+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Presidential Debate (/thread-7853.html)
Presidential Debate - Sir_Die_alot - 10-01-2004
Quote:Maybe he's planning on stepping up recruiting?You are delusional if you think there will be more recruits should Kerry win.
Quote:Or, god forbid, a draft of some kind?Kerry is too much the politician to do something that unpopular with his most loyal supporters. This would be like Bush abolishing capitalism and personal ownership.
Quote:There are options available that are slightly more feasible than conjuring people from the air, or cloning them with fictional technology...I hope you realize just how slightly more feasible those options are. The difference between .0000000001% chance and 0 are not so big. :P
Presidential Debate - Jester - 10-01-2004
Well, believe or don't about Kerry's plan, and how much he means it when he says he'll do this, that or the other. As with all elections, these are politicians' promises.
However, you are agreeing with me that this is actually *possible*, even if Kerry is unlikely to follow through? Adding divisions wouldn't require cloning vats?
Jester
Presidential Debate - Nicodemus Phaulkon - 10-01-2004
ShadowHM,Oct 1 2004, 05:47 AM Wrote:Hi Roland
I really hope that you were indeed speaking with your tongue in your cheek with that comment.
Sorry, Republicans aren't allowed into Canada unless they're going on hunting trips, packing their own water, plant 1000 trees and agree to buy a cow.
It's a new rule. Really.
Presidential Debate - ShadowHM - 10-01-2004
Nicodemus Phaulkon,Oct 1 2004, 12:13 PM Wrote:Sorry, Republicans aren't allowed into Canada unless they're going on hunting trips, packing their own water, plant 1000 trees and agree to buy a cow.
It's a new rule. Really.
[right][snapback]56862[/snapback][/right]
That could make for an interesting attempt at a trip to the cottage this weekend for some of my neighbours there, eh? Or maybe that won't apply to Nexus card holders?
I'll let you know the results on Monday. ;)
Presidential Debate - nobbie - 10-01-2004
I'm all for Carrey - Jim Carrey that is! :P
Presidential Debate - channel1 - 10-01-2004
nobbie,Oct 1 2004, 01:10 PM Wrote:I'm all for Carrey - Jim Carrey that is! :PGood idea. I don't think ANY of the candidates would be capable of running the U.S.ofA. decently. They should hire someone from outside the U.S., I can think of a few who could do it. Jean Cretien would do a great job. :)
[right][snapback]56865[/snapback][/right]
-rcv-
Presidential Debate - kandrathe - 10-01-2004
Occhidiangela,Oct 1 2004, 07:00 AM Wrote:PS: I will not further comment on the debates. I did not watch them, as I consider them
"A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Cheap entertainment at best, a complete waste of time at worst.
That is my sentiment as well.
Presidential Debate - kandrathe - 10-01-2004
channel1,Oct 1 2004, 01:23 PM Wrote:Good idea. I don't think ANY of the candidates would be capable of running the U.S.ofA. decently. They should hire someone from outside the U.S., I can think of a few who could do it. Jean Cretien would do a great job. :)
-rcv-
[right][snapback]56866[/snapback][/right]
Hmm, I dunno. Mariah, or Drew maybe, but I think Jim is too unpredictable.
Presidential Debate - ShadowHM - 10-01-2004
channel1,Oct 1 2004, 01:23 PM Wrote: Jean Chretien would do a great job. :)
-rcv-
[right][snapback]56866[/snapback][/right]
Oh please - let that man rot in well-deserved obscurity...err..... retirement ! I wouldn't wish him on anyone, let alone our favourite neighbours. :)
Presidential Debate - Taem - 10-01-2004
I see a lot of Bush supporters in these posts so far, eager to point out Kerry's faults. How about Bush's faults? Will you 'side-step' these questions the same way Bush sidestepped them in the debate, or will you answer them?
1.) The CIA told Bush there were no WMD in Iraq before our invasion - this is well documented! Why did he "mislead" Americans about the WMD being in Iraq when he KNEW there weren't any?
2.) The casualties is very high in this war and climbing daily, getting worse actually as time goes on. The interim-president in Iraq said in a statement that the situation was terrible and growing worse by the day! Why did and does Bush continues to "mislead" Americans, telling them that the war in Iraq is going well?
3a.) As Kerry pointed out, why did Bush assign native warlords who hate America just as much as Iraq must now to find and capture Osoma Bin Ladden instead of our own well-trained military?
3b.) No, instead he focused all of our resource on Iraq because Bush claims Iraq was the breeding ground for terrorists and was a major threat to America (his reasoning for lying to us in the first place and defending this war insofar). I find this amusing since Iraq has no WMD and no way of creating them for years to come with all their sanctions, yet Korea and Pakistan pose a much bigger threat than Iraq ever did. Why is Bush ignoring these other dangerous terrorist countries and focusing on Iraq?
4.) The head spokesman for the United Nations called the war in Iraq "illegal", but was coy to not make any accusations against Bush (perhaps out of fear). Bush overstepped the ruling of the United Nations to not go to war in Iraq and closed the doors on many other nations so far. Is Bush is so pompous to think that he overstep anyone he wants to be the worlds police force? Here is my main question: what is Bush doing to repair Americas reputation that he was so quick to cast into disarray?
I have tons more questions but some comments also. I can't trust a Commander in Chief of America who misleads the American public on purpose to go to war.
I don't believe some fanatic wrote up false papers for Bush being in Viet Nam and I find it funny that somehow a major news corporation ran a story they could not substantiate claiming bush being in Viet Nam was true. Truth is, there are no papers or proof Bush was ever in Viet Nam. Furthermore, someone went out of their way to forge papers saying he was there, and a forgery charge like this carries a thirty (30) year sentence but I don't see any investigations taking place. IMO, Bush must have deeeeeeeeep pockets, or else his "loyal" supporters are just as "misleading" as he is.
Presidential Debate - Sir_Die_alot - 10-01-2004
Jester,Oct 1 2004, 09:07 AM Wrote:However, you are agreeing with me that this is actually *possible*, even if Kerry is unlikely to follow through? Adding divisions wouldn't require cloning vatsSure it's possible. It's also possible that the islamo-fascists will decide they have it wrong and quit all this crap leading to a thousand years of peace. If we are going to talk about things that are so remotely possible as to be ubsurd lets be more positive. :rolleyes:
Presidential Debate - Taem - 10-01-2004
Sir_Die_alot,Oct 1 2004, 12:09 PM Wrote:Sure it's possible. It's also possible that the islamo-fascists will decide they have it wrong and quit all this crap leading to a thousand years of peace. If we are going to talk about things that are so remotely possible as to be ubsurd lets be more positive. :rolleyes:
[right][snapback]56872[/snapback][/right]
The only way for Bush to "win" this war in Iraq, or for Kerry to do what he claims it to start a draft. The draft is inevitable. I probably shouldn't say this, but I know someone personally high up in politics who says there is a bill going around quietly that *will* pass in late October with a draft on it. Supposedly, Bush has vetoed many bills congress wishes to pass, so he attached these bills to his draft plan saying he would pass them if the draft passes. Apparently, its not a matter of "if" the draft will go threw, but when. This draft they're trying to pass is for both men and woman. College is not a factor; there are going to be no exemptions and the ages will be from 18-26. I find this deeply, deeply disturbing, but it is unavoidable and that is the truth! The armed forces aren't getting nearly as many recruits as they had hoped for with their aggressive advertising and campus recruitment plans of late.
Presidential Debate - Sir_Die_alot - 10-01-2004
I'm aware of the draft bill, it's actually sponsored by Democrats if you were unaware. No such thing is going through this close to an election, especially an presidential election. If it was something real it wouldn't even have shown up until after people have voted.
As for your logic as to why it will pass that eludes me too. Bush vetoed bills so those bills are attached to a draft which would be even more unpopular so that means he would sign it. :huh:
Presidential Debate - Taem - 10-01-2004
Sir_Die_alot,Oct 1 2004, 01:31 PM Wrote:Bush vetoed bills so those bills are attached to a draft which would be even more unpopular so that means he would sign it. :huh:
[right][snapback]56877[/snapback][/right]
I didn't explain myself well I guess. Those voting on this bill have other bills they really wanted passed, but those other bills have been effectively stopped for whatever reason. This draft bill supposedly has some of those bills that were stopped attached to it, making it more attractive to those voting. This is a typical tactic is the political arena (I'll do you a favor if you do this for me). I suppose it was unnecessary to mention that as it's mere concept seems to elude you, and I only really wanted to mention the draft as a reality to both the Bush and Kerry administrations, not just a fanciful dread.
I don't really know much about how the voting works for a bill, but if it's voted on in late October, then when would it be passed by? January like most bills? Or might it go threw revisions before being resubmitted and voted on again, which could be why its before congress now? More to the point, I don't know why my friend told me they are voting on it in October, but I believe him.
Presidential Debate - Sir_Die_alot - 10-01-2004
Quote:This is a typical tactic is the political arena (I'll do you a favor if you do this for me). I suppose it was unnecessary to mention that as it's mere concept seems to elude youPlease don't insult my intelligence with snide comments when I have not done so to you. We aren't talking about a freeway in West Virginia here we are talking about the draft. Time will tell if you are correct, but if you aren't I would advise you to remember this, as would I.
Presidential Debate - D-Dave - 10-02-2004
MEAT,Oct 1 2004, 09:09 PM Wrote:I see a lot of Bush supporters in these posts so far, eager to point out Kerry's faults. How about Bush's faults? Will you 'side-step' these questions the same way Bush sidestepped them in the debate, or will you answer them?
...
4.) The head spokesman for the United Nations called the war in Iraq "illegal", but was coy to not make any accusations against Bush (perhaps out of fear). Bush overstepped the ruling of the United Nations to not go to war in Iraq and closed the doors on many other nations so far. Is Bush is so pompous to think that he overstep anyone he wants to be the worlds police force? Here is my main question: what is Bush doing to repair Americas reputation that he was so quick to cast into disarray?
[right][snapback]56871[/snapback][/right]
I guess one reason so many people side with Bush is exactly what you point out under Nr. 4.).
Most of the international Community and it's Representative (Mr. Kofi Anan who is btw not the Spokesman but the Secratary-General; details on him here) think and have stated that the war is violating international law. (now that's one good reason for Bush not having the US join the International Court of Justice)
Also lot's of people have openly stated what they think is being done wrong and how it could be done better (just like I did in previous post when I was outlining my astonishment why the current administration did not learn from the past how to "win the peace" by pointing out the parallels between Iraq today and Germany post WW2)
So, in other words, people from allover the world dare to criticise the actions the US have taken. In reaction to this, I experienced a great amount of a "who are you to tell us if what we do is appropriate or legal" attitude (not so much on this board as people tend to bemore thoughtful then the average bloke, but across different forums and many many personal conversations with people that I thought were open to debates based on facts). As a result of this attitude many people blindly stick to Bush because if they would support Kerry they would admit that Bush realy did something wrong. Scary childish to be but who am I to judge...
After reviewing the Debate today (taped it) one thing realy struck me about the "international alliances" topic. The one thing I would have liked Kerry to point out more would have been just how exactly Bush tore apart many of those alliances.
Well, as I have the annoying tendency of doing long posts anyway I take the liberty of filling this gap.
It basicaly started right after Bush snuck into the oval ofiice. One of the first things he did was to not ratify the already signed agreements about Global warming and the already mentioned International Court of Justice.
(well the great effect global warming already has on us can be seen first hand in Florida right now, but hey, those are just trailer-park-punks being affected not exactly the ones funding Bush's election, right?)
Then right after 9/11 those things were not an issue to the allies anymore. All of them came together to support the US. This can be clearly seen by checking those Nations that joined the US in attacking the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
But then Bush started to get somewhat dizzy in his head again. From what has been reported by (now) former Intelligence workers Bush wanted as much "evidence" to go to war against Saddam Hussein. As this has been beaten to death I'll only point out only those that realy worked against the alliances.
-German Intelligence telling the US about mobile commandposts and communication equipment on trucks...turned by the Bush administration into mobile production facilies for WMDs ... damn they should learn to READ before trying to rule a country
-the infamous speeches featuring George's nice "You're either with us or with the Terrorists / against us" line as an indirect response to allies asking for more time for weapon inspections. (well, waiting two weeks is realy too much to ask when there is a risk of having bad weather conditions for an invasion during spring / summer) Guess what, being called a Terrorist is nothing that makes one feel positive towards the one making that claim!
-"Old Europe" as being "unrelyable" and scared little dudes...no this is better: "Freedom Fries" at the Pentagon? Hm, not that the French call them "French Fries" anyway but don't you think they were a bit ...erm, let's say...irritated by such open hostility?
-tons of international contracts being simply revoked. One for example that made the news here in evil old Germany was a small painter company that got a contract to paint the complete Pentagon with some high-tech lotus-effect Paint, investing heavily to be able to do this job and then going broke because the contract was revoked without any form of compensation.
Wow, a job well done in creating warm feelings among the allies (well, apart from Bush's pet dog Blair that is).
But that all changed now. Bush said in the debate he was (or already has) rebuilding those alliances.
On the other Hand, the Bush administration just made it mandatory for Visitors from 27 more countrys to be photographed and fingerprints being taken upon entering the US, and, wow, that list features France, Germany and yes the United Kingdom and Japan too. Well, George let me tell you, you do not make up for being rude to friends and allies by treating them as criminals.
Damn, I just realized that I dared to criticise Bush again. Will that generate even more "you girly-man won't tell us what to do" votes for him? :ph34r:
I better end here
Greetings
Dave
Presidential Debate - Minionman - 10-02-2004
kandrathe,Oct 1 2004, 12:47 PM Wrote:That is my sentiment as well.
[right][snapback]56867[/snapback][/right]
This was true through most of the debate, where it was all easy to predict ducked questions and attacks, at least the parts I saw while making to and from the kitchen while making some stuff. The last part was more interesting as I got an idea of what Kerry's trying to run on in foreign affairs. Obviously most of those ideas will get cut if he gets elected, but I did get some general plans. Bush also gave some information but mostly did pretty bad at it. It was kind of cool to see any debate because I'd only seen part of a Kennedy/Nixon tape before, but that's just me.
People who've made their own decisions awhile ago probaly won't be influenced either way.
Presidential Debate - Minionman - 10-02-2004
D-Dave,Oct 1 2004, 06:02 PM Wrote:It basicaly started right after Bush snuck into the oval ofiice. One of the first things he did was to not ratify the already signed agreements about Global warming and the already mentioned International Court of Justice.
(well the great effect global warming already has on us can be seen first hand in Florida right now, but hey, those are just trailer-park-punks being affected not exactly the ones funding Bush's election, right?)
It's probably not just Florida. The weather around where I live has been way nuttier with temperature changes than I remember it ever being.
D-Dave@October 1 2004, 6:02PM Wrote:Damn, I just realized that I dared to criticise Bush again. Will that generate even more "you girly-man won't tell us what to do" votes for him? :ph34r:
"Girly-men" is the funniest political quote I have ever heard mostly because it's so dumb and sports trash-talky, but also because politics seems to have a lot of things going on that I think of as female stereotypes such as that when arguing, a stereotype of females is that they bring up things someone did a long time ago to make the person look bad, as we all know, politicians do this a lot or that females aren't supposed to say or here exactly what the words mean, which is also something that happens a lot in some politics. These are just stereotypes about females, and I think of them as such and nothing more, but when saying "girly-men", it's obviously the stereotypes that whoever says it is trying to appeal to.
Presidential Debate - Roland - 10-02-2004
ShadowHM,Oct 1 2004, 07:47 AM Wrote:Hi Roland
I really hope that you were indeed speaking with your tongue in your cheek with that comment.
You know, we got some damn fine citizens here from those who objected to the Vietnam War. Many of the conscientious objectors who moved here to avoid the war stayed to become contributing members of our country.
On the other hand, there were those who hid here for the duration and then went back home when they thought it was safe. :blink: Your comment made you look like you would join the latter group. Think about it.
[right][snapback]56843[/snapback][/right]
Oh, I'd never leave this country. Not unless there were no other options for me. My home, my lifeblood is here. My pride and joy are here. For me to leave would mean abandoning my entire way and foundation of life, not to mention the admission that my faith in my country, and in myself to help guide it, had fallen beyond redemption.
Me and my g/f and I have recently taken up interest in politics - her because her math teacher is basing school work around it (go figure); me because I want to make sure I'm doing my duty to guide my country in what I feel is the right direction. I don't like Kerry one bit; never have, never will. This coming from a guy in Mass., one of the most liberal states around. I'll admit Bush has his faults; there's not a single person in the world who doesn't, but Bush certainly has more than just a few. But, overall, I feel much safer with him as my choice than Kerry. And, he stands by what I feel more than Kerry does - follows a path closer to one I'd prefer, so to speak. Lastly, though, my gut instinct just tells me to avoid Kerry like the plague, and that Bush won't be half as bad as everyone is making him out to be.
I'm fine with Kerry supporters, just as I'm fine with their views and opinions. But sometimes they really tread on my nerves the way they talk about Bush, debates, etc. Moreover, they all seem to have a tendency to stick their heads in the sand, and point fingers at everyone but their beloved candidate. Well, with a few exceptions, I'll admit (my g/f, for one - she at least can admit to Kerry's faults; she's the first I've heard around here, aside from my father, a strong old school Republican like myself).
At any rate, no I'm not just going to use Canada as a stashaway for four years. ;) If I ever move there, it'll probably be for much more permanent - and non-political - reasons.
Presidential Debate - Roland - 10-02-2004
Nicodemus Phaulkon,Oct 1 2004, 01:13 PM Wrote:Sorry, Republicans aren't allowed into Canada unless they're going on hunting trips, packing their own water, plant 1000 trees and agree to buy a cow.
It's a new rule. Really.
[right][snapback]56862[/snapback][/right]
Hey, easy there old pal. I'm not some Bible-totin' conservative out of the 1400's. I'm all for a government "by the people, for the people", but I subscribe to the saying "that which governs least governs best". I think the government should stick to a strict set of principles, and leave the rest up to us as individuals to decide.
Believe me, I don't always see eye to eye with the Republican party of today. In fact, I daresay we see eye to eye only marginally more often than I do with Democrats.
All joking aside, somehow I doubt you'd find me a burden in your country were I to uproot to there. ;) Besides, I wouldn't mind planting a thousand trees - I happen to love nature. :D