Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Corsair on September 30, 2004, 09:39:23 pm
-
Just watched all 90 minutes of it... good lord that was glorious. Bush looked like a freakin' monkey next to Kerry.
-
It was horrible...
Bush is going to get relected and we are going to pay for it :(
-
Well Kerry sure can contradict himself, very good at that, oh and a champ at alienating people in the armed forces and avoiding the question
P.S. Rudy Giuliani for President:yes:
-
Mmmm... Bush is going to be reelected. I never said he wasn't. But it was still a glorious victory for the Kerry campaign.
Hillary's gonna tear the Republicans to shreds in 2008.
-
Haha. Yeah, right.
-
Never say never. Kerrey could win. He debated very well, in my opinion.
-
It was a glorious, spectacular victory for [insert name of favoured candidate], over his bumbling, idiotic opponent. Who we really need though, is [insert name of candidate hopefull for next election], he/she is going to clean house!
its not like the debates matter. Its kind of hard to debate when you agree with your opponent. The sound of one hand clapping if you will.
-
Who are we kidding? America pretends that Thursday's official Presidential foreign policy debate is the apex of US democracy in action (more like democracy inaction). Few expect to gather new information from the scripted theatrics. No real alternative will be offered to counter the Bush agenda. God forbid. Kerry will simply scoff at Bush,s mismanaging of the war in Iraq, and Dubya will respond by pointing out Kerry's flip-flopping of the issue. Show over.
Not mine BTW. But tell me, please tell me thats not what happened? Was there meaninful debate? Did we find out anything new? Were serious questions raised? Was anything but the most conventional, rigid, standard thinking applied by either of the candidates?
-
can I start chanting for McCain yet?
I'm realy quite tempted to write him in this year.
-
Kerry did better than I expected (composure-wise). I think that alone made him win this debate. Bush gotta work on that impatience/annoyance look. He made more break sliences than my cell phone! All in all, both parties danced around important questions and gave generalized promises that seem DUMBED down a bit. I don't think either has a clue on how to handle the Iraqi insurgancy. Either way this war will continue, and if not, many lives will continue to be still be lost.
After all that Iraq dancing. I'm surprised they didn't trip up on the North Korean nuclear issue.
Best attacks:
Bush: Unlike my opponent, I will not make decisions based on European popularity or pressure, but on whats best for this nation.
Kerri: Attacking Iraq in response to 9/11 is like attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
My 2 cents, in reguards to international relations I grudgingly give the ball to Kerry. Its the domestic issues that get me to sway a particular direction all the way.
If Kerry wants my vote, he better make a better distinction between his mentality on international situations and domestic ones. I don't want a president that will "flip flop" a domestic issue under slightiest sign of opposition.
Bush, he gotta come up with a better way to handle international issues without come across as an arragant cowboy. Perhaps some lessons on tact and better diplomacy.
-
Look, the system is broken. Voting for the least-broken cog is not going to achieve anything. Bush and Kerry are both the products of a system that is more or less incapble of producing anything other than Bushes and Kerrys.
...ok, I'll shut my pie hole now..
-
Nice, Rictor. I think its time to swallow them RED pills.
-
by Rictor
the system is broken.
I really fail to see how you can rant and rave and complain about how the system doesnt work when you dont even live here and dont really feel too many effects from it. Shouldnt you be worrying about Quebec or somthing?
-
Ahem. I'm a citizen of the world, first and foremost. And what goes on the the world matters to me. Sure, I live in Canada, which means I won't feel the impact to any great degree (and that too is argueable). But what if I lived in Latin America or Eastern Europe or the Middle East? Should everyone else be ingored, simply because they are not within your immediate line of sight?
You and I both know that decsions made in Washington have a profound effect on most of the rest of the world. So yes, non-American are entitled to speak their mind, cause they're sure as hell going to have to live with the consequences of decidions they have no control over.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Look, the system is broken. Voting for the least-broken cog is not going to achieve anything. Bush and Kerry are both the products of a system that is more or less incapble of producing anything other than Bushes and Kerrys.
...ok, I'll shut my pie hole now..
Agreed. This is why I am not registered to vote and have no intention of voting.
-
Yes, but you dont live there. You live in Canada. If Styxx(S. America) or Sandwich(Middle East) or C914(Eastern Europe) start complaining about U.S. foreign policy Ill listen and take it as a person who lives in it and is affected first hand. You, in Canada, are not under any scrutiny for WMD's, are not goin to suffer from the war on terror. For christ sake youre from a country pretty much known for being nice(stereotype oh well) and an ally of the U.S. Im sorry it just gets old listening to your constant left-wing rants.
and just so you know, my older brother is in Bagdad with the army, my father just recently returned from Saudi Arabia with the Air Force. So im sorry to say I think I know what it feels like to be affected by this....
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Ahem. I'm a citizen of the world, first and foremost.
:lol:
The World. One of the most disfunctional things ever created. And your a citizen of it. When God is dead, and aliens come to visit us, than you can be citizen of the World. The World. Hah.
-
Well, I'm a foreigner in the east and the American Foreign Policy still looks just as sucky (if not more) from here.
(yes, Singapore is affected directly because we would rely on the US for support in case any of our neighbours attacks us)
-
Ok well I would rather listen to you complain than good ol Rictor
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Agreed. This is why I am not registered to vote and have no intention of voting.
Vote fot your third party of choice, that seems reasonable:
NightHammer: hey, its a political thread after all. If you'de like to refute what I'm saying you're welcome to it, if not...I dunno, offer a counterpoint or something.
And as I already told you, I care about what happens to Canadians as much as I care about what happens to Sri Lankans or Chileans or whatever. What you're saying is that no one should speak out against anything unless it affects them personally, thats absurd. Should no one do anything about crime, or rape, or poverty, or murder, unless they themselves are a victim?
I would also think that the fact that you have family in Iraq would actually make you oppose the war, no? I mean, I wouldn't want my brother to die in vain for someone else's gain.
Answer me this, especially since you have a personal stake in it:
Do you honestly believe that Iraq posed a threat to the US?
edit: if you want a reason why I care, and the above is not comprehensible to you, then family in Serbia is it.
-
I'm with the jaded guy.
-
Well if youre a "citizen of the world" wouldnt you be more opposed to Saddam and Iraq than I should be? I mean he gassed the Iranians back in the late 80's. Hes commited so many human rights violations against the Kurds and his own people. Even now theyre blowing up 37 of their own children just to get 10 Americans(none of which were my brother, in case any of you care)
As for me no I dont oppose this. This is the right thing to do. Tyrants and people that threaten the lives of other people should not be left in power, to be honest I wish they would have takin care of Sadam earlier. My brother knows what could happen. He supports his commander in chief and he also believes this is the right thing to do.
BTW my dad was in Sarajevo in 1997...
-
Correction: He gassed the Kurds with American and British weapons.
-
Also id like to point out, those unsatisfied military wives the Democrats put on TV to say how much Bush sux is complete bull**** and the absolute minority. Ive lived on military bases pretty much my whole life(and now work on one in a small civilian position for the DoD). I can guarentee you there are very people on those bases that arent behind the war effort, the troops, or the president 100%
-
That's like saying a hooker supports the legalization of prostitution.
-
Omniscaper: the entire "Flip-flopping" crap is exactly that: CRAP
first to accuse Kerry of "flip-flopping" on Iraq you must first takes his quotes of out context, assume that the sum of parts A,B,C must be equal to the sum of parts A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J and K
then to say "he flip-flops" on his voting record you must assume that the content of a bill is consistent with it's label (such consistency is very uncommon), that there wasn't a nasty 'rider' on the bill, and that he hasn't encountered new information that would change him mind since hte last time he voted
It is a job of a politican to make the best decision possible based upon the information they have, and change their position if need be when new information comes to light. It is dangerous to a country to have a politican who is dogmatic.
oh Kerry really nailed bush on nuclear proliferation as well -- bringing out the (true) fact that bush sponsored the creation fo a new nuclear weapon, was ineffective at preventing korea from getting nuclear weapons, was ineffective at preventing Iran from proceeding on their nuclear weapons program, and has ignored that nuclear weapons in the hands of states can be as threatening as nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists
--------------------------
On the domestic-court kerry is soo much stronger than bush. bush has knowingly and willingly instigated violation of the US constitution over and over and deprived people of their rights.
Bush has caused the worst economic decline in recently history
Bush has promoted (And caused) serious damage to the enviroment
Bush has sold out to companies like Enron
Bush has promoted bigotry in america
Bush has promoted religious hatred in america
Bush has attempted to undermine a woman's right to her own body
-
(http://img1.vunct.net/albums/WalkingCarpet/pwn3d.jpg)
-
It is a job of a politican to make the best decision possible based upon the information they have, and change their position if need be when new information comes to light. It is dangerous to a country to have a politican who is dogmatic.
And, to have a party-based system completely destroys any hope of anyone voting as their conscience guides them.
-
The presidential debates are useless media stunts anyhow. It'd be more useful if it featured candidates that aren't from the major two parties.
BTW: I think Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and the green candidate are due to have a debate (will be on TV and such). That has potential to be interesting.
-
:)
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/Screenshots/pwn3d.jpg)
-
So they've both been castrated. What's your point?
-
Okay, I listened to part of this on the radio, not much and not intently. It just didn't matter, no real issues were discussed, just danced around.
If it had been a real debate, every candidate(Dem, Republican, Libertarian, Green, ECT) on the ballot in all 50 states would've been there and America might have been stirred from it antipathy a little.
BTW:
@Kazan: Kerry is a flip-flopper and you know it, you're just being an ass.
-
Originally posted by Night Hammer
Also id like to point out, those unsatisfied military wives the Democrats put on TV to say how much Bush sux is complete bull**** and the absolute minority. Ive lived on military bases pretty much my whole life(and now work on one in a small civilian position for the DoD). I can guarentee you there are very people on those bases that arent behind the war effort, the troops, or the president 100%
It's their job to be, though.......
-
If they were worried about their partners going off to war - if they didn't whole-heartedly believe that going off to fight for your country was the right thing to do - they wouldn't have married a soldier.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
@Kazan: Kerry is a flip-flopper and you know it, you're just being an ass.
Liberator, Bush is a flip-flopper and you know it. You're just being an ass:
From Tribalwars.com:
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
September 2, 2004, Updated
Download Poster
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]
9. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
10. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
11. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
12. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
13. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
14. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
15. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
16. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]
19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
20. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
21. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
23. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
25. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]
26. 527s
Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02]
…Bush says 527s bad for system: "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it…I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04]
27. Medical Records
Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protect…the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]
…Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Department…asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]
28. Timelines For Dictators
Bush sets timeline for Saddam: "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." [LA Times, 10/3/02]
…Bush says he's against timelines: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]
29. The Great Lakes
Bush wants to divert great lakes: "Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent' Bush 'said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.'– [AP, 7/19/01]
Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes: "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush, 8/16/04]
30. Winning The War On Terror
Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]
…Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]
…Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]
-
ROFL! :lol:
This thread is funny! It's basically a discussion who of the two is the lesser evil.
The sad thing is, that 90% of the Americans who vote actually believes the one with the biggest parade, wins the cock-swinging contest, makes the best promises and thus has the most money. The entire US presidential election system is based on one thing and one thing only; money.
The bigger the show and the glamour, the more votes you get. No matter what an ass you are. The bigger the promises, the more votes you get. And you don't even have to live up to them (as they never, ever do).
As for the debate itself;
:wtf: Iraq that, Iraq this, Iraq and his mom were seen kissing!
[Insert a non-direct rebuttal]
[Insert a non-direct rebuttal on the previous rebuttal]
Etc...
My god, it was awefull. I seriously can't believe people actually vote for either of them. Richard F*cking Simmonds can do a better job on a national TV morning excercise program wearing nothing more then a speedo that is 2 sizes too small.
The one accuses the other of something he himself did about 60 times over and vice versa.
Ugh...
-
Which is why I believe the last real leaders on the face of the Earth died with Ghandi and Kennedy.........
-
Originally posted by Singh
Which is why I believe the last real leaders on the face of the Earth died with Ghandi and Kennedy.........
Kennedy? :wtf:
Probably want to check up on that one.
-
Originally posted by Impurial
Kennedy? :wtf:
Probably want to check up on that one.
Ach...your right.
Make that Ghandi and Nehru :P
-
And while you're watching the debates, another Iraqi city burns.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041001/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716
-
Kennedy had charisma and personality, which at least made him an agreeable choice, even if he wasn't the greatest politician - which in some ways he became....
-
What bothers me the most about American presidents, is while they represent a great power that has lots of influence outside it's own borders, they don't even reflect the American people themselves. Let alone the people outside the US they hold influence over.
They are merely representative for rich dumb****s that think they know everything better then everyone else nin the rest of the world (thus including the entirety of the US population).
If the US president was purely an America based president I couldn't give a **** about it since it's their own beef to deal with. But that isn't the way. The US holds power virtually everywhere. It ****ing annoys the **** out of me that such dumb****s stand there and debate on which moron should be president by avoiding important questions while entire cities are burning, carbombs are exploding, peope are dying and another 50% of the world population is starving their asses off.
:ick:
(Note; just to clarify, I'm not bashing the US. Just their figurehead and screwed up view on politics.)
-
what this thread is getting jerked to Iraq!
weeee!!! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63401-2004Sep30.html)
-
Screw that, I'm not registering :p
As for this thread being jerked into Iraq, that was basically what the entire friggin' debate was about.
-
Even when Bush was asked about what he would do about North Korea, towards the end of the debate, he started going into his spiel about "Saddam was a threat". Here is the actual transcript of that part of the debate:
KERRY: "Now, I'd like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to that issue about China and the talks. Because that's one of the most critical issues here: North Korea.
Just because the president says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the president who said "There were weapons of mass destruction," said "Mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on the cheap -- none of which were true.
We could have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il. And we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China. Because China has an interest in the outcome, too. "
LEHRER: "Thirty seconds, Mr. President."
BUSH: "You know my opinion on North Korea. I can't say it any more plainly."
LEHRER: "Well, but when he used the word 'truth' again ..."
BUSH: "Pardon me?"
LEHRER: "... talking about the truth of the matter. He used the word 'truth' again. Did that raise any hackles with you?"
BUSH: "Oh, I'm a pretty calm guy. I don't take it personally."
LEHRER: "OK. All right."
BUSH: "You know, we looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion: that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat."
What the crap was THAT? :wtf:
Bush had a massive Freudian slip, too:
Bush: "But to say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror.
Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden."
Kerry won this one, hands down. He even addressed the "flip-flopper" issue, by saying the following:
"I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat.
There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way."
:nod:
All of these quotes have been taken verbatim from the CNN transcript available online, except that quote marks and boldface have been added by me for the purposes of the post. Yarr.
-
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
KERRY: "Now, I'd like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to that issue about China and the talks. Because that's one of the most critical issues here: North Korea.
Just because the president says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the president who said "There were weapons of mass destruction," said "Mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on the cheap -- none of which were true.
We could have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il. And we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China. Because China has an interest in the outcome, too. "
BUSH: "You know my opinion on North Korea. I can't say it any more plainly."
BUSH: "You know, we looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion: that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat."
:wtf:
Bizarre.
-
I'm not going to rebut all of that crap, but I did pick out some of the ones they royally screwed up on.
Originally posted by Ace
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
You act like there are separate accounts each citizen has been paying into since they started working in some great federal vault somewhere that are sacrosanct. There aren't it's a line item on the federal budget Washington politicians have been "raiding" almost since it's inception and it's never been solvent. That 1.4 trillion was a ludicrous account projection that never would have been realized. Bush supports reforming social security so that each citizen has a choice of a privately managed SS account that the Government can't touch or not paying that tax and handling their retirement themselves. He's not talking about taking anybodies retirement from them, just reforming it so it can work without massive federal input.
6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
This is rhetoric, stated before he had a firm grasp of the situation. The sad truth is if you piss them off, all they have to do is turn off the tap.
7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
This one's funny, you said he's talking about Iraq specifically. It looks more like he's talking about the entirety of the Armed forces.
But, if you must have a more solid rebuttal, the key word is the fourth in the first quote: anticipate. It means to give advance thought, discussion, or treatment to or to foresee and deal with in advance. A guess basically and it turns out that this guess didn't turn out.
[/i]
19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
[/i]
He's the President, he's a busy man. Also, he didn't have to testify, he did it as a fig leaf to bridge the immense partisanship that had gripped that body and, indeed, congress.
20. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
I sure he would leave it a state issue if he thought that the ACLU or some other extremeist Left Wing legal group couldn't press the issue, but as has been shown, they're willing to do anything to advance their agenda.
*edited for readabilty and puncuation errors.
-
Liberator:
calling the ACLU "extremist left wing" ROTFL
KNOW what you're talking about before opening you're mouth -- Ace clearly demonstrated bush doing what you say "flip-flopping" is when you accuse kerry of it -- furthermore you seem to have missed something about what a politician is _supposed_ to be
Originally posted by Kazan
It is a job of a politican to make the best decision possible based upon the information they have, and change their position if need be when new information comes to light. It is dangerous to a country to have a politican who is dogmatic.
-
He's the President, he's a busy man. Also, he didn't have to testify, he did it as a fig leaf to bridge the immense partisanship that had gripped that body and, indeed, congress.
:lol: ROFLMAO! :lol:
So basically your argument is this;
"He's the Prez so shaddap and sit down! He has to do exactly **** unlike what anyone-****ing-else has to do! HE IZ GOD!!!!!!!"
Seriously, his title means exactly ****[/b]. He might be called 'President' but that doesn't mean he's above the law. Nevertheless, he seems to think so. In this instance and about a dozen more.
This one's funny, you said he's talking about Iraq specifically. It looks more like he's talking about the entirety of the Armed forces.
"He" didn't say ****. It were direct quotes from they're respective sources. :doubt:
-
Wait...Kerry was more charismatic than Bush? Were you watching the same thing I was last night? Mr. Muenster, he-of-the-million-hand-gestures, couldn't win over an inebriated monkey. I'd say Bush was the real winner here; he caught Kerry several times, including the bilateral-vs-multilateral North Korean talks.
And yeah, Kazan, Bush ranks right up there with the devil. Caused economic decline, violated "woman's right to her own body," environmental devastation...give me a break and quit spewing that same old leftist BS. And, in case you haven't noticed, the ACLU, or at least its leadership, is radically left-wing. Take a look at some of the recent lawsuits they've brought...wacko doesn't even begin to describe it :rolleyes:
-
Sad truth is America looks after one thing:America. Kyoto, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Opec, the Bin Ladens (friends of the Bush's), North Korea, Afganistan, Russia, Iran, Chilli, Mexico, Israel, Somalia,the Native Americans...
FOR CHRIST SAKE PEOPLE WHY DO WE BOTHER IF WE AINT AMERICAN AND CANT MAKE EM RICH THEY BOMB US OR GET SOMEONE THEY KNOW TO BOMB US.
Sorry bout that, it just seems so such a waste of bloody life, everywhere America could help. But they don't, and that is the biggest problem in the world, America.
And I want to make it quite clear I do not hate Americans, just your foriegn Policy.
Isn't intersting that there are no left wing parties in the US?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Okay, I listened to part of this on the radio, not much and not intently. It just didn't matter, no real issues were discussed, just danced around.
If it had been a real debate, every candidate(Dem, Republican, Libertarian, Green, ECT) on the ballot in all 50 states would've been there and America might have been stirred from it antipathy a little.
ding ding ding, we have a winner.
I hate it when I have to read through several pages of stuff just to catch up. Its like when I go up to grab something to eat, and the movie just keeps going, and by the time I get back, I'm wondering why everyone's dead and the dog is running off with the guy's passport....
edit: sure there is Fergus, they're just not very big. Thats true for all independent parties, regardless of politcal orientation. Essentially, America is at the mercy of whichever way the two parties feel like swinging. Right now, thats right. Thats why supporting independents, any independents, is so crucial. If the US become an actual multiparty democracy, politicians could not get away with nearly so much as they do now, because they would know that they are replacable.
-
I don't understand. Is Rictor actually agreeing with something I said?!?!?:wtf:
-
yeah, I know...wierd.
BTW, whats ECT?
-
How To Win Friends And Influence People:
Make comments like this:
"The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto from countries like France," Mr. Bush told supporters at a rally in Allentown, Pa.
This anti-French thing is really beginning to piss me off.
-
Originally posted by Fergus
Sad truth is America looks after one thing:America. Kyoto, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Opec, the Bin Ladens (friends of the Bush's), North Korea, Afganistan, Russia, Iran, Chilli, Mexico, Israel, Somalia,the Native Americans...
Isn't intersting that there are no left wing parties in the US?
Speaking of foreign policy: Ireland, Scotland (and you want to talk about native america, yeah) , India....
Let's not be the pot calling the proverbial kettle 'black' shall we? We live in countries where the big decisions are being made by people who deal in abstracts.
-
Where did Scotland come into this? We're not exactly in the same category as Ireland or India...
-
Originally posted by vyper
Where did Scotland come into this? We're not exactly in the same category as Ireland or India...
A couple of hundred years ago ya were.
Dragging past misdeeds centuries old is pointless (yonder Native American stuff, for example). Bringing up Scotland was a cheap tit-for-tat on my part which I shouldn't have done.
-
Slightly different situation, so yes. Anyway, I found this entire debate hillarious (the Bush Kerry one). Why? Because Bush made more gaffs that I thought even he would in a televised debate and Kerry merely presented the same policies with different justifications.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Slightly different situation, so yes. Anyway, I found this entire debate hillarious (the Bush Kerry one). Why? Because Bush made more gaffs that I thought even he would in a televised debate and Kerry merely presented the same policies with different justifications.
This debate is a near-perfect mirror of the one a few seasons back on "The West Wing". You have the proverbial good-'ol-boy versus the smartest kid in school.
The current sitting president is simply not a smart man, but he has a certain 'charm' that appeals to the Big Mean Hick undercurrent of society here. Kerry is a keen mind and a cool head.
I seriously believe, conspiracy theories aside about announcing the capture of Bin Laden two weeks before election day, that Kerry will be the next President.
-
ionia: Kerry said almost that exact thing, word for word, at one of his speeches. Though I think he said the UN or "foreign powers" instead of France.
its all too funny..
-
@Rictor: ECT represents the lesser political parties of less than reputable character such as Communists, Nazis, basically everybody not afiliiated Politically with the Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians and has a candidate for president. It's an absolute travesty that at least the Libertarian candidate wasn't allowed to participate. Of course, this wasn't really a debate anyway, given the strictness of the rules. It was more of a joint press conference.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
ionia: Kerry said almost that exact thing, word for word, at one of his speeches. Though I think he said the UN or "foreign powers" instead of France.
its all too funny..
Aww, man, please say it ain't so.....
-
Originally posted by Fergus
Isn't intersting that there are no left wing parties in the US?
Um, ever hear of the party with the donkey logo? :p
-
Originally posted by Liberator
@Rictor: ECT represents the lesser political parties of less than reputable character such as Communists, Nazis, basically everybody not afiliiated Politically with the Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians and has a candidate for president. It's an absolute travesty that at least the Libertarian candidate wasn't allowed to participate. Of course, this wasn't really a debate anyway, given the strictness of the rules. It was more of a joint press conference.
What is "ECT"?
-
Well, it's like this:
When Bush says UN or allies, he means all our allies.
When Kerry say UN or allies, he means the 3 major continental European powers(France, Germany, and Russia).
Also, I heard a good explanation of that "If the World could vote in the US election" poll thats going around. Basically, the countries that voted for Kerry have something to gain from a weakened United States. Kerry will weaken the United States, because he bows at the Altar of the UN. With Bush however, the US will continue to be a power not to be trifled with.
-
Kerry's aware that the United States is not the whole of the world, not is "out there" populated entirely by suicide bombers or potential oil and fast food markets. Fundamental difference.
Just look at their debate practices.
Bush: "War on terror blah homosexuals blah blah blah"
Kerry: "Yeah, well, I won 3 purple hearts."
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Um, ever hear of the party with the donkey logo? :p
The way things have been lately, the Dems are IMO a lot MORE moderate and prudent than the Republicans, who have been barreling the country as far to the right as they can push it ever since 1994, when 2 dozen representatives, elected as Democrats, all switched to the GOP in unison the very second they were in office. Bait-and-switch politics does not a democracy make.
Claiming the Republicans are still the same party of moderation and fiscal prudence they were in the '60s and '70s is like claiming that eating flowers lets you shoot fireballs. I've seen nothing but spin and scheming from the increasingly out-of-touch politicians of the right wing, especially since Bush took office.
(almost wrote "Bosch" there! :rolleyes: "I demand unfettered access to the White House kitchen!" :lol: )
-
Originally posted by Vanguard
What is "ECT"?
I'm assuming he meant "etc.", an abbreviation for "et cetera".
-
Hehe at Bosch :p
I really don't care about the economic issues myself; I have absolutely no mind for business/finance/economics. I'm more concerned with foreign policy and social issues, and Bush represents my views on these points.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Well, it's like this:
When Bush says UN or allies, he means all our allies.
When Kerry say UN or allies, he means the 3 major continental European powers(France, Germany, and Russia).
Also, I heard a good explanation of that "If the World could vote in the US election" poll thats going around. Basically, the countries that voted for Kerry have something to gain from a weakened United States. Kerry will weaken the United States, because he bows at the Altar of the UN. With Bush however, the US will continue to be a power not to be trifled with.
It's interesting to note how not ****ing about the rest of the world for your own self interest becomes 'bowing at the altar of the UN'. And, indeed, that you're advocating the US basically ignoring the sanctity of the organisation that was developed to ensure world peace and human rights - 2 things which, I presume, you couldn't give a **** about.
-
[q]With Bush however, the US will continue to be a power not to be trifled with.[/q]
You just wait till they **** themselves up.
nice plan.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Dragging past misdeeds centuries old is pointless (yonder Native American stuff, for example).
Most of what I said happened only 20 years ago at the most so how is it pointless?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Well, it's like this:
When Bush says UN or allies, he means all our allies.
When Kerry say UN or allies, he means the 3 major continental European powers(France, Germany, and Russia).
Also, I heard a good explanation of that "If the World could vote in the US election" poll thats going around. Basically, the countries that voted for Kerry have something to gain from a weakened United States. Kerry will weaken the United States, because he bows at the Altar of the UN. With Bush however, the US will continue to be a power not to be trifled with.
Let me ask you this: is making the US weaker in and of itself always a bad thing? If there is a certain amount of power which a country should hold, and no more, than is not weakining it down to that amount a good thing? Lets consider an example that you are not emotionally invested in:
A hundred years ago, Britain had itself a jolly old Empire. Now, kicking the Brits out of the colonies that they lorder over (India, Palestine, etc... America, though that was earlier) can certainly be considered as weakening Britain. Do you oppose the process of decolonization or the right of self-determination for the colonists? Or do you think that Britain (and France, and Germany, Russia and all the others) should still be running their empires?
Do you see what I'm getting at? If a nation has immense power outside of its national boundries, power that encroaches on the rights of others, than weaking that nation is good. The difference between a republic, which is what America was founded as, and an empire, which is what America has become, is the amount of power that nation wields abroad (note that I am only reffering to foreign policy, domestically there is a whole other set of differences). Thats essentially the choice facing Americans: republic or empire. Unfortunately, come November 2nd, there will be two candidates for empire, and none for the republic.
note: Not that I think Kerry will do anything but increase US dominance, which is one of the major reasons I dislike him. He has no intention of letting go of a single ounce of American power, which puts imperialists (of which I hope you are not one) in a win/win situation.
-
[q]Now, kicking the Brits out of the colonies that they lorder over[/q]
We weren't kicked out of half of them. But I wouldn't want to annoy the yanks by starting this argument now.
-
America, I would say*, is not an empire. Aggressive, expansionist, yes, but not an empire in the sense you mean - because America doesn't export its people in the way the British empire did. It can't, because Americans aren't willing to leave to 'Americanise' other countries.
America is something different. In some ways worse, because it makes up for that lack of cultural influence through exploiting its military and economic strength.
*NB: this does come from a documentary on whether America was an empire, and if so - is it in decline, as ll empires end up being in.
-
aldo, have you ever read anything by Niall Ferguson?
-
well, to my mind, empire simply means "a hell of a lot of power abroad". Though even if you were to judge it in the traditional sense, it would still be more empire than not, due to the vast network of military bases, several ongoing occupations and concentration of power within the political system.
Yes, I admit, it lacks some of the traits of empire, as you mentioned, but these are (to me at least) minor things, whereas the major cornerstones of empire are firmly in place, and quite a few ones that the Brits or Romans could never have dreamed of. Military bases in 80% of the world's nations; No one has ever achieved that, or even come close, until now.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Well, it's like this:
When Bush says UN or allies, he means all our allies.
When Kerry say UN or allies, he means the 3 major continental European powers(France, Germany, and Russia).
Also, I heard a good explanation of that "If the World could vote in the US election" poll thats going around. Basically, the countries that voted for Kerry have something to gain from a weakened United States. Kerry will weaken the United States, because he bows at the Altar of the UN. With Bush however, the US will continue to be a power not to be trifled with.
Jeebus f'ing Chreestus...
- This is EXACTLY the kind of attitude that makes America so extremely hated in the world.
- This is EXACTLY the kind of attitude that made the two planes crash into the WTC.
- This is EXACTLY why Americans are still the target of virtually every terrorist group in the world.
All America seems to care about is consolidating it's power abroad. And those without power get pissed off and decide to fly a few planes into your backyard because they have no other way to fight.
Terrorism is a bad thing, but with this attitude you're asking for it. And frankly, if this attitude becomes any greater and begins to actively affect the world as a whole (in a way it already has) I don't friggin' mind if they run a 747 into the white house.
I truly despise this attitude and you, Lib, just sank to new depths.
-
Steady on lass.
-
he's entitled to his opinion, as long as he backs it up and explains it, which is what I've been trying to get him to do.
to be fair, there are many nations that, though much more limited in the scope of their power, act alot worse towards people within that area of influence. basically, its Quantity vs quality of repression.
-
Yeah, he's entgitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine.
He simply laid out why America is so hated. I couldn't have said it more clearly. America doesn't give a rats ass about the responsibilities that come with power. Give them more power and they will take less responsibilities.
It doesn't work that way. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by vyper
aldo, have you ever read anything by Niall Ferguson?
I think he was the guy that narrated the aforementioned tv program (based on one of his books). I've not actually read anything of his, though.
Originally posted by Rictor
well, to my mind, empire simply means "a hell of a lot of power abroad". Though even if you were to judge it in the traditional sense, it would still be more empire than not, due to the vast network of military bases, several ongoing occupations and concentration of power within the political system.
Yes, I admit, it lacks some of the traits of empire, as you mentioned, but these are (to me at least) minor things, whereas the major cornerstones of empire are firmly in place, and quite a few ones that the Brits or Romans could never have dreamed of. Military bases in 80% of the world's nations; No one has ever achieved that, or even come close, until now.
Well, I'm not disagreeing about the level of power & posturing. But the empire comparisons tend to be a bit misleading IMO because of the different nature of the US hegemony.
-
I was most disturbed when Bush talked about how he avoided the International Criminal Court because it would have the authority to put Americans on trial. I've given him credit for passing himself off as a moderate, but I think that was a little glimpse of how much of a nut he is. The very idea that Americans could be tried by foreigners! It's disgraceful! :rolleyes:
-
Liberator is a prime example of what's wrong with the US
Rictor is an example of what's wrong with rampant leftism
Hooray for moderate leftism
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I was most disturbed when Bush talked about how he avoided the International Criminal Court because it would have the authority to put Americans on trial. I've given him credit for passing himself off as a moderate, but I think that was a little glimpse of how much of a nut he is. The very idea that Americans could be tried by foreigners! It's disgraceful! :rolleyes:
He said that?
That's just....wrong. By the same token, Bin Laden shouldn't be put on trial in America, as he's not American.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
With Bush however, the US will continue to be a power not to be trifled with.
You sir, are a thundering moron (IMHO, of course).
Man, comments like that....rrrrrrrrrrr...:mad:
-
The US is a power not to be trifled with in the same sense that a 5 year old with a gun is not to be trifled with.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The US is a power not to be trifled with in the same sense that a 5 year old with a gun is not to be trifled with.
That I can agree with.
-
And with Bush's help we can give those five-year-olds the guns they need to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
-
Hands up who here is opposed to hegemony.
...
ok, the bad news is, you're all a bunch of leftist crazies. But the good news is, you're in good (and plentiful) company.
-
rictor: i'm opposed to hegemony and i hope that the EU becomes a powerful federation and channel's our heomony -- a lot of americans need their ego's deflated a lot
however rictor _you_ cross the line from moderatism to extremism
-
Well, so did John Locke.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
And with Bush's help we can give those five-year-olds the guns they need to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
:lol:
My cats think you are funny. Little weasels.
This is why we should all vote for Kerrey...as he is the lesser of two evils.(remember that?). ;)
-
Ugh... Politics :ick:
-
Ahhh Kazan, the paragon of moderacy.
-
Just as a question, why should Americans be subject to the ICC? We have our own judicial system; let us handle our own. I don't think we need yet another step on the road to global government, thank you very much.
Edit: And what, pray tell, is wrong with Liberator's comments? I wholly agree with him. As an American, I want to see American power maintained.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Just as a question, why should Americans be subject to the ICC? We have our own judicial system; let us handle our own. I don't think we need yet another step on the road to global government, thank you very much.
Edit: And what, pray tell, is wrong with Liberator's comments? I wholly agree with him. As an American, I want to see American power maintained.
Because the ICC is an international criminal court, for international crimes. You say 'handle our own', the rest of the world says 'look after their own'. If you extend the principle of Americans not being tried by foreign courts, then the Nuremburg trials break that. So does the trial of Milosovic. So would trying Bin Ladin in any other country than Saudi Arabia.
EDIT; the ICCs role is to provide a neutral venue for international crimes. It's blatantly obvious why this is required rather than trying the accused individual in the country that they stand accused with.
And the rest of the world does not want to see US power maintained. They - we - want freedom to conduct our own affairs independent of what the US wants. If the US continues its policies, it will be increasingly seen as openly disrespecting other countries sovereignty and their right to freely express their views - France and Germany being the best current examples. Whilst you may not care about this as an American, it will eventually rebound upon the US in economic, political and social ways as well as the way it already has with terrorism.
-
Exactly. The world is not our sand-box, free to be molded as we choose.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Just as a question, why should Americans be subject to the ICC?
For the same reason we have courts at all. The concept of a court is to judge everyone fairly and impartially, so that no one is above the law. If you have courts for individuals, then it stands to reason that you should have courts for nations. Otherwise, its just might makes right.
If Johhny goes and shoots Billy, and Billy can't do **** about it cause he's too weak to take Johhny head on, does that mean he should get no justice? Does it mean that Johhny should get away with murder? Of course not. A court will try Johhny, and he will be made to make reparations to Billy, and/or accept a punishment. This is to deter not only Johhny, but anyone, from ever commiting murder again.
Now replace the names Johhny and Billy with the names of any two nations, and you have the ICC.
-
See, right here we have the death knell of every world power in history: The notion that its power is a carte blanche.
-
*simply laughs at topic*
-
:rolleyes:
*laughs at a certain users inability to make an intelligent or valuable comment*
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
*simply laughs at topic*
So why post that? What a pointless waste of my bandwidth, how inconsiderate.
-
So who's voting for who then?
-
No aldo, if I spent my time trying to make a serious post, then I would be flamed. The bandwidtch I used up on THAT post would be viewed as equal to my opinion. No need to set the topic on fire, just laugh at the topic. :D
-
All of you just STFU already. 'Merkins - Answer my question.
-
Well sadly I'm voting for Kerry as opposed to a 3rd party.
The main reason being despite the fact his foreign policies are the same as Bush, his domestic ones are somewhat decent and will mean I won't have to pay for Bush's continued black hole spending policies 30 years down the road.
Of course I'm sure that I'm going to hear replies such as: OMFG!!! He's GONNA RAISE TAXES!!! GMGFKJ!!!!!
No **** sherlock, when you have this much of a deficit the things Bush has been doing (tax cuts for the rich and the middle class) are blatantly stupid, especially when there was a perfectly good economic plan that would have allowed for the budget to be paid off. Yes, wars cost money, but the deviance from a balanced budget should be no where near as much as it currently is. Especially when there's tons of people below the poverty line who won't see the cuts and are infact paying more due to Bush... those people are going to determine the election.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
No aldo, if I spent my time trying to make a serious post, then I would be flamed. The bandwidtch I used up on THAT post would be viewed as equal to my opinion. No need to set the topic on fire, just laugh at the topic. :D
If you don't have anything useful to say, regardless of the content or political spin, then just fu... don't post. Simple.
-
fudge nutties? :wtf:
-
Tin, just shut the **** up eh?
-
Everybody back off...
*takes look at thread*
Ok lets settle this, I can tell you who wins...
Where do I get all prophecies? that's right...
*drum roll...........*
and the winner is........... BUSH (http://exodus2006.com/fab/bush2004.htm)
But don't worry for he will then be......
assasinated (http://exodus2006.com/bushdie.htm) and another... (http://exodus2006.com/fab/Bushdie3.htm) :p
My, I love these things :D
-
one thing that always seemed wierd to me is how the spending of one administration is so dependent one the previous one. I mean, whoever comes after Bush is going to have a huge deficit to deal with, and so they're either going to have to raise taxes or cut social programs, both of which are bad, but neither of which is their fault. I don't even mean Kerry, the same applies even if its a Republican.
there is really no incentive to spend wisely, cause you never have to clean up your own mess.
tincan: feel free to say what you want, everyone else does. I for one won't flame ya...unless you think Dick Cheney is sexy, in which case I will.