The Flips We Flopped

Note the cigarette and pink socks. If Babs were dead she'd be rolling in her grave right now.

Hey William - Are you voting for Bush?
Just wondered.

William, or anyone who has some info on this, I keep hearing Kerry referred to as someone who "flip-flops" on the issues. However, I haven't really heard any specific examples. Could someone provide some for discussion ??

Kerry vs. Kerry

Chimp vs Chimp


I didnt think you'd answer my question William, dont worry, I wouldnt admit it either.

I wasn't asking for a link to the Republican website. I was thinking something a little less one-sided. But I did read over some of what the GOP had. A lot of it was based on random quotes taken out of context or where Kerry voted one way in 1985 and another in 2000. That's not really what I would consider to be a flip-flop. I want to know if Kerry has completely changed his position on any major issues.

Both of those "flip-flop" web pages are mostly pointless, with skewed, twisted, interpretations of statements Kerry and Bush have made.

For example, the Republican website says one of Kerry's flip-flops was voting for the No Child Left Behind act, and then later calling the act a "mockery". But when you read further, you see that Kerry never called the act mockery; rather he accused Bush of making a mockery of the words "No Child Left Behind." I mean, how much more of a twisted spin can you put on something?

Some of the alleged flip-flops on the Dem website are just as skewed, like the one where Bush supposedly demeaned gas-electric hybrid vehicles, and later praised them. Well, he never demeaned them; rather he criticized Gore for proposing a "targeted" tax break for people with hybrid cars.

Poor Raze, desperate for attention.

[ June 24, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Well f#&kin' A, dude, I'm not your research bitch. Have you ever heard of Google? This really isn't rocket science.

[ June 24, 2004, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

When making claims about actions of other, particularly in the political arena, the burden is upon you to support those claims. If you can't come up with something better than a partisan website, you haven't proved your point. He asked you to do so, you have now refused. Obviously you don't have the necessary facts to back up the assertion. That is the only conclusion that can be made from the facts at hand. If you wish to prove your point, answer the man's question. Otherwise, you're just another internet blowhard.

... just another internet blowhard.

<Maynard G. Krebs>
You rang?
</Maynard G. Krebs>*

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania runs this site:

http://www.factcheck.org/default.aspx

Disclaimer: "Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center."


*Look it up yourself.

Any backup for a claim about someone's political views or actions is inevitably going to be "partisan", simply because completely non-partisan individuals generally don't get involved in politics, and when they do they inevitably become partisan because all humans have feelings, thoughts, ideas and emotions that they would want to have validated by a particular candidate. Robots can be completely non-political when dealing with political issues, I suppose, but humans can't. Tell me one claim about President Bush that can be supported or refuted by a completely non-biased, 100% objective source with absolutely no knowledge of any issue surrounding the presidential race and thus no preference or fondness for one candidate over the other. Can't be done. People who do political research are political. Journalists who cover political candidates are political. Candidates are political. Candidates' supporters are political. And people's views on politics are going to be shaped by their political views (it's so cute that I have to explain this to you people).

At any rate - and quite fortunately, I would say -I don't think of my life as some sort of poor-man's Matlock fantasy world where people carry around "burdens" of proof with them. If it makes you feel all important and stuff, go for it, but I don't need that sort of pathetic confidence booster. (I like the idea of being a blowhard though.)

The Repug. attack machine keeps on trying to point out that Kerry has flip flopped. But, lets see upon re-examination here are but
just a few of the classic cases, That Shrub has flip flopped:
Sept. 2001 Shrub says capturing Bin Laden, is "our number 1 priority." By March 2002, he is proclaiming, " I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important."
In Oct. 2001 he is dead set against a Dept. for Homeland Security. Seven moths later he thinks it's a great idea.
During the 2000 campaign, he says that gay mariage is a states right issue."The states can do what they want to do." Now in 2004 he calls for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
There's more!
Shrub supported CO 2 caps, then opposed them. He opposed trade tariffs, then he didn't. Then he did again. He was against nation building, then he was ok with it. We had found WMD, then we hadn't. Saddam was linked with Osama, then he wasn't. Then he was sorta. Chalabi was in..then he was out.
We didn't need more troops in Iraq, then we did. We didn't need more $$, then we did. First Baathists are bad, then they are our buds. We didn't need the U.N., then we did, and so on and so on....but oh yeah, darn Kerry keeps shifting his positions on everything! Yeah ...right. I have to: oh, the hypocrisy!!!
Source of my info is the Pacific Northwest Inlander.

William -- you back to your bad mood? Come on guy -- it's Friday in the summer and the living is easy.

Please post any bad musical tune references in the Non Sports Related Topic section

I think I posted this some time ago. I'm in a good mood right now.