Vote Bush: He sounds like regular folk (and doesn't speak french)

Kerry's ability to stand on both sides of every issue is all he really has going for him. I don't think that's enough.

Eh, you over simplifying every issue that he stands on both sides of.

"We will win the war on terrorism" flip "We'll never win the war on terrorism."

Eh, you over simplifying every issue that he stands on both sides of.

So you admit it.

Saying 2 different things are different than owning both sides of every issue. Bush is not going to gain supporters by flip-flopping and saying that we will never win the war on terror.

(not necessarily in the correct order)
Kerry: For the war / Against the war
Kerry: Against tax cuts / For tax cuts
Kerry: For weapons systems / Against weapons systems
Kerry: For intelligence cuts / Against intelligence cuts
Kerry: For the marriage penalty / Against the marriage penalty
Kerry: For the Patriot Act / Against the Patriot Act
Kerry: Doesn't think military service is a Presidental credential / Now obviously thinks it is
Kerry: Supports an additional gas tax / Against an additional gax tax

And Kerry can miss nearly every intelligence committee meeting, yet he knows enough to tell people that he can reform intelligence, even though he cared little about it until he was running for President.

It’s dangerous if someone with power can’t comprehend everyone’s side. I don’t think Bush is capable of making a decision that’s good for the country if it’s against his belief. If Kerry for instance doesn’t believe in gay marriage but he wants to make it legal because that’s it’s the right thing to do I think that would make him a better president.

You’ve listed his flip flops but like I said before you simplify the issues too much.

For instance Kerry’s been quoted at saying …

"I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops [in Iraq], not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."

All of a sudden he’s flip flopping because he doesn’t agree with removing 70,000 troops from Germany and Korea.

I’ve had 4 years to see what Bush can do and I’m not impressed.

You don't think Bush can make a decision that is good for the country if it does not follow a Christian standard, but I don't think you can make a decision that's not based on your belief either. I don't think anyone can. A belief system is who a person is, you cannot expect them to make decisions against their belief system every time. Of course Bush believes that abortion should be banned, based on his belief system, of course Bush thinks that gay marriage should stay illegal, based on his belief system. But I am not a Christian and I do not support either of those, so it is not simply a religious argument.

Kerry doesn't believe in gay marriage, but he supports it because he wants the gay vote. I applaud Bush, because he won't go fishing that way.

Here is what Kerry said on Korea:

Finally, I want to say something about the plan that the President announced on Monday to withdraw 70,000 troops from Asia and Europe. Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars. But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way.

But here is what he said at an April 14th Press Conference:

"The overall effort of a president right now ought to be really to try to find ways to reduce the overexposure, in a sense, of America's commitments," Kerry said then. "A proper approach to the Korean peninsula, for instance, should include the deployment of troops, the unresolved issues of the 1950s and ultimately, hopefully, could result in the reduction of American presence, ultimately."

All of a sudden he’s flip flopping because he doesn’t agree with removing 70,000 troops from Germany and Korea.

Yes, he is. Read above.

And how is me stating his flip-flops simplifying the issues? I thought those were the issues.

I've had 4 years to see what Bush can do, and I'm impressed. He said he'd lower taxes, he did. He has not though, held to the Republican ideal of smaller government, which I feel I may be able to forgive, since the gains were in homeland defense, which I feel strongly about. I would still like to see the reduction of the IRS and the reduction of Welfare, but hopefully we can focus more on that in the next 4 years.

For the first part:

If your opinion is that Kerry supports it because he wants the gay vote then that’s up to you. I can’t debate with an opinion. I can speculate all I want about Bush too. I’m saying someone who makes a decision for the greater good would make a better president. We know Bush makes his decisions based on his Christian beliefs which is unwise with such a huge diverse country. You can pretty much say everything Kerry’s doing is to get a vote until your blue in the face. That doesn’t prove anything… I think I have the upper hand because we have 4 years of Bush’s presidency to look at.

For the second part:

He never said his idea was to remove 70,000 troops. You quoted him again but you still haven’t proven that if he was given the choice he’d remove that amount of troops in such amount of time to such and such a place. Your quote could mean anything…

If someone for instance asked me if I’d like to get rid of all the poverty in Oakland and they take all the poor people and move them into San Francisco and took all the rich people and put them in Oakland, that doesn’t mean that’s what I had in mind.

You can pretty much say everything Kerry’s doing is to get a vote until your blue in the face. That doesn’t prove anything

Of course it does, it proves that he can't fool everybody, as he obviously is the Democrats of the world. He's not fooling me, and he's not fooling the people who can see through his behind-the-back vote-fishing tactics.

I think I have the upper hand because we have 4 years of Bush’s presidency to look at.

That has nothing to do with the argument at hand. We are talking about how a person's beliefs influence how they vote, feel, etc. If someone had no solid belief system, John Kerry for example, that person is far to open to influence. I would go so far as to say that a person who has no beliefs / values is FAR FAR FAR to open to influence to trust as a public figure. If you don't believe in something/anything, how are you ever going to take a stand against something that you don't feel is right. You could stand there until you are blue in the face, but you will not convince me that the only reason that you don't like George Bush is because he is a proud Christian. I think that scares you. Can you honestly say that it would be better for the entire country if gay couples were allowed to legally marry? Honestly. If so, then why? Why would it be better for the ENTIRE country if gays were allowed to marry? Well you may not think it would be better for the entire country, but that it is the right thing to do. But isn't it the President's job to make decisions based on what is good for the country, not what is good for a very small group of people.

He never said his idea was to remove 70,000 troops

Did you read his quote, he said he wanted the reduction of troops in South Korea? So what if he didn't say we should remove 70,000, it doesn't change the fact that he said we should reduce the American presence.

You quoted him again but you still haven’t proven that if he was given the choice he’d remove that amount of troops in such amount of time to such and such a place. Your quote could mean anything…

OK, maybe I oversimplified here, I guess I could have been clearer for your sake, but I would still hope that you would grasp what John Kerry was saying overall. He said he wanted the reduction of troops, but when the troops were reduced, he came out saying that this was not the right time, nor the right way. Since he was not clear in his original quote, saying that we should reduce troops, I can assume and suggest all I want. If he would have come out and said "2 years from now, we should" or "20,000 troops, but only if" but he didn't Flackbait. He simply said that the ultimate goal should be the reduction of troops. Well guess what, Bush ultimately decided to pull 70,000 troops out of South Korea. Suddenly Kerry speaks out against it, and you don't think he's vote-fishing? Honestly? No kidding, you cannot be serious?

And you didn't answer my question:

And how is me stating his flip-flops simplifying the issues?

That has nothing to do with the argument at hand. We are talking about how a person's beliefs influence how they vote, feel, etc. If someone had no solid belief system, John Kerry for example, that person is far to open to influence. I would go so far as to say that a person who has no beliefs / values is FAR FAR FAR to open to influence to trust as a public figure. If you don't believe in something/anything, how are you ever going to take a stand against something that you don't feel is right. You could stand there until you are blue in the face, but you will not convince me that the only reason that you don't like George Bush is because he is a proud Christian. I think that scares you. Can you honestly say that it would be better for the entire country if gay couples were allowed to legally marry? Honestly. If so, then why? Why would it be better for the ENTIRE country if gays were allowed to marry? Well you may not think it would be better for the entire country, but that it is the right thing to do. But isn't it the President's job to make decisions based on what is good for the country, not what is good for a very small group of people.

I wasn't aware Kerry didn't have a belief system? I know he's not a bible thumper but I'm pretty sure he has values. Do you think people who aren't as passionate about a religion don't have values?

The gay population is close to the millions if not more here in the United States. The gay couples wanting to get married despite threats are in the thousands. Good job with classify the "minority." We don't even have to go as far as the ENTIRE country. Bush had a tissy fit when it was suggested that individual states decide.

OK, maybe I oversimplified here, I guess I could have been clearer for your sake, but I would still hope that you would grasp what John Kerry was saying overall. He said he wanted the reduction of troops, but when the troops were reduced, he came out saying that this was not the right time, nor the right way. Since he was not clear in his original quote, saying that we should reduce troops, I can assume and suggest all I want. If he would have come out and said "2 years from now, we should" or "20,000 troops, but only if" but he didn't Flackbait. He simply said that the ultimate goal should be the reduction of troops. Well guess what, Bush ultimately decided to pull 70,000 troops out of South Korea. Suddenly Kerry speaks out against it, and you don't think he's vote-fishing? Honestly? No kidding, you cannot be serious?

It’s simplifying the issues in that a presidential candidate doesn’t have the intel that the president needs to make decisions on troop deployments and reductions. When you cry “flip flop” it doesn’t mention that small detail does it?

I know Bush would probably say he'd reduce troops in a matter of 2 years without being briefed on say the border of North and South Korea. Sorry if Kerry isn't that dumb.