PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Mr. Kennedy on September 30, 2004, 05:39:58 PM
-
Tonight\'s debates are underway. So far, Kerry has come off way too strong, he\'s acting like a jerk. However, in terms of substance, Kerry is leading. Bush has really made Kerry look bad, but lacks substance in his arguments. Bush\'s mistakes have been pointed out in this debate and are playing a major factor right now.
Substance: Kerry Wins
Less of an Ass: Bush Wins
-
Kerry is definitely acting like an ass. He seems to be repeating himself too. Ha, he just advertised his site (Kerry). I\'m actually yelling at the TV too.
-
Bush has really trained for the debate, even wanting to make rebuttles to Kerry\'s points. Smooth talker even though he\'s skirting on some issues with statistics.
-
The winner of this debate is...
The guy asking the questions!
He totally called out both candidates and told them that they are both saying the same thing in different words.
-
Originally posted by The Hurricane
The winner of this debate is...
The guy asking the questions!
He totally called out both candidates and told them that they are both saying the same thing in different words.
Who is the moderator? I missed where he said they are saying the same thing over. I\'ve noticed it too. Nothing but Iraq and then N. Korea. I found it funny Kerry said that N. Korea has 46 nukes. Hmm, last I heard it still wasn\'t confirmed if there indeed were nukes.
-
Even though I think Bush isnt a good president, I think he is a better leader than Kerry will ever be.
-
I can\'t see our country run by someone who can\'t make up his mind about policies and changes his mind when the polls are against it. What I really admire about Bush is that when he decides on an issue, he sticks to his decision. If the polls are against it, he doesn\'t think twice about changing it.
-
Well its done.
Delivery: I have to say Kerry. The guy is an attorney. What more can you say?
Content: Bush by a little only because his message was clear. Kerry contradicted himself a few times and even went off on a tangent about chemical something or other at the beginning of the debate. And what the hell is this global test Kerry says needs to be passed before he would do a pre emptive strike?
Kerry also mentioned this grand plan for Iraq and I still have no idea what he wants to do other than holding some magical summit that will cure all the problems in Iraq. I also believe Kerry stuck his foot in his mouth when he said the troops need better body armor and armored humvee\'s when Mr. Kerry has a very consistant record of voting against military funding.
Likeable: Bush easily. The guy has a sense of humor. Kerry just has this monotone voice without any passion or conviction.
Overall, I don\'t think anyone walked away a loser. I am sure there will be some key catch phrases floating around the next day, but in my opinion it wasn\'t the debate that was being hyped. I do think Bush could have nailed Kerry on a few more issues, but I think TV commercials will take care of that. ;)
-
Interesting score card for those that are interested:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/
-
Bush\'s responses lacked substance, he defended his mistakes instead of owning them and pushing for reassesments and resolves which are obviously needed. I just don\'t see America making actual progress under Bush, a man who would rather stand by his word than reassess a bad situation.
Bush never made it a key point to reconcile and strengthen world allies but instead reassured us that he\'s done as much as he can. Kerry pointed out this is certainly an issue and later it was confirmed by all the reporters on abc.
Kerry was impressive, he handled himself extremely well. Very confident, relaxed, and certainly intelligent. Nothing like the little outburst and scoffs from Bush. Kerry put it best when he said "You can be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong". That\'s entirely true and very appropriate for the way Bush has handled the issues brought up.
Bush by a little only because his message was clear.
Perhaps you could tell me what message that is...From what I gather it\'s "I\'m doing things the right way, just trust me." I don\'t agree and it seems I\'m not the only one.
It\'s very evident he has acted in such a manner that suggests uncareful and wreckless planning. The situation in Iraq is on the downward spiral and they\'re just not making the progress that\'s expected but in the mean time Iran and North Korea are becoming increasingly dangerous. He responded with we\'re doing everything we can but let me remind you about Iraq, mission accomplished.:rolleyes:
Kerry walked away with a clear victory, I have no doubt he\'ll do the same thing next week.
Also, I didn\'t see Kerry flip flopping on any issues. If you\'d like to point one out, please do.
-
Not only did Bush lack substance his whole manner show just how heated he can get - which is never a good thing. Did you see the facial reactions he was giving Kerry during some of those questions? It\'s moments like that show that our President is not the level headed Commander In Chief that the country needs.
Likeable: Bush easily. The guy has a sense of humor. Kerry just has this monotone voice without any passion or conviction.
At no point in the past four years has Bush demostrated a sense of humor, so I\'m not sure where you pulled that out of your ass. The same about lacking pass or conviction. Both are about as boring as could possibly be.
I can\'t see our country run by someone who can\'t make up his mind about policies and changes his mind when the polls are against it. What I really admire about Bush is that when he decides on an issue, he sticks to his decision. If the polls are against it, he doesn\'t think twice about changing it.
Kerry addressed this and you obviously was not listening. There is a difference in flip-flopping and being able to change with the times. We need a President who is able to adapt and look at the world as it changes. George W. Bush has not done this, he never looks at something and realizes he is wrong and needs to change.
Who is the moderator? I missed where he said they are saying the same thing over. I\'ve noticed it too. Nothing but Iraq and then N. Korea. I found it funny Kerry said that N. Korea has 46 nukes. Hmm, last I heard it still wasn\'t confirmed if there indeed were nukes.
Last I heard Saddam had WMD and we still have not seen these, while N.Korea does infact has a nuclear program. Gee, go figure. We waged a war on a country due to WMD, which has turned out to be false. On the other hand, we ignore a country that is openly persuing a nuclear program. That is sending mixed messages to the countries around us.
One more thing, when Bush was asked if he would ever do another pre-emptive attack he clearly stated that Iraq had attacked us. I believe the quote was "our enemy attacked us, we had to respond" or something to that lines. Either way, he insinuated that Saddam had some connections to 9/11, something that has never been proven.
-
One reason we probably saw Kerry not Flip Flop is because its been pointed out so much lately and he made it a point to finally get his shit together and not flip flop. I didn\'t get to see it all but I caught bits and pieces of it, and I saw Kerry making the outbursts and looking like a total DICK most of the times, who is it again his wife or him up there???
-
I believe the quote was "our enemy attacked us, we had to respond" or something to that lines. Either way, he insinuated that Saddam had some connections to 9/11, something that has never been proven.
I\'m under the impression it was proven to be false. No shit Iraq is a threat but the enemy he\'s refering to had little to nothing to do with Iraq.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
One reason we probably saw Kerry not Flip Flop is because its been pointed out so much lately and he made it a point to finally get his shit together and not flip flop. I didn\'t get to see it all but I caught bits and pieces of it, and I saw Kerry making the outbursts and looking like a total DICK most of the times, who is it again his wife or him up there???
Please, Kerry was entirely relaxed and handled every issue at they came at him. There were no teleprompters or ear pieces, Kerry knows what he\'s talking about as he clearly talks with confidence.
As LIC pointed out, it\'s Bush who got angry. I take it you didn\'t Notice that Bush was the one who was very quick to respond in a very defensive manner. I\'m sure he was wishing Chenney could join him on stage...
-
Like I said I only caught about 5 minutes of it and from what I saw he responded like a dick a couple times.
-
I watched the whole thing and the following reports and everyone was synonomous is saying that Kerry handled himself extremely well.
Bush on the other hand caught some criticism.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Interesting score card for those that are interested:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/
That is a horribly slanted website. All you have to do is look at the writer giving Bush an "A" for question 2, and it discredits the whole list.
The question was "Would the election of Sen. Kerry increase the chances of 9/11-like attacks?" Bush didn\'t even attempt to answer the question. This question was intended to allow Bush to own up to Cheney\'s BS statement that voting for Kerry would increase our risk of a terrorist attack. Bush needs to be responsible for what his campaign is saying. Instead he dodged by saying "it\'s not going to happen." but if IT DID HAPPEN???? ... It\'s not going to happen.... :rolleyes: How is that an A answer?
I think we should all make an attempt to find internet sources that are closer to being impartial. I was switching channels repeatedly after the debate trying to find one that was relatively impartial. I don\'t want to hear the Democratic response or the Republican response. I want to hear a neutral response. PBS came closest.
-
*damn, I hate politics*
its crazy. I notice the presidential debates were aired...but as soon as i see it, i skip it as i don\'t know who is right who is wrong...its like both sides have their reasoning and blah here and blah there...
I am like, man, its not like math where you usually can get a straightforward answer most of the times and it makes sense....:nut:
-
Kerry won this debate plain and simple.
Bush was stammering and stuttering his way around questions and really did not say anything.
Kerry came out and clearly stated his position and distinguished himself from Bush. This is the first time that I actually felt that Kerry could actually beat Bush. Bush seemed flustered and unprepared while Kerry came across as the exact opposite.
For the first time Kerry looked like an actual president and I think that this will show up in the polls.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
I think we should all make an attempt to find internet sources that at least make an attempt at being impartial. I was switching channels repeatedly after the debate trying to find one that was relatively impartial. I don\'t want to hear the Democratic response or the Republican response. I want to hear a neutral response. PBS came closest.
I agree. PBS is generally bipartisan when it comes to political coverage. I was actually watching Fox News(Greta Van Sustren\'s show) and you could tell by the reactions/demeanors of the people on the show who they felt won the debate. The Dems were upbeat while the GOP went into hardcore spin. It was VERY telling.
-
I say pretty much a draw but the talking heads are going on how Bush was angry and did not look good. I don\'t get it and I don\'t think I\'m blinded that much by my bias but who knows. We\'ll have to wait a couple of days for the dust to settle before we know if it really had any impact.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123733/
Who won the debate?
*432090 responses
Bush -- 29%
Kerry -- 71%
(10-second pause......)
[size=10]OWNED.[/size]
Seriously, these polls aren\'t all that reliable but I haven\'t seen one leaning in favor of Bush.
-
I don\'t see how anyone, including Bush supporters can say Bush looked calm and prepared on during that debate. I have seen various things on CNN, MSNBC and other news sources and all of them agree that Bush was visually upset at times and at one point looked like he didn\'t even want to be at the debate. You include that with Bush\'s constant stuttering durin\' questions and you get a poor apperance by Bush. The Bush Adminstration can only hope he looks better a week from now, as he clearly lost this one and I don\'t think anyone thinks that Cheney can deliver a decent debate.
-
Bush may have looked like an idiot but he comes on as the underdog. As long as Kerry doesn\'t come across as an ass in the upcoming weeks then I think Bush can start packing.
-
Originally posted by Ginko
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123733/
Who won the debate?
*432090 responses
Bush -- 29%
Kerry -- 71%
(10-second pause......)
[size=10]OWNED.[/size]
Seriously, these polls aren\'t all that reliable but I haven\'t seen one leaning in favor of Bush.
THIS POLL IS IRREFUTABLE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT KERRY DID BETTAR.
Sorry I agree Kerry was more at ease at did better in the debate, but just trying to offset the "OWNDNESS" ;) They each did a good job imo. I don\'t care about appearance as much as wanting to know the candidate.
-
After watching the debate it didn\'t seem like either would sway people to their side. Their were no moving responses, if you went in a bush fan you\'ll leave a bush fan, and vice versa.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
After watching the debate it didn\'t seem like either would sway people to their side. Their were no moving responses, if you went in a bush fan you\'ll leave a bush fan, and vice versa.
Disagree, I know a lot of Republican\'s where I work and they admit that Kerry won this hands down. Will that effect how they vote? Maybe.
-
Originally posted by THX
Bush has really trained for the debate, even wanting to make rebuttles to Kerry\'s points. Smooth talker even though he\'s skirting on some issues with statistics.
Bush looked more like a terrified rabbit caught in a cars head lights to me.
Put it this way(in a Strange Fantasy world) and if it was a Blair Vs Bush debate.... it would be a out and out massacre.
As Blair would of ignored the Whole Iraq issue and Attacked Bush on his Piss poor Home record.
Which Kerry should of done more of.
it would also of hurt Kerry to make more of the "mission Accomplished" statement that Bush made on ye olde Aircraft Carrier.
-
Kerry won, Bush didn\'t even say anything about actual plans.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
I want to hear a neutral response. PBS came closest.
Since when is PBS neutral? John Kerry was getting cream puff questions all night long. It still doesn\'t change the fact that he is wrong on serveral key issues:
1. Bipartisan talks with North Korea.
2. He still has NO clear position on Iraq.
3. He clearly needs a history lesson on why there are sanctions on Iran. He also doesn\'t know the difference between plutonium and highly enriched uranium.
4. Again I ask what is this "global test" Kerry was referring to?
Bush was very clear on where he stands on foreign policy. Kerry stated he would train more Iraqi\'s faster - Bush is already doing that. Kerry gave some ridiculous time table on withdrawal from Iraq. He is under the false impression that other countries are going to come in and take the place of American troops.
Lastly, Kerry may have sounded "stately", but listening to CNN, Fox and ABC this morning on XM radio most of the experts agree, on substance Bush won. Overall they all agreed, the debate was a draw with neither side hitting a "home run" so to speak.
-
i didn\'t watch the debate cause a soprano\'s rerun was on, BUT bush will win the election
bank on it
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Kerry won, Bush didn\'t even say anything about actual plans.
Say what? What plans does Kerry have DH? Name something original that Kerry has proposed that Bush is not already doing.
-
Originally posted by Ginko
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123733/
Who won the debate?
*432090 responses
Bush -- 29%
Kerry -- 71%
(10-second pause......)
[size=10]OWNED.[/size]
Seriously, these polls aren\'t all that reliable but I haven\'t seen one leaning in favor of Bush.
Dumbest comment yet. :rolleyes:
-
We\'re using an internet poll for info on who won the debate?
-
I will just point out some of the "flip flops" Kerry made in the debate since some seem quite dazzled by Kerry\'s debate style.
Kerry actually changed his position during the debate itself. When Jim Lehrer invoked Kerry’s testimony before the Senate upon returning from Vietnam and asked him if the war in Iraq was a mistake, Kerry quickly said, “no!” He turned right around in an exchange with the President over Kerry’s vote against the $87 billion said plainly that the invasion was a mistake. Kerry himself illustrated the President’s charge of sending mixed messages.
On the North Korea question, Senator Kerry voiced a straightforward appeasement strategy. Several times he repeated his intention to give in to North Korea’s demand for bi-lateral talks with the U.S.. So on Iraq, Kerry attacks the President for not being multilateral, which is untrue, and on North Korea he attacks the President on being multilateral. “Mixed Messages” is an understatement.
Finally, I was appalled at Kerry\'s suggestion that he would give oil rich Iran nuclear fuel to make sure they used it for civilian purposes. That’s exactly what happened in North Korea. :rolleyes:
It is also worthy to note that Gore supposedly won the first debate in 2000 election as well and we all see what happened with that. As LIC said earlier this week - the debates really don\'t mean as much as people think they do.
-
Dumbest comment yet.
We\'re using an internet poll for info on who won the debate?
Can tell you two are the spin doctors in the group...did you even see the the sentence below the enormous "owned"? I claimed they\'re "not reliable ...", case closed.
It is also worthy to note that Gore supposedly won the first debate in 2000 election as well and we all see what happened with that.
Gore won all the debates and clearly led in the debate polls, but he came across like an ass while Bush came across as the underdog. America loves the underdog.
Say what? What plans does Kerry have DH? Name something original that Kerry has proposed that Bush is not already doing.
Rebuilding the coalition is Kerry\'s strongest point and it\'s a subject where Bush is clearly lacking.
He still has NO clear position on Iraq.
I ask what\'s not clear about his position on Iraq?
Kerry -
It was a mistake going in
What we\'re doing isn\'t working
Let\'s try to rectify what we can
Let\'s make one thing crystal clear...the war on terror will never be over. The best we can do is get allied forces to help contain it, not shun them.
Bush was very clear on where he stands on foreign policy. Kerry stated he would train more Iraqi\'s faster - Bush is already doing that. Kerry gave some ridiculous time table on withdrawal from Iraq.
Oh yes, the 100,000 trained which later turned out to be half that number and even then there\'s a question as to how trained they are.
He is under the false impression that other countries are going to come in and take the place of American troops.
This is the part where I mention the coalition again. It\'s in need of serious damage control to strengthen our allie forces, I know it, you know it.
-
Originally posted by Ginko
Can tell you two are the spin doctors in the group...did you even see the the sentence below the enormous "owned"? I claimed they\'re "not reliable ...", case closed.
Like I said dumbest comment yet.
Originally posted by Ginko
Gore won all the debates and clearly led in the debate polls, but he came across like an ass while Bush came across as the underdog. America loves the underdog.
Actually he lost the last two - but that doesn\'t matter as you seem to be agreeing with what I said.
Originally posted by Ginko
Rebuilding the coalition is Kerry\'s strongest point and it\'s a subject where Bush is clearly lacking.
Again I ask who is going to join this coalition? Who is going to send troops to Iraq? John Kerry is living in a fantasy world.
Originally posted by Ginko
I ask what\'s not clear about his position on Iraq?
Kerry -
It was a mistake going in
What we\'re doing isn\'t working
Let\'s try to rectify what we can
Kerry actually changed his position during the debate itself. When Jim Lehrer invoked Kerry’s testimony before the Senate upon returning from Vietnam and asked him if the war in Iraq was a mistake, Kerry quickly said, “no!” He turned right around in an exchange with the President over Kerry’s vote against the $87 billion said plainly that the invasion was a mistake. Kerry himself illustrated the President’s charge of sending mixed messages.
You call that a clear message? He can\'t even decide if it was a mistake or not.
Originally posted by Ginko
This is the part where I mention the coalition again. It\'s in need of serious damage control to strengthen our allie forces, I know it, you know it.
Again... who is going to send troops to Iraq in any significant number so that we can pull out?
On another note Kerry did hint at increasing the size of the army last night - I wonder how he is going to do that? :rolleyes:
-
Like I said dumbest comment yet.
:rolleyes: Please remember this is just a discussion and to chill out. I posted that poll and clearly said it wasn\'t reliable. Perhaps I should have put a smiley face to make it more obvious not to take it seriously.
Again I ask who is going to join this coalition? Who is going to send troops to Iraq? John Kerry is living in a fantasy world.
Again... who is going to send troops to Iraq in any significant number so that we can pull out?
As I commented and as I\'ve seen on the news, Bush is doing more harm than he is good when it comes to this area. Kerry says he can fix it, Bush makes no mention of it other than "I\'ve done what I can." His arrogance, impulsiveness, and ignorance just doesn\'t help the situation.
Kerry actually changed his position during the debate itself. When Jim Lehrer invoked Kerry’s testimony before the Senate upon returning from Vietnam and asked him if the war in Iraq was a mistake, Kerry quickly said, “no!” He turned right around in an exchange with the President over Kerry’s vote against the $87 billion said plainly that the invasion was a mistake. Kerry himself illustrated the President’s charge of sending mixed messages.
You call that a clear message? He can\'t even decide if it was a mistake or not.
Speaking on the debate last night the message was...
We are at war with Iraq because of a "colassal error of judgement" as Kerry has said in the past. He clearly doesn\'t agree with why we\'re at war but has clear intentions to fix it. Whether he has solid ideals that can actually work is to be determined, then again the same goes for Bush.
-
Originally posted by Ginko
As I commented and as I\'ve seen on the news, Bush is doing more harm than he is good when it comes to this area. Kerry says he can fix it, Bush makes no mention of it other than "I\'ve done what I can." His arrogance, impulsiveness, and ignorance just doesn\'t help the situation.
Really? How has Bush not helped the situation. Oh yes how could I forget... the answer to all of our problems is to "rebuild alliances." :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Ginko
Speaking on the debate last night the message was...
We are at war with Iraq because of a "colassal error of judgement" as Kerry has said in the past. He clearly doesn\'t agree with why we\'re at war but has clear intentions to fix it. Whether he has solid ideals that can actually work is to be determined, then again the same goes for Bush.
This debate really didn\'t answer any questions on either side. It was more of the same message from both parties. This is why most see it as a draw regarding content. Maybe the format wasn\'t good for either side - maybe the townhall style will make the next one more interesting.
-
2. He still has NO clear position on Iraq.
Kerry\'s position on Iraq is to re-think the post Iraq political construtcion policy. He clearly stated he will instead have summits including European and Middle Eastern leaders to decide what is the best way to procede.
How much clearer can you get?
1. Have Summits
2. Form new plan
3. Complete plan
4. Leave
The key difference is the involvement of Euro and Middle Eastern leaders.
-
Really? How has Bush not helped the situation. Oh yes how could I forget... the answer to all of our problems is to "rebuild alliances."
I just love how you put a spin on everything. There\'s not one solution to all the problems and there never will be, but rebuilding alliances is a damn good start.
Bush\'s international affairs have met criticism so I know I\'m not just pulling this out of my ass.
- maybe the townhall style will make the next one more interesting.
I want Kerry to outline a realisitic plan and I want to hear something from Bush that tells me he\'s doing everything possible to reconcile, resolve, and restructure otherwise I\'d rather see someone else give it a go.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Kerry actually changed his position during the debate itself. When Jim Lehrer invoked Kerry’s testimony before the Senate upon returning from Vietnam and asked him if the war in Iraq was a mistake, Kerry quickly said, “no!” He turned right around in an exchange with the President over Kerry’s vote against the $87 billion said plainly that the invasion was a mistake. Kerry himself illustrated the President’s charge of sending mixed messages.
Kerry didn\'t change his stance at all. He has been saying the same thing all along. He said that Saddam was a threat and that the world is safer without him. Its just that Bush went about it the wrong way. Did you actually watch the debate or are you just getting the post-debate spin?
Kerry CLEARLY came across much better in this debate.
As a matter of fact I would be VERY surprised if Bush does any better on Tuesday when the debate will be on domestic issues. Domestic issues are Bush\'s MAIN weakness.
Neither party may have swung undecided voters to their camp. Still Kerry managed to embolden his supporters and may even bring some closet Kerry supporters out of the closet. Bush may have worried some GOP supporters because despite your(and many conservatives) new claim that the debates mean nothing they, in fact, do.
-
Lets get a couple of things straight:
DH - Name these countries that are willing to come into Iraq. France and Germany (the only other Euros who aren\'t there) have said they aren\'t coming no matter what. As for other Arab countries - you won\'t see a significant presence from them if any.
BS - My question should be can you differentiate substance from style? Kerry may have looked better, but his message was no less confusing. He has no plan. Secondly, do you even follow the news? The VP debate is scheduled for Tuesday - and then on Friday we have the second Presidential debate which we be a townhall style debate that will cover both foreign and domestic issues. And you have the nerve to ask if I watched the debate? :rolleyes:
For liberals such as yourself BS - Polls only count when you are ahead and now it seems debates only matter when your boy comes out on top - even if it is only superficial. The real winner will be known on November 2nd... or maybe not if the whiny DNC lawyers demand recounts in every battle ground state.
-
Originally posted by Ginko
I just love how you put a spin on everything. There\'s not one solution to all the problems and there never will be, but rebuilding alliances is a damn good start.
Bush\'s international affairs have met criticism so I know I\'m not just pulling this out of my ass.
What alliances need rebuilding? France and Germany - As I have stated numerous times, France and Germany will not be sending troops to Iraq. Get it? Got it? Good.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
What alliances need rebuilding? France and Germany - As I have stated numerous times, France and Germany will not be sending troops to Iraq. Get it? Got it? Good.
Exactly! This is the stuff that drives me nuts. I want details from Kerry on exactly how he plans on getting France or Germany into our camp on the Iraq issue. It\'s not gonna happen because we all know there are deeper issues with these two countries that go deeper than a disagreement on how this war is being waged.
Kerry really is a joke. Why the hell didn\'t Bush just dig him on his senate career? I think he mentioned it once quickly as a joke. Dammit, if I was Bush I would be firing people today.
We all know these debates are about appearances. Not too many Americans give a shit about answers to the questions at hand.
-
It\'s too bad that most people only watch the first debate, because what I got from it was basically a draw, though Kerry did hammer Bush on a few points, which was nice. Also, that agitated frown that Bush got whenever Kerry was making a point I just found halarious -- kind of reminded me of ol\' Florida Gator Football coach Steve Spurrier.
Anyways, I guarantee you that most of the country will only watch that first debate...if I\'m proved wrong, however, I believe that Kerry could see a significant jump in the polls once they start reaching domestic issues. Should be a fun couple of weeks :)
See Yuz.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Exactly! This is the stuff that drives me nuts. I want details from Kerry on exactly how he plans on getting France or Germany into our camp on the Iraq issue. It\'s not gonna happen because we all know there are deeper issues with these two countries that go deeper than a disagreement on how this war is being waged.
Kerry really is a joke. Why the hell didn\'t Bush just dig him on his senate career? I think he mentioned it once quickly as a joke. Dammit, if I was Bush I would be firing people today.
We all know these debates are about appearances. Not too many Americans give a shit about answers to the questions at hand.
I really wish Bush would have nailed him on the United Nations stuff. It is a corrupt organization that wanted to continue to pass resolutions in order to keep the money flowing in from Oil for Food Program.
I also wish he would have hammered Kerry on his voting record in the Senate. Kerry is trying to trick the public into believing he is going to hold this magical summit that will make France and Germany (and lets face it folks that is who he is referring to when he talks about rebuilding alliances) send a hundred thousand troops to Iraq. :rolleyes:
Another missed opportunity was this:
Kerry says the President always has that option to engage in a preemptive strike and then, amazingly brings up JFK\'s consultation with the French during the Cuban missile crisis. That was a softball for Bush to hit...
Shockingly, Bush passed up the opportunity. His rebuttal is, however, devastating. He says he doesn\'t know what it means to "pass a global test. . . . My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people."
-
Just so were clear. I don\'t like this whole "flip-flopping" method against Bush.
If your doing something and you see that it is wrong, why stay with it? Are you telling me that if something is not working we should stand by it? I\'d rather someone come out and say, I made a mistake, I\'m changing my plan of action. Rather than, I screwed up, but were gonna keep doing it because I don\'t want to be a flip-flopper.
I\'d rather have a flip-flopper than someone stubborn as a rock.
Don\'t like Kerry, but in my eyes he won the debate. I consider myself a swing voter, and if anything I\'m leaning more towards Kerry now.
Kerry is a flip-flopper.
Bush is stubborn as a rock.
Take your pick.
-
So the other debates could change your mind?
-
Bush clearly stated that he would adapt to situations. The main issue he hammers about being unwaivering on is the job must be completed in Iraq.
Bush: No draft. Fight terrorists around the world, don\'t have to do it here. Don\'t turn our security over to others; we believe in the "transformational power of liberty." Free Afghanistan and Iraq, an example for the Middle East. We\'ve climbed the mountain, the valley below is the valley of peace.
That was George Bush\'s message plain and simple.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
My question should be can you differentiate substance from style? Kerry may have looked better, but his message was no less confusing. He has no plan. Secondly, do you even follow the news? The VP debate is scheduled for Tuesday - and then on Friday we have the second Presidential debate which we be a townhall style debate that will cover both foreign and domestic issues. And you have the nerve to ask if I watched the debate? :rolleyes:
You are right. I meant next Friday. The final debate is the one that covers domestic issues.
As far as substance vs. style GWB had neither. Saying "Its hard work", "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", "Its hard work", "You change positions" ad infinitum is not substance. Bush did not provide any more substance than Kerry did. It is that fact alone that makes the style more glaring.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
For liberals such as yourself BS - Polls only count when you are ahead and now it seems debates only matter when your boy comes out on top - even if it is only superficial. The real winner will be known on November 2nd... or maybe not if the whiny DNC lawyers demand recounts in every battle ground state.
MORE spin from our resident FoxNews correspondent. When have I ever said that a poll didn\'t matter? Conservatives are coming out of the woodwork talking about how the debates don\'t really mean anything anymore. That is complete bullshit spin. Kerry was flip-flopping, debates don\'t mean anything, Kerry had no substance. It is ALL bullshit damage control spin. The GOP can NOT win this election on the issues. They would rather focus on "flip-flopping". Still as one intelligent debater said recently, "You can be certain but be wrong".
-
"pass a global test. . . . My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people."
Even if that means passing false information to justify it? There were no WMD, Saddam was not an immediate threat.
On Iraq, there\'s increasingly LESS interest from other countries to help out. I think Kerry\'s biggest criticism is that we went into action far too early and without enough to support, thus the need for stronger alliances(his main issue). A clear and concise plan was not thought out, Bush even said it himself last night that it\'ll be done when it\'s done. How is that reassuring? How is that even convincing?
I just don\'t see why you guys are giving him so much credibility?
As for the global test...what did Kerry mean by that? I take it he meant we must focus on a global war on terror...
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
The GOP can NOT win this election on the issues. They would rather focus on "flip-flopping". Still as one intelligent debater said recently, "You can be certain but be wrong".
These are issues. Kerry\'s voting record is an issue! His inconsistancy is an issue!
Flip flopping? You mean like one not so intelligent debater did recently?
KERRY CLAIMS HE\'S "NEVER, EVER" USED WORD "LYING" IN REFERENCE TO PRESIDENT BUSH ON IRAQ. JIM LEHRER: "New question, Senator Kerry. Two minutes. You\'ve repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before, of not telling the truth about Iraq. Essentially, of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth." SEN. KERRY: "Well, I\'ve never, ever used the harshest word as you just did." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
BUT IN DECEMBER 2003, KERRY TOLD NEW HAMPSHIRE EDITORIAL BOARD BUSH "LIED" ABOUT REASON FOR GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ. "Kerry also told a New Hampshire newspaper editorial board Friday that Bush had \'lied\' about his reasons for going to war in Iraq, a word Kerry has been reluctant to use publicly for months. Yesterday he said he did not plan to use the word again." (Patrick Healy, "Kerry Camp Lowers N.H. Expectations Behind In Polls, Senator Now Seeks Spot In \'Top Two,\'" The Boston Globe, 12/8/03)
AND IN SEPTEMBER 2003, KERRY SAID BUSH ADMINISTRATION "LIED" AND "MISLED." "This administration has lied to us. They have misled us. And they have broken their promises to us. The president promised to the people and the Congress that he would build an international coalition, respect the United Nations\' process and only go to war as a last resort. I will tell you that from my war fighting experience, I believe there is a test for a president as to how you go to war. And that test is whether or not you can look in the eyes of parents and say to them, \'I did everything possible to avoid the loss of your son and daughter, but we had no other choice in order to protect the security of our nation,\' and I know this president fails that test in Iraq." (Sen. John Kerry, Campaign Event, Claremont, NH, 9/20/03)
Face it BS - If the Dems had any decent candidate this year the election would over - Hell I would even vote for someone electable other than those two, but I can\'t and Kerry is weaker than Bush when it comes to making decisions.
-
Originally posted by Ginko
As for the global test...what did Kerry mean by that? I take it he meant we must focus on a global war on terror...
Wrong answer... try again.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Wrong answer... try again.
I know, I know!!!! Oooh, oooh!!!!!
-
That\'s why I\'m asking. Stop being such a jerk.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Bush looked more like a terrified rabbit caught in a cars head lights to me.
......didn\'t see that
-
Alliances are not just about military involvement. World-wide political stability does not require France and Germany sending troops to Iraq.
The US, now after invading two middle eastern countries, must work with the rest of the world to make the region stable. We must set up a large number of confrences with Iran, Iraq, and all European leaders.
Bush is using Americas plan to rebuild the world, where as I think the results would be more long term if Kerry worked with other leaders like he is proposing.
-
Are you not going to help me out on understanding what he meant by global test? Or is it that you don\'t know or that it doesn\'t have any relevance to your pro-bush stance?
-
Global Test is a buzzword phrase that means we get UN approval or something similar before we protect ourselves.
-
How many times do we have to go over this:
Iraq was not a threat to the United States.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
How many times do we have to go over this:
Iraq was not a threat to the United States.
I don\'t think I mentioned Iraq in my answer.
-
Thank you, Ace.
So what\'s wrong with that especially given the situation. Saddam was NOT an immediate threat and there is no evidence of WMD.
Getting rid of the long term threat of Saddam sounds good but going in with guns blazing was not the way to do it. More support and an understanding this is everyone\'s war on terror might have had things turn out differently. I guess we\'ll never know.
-
Not a problem, in my mind, in building a coalition. I would not, however, make it the be all and end all test before we take action to protect our country.
-
I don\'t think I mentioned Iraq in my answer.
Yes but your discussing Kerry\'s comment about a Global test which was in refrence to Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Not a problem, in my mind, in building a coalition. I would not, however, make it the be all and end all test before we take action to protect our country.
True, I\'d rather see us defended in times of imminent need however that\'s not the case with the war declared on Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Yes but your discussing Kerry\'s comment about a Global test which was in refrence to Iraq.
Iraq for now but who knows who might be next.
-
If the US is in direct danger from a specific country, Kerry will not hesitate. On the other hand Bush is very clear that his war was based on what might happen, not what was actually happening.
-
What is with young people and multilateralism? eMpTyV must be the cause. :rolleyes:
Seriously, I can\'t believe some of you think it is ok that Kerry would seek approval for attacking a country that is a threat to US.
Hypothetical situation:
North Korea has nukes capable of hitting the west coast and is threatening to use them if we don\'t give in to so unreasonable demand. John Kerry decides to go to the UN to seek a preemptive strike on North Korea for the safety of the US. France veto\'s the action in the Security Council because it does not feel North Korea to be a significant threat to the US. The US doesn\'t give in to N Korea\'s demands and they launch a missle and take out San Francisco (I could only wish). All because of John Kerry\'s indecisiveness and unwillingness to act unilaterally.
Now I know that is extreme and highly unlikely scenerio, but is that the kind of leader you feel safe having?
Since I know DH is obsessed with Iraq - I will discuss it. George Bush post 9/11 felt Iraq was a threat to the security of this country from the intelligence he had received from Great Britain, Russia and our own intelligence that all pointed to him having WMD\'s. What other country besides Iraq had the biggest grudge against the US in that area of the world? Not one.
Now imagine 17 UN Resolutions that have been ignored by Iraq, failed inspections dating back almost 10 years and combine that with the intelligence you have been receiving. What would stop Iraq from aiding terrorists in attacking the US? After all, Iraq was sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel. Is it so far fetched that Iraq was seen as a legitimate threat?
I back Bush\'s decision 100 percent in launching a preemptive strike on Iraq. Even if all the intelligence was wrong, I am glad we had a leader who wasn\'t willing to take that chance. We should never put our right to self defense in the hands of some corrupt international body like the United Nations.
-
Anyone notice that Kerry contradicted himself a few times? My favorite was when he said that there should be global involvement in talks with potentially threatening countries. He then said later in the night that the talks in N. Korea should be just the US and NK. Yeah, real stable guy.
-
^^^ he wants to be multilateral in Iraq and Iran and bilateral in North Korea. That makes no sense and is inconsistant.
He wants to continue Clintons policy of appeasement.
-
How did I miss this Kerry gaff from last night? Is Kerry really Kopking in disguise?
It was principally the United States, the America and Great Britain and one or two others. That\'s it." - John Kerry 9/30/04
Amazing Bush convinced both the United States and America to participate.
:laughing:
-
What makes you think that the world at large would not approve of a pre-emptive strike on an imminent threat? Key word "imminent".
The world did not agree that Iraq was an imminent threat so they did not support military action. We are not on an island in this world. The more we push our allies away the LESS safe our country becomes. Why is that so hard to understand. We cause more damage to ourselves by pursuing this go it alone, your with us or against us, cowboy routine. There is nothing you can say that would prove otherwise because that is the absolute truth.
-
Ok i wanted to stay out of this at first but i see no point in not being involved. If this seems misinformed then tell me because i have yet to read the whole thread.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Since when is PBS neutral? John Kerry was getting cream puff questions all night long. It still doesn\'t change the fact that he is wrong on serveral key issues:
What do the questions have to do with PBS? This is only a first debate, and both sides were given a fair amount of time to rebut the others comments and speak a bit about their own agenda. I dont know what the questions asked to Kerry have anything to do with anything.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
4. Again I ask what is this "global test" Kerry was referring to?
Now i cant say that im completely sure on what was meant here either, but i got the impression that this so called "global test" was more or less a challenge in order to test our global credibility and just how we handle everything in terms of Iraq etc. Kerry made it a point that he strongly believes in the war but not in the way its being handled. Of course there are you/people/w.e that couldnt care less about "appeasement" as you say, or a strong understanding with other nations in terms of our actions as so called "world police."
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Bush was very clear on where he stands on foreign policy. Kerry stated he would train more Iraqi\'s faster - Bush is already doing that. Kerry gave some ridiculous time table on withdrawal from Iraq. He is under the false impression that other countries are going to come in and take the place of American troops.
Ok yes, Kerry stated that he could see American troops out within 6 months (minimum), but he did go ahead to say that it could take longer due to whatever complications or if something else arose that needed attention.
You are also right in the fact that Iraqi troops would be trained to replace our troops but Bush was saying the exact same thing. Thats why he said it himself except there was one difference. Bush gave out the number of something like 100,000 Iraqi troops have been trained and an extra 25,000 will be trained by the end of the year to replace american troops. The number was actually somewhere around 50,000 currently - discovered by sources to i think it was NBC. So theres always a credibility issue here but even so, its not like you could take the 100,000 to heart either. So if anything i think both would be under false impressions or giving out false information.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Lastly, Kerry may have sounded "stately", but listening to CNN, Fox and ABC this morning on XM radio most of the experts agree, on substance Bush won. Overall they all agreed, the debate was a draw with neither side hitting a "home run" so to speak.
Didnt listen this morning. From polls it seems that Kerry won by a not so huge margin overall from what i saw on the different networks but im not posting any sources right now so dont take it to strongly.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
What makes you think that the world at large would not approve of a pre-emptive strike on an imminent threat? Key word "imminent".
The world did not agree that Iraq was an imminent threat so they did not support military action. We are not on an island in this world. The more we push our allies away the LESS safe our country becomes. Why is that so hard to understand. We cause more damage to ourselves by pursuing this go it alone, your with us or against us, cowboy routine. There is nothing you can say that would prove otherwise because that is the absolute truth.
Question:
You are the prez. You are being fed intel that tells you a threat is gathering. Members of congress agree with you that the threat is there. You have leaders of other countries concurring. You think back to one of the worst terrorist attacks that this country has ever been witness to. You have a decision to make to attack this gathering threat.
What do you do?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
How did I miss this Kerry gaff from last night? Is Kerry really Kopking in disguise?
It was principally the United States, the America and Great Britain and one or two others. That\'s it." - John Kerry 9/30/04
Amazing Bush convinced both the United States and America to participate.
:laughing:
And of course such a trivial mistake (which actually sounded like there should have been a period after United States) is so incredibly laughable, let alone any kind of point. :rolleyes:
-
North Korea has nukes capable of hitting the west coast and is threatening to use them if we don\'t give in to so unreasonable demand. John Kerry decides to go to the UN to seek a preemptive strike on North Korea for the safety of the US.
Your hypothetical situation will never happen. If it did occour, there would be no seek of UN approval.
Kerry has only said that Bush went about Iraq in the wrong way, Kerry is not saying we should not target threats to the US, he is saying Iraq was not a threat to the US.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
What makes you think that the world at large would not approve of a pre-emptive strike on an imminent threat? Key word "imminent".
The world did not agree that Iraq was an imminent threat so they did not support military action. We are not on an island in this world. The more we push our allies away the LESS safe our country becomes. Why is that so hard to understand. We cause more damage to ourselves by pursuing this go it alone, your with us or against us, cowboy routine. There is nothing you can say that would prove otherwise because that is the absolute truth.
What would the world consider imminent? I am not willing to put that decision in a governing world body\'s hand. With allies like France who needs enemies? We haven\'t been close to France since the the 80\'s when they wouldn\'t allow us to use their airspace so Reagan could attack Libya for sponsoring terrorism.
France only cares about France in case you haven\'t heard. It does not matter in least who is president. Your version of the truth is simply flat out wrong. We should never have to ask anyone\'s permission to defend ourselves however we feel necessary. You hint that our country has become less safe... prove it. Have we been attacked since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Do you honestly think if we would have not retaliated that everything would be A-OK as far as our enemies are concerned?
-
Also, everyone saying Bush won on substance.
I think you mean he won on his lack of substance, because less substance is more focused.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Your hypothetical situation will never happen. If it did occour, there would be no seek of UN approval.
Kerry has only said that Bush went about Iraq in the wrong way, Kerry is not saying we should not target threats to the US, he is saying Iraq was not a threat to the US.
Newsflash - N. Korea already has a missle capable of hitting the western US.
Secondly, Kerry\'s assertion that we must pass a global test debunks your entire second paragraph. He also did think that Iraq was a threat to the US and repeatedly stated so up until Democratic primaries started. Only until he saw Howard Dean\'s popularity rise by being anti war did he jump on the anti war bandwagon.
-
Kerry has only said that Bush went about Iraq in the wrong way, Kerry is not saying we should not target threats to the US, he is saying Iraq was not a threat to the US.
Iraq not a threat??? I dont think he said that at all. That would be a stupid assumption. I think he meant that we could have kept inspectors in there longer and not place 100% focus on iraq so quickly.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Also, everyone saying Bush won on substance.
I think you mean he won on his lack of substance, because less substance is more focused.
Did your mother drop you on your head?
sub•stance
Pronunciation: (sub\'stuns), [key]
—n.
1. the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc.
2. the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing.
-
What I meant was, Iraq had not directly threatened the US like Gigas hypothetical NK situation.
-
I know what the word means, you are obviously missing my point.
The general population will side with Bush on this debate because his material was not as wide-spread.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
What I meant was, Iraq had not directly threatened the US like Gigas hypothetical NK situation.
Threats come in many different varieties. Go back up and read my post about Iraqi intelligence from the UK, Russia and CIA and couple that with how Saddam felt about the US and how he was sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel. It doesn\'t take a rocket scientist to see that Saddam was a credible threat to the US.
-
I don\'t think attacking a country because the leader may have weapons and doesn\'t like you is a good enough reason.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
I know what the word means, you are obviously missing my point.
The general population will side with Bush on this debate because his material was not as wide-spread.
You make even less sense than Kerry. WTF are you talking about? Your interpretation of the word substance was completely wrong.
-
Listen carefully.
He had less information and less points to argue then Kerry.
So he then seemed more direct and focused.
And that appeals to the American people.
Although in reality he didn\'t say as much about the issues as Kerry.
Therefore his actual LACK of substance may end up helping him.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
I don\'t think attacking a country because the leader may have weapons and doesn\'t like you is a good enough reason.
Way to use that September 10th 2001 mentality. Did you miss the part where he was paying suicide bombers to attack Israel? What would have eventually stopped him from paying some all too willing fanatic a king\'s ransom to bring a WMD over here and set it off?
Inspectors? :laughing:
or better yet maybe a summit! :rolleyes:
-
Sorry, I wouldn\'t send our troops into battle because of a "What if"
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Listen carefully.
He had less information and less points to argue then Kerry.
So he then seemed more direct and focused.
And that appeals to the American people.
Although in reality he didn\'t say as much about the issues as Kerry.
Therefore his actual LACK of substance may end up helping him.
2. the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing.
Kerry\'s gist was to "hold a summit". So who had the lack of substance again?
-
IMO Kerry said more then your giving him credit for.
-
I watched it and even read the transcripts - he didn\'t say anything he hadn\'t said before other then letting us know that his brand new plan for Iraq was to hold a "summit". Genius I say!
-
And it was still more then Bush said. ;)
-
Uh Bush has already been talking to other countries. Bush already figured out that doesn\'t work. Kerry is still 3 steps behind when it comes to foreign policy ideas.
Is it so hard for you to understand DH that France and Germany will not be sending troops to Iraq. Neither will any Arab or Muslim country.
-
I don\'t want anyone else to send troops to Iraq.
I want them to talk about the direction in which the middle eastern area of the world should be heading, and how to make it get there quicker.
-
So now its the Giga/DH debate... *sigh*
I knew this might have been a waste.
-
I refuse to debate anyone that can\'t understand the word substance. ;)
-
What would the world consider imminent?
Well, generally it means "about to happen".
I am not willing to put that decision in a governing world body\'s hand. With allies like France who needs enemies? We haven\'t been close to France since the the 80\'s when they wouldn\'t allow us to use their airspace so Reagan could attack Libya for sponsoring terrorism.
Okay forget France, let\'s talk about all those other countries that make up the eastern world. There needs to be stronger relations and Bush just doesn\'t seem to make an effort and even worse it seems like he doesn\'t care. No doubt he\'s tried, that\'s not good enough. I want to hear about how he\'s going to pursue a global alliance on the war on terror. We absolutely will not win the global terror threat alone. Bush would rather have you believe "mission accomplished" or some shit like that.
Giga, you keep going back to Iraq and I don\'t think you\'re seeing the bigger picture. If there is to be a "victory" on the global terror threat then everyone has to help thus the NEED for stronger alliances. Bush has caught quite a bit of criticism from other countries concerning his approach with the Iraq war and that shows from the lack of support and from countries losing interest in our efforts. He took decisive action without the facts, of course he\'s going to lose some credibility. It\'s our mess, now we have to clean it up.
Threats come in many different varieties. Go back up and read my post about Iraqi intelligence from the UK, Russia and CIA and couple that with how Saddam felt about the US and how he was sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel. It doesn\'t take a rocket scientist to see that Saddam was a credible threat to the US.
Why is it that all this intelligence has proven to be false?
-
"The only thing consistent about my opponent is his inconsistentcy"
That was pretty good.
-
If anyone is interested, Aftonbladet.se (our biggest newspaper) has had an poll for two days.
Yesterday, Bush was leading by ~20% in the question "Who do you think will win the election?", now the result is:
Kerry: 43.3 %
Bush: 47.4 %
Not sure: 9.3 %
(97337 people has answered the poll so far)
And another poll:
"Who do you hope wins the election?"
Kerry: 82.7 %
Bush: 13.8 %
Not sure: 3.5 %
(104730 people has answered the poll so far)
About the debate, I have only seen a small part. But nice to see those two talking about politics for once, I was afraid your elections were about everything but politics. ;)
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
"The only thing consistent about my opponent is his inconsistentcy"
That was pretty good.
lol, one of the few complete sentences or thoughts to come out of him...probably had to rehearse it 40 times before he got it right. and what about the "mexed" messages. laughable.
Kerry had his "You can be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong." as was the case when war was declared on Iraq.
-
Those 2 poll questions were totally different, who do you think will win, and who do you want to win, so one being a day before the debate and one after doesn\'t really relate being that they are not the same question.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
Those 2 poll questions were totally different, who do you think will win, and who do you want to win, so one being a day before the debate and one after doesn\'t really relate being that they are not the same question.
Read it again.
Yesterday, Bush was leading by ~20% in the question "Who do you think will win the election?", now the result is:
Kerry: 43.3 %
Bush: 47.4 %
Not sure: 9.3 %
(97337 people has answered the poll so far)
I\'m assuming the same applies for the other poll.
-
Can\'t wait for Tuesday\'s VP Debate.
This one has to favor the Democrats, Edwards is a much better public speaker than Cheney. Plus Edwards is 10x more likeable.
It was always clear cut for me, Edwards would have gotten my vote, but now that Kerry got the ticket I\'m not so sure.
-
What would have eventually stopped him from paying some all too willing fanatic a king\'s ransom to bring a WMD over here and set it off?
What would stop anyone from doing that? Let\'s have the war on the rich next. Or do they still have to be evil? We\'ll start by warring with the evil rich.
On North Korea, Kerry said he wants to continue multilateral discussions, but also engage North Korea one-on-one. He didn\'t emphasize that, but when the moderator asked him, he said "both."
Bush, to his credit, was clearly telling the truth when he said he believed bilateral discussions would do nothing. Then again, who is better for talking? Kerry wants to try.
Kerry outlined a precise four point plan for handling Iraq now and emphasized that while it was a mistake to go there, we\'re there now and it\'s in our best interest to win and secure the peace. I only remember his points about securing the borders of Iraq to prevent the terrorists and I think he used "weapons of mass destruction" as a reference to car bombs. He said he\'d train more Iraqis faster which basically means he\'ll keep training them like Bush is doing. I forget the others.
Bush\'s plan was.... not shared with us.
When Kerry coined the silly term "global test" he did so at a point when he was reaching for the right word. All he meant was that we should have international approval. Bush could care less about America\'s status in the world. He tosses aside allies and the U.N. and rushed into something we didn\'t need to do. And Kerry criticized him for not having an exit plan. I don\'t know if I buy that, though. We\'re starting elections and training Iraqis so there must be an exit plan, at least now. I\'m sure it just wasn\'t publicized initially.
In my opinion, Kerry\'s stance on bringing back our allies is great. Anyone could keep up Bush\'s tactic. It\'s just us. But Bush can\'t bring in allies. Let Kerry try.
Also, to the scenario about Kerry losing San Francisco to North Korea. You\'re example is silly. For Bush, the silly example would be that he hears wind of something that may be a threat so he lays waste to a country...
Oh, wait...
I can see how Bush has done some things right, obviously, but I think those things will continue under Kerry while Kerry tries to undo the bad that Bush has done.
By the way, the whole flip-flopping thing is silly. Just the term itself is silly. Bush repeatedly hammered it home because that\'s his stupid campaign theme and he was obviously told to do it. It came off transparent, meaningless, and childish to me and I was glad when he at least stopped doing it every answer he gave.
Kerry is consistent in having a level head. That means as things change, so does he.
Not Bush, early in the debate he insisted Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He said Hussein attacked us on 9/11/01...
We all know he\'s full of it, but better to be an idiot than a flip-flop.
At least, lets call him a sandle. No one says "flip-flop" anymore.
Anyway that\'s my attempt at a level break down of what some people are pretty polarized on, but as you can tell, I\'m sliding further and further with Kerry.
Hell, at least he\'s more poised and level-headed and even-tempered. I\'d rather have him behind the red button.
-Dan
-
^That\'s a good post.:)
-
Eiksirf nailed it on the head.
-
Eik for president!!!
Also, found this in case anyone\'s interested. Didn\'t see it posted yet...
Bush vs. Kerry Debate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html)
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
Kerry is consistent in having a level head. That means as things change, so does he.
Not Bush, early in the debate he insisted Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He said Hussein attacked us on 9/11/01...
This is indeed news!
Bush said Hussein attacked us on 9/11? I didn\'t watch that version of the debate. Bush has never said there was link between Iraq and 9/11 - ask anyone who regularly posts in this forum and they will agree that Bush has never made that claim. That topic has been debated numerous times in here.
Kerry has a level head? As opposed to what? You implying that George Bush is ready to start a nuclear war. You must not be up to date on news - Kerry lied numerous times during the debate - unfortunately Bush for whatever reason didn\'t call him on any of them like he should have. Kerry\'s statement about our troops not having body armor... Kerry is the fool that voted against the 87 million to give them body armor!!! Bush needs to hammer Kerry on points like this. If he had done so last night the election would have been a slam dunk.
-
Bush has never directly linked them. But his manor of speaking post-9/11 gave many Americans the impression that Iraq was involved with 9/11.
Only after the 9/11 commission investigation was over did the Bush administration flat out say there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. But it is quite obvious they understood this before the invasion as well.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
This is indeed news!
Bush said Hussein attacked us on 9/11? I didn\'t watch that version of the debate. Bush has never said there was link between Iraq and 9/11 - ask anyone who regularly posts in this forum and they will agree that Bush has never made that claim. That topic has been debated numerous times in here.
Kerry has a level head? As opposed to what? You implying that George Bush is ready to start a nuclear war.
Why do you keep going to the extreme? Kerry was an example of thoughtful debate, never losing his cool. Bush had numerous small outburst and even became heated a few times. Last night Kerry was level headed.
You must not be up to date on news - Kerry lied numerous times during the debate - unfortunately Bush for whatever reason didn\'t call him on any of them like he should have. Kerry\'s statement about our troops not having body armor... Kerry is the fool that voted against the 87 million to give them body armor!!! Bush needs to hammer Kerry on points like this. If he had done so last night the election would have been a slam dunk.
Well, I supplied a link...why don\'t you actually supply the quotes of these numerous lies?
And before you get an attitude, I\'m genuinely interested so calm down.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Bush said Hussein attacked us on 9/11? I didn\'t watch that version of the debate.
No? I did.
"LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?
BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I\'d be doing that.
But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us."
Here Bush talks of his preemptive military action, you know, that Iraq thing, and mentions how they attacked us, Jim.
But wait! That\'s not all:
"KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, "The enemy attacked us."
Saddam Hussein didn\'t attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. al Qaeda attacked us."
Looks like Kerry was watching the same debate I was, too.
Kerry has a level head? As opposed to what? You implying that George Bush is ready to start a nuclear war.
Nah, he just starts regular war. Oh, and this:
"KERRY: Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn\'t make sense."
And actually, I was just implying he has a quick temper and wears his emotion on his face too clearly. I don\'t want him doing negotiations. No wonder one-on-one talks fail. He\'s too easy to read.
Kerry is the fool that voted against the 87 million to give them body armor!!!
Good thing Bush didn\'t call him on it or you might have just found out why Kerry "voted for it before he voted against it."
The ****ing bill was different in its final form and he didn\'t like where the money was to be taken from in the final version. It\'s not flip-flopping, it\'s called reading a bill and deciding if it makes sense before you support it. If you only support part of it, that\'s not grounds to approve it.
Sorry I don\'t have a link for that one, though this is the best I could do on a quick google: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/rnc-fact-checking.html "To take the example that dominated the convention perhaps more than any other claim: Professional politicians and political correspondents alike know that legislators frequently vote against appropriations for a variety of reasons, even though they do not seek to eliminate the programs being voted on. They know that different versions of the same appropriation are often offered, and that lawmakers will sometimes vote for one version and against another-- not because they suffer from multiple personality disorder, but because that\'s how they express disagreements about how government programs should be funded.
No one who has spent any amount of time in or around government would find this the least bit confusing. Yet news analysts generally allowed Republican Party leaders to pretend shock that Sen. John Kerry would vote against an $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq War-- as if this meant that Kerry opposed giving troops "money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor," as George W. Bush declared ( 9/2/04). (The references to Kerry voting against body armor were particularly disingenuous, given that the $87 billion only included money for body armor at the insistence of congressional Democrats-- Army Times, 10/20/03.)"
-Dan
-
Oh and one other thing from the debate that bothered me all day as I thought of it. This snippet also shows Kerry wants multi and bilateral talks with North Korea:
LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.
You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?
BUSH: Right.
LEHRER: And you\'re willing to do it...
KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.
LEHRER: And you\'re opposed to that. Right?
BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That\'s exactly what Kim Jong Il wants.
I don\'t like that on a televised debate watched around the world by, say, Kim Jong Il, our President says he won\'t give him what he wants. He repeated the same thought again later.
Again, I can\'t tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It\'s precisely what Kim Jong Il wants.
If I was Kim Jong Il and I heard that, I\'d go "**** you, then."
Maybe I\'d talk to Kerry, maybe I\'d sell a nuke tomorrow, maybe I\'d get some ice cream, but I\'d definitely be pissed with Bush.
-Dan
-
Thank God people like you don\'t run this country Eik... the policy of appeasement is the wrong one. I agree with the war in Iraq as part of the overall war on terror. I don\'t have the time to waste debating peacenicks. Your argument is weak and you can\'t even provide a reference. Kerry has flip flopped countless times on his position on war in Iraq alone. Sorry, but if you can\'t see it you are blind. He had some pair to bring up the body armor subject when he voted against it. You can whine all you want about "the ***ing bill was different in its final form" all you want - the fact remains he voted against it. He is anti military and has been for the past 20 years as his voting record shows.
Also as far as the nuclear bunker busters go - gotta love em! Great weapons - might come in handy one day. ;) Ever hear of a policy called detant?
Kim Jong Il is a nutbag - if you think appeasing him is the answer you couldn\'t be more wrong. The most ironic thing is that N. Korea didn\'t acquire nukes on Bush\'s watch - they acquired them on Clinton\'s.
The CIA reported in April 2001 that North Korea had probably constructed two nuclear weapons in recent years — that is, not during President Bush\'s watch, as Kerry claimed, but earlier.
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200410010641.asp
One last item before I leave for the evening - If I was one of the leaders of a country that has troops in Iraq I would be very offended by Kerry\'s non chalant attitude toward my country\'s contribution. Kerry rebuilding alliances? Hah!
Whoops too late - he already offended Poland...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232996/posts
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
the fact remains he voted against it.
Yeah, because he had a problem with part of it. Thats what his job is.
Kim Jong Il is a nutbag - if you think appeasing him is the answer you couldn\'t be more wrong.
Yea, let\'s try pissing him off instead. Piss off the nutbag. That\'s what Bush did to Il last night. And if I was feeling spirited, I\'d say that\'s what Kerry did to Bush a few times, too, heh. ;]
I don\'t mind so much under who\'s watch he got the weapons. It\'s more what we\'ve done since then. Bush is really strong there, I feel. He\'s handling North Korea as best he can. Kerry just wants to add another prong to the pressure.
I would be very offended by Kerry\'s non chalant attitude toward my country\'s contribution. Kerry rebuilding alliances? Hah! Whoops too late - he already offended Poland...
I hadn\'t thought about that, but you\'re right. He meant to jab at Bush\'s weak "coalition" (Yay for Uzbekistan!), but I bet he did inadvertantly tick off Poland.
Heh, least Poland isn\'t one of them nucular nutbag nations. ;]
Oh, and one last thing. These are flip flops:
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oldnavy.com%2Fassets%2Fproduct%2Fmain%2Fona231623-04p1.jpg&hash=3fe10352f76d8e34cc4b979186b31e555ea3d8d4)
Presidential candidates cannot be those.
If I were Kerry I would wear them while campaigning. Make it out to be as silly as it really is. Throw it back in the republicans faces as if to say "I acknowledge that you\'re retarded." I bet that would\'ve been a smart move for personal approval.
Or else I\'m overtired. Goodnight and may God continue to bless these forums.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Thank God people like you don\'t run this country Eik... Hah!
why not? me looks dumbfounded...:sconf:
Eik is like the cheese that blend and can make the pot melt...
(ok, bad excuses but me runs and hide)
-
Man, I\'m kind of late but hey you can\'t have a thread like this without Mystiq commenting on it. Here you go Giga call me stupid and ignorant and show me your greatness like you have with the other people in this thread that posted!
Flip-Flopping
Old. Dumb. And overused.
Bush tried to push it into the debate and it came out superficial and overused.
Kerry didn\'t flip flop over sending "body armor" to the troops. He read what he was voting for and he didn\'t like the new changes and he didn\'t approve of it. I think somebody already commented on that.
If Kerry is a "flip-floper" then I guess all of us who thought Hussain had nukes are also "flip-floppers" Bush did everything he could to make it seem as if Hussain was the greatest threat in the world and it worked. Hussain gave up weapons and missiles that he was ALLOWED to have just to make a point. The guy was a cruel guy but it doesn\'t justify the war.
I understand that he had the history of deceiving the inspectors. But what I don\'t understand is why the decision wasn\'t made until AFTER the inspectors have finished their job and if there were still doubts have the UN cooperate to dig deeper into it.
I understand that people love to call the "UN" worthless and wussies. And it can be when one country, a superpower, decides to act on it\'s own and isn\'t willing to listen to what others have to say. The people of Europe aren\'t very happy with the war. And their respective governments in an attempt to keep the peace will side with their people just like Bush says he only worries about our safety. And we know that Bush isn\'t regarded very high among people all around the world. I think Kerry might change some minds though. Why? Simple, he isn\'t Bush.
Iraq was a mistake because you can\'t take a controlled group of people and give them freedom. It\'s impossible. As cruel as Hussain was he had CONTROL. And invading and giving this people who were controlled for so long freedom would only cause violence and rebellion. Democracy is something a country has to evolve to or at least slowly develop into. Right now there is rebellion after rebellion and all kinds of militia attempting to keep power. The shii\'tes are there. They are the majority and it\'s going to be impossible to keep a stable government while there are so groups trying to obtain control.
Iraq can and probably will become a democracy. But at America\'s expense. At the expense of American lives and it won\'t happen soon. Right now there is no way out of Iraq. And I don\'t know if this is accurate but Bush Sr. even said in his book that the reason he didn\'t go into Iraq was because he saw no safe way out.
Other terrorist are daily coming into Iraq to fight US troops. Where these groups there before the invasion? No. They have taken the opportunity and now Iraq is a battleground for the US troops and all of the anti-American fighters.
Kerry is right. Bush is painting a pretty picture of Iraq with all kinds of colors and illustrations. It isn\'t like that. Back in the Vietnam era the media had no limitations. There were hundreds of pictures and videos that graphically depicted the real horrors of war. The reports matched what the media was showing and it only helped strengthen the anti-vietnam feeling.
Now we have the media that in order to keep those people who love tossing the "anti-american" or "unpatriotic" words around they sugar coat it. They fill it with jelly and cover it with whipped cream. They show what they think the audience wants to see and that is something that shows them how great America is.
Kerry did pull some strings. I found the link and it was FoxNews that showed some "facts" that weren\'t really facts. But they were minor ones. No huge lies.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134160,00.html
I think Kerry won. Duh. But Bush did put up a good fight :) The way Bush responded some how gave me the feeling that he felt like if we shouln\'t be questions him.
Look at a video of the first questions. He has that "i can\'t believe your questiong what I did!" expression.
-
For ****ing God sakes , Iraq was not a threat to America. Get over it. There was no WMD, live up to it. If there was, we would of found them by now. George W. Bush pissed on the UN and in sense pissed on all the nations. Not saying John Kerry is the answer to everything, but some of you guy\'s live in a fantasy spin-world where Saddam was this big bad wolf, but in the real world he was a dicator , nothing different from others like N.Korea\'s . Get over it .
-
Originally posted by mm
i didn\'t watch the debate cause a soprano\'s rerun was on, BUT bush will win the election
bank on it
True. I say that only because of what happen last election. He can just take the election no matter what the votes say. I mean I don\'t know if I really ever thought my vote counted. But after the last election I lost all faith.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
For ****ing God sakes , Iraq was not a threat to America. Get over it. There was no WMD, live up to it. If there was, we would of found them by now. George W. Bush pissed on the UN and in sense pissed on all the nations. Not saying John Kerry is the answer to everything, but some of you guy\'s live in a fantasy spin-world where Saddam was this big bad wolf, but in the real world he was a dicator , nothing different from others like N.Korea\'s . Get over it .
I agree. I still don\'t know why he started this war anyways. Some say it was for oil others say different. So many people have lost there lives over nothing. There have been no WMD found and troops continue to die. I mean it has been proven time and time again that these people do no want us over there.
This is what I don\'t get about america. We are spending all this money rebuilding Irag when there are poor people living on the streets of america. I mean use that money to help build up poor people in your own damn country. Then go out and help others.
-
Eik is like the cheese that blend and can make the pot melt...
LMAO!
Thank God people like you don\'t run this country Eik... the policy of appeasement is the wrong one.
hmmm, I\'m not sure where you got the impression that Kerry would give into the demands of others when it comes to our safety. In fact, read this...(you can find it in the beginning of the presidential debate)
"I\'ll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances."
- John Kerry
seems pretty clear to me. Obviously Bush is not a smooth talker and I agree he wears his emotions on his face. Please let someone else try, it\'s certainly worth the chance.
I agree with the war in Iraq as part of the overall war on terror. I don\'t have the time to waste debating peacenicks.
Iraq is a part of the war on terror, everyone is saying it was done the wrong way. International talks are not what they could have been and what they NEED to be in order to make an effective global stance against the war on terror.
Now don\'t get me wrong, thank you to all the support we do have but it\'s simply not enough. Great Britain has something like 8300, Poland has 4000, then the numbers begin to get very dismal.
Kerry has flip flopped countless times on his position on war in Iraq alone. Sorry, but if you can\'t see it you are blind.
Kerry voted for the use of force against Iraq if warranted(immediate threat) and was adamant for giving diplomacy the chance it needed and deserved. It\'s very obvious now that we rushed in without a viable plan and without the support we needed. Other countries didn\'t share our concern because it wasn\'t justified and we didn\'t, and still don\'t, have a plan.
Please bare in mind that voting for the use of force and actually going to war are in fact two different things. Kerry had our saftey in mind when voting for the use of force but decidely had different ideas on why to use it.
He had some pair to bring up the body armor subject when he voted against it. You can whine all you want about "the ***ing bill was different in its final form" all you want - the fact remains he voted against it.
Well, from what I can tell there is no room for middle ground when it comes to voting for a bill. The bill did in fact change and Kerry didn\'t like where it was going. For the record only 1/3 of 1% of that 87 billion was going to go towards body armor. >>>Link<<< (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155)
EDIT: Come to think of it this bill was passed AFTER we initiated war. Bush sent those troops over there without proper armor. I suppose we can just throw that in the pile with this "well thought out" war.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Bush said Hussein attacked us on 9/11? I didn\'t watch that version of the debate. Bush has never said there was link between Iraq and 9/11 - ask anyone who regularly posts in this forum and they will agree that Bush has never made that claim. That topic has been debated numerous times in here.
He did imply it though.
The fact that he implied it was more than enough for the uneducated to run with the idea that Iraq was a threat to our security. Over 50% of Americans still think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. (Interesting note: 65% of all Fox News viewers think that same thing)
The fact that you keep trying to tell us that invading Iraq was an accomplishment in the global war on terror is ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
He did imply it though.
The fact that he implied it was more than enough for the uneducated to run with the idea that Iraq was a threat to our security. Over 50% of Americans still think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. (Interesting note: 65% of all Fox News viewers think that same thing)
The fact that you keep trying to tell us that invading Iraq was an accomplishment in the global war on terror is ridiculous.
You are one of those who believe no matter what Bush does he is wrong. You have no validity in any debate due to this. I freely admit he has made some mistakes, but Iraq was not one of them. Give me any other solid candidate from either party and I would vote for them. If Kerry wins the next debate I would even consider voting for him, but I won\'t due to the fact his campaign is associated with groups like moveon.org and people like George Soros who absolutely disgust me.
Passing more UN resolutions would have been a mistake. You and others who believe diplomacy would have been the answer must have not been paying attention to the the past 10 years and 17 resolutions. Saddam was not contained - as is evident in the wide spread corruption concerning the oil for food program. If he could milk 10 billion out of that supposedly humanitarian program, you have to wonder what else he was up to.
-
You are one of those who believe no matter what Bush does he is wrong.
Please stop trying to throw us in with a group or slapping a lable on our heads. It\'s just getting annoying.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Passing more UN resolutions would have been a mistake. You and others who believe diplomacy would have been the answer must have not been paying attention to the the past 10 years and 17 resolutions.
The answer, not by all means. Given more of a chance considering there was no immenent threat, most definitely.
Saddam was not contained - as is evident in the wide spread corruption concerning the oil for food program.
He wasn\'t the one who attacked us prompting an unprepared and poorly planned war.
-
Giga, tell me why it was the right war in the right place at the right time. For all the time he spent harping on it, Bush forgot to do that... ever.
If I were a freedom-desiring Iraqi, I might support Bush\'s actions.
I\'m not that.
Ginko, that was another informative link.
Kerry was referring to a measure he co- sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush\'s tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected 57-42.
Right there you can see that Kerry not only wanted to protect soldiers but he actually wanted to do it with help from rich people\'s money.
And, it\'s pointed out in that article that even before senators got to vote on those bills, our soldiers were getting shot at in Iraq without enough good armor to go around.
Thanks Bush.
-Dan
-
Why don\'t you enlighten us to why its wrong?
17 failed UN Resolutions.
Saddam not cooperating with weapons inspectors.
How many times did he fire on ours and allied planes in the no fly zone?
The only thing I might agree on is the wrong time, but the right time long since passed us by and he to go sooner rather than later.
We should have finished the job back in 1991, but we couldn\'t because the UN resolution authorinzing Desert Storm did not call for removing him from power - I guess the certain UN officials and the French had too much lose if Saddam wasn\'t in power. If we would have removed him back in 91 you wouldn\'t see what you are seeing today in regards to terrorists and insurgents.
Also in case you didn\'t know the US since Clinton was in office had a policy to remove Saddam from power - Bush just made good on it.
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
Right there you can see that Kerry not only wanted to protect soldiers but he actually wanted to do it with help from rich people\'s money.
And, it\'s pointed out in that article that even before senators got to vote on those bills, our soldiers were getting shot at in Iraq without enough good armor to go around.
Thanks Bush.
-Dan
This is where you are absolutely wrong. I got a tax cut and I am not rich. Kerry voting against the bill was partisan nothing more nothing less. He has consistantly voted for cutting the DoD budget year after year - so don\'t whine about "our soldiers didn\'t have good enough armor". Kerry is weak on defense and would have you believe he wanted to provide our troops with that equipment.
If Kerry really wanted to help the poor why didnt\' he pay the higher income tax that was a choice on the MA state income tax form???? Why hasn\'t his wife Tereeeza made her tax returns public? Kerry fails to put his money where his mouth is.
-
Originally posted by Ginko
He wasn\'t the one who attacked us prompting an unprepared and poorly planned war.
At least make a factual statement like poorly planned post war. I don\'t think the actual war itself could have gone any better.
-
Kerry is weak on defense and would have you believe he wanted to provide our troops with that equipment.
Then why is it he was for the bill before it changed? :confused:
Does the Bush campaign send out special sunglasses so that you can see things their way? Are they stylish, do they work with all kinds of attire?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
At least make a factual statement like poorly planned post war. I don\'t think the actual war itself could have gone any better.
you\'re right in a sense, war time was swift and impressive...but post-war is part of the collective "war on terror" so in that sense then it is still a poorly planned effort.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Why don\'t you enlighten us to why its wrong?
17 failed UN Resolutions.
Saddam not cooperating with weapons inspectors.
So let\'s remove his regime with full-scale war because we don\'t know what he is doing. It sucks that Hussein wasn\'t being a happy-go-lucky, easy-to-get-along-with, evil dictator. It\'s probably best then that we send our men to die for that. It wasn\'t called for. It\'s nice that we\'re helping the Iraqi people, though. And maybe one day my gas prices will drop, if insurgents ever stop attacking the pipelines, anyway.
And thank God now that he\'s out of power, Saddam will no longer be able to attack me with... attack America with his... Well, that\'s not important anyway.
What\'s important is that we snubbed our allies, snubbed the U.N., rushed off to war, and did it for several premises which were either bullshit then or bullshit now. At least if he said we had monetary interests, we wouldn\'t have to flop and flip and switch and send mixed messages and be inconsistent about why our teenagers are getting shot at and blown up.
The only thing I might agree on is the wrong time, but the right time long since passed us by and he to go sooner rather than later.
There was never a right time. Bush, Sr. knew it. He destroyed their might and got out so he wouldn\'t have this mess on his hands.
We should have finished the job back in 1991, but we couldn\'t because the UN resolution authorinzing Desert Storm did not call for removing him from power - I guess the certain UN officials and the French had too much lose if Saddam wasn\'t in power. If we would have removed him back in 91 you wouldn\'t see what you are seeing today in regards to terrorists and insurgents.
No, we would have seen it in 1991. Bush, Sr. said "I took the teeth out of that tiger." He won that war and got everyone out when the mission was accomplished.
Also in case you didn\'t know the US since Clinton was in office had a policy to remove Saddam from power - Bush just made good on it.
Great. I\'ll make sure not to write-in for Clinton.
This is where you are absolutely wrong. I got a tax cut and I am not rich.
I don\'t remember accusing you of having your taxes go up, but I stand corrected.
"It\'s true that Kerry voted against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995, and also voted against the Pentagon authorization bill (which provides authority to spend but not the actual money) in 1996. But in his nearly 20 years in the Senate Kerry has voted for Pentagon budgets far more often than he\'s opposed them, and hasn\'t voted against one for the past eight years." http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147
If Kerry really wanted to help the poor why didnt\' he pay the higher income tax that was a choice on the MA state income tax form?
Good point. I\'m hoping he\'s being honest about taxing rich folks. Not robbing them of what\'s theirs, but at least being fair to help the rest of us. If he\'s not, I suppose that\'d be par for the course.
-Dan
I approve this post.
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
So let\'s remove his regime with full-scale war because we don\'t know what he is doing. It sucks that Hussein wasn\'t being a happy-go-lucky, easy-to-get-along-with, evil dictator. It\'s probably best then that we send our men to die for that. It wasn\'t called for. It\'s nice that we\'re helping the Iraqi people, though. And maybe one day my gas prices will drop, if insurgents ever stop attacking the pipelines, anyway.
Sorry but the world is better off without Saddam. Spin it however you want. You are wrong. I was almost expecting you to rant on about Haliburton after your gas price comment. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Eiksirf
What\'s important is that we snubbed our allies, snubbed the U.N., rushed off to war, and did it for several premises which were either bullshit then or bullshit now.
Snubbed allies? Like France - who over the past 20 years has snubbed us around every corner? You keep bringing up the UN like it holds some moral high ground... sorry, but the UN\'s green card in this country is approaching its end. The UN is not what it was and it is following the exact same path as the League of Nations. Corruption in the UN is rampant and was especially so concerning Iraq.
Originally posted by Eiksirf
At least if he said we had monetary interests, we wouldn\'t have to flop and flip and switch and send mixed messages and be inconsistent about why our teenagers are getting shot at and blown up.
Ahhh here it is... are you Michael Moore? If not you sound as looney as him - "Bush is sending our children to die" :rolleyes: Mixed messages? :laughing:
Originally posted by Eiksirf
There was never a right time. Bush, Sr. knew it. He destroyed their might and got out so he wouldn\'t have this mess on his hands.
Pure speculation.
Originally posted by Eiksirf
No, we would have seen it in 1991. Bush, Sr. said "I took the teeth out of that tiger." He won that war and got everyone out when the mission was accomplished.
The mission was to liberate Kuwait - not take out Saddam. Knowing what we know now, that he would have played games for 10 years by snubing UN Resolutions along with the rise of Islamic fundamentalists, Bush Sr. knows he made a mistake by leaving him in power.
Originally posted by Eiksirf
"It\'s true that Kerry voted against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995, and also voted against the Pentagon authorization bill (which provides authority to spend but not the actual money) in 1996. But in his nearly 20 years in the Senate Kerry has voted for Pentagon budgets far more often than he\'s opposed them, and hasn\'t voted against one for the past eight years." http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147
Factcheck.org - this is nice little website with a nifty name that almost fools you into thinking it is non partisan.
Seth Goldman
Researcher, Annenberg Political Fact Check
Seth Goldman earned his B.A. in political communication at George Washington University. He joined the Annenberg Public Policy Center in June, 2004 with previous experience as journalist, press relations assistant, and media researcher. He has worked at the Committee for a Democratic Majority and at Sen. Edward M. Kennedy\'s campaign committee. At GWU he founded and edited Sticks & Stones, an independent, student-run progressive newsmagazine.
http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=70
Not that I doubt the records posted on the site, but if you look at Kerry\'s final quote you see an admission of mixed messages:
But Kerry was less defensive and more candid in a June, 2003 interview with Boston Globe reporter Brian Mooney. The reporter quoted Kerry as conceding that some of his positions 20 years earlier were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I\'ve learned since then. . . . I mean, you learn as you go in life."
Ill advised... he has been making ill advised decisions since he came back from Vietnam.
-
He was speaking of some of his opinions from 20 years ago. He was now looking at them in the context of today\'s world. Did you even read what you quoted? It by no means even suggests that he has been making ill advised decisions for the past 35 years, but thanks for playing.
How is the world safer now? Iraq isn\'t even safer now.
We\'ve been told we were at war to liberate Iraq, get rid of Saddam, remove weapons of mass destruction. Whatever way the wind blows, so changes the reasoning behind why we went there. It shows me that we had no good reason to do it, and now we\'re just trying to justify it.
I really don\'t know how we\'re better off having gone to war or why it was our only option.
And now it\'s too late for that to even matter.
Now the issue is what are we going to do there and how can we get out. At least Kerry expresses some ideas.
It\'s a mess and I want a better leader to be in charge. Bush has done a terrible job leading. He\'s pissed on the world, rushed into combat, failed to complete at least one major, MAJOR objective (wmds? what are those?) and now our troops are in a terrible situation that under a better leader we could have avoided. After all that I\'m going to trust Bush to do the right thing in resolving the conflict?
And foreign policy is his strong suit.
With all those mistakes, I honestly don\'t get the point of keeping Bush in power. It doesn\'t make sense to me.
And yes, I am Michael Moore. :rolleyes:
-Michael Moore
-
Why do we bother debating this? Everyone knows that if Bush killed a hundred school children, Giga would find a way to validate his pre-emptive attack.
-
The question could be posed to you as well... LIC, Eik, BS and others... you would find fault in anything good Bush does. Anything.
-
Then it\'s settled!
We\'re all whores towards our parties. Horray!
See Yuz.
-
We\'re all whores to our parties. I agree! Anyways, until the next presidential debate, this one is closed.
-
Nah, Bush has done some good things. I like how he\'s handling North Korea to the best of his abilities and how he was able to bum rush right through the main war in Iraq.
-Dan
-
Hehehe hey I thought this thread was closed! Seriously though 6 pages on one debate - that is the most discussion this forum (CE) has generated in a while. Debates, observations, its all good stuff.
It will be an eventful weak, VP debate on Tuesday and second Presidential debate on Friday.