Pres Debate Townhall- Syle

[Guest]

so far bush is owning kerry.

and kerry is making very bad mistakes by demeaning the current coalition members.. very very bad.

[LostInSpace]

This is where Bush shines the best when he's able to talk directly to the people Kerry does better in more strick formal venues.

Oh no Kerry is going to restore what they did in the 90's!!!

Another thing Kerry is claiming he's had to cut back on some proposed plans because of the deficit. No wrongo because he's going to cut taxes how is he going to pay for those plans.

Ah Bush just said that.

I suggest to people if you haven't already see if you can't get a hold of any Penn and Teller's Bullshit they show on cable one in particular is Enviormental Hysteria download it if you must.

And don't believe everything you hear from the EPA it's just another political bureaucracy.

How can you keep lower health care if the Doctors malpratice insurance premiums go up year after year. That's what is driving up health costs. What is Kerry going to do? Force doctors to lower their fees? Yeah right! You do that people won't become doctors and the doctors that are already established just won't take that insurance that Kerry has planned everyone will be cover with. What's the plan gunna pay $7.25 cents? There's already a plan that does that and it's called Fidelis. I can tell you not many doctors accept that plan.

OMFG he said it again "I have a plan"!!!!! Four times now!! maybe more wait and see

[ 10-08-2004, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

[Guest]

'got wood'

Ooooh boy... ugly ugly... heeeheee

[Guest]

yep. Kerry got owned.

In all issues Bush not only put forth facts, actions and most importantly, 'the big picture' of the issues.

Kerry stayed constantly nagging the little bits trying to undermine bush and paint more flowers on 'his plan' (which I still didnt see him explain much of).

Both did well in domestic issues, but in international issues Kerry constantly took a beating.

One thing is undeniable though. Kerry made an unforgivable mistake in both debates.

Undermining the nations currently supporting the USA.

He not only hurt his own position in the eyes of the US voters, but MOST importantly it has hurt those allied nations that currently support the US efforts.

Poland is withdrawing its troops soon. And even though they were going to do that anyway before Kerry opened his yap, his comments have seriously injured the chances of Poland (or any other nation) increasing their support be it via troops or materiel.

Very, very bad of him. Even if the average american voter doesn't pay attention to that 'stuff', Kerry's words have injured the nation beyond the results of the election.

[TARWMSRK]

Oh man... I was all for Kerry until that timber company comment...OUCH! I couldnt watch, it was just too horrible. Everything just went downhill from there...poor guy. Heh he probably wrote down on his notepad to kill the guy who told him that piece of information. Ah well, there is still time to change my mind. They are both very good people and frankly...ill be happy with either of them as president.

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carl Burning:

Oh man... I was all for Kerry until that timber company comment...OUCH! I couldnt watch, it was just too horrible.

---

I'm telling you go see if you can watch that Penn and Teller Bullshit episode Enviornmental Hysteria.

[Guest]

Carl, before you decide on which to vote for, please talk to anyone who has had experience in international relations/diplomacy (local universities a great place to find them). Ask them about both candidate's positions on the international issues.

I'd tell you why I ask you to do this if you can , but it'd spark a 20 page long post that's slightly off-topic. Make your own, informed opinion after that.

In my opinion, kerry is seriously dangerous to have as a president in this period in history.

If i was to compare these 2 candidates to historical figures...

id say Kerry is like Neville Chamberlein pushing for 'peace in our times'...

while Bush is more like Sir Winston Churchill (in the same time period Chamberlein was waving that document around)who realized how Hitler was playing the international community (ironically, in a similar way Saddam was and even MORE ironically, to the UN's failed predecesor, the Allied Nations) and was a serious danger to world peace.

[Guest]

Bush smoked Kerry and then stomped on the ashes.

Took him about 45 minutes to catch his stride, but after that, Bush was unstoppable.

Kerry was getting flustered, and downright PO'd.

I wanted that meltdown, I wanted it badly, but Kerry controlled himself.

The questions were GREAT!!!

Kerry got some very hard questions, and Bush got some very hard questions.

The last one about mistakes was a trap, and Bush turned it exactly where he should have.

This debate was just plain killer for Bush.

This is what I was hoping for in the last debate, but this type of forum is where Bush really shines, and Kerry is not at all comfortable, but Kerry did NOT do too badly considering.

But Bush still smoked him and then stomped on him!!!

[Charles Lindsey]

Neither did well. Both had the canned, rehearsed responses that have resonated throughout these debates.

The only thing that got my attention was Bush's response about Saddam reconstituting his weapons programs quickly.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

Neither did well. Both had the canned, rehearsed responses that have resonated throughout these debates.

The only thing that got my attention was Bush's response about Saddam reconstituting his weapons programs quickly.

---

It's all in the Duefler report, you need to read it....

[Guest]

That, chavik is exactly what ive been saying to everyone and anyone who keeps saying the WMD threat did not exist because they found no WMDs.

Its IRRELEVANT if no weapons were found. the technical know-how and the infrastructure to make them is the threat. Basic Cold War era deterrent: Capability to Rearm even if the enemy gets a first strike in. Your side can still build and launch after the destruction AND destroy the other side. Thats the M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) concept.

Except that now the world is not dealing with 2 nation-states who have everything to lose and nothing to gain from blasting each other up. Its ALL the nation-states in the world having everything to lose, facing an underground movement that has nothing to lose (no land, economy, etc..only their lives and we've seen how easily they throw that away) and who are desperately trying to acquire WMD's.

The US and contributing allies just happen to be the first in the vanguard against this threat.

[Guest]

53 weapons have been found, the mobile labs have been found, and only 25 sites of the 10,000 have been thoroughly searched.

Precursor chemicals have been found, and he still had all the scientific knowhow to reconstitute ALL of his programs VERY quickly after the sanctions were lifted.

He was a clear and present threat.

With his propensity to play with and pay terrorists, he just could not be allowed to stay in power.

[Charles Lindsey]

Perhaps I will. I was going more along the lines if that was the big reason WHY DIDN'T THEY USE IT???

I would have swallowed "Saddam HAS HAD weapons of mass destruction and WILL TRY AGAIN" a whole lot better than "I'd hate the next attack to result in a mushroom cloud".

Kerry had some good thoughts too. I'm sure a transcript will show up sooner or later for those who wish to read it.

However, I hate Bush's harping on "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" as trying to prove Kerry as indecisive. As Kerry pointed out you can be decisive and still be wrong. That seems to be Bush's only running point. "I'm decisive."

I was strongly Kerry now I'm a fence sitter. Perhaps I'll be decisive and still vote Kerry regardless.

[Kalshion]

The moment he started.. insulting our troops I guess I should say... my father and I turned the set off and switched over to "Andromeda Ascendent" (volume 2 of Season 4 )

I didn't quite care for what he said about our troops, who are protecting HIS ass and allowing HIM the right to Freedom of speech.. now I'm wondering if his rights of FoS should be taken away after what he's said

Grrr, now he's really ticked me off... his continued lie's and retoric got me annoyed, but after this display... now I wonder how anyone will vote for him

[Charles Lindsey]

Lots will

[Guest]

Chavik, from my point of view I think Bush was using the wrong war, wrong place wrong time not to put Kerry as indecisive , but rather to show how kerry was making the mistake of alienating allied nations and undermining the efforts and results of the US and allied forces on the ground.

Why didnt saddam use wmd's if he had them?

Ask yourself the results if he HAD. If he had, the retaliation wouldve been instant and terminal for himself and everyone in the middle east. Not to mention he himself had a LOT to lose by using them and everything to gain by NOT using them.

Again, basic Cold War Deterrence(and I use this a lot since its THE 'rule book' deal on WMD's): If one nuke flies, ALL nukes fly... at all enemies.

During the cold war both the USSR and US (and nuke capable allies) had one standing nuclear response to *ANY* hostile nuke launch: If you nuke me, ill nuke you AND anyone else who I think could become a threat to me after the nukes go off.

Read, if USSR had launched the US wouldve launched at the USSR, at China, at Cuba, at most of communist europe, etc.

Saddam knew that if he launched HE wouldve gotten nuked back... so he wouldve not only launched at advancing ground troops, but also at any of his perceived enemies. Mainly Israel (which was in range, unlike the US and Euro mainland which wasnt) and Kuwait and perhaps Iran. In return that wouldve made the israelis to launch their own 'everyone goes down if we go down' launch.. and the middle east wouldve glowed harder than a firefly on viagra (pls dont quote me on that ).

He launched, he would lose it all. Not only his life, his power but also wouldve resulted in the anhiliation of the arab world (remember he fancied himself as the reincarnation of Saladin). Big no-no.

OTH, if he DIDNT use them... there was a good chance the US would invade halfway, stop short of Baghdad, and turn around...like in the 1st gulf war. You know, because the arab world wouldve likely exerted their influences on the reliably whiny euro nations which then wouldve put their own influences in the UN to work to stop any advance.

Problem was, 2nd time, the advancing forces didnt stop, arab nations whines, well-known euro nations whined... but the advance didnt stop. Baghdad fell and using his WMD's wasnt really an option to begin with.

And because of that, Saddam couldnt be cought by the UN inspectors or US spy sattellites or spy networks gathering evidence that he DID have them. So it wouldve been stupid of him to keep warehouses chockfull of sarin gas or anthrax bombs.... BUT the ability to build them at a moments notice while being able to look innocent was GOLD.

thats why he didnt use them imo.

[Guest]

Excellent analysis Tac.....

From what I have heard, youa re very close, but it wasn't Saddam that chose not to use them, but his generals.

Saddam supposedly gave standing orders that if we were at the borders of Baghdad, that they were to use chemical weapons against us, but we had reached the generals through our intelligence channels and convinced them that if they used them, they would be lost forever, because we would NOT hesitate to use them.

THe Generals had the chemical artillery shells that they had dumped into the rivers, which is why there were trace amounts of chemical weapons compounds within the rivers when we tested for the waters purity.

But you are Very close, I believe, again, but from what I heard it was not Saddam, but his generals that desided not to launch.

Saddam was expecting us to stop short though, he was NOT expecting us to come clear into Baghdad.

NOW, onto the debate.....

What really made me mad, was when he looked at everyone and said, NONE of you in here, but the 3 of us, will have our taxes raised.

All of us make over 200,000, and none of you peons make it, or are capable of doing that.

What I would have said?

Mr Kerry, this is America, you are going to raise taxes on just about every small business out there, and are going to kill the economy in the process.

At the same time, this is America, and each and every one of the people in here have the opportunity to make that $200,000 a year, and what you are telling them is that if they succeed, you are going to take away their hard earned money, because they don't deserve it.

If you went out and started a business, and were able to create jobs and make over $200,000 a year, as EACH of you can do in this great nation with enough will and perserverance, are you going to appreciate being PUNISHED for that success?

You might think it sounds real good to punish those that are successful, but what happens when YOU become successful, as each of us have the opportunity to do in this great nation?

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

OTH, if he DIDNT use them

---

Tac, I read somewhere but won't bother finding it (I think it was a Time article linked from AOL and we all know non -AOL members have a tough time getting to my AOL links) that said Saddam played a big game of poker with the US and was stunned to lose.

Other than that you took my point around the world, arrived at the same city, got to the same street, but wound up at the wrong house.

One uses WWWPWT as an argument. Do you really think Kerry would have said WWWPWT himself had he been president at the time?

On the other hand I do not feel Bush has ever justified his decisions. First debate: "I decided". Yet there was no rhyme or reason for that decision. Until, finally maybe, now. I have my own theories for that reason and have posted them. However, a little bit of transparency goes a long way towards assuaging doubts.

[Charles Lindsey]

Hmmmm, seems I missed some posts while posting. I will not edit and will wait on things to die down before I reply again.

[Guest]

"that said Saddam played a big game of poker with the US and was stunned to lose. "

yep. he fully expected the whining to stop the US & allied advance.

"WWWPWT" whatisthis?

"On the other hand I do not feel Bush has ever justified his decisions"

True enough. However, try explaining really complex issues involved in this to the american public. If that wasnt bad enough, try having Bush explain it to the american public .

[Charles Lindsey]

WWWPWT = Wrong war wrong place wrong time.

If I see this on the news I'm gonna sue somebody. I swear they read our little forum.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tac:

...

"WWWPWT" whatisthis?

"On the other hand I do not feel Bush has ever justified his decisions"

True enough. However, try explaining really complex issues involved in this to the american public. If that wasnt bad enough, try having Bush explain it to the american public .

---

ROFLMAO!!!

Can't argue with that....

[Charles Lindsey]

He had them before and he can get them again is complex?

We are getting deeper and deeper into something I am not sure I want to get into.

I'm gonna pull rank and go totally off topic. I'm gonna tell a little story.

I used to work at Sears. Sears sells stuff with gasoline engines. For 100 years (don't quote me) small engines have needed to be "choked" to start. "Choking" an engine actually means to enrich the fuel mixture so a cold engine has a better chance of starting. But we have had "choke" for 100 years (don't quote me) and everyone knows you have to choke a motor to start it.

Sears, in their infinite wisdom (or following industry conventions; I will be fair), decided to label the throttles on small equippment as "start" and "run". I had a couple bring back a push lawnmower because it wouldn't "run". They were FURIOUS. I gave them a refund and immediately move the throttle to the start position and she started right up.

The point of the story? Yes, people are dumb.

The tie in to this thread? They aren't idiots. He had them before and will get them again is not that hard to understand. I don't think at least.

[Grizzle]

I'm a little ticked that I missed watching the debate. I had some crap to do for work and had it on the TV in the next room. I could hear it well enough but I missed alot because I was concentrating on what I was doing.

From what I could tell it was a bit of a draw, but a lot more passionate than the previous one. All I heard was more of the same albeit a bit more enthusiastic this time around. I caught some after-action reports and it seems this was one to watch not just hear because they were talking about the physical moves and actions of the candidates.

Nevertheless, it's going to be an exciting few weeks from here on out.

[Guest]

Some of these are just getting too hilarious.

The jokers with Photoshop are going to town, here are just a couple that I have found.

And this one I will just toss in because it says so much with very little verbage.