Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

Presidential Debate

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Kaeric, Sep 30, 2004.

  1. Kaeric

    Kaeric Peasant

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    4
    Market Rating:
    0
    oh ya? sources? video perhaps?

    and you're right, Jake... it's really all just political masterbation isn't it?
     
  2. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
  3. mud

    mud Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    1,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    I made up my mind who I am going to be voting for long before the debate.

    Bush said Iraq had WMD, I am still waiting for proof Mr. President. If he can say that Iraq has WMD while we dont have any troops in the region but for some reason cant find a damn thing when you have 100K plus troops scouring the region is screwed up.
     
  4. Kaeric

    Kaeric Peasant

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    4
    Market Rating:
    0
    While I don't think that they wars were justified in the first place, I think that if we were going to go in anyway we should have just gone balls to the wall on Afghan. and Iraq. We didn't send enough troops initially and we screwed the pooch. If there ever were WMDs we could have found them if we would have just sent in as many troops as we could afford. Instead, we get all these mixed messages about the WMDs being moved out of the country before we could get to them and such. Same situation with Osama. We have all these high level Al Queda leaders trapped in the hills and we outsource the job of capturing them to Afghan warlords who had just weeks before been fighting against our troops. This is especially vexing when we had troups within 100 miles of where the Al Queda leaders were beseiged. (if someone really wants me to dig up a source on this I will...no..no I won't. I don't care enough about making the point to do that work, but you can always just trust my memory :nod: )With how many promises had been made, and now broken, it's a wonder this is a race at all.
     
  5. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    You can't hardly blame Bush. 90% of the American people bonered up after 9-11. The people had a major hand in this with their support. If the decision was up to the people, they would have done the same thing.

    :jerkit:
     
  6. Kaeric

    Kaeric Peasant

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    4
    Market Rating:
    0
    Fine, but I still say we shouldn't have half assed it.
     
  7. Wulf

    Wulf MSC Knight and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    He was told by his inteligence people that Iraq had WMDs... Notice we now have a new director of the CIA...
     
  8. Kaeric

    Kaeric Peasant

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    4
    Market Rating:
    0
    what a job to jump into...OK...this is what happened to JFK
     
  9. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    The high-ups take the fall, like a corporation.
     
  10. Kalgareth

    Kalgareth Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2000
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    Yep... I didn't hear about the ear piece but I heard that he had a "cheat sheet" as well. It was written with a felt tip pen or something and not in his handwriting. It is bullshit. This kind of stuff annoys the hell out of me.

    I agree that this is an extremely tame forum when it comes to politics. I frequent numerous others where debate breaks down into name calling and sources are completely ludicrous. Brainwashed people on both sides that don't have even a single logical idea. MSC is definitely a "friendlier" environment. Probably because we have all been on these boards for so long.
     
  11. Wulf

    Wulf MSC Knight and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    No, it was Kerry that had the cheat sheet supposedly
     
  12. Kalgareth

    Kalgareth Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2000
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    No, it wasn't only Kerry. Supposedly.

    http://img66.exs.cx/img66/4908/bushnotes1.jpg

    Its pretty evident from that picture that bush wasn't using that paper to take "notes" on. There already seems to be a fair amount of written text already. I call BS either way and don't really think it matters one way or the other. Just wanted to post my "source".
     
  13. Wulf

    Wulf MSC Knight and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    You are allowed to have notes, they just have to be submitted before the debate and if they are okay then you get them put on your desk by people who work there. Kerry pulled private notes out of his pocket, and people are surmising that they were infact the questions that were to be asked, which is how he was able to launch right into a speech almost before the question was asked.
     
  14. Wulf

    Wulf MSC Knight and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    My 16 year old son was discussing the draft in his High School American history class. He announced to his class that Democrats have introduced a bill in the house, and in the senate to reinstate the draft. Neither his teacher nor anybody in his class believed him, they were all convinced it was President Bush and the Republicans pushing for the draft. While my boy was on a roll he also announced to his class that the Democratic VP candidate John Edwards can channel the thoughts of a dead baby to a Jury. His teacher didn’t believe that one at all.

    Rising to the challenge my son printed out the draft bill from Fritz Hollings web site, a copy of House Bill HR-163, and a list of all Co-Sponsors of the bill. He also printed this revealing article from the NY times In Trial Work, Edwards Left a Trademark which has a court transcript of Edwards communicating with the dead.

    I don’t know the teachers politics, but it was clear this teacher was disturbed that he did not know the truth, and had erroneously believed that Republicans were pushing for the draft, and the guy was shocked by the Edward’s channeling the dead article. He gave my Son enough extra credit points to move his grade from a B+ to an A, and he has also been showing the documents to the other teachers in school.
    ___________________

    During the first Presidential debate, John Kerry suggested that the United States had incurred ninety per cent of the casualties, and ninety per cent of the cost, of the war in Iraq. Complaining that America had spent "$200 billion in Iraq" that could have been used here at home for health care, infrastructure, and relief for the poor, Kerry accused President Bush of "taking his eye off the central focus of the war on terror, Usama bin Ladin". When Kerry was pressed by moderator Jim Lehrer in the fifth question of the debate, "how would you improve homeland security", Kerry dodged. Instead of giving details of his plan for improving homeland security, he launched into a series of specious attacks against the President. His answer, from the transcripts of the debate, didn't provide a single, solitary detail of his plan. He had, during the first question of the debate, offered only the most vague and indeterminate shadow of a plan for fighting terror. His plan? Have a summit of world leaders; strengthen the military; strengthening intelligence services; go after finances more authoritatively; rebuild world alliances; and most curiously, "reaching out to the Muslim world so they don't isolate America". Kerry offered no details, only what could best be described as conjecture.

    Kerry later made a reference to his plan once again, and referred listeners to his website. The Kerry-Edwards website offers no more detail than Kerry's debate answers. At the best, the campaign page raises more questions. Kerry says that he will "improve our ability to gather, analyze, and share information so we can track down and stop terrorists before they cause harm."

    How?

    Kerry and Edwards say they will "make our airports, seaports, and borders more secure without intruding upon personal liberties."

    How?

    They further say they will "take strong measures to harden likely targets-including nuclear plants, trains, and subways-against possible attack."

    How?

    Suggesting that first-responder readiness is at low ebb, Kerry and Edwards say they will "ensure that America's first responders have everything they need to protect their communities."

    Are they kidding? Does the Kerry-Edwards campaign have any idea how many local law enforcement jurisdictions, full-time and volunteer fire and rescue services there are in America? How, John, How?

    What is possibly most tantalizing about the Kerry - Edwards "plan" is the degree to which it resembles actions that the President has already taken. But, perhaps the most telling feature about the plan is the degree to which it relies on turning the United States into Fortress America. One could only be more authoritative in pursuing terrorist financial interests by being more invasive of American businesses, business records, and business assets. One could only make airports, borders and seaports more secure by thoroughly inspecting and investigating every ship, every truck, and every passenger using these services, grinding commerce and travel to a standstill. One could only harden soft commuter, chemical and energy infrastructure by increasing the presence of armed guards and deployment of heavy weapons to these locations. And, one can only painfully visualize the huge burden of cost that would be attached to giving every first-responder service in the United States everything they need to protect the homeland, a burden that would most certainly be paid for with tax revenue.

    Since John Kerry provided no details of his plan, one is left to guess, to offer conjecture on what the plan might be. One may, however, make a credible inference that to do all of the things Kerry suggests, one could be faced with a huge tax bill, and that the daily commute to work would be characterized by long waits at government checkpoints along the highways, under the eye of heavily armed guards, while identity papers and travel permits were scrutinized. One's papers must certainly be in order, in that case.

    Unacceptable. No greater encouragement could be given to terrorists that their ugly machinations had born fruit, than for the Untied States to become a latter day manifestation of the failed and hated Soviet regime.

    By contrast, the Presidents plan is elegantly simple. To be safe, America will find the terrorists, and kill them. More painful initially, perhaps. More controversial, to be sure. But the reality is that one does not encourage bad behavior with a reward. Terrorism is bad behavior of the ugliest kind. Why would America want to reward the terrorists, by retreating within its borders and building a fortress?

    One is left to wonder how the punditry considers John Kerry the victor of the debates. He never answered the questions. Perhaps, as it was in the Clinton era, it's enough just to "look Presidential" and to make unsubstantiated promises.

    But then, the Clintonites are in charge of the campaign, now. Why shouldn't this all look familiar?
     
  15. Wulf

    Wulf MSC Knight and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
  16. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
  17. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    Don't say it so seriously. It sounds like you believe it. :eek:

    We already know you are a closed minded conservative that hates Kerry. :p

    You have about as much chance of changing my mind about Bush as I have of changing your mind about Kerry. I see your long post and worry about this thread turning into a typical political thread that you see on other forums. Let's just all accept the futility of trying to convince others of our opinions.
     
  18. Kaeric

    Kaeric Peasant

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    4
    Market Rating:
    0
  19. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    And forgive me if I seem to be paying special attention to Wulf's post. It's the "closed minded liberal" in me.
     
  20. Kalgareth

    Kalgareth Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2000
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    Don't worry Jake. I paid attention to it....



    Give me a break Wulf. Just stop right now. All that is factually correct, but the entire MEANING and REASON behind the bill is what everyone should really be talking about. The two Democrats brought the bill to the floor in order to MAKE the Republicans vote on whether or not they would start the draft. It was pre-emptive. Give me a freakin break.

    As for your second little blurb that is littered with suposition and misinterpretation, all I can say is that if you truly believe in this blanket denial of the truth of what happened in the debates and the reality of the Bush Foreign policy than I truthfully fear for the entirety of America. Whoever wrote that is putting all sorts of words in the mouth of the Kerry campaign. They are distorting the truth of the matter utterly and completely.

    To summarize, whoever wrote this is pretty much saying that tougher Homeland security will inconvenience the American people, bloat the federal bureaucracy, cause a tremendous rise in taxes, and turn us into "a latter day manifestation of the failed and hated Soviet regime." And as a added bonus it will HELP THE TERRORISTS. They would have won. So essentially, if you agreed with Kerry in the debate and may vote for him you are supporting terrorists.

    Did you hear the same debate I did? It is obvious that this guy didn't. He thinks that Kerry, with these made up proposals, wants to withdraw US influence from around the world and become a "Fortress America"? I guess all that discussion about Bush rushing to war without support of the US allies, except for Poland, Australia, and the UK of course, and the fact that it has isolated us more from the world community didn't really get this guys attention. Lets see how Bush made us, the American People less isolated by hunting down the "terrorists" in Iraq. We didn't say "FU" to the UN and our other close allies in Europe and elsewhere and rush to war.... we didn't ignore the domestic political forces that urged for diplomatic avenues to be exhausted before rushing to war... we didn't lie to the American people about the presence of WMDs and the connection between Al Queda and Saddam... and we obviously went to war only as a last resort. Yeah, Kerry is the isolationist. I see it clearly now. /boggle.

    Getting away from the Iraq debate lets focus on what 4 years with the "Bush plan" has done for us?

    Tremendous National Debt... check.
    Homeland Security Department and the Patriot Act... check.
    War where we are taking 90% of the casualties in terms of cost and human life... check.
    The wholesale destruction of a tremendous number of environmental laws and standards... check.
    Haliburton.... check.
    Enron... check.
    The lose of over 1 million jobs... check.

    Who was the one that was supposed to be defending his job performance in this debate again? Kerry? I think not.

    And don't let me forget the coup de grace of your "article". As an added bonus the policies that Kerry supposedly will have to implement, if he is to follow through with the proposals that he didn't even make but that are clearly evident if you believe this author, will HELP THE TERRORISTS. They will have won. So essentially, if you agreed with Kerry in the debate, and may vote for him, you are supporting terrorists. I can't even begin to tell you how angry this kind of reasoning makes me.

    Come on Wulf. Do you actually BELIEVE that?!?! You are making yourself look bad mass posting that kind of dribble. Make up your own mind. Don't play the game of synchopant. It doesn't suit you.
     

Hitometer: 54,651,177 since 1995