Second Presidential Debate

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

@ Mark: Holy sh*t that was amazing

@ 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)

 

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

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?

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.

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:

Should I reword that better for you to understand or not?

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???

He's appoligized for things before already, or do you not recall those 13 words that the democrats hounded on him for?

*** Proof???

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

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.

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.

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

@ 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....

 

Now, tell me... have you not stereotyped someone at all in any of these debates???

Do you even know what that bill was?
And do you think I'm one of those, "yes-men" people?

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.

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.

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.

There was a mention about Hitler earlier in the thread so I brought it up.

What should we debate further on in this then? It was talked about in the Second Debate so... I can only assume.

 

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.

 

This should be carried over to the new debate thread.