Kerry's record

[IH8Orange]

Dont start whith standards and CoB. He says that that standards are relative.
Therfore you comment is meaningless to him.

I don't know that for sure.

It's all according to your definition of "meaningless". :biggrin:

 

[Bamalaw92]

Jeez, Bamalaw92, you did this last time. Calm down. Take a deep breath.

I not going to argue anymore about who got the tone right. We disagree.

I love how you try to play the holier-than-thou card by arrogantly proclaiming that I should "calm down". All of my posts have been incredibly calm considering the enormous amount of spinning that has been required of me to address. I am sorry you get your panties in a wad over the truth. That is where you do not seem to get it. There is nothing to agree or disagree about. The number is the number. Regardless, it is very telling that you have not yet once addressed the more critical issue of the substance of what he has done which is non-existent for all intents and purposes.

Second, I wasn’t trying to “tell you about engineers” – whatever that means. Good for you for advising the Board of Professional Engineers “for years.” That’s a feather in your cap. What brought that comment on? If we’re sharing the number of engineering degrees we have, then I will be more than happy to tell you my number. Is that what you were after?

My aren't we the sensitive one. The comment was brought on by the condescending way in which you tried to explain and spin the issue of definitions of words. To be frank, who gives a rip if you are an engineer. As you put it, good for you. That's a feather in your cap. I am too, as well as a lawyer. If you want to compare formal educations, I will be MORE than happy to oblige.

Maybe it wasn't clear to you, but I was merely using examples that were familiar to me to make my point. I wasn’t trying to say that engineers have to be more specific about the meanings of words then lawyers do. As you pointed out: lawyers would win that one. But engineers need to be clear and specific too and engineering is what I’m familiar with. So, if I use another example from engineering I’m not trying to “tell you about engineers” ok? Engineering is just what I happen to know.

And apparently it is the only thing that you know. Try using examples that are actually applicable to the debate at hand. Your use of an example showing the need for precise definitions is a bit misplaced when your argument has been that it was OK for Kerry to mislead the public by using a loose definition. My example of lawyers and lawmakers was far more applicable as Kerry is both. I stated thank you for "telling me about engineers" because that is the only relevance that your post had. It told no one anything other than the fact that you are an engineer and engineers use precise definitions. It was totally irrelevant to anything else so, once again, thank you for telling us about engineers. Now let's talk about the substance of this post.

You’re right, the words “bills” and “passed” are clearly defined words for very specific concepts, but so are “line” and “point”. And, yet, what someone means by “line” or “point” can be very different, depending on the context in which someone is talking about those concepts. Because neither Kerry nor Bush specifically said what they meant by “bill” or “pass,” it left the door open. And, no, that’s not what you said from the beginning. That’s what I said from the beginning.

Man you are a spin master! There was only one context that Kerry was talking about bills and passing them - it was a direct reference to his record in Congress. It was a highly misleading one. The door was not at all "open" like you so desperately want people to believe. It was directly relating to the context of a legislative record. There is only one definition for these words in that context. Bush was technically correct by saying five. His numbers are not flawed by the definition of bill or passed, but rather his number is low because he limited the bills to ones Kerry passed unaltered and did not include joint resolutions which by definition are not bills. Kerry padded his numbers by including 45 items which first year law students, poli sci majors and anyone who has served a day in Congress know are not bills (all of the above Kerry has done BTW) and many items that never passed anything. It was an attempt to inflate his record, a calculated one, an intentional one, and a misleading one. Which is indeed what I have said from the beginning, to wit: "Also note that the figure of eleven is not MY number but that of the website. Bush claimed there were only five (which is correct using the proper definition of the word "bill")".

Well, not being clear about what you meant by “bill” and “passed” isn’t quite the same (to me) as Bush’s dishonesty. And I don’t see you jumping all over Bush for lying about the tax cut, so you can join me on the hypocritical boat.

It is sad that you think a man lying about his record - the basis upon which he should found his claim to be fit for the presidency - is unimportant. I do not fault Bush because Bush did not lie about the tax cut. It all depends on which cuts you are referring to right?? It also takes into account the beneficial effect that tax cuts to businesses have on those who work for that business and those who buy from that business. (Many of which are found as sole proprietors or partnerships in that upper percentage you dems like to harp on so much). What I find FAR more disturbing is the class warfare that Kerry and Edwards seem to wish to ignite. The truth regarding taxes is that wealthy taxpayers did get huge benefits from the Bush tax cuts, but on average they still pay far higher rates than middle-income salaried workers. Estimates by the Tax Policy Center , for example, show that the average federal income-tax rate for persons with income of more than $1 million per year will decline to just under 26% by the time the cuts take full effect in 2006. That’s a rate more than two-and-a-half times higher than for teachers, secretaries and cops whose incomes fall between $40,000 and $50,000 a year, whose average rate will fall to less than 9 percent.

http://www.factcheck.org/article103.html

When you can't deal with the facts, just argue Busk lied right??

What I said about Gore’s tax plan is true.

It is absolute hogwash. Prove via an unbiased source.

You said: "... yes it is obvious that others know more about it than you do ..."

I bit condescending, aren’t we? I won’t respond to it.

Entirely condescending....on purpose. Glad you picked up on it. Response in kind, sir. Response in kind.

It is amazing to me that you have yet to even address the substance of Kerry's record which is what this post was all about...not numbers.....not definitions....but the qualifications of this man to be POTUS. His record is absolutely devoid of anything remotely demonstrating his ability to be elected to the office of the President. You.....Kerry and the rest of the libs have constantly run away from this issue. As Bush as said, and I agree, "You can run but you can't hide."

 

[COBamaFan]

Look, people, I agree. I said from the beginning that Kerry was being dishonest (well, actually, I said he was reaching, so I wasn’t completely clear myself. If you want to nail me for it, fine). What I was trying to point out that there was another side that Bamalaw92 didn’t make an effort to show. He just hammered Kerry for being dishonest, said that was the end-all-be-all of his Senate record, and tried to be done with it. I thought that was a little harsh. I’ll get back to Bamalaw92 in a minute

Bamabake,

Once again you prove you don’t know what you’re talking about. You can’t use one meaning for every single word and why, as IH8Orange points out, concepts are defined specific to a particular context. It’s RELATIVE to the context. Thanks for stopping by.

Bamalaw92,

I’ve treated you with nothing but respect. You’ve haven’t returned that respect to me. For you to claim that I’M playing the holier-than-thou card is nothing short of ludicrous. Sorry, but it’s you with the holier-than-thou card.

I will address the substance of the records (in a minute), but that was not my point in posting here. You brought it up, so here goes:

The number of bills he authored/passed doesn’t tell the whole story of his record in the Senate:

John Kerry cosponsored and voted for the landmark Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget and deficit reduction bill to end runaway deficits. In 1993, John Kerry supported the Deficit Reduction Act, which put America back on track toward a balanced budget and fiscal discipline. John Kerry's vote reduced the deficit and resulted in the creation of 23 million new jobs. John Kerry also voted for the historic 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which dramatically reduced spending and balanced the budget for the first time in a generation.

John Kerry was instrumental in passing the most recent increase in the minimum wage - to $5.15 per hour in 1997.

John Kerry led a successful fight for an amendment he introduced to make sure that all working families receive a child tax credit.

As chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, John Kerry promoted policies to increase access to capital, open international markets, foster innovative technology companies, reduce red tape and increase federal contracting opportunities. He also created and improved the MicroLoan program, expanded the successful nationwide Women's Business Centers (WBC) and loan programs that help the small businesses of reservists stay afloat while they are on active duty.

As a former prosecutor, John Kerry understands the importance of strong law enforcement. That's why he led the fight to add police on our streets through his amendment to the 1993 Crime Control bill. John Kerry's amendment provided for $150 million to hire 100,000 new police officers - a measure widely regarded as having helped to lower the crime rate across the country.

John Kerry has supported over $4 trillion in defense funding and has supported virtually every successful weapons system in use by today's military. In 2002, John Kerry voted for the largest increase in defense spending since the 1980's. And because John Kerry understands that our national security begins with the men and women who risk their lives to protect it, he has supported pay increases, benefit increases, and quality-of-life improvements for America's men and women in uniform throughout his career.

John Kerry introduced critical legislation for cracking down on international laundering of terrorist funds. He was one of the key architects of anti-money-laundering provisions in the Patriot Act designed to deny financing for terrorists, and he has consistently used these provisions to press the Bush administration to crack down on terrorist financing activities by Syria and Saudi Arabia. He introduced a bill to ban arms exports to countries that provide support for acts of international terrorism, a proposal that was incorporated into the final 1990 State Department Authorization Bill.

John Kerry's 1996 bill, the Healthy Children, Family Assistance Health Insurance Program, was the precursor to the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) that became law in 1997. S-CHIP provides funding to cover 5 million children.

John Kerry was a leading advocate for democratic elections in the Philippines, serving as an elections monitor as part of a Senate delegation that uncovered the fraud that led to the ouster of President Ferdinand Marcos. He was a strong proponent of U.S. participation in the NATO intervention that put an end to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. He worked with the United Nations and Cambodian government officials to facilitate the creation of the genocide tribunal in Cambodia that will prosecute key members of the Khmer Rouge. He sponsored the Code of Conduct of Arms Transfers Act, which prohibited U.S. military assistance and arms transfers to nations that do not adequately protect the human rights of their citizens. And he co-sponsored bipartisan legislation which imposed sanctions on Burma's military regime for detaining Aung San Suu Kyi and repressing her National League for Democracy party.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/senate.html

Your comment that I was being touchy was also equally ludicrous. You BROUGHT your accomplishments into this, not me. I mentioned that I run into this sort stuff in my job and that I’m sure other people do to. Then I named a few examples from my everyday life that reminded me of this situation. There was nothing condescending in my tone. Your response, however, was very condescending. And, no, I don’t mind comparing formal educations. I have nothing to be ashamed of …

Your next comment (“And apparently it is the only thing that you know.”) proves that it is you who is touchy and condescending. I’ve never claimed you were an idiot or didn’t have something of value to say. I don't need to do that to vindicate my opinion. You have done that to me several times. I felt my examples were applicable to the debate at hand. You didn’t, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t. You haven’t cornered the market on applicable examples just yet I don’t think. I never said it was ok for Kerry to use a loose definition, I simply said that he did and you failed to mention it. In your original post, you made it sound like Kerry was just making it up. That is not what he did. He used a definition other than the one Bush did. I said at the end of my first post that I thought Kerry was reaching a bit. Maybe I should have said I thought he was being a little dishonest. Either way, I never said it was ok. I think both of our examples were applicable.

I think Kerry may have been being dishonest about the number of “bills” he “passed” but that doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t have an impressive record in the Senate. I do think Kerry’s record in the Senate is important, but I don’t think him distorting how many bills he passed is. Clearly, the man has an impressive record in the Senate (as I pointed out above).

Bush was dishonest about the tax cut. I’ve stated many times how he was being dishonest. To me, that is a more important lie. I agree that the wealthy pay far higher tax rates, but they should. Paying $1 million in taxes to someone making $2 million doesn’t mean as much as paying $1,000 in taxes to someone making $25,000.

I actually read that quote in an Al Franken’s book (not unbiased). I don’t have the book with me right now, but I’ll get his resources and get back to you. So, be patience, ok?

I don’t feel the need to respond in kind. Thanks, though.

 

[bamabake]

Look, people, I agree. I said from the beginning that Kerry was being dishonest (well, actually, I said he was reaching, so I wasn’t completely clear myself. If you want to nail me for it, fine). What I was trying to point out that there was another side that Bamalaw92 didn’t make an effort to show. He just hammered Kerry for being dishonest, said that was the end-all-be-all of his Senate record, and tried to be done with it. I thought that was a little harsh. I’ll get back to Bamalaw92 in a minute

Bamabake,

Once again you prove you don’t know what you’re talking about. You can’t use one meaning for every single word and why, as IH8Orange points out, concepts are defined specific to a particular context. It’s RELATIVE to the context. Thanks for stopping by.

Bamalaw92,

I’ve treated you with nothing but respect. You’ve haven’t returned that respect to me. For you to claim that I’M playing the holier-than-thou card is nothing short of ludicrous. Sorry, but it’s you with the holier-than-thou card.

I will address the substance of the records (in a minute), but that was not my point in posting here. You brought it up, so here goes:

The number of bills he authored/passed doesn’t tell the whole story of his record in the Senate:

John Kerry cosponsored and voted for the landmark Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget and deficit reduction bill to end runaway deficits. In 1993, John Kerry supported the Deficit Reduction Act, which put America back on track toward a balanced budget and fiscal discipline. John Kerry's vote reduced the deficit and resulted in the creation of 23 million new jobs. John Kerry also voted for the historic 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which dramatically reduced spending and balanced the budget for the first time in a generation.

John Kerry was instrumental in passing the most recent increase in the minimum wage - to $5.15 per hour in 1997.

John Kerry led a successful fight for an amendment he introduced to make sure that all working families receive a child tax credit.

As chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, John Kerry promoted policies to increase access to capital, open international markets, foster innovative technology companies, reduce red tape and increase federal contracting opportunities. He also created and improved the MicroLoan program, expanded the successful nationwide Women's Business Centers (WBC) and loan programs that help the small businesses of reservists stay afloat while they are on active duty.

As a former prosecutor, John Kerry understands the importance of strong law enforcement. That's why he led the fight to add police on our streets through his amendment to the 1993 Crime Control bill. John Kerry's amendment provided for $150 million to hire 100,000 new police officers - a measure widely regarded as having helped to lower the crime rate across the country.

John Kerry has supported over $4 trillion in defense funding and has supported virtually every successful weapons system in use by today's military. In 2002, John Kerry voted for the largest increase in defense spending since the 1980's. And because John Kerry understands that our national security begins with the men and women who risk their lives to protect it, he has supported pay increases, benefit increases, and quality-of-life improvements for America's men and women in uniform throughout his career.

John Kerry introduced critical legislation for cracking down on international laundering of terrorist funds. He was one of the key architects of anti-money-laundering provisions in the Patriot Act designed to deny financing for terrorists, and he has consistently used these provisions to press the Bush administration to crack down on terrorist financing activities by Syria and Saudi Arabia. He introduced a bill to ban arms exports to countries that provide support for acts of international terrorism, a proposal that was incorporated into the final 1990 State Department Authorization Bill.

John Kerry introduced critical legislation for cracking down on international laundering of terrorist funds. He was one of the key architects of anti-money-laundering provisions in the Patriot Act designed to deny financing for terrorists, and he has consistently used these provisions to press the Bush administration to crack down on terrorist financing activities by Syria and Saudi Arabia. He introduced a bill to ban arms exports to countries that provide support for acts of international terrorism, a proposal that was incorporated into the final 1990 State Department Authorization Bill.

John Kerry's 1996 bill, the Healthy Children, Family Assistance Health Insurance Program, was the precursor to the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) that became law in 1997. S-CHIP provides funding to cover 5 million children.

John Kerry's 1996 bill, the Healthy Children, Family Assistance Health Insurance Program, was the precursor to the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) that became law in 1997. S-CHIP provides funding to cover 5 million children.

John Kerry was a leading advocate for democratic elections in the Philippines, serving as an elections monitor as part of a Senate delegation that uncovered the fraud that led to the ouster of President Ferdinand Marcos. He was a strong proponent of U.S. participation in the NATO intervention that put an end to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. He worked with the United Nations and Cambodian government officials to facilitate the creation of the genocide tribunal in Cambodia that will prosecute key members of the Khmer Rouge. He sponsored the Code of Conduct of Arms Transfers Act, which prohibited U.S. military assistance and arms transfers to nations that do not adequately protect the human rights of their citizens. And he co-sponsored bipartisan legislation which imposed sanctions on Burma's military regime for detaining Aung San Suu Kyi and repressing her National League for Democracy party.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/senate.html

Your comment that I was being touchy was also equally ludicrous. You BROUGHT your accomplishments into this, not me. I mentioned that I run into this sort stuff in my job and that I’m sure other people do to. Then I named a few examples from my everyday life that reminded me of this situation. There was nothing condescending in my tone. Your response, however, was very condescending. And, no, I don’t mind comparing formal educations. I have nothing to be ashamed of …

Your next comment (“And apparently it is the only thing that you know.”) proves that it is you who is touchy and condescending. I’ve never claimed you were an idiot or didn’t have something of value to say. I don't need to do that to vindicate my opinion. You have done that to me several times. I felt my examples were applicable to the debate at hand. You didn’t, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t. You haven’t cornered the market on applicable examples just yet I don’t think. I never said it was ok for Kerry to use a loose definition, I simply said that he did and you failed to mention it. In your original post, you made it sound like Kerry was just making it up. That is not what he did. He used a definition other than the one Bush did. I said at the end of my first post that I thought Kerry was reaching a bit. Maybe I should have said I thought he was being a little dishonest. Either way, I never said it was ok. I think both of our examples were applicable.

I think Kerry may have been being dishonest about the number of “bills” he “passed” but that doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t have an impressive record in the Senate. I do think Kerry’s record in the Senate is important, but I don’t think him distorting how many bills he passed is. Clearly, the man has an impressive record in the Senate (as I pointed out above).

Bush was dishonest about the tax cut. I’ve stated many times how he was being dishonest. To me, that is a more important lie. I agree that the wealthy pay far higher tax rates, but they should. Paying $1 million in taxes to someone making $2 million doesn’t mean as much as paying $1,000 in taxes to someone making $25,000.

I actually read that quote in an Al Franken’s book (not unbiased). I don’t have the book with me right now, but I’ll get his resources and get back to you. So, be patience, ok?

I don’t feel the need to respond in kind. Thanks, though.

Bamabake,

Once again you prove you don’t know what you’re talking about. You can’t use one meaning for every single word and why, as IH8Orange points out, concepts are defined specific to a particular context. It’s RELATIVE to the context. Thanks for stopping by.


Once again:
You do not believe in firm standards. You are the one that has said that there are not standards when you stated that they are relative. at leat in a moral sence. You cant pick and choose which standards you want to stand by and the ones you want to embrace regardless of the context. You are also rediculouly condecending and arrogant. Thanks for the invite.

 

[TexasBama]

Since we're on being precise here, one can't publicly represent oneself as an engineer unless one is licensed as such. At least in Texas, one can't.

We now resume our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[COBamaFan]

Ok, I got the information on Gore’s Tax Plan that I mentioned early. The quota appears in a Sept. 13, 2000 Washington Post article entitled: “For Bush’s ‘Typical’ Family, Lots of Restrictions.”

The article describes an e-mail sent out the Bush campaign to New Mexico Reps looking for a family that met this criteria: The family must make between $35,000 and $70,000, itemize its taxes, have no children in day care, no children in college, no one attending night school, no children younger than age one, and no substantial savings outside of 401(k).

These criteria eliminated 85% of all families in that income range. Those families would have done better under Gore’s tax plan. Interestingly, that e-mail came on the heels of a number of embarrassments for the Bush campaign. Anyone remember the Tax Family Events that the Bush campaign did showing how real families would save under Bush’s Tax Plan? Well, after each one the Gore campaign issued a press release detailing how that family would actually save MORE under Gore’s plan. Tired of these embarrassments, the Bush campaign sent out that e-mail.

Oh, and sorry for some of the repeats in Kerry’s Senate record in my previous post (I've removed them now). Must of hit the paste button to many times!

Bamabake,

No, thats not what I said. I said didn’t believe all issues are black and white, right and wrong, with us or against us. I didn’t say you could pick and choose which morals to live by: that’s you. I said that sometimes the right thing to do might not be so clear or easily picked out. The right thing to do many times is RELATIVE to the situation.

TexasBama,

I didn’t say I was an ‘engineer,’ I said my job was ‘engineering,’ if we’re being precise.

 

[bamabake]

Ok, I got the information on Gore’s Tax Plan that I mentioned early. The quota appears in a Sept. 13, 2000 Washington Post article entitled: “For Bush’s ‘Typical’ Family, Lots of Restrictions.”

The article describes an e-mail sent out the Bush campaign to New Mexico Reps looking for a family that met this criteria: The family must make between $35,000 and $70,000, itemize its taxes, have no children in day care, no children in college, no one attending night school, no children younger than age one, and no substantial savings outside of 401(k).

These criteria eliminated 85% of all families in that income range. Those families would have done better under Gore’s tax plan. Interestingly, that e-mail came on the heels of a number of embarrassments for the Bush campaign. Anyone remember the Tax Family Events that the Bush campaign did showing how real families would save under Bush’s Tax Plan? Well, after each one the Gore campaign issued a press release detailing how that family would actually save MORE under Gore’s plan. Tired of these embarrassments, the Bush campaign sent out that e-mail.

Oh, and sorry for some of the repeats in Kerry’s Senate record in my previous post (I've removed them now). Must of hit the paste button to many times!

Bamabake,

No, thats not what I said. I said didn’t believe all issues are black and white, right and wrong, with us or against us. I didn’t say you could pick and choose which morals to live by: that’s you. I said that sometimes the right thing to do might not be so clear or easily picked out. The right thing to do many times is RELATIVE to the situation.

TexasBama,

I didn’t say I was an ‘engineer,’ I said my job was ‘engineering,’ if we’re being precise.

I know you always have you facts straight and in that spirit :




No problem Bamabake.

The problem here is you see the world in right and wrong, black and white, when it is clearly grey. Of course morality is relative. Your assertion that it is not is ridiculous.


You did state that morality ITSELF is relative.



The right thing to do many times is RELATIVE to the situation.

THis is meaningless. While obviously the statement on its own is axiomatic it has nothing to do with your assertion that morality is relative. Which of course it isnt.

 

[Bamalaw92]

What I was trying to point out that there was another side that Bamalaw92 didn’t make an effort to show. He just hammered Kerry for being dishonest, said that was the end-all-be-all of his Senate record, and tried to be done with it. I thought that was a little harsh. I’ll get back to Bamalaw92 in a minute

Incorrect sir. The point you were trying to make was that I was misrepresenting the article from Factcheck.org. NOT that i was misrepresenting Kerry's record. Had you been trying to make the point you said, you would have cut and pasted the tripe from Kerry's website many posts ago. Instead you chose to argue the number not the substance. Now that you have had an entire weekend to cut and paste the propaganda from the Kerry site (as if it is now all of a sudden legitimate considering Mr. Kerry's severely misrepresenting his record to date) let's look at your post addressed to me.

Bamalaw92,

I’ve treated you with nothing but respect.

If you believe comments such as "However, on this one he is picking and choosing (and misrepresenting what his source -- factcheck.org -- was actually saying). " You then go on to accuse me of trying to prove "Bush's number of 11". When I conclusively demonstrate that you had not apparently read the article as it was Factcheck's number, not mine or Bush, rather than admit your error you stubbornly stated "I don’t think you got the tone of the article of factcheck.org right. " After I point out yet again that you are in error you first response was "Jeez, Bamalaw92, you did this last time. Calm down. Take a deep breath." If you feel this was respectful, then I suggest that you live in an alternate reality.

You’ve haven’t returned that respect to me. For you to claim that I’M playing the holier-than-thou card is nothing short of ludicrous. Sorry, but it’s you with the holier-than-thou card.

You have to earn respect for it to be given. One way to do that is to admit when you have erred. Isn't that a rallying call for those who disrespect Bush? For you to continue to paint yourself as the poor victim of an unfair conservative poster is the only thing in this thread that is ludicrous.

I will address the substance of the records (in a minute), but that was not my point in posting here. You brought it up, so here goes:

Yes I indeed brought it up. THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE THREAD! Finally you add something of substance to this thread rather than a ridiculous attack on me for trying to misrepresent the tone of an article, and the fact that Kerry tries to inflate his senate record.

Now onto the tripe from Kerry's website.

John Kerry cosponsored and voted for the landmark Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget and deficit reduction bill to end runaway deficits.

Annenberg Public Policy Center Called Kerry Claim He "Led Fight" Pure "Political Puffery." "For example, in the 1985 balanced-budget fight Kerry can justly claim credit for being an early supporter of what became the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amendment. … However, claiming to have ‘led the fight’ for the balanced-budget measure is political puffery. The measure was actually drafted by two Republicans, Sens. Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire and Phil Gramm of Texas. Kerry became one of about 40 co-sponsors." (Annenberg Political Fact Check, "Kerry Exaggerates Role In Some Key Legislative Battles," www.factcheck.org, 1/30/04)

In 1993, John Kerry supported the Deficit Reduction Act, which put America back on track toward a balanced budget and fiscal discipline. John Kerry's vote reduced the deficit and resulted in the creation of 23 million new jobs. John Kerry also voted for the historic 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which dramatically reduced spending and balanced the budget for the first time in a generation.

[R]eferring to Bill Clinton's tax-increasing 1993 budget plan, claims that he cast a "decisive" vote that "created 20 million new jobs." He told the Wall Street Journal last week that he "was one of those who pushed hard for the [1993] deficit-reduction act." Shortly after he cast his vote, however, he told the Boston Globe that he seriously considered voting against the bill. Why? Four days later, on the Senate floor, he explained that he voted for the bill "with great ambivalence," complaining that "this measure does not authorize the kind of major shift toward investment that we so urgently need." The word "investment," of course, is liberal Democratic propaganda-speak for domestic spending. As for "the major shift" in spending Mr. Kerry envisioned, he told the Globe that he had an $85 billion list of additional cuts, including, of course, SDI and other defense programs, which he vowed to pursue during the appropriations process.
In short, his primary objection to the 1993 deficit-reduction plan was that it did not raise domestic spending enough and did not slash defense sufficiently. In Mr. Kerry's world, fiscal prudence and military responsibility are incompatible.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cach....htm+"1993+deficit+reduction+act"+Kerry&hl=en
Enough said.

John Kerry was instrumental in passing the most recent increase in the minimum wage - to $5.15 per hour in 1997.

How?? He didn' sponsor it, cosponsor it or even fight for it. In fact, when he expressed doubts about it, Kennedy Told Kerry "If You're Not For Raising The Minimum Wage, You Don't Deserve To Call Yourself A Democrat." (Todd S. Purdum, "Rivals Mine Kerry Senate Years For Material To Slow Him Down," The New York Times, 1/25/04).

John Kerry led a successful fight for an amendment he introduced to make sure that all working families receive a child tax credit.

All working families already received a child tax credit. This kept it going. He has since changed his position attacking an identical provision regarding the refundable portion of the child tax credit as it was extended in the House-Senate conference report for the tax bill (H.R. 1308).

John Kerry has supported over $4 trillion in defense funding and has supported virtually every successful weapons system in use by today's military. In 2002, John Kerry voted for the largest increase in defense spending since the 1980's. And because John Kerry understands that our national security begins with the men and women who risk their lives to protect it, he has supported pay increases, benefit increases, and quality-of-life improvements for America's men and women in uniform throughout his career.

Kerry has voted for at least SEVEN major reductions in Defense and Military spending, necessary for our national security:
1) In 1996 - Introduced Bill to slash Defense Department Funding by $6.5 Billion.
2) In 1995 - Voted to freeze Defense spending for 7 years, slashing over $34 billion from Defense.
3) Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training."
4) In 1993 - Introduced plan to cut numerous Defense programs, including:
Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.
5) Has voted repeatedly to cut Defense spending, including:
In 1993, voted against increased Defense spending for Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years.
In 1992, voted to cut $6 billion from Defense.
In 1991, voted to slash over $3 Billion from Defense. Shift money to social programs.
In 1991, voted to cut defense spending by 2%
Voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for B-2 Stealth Bomber
Voted repeatedly against Missile Defense - Weapons Kerry sought to phase out were VITAL in Iraq. "[K]erry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might-the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

Military hardware he felt we no longer need since the "cold war" is past. The money would be better spent on "social" programs. These weapons are now the core of our military might.
F-16 Fighting Falcons.
B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s
M1 Abrams
Patriot Missile
AH-64 Apache Helicopter
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser
6) During 1980s Kerry And Michael Dukakis joined forces with liberal group dedicated to slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget..."("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The Associated Press, 6/3/88)
7) While running for Congress in 1972, Kerry promised to cut Defense Spending. "On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress," Kerry said he would 'bring a different kind of message to the president." He said he would, "Vote against military appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)

The list goes on and on with the misstatements and misrepresentations coming from the Kerry camp. Next time support your argument with something from an unbiased source rather than arguing "it must be true because Kerry says so"

Your comment that I was being touchy was also equally ludicrous. You BROUGHT your accomplishments into this, not me.

No you tried to make something totally irrelevant into something relevant by referencing your profession. I merely pointed out the absurdity by mentioning that I am very familiar with the profession.

I mentioned that I run into this sort stuff in my job and that I’m sure other people do to. Then I named a few examples from my everyday life that reminded me of this situation.

The fact of the matter was that it was and is a nonsensical analogy. The only point I made regarding it.

There was nothing condescending in my tone.

Indeed there was, albeit apparently unconscious.

Your response, however, was very condescending. And, no, I don’t mind comparing formal educations. I have nothing to be ashamed of …

Response in kind sir. Who said you had anything to be ashamed of?? Seems you are still a bit touchy on the subject.

Your next comment (“And apparently it is the only thing that you know.”) proves that it is you who is touchy and condescending.

It proves nothing of the sort. It is merely fact. You have yet to post any original analysis on this topic. If you know something, then post it. Otherwise the statement is accurate. The truth is nothing to be ashamed of.

I’ve never claimed you were an idiot or didn’t have something of value to say.

Never once have I referred to you as an idiot either. You have yet to voice an analysis of substance that is yours, therefore I cannot opine as to whether anything you say (as opposed to that which you cut and paste) has value or not.

I don't need to do that to vindicate my opinion. You have done that to me several times.

you are yet again incorrect and playing the holier-than-thou card. Why?

I felt my examples were applicable to the debate at hand. You didn’t, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t.

No I PROVED that they were not - as demonstrated by the overwhelming majority of posters here that agreed.

You haven’t cornered the market on applicable examples just yet I don’t think.

Well I certainly have in this little debate.

I never said it was OK for Kerry to use a loose definition, I simply said that he did and you failed to mention it. In your original post, you made it sound like Kerry was just making it up. That is not what he did. He used a definition other than the one Bush did.

No. In fact I stated that both figured wrong and that based on the true definitions (that any lawmaker and lawyer such as Kerry is WELL aware of) The correct number was 11 - not 5 as Bush said (although technically correct) or 56 as Kerry said. Kerry criticized Bush for his definition and I questioned Kerry for his by showing the truth. He deliberately misled and is misleading the public concerning his record.

I said at the end of my first post that I thought Kerry was reaching a bit. Maybe I should have said I thought he was being a little dishonest. Either way, I never said it was OK. I think both of our examples were applicable.

You example - if that is what you are calling your engineering language diatribe - is not applicable in the least, as demonstrated conclusively above. What you should have done was actually read the article before posting. In your first post you refer to the number as "Bush's 11" thinking I was trying to prove Bush's number when in fact it was the number formed by factcheck. All credibility of your post went out the window when you refused to recognize this simple error.

I think Kerry may have been being dishonest about the number of “bills” he “passed” but that doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t have an impressive record in the Senate. I do think Kerry’s record in the Senate is important, but I don’t think him distorting how many bills he passed is. Clearly, the man has an impressive record in the Senate (as I pointed out above).

His record is a series of misrepresentations (as I pointed out above)

Bush was dishonest about the tax cut. I’ve stated many times how he was being dishonest. To me, that is a more important lie. I agree that the wealthy pay far higher tax rates, but they should. Paying $1 million in taxes to someone making $2 million doesn’t mean as much as paying $1,000 in taxes to someone making $25,000.

Ask the person who is paying the million dollars how many less people he will be able to hire and I bet you will not think it mean less. Bush was not dishonest in the least about the tax cuts (another Kerry misleading that you are blindly following) as I have proved time and time again.

I actually read that quote in an Al Franken’s book (not unbiased). I don’t have the book with me right now, but I’ll get his resources and get back to you. So, be patience, OK?

I cannot be patience but I will try to be patient.

I don’t feel the need to respond in kind. Thanks, though.

I never invited you to. the remark "response in kind" refers to what I have been doing.

 

[Bamaro]

Dubya's record:
He attacked the wrong country for the wrong reasons Nuff said!
That trumps anything that Kerry did in the past

 

[Queasy1]

He attacked the wrong country for the wrong reasons

Polly want a cracker?

 

[bamabake]

:

Dubya's record:
He attacked the wrong country for the wrong reasons Nuff said!
That trumps anything that Kerry did in the past

commie

 

[ValuJet]

...

 

[bamabake]

Guess you got us on that one. Kerry's misjudgement on the distance of a grenade, then getting grazed by the shrapnel because it went off too close to him, then telling his commanding officer it was hostile enemy fire - I guess that doesn't hold a candle to the liar and war criminal Bush.

owwy. He also gave aid and comfort to the enemy along with fonda and what his name instead of killing them like Bush is doing.

Nuf said

 

[Bamaro]

Guess you got us on that one. Kerry's misjudgement on the distance of a grenade, then getting grazed by the shrapnel because it went off too close to him, then telling his commanding officer it was hostile enemy fire

You're comparing that to Iraq? :rolleye2:

 

[ValuJet]

...

 

[Bamaro]

Let's see...has Bush left his own troops in POW camps while he comes back and gives testimony about war crimes that didn't happen?

Regrettably, they did happen and that's not just my opinion.

 

[COBamaFan]

First, Bamabake (again, sorry this is off the topic to everyone else)…

I said morality was relative to the situation. I said nothing about picking or choosing. I’m tired of arguing this particular subject with you. We disagree. That is obvious. I won’t bring it up with you, if you wouldn’t bring it up with me, ok?

Bamalaw92,

Once again, you can clearly see in my first post that I said I thought Kerry was being dishonest. The main point of my first post was only to say that Kerry wasn’t just ‘making it,’ which was how I interpreted your post. The ‘other side’ I was trying to show was what Kerry meant by ‘bill’ and ‘pass,’ not Kerry’s Senate record. I was not going to argue about that. I knew we already disagreed.

I want to say this again, just so we’re clear: I was arguing that Kerry simply used a different definition then the one Bush used, that you didn’t point that out and that factcheck.org did. What else can I say? You’re just going to reply with, ‘No that’s not what you said.’ I know what I said and I know what I meant.

The number was factcheck.org’s number and I never said anything otherwise. I added that factcheck.org also showed how Kerry got to his number. Nothing else. I said ‘Calm down’ because you seem so angry in all of your posts. I may have said you misrepresented a source but I did it respectfully: I complimented you first and then said I thought you misrepresented the source on this one. It was, at the very least, more respectfull then any of your responses to any of my posts.

I don’t think I’ve erred. I don’t think you have either. I’ve never painted myself the way you described. I was defending myself from someone who I thought was either not understanding what I was trying to say or twisting what I had said.

Ok hopefully I will be able to respond to your arguments on Kerry’s record tomorrow or the next day.

 

[bamabake]

First, Bamabake (again, sorry this is off the topic to everyone else)…

I said morality was relative to the situation. I said nothing about picking or choosing. I’m tired of arguing this particular subject with you. We disagree. That is obvious. I won’t bring it up with you, if you wouldn’t bring it up with me, ok?

Bamalaw92,

Once again, you can clearly see in my first post that I said I thought Kerry was being dishonest. The main point of my first post was only to say that Kerry wasn’t just ‘making it,’ which was how I interpreted your post. The ‘other side’ I was trying to show was what Kerry meant by ‘bill’ and ‘pass,’ not Kerry’s Senate record. I was not going to argue about that. I knew we already disagreed.

I want to say this again, just so we’re clear: I was arguing that Kerry simply used a different definition then the one Bush used, that you didn’t point that out and that factcheck.org did. What else can I say? You’re just going to reply with, ‘No that’s not what you said.’ I know what I said and I know what I meant.

The number was factcheck.org’s number and I never said anything otherwise. I added that factcheck.org also showed how Kerry got to his number. Nothing else. I said ‘Calm down’ because you seem so angry in all of your posts. I may have said you misrepresented a source but I did it respectfully: I complimented you first and then said I thought you misrepresented the source on this one. It was, at the very least, more respectfull then any of your responses to any of my posts.

I don’t think I’ve erred. I don’t think you have either. I’ve never painted myself the way you described. I was defending myself from someone who I thought was either not understanding what I was trying to say or twisting what I had said.

Ok hopefully I will be able to respond to your arguments on Kerry’s record tomorrow or the next day.

Thnx for posting. I only defend my comments because you diametrically opposed me, here are your exact words:



No problem Bamabake.

The problem here is you see the world in right and wrong, black and white, when it is clearly grey. Of course morality is relative. Your assertion that it is not is ridiculous.

You then later came back and said:


Bamabake,

No, thats not what I said. I said didn’t believe all issues are black and white, right and wrong, with us or against us. I didn’t say you could pick and choose which morals to live by: that’s you. I said that sometimes the right thing to do might not be so clear or easily picked out. The right thing to do many times is RELATIVE to the situation.






Then I said:



I know you always have you facts straight and in that spirit :




No problem Bamabake.

The problem here is you see the world in right and wrong, black and white, when it is clearly grey. Of course morality is relative. Your assertion that it is not is ridiculous.


You did state that morality ITSELF is relative.



The right thing to do many times is RELATIVE to the situation.

THis is meaningless. While obviously the statement on its own is axiomatic it has nothing to do with your assertion that morality is relative. Which of course it isnt.


Then you stated:




First, Bamabake (again, sorry this is off the topic to everyone else)…

I said morality was relative to the situation. I said nothing about picking or choosing. I’m tired of arguing this particular subject with you. We disagree. That is obvious. I won’t bring it up with you, if you wouldn’t bring it up with me, ok?


I am glad to argue any point wih you. I am sure we agree on many things. However the central part of my argument is that morality isnt relative.
You have stated that is is. Indeed we may have to agree to disagree but stay on point.

I get confused. Between you and BL coping each other I go blind trying to keep up. I pray I never get in the middle again.

BTW :


Next time someone says you are condesending...


First, Bamabake (again, sorry this is off the topic to everyone else)…


Let me be the first to thank you for deviating off of your real intellectual argument with BL and setting me straight.



cheers.


And RTR CBF!!

 

[Bamalaw92]

Bamalaw92,

Once again, you can clearly see in my first post that I said I thought Kerry was being dishonest. The main point of my first post was only to say that Kerry wasn’t just ‘making it,’ which was how I interpreted your post. The ‘other side’ I was trying to show was what Kerry meant by ‘bill’ and ‘pass,’ not Kerry’s Senate record. I was not going to argue about that. I knew we already disagreed.

Here again is your first post verbatim:

No need to worry bamabake. I've only had one real run-in with Bamalaw92 (awhile ago). He generally keeps his facts straight ...

However, on this one he is picking and choosing (and misrepresenting what his source -- factcheck.org -- was actually saying). He decided only show how Bush arrived at his total for Kerry of 11 "bills passed". You'll notice factcheck.org also shows how Kerry arrived at his total of 56 "bills passed". It all depends on how you define "bill" and "passed."

Kerry used a more board definition of "bill" and "passed." Both are guilty of this sort of thing. Recall that Bush is still claiming that the vast-majority of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income families. He his using a very board definition of “vast-majority” and “low- and middle-income families.”

I will agree that it sounds like Kerry's reaching for 56, but its certainly more than 11.

Thanks for thinking of me bamabake.

Now, point out the language where you say or even hint that you felt or thought Kerry was being dishonest. To the contrary, you excuse his dishonesty and intimate that it is acceptable as he and everybody else use "board" definitions. You then show that you did not bother to read the article as you refer to the number of 11 as Bush's number, and from that point on try to paint the "tone" of the article as merely showing how each man came up with his numbers. While it did do that, the end result was the article's conclusion that there were only 11 - not five and certainly not 56. The most critical thing you say about Kerry is that you think he is "reaching". That is a far cry from being dishonest. I am glad you FINALLY in this last post state the truth - that Kerry was being dishonest.

I want to say this again, just so we’re clear: I was arguing that Kerry simply used a different definition then the one Bush used, that you didn’t point that out and that factcheck.org did. What else can I say? You’re just going to reply with, ‘No that’s not what you said.’ I know what I said and I know what I meant.

Here is exactly what I said: "Also note that the figure of eleven is not MY number but that of the website. Bush claimed there were only five (which is correct using the proper definition of the word "bill")" AND "No I don't think YOU got the tone of the article. I clearly stated that BOTH Bush and Kerry got the figure wrong. The correct figure, 11, is what Factcheck determined was truthful given the best definitions." You may know what you meant to say, but you obviously don't know what you did indeed say OR what I said.

The number was factcheck.org’s number and I never said anything otherwise. I added that factcheck.org also showed how Kerry got to his number. Nothing else.

Well I must have been dreaming when I read it. No wait, here it is....let me quote you AGAIN: "He decided only show how Bush arrived at his total for Kerry of 11 "bills passed". Wow it sure does look like you said Bush's total was 11, guess that's not what you meant huh? Also, please show me once where you corrected yourself.

I said ‘Calm down’ because you seem so angry in all of your posts.

That's odd. There was nothing angry in any of my posts. Please cite an example. Don't confuse correcting your numerous errors with anger.

I may have said you misrepresented a source but I did it respectfully: I complimented you first and then said I thought you misrepresented the source on this one. It was, at the very least, more respectfull then any of your responses to any of my posts.

Ahhhhh you RESPECTFULLY called me a liar. How nice of you. As I said earlier, you get respect when you earn it, not through arrogance or condescension. And FWIW the source was exactly and accurately cited in both tone and content.

I don’t think I’ve erred. I don’t think you have either. I’ve never painted myself the way you described. I was defending myself from someone who I thought was either not understanding what I was trying to say or twisting what I had said.

You have been proven to have erred yet you refuse to acknowledge it. That does not earn respect with anyone.

Hopefully I will be able to respond to your arguments on Kerry’s record tomorrow or the next day.

Get those google fingers working!!

 

[COBamaFan]

Bamalaw92,

Sure, no problem, Bamalaw92. I said I thought Kerry was being dishonest in the next to last sentence: “I will agree that is sounds like Kerry is REACHING for 56, …”

I don’t think there is such a huge difference between ‘reaching’ and ‘dishonesty’ but, either way, I’ve already covered this in a previous post.

No, I didn’t say it was acceptable (this is funny. No, seriously, trust me, it’s funny). Again, you’re twisting what I said. I said that both Bush and Kerry are guilty of using broad definitions (well, actually I said, as you pointed out again, board, but that was clearly a typo. Or was it? Do you see how close those words are? DO YOU? I mean one is spelled BOARD and means plank and the other is spelled BROAD and means large (or is it the other way around? I always mess this up). I mean the last two letters are the SAME. Hahaha. It’s funny, I’m telling you.). I didn’t say anything like you claim (Wait for it …). Nothing at all. So I put an 11 instead of a 5, so what? It doesn’t make a bit of difference to the point I was trying to make and certainly doesn’t show that I didn’t read the article (which I did). What I got from the article was this:

“Kerry counted all measures he wrote that were approved by the Senate. While Bush defined “bills” in the strictest sense, Kerry included bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions with no force of law, and even simple Senate resolutions that aren't even considered by the House. Kerry would have been more accurate to say he wrote 56 "measures" that passed the Senate, including 11 that became law. (Kerry's total of 56 does not include the private law.)” (Look, Bamalaw92, nothing is misspelled. But, then again, I do copy and paste that from something else. So, I guess, I can’t really count that one).

(‘Did’ you notice that I slipped something in that last sentence? I’ll wait for you to catch it. You got it? The ‘do’ should be a ‘did’!)

That was the point I was trying to make. Nothing more, nothing less. I stated in several other posts that I thought Kerry was being dishonest (or reaching. Which ever you prefer). You’re clearly not reading all of my posts. You’re guilty of exactly what you’re accusing me of!

I said previously that I wrote an 11 instead of a 5, but it doesn’t matter, because my point was only to add that factcheck.org also showed how Kerry got to his number. I know, I know, YOU know for a fact that WAS my point.

In your third post you said, “You don’t need to tell me about engineers.” Which I still don’t know what means, but it sounds angry to me. Either that, or it sounds funny to me. Wait, check that, I think it sounds both angry and funny! Later in that same post, you say, “… and, yes, it is obvious other know more about it than you do.” Angry, anyone? Those are just two.

I didn’t respectfully call you a liar. I respectfully disagreed with you. Although I’m starting to see why you’re so angry. You took it personally. Let’s go over it game: I didn’t call you a liar. I disagreed with you. You thought you got the tone right, I didn’t. That’s ok. In you’re profession I’m sure you’ve run into someone who disagreed with you, right?

You have proven that I exchanged a 5 for an 11, which was not evenly remotely important the case I was trying to make. But this isn’t even worth my time.

You said: “Get those google fingers working!!”

Hahahahaha … Now I’m sure that was funny.