Salty

iTrader: (14)

You have got to be kidding me...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...litics_of_iraq

Kerry's idea of campaigning is to armchair quarter back plays after the whistle has been blown?

Well if that's the case then I wouldn't have made a handful of decisions in life and would be a very rich man with my psychic-like endeavors in the equity market.

I just wish Kerry had a better team of advisors because this isn't going to cut it.

Furthermore, I have never seen a person, especially a public figure, be so quick to change their mind and stance about something in the past. Given Kerry’s new tactics from likely advisors, I wonder if he even knows what the hell he’s talking about -or- believes in anymore?

SilverScoober02

It actually makes perfect sense to me. We went to war because there were weapons of mass destruction right? So he votes for it. Finds out there are no weapons of mass destruction and that we were duped by the intelligence community and he says he wouldn't have went to war.

That seems perfectly logical to me. I actually like this about Kerry. He has the cajones to say that we were wrong and he would have done it differently knowing what he knows now. Hindsight always being 20/20 of course. All this crap about him flip flopping is just that. There is nothing wrong with adopting a new position as new information comes to light.

It's like this....

"I beat up this guy that I thought was stalking my girlfriend and then later found out that he wasn't stalking my girlfriend so maybe I shouldn't have beat him up."

Perfectly logical....Tough to grasp for some of you though I'm sure

syncopation

iTrader: (3)

Are you implying that Bush doesn't waffle?


Bush's waffle house....
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/waffle_house.htm

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Well duh... who wouldn't?

By the time we had testimony that intelligence was bunk we already had Saddam in custody and an Iraqi government in place (mission frago). The only way Kerry could have possibly changed his mind so soon is if he had "super intelligence" -or- realized he was going to be on the Democrat ticket for the Presidency. You can't go into an election with the same ideals as the running president, can you? He changed his story to please the masses of people that would be voting for him in November.

syncopation,

I realize you're new to Teh Politics forum but you're preaching to the wrong choir. If you had any idea where I stood on the candidates you'd understand that this particular thread was directed toward Kerry, not Bush. You'd also know that I dislike both candidates and encourage you to make a "Bush waffle thread" for yourself instead of swaying the conversation off Kerry in this one.

This isn't the first time you've posted information I didn't already know. You just recently posted oil figures in another thread when I’ve mentioned those facts before. I never replied to your post in said thread because it's a dead, revolving argument.

So let me introduce you to search button seen above: (SEARCH LINK) and be the first to welcome you to the forum

SilverScoober02

Kerry has the ***** to say that knowing what he knows now he wouldn't have invaded and Bush says knowing what he knows now he still would have.

"Less than two years after voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, the Democratic candidate said that had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction and had he been president, he would not have followed Bush's path to war. Bush, also speaking hypothetically, says he would have invaded Iraq, even knowing what he knows now."

So, DUH......thats who wouldn't - your beloved Bush. Thank you for making my point.

syncopation

iTrader: (3)

Thanks for the warm welcome!

Oh, so the point of the thread is only to bash Kerry. Sorry. That wasn't so explicit. My post isn't directed at you. Not in redirecting, but showing both sides. You are saying "Kerry changes his mind". I'm saying "Bush changes his mind". Big deal, yesterdays, news.

And my post was more in retort of this:
"Furthermore, I have never seen a person, especially a public figure, be so quick to change their mind and stance about something in the past."

You say you never saw anyone, I just gave you someone.

To reply regarding the Oil thread...If you knew the figures, then why would you make the satement that we were running out of oil? It's not a revolving argument. You clearly did not understand, and I was doing my best to help you.

And I don't like either of these two knuckelheads either!

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I didn’t make any point for you.

If you had read my post you would have seen "(mission frago)" written:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=frago&r=67

Basically, Bush can't back down from what he's done because it'll make him look extremely worse. Instead, he suggests OIF is justified based on the riding of Saddam and his regime (hence "mission frago" which is basically a change in plans or order).

For Kerry to make a judgment after any fact is weak. It's like watching someone bet on black in roulette and saying "I would have bet red" after they loose. It's an argument that can never be won, but a very weak argument nonetheless. My point being that this isn't a strong campaign strategy.

bassplayrr

iTrader: (9)

Don't get me wrong, I like you alot Eric, and I do understand that you claim to like neither Bush, nor Kerry, yet you rarely if ever post a thread devoted to bashing bush. I do notice that on occasion you will bash bush(well not actually bash, but agree that he has doen something wrong when someone else calls your attention to it) within another thread, but you never devote as much time and attention by posting a new thread as you do with Kerry on a daily basis. If you agree that Bush is known to "flip-flop" as you claim Kerry is doing, why do you not post a new thread about it, or at least let syncopation post his reply with out batting it down as I am confident that if he posted some "bush is waffling"thread yuo would surely post a reply with links to show Kerry waffles. You're by no means required to be "fair and balanced" but I don't understand why you often insist on claiming to be so. Sometimes you come of a bit O'riellyesque to me.

That being said, I don't understand why changing your mind is a bad thing, for either Bush or Kerry, if it is done with good intent, i.e. Kerry changes his stance on Iraq given false information from the White House, and Bush changes his view on using our military to overthrow another nations leader (which he specifically said he wouldn't do) given Sep. 11th and our new war on terror (if you think Sadaam/Terror are linked, which many people don't).

-Chris

bassplayrr

iTrader: (9)

Kerry changing his stance after the fact is not weak at all, he is infact, just saving face as Bush is doing. He is pointing out that although he did vote for war, he did so given certain extream information (WMD and a threat to us here at home) and that he would not have voted for war had he known that those specific and very extream threats did not exist. This is very important as most of the people who he hopes will vote for him are mostly anti-war and may decide to vote Nadar or another third party if they think that Kerry is no less a war monger than bush.

-Chris

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Listen... I’ve said "i’m still voting for Bush" a few times too so there's your answer for that.

I'm just trying to keep things interesting in the forum by posting current events for interpretation and discussion. Every time I post something it's not because I'm in bed with either candidate, it's because these current events are top stories and i'm anticipating a few bites from the members to keep it spicy.

Look at my post history for ****s sake! I have posted in damn near every thread in Teh Politics and am the primary thread starter of at least 80% of the threads. Do you think I'd do this otherwise? There's no question that I have more conservative views which is why we have Dre as a moderator too.

So to make everyone happy I’ll sit back and watch this forum die seeing how i can't type an unbiased post and be impartial as a moderator. I'll only post with solid facts and when a thread needs to be moderated. Good riddance to the whole damn thing and silly me for ever trying to promote it.

SilverScoober02

^^^What he said...Chris is fastaaar than me!

Unregistered

Would you perfer your son/daughter to admit they made a mistake after the fact and learn a lesson. Or do you want them to never admit that they could of been wrong for doing something?

Unregistered

I don't think you got what he ment Salty. You made it seem like you are not biased. And we all are to some extent. You lean to the right me to the left. And like you stated thats why we have Dre. No reason to get upset because it was pointed out at you.

SilverScoober02

Well don't do that because I enjoy our debates whether you be on the conservative side or not. And yes the place would die without your posts so don't go doing anything drastic. You do tend to promote yourself as a middle grounder but your posts kind of contradict that. That said I enjoy what you post and look forward to jumping into any debate that you start because I know you will do your homework on the subject and come back with some useful stuff. Unlike HellaDumb who doesn't really post anything useful (see https://www.i-club.com/forums/teh-politics-forum-114/gw-causes-economic-turmoil-hurricanes-73197/ ) you post topics that we can all get into and debate.

bassplayrr

iTrader: (9)

Yeah, I was just pointing out that you are biased, not that it is bad. To be honest, I prefer you to be biased, it helps to balance out the board. I lean left, but if Dre's posts were all that were in the Politocs Forum I think I'd shoot myself.

-Chris