View Full Version : Second Presidential Debate
Discuss. I'll post my take on the debate tomorrow.
goso88
10-09-2004, 02:57 AM
Ok, I can understand Bush's chuckles and smiles...but I cannot understand his winking.
Kerry did better overall, but I think he was much, much stronger in the beginning than towards the end.
god, everytime bush opened his mouth, the more i hated him more. he sees everything in black and white. like what kerry said about the abortion issue, its not as simple as bush thinks, theres other factors in there like rape, age, and how it would hurt a womans body. i dont think i agreed with anything bush said. i only saw the ending (from the abortion part and on) so i dont know if bush called him a "flip flopper" like he usually does, but that really annoys me. first of all, people are allowed to change their minds, second, if hes going to call him on something, he could at least sound somewhat itellectual (if thats possible) and say hes contradicting, but of course, he has the mental capacity of a five year old. i cant think of anything else to say at this moment.
EDIT: oh, and for the people who say bush is a better president because he doesnt change his mind, it doesnt mean thats a good thing. there was this quote by some guy, i dont remember it exactly, but it was something like, "even though bush sticks to his guns, his aim is way off" and i completely agree. i would rather see the u.s. have a president that is open-minded and would listen to others opinions rather than have one who is completely ignorant and wont change their mind under any circumstance, and would even have the nerve to take it to an extreme (like war in iraq, banning abortion, and making gay marriages unconstitutional). its just ridiculous. i dont see how anyone could support someone like that.
Once again, dubya got pwned bigtime.
Shade
10-09-2004, 04:55 AM
Bush simply got more outlandish with his statements in this debate. He didn't have anymore information, in fact I think he used less. This time he just blatantly made stuff up. I think I heard him say something about us using the support of major world powers including France, Germany etc... did I miss something? When the hell were we working with them? Last I heard our grand 'coalition of the willing' was made up of Morraccans and what not. As far as I can tell Bush was just pulling stuff out of his ass.
That and, as Pyro said, Bush would like us to believe we live in a Black and White world. Terrorists bad, Americans good; Abortion wrong, Tax cuts for wealthy good. Sorry, but last I checked this wasn't the case, it ain't that easy. If it were, it'd make my philosophy papers a hell of a lot easier to write :P . Bush completely ignored Kerry's comments on this and pressed blindly forward as he ever does.
EDIT: Oh and I was REALLY happy Kerry gave a site address to view his plans that he keeps referring to. Reassures the people he's not making empty promises as Bush does.
Glenn
10-09-2004, 12:54 PM
Both parties used the same words they used at the last debate. I agree with the discussion after the debate that George Bush was much stronger during this debate, but he was still on the defensive side.
Kerry made the perfect remark that I was looking for in the question about abortion; you don't need parential agreement if, for example, a daugher is raped by her father.
Bush lost a few points when the man said that the patriot act watered down his rights but Bush said it didn't. What the hell? You don't go out and contradict a citizen making a legitimate complaint. That probably swung or strengthened that man's vote, depending on whether he was for Bush or Kerry.
Another thing: Yeah, everything isn't just black and white. You need to have some common sense to be head of state, which Bush doesn't seem to have. I don't agree with Bush's black and white principles anyway...
I couldn't really say who won this debate, but it strengthened my respect of Kerry for being more honest and for some of his opinions.
When Bush is up there, he expresses empty thoughts. When Kerry says something, Bush calls him a liar. Bush's only basis for expression is to reverse what Kerry says. Looks like Bush's speech writers can't help him now.
Today After Tomorrow
10-09-2004, 02:32 PM
According to the polls: John Kerry won yet again.
Originally posted by PyRoMaNiaK@Oct 8 2004, 09:17 PM
"even though bush sticks to his guns, his aim is way off" and i completely agree.
I agree. I'm gonna use that quote in my debate paper, if you dont mind.
Factual-inaccuracies of the debate: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10...heck/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/factcheck/index.html)
Most anything Bush attacked Kerry with was justified by CNN for Kerry.
While Kerry may have worded a few things wrong, his messages, upon clarification, were right. For instance, Kerry said $200B has been spent already in Iraq, when in fact it will be spent next year. Either way $200B is being spent on Iraq.
Although I do think Kerry's comments about Gen. Shinseki were wrong.
Some of the things Bush said in the debate were completely tactless. And what is the deal with the supposed timber company? Does Bush own one or not? "Do you want some wood?"
I realized while watching this that while I don't always agree with Kerry, I'm still voting for him. This is because he at least has an idea of what to do, Bush is just gonna keep doing what he's doing. This was made very clear by the woman who asked Bush if he thought he'd made any bad decisions. Bush said NO.
I think that says a lot.
Yah i thought the debate was fairly even this time. Kerry made a few points that were great and really shot down Bush. But then he tried to make some kind of points that he really put his foot in his mouth, like trying to say that Bush owned a lumber mill or company. On the flip side Bush was able to stand his ground in this debate better than i had thought he would. But still Bush kinda constantly kept shooting him self in the foot and somehow found a way to relate everythnig to the situation in Iraq or defending the country against "terrorists."
I basically just tought that Kerry should have been able to kill Bush in this debate, but i thought Bush held his own well enough to not give Kerry a blatant victory.
Bush kept attacking Kerry but I didn't hear the chimp say one thing that he would do if he was re-elected. When asked questions, his answer was always "Kerry would do this, kerry would do that" but I never head him say "I would do this"
Originally posted by Todd@Oct 9 2004, 03:49 PM
Bush kept attacking Kerry but I didn't hear the chimp say one thing that he would do if he was re-elected. When asked questions, his answer was always "Kerry would do this, kerry would do that" but I never head him say "I would do this"
Yes. It was all a "we did this" or "were doing this now" attitude.
As I was watching the debate, I noticed that Bush was trying to make wisecracks every chance he got, and was consistant in calling Kerry a liar after everything he said. So, what, exactly, does that mean? I'll tell you what it means: It means that Bush finally has no base for any arguments that he's ever going to make in the future, and his speech writers have, probably, all been fired.
I have absolutely no idea how anyone can support President Bush. Derek claims that I supported him once, but I don't ever remember supporting anything that he ever did, other than that once-upon-a-time where he was attempting and making a valid effort to try to capture Usama bin Laden, which he eventually gave up on anyway since he saw that he'd never be able to do it.
Congress gave Bush permission to go into Iraq when everyone thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Bush never even let the UN inspectors finish their jobs before he went in. Bush also blatantly ignored the requests of the UNITED NATIONS and went into Iraq, where he found absolutely no weapons of mass destruction. As Kerry said, the permission by Congress to go into Iraq was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, not start a war that's made almost every nation in the UN hate us.
One thing I hate is the fact that Bush keeps bringing up the fact that Kerry voted against the $87 billion bill. Is that the only thing Bush has left? To attack the Senator like that? The FIRST $87 billion bill used all $87 billion on armor and weapons and things like that. The SECOND $87 billion bill, which is the one Kerry voted against, gave a good portion of that money to Halliburton. Kerry had EVERY RIGHT to vote against that one since it was wrong.
Overall, I felt that Bush did poorly in this debate, as well. He was very smartassed in most of his replies and none of his wisecracks made any sense. I don't want a President who's going to act like a jackass like that in the most important debates in his entire life. I feel that Kerry sufficiently owned Bush.
Today After Tomorrow
10-09-2004, 10:30 PM
other than that once-upon-a-time where he was attempting and making a valid effort to try to capture Usama bin Laden
He didn't want to capture Osama. That would p*ss off the Saudi's and we all know "Dubya" wouldn't wanna do that. ;)
One thing I hate is the fact that Bush keeps bringing up the fact that Kerry voted against the $87 billion bill. Is that the only thing Bush has left? To attack the Senator like that? The FIRST $87 billion bill used all $87 billion on armor and weapons and things like that. The SECOND $87 billion bill, which is the one Kerry voted against, gave a good portion of that money to Halliburton. Kerry had EVERY RIGHT to vote against that one since it was wrong.
That's sort of correct. If you got that information from my one post I wanna make sure it's completly correct: the "second" $87 billion bill had $20 billion of it going to the reconstruction of Iraq. And we all know how the Bush Administration handles that - They give it to Halliburton - Halliburton overcharges - Halliburton keeps extra money - Halliburton pays Cheney for helping them out. So "give $20 billion to Halliburton" wasn't written in the bill(obviously) but it's common sense that the $20 billion would have gone to Halliburton for the reconstruction of Iraq.
Also if it would have been a close vote to pass the bill Kerry and Edwards never would have voted against it. It was obvious no one on the senate was going to vote against supplying the troops with protective armor and ammunition so Kerry and Edwards took their 2 meaningless votes and used them as a type of protest. I just wish Kerry would explain that on national TV. Not many people know that's why he voted against it. All most of America knows is that John Kerry voted against a bill to supply our troops armor and obviously that doesn't sound too good. If he'd take 2 minutes or 90 seconds to explain that I think it would really help him and allow people to understand.
Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow@Oct 9 2004, 06:30 PM
other than that once-upon-a-time where he was attempting and making a valid effort to try to capture Usama bin Laden
He didn't want to capture Osama. That would p*ss off the Saudi's and we all know "Dubya" wouldn't wanna do that. ;)
One thing I hate is the fact that Bush keeps bringing up the fact that Kerry voted against the $87 billion bill. Is that the only thing Bush has left? To attack the Senator like that? The FIRST $87 billion bill used all $87 billion on armor and weapons and things like that. The SECOND $87 billion bill, which is the one Kerry voted against, gave a good portion of that money to Halliburton. Kerry had EVERY RIGHT to vote against that one since it was wrong.
That's sort of correct. If you got that information from my one post I wanna make sure it's completly correct: the "second" $87 billion bill had $20 billion of it going to the reconstruction of Iraq. And we all know how the Bush Administration handles that - They give it to Halliburton - Halliburton overcharges - Halliburton keeps extra money - Halliburton pays Cheney for helping them out. So "give $20 billion to Halliburton" wasn't written in the bill(obviously) but it's common sense that the $20 billion would have gone to Halliburton for the reconstruction of Iraq.
Also if it would have been a close vote to pass the bill Kerry and Edwards never would have voted against it. It was obvious no one on the senate was going to vote against supplying the troops with protective armor and ammunition so Kerry and Edwards took their 2 meaningless votes and used them as a type of protest. I just wish Kerry would explain that on national TV. Not many people know that's why he voted against it. All most of America knows is that John Kerry voted against a bill to supply our troops armor and obviously that doesn't sound too good. If he'd take 2 minutes or 90 seconds to explain that I think it would really help him and allow people to understand.
Yeah, I just skipped around the facts and said it was going to Halliburton because that's where it would've gone anyway. :lol:
erasethepain
10-10-2004, 01:21 AM
I don't see how anyone who plans on voting for Bush is not embarassed in some way by how childish he is acting. He is doing what he wants and refuses to take into consideration of what anyone else says - no matter how intelligient or what points they make.
If Kerry wins and we stay in the same position, Bush is going to dread it. Only then will he realize what he has done and that he is not the number one priority for safety anymore.
Today After Tomorrow
10-10-2004, 04:04 AM
This is kind of random but you know before and after the debate when Kerry and Bush are shaking hands and everything - What do you think they're talking about? Like, what would you say to someone who's out there everyday campaigning against you and in some cases dis-honoring your service in a war and basically calling you a p*ssy because you didn't bleed enough. (bet you can't guess who that is!)
George Bush: "Howdy therre ya p*ssy. Your plan sucks. I don't know why but that's what Cheney told me to say."
John Kerry: "God, i'm soo gonna kick your ass in this debate."
That's my guess. B)
Kerry: Wanna go back to my place and watch Farhenheit 9/11?
Bush: Ain't that the anti-me documentary?
Kerry: Indeed it is, Mr. President.
Bush: I'll bring the popcorn!
Link04
10-10-2004, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by PyRoMaNiaK@Oct 9 2004, 03:17 AM
EDIT: oh, and for the people who say bush is a better president because he doesnt change his mind, it doesnt mean thats a good thing. there was this quote by some guy, i dont remember it exactly, but it was something like, "even though bush sticks to his guns, his aim is way off" and i completely agree. i would rather see the u.s. have a president that is open-minded and would listen to others opinions rather than have one who is completely ignorant and wont change their mind under any circumstance, and would even have the nerve to take it to an extreme (like war in iraq, banning abortion, and making gay marriages unconstitutional). its just ridiculous. i dont see how anyone could support someone like that.
^_^ Perfect.
I'd rather have a leader who questions his beliefs than one who deems them as absolute truth.
Glenn
10-10-2004, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Will@Oct 10 2004, 01:07 AM
Kerry: Wanna go back to my place and watch Farhenheit 9/11?
Bush: Ain't that the anti-me documentary?
Kerry: Indeed it is, Mr. President.
Bush: I'll bring the popcorn!
:lol:
http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp...101&floc=NW_1-T (http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20041011%2F0701617188.htm&sc=rontz&photoid=20041009FSM101&floc=NW_1-T)
:thumbsup: :D!
Originally posted by Mark@Oct 11 2004, 03:33 PM
http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp...101&floc=NW_1-T (http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20041011%2F0701617188.htm&sc=rontz&photoid=20041009FSM101&floc=NW_1-T)
:thumbsup: :D!
Hell yes.
Today After Tomorrow
10-11-2004, 09:02 PM
If it weren't for that damn Nader working with the Republicans Kerry would be even higher. Although I don't think the polls are anywhere close in this election, it's still nice to see Kerry ahead.
well this isnt really about the debate, but i just heard bush talking on the news about stem cell research saying how its wrong to kill lives for the purpose of saving others. what the hell? wasnt he the one that started a war? this is beyond hypocritical. it really pisses me off how contradicting he is and he doesnt even realize it.
yeah, just wanted to let that out :lol:
p.s. vote for kerry ^_^
Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow@Oct 11 2004, 02:02 PM
If it weren't for that damn Nader working with the Republicans Kerry would be even higher. Although I don't think the polls are anywhere close in this election, it's still nice to see Kerry ahead.
You gotta remember polls really mean nothing, so much can change from now until the actual election day.
Today After Tomorrow
10-12-2004, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Ryan+Oct 12 2004, 05:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ryan @ Oct 12 2004, 05:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Today After Tomorrow@Oct 11 2004, 02:02 PM
If it weren't for that damn Nader working with the Republicans Kerry would be even higher. Although I don't think the polls are anywhere close in this election, it's still nice to see Kerry ahead.
You gotta remember polls really mean nothing, so much can change from now until the actual election day. [/b][/quote]
That's what I meant. The polls arent accurate enough in my opinion, especially in this election with all the new voters registering to get Bush out of the White House. I just said that it's still nice to see Kerry ahead currently.
Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow+Oct 12 2004, 02:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Today After Tomorrow @ Oct 12 2004, 02:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Ryan@Oct 12 2004, 05:16 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Today After Tomorrow@Oct 11 2004, 02:02 PM
If it weren't for that damn Nader working with the Republicans Kerry would be even higher. Although I don't think the polls are anywhere close in this election, it's still nice to see Kerry ahead.
You gotta remember polls really mean nothing, so much can change from now until the actual election day.
That's what I meant. The polls arent accurate enough in my opinion, especially in this election with all the new voters registering to get Bush out of the White House. I just said that it's still nice to see Kerry ahead currently. [/b][/quote]
Fair enough.
Derek The Infamous
10-13-2004, 12:13 AM
Today I walked into my Republican Office and signed up to help support President Bush. I have two signs on my lawn, and a large collection of flyers as well as other promotional material, and you can be sure I'll be going door to door until everything I have is gone. I am in no way ashamed that I am representing President Bush, and call me naive if you'd like, it's not going to change my vote on November 2nd.
I can see all of the Kerry supporters turning green and calling me ill-informed, but in reality I am more informed then most people who are going to vote for Kerry on November 2nd. Many democrats and Kerry supporters use Clinton as role model for how a country should be run, but they will not admit that everything Bush was criticized for, Clinton managed to do 4-8 years ago while he was the president. One must wonder who to believe, but I believe I have this pretty figured out.
Clinton awards Halliburton a no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - Good
Bush awards Halliburton a no-bid contract in Iraq - Bad
Clinton spends a total of $77 Billion on the war in Serbia - Good
Bush spends a total of $87 Billion on the war in Iraq- Bad
Clinton imposes a regime change in Serbia - Good
Bush imposes a regime change in Iraq - Bad
Clinton bombs Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - Good
Bush liberates 25 Million by removing a genocidal dictator - Bad
Clinton bombs a Chinese Embassy - Good
Bush bombs terrorist camps - Bad
Clinton commits felonies while in office - Good
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - Bad
No mass graves found in Serbia - Good
No WMDs found in Iraq -* Bad
Stock market fails in 2000 under Clinton -* Good
Economy on the rise under Bush -* Bad
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - Good
World Trade Centers fall under Bush -* Bad
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - Good
Bush says Saddam has nukes - Bad
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - Good
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - Bad
Milosevic not yet convicted - Good
Saddam turned over for trial - Bad
I find it quite ironic how many of the things Bush is criticized for, Clinton managed to do as well without having any marks on his record as president. I'm still trying to make sense of that one.
Every year an independant tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This the day after which the money you earn goes to you, and not the government. This year tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest its been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd which occured in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?
During one of John Kerry's speeches he claimed that Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
As everyone knows, both George Bush and John Kerry are considerably wealthy men. Bush owns only one home which is his ranch in Texas. Kerry to this date owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is actually an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. That's not your average A-frame.)
In this year alone Bush had to pay $250,000 in taxes. Kerry managed to only pay $90,000. Does that sound right for a man who has FOUR multi-million dollar mansions? Somehow the man who has been said to want to raise the taxes of the rich, has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
People need to open their eyes to all of the half-truths the democratic party has been spreading around over the past few months. Feel free to show people this post, as Election Day is fast approaching.
Another valid point is, while no theft/defacing of Kerry signs have been reported in the Mid-Atlantic states, there has been reports of Bush signs going missing and larger signs being heavily defaced by buckets of paint. Seems like the democratic party has grown desperate to try and hide anything related to supporting Bush.
Then people wonder why I don't like Kerry or Clinton or a few of these other democratic presidents we've had over the past few years.
Ugh...I did a google search for "halliburton no-bid contract yugoslavia" and got that exact list. It's not exactly good to call yourself well-informed after ripping it off a bunch of different forums.
Clinton did alot of good things, the economy went up during his eight years, he strengthened environmental laws, created jobs (all things Bush reversed), but that doesn't mean he's a "role model" for all democrats. He's not our heavenly angel. Hell, he did a much better job that Bush in his eight years than what Bush did in four years, but he's not exactly an icon. If republicans are going to rip on Clinton, I'll suggest the word "Nixon" to you.
Clinton awards Halliburton a no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - Good
Bush awards Halliburton a no-bid contract in Iraq - Bad
Both bad things. I wouldn't call it good. You're twisting democratic support for Clinton into a fantasy that democrats support everything Clinton has done. The thing is that Halliburton is dramatically overcharging American taxpayers for their contracts in Iraq. That didn't happen in Yugoslavia.
Clinton spends a total of $77 Billion on the war in Serbia - Good
Bush spends a total of $87 Billion on the war in Iraq- Bad
$87 billion is nowhere near what Bush has spent. Already, Bush has spent $120 billion in Iraq and will spend and extra $80 billion by the time he leaves the White House in January. Grand total = $200 billion. Almost three times what was spent in Serbia.
Clinton imposes a regime change in Serbia - Good
Bush imposes a regime change in Iraq - Bad
Clinton went in with UN support to remove Milosevic. Bush did not go in with UN support. Clinton had legitimate reasons, Bush had fictitious facts. Clinton also admitted mistakes were made in Serbia, Bush calls it "mission accomplished" and refuses to admit mistakes (aplenty).
Clinton bombs Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - Good
Bush liberates 25 Million by removing a genocidal dictator - Bad
Milosevic killed over ten times the amount of people Saddam killed in a small fraction of the time. It was UN-authorized, too. And it wasn't on behalf of the albanian terrorists, he bombed the Serbs, and it just so happens the albanian terrorists were their enemies. There's a difference between doing something on behalf of someone and doing something that coincidentally benefits someone. Besides, the albanian terrorists were being quickly wiped out of Serbia.
Clinton bombs a Chinese Embassy - Good
Bush bombs terrorist camps - Bad
NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy, and apologized for their mistake, not Clinton.
Clinton commits felonies while in office - Good
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - Bad
You call Clinton lying about oral sex with Monica Lewinsky to be a good thing? You're talking on behalf of Democrats? That's absolutely ridiculous. He shamed your country by this scandal. But at least it isn't as bad as rigging an election, allowing a terrorist attack to happen, and invading another country without legitimate backing or reason.
No mass graves found in Serbia - Good
No WMDs found in Iraq -* Bad
Wrong. http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9908/14/kosovo.02/
Stock market fails in 2000 under Clinton -* Good
Economy on the rise under Bush -* Bad
Apparently a stock market fail is a good thing? The absolute ignorance by republicans who think democrats think this is a good thing is blinding. Looks like Bush has done alot to reverse that!
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - Good
World Trade Centers fall under Bush -* Bad
As I can remember, Clinton tried vehemontly to apprehened Bin Laden, but failed. Bush had him surrounded at Tora Bora, but let Afghani rebels take the job and screw up. If Bush really cared about finding Bin Laden, American forces would have been in there.
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - Good
Bush says Saddam has nukes - Bad
Clinton supported UN sanctions and multilateral talks with Iraq.
Bush kicked inspectors out and bombed the country because of a massive feeling of paranoia.
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - Good
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - Bad
Successful terrorist attacks in US under Clinton - 0
Successful terrorist attacks in US under Bush - 1
Clinton bombed terrorist camps in Afghanistan while he was in office. http://edition.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
Milosevic not yet convicted - Good
Saddam turned over for trial - Bad
Milosevic is being tried by an international war crimes tribunal. Saddam is being tried by an Iraqi council of some sorts?
This is why you don't spread around chain-mail crap. One; it's mostly false. And two; you look foolish for even bringing it up and then getting shot down.
And I can't believe how stupid it is to think that the democratic party has anything to do with defacing campaign signs. That's the highest form of ignorance. Ever think that Bush has ALOT of enemies, even in his own country. Yeah. Thought so.
Derek The Infamous
10-13-2004, 02:18 AM
For one, this was lying in the republican office on one of the people's desks and I asked to get a photo copy of this. It's more than likely those forums did the same exact thing.
Second, the good and bad analogies were supposed to say how Clinton did it and was still referred to as a good president, and yet Bush did something similiar and is called a bad president. Talk about double standards.
And you're missing the point with Halliburton. People are focusing more on the fact Bush is INVOLVED with that company than what it does. If you are gonna use the fact he did things with Halliburton as an attack against Bush, think about how Clinton dealt with them first. Overcharging or not, both presidents dealt with Halliburton, so why is Bush the only one taking the criticism for it? That's rather unfair on Bush if you ask me.
$87 billion is nowhere near what Bush has spent. Already, Bush has spent $120 billion in Iraq and will spend and extra $80 billion by the time he leaves the White House in January. Grand total = $200 billion. Almost three times what was spent in Serbia.
Mind you, that's IF he loses the election this November. I met a woman who had been a democrat since she was legal to vote. This year will be the first year she's ever voted for a Republican candidate. Her reason for the switch? She doesn't want to represent someone like John Kerry. That right there amazed me in itself.
As for the spending, while it might be high, Bush has made good decisions on what to fund since then. Might I mention the new space program he's proposed? Bush might have spent billions on a war, but he's also going to spend billions on something that could change the world of science as we know it.
Tell me when war was ever supposed to be cheap. And tell me where you read that the War On Terror was supposed to be quick either. Bush said in the very beginning that this could take months and even years to accomplish. It's not going to take a week to make the world a safer place, and although I respect your views on the spending, I'm sure you already know what I'm talking about.
Clinton went in with UN support to remove Milosevic. Bush did not go in with UN support. Clinton had legitimate reasons, Bush had fictitious facts. Clinton also admitted mistakes were made in Serbia, Bush calls it "mission accomplished" and refuses to admit mistakes (aplenty).
In the exact same report that came out, that states there was no WMDs in Iraq, there is a mention that Saddam was planning to deceive us in the future and actually make WMDs inside of Iraq. Would you have preferred for Bush to have done nothing then have one of our later presidents have to deal with Iraq's new weapons program? Would you want another president to take the fall because Bush didnt make a move? No. Bush already took the fall for the WTC when Clinton let Bin Laden slip through his fingers, and I dont think he'd want another president to do the same thing.
Milosevic killed over ten times the amount of people Saddam killed in a small fraction of the time. It was UN-authorized, too. And it wasn't on behalf of the albanian terrorists, he bombed the Serbs, and it just so happens the albanian terrorists were their enemies. There's a difference between doing something on behalf of someone and doing something that coincidentally benefits someone. Besides, the albanian terrorists were being quickly wiped out of Serbia.
But did Clinton take the steps that Bush did to capture Saddam? No. Milosevic is still a free man and had Clinton had tried harder to capture Milosevic, or even Bin Laden, maybe we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now. What do I mean? Clinton had a chance to prevent 9/11 by capturing Osama and he didn't. Whether he tried vehemently or not, he handled it the wrong way. We had a very good idea of where he was and rather than send in special forces like she should have, he bombed the place and MISSED.
NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy, and apologized for their mistake, not Clinton.
Point taken.
You call Clinton lying about oral sex with Monica Lewinsky to be a good thing? You're talking on behalf of Democrats? That's absolutely ridiculous. He shamed your country by this scandal. But at least it isn't as bad as rigging an election, allowing a terrorist attack to happen, and invading another country without legitimate backing or reason.
I will refer to the beginning where I stated that by calling it "good" I meant that Clinton is still thought of as a good president, despite the mistakes he made while he was in office. Even through the very public attempt at impeachment, some people still act like he did absolutely nothing wrong. Moving ahead quickly..
Successful terrorist attacks in US under Clinton - 0
Successful terrorist attacks in US under Bush - 1
1. The USS Cole (under Clinton).
2. Two hotels were bombed in South Africa where a US embassy was located.
3. A hotel was attacked in Lebanon where we lost a couple hundred marines.
4. The WACO incident where the top 5 guys in the ATF lost their jobs because of Clinton mismanagement.
5. Oklahoma City (how could you EVER forget that?)
6. What about Somalia (Black Hawk Down, did you see it? That was Clinton Adminstration at it's finest).
And to continue...
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 had to be in planning BEFORE Bush came into presidency. Things like that do not take only one year to plan. Think about it. This was being planned while Clinton was in office, and the 9/11 Commissiion proved this. And it was because of Clinton's security policies that it happened. I suppose you forgot that.
Wrong. http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9908/14/kosovo.02/
Alright, but relating to things overseas. Did you remember about Rawanda? Clinton while worrying about Serbia, at the same time allowed about a million people to be massacred in Rawanda. The hindus, massacred hundreds of thousands of tutus while the Clinton Adminstration stood idly. Where, in Serbia where the same thing was happening he spent 80 billion dollars.
Apparently a stock market fail is a good thing? The absolute ignorance by republicans who think democrats think this is a good thing is blinding. Looks like Bush has done alot to reverse that!
He has. While the economy went downhill towards the end of Clinton's presidency, even after a war, it is still beginning to go up thanks to George Bush. Instead of thinking we're losing jobs, think of how many we're gaining. The statistics don't lie.
Clinton supported UN sanctions and multilateral talks with Iraq.
Bush kicked inspectors out and bombed the country because of a massive feeling of paranoia.
Paranoia that had reasoning because the new report clearly states that Saddam was planning to start up a new program and mislead inspectors while it was happening. Like I said before, would you have preferred for another president to deal with Saddam in the future? I doubt it.
This is why you don't spread around chain-mail crap. One; it's mostly false. And two; you look foolish for even bringing it up and then getting shot down.
You look foolish when you make several claims such as the idea that NO terrorist attacks happened during Clinton. No offense, but it would appear you are living under a rock if you were to forget something like that.
And I can't believe how stupid it is to think that the democratic party has anything to do with defacing campaign signs. That's the highest form of ignorance. Ever think that Bush has ALOT of enemies, even in his own country. Yeah. Thought so.
Kerry has a lot of enemies too, believe me. But yet..do you see any of those people defacing Kerry signs? No. Kind of makes you think a little bit.
You want to know what's really stupid? Participating in a debate where the opposing side appears to forget some cold hard facts (I still cant get over the fact you forgot Oklahoma City). You did good in providing a link, but if you act ignorant enough to think 9/11 was the first terrorist attack in years, then there's no need to me to even waste my time.
Thanks for the debate my friend, but I think I am going to make the educated decision to vote for Bush on November 2nd. I wouldn't want to risk having another Clinton in office, after all...Kerry and Clinton are close friends...kind of worries you if you really think about it.
Today After Tomorrow
10-13-2004, 04:43 AM
I'm not really going to take a whole lot of time to respond to all of what you(Derek) have been saying because it seems like you're having a Clinton vs. Bush debate with yourself. Last time I checked it was Kerry vs. Bush. ;)
First thing i'd like to address is the fact that you seem to be blaming the 9/11 attacks on Clinton. This is absolutly ridiculous. As far as I know Clinton did not recieve a security briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." while also knowing that Al Qaeda members were going to flight schools inside the U.S. I also don't believe people under Clinton's Administration specifically told the FBI that they did not want to hear anything more about possible terrorist attacks leading up to 9/11. I just honestly don't see how you could possibly try take the blame off Bush and put it on Clinton for the attacks. To be honest I think it's a pathetic attempt to make your side of the political battle seem stronger.
Next thing i'd like to address is your comments about job creation/loss under George Bush. I may have said this before because I think it's pretty well known knowledge, but on November 2nd George Bush will become the first president in 70 years to not create jobs. You said to look at how many jobs he created. OK: He created 1.7 million jobs. But what you're failing to realize is that he lost more jobs than he created. Let's take a look at this using simple numbers. I create 5 jobs. I lose 8 jobs. That means i've actually only created -3 jobs. That is exactly what has happened with Bush except in much larger numbers, obviously. Bush hasn't even come close to his estimate at how many jobs would be created. He's created about 7 million less jobs then he estimated would be created post-9/11. When you can't even meet your own goals it's kinda pathetic to be honest.
Another very short thing i'd like to comment on in general is the space program you talked about. This isn't even necessarily towards Bush but the whole space program, to me, seems like a huge waste. Why not spend those millions or billions of dollars here on our planet instead of trying to send 5 guys to Mars or a camera to take pictures of Mars? I mean, haven't they already said that it would be impossible for humans to live on the Moon or Mars? So what's the point in any further research - It doesn't matter. I just don't see any point what-so-ever.
When Kerry talks about Americans paying more taxes he's referring to middle-class Americans. The Government needs their money one way or the other so if the rich are given tax cuts someone has to pay that share - the rest of America. So if 98% of America is paying the 2%'s share they are obviously paying more than they normally would.
Your comment about how rich Bush and Kerry are - I'm not totally sure at what you're getting at..? Just for the record though: When Kerry becomes president he'll actually be the richest in the history. He was already very wealthy before marrying Teresa Heinz Kerry and then obviously after marrying her he became even more rich.
About how much they paid in taxes - I also don't get what you're trying to say. I don't think Kerry "avoided" paying his own otherwise that would be illegal. If $90,000 was all he had to pay then what is wrong with that? I'm not really sure how to respond to that to be honest because I just don't get what you're hinting at. Are you saying John Kerry didn't pay all of his taxes, or he cheated the government out of his taxes, or what? Either way though: Kerry's a gazillionare so I don't think paying a couple hundred thousand in taxes is anything to him so I don't see why he'd try and cheat the government or not pay them at all. I also don't get what you're saying when you said this: "Somehow the man who has been said to want to raise the taxes of the rich, has figured out a way to avoid paying his own." Feel free to explain what you were trying to get at.
But on the topic of the tax cuts i'd like to just make this point: Because of Bush's tax cuts - once his inheritence occurs he'll have saved about $10 million.
finaldude14
10-13-2004, 03:53 PM
First thing i'd like to address is the fact that you seem to be blaming the 9/11 attacks on Clinton. This is absolutly ridiculous. As far as I know Clinton did not recieve a security briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S."
He wasnt blameing clinton he was saying its foolish to blame Bush since it was planned during his term.
Originally posted by Derek@Oct 12 2004, 10:18 PM
You want to know what's really stupid? Participating in a debate where the opposing side appears to forget some cold hard facts (I still cant get over the fact you forgot Oklahoma City). You did good in providing a link, but if you act ignorant enough to think 9/11 was the first terrorist attack in years, then there's no need to me to even waste my time.
Mark was talking about terrorist attacks within the borders of the country itself. Oklahoma City, while it was a terrorist attack, wasn't the same type of terrorist attack that we dealt with on September 11th. The attack in Oklahoma City was fueled by rage and hatred of an American citizen, not some dude with an airplane. I hope you see my point. :)
Derek The Infamous
10-13-2004, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Will+Oct 13 2004, 01:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Will @ Oct 13 2004, 01:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Derek@Oct 12 2004, 10:18 PM
You want to know what's really stupid? Participating in a debate where the opposing side appears to forget some cold hard facts (I still cant get over the fact you forgot Oklahoma City). You did good in providing a link, but if you act ignorant enough to think 9/11 was the first terrorist attack in years, then there's no need to me to even waste my time.
Mark was talking about terrorist attacks within the borders of the country itself. Oklahoma City, while it was a terrorist attack, wasn't the same type of terrorist attack that we dealt with on September 11th. The attack in Oklahoma City was fueled by rage and hatred of an American citizen, not some dude with an airplane. I hope you see my point. :) [/b][/quote]
While that might have been the case, I believe that any planned event to kill a group of people (whether it be planes into a building or someone walking into a mall with a bomb strapped on them and triggering it) is a terrorist attack. He made it sound like there was absolutely no attacks in Clinton's presidency and that is just completely untrue.
Even with OK-City being done by an American, other ones such as the USS Cole were on American soil or targeted towards America. In my opinion, any tragic event aimed towards America, on our soil or not is a terrorist attack worthy of being put on a president's record. But that is just my view on everything.
Did I say I agreed with Clinton giving out Haliburton contracts? No. Is Halliburton a huge issue in this election? Not really. That's just one of the many links with oil the Bush administration has. One semi-proven against means nothing.
There's a wide difference between doing something "similar" and doing something exactly. What I presented to you was what Clinton did, instead of the anti-Clinton propaghanidst crap that was contained in that "list". Seems like most of the stuff (and I emphasize the "most" before you jump down my throat for mythically saying "all") Clinton did was for the right reasons. With the UN, he bombed Serbia. He created jobs. The economy grew in 7 of his 8 years in office. Environmental laws were strictened.
Mind you, that's IF he loses the election this November. I met a woman who had been a democrat since she was legal to vote. This year will be the first year she's ever voted for a Republican candidate. Her reason for the switch? She doesn't want to represent someone like John Kerry. That right there amazed me in itself.
As for the spending, while it might be high, Bush has made good decisions on what to fund since then. Might I mention the new space program he's proposed? Bush might have spent billions on a war, but he's also going to spend billions on something that could change the world of science as we know it.
Tell me when war was ever supposed to be cheap. And tell me where you read that the War On Terror was supposed to be quick either. Bush said in the very beginning that this could take months and even years to accomplish. It's not going to take a week to make the world a safer place, and although I respect your views on the spending, I'm sure you already know what I'm talking about.
You're putting words in my mouth. Not once did you point out something I said. You pointed out things I didn't say. All attack and no back-up.
I don't care if one Democrat is going to vote Republican because she doens't like Kerry. You make it seem like the election hinges on her vote.
Ahh, yes. The "star wars" program. Just what we need now, with the ongoing weapons race about nuclear weapons (something Reagan could've stopped, as a matter of fact.), another weapons race. That is just what the world needs, weapons satellites in space. Too fanatic and dangerous. You can't even get bombs to hit Iraq from hundreds of meters in the air, so how are you supposed to hit countries from space?
Wars aren't cheap. I didn't say they were. But according to that blasphemous list you posted, you're justifying a blatantly underestimated cost in Iraq with the cost of a war in Serbia. Now, you wouldn't post that list unless you agreed with it, right? Wars are costly, thus it's one of many important factors in reasoning a justifiable war. Once again, $200 billion by January 2005. Not $87B. Recant it.
In the exact same report that came out, that states there was no WMDs in Iraq, there is a mention that Saddam was planning to deceive us in the future and actually make WMDs inside of Iraq. Would you have preferred for Bush to have done nothing then have one of our later presidents have to deal with Iraq's new weapons program? Would you want another president to take the fall because Bush didnt make a move? No. Bush already took the fall for the WTC when Clinton let Bin Laden slip through his fingers, and I dont think he'd want another president to do the same thing.
I would've preferred that Bush got proof (not speculation) before invading a country under false pretenses. But that's just me, I'm sensible.
You might want to notice that residents of the Pentagon and a plane full of people in Pennsylvania were kiled on 9/11, not just the WTC. That's degrading of all the family members of people not killed at the WTC.
As I said, Clinton tried hard to get Bin Laden but failed. Bush had an even better chance and let untrained Afghan forces try and take him. He needs to get his damn priorities straight.
Bush could've prevented 9/11, ever think of that?
But did Clinton take the steps that Bush did to capture Saddam? No. Milosevic is still a free man and had Clinton had tried harder to capture Milosevic, or even Bin Laden, maybe we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now. What do I mean? Clinton had a chance to prevent 9/11 by capturing Osama and he didn't. Whether he tried vehemently or not, he handled it the wrong way. We had a very good idea of where he was and rather than send in special forces like she should have, he bombed the place and MISSED.
WHAT? Milosevic is still a free man? When was he broken out of jail? A few hours ago? That's misinformative slander to it's highest degree. In fact, Milosveic has been in jail for over four years! Research is good. (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0804/167541.html)
Bush had a chance to prevent 9/11 through reading the memo on August 6th, 2001, scheduling at least one meeting with his head of counterterrorism in his first eight months of presidency, and strengthening airport security after reading the memo. In fact, John Ashcroft told the FBI in May and early July that he "did not want to hear about the threats anymore.” (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911facts/) (Don't let the MichaelMoore.com address disuade you, the exact transcript of the 9/11 commission report on that is right there.)
Successful terrorist attacks in US under Clinton - 0
Successful terrorist attacks in US under Bush - 1
1. The USS Cole (under Clinton).
2. Two hotels were bombed in South Africa where a US embassy was located.
3. A hotel was attacked in Lebanon where we lost a couple hundred marines.
4. The WACO incident where the top 5 guys in the ATF lost their jobs because of Clinton mismanagement.
5. Oklahoma City (how could you EVER forget that?)
6. What about Somalia (Black Hawk Down, did you see it? That was Clinton Adminstration at it's finest).
USS Cole - Not in the US.
South Africa - Not in the US.
Lebanon - Not in the US.
WACO Incident - Terrorist attack?
Oklahoma City - Carried out through the masterminding of one or two people. You can't read people's minds when they act individually like that.
Somalia - Not in the US. And not a terrorist attack.
What the hell do you think Clinton can do? Control the entire world? As I said, in the US. Now, tell me what successful terrorist attacks have happened in the US during Clinton's years, and I'll give you a cookie. You might want to notice that Clinton also prevented an attack in 2000 during the New Year.
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 had to be in planning BEFORE Bush came into presidency. Things like that do not take only one year to plan. Think about it. This was being planned while Clinton was in office, and the 9/11 Commission proved this. And it was because of Clinton's security policies that it happened. I suppose you forgot that.
Clinton can't read minds, but he can prevent terrorist attacks from happening on his watch in the US, so his security and intelligence gathering must've been superb. :)
Alright, but relating to things overseas. Did you remember about Rawanda? Clinton while worrying about Serbia, at the same time allowed about a million people to be massacred in Rawanda. The hindus, massacred hundreds of thousands of tutus while the Clinton Adminstration stood idly. Where, in Serbia where the same thing was happening he spent 80 billion dollars.
Stop changing the subject. You were wrong about Kosovo.
So here's what I'm gathering, you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) to go into every single place that has a problem, and fix it, all at once? Things take time. Africa are starving. Go help them. Go spend $200 billion in Africa. In fact, Rwanda officials are being set in front of an international criminal tribunal (http://www.ictr.org/default.htm).
He has. While the economy went downhill towards the end of Clinton's presidency, even after a war, it is still beginning to go up thanks to George Bush. Instead of thinking we're losing jobs, think of how many we're gaining. The statistics don't lie.
That's right, statistics don't lie. Especially the ones which say the US is still in a around a half a trillion dollars in defecit, the largest in history (http://factcheck.org/article148.html). Clinton was at $236 billion dollars surplus around 1997-1999 (graph throws me off).
Paranoia that had reasoning because the new report clearly states that Saddam was planning to start up a new program and mislead inspectors while it was happening. Like I said before, would you have preferred for another president to deal with Saddam in the future? I doubt it.
Proof? That's speculation. Not good enough.
You look foolish when you make several claims such as the idea that NO terrorist attacks happened during Clinton. No offense, but it would appear you are living under a rock if you were to forget something like that.
And the final nail in the coffin; you look foolish when you completely misinterpret and misread many of the things I said. It would appear that you are the one living under the rock, and quite possibly getting bashed on the head with it a few times, if you're going to reply with innaccuracies.
And everything else you said from therein was shot down. Clinton isn't superman (Oklahama City). The only thing you're going to take is a stubborn guess before going to the polls on November 2nd.
One point i gotta make out of reading all this. Is that yah Clinton created jobs, while Bush isn't. How in the hell can you not create jobs when your country is at war? War time is as proven in history,as the easiest time for an economy to create jobs.
Originally posted by Ryan@Oct 13 2004, 04:43 PM
One point i gotta make out of reading all this. Is that yah Clinton created jobs, while Bush isn't. How in the hell can you not create jobs when your country is at war? War time is as proven in history,as the easiest time for an economy to create jobs.
War -> Economic loss -> Job losses.
Originally posted by Mark+Oct 13 2004, 03:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Oct 13 2004, 03:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ryan@Oct 13 2004, 04:43 PM
One point i gotta make out of reading all this. Is that yah Clinton created jobs, while Bush isn't. How in the hell can you not create jobs when your country is at war? War time is as proven in history,as the easiest time for an economy to create jobs.
War -> Economic loss -> Job losses. [/b][/quote]
Which is weird because wars in the past have boosted the economy. At least, I believe so.
Originally posted by Will+Oct 13 2004, 04:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Will @ Oct 13 2004, 04:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Mark@Oct 13 2004, 03:15 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryan@Oct 13 2004, 04:43 PM
One point i gotta make out of reading all this.* Is that yah Clinton created jobs, while Bush isn't.* How in the hell can you not create jobs when your country is at war?* War time is as proven in history,as the easiest time for an economy to create jobs.
War -> Economic loss -> Job losses.
Which is weird because wars in the past have boosted the economy. At least, I believe so. [/b][/quote]
Well, the war was triggered by 9/11, which took out a massive chunk of your economy, so I'll revise it;
9/11 -> Economic loss -> War -> Less jobs all along.
Originally posted by Mark+Oct 13 2004, 03:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Oct 13 2004, 03:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Will@Oct 13 2004, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by -Mark@Oct 13 2004, 03:15 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryan@Oct 13 2004, 04:43 PM
One point i gotta make out of reading all this.* Is that yah Clinton created jobs, while Bush isn't.* How in the hell can you not create jobs when your country is at war?* War time is as proven in history,as the easiest time for an economy to create jobs.
War -> Economic loss -> Job losses.
Which is weird because wars in the past have boosted the economy. At least, I believe so.
Well, the war was triggered by 9/11, which took out a massive chunk of your economy, so I'll revise it;
9/11 -> Economic loss -> War -> Less jobs all along. [/b][/quote]
I forgot about the fact that it was the World Trade Center. :lol:
Link04
10-13-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Derek+Oct 13 2004, 06:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Derek @ Oct 13 2004, 06:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Will@Oct 13 2004, 01:30 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Derek@Oct 12 2004, 10:18 PM
You want to know what's really stupid? Participating in a debate where the opposing side appears to forget some cold hard facts (I still cant get over the fact you forgot Oklahoma City). You did good in providing a link, but if you act ignorant enough to think 9/11 was the first terrorist attack in years, then there's no need to me to even waste my time.
Mark was talking about terrorist attacks within the borders of the country itself. Oklahoma City, while it was a terrorist attack, wasn't the same type of terrorist attack that we dealt with on September 11th. The attack in Oklahoma City was fueled by rage and hatred of an American citizen, not some dude with an airplane. I hope you see my point. :)
While that might have been the case, I believe that any planned event to kill a group of people (whether it be planes into a building or someone walking into a mall with a bomb strapped on them and triggering it) is a terrorist attack. He made it sound like there was absolutely no attacks in Clinton's presidency and that is just completely untrue.
Even with OK-City being done by an American, other ones such as the USS Cole were on American soil or targeted towards America. In my opinion, any tragic event aimed towards America, on our soil or not is a terrorist attack worthy of being put on a president's record. But that is just my view on everything. [/b][/quote]
Well, let's see how the U.N. defines a terrorist attack:
The Convention to Suppress Terrorist Bombings (58 signatories, 29 parties) has been signed and ratified by the UK. Canada and the US have signed, 12 January 1998 and have not ratified. The Convention to Suppress Terrorist Bombings defines in Article 24 a terrorist bomber as a person who:
"...unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates a bomb, explosive, lethal or incendiary device in, into or against a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or the destruction of such a place resulting in major economic loss."
The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (25 February 2000) by Article 2 makes it an offence to directly or indirectly provide funds to be used to carry out:
"...any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."
Judging by that, are we just as guilty?
Originally posted by Will+Oct 13 2004, 04:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Will @ Oct 13 2004, 04:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Mark@Oct 13 2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by -Will@Oct 13 2004, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by -Mark@Oct 13 2004, 03:15 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryan@Oct 13 2004, 04:43 PM
One point i gotta make out of reading all this.* Is that yah Clinton created jobs, while Bush isn't.* How in the hell can you not create jobs when your country is at war?* War time is as proven in history,as the easiest time for an economy to create jobs.
War -> Economic loss -> Job losses.
Which is weird because wars in the past have boosted the economy. At least, I believe so.
Well, the war was triggered by 9/11, which took out a massive chunk of your economy, so I'll revise it;
9/11 -> Economic loss -> War -> Less jobs all along.
I forgot about the fact that it was the World Trade Center. :lol: [/b][/quote]
Well, yes. But the cripping paranoia caused by the entire event didn't help either. Granted, the WTC collapse did help alot, it was the biggest factor.
Originally posted by Ryan@Oct 13 2004, 02:13 PM
How in the hell can you not create jobs when your country is at war? War time is as proven in history,as the easiest time for an economy to create jobs.
Its Bush for christ sakes. Its the man who chokes on a pretzel and can't answer a simple question, he's capable of screwing up anything
Originally posted by Todd+Oct 13 2004, 01:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Oct 13 2004, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ryan@Oct 13 2004, 02:13 PM
How in the hell can you not create jobs when your country is at war? War time is as proven in history,as the easiest time for an economy to create jobs.
Its Bush for christ sakes. Its the man who chokes on a pretzel and can't answer a simple question, he's capable of screwing up anything [/b][/quote]
LMAO, good one!
But i mean if you look at Hitler's reign, he created tons of jobs and all he did was start wars. But in all it should create more jobs beause supplies for the soldiers and such will be in great demand. But anyhow, I'm just saying that o matter what Bush touches it seems he screwes it up somehow.
hollowtubes
10-14-2004, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow@Oct 9 2004, 10:30 PM
other than that once-upon-a-time where he was attempting and making a valid effort to try to capture Usama bin Laden
He didn't want to capture Osama. That would p*ss off the Saudi's and we all know "Dubya" wouldn't wanna do that. ;)
One thing I hate is the fact that Bush keeps bringing up the fact that Kerry voted against the $87 billion bill. Is that the only thing Bush has left? To attack the Senator like that? The FIRST $87 billion bill used all $87 billion on armor and weapons and things like that. The SECOND $87 billion bill, which is the one Kerry voted against, gave a good portion of that money to Halliburton. Kerry had EVERY RIGHT to vote against that one since it was wrong.
That's sort of correct. If you got that information from my one post I wanna make sure it's completly correct: the "second" $87 billion bill had $20 billion of it going to the reconstruction of Iraq. And we all know how the Bush Administration handles that - They give it to Halliburton - Halliburton overcharges - Halliburton keeps extra money - Halliburton pays Cheney for helping them out. So "give $20 billion to Halliburton" wasn't written in the bill(obviously) but it's common sense that the $20 billion would have gone to Halliburton for the reconstruction of Iraq.
Also if it would have been a close vote to pass the bill Kerry and Edwards never would have voted against it. It was obvious no one on the senate was going to vote against supplying the troops with protective armor and ammunition so Kerry and Edwards took their 2 meaningless votes and used them as a type of protest. I just wish Kerry would explain that on national TV. Not many people know that's why he voted against it. All most of America knows is that John Kerry voted against a bill to supply our troops armor and obviously that doesn't sound too good. If he'd take 2 minutes or 90 seconds to explain that I think it would really help him and allow people to understand.
Did you know that Bush was only in office for nine months when the WTC fell? How was he suppose to be at fault for that even though it was mainly in all Clintons hands? Clinton let go a lot of things that would have pervented this whole mess.... but no one ever speaks of that -.0 Not to mention that under Clinton's rule he gave China US secerts.... Didn't know of this did you???
Have fun, and do the debate right this time!!!
Why would you even wanna protest like that? I see that as an all time low to your country. It's like some anarchy wanna-be punk crap thing; lets vote something down to prove our point that war is wrong even though it makes us seem heartless.
Oh! But wait.... any mindless, biased liberal-democratic, noncitizen of the United States of America would believe that. "He doesn't like the war so he voted down for the PROTECTION of our soliders that he SO MUCH SUPPORTS!" -.- I mean, come on... how lame are you to even put an excuse up like that? You're just biased. Chirst.
I'll tell you right now that you are all negitive. Why can't any of you say one positive thing about the other candiate? They've all done good things and they've all done bad things but then again... they are only HUMAN. Although, some bad things should be pointed out and you need to evaluate that person on that choice they made or choice they didn't make.
I told my father earlier today about someone who said, "Well, at least Kerry can change his mind about stuff, Bush won't change for anything because he always thinks he's right." Well, I said, "It's better to stand firm on what you believe then having to always second guess yourself. People critize Bush for not changing what he's said or done. People yell at him for it but yet he stands still. Having to always change your mind shows that you're never sure about anything you've thought of. That shows, to me at least, that you have a lot of self-doubt"
Who the hell wants that in a person who is suppose to run our country? I sure as hell don't want to.
And as for him choking on a preztel...... Does that mean anyone who's had some sort of accident like that you'll make fun of? Or has a speech impediment? What kind of liberal are you to do that even though all of your beliefs are to be completely against that.... I really don't understand that at all.
Bush isn't a bad guy, he's not at all like Hitler... Hitler put people in torture chambers and had his men kill people, "Just because he didn't like them," for their religion. I know you all have studied WW2 and I KNOW you guys aren't that mean to think someone is that bad as Hitler. Are you so blind what how much you hate someone to quickly last out comments like that? To be so down right arrogant to beat someone down like that?
And as I see here you all are clawing at each other like cats in this forum but have you noticed that at the end of the debates both canidates shake each others hand? They don't think one another is a bad person but more so bad judgement... but you guys make Bush out to be some babykiller (even though he is against aborations).
And that's another thing. I bet have you idiots didn't know that having an aboration can kill you...... Didn't know that, did you? It has serious affects on the womans innereds that will cause inner bleeding that can't be stopped, that or it'll make it to where she just can't have children anymore.
So, tell me... because you wanted to be a ho make it right for that? Bush even said that in some cases that aboration should be an opition. Example, Rape, imbreding, etc.... And, uhm... Kerry has that same belief pretty much but if the 15 year old girls wants to go screw around all she's gotta do is get Daddy to sign off on killin' her kid cuz she likes to have fun at a party. Get real.
I don't know what else to say to you all except that you are blinded by what reality is. Have you even watched what those monsters are doing to people over there? The beheadings? It's not just to use but to Italians, Chinese, Russians, etc... so they aren't out to just get us, they're out for all of those whom... aren't, "paying" them off. I.E. France, Germany...
Oh! Yes, U.N. the "Evil thing with a holy name"- (some politican back from WW1) had a project going about called, "Food for oil." Give us oil, we'll give you food. Isn't the U.N. so freakin' nice? -.0 Trust me, do some research and you'll read about it.
I was told about a letter put out by a marine today about how hellish it is there. He got off the plane and he saw there was no God to be found. He went into the heart where the real war is at, non-stop fighting and all... they win everytime, they save people who RUN to them! Everything... but you'll never hear about that on the news, radio. Why? Because war is bad, period. America never wins, people always die, our soliders are mean people that suck.
Trust me, I've heard that so many times that it makes me sick... no heart at all some people have.
And I've seen no back up from anyone. If this is to be a real debate you wise asses better grown up and find your resources like you all learned back in middle school when you did your first research paper. You can't prove crap unless you got your proof, and you know what? Every politican during a debate had some proof of one kind or another, I suggest you do the same.
Originally posted by hollowtubes@Oct 13 2004, 10:27 PM
Why would you even wanna protest like that? I see that as an all time low to your country. It's like some anarchy wanna-be punk crap thing; lets vote something down to prove our point that war is wrong even though it makes us seem heartless.
Oh! But wait.... any mindless, biased liberal-democratic, noncitizen of the United States of America would believe that. "He doesn't like the war so he voted down for the PROTECTION of our soliders that he SO MUCH SUPPORTS!" -.- I mean, come on... how lame are you to even put an excuse up like that? You're just biased. Chirst.
I'll tell you right now that you are all negitive. Why can't any of you say one positive thing about the other candiate? They've all done good things and they've all done bad things but then again... they are only HUMAN. Although, some bad things should be pointed out and you need to evaluate that person on that choice they made or choice they didn't make.
I told my father earlier today about someone who said, "Well, at least Kerry can change his mind about stuff, Bush won't change for anything because he always thinks he's right." Well, I said, "It's better to stand firm on what you believe then having to always second guess yourself. People critize Bush for not changing what he's said or done. People yell at him for it but yet he stands still. Having to always change your mind shows that you're never sure about anything you've thought of. That shows, to me at least, that you have a lot of self-doubt"
Who the hell wants that in a person who is suppose to run our country? I sure as hell don't want to.
And as for him choking on a preztel...... Does that mean anyone who's had some sort of accident like that you'll make fun of? Or has a speech impediment? What kind of liberal are you to do that even though all of your beliefs are to be completely against that.... I really don't understand that at all.
Bush isn't a bad guy, he's not at all like Hitler... Hitler put people in torture chambers and had his men kill people, "Just because he didn't like them," for their religion. I know you all have studied WW2 and I KNOW you guys aren't that mean to think someone is that bad as Hitler. Are you so blind what how much you hate someone to quickly last out comments like that? To be so down right arrogant to beat someone down like that?
And as I see here you all are clawing at each other like cats in this forum but have you noticed that at the end of the debates both canidates shake each others hand? They don't think one another is a bad person but more so bad judgement... but you guys make Bush out to be some babykiller (even though he is against aborations).
And that's another thing. I bet have you idiots didn't know that having an aboration can kill you...... Didn't know that, did you? It has serious affects on the womans innereds that will cause inner bleeding that can't be stopped, that or it'll make it to where she just can't have children anymore.
So, tell me... because you wanted to be a ho make it right for that? Bush even said that in some cases that aboration should be an opition. Example, Rape, imbreding, etc.... And, uhm... Kerry has that same belief pretty much but if the 15 year old girls wants to go screw around all she's gotta do is get Daddy to sign off on killin' her kid cuz she likes to have fun at a party. Get real.
I don't know what else to say to you all except that you are blinded by what reality is. Have you even watched what those monsters are doing to people over there? The beheadings? It's not just to use but to Italians, Chinese, Russians, etc... so they aren't out to just get us, they're out for all of those whom... aren't, "paying" them off. I.E. France, Germany...
Oh! Yes, U.N. the "Evil thing with a holy name"- (some politican back from WW1) had a project going about called, "Food for oil." Give us oil, we'll give you food. Isn't the U.N. so freakin' nice? -.0 Trust me, do some research and you'll read about it.
I was told about a letter put out by a marine today about how hellish it is there. He got off the plane and he saw there was no God to be found. He went into the heart where the real war is at, non-stop fighting and all... they win everytime, they save people who RUN to them! Everything... but you'll never hear about that on the news, radio. Why? Because war is bad, period. America never wins, people always die, our soliders are mean people that suck.
Trust me, I've heard that so many times that it makes me sick... no heart at all some people have.
And I've seen no back up from anyone. If this is to be a real debate you wise asses better grown up and find your resources like you all learned back in middle school when you did your first research paper. You can't prove crap unless you got your proof, and you know what? Every politican during a debate had some proof of one kind or another, I suggest you do the same.
I'm not going to try to waste too much time on you, but;
You're a stereotyping jerk constricted by the very innaccuracies you plagued this thread with. :)
Again;
First bill: $87B for military troops. Kerry votes yes to support troops.
Second bill (Revised): $67B for military troops. $20 million for government pocketing. Bill was going to pass unanimously, so he voted against it in protest. I'm sure if Kerry had any doubt the troops weren'tgoing to get money, he might have voted for it. It was a sign of protest.
We're negative? You signed up on these fourms out of the blue to spread negative things about us, like calling us anarchy wanna-be punks, and mindless biased liberal-democrats. So apparently it's wrong to have an opinion? Wrong to disagree? You're insane.
And don't give me that non-citizen crap, because I live in Canada. While you're off in Iraq for oil, North Korea and Iran are building nuclear missiles. A nuclear missile hits the US and gets who gets the updraft of the toxins? Guess whose oceans will be contaminated? Yeah, that's right, Canada. So don't tell me this is a US-exclusive thing because whatever happens to the US is felt by the whole world.
Ok, so let me get this straight; you call both candidates human because they do good and bad things, and then you support a candidate who constantly bags on the other candidate for "flip-flopping". So, by your logic, Kerry should be given a break because he's voted for some things then changed his mind. Yet the Bush administration constantly criticizes him. That screams hypocritical.
Who the hell wants someone who allows himself to change his mind on important issues? Many. An error in calculation should be fixed. Bush won't fix anything because he's always right. That's what you call obnoxious, naive, and ignorant. I'd much rather a leader of the free world who knows when he's wrong and doubts himself BEFORE he makes a mistake, unlike a president who makes a mistake and won't even apologize for it afterwards.
You throw around the term liberal like it's a bad thing. Everyone's afraid of that word for some reason. There's nothing wrong with it. People are thinking freely and openly and they're allowed to do that, so stop packaging them in a small box.
Nobody compared him with Hitler. Ryan just said jobs were created under Hitler and jobs weren't created under Bush. There's no link there, just a contrasting. Reading is your friend.
You're warned for flaming. Don't call people idiots. You have no tolerance for others opinions and that will lead you nowhere in life, unless you plan to be the head of the republican party. And I don't even think you would be qualified for that.
Oh, and your views on abortion are over-exaggerated. But you're entitled to your opinion. You should get real.
Odaton
10-14-2004, 01:50 AM
@ Mark: Holy sh*t that was amazing :lol:
@ hollowtubes: read Mark's post......As for beheadings from different countries, yes these terrorists are very dangerous people that need to be contained and eliminated. But you don't go about it by starting a war! It just gets everyone there even more angry, and more recruits for Osama.
Besides, why did Bush choose Iraq to invade? Al-Queda isn't there, not for sure! Why not go to war places like Syria or Lebanon, places that are known to harbour terrorists. Does any of them have resources the American economy needs to survive? Don't think so! Why not North Korea who admit to have Weapons of Mass Destruction and said they will use them if necessary...?
War is wrong, however you put it, its bad. Why can't we solve problems peacefully. We have improved racial tolerance, women's rights, homosexual rights (in parts of the world).....why do we kill our own kind? (big SOAD reference there)
hollowtubes
10-14-2004, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Mark+Oct 14 2004, 01:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Oct 14 2004, 01:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -hollowtubes@Oct 13 2004, 10:27 PM
Why would you even wanna protest like that? I see that as an all time low to your country. It's like some anarchy wanna-be punk crap thing; lets vote something down to prove our point that war is wrong even though it makes us seem heartless.
Oh! But wait.... any mindless, biased liberal-democratic, noncitizen of the United States of America would believe that. "He doesn't like the war so he voted down for the PROTECTION of our soliders that he SO MUCH SUPPORTS!" -.- I mean, come on... how lame are you to even put an excuse up like that? You're just biased. Chirst.
I'll tell you right now that you are all negitive. Why can't any of you say one positive thing about the other candiate? They've all done good things and they've all done bad things but then again... they are only HUMAN. Although, some bad things should be pointed out and you need to evaluate that person on that choice they made or choice they didn't make.
I told my father earlier today about someone who said, "Well, at least Kerry can change his mind about stuff, Bush won't change for anything because he always thinks he's right." Well, I said, "It's better to stand firm on what you believe then having to always second guess yourself. People critize Bush for not changing what he's said or done. People yell at him for it but yet he stands still. Having to always change your mind shows that you're never sure about anything you've thought of. That shows, to me at least, that you have a lot of self-doubt"
Who the hell wants that in a person who is suppose to run our country? I sure as hell don't want to.
And as for him choking on a preztel...... Does that mean anyone who's had some sort of accident like that you'll make fun of? Or has a speech impediment? What kind of liberal are you to do that even though all of your beliefs are to be completely against that.... I really don't understand that at all.
Bush isn't a bad guy, he's not at all like Hitler... Hitler put people in torture chambers and had his men kill people, "Just because he didn't like them," for their religion. I know you all have studied WW2 and I KNOW you guys aren't that mean to think someone is that bad as Hitler. Are you so blind what how much you hate someone to quickly last out comments like that? To be so down right arrogant to beat someone down like that?
And as I see here you all are clawing at each other like cats in this forum but have you noticed that at the end of the debates both canidates shake each others hand? They don't think one another is a bad person but more so bad judgement... but you guys make Bush out to be some babykiller (even though he is against aborations).
And that's another thing. I bet have you idiots didn't know that having an aboration can kill you...... Didn't know that, did you? It has serious affects on the womans innereds that will cause inner bleeding that can't be stopped, that or it'll make it to where she just can't have children anymore.
So, tell me... because you wanted to be a ho make it right for that? Bush even said that in some cases that aboration should be an opition. Example, Rape, imbreding, etc.... And, uhm... Kerry has that same belief pretty much but if the 15 year old girls wants to go screw around all she's gotta do is get Daddy to sign off on killin' her kid cuz she likes to have fun at a party. Get real.
I don't know what else to say to you all except that you are blinded by what reality is. Have you even watched what those monsters are doing to people over there? The beheadings? It's not just to use but to Italians, Chinese, Russians, etc... so they aren't out to just get us, they're out for all of those whom... aren't, "paying" them off. I.E. France, Germany...
Oh! Yes, U.N. the "Evil thing with a holy name"- (some politican back from WW1) had a project going about called, "Food for oil." Give us oil, we'll give you food. Isn't the U.N. so freakin' nice? -.0 Trust me, do some research and you'll read about it.
I was told about a letter put out by a marine today about how hellish it is there. He got off the plane and he saw there was no God to be found. He went into the heart where the real war is at, non-stop fighting and all... they win everytime, they save people who RUN to them! Everything... but you'll never hear about that on the news, radio. Why? Because war is bad, period. America never wins, people always die, our soliders are mean people that suck.
Trust me, I've heard that so many times that it makes me sick... no heart at all some people have.
And I've seen no back up from anyone. If this is to be a real debate you wise asses better grown up and find your resources like you all learned back in middle school when you did your first research paper. You can't prove crap unless you got your proof, and you know what? Every politican during a debate had some proof of one kind or another, I suggest you do the same.
You're a stereotyping jerk constricted by the very innaccuracies you plagued this thread with. :)
Again;
First bill: $87B for military troops. Kerry votes yes to support troops.
Second bill (Revised): $67B for military troops. $20 million for government pocketing. Bill was going to pass unanimously, so he voted against it in protest. If sure if Kerry had any doubt the troops weren'tgoing to get money, he might have voted for it. It was a sign of protest.
We're negative? You signed up on these fourms out of the blue to spread negative things about us, like calling us anarchy wanna-be punks, and mindless biased liberal-democrats. So apparently it's wrong to have an opinion? Wrong to disagree? You're insane.
And don't give me that non-citizen crap, because I live in Canada. While you're off in Iraq for oil, North Korea and Iran are building nuclear missiles. A nuclear missile hits the US and gets who gets the updraft of the toxins? Guess whose oceans will be contaminated? Yeah, that's right, Canada. So don't tell me this is a US-exclusive thing because whatever happens to the US is felt by the whole world.
Ok, so let me get this straight; you call both candidates human because they do good and bad things, and then you support a candidate who constantly bags on the other candidate for "flip-flopping". So, by your logic, Kerry should be given a break because he's voted for some things then changed his mind. Yet the Bush administration constantly criticizes him. That screams hypocritical.
Who the hell wants someone who allows himself to change his mind on important issues? Many. An error in calculation should be fixed. Bush won't fix anything because he's always right. That's what you call obnoxious, naive, and ignorant. I'd much rather a leader of the free world who knows when he's wrong and doubts himself BEFORE he makes a mistake, unlike a president who makes a mistake and won't even apologize for it afterwards.
You throw around the term liberal like it's a bad thing. Everyone's afraid of that word for some reason. there's nothing wrong with it. People are thinking freely and openly and they're allowed to do that, so stop packaging them in a small box.
Nobody compared him with Hitler. Ryan just sia djobs were created under Hitler and jobs weren't created under Bush. There's no link there, just a contrasting.
You're warned for flaming. Don't call people idiots. You have no tolerance for other sopinions and that will lead you nowhere in life, unless you plan to be the head of the republican party. And I don't even think you would be qualified for that.
Oh, and your views on abortion are over-exaggerated and overwraught with idiocies. You should get real.[/b]
We're negative? You signed up on these fourms out of the blue to spread negative things about us, like calling us anarchy wanna-be punks, and mindless biased liberal-democrats. So apparently it's wrong to have an opinion? Wrong to disagree? You're insane.
No matter what, you all were calling each other names. Read back through to posts and you will see it. Calling on another ill-informed, etc.... So, back off. I didn't say it was wrong to disagree
Why would you even wanna protest like that? I see that as an all time low to your country. It's like some anarchy wanna-be punk crap thing; lets vote something down to prove our point that war is wrong even though it makes us seem heartless.
I was refering to Kerry so next time you try and pull one over on someone know who the crap they're talking about. Alright? I was comparing the punk thing because it's a stereotype. Have you no sense of reality?
And don't give me that non-citizen crap, because I live in Canada. While you're off in Iraq for oil, North Korea and Iran are building nuclear missiles. A nuclear missile hits the US and gets who gets the updraft of the toxins? Guess whose oceans will be contaminated? Yeah, that's right, Canada. So don't tell me this is a US-exclusive thing because whatever happens to the US is felt by the whole world.
Fact, the US at current is building missle defence against those and even if they do hit us, it'll only hit the very bottom of California, so Mexico should be complaining much more than you. And if it's SSSUUUCCCHHH problem then complain to your government to go after them and don't leave the burndon on us.
Ok, so let me get this straight; you call both candidates human because they do good and bad things, and then you support a candidate who constantly bags on the other candidate for "flip-flopping". So, by your logic, Kerry should be given a break because he's voted for some things then changed his mind. Yet the Bush administration constantly criticizes him. That screams hypocritical.
Get use to it, Kerry does flip flop and even his own democratic buddies won't support him. He admits to it. How is it hypocritical? Explain that to me, please. I say they should because of what I said further on it:
Although, some bad things should be pointed out and you need to evaluate that person on that choice they made or choice they didn't make.
Should I reword that better for you to understand or not?
While you're off in Iraq for oil We have our own oil in Alaska but the hippies won't let us. Besides have you proof of us taking any of that oil? Have you known about was the UN was doing???
Who the hell wants someone who allows himself to change his mind on important issues? Many. An error in calculation should be fixed. ***Bush won't fix anything because he's always right. That's what you call obnoxious, naive, and ignorant. I'd much rather a leader of the free world who knows when he's wrong and doubts himself BEFORE he makes a mistake, unlike a president who makes a mistake and won't even apologize for it afterwards.
He's appoligized for things before already, or do you not recall those 13 words that the democrats hounded on him for?
*** Proof???
You throw around the term liberal like it's a bad thing. Everyone's afraid of that word for some reason. there's nothing wrong with it. People are thinking freely and openly and they're allowed to do that, so stop packaging them in a small box.
It's a way of belief or do you not know what those names all mean? Do you know what Regan Democrats are? Do you know what the Bull Mouse party was? Being liberal is no small box at all. I, myself, am liberal so don't think I feel it's a bad thing. Why take it as a bad thing? It's not! Christians are liberal because of the way they feel, I am Christian, it's all a name. I say, Liberal-Democrat because that's one part of the catagory, then you have, Liberal Conservatives, and Conservative Democrats. You don't know enough of what these names mean nor their catagories to debate those meanings enough.
You learn that all in U.S. History while in high school ;)
Nobody compared him with Hitler. Ryan just sia djobs were created under Hitler and jobs weren't created under Bush. There's no link there, just a contrasting.
That is where you'd be wrong. Many people say (mainly teenagers and college students) say that he is. They yell to the world that because there is war, because Bush is president, he is equal to Hitler. Look around at personal blogs, you will find that people have compared him to such.
You're warned for flaming. Don't call people idiots. You have no tolerance for other sopinions and that will lead you nowhere in life, unless you plan to be the head of the republican party. And I don't even think you would be qualified for that.
There is no flaming, idiocies happen in people whether you want to aknowledge that or not. Name calling happens and just because you are called something you instantly get offended. Have you read through your other posts to see what you have called others? Ill informed? Then just now you say I will not get anywhere in life because you automatically assume I don't except others opinions which just isn't true. I fully admit that lumping people into one catagroy above (the punk comment) might have been a little offending but, you know what? You can't say anything without offending someone... that's just life....
So you get real.
Oh, and your views on abortion are over-exaggerated and overwraught with idiocies. You should get real.
How? Prove this and I will gladly retract my statement but if you continue on riping me down on other statements I will demande an appology for your accusation. I want to know how they are exaggerated, how the are overwraught with their idiocies. If you are unable to, then damnit, you have no right to talk down on me.
P.S. I've posted elsewhere so don't even start. There is a political topic so people are attracted to it, I love Linkin Park because they've helped me through life. My friend gave me this link to this fansite so I checked it out. Deny me that if you'd like but you're just dumb in thinking I came here in defense of Bush.
I love Music.
<!--QuoteBegin--Odaton@Oct 14 2004, 01:50 AM
@ Mark: Holy sh*t that was amazing :lol:
@ hollowtubes: read Mark's post......As for beheadings from different countries, yes these terrorists are very dangerous people that need to be contained and eliminated. But you don't go about it by starting a war! It just gets everyone there even more angry, and more recruits for Osama.
Besides, why did Bush choose Iraq to invade? Al-Queda isn't there, not for sure! Why not go to war places like Syria or Lebanon, places that are known to harbour terrorists. Does any of them have resources the American economy needs to survive? Don't think so! Why not North Korea who admit to have Weapons of Mass Destruction and said they will use them if necessary...?
War is wrong, however you put it, its bad. Why can't we solve problems peacefully. We have improved racial tolerance, women's rights, homosexual rights (in parts of the world).....why do we kill our own kind? (big SOAD reference there) [/quote]
The world will never be prefect......
www.orgish.com
Look at that for the real world and how evil it can be. We've come a long way in a few hunderd years and we still have much further to go, so do other countries....
There's a big difference between totally disrespecting someone by fitting them into a box of stereotypes, and then shwoing someone's wrong and saying they're ill-informed because of their inaccuracies. And I don't care if you said it wasn't wrong to disagree, you're still stereotyping and flaming people because of their beliefs instead of peacefully debating maturely about it.
Ahh, yes. And protesting a bill you disagree with is now a crime? They're no punks or whatever blasphemous stereotype you want to throw at them. They're free-thinking individuals who stand up for what they believe in, they're not just yes-men. That takes guts.
You don't think that the longer you stay in Iraq, the more technology is being gained by these countries? They improve the technology with more time. I mean, if you're going to unjustly invade Iraq over non-existant WMDs, then why not a country who has proclaimed to have weapons? As you take your eyes off the ball, these countries gain technology. Technology that will soon bring nuclear missiles to New York and Washington, among other places in America.
And I won't be lobbying my parliament to fix the problems the US has. Canada can't stop nuclear missiles from hitting the US, that's asinine. It's just a shame we're forsakenly linked to your country. The burden is completely on the US, it's just the rest of the world who suffers the consequences for their tomfoolery.
Both candidates flip-flop. You've undoubtedly seen the lists. The difference between the two candidates is one admits when he's wrong and the other doesn't. You've got an honest man and an obnoxious man, I'll choose the honest man.
If you seriosuly care about me linking the Bush administration to oil, go read the Celsius 41.11 thread. I'm so tired of pointing out who derived this was on oil.
No, I don't recall those thirteen words. And Bush also said in the last debate that he does not regret a single thing he's done in office. That's not recanting or apologizing.
I know plenty of what liberal means, so don't get me wrong. But I'm just so used to republicans saying Kerry's "liberal" or democrats are liberal like it's a bad thing. That was more of a personal rambling than a jive at what you said, so if I misworded, I'll apologize. You know, like Kerry has.
As for the Hitler thing, you were either talking right about what Ryan said or you were going on one of your personal ramblings, because nothing was said in this topic comparing Hitler and Bush.
Call someone an idiot? Get warned. Face the music.
There are no right or wrong opinions on abortion, only opinions. Maybe I came off a little harsh but I still disagree with you. Abortion debates only lead around in circles and are not productive. Besides, this is not the topic for it.
hollowtubes
10-14-2004, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by Mark@Oct 14 2004, 02:29 AM
There's a big difference between totally disrespecting someone by fitting them into a box of stereotypes, and then shwoing someone's wrong and saying they're ill-informed because of their inaccuracies. And I don't care if you said it wasn't wrong to disagree, you're still stereotyping and flaming people because of their beliefs instead of peacefully debating maturely about it.
Ahh, yes. And protesting a bill you disagree with is now a crime? They're no punks or whatever blasphemous stereotype you want to throw at them. They're free-thinking individuals who stand up for what they believe in, they're not just yes-men. That takes guts.
You don't think that the longer you stay in Iraq, the more technology is being gained by these countries? They improve the technology with more time. I mean, if you're going to unjustly invade Iraq over non-existant WMDs, then why not a country who has proclaimed to have weapons? As you take your eyes off the ball, these countries gain technology. Technology that will soon bring nuclear missiles to New York and Washington, among other places in America.
And I won't be lobbying my parliament to fix the problems the US has. Canada can't stop nuclear missiles from hitting the US, that's asinine. It's just a shame we're forsakenly linked to your country. The burden is completely on the US, it's just the rest of the world who suffers the consequences for their tomfoolery.
Both candidates flip-flop. You've undoubtedly seen the lists. The difference between the two candidates is one admits when he's wrong and the other doesn't. You've got an honest man and an obnoxious man, I'll choose the honest man.
If you seriosuly care about me linking the Bush administration to oil, go read the Celsius 41.11 thread. I'm so tired of pointing out who derived this was on oil.
No, I don't recall those thirteen words. And Bush also said in the last debate that he does not regret a single thing he's done in office. That's not recanting or apologizing.
I know plenty of what liberal means, so don't get me wrong. But I'm just so used to republicans saying Kerry's "liberal" or democrats are liberal like it's a bad thing. That was more of a personal rambling than a jive at what you said, so if I misworded, I'll apologize. You know, like Kerry has.
As for the Hitler thing, you were either talking right about what Ryan said or you were going on one of your personal ramblings, because nothing was said in this topic comparing Hitler and Bush.
Call someone an idiot? Get warned. Face the music.
There are no right or wrong opinions on abortion, only opinions. Maybe I came off a little harsh but I still disagree with you. Abortion debates only lead around in circles and are not productive. Besides, this is not the topic for it.
There's a big difference between totally disrespecting someone by fitting them into a box of stereotypes, and then shwoing someone's wrong and saying they're ill-informed because of their inaccuracies. And I don't care if you said it wasn't wrong to disagree, you're still stereotyping and flaming people because of their beliefs instead of peacefully debating maturely about it.
Now, tell me... have you not stereotyped someone at all in any of these debates???
Ahh, yes. And protesting a bill you disagree with is now a crime? They're no punks or whatever blasphemous stereotype you want to throw at them. They're free-thinking individuals who stand up for what they believe in, they're not just yes-men. That takes guts.
Do you even know what that bill was?
And do you think I'm one of those, "yes-men" people?
You don't think that the longer you stay in Iraq, the more technology is being gained by these countries? They improve the technology with more time. I mean, if you're going to unjustly invade Iraq over non-existant WMDs, then why not a country who has proclaimed to have weapons? As you take your eyes off the ball, these countries gain technology. Technology that will soon bring nuclear missiles to New York and Washington, among other places in America.
I wasn't saying that you guys needed to blow them out of the water but if you feel it's "such" a threat then handle it. Korea has been making those things for years with what little money they do have; god forbid they waste a damned penny on their people for food. They don't.
Both candidates flip-flop. You've undoubtedly seen the lists. The difference between the two candidates is one admits when he's wrong and the other doesn't. You've got an honest man and an obnoxious man, I'll choose the honest man.
So you admit Bush is the honest man. ;) *note the sarcasm* We've not seen lies from the two of them because if that were to have been found then both wouldn't even be up there in the first place. *shrugs* That's the shere fact of it all.
No, I don't recall those thirteen words. And Bush also said in the last debate that he does not regret a single thing he's done in office. That's not recanting or apologizing. It was a bit ago that it had all happened but that was more focused on the inside of America, the rest of the world didn't really give two sh*ts. I see the fact that he did appologize which people keep saying he never has.
As for the Hitler thing, you were either talking right about what Ryan said or you were going on one of your personal ramblings, because nothing was said in this topic comparing Hitler and Bush. There was a mention about Hitler earlier in the thread so I brought it up.
There are no right or wrong opinions on abortion, only opinions. Maybe I came off a little harsh but I still disagree with you. Abortion debates only lead around in circles and are not productive. Besides, this is not the topic for it.
What should we debate further on in this then? It was talked about in the Second Debate so... I can only assume.
Derek The Infamous
10-14-2004, 03:01 AM
I was going to wait until I woke up tommorrow, and after I watched the debate (and got all the information I could find) to reply to every post concerning me in this thread (including Mark's response to my latest). However, the debate raging between hollowtubes and Mark has convinced me to say a few things and if you'd be so kind, I'd like to contribute my thoughts on what is currentely being said.
The name-calling arguement is definetely one that is null and void because I have been called "naive", "ignorant", "ill-informed" among many other things in the course of this debate. This debate was certainly not a peaceful one, and I am openminded enough to see that everyone has said some things they shouldn't have in this thread. Debates are a heated exchange between two people with very conflicting views. Sometimes things are said that can become a bit out of hand. We might not set out to say such things, but they can happen, and are sometimes simply unavoidable.
People disregard my comment about a democratic person voting for a Republican candidate for the first time as if it doesn't mean a thing. It means more then you can imagine. I've seen many democrats turn against Kerry because of the way he changes his mind on decisions, and a lot of the clients of my dad's who used to support Kerry are now going to vote for Bush on November 2nd. The fact is, Bush keeps bringing up Kerry's record because Kerry was absent well over 200 times to vote on important things. I saw what people were saying about Kerry months ago, because I respect your opinions on Bush but how can we trust a candidate who is not there to vote on the important issues? If he's not there while he's in Senate, I have large doubts that he will be there for us as a president. I have the feeling people will try to call me ill-informed after I say that, but the fact of the matter is...had Kerry been there all those times he was absent and not changed his mind so much, my vote could be drastically different right now. To me, Kerry lost his chance when the truth went against him.
The most bothersome fact of this election is that many Kerry supporters have tried to accuse us Republicans of being ill-informed or spreading false truths and yet Kerry supporters (including Democrats) are guilty of the same thing. For example:
The oil arguement is a dead arguement, and the fact that it keeps being returned to is almost depressing. I can guarantee you that America has not been getting oil from these supposedly 'invaded' countries because our gas prices are still going up. Gas depends on oil for it to be made, and yet we don't have enough resources to keep our gas prices down. Our main resource (Saudi Arabia) has been trying diligently to produce more because they are upset at the rising gas prices in America. Point is, if this attack on Bush was true, we wouldn't be HAVING problems with gas and our prices would be low.
You try to accuse George Bush of ruining our economy and yet many people I talk to have reported that they have been doing much better in the past couple of months. My family is now making enough money to provide for bills, and yet even after that, they still have money left over to enough some of life's little pleasures. When the stock market crashed in 2000, my parents had severe money issues. We are now doing the best we've done in years and we're not even in that demographic that Kerry is planning to tax. We are in the middle class that George Bush supports, and we are doing just fine. Maybe your family is having trouble, but we are greatful to Bush for what he's done to improve the economy because we are doing better than ever.
You come up with a conspiracy theory that Bush's adminstration was deceiving about and possibly involved in the 9/11 attacks. How can Bush be involved in an attack that took years of planning, long before Bush was ever president. Nobody can say they're going to attack a building and then do it right away. It takes years of careful planning and training to lead up to that point. If Bush was involved in 9/11 that would mean that me managed to plan it in under a year and that's just ludicrous. Before you try to market the Pentagon and 9/11 and Pennsylvania as lies, try to look at the facts like you so often tell me to do.
That's only a few of the false truths I've seen many Kerry supporters trying to pass off on to potential voters.
I don't care who you vote for, if you're voting for Kerry that's great. The fact is that you're excersing your right to choose and that's what America is all about. We are a country that lives off the freedom to choose, and the fact that teens are beginning to get involved in the election is a great thing.
In the past few elections, only a third of America was participating..if less. That's alarming when you think that some countries are fighting with eachother to get the freedom to choose. America has had a freedom in their hands all along, and yet they have been letting it slip through their hands.
The fact is, I feel wealthy for the first time in years, I feel my family is safe from those who plot against us (we haven't had an attack on US soil since 9/11) and I feel like Bush has done this country good. People said Bush was too young and didn't have enough experience (Senate etc.) to handle the job. However, our economy was dying towards the end of 2000 and even after a terrorist attack that crippled our economy (people said NY would go bankrupt) the economy is on the upswing in less than 3 years. How can that be a failure? If you ask me it is one of the greatest accomplishments I've seen by a president in my lifetime.
Please dont tell me the economy is in a sh*thole when my family is no longer having money troubles, and I myself am able to afford things I wouldn't have been able to back in 9/11.
I guess having more money in our pockets like Bush said was a failure then. It's not a claim, its the damned truth.
Today After Tomorrow
10-14-2004, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by Derek@Oct 14 2004, 03:01 AM
You come up with a conspiracy theory that Bush's adminstration was deceiving about and possibly involved in the 9/11 attacks. How can Bush be involved in an attack that took years of planning, long before Bush was ever president. Nobody can say they're going to attack a building and then do it right away. It takes years of careful planning and training to lead up to that point. If Bush was involved in 9/11 that would mean that me managed to plan it in under a year and that's just ludicrous. Before you try to market the Pentagon and 9/11 and Pennsylvania as lies, try to look at the facts like you so often tell me to do.
I'm not going to respond to much. Mainly just the whole 9/11 thing.
First to respond to that quote it wasn't necessarily George Bush who knew. It was members of his administration. AKA Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld - People who are always apart of the administration whenever a Republican is in office. Those particular people have wanted to invade the middle east as far back as when Bush Sr. was president.
I'd also like to note that i've never read any facts on how long it took "them"(whoever that may be) to plan the 9/11 attacks. It doesn't seem right to continuously say that "it was planned years before..." when there has never been any proof of that.
Onto the Clinton thing: Like Mark has said - Bill Clinton couldn't read minds. Maybe "they" were planning it back when he was president? Did he recieve any hard evidence that a terrorist attack inside the US would happen or was very possible? Not that I am aware of. Did George Bush recieve any hard evidence that a terrorist attack inside the US would happen or was very possible? Yes he did. That is the main point of this entire thing. Bush knew at least a month before the attacks happened and he did NOTHING to prevent it. He decided that his vacation was more important than 3,000+ American lives. Even after knowing this a month prior - Didn't Bush cut anti-terrorist funding on September 10th? So in a nutshell - Clinton: Not aware that a terrorist attack was being planned. Bush: Knew a terrorist attack was being planned and allowed it to happen.
One more thing I read from you, Derek, about John Kerry being absent a lot for Senate meetings. Kerry was only absent a lot during the year of 2003 which is also the year he decided and anounced that he was going to run for president. He still should have been there for the meetings but I believe that is why he was absent so much - He was planning for his presidential campaign. If you look at the rest of his career that year does not match the rest.
While talking about being absent from something important take a look at your beloved Bush. First year in office: On vacation about 46% of the time. His entire 3 3/4 years in office: On vacation about 40% of the time. While being a senator is important I think being the president is even more important and I don't think you should be on vacation that often.
Originally posted by Derek@Oct 14 2004, 12:31 AM
The oil arguement is a dead arguement, and the fact that it keeps being returned to is almost depressing. I can guarantee you that America has not been getting oil from these supposedly 'invaded' countries because our gas prices are still going up. Gas depends on oil for it to be made, and yet we don't have enough resources to keep our gas prices down. Our main resource (Saudi Arabia) has been trying diligently to produce more because they are upset at the rising gas prices in America. Point is, if this attack on Bush was true, we wouldn't be HAVING problems with gas and our prices would be low.
You try to accuse George Bush of ruining our economy and yet many people I talk to have reported that they have been doing much better in the past couple of months. My family is now making enough money to provide for bills, and yet even after that, they still have money left over to enough some of life's little pleasures. When the stock market crashed in 2000, my parents had severe money issues. We are now doing the best we've done in years and we're not even in that demographic that Kerry is planning to tax. We are in the middle class that George Bush supports, and we are doing just fine. Maybe your family is having trouble, but we are greatful to Bush for what he's done to improve the economy because we are doing better than ever.
You come up with a conspiracy theory that Bush's adminstration was deceiving about and possibly involved in the 9/11 attacks. How can Bush be involved in an attack that took years of planning, long before Bush was ever president. Nobody can say they're going to attack a building and then do it right away. It takes years of careful planning and training to lead up to that point. If Bush was involved in 9/11 that would mean that me managed to plan it in under a year and that's just ludicrous. Before you try to market the Pentagon and 9/11 and Pennsylvania as lies, try to look at the facts like you so often tell me to do.
I feel my family is safe from those who plot against us (we haven't had an attack on US soil since 9/11)
I would guess the ratio of voters who have switched parties is 2:1 for republicans turned democrats. This is thanks in part to Fahrenheit 9/11 and other books, news reports about rigging elections, and the overall idiocy Bush brings to the table that people are now beginning to notice.
Yet. Halliburton is currently helping the oil fields get ready for production and you will most likely have an agreement within the next few years with regards to oil. Iraq are your oil saviours, not the Saudi Arabians. And the oil discussion is not void, it's very front-and-center. While American forces are being deterred to guard oil fields, more and more soldiers and civilians are getting hurt in the streets of Baghdad and other cities. You can't stop all the attacks in the streets, but more forces = more neutralization. Less focus on oil, more focus on cleaning up this catastrophy.
When we say economy, it's not just pertaining to your family or the families around you. Economy is also funding for important programs, paying off debts, buying new things. While families around you have been going up in the last few months, I can guarantee their economic status has gone down in the last 2 years, they're just re-couping their losses. Over half-a-trillion in debt is not what the world calls economically stable. Especially with a couple hundred billion dollars in surplus in 1998-99
Kerry won't be taxing you in the middle class. In fact, when Bush gave that tax cut to the richest 1% in America, he could've used the money saved by these corporations to fund programs (I believe that's what was said) until 2075. He could've tzxed that 1% and given the whole other 99% of the US a tax cut. Kerry is much much more desiring for the rights of the middle and lower class. Bush just says he'll tax you as a scare tactic. Unless Bush is a mind-reader or fortune teller, he can't tell you if Kerry's going to tax the middle-class. It's not outlined in Kerry's guide, therefore anything the republican party says about that is lies.
If Bush cared about preventing 9/11, he would've taken the memo seriously, scheduled meetings with his head of counterterrorism, boosted airport security, and fired John Ashcroft for telling the FBI he didn't want to hear about any more tax cuts. Ashcroft is a guy who lost to a dead man in an election, what the hell is he doing as attorney general? The thing is, Bush didn't care, and should be blamed for causing your country such tragedy. 9/11 happens, and you still vote for the man who let you down, it's crazy. Don't look at how a terrorist attack hasn't happened since 9/11, look at how a terrorist attack happened on 9/11.
Economic cycles go like this: Boom (Clinton) -> Depression (end of Clinton-era/Bush) -> Recession (Bush) -> Recovery (Bush). It was only a matter of time after a depression and recession that a recovery would happen, Bush was lucky to be in office while it happened. He had little to no bearing on an economic uprise, it's just investors feeling safer to invest in America once again after the dust settled on the uncertainty of American financial security.
This should be carried over to the new debate thread. :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.11 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.