Topic awaiting preservation: Presidential Debate I

So anyone watch it last night? I thought Kerry did a good job and in my estimation won the debate. I should note I'm gonna vote Democrat anyway 99% of the time so I realize I'm a bit biased. But I thought he was a lot more articulate and did a good job of presenting another option.

Bush seemed always slumped over and it seemed like his answer to every question was something regarding Kerry's flip-flopping. I understand that's a big part of his message in this campaign but I think the edge of that knife is getting a bit dulled when he keeps hammering away like he did last night.

Any other opinions?



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

The debate will be broadcasted tonight on a French public channel. It will be translated, but I don't know yet if by translated they mean dubbed or subtitled.
[edit] Actually they'll only show the key moments of the debate :\ and then there will be a discussion with Dominique Moïsi, president of the French Institute of International Relations, Frank Tapiro, political analyst, and Steven Kaplan, American journalist and writer living in Paris. [/edit]

This noon, in the news it's been said that 3 polls have been done right after the debate and that they all said Kerry sort of won. However, I'll make my own opinion on the debate tonight.



(Edited by poi on 10-01-2004 20:49)

I would consider Kerry the winner myself.

Leading up to the debate most voters knew very little about the Senator. He wanted to use his time last night to highlight key differences between him and the President on foreign policy. I think he was very successful in doing so. The President was on the defensive nearly all the night and IMO came off as childish in his replies. I would estimate roughly 1/2 of his replies were either "Kerry flip flops" or "criticizing the war is wrong". The cut away views only hurt Pres. Bush. While Pres. Bush spoke, cameras showed a proper Sen. Kerry standing at attention listening to what the President had to say. While Sen. Kerry spoke, cameras showed a slumped over President making faces to amuse himself.

President Bush made very little use of his time last night. He had been saying all week that he was going to use his time to expand on key positions of his foreign policy. With him being on the defense all night he had very little time to say anything other then "stay the course".

Last night was clearly the highlight of Sen. Kerry's campaign. It should have been a slamdunk for Pres. Bush though. For a man who throughout the last four years has had great difficulty in remembering names, places and statistics, Pres. Bush really only had to memorize names and places for two countries: Iraq & Afghanastan. He didn't stumble in his speech but he didn't make the most of his best issues. I think whats really going to hurt Pres. Bush though is his going negative today. Rather then talking about his policies, he's still telling the world the the Senator is a flip flopper. That might work for party-line Republicans but not the swing voters.

Four more years.

^^^ Insider said exactly what I had to say.

-----------------------------------------------
TiNNoS || My Forums || My Gallery

Which addresses the topic of conversation very well.

It's that kind of indepth analysis that drives this country onward!
.

I did not watch the debate, as for me it is very simple: Bush has to go.

Kerry is nothing resembling my ideal candidate, but I will vote for him this time around. Everything I have read or listened to points at Kerry having decidedly come out ahead in all respects, which doesn't really surprise me.

Bush has relied on the same trick over and over and over, and continually (with closer and closer frequency) jumps into the public eye with a wuick word of denial whenver anything happens.

How often can people be lied to and given the run around before getting sick of this guy?

Bleh. It's a sad sad choice though, far moreso than in years past.



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-02-2004 04:55)

There is an evil in the middle east. This evil is so powerful that has brainwashed an entire population into believing that if they kill Americans, they get rewarded in the after life.

That's nice, isn't it? I really want those people walking on the face of this earth.

Nobody likes war. Nobody wanted to go to war, but that's what it has come down to. I don't support the war, but damnit I accept it. I can accept this war, for the better of mankind. Can you?

As long as those people still exist on the face of this earth, I support Bush.

Keep in mind that Kerry was shown the same intelligence as Bush, and he also voted to go to war. Why isn't he compared to the likes of Bush in that way? Oh that's right. Bush is just another warmongering pig, set out to rig oil for our country. That's it.

You make a lot of ignorant assumptions in that statement Insider. I don't know where to begin, honestly...

However, the reason I cam back to this thread: there is a full video of the debate available at the BBC for anyone interested - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3708656.stm#

Well, if you ever expect for me to learn, please begin somewhere.

Well, I was extremely tired and saw only ~45 minutes of the debate.

However, I can't count the number of times Bush repeated his leitmotiv ( "the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein", "the best way to defend us is to stay on offensive", "a chief commandant can not change his mind" ). I expected to hear him answering clearly to the questions of the mediator. He also repeated several times that 100.000 Iraqi people are already trained to join the new Iraqi police and army. Pres. Bush said the US are not alone in Iraq, the Great Britain and Poland are there too among ~30 other countries at a lower level of participation. That's great but still far from the 191 member states of the UN. Bush was a bit too much on the defensive, and begged several times to answer when he wasn't originally supposed to.

On the other hand, I found Kerry more clear and calm. He explained again, if need be, he approved the eventuallity of the war as it was presented and on the basis of the documents provided by the intelligence services and the Bush administration and at the condition that the war remained a last resort option. It's proved now, if need be (again), that these documents were bogus, and the 9/11 commission found no link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Kerry's intend to create some links with the muslim community and relive the alliances between the US and the UN and NATO is fair and seems to be the way to go. The US can't win the "war on terror" alone. At a moment, he reminded the episode of Cuba with the President Kenedy and the French President de Gaulle. Alas, I fear President Bush and his administration have created a precedent with the mess about the war in Iraq. It'll take many years before the credibility of the US returns to its initial level.


It makes no doubt that I already had an opinion on President Bush, but I haven't yet heard the arguments of Senator Kerry.
I expected to hear the arguments of both candidates to adjust my opinion and why not change my mind. Actually what I've seen of this debate confirmed my opinion of Bush, and reassured me about the credibility and intend of Kerry.

DL-44: thank you for the link. I'll try to watch the full video.



(Edited by poi on 10-02-2004 08:25)

quote:

---

There is an evil in the middle east. This evil is so powerful that has brainwashed an entire population into believing that if they kill Americans, they get rewarded in the after life.

---

Last time I checked, Malyasia was not in the middle east. Has that changed? And "they" (please explain who "they" are) have not brainwashed an entire population - which population? Just what the hell are you talking about?

You better bring out your facts, boy, before throwing stuff like that out there!

quote:

---

Nobody likes war. Nobody wanted to go to war, but that's what it has come down to. I don't support the war, but damnit I accept it. I can accept this war, for the better of mankind. Can you?

As long as those people still exist on the face of this earth, I support Bush.

---

Oh for crying out loud! What does the war in Iraq have to do with this? Nobody wanted to go to war? You need to seriously examine the facts. Bush was so hot to go to war in Iraq, it is not funny. And you accept it, for the "better of mankind"? Are you being serious?

Fact is, it is only for the "betterment" of Iraqi's. That is the only thing, the sole thing, that removing Saddam from power, has served. Before that, the Iraqi's never were a threat to America.
Fact is, that before the Iraq War II, we had fewer enemies in the the region of the middle-east. Now, we have many more, who are willing to blow themselves up, just to kill americans. And we are squarely to blame for the situation, for WE created it. It is time that you, and every other american, that doesn't understand that, to GET THAT IN THEIR FUCKING HEADS! Iraqis were not blowing themselves up, to kill americans, before the Gulf War II.
Fact is, that a two or more front war, is ALWAYS a bad idea, militarily, strategically, and perhaps more important, ECONOMICALLY!

The four fronts that America is now "fighting", is draining the economic resources of America faster than anything before in American History. And Bush is squarely to blame for it.

Now, I don't know if Kerry will be better. But I do know this - He CAN'T be worse! Because it isn't possible, to do worse. Bush's "reign" has been the most incompetent one that America has ever had. We haven't eradicated the Enemy, that attacked our soil, instead, we have opened more fronts, with peoples that had nothing to do with the Enemy, and created more enemies in the process! There are now more people howling for american blood than ever before.

Second, the economic impact of all this has really not yet to be seen - all this warfare, etc comes with a very, very hefty pricetag. As long as war is going on, people in America rarely stop to think about the costs...but they are HUGE! Enormous! They make "Reaganomics" look like peanuts!

So, Insider, the next time, you decide to shoot your mouth off, without first engaging your brain, stop and think, for a change.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-02-2004 12:46)

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-02-2004 12:47)

Some people should reconsider their opinion about who was actually brainwashed


I didn't find the time to watch the whole debate, nonetheless from what I've seen I'd say it represents well my feeling about the presidential debate.

During the last few months, what have we heard from G. Bush ? Did he mention measures in the United States to reduce the harm done by the war ? No, he even maintained his policy about Iraq, even though the situation there is clearly in a dead-end. The only imaginative actions he was involved into concerned criticizing J. Kerry. And some Americans would reelect a president who is, as pointed above by WebShaman, a threat to their security ? Well any coherent person would try to avoid this. I don't know much about J. Kerry, however he seemed more aware of the situation in Iraq and willing to do something about it. During the debate, he stressed that things must be done differently and proposed new ideas, wheras G. Bush was still blindly sticking to his policy...

So on the one hand, we have a president who proved he was able to weaken efficiently a country economy and its position in the world by an unjustified war, not to mention his lying to Americans. On the other hand, we have a potential president who proved nothing except he is more dynamic and he wants to improve the situation. I'll be interested in knowing how many Americans will choose option #1...

Last week, I saw in The Guardian Weekly a short scenario illustrating the "war on terror". On the first image, one could see G. Bush and D. Rumsfeld riding the same horse and entering a river. The word "year 1" was written on a sign, and G. Bush was saying : "Listen, if you really want to win the war on terror..."
On the second image, "... you don't want to change horses in the middle of the sream". The horse had water to the knees, and the signs "2nd year" and "3rd year" were next to it.
On the last image, one could see that the river was in fact a giant sea, and the signs were going further than the horizon. Rumsfeld was saying "Ok... But let me know when we get to the middle of the stream".

I thought it pretty much represented the situation in Iraq. Clearly, the United States need a strong president who would take effective measures rather than maintaining a blind policy that will end up in a wall. In my opinion, Kerry may not be an excellent president, but he represents the only hope you have.


----
If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.



(Edited by Moon Shadow on 10-02-2004 16:52)

I'm just curious poi, when they airred the debate in France was it in English, dubbed, or w/ subtitles? If it was dubbed or w/ subtitles I'd be very interested in obtaining a copy of what the French actually saw/heard.

Transcripts of most presidential and vice presidential debates, including this one, are available on the site of theCommission on Presidential Debates.

Jestah: Alas it was dubbed but the original sound was still hearable. Personnaly I'd prefered some subtitles as the original tone of the speakers is not always well transposed in a dubbing.

I quickly checked the forum of France2, and read a post saying that the dubbing of Kerry did not reflect the arrogance and hardness of his purpose. Unfortunately I must say the forum of France2 is not quite functionnal ( it looks more like the online version of a mailing list ) and lean to attract a lot of trolls. As I haven't seen the whole show in French and English I can't confirm that slight difference of tone.

So far, I haven't found a full transcript translated in French.

i'd be interested to hear thoughts on this:
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/100104v1.wmv

its some footage of the debate along with other previous statements from kerry. i do think that the "flip-flops" have been blown out of proportion, yet some of his extremely contradictory statements in this (particularly with regards to iraq and very related to some of the observations in this thread) really do bother me, numbers 2 thru 5 in particular. its about 6 minutes long if anyone wants to give it a watch.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

Insider said: Keep in mind that Kerry was shown the same intelligence as Bush, and he also voted to go to war. Why isn't he compared to the likes of Bush in that way? Oh that's right. Bush is just another warmongering pig, set out to rig oil for our country. That's it.

---

Doesn't make a difference because Bush is a "REPUBLICAN." Kerry was for the war, saw the same intelligence, and voted for the use of force and it wasn't until the Democratic primaries that he started constantly switching positions. That is why he stands up there with the president and not Howard Dean. Oh, and there was that whole insane scream thing...

Nonetheless, IMO, nothing new was said at the debates, SOSDD. More of the same rhetoric from both sides, but if I had to call it on substance of words, I have to go with Bush. President Bush clearly outlined his plans to succeed in Iraq,a nd was more convincing on how to deal with North Korea. He did not waver on his convictions of why he went into Iraq without the UN. He also emphasized what he was doing to bolster homeland security.

Kerry was a better debater but didn't have any meat to defend himself. Basically, he won on the overall delivery but lost on the contents. Kerry was wrong with his facts but he still stated them well. If I didn't KNOW those facts were wrong.....I would've believed him. I believe this is why the polls show Kerry as winning the debate, because most people are just now tuning in, as seen with the record breaking viewership of 62 million or so in the states alone. Well, that and the fact that the DNC sent out a lett to all its subscribers asking them to go to all the online polls immediately afterward and vote for Kerry, links included.

We all know that Bush is not even close to the most eloquent of speakers. Is that so important when Kerry lied and misconstrued multiple times, and when asked the very important question for specifics on his Iraq plan, he changed the subject and then attacked Bush's policy, in effect never answering the actual question. I have followed this thing from the beginning and every time he is asked for a "specific" plan on anything he does the same thing. "Well, before I answer that let me just say if I may...." One has to wonder what he would have to say once Bush is gone, because that seems to be the only thing his rhetoric covers.

Bush has been accused of lying as well, the difference is that JK's lies can be pointed out and proven rather easily; you only have to listen to him. The term flip-flopper is a bit overused in my estimation, but it is wholly and unarguably accurate.

Kerry said that he had never used the "Harshest word" in describing Bush. That word being "Liar." Another outright falsehood from Kerry. Either that or the man has a horrible memory. I can recall many times him using the phrase "Lied and misled" in referring to Bush and his administration. He said exactly that at a rally I attended at PittU here in PA. (I was one of "those people" in the back holding a Bush-Cheney 2004 sign.) Why has noone in the mainstream called him on that?

As far as Iraq goes and where Kerry stands, here is a 12min documentary entitled "Kerry on Iraq" which pretty much sums that up. If you are for Kerry, do yourself a favor and watch it. It is a collection of media appearances on John and his many stances on Iraq. http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC091604.wmv

Actually let me digress for a moment if I may, about Iraq; the "threat" and "harboring terrorists" factors specifically, this did not even seem to be an issue back before Bush decided to go over there. It was an established "fact." Even the so-called left wing media "lied." Here is a cut from an ABC news report back in 1999.
http://www.ramasaxdesign.com/asylum/ABC_news_1999_OSB_Iraq.mp3

Anyone paying attention over the years will probably remember many more like this.

Key quote, "Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists." The intelligence agencies and media were saying the same thing all along, that is until Bush came into office and decided to do what should have been done back in the first gulf war. 17 UN resolutions later without any change in Saddam's policies, somebody finally did what needed to be done. The UN had become akin to the old "Boy who cried wolf" story and at this point Saddam was hardly taking them seriously.

You can read up on the rest of Kerry's inconsistencies at the debate here, sources included.
http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/Read.aspx?ID=3706

Thing is, it didn't start with the debates and goes back many years. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want a guy in office who want us to pass a "global test" in order to protect our nation. What the hell is all that crap about. Sorry, no, the security of the US should not be subject to an ok from France, Germany or any other nation for that matter. And if positions were reversed, I would be ok with any nation acting in its best interests.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-03-2004 00:17)

Ramasax: "Sorry, no, the security of the US should not be subject to an ok from France, Germany or any other nation for that matter.".
I agree. But I still don't see how Iraq represented a threat to the US.
I'd rather have a guy in the office who use the big alliances for the good of everybody than a guy who go beyond the opinion of his friends ( who want the best for him and his country, really ) and makes more harm than good.

Regarding the "flip-flop" attitude of Kerry about Iraq, I think he's been clear on the reasons of his declarations during the debate. However, Kerry does not have the monopoly of the "flip-floppers", I remember seeing a video of Condeleca Rice and Collin Powel saying in early 2002 that Iraq was absolutely not a threat and did not have WMD, then ~6months later they suddenly changed their mind and said Iraq had some stocks of WMD and represented a severe threat. I may have that video on a backup of my desktop. The Bush administration even tried to make believe Saddam Hussein tried to buy some Uranium to build a nuclear wepon. At the time, and so far, only the American intelligence services had provided such informations.

Don't listen to Ram, poi. Same old rhetoric, and no substance, as always.

Iraq has nothing to do, with Al-Qaida (those responsible for what happened), or Afghanistan, for that matter.

And it isn't, at least for me, that I think Kerry is much better than Bush...just that he can't be as worse. It isn't a vote for Kerry, it is a vote against Bush.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

WebShaman: Don't listen to Ram, poi. Same old rhetoric, and no substance, as always.
I know, I know.

And it isn't, at least for me, that I think Kerry is much better than Bush...just that he can't be as worse. It isn't a vote for Kerry, it is a vote against Bush.
To some extent this situation makes me think to what the left wing voters felt during the last presidential election in France. Their lack of focus on their candidate in the 1st round lead us to choose in the 2nd round between Jacques CHIRAC, ( supposed to be in the ) right wing, and Jean Marie LE PEN, definitively in the far right. No need to say that even though voting for a right wing candidate hurt them, the choice was crystal clear.

I don't know about winners, but the real losers in this "debate" are the people of America. These debates are conveniently exempted from the campaign finance laws, and are supposed to be non-partisan. Ironic that only two (virtually indistinguishable) candidates are invited, seems more like it's bipartisan, and therefore illegal. The sponsors of the debate are also given exemptions from the tax laws, permitting large, tax deductible, corporate contributions. Nothing like ninety minutes of national airtime paid for by a loophole in the campaign finance laws and the tax payers money, to keep the population under-educated.

Let's sum up what we know:

- Both candidates have supported, continue to support, and have virtually identical plans to further the war.
- Both candidates support the Patriot Act.
- Both candidates support unjust gun control laws.
- Both candidates will work to create a larger government, with more potential for abuse.
- Neither candidate is qualified to be the President.

Bush failed miserably in his first four years, there?s no denying it. But if you think voting for "the lesser of two evils" is the right choice here, then you're far worse for America than the people who follow their media tailored views. If you vote for evil, you get evil. If you want to make America better, vote for a good candidate (even if you're the only one who does, the country needs to start somewhere).

If the markets turn around, and the dollar increase, and if inflation is way down, and growth is way up four years from now. It wont be the result of Bush's, or Kerry's plan for America. It?ll happen in spite of it, it'll be because of the creative, and innovative people of America.

Look for an alternative:
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.gp.org/

Dan, those are all very nice sentiments. And I agree with them, 100% down the line.

Problem is, voters don't actually "vote" the potential candidate(s) into office - the electorial college does. And that is where the problem inheritantly lies. It has happened, that the so-called "Popular vote" was with one candidate, but the other canditate became president, because of the "Electorial vote".

America is rutted in a two party system.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Poi & WebShaman: One could say the same of the garbage you two spew as well. Anyone saying they are voting for Bush is brainwashed, spewing rhetoric, stupid or all of the above. Is that not right pinkos?

quote:

---

Poi: At the time, and so far, only the American intelligence services had provided such informations.

---

Is that so Poi? What about the Russian intel? The British intelligence? All the intelligence gathered not under GW Bush, but under the Clinton administration? All saying the same thing at the time, but I guess that is all rhetoric and Bush, whom people of your ilk think has an IQ ranging somewhere in the 2 digit level, was the grand master ringleader of the whole conspiracy.

Frankly though, I really don't care what you have to say Poi, because your country was selling weapons to Saddam even as recently as 2002. Your country gave passports to fleeing Iraqi officials. Your country worked with the Iraqi secret service.

And worst of all, your country regularly gave them intelligence on the plans of the US up to and into the war. How many american lives has your country's treachery caused?

History will record that while the United States and Britain chose to be Saddam's prosecutors, France chose to be his defense lawyers, co-conspirators, and friends. Just who are your allies? The people who sacrificed tens of thousands in your liberation from Nazi Germany or the man responsible for the genocide of his own countrymen. I guess your country's choice has been made known. If I had to guess I would say France considers the US the biggest threat to so-called world peace. Is that accurate poi? Not that it matters, face it you are irrelevant.

You want the best for my country yet stab us in the back every chance you get...whatever.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-03-2004 20:31)

believe what you want. I think there's no way to open your mind to a different vision of the world.
I still don't see how France stabs the US in back by not supporting a war that was avoidable and decided on wrong/fake intelligence.

Note to self: I should have turned the ignore mode on for Ramasax's post in Philosophy and other Silliness since a while.

First Ram, I spoke facts. Get your shit straight, boy.

Second, Pinko?

You are so far from the mark, it is pitiful. I am a decorated war veteran (first Gulf War) with over 11 years of military service for the USA, over half during the Cold War. So shut the fuck up. You really should first find out who you are dealing with, and what the hell you are talking about, before you shoot your big mouth off.

Dumb ass.

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-03-2004 21:16)

So when you shoot your mouth it is ok? You can express your views and I can't? You're a moderator here, if you are so much against my freedom to express my views and opinions then ban me. You obviously have no intention on trying to counter my arguments with anything but lines like:

Don't listen to Ram, poi. Same old rhetoric, and no substance, as always.

Poi: Your vision of the world sucks IMO.

Oh and John Kerry broke the debate rules:

quote:

---

Section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns states:

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.... Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium..."

---

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/winners-never-cheat.html

Not that it matters, anybody but Bush right?

Ramasax

uh.......so........we should stick with Bush them because kerry "cheated" at a...........debate?????

Forgive me if I fail to muster any response other than total indifference to that tidbit....


.

What bothers me with this discussion is the fact that anyone pro-bush seems to think that anyone anti-bush is only anti-bush because they're anti-war, and want kerry because we must think he is anti-war.

I am vastly confused as to where that line of thought comes from.

Then there's the whole "pinko" thing. Like those of us who enjoy freedom, and don't want someone in office who thinks he's on a 'mission from god' and can do whatever he wants must be communists or socialists...

Sounds a little backwards to me.

quote:

---

Problem is, voters don't actually "vote" the potential candidate(s) into office - the electorial college does.

---

The electoral college works as a check, it's a positive thing. It prevents Portland, Oakland, Seatle, San Fran, NYC, and Orlando from having control over the election. Why would any candidate suggest any propositions that don't affect the inner cities? What motivation would they have to keep businesses strong, keep taxes low, and expand global trade, if all they had to do was write larger welfare checks to win the election.

I can't say I am surprised at the reaction to the "cheat sheets." It is a sad day when a man who has no honor and cheats at a debate can get away with it. Basic message you're sending me is that it's ok because Bush is the incumbent. It is so much larger than cheating at a debate. It is cheating the American people, fooling them to make them think you are more than you really are. Rules are rules. You break 'em, you should pay the consequences. The fact that he is running against Bush should not exempt him from such things. I would say the same thing if it were Bush that had done the cheating.This is worse than RatherGate.

quote:

---

What bothers me with this discussion is the fact that anyone pro-bush seems to think that anyone anti-bush is only anti-bush because they're anti-war, and want kerry because we must think he is anti-war.

---

And you anti-Bush folk are so quick to think those who are pro-Bush are beneath you and contemptable. I realize Kerry is not anti-war, well not at the debate anyway. . . His anti-war rhetoric was a ploy to get voters away from Dean, once done he went back to his traditional teeter-tottering. Coming from a man who can stand up in front of the American public and say he has "had only one position on the war in Iraq." I know you won't watch the video I posted above, but that has actual footage from the past. Not rehetoric or campaign lies, just Kerry talking both sides of the argument.

What Kerry voters also fail to explain is how John Kerry will be any better, because he does not have a plan. Nothing solid, his plan sounds a lot to me like what Bush has been doing all along. 75% of his campaign rhetoric begins with the line: "This administration..."

As far as the electoral collage goes, the Democrats would love to get rid of that because they love writing checks to those who can but won't help themselves.

quote:

---

A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
--Alexander Fraser Tytler

---

Ramasax

quote:

---

Basic message you're sending me is that it's ok because Bush is the incumbent.

---

I am at a total loss as to wwhat that has to do with anything, and how anything I said reflects that.....?

And all of your anti-kerry rhetoric is meaningless at this point, since I have never said anything that was particularly supportive of Kerry.

I am also not a democrat.

As always, you make a lot of grand assumptions which seem to be based primarily on that chip on your shoulder...

I feel bad since I was gone that night and did not witness the spectical of the debate, but I did get to watch a spoof of it on SNL. Quite funny. I would bet though that Kerry won since he is more calm and cool, and Bush isn't a very good speaker. I think that we are in trouble whoever get elected, but that is just my personal opinion. I think we will either have a draft to go fight some more in the middle east, or a draft so we can repel other countries off our borders. I think it is really sad when neither presidential candidate is respectable and honorable.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Ram, pull on your ears, until you hear that big popping sound - of your head finally freeing itself from that place between your legs. where you stuck it

As DL already mentioned, I am not an "avid" supporter of Kerry. I even mentioned so.

Bush has so many problems, and has messed up so many things, it is hard to know where to begin.

The big differences between the two? I don't think that Kerry would have told Powell to "sit" on his ideas of how a war should be run, and let a total idiot like Rumsfeld first get our men and women in uniform killed, before letting Powell have his day. That is just politcs, but these types of politics cost lives.

I don't think Kerry will be as "uncaring" to the environment as Bush, and I don't think Kerry will treat our allies (what's left of them, anyway...thanks Bush) like the Bush Administration has.

Bush had his chance, 4 years worth, and has failed to show (to me) that he is anywhere near eligible, for a second term. Normally, one tosses the garbage out when it starts to stink.

And I am a Republican, you moron! I am what one calls a moderate Rebulican. We used to have a solid voice, until Bush came along with the Religious Right, and stomped all over it.

As for banning you? Are you serious? I am of the Old Asylum, I don't believe in banning. I do believe in verbally punishing someone, who bites off more than they can chew, and who insults others, without first engaging their brain. Now, either you

a) Go up, and actually read the post I posted, to Insider - and refute my facts (and quit insisting, that they are the "same" as the gibberish that you posted).

or

b) At least lube your neck, so that you can, on occasion, reverse your rectal-cranium inversion, for topics such as this one.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-04-2004 06:54)

quote:

---

Bush had his chance, 4 years worth, and has failed to show (to me) that he is anywhere near eligible, for a second term. Normally, one tosses the garbage out when it starts to stink.

---

I'd be somewhat wary of Mr. Kerry slipping into the presidency through people who want Bush out, and then using his good fortune to force a social agenda, far out of tune with the population onto the country. If the war was the only issue, I could see eye to eye with you on this one, but I'm afraid that John Kerry could use the war to get into the office, then start raising taxes, publicizing medicine, creating more corporate/private welfare, regulating businesses, regulating trade, reducing property rights, all the things that would have made it virtually impossible for him, not only to win, but even get on the ballot, had there not been a war.

...if we're going to take this outlook, we need to remember that there's more to America, then some war.

Dan: Taxes are not popular but the fact is they are a good thing when kept whithin a certain limit of course. They help funding nationnal projects like health care program, education programs, urbanism programs, social aids ....

You're that upset over Sen. Kerry pulling a pen from his jacket to take notes Ram? You might want to look into switching to decaf. I suppose rules are rules but take it easy pal. Maybe for the next debate Pres. Bush can bring one of those clicky pens and he won't be so bored.

Dan, Kerry's social agenda is one big reason why millions of Americans, including myself, will be voting for him in a month. Both Pres. Bush & Reagan have spent this country into the crapper. I look forward to the day when tax cuts are rolled back and corporate welfare is scaled down. There is more to the United States then some war. There are families that need to eat. Not all of these families own baseball teams and run companies.

My goodness.. I wonder where some of your hearts are placed.. some of you are sobviously not very well.. who gives a toss about the egos of Bush and Kerry.. what about giving a thought to the thousands of Iraqis including countless women and children that got indiscriminately slaughtered by all that high tech crap they manufacture.. and the whole country blown back to the dark ages to supposedly remove one man and his hench mob from power.. . and now that Rumsfelt and Blair are finally admitting there were no weapons of mass destruction and no link to 9/11 and Al Quaeda those dangerous bastards should be up on grand manslaughter charges.. not critiqued for their debating styles..

QUOTATION: "Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."

I watched most of it and i thought that while Kerry actually did win (have statistics to support this) it didn't help either one of them. The topics that were discussed were the same ones throughout this whole campaign with the same responses. how is this a debate? I believe that we should take both candidates out of the running (peacefully......if possible.....) and start over.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte