for being succesful. Why is that fair? Why is it that people who have worked hard or have had the intelligence to accumulate a large sum of money be forced to give it others? The American Way has always been that hard work brings reward, but the liberals want to give all of the cash away. Only 1% of our population pays over 50% of our taxes. That's ridiculous. People constantly talk about our national debt, and that's just crap. Would Gore have not gone to war over terrorist attacks? People say 80 billion dollars like it's a large sum. That's a trifling amount in our government budget.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Does this say enough?

Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004 1:23 p.m. EST
Ed Koch 'Disgusted With Al Gore'

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch said Tuesday that a speech last week by former vice president Al Gore accusing President Bush of "betraying" America left him "disgusted."

"I happened to have seen [the speech] on television," Koch told radio host Sean Hannity during a broadcast from Palisades, N.J., where Hannity was promoting his just-released book, "Deliver Us From Evil."

"I was disgusted with Al Gore," Koch told Hannity.

"I supported Al Gore in the last election," he explained, before adding that now "I would never vote for him for anything, including dog catcher."

Gotham's one-time top Democrat announced last year that he intended to support President Bush, primarily because he approves of the way Bush has handled the war on terrorism.

His support for Bush prompted Hannity to ask if Koch would consider addressing the GOP's New York City convention this September.

Koch said he'd be happy to address the convention, but only if he was allowed to point out his differences with Bush on domestic issues.

The ex-mayor's comments about Gore were greeted with wild applause by Hannity's live audience.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Does this say enough?


No, because it doesn't say anything. I care about the opinion of Ed Koch like I care about the opinion of the Dixie Chicks.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kerry's foreign policy includes "a new era of alliances" to sidestep the current go solo style the White House has been doing. His foreign policy advisers include some of Clinton's people.


The Presidents job is to do what is best for the people of the United States, not what is best for France's economy, or Europe, or any other part of the world. The most important job of the President is to be Commander-In-Chief of the US Armed Forces and use those forces to protect the American people AND the interest of the American people.

How sucessful was Clinton's foreign policy that his advisers are worth listening to again?

He wants to send some sort of special presidential envoy to try and establish new peace talks in the middle east.


The only way to achieve peace in the middle east is to have a ruling dictator. OR to have a war so incredibly large in the region AND one side completely, in-arguabley beats the other. That's how peace is achieved. Wars are never won with treaties. AND nearly every treaty that has been signed to avoid war has always ended up being a temporary fix.

Not realizing this fact has little to do with maturity or "enlightenment." It's an integral part of human nature to rise up against ones "oppressor" or percieved oppressor until you either win or are beaten into submission.

For the trade market he promised a 120 day review of all U.S. trade agreements and he plans on using the world trade organization to put a check on China's currency practices.


And this is a good thing? For one, how well known is China in research and development. They send their best and brightest to the US to learn what can't be learned in Asia. Secondly, how is giving a world or international trade organization power over our trade policy going to do us any good? The US is part of the UN. How large of a percentage of the UN's buget is supported with US dollars? Same with NATO. Joining a WTO benifits every nation involved more than it does the US, but the burden of buget will land squarely on the US. No taxation without equal represtation.

These pro Kerry coments are only the tip of the iceburg on what he would like to do to take power AWAY from America and Americans in the global community. How long has Kerry been in the US Senate? How much legilation has his name on it (meaning he helped draft it)? Kerry has been a doom and gloomer his entire career, consistantly complaining of everyone else's policies, but never offering solutions. He makes a great candidate for the next media anylist/reporter/anchor person, but not worthy of presidential consideration.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
enough with the "flip flop" already. He didnt flip flop on anything. He had one opinion when he was told that there was proof of WMD in Iraq, and another when he found out that was bogus....just like the rest of us.


Kerry said this in an op-ed piece he wrote for the New York Times. It was printed in the September 6, 2002 edition:
"If Saddam is unwilling to bend to the international community and its already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States – a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

Kerry now condemns the Bush administration for acting. THAT if flip-flopping.

Kerry is on record saying this in 1998:
"Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction."

In 1990, Kerry in on record in the US Senate floor stating the following (as well as many more occassions afterword)"
"Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program."

Kerry is preaching the exact opposite now. THAT is flip-flopping.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm sorry, but Kerry would be THE UGLIEST President EVER !!!!!

Nixon was homely, Carter looked like Alfred E Numan, LBJ had ears Dumbo would envy, but Kerry is one step from a

Lon Chaney character........Lurch with a billionaire wife............

eww
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm sorry, but Kerry would be THE UGLIEST President EVER !!!!!

Nixon was homely, Carter looked like Alfred E Numan, LBJ had ears Dumbo would envy, but Kerry is one step from a

Lon Chaney character........Lurch with a billionaire wife............

eww
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Although I do not entirely disagree with Dynosoar, that has little to do with how one should view Kerry as a possible President.

There are plenty of "ugly" people that would make for great presidents. This one just happens to be a spineless, flip-flopping, extreme liberal, hiding in moderates clothing.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Does anyone want an ugly leader representing the Greatest country in the World?

Hell no !

Kerry is proof positive that the Democratic party has conceded this election, they're setting up for a Hillary run in '08 .

If they were serious about a candidate they'd nominate John "purty boy" Edwards !!

It is after all a popularity contest, and the purtiest always win for prom queen. ( lest we forget that leadership is not a req. for democrats in the last 20 yrs)
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dynosoar, I think that some people hate Bush so much they would vote for the elephant man if need be.

Ignorance is Blix, that is the flip flopping I was talking about. I don't mind a politician changing his mind as new information unfolds or changing with the times. I mind when a politician states things purely for political gain. Anyone who doesn't see Kerry doing that is being duped.

AS for the people who think $200,000 is being rich, I challenge you to be a small business owner, pay for decent benefits and taxes and see how rich you feel afterward. Yes, small business owners will be a lot of those people affected by raising taxes for the "rich". I know small business owners that already pay a whole person's salary worth of taxes. If they had that money back they would hire and grow the business, create new jobs.

I keep hearing that Kerry "believes" he can do better. I just haven't heard how yet.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you can tell me one politician who hasn't stated things for political gains, I will not only eat my hat, I'll eat yours too.

Cheers
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

If taxes get raised I wonder how many people we would need to lay off. Or at the very least we'd probably have to start charging for some parts of JoeUser.

Lower taxes means more capital to spend. That money is then spent hiring new people who can then do more things.