kerry: say one thing but do the opposite...

Proof that Kerry doesn't vascillate or lie on issues......this is the latest one.....

-----------------

John Kerry doesn't just flip-flop in his desperate attempt to be all things to all voters; he even makes things up.

In an article Sunday in the Miami Herald that an alert reader just sent us, the soft-on-communism Washington waffler, pandering for the prized Cuban-American vote in crucial Florida, claimed: "I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world."

The Miama Herald reported:

"Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: 'And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.' ...

"There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it," the newspaper noted.

And remember little Elian Gonzalez? Kerry wants your vote no matter what you think about how Bill Clinton, Janet Reno and company sent the poor boy back to Fidel Castro's tropical gulag.

"I didn't agree with that," the Massachusetts Democrat insisted.

The Herald reported: "But when he was asked to elaborate, Kerry acknowledged that he agreed the boy should have been with his father.

"So what didn't he agree with?" the paper wondered.

Here's all that Kerry could stammer: "I didn't like the way they did it. I thought the process was butchered."

Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings predicted that Kerry's record on Cuba would "haunt" him.

President Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, told the Herald, "Kerry is much softer on Castro than Al Gore was."

Perhaps the vicious dictator is one of the "foreign leaders" that Kerry claims secretly support him.

--------------------

Tifosi69.....

Don't you love it when the left wing tells people that it's not as simple as it seems......that it's a complex issue we don't understand.......or that we our positions are crazy and we just don't understand them ?

 

Isn't this thread for discussing your president and the upcomming election? I think so, so it doesn't make sense that you say it has zero importance. Why start a thread like this on a international board and then only accept opinions from Americans. And now your gonna say: "You can say your opinion, but it doesn't mean anything" No, probalby not. But yours doesn't either. But yours isn't more right than mine. You say that I get my info from left-leaning newspapers. Yes I do, because they share the same views as me. IF I was leaning towards the other side and was FOR Bush, you wouldn't say a thing. That's pretty narrowminded. I am not an American, therefore I have a more neutral view on this, being outside the whole thing, watching it outfold. I didn't have anything agains't Bush before the Iraqi war, it all started there. So I haven't been indoctrinated by anyone as you repeatedly states.

You all say that kerry is contradicting himself and lies, well you just descriped your current president. But with Bush, there's much more.

I would not degrade you and talk down to you if you critized out government like you do with me, because I can take it. Our government isn't perfect, and USA's is not either. Try and accept it.

 

"How typical John Kerry is of Vietnam veterans I leave for others to judge.

But he's an all too apt embodiment of the Vietnam era.......the fatal lack of resolution that damaged America's standing in the world and emboldened its enemies."

 

Art, Kerry has voted against EVERY weapons program imaginable yet you are worried about soldiers being shot at, as am I, but how do you propose protecting them? Patriot Missile, M1 Abrams, Stealth technology, etc, he would have done away with if he had his way. I guess we could give the soldiers slingshots, pat 'em on the back and say "good luck"

No Art, you go back and read them because I know what I said. The bottom line is there is a very clear battle being waged between GOOD and EVIL and to deny that fact would be delusional. We are the GOOD guys, whether or not you like to admit it and NO amount of feel-good liberalism is going to change the fact that we, as a sovereign nation have the right, dare I say, the DUTY, to protect ourselves. It is not "my way or the highway" as you so simplistically put it. Would we even be having this conversation on 9/10/01? I don't think so. The cowardly terrorists brought the battle to our shores and we HAVE to bring it back to them...in spades.

The terrorists claim they attacked us because of our being there since 1991 but what they forget to mention is that the Saudi Royal family is who ASKED us to go there and protect them from Saddam. Why don't they properly place some of their anger against those that are TRULY keeping the down because it damn sure ain't us. As for your great budget "surplus" that is a unicorn, a fantasy propogated by Slick Willy. The so-called surplus was imaginary money and you know it. It's real easy to create a surplus when you keep SS as an off-budget line item, nice slush fund. It's a shell game. And as far as being the most feared nation... what's the problem with that? I notice Quadafi sure did change his stripes awefully quickly didn't he? The clerics in Iran are in for a change too, they can;t keep the democratic downswell contained any longer. These are bad things?

Oil prices... WTF does that have to do with what I said? I have agreed on previous threads that the Saudis need to be dealt with harshly and the royal family needs to be removed from power. They are back-stabbing devils. So are you saying that if we were not waging a war on terror then oil prices would be cheaper? I agree you are right, but that cannot justify inaction. For the sake of cheap oil we MUST cave in to these people, who are actively exporting terrorism as we all sit here and type! No sir, that is wrong. I do not get your point there, I agree that this is a direct result of the Saudis "getting back" at us. That's why we need to drill in Anwar, but NO we can't do that.

 

tifosi69, you'r points are crystal clear and correct. I can't believe some people can be so in the dark. Kerry is gonna continue making a fool of himself all the way till election day. GWB is the only president with any balls since RR and I makes me proud to be an American. Bush will be the president come '05 by a land slide.

 

Thanks HMS, and BTW, just like I stated previously, Art has decided to move on to another thread I guess, he has no witty reparte for me? Hello...oo.ooo.ooo Art..t..t...t...t are you there..r...r...r?

 

Ross,

I like Bush when he came into office, now I don't like him.

Damn, what a lier and not-trustworthy man I am.

People change minds and opinions, and so do Kerry. Bush has done it alot himself, so remeber that before pointing out Kerry as the bad guy, he hasn't even gone into office yet. If that happens. He can only do better than Bush.

 

That's what they said about Carter after Nixon & Ford. Guess when and why a little TV Show called "Nightline" first aired. A dickless Democrat put the "I ran" in "Iran."

See, a lot of folks don't want a Prez to say to Terrorists "fnck us in the arse." We want 'em to say, "fnck us? fnck you!" Not fret over numbnut polls.

 

Let's not forget that Kerry also has the endorsement of that bastion of truth, Al Sharpton. Like Dean, who will be used to appeal to potential Nader voters, Sharpton will be used to solidify voters who are black. That endorsement is a high price to pay, in my opinion, since black voters historically have voted democratic predominately anyway, and Sharpton's record of lying, tax evasion and running up a string of unpaid bills in the primary election in order to enjoy a tour of the finest resorts and hotels in the country are all qualities that most rational candidates running on a campaign of veracity would avoid like the plague.

Kerry's big problem is that he has a longstanding, documented record of being one of the most liberal senators in Congress, even more so than Ted Kennedy. This record has been compiled over 19 years and so is an accurate reflection of his philosophy and voting record. It is not based on a few selective votes where it could be argued that a bill that he did or did not support had other, less significant features that affected his vote.

In order to have a chance to win in November, Kerry must and will move to the center, as Clinton did, to capture the center swing voters and independents. This will leave him vulnerable on his voting record, since he is not now, and has never been, anywhere but far left in his views.

Voters will have to decide which is the real John Kerry, the moderate center liberal of the final 8 months of the campaign or the appeasement seeking, tax and spend liberal that he has been for his entire career in Congress.

I am confident that the American voter is smart enough to figure out the answer to that question.

John

 

Hey, I agree. No one should bow under to terrorism. That's not the reason I don't like Bush. Thats because of his political viewpoints. (Executions of minors (And generally. I will NEVER support anyone who supports execution at all.), agains't homo weddings and so on) - But I do not agree that it is on the account of innocent people getting killed. Did you know, that around 16.000 iraqis lost their lives in this war? Did you know that only 6000 of them were soldiers? The rest 10.000 of them was civilians which did not have anything to do with this war. It's outrageous.