It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kerry is a tad confused

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   
In a recent interview with Fox News Sunday, Kerry became confused:



On domestic issues, Kerry gave a "rock hard" pledge not to raise middle-class taxes if he becomes president, though
he said a national emergency or war could change that.

Reminded that the country is at war already, Kerry said, "We're going to reduce the burden in this war, and if we do
what we need to do for our economy, we're going to grow the tax base of our country."





Source.


Um, is it trivial to wonder if Kerry even realizes that we are already at war, or is this a veiled way of letting us know that tax increases for the middle class are on the way if he is elected.


I report, you decide.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by gurnio]




posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Kerry did not become confused. I saw the interview. He clarified what he was saying by stating that he was talking about a new war, and that taxes might have to be raised in that event. But you conveniently didn't bother to include that in your quote, so you could suggest that Kerry doesn't realize we are already at war.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Well, technically, were not at war, seeing how congress never offically declared war on anything. war on Terrorism is like War on drugs. Not really a war, just another excuse to spend tax dollar certain villians rich.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Um, I didn't "conveniently" omit anything donguillermo, if you have a problem with the quote, take it up with the Washington Post; they published the article.

Oh, and why should I believe your unsubstantiated B.S. when you don't provide links?



[edit on 3-8-2004 by asala]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gurnio
Um, I didn't "conveniently" omit anything donqueermo, if you have a problem with the quote, take it up with the Washington Post; they published the article.

Oh, and why should I believe your unsubstantiated B.S. when you don't provide links?


First of all, the interview didn't occur on Fox News Sunday, as you state. Here is the link to the transcript of the Fox News Sunday interview. Please show me the quotes you say were from that show. Maybe I missed them.

Transcript: Sens. Kerry and Edwards

What happened is that you incorrectly interpreted the Washington Post story to say that the quotes you cited were from Fox News Sunday. Here are the last four paragraphs of the Washington Post story.


"I think this administration has dropped the ball on homeland security," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

"I think they are now moving to catch up. But what America wants is leadership that's ahead of the curve," he said.

On domestic issues, Kerry gave a "rock hard" pledge not to raise middle-class taxes if he becomes president, though he said a national emergency or war could change that.

Reminded that the country is at war already, Kerry said, "We're going to reduce the burden in this war, and if we do what we need to do for our economy, we're going to grow the tax base of our country."


You just assumed the quotes from the last two paragraphs were from Fox News Sunday. Originally, I didn't bother to read the Washington Post story. I just assumed you were accurately reporting that the quotes came from Fox News Sunday.

I watched three interviews with Kerry and Edwards Sunday morning. The Fox News Sunday interview, the CBS Face the Nation interview, and the ABC This Week interview. I distinctly remember hearing the quotes you cite in one of these interviews. Since the quotes didn't come from Fox, they must have come from CBS or ABC. I checked the transcript of the CBS interview, and they are not there. The quotes must be from the ABC interview, but they want money for their transcripts.

I am quite sure Kerry clarified his meaning as I indicated. You can call it unsubstantiated BS if you want to, but I am recounting what I saw on television. In our previous discussion, I was calling unsubstantiated BS statements made by FlyersFan which were false, and thus he had never heard or seen them anywhere.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by gurnio
Um, I didn't "conveniently" omit anything donqueermo, if you have a problem with the quote, take it up with the Washington Post; they published the article.

Oh, and why should I believe your unsubstantiated B.S. when you don't provide links?



Well, that was unneccissary. Aside from that, have you ever witnessed a Bush press conference? A "little" confused?



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Quite frankly, both candidates lack clarity. It's a shame we don't have better choices.
I'd have to say the more I hear Kerry speak, the more I notice he says nothing. I am totally amazed at his ability to say so many empty words.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Kerry is an idiot. And even scarier is the prospect that his cutsy sidekick Fast Eddy could become President through succession. Wow, now THAT"S scary. Also, Kerry just has gotta be the ugliest dude I ever did see.

p.s. Sorry, no linkies to support my claims



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
Kerry is an idiot. And even scarier is the prospect that his cutsy sidekick Fast Eddy could become President through succession. Wow, now THAT"S scary. Also, Kerry just has gotta be the ugliest dude I ever did see.

p.s. Sorry, no linkies to support my claims


And Chenney's any better? No linkies here either, but the candidates both suck. Look for a big influx of third party voting. Bout time.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
Kerry did not become confused. I saw the interview. He clarified what he was saying by stating that he was talking about a new war, and that taxes might have to be raised in that event. But you conveniently didn't bother to include that in your quote, so you could suggest that Kerry doesn't realize we are already at war.


Here's the transcript from This Week with George Snuffalupigus:

Linky

It turns out its not from the evil right wing Fox News as implied by The WaPo's article.

Here's the pertinent exerpt:


[1]10:49:22 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)
(OC) But I'm trying to get here at what happens if circumstances change, if the economy slows down, if your plans end up being more expensive than you think. Are you saying no matter what, the middle class isn't going to get a tax increase?
[1]10:49:29 SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE)
That's what I'm saying.
[1]10:49:33 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)
(OC) No matter what. Okay, well, then I want to bring back a conversation I had with the mayor of Scranton yesterday. He thought your crowd was terrific. He thought it was just great. He said this is what he's afraid of.
[1]10:49:42 SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE)
Let me make one caveat.
[1]10:49:44 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)
(OC) Okay.
[1]10:49:46 SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE)
War, obvious national emergency.
[1]10:49:48 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)
(OC) Well, we're at war now.
[1]10:49:49 SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE)
Well, it is possible obviously if the war, we've said that our plan is going to reduce the burden in this war, I have no doubt on that, none whatsoever. We're going to reduce the burden in this war, and if we do what we need to do for our economy, we're going to grow the tax base of our country.
[1]10:50:03 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)
(OC) That's a pretty big caveat.
(emphasis added.)


A big caveat indeed.


And here's what Kerry spun in response:



[1]10:50:06 SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE)
No, it's not a big caveat. I'm talking about a national emergency beyond what we have today in Iraq, if you had something extraordinary that happened, and obviously I want to be realistic about that.


And here's what you spun about his spin:


He clarified what he was saying by stating that he was talking about a new war, and that taxes might have to be raised in that event. But you conveniently didn't bother to include that in your quote, so you could suggest that Kerry doesn't realize we are already at war.


Funny, I don't see anything about a "new war", only "a national emergency beyond what we have in Iraq."

So it seems, despite your being " quite sure Kerry clarified his meaning as I indicated", that you are quite wrong.

That's why links are nice.



Kerry's response underscores his ignorance that the war we are currently fighting
already extends "beyond what we have today in Iraq".

He's either deluded or intentionally leaving himself some wiggle room.


Edit: Removed DNA evidence that I am Majic's illegitimate love-child.









[edit on 2-8-2004 by gurnio]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by gurnio


Um, is it trivial to wonder if Kerry even realizes that we are already at war, (snip)


I report, you decide.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by gurnio]


yup, it's pretty trivial. i think Kerry realizes that we are "at war," using the term broadly. many people however, myself included and apparently Kerry also, don't use the term war in every day usage to describe what Bush calls the "Global War on Terror." so it's understandable that he was thrown off guard.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by gurnio
Um, I didn't "conveniently" omit anything donqueermo,

How utterly rude. You know what is said about those that can't debate without name calling......as a whole, this community doesn't behave in such a manner . How very, very sad!



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
How utterly rude. You know what is said about those that can't debate without name calling......as a whole, this community doesn't behave in such a manner . How very, very sad!


Sorry mom, I'll apologize and buy him a soda.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   
gurnio says


Funny, I don't see anything about a "new war", only "a national emergency beyond what we have in Iraq."

So it seems, despite your being " quite sure Kerry clarified his meaning as I indicated", that you are quite wrong.


First, thanks for finding the ABC transcript. I should have Googled more. I am not going to get into another big semantic argument with you. Second, this is a pot/kettle/black situation, since you erroneously attributed the interview to Fox News Sunday.

Notice the following from the transcript.


]10:49:42 SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE)
Let me make one caveat.
[1]10:49:44 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)
(OC) Okay.
[1]10:49:46 SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE)
War, obvious national emergency.



1]10:50:06 SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE)
No, it's not a big caveat. I'm talking about a national emergency beyond what we have today in Iraq, if you had something extraordinary that happened, and obviously I want to be realistic about that.


Notice in the first quote he mentions "war, obvious national emergency" as one caveat. Then in the second quote he clarifies that he is talking about a national emergency beyond what we have in Iraq. What do we have in Iraq? A war. What would be a national emergency beyond what we have in Iraq? A new war.

Notice when I characterized Kerry's clarification, I did not use quote marks, so I wasn't claiming to represent Kerry's exact words. I believe, when placed in context of the entire interview and the quotes I have cited, my characterization of Kerry's remarks is accurate. You are free to disagree, of course. Please do not tell me that I am quite wrong because we have a difference of opinion on this matter. I am not going to get into another long semantic argument like the argument we had about whether "request" or "demand" was the more appropriate verb to use in a sentence. If you have another issue on this topic, fire away.


Kerry's response underscores his ignorance that the war we are currently fighting
already extends "beyond what we have today in Iraq".

He's either deluded or intentionally leaving himself some wiggle room.


This is just gratuitous Kerry bashing, which was the whole purpose of your original post. Kerry is not ignorant of what you claim he is, nor is he deluded. He is leaving some wiggle room. He did use the word "caveat".


Edit: Removed DNA evidence that I am Majic's illegitimate love-child.


You are either Majic's sock puppet, or the illegitimate offspring of Majic and Ann Coulter. My guess is you are Majic's sock puppet, because he knows my troll alarm goes off whenever I see a post by him.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
gurnio says


Funny, I don't see anything about a "new war", only "a national emergency beyond what we have in Iraq."

So it seems, despite your being " quite sure Kerry clarified his meaning as I indicated", that you are quite wrong.


First, thanks for finding the ABC transcript. I should have Googled more. I am not going to get into another big semantic argument with you. Second, this is a pot/kettle/black situation, since you erroneously attributed the interview to Fox News Sunday.

Notice the following from the transcript.


]10:49:42 SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE)
Let me make one caveat.
[1]10:49:44 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)
(OC) Okay.
[1]10:49:46 SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE)
War, obvious national emergency.



1]10:50:06 SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE)
No, it's not a big caveat. I'm talking about a national emergency beyond what we have today in Iraq, if you had something extraordinary that happened, and obviously I want to be realistic about that.


Notice in the first quote he mentions "war, obvious national emergency" as one caveat. Then in the second quote he clarifies that he is talking about a national emergency beyond what we have in Iraq. What do we have in Iraq? A war. What would be a national emergency beyond what we have in Iraq? A new war


A new war, eh? You mean like the freaking war on terror?


You are either Majic's sock puppet, or the illegitimate offspring of Majic and Ann Coulter. My guess is you are Majic's sock puppet, because he knows my troll alarm goes off whenever I see a post by him.


I wouldn't know about troll alarms. Mine exploded the first time I read one of your posts. Looking for a new one on ebay.

Btw. Don't call me names. LadyV doesn't like it.











posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Actually candidates have to be very careful of what they offer so not to get quoted latter on debates, remember the media is unforgiving.

Now does anybody saw the president on the news talking about the new agency he is going to open and he needs somebody to run it?

My daughter looked at me and said "mom what in the world he is talking about" I was so involved in bushes speech problem that I just answer "I thing he said that he needed a man" and then my daughter and me just started laughing when we realized the answer I came with.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   
donguillermo - I have read many of your responses in many 'a threads, and I have to say, for the majority, you definately know your stuff. I commend you!



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   


donguillermo - I have read many of your responses in many 'a threads, and I have to say, for the majority, you definately know your stuff. I commend you!




Yes indeed.


[edit on 3-8-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   


Btw. Don't call me names. LadyV doesn't like it.

Correct, I don't! I don't think name calling is in the pursuit of knowledge and denying ignorance...adults manage, or should be able to manage, a debate without stooping to such tactics.
EDIT Forgot to add my smiling face


[edit on 8/2/2004 by LadyV]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join