Second Presidential Debate

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp...101&floc=NW_1-T

!

 

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.

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.

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.

$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 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).

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.

NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy, and apologized for their mistake, not Clinton.

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.

Wrong. http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9908/14/kosovo.02/

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!

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 supported UN sanctions and multilateral talks with Iraq.
Bush kicked inspectors out and bombed the country because of a massive feeling of paranoia.

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 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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Point taken.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.” (Don't let the MichaelMoore.com address disuade you, the exact transcript of the 9/11 commission report on that is right there.)

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.

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.

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.

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. Clinton was at $236 billion dollars surplus around 1997-1999 (graph throws me off).

Proof? That's speculation. Not good enough.

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.

 

War -> Economic loss -> Job losses.