[Clave]

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....

[Tiara]

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.



(Note; just to clarify, I'm not bashing the US. Just their figurehead and screwed up view on politics.)

[Bobboau]

what this thread is getting jerked to Iraq!
weeee!!!

[Tiara]

Screw that, I'm not registering

As for this thread being jerked into Iraq, that was basically what the entire friggin' debate was about.

[Mad Bomber]

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?

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."




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.

[aldo_14]

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."

Bizarre.

[Liberator]

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.

[Kazan]

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.
 

[Tiara]

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.

ROFLMAO!

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.

[Mongoose]

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

[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...

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?

[Rictor]

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.

[Liberator]

I don't understand.  Is Rictor actually agreeing with something I said?!?!?

[Rictor]

yeah, I know...wierd.
BTW, whats ECT?

[ionia23]

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.

[ionia23]

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.

[vyper]

Where did Scotland come into this? We're not exactly in the same category as Ireland or India...

[ionia23]

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.

[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.

[ionia23]

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.