Printable View
Okay, I usually venture in this part of the forum just to view comments, but I've been running across the same message from different folks who seem to be for the Republicans.
It's obvious that most of you really know your stuff, so hopefully someone can explain this to me: Why is John Kerry considered to be a "flip-flopper?" Is there really something wrong with changing your mind after gaining more information on a topic? Also, hasn't Bush flip-flopped on any of his policies?
No he hasn't.Quote:
Originally posted by Prodigy Girl@1 July 2004 - 04:45
Also, hasn't Bush flip-flopped on any of his policies?
It's become the hallmark of the Bush administration that facts and realities are not to be allowed to interfere with policy.
By staunchly refusing to acknowledge any fact which contradicts his stated position, Bush has managed never to "flip-flop".
There is debate as to whether this is a good quality in a leader.
No he hasn't.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+1 July 2004 - 13:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 1 July 2004 - 13:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Prodigy Girl@1 July 2004 - 04:45
Also, hasn't Bush flip-flopped on any of his policies?
It's become the hallmark of the Bush administration that facts and realities are not to be allowed to interfere with policy.
By staunchly refusing to acknowledge any fact which contradicts his stated position, Bush has managed never to "flip-flop".
There is debate as to whether this is a good quality in a leader. [/b][/quote]
Yes he has.
He, and most other Republicans were totally against Stem Cell Research..No arguments could even make them think about the subject....
Until 2001, when Nancy Reagan said that it could help save Ronald... then all of a sudden, the Embryo for the stem cells weren't unborn babies afterall, research could go ahead...although under strict guidelines.
These Guidelines are being eased back now, under pressure from The Senate...again pointing to Ronald Reagan as how much this research is needed.
Although not strictly changing his mind becouse of New Scientific/Intelligence etc.. The fact that "One of the Boys" needed help..did change his mind.
He's also appeared to change his mind on some environmental issues, while doing the opposite.
If you look between the lines though, he say there will be reductions, and at the same time makes sure no regulations can be put in place before 2010... ie after he's out of Office even if given a second term.
I think he stole this trick from Clinton, who restricted regulations being implemented until 2004 at the earliest...which of course wont happen now.
:huh:
Isn't skate boarding dangerous for us older types. I stood on one and it went one way and I the other - a definite flip flop I think.
I spy a slippery slope right to the end of a long useless thread, Prodigy Girl; sorry.Quote:
Originally posted by Prodigy Girl@1 July 2004 - 06:45
Okay, I usually venture in this part of the forum just to view comments, but I've been running across the same message from different folks who seem to be for the Republicans.
It's obvious that most of you really know your stuff, so hopefully someone can explain this to me: Why is John Kerry considered to be a "flip-flopper?" Is there really something wrong with changing your mind after gaining more information on a topic? Also, hasn't Bush flip-flopped on any of his policies?
You don't mind if I call you girl, do you? :huh:
lolQuote:
You don't mind if I call you girl, do you?
flip-flopping? nah, i don't know if bush ever did that, only 2 that i know of since i just read em 2 posts above :)
I'll give you permission to call me girl. :PQuote:
Originally posted by j2k4@1 July 2004 - 16:35
I spy a slippery slope right to the end of a long useless thread, Prodigy Girl; sorry.
You don't mind if I call you girl, do you? :huh:
Your opinion is fine-- I was venting out loud in hopes that someone could elaborate a bit more. That whole thing bugged me because I initially saw someone who was being faulted for changing their stance merely because they learnt more. I was able to relate to that, though most of the time I'll research a subject to the point where I can no longer decide if I am for or against it.
Anyhow, I spoke with someone else about this and they pointed out that Kerry may be following those who are funding his campaign instead of educating himself. I'm ashamed to say that this never really occured to me. :frusty: :">
So I guess the flip-flopping thing depends upon the motives involved? And perhaps I should have asked "What is your definition of flip-flopping" in my original post. :mellow:
I'll give you permission to call me girl. :PQuote:
Originally posted by Prodigy Girl+2 July 2004 - 23:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Prodigy Girl @ 2 July 2004 - 23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@1 July 2004 - 16:35
I spy a slippery slope right to the end of a long useless thread, Prodigy Girl; sorry.
You don't mind if I call you girl, do you? :huh:
Your opinion is fine-- I was venting out loud in hopes that someone could elaborate a bit more. That whole thing bugged me because I initially saw someone who was being faulted for changing their stance merely because they learnt more. I was able to relate to that, though most of the time I'll research a subject to the point where I can no longer decide if I am for or against it.
Anyhow, I spoke with someone else about this and they pointed out that Kerry may be following those who are funding his campaign instead of educating himself. I'm ashamed to say that this never really occured to me. :frusty: :">
So I guess the flip-flopping thing depends upon the motives involved? And perhaps I should have asked "What is your definition of flip-flopping" in my original post. :mellow:[/b][/quote]
Flip-flopping relates, of course, to changes in official stance or policy, which phenomenon every politician must deal with to some extent; when even a reasonable change in policy is announced, there is risk, so most take pains not to be seen to be changing their minds too often, the aim being to appear as Solomon-like as possible.
The avoidance of flip-flopping is tied rather intricately to the indelicate science of "spin", wherein efforts are expended to apply lipstick to various porcine ideas, in order that they may gain favor with the voters.
Kerry suffers the affliction of having risen to his candidacy from the Senatorial ranks, and is thus subject to a greater-than-normal frequency of policy/stance issues, the business of a Senator being nothing more-or-less than accumulating a career's-worth of votes and statements upon which he can be taken to task; Kerry has had a long career into the bargain.
No senator has been elected President since John F. Kennedy, and, absent some election shenanigans in Chicago (courtesy of his father Joseph, Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, and a fellow named Sam Giancana), Richard Nixon would have been elected President in 1960.
Point being, getting elected President from the Senate is a rough go, owing precisely to the problem of being inextricably tied to a senatorial "record" which your opponents can use to marginalize your candidacy.
Kerry is a long-shot. ;)
BTW: Welcome to the board. :)
Hi Prodigy Girl.... :)
I know what you mean, when you say, you research something until you can no longer decide. I often do the same. Today I reseached dragonflies (Odonata) :D because, why else, I saw one today. It is refreshing to see someone have a thirst for knowledge. However you have mistaken with this comment:
There is an extreme difference with knowledge and politic's, especially when your asking these guy's. :lol: Although I admire your honesty, you really don't want to know this:Quote:
Originally posted by Prodigy Girl+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Prodigy Girl)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It's obvious that most of you really know your stuff, [/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-Prodigy Girl
"What is your definition of flip-flopping"[/quote]
That alone could start another board. :lol:
Cheer's
Tim :)
I appear to be agreeing with J2K4 again....this really must stop. :blink: :ph34r:Quote:
Originally posted by Prodigy Girl@3 July 2004 - 04:28
Anyhow, I spoke with someone else about this and they pointed out that Kerry may be following those who are funding his campaign instead of educating himself. I'm ashamed to say that this never really occured to me. :frusty: :">
So I guess the flip-flopping thing depends upon the motives involved? And perhaps I should have asked "What is your definition of flip-flopping" in my original post. :mellow:
Unfortunately, this is the problem in "capitalist" societies where the money for Political Parties is raised via donations etc.
Its the reason I can see no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
Its often the same Corporations donating money to both parties, so irrespective of who wins the office...that Industry will have some protection; unless some Public Scandal forces the Government to move against it.
If someone changes their view because of new information then that is Good, as long as they are very "upfront" about it from the start. If they arent upfront and try to distract people from their change of view; because they have the fear they will be seen as weak or indecisive, then the decision could or will come back to haunt them..
J2k4 is absolutely right in that Kerry's stance and voting patterns are well known in the Senate logs... He has no choice therefore than to be "Upfront" and acknowldege his changes of stance and give the reasons for them. Everytime he fails to do that, he loses votes.
If they are due to "More Information"...what is that information he knows now but didnt know then? ... If they are good, then he is doing his Job.. changing to fit the circumstances and information available at the time.
If they are due to "Campaign Contributions" then he is selling out, and should be held to account. I see no difference between someone accepting a personal "Bribe" and a corporation buying influence and calling the shots so he gets elected...both are forms of corruption in my opinion.
The unfortunate thing is that both the major Political Parties of the US are in the same boat on this issue. No matter which comes into office, the Bribes will continue...due to backdoors in any legislation forced on the politicians by public opinion to stop it, such loopholes usually agreed between the parties beforehand, in all likelyhood.
If you look at the voting record of Democrat and Republican Congressmen/Senators, you will see that there is no real distinction between the Parties, except as to the Style in which they argue on most issues (even some quite Contraversial ones). The differences being in "how" to implement things rather than what the end result is.
Why?Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 July 2004 - 07:11
I appear to be agreeing with J2K4 again....this really must stop. :blink: :ph34r:
It's good for you, Rat. :D
Seriously, we spend so much time arguing that the fact of our massive and overwhelming areas of agreement is, sadly, obscured by our views of real events.
We are both well aware (I think) of the nature of the basic "mechanism", and this, I feel, accounts for that which we would agree constitutes unalterable fact.
I sit here, though, feeling that if you had ever been where I am, and seen the things I'd seen, you would, of course, understand.
I'm sure you feel the same way. ;)
Actually, I prefer your POV, Sparsely. :)Quote:
On the subject of "Flip Flopping", ive recently changed my mind on something..
Should Saddam be tried in Iraq?
Something happened last week that changed how i feel about this question...
Saddam stated to the Judge that the whole court thing now was just to help Bush with his election...
"Well so what? He's gonna say that!" I here everyone cry...and i would have too.....except.....
The court was packed full of American Journalists and one or two British Journalists.... the only Iraqi journalist was thrown out, to make way for another American Journalist....
Now this may sound trivial... but it shows that the Court is bending over backwards to please Americans, even at the expense of its own peoples rights... in other words, its already caving into political pressure, before its even began!!
This being the case, I now believe that Saddam will not get a fair trial in Iraq...and should be handed over to the International Courts.
Of course this will not happen, as Saddams defence will call on Bush Snr and Bush Jr, plus numerous others of both administrations (and possibly others) to answer questions they really do not want to, especially in a Court of Law and in front of the world...
Sounds sort of conspiratorial to me.
Here's another one:
A certain Texas congresswoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson, has petitioned the U.N. to send a delegation to the U.S. in November to monitor the election process and thereby assure that blacks and "the International Community" don't have to suffer Republican malfeasance.
Sounds like this woman got some O.F.F. money to shill for the U. N.
BTW-Since Iran has let it be known they want a whack at Saddam too, should the U.N. and the World Court take up the cause?
Perhaps they should get him first.
There is little doubt that the Iranians would love to have a "chat" with Saddam on matters relating to events in the 80s. It is equally likely that he would be none too keen to go on a day trip to Tehran.
To follow the line which this thread has taken.
In order to decide on the appropriate court one must consider the charges against him and then decide who has a right to try him. One must also accept that he may have to be tried multiple times, in multiple courts. That is only fair as any one court may not be competent to judge on all alleged offences.
I think the people of Iraq certainly have a right to try him. However if I remember correctly at least one of the charges related to action he took outside of Iraq. Am I right in saying the invasion of Kuwait is the basis of at least one charge.
On that basis he may have to be tried in Iraq and elsewhere. Possibly in some international court, however that on it's own would be seen as the people of Iraq being denied their rights.
It is also a matter for the people there to decide what type of trial he should have and whether it will be "fair". It is not our place to judge in advance whether that will happen.
Re "Flip-Flopping".
The ability to change one's views in the light of new information is a good thing, it is a sign of maturity and confidence, the ability to say " I was wrong". However it is OK to be "wrong" when you do not have all of the facts. You can be "right" based on the limited facts you have, whilst still being wrong in an absolute sense.
From a political point of view it is almost certainly suicide. It simply gives too much ammunition to one's opposition. It is a classic no win situation.
Well, there is a reason that the US was thrown off a certain committee that deals with fair elections in the UN....
:rolleyes:
And I still cant find any reliable evidence that Florida went to Bush, that hasnt been ripped to shreds already... despite what you say :P