Ok, Some serious Flip Flop proof. RIGHT HERE.

[Noble]

Hey guys, I've been out alot lately.

I know I linked to this website before so forgive me for doing so again.

But none the less they have a great update for all to see that illustrates Kerry's floping even better then my txt file list I was trying to find.

http://www.usorthem.org/

Check out the video on the top.

If any of our democrat board members care to explain I will happily listen.

I would directly link the video but I don't think the web page author would want that. Besides his site is awesome anyways.

Maybe we can get the video pinned in here until the elections are over.

wink, wink - nudge, nudge @ Finman.

[img]graemlins/gop.gif[/img]

[Pac]

Kerry has flip flopped on some issues and I won't go into those. However, there is one thing that really gets on my nerves and the GOP is currently using all the time. The whole "I voted for the 87 Billion before I voted against it" is taken so out of context it's sad. Kerry voted for a bill that would pay for the 87 Billion by raising taxes on the richest Americans so it wouldn't add to our deficit; however, he voted against the bill that would add 87 billion to our deficit. This is not a "flip-flop" this is voting for what he thinks is right.

Now, am I missing something here or is the GOP not aware of this distortion that they make?

I am not saying that Kerry doesn't do this; he does. As an example you have the ads that claim the Iraq war cost $200 billion. This is simply not true. I think both parties and candidates need to stop using lies and distortions to make their case.

[Noble]

I think the context intended is really focusing on the play of words.

You can only vote one way.

Saying "voted for" and then saying "voted against" is going to make people question your credibility.

I think the $87 Billion line has been played to death thats for sure.

But over the course of many position changes its only the cherry on top.

I actually have over the last few years tried to see the positive in both sides just to get my own view balanced. Problem is that I defended Kerry back in 98 saying "we need more democrats like him" because he was questioning Clinton's policy regarding Saddam and terrorism.

I was more then happy to say that seeing as how Clinton drove me nuts.

But none the less I ate my words now because he seems to be more of the same pandering that drove me nuts in the first place.

IF I get your point right you are saying that Kerry wanted to vote yes on the idea of the $87Bil but then voted no because of the fine print at the bottom of the bill or something similar?

Still that being said he also covered that base by stating the irresponsibility of not funding the troops.

SO even though there may be some small details that need to be explained its the fact that people will see the indiscretion and question his credibility.

I agree both parties should stop slinging so much mudd and focus more on comparing the bullet points of thier campaigns.....maybe we'll see it in the debates.