Serious question for the Kerry supporters...

you should have saved that for after they posted

His position is that he is not Bush.

Does being anti-Bush automatically make you pro-Kerry? I don't understand that...

That's pretty much what I was going to say.

For republicans, it is a no-brainer:

You are with us or against us ....

Further than that is not part of their world...




PS: Why on CNN, when they talk about the 135000 troops in Iraq, they always show this old footage of may 2003 were it looks like their are walking a " peace march "... Can't they show them TODAY, as it is?

The question was directed to "Kerry supporters".

Nowhere did I mention Bush, nor people who are Anti-Bush.

Anyone But Bush! thats the stance that I take..

Kerry is a fucking idiot too.. But he's gonna get my vote because I would rather chance letting another idiot take a shot at running our country for the next 4 years rather than an idiot with a proven shit record in my book..

for all of these issues
http://www.punkvoter.com/images/dls/FLYER-bvk-bw.pdf

then why don't we elect p1mpdogg? or boobmaster?

Kerry doesn't frighten me the way the Bush administration does.

The best I can figure out is that Kerry supporters are the ones that prefer the indecisiveness of the Dem. party.

Clinton would have launched a missle into Afganistan and that is it if he were running the country when 9/11 hapepened. Look how he ran the fight in Somalia.

While I don't understand why anyone is Anti-Bush, I do know that I would rather a bad decision than no decision or even a changing position every 5 minutes. The U.S. can afford to look like a bully, it can't afford to look like an ineffective pussy.

Rik

It was a question directed at the people that would be viewing this thread, thanks for the answer.

"Serious question for the Kerry supporters... "

which part of that can you not comprehend?

I'm glad you support Bush.

(edit) I just changed my earlier post to say "anyone" instead of "everyone...

Rik

I actually saw an "Anyone But Bush" bumper sticker the other day.

Geeze, if you don't know the beliefs of who you're voting FOR, why even bother? Makes NO sense to me.

Another theory... Kerry supporters like the idea of outsourcing U.S. foreign policy to the U.N. --- which still can't define "genocide" in a resolution to condemn what's happening in Sudan while tens of thousands are dying daily..

That sounds like part of it to me.

Rik

But making shit up is fine to you?
Show me where Kerry said he'd "outsource" US foreign policy to the UN.

The reason im voting for Kerry is Edwards. If he wouldn't have taken on Edwards as his Vp (who I was originally going to vote for) then I would have had a tough time voting.

Thanks for pointing out the big problem with democracy. Idiots want simple, strong solutions... even if those "solutions" actually only make things worse.

Sometimes it's better to wait and analyze a situation, and new information changes the position of any sensible person.
Honestly, how could anyone in their right mind consider it a good thing to rush to decisions and stick with them if they turn out to be the wrong ones?

Very well put!

Because only a handfull of media are still in Iraq. The troops don't have "embedded" reporters anymore, especially now that they're tending to behead journalists and contractors over there.

And this hurts the US worse then republicans making it easier for big businesses to outsource american jobs?

And the U.S. can't afford to look like a bully- last I checked we weren't the only country with nuclear warheads.

Heh... here's something for you to giggle over if you think the perception that Kerry Flipflops is funny



http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/me...ate=2004-09-22


Mr. Bush and His 10 Ever-Changing Different Positions on Iraq: "A flip and a flop and now just a flop."



9/22/04


Dear Mr. Bush,


I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!
Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:



1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because ?The Donald R.? went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddam?s right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.


1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.


1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.


1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.


2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:


?I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously.? --October 3, 2000



2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:


Powell: ?We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.? --February 24, 2001



Rice: ?But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.? --July 29, 2001



2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.


2003: WE DON?T BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!


2003: ?MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!? Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!


2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.


Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?


I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.


And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.


That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off.


We can't take another minute of it.


Yours,


Michael Moore
[email protected]
www.michaelmoore.com

No you can't afford an unfair war. Human lives are not to be wasted. War is the last mean a country should use in order to protect their borders and freedom. It's a disrespect.

I agree with Kerry on a number of issues actually. Go to his website and really read some of the things he has to say on there. Unfortunately the things going on in this country right now are more complex than a 30 second sound bite or commercial.

I agree with his stance on our civil rights. Abortion, gay marriage, religion and schools, and most of all the fact that he isn't making up things like the "patriot act" to get involved in all my personal business.

Mostly I'm interested in getting out of this quagmire in Iraq. Kerry understands that this is a huge mess and longterm, it's a losing battle. We need to get the rest of the world (remember them? Those people who could barely tolerate listening to Bush speak at the UN the other day?) talking to us again so that we can come up with a plan to turn over Iraq to the Iraqi people.

He understands that we need to track the terrorists by follwing the money and the intelligence we have and get the people who are really out to do us harm here in the US. Not made up crazy stuff about WMD's and nukes in Iraq. We need to get together and curb the development of nukes in Iran and N. Korea. We can't do that by being a bully. That was cold war policy and the cold war is over.

Also Kerry and Edwards understand that the way to get out of trouble in the Middle East is to reduce our dependance on foreign oil. We need to press the auto industry to make more fuel efficient cars or even better alternative fuel cars.

I don't expect Kerry to wave a magic wand next January and fix everything, but he could get us well on the road to recovery in the eyes of the world and give back some of our civil liberties in the process.

What's currently happening in Sudan is awful, but there are not tens of thousands of people dying every day. The death toll is believed to be about 10 thousand per week. Of course, that is 10 thousand too many, but it's kind of like saying the Nazis were bad because they killed 2 billion jews. It's just silly.

And i love this attitude that some Americans seem to have about how useless the UN is. Anyone remember the petty arguements about the colour choice for the APCs and who would pay for them during the Rwandan genocide? The US was one of the countries involved in that shit while people were being slaughtered with machettes at a faster rate than the Nazis were able to kill the jews.

The US has contributed to the UN's uselessness on plenty of occassions.

2 billion Jews? wow, those numbers really went up, didn't they

What has BUsh done so I should vote for him. And please don't post CRAP. That's mean so called tax cuts, so called making us dafer,w ar on terror crap. That's crap. Give me REAL stuff not crap. JUST ONE. You can't. nuff said. thank you. Now drop it. Go vote for Bush since you love the taste of his cock and keep your crap to yourself.

people will say anything in hopes of getting the uneducated to agree with them

Opposing giving tax breaks to US companies outsourcing tech jobs to India?

just those companies or all companies?

No matter how you shift the taxes it's not going to be enough to make it worth while for companies not to outsource jobs.

He was using it as a hyperbole meant to emphasize the exaggeration of the death toll in Sudan RikRok posted.

That went right over your head, didn't it?

Did you not even read the "it's kind of like saying" and the "it's just silly" parts of the post? He used completely ridiculous numbers to make his point. I compared it to saying Nazis were bad people for killing 2 billion jews (obviously a completely ridiculous number) when obviously using the correct number makes a valid point without resorting to making shit up.

There is still hope for humanity! Breed, damnit! Breed!

And that's why he'll lose the election.. You can't base an election campaign on hate for the other guy, its not going to work, in fact it will help the opponent...

Question, we've all met anti-Bush people, but have you ever met a Kerry supporter? literally, a Kerry supporter?

Kerry's stance on the issues.

=Reproductive & Women's Rights
Supports keeping abortion safe & legal
Supports the Violence Against Women Act

=US Economy
Supports raising the national minimum wage
Opposes Privatizing Social Security

=Tax Breaks For The Rich
Opposes Additional Tax Cuts For Corporations
Opposes Tax Cuts For People Making Over $200k

=Religion & Government
Opposes Organized Prayer In Public School
Opposes Federal Funding Of Religious Organizations

=Environment
Opposes Oil Drilling In The Arctic Wildlife Refuge
Supports Mandatory Clean Air Emission Standards

=Equal Rights
Opposes Amending the Constitution To Ban Gay Marriage
Supports Civil Unions For Gays And Lesbians

=Firearms
Supports Requiring Manufacturers To Have Safety Devices On All Guns
Supports Requiring Background Checks On Gun Show Purchases

=Death Penalty
Supports National Review of Death Penalty Fairness

=Education
Supports Additional Funding For Higher Education
Opposes Vouchers Taking Away Funding From Public Schools For Private & Religous Schools


*Bush has the exact opposite stance on all issues.

well, at least you had an intelligent response, even if I don't personally agree with some of his positions

*So does Kerry probably on half of those..

Sorry I couldn't resist making a joke about the flip flop

This isn't a "serious" question because it has nothing to do with the reality of US politics.

Heaven knows the last time a presidential candidate wrote his own speeches or shaped his own policies. Or for that matter the last time a party didn't blow with the wind to try to get elected. In short, everything you can say or imply about Kerry is equally true of Bush.

You think either party offers us the best possible presidential candidate? Of course they don't. What we get is either a mouthpiece for a single power block, or if there isn't one block strong enough to force its candidate on everyone else, we get someone who is an agreeable compromise for whoever is sharing power at the top of the party.

Nor is there a president in the past 100 years or more who has actually delivered on election promises: at least not the important ones. That's why we still have an education system which produces results comparable with eastern Europe and why longevity in the US is now closer to third-world standards than those of developed countries.

The only reason to vote is to try to put into power a party that might be marginally less damaging than the other. There is no point whatever in listening to what the candidates say, much less worrying about who is the most photogenic or who talks the talk best.

very well said

president is more like a spokes person than a leader

John Kerry has proven he's capable of finding and stopping the financial networks that support terrorist organizations. John Kerry opened the investigations into a group that traded arms and dealt in drugs while supporting tyrannical governments in Central America. You might be familiar with the investigation, it was called Iran/Contra. In addition, John Kerry stood strong against opposition from everyone, including members of his own party when he shut down the Bank of Credit and Commerce International/BCCI.

Getting rid of ASScraft

One reason to vote for Kerry no matter how much you dont like him.

Is to get that bitch ass mother fucker George Bush the fuck out of the white house

First off I think that michael moore is smart for only one reason and that is becasue he found a way to make 100 million dollars. Other than that he is a loser. Why did he not donate most of the profits to 9/11 victums? Because he did it for the money!!! Can't anyone see that?

MM