Kerry's Debate Flip-Flops

He said, she said. Thats all what the debates are. No one says anything and it is clearly just to bash the opponent. I did enjoy all the goofy faces bush would make when kerry was talking though.

[QUOTE=redeye]I did enjoy all the goofy faces bush would make when kerry was talking though.[/QUOTE]

I loved when Kerry said ""Saddam Hussein did not attack us. Osama Bin Laden attacked us." Bush was like "Duuuuuur..."

LOL... You poor americans, damned if you do, damned if you dont :P

We dont need kerry to show us Bushy Bushy is a chump we know that already. He mumbels cant pronounce any words larger that 4 letters long. All this flip flop bull**** is all he has to say??? Did anyone notice when they asked him about north korea? hi asnweared witch sadam hussein this, saddam hussain that, I mean come on already with all this war **** im so sick and tired of this "war President", why arent his little girls serving in iraq? you think hes a fool?

I loved when Kerry said ""Saddam Hussein did not attack us. Osama Bin Laden attacked us." Bush was like "Duuuuuur..."

Flackbait, you still didn't answer our questions.

He mumbels cant pronounce any words larger that 4 letters long

And you can't spell words larger than four letters long. People in glass houses.....

why arent his little girls serving in iraq?

Because in case you didn't know this, the U.S. Miltary is voluntary. They didn't volunteer, that is why they aren't serving.

I couldn't understand the rest of what you were attempting to say, so I cannot respond.

#2 isn't a flip flop at all. In #2 clip one, he is stating the reason that the US govt gave for going into war, vs. the 2nd clip which shows a previous personal opinion of why the war should be fought if at all.

#3 also isn't a flip flop. In #3 clip one, he states that going into the war in Iraq proved a lack of judgment on the president's part. In #3 clip 2, he states that the world is safer without saddam hussein and anyone who disagrees hasn't the judgment to be president. Why he threw in the judgment remark in clip 2 is beyond me, but just because the world is safer without saddam doesnt mean the war in iraq was fought for the right reason. Anyone knew that the war should have been fought because Saddam was a prick. But that in itself isn't a good enough reason to march into Iraq and shoot stuff up.

THe one problem I have with bush is that his administration says that the reason for the war was to find WMDs. When no WMDs were found, the same administration came out saying that the war was worth fighting and that all of the good that came out of it justifies the fact that we went in without a reason. Blow off, ****sucker. That's not good enough for a president. You can't expect to hit good luck with these kind of things. Plus, whoever the 2004 elected president is will have to dig the US out of a hole in Iraq which will end up in either a small-scale civil war or a large-scale civil war, neither of which are very good.

#4 is quite clear and I cannot argue against it.

#5 - in the 2nd clip, which happened first chronologically, he said that he didnt think that the government would cut back on proper supplies. In the first clip, which happened second chronologically, he said that the govt. WASN'T giving them the proper supplies. I don't see a contradiction, unless you're just skipping random words.

#6 - Every time I hear this as a self-contradiction I piss my pants and feel the urge to stab myself in the face with a soldering iron. Just because the War in Iraq was a mistake doesn't mean that the soldiers there are dying for a mistake. First of all, the soldiers didnt choose to invade Iraq. Second, they're still dying for America. They're still dying for an ideal, a belief, and I think there isn't a more honorable death than that. That's like saying the soldiers in the Vietnam War died for a mistake, just because entering the Vietnam War was a mistake in itself. It's ignorance.

#7 - Again, not a contradiction. At the time Kerry talked about "authority" in clip 2, it was before anyone knew that there were no WMDs. In clip 1, kerry is saying about how bush stated that even if he knew there were no WMDs, he still would have gone in, and kerry is saying that if he were the president at the time, had he known that there were no WMDs, he wouldn't have gone into war. Plus, in clip 2, he says one key word - "effectively". Anyone in the position of president would have used the president's authority. It's who uses it effectively that counts.

#8 - Pretty straightforward. Can't argue.

#9 - I'm sort of iffy on this one. I'd argue, but it wouldn't be a good enough argument so i'll leave it as, yes, being a contradiction.

#10 - Not a contradiction. The contradiction is supposed to be that he says that Saddam Hussein should be disarmed of his WMDs which applies that he actually has some. In the second he says that "Just because the President says he has WMDs doesn't mean it's so" which does NOT imply that there are or aren't weapons, it just means that the President could be lying. Also, at the end he is leaving an ambiguous opinion, basically delivering the message "I have no idea if there are WMDs, only time will tell" which I dont see as a contradiction to anything.

The reason why i'm defending kerry is because he was clearly the better debator. He was the master debator, in fact. Bush doesn't flip flop, but then again it's becuase he's hardcore right wing (which is always a bad thing) and because it must be hard to flip flop when you're just repeating the same 3 things for an hour and a half.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]Flackbait, you still didn't answer our questions.[/QUOTE]

What was your question that was directed at me?

Fig – I wasn’t attacking Bush because he says dumb things. You said it, not me.

Edit: What I'm concerned about is his ability to answer a question without answering the question during the debates.

For anyone that cares. Does this bother any of you?

Web Blunder
No WMD?

matt has to attack me why? who cares i cant spell, or read, im not the president of the USA he is expected to, you the one that write these stupid posts trying to help bush when in fact there is no helping that idiot yes i said it that idiot. The US army is NOT voluntary, only to rich americans, and before you go blow you top, let me explain something to you, i dont know how it is over there in your farm land but , Lets say you a college student and need financial aid, guess what you need to sing up with selective services and its not by choice you have to, and people get this if you want to vote yes vote you have to sing up for selective services , If i remmember correctly u must sign up on your 18 birthday and if you dont you can not register to vote. If you want to become a citizen of this contry YOU must sign up as well. Why do you think the politicians dont want a draft?? cause then and only then will their kids be subjected to serve and put their own lives at risk like the rest of us. Then again they will probably just send them over seas like usual. Come on matty i know that tax return wasent that big for you, or is those 300 bucks enuff to buy your vote.

umm, that made very little sense. whatever you seem to think, the military here is very much voluntary. i didn't serve and i'm far from rich, but my parents' planning and student loans did put me thru school. yes, you do have to sign up for selective service when you turn 18, its basically just a formality.

if you want to post and get taken seriously then take your time, think your points thru and logically and clearly (with decent grammar and spelling) present your argument.

chris