<p>Should we really be arguing about gay marriage specifically? The people have spoken, and they do NOT want it.</p>
<p>yeah and its not so controversial anymore since they are obviously not going to get it.</p>
<p>I belive stem cell research is good but not at the cost of normal babies. Go ahead and use the dead ones or whatever. I think the california stem cell bill passed is just a way for the company to get money. 3 billion dollars is a lot of money.</p>
<p>"No sorry that is reserved for John Kerry I wouldnt call it a flip flop just because i wasnt thinking. "</p>
<p>Then why dont you THINK for a change? Its not a tough thing to do. And do you actually believe Bush never flip-flopped in his career as president? Lets not be too hasty here.</p>
<p>I propose talking about a topic that the country is divided over. Why not debate over the economic and healthcare policies?</p>
<p>(btw, Arnold, being the Republican governor of CA, supports stemcell research, and so not all Republicans are unaware of the benefits from it.)</p>
<p>There's a difference between changing one's position (as Bush has done I'm sure, along with 6 billion other people), and "flip-flopping." According to people from Kerry's own campaign, one of the biggest reasons that he lost the election was because he tried to appease too many people. If he would have stood up for what he believed in he might have won.</p>
<p>"he would have stood up for what he believed in"</p>
<p>ummm, he did but then Swift Boat Veterans came along</p>
<p>"There's a difference between changing one's position (as Bush has done I'm sure, along with 6 billion other people) and flip-flopping.</p>
<p>Wrong! They have practically the same meaning. btw, since when did the concept became "flip-flopping" for Kerry and "changing positions" for Bush?</p>
<p>Also, Bush may have become president,but Kerry won the support of the rest of the WORLD. In that sense, he is a winner. The world is laughing at us ever since Bush's victory.</p>
<p>Also, I do agree sempitern555 that the Swift Boat ads was the main reason for Kerry's defeat.</p>
<p>"You haven't answered any of my proposals on implementing a gender-blind civil union system for both heterosexual and homosexual couples; governmentally, I mean. That is, of course, because you have no argument against it."</p>
<p>I will be fair here and agree with you. Too bad its simply a "proposal" and the government will care less about it.</p>
<p>No one around the world is laughing, except for a few tyrannical regimes and despotic dictatorships, and that's because they have a skewed perception of reality anyway.</p>
<p>It is now a time for healing -- our rifts with Europe need to be closed and we need to show the world that the United States does not pursue a sole, unilateral, isolationist policy. Most countries recognize this.</p>
<p>I didn't say changing one's mind is exclusive to Bush. I'm sure John Kerry has also changed his mind before, but when he does it to please other people (namely in order to win the Presidency), then it turns into flip-flopping. </p>
<p>Example: Say someone gives you directions to an amusement park. You follow the directions exactly but you don't end up at the right place. Do you call this person a liar? I sure hope not, it was a mistake. However, say you find money missing out of your wallet. You ask your friend if he took it, and he says no; however, you later find out that he did. Do you call him a liar? Most likely.</p>
<p>Just as there are different magnitudes of "lying" or not telling the truth, there are different magnitudes of changing one's mind. John Kerry abused that fine line, and he became a flip-flopper. I know several Democrats who didn't like the fact that John Kerry couldn't ever decide one way or another on a lot of issues. If members of his own party are displeased about his ambivalent nature, then there must be something wrong!</p>
<p>And to blame Kerry's loss on the Swift Boat ads is ludicrous. One cannot lose an election because of a single advertisement. The Gallup Poll proves this: only 21% of Americans believed these ads. And I'm sure most of these people were hardline Republicans who didn't like Kerry to begin with so they certainly weren't going to vote for him regardless of the ads. And over 50% of people blamed the Bush administration for the ads, so if anything, they would vote for Kerry because they were turned-off by the Republican "trickery."</p>
<p>tlaktan, i have to say that you are totally wrong. Please read on:</p>
<p>A recent opinion poll carried out in 35 countries has shown that a majority (30 countries) would prefer to see John Kerry as the next President. </p>
<p>The support for George W Bush was strongest in the Philippines, Nigeria, Poland and Thailand. However, the overall support for Kerry was more than 2 to 1.</p>
<p>Most of America's traditional allies voted against Bush by a considerable margin. Germany 74%-10% in favour of Kerry, France 64%-5%, Italy 58%-14%, Spain 45%-7%, UK 47%-16%, Canada 61%-16%, Mexico 38%-18%.</p>
<p>The general opinion of those who oppose George Bush is their dislike of his foreign policy, and this has risen by 20% over the last 2 years.</p>
<p>I know, I know. The Republican/conservative response to this is probably going to be "Who cares what other nations think" -- right? After all, we didn't care what they thought about the war in Iraq, and the Republican/conservative pull away from international organizations like the UN and NATO has been so strong and visible it's left stretch marks.</p>
<p>But some of us care about consensus. Some of us care about cooperation. Nations that "go it alone," as Bush and his followers seem so willing -- even eager -- to do, usually end up ... well, alone. And that's not good for our status and influence in the world, it's not good for our economy, and it's not good for our security. Remember: we had the whole world on our side after 9/11. The most palpable evidence of Bush's utter failure in foreign policy is this poll that shows massive disapproval of Bush and his international relations. Even Britain -- Bush's strongest ally in the war on Iraq -- would rather see Kerry in the presidency (and that includes Tony Blair).</p>
<p>I dont think sources are needed to prove my point, but if you request, i will gladly provide some.</p>
<p>WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY?</p>
<p>"I'm sure John Kerry has also changed his mind before, but when he does it to please other people (namely in order to win the Presidency), then it turns into flip-flopping."</p>
<p>Wow, what reasoning!! Can't you see that Bush is president? He would obviously change positions to please the Americans (and thus secure his power). Because of this, all those promises he made in the 2000 election were never (and still now) put to practice during his terms in office.</p>
<p>So this, under your reasoning, should be categorized as "flip-flopping."</p>
<p>I'm questionable about the Blair supporting Kerry thing -- any sources?</p>
<p>Countries specifically selected for their dislike of the administration - real unbiased.</p>
<p>But that's not my point -- my point is, the President is in office, the world recognizes this and knows it's time to heal the rifts between us.</p>
<p>Oh, so if a President does not get something done then he is suddenly a flip-flopper? I guess if you use that reasoning, then every single president who has ever served in office is a flip-flopper! Better yet, every politician!</p>
<p>tlaktan, if you want a source, the read this:
<a href="http://www.patridiots.com/000904.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.patridiots.com/000904.html</a></p>
<p>sorry uc_benz, you have gotton my point wrong. I dont have time now but will elaborate within a few hours.</p>
<p>Wow, what a reliable source. Everyone knows that "Patridiot" is the name for a credible news source. Not to mention they advertise books that criticize George W Bush. Maybe you should try to get your source from an objective media outlet. This is comparable to me getting my news from Rush Limbaugh.</p>
<p>want more sources? then take this--</p>
<p>1.)<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1331216,00.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1331216,00.html</a>
2.)<a href="http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections/0,,2-10-1665_1616387,00.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections/0,,2-10-1665_1616387,00.html</a>
3.)<a href="http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/john_rentoul/story.jsp?story=577771%5B/url%5D">http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/john_rentoul/story.jsp?story=577771</a>
4.)<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty200403160836.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty200403160836.asp</a>
5.)<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/27/blair/index_np.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/27/blair/index_np.html</a></p>
<p>WANT MORE? TAKE THIS--</p>
<p>1.)<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1344813,00.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1344813,00.html</a>
2.)<a href="http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000688.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000688.php</a>
3.)<a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1294573,00.html%5B/url%5D">http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1294573,00.html</a>
4.)<a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/tm_objectid=14819636&method=full&siteid=89488&headline=blair--backs-kerry--name_page.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/tm_objectid=14819636&method=full&siteid=89488&headline=blair--backs-kerry--name_page.html</a></p>
<p>SATISFIED? GREAT!</p>
<p>As to what tlaktan said:
"But that's not my point -- my point is, the President is in office, the world recognizes this and knows it's time to heal the rifts between us."</p>
<p>I disagree. Bush won the election, but that didnt change the way the world thinks of him. There are NO real allies and to be honest, nobody want to help Bush on his "war on terror."</p>
<p>Sources indicate this, both you and i know that.</p>
<p>Boy am i ready to blast uc-benz! Bush is a flip-flopper (using you meaning of "flip-flopper). Let me give you some examples:</p>
<p>1.)BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS...
"We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]</p>
<p>BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]</p>
<p>2.)GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]</p>
<p>...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]</p>
<p>...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]</p>
<p>3.)BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]</p>
<p>...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]</p>
<p>4.)BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]</p>
<p>...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]</p>
<p>4.)BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]</p>
<p>...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]</p>
<p>6.)BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]</p>
<p>...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]</p>
<p>7.)BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]</p>
<p>...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]</p>
<p>8.)BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]</p>
<p>...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]</p>
<p>9.)BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]</p>
<p>...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientistsincluding Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidentsissued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]</p>
<p>10.)BUSH INVITES Ahmed CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]</p>
<p>...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]</p>
<p>11.)BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]</p>
<p>...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]</p>
<p>11.)BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]</p>
<p>...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]</p>
<p>13.)BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]</p>
<p>...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]</p>
<p>14.)BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]</p>
<p>...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]</p>