Flip Flopping.....

[FUNdamental]

So, I hear President George W. Bush has a website somewhere that tracks John Kerry's 'flip-flops.' It's fortunate we don't really need a website to easily recall W's "flip flopping" over the past four years. Some of my favorite "du ba U" "flip flops" include

Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a 'road map' and a Palestinian State.

Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits.

Bush-'The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush- 'I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

Bush first says the U.S. "Will not negotiate" with North Korea. Now, he says he will.

[Taxman]

Do you really want to get into this? I've got twenty years of Kerry's follies and I won't even have to break a sweat exposing the fact that he flops more than an overcooked egg noodle...

[Taxman]

Heck, I'll make this easy on you: I'll start off with one and then see how you handle it. Ready? OK, here's a softball one...

Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate who is trading on his Vietnam war record to campaign against President George W Bush, tried to defer his military service for a year, according to a newly rediscovered article in a Harvard University newspaper.

Senator Kerry on the campaign trail in Iowa He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.

The revelation appears to undercut Sen Kerry's carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war - in supposed contrast to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard and thus avoided being sent to Vietnam.

The Harvard Crimson newspaper followed a youthful Mr Kerry in Boston as he campaigned for Congress for the first time in 1970.

In the course of a lengthy article, "John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress", published on February 18, the paper reported: "When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy."

Samuel Goldhaber, the article's author who is now a cardiologist attached to the Harvard School of Medicine, spent 11 hours trailing Mr Kerry and still remembers that the subject of the Paris deferment came up during long conversations about Vietnam.

"I stand by my story," he told The Telegraph.

Sen Kerry's campaign headquarters in Washington refused an opportunity to deny the report.

Despite repeated telephone calls from The Telegraph, a spokesman refused to comment.

Another Democrat official said merely: "In Vietnam, John Kerry proved his patriotism beyond question.

He said it would fuel concerns over the way Sen Kerry made a name for himself by leading anti-war protests in Washington and Boston in the late 1960s and early 1970s after he had completed his service in the US Navy, even while his former comrades continued to fight and die.

At the time, it was still unclear just how long America would remain in Vietnam, and it might have seemed that a year's deferral of service could render enlistment unnecessary.

According to the Democratic Party's version of Sen Kerry's military history, he joined the Reserve Officer Training Corps at Harvard through eagerness to do his duty, and sailed with the Navy for combat as soon as he graduated in 1966.

Sen Kerry won a gallantry medal for his service as a gunboat captain on the Mekong Delta, and was honorably discharged with three "purple heart" medals after sustaining three wounds.

Republican strategists for President Bush were already investigating Sen Kerry's record of three wounds sustained in Vietnam.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[FUNdamental]

That is the biggest non-story I have ever heard. Let's see, When he was finishing College, he wrote the Draft Board asking if he could study abroad for a year!?

Shocking, I tell you, scandalous!

[pandybat]

Originally Posted by Taxman

Republican strategists for President Bush were already investigating Sen Kerry's record of three wounds sustained in Vietnam.

You've got to be kidding! They are going to see whether he really was wounded or not?!

[Taxman]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

That is the biggest non-story I have ever heard. Let's see, When he was finishing College, he wrote the Draft Board asking if he could study abroad for a year!?

Shocking, I tell you, scandalous!

So the fact that Sen. Kerry tried to avoid military service altogether is a non-issue, but Bush actually doing his without the attempt at fleeing the country is an issue? Interesting...

Next, how about the fact that if John Kerry had his way there would be none of the following that have unquestionably made our military the best in the world: the Stealth Bomber, the Stealth Fighter, the Abrahams tank, the Patriot anti-missile system, the Tomahawk cruise missile, the Aegis cruisers, the Predator drones, the F-18 Hornet fighter/bombers, the Apache Longbow attack helicopter, ect?

During 1980s, Kerry And Michael Dukakis Joined Forces With Liberal Group Dedicated To Slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of “Jobs With Peace Campaign,” which sought to “develop public support for cutting the defense budget…”(“Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs,” The Associated Press, 6/3/88 )

Running For Congress In 1972, Kerry Promised To Cut Defense Spending. “On what he’ll do if he’s elected to Congress, Kerry said he would ‘bring a different kind of message to the president.’ He said he would vote against military appropriations.” (“Candidate’s For Congress Capture Campus In Andover,” Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)

How do you reconcile this with his recent statements about how he supports our military?

[pandybat]

Put yourself in Kerry's shoes at that time. Wouldn't you have tried to avoid going to Vietnam if you had the chance? It's not like he went into hiding after he was denied going to Paris. He went into the Navy instead of the Army. I'm not sure of Bush's opportunities to get out of going at the time, but I'm sure he would have done the same thing had he had the chance. Didn't Bush end up going AWOL at some point anyway?

[Taxman]

Originally Posted by pandybat

Put yourself in Kerry's shoes at that time. Wouldn't you have tried to avoid going to Vietnam if you had the chance?

If I had a legitimate reason, sure.

It's not like he went into hiding after he was denied going to Paris. He went into the Navy instead of the Army. I'm not sure of Bush's opportunities to get out of going at the time, but I'm sure he would have done the same thing had he had the chance.

I'm not disputing that. What I have a problem with is the disingenuous nature of his statements. How hard would it of been to simply say that although he didn't want to go, he did? Instead, all we've heard is about how proudly he went.

Didn't Bush end up going AWOL at some point anyway?

Hardly. [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[FUNdamental]

Just about every single man without kids finishing college back then tried to avoid being drafted. Dr. Spock, the child expert, used to present lectures on steps to take to avoid the draft. My father avoided being drafted because he was working on Gemini at the time, and it was in “the best interest of the country’s national defense” he continues on that project, so his boss wrote the draft board.

Did you know it was common practice to use overseas educational opportunities as a deferment to the draft? Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t. Overseas graduate programs actually would send recruiting representatives to US universities using deferments as a selling point to attend their school. Many times the reps would have sample letters for the applier to send to his draft board.

“Supporting our military” has several connotations to it, and some may or do conflict with one another. It boils down to equivocation; remember “equivocation” from your Logic classes?

What is “the military?” Is it men in uniforms wanting more training, better pay, safer environment, functional equipment? Or, is “The Military” the business of buying lots of planes, tanks, and missiles that may or not work, may be inadequate or superfluous, or may be outdated by the start of production?

Here goes the question; can cutting certain weapon’s programs be considered “supporting our military”?

If you are familiar with military budgets and procurement procedures, certain weapons are inadequate, out dated, not functional or too complicated, or just not needed. But because of political pressure from Congress, this equipment is delivered to the armed services with an invoice for payment (ship building in Tennessee for example delivers Ships to the Navy they never asked for).

Removing purchasing superfluous weaponry is a great first step in making the military better for our troops.

So, the answer to question is “yes”

[FUNdamental]

The post was about our president “flip flopping” on the issues, Taxman posts the on the thread, turning it into name-calling and a speculation rant about Kerry’s military service.

And he calls Kerry “disingenuous?” Ad Hominem, my friend.

Are there not new rules for this room that prevent this type of thread hijacking? Can we please remain focused?

[Taxman]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

Just about every single man without kids finishing college back then tried to avoid being drafted. Dr. Spock, the child expert, used to present lectures on steps to take to avoid the draft. My father avoided being drafted because he was working on Gemini at the time, and it was in “the best interest of the country’s national defense” he continues on that project, so his boss wrote the draft board.

Did you know it was common practice to use overseas educational opportunities as a deferment to the draft? Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t. Overseas graduate programs actually would send recruiting representatives to US universities using deferments as a selling point to attend their school. Many times the reps would have sample letters for the applier to send to his draft board.

As I said, the problem wasn't that he tried to avoid the draft (I would have done the same. No reasonable person wants to go to war). The problem is in the way that he's "sold" himself while insinuating that Bush was AWOL.

“Supporting our military” has several connotations to it, and some may or do conflict with one another. It boils down to equivocation; remember “equivocation” from your Logic classes?

Not really, since there isn't an attempt to deceive (unless your saying that when Democrats are saying it, they're trying to pull the wool over our eyes j/k).

What is “the military?” Is it men in uniforms wanting more training, better pay, safer environment, functional equipment? Or, is “The Military” the business of buying lots of planes, tanks, and missiles that may or not work, may be inadequate or superfluous, or may be outdated by the start of production?

The military is both the members of the Armed Forces and the infrastructure and equipment they use. You can't split the two and still reasonably cal it the military.

Here goes the question; can cutting certain weapon’s programs be considered “supporting our military”?

If you are familiar with military budgets and procurement procedures, certain weapons are inadequate, out dated, not functional or too complicated, or just not needed. But because of political pressure from Congress, this equipment is delivered to the armed services with an invoice for payment (ship building in Tennessee for example delivers Ships to the Navy they never asked for).

Removing purchasing superfluous weaponry is a great first step in making the military better for our troops.

So, the answer to question is “yes”

However, were not talking about the B-1 or the JSF. We're talking about highly functional systems that have without a doubt proved there value on the battlefield. Let's turn this around though: How many systems has Kerry voted for?

[Taxman]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

The post was about our president “flip flopping” on the issues, Taxman posts the on the thread, turning it into name-calling and a speculation rant about Kerry’s military service.

And he calls Kerry “disingenuous?” Ad Hominem, my friend.

Are there not new rules for this room that prevent this type of thread hijacking? Can we please remain focused?

See rule #3.

Okay, you're right. I did hijack your thread. I’ll direct my posts to the subject at hand (Bush’s alleged flip-flopping) and keep clear of related subjects (Kerry’s flip-flopping). Please continue….

[FUNdamental]

If you say "The military is both the members of the Armed Forces and the infrastructure and equipment they use. You can't split the two and still reasonably cal it the military,” [sic] than you agree there can be, and is, conflict (meaning incompatible activities, and/or opposing interests) within the military's mission of best soldier, best equipment.

BTW, thanks for hijacking my thread, I will have to return the favor sometime.

[Taxman]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

BTW, thanks for hijacking my thread, I will have to return the favor sometime.

I'm going to be kind and just assume that you simply missed my post directly above yours appolgizing for "hijacking" your thread. I'll excuse you in advance.

[mayor]

If Bush is such a flip-flopper, how come the dems aren't making any hay about it? Could it be they know nothing is there?

On another note, this does not bode well for Kerry...

Democrat Voter Participation Lowest Ever

WASHINGTON - Voter participation in the front-loaded Democratic primaries that helped turn John Kerry (news - web sites) into the party's presumptive nominee was among the lowest ever, according to a study released Tuesday.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]