Well, I wouldn't go that far to judge him based on something I have no clue about, but you're right in the aspect that he should elaborate more. I think I made that clear to him.
Not really. Most of us who participate in the forum debates often do provide sources. And actually it does bother me that you have so strong an opinion about Bush's policies and yet can't elaborate any further... Sounds like a classic example of a child following their parent's views without thinking for themselves to me. [/b][/quote] believe me, if ya'll knew what i knew...you would agree with me not to elaborate - i would get banned. Would things be different if i were a democrat saying this? I won't let it happen again. FYI : I'm a "her" I think i'm done with this thread...bye
believe me, if ya'll knew what i knew...you would agree with me not to elaborate - i would get banned. Would things be different if i were a democrat saying this? I won't let it happen again. FYI : I'm a "her" I think i'm done with this thread...bye [/b][/quote] No, please, elaborate: tell us your opinion on this matter, and tell us why. You will not be banned on your beliefs.
Boo, I can promise you that you will not be banned for you beliefs. Whether that means anything to you or not, I very seldomly break promises.
can anyone tell me why Kerry was wearing that scream mask during the debate , oh yeah thats right it wasnt a mask its his actual face (I get confussed between the his face and the mask from scream ) all joking aside does anyone know how many debates these 2 are going to have.
There are 3 total debates. The next one is on the economy I believe. Not sure about the last one. Oh and Boo, you won't get banned for your opinions/facts/whatever, as long as you don't break any of the forum rules in doing so, if you haven't already I suggest you read them. And no, the fact that you are republican has nothing to do with the questioning you are receiving. Derek has made it his personal mission to make all democrats cite sources in posts of late (not a bad thing in my mind)
Something else interesting about the debate: I'm sitting here watching C-SPAN and Bush is talking to some convention of republicans as far as I can tell. He keeps on referring to Kerry saying that Iraq was the "wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time". Funny thing is, Kerry didn't say that. Looking at the transcript, Bush is the one who said those words. As far as I can tell, Kerry never said anything to that effect. He never said the war was a mistake at any point in his career (which is my main gripe with Kerry). What he is saying is that the plan, or lack thereof, that was used was a mistake. Bush is putting a totally different spin on this though, and repeated it not only throughout the debate, but now seems content to do it elsewhere. Guess I shouldn't be surprised he's doing this though...what can I expect from the man, to play fairly?
Well, I think a man who questions himself constantly (Kerry) is better than a fanatic who always feels what he is doing is right (Bush). Thats dangerous. But even so, Kerry doesn't look to me like a strong leader and I think that the Republicans have capitalized on that. Even though it IS true that the US election is basically Bush vs. Kerry, its really a shame that Ralph Nader has been thrown to the background of the political arena for all these years. He has always had a thoughtful, unwavering, and intelligent perspective. Reading some of his editorials he has a large socialist bent that most Americans would consider radical, but its up the alley of all those who have read Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, even supporters of Michael Moore. He is relentless in his criticism of the increasingly corporate controlled America. The Elite has been doing its job very well, its been able to shove aside any "radical" parties from the arena of public debate and therefore limit the acceptable limits of thought by the public. This there is no other choice but accepting a party (Democrats) that agrees with the Republicans on most issues...and most important of all, has no objection to the increasing gap of disparity between the rich and the poor. But someone does. Vote Nader.
No. Don't vote Nader. All of the people who vote for him would vote for Kerry if Nader wasn't on the bill. If those people vote for Nader, Kerry's votes will be taken away and Bush will be re-elected. It happened in 2000 and it will happen now. Daughter: I'm the President of the Senior class! Other daughter: How does an idiot like you get to be President?! Grandfather: FLORIDA.
Well, somethings needs to happen so that other forms of government can be recognized in America. More support for Nader means more support for the Left. Even if Bush does get re-elected, in the long run I think it will benefit America.
Four more years of Bush isn't worth it. [/b][/quote] I see your point Will Maybe because I don't have to vote I am saying that. But you have to admit Nader is the best person to be president. B)
Thats a good thing, to a degree. But then its another thing to be stubborn and insist you (not you personally, I'm just talking about the president) was always right when things clearly are not as well as they could or should be.
I see your point Will Maybe because I don't have to vote I am saying that. But you have to admit Nader is the best person to be president. B) [/b][/quote] I completely agree, Odotan Such a shame there isn't what most people would call a viable 3rd party candidate.
If bush isn't reelected, IT WILL benefit America. No doubt about that. <!--QuoteBegin--Shade@Oct 1 2004, 08:25 PM Something else interesting about the debate: I'm sitting here watching C-SPAN and Bush is talking to some convention of republicans as far as I can tell. He keeps on referring to Kerry saying that Iraq was the "wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time". Funny thing is, Kerry didn't say that. Looking at the transcript, Bush is the one who said those words. As far as I can tell, Kerry never said anything to that effect. He never said the war was a mistake at any point in his career (which is my main gripe with Kerry). What he is saying is that the plan, or lack thereof, that was used was a mistake. Bush is putting a totally different spin on this though, and repeated it not only throughout the debate, but now seems content to do it elsewhere. Guess I shouldn't be surprised he's doing this though...what can I expect from the man, to play fairly? [/quote] Kerry actually did say "The wrong war at the wrong time" during the debate. Actually it might have been "wrong place at the wrong time" but he meant basically the same thing.
I read about the debate in the newspaper....Why did it have to be in Miami if they didn't talk anything about Latin America?? People down here must be really pissed right now, just like me. :angry: I don't care if a beggar across the street wins, I only care that it benefits my country and my region, because Latin America is really in ruins right now, and the US don't do anything about it....but yes, when it comes to making deals with us and getting our support, we say no, and you get really pissed...."You love to think you're never wrong..." P.S. I'm only criticizing the government, not the people.