1st Debate: Foreign Policy

[tah]

So who in your opinion won the debate. And by won I mean who had the most strong and solid points, not whose policy you believe in.

[aa87]

Bush seemed to be in a wreck, all he seemed to do was cut corners, say john kerry is uncertain, claim the presidency is a very hard job, and make up some words and say bush is god...

I feel kerry won, he made very solid points, he spent time answering the questions. he is also a great speaker in my opinion.

I look forward to the next debate.

[Brian]

while both guys seemed to restate facts and points multiple times, Bush really stuck out in my mind as far as jackassery. he kept stating Kerry's one quote, over and over again.

Kerry for the win.

[tah]

As of 12AM ET, on msnbc.com, the poll shows that out of 430,000 people 71% say that Kerry won and that only 29% for Bush. On cnn.com out of 103,500; 79% for Kerry and only 18% for Bush.

Apparently people are starting to take note on how strong Kerry is.

[The ROMAN]

Bush was saying some stupid stuff, like how nice Kerrys family is and his closing argument was meanless BS.

"I'm on a mountain and can see a valley..........full of peace"

[MakotoS13]

bush totally owned that fag. i felt that kerry's answers were generic and fake. fake fake fake fake fake. you know why bush messes up words n stuff? cause the guy is actually thinking about it instead of giving prepackaged answers. kerry says he'll own the whole war on terror and get the planet all lined out in four years... bullCRAP. the fact that he makes such arrogant statements is evidence that he has not the foresight to be the pres.

this is what i saw:

kerry- i could do it better
bush- dude, its a lot harder than you think cause its a lot harder than i thought it would be.

the ONLY reason kerry is in the polls is cause the media put him there.

yich! lemmings.

[nissantuner22]

kerry can sure talk the talk, but bush has action behind his words. i just cant wait for the vice prez's debate!

[Brian]

kerry can sure talk the talk, but bush has action behind his words. i just cant wait for the vice prez's debate!

how can you say Kerry can only "talk the talk" ?
has he been president yet? NO. has he had his chance to fight "the war on terror"? NO.
so how the fuck could he do more than talk the talk?

your statement is stupid and thoughtless.

[Brian]

bush totally owned that fag. i felt that kerry's answers were generic and fake. fake fake fake fake fake. you know why bush messes up words n stuff? cause the guy is actually thinking about it instead of giving prepackaged answers. kerry says he'll own the whole war on terror and get the planet all lined out in four years... bullCRAP. the fact that he makes such arrogant statements is evidence that he has not the foresight to be the pres.

this is what i saw:

kerry- i could do it better
bush- dude, its a lot harder than you think cause its a lot harder than i thought it would be.

the ONLY reason kerry is in the polls is cause the media put him there.

yich! lemmings.


if Kerry can't "own" the whole war on terror? then who can? GW?
yes i agree with you! GW CAN own the whole war on terror, because he labels anyone against him as "terror". furthermore, because of things such as the patroit act, he CAN own anybody he wants with no real reason.
i wish people could somehow grow a brain and see things that are real. our president isn't the best thing since sliced bread.

[mad sentra]

hold up now... one thing i cannot stand about this election is that it has brought out the worst of BOTH sides. and i mean the PEOPLE as well as the candidates. Listen to yourself, man...

I've been watching this whole thing and trying to assess from a completely nonpartisan, unbiased perspective as best as I can, because I want to vote for whatever is best for my kids' future. And frankly, what i've seen the most of is damned bickering. This is the worst I've seen so far in my lifetime... each candidate has been picking (even tonight) on each other behind the cordial remarks. Bush kept Restating over and over that Kerry was indecisive and not the right selection for our future. Kerry wouldn't get off his soap box that Bush did it wrong.

This same bickering has extended to the people of America. Here in texas i see people vandalizing Kerry signs! In New York I see people cussing out Bush fans. And even on the forums there is derrogatory remarks made of each other. Damnit people, don't take this out on each other. It's not a cockfight.

The point of the debate, in my eyes is NOT to see who has better credentials or even what has happened in the past so much as it is to assess what the implications and the precise details are of each candidates FUTURE plans and delegations that they will enfold when they are in the presidency. The debate is to let each man speak on the same damn subject for once in their whole campaigns and give them an opportunity to let the people know where they stand.

Unfortunately, the debates tonight were speckled with both candidates seizing the opportunity to slander the other and avoid some important issues. I wanted to hear more one what they planned to exactly in Iraq, with Korea and other countries. I wanted to hear what they propose will resolve the issues we've begun. I did NOT want to hear "well we fucked up, we fucked up", or "he fucked us" NOR did I want to hear "don't vote for him, cuz he'll fuck us in the future". <-- thats all fucked up.

I'm sorry but i hate to see this country torn along imaginary lines. We are not BIPARTISAN, this country is built on ideals that I believe EVERYONE shares be democrat OR republican. WHat we need to do is assess which policies will give a better overall outlook for this nation so our kids and grandkids will be safe and happy. NOT whatever our neighbors believe or what our church believes or what blah blah blah...........

sorry...... off my soapbox now

[mad sentra]

Oh, one other thing... just from a pure debate stand point (from being in it for many years)... neither candidate did a bangup job staying on topic and debating the issues at hand... but i used a star system for each topic they talked about... each topic was eligible for 5 stars for either candidate. the stars were determined based on how thoroughly the answer referred to the question, how relevant the answer was, how well structured the argument was, and then a tad bit of whether or not I felt that answer was good for our nation (so there's a tiny bit bias... but only about half a star to one star in either direction)

Unfortunately, Bush did seem a little illprepared, and Kerry was seen taking many more notes between the rebuttals (standard debate tactic for excellence).

My count came up as this (i may have missed a couple topics)


TOPIC - KERRY - BUSH
WAR - **** - ***
Homeland Security - ***** - ***
Iraqi Freedom - ** - ***
Iraqi Future - ** - ***
Other nations help - **** - ***
Truth - *** - **
Nukes - ***** - ***
TOTALS - KERRY: 25 Stars - BUSH: 20 Stars
I do honestly believe that in terms of debate Kerry did win this round.

[airsoft]

i vote for Ross Perot

[revat619]

Like whats already been stated, neither one of them did a good job. Both of them beat around the bush and instead of answering questions, they basically had an elementry school recess "i'm better than you" fight. Bush just didnt seem as prepared as i thought he should have been. Kerry...I dont like him. He pissed me off with his arrogant remarks. He swears like he can just come in here and make everything ok. He also did a lot of back tracking imo. "well, yes, at the time i meant that, but now i mean blah blah blah" "i voted for that then, this is now" he made several remarks like that. Like MakotoS13 was saying, Kerry's answers just seemed really generic...almost android-ish. :p

What bugs me the most is that when this whole war thing started he was right along Bush's side, now with the job of head honcho up for grabs he wants to sit back and say oh you're a bad president, the choices you made were bad, blah, blah, blah. I dont agree with a lot of the choices Bush has made, but at the same time i do respect the man, unlike the rest of this frickin country it seems. And atleast Bush has stuck to what he believes in. Kerry on the other hand has gone back and forth since the whole war issue began.

Now, granted there's a lot more that goes into deciding who you want to be president, but think of this, what type of commander in chief would you rather have? One that's gonna make a decision and stick with it, or one thats gonna go back and forth and base his current and ever changing decision on what is cool/popular at the moment?

[evilimport]

Well, Kerry has always been a great debater (in college), and this is something that he is widely known for....so it makes sence that he might have come out on top, this is something that he excels at, how hard could that be? And I agree with mad sentra, this has been the nastiest election I have EVER seen.

[sykikchimp]

Kerry's whole point last night was that he has NOT changed his mind. He HAS remained steadfast.

I‘ve had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.

That's been his stance from the beginning.

Kerry was very clear and consice about the issues last night. At one point, when they were speaking about N. Korea, I was completely dumb founded as Bush just began talking about Iraq like that had been the subject of the question at hand the whole time. WTF?

[smellslikecurry]

niloy you son of a bitch what are u doing on zilvia?!?! bush got raped.

[old_s13]

they're both a bunch of faigs. i say we get howard stern for president.

[MakotoS13]

its a hell of alot easier to say anything that'll get you in the whitehouse than explain your actions and why you should stay around for another 4 years. hell, i think bush did a bang up job considering he stands by his actions with kerry saying "i coulda done it better"

coulda woulda shoulda. bullcrap, people that think the president's job is easy should be automatically disqualified from the election.

[Phlip]

I say Kerry won this round too... Did anyone notice in the split screen shots how, while Kerry was talking and made a good point (who gives a damn if it was previously prepared, Bush's speechwriters should have known that they would be faced with the same damn topics they have been for the last 8 months) Bush would scowl, pout or make some other obviously aggravated gesture, as if to say "FUCK!!" in his mind for not having an actual response, then would come with some retort something to the effect that "Kerry changes his mind and doesn't support my war, do you think the troops would stand behind a commander in chief like that? Honestly, I don't think Bush should remain president in my opinion, but on the other hand, I am not well enough convinced that sitting around and doing not much can be as effective for Kerry as it was for Clinton, given the shit that Bush has led us into over the last 3.5 years... This is one time where I feel that voting won't be that good a proposition with either candidate. With that in mind, I will be writing in my vote... Kevin, Makoto, I have advised you both who that will be...


DON KING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
"Only in America"

[SimpleSexy180]

BUSH = :Owned: KERRY = WILL BE :Owned:

[BiluMaster K's]

recently, it has been difficult to try and justify voting for a robot to out the present retart-in-cheif, but last night made it a bit easier

Come on dudes, he rides a hog, come on...

[Sanchi]

I wonder if some of you guys even payed any attention to what either of them said. I for one felt Kerry was there and was ready for the debate, while Bush just woke up and said "OHH shit the debate is today!!". You can look at how he prepared for this debate and take it in to consideration, and imagine how he prepares for everything else that involves us. How he planed to take down terror in Iraq, how Osama Bin Laden got away. How he's takeing care of the oil refineries, I dont know about you guys but just because one person says he dosent change his decision after makeing it. Not to mention every choice he makes is the absolute correct decision, even if it is the WRONG decision. Wont admit to it and change what ever that is necessary to make things better. I dont know about that...

Kerry never said he was opposed to takeing out Saddam, and that attacking Iraq was a bad ideal. but just jumping into a war with a country such as Iraq and thinking that just by takeing out Saddam we win.

I for one feel that even though i dont think highly of both guys... (especialy Bush) but Bush was the right guy for the job when 9/11 happoned. I dont feel anyone else could have handled the job better. Bush had the right mentality and the right attitude. But Its time for a change, the crazy revenge stage is over, now we have to go into fix what we fucked up mode. We did the damage and now we have to clean it up, the RIGHT way. 4 more years of digging the hole deeper is not gona fix anything.

Bush kept saying how he understand the world.. :blah: and the :gives: attitude.. Now, in what way is that understanding the world. How is forceing ppl (who a majority of dont give a rats ass) into changeing their way of life with no real plan to begin with gona help. Ya its hard, i bet it is, but crying about it at a debate is not the way a president should act. The president not only try to pin the point that Kerry flip-flops, but flipped-floped all over the topics himself, its especially interesting watching him stumble for words. Saying Kerry flip-flops on the issues at hand is an ignorant way of looking at it. Politician and everyone alike changes their minds, especially when an issue is wrong. If your saying he changes his mind to look "cool" and is indecisive then your missing the entire picture.

Anyways i feel a change in our policies is in great need, and a new leadership is required. Especialy the topics that should be address, topic's about things going on at home, Stemcell Research and the such. Very important, im for it bush is not. :rawk:

Ohh last but not less.. can everyone now imagine how he acts when in a meeting with Foreign Ministers.. :fart:

[Var]

Makoto and Revat.. i am completely baffled at how you can say Kerry's answers were generic. Bush was being vague and generalizing things, then bringing up off-topic things so he wouldnt have to give answers. In fact i think Bush was so generic that he could have been asked the questions in ANY order and could have still given all his answers in the same order as he did.

[Sanchi]

Its funny you said that Westboroughpimp, because im almost sure Bush gave the same answer to just about all the questions asked... related or not. "ummm... ummmm its hard.. umm ummm... you cant say that about Tony"

[ghambino]

I was leaning towards Kerry and last night reassured my choice. I am so tired of everyone that opposses Kerry giving the same excuse over and over again that he is a flip flopper. I think he cleared that up last night quite well if you Kerry haters payed attention and did not lock your minds from hearing the truth. It is so obvious that those people are speaking from what they hear on radio or what someone told them. I drive a truck all day for work and that gives me a lot of time to listen to radio, I don't know if its just me but it is very hard to find a radio station in san diego that covers the election equally and unbiased. AM600 and 760 tend to just bash Kerry all day everyday. Michael Savage from the show "The Savage Nation" IMO should be removed from radio for spreading negative propaganda against Kerry but that would never happen because this is the usa and everyone has the freedom to say whatever they want.

[ThatGuy]

These political discussions are really starting to get boring. The pro-Kerry folks will continue to stay on his side. The pro-Bush crowd will continue to stay with the President. Nothing is really being accomplished with these threads other then one side poking fun at the other. :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

I've read excellent points for both sides, in a few different posts, but nothing that's going to make me change my mind who I am personally voting for. These threads are just making people who should get along and talk about cars, fight over a topic that isn't going to be won on an internet forum. If you want to change things, then just get out and vote!

I'm done.

-Barry

[evilimport]

^ this is very true. Practically everyone's mind is already made up, lets all just throw it down on election day and be done with it....

This election is going to be a train wreck.....

Presidents suck
240sx rules always, period.

[mad sentra]

hahah, maybe we should REALLY change the world and all vote for Nader.... he only has to get a tiny percentage of votes to become a third REAL party and be on all sorts of ballots... i forgot what the percentage was... imagine telling our kids that our generation was the one that REALLY messed things up from the way they were in the past! Seriously tho... with all the people who are flipflopping in their votes and those who are unsure, and those who dislike both sides... if they all voted for Nader, he might actually win.......................

[revat619]

kerry is just way too overconfident..."if im president i will have our troops out in 6 months". Key word "will". That's so unrealistic its not even funny. And everybody swears that bush is the dumb one...

Then later on he changes it to "if im president, in 6 months we'll be taking steps to getting our troops out". There you go kerry, now you're a little bit closer to being back on planet earth. Yet, even though that statement was a lot more logical, its entirely different from his first one.

I just dont get where his arrogance is coming from. Kerry has been in politics for over 20 years and now he decides during this particular presidency that he can do a better job? Sadam and Bin Laden were around when GW's dad was in office, so its not like they're new on the scene. So why didnt he try to step up and do "a better job" then? What about the Clinton administration? What gives?

Not to mention, he's for the whole gay marriage/rights thing, which i'm completely against. So he already lost my vote with that anyway...the rest of his bs just sealed the deal.

but like someone said, everybody's decisions have already been made so lets just get back to cars. :bow:

[MakotoS13]

revat is the winner

[RJF]

Only Thinner (http://www.crushkerry.com/video/onlythinner_eng.mpg)

[MakotoS13]

if the french like him, i gotta hate him ;)

[ThatGuy]

Of course the French like him, ketchup goes great with fries. LOL bad joke.

[MakotoS13]

thatguy, i nominate you PUN kING.

[Sanchi]

Baseing your vote on the fact that Bush is not for the whole gay rights thing is... well alil ghay it self. Comparied to everything else around the world that just might effect you alil more. Im more afrade of a fwkwing simple minded radical pervert with some C4 up his tight anus comeing to blow me to king-dom-kong, especialy over some ones sexual preference. WHo are you to tell them what to do, dont be afrade if the guy down the street who prefers a lil peter. He's more likely to kiss your ass then blow you the fwk up.

Also how can you say "WHy is Kerry so confident" i dont understand that, everyone is following the herd and calling him "FLip-FLop, FLip-FLop" like a bewildered turkey and now hes overconfident?... Bush is one of the most arrogant mofo's ever. If we take out all the propaganda (this one reason is why this election is so retarded) from both sides and just look at the real issues, you will fell like a retard for even useing the word FLip-FLop, and that our pres. isent some ignorant chimp. Both guys just have a very diffrent attitude towards the current events. My biggest thing is I for one dont feel we are getting any better, and change is good MOST of the time and this is beginning to feel like one of those times.

[X-Iceman]

bush totally owned that fag. i felt that kerry's answers were generic and fake. fake fake fake fake fake. you know why bush messes up words n stuff? cause the guy is actually thinking about it instead of giving prepackaged answers,

I read that n think, hmmm now isnt a good public speaker suppose to be able to create sentences with out using the word UMMM? Most people find using um as the most annoying thing someone can do in a public debate. Oh maybe it was the fact that bush was an alcoholic coke head for so many years.

[revat619]

Baseing your vote on the fact that Bush is not for the whole gay rights thing is... well alil ghay it self. Comparied to everything else around the world that just might effect you alil more. Im more afrade of a fwkwing simple minded radical pervert with some C4 up his tight anus comeing to blow me to king-dom-kong, especialy over some ones sexual preference. WHo are you to tell them what to do, dont be afrade if the guy down the street who prefers a lil peter. He's more likely to kiss your ass then blow you the fwk up.

Also how can you say "WHy is Kerry so confident" i dont understand that, everyone is following the herd and calling him "FLip-FLop, FLip-FLop" like a bewildered turkey and now hes overconfident?... Bush is one of the most arrogant mofo's ever. If we take out all the propaganda (this one reason is why this election is so retarded) from both sides and just look at the real issues, you will fell like a retard for even useing the word FLip-FLop, and that our pres. isent some ignorant chimp. Both guys just have a very diffrent attitude towards the current events. My biggest thing is I for one dont feel we are getting any better, and change is good MOST of the time and this is beginning to feel like one of those times.

I'm not afraid of gay people and i'm definitely not one to "gay bash". However i do think that homosexuality is morally wrong. If it was ok, guys would have been born with the ability to have kids with guys and girls with girls, its as simple as that. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve. And i also refuse to believe that anybody is "born gay". But anyway, i'm not completely basing my vote on this issue, but i will say it has something to do with it. Kerry does flip flop hence the reason its brought up so much. If it wasnt an issue do you think people would be talking about it? And by arrogance/overconfidence i mean that he's acting like he can just come in and making everything all better. That he's sooo much better than Bush. We all know a lot of his promises are unrealistic so why not cut the crap. Don't tell me what you think i want to hear. You're not gonna get our troops out in six months, so dont say that you are. Dont say anything about tax cuts when you know that it wont happen. I hate empty promises and i cant stand fake people. Say what you're going to say because you believe it not because you want to get votes. And thats what i think is happening. To me, Kerry is saying whatever he can to just get him votes. I just dont get a sense of "real" with Kerry thats all. I'm not convinced he's really speaking from his mind.

And is Bush arrogant because he's stuck by what he said? Because he didnt conform with the so called crowd, he's overconfident? With all the crap talking and disrespect as our leader he takes in the media and he has stayed strong and stuck by his convictions. I dont call the arrogance. To me thats strength of character. But like you, i also believe that some change is in order, but not at the expense of putting Kerry in office.

But like i said, everybody's mind is already made up. Nothing you say is gonna make me vote for Kerry and nothing i say is gonna make you vote for Bush. So lets all just agree to disagree and make our final decisions at the polls in November. Now back to the 240 and its awesomeness! :bow:

[24Zero]

[QUOTE]kerry- i could do it better
bush- dude, its a lot harder than you think cause its a lot harder than i thought it would be.[QUOTE]

True enough. And he had the balls to do something.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Who won? Kerry.

Bush stood his ground, but didn't do a couple things which would've completely turned the tide: he didn't point out that his plan for Iraq is Kerry's plan for Iraq plus a couple more points, he didn't control his temper that well, and he didn't call Kerry on his flip-flops which were made DURING the debate. However, that heartfelt moment about the troops and the decision to go to war was very effective and let a sliver of humanity slip out.

[RJF]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want other countries deciding our future and security.

"Originally published on Wednesday, February 18, 1970 in the News section of The Harvard Crimson.

John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress
By SAMUEL Z. GOLDHABER
SAMUEL Z. GOLDHABER
.....
"...He supports a volunteer Army, "if and only if we can create the controls for it. You're going to have to prepare for the possibility of a national emergency, however." Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

On other issues, Kerry wants "to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care."

[RJF]

Pissing off other countries already. Nice job.

President of Poland Calls Kerry 'Immoral'
Reacting to John Kerry's omission of Polands efforts in Iraq, President of Poland Alexander Kwasniewski said, "I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition."

When asked about Kerry's derogation of non-U.S. coalition countries fighting in Iraq, Kwasniewski said: "I don't think it's an ignorance. Anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the UK and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It's highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world."

"That's why we are disappointed that our stance and ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers are so diminished", President Kwasniewski commented Kerry's speech during the debate.

"Perhaps Mr Kerry, continues Kwasniewski, thinks about the coalition with Germany and France, countries which disagreed with us on Iraq."

Poland has contributed greatly to the efforts in Iraq. Their troop contribution tops 6,500 and 13 have given the ultimate sacrifice, in order to assist the United States liberate Iraq.

What seems to be a poor choice of judgment, Kerry, so far, has not apologized to the nations that he denigrated that have supported America, during these times of challenge.

BritishCombat deaths: 25
Non-combat deaths: 39
Italy 18
Poland 13
Spain 11
Bulgaria 6
Ukraine 6
Slovakia 3
Thailand 2
Portugal 2
Albania 1
Denmark 1
El Salvador 1
Estonia 1
Georgia 1
Latvia: 1

http://hundredpercenter.blogspot.com/2004/10/president-of-poland-calls-kerry.html

[SilviaNinja240]

dude, your soruce is a blog?
And the President didn't mention Italy, Ukraine, Thailand or any of thouse countries ethier. Bush's has a unilateral foreign policy which is the polar opposite of including other countries. And besides the Polish constituency is more concerned about immigration issues rather than warmongering, which Kerry would provide.
http://www.poland.pl/articles/view.htm?id=127064

[Var]

BritishCombat deaths: 25
Non-combat deaths: 39
Italy 18
Poland 13
Spain 11
Bulgaria 6
Ukraine 6
Slovakia 3
Thailand 2
Portugal 2
Albania 1
Denmark 1
El Salvador 1
Estonia 1
Georgia 1
Latvia: 1[/B][/I]




Boo hoo..more people died in car accidents in the time it took me to type this.

[RJF]

Boo hoo..more people died in car accidents in the time it took me to type this.

It's the fact that Kerry is pissing on the contributions and sacrifices of our true allies.

[Aldus]

And that Bush is pissing on the rest of the world.

[SilviaNinja240]

It's the fact that Kerry is pissing on the contributions and sacrifices of our true allies.

like who? Over 1,000 US soldiers have already died, the other countries haven't even lost a comprable amount. The war is mostly comprised of US troops, the United States has made this their personal war and has invested much more than any other country in this war. In fact, most countries are reluctant about war.

[Var]

It's the fact that Kerry is pissing on the contributions and sacrifices of our true allies.


No he's not. Out true allies arent helping us right now cause of the shithead that's running this country.

On a sidenote, if you like either candidate in this election, i highly question your intelligence level. It should be about who you hate less.


in·tel·li·gence (n-tl-jns)
n.

1-The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, especially toward a purposeful goal.
2-An individual's relative standing on two quantitative indices, namely measured intelligence, as expressed by an intelligence quotient, and effectiveness of adaptive behavior.

bush lacks it

[RJF]

No he's not. Out true allies arent helping us right now cause of the shithead that's running this country.

On a sidenote, if you like either candidate in this election, i highly question your intelligence level. It should be about who you hate less.


in·tel·li·gence (n-tl-jns)
n.

1-The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, especially toward a purposeful goal.
2-An individual's relative standing on two quantitative indices, namely measured intelligence, as expressed by an intelligence quotient, and effectiveness of adaptive behavior.

bush lacks it

Who do you consider our allies? France? Germany?

As for your intelligence crack, I'll let that pass.

But the election shouldn't be about who you hate less, but on the candidates records. If you want to pay more taxes, higher gas prices and potentially be out of work. Go ahead and vote for Kerry. He's promised everything under the sun without any details on how he's going to do it. If you go back and look at his 20-year Senate record, he's done nothing but try and weaken our military, has voted to raise taxes every single time, and voted against any new initiatives to explore or develop alternative energy.

So explain to me, how is he going to cut our dependency on foreign oil, create 10 million jobs, get our troops home, pay for everyone's healthcare, give everyone free college tuition, balance the budget, plus all the other promises he's made, without raising everyone's taxes, I'll change my vote.

But right now, as a small business owner (who formerly employed someone from this forum), who's business is just now recovering from the Clinton recession and Internet/Telecommunications Burst Bubble, Kerry's plans to raise taxes on small businesses will just about put me out of business, along with alot of other businesses across the country.

It's just a matter of looking at the facts and seeing who's better for the country.

[SilviaNinja240]

If you want a large scale war, expect to pay more taxes. Regardless of your president funding operations overseas will cost lots of capital, by cutting taxes this puts us in deficit because we're spending money we don't have. There are tons of articles about the 'Clinton recession' and even tons more giving examples of how republicans twist the facts to hide the larger truth that just this year in 2004 the budget has gotten much worse under Bush. Your'e right "It's just a matter of looking at the facts and seeing who's better for the country." So Vote Kerry ;)
http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/25/news/economy/greenspan/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/07/budget.deficit.ap/

[RJF]

If you want a large scale war, expect to pay more taxes. Regardless of your president funding operations overseas will cost lots of capital, by cutting taxes this puts us in deficit because we're spending money we don't have. There are tons of articles about the 'Clinton recession' and even tons more giving examples of how republicans twist the facts to hide the larger truth that just this year in 2004 the budget has gotten much worse under Bush. Your'e right "It's just a matter of looking at the facts and seeing who's better for the country." So Vote Kerry ;)
http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/25/news/economy/greenspan/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/07/budget.deficit.ap/

OK, how did Clinton supposedly balance the budget? It definitely wasn't through less spending. It was because the economy was booming and the government took in more revenues from business taxes.

If you want the economy to grow you put more money in the consumers hands, which they spend on goods and services that helps businesses grow, expand and hire more people. It's a positive cycle.

How is Kerry's plan to tax us all going to help? How about $1000 child tax credit? how many families is that going to hurt when he repeals that?

[RJF]

Here's a book I'm picking up tomorrow:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1400054184.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[SilviaNinja240]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH! OMG Ann Coulter... *sigh*.. And I thought Bush was dumb.

You said it yourself money has to be spent in order for companies to expand. The Republican perspective is to not tax the top percentile of big business owners, so they can take that capital and invest in new companies and hire new people.
The reality:
Most companies take their business and factories overseas beacause you're able to factor out one of the most expensive expendatures for a large scale business. Labor. Businesses take that money and are able to expand overseas, paying only a fraction of the cost they normally would in America. In addition there isn't as much enviromental concerns and worker welfare concerns in these countries, more cost savings! In turn this leaves MORE Americans unemployed beacause overseas workers will do the labor for cheaper.
This is the bigger picture, it might not effect small business owners now. But once a conglomerate business takes interest in whatever product your'e selling, they can easily drop prices far below the cost you sell them and drive someone out of business. Once that's done, they can jack the prices back up again. During Walmart's hay-day this was common practice in small communities.

[Aldus]

OK, how did Clinton supposedly balance the budget? It definitely wasn't through less spending. It was because the economy was booming and the government took in more revenues from business taxes.

If you want the economy to grow you put more money in the consumers hands, which they spend on goods and services that helps businesses grow, expand and hire more people. It's a positive cycle.

How is Kerry's plan to tax us all going to help? How about $1000 child tax credit? how many families is that going to hurt when he repeals that?

So why do we still have tons of unemployed people. Sure they create jobs, but not jobs you can live on. We dont need jobs, we need good jobs so people can get out of poverty, not any jobs where the businesses set the pay so low people cant live off the money theyre making.

[RJF]

So why do we still have tons of unemployed people. Sure they create jobs, but not jobs you can live on. We dont need jobs, we need good jobs so people can get out of poverty, not any jobs where the businesses set the pay so low people cant live off the money theyre making.

Do you realize that the unemployment rate is now lower than it was in 1996 when Clinton ran for re-election?

But the 90's were nirvana.

If things are so bad, where are the soup-lines? Why is home ownership at an all-time high? Seems alot of people are "making it".

The reality:
Most companies take their business and factories overseas beacause you're able to factor out one of the most expensive expendatures for a large scale business. Labor. Businesses take that money and are able to expand overseas, paying only a fraction of the cost they normally would in America. In addition there isn't as much enviromental concerns and worker welfare concerns in these countries, more cost savings! In turn this leaves MORE Americans unemployed beacause overseas workers will do the labor for cheaper.

Why are those jobs really taken overseas? Because no one here wants to do that type of work. In reality, most jobs in this country are created by small businesses, who can't take their jobs overseas. Businesses in communities that provide goods and services to the public. How many Walmart-sized companies are there? And what percentage of the working population do they employ? Maybe 0.1%?

At the peak, my company employed 4 people in the technology field. And there are thousands and thousands of similar small-sized companies out there doing the same thing. Just look in your local yellow pages. But if we get taxed to death, we'll just close our doors and put those people out of work.

[RJF]

Thread suddenly gets quiet when real facts are presented.


OK, here's something else to think about.

Do you realize that John Kerry would actually give nuclear materials to Iran? I don't know about you, but this is just reckless and proves that he doesn't have a grasp of world issues. Iran currently has a long range (1500 km) missle that could hit Israel or take out our naval base in Bahrain.

This is from his website:

Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons. A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action.

He even said the same thing during the debate.

Here's Iran's response:
Iran Rebuffs Kerry Nuclear Proposal

Sun Oct 3, 9:43 AM ET Politics - Reuters

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday rebuffed a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability.

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be "irrational" for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad.

"We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others," Asefi told a weekly news conference.

Washington says Iran plans to use its nuclear facilities to make atom bombs. Tehran says it merely wants to generate electricity from nuclear power.

President Bush (news - web sites) wants Iran referred to the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear program.

But Kerry says he would put Iran's intentions to the test by agreeing to supply it with nuclear fuel for its power reactors provided Tehran stopped efforts to make its own fuel and returned the spent fuel after use.

Iran has rejected repeated efforts by European countries to get it to scrap its nuclear fuel-cycle activities -- which could be used to make atomic bombs.

Asefi said Iran could not trust any deal from the West to supply it with reactor fuel.

"What guarantees are there? Will they supply us one day and then, if they want to, stop supplying us on another day?" he said.

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, in comments published in Germany's Welt am Sonntag newspaper on Sunday, stressed the Bush administration's tough line on Iran.

"We are not considering any military intervention at the moment. But our position is that we should not exclude any option from the start. Iran must understand that our policy red line is the acquisition of nuclear weapons," he said.

"The most important thing at the moment is to get Iran on to the agenda of the U.N. Security Council to demonstrate that the international community won't accept it acquiring nuclear status," he added.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20041003/pl_nm/nuclear_iran_kerry_dc

[RJF]

More news coming out...

Where's Michael Moore?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426

Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter
Last Updated Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:28:50

BAGHDAD - Secret documents uncovered in the bombed headquarters of Iraq's former spy agency show the first clear link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, according to a Canadian journalist.

* INDEPTH: Iraq: Issues and Analysis

Mitch Potter, a foreign correspondent with the Toronto Star, says he discovered the file while digging through what's left of the Mukhabarat intelligence office. The CIA had already looked over the rubble and left.

'It was marked top secret, and of course they went to great lengths to try to mask the contents' – Mitch Potter
The document, which refers to an al-Qaeda envoy's visit to Iraq in 1998, had bin Laden's name amateurishly covered with liquid whiteout, Potter told CBC Newsworld Saturday night.

"Very gingerly we lifted up all the liquid paper and revealed three times bin Laden's name," he said in a telephone interview from Baghdad.

"It's a top secret file, it was marked top secret, and of course they went to great lengths to try to mask the contents of it.

"We just happened to have a very, very diligent interpreter with us today who went that extra mile and found something that was not meant for our eyes."

Several other Arabic translators have since been shown the document and confirmed that bin Laden's name is on it, according to the newspaper.

The Star published Potter's full account of the discovery on Sunday. Another journalist, Inigo Gilmore of London's Sunday Telegraph, was present when the file was found.

The handwritten document describes the al-Qaeda operative's visit to Iraq, according to Potter. It says the purpose was "to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden, and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

The United States has long alleged a connection between Iraq's former leader and terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Washington said one of its reasons for using military force to topple Saddam's regime was because he had weapons of mass destruction that could end up in the hands of people like bin Laden. Saddam denied possessing any such weapons, or of having ties with al-Qaeda's Sept. 11 attacks against the U.S.

[evilimport]

Nice job RJF... you da man.

[RJF]

Nice job RJF... you da man.

Silence them with facts and logic....not hysteria and hate. :wiggle:

[sykikchimp]

nevermind.. I'm done debating. The public will decide nov 2nd.

[RJF]

:nono:

http://knighthawk.smugmug.com/photos/9488760-M.jpg

[Var]

Yes we've already determined the rest of the world doesnt like us.

[Sanchi]

What if the whole world could vote in the U.S. presidential election?

Well if the world could vote... it would look alil something like this!! (http://www.betavote.com/results/)

[RJF]

What if the whole world could vote in the U.S. presidential election?

Well if the world could vote... it would look alil something like this!! (http://www.betavote.com/results/)

:gives:

Who cares what they think.

[Sanchi]

Obviously you dont, and i bet especially after looking at the polls that didnt help. But anyways a friend of mine sent me the link and asked me to spread it around. I though it was interesting so thats that...

[RJF]

Obviously you dont, and i bet especially after looking at the polls that didnt help. But anyways a friend of mine sent me the link and asked me to spread it around. I though it was interesting so thats that...

Do you think those people care what we think of them? NO

But we have to be the "kinder, gentler, politically correct" country.

We're Americans and 3000+ of our citizens were killed on 9/11. They hate us. Period. Doesn't matter what we say or do and if anyone thinks otherwise, they need to pull their head out.

[Var]

those statistics are awesome but not really surprising. RJF..we need to care more about what the world thinks of us OR stop pretending to care as a country

[DriftMonkey]

"retart-in-cheif" o boy we got a winner irght here. making fun of the president by calling him a "retart". ahhh gotta love america where u have the right to make fun of ur leader by calling him a word that doesnt exist....

bush 04

does anyone notice how john kerry "has a plan for iraq" but he has yet to tell the american people wut exactly his plan is. is he hoping to rub a magic lamp and have a big blue genie take care of the war??? honestly it seems similar to clinton and how he said he would balance the budget but never said how. then when he took office he cut funds to the military to balance the budget. and then people wonder why we were open to an attack in 2001. 8 years of cut funds oto the military. i just dont think u should vote for someone who says they "have a plan" and dont express wut it is...

[SilviaNinja240]

Bush doesn't have a plan ethier if it makes you feel any better.
Clinton's plan to balance out the budget would have a better chance of manifesting itself if the fiscal trends continued, and perhaps would have been a reality by the projected date of 2006. However after the administration changed we've moved from a surplus economy and heading into a projected 422 billion dollar deficit by years end.

[RJF]

Bush doesn't have a plan ethier if it makes you feel any better.
Clinton's plan to balance out the budget would have a better chance of manifesting itself if the fiscal trends continued, and perhaps would have been a reality by the projected date of 2006. However after the administration changed we've moved from a surplus economy and heading into a projected 422 billion dollar deficit by years end.

And 9/11 had no impact on the economy? 1 million jobs in the airline, hotel/travel and service industry lost within 90 days of 9/11.

If Bush doesn't have a plan, why is the economy growing at the fastest rate in over 20 years? Or does Clinton still get credit for that?

Why don't we hear that everyday in the news? Hmmm, let's see, may it be BIAS!

[sykikchimp]

And 9/11 had no impact on the economy? 1 million jobs in the airline, hotel/travel and service industry lost within 90 days of 9/11.

If Bush doesn't have a plan, why is the economy growing at the fastest rate in over 20 years? Or does Clinton still get credit for that?

Why don't we hear that everyday in the news? Hmmm, let's see, may it be BIAS!

Of course 9/11 had an impact. So did Pearl Harbor. But did that stop our then current president from creating new jobs? NO.

BIAS SCHMIAS.. The media reports the facts, and puts their own partisan spin on things. Remove the fluff, and you can still find the facts.

There are liberal media outlets just as there are conservative ones. Whats important is that you focus on the actual information in the article and not the bs around it.

(i swear.. I was trying to stay outta this..)

[RJF]

Of course 9/11 had an impact. So did Pearl Harbor. But did that stop our then current president from creating new jobs? NO.

BIAS SCHMIAS.. The media reports the facts, and puts their own partisan spin on things. Remove the fluff, and you can still find the facts.

There are liberal media outlets just as there are conservative ones. Whats important is that you focus on the actual information in the article and not the bs around it.

(i swear.. I was trying to stay outta this..)

So, creating 1.7 million jobs doesn't count? Look at the Dept. of Labor statistics. Job growth has outpaced layoffs over the last 18 months.

The media reports the facts? Hmmm, like using forged documents to try and dis-credit the President and his military service record. Why don't we hear the true facts about Kerry's Senate record.

How many people blindly believe news that they hear on the alphabet-networks and don't remove the fluff?

[sykikchimp]

how many people hear blindly believe 100% partisan fluff directly from gwbush.com or the rnc?

hmm...

[MurdarioStomp]

how many people have started to grow more and more apathetic towards the upcoming election's outcome...seems like either way is negative in its own way, so i dont care anymore.

[RJF]

how many people hear blindly believe 100% partisan fluff directly from gwbush.com or the rnc?

hmm...

No, it's all right here and on other pages in the site. http://stats.bls.gov/bdm/home.htm



Or is the Bureau of Labor Statistics part of the RNC? I must have missed that story from the un-biased media.

[SilviaNinja240]

No, it's all right here and on other pages in the site. http://stats.bls.gov/bdm/home.htm



Or is the Bureau of Labor Statistics part of the RNC? I must have missed that story from the un-biased media.


According to this graph, the unemployment rate went back up as soon as Bush took office.

[RJF]

According to this graph, the unemployment rate went back up as soon as Bush took office.

Yes, and your point being?

That's from the recession that started during the last year of Clinton's term and from the Internet bubble bursting in late 2000/early 2001.

[Var]

Hey when Kerry wins the election and the economy goes back to what it was, we can give credit to Dubya. Let's see which one if his action will help the economy 2 years from now... umm ..his... good foreign policy..no wait. ummm...tax cuts to the working class. no that's not right. *thinking hard* finding WMD's? nope that's not it either. we can give credit to him for....shit! i dont know

[MurdarioStomp]

we can give him credit for making lots of hilarious quotes that a president should never make...

[sykikchimp]

So this:
http://stats.bls.gov/bdm/total_private.gif
doesn't show job loss over the last 4 years?

[Var]

It shows that people were increasingly losing jobs from 93-2001 and in 2001 there was a significant amount of lost jobs, then after 2001 the amount of lost jobs went back down to what the rate was in 95-96.

[Andrew Bohan]

in a graph like that you have to pay attention to when job loss is above job gain, not just if they're going up or down.

[RJF]

It shows that people were increasingly losing jobs from 93-2001 and in 2001 there was a significant amount of lost jobs, then after 2001 the amount of lost jobs went back down to what the rate was in 95-96.

:bash: Not quite.

The job growth numbers (blue line) exceeded the amount of jobs being lost until late 2000, when the job loss number (red line) crossed the blue line.

When the blue line crossed back over above the red line in Q3 means more jobs are being created than being lost.

[Colorado S14]

Everyone is so fucking impatient. We were attacked, we went into a recession. Yes we lost a bunch of job, many of them manufacturing. One thing that many people seem to not realize is the economics of outsourcing jobs. By outsourcing jobs we are able to remain on the cutting edge of technology, and offer exportable products at a competive price. Not only that but it allows the economies in other countries to grow as a result of the manufacturing industries that they are now hosting. Many hyperliberals get all upset about this, but it is the natural progression of a country that is advancing at a rate which allows them to be at the cutting edge of all technologies.

As for Iraq, I see where many liberal get their distaste for the situation. But Kerry is too optimistic about bringing our boys back. These things take time and cost live there is no way around that. I think that many people are too concerned about how much time that this sould take, we have been in Korea for 50 years and no one is complaining about that. I certainly hope that we are not in Iraq for that long, but people need to under stand that the most important thing now is that we finish the job we set out to do. Because if we yeild under the pressure it will show that we are not able to hold our course and protect our country. I suggest that you all read Tommy Franks book, in it he interviews some of Iraq's high officials. They all say that the reason they were not obiding by our damands, and the reason that they did not fear us is that they expected us to get on the ground, lose a few troops and pull out. The United States cannot afford to be a buch of pussies, our future depends on it.

Blake

[RJF]

:werd:

Excellent.

[Var]

:bash: Not quite.


No...exactly how i said. I didnt say anything about job gain did I?

The job growth numbers (blue line) exceeded the amount of jobs being lost until late 2000, when the job loss number (red line) crossed the blue line.

When the blue line crossed back over above the red line in Q3 means more jobs are being created than being lost.


Yes but let's see the chart carry over into present time. Why does the fuckin thing cut off right when the lines cross again?

[SilviaNinja240]

Everyone is so fucking impatient. We were attacked, we went into a recession. Yes we lost a bunch of job, many of them manufacturing. One thing that many people seem to not realize is the economics of outsourcing jobs. By outsourcing jobs we are able to remain on the cutting edge of technology, and offer exportable products at a competive price. Not only that but it allows the economies in other countries to grow as a result of the manufacturing industries that they are now hosting. Many hyperliberals get all upset about this, but it is the natural progression of a country that is advancing at a rate which allows them to be at the cutting edge of all technologies.

As for Iraq, I see where many liberal get their distaste for the situation. But Kerry is too optimistic about bringing our boys back. These things take time and cost live there is no way around that. I think that many people are too concerned about how much time that this sould take, we have been in Korea for 50 years and no one is complaining about that. I certainly hope that we are not in Iraq for that long, but people need to under stand that the most important thing now is that we finish the job we set out to do. Because if we yeild under the pressure it will show that we are not able to hold our course and protect our country. I suggest that you all read Tommy Franks book, in it he interviews some of Iraq's high officials. They all say that the reason they were not obiding by our damands, and the reason that they did not fear us is that they expected us to get on the ground, lose a few troops and pull out. The United States cannot afford to be a buch of pussies, our future depends on it.

Blake

Not entirely true, there's always another side to the story. The problem with outsorcing jobs as I've said in pervious posts is the problems that come with globalization. Jobs arn't being offered in the US economy and are instead being contracted to 3rd world countries, Americans are starting to lose many sectors to foreign nations, IT jobs to Indians (as in Asia), manufacturing jobs to central American countries, etc.. This doesn't help their economy at all, in fact many of these countries already have a tab started with the IMF.

As for Iraq, yes, we're now stuck in this situation and will have to sort it out. I don't suspect Kerry to entirely withdraw from Iraq, so be happy about that. He just wants to reduce US troops and increase international troops, I bet regardless of the outcome the US won't leave the reigon in ethier of our lifetimes

[RJF]

http://www.orlandoreport.com/profiles/images/john_edwards.jpg http://web.tiscali.it/fabioracco/images/Hutz.gif

On to a serious subject:

It is not just an election, this a matter of LIFE OR DEATH.

The Deulfer Report completely destroys Kerry's supposed
Foreign Policy based on him relying on the U.N.
The U.N. Security Council members, France,Germany and Russia
were all corrupted by the Oil For Food U.N. program .
Saddam was paying them off to oppose our invasion of
Iraq. Probably the greatest SCANDAL in history!

It is all laid out in the Duelfer Report, which of course the MSM ignores.
This is who Kerry says should be our coalition????

Kerry's "coalition" is THE COALITION OF THE BRIBED.
They were bribed to work against us!!

[SilviaNinja240]

Elvis sightings are more plausable than that speculation. The reason why our allies are reluctant to going to war in Iraq beacause they knew there was no probable cause in invading Iraq. You really think Iraq can outbid the world's hegemonic superpower?



Duelfer Report: No Evidence Iraq Had Stockpiles of Weapons. “In its current form, the report reaffirms previous interim findings that there is no evidence that Iraq possessed stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the American invasion in March 2003, the officials said.” [NYT, 9/17/04]

Duelfer Report: No Evidence of Resumed Nuclear Program, or Production of Chemical, or Bio Agents for Military Weapns after 1991. “Duelfer has found no evidence that Baghdad resumed its nuclear arms program or produced any chemical or germ agents for military weapons after 1991, officials said. Nor has Duelfer found evidence of ongoing efforts to develop such weapons before the 2003 war.” [LAT, 10/3/04]

Duelfer Report: No Evidence of Large-Scale Program. “Like earlier reports, it finds no evidence that Iraq had begun any large-scale program for weapons production by the time of the American invasion last year.” [NYT, 9/17/04]
NEW REPORT CONFIRMS WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED

[RJF]

Deulfer Report states that sanctions were not working and Saddam was getting ready to resume his weapons program once they were lifted.

Deulfer Report states that Saddam was using the Oil for Food program to skim money off the oil sales, line his own pockets and "bribe" France, Russia and Germany, by giving them sweet-deals.

The UN was never going to do anything.

[sykikchimp]

France, Germany, and Russia are not the only members of the UN. And now that Saddam is out, and they are making no money.. they are scared they are gonna get hit by terrorists.. but they sure aren't gonna back an arrogant gun-slinging cowboy like bush.

[SilviaNinja240]

If that's really true, then what does it matter to whats going on today.

We can have what "if" arguments till the cows come home, but currently, the situation right now, is that there are no WMDs or weapon programs in Iraq. And doesn't really matter about France, Russia and Germany anymore beacause Haliburton got a majority of the contracts

[SilviaNinja240]

France, Germany, and Russia are not the only members of the UN. And now that Saddam is out, and they are making no money.. they are scared they are gonna get hit by terrorists.. but they sure aren't gonna back an arrogant gun-slinging cowboy like bush.

I think RJF means U.N. Security Council members (pretty much the only 'real' power the UN has)

[RJF]

If that's really true, then what does it matter to whats going on today.

We can have what "if" arguments till the cows come home, but currently, the situation right now, is that there are no WMDs or weapon programs in Iraq. And doesn't really matter about France, Russia and Germany anymore beacause Haliburton got a majority of the contracts

What?

And what does Haliburton have to do with anything? But staying on that subject: Haliburton is the only US company that has the capability to do that type of work. Would you rather the contract go to Schlumberger (French company)? That would be outsourcing.....bad according to Kerry.

Also, Clinton gave Haliburton a no-bid contract after he attacked Kosovo.

[sykikchimp]

ehh.. haliburton was a legal contract.. It sounds good in theory and all.. no bid, no competition.. obviously translates well for the democratic party as "Bush/cheney is against competition" I personally don't feel it's warranted since it was found to be a legal contract.

There are a lot worse things to blame on Bush. lol

[sykikchimp]

aren't there 15 UN Security council members?

[SilviaNinja240]

What?

And what does Haliburton have to do with anything? But staying on that subject: Haliburton is the only US company that has the capability to do that type of work. Would you rather the contract go to Schlumberger (French company)? That would be outsourcing.....bad according to Kerry.

Also, Clinton gave Haliburton a no-bid contract after he attacked Kosovo.

my point was that the international community can't be 'bribed' anyways beacause the US took over the region.

Also, I would suggest instead of giving contracts not just to Haliburton but other US developers involved in reconstrution. You don't have to oursource

[DriftMonkey]

yes we could blame the state of the economy an the 9/11 attcks on bush but then realize that bush was in office for about 8 months when the towers were attacked and Clinton was in office for 8 freaking years and did so much as nothing to retaliate on any terrorist attack during his terms. u dont think the bombing of the trade center in 93 left terrorists to belive they could not only get away with it but it gave them time to put together a greater plan to make it much more effective. why wait for something to come to u and casue distruction b4 u take action. Bush is taking th blame for things that were brewing long before he took office. i just dont htink its fair to say theres alot to blame on bush when he was in office for 8 months at the time of the terrorist attacks.

[SilviaNinja240]

aren't there 15 UN Security council members?

Yes, The Council has 15 members-- but only five permanent members and the other 10 are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms

But what makes being a permanent member so cool, is that you have a veto power
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

[SilviaNinja240]

yes we could blame the state of the economy an the 9/11 attcks on bush but then realize that bush was in office for about 8 months when the towers were attacked and Clinton was in office for 8 freaking years and did so much as nothing to retaliate on any terrorist attack during his terms. u dont think the bombing of the trade center in 93 left terrorists to belive they could not only get away with it but it gave them time to put together a greater plan to make it much more effective. why wait for something to come to u and casue distruction b4 u take action. Bush is taking th blame for things that were brewing long before he took office. i just dont htink its fair to say theres alot to blame on bush when he was in office for 8 months at the time of the terrorist attacks.

By your mentality we should just strart attacking people beacause maybe, just maybe, one day they may threaten us. That's the most ridiculous foreign policy strategy i've ever heard. By that token we would have attacked over 60% of the globe, and by that time the other 40% would have turned against us out of fear of being attacked next. There will always be opposion to a hegemon, even more so a hegemon in a unipolar international system. That's politics and the way of the world, you have to learn to live with it peacefuly rather than try a seceario like MAD.

But your'e right, I'm blaming him for the 4 years of his administration and how he handled the situation. Not just 8 months.

[DriftMonkey]

im not trying to be a dickhead but how in the last 4 years have u suffered where u can blame it DIRECTLY on preseident Bush. maybe u have, but share it with me, and if its an honest response then i will drop my argument. i sincerely am not trying to be a dickhead in case u have suffered treamendously.

thast not close to what i said. there were previous attacks that we did nothing about which were obvious signs that a threat was evident. i never said go around killing the world cuz we assume something. they tried to bomb the towers one time before 9/11 and we did nothing about it. they did it a second time and we finally did. arent u glad there a soldiers protecting ur right to voice ur opinion.

read this:

Just before WWI, there were a number of terrorists attacks on the United States forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists. So General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts for execution. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the now horrified terrorists. Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others wont even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those virgins) and doomed to hell. The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pig blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorists bodies and covered them with pig blood, entrails, etc. They let the 50th man go. And for the next forty-two years, there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world. Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq? The question is where do you find another Black Jack Pershing?


... ACTIONS SPEAK MUCH MUCH LOUDER THAN WORDS.

[SilviaNinja240]

all I'm saying is that premeptive strikes should be justifiable. The attack on Afganistan was foreseeable and acknowlegded as self defense (internationaly as well chapter VII, article 51 UN). But to invade Iraq is.. mmm.... not as justifiable as Afganistan. I don't blame Bush for the terrorist attacks, I blame U.S. foreign policy (since 1947) in the middle east.

The crisis could have been averted before 1993, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Regan, it has a lot to do with US involvement in the region and Israel. If you look at the factors facilitating the reasons why 'terrorists' do what they do, you'll see another side to the story. Its best to understand both sides and draw a resonable conclusion.

And about retaliating from the 1st WTC attack, Al Quida is, as the president puts it, "a group of folks". Not a nation state actor which complicates issues, not to mention this is a novel concept for Cold War mentality DOD officals.

Also, what's the deal with the Black Jack Pershing allagory? C'mon dude, governance through fear and torture? Don't tell me you endorse that rubbish

[DriftMonkey]

its basically the idea that actions speak louder than words. and so far kerry only has words and no plan of action. Bush has taken action, whether u agree with the action or not... he took action.
i couldnt agree more with u when u say that we need to analyze issues from both sides and make reasonable opinions but thast is just what is lacking in this election. u have alot of people jumping on kerry's bandwagon simply because of liberalist propaganda due to people like michael moore. of course theres propaganda going both ways but i work at blockbuster and i havent seen any mainstream republican propaganda flying off the shelves or hitting the shelves for that matter. take the fahrenheit 9/11 movie for example....we got over a hundred copies and we got 4 copies of fahrenhype 9/11. this might simply be a smart corporate decision but it lacks in fairness so that BOTH sides of an issue are represented fairly.
that was a little off topic but i think that u are entirely right when u say we need to see both sides of an issue.
u say that preemptive strikes need to be justified which must mean u honestly believe that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. and that they never had any kind of weapons. just because we didnt find anything didnt mean they never had them. they had plenty of time to get weapons out of the country. i dont beleive that the war in iraq was pre-emptive. u believe there is no connection between al-quida and Iraq and most middle easter countries.

[RJF]

Kerry in an appeaser.

http://home.aol.com/bushdocument/peace.jpg

http://home.aol.com/bushdocument/needwood.jpg

[DriftMonkey]

ahhhh. and they do say history tends to repeat itself ,thus is the reason for studying history.. great pics RJF

[evilimport]

great pics RJF
Indeed. :)

[RJF]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20041009/lcrbc041010.gif

[RJF]

Hmmmm....he's just building a great world-wide coalition with his plans.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=167768

Japan Ruling Party Executive Slams Kerry on N.Korea
Reuters
TOKYO Oct. 15, 2004 - The No. 2 official in Japan's ruling party sharply criticized U.S. Democratic challenger John Kerry's North Korea policy on Friday and said he hoped President Bush would be re-elected, media said.

The comments come a day after Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi made remarks that appeared to suggest he would prefer to see Bush win the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election.

"I think there would be trouble if it's not President Bush," Liberal Democratic Party Secretary General Tsutomu Takebe told a radio program, Kyodo news agency reported.

"For instance, Mr. Kerry wants to handle the North Korean issue bilaterally, which is out of the question. We're now in the era of multilateralism," Takebe was quoted as saying, referring to six-way talks involving North and South Korea, Japan, the United States, China and Russia over the North's nuclear ambitions.

Bush has ruled out bilateral talks with reclusive communist Pyongyang, but Kerry has said this could be possible.

Asked by reporters about the U.S. election, Koizumi said on Thursday: "I am very close to President Bush. So I want him to do his best."

Japan's opposition parties attacked Koizumi for his comments, which they said constituted interference in the internal politics of another country.

The prime minister has not only forged warm personal ties with Bush, but was quick to support the U.S.-led war in Iraq and sent non-combat troops to help rebuild the country despite opposition from the majority of Japanese voters.

Koizumi sought to calm the fuss on Friday.

"Because the Japan-U.S. relationship is vital, no matter who becomes the president, I think we will maintain and develop our alliance," he said.

Many ordinary Japanese, however, prefer Kerry.

A poll published by the liberal Asahi Shimbun daily on Friday showed 51 percent of respondents wanted the Massachusetts senator to win, while 30 percent favored the incumbent president.