First of all, I am surprised by your stance about his stance about Vietnam. He went there, and is free to have his own opinion of the war. If his opinion is that it was something that needed to be protested, no one is better qualified for knowing this then someone who was actually there. That was an unjust war and as those medals were his he was free to do what he liked with them. If he felt that which he had done to earn them was for an unjust cause, then he is also free to feel disdain towards them.
Next, about the flip-flopping. One of the most important things about democracies is debate, discussion, and the free exchange of ideas. Consistancy can also mean stubborness, something which can be potentially deadly when your decisions affect the entire nation. If he changes his mind then that is not nessecarily a bad thing, perhaps he is swayed, or feels that different action is needed. Even if he changes to fit the majoirty, at least its' better then snubbing the people.
I'm not pro-Kerry, I really don't know enough about the guy, but I must say that the tactics used by the media and conservatives against him are all either frustraitingly pointless (Medal throwing? Who CARES?? Its' just medals!) or seemingly unsupported (I've heard some say he flip-flops for political benefit and say he's an out-of -the-mainstream liberal in the SAME sentance).
I also don't like how Bush can be called conservative and thats' ok, but Liberal is used like some huge political smear on the Johns. The vast majority of people in America seem to be moving left ever so slowly, and yet Conservatives seem to try and maintain the old system of liberals as weaklings and conservatives as mighty champions of traditional values.
LOL @ Kas. You're vaunted list doesn't contain a single source. It doesn't need refuting - it can't stand up to any scrunity. But I guess that's fine, because it's aimed at anti-Kerry conservatives who don't care about proof.
Dolash: talk to nearly any American. If you ask them about their beliefs and values, they come far closer to those that the Democrats stand for, and the Republicans claim to stand for. But, unfotunately, they too believe what the Media tells them to, and thus too often vote Conservative.
2000 showed us that the majority if Liberal. Bush may have stolen the election, but Gore won it. That matters.
No, no, Isstal, it doesn't work that way. I provide a source, and then, if you wish to continue the debate, you need to refute it. If the source cannot stand any scrutiny, then it should be relatively simple for you to find counter-evidence that removes it.
I'm glad Kas gets to make up the rules now. But no, Kas. The reason people listen to Michael Moore is because he backs up his facts with something we call sources. You visit mm.com, and he directs you to where to get your proof.
You visit this "list" and you get "here are your facts". Why would I waste time disproving something that you can't prove to begin with?
Kas, you looked stupid for providing a source that's written by a guy and posted to a message board already. If Michael Moore had used a source like that when producing Bowling for Columbine, you would have jumped on him yelling "he's using a bullshit source!".
For my part, I don't consider your link a source of any note. If it were posted on a major newsgroup, or written by an acredited person, than it might have some weight. But it's not.
The great thing about the internet, Kas, is than anyone can put together a list and post it up, and people like you will believe it.
