# New proof that Skerry still flops around.



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

In reply to the question yesterday proposed to Skerry, "If you were president, would you have invaded Iraq?" No joke, heres they reply, "You bet we might have."

Wow, something never change.

uke:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

And Bush says that he, like the terrorists is always looking for new ways to harm the American people, whats your point?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Yesterday while campaigning at the Grand Canyon (no doubt stumping for the foreign tourist vote,) Kerry said that he would have voted for the use-of-force resolution against Iraq even if he had know there would be no weapons of mass destruction found. *Say what?* 

You've got to be kidding me. This is pretty rich. So let's get this straight: Kerry goes to the Fleet Center a couple of weeks ago, makes his speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination and _*in his acceptance speech accuses the president of misleading the country into a war to remove Saddam Hussein. Then, a few weeks later, he tells us he would have done the same thing. *_Welcome to Splitting Hairs 101. Unbelievable.

*This latest flip-flop (and it's a big one) underscores the Kerry campaign strategy of being both for and against every major issue*. :eyeroll: With Iraq, he is now saying that he would have still voted for the presidential authority to invade Iraq but had he been president (In Kerrys world, he would have been both voting in the Senate and president at the same time,) he would have used the authority effectively. In other words, I agree with what the president did, I just would have done it differently. How convenient. uke:

Since the devil is in the details, just what would he have done differently? Well .. his plan is a "secret" one, much like Nixon's plan to get us out of Vietnam. Kerry will say that he would appeal to the foreign leaders. He would use his incredible charisma and statesmanship abilities to get the rest of the world to commit more troops to Iraq. *And just what part of American sovereignty would he give away to do this? *He isn't saying. Why doesn't somebody go ask Russia, France and Germany if Kerry could have persuaded them to send troops to Iraq? The answer would still be the same. Kerry also says he would pull troops out of Iraq, but doesn't say how many, or when, or if that could be done.

*Even Democrats are starting to realize that this guy is a fraud ... and they're squirming*. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT

Some people say they have a hard time knowing when Bob is joking. Now I am having a hard time guessing if you are serious or joking. The other day on another post I said anyone who believes Bush said, terrorists will never give up looking for ways to harm America and neither will we. I am sure when any common sense was applied people realized what Bush meant was we will not give up defending ourselves. I said people had to be really stupid to believe otherwise. I would like to amend that and say stupid, or intentionally misunderstanding. You had a very good post and said well then apply that same thought to Kerry. I agree, and do always apply it. Why take advantage of a slip of the tongue, that simply drives thoughtful people apart. What I must interpret as a joke is you comparing Kerry saying "you bet we might have" when asked if their was a chance he would have invaded Iraq. I thought that was an honest answer. Any other answer would have made any other politician look dishonest. If there was absolutely no chance he would be a terrible president for security. MT are you looking for meaningful discussion, or simply trying to sabotage the discussion of serious people because you don't want to hear the truth? Not trying to be a jerk, I would really like to know the point of your last post.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger
guest

Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 436
Location: Michigan
Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 11:50 am Post subject:

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

The media has really gone to the dogs, I dont see them as one sided anymore they just want to get viewers. They know that if they showed happy iraqis and safe americans they wouldnt get any viewers. They don't want to ease our fears they want to make sure that we feel that if we are not informed on the latest event we are not safe. I think your idea for a law which forced them to state whether it is fact or opinion would work quite well. It's good to know that we've all been in the same book the whole time, even though we haven't been on the same page until recently.

Tiger
_________________
If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

Back to top

We came to an agreement in the past, what has turned you to the dark side again? I was just wondering how to take you. You sort of have me going in cirlcles. I think we want the same thing, we just see different avenues to get there.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Some people say they have a hard time knowing when Bob is joking


 Plainsman, why can you tell and they can't? All this stuff is just banter. Last time I checked we are all citizens of the US and we are all in this together. Except MT, hes from the planet Bedwetter but I'll edumacate him, it'll just take a little longer :lol:. By November our friend Tiger will have A Pro Bush Bumper sticker on his flying saucer.  Hes a good kid, I like em full of themselves, shows hes trying to noodle this out. Some day the light will go on and he'll realize we are right, (and he was left :lol: :lol: :lol: ) I couldn't resist that pun.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"are you looking for meaningful discussion, or simply trying to sabotage the discussion of serious people because you don't want to hear the truth?"

Thats depends, I'm not sure that I want to hear your truth. I've been told by Bob that the majority of media is liberal, I believe the exact opposite. To Bob, this is the truth. To me, it is the truth. Dark side, no not quite. I was just poking a little fun up top because I didn't have a good rebuttle to it. I'm growing a little weary at the sheer amount of threads critizing Kerry, and the lack thereof critizicing Bush. Maybe in 2008 we will get lucky and have a candidate that we can all agree on, good for the enviornment and economy and tough on terrorism.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT

I'm with you on that one MT, but throw in pro gun also. I do think Bob is right about the media, because a few years ago they were asked to judge themselves individually. Ninety eight percent said they seen themselves as liberal. We always feel the media is on the other side when they say negative things about our chosen candidate. Look at how excited the media was when Kerry shot two pheasants. The reason they were so excited is they wanted to portray Kerry as a fellow sportsman to us. I don't think Kerry or Bush are serious hunters. I don't know how Bush feels about gun ownership, but I think he is more likely to follow the constitution. I know how Kerry has voted on firearms. Because Bob and I are conservative that it leaves you skeptical, but check it out if you can find a way to do that. It's good not to simply take someones word for something. Now apply that to both sides in this election year. I wasn't sure about your post but I was suspicious of it being humor so poked the dark side comment at you. You know MT I think you and I want the same things we just trust different people.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"I don't know how Bush feels about gun ownership, but I think he is more likely to follow the constitution"

This is one of the biggest problems I have with Bush. He has stated that he will vote in the AWB again, but has taken no action towards getting it done. I am unsure of what he will do with it and that leaves me worried. I too beleive you and I want the same things Plainsman, and I pray that by either candidate, we get it.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> "are you looking for meaningful discussion, or simply trying to sabotage the discussion of serious people because you don't want to hear the truth?"
> 
> Thats depends, I'm not sure that I want to hear your truth...I'm growing a little weary at the sheer amount of threads critizing Kerry, and the lack thereof critizicing Bush.


 

MT,

Why do you think that is?  Of course there is a lot of critisism of Kerry, he sucks and its time everybody stopped supporting him just because he is the Dem runner and start looking at these facts! Open your mind and the rest of you will follow. Just because you might not like Bush is no reason to vote for a 'lesser' President in Kerry. Thats just childish. With Bush we know what he says he'll do, he'll do. No flip-flopping around like SKerry.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

SFC I point back to what I said earlier, I dont believe Kerry is inferoior to Bush, In fact I feel he will make a superior president. Its all opinion.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT

Good evening MT. I was reading two posts back and you mentioned Bush not renewing the Assault Weapons Ban. Do you like the AWB? I sure don't . It keeps gobbling up more guns every time they try to renew it. If I'm not mistaken the guns on the list only look like assault weapons. They outlaw things like thumbhole stocks and other cosmetic things, not functional aspects of the firearm. The newest attempt was to include any firearms with a military history. That includes my 870 wingmaster. A really dangerous bill a few years ago would have let the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) define the standards that would identify firearms to be banned. The AWB bill had a sunset clause for a reason, but once these people get their foot in the door they never want to stop. Also, I think it does nothing to curtail crime. It is all symbolism over substance, or in other words feel good politics. Kind of like the politicians who would rather have you tie a yellow ribbon around the old oak treer than send our troops enough armored vests.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"Bush not renewing the Assault Weapons Ban."

Plainsman, you misread that. Bush has stated that he *will* sign to have the assult weapons bad renewed, but has taken no action since stating that. I am thus unsure of his position and do not trust him on it. I do not like the assult weapons ban either, but I believe there is a provision for 870's. I too however find the ban to be ridiculous, and there are many other measures which could be taken in the place of the AWB.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Mr. Bush said that he would in-fact sign the AWB if it crossed his desk, up to this point it has not crossed his desk. The reason it has not crossed his desk is because it is political suicide for those who try to put it there. Mr. Clinton said in an interview that the AWB cost the Dems 20 seats and put them in the minority. He also admitted that Mr. Gore's perceived anti-gun stance cost him the election. The NRA has not endorsed a candidate up to this point (to my knowledge) when they do millions of voters and millions of dollars will side with one of these candidates, I'm afraid Mr. Kerry has proven himself as an anti-gunner with his association to Schumer, Biden, Kennedy, Feinstein and the likes. He sports an NRA rating of "F". There will be debates in the near future, Kerry will have to finally say where he stands on these and other issues, that will be the end of him.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT

Gotcha, I thought you were disappointed that he had not signed it. I will be disappointed if he does. I think that was a political gamble on his part he can say that to be more liked by the antigun crowd, while being relatively sure that the republican majority will never send that bill across his desk. I wish no politicians worked like this, but the fact is they all do. Thanks for clearing that up. I am always left scratching my head when any sportsmen support this kind of thing, and some do.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Kerry has decided that for the remaining weeks of the campaign he is going to concentrate on attacking George Bush's record in Iraq. That's pretty much it. Iraq and not much else. So, as soon as Bush finished talking to the ingrates and America-haters at the United Nations yesterday Kerry went on the offensive, saying that Bush had somehow squandered an opportunity. *An opportunity to what? Grovel?* :eyeroll: Bush missed an opportunity to adopt a submissive pose in the presence of the great Kofi Annan? Screw the UN :******: Bush missed a golden opportunity to apologize to the UN for actually putting some teeth in Security Council resolutions after 12 years of Saddam Hussein's antics? We have to be nuts to support the UN.

Kerry keeps telling the voters how he would have done things better. So, after all these weeks can any of you out there actually put Kerry's position on Iraq into one concise, easy to understand phrase or sentence?

Kerry tried to do just that yesterday afternoon when he said: "The management of this war has been both arrogant, lacking in candor, and incompetent. I have one position. What I've always said is the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. The question is how you do it." Now that would indicate to me that Kerry approved of going to Iraq and deposing Saddam ... but that he just thinks Bush went about it all wrong.

*But on Monday night *David Letterman asked Kerry "If you had been elected president in November of 2000, would we be in Iraq now?" Kerry's answer? "No." So that's Kerry's secret? You somehow rid the world of Saddam Hussein, but you don't go into Iraq. But then if you ask The Soufflé if he regrets voting to give George Bush the right to go into Iraq and depose Saddam he says no!

*But wait! On Nobember 9, 2002, *on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Kerry said: "I think it would be naive at the point of grave danger not to believe that left to his own devices Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world."

*Then on May 3, 2003*, after the invasion of Iraq: "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the president made the decision I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

*Then on December 16, 2003,* after Saddam Hussein was captured, Kerry says "Those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president of the United States."

Then yesterday we have Kerry saying that he doesn't even know if the invasion of Iraq was legal or illegal. How's that? He has all the answers, he knows just how the war should have been and should be fought, and he doesn't even have an opinion as to whether or not Bush's actions were legal?

They ought to make a board game out of this stuff.

*Crystal clear, don't you think?* It's always nice to know just where a candidate stands on the issues.


----------

