PhillyKev 0 #1 April 16, 2004 I find this a little hard to believe. Bush ad shows 3 issues that Kerry voted against. Body armor for troops, then it flashes up "Kerry votes NO" Higher combat pay, "Kerry votes NO" Better health care for reservists, "Kerry votes NO" I find it hard to believe he voted against those 3 separate issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 April 16, 2004 www.vote-smart.org will have a record of this. I believe the ad speaks the truth. I was looking at some of the issues he was voting on. I know the benefits item mentioned is correct. I don't remember what I saw related to combat pay (I do remember a vote about pay/pension increases that he voted "no" on). Don't be so surprised. Kerry, veteran or not, does not have, or does not convey the sense of a "strong national defense". He has had to beat his own military service drum for so long. If he was confident in his record, he wouldn't have been doing that.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,470 #3 April 16, 2004 Who'd a thunk that Kerry would be so in line with Bush on those issues? Just goes to show you - politicians are politicians first and foremost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #4 April 16, 2004 Is this the same John Kerry that accused his fellow comrades in arms of atrocities in VN?Hard to believe Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #5 April 16, 2004 Yeah..well, I have to admit that was a bit of a troll. I knew one of you guys would jump on supporting that ad. The fact is, it's intentionally misleading. The ad is trying to convey that Kerry voted against the military multiple times. In fact, these were all parts of the omnibus emergency Iraq spending bill of approximately $86 billion. That bill included modifications to the family medical leave act opposed by the National Chamber of commerce as well as aid to Liberia. Not to mention dozens of other non-related provisions. The FACT of the matter is that Kerry voted against the 86billioni dollar bill. He did NOT vote against those issues. Brought to you by your intentionally misleading republican leaders. The bottom line is that all the Kerry bashing about how he voted one way on an issue and then another way is a bunch of crap. He voted for some bills and against other bills that may have both included the same sub-issues. The RNC than picks out pieces and says he voted both way on the issues. The main criticism most of you have about Kerry is based on a lie fed to you by the GOP. And you swallowed it whole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #6 April 16, 2004 QuoteThe FACT of the matter is that Kerry voted against the 86billioni dollar bill. He did NOT vote against those issues. Actually, yes, it does. With the amendments that get added to each bill, the Congressmen and Senators cast their vote in consideration of the bill "as a whole". Kerry voted "NO" on a bill that would extend veterans benefits to members of the military that served prior to 1953 (something like that). That was a seperate SR (based on what I mentioned earlier). So, I'll stand by my post...without the need to troll.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #7 April 16, 2004 Right, he voted against the Bill as a whole. Not against those specific issues. Maybe there were other issues that he was opposed to. The Bush team is making it out that he was specifically opposed to those issues, but that's not true at all. They just picked the 3 out of over a hundred provisions because they best suit their purpose. It's intentionally misleading. Andd you're wrong about the separate SR. That was amendment 1835 to the original Bill S1689 which is officially titled "An original bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes." . Kerry voted against the bill, not the amendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #8 April 16, 2004 The end result is the same... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #9 April 16, 2004 So lets say you are a lawmaker and a bill comes along about something you favor but also has support for something you detest. The main point of the bill is the thing you favor but an amendment gets tacked on about the thing you hate. And you hate this thing more than what you favor. Do you vote for the bill or against? Feel free to switch the location of the thing you favor and the thing you hate. The point is to get the thing you like you have to vote for something you hate. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #10 April 16, 2004 QuoteThe point is to get the thing you like you have to vote for something you hate. No you don't. You can vote against the Bill as a whole, make known why, and if enough people agree with you it will get resubmitted without those extra provisions. It happens all the time. I challenge you to read some of the bills and the amendments to them. Almost every bill has provisions for completely unrelated issues. And the point, once again, is that the Bush campaign is intentionally misleading people. They are making claims about Kerry's support of or waffling on issues based entirely on his voting record on bills that have unrelated amendments tacked onto them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #11 April 16, 2004 We are violently agreeing here. Let me phrase it the other way. To stop something you hate you have to vote against something you like. Of course you can make it known to the world why you voted the way you did but lets face it there are a lot of bills and a lot of amendments and putting out a position paper on each one is probably not going to happen. Frankly I believe that there should be a requirement that amendments have some substantial connection to the bill. No tax breaks for sheep farmers on a bill about road construction. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #12 April 16, 2004 Role Playing Time: You're a US Senator. The following bill comes up for a vote: QuoteSB 9909: An Act to Promote Motherhood, Soft Bunnies for Little Girls, Pretty Flowers in Spring, and To Kill and Render the Body Fat from All American Skydivers and Sell the Fat to Soap Factories to Pay for it All. Do you vote for or against this bill? If you vote against, you can be SURE you'll be described on TV as hating your mother, tormenting little girls, and destroying the environment. Just one more reason to destroy your TV. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #13 April 16, 2004 Ahhh, I get you. But I still stand by what I said. In fact I have more respect for someone who votes against a bill that they essentially support because of unwanted fluff underneath. Everyone accuses Kerry of changing his mind according to what is popular. Well, he was only one of 12 who voted against the bill. IMO, it was the rest who voted because of popularity. Especially the republicans who have been vehemently opposed to veterans getting the double benefit, yet passed the bill anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 April 16, 2004 Quote No you don't. You can vote against the Bill as a whole, make known why, and if enough people agree with you it will get resubmitted without those extra provisions. It happens all the time. I challenge you to read some of the bills and the amendments to them. Almost every bill has provisions for completely unrelated issues. But...most ammendments get voted on as well. Can riders be put on by the subcomittee, or only in the full session? Just go back to the successful killing of the gun liability bill. Everyone voted on the ammendments and when the Dems got one through, the whole bill was then defeated. I'd agree that it would be nice to restrict changes to relevent issues, but then you'd have the fuzziness of deciding what is related. This would be decided by the chair, which isn't too different from where we are now. Quote And the point, once again, is that the Bush campaign is intentionally misleading people. They are making claims about Kerry's support of or waffling on issues based entirely on his voting record on bills that have unrelated amendments tacked onto them. It is an election. You don't expect the opposition to tell the whole truth, do you? Democrats aren't above that practice either. That's why we have so many media and web sources out there that investigate ad claims. Kerry is going to be getting a lot of this against him because he has in fact recrafted many stances to be more presidential. Unfortunately for him, most of the counterattacks on Bush have already been used in the last election, and didn't work well enough. It makes more sense for him to campaign against Bush's record in office. So he will blame him for the economy (some fair, most not) and for the current war (quite fair, remains to be seen how damaging). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 April 16, 2004 BINGO! You've hit the nail on the head with that one. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #16 April 17, 2004 Haven't seen this ad myself. If what you say is true, shame on the Republicans who ran the ads. The ads themselves would still be a far milder offense than say - smearing John Ashcroft as a racist for voting against Judge White. At least the ads in question contain some truth - unlike the 'John Ashcroft is a racist ' smear campaign run by the left.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #17 April 17, 2004 Quote Brought to you by your intentionally misleading republican leaders. and opposed by the we'll do anything to win democrats"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
