You asked for the notorious "Flip Flops".

[Chelle]

Then here it is in detail and with references:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1205658/posts

Enjoy.

[Chelle]

Though this one is one of my favorites:

Kerry voted to support the war in Iraq. [9] He voted for regime change in Iraq twice (1998 and 2002). [10] Then Kerry voted against funding our troops in Iraq [10], stating “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” [11] Two weeks before that, he told CBS, “I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops.” [11] Kerry called himself an “anti-war candidate” but now says he supports the war. [12]

:lolwave:

OH and this one too:

First Kerry enthusiastically supported the Patriot Act; then he decided it was draconian. [10] Kerry enthusiastically supported President Bush’s education policy (“No Child Left Behind”), but now he opposes it. [10] In October 2003, Kerry called Israel’s controversial security fence a “barrier to peace,” [15] while in February 2004, Kerry called it a “legitimate act of self-defense.” [16]



[Edited on 9-10-2004 by Chelle]

[SpunGirl]

I'm so aggravated with the two mediocre candidates I have to decide between. I was Bush, then I was Kerry, now I'm ready to write in McCain just so I don't have to vote for either or them.

No child left behind does suck, however.

-K

[peam]

The first third of that page deals with Vietnam, something which Republicans want to drop but continue to stir the pot on when convenient.

As for No Child Left Behind, Kerry, and most other senators, who supported it before, assumed that the President would actually provide the funding needed for it to be a success. Instead, the program is an underfunded failure, thus the changing of opinions by more than a few lawmakers.

The Patriot Act is the same way. It seems like a good idea in theory, but the Act is a stain upon freedom, when it's being executed. Kerry, and other lawmakers, voted for the Patriot Act, and then balked at the abuse of liberty it caused once it was made into law. Any American who is willing to give up liberty for 'security' deserves neither.

And since we're practicing mud-flinging politics, here's some Bush flip-flops:

1. Bush Flip-Flops on Independent 9/11 Commission

Bush Flip: Initially Opposed to Independent 9/11 Commission
Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a "statement of policy" that read "...the Administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review [to Congress's investigation]." [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02; LA Times, 11/28/02]

Bush Flop: Bush Relented and Appointed Independent Commission
President Bush finally agreed to support an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks after "the congressional committees unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses, the administration reversed its stance." [Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02]
2. Bush Flip-Flops on Independent WMD Commission

Bush Flip: Refuses to Call for Independent Bipartisan Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction
"President Bush said on January 30, 2004, 'I want to know the facts' about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation." [AP, 1/30/04]

Bush Flop: Bush Appoints WMD Investigation Commission
President Bush named a nine-member bipartisan commission to investigate U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities in February 2004. The AP noted, "Bush had initially opposed a commission, but agreed to do so as calls grew from Republican lawmakers as well as Democrats." The Los Angeles Times reported, "The White House opposed that panel initially, then backed down under pressure, and some say administration officials now regret doing so because the administration has become locked in a series of embarrassing battles with the Sept. 11 commission." The New York Times noted Bush "gave the panel until March 2005, well after the November elections, to submit its conclusions." [NY Times, 2/7/04; LA Times, 2/1/04; AP, 2/6/04]
3. Bush Flip-Flops on Time He'll Spend With 9/11 Commission

Bush Flip: Would Meet For Only One Hour With 9/11 Commission
McClellan: Obviously, as part of this, the President will be meeting with the chairman and vice chairman at some point in the near future. We are still working on the exact time of that meeting. We have discussed with the commission what we believe is a reasonable period of time to provide the chairman and vice chairman with answers to all of their questions.
Q: Is that the one-hour time frame?
McClellan: That's what I'm referring to. [WH Press Briefing, 3/9/04]

Bush Flop: White House Says No Time Limit on President's Testimony
"President George W. Bush will privately answer all questions raised by the federal commission investigating the September 11 attacks, the White House said, suggesting that Bush might allow the interview to extend beyond the one-hour limit originally offered to the panel by the White House. 'He's going to answer all the questions they want to raise,' said the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, whose remarks suggested that the White House was softening its negotiating stance toward the bipartisan commission. 'Nobody's watching the clock.'" [WH Press Briefing, 3/9/04; International Herald Tribune, 3/11/04]
4. Bush Flip-Flops On Calling For A U.N. Vote On Iraq War

Bush Flip: U.S. Will Seek U.N. Vote For War With Iraq
Bush: ...yes, we'll call for a vote.
Question: No matter what?
Bush: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam. [Bush News Conference, 3/6/03, emphasis added]

Bush Flop: Bush Attacked Iraq Without U.N. Vote
Bush "failed to win explicit [security] council approval for the use of force" in Iraq. Two days before bombs began to fall in Iraq, the Bush administration withdrew its resolution from the UN Security Council that would have authorized military force. Bush abandoned his call for a vote after it became clear that the US could muster only four votes in support of force. [Washington Post, 3/21/03; Los Angeles Times, 3/18/03]
5. Bush Flip-Flops on Department Of Homeland Security

Bush Flip: Bush Thought Homeland Security Cabinet Position Was "Just Not Necessary"
In October 2001, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush opposed creating Office of Homeland Security position for Ridge. "[T]he president has suggested to members of Congress that they do not need to make this a statutory post, that he [Ridge] does not need Cabinet rank, for example, there does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security is because there is such overlap among the various agencies, because every agency of the government has security concerns," Fleischer said. [White House Press Briefing, 10/24/01]

Bush Flop: Bush Decides to Support Homeland Security
The New York Times reported, "Bush initially resisted Democratic proposals for a Cabinet-level agency. But once he endorsed it, the president pushed Congress for fast action as it debated such issues as whistle-blower protections, concerns over civil liberties and collective bargaining for department employees."

In remarks to Homeland Security Department employees, Bush claimed credit for supporting the Department: "In just 12 months, under the leadership of your President...you faced the challenges standing up this new Department and you get a -- and a gold star for a job well done." [New York Times, 2/28/03; Bush Remarks at One-Year Anniversary of DHS, 3/2/04]
6. Bush Flip-Flops on Gay Marriage

Bush Flip: It's Up to the States to Decide
In a 2000 presidential primary debate, candidate George W. Bush said gay marriage was a state's issue, saying, "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Presidential Primary Debate, 2/15/00]

Bush Flop: Bush Supports Constitutional Amendment That Restricts States' Rights
Bush: "If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country." [Bush, 2/24/04]
7. Bush Flip-Flops on Using Military For Nation Building

Bush Flip: Bush Promised Not to Use Military for Nation Building
In a campaign rally in Tennessee, then-Presidential candidate Bush criticized the Clinton administration for using the military in nation-building missions. Bush said, "I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place." [Governor George W. Bush, 11/6/00]

Bush Flop: President Used Military for Nation Building in Afghanistan and Iraq
After the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush met with soldiers stationed in Afghanistan at the White House and thanked them for their nation building efforts. A senior administration official said, "The administration, with its international partners, is doing something akin to nation-building." The plans for a post war Iraq also included nation building measures and, according to the Baltimore Sun, "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell confirmed...that Bush was considering, among other options, installing a U.S.-led occupation government if Hussein's regime is removed." [Baltimore Sun, 10/19/02]
8. Bush Flip-Flops on Hybrid Automobiles

Bush Flip: Bush Mocked Gore's Tax Credit for Hybrid Cars
"'How many of you own hybrid electric gasoline engine vehicles? If you look under there, you'll see that's one of the criteria necessary to receive tax relief. So when he talks about targeted tax relief that's pretty darn targeted,' Bush told the Arlington Heights rally, drawing laughs." [Chicago Sun-Times, 10/29/00]

Bush Flop: Bush Supported Investing in Hybrid Cars
In his State of the Union speech, Bush said, "Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. ... Join me in this important innovation, to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy." [White House, "President Delivers 'State of the Union,'" 1/28/03]
9. Bush Flip-Flops on Assault Weapons Ban

Bush Flip: Bush Supports Extending Assault Weapons Ban
Ashcroft: "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I will be pleased to move forward with that position." [Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/17/01]

Bush Flop: Bush Opposes Extension of Assault Weapons Ban
"The White House is opposing addition of gun show and assault weapons restrictions to a bill shielding firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits, prompting angry complaints from Democrats that President Bush is reneging on earlier support for the two proposals...In a statement [on February 24, 2004], the White House urged passage of the lawsuits measure without amendments that might delay its enactment. 'Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable,' the statement said. Democrats interpreted this as an effort to undermine support for the gun-control measures. 'For the president to say he is for the assault weapons ban but then act against it is a flip-flop if there ever was one,' said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of several sponsors of the assault weapons proposal in the Senate." [Washington Post, 2/26/04]
10. Bush Flip-Flops on Steel Tariffs

Bush Flip: Bush Imposes Steel Tariffs
"President Bush on [March 5, 2002] slapped punishing tariffs of 8% to 30% on several types of imported steel in an effort to help the ailing U.S. industry, drawing criticism from American allies and mixed reviews at home. 'An integral part of our commitment to free trade is our commitment to enforcing trade laws to make sure that America's industries and workers compete on a level playing field,' Bush said in a statement issued by the White House." [USA Today, 3/5/02]

Bush Flop: Bush Rescinds Steel Tariffs
"Facing a potential global trade war, President Bush on [December 4, 2003] lifted tariffs he imposed on foreign steel 21 months ago, declaring the U.S. steel industry healthy and ready to compete despite the industry's claim that it needs more time to recover." [Chicago Tribune, 12/5/03]

[Ilvane]

I think you have to consider the source on the flip flops too. It has sources, but it spins it in a way that is pro-Republican. You may want to check on some of that. It's true about some of the votes, but the circumstances are much different in most cases too. If you see why he said he voted for things before voting against, and read the entire statement and reasoning, it isn't so bad.

Bush is just as bad of a flip-flopper, if not worse. Bush just doesn't have 20 years of Senate experience behind him.

-A

[Chelle]

By Jon Christian Ryter

August 15, 2004

NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon55.htm




Kerry testified, under oath, on April 23, 1971 that he had personally witnessed, or heard first hand reports from others who witnessed, criminal acts of brutality inflicted on innocent Vietnamese citizens and on enemy combatants. Kerry claimed that US soldiers regularly raped innocent women, beheaded people, cut of their limbs or their ears, blew up their bodies and randomly fired on civilians as a form of entertainment. He testified that it was common practice to raid and raze villages, shoot the villagers' cattle or other livestock as well as they household pets just for fun. In point of fact, the only atrocities Kerry experienced first hand were the two he performed himself—without orders from anyone. In one "engagement" (in which there was no enemy fire) Kerry's swift boat crew opened fire on a hut along the river where Kerry spotted a handful of Vietnamese farmers and what turned out to be South Vietnamese soldiers whom Kerry mistakenly believed were Viet Cong irregulars and North Vietnamese regular army. Kerry's crew opened fire with 50 caliber machine guns, killing an old man, a woman, a baby, a couple teenage boys and several South Vietnamese soldiers—in proper uniform with identifiable markings that should have told Kerry's crew they were allies. Kerry would later argue that his charts indicated no "friendlies" were in the area. In a second "engagement," Kerry chased down and murdered an unarmed, mortally wounded Viet Cong irregular who was begging for his life and trying to surrender. For the murder of this unarmed man, Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. Yes, Kerry could likely have testified to atrocities in Vietnam—but they would have been his own for which he should have been charged, convicted and sent to prison. But, when you're part of the silver spoon crowd, the military sweeps your sins under the carpet and give you medals instead of prison sentences.

[Chelle]

Peams request in another thread for someone to list the "notorious" flip flops. So per his request I did so.

[SpunGirl]

This looks like shit for Kerry, but are any women as worried as I am about Bush's stance on reproductive rights? That's what makes being totally pro-Bush scary for me.

-K

[Ilvane]

I have no problem when they are from at least sites that pretend to be bipartisan. The Free Republic isn't unbiased in the slightest.:)

Statement from the founder of the Free Republic:

In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.

Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.

We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.

May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.

Jim Robinson
~~~

heh.

-A

P.S. And while I'm at it... http://www.jonchristianryter.com/Root/main.html

[Edited on 9-11-2004 by Ilvane]

[Ravenstorm]

Get your facts straight.

http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=232

Raven

[Chelle]

Honestly, and personally. I don't give a flying flip who did what 20 or 30 years ago. I don't care what either of them did in Vietnam. That isn't at all the basis for my vote.

I do not know what Kerry is for or against. Things have changed so much from that guy. I just don't know. If I did I might consider voting for him. Everyone in my family feels the same way.

With Bush I feel safer, I do know what he is for or against. I don't agree with everything Bush is for, but I at least KNOW what he is for. And he seems like a tough guy, Kerry seems .. well, pansyish.

[CrystalTears]

:yeahthat:

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Chelle
Honestly, and personally. I don't give a flying flip who did what 20 or 30 years ago. I don't care what either of them did in Vietnam. That isn't at all the basis for my vote.

I do not know what Kerry is for or against. Things have changed so much from that guy. I just don't know. If I did I might consider voting for him. Everyone in my family feels the same way.

With Bush I feel safer, I do know what he is for or against. I don't agree with everything Bush is for, but I at least KNOW what he is for. And he seems like a tough guy, Kerry seems .. well, pansyish.

Ask and you shall receive, click on Candidates.

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

:smilegrin:


*edited to change it to Candidates, which is a better format.

[Edited on 9-11-2004 by TheRoseLady]

[Betheny]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
This looks like shit for Kerry, but are any women as worried as I am about Bush's stance on reproductive rights? That's what makes being totally pro-Bush scary for me.

-K

:thumbsup:

That's one of my major issues. And why I hope he loses. Everything else is secondary to me.

[Kefka]

Oh man. Freeperville. Free Republic is Neocon central. If you've never been to spin city, there it is.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by peam
Any American who is willing to give up liberty for 'security' deserves neither.
The next time you feel like paraphrasing Ben Franklin, you should remember he's the same guy who told the British the Stamp Act was a great idea.

Unless of course you just thought that up now. In which case, you're wrong. :)

[Hulkein]

<<Bush is just as bad of a flip-flopper, if not worse. Bush just doesn't have 20 years of Senate experience behind him.>>

No, not even close. Kerry flip flops on major issues within weeks time. I don't care if Bush wasn't for a commission then was, it isn't a big deal. Kerry was against the original Gulf War. He was then for this PRE-EMPTIVE war (how he went from not even wanting to defend allies to being the 'pro-war' candidate in a pre-emptive war), then he was against it, then he 'would still vote for it knowing what he knows today' and then is against it, saying it wasn't the right time. Well dipshit, than why the hell did you say three days ago you would still vote for it?


Oh, and reproductive rights? LOL. How about the right to life?

[GSLeloo]

Ok I have a simple question... if you were for something at first and then you learned a bit more about it and a bit more and things kept suddenly revealing themselves and you decided that what you were for is suddenly a bad thing and so you changed your mind and were against it... would that be so bad?

[Hulkein]

No. Except for when the information you're learning a bit more is public opinion polls. That is pretty much what Kerry does. He rode the 'pro-war' wave when it was popular with the people, now rides the 'anti-war candidate' when public opinion is down.

[peam]

2 1/2 King Cobras later, Bush still sucks.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Oh, and reproductive rights? LOL. How about the right to life?

This isn't an abortion debate. Bush's stance on reproductive rights is basically that they are non-existent, which is what scares me.

Bush would like to replace supreme court justices that are pro-choice and about to leave with justices that are anti-choice. That's what scares me.

Bush would like congress to vote for and enact laws that give individual rights to fetuses, and disguise these as "violence against pregnant women" laws. That's sneaky and underhanded, and that's what scares me.

Bush's stance on these things is not up for debate, and I simply stated that his stance on this issue bothers me. Don't try to turn this into a fucking abortion debate, plz. I'm glad you think it's funny, because a lot of people don't.

-K

[Hulkein]

<<This isn't an abortion debate. Bush's stance on reproductive rights is basically that they are non-existent, which is what scares me.>>

And you, a sensible woman, has a stance on the right to life that is non-existent. That saddens me.

<<Bush would like to replace supreme court justices that are pro-choice and about to leave with justices that are anti-choice. >>

I know, that's one reason I'm voting for him.

<<Bush would like congress to vote for and enact laws that give individual rights to fetuses, and disguise these as "violence against pregnant women" laws. That's sneaky and underhanded, and that's what scares me. >>

Honest question. I know you don't want an abortion debate but I'd like an answer here. You're 7 months pregnant and shopping. Some asshole tries to mug you but you are able to fight him off and keep your purse. Pissed off he takes out a knife and stabs you in the stomach just to spite you, killing your baby purposely. What do you want him charged with? Assault with a deadly weapon or murder? House arrest or 25-Life?

<<I'm glad you think it's funny, because a lot of people don't.>>

Trust me, I don't however find the millions of lives taken ever year funny. I do, however, find it funny that somehow a 'right for choice' is more important than a 'right for life.'

[Edited on 9-11-2004 by Hulkein]

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Honest question. I know you don't want an abortion debate but I'd like an answer here.....

This is precisely why I don't agree with third-trimester abortions except in extreme cases. If someone kills a fetus in a woman's uterus that could likely survive outside the womb, I would agree that it is murder. A seven-month old fetus is radically different than a six-week old fetus, or even a twelve-week old fetus. That's my answer.


Originally posted by HulkeinI do, however, find it funny that somehow a 'right for choice' is more important than a 'right for life.'


Again, I'm glad you find it funny. I personally would try not to laugh at someone's stance an an issue as sensitive as this, even if I strongly disagree with them. They likely have a very personal and compelling reason for feeling the way they do.... it's not funny no matter which side you stand on.

-K

[AnticorRifling]

I say leave the choice up to the individual. There is no way I can know the situation or events leading up to it. It's not my body. I don't have to live with the decision. Let the person(s)[sometims a man does have a say in it] decide.

I don't feel that if I were in a position of power(which I will someday be) I would feel right deciding something that I'll never go through. I'm an elected offical, I'm not God. Let that person make their peace and do what they feel is right. I don't have to live with the choice.

[Hulkein]

Well let me just throw it out there that while I am against abortion, I do believe it should be legal for reasons such as rape and if I offended you I am sorry.

Say that hypothetical criminal stabbed you when you first start showing (When is that? Like four months I guess?) in the second tri-mester? Would that change your feelings or no?

[Sean]

You know what I find funny?

The whole I'm going to convince you to vote for my side mentality that both sides of the fence seem to have here. Honestly was this thread intended to start a discussion or be more of a neener neener my sources say this and are better than yours type thread? If its the former I don't really get why you posted a link than when people argue points you say I don't care about that. If its the latter than this thread just belongs with the 30,000 other POS threads on this same subjects... in the dead thread graveyard.

PS. The same goes for the soon to show up kerry side of the fence thread that I'm sure will pop up within a day to counter this thread.

[Edited on 9-11-2004 by Tijay]

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Chelle
Then here it is in detail and with references:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1205658/posts

Enjoy.

Enjoy??

I have read this thread twice and no pictues of shoes.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Say that hypothetical criminal stabbed you when you first start showing (When is that? Like four months I guess?) in the second tri-mester? Would that change your feelings or no?

I think it's around 4-5 months, depending on the person. I'm sure Mary-Kate Olsen, were she pregnant, would start showing around two seconds:)

To answer you, I'm sure I would be devastated. I would probably personally want the criminal to rot in hell forever, and I would do everything I could to see that he received the maximum sentence allowable. I don't think it would be right to charge him with murder.... that opens a door I'm not comfortable with. Of course, I can't say for sure, but then none of us can until we're in that situation.

Also, Anticor, I'm curious what situation you think the guy has a say in it.

-K

[Ilvane]

The thing that bugs me is that these guys talk like third trimester abortions happen all the time. Abortion doctors don't do them unless there is a threat to the life of the mother, or the fetus is deformed and has no chance of survival. They are never done for convenience.

That's what scares me about Bush. I'm Pro-life except in cases of the rape, incest or the life of the mother. I also think that a woman should have the right to choose. I think most people feel that way. It's not my place to say to a woman in a situation she feels is not a good one, that she should be forced to have a child in a bad situation. I'd like her to go through an adoption, but I also know most women can't do that.

:shrug: I just know I prefer John Kerry's stance on abortion. He also believes life begins at conception, but he also supports the right to choose.

-A

[longshot]

Chelle, you're old, fat, and white.

We already know how you're going to vote.

[CrystalTears]

Third trimester abortions did and do happen. It's called partial births. It's a gruesome abortion procedure but it does happen and a good percentage of them are done solely by the request of the mother, whether or not there is something medically wrong with the mother and/or child or not.

[Ilvane]

I'm sorry CT, but I work in the medical field, and have worked at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess hospital in Boston, and I've NEVER heard of one being performed at request in the third term for no reason other than convenience. If a mother requests a third trimester abortion there has to be a good reason for it, such as a deformity, or a risk of life to the mother.

Those DON'T happen at the request of the mother, for a healthy baby. It's just unheard of. I don't know where you heard that, or if you had anyone experience that, but a third term baby isn't aborted unless there is a major problem.

-A

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Chelle
By Jon Christian Ryter

August 15, 2004

NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon55.htm

.......


Ever talk to an actual Viet Nam vet?

That shit did happen or else my father and several uncles and cousins are liars.

Special forces, snipers and recon were known for wearing necklaces of ears. Not all, but there were enough to be noticed by the common ground pounder.

Zippo raids were common place. How do you get the VC out of the village? You set it on fire and shoot anything that you suspect has the possibility of being the enemy.

Vietnamese women were raped with regularity. Aside from consensual relationships and prostitutes, how else can you explain the huge Amerasian population in that region? I find it hard to believe that there were so many loose women in a country that has stronger family values than we do.

If you ever have a chance to get a Vietnam vet to open up and tell you what happened, fucking listen.

I'm sure there are more than a few vets guilty of some of those atrocities, many of them were ill educated and not willingly serving to begin with. Live stock did get shot, and Uncle Sugar did have a reimbursement system in place for just such a thing. The elderly, the crippled, the women and children did get shot, did get bombed, did get doused with agent orange, did happen upon land mines ... it was a very sick, sad, and long war. Atrocities did occur.

[Warriorbird]

Ha ha TOJ. Best comment in the whole damn thread.

[CrystalTears]

There's quite a few sites I've read, this being one of them. It includes a few sites within it as references and articles as well.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAall110403.html

I was horrified to hear of it, Ilvane, and I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't heard of it myself. I couldn't make this up even if I tried. It happens, maybe not in your area but it has happened.

[Edited on 9/11/2004 by CrystalTears]

[GSLeloo]

I always thought that after a certain date (variable by the state you live in) you couldn't get an abortion unless it was life threatening. I never thought you were able to get an abortion in the third trimester... that's disgusting.

[Back]

Thanks for the post, Chelle. The first link you provided was sourced well, but severely paraphrased and assembled with bias.

Now, I’m not going to sit here and discount any of it. Kerry does have some flip-flops under his belt. My opinion is that Kerry’s change of heart, or tactical voting prowess, is well within his right to do as a person. How many of us can say we’ve been 100% on anything our whole lives?

I don’t watch Cspan, but I’m pretty sure that in a body as complex as the congress, Senators must use their votes in strategic ways. The same with the other two main branches when dealing with all dealing together.

Don’t read this as an excuse either. Kerry’s votes on the Iraq war are well documented and his votes on the issues confuse even me. These past three years have been a confusing time for all of us.

For me its been a time of learning the importance of forming a strong opinion, quickly, and hoping that strong of an opinion is correct, or, in a broader sense, the best thing for the common greater good.

I’ve also learned from the past that one must also roll with the punches. Part of our very make up as organisms is adaptability. Its a continual process that occurs instinctually that keeps us alive. Our oddly unique gift of rational supercedes this sometimes to the extent that we still have wars.

When we pwnd Afghanistan pretty much everyone was on the same page. I felt the world swell in favor of our action there. It was quick and decisive, as a battle should be if there needs to be one. Then Iraq came along and things got really weird.

Of Kerry’s votes, I see the flip flops, but don’t consider them in any way, shape or form, as bad as Bush’s single flip flop on the 9/11 commission. That was an act of a fearful and selfish administration. Bush has other very notable flip flops that are equally if not more disconcerting. Bush pwns Kerry on flip flop magnitude.

And Tijay, what did you expect? I agree that this must seem like an exercise in futility, but for myself, I’ve found that the discussions on politics on these boards have helped me become more involved and acutely aware of our curret time in history. I’ve always been interested in civilizations, from Indus Valley to the EU, to our own.

Thanks to the PC, Kranar and The Moderators (makes a great band name), my fellow armchair political scientists and everyone who puts up with my sometimes out-of-the-blue hard biting wit for aiding in my education of contemporary society.

[edited for a cooincidentally misplaced s]

[Edited on 9-11-2004 by Backlash]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by longshot
Chelle, you're old, fat, and white.

We already know how you're going to vote.

... Heh, a lot of old fat white people are voting for Kerry.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
Ok I have a simple question... if you were for something at first and then you learned a bit more about it and a bit more and things kept suddenly revealing themselves and you decided that what you were for is suddenly a bad thing and so you changed your mind and were against it... would that be so bad? Certainly not. This is bad:

Going to an environmentalist dealie and railing against SUV's...

...then driving home in an SUV.
Originally posted by AnticorRifling
I'm an elected offical, I'm not God.No one's saying elected officials are infallible. However, they're still allowed to make laws. Even though I don't think you're right on this issue, I'd vote for you. :thumbsup:
Originally posted by Tijay
Honestly was this thread intended to start a discussion or be more of a neener neener my sources say this and are better than yours type thread?This thread is an answer to a question Peam asked in another thread.

[Chelle]

1. I am not fat. What does being white, or fat have to do with anything? Because I know of some black people voting for Bush as well. Let's try to be civil.


2. Someone asked for references to Kerry's flip flops. I provided them. That is all.

3. Tsa'ah, Yes I have met 3 Vietnam vets. My father being one of them.

a. One of the Vietnam vets I knew, who died 6mo. ago, was a sniper who had over 300 kills. How he kept track of how many kills he had, was by cutting their ear off. He told us some stories about that, that I really dont care to repeat. Let's just say he enjoyed his job. He was at first presumed dead when shrapnel cut his spinal cord. He became paralyzed from the waist down. While they were hosing him off someone noticed that he was still breathing.

b.The second vet I know was in the Marines, a great honorable man who is now an evangelist. He lost his legs in the war by stepping on a land mine. One of his buddies saved his life, by carrying him to saftey.



[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Chelle]

[longshot]

1, 3, 4, a, and b.

Nice work.

[Artha]

I think it's because a and b are more sub-points of 4 than points themselves.

[SpunGirl]

(There is a missing number two).

But seriously, a) is gross. I've heard about that but I can't believe people would actually still talk about it.

-K

[Chelle]

Lol yeah I noticed that I left out a number 2. I had to go take care of the number 2 my lil princess had in her diapie. So sorry was distracted. hehe