Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Presidential Debates
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 130 (146642)
10-01-2004 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Silent H
10-01-2004 4:09 PM


As a question, do you believe that this is true for all other nations as well, or are their freedoms not threatened by international law in an international court?
And am I to take it then that you are firmly against the trial of Milosevic and previous trials against serbian military commanders accused of genocide?
The Genocide Treaty, signed by no other than Ronald Reagan and ratified by Congressional and Senatorial bodies back in the 80's revises genocide from killing to verbal/mental harm. This ambigious definition of genocide is a very real danger to freedom of speech in all nations. A world court signature by our president and ratification by our legislative bodies coupled with the Genocide Treaty is all it would take to totally destroy our Constitutional government by the people of our supposed soverign nation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 10-01-2004 4:09 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2004 11:22 AM Buzsaw has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 130 (146721)
10-02-2004 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by 1.61803
10-01-2004 1:00 PM


out of plans, out of nails
1.6etc writes:
I shudder to think what a weak president would of done given the same choices. Would he of had the balls to go into Afganistan in the first place? Would he have the fortitude to overturn Saddam?
Actually what we did have was a weak president in charge.
One who sat still when first attacked instead of acting, and one that ran for cover when he did move. We have a president that has said (and keeps saying) that "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" whenever he can: rather than inspire Americans and people around the world to rise above the fear and to carry on in spite of the criminal efforts of the terrorists, he plays the fear card and uses the terrorists for his political gain (regardless of whether doing so also makes the terrorists stronger) because he is too weak and incompetent to provide a better basis.
We have a president who has run out of plans for Iraq (and the ones he had didn't work) and the only things he has left are (1) "stay the course" and (2) that not staying the course sends "mexed missages" to the troops, the Iraqis, the Americans and the world. But you only stay the course when you have run out of alternatives: what kind of message is that?
We have a president who felt\feels it was more important to fund a tax give-away (to people who do not need it) rather than to actually pay for the necessary armour for the soldiers -- what kind of mixed message is that?
We have a president that is more committed to keeping on his course than on the safety of the American people, the needs of the Iraqi people, the safety of the soldiers he has placed in harms way, or on getting to the goal of bringing terrorists to justice ... he says that his course is more important than the goal: what kind of mixed message is that?
We have a president who is like a carpenter that has run out of nails but keeps hammering away, because he feels that telling the homeowner that he is out of nails is sending a mixed message, and forgetting that the goal is to build the house.
enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by 1.61803, posted 10-01-2004 1:00 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Zhimbo, posted 10-02-2004 12:09 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 54 by 1.61803, posted 10-02-2004 1:07 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 130 (146723)
10-02-2004 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by JustinC
10-01-2004 2:45 PM


tax give-away more important that troop protection
Kerry has explained it. That doesn't stop the neoCONs from continuing to misrepresent it (after all their armory is pretty empty of real amunition ...).
What Kerry needs to do is go on the offensive and point out that Bush felt it was more apporpriate to actually fund the tax give-away to billionaires than to actually fund the money for the protection of our troops: he had money to spend for one but not the other.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by JustinC, posted 10-01-2004 2:45 PM JustinC has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 130 (146726)
10-02-2004 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by MisterOpus1
10-01-2004 4:23 PM


what???
PBS host Jim Lehrer was challenged Friday morning on claims that he went easy on Sen. John Kerry during Thursday night's presidential debate, while tossing verbal hand grenades in President Bush's direction designed to keep him on the defensive.
My impression was that Bush got away with a lot easier set of questions than Kerry did. Kerry handled all the questions while Bush did not: perhaps that is the way they measure the questions?
heh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by MisterOpus1, posted 10-01-2004 4:23 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 130 (146730)
10-02-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by MisterOpus1
10-01-2004 5:12 PM


the floor was made to give shrub a boost while looking flat -- an easy optical illusion.
look at the dangling hand of each in the second photo and then mentally move bush down until they are level ... and that is only half way.
heh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by MisterOpus1, posted 10-01-2004 5:12 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 130 (146731)
10-02-2004 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Loudmouth
10-01-2004 6:41 PM


I dislike Fox as well, but I am willing to let this one slide. Just them admitting they were wrong is music in my ears.
Now if it had been Dan Rather ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Loudmouth, posted 10-01-2004 6:41 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 130 (146733)
10-02-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
10-01-2004 10:19 PM


quote:
A world court signature by our president and ratification by our legislative bodies coupled with the Genocide Treaty is all it would take to totally destroy our Constitutional government by the people of our supposed soverign nation.
How would it do that? The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and has precedent over any law passed by Congress, including treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. It would take a constitutional amendment to change this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 10-01-2004 10:19 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 53 of 130 (146736)
10-02-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
10-02-2004 10:05 AM


Re: out of plans, out of nails
Yeah, the whole " Would he of had the balls to go into Afganistan in the first place?" sort of thinking has alway baffled me. Can anyone think of any viable presidential candidate who *wouldn't* have gone into Afghanistan? I mean, DUHHHHHH.
People give credit to Bush for the most obvious and obligatory decisions, that ANY President would have done, and ignore the errors and bungles. It's like he's a Special Olympics athlete. "Good job! You're doing just great!".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2004 10:05 AM RAZD has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 54 of 130 (146744)
10-02-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
10-02-2004 10:05 AM


Re: out of plans, out of nails
Like I said tuesday morning quarterbacking is easy.
I do not agree that the president is weak. I believe the president is acting in the countrys best interest. I believe him when he says he is. I can not say one way or another what would of happened if XYZ president was in power when terrorist murdered all those people. I seem to recall that the US retaliated prompt and assuredly. I take nothing away from the men and women who are behind the scenes actually DOING something to help, including the president. Talk is cheap. If John Kerry gets elected then it will be his turn to take the watch. But intill then I will continue to support president Bush. May you and all my countrymen continue to benefit from the sacrifices of those that came before us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2004 10:05 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2004 1:20 PM 1.61803 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 130 (146745)
10-02-2004 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by 1.61803
10-02-2004 1:07 PM


Re: out of plans, out of nails
When Kennedy was confronted by the Cuban missle crisis he stayed in the Whitehouse, and he publically displayed a profile of courage. Shrub did not do either.
That is the difference between a strong president who faced down a sever threat to this country and a weak one that ran from a minor incident.
Kerry has shown he has the stuff to sit in Kennedy's chair.
Perhaps that is the difference in those tested by battle ....
If Kerry had been in that chair on 9/11 we would be in a different world situation -- one I have to believe would be better and more marked by success than failure, because I cannot see anyone being worse than Bush..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by 1.61803, posted 10-02-2004 1:07 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by johnfolton, posted 10-02-2004 3:38 PM RAZD has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 130 (146754)
10-02-2004 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by 1.61803
10-01-2004 1:00 PM


quote:
Being that there were no WOMD? I think not,
because in my heart I know that if and when Saddam got his hands on one it would surely have the USA's name on it.
Why do you think that?
Iraq had never, ever attacked the US, and was very weakened after the first Gulf War.
Remember, it was Al Qaida and Afghanistan that hurt us, NOT IRAQ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by 1.61803, posted 10-01-2004 1:00 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 57 of 130 (146766)
10-02-2004 3:05 PM


Kerry's problem
The average American voter doesn't want to hear blunt, honest statements. To make such would hurt your chances of being elected.
Thus Kerry can't say something like "George, your leadership has wrongly gotten us into an ugly situation that is going to be very difficult to get out of".
The line "The truth? You can't handle the truth" is an ugly reality when it comes to trying to sell policy to many U.S. voters.
I think that is why Ronald Reagan was so successful as a campaigner - His messages were "warm and fuzzy" statements from grandpa.
Moose
{Once again, edited to change ID from the admin mode}
This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-02-2004 02:07 PM

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 58 of 130 (146773)
10-02-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
10-02-2004 1:20 PM


Mr. Kerry reminds me of trying to deal with someone that is bi-polar
cause he always switches his position, the bi-polar cause of mood, I don't think Kerry is necessarily bi-polar, however, (his mental flip flops simply suggests that Mr. Kerry is an unstable man), GWB explained within the debate, that you can not function as commander an chief and continually flip flop mentally, etc... The soldiers world leaders, need consistency, not to be told their mission is meaningless (If Kerry can not see the mission he shouldn't be applying for the job), in spite of all this or because of this, Kerry has shown that he doesn't have the ability to lead, because of this problem Mr. Kerry has not been able to move bills he sponsored personally through the Senate (hes had over 20 years to prove himself a leader of men) (hes proven consistently the opposite, likes research over leading, etc...), you need to beable to delegate, not be the pragmatist, etc... its appearing its because of Mr. Kerry's Pragmatistic leaderlessness abilities that he talks of globalisms, which truly is a dangerous position, because if he is not able to lead in the senate, he will not lead in the world scene, cause people (world leaders) need consistency, not someone that acts as if he is bi-polar on everything, and however elegantly he be saying this is his stand, but when he flips, saying his stand has flipped 180 degrees, then flip back to his previous stand, the leaders of the world will flip out, we need someone thats proved he is mentally stable for the highest office of the land, a leader of men, etc... Personally think presidential candidates should be tested for mental disease, ego problems, to determine if they have mental defect, suspect Mr, Kerry flip flopping, is simply the tip of some mental defect, while it makes him sound good, but he always sounds good, its how his stands changes, constantly (like a bi-polar switch), like the Bush adds say, their is what Kerry says, and their is what Kerry does, and they don't line up.
P.S. With Water Scrubbers, Ceramic Scrubbers, we should be burning coal, we should be untapping all the oil wells, drilling for oil in Alaska, this alone would bring down the price of crude from 50 dollars a barrel to 35 dollars a barrel. Looking at hindsight, you all do realize Mr. Kerry was responsible for filibustering drilling for oil in Alaska, truly Mr. Kerry will continue to make decisions that will affect the economy, and not in a positive way. He already talks of raising taxes, what one needs to do is simply vote for the candidate that cares about you and yours, and that man is GWB. I suspect Kerry is for stem cell research, but likely GWB is too, just not for the 1% that is embyronic stem cells, that requires the murder of a baby, lots of adult stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells, you don't have to murder the baby to get sufficient stem cells to move stem cell research forward, we all realize that the constitution does not grant the woman more rights than the baby, truly the activist judges continue to incorrectly interprete the constitution, where murder has become the law of the land, in respect to the rights of the baby, etc...However if these activist judges would interprete the constitution correctly Mr. Kerry never would of been allowed to run as a senator, cause of the fourteenth amendment section 3, when he destroyed his medals, lied about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and how all this aided the North Vietnamese propagada, where Mr. Kerry is being honored as one of their greatest hero's, credited for his part in aiding their victory, and their ability to slaughter millions of south vietnamese after we left before the job was done, etc... Kerry said he never thought that the Communists would slaughter all those people, is this the man you want leading this country, that has the mentality of a Chamberlain, truly we need a person that has a Winston Churchhill menality, not someone that says after the fact, but the communists were not suppose to kill all those people, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2004 1:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 10-02-2004 4:25 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2004 5:02 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 61 by nator, posted 10-02-2004 5:14 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2004 5:15 PM johnfolton has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 59 of 130 (146789)
10-02-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by johnfolton
10-02-2004 3:38 PM


Question for you whatever.
Is it better to have a President that admits error and changes position when it becomes obvious that a decision was wrong, or one that blindly continues a bad and destructive course even after it is shown to be so?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by johnfolton, posted 10-02-2004 3:38 PM johnfolton has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 130 (146794)
10-02-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by johnfolton
10-02-2004 3:38 PM


Re:
You're continued backing of Bush makes me feel so warm and fuzzy.
Bush once could not finish the quote:
Fool me once shame on you
Fool me twice shame on me
Let me spell it out for you:
anyone fooled into voting for Bush the first time, shame on Bush for such blatant dishonesty and misrepresentation of the facts purely for personal gain
anyone fooled into voting for Bush a second time is obviously such a fool that they cannot see when he has been taken, shilled, conned, hoodwinked, deceived.
there are no GOOD reasons to vote for bush. NONE. NOT ONE.
and your personal standard of evidence and truth has been so low, twisted and distorted that it doesn't matter what you say.
for instance -- you accept the concept of flip-flops from the bush liars, without looking at what the differences involved actually were (it is easier for you not to think it seems).
consider what REI said: that all the republicans voted against the 87 billion before they voted against it: that makes every one of them a flip-flopper. consider that BUSH was going to veto the 87 billion dollar bill if it passed before he accepted the one that followed - THAT make BUSH a FLIP-FLOPPER.
What is the difference? The first bill had a way to pay for the 87 billion dollar cost, the second one didn't. Bush feels it is more important to pay billionaires back for their campaign financing (also known as the Big TAX Give Away) than to pay for the $87 billion cost: what kind of mixed message is that?
Now you can continue to flop on the deck like a fish out of water, or you can realize that Bush IS a mistake.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by johnfolton, posted 10-02-2004 3:38 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 10-02-2004 5:58 PM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024