Flip-Flopper

[MJDuncan1982]

It seems to me that calling Kerry a flip-flopper is not an insult. People change their minds all the time - it is a sign of intelligence. It would be absolutely ridiculous for a person to not flip-flop when presented with new intelligence. Think of all the great "flip-flops" in history:

WWII
Pre-Pearl Harbor: Not important for America to join war
Post-Pearl Harbor: Important for America to join war

Slavery
Pre-Civil War: Not a bad idea
Post-Civil War: Bad idea

Terrorism
Pre-9/11: Bin Laden sucks but not big enough threat to invade countries
Post-9/11: Bin Laden is such a threat Afghanistan must be invaded

I fear the man who does not change his mind. Bush did it. He was originally opposed to creating a Department of Homeland Security but realized one might be needed. He was opposed to the 9/11 Commission but is now implementing its recommendations.

Flip-flopping, as the word is used to describe Kerry, is a sign of mental maturity. Never changing one's mind means nothing has been learned from experience.

 

[Annie]

Seldom though in the same paragraph.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

To what are you referring? The 87 Billion line?

 

[Scorio]

ya but flat out lying is a bad idea when the people you served with are still alive to tell the truth about you.

 

[Annie]

To what are you referring? The 87 Billion line?

Of course. Openings like that do not come along often. That aside, there are many issues, including at the convention where he is saying one thing, voting record says something else, and interviews something again.

It's all very difficult to follow.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Here's what I can tell happened:

There were two separate bills: One co-sponsored by Kerry and one by Bush

Both provided $87 billion for Iraq

Difference: Kerry's got funding by repealing tax cuts given to richest individuals while Bush's got funding through borrowing.

Kerry VOTED FOR his version of the bill which lost 57-42 and then VOTED AGAINST the other version.

Yes, it was terrible wording on his part because he did not make the distinction between the two bills.

 

[Annie]

Here's what I can tell happened:

There were two separate bills: One co-sponsored by Kerry and one by Bush

Both provided $87 billion for Iraq

Difference: Kerry's got funding by repealing tax cuts given to richest individuals while Bush's got funding through borrowing.

Kerry VOTED FOR his version of the bill which lost 57-42 and then VOTED AGAINST the other version.

Yes, it was terrible wording on his part because he did not make the distinction between the two bills.

I'm not going to check it out now, but that still doesn't address the 'pro-military' kerfuffle last Thursday and his voting record. It doesn't change the 'postive campaign' = I don't want to speak about the last 20 years. Or for that matter why he's calling for an 'emergency session' of the Senate, when he has failed to vote 99%, whoops I exaggerated. This year he was there 66% of the time this year, last year 72% of the time.(Congressional Quarterly)

 

[MJDuncan1982]

This is for everyone: Great non-partisan site to help us squeeze out the truth while discussing (or yelling) with each other.

www.factcheck.org

 

[5stringJeff]

It seems to me that calling Kerry a flip-flopper is not an insult. People change their minds all the time - it is a sign of intelligence. It would be absolutely ridiculous for a person to not flip-flop when presented with new intelligence. Think of all the great "flip-flops" in history:

WWII
Pre-Pearl Harbor: Not important for America to join war
Post-Pearl Harbor: Important for America to join war

Slavery
Pre-Civil War: Not a bad idea
Post-Civil War: Bad idea

Terrorism
Pre-9/11: Bin Laden sucks but not big enough threat to invade countries
Post-9/11: Bin Laden is such a threat Afghanistan must be invaded

I fear the man who does not change his mind. Bush did it. He was originally opposed to creating a Department of Homeland Security but realized one might be needed. He was opposed to the 9/11 Commission but is now implementing its recommendations.

Flip-flopping, as the word is used to describe Kerry, is a sign of mental maturity. Never changing one's mind means nothing has been learned from experience.

WWII: We were already supporting England against Germany. Our relations with Japan were already soured by 1941. It's not like we did a 180 degree turn. But when your country is attacked, then you have two options: fight back or surrender.

Civil War: Abolitionists were already turning public opinion in the early 1800's. The U.S. did not wake up in April 1865 and say "Wait! Let's totally change our social structure!" This change took decades to occur.

9/11: bin Laden and al-Qaeda attack. We attack back. See comments under WWII.

I fail to see how these changes of events can be compared to Kerry's flip-flops - for the war, against the war, etc.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

That is my point as to how ridiculous the whole flip-flopper thing is. Upon closer investigation, things which appear to be flip-flops have reasonable explanations. Just as with Kerry and his 87 Billion remark which is just as explanable.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

It seems to me that calling Kerry a flip-flopper is not an insult. People change their minds all the time - it is a sign of intelligence. It would be absolutely ridiculous for a person to not flip-flop when presented with new intelligence. Think of all the great "flip-flops" in history:

WWII
Pre-Pearl Harbor: Not important for America to join war
Post-Pearl Harbor: Important for America to join war

Slavery
Pre-Civil War: Not a bad idea
Post-Civil War: Bad idea

Terrorism
Pre-9/11: Bin Laden sucks but not big enough threat to invade countries
Post-9/11: Bin Laden is such a threat Afghanistan must be invaded

I fear the man who does not change his mind. Bush did it. He was originally opposed to creating a Department of Homeland Security but realized one might be needed. He was opposed to the 9/11 Commission but is now implementing its recommendations.

Flip-flopping, as the word is used to describe Kerry, is a sign of mental maturity. Never changing one's mind means nothing has been learned from experience.

Like you said, the Kerry "flipflops" are all explainable, this guy has a 20 year history in the senate, voting on bills that have similar wording, but also have other issues attached to them, so that the republicans are able to focus on one issue, and not the actual bill that Kerry was voting on and it seems like he is a flipflopper.

But by the same GOP reasoning I could point out many Bush flipflops: against the Department of Homeland Security than for it, against the 9/11 commission and then for it, for improving the environment then against it, but really all of these can be explained, the original plans for the Department of Homeland Security weren't what Bush was looking for, he was really against the environment all along, and so on.

 

[Hobbit]

That is my point as to how ridiculous the whole flip-flopper thing is. Upon closer investigation, things which appear to be flip-flops have reasonable explanations. Just as with Kerry and his 87 Billion remark which is just as explanable.

That may have an explaination, but look at transcripts of his speeches. He'll say one thing at one rally, then a few weeks later, it'll be a 180 turn. He's still squirming to get out of the "woman's right to choose/life begins at conception" flip-flop.

 

[insein]

That is my point as to how ridiculous the whole flip-flopper thing is. Upon closer investigation, things which appear to be flip-flops have reasonable explanations. Just as with Kerry and his 87 Billion remark which is just as explanable.

Im not talking about changing ones mind. Kerry could even be forgiven for protesting Vietnam had he not made a big Deal about being a war hero. However, it shows a severe character flaw in Kerry when he placates to who he is speaking with.

When he speaks with a Catholic congregation, he says life begins at conception. Then not a week later, continues his stance of pro-abortion in front of a Women's rights rally.

When he speaks of owning 5 SUV's to GM big wigs on a visit to Detroit, then claims to not own any SUV's when conversing with California Nature Activists the NEXT Day, it doesn't speak of a change of mind.

See Kerry's flip-flops while they may seem minor, show a glimpse of his true nature. His failure to take a stand on even mundane issues like owning an SUV prove that he is not a man that stands on principles. He is a man who plays to the crowd. He is a man that flows in the wind. He is a man that will take which ever side benefits him the best at that particular moment in time.

Is that the kind of man you want to be around let alone running the greatest country on Earth?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

It seems to me that calling Kerry a flip-flopper is not an insult. People change their minds all the time - it is a sign of intelligence. It would be absolutely ridiculous for a person to not flip-flop when presented with new intelligence. Think of all the great "flip-flops" in history:

WWII
Pre-Pearl Harbor: Not important for America to join war
Post-Pearl Harbor: Important for America to join war

Slavery
Pre-Civil War: Not a bad idea
Post-Civil War: Bad idea

Terrorism
Pre-9/11: Bin Laden sucks but not big enough threat to invade countries
Post-9/11: Bin Laden is such a threat Afghanistan must be invaded

I fear the man who does not change his mind. Bush did it. He was originally opposed to creating a Department of Homeland Security but realized one might be needed. He was opposed to the 9/11 Commission but is now implementing its recommendations.

Flip-flopping, as the word is used to describe Kerry, is a sign of mental maturity. Never changing one's mind means nothing has been learned from experience.

You CANNOT be serious! I've seen some stretches on message boards before, but this one is a keeper. I don't even know where to begin with this.

The reason for entering WWII is right there in your post. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor, we were also attacked on 9/11. Your comments on slavery and the Civil War are off base. States up north were doing away with slavery before the Civil War, and losing the war didn't change anybody's mind in the south, they just lost. Even Bush changing his mind on the Department of Homeland Security happened after there was a call for it and people in his administration encouraged him to do it.

Now, explain to me how any of this (particularly WWII, 9/11, and the Civil War) has anything to do with Kerry's flip flops? What major event happened in the four days that he completely changed his position on Israel? What happened that made him vote for the war, then be against the war, then be for the war, then be wherever he is today? Who was crying out for him to change on anything?

You want to know what happened in some of those cases? His audience changed. Suck up to one group by speaking against Israel, then...Oh look! Jews! Speak in favor of Israel.

Now we have John Kerry doing his very best to become Bush-lite, doing the same thing the people who herded behind him shunned Joe Liebermann for. He has his "anybody but Bush" people locked up so tight he could crap on Hillary Clinton's head screaming "Gore lost Florida you assholes!" and they would still vote for him. Now, he'll change on anything for anybody to sway other votes his way.

So let's get it straight. When you are not actively participating in a war, then someone bombs you killing some of your people and you go to war, that IS NOT a flip flop. When you speak with pride about your SUV, then a couple of days later say you don't own an SUV, that IS a flip flop. See the difference? I think you do.

 

[CSM]

It is really amusing that there is a subtle undercurrent on this board and elsewhere to portray betrayal of ones principles as "intelligent". Changing an opinion based on new information is one thing but it seems to me that changing ones principles is another.

 

[remie]

Its about 12 minutes long but summarizes Kerrys Iraq flips pretty well. Hopefully the link will work.

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

 

[tim_duncan2000]

WWII: We were already supporting England against Germany. Our relations with Japan were already soured by 1941. It's not like we did a 180 degree turn. But when your country is attacked, then you have two options: fight back or surrender.

Civil War: Abolitionists were already turning public opinion in the early 1800's. The U.S. did not wake up in April 1865 and say "Wait! Let's totally change our social structure!" This change took decades to occur.

9/11: bin Laden and al-Qaeda attack. We attack back. See comments under WWII.

I fail to see how these changes of events can be compared to Kerry's flip-flops - for the war, against the war, etc.

I was just about to say that.

Im not talking about changing ones mind. Kerry could even be forgiven for protesting Vietnam had he not made a big Deal about being a war hero. However, it shows a severe character flaw in Kerry when he placates to who he is speaking with.

When he speaks with a Catholic congregation, he says life begins at conception. Then not a week later, continues his stance of pro-abortion in front of a Women's rights rally.

When he speaks of owning 5 SUV's to GM big wigs on a visit to Detroit, then claims to not own any SUV's when conversing with California Nature Activists the NEXT Day, it doesn't speak of a change of mind.

That's one of the things I don't like.

I also hate how he tries to somehow reconcile two completely opposite opinions he has had in order to make it seem like it is not a flip-flop. He also will try to make it seem like he's always felt the same way even when it becomes clear that he has not always felt the same way.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Hobbit,

It doesn't seem to me that Kerry's views on abortion are a case of so called flip-flopping. He is FOR a woman's right to choose legally but AGAINST abortion morally. Legality and morality are obviously not the exact same things. Legality is a subset of morality. There are many things which we consider immoral but do not make illegal. Some view working on Sunday as immoral - not illegal to do so. Most view adultery as immoral - (illegal I think in the South) but not prosecuted. Immoral to lie - not illegal to do so unless under oath. Immoral to force a competitor out of business through competition resulting in his/her financial collapse but not illegal.

There are many cases such as these because legality is considered a smaller sphere within the larger sphere of morality.

 

[freeandfun1]

Hobbit,

It doesn't seem to me that Kerry's views on abortion are a case of so called flip-flopping. He is FOR a woman's right to choose legally but AGAINST abortion morally. Legality and morality are obviously not the exact same things. Legality is a subset of morality. There are many things which we consider immoral but do not make illegal. Some view working on Sunday as immoral - not illegal to do so. Most view adultery as immoral - (illegal I think in the South) but not prosecuted. Immoral to lie - not illegal to do so unless under oath. Immoral to force a competitor out of business through competition resulting in his/her financial collapse but not illegal.

There are many cases such as these because legality is considered a smaller sphere within the larger sphere of morality.

I understand the logical end that you are trying to reach, but you aren't.

Kerry says he believes life begins at conception. Therefore, abortion must be murder in his eyes. So he is saying that he thinks it is a woman's right to choose to murder or not. Why should that ONE segment of society be the lone segment that has a choice to murder or not to murder?

That is why there is a HUGE difference between his position on abortion and the legitimate examples of conflicts of morality and legality you cite.

 

[Annie]

I understand the logical end that you are trying to reach, but you aren't.

Kerry says he believes life begins at conception. Therefore, abortion must be murder in his eyes. So he is saying that he thinks it is a woman's right to choose to murder or not. Why should that ONE segment of society be the lone segment that has a choice to murder or not to murder?

That is why there is a HUGE difference between his position on abortion and the legitimate examples of conflicts of morality and legality you cite.

I agree Free. IF he believes what he says regarding life at conception, he would be voting against any abortion funding, expansions, etc., his record is not in line with that. No one would suggest he should shoot those on the other side, just be consistent. Don't say one thing and do something else-that's what is called flip-flopping.