Sign In

It's official...

Author
Time
...Bush is an idiot.

I don't think I've ever seen somebody meander about in their speech so much, nor have I seen anybody, much less the leader of the free world, have so little a grasp of what's going on in their own back yards. Quite frankly, I was amazed at how in depth Kerry's responses were, quoting figures and displaying a general interest in the questions, as where Bush seemed to be capable of little more than repeating the same non-sensical statement over and over and failing to address the majority of the questions posed to him.

Let's hope Kerry wins this one, otherwise I'm taking my newborn and hightailing it to... to... fuck, I don't know. Antarctica or something.

EDIT: Oh, and since I have no doubt that this will turn into a balls-to-the-wall debate in about 2 hours, thus dragging this thread out for weeks on end, I think it should be noted that this was originally posted just moments after the September 30th Presidential debates, wherein Kerry completely slaughtered Bush on damn near every issue through the use of... well, through the use of actually answering the questions in the first place.
For as much as some people claim to hate what Star Wars has become, they sure seem incapable of shutting up about it.
Author
Time
Completely agree, except for the part about leaving the country. If we all leave, it just makes it that much easier for Bush.
"90% of the statistics used in quotes are made up."
Author
Time
I too think Kerry won, but not as convincingly Rebel Rouser does.

and please, this time can we try to find a way to debate the issues in a calm rational manner without insulting each other and without lunging for each other's throats? And I yeah, I know I am as guilty of this as anyone else is. I will try to do better and so should we all.
Author
Time
As an Australian I think I speak for many non-Americans when I say we would welcome a regime change this November.

It's about time someone put the US back onto the global map rather than on its own huge map separated from the rest of us.

America is a nation capable of greatness and needs to be respected and admired not feared and reviled.

Anyone but that simpleton Bush and his evil Republican war-machine will set America back on track.

(Now begins the pointless clash of blind ideologues.)
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Goering.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell.
Author
Time
I toyed with the thought of a completely pro-Bush argument to start this off. But I dont think I can even make enough sense out of the rhetoric to do that.
I was just telling my girlfriend about some of this stuff, since we watched the debates together. And I totally agree with Rebel Rouser - Bush didnt really answer any of the questions. I think he did what the Republican party feels they have to do at this point, which is: Stay quiet, dont committ to anything major policy wise, and just keep calling Kerry a flip-flopper.
Seriously, I was really hoping to come away from this first debate with some clear destinctions in my mind about these candidates. But honestly, did Bush say one thing about his plans for the future....ASIDE from "Stay consistent, not waver," etc. Which is all well and good, but doesnt truly give us much to compare to Kerry, who was actually pointing to a plan, a progressive plan to get the US back in the position it was - a position of Respect in the global community.
Republicans seem to be painting a picture of a communist snob, who talks down to Americans (Giuliani afterwards), and isnt consistent - and therefor cannot execute any of his policy - which by the by, we arent going to actually talk about his policy, we are just going to keep on mudslinging.

This is turning into a rant. Im sure ill be back with more later if this thread sticks around. I dont want to get too far ahead of myself. Suffice to say that after the debate, I have more faith in Kerry than any other time in the last 6 months. Which is saying a lot since I was beginning to think id be voting for a candidate I didnt care for at all. Quite the opposite - I think Kerry did very well this evening, and made a clear case for himself as the regime change that so many people, foreign and domestic, are calling for and need.


P.S. Did it bother anyone else that this "Foreign Policy" debate was centered almost entirely on war. I mean, I understand the current climate, but Sudan got about 5 minutes of attention, and I may be understating it when I say its an effing crisis. That issue needed more attention - and I seriously hope it gets more attention in the very near future.
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Regicidal_Maniac

America is a nation capable of greatness and needs to be respected and admired not feared and reviled.



good statment Regicidal_Maniac and I agree with it 100%

Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Regicidal_Maniac


(Now begins the pointless clash of blind ideologues.)



let's hope its neither pointless or blind and let us try to avoid clashes. As I said before, try to keep it a calm and rational debate.
Author
Time
Neither cantidate really delivered any death blows to the other. Kerry and Bush repeated themselves quite a bit, but I find it hard to argue with Bush's ideaology.

If we have free allies in the middle east, it will aid us greatly in the war on terrorism. There was nothing really new from either side, but Kerry seemed to just be repeating the sam acusations over and over--that the war is a mistake. Does he really think he can win it with that attitude?

4

Author
Time
I dont really think that Kerry said the war was a mistake. I think he was trying to escape that statement - which Bush kept forcing back onto the table. Kerry said that we were mislead about the need for war - and though he voted for it, he thinks we went about it the wrong way. I think Kerry would be in full support, and this wouldnt come up, had Bush done what he promised with regards to planning, etc - which Kerry did repeat a number of times.
I think that the debates are cooled off before they even start. I mean, the candidates cant move from behind the podiums - certain topics are off limits - they cant address the other directly. It sort of takes the debate out of debate. So in essence it pushes for this repeating of rhetoric. And thats what you have to deal with.

I think as far as deathblows, you are right. Nobody really threw a knock out punch. But I do feel that Kerry made much more headway in getting his ideas for policy out there. I dont really feel the Bush did that.
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time



I saw the original theatrical release of the Old Trilogy on the big screen and I'm proud of it...
How did I accomplish that (considering my age) is my secret...
Author
Time
Thats amusing. I live in Florida. Sadly I was not of voting age in 2000.
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
I just wanted to point out something:

Its safe to say that the majority of educated, informed people of the US have already made up their minds about the election. For the most part, the debate was NOT for those people. They've been listening to the same mudslinging for quite a while now.

No, the debates are for the people that haven't been paying attention since the the democratic primary. For both the educated and the uneducated.

Now, some of you are complaining that Bush just said the same thing over and over.
Maybe that's because its what he believes, and he wanted to make sure that the people who haven't been paying attention remember what he said.
We've heard it for a while. People that weren't paying attention heard it, possibly for the first time, and Bush sees it as being important to have a solid voice.


Unlike Kerry, who has changed what he believes as the campaign has moved along:
- Complains that our troops don't have the body armor they need...when he voted against the appropriations to pay for it.
- Supported the war by voting for giving Bush the authority to declare, then came out to be against the war because we "didn't find WMD", and most recently stated in an interview on Wednesday that (paraphrasing) 'if it turns out good, it was a good idea, if it turns out bad, it was a bad idea'.
(BTW: I'm of the opinion that Saddam himself was a WMD, so we found one really big one)
- In the early times of the Vietnam War, people were for it. Kerry joined. Then it became trendy to bash the war and be opposed to it. Kerry testifies against the vets before Congress, throws his medals, meets with N. Vietnamese officials in Paris etc.
- Kerry says that he wants to bring the nations of the world back to our side, then he turns around and calls them coerced and bribed, and allows his people to refer to Prime Minister Allawi as a puppet.

BTW: All those number, RR, that you were proud of Kerry remembering, well, there is a little quote that I like, from Mark Twain "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."
Let me quote some of what Kerry said:
Quote

And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq.

- We are not 90% of the casualties. I think Kerry is ignoring the injured and dead Iraqi police and military that have fallen to RPGs and IEDs. I think I heard that there were at least 700 dead of them. 1000 is not 90% of 1700 (on the low side). Before you ask, let me ask you, why wouldn't they be considered part of the coalition??
- That $200 billion number has been going around for at least a week now. We've only spent $120 billion, the excess either hasn't been spent, or hasn't been asked for.
Author
Time
A few thoughts...

1. If Bush lied, Kerry lied before he did, and so did Edwards. Kerry and Edwards are both on the senate intelligence committee that passed the information about WMD and Nukes in Iraq to the Pres.

2. Kerry keeps talking about bring our allies in. aka France and Germany. France, whose high ranking officials have made millions (if not billions) of dollars off the Oil for Food program, has already stated that no matter who is elected they aren’t going to help, though they are quick to beg for contracts. Bush couldn’t mention any of this during the debates it would be bad taste.

3. Kerry dodged a number a number of questions, including those about the mistakes Bush made. answering with "where do i start" and then never starting...

4. Kerry's plans for Medicare takes power away from people and companies, the last thing i want in life is a health system similar to Canada. where people wait months for critical surgeries.

5. Kerry will raise taxes, apparently I don’t know how to spend my own money and the government needs to tell me how to do that too.

6. Kerry wants more government. the last thing I want. Small efficient government equals happy me, not a sprawling morass of a government. I like to run my life, not the government.

7. The democratic party as a whole has a terrible foreign policy. Carter and Clinton entered us into various debacles, where as Reagan, Bush and Bush get the job done. There have been no bombs, no trains blowing up, and no schools being high jacked as there is abroad. That is what happens when you negotiate with fanatics(they are like fanboys ).

well that is enough for now. I don’t like everything that Bush stands for, but i would much rather have him there and know what to expect than Mr. floor routine


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Regicidal_Maniac
As an Australian I think I speak for many non-Americans when I say we would welcome a regime change this November.


Shit, man. You speak for many Americans as well.

As for who do I support? I dunno anymore. I'm very much against Bush for what he has done to our country in terms of international relations. Every bridge that was built by past presidents has been torn down to a furious pile of burning rubble and I don't like that. In this day and age, it is essential that countries get along moreso than at any other time in human history. We don't have to have the same beliefs or governmental systems or religious ideals or anything, just respect for each other's right to have those beliefs, systems, etc.

If Bush is going to use the "we had to liberate Iraq from the tyranny of an improper political system" argument, what's to stop another country that doesn't believe in democracy from attacking us for the same reason. Why do we have to be World Police? I don't like it. I think we should all work together as a truly multinational group to make things right. There is no reason for the U.S. to go above the UN (yes, I do believe that the UN is severely flawed in many ways as well) and invade Iraq. We have no right and the justification was just too weak. If Kerry is being accused of being a regular Eggo, then just look at the Bush administration and the multiple ways it has had to cover its ass in the justification of the war in Iraq. 'Nuff said.

For these reasons, I'm supporting Kerry. I don't believe he is a great candidate, but much like in 2000, he's the lesser of two evils.

That's really all I'm going to say. I don't want to get in a political debate with anyone. But I have been staying too quiet for too long.

I'm spent.

McCain in 2004!!!

Oh... shit.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
"I voted for it before I voted against it" John Kerry

nuf said
Author
Time
some how jimbo I don't think so...
Author
Time
My opinion of the debate. I was a bit dissipointed by Bushes preformance. Kerry made some arguements that are so God damn fucked up Bush could have killed him but instead he sometimes chose to let Kerry get away with his stupid lies and flip flops. Bush definutly did the best job at keeping a consistant view. John Kerry flip flops on everything. I mean everything.

During the war in Nam he called the men who fought there a bunch of murderers, rapists, and baby killers. who ravaged the land like Genhis Khans army. Not only is this an outragous lie but he is pro abortion. How can anyone for abortion call anyone a baby killer.

Goes against a war he voted for. He now says that he is against the way he went to war. Like we need Frances premission to remove a tyrant from power. I also would love to here his plan for Iraq. Get allies to fight with us for a war he says is stupid. "Heh France we are fighting the wrong war at the wrong time but I want you to send your troops to help"

Blames Bush for high gas prices even though he voted to increase the gas tax.

Complians about the lack of armor for our troops when he voted against armor for our troops

Says hes tough on defense but voted against 7 weapons programs even most democrates voted for which are almost nessessary part of our nations defense.

Talks about taking America from the wealthy but he married a billionare

Earlier in the debate he calls the war a waste latter he says it wasn't

Says he believes marriage is between a man and a women but opposed Bushes constitutional amendment against gay marriage

In the 1970s he through out his Vietnam awards and descrased them. Now he is proud of them.
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Bossk


If Bush is going to use the "we had to liberate Iraq from the tyranny of an improper political system" argument, what's to stop another country that doesn't believe in democracy from attacking us for the same reason.


that is a interesting statement. While it is a good point, I don't know that I agree with it. I just don't know. What if Hitler had not invaded any countries and had just rounded up all the jews and and only those who were in Germany and had decided to murder them. How far do we let a goverment go with its own people? It is right to sit by and do nothing while inocents are murdered and you have the power to stop it? But what Bossk said is true, if we say we have the right to judge another countries government, would we also be saying that they have to right to judge us and maybe use their own criteria? Whose to say that the criteria we would judge by would be superior to the criteria used by a another country to judge us? I just don't know.

Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Bossk
Quote

Originally posted by:

As for who do I support? I dunno anymore. I'm very much against Bush for what he has done to our country in terms of international relations. Every bridge that was built by past presidents has been torn down to a furious pile of burning rubble and I don't like that. In this day and age, it is essential that countries get along moreso than at any other time in human history. We don't have to have the same beliefs or governmental systems or religious ideals or anything, just respect for each other's right to have those beliefs, systems, etc.


So we should put aside smacking a guy that is reported to be developing nukes, as well as support al queda, because france doesnt want to stop getting paid buy Sadam and his cronies???


Quote


If Bush is going to use the "we had to liberate Iraq from the tyranny of an improper political system" argument, what's to stop another country that doesn't believe in democracy from attacking us for the same reason. Why do we have to be World Police? I don't like it. I think we should all work together as a truly multinational group to make things right. There is no reason for the U.S. to go above the UN (yes, I do believe that the UN is severely flawed in many ways as well) and invade Iraq. We have no right and the justification was just too weak. If Kerry is being accused of being a regular Eggo, then just look at the Bush administration and the multiple ways it has had to cover its ass in the justification of the war in Iraq. 'Nuff said.



Um first things first Clinton tried to be the worlds police and messed up major.

Second the UN is a utter disaster, any time countries like Iran get to head the Human Rights commitee something is dramatically wrong, not to mention the Oil for food fiasco.

THird read above about france. Not to mention just because our historical allies are cowards doesnt mean we need to as well.

As for justification how bout a dozen plus violated UN sanctions.

And as for why sadam? Easy all info pointed to him building WMD's. He was the easy target, and he was aiding al quieda. Since the war started Iran as well as various other countries have decided to sing a little different tune, and in 15 years or so Iraq people will be truely a positive nation, not somewhere where there are rape rooms, and a genocidal dictator. You gotta make an example out of someone.


More thoughts.

Kerry pointed out that we are 90% of the force there, um guess what the same could be said for cosavo, somalia, and various other conflicts including Korea.

Kerry also said that Bin Laden was still in Afganistan, which about 90%+ experts say he is not, more like Packistan,

Kerry also critzed bush about the warlords thing. You know where he got the idea? The fine men and women in charge of our armed forces. There is a reason that Russia sucked it up big time in Afganistan, and Bush and the military leaders of the US armed forces didnt want to be next in the long line of failures in fighting Afganistan.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Warbler
I just don't know. What if Hitler had not invaded any countries and had just rounded up all the jews and and only those who were in Germany and had decided to murder them. How far do we let a goverment go with its own people? It is right to sit by and do nothing while inocents are murdered and you have the power to stop it?


Interesting analogy considering that America actually sat on the side lines and watched the rest of the world fight a war in Europe to contain the Nazi axis until it became their problem too on December 7, 1941.

Not pointing fingers, I'm just saying.

EDIT: By the way I'm calling Godwin's Law on this.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Goering.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell.
Author
Time
If you'll remember, America did supply Britain and the other allies with materials and weapons.

And, If I may, I must point out an inconsistency. If you think we should've helped Europe do something about Hitler eariler, before any Axis powers attacked us, then why doesn't the same apply to Sadaam's Iraq? If preemtive war would've been OK if against Nazi Germany, then why not OK against Hussein? Strictly on the just war ideaology, of course.

4

Author
Time
RRS-1980, that's one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. Thanks for sharing.


Made for IE Forum's Episode III theme month - May 2005.

Author
Time
Continuing with the WW2 analogies:

Kerry says he wants to have talks with Iran and North Korea to prevent/remove their nuclear programs, right? I believe he said bilateral talks with Korea (perhaps he wants to buy them off like Clinton did), and talked about making an offer to buy back nuclear materials from Iran, right??

What did Europe do during the early 30s to appease Hitler's Germany?? That's right, they talked and negotiated, eventually giving Germany back the Sudenland of Czechoslovakia(sp?) and the Rhineland.

Am I saying talks are bad? Not at all, but you cannot simply hope that appeasing a dictator will make them go away.
Hitler took what he was given, then went after the rest of Europe.
Iran will likely go after Israel (or worse, give the nukes to terrorists).
N. Korea, once it has food and money from us, will likely still continue its weapons and attack South Korea and/or Japan.
Author
Time
Off topic: "RRS!!!! It is you, it is you!!!", Good to see you're still alive!
*ordes a huge amount of clone troopers to hold a military parade for the 'supreme chancellor's hand'*

On topic: Admittedly I have only seen a few outtakes of 'the duel' so far, but it really seems that Bush is just not a good free speaker. I think the elections will have a very close outcome... again. I just hope this time the voters will be able to decide who'll be president -- not the courts.