Tonight\'s Presidential Debate (Reactions)

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

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:



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

[Paul2]

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)

[SirMystiq]

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.

[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 .

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.