They're going to have to start calling it...

[Yonivore]

...Gorepocrisy.


http://img.youtube.com/vi/9JE48XHKG64/2.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64)
CLICK FOR VIDEO

Highlights from the transcript (http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/al-gore_9-29-1992.pdf):


“it was an Iraq-based group that masterminded the assassination attempt against Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom”

“the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille-Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance“

“the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs”

“[Saddam Hussein] was not only promoting terrorism, but was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program“

“Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987 killing 37 sailors”

“Bush deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible, and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly”

“Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja, brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children”
And Gore reminds us about the tough stand he took regarding Iraq:


“I, myself, went to the Senate floor twice demanding tough action”
It’s clear why a tough stance would be needed against Iraq, afterall…


“…the CIA reported to Secretary of State Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network of front companies. Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation, with a record of terrorism continuing, was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological? Well, evidently not, because in the midst of this flood of highly alarming information from the CIA, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, the Commerce Department, the Justice Department, the State Department, other agencies throughout the government, on October 2nd, 1989, President Bush signed a document known as NSD 26, which established the policy toward Iraq under his administration."
…and the money quote of the day:


"Saddam had every reason to assume that Bush would look the other way no matter what he did. He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way. Well, in my view, the Bush administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you would expect with all of the evidence that it had available to it at the time. Saddam Hussein’s nature and intentions were perfectly visible."
Ok, so it was 1992 and Gore was blasting the first President Bush…

So for those of you keeping score at home:

The first President Bush deserves blame for not taking action against Iraq despite mountains of evidence of its ties to terrorism and involvement in WMD programs while the second President Bush not only deserves blame for taking action, but is also now accused of making up the evidence, much of which existed a decade before he became President.

Just more proof that Democrats don’t really stand for anything and will always campaign on the “whatever the Republican did is bad” strategy.

By the way, if President George H.W. Bush deserves blame for not taking action against Saddam Hussein, how much blame shall we unload on the Clinton-Gore administration that had 8 years after this speech to do it… yet failed to.

Afterall, “Saddam Hussein’s nature and intentions were perfectly visible”, right Al?

[ChumpDumper]

By the way, if President George H.W. Bush deserves blame for not taking action against Saddam Hussein, how much blame shall we unload on the Clinton-Gore administration that had 8 years after this speech to do it… yet failed to.:lol

Iraqi terra operations against the US ended after Clinton lobbed a cruise missile into their intel service's headquarters.

Clinton almost inadvertantly ended Saddam's reign with Desert Fox, and what did the Republicans do to show their support?

They impeached him for getting a blowjob.

It sure didn't seem like Clinton did much, but that's the whole point -- he didn't have to. Saddam's reign was precisely that weak and as has been proven, not a threat to the US.

[xrayzebra]

Chump, you have no idea of what you speak. Did you listen to
the link? I thought not!

[ChumpDumper]

I listened, but it made no noise.

I read some criticisms of Gore about Bush I. So what? It's not like he was president after that, Clinton was -- and under Clinton, Saddam's terra operations against the US ended and never started again. That's exactly what Bush II knew on September 12.

[ChumpDumper]

Now if someone could give me a quick rundown of George W. Bush's actions against Al Qaeda from January 20 - September 10, 2001....

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't listen to it, but I'll bet it's the same material I heard on the radio today.

Do those of you who like Al Gore realize how evil he is? He changes his position all the time.

Al Gore is a super flip-flopper. I wonder who is better at it. Him, or John Kerry?

And to think. half the people in this nation were stupid enough to vote for them.

Oh... don't forget, he invented the internet too!

[PixelPusher]

I didn't listen to it, but I'll bet it's the same material I heard on the radio today.

Do those of you who like Al Gore realize how evil he is? He changes his position all the time.

Al Gore is a super flip-flopper. I wonder who is better at it. Him, or John Kerry?

And to think. half the people in this nation were stupid enough to vote for them.

Oh... don't forget, he invented the internet too!
I guess you'd better pray your little conservative heart out Mitt Romney doesn't win the nomination then.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess you'd better pray your little conservative heart out Mitt Romney doesn't win the nomination then.
If you're just talking abiut the inconsistencies between running for different levels of office, what's wrong with a different personal view than the approach someone will take to support their constituents?

State and Federal offices have different leadership roles.

That is not hypocracy.

Can you tell me what Flip-Flopping you mean?

[PixelPusher]

If you're just talking abiut the inconsistencies between running for different levels of office, what's wrong with a different personal view than the approach someone will take to support their constituents?

State and Federal offices have different leadership roles.

That is not hypocracy.

Can you tell me what Flip-Flopping you mean?
I see...it's perfectly acceptable to campaign/espouse views and policies you "secretly don't believe" in if you're a state governor. Do all former state governors get this special pass, or just the ones who say all things you desperately want to hear?

[Bear Grylls]

[

[ChumpDumper]

Gore is isn't running for president, yet he's got you guys shitting your pants anyway.

Still waiting for that rundown of Bushie's actions against Al Qaeda before 9/11....

[Wild Cobra]

I see...it's perfectly acceptable to campaign/espouse views and policies you "secretly don't believe" in if you're a state governor. Do all former state governors get this special pass, or just the ones who say all things you desperately want to hear?
In reality, I haven't paid much attention to the election process so far. What I have seen and heard of Romney, I like. You would have to tell me where he is flip-flopping. I don't know what you are talking about. It is possible you could change my mind.

[xrayzebra]

I am with you Wild Cobra. It is still too early to start listening to
all the crap the "candidates" put out.

And yes, I am sure it was the same thing you heard yesterday. But
it was when Gore was running for VP and being critical of the
Bush admin for not taking out Iraq. After all they were
harboring terrorist, had WMD, working on getting an Atomic
bomb and on and on and on. You know the same thing they
are now attacking the other Bush about, Bush lied to get us
into a war. The dimms have short memories along with people
like boutons, dan and chump, et al.

[Wild Cobra]

I am with you Wild Cobra. It is still too early to start listening to
all the crap the "candidates" put out.

And yes, I am sure it was the same thing you heard yesterday. But
it was when Gore was running for VP and being critical of the
Bush admin for not taking out Iraq. After all they were
harboring terrorist, had WMD, working on getting an Atomic
bomb and on and on and on. You know the same thing they
are now attacking the other Bush about, Bush lied to get us
into a war. The dimms have short memories along with people
like boutons, dan and chump, et al.
I took the time today to listen to it. It is the same thing I already heard.

Funny how Gore was talking about all the WMD and human rights abuses that Saddam Hussein was responsible for them, but takes a 180 degree view on it today, isn't it.

Just another example that demonrats don't care about the truth. Just creating negative propaganda against republicans.

[ChumpDumper]

Like all Americans I have been wrestling with the question of what our country needs to do to defend itself from the kind of intense, focused and enabled hatred that brought about September 11th, and which at this moment must be presumed to be gathering force for yet another attack. I’m speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country which I believe would be preferable to the course recommended by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.

To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another.

We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.

I don’t think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists who we know to be responsible for it. The fact that we don’t know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify.

Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment – right now – is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.

Moreover, he is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq and for that matter any other nation in the region, regardless of subsequent developments or circumstances. The timing of this sudden burst of urgency to take up this cause as America’s new top priority, displacing the war against Osama Bin Laden, was explained by the White House Chief of Staff in his now well known statement that “from an advertising point of view, you don’t launch a new product line until after labor day.”

Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.

We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible. By contrast, the war against terror manifestly requires broad and continuous international cooperation. Our ability to secure this kind of cooperation can be severely damaged by unilateral action against Iraq. If the Administration has reason to believe otherwise, it ought to share those reasons with the Congress – since it is asking Congress to endorse action that might well impair a more urgent task: continuing to disrupt and destroy the international terror network.Don't hate him because he was right.

[PixelPusher]

In reality, I haven't paid much attention to the election process so far. What I have seen and heard of Romney, I like. You would have to tell me where he is flip-flopping. I don't know what you are talking about. It is possible you could change my mind.
A Google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=mitt+romney+flip&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) reveals 413,000 articles, blogs and Youtube vids on the subject, with many conservatives who feel he is a fraud who's just trying to fill the conservative void among the nominees, and a few who think he simply underwent an ideological revival from his Massachusetts days ("I'll do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy" and so on).

I say "pota-e-to", and you say "pot-aa-to"...I say "lie", and you say "misremember"...I say "flip-flop", and you say "evolving viewpoint"...let's call the whole thing off!

[Wild Cobra]

A Google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=mitt+romney+flip&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) reveals 413,000 articles, blogs and Youtube vids on the subject, with many conservatives who feel he is a fraud who's just trying to fill the conservative void among the nominees, and a few who think he simply underwent an ideological revival from his Massachusetts days ("I'll do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy" and so on).

I say "pota-e-to", and you say "pot-aa-to"...I say "lie", and you say "misremember"...I say "flip-flop", and you say "evolving viewpoint"...let's call the whole thing off!You are a real dip-shit, You know that?

I have asked twice for examples of his flip-flopping. You supply nothing but bullshit.

I did some searches. All the things I saw where Romney is accused of hypocrisy deal with his not believing it is not his right to impose his values on others.

My god, to call that flip-flopping or hypocrisy? Have any concept of the English language?

[PixelPusher]

You are a real dip-shit, You know that?

I have asked twice for examples of his flip-flopping. You supply nothing but bullshit.

I did some searches. All the things I saw where Romney is accused of hypocrisy deal with his not believing it is not his right to impose his values on others.

My god, to call that flip-flopping or hypocrisy? Have any concept of the English language?
flip-flop (flĭp'flŏp')
n.

1. The movement or sound of repeated flapping.
2. A backward somersault or handspring.
3. Informal. A reversal, as of a stand or position: a foreign policy flip-flop.
4. A backless, often foam rubber sandal held to the foot at the big toe by means of a thong.

Old Romney: supported Brady Bill; "I don't line up with the NRA"
New Romney: now life-long member of the NRA (even though he doesn't own any firearms); bragged that he "hunted varmits"

Old Romney: supported "full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens"
New Romney: supports ban on gay marriage; describes himself as "a champion of traditional marriage"

Old Romney: refused to sign 2002 GOP anti-tax pledge ("government by gimmickry")
New Romney: first of the '08 candidates to sign latest GOP anti-tax pledge.

3 reversals = 3 flip-flops. Whether or not they bear any negative connotation is entirely subjective. Is changing your views a bad thing? For example...

Old Kerry: For the Iraq war
New Kerry: Against the Iraq war

This particular reversal of views/flip-flop is, according to you and other Republicans, disgraceful, cynical and disingenuous. But I guess Romney's flip-flops are just the result of an "evolving viewpoint", right?

[ChumpDumper]

Geez, did you not know he was Mormon too?

[UV Ray]

flip-flop (flĭp'flŏp')
n.

1. The movement or sound of repeated flapping.
2. A backward somersault or handspring.
3. Informal. A reversal, as of a stand or position: a foreign policy flip-flop.
4. A backless, often foam rubber sandal held to the foot at the big toe by means of a thong.

Old Romney: supported Brady Bill; "I don't line up with the NRA"
New Romney: now life-long member of the NRA (even though he doesn't own any firearms); bragged that he "hunted varmits"

Old Romney: supported "full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens"
New Romney: supports ban on gay marriage; describes himself as "a champion of traditional marriage"

Old Romney: refused to sign 2002 GOP anti-tax pledge ("government by gimmickry")
New Romney: first of the '08 candidates to sign latest GOP anti-tax pledge.

3 reversals = 3 flip-flops. Whether or not they bear any negative connotation is entirely subjective. Is changing your views a bad thing? For example...

Old Kerry: For the Iraq war
New Kerry: Against the Iraq war

This particular reversal of views/flip-flop is, according to you and other Republicans, disgraceful, cynical and disingenuous. But I guess Romney's flip-flops are just the result of an "evolving viewpoint", right?

Isn't flip-flopping supposed to be a reversal or change of a view or position for political expediency? Since "flip-flop" has now become a catchall for change of view, it now seems to be political poison for someone to have a dynamic or evolving approach to issues.

[boutons_]

"It's the Iraqi war, STUPID"

The right-wing dumbfucks absolutely cannot defend the assholes they put into office, 6+ years of absolute and total shit, so they can only knee-jerk attack the other party.

[Wild Cobra]

Old Romney: supported Brady Bill; "I don't line up with the NRA"
New Romney: now life-long member of the NRA (even though he doesn't own any firearms); bragged that he "hunted varmits"

Are you really a simpleton, or just ignorant?

Romney supported the Brady Bill for the extra enforcement. That does not mean he changed positions. You can be a member of the NRA without owning guns too. If you actually read things in full context, it all makes sense.


Stephanopoulos: Let's talk about guns. You were supportive of the Brady bill, the handgun waiting period, in the past. You signed an assault weapon ban into law and you said, in the past, "I don't line up with the NRA."

Now, you...

Mitt Romney: Well, on that issue.

Stephanopoulos: Now you're a member of the NRA.

Mitt Romney: Yes, and I know the NRA does not support an assault weapon ban. So I don't line up on that particular issue with the NRA, either does President Bush. He likewise says he supported an assault weapon ban.

Today we don't have the Brady bill because we have instantaneous background checks. That's no longer a operative or needed measure.

But I'm a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights. I believe people, under our Constitution, have the right to bear arms.

We have a gun in one of our homes. It's not owned by me, it's owned by my son, but I've always considered it sort of mine…

Stephanopoulos: When did you join the NRA?

Mitt Romney: Within the last year and I signed up for a lifelong membership. I think they're doing good things and I believe in supporting the right to bear arms.

I've been a hunter all my life, not frequently, but as a boy, when I worked on a ranch in Idaho, we used to go out shooting rabbits, because they were eating all the barley, and I got pretty good with a single shot .22 rifle, and been quail hunting more recently.

So I'm a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I also believe that assault weapons are not needed in the public population.



Old Romney: supported "full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens"
New Romney: supports ban on gay marriage; describes himself as "a champion of traditional marriage"

How is this contradictory?

Gays and lesbians can still marry someone of the opposite sex. Marriage has always been for thousands of years, between a man and a woman. Read his remarks from the same link I took the gun info from.


Old Romney: refused to sign 2002 GOP anti-tax pledge ("government by gimmickry")
New Romney: first of the '08 candidates to sign latest GOP anti-tax pledge.

Did the language change between the two pledges?

Did he not believe in the Laffer Curve then but recently sees the results of reducing taxes now?

Now I cannot reliable say why he changed his position on making a pledge, but I can tell you what makes sense. The 2002 pledge was when he was running for Governor. Now he is running for president, and the population of the USA doesn't know him like the people of Massachusetts do. Not only that, but the tax structures are different between state code and US code. He could be 100% forward looking in this issue. Maybe he thought about eliminating some corporate deductions at the state level then. Maybe he has no intentions of eliminationd any deductions at the federal level.

Two different tax structures, two different answers. That is not a policy change or a flip-flop!


3 reversals = 3 flip-flops. Whether or not they bear any negative connotation is entirely subjective. Is changing your views a bad thing? For example...

Your simple examples completely lack any substance. Do you always base decisions on such propaganda?

It appears to me you are a Kool-Aide drinking Lemming following the Jack-Asses.


Old Kerry: For the Iraq war
New Kerry: Against the Iraq war

Now Kerry is a master of flip-flop. Even if we were to call them evolving views, that cannot be true. The thing with these demonrats is that they take positions based on polls and as a way to attack others. Not because they truly believe one way or another.


This particular reversal of views/flip-flop is, according to you and other Republicans, disgraceful, cynical and disingenuous. But I guess Romney's flip-flops are just the result of an "evolving viewpoint", right?

I don't think it's a revolving view. He has been entirely consistent when you see the full context of any conversations with him on those issues..

I would agree with you on Giuliani or McCain maybe, but I am satisfied with most of McCains reasons. At first I confused some statements. It is McCain who spoke of taking a different position for a different position. His reasons coincide with doing the will of the people. He has maintained that integrity too.

Links:

Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/story?id=2885156&page=2)
Romney rejects Taxpayer Protection Pledge (http://www.cltg.org/cltg/cltg2002/02-03-27.htm)
Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve)
The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future, by Arthur B. Laffer (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm)

[PixelPusher]

If you choose to believe that Romney's decision to become a lifetime member of the NRA (despite being opposed to their stance on assault weapons) less than a year before he runs for President is not at all convenient and politically expedient, that's your perogative.

If you choose to believe that when Romney campaigned in Massachusetts on the idea that he would do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy, he really meant was that he would make sure they would retain the right to marry a heterosexual partner (a "right" that was never in jepoardy to begin with), well...that's intellectually dishonest and/or stupid...but that's your perogative.

If you choose to believe that Federal taxation is bad, but State taxation is A-ok, that's you perogative (just so long as you bear in mind that State taxes don't pay for any of those Federal progams you do support, like fences, border security, and a neverending military deployment in Iraq).

So, vote for Romney. What the hell, if you put a gun to my head and told me I had to pick a Republican, I'd choose him over Gulliani and McCain, too. Just bear in mind that most of this flip-flop stuff isn't coming from "Demonrats" or the "liberal media"...it's coming from other Republicans.

...oh, and btw, if you want portray yourself as savvy, logic driven, objective analyzer of facts and spin...

Do you always base decisions on such propaganda?
It appears to me you are a Kool-Aide drinking Lemming following the Jack-Asses.
...you should avoid following it up with lame generalizations and 3rd grade ad hominem attacks...

The thing with these demonrats is that they take positions based on polls and as a way to attack others. Not because they truly believe one way or another.

...because they tend to flush your credibility down the toilet.

[Wild Cobra]

If you choose to believe that Romney's decision to become a lifetime member of the NRA (despite being opposed to their stance on assault weapons) less than a year before he runs for President is not at all convenient and politically expedient, that's your perogative.

At least I base my opinion on the facts I see. Your position of opinion is stated as fact. I have not seen any flip-flopping, and you have not yet shown me any. He has maintained his support of the 2nd amendment, and his belief for an assault weapons ban. Well guess what. I disagree with him here. I agree the public doesn't need automatic weapons, but the way assault weapons are defined is idiotic. As for the NRA, does it really matter when he joined? Are you a member of the though police? Are you going to try to prosecute someone because of what you believe they believe, or why you believe they do with opinion rather than fact?


If you choose to believe that when Romney campaigned in Massachusetts on the idea that he would do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy, he really meant was that he would make sure they would retain the right to marry a heterosexual partner (a "right" that was never in jepoardy to begin with), well...that's intellectually dishonest and/or stupid...but that's your perogative.

First of all, he's not an unethical windbag like Kennedy. He at least has a level of integrity that few politicians have. Supporting "gay right" does not mean supporting the entire gay agenda! Why is everything an all or nothing proposition? Again, I see no hypocracy, or flip-flopping.


If you choose to believe that Federal taxation is bad, but State taxation is A-ok, that's you perogative (just so long as you bear in mind that State taxes don't pay for any of those Federal progams you do support, like fences, border security, and a neverending military deployment in Iraq).

You are twisting what I said. I stated a possible scenario. I do not know it as fact. It is at least believable, and unless you can show otherwise...


So, vote for Romney. What the hell, if you put a gun to my head and told me I had to pick a Republican, I'd choose him over Gulliani and McCain, too. Just bear in mind that most of this flip-flop stuff isn't coming from "Demonrats" or the "liberal media"...it's coming from other Republicans.

Yep, I can believe the republicans are causing the rumors. The others are running scared, and need to knock the best man down! He is not polling as well as others, but is continuing to clime as people know his views. I wouldn't vote for Gulliani or McCain either. I will likely vote for Fred Thompson, even if he isn't on the ballot. As good as Romney is compared to the other front-runners, I think too many people distrust the added beliefs of the Mormon religion for him to make it through the primary process. If Thompson doesn't get the nomination, I hope Romney does. I'd even settle for Tom Tancredo, but he is polling so far behind.


...oh, and btw, if you want portray yourself as savvy, logic driven, objective analyzer of facts and spin...

...you should avoid following it up with lame generalizations and 3rd grade ad hominem attacks...

...because they tend to flush your credibility down the toilet.

The way I put some people down is just going with the flow of what I see many others do here. If you notice, I grant a far better level of respect to some other people that I disagree with. I am one who cannot tolerate people who jump to conclusions and make unsubstantiated statements of supposed facts like you do. I would say you are the one acting like a third grader...

Stating something as opinion, belief, etc, is fine. What you do is SLANDER! I have absolutely no respect such people!

I'll return the favor. If you wish to have credibility, you should really look at the facts rather than repeating the propaganda of others. Be clear between facts and opinion. Don't be afraid to say things like "I don't know" or "I was wrong."

[boutons_]

"you should really look at the facts rather than repeating the propaganda of others"

Just fucking wow, lecturing from a guy who robotically ticks off conservative talking points and attack agenda that he "believes" in because he's a "conservative". just fucking wow.

[Wild Cobra]

"you should really look at the facts rather than repeating the propaganda of others"

Just fucking wow, lecturing from a guy who robotically ticks off conservative talking points and attack agenda that he "believes" in because he's a "conservative". just fucking wow.
I at least do research beyond the bias of a so-called journalists opinion.

I may be wrong, but it seems what you are calling talking points are facts. They are the same as other conservative talking points because facts don't change. I see very few facts come from the left side. What I see is primarily repeated texts of opinion.

Believe me. I think for myself. I listen to several viewpoints and sources, look of information as factually as I can, and derive an opinion that if far most accurate than most people I debate.

I also try to clarify the strength of my conviction and don’t claim everything I say as fact. Too bad you are incapable of the same. If I’m wrong, how about showing me by introducing some clear facts.

[PixelPusher]

At least I base my opinion on the facts I see. Your position of opinion is stated as fact. I have not seen any flip-flopping, and you have not yet shown me any.
You didn't refute any of the facts I represented, you simply disagree the interpretation of a flip-flop. For example...


He has maintained his support of the 2nd amendment, and his belief for an assault weapons ban. Well guess what. I disagree with him here. I agree the public doesn't need automatic weapons, but the way assault weapons are defined is idiotic. As for the NRA, does it really matter when he joined?

A lot of people support the 2nd Amendment; that doesn't mean they support the NRA, which Romney did not until, by a mere coincidence, he decided that after all these years, (and even though he, by his own admission, still opposes the NRA's position on assault weapons) he should go ahead and become a lifetime member of the NRA...and just in time for the Republican primaries! Wow! What timing!


Are you a member of the thought police? Are you going to try to prosecute someone because of what you believe they believe, or why you believe they do with opinion rather than fact?

GMAFB! "Prosecuting"? There are no legal ramifications to pointing out flip-flops. It's not "thought policing" to question inconsistencies in someone's words and deeds. Dial down the hysteria.


First of all, he's not an unethical windbag like Kennedy. He at least has a level of integrity that few politicians have. Supporting "gay right" does not mean supporting the entire gay agenda! Why is everything an all or nothing proposition? Again, I see no hypocracy, or flip-flopping.

How you define "supporting gay rights" for yourself personally is irrelevant, and Romney does not have that luxury to backtrack and qualify his prior position. He campaigned, in one of the most socially progressive states (and the first state to allow gay marriage) in America, that he would do MORE than Ted Kennedy for gay rights. That sets a standard of expectations that must be either equaled or exceeded. Supporting a ban on gay marriage falls way, WAY short of those expectations. But, hey...it's all good because liberals were the ones who ended up on the short end of that empty campaign promise, right?

...oh, and since you're on a self righteous "just the facts, ma'am" rampage on these boards, would you mind presenting any "facts" that would support your unqualified assumption that Romney has integrity and Kennedy is an unethical windbag? (HINT: your personal political biases don't count as "facts")

You are twisting what I said. I stated a possible scenario. I do not know it as fact. It is at least believable, and unless you can show otherwise...
And I was responding to your "scenario". Unlike you, I am under no compunction to always and forever assume that Romney (or any other politician) has unfailing integrity. So, when I see a politician (of any political persuasion) take one position in 2002, then do a 180 on that position 5 years later, I dont' say to myself "Well, he's a man of integrity so there MUST be a good reason for it, even I can't figure out what that reason is"...because that would make me a servile sucker.



I am one who cannot tolerate people who jump to conclusions and make unsubstantiated statements of supposed facts like you do. I would say you are the one acting like a third grader...

Stating something as opinion, belief, etc, is fine. What you do is SLANDER! I have absolutely no respect such people!
Pointing out inconsistencies in someone's position is not slander (again with the legal terms...this isn't a court case). Romney can't sue me for pointing out he joined the NRA less than a year before he ran for President, or pointing out his "more than Ted Kennedy" statement, or that he was for taxation before he was against taxation. Those are all FACTS from which I derive my opinion of him.

[Wild Cobra]

You didn't refute any of the facts I represented, you simply disagree the interpretation of a flip-flop. For example...

I disagree with both. I have not seen examples of Romney flip-flopping, nore do I agree with you interpretation. From wikipedia:

Flip-Flop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip-flop_%28politics%29)


A lot of people support the 2nd Amendment; that doesn't mean they support the NRA, which Romney did not until, by a mere coincidence, he decided that after all these years, (and even though he, by his own admission, still opposes the NRA's position on assault weapons) he should go ahead and become a lifetime member of the NRA...and just in time for the Republican primaries! Wow! What timing!

OK, where can you show mw he didn't support the NRA?

Your assessment that he became a member for political gain could be correct. However, a belief does not make it fact.


GMAFB! "Prosecuting"? There are no legal ramifications to pointing out flip-flops. It's not "thought policing" to question inconsistencies in someone's words and deeds. Dial down the hysteria.

Well, it seems to me if you had your way, you would indict him for what you believe his reasons are. That is why I used the term "thought police."

Questioning a persons words and deeds are one thing, but when you assign a motive and fact without clearly knowing the facts, it is slander!

Do you wish to be known as a slanderous individual?


How you define "supporting gay rights" for yourself personally is irrelevant, and Romney does not have that luxury to backtrack and qualify his prior position. He campaigned, in one of the most socially progressive states (and the first state to allow gay marriage) in America, that he would do MORE than Ted Kennedy for gay rights. That sets a standard of expectations that must be either equaled or exceeded. Supporting a ban on gay marriage falls way, WAY short of those expectations. But, hey...it's all good because liberals were the ones who ended up on the short end of that empty campaign promise, right?

Really? You take one facet of a subject that has several hundred features, and strike the whole down because he is not a 100% flaming gay supporter?

What has Kennedy done anyway? He supports gay marriage. So what. They are on opposite sides here.

Is it impossible to believe that Romney may actually believe in states rights and personal freedoms, and not imposing his own values on others?


...oh, and since you're on a self righteous "just the facts, ma'am" rampage on these boards, would you mind presenting any "facts" that would support your unqualified assumption that Romney has integrity and Kennedy is an unethical windbag? (HINT: your personal political biases don't count as "facts")

My feelings toward senator Kennedy and governor Romney come from what I see and read. It is difficult to go into the incidences that I have watched on TV over the course of time. I used to watch C-Span regularly. I've seen way to much of the windbag. Just because I cannot provide evidence, does not mean I don't have cause to call him unethical and a windbag. As for Romney's integrity... OK, I don't know him well enough to actually make that claim. However, I have not seen anything to show him to lack integrity. At least I am a "glass half full" rather than a "glass half empty" type of person. I believe in the good of others till they show me wrong.

I guess I have every right to call you cynical?


And I was responding to your "scenario". Unlike you, I am under no compunction to always and forever assume that Romney (or any other politician) has unfailing integrity. So, when I see a politician (of any political persuasion) take one position in 2002, then do a 180 on that position 5 years later, I don't' say to myself "Well, he's a man of integrity so there MUST be a good reason for it, even I can't figure out what that reason is"...because that would make me a servile sucker.

What position are you talking about? Every example you cited has a clear reason for what he said except the signing of the tax thing. Just because it isn't explained to your satisfaction doesn't make it a flip-flop. The earlier case was when running for governor, dealing with a state budget and tax code. The later is where he is now running for president, with a federal budget and tax code. There are different intricacies. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

As for believing he has unfailing integrity? Give me a break. There are different degrees of integrity like anything else. None of us are perfect, we all have faults. Some of us make mistakes more often than others, and some people don't even care about ethics, integrity, etc.


Pointing out inconsistencies in someone's position is not slander (again with the legal terms...this isn't a court case). Romney can't sue me for pointing out he joined the NRA less than a year before he ran for President, or pointing out his "more than Ted Kennedy" statement, or that he was for taxation before he was against taxation. Those are all FACTS from which I derive my opinion of him.
Agreed, most of what you bring in is fact. However, you derive a position that is an unfavorable one. In coming to the conclusion you present, you lack evidence to support that position when the truth may be something else. That is when it becomes slander, because you are presenting an unsubstantiated negative conclusion as fact!

[PixelPusher]

Wow. Did you bother to read that wikipedia link you posted? Here, allow me...
----------------
A "flip-flop" (used mostly in the United States) or a U-turn (used in the United Kingdom) is a sudden real or apparent(which is why your claim to slander on my part is baseless and irresponsible) change of policy or opinion. Usually it will occur during the period prior to an election in order to maximize the candidate's popularity.

The charge was originally used to attack politicians for making election policies that they either had no intention of keeping or decided not to keep for political convenience.

Example 1: "Candidate A, after finding out that weapons of mass destruction won't likely be found in Iraq, flip-flopped to keep Candidate B from using his previous stance against him."

Example 2: "During his previous campaign, Candidate B promised to regulate the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as a pollutant (Do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy), but declined to do so after taking office. Candidate A could now cite this as a flip-flop."

The charge has more recently been used to attack politicians and in some cases other public figures for any change of policy for any reason whatsoever, including new information becoming available or a change in circumstances. Such changes in policy are considered evidence of a lack of political conviction.

Example 3: "C opposed the treaty on greenhouse gas emissions (abortion/NRA/taxation) but has since changed his mind". An opponent of C might describe this as a 'flip-flop' while C might claim that both positions were based on his interpretation of evidence at the time.
-----------------

You can call me cynical if you want; I would in return call you a sucker for taking every Republican who says all the things you like to hear at face value; while simultaneously assuming the worst in every Democrat.

[PixelPusher]

On a further note, you seem to be a legalistic tear, throwing around terms like "prosecuting" "indicting" and "slander" to describe my opinions. This isn't a court room. We are not arguing a legal case. There are no civil or criminal charges being leveled. Nothing said in this thread has any legal bearing on me, you, Romney or anyone else whatsoever. Thinking less of a politician's character is not slander; if it were, the courts would be clogged from here to eternity. I'm not "indicting" or "prosecuting" Romney or anyone else, I'm stating my opinion based on facts (facts you didn't refute). Deciding i probably don't want to vote for the guy is not "indicting" or "prosecuting" him. Being suspicious of his motives in not "thought policing"...there is no "policing" involved.

Your hysteria is groundless.

[Wild Cobra]

Talk about improper usage of words, hysteria?

I explained my usage of prosecute. I could be wrong about my assessment, hut I used it for a specific reason. Again, I THINK (not know) that you would try to prosecute someone like Romney for what you see as a flip-flop. You are at least persecuting him.

All you have to do is tell me my assessment is wrong. Since you only argue it's not a court case, I will still assume I am correct.

As for Romney, again, I don't see a flip flop. Even with the wiki definition. There is no inconsistency in his views of what I read, heard, or what you bring to the table. I fail to understand how you don't get the fact that people can believe and act differently, separating the job and personal. You seem to be very intelligent, am I explaining it poorly?

I like the fact that he acknowledges separating his personal views from his executive actions. He clearly has an ethical value not to impose his views on others. I also like the fact he recognizes different rolls for an executive in charge of a state vs. an executive in charge of the country.

Both these clearly explain what may appear as a flip-flop to others. He has maintained his views very consistently!

I am felling a bit stupid in one regard. We are arguing some frivolous stuff here, talking about Romney, and the start of this article was Al Gore flip-flopping.

Can you defend him? Do you want to? Can anyone defend him?