Differences Between Bush and Kerry

[Bottle or the Gun]

I'd like to start a list of the differences between Bush and Kerry. Be fair! You can be funny (humor illuminates), but over all try for the real differences also. Hopefully, I'll end up with a balance and not a log that leans to much toward one person or the other.

Not really fair, but sarcastic and something I've wanted off my chest
Kerry dodged bullets in Vietnam.
The only bullets Bush may have dodged were from drunk rednecks firing into the air on Ladie's Night at the local bar.

[Cleon]

One's a rich white guy from New England, the other...Oh, wait.

[corplinx]

Kerry steps out of the shower to pee.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by corplinx
Kerry steps out of the shower to pee.

Corplinx, please don't do that while I'm eating my lunch. I almost choked.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by corplinx
Kerry steps out of the shower to pee.

HAHAHA Good 1 !

[Loon]

I might vote for Kerry.

On the other hand, everybody knows exactly what Bush stands for, doesn't stand for and what to exect of him.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Loon
I might vote for Kerry.

On the other hand, everybody knows exactly what Bush stands for, doesn't stand for and what to exect of him.

I don't mean to pick on you particularly, as I've seen this over and over again on this board. Now, this really isn't a skeptics' board per se, but I would expect it to have more skeptics than anywhere else.

Yet what I see, over and over again, rewarded in a Presidential campaign essentially reduces to fixitiy of opinion, unchanging in the face of evidence.

Kerry, for example, is criticized as being initially in support of the war but, when it became more and more apparent that the WMD claim was bogus, turned against it. Some people call this hypocrisy. I call it learning. That is, adapting to new evidence and new perceptions of evidence.

I want a President who has the capacity to change approaches when it becomes apparent that the old approach isn't working. I want someone who can adapt to circumstances. I want someone who, if something totally unexpected like 9/11 happens, can sit down and think "what should we do about this" rather than just use it as an excuse to do something he wanted to do while campaigning, as Bush did by invading Iraq. I want someone to notice, "hey, there aren't any jobs, so maybe what we're doing isn't working."

[Loon]

I think I misspoke.

When I said "I might vote for Kerry" I meant that was a contrast to the odds that I will vote for Bush.


The original for the comment about Bush referred to "the evil you know" I wasn't even thinking about the flipflops or whatever.

I just didn't want to sound any more partisan than absolutely necessary.

I agree with you, epepke, Kerry is indicating not that he is wishy-washy, but that he considers things.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx
Kerry steps out of the shower to pee.

After both used the lavatory Bush turns to Kerry and says, "When I was little, I learned to wash my hands after I pee'd."

Kerry says, "When I was little I learned not to pee on my hands."

[Demigorgon]

Kerry = higher taxes.
Bush = lower taxes.

Kerry = flip-flop.
Bush = you know what you're getting.

Kerry = weak on defence.
Bush = strong on defence.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Demigorgon
Kerry = higher taxes.
Bush = lower taxes.

Kerry = flip-flop.
Bush = you know what you're getting.

Kerry = weak on defence.
Bush = strong on defence.


Above post = Repugnican propaganda (careful not to step in it.)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Demigorgon
Kerry = higher taxes.
Bush = lower taxes.

Kerry = flip-flop.
Bush = you know what you're getting.

Kerry = weak on defence.
Bush = strong on defence.
That's a good one.

Kerry=balanced budget
Bush=huge deficits

Kerry=considers changing conditions/information
Bush=rigidly dogmatic (although quite flippy on specifics: no 9/11 commission extension/extension; no testimony to 9/11 commission/1 hour/all questions; WMD/no WMD; no nation-building/nation-building in Iraq; no outside CIA leak investigation/independent investigation)

Kerry=strong on defense
Bush=huge profits to friends and family

[Tmy]

Kerry= listens to the public.
Bush= listens to the church.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Evolver



Above post = Repugnican propaganda (careful not to step in it.)

As opposed to the democrap propaganda?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Tony


As opposed to the democrap propaganda?

Exactly!

[Tony]

Kerry=Wants to tell you how to live.
Bush=Wants to tell you how to live.

Kerry=Wants to steal more of your earned dollars.
Bush=Doesnt want to steal as much.

Kerry=Wants to appease terrorists.
Bush=Wants to kill terrorists.

Kerry=Phony on almost all issues.
Bush=Pig headed on almost all issues.

Kerry=A freedom hating authoritarian.
Bush=Says he supports freedom, but really doesn't.


That about sums it up.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Evolver


Exactly!

So you are content with lies and manipulation as long as fits your worldview?

[Bottle or the Gun]

Bush - Went from huge surplus to huge defecit

Kerry - Don't know

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Tony


So you are content with lies and manipulation as long as fits your worldview?

Are you?

I'd rather step in the smaller pile of p00p. The one that won't wreck my shoes.

I believe I have expressed my doubts about Kerry somewhere in these forums, Tony. But I feel that Bush has PROVEN to be a liar & manipulator of the worst kind.

[Demigorgon]

How is Kerry strong on defense? He voted to slash the CIA budget by 6 billion in 1994.

[Demigorgon]

Bush - Went from huge surplus to huge defecit

Surplus? Smoke and mirrors, fairies and dragons.............

[Tony]

Originally posted by Evolver


Are you?


No.

But I feel that Bush has PROVEN to be a liar & manipulator of the worst kind.

Feelings are irrelevant, if Bush has proven to be a liar, you should be able to document it. As it is, I have posted irrefutable evidence of Kerry's lies, hypocrisy and general inconsistency.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Demigorgon
How is Kerry strong on defense? ...

Easy. He kills POWs rather than send them to Cuba.

Now how's that for a candidate that's tough on defense?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Tony


No.



Feelings are irrelevant, if Bush has proven to be a liar, you should be able to document it. As it is, I have posted irrefutable evidence of Kerry's lies, hypocrisy and general inconsistency.

One word: Weapons of mass destruction.

I rest my case.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Evolver


One word: Weapons of mass destruction.

I rest my case.


That's four words and that's not evidence.

Furthermore, John Kerry supported Bush in that aspect, I assume you hold him to the same account?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Tony



That's not evidence.

Furthermore, John Kerry supported Bush in that aspect, I assume you hold him to the same account?

It has been gone over many times here that Bush led the country to believe that Saddam HAD WMDs, and was preparing to use them against us imminently. This has proven to be false. That you chose not to see it this way is not my problem.

Ok, how about "I'm a uniter, not a divider." , with more recent comment degrading those who oppose him?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Evolver


It has been gone over many times here that Bush led the country to believe that Saddam HAD WMDs...


SO did Clinton and Kerry, do you hold them to the same account?

Ok, how about "I'm a uniter, not a divider." , with more recent comment degrading those who oppose him?

You expect politicians to live up to their campaign platitudes? That's pretty naive.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Tony

Furthermore, John Kerry supported Bush in that aspect, I assume you hold him to the same account?

Yes I do. And I sent him an email expressing my disappointment with him at the time. His office sent back a lovely form letter.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Evolver


Yes I do. And I sent him an email expressing my disappointment with him at the time. His office sent back a lovely form letter.


Then why single-out Bush?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Tony



Then why single-out Bush?

The buck must stop somewhere.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Evolver


The buck must stop somewhere.


No, it must not. There is more than one person at fault.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Tony



No, it must not. There is more than one person at fault.

So, you're saying Kerry is as much of a liar as Bush for agreeing with Bush's lie.

You don't see a difference in degrees here.

Bush was lying to bring the country into a war he wanted for a long time.

Kerry was lying because he didn't want to make waves before his presidential run.

They are both lying pigs. But the squeals are at a different pitch.

(edited for spelling)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by epepke
Some people call this hypocrisy. I call it learning. That is, adapting to new evidence and new perceptions of evidence. My problem with this "learning" is that there seems to be a pattern of "learning" based on polls. I call it leading by focus groups. I guess the label ultimately doesn't matter.

I think a leaders job, once elected is to choose a course and follow it. The leader should not be so dogmatic as to refuse to change course if change is warranted. However, I don't want a leader who is worried that his decisions will be perceived as intransigent. I don't want a leader who makes decisions based upon the fickle and ever changing whims of popular opinion. But then I'm funny that way.

[Tmy]

So which is it. Do we want the leader to do what the public wants or not??? I thought thats what democracy was really about. Sure you dont want to do things that harm the country, but is following public opinion that awful a thing.?

As for pandering. Arent politicos always pandering to some group. Isnt the difference tween demos and repubs just the different groups they pander too.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Evolver


So, you're saying Kerry is as much of a liar as Bush for agreeing with Bush's lie.


Yes.

You don't see a difference in degrees here.

There really isn't that much difference.

Bush was lying to bring the country into a war he wanted for a long time.

Can you support that he wanted to bring the country into this war for a "long time"?

Kerry was lying because he didn't want to make waves before his presidential run.

So instead taking a principled stand on what's best for the country and American soldiers, Kerry lies for self-serving political gain. And you think Kerry is better than Bush?

They are both lying pigs. But the squeals are at a different pitch.

I agree, Kerry's lies and hypocrisy are much worse.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
My problem with this "learning" is that there seems to be a pattern of "learning" based on polls. I call it leading by focus groups. I guess the label ultimately doesn't matter.

I think a leaders job, once elected is to choose a course and follow it. The leader should not be so dogmatic as to refuse to change course if change is warranted. However, I don't want a leader who is worried that his decisions will be perceived as intransigent. I don't want a leader who makes decisions based upon the fickle and ever changing whims of popular opinion. But then I'm funny that way.
Randy (may I call you that?),
Is Bush a leader then to you?
You said this about him in a different thread:

"I hate to be cynical but you are describing a politician. Not unlike the presidents before him. I don't condone it but I understand it."

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
So which is it. Do we want the leader to do what the public wants or not??? I thought thats what democracy was really about.



The US isn't a democracy.

Personally, I want a leader who will abide by the constitution (without trying to pervert it to fit his agenda), and who will follow the principles on which this country was founded, public opinion be damned.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Tony

There really isn't that much difference.

We agree here.



Can you support that he wanted to bring the country into this war for a "long time"?

Paul O'Neill's book and statements on this point.



So instead taking a principled stand on what's best for the country and American soldiers, Kerry lies for self-serving political gain. And you think Kerry is better than Bush?

Not better. Less dangerous.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Evolver


We agree here.


Cool.

Paul O'Neill's book and statements on this point.

I haven't read it, can you post a relevant excerpt?

Not better. Less dangerous.

How is it less dangerous?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by corplinx
Kerry steps out of the shower to pee.
Better than peeing in the shower with the drain closed?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Tony

I haven't read it, can you post a relevant excerpt?

I didn't read it either. Read excerpts in an article in The Boston Globe. I can't find it right now. Google.


How is it less dangerous?

I can't see Kerry starting a war the way Bush did in Iraq. I put Bush beneath most Republicans, as well. Despite their aversion to criticizing one of their own, I really don't believe most of them would have done something like this.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Evolver

I can't see Kerry starting a war the way Bush did in Iraq.

Fair enough, but I contend that Kerry is more dangerous because he favors appeasement with terrorists.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Randy (may I call you that?),
Is Bush a leader then to you?
You said this about him in a different thread:

"I hate to be cynical but you are describing a politician. Not unlike the presidents before him. I don't condone it but I understand it." Call me what ever pleases you,

Good question, I don't deny that Bush makes many decisions based on polls. I have myself accused him of pandering to hispanics. In other words, he is making decisions based on what he believes will help in win the election.

But there is a difference between sticking your finger in the air on every issue and having a set of core beliefs and a willingness to stick to a course of action once chosen. As I said, a leader must not be so dogmatic that he is unwilling to change course based in part on the will of the people. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with pandering and Bush clearly is willing to pander. But that is quite different from constantly changing ones mind on every major issue.

Bottom line, Bush disapoints in some ways and doesn't in others.

[subgenius]

A "leader" as you previously used the term or not?

Edited to add: You may have answered the question by your post in the other thread.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Evolver

But I feel that Bush has PROVEN to be a liar & manipulator of the worst kind.

As opposed to Kerry who you have faith will be a liar & manipulator of the better kind?

[subgenius]

More proof of my psychic abilities: Read this column after I posted about Bush's flip flopping vs. Kerry's alleged flip flopping.

"Kerry, say the Republicans solemnly, is given to flip-flopping. Kerry is?

Let's just start counting off the top of our heads: George W. Bush was opposed to a commission to investigate how and why 9-11 occurred, but then he changed his mind and backed it. (Political pressure.) He was certainly opposed to a commission to investigate the intelligence failures on Iraq, but then he changed his mind and backed it. (Political pressure.) He now brags, "I went to the U.N. (before invading Iraq)"? Who recalls why he changed his mind about doing that? He originally said he not only did not need to consult the United Nations, he said he did not even have to consult the U.S. Congress.

Anyone remember how Bush, the corporate ethicist of Harken Energy, opposed the Sarbanes-Oxley bill? Sarbanes-Oxley was a mildly reformist piece of legislation deemed slightly necessary in the wake of the staggering accounting scandals that caused the collapse of Enron, Tyco and WorldCom. There seemed to be a new record-bankruptcy every week, but our president didn't think we needed any new laws to prevent such things, my no. When did he change his mind and decide to sign it? After it passed the House of Representatives with one vote against it.

Remember when we weren't gong to negotiate with North Korea? Then we weren't gong to negotiate with North Korea again, but we would "talk" to North Korea, but only in multilateral "talking," until Bush changed his mind yet again and now we're in multilateral negotiations.

Remember when the United Nations was "unnecessary" and "irrelevant," and boy was Bush ever ready to tell them to go jump in the lake? We now think the United Nations is so useful and necessary, we call on it not just for Iraq, but Haiti and other trouble spots, as well.

Remember when we didn't need any civilian or international advice about how to pacify and reconstruct Iraq, our military could do it just fine, thank you?

Remember when "nation-building" was a dirty word?

Boy, that John Kerry, he just flip-flops all the time, doesn't he? "

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Remember when the United Nations was "unnecessary" and "irrelevant," and boy was Bush ever ready to tell them to go jump in the lake? We now think the United Nations is so useful and necessary, we call on it not just for Iraq, but Haiti and other trouble spots, as well.

Remember when we didn't need any civilian or international advice about how to pacify and reconstruct Iraq, our military could do it just fine, thank you?

Remember when "nation-building" was a dirty word?

Boy, that John Kerry, he just flip-flops all the time, doesn't he? "[/url] I think you are looking for something that isn't there. Any leader who is so dogmatic that he/she is unwilling to change course when that course is warrented is not a very good leader.

RandFan
But there is a difference between sticking your finger in the air on every issue and having a set of core beliefs and a willingness to stick to a course of action once chosen. As I said, a leader must not be so dogmatic that he is unwilling to change course based in part on the will of the people. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with pandering and Bush clearly is willing to pander. But that is quite different from constantly changing ones mind on every major issue. The difference is changing for pragmatic reasons or poltical expediency.

[subgenius]

I see.

[Kodiak]

Kerry is most liberal of the liberals (http://www.americasnewspaper.com/middle.shtml) , while Bush is not.

Bush isn't anywhere near my ideal candidate for President (I think Kemp/Powell or Powell/Kemp would make a great ticket), but he is preferable to the alternatives (Kerry or Nader).

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Kerry is most liberal of the liberals (http://www.americasnewspaper.com/middle.shtml) , while Bush is not.

Bush isn't anywhere near my ideal candidate for President (I think Kemp/Powell or Powell/Kemp would make a great ticket), but he is preferable to the alternatives (Kerry or Nader).

Hey, hey, hey! Another Jack Kemp fan! I knew there was a reason I liked you so much.

I've also thought about Powell as a VP, but under Bush. Never occurred to me to think of Kemp and Powell together.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
I think you are looking for something that isn't there. Any leader who is so dogmatic that he/she is unwilling to change course when that course is warrented is not a very good leader.

The difference is changing for pragmatic reasons or poltical expediency.
Like the nomination of Raimondo, delayed because of criticism by the Kerry campaign.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Like the nomination of Raimondo, delayed because of criticism by the Kerry campaign. You missed my point. Changing core beliefs is quite different from changing tactics or decisions about who to apoint as Manufacturing Czar for political expediency.

Nice try though. To prevail on this one you need to find a core issue. Abortion, the war on terrorism, religion, rights of hispanics. Hell even his pandering to hispanics has been consistent for years. And no body wants his suggestions. Republicans say it is too much and Liberals say it is too little.

I'll bet you can find an example. I have one but I'm not going to give it to you. Your going to have to earn it on your own. The point being that Bush has done it much less than Kerry. He stands for something besides expediency.

RandFan

[subgenius]

How about the issues raised in the article I cited? You are invited to explain how those weren't political reversals. I know you can do it.
For your convenience:
http://www.creators.com/opinion_sho...columnsName=miv

[Globert]

Originally posted by subgenius
How about the issues raised in the article I cited? You are invited to explain how those weren't political reversals. I know you can do it.
For your convenience:
http://www.creators.com/opinion_sho...columnsName=miv


She is so unbiased. If Bush committed sepku she would carp that he unfairly left Democrats out of the partisan proccess, and co-opted their core ideals.:p

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony
Feelings are irrelevant, if Bush has proven to be a liar, you should be able to document it. As it is, I have posted irrefutable evidence of Kerry's lies, hypocrisy and general inconsistency.

W

M

D


Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, and please try again.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj


W

M

D


Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, and please try again. jj,

I know we haven't gotten along in the past but I hope can put that asside and answer a question. Has it been proven that Bush lied?

To be honest, I believe that there was no intention to misslead or lie. The administration it seems to me, sincerely believed that there was WMD. I think that they wanted to believe. I think the mindset of the administration led them to discount evidence that could have or should have led them to a different conclusion but I have yet to see and evidence of lying on the part of Bush.

Perhaps the most daming is the Niger claim. Many in the administration seemed unwilling to accept that the claim had been discredited. However, there is some data to support a belief in the Niger claim even if that data was week.

March 8, 2003—Toronto Globe and Mail
Jeff Shallot of the Toronto Globe and Mail cites U.N. sources in reporting IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei's conclusion that "Secret documents detailing attempts by Iraq to buy uranium for nuclear warheads from Niger are forgeries. …" Shallot hypothesizes a con man, who sold them to an Italian intelligence agent, and then "passed [them] on to French authorities." Without attacking you and in a spirit of non-partisanship I would ask if you can document and demonstrate the lies of Bush and his administration as they relate to WMD?

[fishbob]

I know we haven't gotten along in the past but I hope can put that asside and answer a question. Has it been proven that Bush lied?
Those who believe Bush did not intend to deceive will never see enough evidence to prove lying. To those who believe Bush lied, any evidence is enough to prove lying.

To be honest, I believe that there was no intention to misslead or lie. The administration it seems to me, sincerely believed that there was WMD. I think that they wanted to believe. I think the mindset of the administration led them to discount evidence that could have or should have led them to a different conclusion but I have yet to see and evidence of lying on the part of Bush.
Take a close look at the now disbanded special intelligence advisory group that CIA head George Tenet says he just learned about. A reasonable conclusion is that this advisory group was set up to cherry pick WMD support data for the Bush administration to use to sell the Iraq invasion to the US populace. Plausible deniability strikes again.

[epepke]

Originally posted by RandFan
Has it been proven that Bush lied?

To be honest, I believe that there was no intention to misslead or lie. The administration it seems to me, sincerely believed that there was WMD.

And this matters, exactly how?

If you want a President who is always sincere in his beliefs, elect a schizophrenic.