Cowgirl: The next one is a week from today, town-hall style.
Wacky: You might try listening to Sean Hannity's radio show, then. He's still a conservative, but he doesn't have Limbaugh's bluster or sanctimonious self-righteousness. You probably won't agree with him, but he probably won't set your teeth on edge as much, either.
I'm not suprised some people here are still impressed with Bush. All the non ex-TWI conservatives that I know were dissapointed with Bush, and felt that even though they still support Bush, Kerry didn't seem as bad as they thought he would be.
Personally, I think that Kerry said things that I didn't like, but overall he acted much more presidential, and even if I don't agree with everything he says, he seemed rational. He also had a lot more self control and gave more straight answers than Bush did.
Bush, on the other hand, repeated the same things over and over in response to the questions. He squirmed, interrupted, and made a lot of weird expressions and twitched a lot. He may have Parkinson's disease if he acts like that all the time.
Of the messages of the two, the biggest complaint I had with Kerry is that he wasn't forceful enough against Bush. If I had been up there on that podium, Bush would have either been crying like the sissy he is. The biggest problem with Bush is either that he repeated the same soundbites over and over, or that he ridiculed the idea of securing the U.S., while talking about how important it is to secure Iraq.
I look forward to the future debates, because if this one was supposed to be Bush's strong topic, he will fail miserably in the next two.
I imagine the Bush campaign is trying to work on other strategies like commercials or possibly even an "October suprise" rather than focusing on the debates or his job.
well, I think Bush did not capatilize on Kerry error very well...ie Kerry already called the PM of Iraq a liar...can you imagine if he wins the first phone call in January to the PM of Iraq...suck it up Kerry...
well, I think Bush did not capatilize on Kerry error very well...ie Kerry already called the PM of Iraq a liar...can you imagine if he wins the first phone call in January to the PM of Iraq...suck it up Kerry...
The Iraqi PM was not democratically elected but rather an appointee by Paul Bremer and the Bush administration (I believe he was second in line after the Iraqis killed the first choice.) There's no reason we should believe him if he tells the British people that the situation in Iraq is dire, then turns around and campaigns for Bush by agreeing with Bush's misleading assessment of Iraq. Of course, I imagine that if the Iraqi PM were to say that things are nearing civil war, as our own intelligence agencies think, he'd end up dead one way or another.
Like John Kerry, I believe that the safety and well-being of my own country is a lot more important than Iraq. We do have a responsibility to fix the mess we created over there, but at the same time I think we should be spending our tax dollars to secure the U.S. first, and the Iraqi oil fields for Halliburton last.
I think it would be fair to say I started watching the debate as anti-Bush and ended being pro-Kerry. I was happy to finally see Kerry get down and dirty. Well, that might be over doing it. But he finally looked and sounded like a valid presidential canidate and not just "not Bush".
There were some very telling Bush statements, one of which Kerry capitalised on..."they {Iraq} attacked us". Then Bush came back with that pathetic "of course I know al Quada attacked us....you don't think I know that? It's so funny you think I didn't know that." paraphrased ;)--> Another was when Bush was going on and on about how hard it is being tha dubya and waging a war in Iraq. He said, "I see how hard it is on TV, Its hard work".
We need to give this man a break. He has been under a lot of pressure and doing a lot of hard work. It seems, after watching the debate, that it has been a little too hard for him. He needs a nap. I heard someone say, "He got a few winks in during the debate". Perhaps thats what he needs to be doing.
I felt uncomfortable for him. It was a mix of laughter and tears at our house. Well, the tears were from laughing so hard, but they were genuine. Don't doubt that. :D-->
I think anyone that was watching this debate and thought the outsome was a tie or that Dubya won, has some serious partison issues and needs to seek help. The president in addition to being a tough cammander in chief, making tough desicions, and being personable, needs to be presidential. Not just like one of your friends, not all down homey, not just like one of us. Better than that. He or she should command authority, have a presence, have qualities we would aspire to, be articulate, think on his feet, and control his eye buldges and blinking. ;)--> Bush displayed none of those things and hasn't since I've been aware of his existence with the exception of a few days after 9/11. Even then a mayor out-shined him.
The debate made me feel like Kerry would be a much better president. He was presidential. Canned or otherwise.
I think that with U.S. elections nearing we'll see Bush taking a stronger stance as Commander-in-Chief. I read that Friday, "backed by warplanes and tanks, some 5,000 troops swept in to seize the city hall, the main mosque and other important sites in Samarra, leaving only pockets of resistance after more than 12 hours of combat, according to the U.S. military and Iraqi authorities." No more Mr. Niceguy when it comes to mosques."
The article went on to say "the city appeared calm late Friday except for American snipers on rooftops firing at anybody appearing in the streets below." Snipers sniping anybody showing their nose in public!!! Now there's a solution to insurgency.
My question is what took the Commander-in-Chief so long? And why now?
Mister P-Mosh, I love the quotation, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Personally, I think that Kerry said things that I didn't like, but overall he acted much more presidential, and even if I don't agree with everything he says, he seemed rational. He also had a lot more self control and gave more straight answers than Bush did.
I tend to agree with some of that, however (now that I know the questions were not scripted), I can even more forcibly say that "quick answers" are not the solution -- such as Senator Kerry offered. He may have acted more "presidential" behind the podium, answering one question at a time from one moderator -- but I shudder to think of him in the oval office, should another 9/11 happen, and try to deal with something globally.
He wouldn't be able to handle it. He would make a decision, then when questioned about it later, would make every excuse known to man, to make himself look good to the accusatory crowd.
I think anyone who didn't watch the debate on C-Span missed a lot. C-Span ran a split screen throughout the entire debate, rather than picking and choosing when to show "reaction shots." I highly recommend that channel to you all for the remaining debates. It was also the best for the Rep and Dem conventions, IMO.
At times Kerry's nodding and smiling and gesturing were a bit much, but Dubya's expression through much of the debate looked like he was about to drop to the floor kicking and screaming like a spoiled kid in K-Mart whose mom says he can't have a toy.
I'm an independent voter. I've registered Dem and Repub at various times for purposes of voting in primaries, but I vote for the person I think is most competent, regardless of party.
I've said more than once on the Politics & 'Tacks forum that I don't hate Geo. W. Bush. I simply think he is beyond incompetent in his current role (and in most positions he's held in throughout adulthood), and I believe Rumsfeld and Cheney and some of his other top advisors have led us into a mess that's going to take us a long time to get ourselves out of regardless of who wins this election.
There were a couple things Kerry said that gave me pause and that I'm going to have to read up on, but those two things pale in comparison to Dubya's dismal record of the past four years.
I thought one of the most effective things Kerry did was to quote W's father, saying that if we went into Iraq we'd be in a big mess (don't remember the exact words) and we'd become occupiers. And I loved Kerry's line about certainty being good but you can be certain and wrong. That, to me, seems to be the hallmark of George Walker Bush. My way or the highway.
And I'm sorry, but don't buy Goerge's well-crafted image of being "just a regular guy." One of your average folks, riiiiiiiiiight. I'll bet those who believe that little PR bit also believe Dolly Parton grew those boobs all by herself. :D-->
Bush's "I know that!" was far and away his most entertaining line of the night, followed by his series of repeated "hard work" comments. Those gave me flashbacks of Chris Gearshift in POP: "I had to scrub the floors and cook the food and drive the MOG and I had soooo much to do and blah blah blah." Well duh, who doesn't know that war is hard work???
I want to see how W tries to spin the economy, because here in Ohio, one of the swing states, we're hurtin'. (In fairness to W, we do have the biggest dolt of a governor of all time, Bob Taft--he makes W look like that millionaire Jeopardy contestant!)
All in all, the debate was more interesting than I expected it to be. I still wish they'd dispense with the 32-page rule book, not be allowed to have script writers, and just take off the gloves and go at it, but I'm sure their handlers would be too afraid they'd get foot in mouth disease.
quote: believe Dolly Parton grew those boobs all by herself
Attacking a couple of the *great* institutions, right up there with both kinds of music(country and western) and Mom and apple pie exposes the plot to destroy freedom and life as we know it!!!!!!!!
Hahahaha Grizzy. I happen to like Dolly. I'm not attacking her impressive bosomly features. I just don't think they're homegrown, just like I don't think Geogeie's "just folks."
Yeah, Hounddog, didn't Kerry's wife decide to take his name after he decided to run? Because before, she kept going by her first husband's name even after she married Kerry (which was fine, just quit flip flopping all over the place).
I tend to agree with some of that, however (now that I know the questions were not scripted), I can even more forcibly say that "quick answers" are not the solution -- such as Senator Kerry offered.
The problem is that Bush offered nothing. He was incapable of having a conversation, and instead chose to repeat the same soundbites over and over rather than give an answer. I find the idea of a president that doesn't even have the mental capacity to debate an opponent -- which even guests of the Jerry Springer show are capable of doing -- to be disturbing. Even worse was how he screwed up and confused Iraq and al Qaeda, as well as Saddam and Usama. Slips happen now and then, but that is a huge difference and something that a president that claims to make terrorism his top priority should never mess up.
quote:Originally posted by dmiller:
He may have acted more "presidential" behind the podium, answering one question at a time from one moderator -- but I shudder to think of him in the oval office, should another 9/11 happen, and try to deal with something globally.
The problem is that we have already seen what Bush did. He gave the Taliban money prior to 9/11, he failed to do what members of both party wanted him to do in order to at least maintain Clinton's level of anti-terrorism activities and funding when he took office, and he ignored the intelligence that lead to the attack. As far as I can tell, Bush did everything wrong with regards to terrorism prior to 9/11 except for going as far as flying the planes into our buildings himself.
I know that not everyone agrees, but having read the Hart Rudman report, having read about how Ashcroft and Bush cut intelligence funding prior to 9/11, how Bush ignored the memos relating to the imminent terrorist attack, and all of the evidence that other countries were trying to give him of a terrorist attack, the only two ways I can see to interpret it are either that Bush is incompetent or a traitor. Despite how much I mislike him, I don't think he would have intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen. I wouldn't put it past Cheney or Wolfowitz, though.
Anyway, I really don't think Kerry could do worse against terrorism, because there isn't much worse you can do minus starting a war with China and reinstating the draft, and forcing people to run around over there wearing orange hunting suits and only being armed with BB guns.
quote:Originally posted by dmiller:
He wouldn't be able to handle it. He would make a decision, then when questioned about it later, would make every excuse known to man, to make himself look good to the accusatory crowd.
I think Kerry would be less willing to bend over to the Republicans after how Clinton was treated. When Clinton actually tried to go after terrorists they claimed it was to distract people from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I wish those people could have had a crystal ball to see 9/11 occuring, because maybe then they would have shut up and agreed with it.
Anyway, if another 9/11 were to occur, I imagine that the Republican party would blame him and stab him in the back and put politics ahead of actually going after the terrorists. I blame the Republican party for going to Iraq and abandoning the search for bin Laden and the fight against al Qaeda to focus on Iraq instead. I see that as putting politics and greed above the good of our nation. The Democrats are probably no better, but at least they haven't done something that bad. At least not yet.
quote:Originally posted by dmiller:
The zebra can't change it's spots. and
the leapord can't change it's stripes.
woops!!
I think I just _flip-flopped_.
:D--> :D-->
That's why I can never support Bush and do not respect him in any way. I feel pity for him because he's pathetic in some ways, but he has done a horrible job, and he has evil people working for him that are screwing our country (Ashcroft, Cheney, etc should all be in jail now.) Kerry may not be my ideal choice, but I see him as being infinitely better than the alternative. It's like choosing Pee Wee Herman for president over Charles Manson. Neither are ideal, but at least one you can trust not to kill you and your family.
Yeah, Hounddog, didn't Kerry's wife decide to take his name _after_ he decided to run? Because before, she kept going by her first husband's name even after she married Kerry (which was fine, just quit flip flopping all over the place).
My wife didn't want to take my last name either, but did on U.S. paperwork because it makes things easier. In many other cultures, particularly latin cultures, you don't take the last name like that, but append it onto yours (if you are a woman getting married.)
For example, if she was Teresa Whatever Appellado before she got married, then become Teresa Whatever Heinz after being married. Since her first husband died, I imagine that she wanted to keep his last name to honor him and for the kids, but then eventually got over it and changed it because she saw that it was hurting her husband now.
I believe Kerry did better in the debate. But I can't vote for him because he is an American traitor from the Vietnam War, so he doesn't belong in the Senate, never mind the presidency. He belongs in prison and so does Bill Clinton. I would sooner vote for Homer Simpson, the animated character, or Mickey Mouse.
Bush lost a lot of opportunities where Kerry left himself wide open. I'll bet his staff is working with him now. Bush should have blown Kerry away and did not do that.
The candidates were not supposed to have the questions in advance per the moderator. However, I did notice the moderator brought up questions to both of them more about the Iraqi war and "Bush's record" and did not touch on Kerry's record once. This scenario laid up by the moderator had Bush on the defensive all night.
Bush to me is not that good a debater, but I don't believe Kerry is either because his practice is to shoot off at the mouth without thinking. On this debate, Kerry was smooth and prepared to answer the questions, as if expecting them, as if he had scripted answers.
After the CBS fiasco, I was wondering if the moderator faxed the questions he was going to ask to the Kerry campaign so they could practice and left Bush out.
Some of us strongly suspect that and would like the phone records from the moderators home and office cross-checked with the Kerry campaign to see if he used their fax machine.
Conspiracy theory, I know, but the groundwork was laid for the hostile atmosphere obviously sensed by Bush in which he couldn't complain because he would look like a sore sport.
I am voting for Bush. I don't like all his agenda, but I trust him the best. Kerry, to me never has and never will earn my trust after Vietnam, which I wish HE would stop bringing up.
Why is it that you think that Kerry was a traitor from Vietnam? He didn't fight for the enemy, nor did he give any secrets or military info to the enemy.
Was it because he spoke out against the Vietnam War? Thrown his medals away? ... That isn't treason. Is it traitorous to speak out against a war that you don't think is right?
Sorry chief, but I don't agree there, as trying to fasten treason to protesting an war that isn't right does nothing to promote nor protect freedom. I mean, how many people here on Greasespot who plainly were against the Vietnam War (like me, proudly) would you be willing to be consistant and call us traitors as well, hmmm? Frankly, this kind of goosestepping mindset is starting to tick me off. :(-->
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
You see that quote right after all of P-Mosh's posts? That one quote, by a *very* patriotic president, speaks volumes. And is one that shows and honors *true* freedom.
Kerry risked his life in the Vietnam war. He and the other veterans who saw what was going on over there had more right than anyone on the planet to protest.
My dad joined the Marines to fight in WWII. He faulted neither me nor my brother's objections to Vietnam. He thought it was stupid as he thinks this war is.
And if Bush goes along with another "cease fire" arrangement or allows the enemy to kill more Americans by granting them safe haven to do so from another mosque, I think I'll go apoplectic from a severe case of Vietnam Deja Vu.
Linda Z --- you said: "Kerry risked his life in the Viet-Nam war".
Perhaps he did. Perhaps anyone who succumbed to the draft back then (I did not, and was a vociferous "peace-nik" in those days), put their life on the line. I won't quibble with you on that one, and actually tend to agree.
However -- the fact that he (Kerry) was there, doesn't mean that it is a "blanket statement" for what is going on today.
The man is running for the office of the President of the United States.
Every candidate has a past, and every past, of every candidate, should be open to scrutiny. Now -- that being said ---
Why hasn't Kerry's many years in the Senate been touted, as much as his Viet-nam service?
Why is the focus on something he did over 3 decades ago, and not what he is doing today?
He has demonstrated a huge willingness to allocate all judicial matters to the "international community", effectively leaving us (U.S.) out of the picture, and thus allowing other countries to decide our "fate".
He may have been a hero (I say that tongue in cheek), but to do all he has done in the following years, has effectively done an excellent job of robbing the US of everything we stand for.
The fact that he was in Viet-Nam is a given. The fact that he (as a United States Senator), has voted so consistantly against all that we hold to be "our rights", has me wondering how he lasted for so long.
Regardless of what he did 3 1/2 decades ago, it does not reflect what he has done since. And that it what counts. :(-->
dmiller, I was responding to this comment by Eagle when I said Kerry had the right to protest: "But I can't vote for him because he is an American traitor from the Vietnam War, so he doesn't belong in the Senate, never mind the presidency. He belongs in prison...."
Sheesh. Even the Fox News "no-spin" guy Bill O'Reilly calls Kerry a patriot.
Eagle went on to say: "The candidates were not supposed to have the questions in advance per the moderator. However, I did notice the moderator brought up questions to both of them more about the Iraqi war and "Bush's record" and did not touch on Kerry's record once. This scenario laid up by the moderator had Bush on the defensive all night."
The focus of the questions wasn't a surprise to either candidate, since they both knew the topic of the first debate was foreign policy. I think Bush was on the defensive for two reasons: (1) because he doesn't do well without a script or a teleprompter in front of him and (2) because he doesn't like to admit mistakes. He doesn't even seem to like to consider that he might have made any mistakes.
Eagle again: "On this debate, Kerry was smooth and prepared to answer the questions, as if expecting them, as if he had scripted answers.
"After the CBS fiasco, I was wondering if the moderator faxed the questions he was going to ask to the Kerry campaign so they could practice and left Bush out."
Both Kerry and Bush knew enough to prepare because they both knew the topic of the debate. They both should have been ready to answer questions on that topic. Kerry was. Bush wasn't.
I think Eagle is just sore because her boy got whipped.
dmiller,
Help us to understand your logic and substantiate your claims regarding Kerry. You put Kerry in the same category as men who were drafted as having risked his life. I would readily agree that many drafted service people were put in harm's way as was Kerry although Kerry volunteered to serve in the war which does not exactly place him in the same category as draftees. You then go on to cast doubt about his heroism in Vietnam although he was awarded medals and cited for his heroism.
Kerry and Bush both came from families of privilege. Kerry chose to face combat rather than use his family's influence to keep himself out of harm's way. Let's discount that Bush took advantage of his family's influence to avoid service in Vietnam as well as to get into Yale and Harvard Business School for the moment. Ahem. The fact remains that Kerry and choseto fight on the front lines while Bush chose to be warm and cozy back home in the National Guard in a unit in which no one remembers serving with him. It puzzles me why you therefore call into question Kerry's patriotism. Was it because he protested what he saw firsthand in Vietnam which violated what we stand for in America? Hasn't history proven him right? Isn't patriotism more about standing up for founding principles of this country than wrapping yourself up in the flag?
I find that your assertion that Kerry has done an excellent job in robbing the country of what it stands for is without merit and falls flat on it's face.
I'm glad to note that you know the correct spelling and usage of "vociferous," by the way. Those darn vostiferous insurgents! They is our real concerns.
Kerry was the better speaker I will give him that. However; he lies. He tells people what they want to hear. He got to be senator then missed 79% of the meetings to vote on issues he was elected to vote on.
He lied when he said he never said the "big word" (lie) because he said George Bush LIED (back in Sept 03) then he said the Bush administration LIED back in Dec. 03. So you cannot believe one word of this man who would give FUEL to IRAN to see what they would do with it? How stupid is that.
He is against our bunker buster bombs. How stupid is that.
You cannot trust HIM..............
So Bush was tired, he spent most of the day with the people who are recovering from a few hurricanes. DUH.......at least he was at the job. Kerry has missed 29 other voting meetings while on the campaign trail. I'm sure GWB was disgusted with Kerry for the same bs he's been trying to propound over this campaign.
Bush is still way ahead of Kerry for
Believability and Protection of this country
So Kerry had alot of spirits helping him talk. BIG DEAL
Remember the FATHER OF LIES. KERRY IS A BIG LIAR and he has proven that. I would never want a President who displayed my flag UP SIDE DOWN in a stupid book.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
6
9
15
Popular Days
Oct 3
43
Oct 1
24
Oct 2
13
Oct 4
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 7 posts
waterbuffalo 6 posts
Mister P-Mosh 9 posts
dmiller 15 posts
Popular Days
Oct 3 2004
43 posts
Oct 1 2004
24 posts
Oct 2 2004
13 posts
Oct 4 2004
13 posts
Wacky Funster
I actually listened to Rush today...wow!!!
WOW!!!!
Did we watch the same debates?
He's out to friggin' lunch!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Cowgirl: The next one is a week from today, town-hall style.
Wacky: You might try listening to Sean Hannity's radio show, then. He's still a conservative, but he doesn't have Limbaugh's bluster or sanctimonious self-righteousness. You probably won't agree with him, but he probably won't set your teeth on edge as much, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I'm not suprised some people here are still impressed with Bush. All the non ex-TWI conservatives that I know were dissapointed with Bush, and felt that even though they still support Bush, Kerry didn't seem as bad as they thought he would be.
Personally, I think that Kerry said things that I didn't like, but overall he acted much more presidential, and even if I don't agree with everything he says, he seemed rational. He also had a lot more self control and gave more straight answers than Bush did.
Bush, on the other hand, repeated the same things over and over in response to the questions. He squirmed, interrupted, and made a lot of weird expressions and twitched a lot. He may have Parkinson's disease if he acts like that all the time.
Of the messages of the two, the biggest complaint I had with Kerry is that he wasn't forceful enough against Bush. If I had been up there on that podium, Bush would have either been crying like the sissy he is. The biggest problem with Bush is either that he repeated the same soundbites over and over, or that he ridiculed the idea of securing the U.S., while talking about how important it is to secure Iraq.
I look forward to the future debates, because if this one was supposed to be Bush's strong topic, he will fail miserably in the next two.
I imagine the Bush campaign is trying to work on other strategies like commercials or possibly even an "October suprise" rather than focusing on the debates or his job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaddyHoundog
well, I think Bush did not capatilize on Kerry error very well...ie Kerry already called the PM of Iraq a liar...can you imagine if he wins the first phone call in January to the PM of Iraq...suck it up Kerry...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
The Iraqi PM was not democratically elected but rather an appointee by Paul Bremer and the Bush administration (I believe he was second in line after the Iraqis killed the first choice.) There's no reason we should believe him if he tells the British people that the situation in Iraq is dire, then turns around and campaigns for Bush by agreeing with Bush's misleading assessment of Iraq. Of course, I imagine that if the Iraqi PM were to say that things are nearing civil war, as our own intelligence agencies think, he'd end up dead one way or another.
Like John Kerry, I believe that the safety and well-being of my own country is a lot more important than Iraq. We do have a responsibility to fix the mess we created over there, but at the same time I think we should be spending our tax dollars to secure the U.S. first, and the Iraqi oil fields for Halliburton last.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I think it would be fair to say I started watching the debate as anti-Bush and ended being pro-Kerry. I was happy to finally see Kerry get down and dirty. Well, that might be over doing it. But he finally looked and sounded like a valid presidential canidate and not just "not Bush".
There were some very telling Bush statements, one of which Kerry capitalised on..."they {Iraq} attacked us". Then Bush came back with that pathetic "of course I know al Quada attacked us....you don't think I know that? It's so funny you think I didn't know that." paraphrased
;)--> Another was when Bush was going on and on about how hard it is being tha dubya and waging a war in Iraq. He said, "I see how hard it is on TV, Its hard work".
We need to give this man a break. He has been under a lot of pressure and doing a lot of hard work. It seems, after watching the debate, that it has been a little too hard for him. He needs a nap. I heard someone say, "He got a few winks in during the debate". Perhaps thats what he needs to be doing.
I felt uncomfortable for him. It was a mix of laughter and tears at our house. Well, the tears were from laughing so hard, but they were genuine. Don't doubt that.
:D-->
I think anyone that was watching this debate and thought the outsome was a tie or that Dubya won, has some serious partison issues and needs to seek help. The president in addition to being a tough cammander in chief, making tough desicions, and being personable, needs to be presidential. Not just like one of your friends, not all down homey, not just like one of us. Better than that. He or she should command authority, have a presence, have qualities we would aspire to, be articulate, think on his feet, and control his eye buldges and blinking.
;)--> Bush displayed none of those things and hasn't since I've been aware of his existence with the exception of a few days after 9/11. Even then a mayor out-shined him.
The debate made me feel like Kerry would be a much better president. He was presidential. Canned or otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I think that with U.S. elections nearing we'll see Bush taking a stronger stance as Commander-in-Chief. I read that Friday, "backed by warplanes and tanks, some 5,000 troops swept in to seize the city hall, the main mosque and other important sites in Samarra, leaving only pockets of resistance after more than 12 hours of combat, according to the U.S. military and Iraqi authorities." No more Mr. Niceguy when it comes to mosques."
The article went on to say "the city appeared calm late Friday except for American snipers on rooftops firing at anybody appearing in the streets below." Snipers sniping anybody showing their nose in public!!! Now there's a solution to insurgency.
My question is what took the Commander-in-Chief so long? And why now?
Mister P-Mosh, I love the quotation, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I tend to agree with some of that, however (now that I know the questions were not scripted), I can even more forcibly say that "quick answers" are not the solution -- such as Senator Kerry offered. He may have acted more "presidential" behind the podium, answering one question at a time from one moderator -- but I shudder to think of him in the oval office, should another 9/11 happen, and try to deal with something globally.
He wouldn't be able to handle it. He would make a decision, then when questioned about it later, would make every excuse known to man, to make himself look good to the accusatory crowd.
The zebra can't change it's spots. and
the leapord can't change it's stripes.
woops!!
I think I just flip-flopped.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
I think anyone who didn't watch the debate on C-Span missed a lot. C-Span ran a split screen throughout the entire debate, rather than picking and choosing when to show "reaction shots." I highly recommend that channel to you all for the remaining debates. It was also the best for the Rep and Dem conventions, IMO.
At times Kerry's nodding and smiling and gesturing were a bit much, but Dubya's expression through much of the debate looked like he was about to drop to the floor kicking and screaming like a spoiled kid in K-Mart whose mom says he can't have a toy.
I'm an independent voter. I've registered Dem and Repub at various times for purposes of voting in primaries, but I vote for the person I think is most competent, regardless of party.
I've said more than once on the Politics & 'Tacks forum that I don't hate Geo. W. Bush. I simply think he is beyond incompetent in his current role (and in most positions he's held in throughout adulthood), and I believe Rumsfeld and Cheney and some of his other top advisors have led us into a mess that's going to take us a long time to get ourselves out of regardless of who wins this election.
There were a couple things Kerry said that gave me pause and that I'm going to have to read up on, but those two things pale in comparison to Dubya's dismal record of the past four years.
I thought one of the most effective things Kerry did was to quote W's father, saying that if we went into Iraq we'd be in a big mess (don't remember the exact words) and we'd become occupiers. And I loved Kerry's line about certainty being good but you can be certain and wrong. That, to me, seems to be the hallmark of George Walker Bush. My way or the highway.
And I'm sorry, but don't buy Goerge's well-crafted image of being "just a regular guy." One of your average folks, riiiiiiiiiight. I'll bet those who believe that little PR bit also believe Dolly Parton grew those boobs all by herself.
:D-->
Bush's "I know that!" was far and away his most entertaining line of the night, followed by his series of repeated "hard work" comments. Those gave me flashbacks of Chris Gearshift in POP: "I had to scrub the floors and cook the food and drive the MOG and I had soooo much to do and blah blah blah." Well duh, who doesn't know that war is hard work???
I want to see how W tries to spin the economy, because here in Ohio, one of the swing states, we're hurtin'. (In fairness to W, we do have the biggest dolt of a governor of all time, Bob Taft--he makes W look like that millionaire Jeopardy contestant!)
All in all, the debate was more interesting than I expected it to be. I still wish they'd dispense with the 32-page rule book, not be allowed to have script writers, and just take off the gloves and go at it, but I'm sure their handlers would be too afraid they'd get foot in mouth disease.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
Attacking a couple of the *great* institutions, right up there with both kinds of music(country and western) and Mom and apple pie exposes the plot to destroy freedom and life as we know it!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaddyHoundog
wnw here;;
I dont like Kerry.
I dont like his wife who was also a staunch reepublican while I lived in Pgh..who was also born in Mozambique...educated in Johannesburg...
I dont like alll that Bush has done, but as Mom always said,
Better the Devil you know than the devil you don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Hahahaha Grizzy. I happen to like Dolly. I'm not attacking her impressive bosomly features. I just don't think they're homegrown, just like I don't think Geogeie's "just folks."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Yeah, Hounddog, didn't Kerry's wife decide to take his name after he decided to run? Because before, she kept going by her first husband's name even after she married Kerry (which was fine, just quit flip flopping all over the place).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
The problem is that Bush offered nothing. He was incapable of having a conversation, and instead chose to repeat the same soundbites over and over rather than give an answer. I find the idea of a president that doesn't even have the mental capacity to debate an opponent -- which even guests of the Jerry Springer show are capable of doing -- to be disturbing. Even worse was how he screwed up and confused Iraq and al Qaeda, as well as Saddam and Usama. Slips happen now and then, but that is a huge difference and something that a president that claims to make terrorism his top priority should never mess up.
The problem is that we have already seen what Bush did. He gave the Taliban money prior to 9/11, he failed to do what members of both party wanted him to do in order to at least maintain Clinton's level of anti-terrorism activities and funding when he took office, and he ignored the intelligence that lead to the attack. As far as I can tell, Bush did everything wrong with regards to terrorism prior to 9/11 except for going as far as flying the planes into our buildings himself.
I know that not everyone agrees, but having read the Hart Rudman report, having read about how Ashcroft and Bush cut intelligence funding prior to 9/11, how Bush ignored the memos relating to the imminent terrorist attack, and all of the evidence that other countries were trying to give him of a terrorist attack, the only two ways I can see to interpret it are either that Bush is incompetent or a traitor. Despite how much I mislike him, I don't think he would have intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen. I wouldn't put it past Cheney or Wolfowitz, though.
Anyway, I really don't think Kerry could do worse against terrorism, because there isn't much worse you can do minus starting a war with China and reinstating the draft, and forcing people to run around over there wearing orange hunting suits and only being armed with BB guns.
I think Kerry would be less willing to bend over to the Republicans after how Clinton was treated. When Clinton actually tried to go after terrorists they claimed it was to distract people from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I wish those people could have had a crystal ball to see 9/11 occuring, because maybe then they would have shut up and agreed with it.
Anyway, if another 9/11 were to occur, I imagine that the Republican party would blame him and stab him in the back and put politics ahead of actually going after the terrorists. I blame the Republican party for going to Iraq and abandoning the search for bin Laden and the fight against al Qaeda to focus on Iraq instead. I see that as putting politics and greed above the good of our nation. The Democrats are probably no better, but at least they haven't done something that bad. At least not yet.
That's why I can never support Bush and do not respect him in any way. I feel pity for him because he's pathetic in some ways, but he has done a horrible job, and he has evil people working for him that are screwing our country (Ashcroft, Cheney, etc should all be in jail now.) Kerry may not be my ideal choice, but I see him as being infinitely better than the alternative. It's like choosing Pee Wee Herman for president over Charles Manson. Neither are ideal, but at least one you can trust not to kill you and your family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
My wife didn't want to take my last name either, but did on U.S. paperwork because it makes things easier. In many other cultures, particularly latin cultures, you don't take the last name like that, but append it onto yours (if you are a woman getting married.)
For example, if she was Teresa Whatever Appellado before she got married, then become Teresa Whatever Heinz after being married. Since her first husband died, I imagine that she wanted to keep his last name to honor him and for the kids, but then eventually got over it and changed it because she saw that it was hurting her husband now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
I believe Kerry did better in the debate. But I can't vote for him because he is an American traitor from the Vietnam War, so he doesn't belong in the Senate, never mind the presidency. He belongs in prison and so does Bill Clinton. I would sooner vote for Homer Simpson, the animated character, or Mickey Mouse.
Bush lost a lot of opportunities where Kerry left himself wide open. I'll bet his staff is working with him now. Bush should have blown Kerry away and did not do that.
The candidates were not supposed to have the questions in advance per the moderator. However, I did notice the moderator brought up questions to both of them more about the Iraqi war and "Bush's record" and did not touch on Kerry's record once. This scenario laid up by the moderator had Bush on the defensive all night.
Bush to me is not that good a debater, but I don't believe Kerry is either because his practice is to shoot off at the mouth without thinking. On this debate, Kerry was smooth and prepared to answer the questions, as if expecting them, as if he had scripted answers.
After the CBS fiasco, I was wondering if the moderator faxed the questions he was going to ask to the Kerry campaign so they could practice and left Bush out.
Some of us strongly suspect that and would like the phone records from the moderators home and office cross-checked with the Kerry campaign to see if he used their fax machine.
Conspiracy theory, I know, but the groundwork was laid for the hostile atmosphere obviously sensed by Bush in which he couldn't complain because he would look like a sore sport.
I am voting for Bush. I don't like all his agenda, but I trust him the best. Kerry, to me never has and never will earn my trust after Vietnam, which I wish HE would stop bringing up.
Doesn't this thread belong in a different forum?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Eagle,
Why is it that you think that Kerry was a traitor from Vietnam? He didn't fight for the enemy, nor did he give any secrets or military info to the enemy.
Was it because he spoke out against the Vietnam War? Thrown his medals away? ... That isn't treason. Is it traitorous to speak out against a war that you don't think is right?
Sorry chief, but I don't agree there, as trying to fasten treason to protesting an war that isn't right does nothing to promote nor protect freedom. I mean, how many people here on Greasespot who plainly were against the Vietnam War (like me, proudly) would you be willing to be consistant and call us traitors as well, hmmm? Frankly, this kind of goosestepping mindset is starting to tick me off.
:(-->
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
You see that quote right after all of P-Mosh's posts? That one quote, by a *very* patriotic president, speaks volumes. And is one that shows and honors *true* freedom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Kerry risked his life in the Vietnam war. He and the other veterans who saw what was going on over there had more right than anyone on the planet to protest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
My dad joined the Marines to fight in WWII. He faulted neither me nor my brother's objections to Vietnam. He thought it was stupid as he thinks this war is.
And if Bush goes along with another "cease fire" arrangement or allows the enemy to kill more Americans by granting them safe haven to do so from another mosque, I think I'll go apoplectic from a severe case of Vietnam Deja Vu.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Linda Z --- you said: "Kerry risked his life in the Viet-Nam war".
Perhaps he did. Perhaps anyone who succumbed to the draft back then (I did not, and was a vociferous "peace-nik" in those days), put their life on the line. I won't quibble with you on that one, and actually tend to agree.
However -- the fact that he (Kerry) was there, doesn't mean that it is a "blanket statement" for what is going on today.
The man is running for the office of the President of the United States.
Every candidate has a past, and every past, of every candidate, should be open to scrutiny. Now -- that being said ---
Why hasn't Kerry's many years in the Senate been touted, as much as his Viet-nam service?
Why is the focus on something he did over 3 decades ago, and not what he is doing today?
He has demonstrated a huge willingness to allocate all judicial matters to the "international community", effectively leaving us (U.S.) out of the picture, and thus allowing other countries to decide our "fate".
He may have been a hero (I say that tongue in cheek), but to do all he has done in the following years, has effectively done an excellent job of robbing the US of everything we stand for.
The fact that he was in Viet-Nam is a given. The fact that he (as a United States Senator), has voted so consistantly against all that we hold to be "our rights", has me wondering how he lasted for so long.
Regardless of what he did 3 1/2 decades ago, it does not reflect what he has done since. And that it what counts.
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
dmiller, I was responding to this comment by Eagle when I said Kerry had the right to protest: "But I can't vote for him because he is an American traitor from the Vietnam War, so he doesn't belong in the Senate, never mind the presidency. He belongs in prison...."
Sheesh. Even the Fox News "no-spin" guy Bill O'Reilly calls Kerry a patriot.
Eagle went on to say: "The candidates were not supposed to have the questions in advance per the moderator. However, I did notice the moderator brought up questions to both of them more about the Iraqi war and "Bush's record" and did not touch on Kerry's record once. This scenario laid up by the moderator had Bush on the defensive all night."
The focus of the questions wasn't a surprise to either candidate, since they both knew the topic of the first debate was foreign policy. I think Bush was on the defensive for two reasons: (1) because he doesn't do well without a script or a teleprompter in front of him and (2) because he doesn't like to admit mistakes. He doesn't even seem to like to consider that he might have made any mistakes.
Eagle again: "On this debate, Kerry was smooth and prepared to answer the questions, as if expecting them, as if he had scripted answers.
"After the CBS fiasco, I was wondering if the moderator faxed the questions he was going to ask to the Kerry campaign so they could practice and left Bush out."
Both Kerry and Bush knew enough to prepare because they both knew the topic of the debate. They both should have been ready to answer questions on that topic. Kerry was. Bush wasn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Linda,
I think Eagle is just sore because her boy got whipped.
dmiller,
Help us to understand your logic and substantiate your claims regarding Kerry. You put Kerry in the same category as men who were drafted as having risked his life. I would readily agree that many drafted service people were put in harm's way as was Kerry although Kerry volunteered to serve in the war which does not exactly place him in the same category as draftees. You then go on to cast doubt about his heroism in Vietnam although he was awarded medals and cited for his heroism.
Kerry and Bush both came from families of privilege. Kerry chose to face combat rather than use his family's influence to keep himself out of harm's way. Let's discount that Bush took advantage of his family's influence to avoid service in Vietnam as well as to get into Yale and Harvard Business School for the moment. Ahem. The fact remains that Kerry and choseto fight on the front lines while Bush chose to be warm and cozy back home in the National Guard in a unit in which no one remembers serving with him. It puzzles me why you therefore call into question Kerry's patriotism. Was it because he protested what he saw firsthand in Vietnam which violated what we stand for in America? Hasn't history proven him right? Isn't patriotism more about standing up for founding principles of this country than wrapping yourself up in the flag?
I find that your assertion that Kerry has done an excellent job in robbing the country of what it stands for is without merit and falls flat on it's face.
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
PS to dmiller:
I'm glad to note that you know the correct spelling and usage of "vociferous," by the way. Those darn vostiferous insurgents! They is our real concerns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
Kerry was the better speaker I will give him that. However; he lies. He tells people what they want to hear. He got to be senator then missed 79% of the meetings to vote on issues he was elected to vote on.
He lied when he said he never said the "big word" (lie) because he said George Bush LIED (back in Sept 03) then he said the Bush administration LIED back in Dec. 03. So you cannot believe one word of this man who would give FUEL to IRAN to see what they would do with it? How stupid is that.
He is against our bunker buster bombs. How stupid is that.
You cannot trust HIM..............
So Bush was tired, he spent most of the day with the people who are recovering from a few hurricanes. DUH.......at least he was at the job. Kerry has missed 29 other voting meetings while on the campaign trail. I'm sure GWB was disgusted with Kerry for the same bs he's been trying to propound over this campaign.
Bush is still way ahead of Kerry for
Believability and Protection of this country
So Kerry had alot of spirits helping him talk. BIG DEAL
Remember the FATHER OF LIES. KERRY IS A BIG LIAR and he has proven that. I would never want a President who displayed my flag UP SIDE DOWN in a stupid book.
Edited by LornaDooneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.