This "flip flop" BS is annoying.
 

This very trendy and cliche term is often used by people who are against Kerry to describe his position on issues or his strength as a solid leader (or lack thereof).

To get to the point - this is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. You can't expect to make a cogent statement or argument against a candidate using that particular quality if the candidate YOU SUPPORT shares it as well.

A lot of Bush supporters use this. We all know Bush has changed his mind on many occasions, so really, if you feel Kerry isn't a strong leader because of "flip flopping", then how could you feel the opposite about Bush? You can't be against one candidate doing it but for the other.

Are people uninformed, do they just choose not to believe it, or are there valid excuses and reasons for their candidate's change-of-heart? It just doesn't make any sense and gets very annoying when trying to hold an actual intelligent discussion with someone and they bust out with that tactic as if it's supposed to give them some advantage in what they're trying to explain.

Am I mistaken? Can someone name one president who, in either their office as president, senator, or otherwise, never changed their mind on an issue?

[edited for clarification]

Yes I would prefer a leader who makes a decision and then blindly sticks to it come hell or high water (or new information).

I don't support either candidate, as a Canadian I can't. But logically I would not eliminate someone because they changed their mind.

I hate the flip-flop bullshit so much.

And it makes me feel so childish. Either you are so stupid that you actually believe that meme, or you use it anyway (fully knowing it's a bullshit charge) because it gets under the skin of the other side and detracts from real issues.

It makes me think none of us ever made it past kindergarden.

Johnny: can I play with that ball?

Bully: NO!

Johnny: Please?

Bully: I heard you eat poop!

Johnny: No I don't!

Bully: I heard you did. You're a poop eater!

Johnny: What? I don't eat poop!

Bully: Poop eater, poop eater!

Johnny: Shut up! Why are you lying about me?

Bully: Poop eater, poop eater!

(Other classmates): Poop eater, poop eater!

chorus of half the playground: Poop eater, Poop eater! Johnny eats poop!

*Johnny cries.


/so does Jesus.

I was for this post before I was against it.

Changing your mind is fine. Changing your mind day by day based on what sounds good to who you are talking to is pandering, not leadership.

Stompy -- I think William Henry Harrison probably didn't have time to change his mind -- except about the wisdom of not wearing a jacket during his inaugaration.

In all seriousness, Shakran has an excellent list of Bush's opinion shifts in this thread. Flip-flop, most liberal, didn't deserve his medals, these are all wonderful themes parroted by the talking heads. People are stupid and easily convinced by the ten word answer, by the sound bite, by propaganda.

That's it right there. Yes.

Partially out of the best intentions to blindly support their candidate and partially out of the intention to annoy you and your candidate.

As much as you may detest the "flip flop bullshit" it is one of Kerry's weaknesses and will be mentioned time and time again because it is a serious issue. It is easy to tell where Bush stands on issues -- he makes a decision and sticks to it. He has yet to flip-flop on Iraq or Afghanistan. He has yet to flip-flop on gay marriage (as inappropriate as the issue is for Federal government to be involved in) or gun control. Undecided voters should be very wary of voting for Kerry because he seemingly stands for nothing -- he clearly has no moral or value system which he uses to make policy decisions since he changes his mind so often. For someone that values freedom above all else (neither candidate in this case), it is easy to stick to your guns on social issues. For someone who doesn't know what to think or what the people want, such decisions would be more difficult.

It's funny how when posting something that you want to make your point across, some posters refer to those that disagree with them or their views as stupid, mindless, morons, sheep, etc. etc. But if you agree with them then you are thinking for yourself and not listening to what others tell you. :confused:

What is the difference between a Flip Flop....and an outright Lie?
Serious Question.

Bush Lies (in my opinion)....Kerry Flip Flops

They are both less than the best of the best.

its one of those irregular verbs isnt it?

I am flexible, he is indecisive.

So you're saying the points mentioned in this post are lies or items taken out of context?

Gay marriage and Iraq are mentioned.

Anyway, I'm not really debating Kerry vs Bush, but instead pointing out that it's just pointless to call him a flip flopper when Bush does the same.

That sounds more like an extreme exaggeration than something that actually happened. Did he word the same thing differently? Did he give a different perspective on a problem that could have many solutions? Did anyone actually take into account the entire context of what he was saying, or did they take a snippet of something he said and give a broad accusation? I really find it hard to believe that someone would actually change their stance on issues day-by-day.

I don't think I'd call him a 'flip-flopper;' no more than I would any other polititian in history. It's just something Bush is using to pick at him.

I remember reading about this somewhere....what was it?......Hrmm.....Oh yeah, they called it Propaganda. Not Truth.

You beat me to it, but what he said brings up another interesting point. This isn't a bash of republicans - it's more of a "how the HELL do they do that?"

Reagan was called the Teflon President because nothing, and I mean NOTHING, no matter how damning, ever stuck to him. W is apparently Teflon Redux because the same story is happening. He flip flops left and right, yet none of his supporters see it. It seems, to this guy anyway, that people see what W is saying RIGHT NOW, and somehow delete from their memories what he said yesterday, replacing it with a copy of what he's saying right now.

It's truly amazing.

I will give you an example of the way John Kerry is and why he is called a flip flopper. (The following is not true, just an example to get the point across.)
Sen Kerry goes to an arsonist's convention, he tells them how much he loves to watch fires. Then 2 days later he goes to a firefighters convention and tells firemen what a great job they are doing, and anyone who sets fires on purpose should be prosecuted.
I know that is a lousy example, but he will take any stand to make the people he is talking to happy.

What exactly does this add to the debate? It's not true, you admit it's not true, Kerry never did it, and will never do it, so why use up a whole post writing about it?

You don't see those of us on the other side giving out examples about Bush being tough on crime, then running out and raping people do you?

If you want to accuse Kerry of something, then do it with actual facts rather than fiction.

It is difficult to take seriously an argument about the way reality is when you have to invent a situation rather than recall a fact.

Try an actual, reality based example, then, for extra credit, follow it up with sound logic destroying the idea that bush is a flip-flopper too.

I'm too tired to read all the posts, but this in particular caught my eye. The bit at the end made me laugh out loud. :thumbsup:

I have a bigger problem with people who think politicians will actually adhere or should adhere to a set goal.

Flexibility is big in learning to adapt to changing environments. Politics is an ever-changing environment.

Bush could've said "Hey, our country is safe, and we are fine now and I will keep it this way" on 9/10/01 and would've been nuts if he thought the same the next day. Of course, events occur in the world that you are not necessarily in charge of, and you have to adapt.

I'd rather have politicians willing to adapt and change to the country to keep up with the country and to provide the best possible answers for each problem as they come along rather than have a set line that may soon be outdated and behind.

If history teaches anything.. those who refuse to adapt and advance often end up behind and forgotten.

Just trying to make it simple, I stated it was an example, not a fact. But if you want a factual one, how about the SUV example. I think the people who have been following the race will remember that one.

I have been following the race and I don't know what you are referring to.

<p>
<b>IMO, Mods should hold members accountable who post unsubstantiated and inflammatory messages on poitical discussion threads. I'm citing
MSN Encarta Encyclopedia to rebut the accusations in the quoted post (above), because a credible case can be made that Kerry is the candidate
ideally suited, by past accomplishments with sources cited in links below,
to "take on" and expose the shortcomings and inadequacies inherent in numerous policies and in the record of the present Republican administration,
and to end up prevailing, as he has historically, in political matches, first
against Nixon, and then against Reagan/Bush. I suspect that is why there
is such venom being hurled at him by Rove/Bushco and their supporters:</b>
</td></tr></table><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr>Article Outline</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" class="outline"><a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581713/John_Kerry.html#s1">Introduction</a>; <a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581713/John_Kerry.html#s2">Early Life</a>; <a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581713/John_Kerry.html#s8">Education</a>; <a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581713/John_Kerry.html#s3">The Vietnam War Period</a>; <a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581713/John_Kerry.html#s4">Early Political Career</a>; <a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581713_2/John_Kerry.html#s5">Senate Years</a>; <a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581713_2/John_Kerry.html#s6">Kerry’s Second Marriage</a>; <a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581713_2/John_Kerry.html#s7">The 2004 Presidential Campaign</a></td></tr></table><div style="clear:left" /><a name="s5"></a><table class="sectiontitle" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr valign="baseline"><td class="sec2">VI</td><td width="15"></td><td class="sec1">Senate Years</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><a class="pseclink" href="http://encarta.msn.com/text_761581713___5/John_Kerry.html" title="View print-ready information">Print Preview of Section</a></td></tr></table><a name="p38"></a><p><font size="2" class="pkey">Kerry arrived in Washington, D.C., in 1985, returning to the forum where he had first come to fame in 1971 as an antiwar leader. Now Kerry was leading the fight against another war: the Reagan administration’s effort to overthrow the <a class="qv" href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573126/Sandinistas.html">Sandinista</a> regime in <a class="qv" href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577584/Nicaragua.html">Nicaragua</a>. Kerry flew to Nicaragua and met with the Sandinista leader, <a class="qv" href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577418/Ortega_Saavedra_Daniel.html">Daniel Ortega</a>. Ortega shortly thereafter flew to Moscow, then still the capital of the <a class="qv" href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553017/Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_Republics.html">Union of Soviet Socialist Republics</a> (USSR), to pick up a $200-million loan. The Reagan White House mocked Kerry for dealing with Ortega, calling him a Soviet ally, but Kerry kept a close eye on the Reagan administration’s dealings with the small Central American country. </font></p><div style="clear:left" /><a name="p39"></a><p><font size="2" class="pkey">Soon, Kerry began to hear stories about secret U.S. assistance to a group known as the <i>contras</i> that was trying to overthrow the Sandinista government. Although President Reagan viewed the contras as “freedom fighters,” Kerry called them a “mercenary army” financed by the <a class="qv" href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568583/Central_Intelligence_Agency.html">Central Intelligence Agency</a> (CIA). In an echo of his accusations about U.S. actions in Vietnam, Kerry charged that the contras had been “guilty of atrocities against civilians.” Kerry’s investigations helped lead to revelations of what became known as the <a class="qv" href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573296/Iran-Contra_Affair.html">Iran-contra scandal</a>, in which profits from secret U.S. arms sales to Iran were illegally diverted to help finance the contras.</font></p><div style="clear:left" /><a name="p41"></a><p><font size="2" class="pkey">As a former prosecutor, and with his war experience providing him with a skeptical view of U.S. foreign policies, Kerry became known more as an investigator than a legislator. Kerry’s investigations included an examination of a banking scandal involving the <a class="qv" href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_762504862/Bank_of_Commerce_and_Credit_International.html">Bank of Commerce and Credit International</a> (BCCI), which engaged in fraud and laundered money from illegal drug trafficking. Some of Kerry’s critics charge that his Senate career lacked distinction because of his failure to draft and sponsor the passage of major legislation. But his defenders answer that Kerry was not known for authoring bills because that task was left to his senior colleague, Democratic senator <a class="qv" href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567104/Ted_Kennedy.html">Edward Kennedy</a>. Nevertheless, Kerry did help write and support many key pieces of legislation. Not all of the bills fit the liberal mold that Kerry is known for. Kerry, for instance, joined Republicans in backing a deficit-reduction bill. He was a fierce critic of the abuse of illegal narcotics, working on antidrug issues with some of the most conservative Republicans, including former senator <a class="qv" href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581664/Jesse_Helms.html">Jesse Helms</a> of North Carolina. </font></p><div style="clear:left" /><a name="p43"></a><p><font size="2" class="pkey">Kerry also earned a reputation as a publicity seeker. He was given the nickname Liveshot for his ability to attract news coverage. But he also won many admirers who believed that Kerry was willing to tackle difficult issues. For example, Kerry worked with Senator <a class="qv" href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581773/John_McCain.html">John McCain</a>, an Arizona Republican and fellow Vietnam veteran, on an investigation into whether American soldiers were still being held in Vietnam. The pair determined there was no proof that Americans were still imprisoned, and they stood by President <a class="qv" href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341/Bill_Clinton.html">Bill Clinton</a>’s side in 1995 when the United States announced it was normalizing relations with Vietnam. </font></p> </td><td>

Here is something for you then:

Shakran, your list has now been quoted 3 times.

And seriously noted by the "Kerry is a flip flopper, which makes him unworthy of the office of Presidency compared to Bush" individuals, 0 times.

The SUV incident for Smooth. Kerry made a speech before the autoworkers in Detroit, bragged about his Chevy Suburban and other gas guzzlers. Then he goes to an environmentilist group and makes a speech about energy conservation, about how he drives an old car that doesnt burn much gas. Someone then showed pictures of all the gaz guzzlers parked outside his mansions. Kerry responded that they were not his, but the Family's cars. This was back in the spring sometime.

A big issue of Kerry's flip flop-edness seems to stem by the stark contrast of what his agenda and voting record has a senator has been and is, and what he says he is going to do. I'm not saying all of it is true or taken in context, but when the guy votes to raise taxes several hundred times, and then promises not tax the middle class, thats a flop. When a man promises huge sweeping social programs and federal funding, but says he is not going to vote for taxes, thats a flop.

Plus he did vote for the war before he voted against it....

So I see! I should publish this thing. Make some cash ;)

Know why people hate the "flip-flop" business so much? Cause it's true and there's nothing that the Democratic party can say or do about it. I find it hilarious. And issues like this do matter. You need a president that has integrity, and isn't going to go around people pleasing telling everyone what they want to hear. When Bush says something to the public, he means it, and he does not change his mind. I'd rather vote for the person who has a strong set of ideals, and does not waver from them, rather than the person that runs around like a chicken with his head cut off wondering what he's going to do next.

/\ Another person that totally ignored Shakran's post of Bush's flip flops on important issues.

Surprise, surprise, surprise
/pyle!

Is it wrong to support a bill in one iteration but oppose it when the wording is changed?

That is what is at the source of the whole flip-flop attack against his statement that you are mocking in your first sentence.

In short, SB, you are absolutely right that the Flip-Flop issue is bullshit, not to mince words. There is a sizeable segment of the electorate who does not want to deal with the vagaries and intricacies of this world and would rather view things in black and white. They respond well to a leader who for better or worse approaches issues, at least publicly, in such a manner. While it is true that Bush has had vast swings in action based upon changing popular support, on the surface, he projects a single-minded and steadfast exterior, unbending and resolute.

Kerry presents a very different approach. He is a thinking man who likes to keep his options open, and adapt to situations as they develop. This is kind of scary to those who have inflexible black and white views of the world. But to those of us who appreciate the ability to act on one's feet and not be bound by rhetoric, such a flexible approach:

Yes, one can support the essence of a bill but not vote for it because certain elements are unpalatable.

Yes, one can support a bill and then withdraw that support when the language is changed in a negative way.

Yes, one can support the military and oppose programs which don't represent the best options for spending resources.

Yes, one can support firearms ownership, but yet demand responsibility as part of the equation.

Bush's attacks on Kerry as a flip-flopper are no different than the high school jock's attacks on the nerd for being a smarty pants, and no better thought out. I'll stand with the thinking man vs. the bully any day of the week, thank you.

To paraphrase: Chewbacca is a wookie.

Being resolute is admirable. Being stubborn and inflexible is not. President Bush is not resolute, he is stubborn and inflexible.

:thumbsup:

Absolutely! In this day and age there is very little difference between the parties (canidates), the reason the Republicans have won the majority in both houses and the presidency is becuase... they're better at winning. Their PR machine is more powerful, thier supporters are more powerful etc etc. Why else would everyone be believing that John Kerry is a "flip-flopper" when his opponent does the exact same thing. Do any of us honestly believe that Bush does not go to the (insert your favorite politcal group here) rally and tell them what they want to hear? That's what politicians do. They make themselves as apealable as possible to the widest group of people.

Sorry for the double post but to build on Shakran's fine list... Actual words out of GWB's mouth:

Borrowed from <A HREF="http://www.jackotoole.net">Here</A>

:lol:

I'm not sure if this post was meant as a joke or not, but if NOT, then this is a prime example of what I was talking about in my first post!! That's totally what I'm talking about when I say it's hard for others to take these posts seriously.

Did you even read the post at all, or did you see "flip flop is BS" in the subject and just ramble off a response? Did you even read the thread? If so, you'd see for your very eyes the exact issues Bush has flip flopped on, which pretty much backs up the point made that almost all politicians do it (at least, in Bush vs. Kerry, anyway).

There are a lot of responses by people going "but Kerry DOES flip flop".. yeah, and we know that. So does Bush. That's the point of this thread.