Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Presidential Debates

The Presidential Debates (Page 10)
Thread Tools
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 02:07 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
DPersonally, the idea that Cheney is a heartbeat away from the presidency makes me incredibly nervous.
What's even scarier is the likelihood of it not beating.
     
aberdeenwriter  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 02:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
This thread is all over the place!

Someone PLEASE address the post that I left earlier: What if the president has to leave office or dies (God forbid, of course) and we need a vice-president to take over...who is better qualified, Cheney or Edwards?

Does ANYONE honestly think that Edwards is in any way, shape, or form to take over the job?

Now about a vice-presidential candidate debate, I think Cheney is going to wipe up the floor with Edwards, AKA "Boy Wonder."

Your post & BG's reply were my cues to start a new thread, "The Vice Presidential Debates."

Cody Dawg, your message box is full.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 02:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
What's even scarier is the likelihood of it not beating.
Mb its a mechanical heart?
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 02:46 PM
 
KERRY VS. KERRY
Kerry�s Top Ten Iraq Flip Flops From First Debate

VIEW THE �KERRY VS. KERRY� DEBATE VIDEO HERE:
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/100104v1.wmv


ONE: Claimed �I�ll Never Give A Veto To Any Country Over Our Security.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Preemption Must Pass �Global Test� First._ �No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you�re doing what you�re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Would Wait On French And Russians To Defend America._ SEN. JOHN KERRY: �I would have done what was necessary to know that you had exhausted the available remedies with the French and the Russians.� (MSNBC�s �Hardball,� 10/20/03)


TWO: Claimed �Reason For Going To War Was Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Not The Removal Of Saddam Hussein.� _ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Said �Greatest Threat� Was Saddam�s �Miscalculation,� Not �Actual� WMDs._ KERRY: �I would disagree with John McCain that it�s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it�s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that � that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It�s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.�_ (CBS� �Face The Nation,� 9/15/02)


THREE: Claimed �This President Has Made, I Regret To Say, A Colossal Error Of Judgment. And Judgment Is What We Look For In The President Of The United States Of America.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Questioned Judgment Of Those Claiming Saddam�s Capture Didn�t Help U.S. Security._ �Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don�t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.�_ (CNN�s �Capital Gang,� 12/20/03; Anne Q. Hoy, �Dean Faces More Criticism,� [New York] Newsday, 12/17/03)


FOUR: Complained �We Are 90 Percent Of The Casualties And 90 Percent Of The Cost: $200 Billion � $200 Billion That Could Have Been Used For Health Care, For Schools, For Construction, For Prescription Drugs For Seniors, And It�s In Iraq.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With �Whatever Number� Of Dollars It Took._ NBC�S TIM RUSSERT: �Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?�_ SEN. JOHN KERRY: �No. I think we should increase it.�_ RUSSERT: �Increase funding?�_ KERRY: �Yes.�_ RUSSERT: �By how much?�_ KERRY: �By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.�_ (NBC�s �Meet The Press,� 8/31/03)


FIVE: Claimed �You Don�t Send Troops To War Without The Body Armor That They Need.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Said It Would Be Reckless And �Irresponsible� To Vote Against Funding For Troops._ LOS ANGELES TIMES� DOYLE McMANUS: �If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?�_ KERRY: �I don�t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That�s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now. And I am laying out the way in which the administration could unite the American people, could bring other countries to the table, and I think could give the American people a sense that they�re on the right track. There�s a way to do this properly. But I don�t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We�re not going to cut and run and not do the job.�_ (CBS� �Face The Nation,� 9/14/03)

� Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package That Included �Money For Body Armor For Soldiers.�_ (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; �Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures,� The Associated Press, 10/17/03)

� ��I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It,� [Kerry] Said.�(Glen Johnson, �Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,� The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)


SIX: Said Americans In Iraq Not Dying For �Mistake.�_ PBS� JIM LEHRER: �Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?�_ KERRY: �No, and they don�t have to, providing we have the leadership that we put � that I�m offering.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Earlier In Debate, Kerry Called Iraq War �Mistake.�_ �We can�t leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn�t mean it wasn�t a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� �But The President Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)


SEVEN: Said Knowing What He Knows Now, �Would Not� Have Authorized Use Of Force._ �What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words._ Now, I would not.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Said Knowing What He Knows Now, �Would Have Voted For The Authority.�_ SEN. JOHN KERRY: �Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it�s the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.�_(CNN�s �Inside Politics,� 8/9/04)


EIGHT: Claimed �The President Says That I�m Denigrating These Troops. I Have Nothing But Respect For The British, Tony Blair, And For What They�ve Been Willing To Do.� _ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Dismissed Coalition Partners As �Window Dressing� And Claimed They�re Not Sharing Burden Of War And Reconstruction._ CNN�S BILL HEMMER: �The White House would say that dozens of countries are helping now in the effort on the ground in Iraq and they are engaged with the U.N., as well, how would more international involvement prevent the violence we�re seeing today?�_ SEN. JOHN KERRY: �Well, the fact is that those countries are really window dressing to the greatest degree. And they weren�t there in the beginning when we went in, and they�re not carrying the cost of this war.�_ (CNN�s �American Morning,� 3/2/04)


NINE: Claimed �I�ve Had One Position, One Consistent Position, That Saddam Hussein Was A Threat.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Said, �We Now Know That Iraq Had No Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Posed No Imminent Threat To Our Security.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)


TEN: Claimed �My Position Has Been Consistent: Saddam Hussein Is A Threat. He Needed To Be Disarmed.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� �Saying There Are Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Iraq Doesn�t Make It So.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks To Democrat National Convention, Boston, MA, 7/29/04)

� �I Have Always Said We May Yet Even Find Weapons Of Mass Destruction.�_ (Fox News� �Fox News Sunday,� 12/14/03)
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 02:47 PM
 
Originally posted by vmpaul:
Well, everybody has an opinion...

1) I think the debate format was too restricting. I got the impression that, especially in Bush's case, both candidates were itching to respond directly to each other. I think this is where the Bush campaign made their first miscalculation. I think they counted too much on Kerry's reputation for long, rambling responses. Instead, the format actually helped Kerry refine and hone his message. For Bush, I think his handlers thought the format would help him hammer home his campaign slogans. After the first half hour it seemed to be the only thing he was capable of. How many times did he repeat himself? 'Mixed messages', 'It's a hard job', he must've said the same thing a dozen times. Where's the substance?

I actually thought it was even after the first 20 minutes but after that Bush floundered badly. Like I heard someone say afterward, "Bush came with 30 minutes of material for a 90 minute debate". It showed.

2) Kerry clearly won on style points. He looked Presidential, in control, and thoughtful. In contrast, Bush was surly, rambling and repetitive.

Also, I think it's funny to hear how easily Republicans dismiss Bush's poor performance. They've been hamming home how 'personable' the President is for years. Now after he gives a performance that many have described as slouching, angry, and arrogant, style doesn't matter. Very telling.

3) Bush's inability to complete whole sentences and articulate his position are beginning to hurt him. We joke about it and say it's insignificant but I think it clearly hurt him last night. This isn't an isolated incident. Think back to his last press conference and how bumbling he sounded. Or how bad he sounded next to the the very articulate Tony Blair in their press conferences leading up to the Iraq war.

This is a President who's had the fewest press conferences in the 30 years. When you add to the fact that his campaign stops are so carefully orchestrated that the audience has to sign loyalty oaths to gain entrance, or that the questions are picked ahead of time, the overall impression is of a guy who doesn't have command of the issues or his ability to discuss them in an unscripted forum. Some don't seem to be bothered by that. Personally, I find that extremely troubling.

4) Disappointed that the Israeli-Palestinian issue wasn't brought up for discussion.

5) Finally, there was distance put between the two on the issues. Kerry clearly stated his objection to the Iraqi war, his concern over nuclear proliferation, and how he would handle NK. Bush hammered home his same message on Iraq but also made it clear how he felt about negotiations on NK. We can save discussion on those issues for other threads but all I'll say is look at the results. Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan is backsliding and North Korea has become MORE dangerous and armed because of Bush's policies. I actually think Kerry could've really hammered Bush if he would've repeatedly talked about the results instead of talking theoretically.

All in all, it was definitely worthwhile viewing but I wish the format wasn't so restrictive.
I agree with most of this. The debate format killed Bush. It was too scripted and Bush didn't handle it the way he should have.

I do think, however, it wasn't completely one sided. Kerry had his moments where he put his foot in it. The difference was that where Kerry put his foot in it, it was because he made some substantively jaw dropping statements. Pass the world test? Give nuclear materials to Iran? Those are pretty eye-opening comments that won't sit well with many once they are excerpted out and replayed over, and over, and over again. And they will be.

Bush's disaster was mostly stylistic. But I don't know that necessarily will hurt him that much. People already have an idea where he stands on the issues, and they already know he stinks as a public speaker. I certainly found his performance painful to watch, but I don't know that most people necessarily will be all that shocked. Especially not when so many of them will never watch the whole thing anyway.

I do think that on balance that Kerry helped himself. he came across well, and I think he put a dent in the flip-flopper image. I think he still comes across as someone ill prepared to make difficult choices. He made a lot of promises about things that won't ever be in his control, and he gave little indication of where he would be willing to make a choice to, for example, go it alone if one of his coalitions doesn't work out. I do think that people have some common sense to realize when they are simply being sold an empty bag of promises. With the incumbent they don't have to worry about that because they have a record and if they haven't decided against Bush now based on that record, they probably won't just because he stumbled in his oral communications.

Kerry, however, had to do really well to really make a dent in the incumbent. I think without a doubt he did well. But I don't think he did really well. We'll have to see whether he keeps doing well, or does really well, enough to chop Bush off at the knees, or whether he gets overconfident. We'll also have to see how Bush does in the next two debates. It ain't over till it's over.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 02:47 PM
 
Kerry sure proved one thing last night. He has no clue about the WOT. He doesn't see it as a global effort, and thinks we should use 100% of our resources solely on osama bin laden.
We've already taken out 75% of the Al-Qaeda leadership all across the globe. They're spread out like cockroaches in many countries, and just being in Afghanistan isn't going to solve much. Osama will eventually be caught/killed, but in the meantime we need to hunt down the roaches wherever they might be. This is what Kerry doesn't get.

Also, his talk of "Passing the world test" is freaking scary. So, he wants to be a president who is going to let the UN and some countries which do not like us, tell us when we should defend ourself ? We'd all be six feet under by that time.

Nope, Kerry is weak, he wants us to trust a bunch of criminals and unreliable countries. He doesn't really see the WOT as a global effort, and simply saying "I can do a better job" doesn't mean squat. Any president post-9-11 who puts our security under the final approval of the UN is a moron. That was a flip-flop by the way, because earlier Kerry has said the USA should act alone if necessary.

I simply do not trust what Kerry is saying, and I don't trust his intentions. His whole career has been anti-military/defense, and now all of a sudden he's Mr. war hero Gi Joe - Yeah right, LOL.

His whole coalition stuff is nonsense also. Those countries that are against us are NEVER going to join us in Iraq. We have our true allies with us today, the pathetic French and Germans etc., are never going to join us in Iraq. One of his solutions to Iraq - He wants to hold a meeting/summit. Yep, there's a good one, LOL.





Kerry
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 02:58 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I do think, however, it wasn't completely one sided. Kerry had his moments where he put his foot in it. The difference was that where Kerry put his foot in it, it was because he made some substantively jaw dropping statements. Pass the world test? Give nuclear materials to Iran? Those are pretty eye-opening comments that won't sit well with many once they are excerpted out and replayed over, and over, and over again. And they will be.
'Pass the global test' was a pretty dumb moniker to give it, and that certainly will hurt him. But what he actually said didn't sound so objectionable to me:

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of State, who's had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis sent his secretary of State to Pa ris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell him about the missiles in Cuba, he said, here, let me show you the photos. And DeGaulle waved him off and said, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 03:08 PM
 
So Kerry slammed dunked the bewildered Bush. Bush kinda reminded me of a deer on the road dazed by the lights from an oncoming Mack truck. Damn those lights anyway.

Bring on the next debate.

     
greenamp
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 03:12 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
Kerry sure proved one thing last night. He has no clue about the WOT. He doesn't see it as a global effort, and thinks we should use 100% of our resources solely on osama bin laden.
We've already taken out 75% of the Al-Qaeda leadership all across the globe. They're spread out like cockroaches in many countries, and just being in Afghanistan isn't going to solve much. Osama will eventually be caught/killed, but in the meantime we need to hunt down the roaches wherever they might be. This is what Kerry doesn't get.

Also, his talk of "Passing the world test" is freaking scary. So, he wants to be a president who is going to let the UN and some countries which do not like us, tell us when we should defend ourself ? We'd all be six feet under by that time.

Nope, Kerry is weak, he wants us to trust a bunch of criminals and unreliable countries. He doesn't really see the WOT as a global effort, and simply saying "I can do a better job" doesn't mean squat. Any president post-9-11 who puts our security under the final approval of the UN is a moron. That was a flip-flop by the way, because earlier Kerry has said the USA should act alone if necessary.

I simply do not trust what Kerry is saying, and I don't trust his intentions. His whole career has been anti-military/defense, and now all of a sudden he's Mr. war hero Gi Joe - Yeah right, LOL.

His whole coalition stuff is nonsense also. Those countries that are against us are NEVER going to join us in Iraq. We have our true allies with us today, the pathetic French and Germans etc., are never going to join us in Iraq. One of his solutions to Iraq - He wants to hold a meeting/summit. Yep, there's a good one, LOL.





Kerry
Exactly the impression I got from Kerry. He seems to be quite naive about current foriegn policy.

His comments about strongarming Russia to stop nuclear proliferation were reckless and unrealistic. His plan to hold bilateral talks with N. Korea were ludicrous, in light of the multinational talks already in place. He said he'd do a better job than Bush at protecting our country, and then criticised Bush for funding the R&D of nuclear "Bunker Buster" bombs, which are clearly aimed at fighting terrorism.

If Kerry becomes our next President, and implements his plans for foriegn policy, the result would be disasterous. He would throw any progress made in forign policy back at aleast 20 yrs.
     
LoganCharles
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 03:20 PM
 
I'm actually surprised that Bush put in such a bad performance. We expect him to fumble words but I have to assume he was either very exhausted from campaigning and dealing with all those that matters of being President (which Kerry does not) or he was playing a rope-a-dope. I suspect it was a little of both. Being President is a rough job not one I would ever want and you can see the wear and tear it does to a man. If Kerry is elected you can be sure in four years he'll look about 20 years older. However I do expect a better showing for Bush at the next debate. I think we'll as sharper wit and a more assertive approach. I just don't view the debates the same as the playoffs where winning the first game is key. World events and how people feel up until the very day of the election will be the deciding factors.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 03:36 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
the pathetic [...] Germans etc., are never going to join us [...]
You are an idiot.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...erl-160224.htm
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 03:52 PM
 
Originally posted by TETENAL:
You are an idiot.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...erl-160224.htm
And you are reported.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 03:55 PM
 
Without reading this whole thread, is it true that Bush kept on confusing bin Laden for Hussein?
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 03:56 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
And you are reported.
He was just being honest.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 03:59 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
And you are reported.
He saw what he saw.

By the way I put in a abuse report against you for hateful bigoted remarks against the French and Germans.



<edi>Apparently Bush is still in a daze today. Did I hear what I just heard...Bush and his group thought it was to be only 60 minutes and so Bush ran out of one liners early!!!

( Last edited by Atomic Rooster; Oct 1, 2004 at 04:04 PM. )
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 04:01 PM
 
Originally posted by Nicko:
He was just being honest.
No, he is a dishonest liar.

I wrote Those countries that are against us are NEVER going to join us in Iraq.

He cut off Iraq from my quote, and presented a link talking about Germany being in Afghanistan, while calling me a idiot. Who mentioned anything about Afghanistan ? Certainly not me.

I'm calling him a manipulative, dishonest, lying human being.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 04:05 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
Kerry sure proved one thing last night. He has no clue about the WOT. He doesn't see it as a global effort, and thinks we should use 100% of our resources solely on osama bin laden.
Show me the quote where he says this! What he said was that putting all or most of our efforts in the WOT into Iraq (whose contribution to 9/11 was tangential at best) was very questionable, and that he would have focused more on Osama bin Laden. Seems reasonable to me.

We've already taken out 75% of the Al-Qaeda leadership all across the globe. They're spread out like cockroaches in many countries, and just being in Afghanistan isn't going to solve much. Osama will eventually be caught/killed, but in the meantime we need to hunt down the roaches wherever they might be. This is what Kerry doesn't get.
Yes, it's a good thing that Al Qaeda never replaces its leadership. We'll eliminate 100% soon, and that'll be it. Now who's being naive?
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 04:14 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
Show me the quote where he says this! What he said was that putting all or most of our efforts in the WOT into Iraq (whose contribution to 9/11 was tangential at best) was very questionable, and that he would have focused more on Osama bin Laden. Seems reasonable to me.

Yes, it's a good thing that Al Qaeda never replaces its leadership. We'll eliminate 100% soon, and that'll be it. Now who's being naive?
Packhead gets SMACKED DOWN!

Need a MATTRESS?

     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 04:14 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Without reading this whole thread, is it true that Bush kept on confusing bin Laden for Hussein?
You've been reading some spin, that's for sure. The fact of the matter is, BOTH Kerry and Bush slipped-up confusing the names Osama bin Laden and Saddam.

Maury
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 04:15 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
I wrote Those countries that are against us are NEVER going to join us in Iraq.
First of all, you called these nations pathetic. That's not helpful to win their support. I find the word "the pathetic Germans" slightly offending.

Second, who said anything about Iraq only? Didn't you yourself say that the war on terror is a global effort? France and Germany are actively helping in this global effort and that makes them pathetic nations?

Third, you want Germany help in Iraq? Have a look here.

Conclusion: you are mentally challenged when you believe France and Germany "will never join you" while the facts clearly show the opposite. And � I'm a friend of clear words � let's call things by their proper name, it makes matters simpler. You are an idiot.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 04:16 PM
 
Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:


<edi>Apparently Bush is still in a daze today. Did I hear what I just heard...Bush and his group thought it was to be only 60 minutes and so Bush ran out of one liners early!!!


LOL! You would think that he would have some 'emergency' one-liners for just a situation. He could just repeat, 'if you're not with us your with the terrorists' over and over, or mb just give a peace sign and yell 'mission accomplished' at the top of his lungs. It could buy him a few more minutes of attention from his particular voter demographic.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 04:18 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
Show me the quote where he says this! What he said was that putting all or most of our efforts in the WOT into Iraq (whose contribution to 9/11 was tangential at best) was very questionable, and that he would have focused more on Osama bin Laden. Seems reasonable to me.
Capturing/killing Osama is not the end of anything, and acting like it is, just shows a lack of understanding regarding the WOT.

We'll eliminate 100% soon, and that'll be it. Now who's being naive?

If you believe that, you certainly are naive, because I have never stated such a thing.
     
kido
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 04:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
Show me the quote where he says this! What he said was that putting all or most of our efforts in the WOT into Iraq (whose contribution to 9/11 was tangential at best) was very questionable, and that he would have focused more on Osama bin Laden. Seems reasonable to me.
Iraq is central to the WOT because President Bush's plan is to change the dynamic of life for young men in the Middle East. People understand when urban renewal knocks down burned out or abandoned buildings while also arresting criminals, drug dealers, and prostitutes in a rundown area, in order to allow for better conditions for more socially beneficial trends to take root. Iraq is the same idea done on a national scale. Is this the right thing to do? I dunno. It may very well be, but we will not know for a few years. Several people the WOT should be run like a posse, with a singular focus on getting OBL and his cohorts. But as you mentioned, even if we get him, there will be dozens wanting to take his place unless we can make the Middle East a place where people are respected for the way they live, not the way they die.

kido
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 04:24 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Bush's disaster was mostly stylistic. But I don't know that necessarily will hurt him that much. People already have an idea where he stands on the issues, and they already know he stinks as a public speaker. I certainly found his performance painful to watch, but I don't know that most people necessarily will be all that shocked. Especially not when so many of them will never watch the whole thing anyway.

I do think that on balance that Kerry helped himself. he came across well, and I think he put a dent in the flip-flopper image. I think he still comes across as someone ill prepared to make difficult choices. He made a lot of promises about things that won't ever be in his control, and he gave little indication of where he would be willing to make a choice to, for example, go it alone if one of his coalitions doesn't work out. I do think that people have some common sense to realize when they are simply being sold an empty bag of promises. With the incumbent they don't have to worry about that because they have a record and if they haven't decided against Bush now based on that record, they probably won't just because he stumbled in his oral communications.

Kerry, however, had to do really well to really make a dent in the incumbent. I think without a doubt he did well. But I don't think he did really well. We'll have to see whether he keeps doing well, or does really well, enough to chop Bush off at the knees, or whether he gets overconfident. We'll also have to see how Bush does in the next two debates. It ain't over till it's over.
I think Kerry demonstrated to those who were uncertain that although he can be a stuffed shirt and although he makes the usual fluffy political promises, he's confident and smart enough to occupy the office and is therefore a plausible alternative. I don't expect him to win any votes away from Bush, but I would expect it to convince at least a few fence-sitters. Whether that will make the difference, who knows.

Like her or not, I'm afraid his wife is still a political liability. When she came on stage last night she had an odd, uneasy look about her that I've noticed before - she always seems to be on edge or something, and her hair covered her face in way that struck me as furtive rather than alluring. I don't know, maybe she didn't really want to be on stage. Personally, I don't care about Presidential spouses, but with your average American, I don't think she'll sell well. Kerry probably scored a few graciousness points by praising Laura Bush.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 04:45 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
Capturing/killing Osama is not the end of anything, and acting like it is, just shows a lack of understanding regarding the WOT.
When someone kills 3,000 people in a well organized terrorist attack on U.S. soil I would say he is priority one. Bin Ladin is the main focus bar none. You don't spend 90% or more of your time and manpower freeing some other country that was not a threat or even involved.

Bush has had the mindfart to even say he doesn't care about Bin Laden or where he is!!!

And this is your hero?

Me thinx you're actually infatuated with violence and want to see the U.S. bombing and killing people who probably didn't even know the World Trade Center existed rather than a unified international squeeze on terror.

Yours and Bushes way is neanderthal and won't work but probably achieve the opposite and increase membership to terrorists groups which is somewhat already shown to be true.

Are you watching too many Ahnold movies?
     
Jansar
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 04:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
When someone kills 3,000 people in a well organized terrorist attack on U.S. soil I would say he is priority one. Bin Ladin is the main focus bar none. You don't spend 90% or more of your time and manpower freeing some other country that was not a threat or even involved.

Bush has had the mindfart to even say he doesn't care about Bin Laden or where he is!!!

And this is your hero?

Me thinx you're actually infatuated with violence and want to see the U.S. bombing and killing people who probably didn't even know the World Trade Center existed rather than a unified international squeeze on terror.

Yours and Bushes way is neanderthal and won't work but probably achieve the opposite and increase membership to terrorists groups which is somewhat already shown to be true.

Are you watching too many Ahnold movies?
What do you know? Are you part of the Bush Administration? I bet he has loads of people after Osama. Troops have never left Afghanistan. Bush went to Iraq, because the worst terrorism stemmed from there, and he has eliminated most of it. He has 3/4 of all Al Qaeda (remember, Osama is an Al Qaeda leader) leaders in captivity or in body bags.

There's your hero. Kerry is a phony. And a coward.
World of Warcraft (Whisperwind - Alliance) <The Eternal Spiral>
Go Dogcows!
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:00 PM
 
Originally posted by Jansar:

There's your hero. Kerry is a phony. And a coward.
Another good point is, many of the people here have no vote - Zero, Zilch, Zip.

Their warped, deluded opinions will not change anything, seeing that they hold no vote.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:00 PM
 
Originally posted by Jansar:
What do you know? Are you part of the Bush Administration? I bet he has loads of people after Osama. Troops have never left Afghanistan. Bush went to Iraq, because the worst terrorism stemmed from there, and he has eliminated most of it. He has 3/4 of all Al Qaeda (remember, Osama is an Al Qaeda leader) leaders in captivity or in body bags.

There's your hero. Kerry is a phony. And a coward.
Just in from recess?
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:03 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
Their warped, deluded opinions...
That darned mirror...step away.

P.S. Are you helping out dcoltan getting those piggy jackets ready...I think he's getting behind.
     
Jansar
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Just in from recess?
HA! HA! HA! You've already lost the argument if you start talking about age. So what if I'm younger? Did a kid just bitch you out?

BACKFIRE!
World of Warcraft (Whisperwind - Alliance) <The Eternal Spiral>
Go Dogcows!
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:07 PM
 
Originally posted by Jansar:
HA! HA! HA! You've already lost the argument if you start talking about age. So what if I'm younger? Did a kid just bitch you out?

BACKFIRE!
No.

Ahhhh...and what argument?
     
LoganCharles
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Just in from recess?
Sounds like you just got smackdowned.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:16 PM
 
Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Sounds like you just got smackdowned.
???
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:18 PM
 
Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
???
My thoughts exaclty, what is this the WWF?
     
aberdeenwriter  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:23 PM
 
Originally posted by TETENAL:
You are an idiot.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...erl-160224.htm
As the thread starter I admit to being a bit guilty of this myself, but from now on, (or at LEAST today) let's stop the insults. OK?

Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Nicko:
My thoughts exaclty, what is this the WWF?
Don't you mean WWE? Do try and keep up.
     
aberdeenwriter  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Just in from recess?

As the thread starter I admit to being a bit guilty of this myself, but from now on, (or at LEAST today) let's stop the insults. OK?

Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
LoganCharles
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
???


Figure it out yourself birdbrain.
     
aberdeenwriter  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:33 PM
 
Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
When someone kills 3,000 people in a well organized terrorist attack on U.S. soil I would say he is priority one. Bin Ladin is the main focus bar none. You don't spend 90% or more of your time and manpower freeing some other country that was not a threat or even involved.

Bush has had the mindfart to even say he doesn't care about Bin Laden or where he is!!!

And this is your hero?

Me thinx you're actually infatuated with violence and want to see the U.S. bombing and killing people who probably didn't even know the World Trade Center existed rather than a unified international squeeze on terror.

Yours and Bushes way is neanderthal and won't work but probably achieve the opposite and increase membership to terrorists groups which is somewhat already shown to be true.

Are you watching too many Ahnold movies?
So, Atomic Rooster (Is that name at all inspired by the "Nuclear Clock?" http://www.wakproductions.com/nukclock/), after OBL is caught or confirmed dead, then what?
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:35 PM
 
the two presidential candidates managed to debate without calling each other names. how bout you folks try that out too.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:35 PM
 
Originally posted by LoganCharles:


Figure it out yourself birdbrain.

Go do your homework.

PS Tease any elderly people today?
     
Jim Paradise
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:44 PM
 
Originally posted by Jansar:
Nice contribution, dumbass.
At the core of Bush's spin is that Kerry sends mixed messages and flip flops. It was amusing that Bush managed to mess up the key wording of what is his main spin attack on Kerry.
     
aberdeenwriter  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Demonhood:
the two presidential candidates managed to debate without calling each other names. how bout you folks try that out too.
Do you think if we issued all of our posters honorary "Skull and Bones" memberships that they'd be as civil to each other as the two "Yalies" were last night?
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:46 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
So, Atomic Rooster (Is that name at all inspired by the "Nuclear Clock?" http://www.wakproductions.com/nukclock/), after OBL is caught or confirmed dead, then what?
After he is caught then we bomb the sh!t out of the middle east.



Atomic Rooster
Rock band from the seventies that was a favorite of a now deceased best friend.
http://www.atomicrooster.co.uk/
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:51 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
So, Atomic Rooster (Is that name at all inspired by the "Nuclear Clock?" http://www.wakproductions.com/nukclock/), after OBL is caught or confirmed dead, then what?
Are you suggesting that there is no need to expend any effort on capturing bin Laden?
     
aberdeenwriter  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:53 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
Show me the quote where he says this! What he said was that putting all or most of our efforts in the WOT into Iraq (whose contribution to 9/11 was tangential at best) was very questionable, and that he would have focused more on Osama bin Laden. Seems reasonable to me.

Yes, it's a good thing that Al Qaeda never replaces its leadership. We'll eliminate 100% soon, and that'll be it. Now who's being naive?
Do I take it that Kerry's and your position is: after OBL is caught or killed, we could/would/should/can rest easy?
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 05:56 PM
 
Originally posted by Jim Paradise:
At the core of Bush's spin is that Kerry sends mixed messages and flip flops. It was amusing that Bush managed to mess up the key wording of what is his main spin attack on Kerry.
mb he was dizzy?

hehe Spin? Dizzy?
     
aberdeenwriter  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 06:06 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Are you suggesting that there is no need to expend any effort on capturing bin Laden?
Personally, I like the mental image of OBL becoming more and more weary of the desperate fugitive existence, never able to stay in any one place for very long...wondering which of his co-horts will one day cash him in for the $25 million bounty.

Watching as his followers, themselves, are caught or killed almost weekly. Following the reports of the progress the coalition forces are making in Iraq and becoming more discouraged...all in spite of his best efforts to rally the more rational Islamic world to follow his perverted call to suicide.

But, the president is doing a good job making the decisions on how much effort should be expended on OBL's capture or death so I'll defer to his leadership on this one.

Thanks for asking.

So, back to you, Wisked!
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 06:10 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Do I take it that Kerry's and your position is: after OBL is caught or killed, we could/would/should/can rest easy?
Absolutely not. It's a question of priorities, and the prudent use of resources. It appears to have been a dubious judgment to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan, and before resources were spent enhancing security at home, nevermind the poor intelligence we had on Iraq. We are now, in the eyes of many, overextended. I realize that hindsight is 20-20, but I'm afraid the miscalculations have been well beyond the margin of allowable error.

This really has little to do with whether or not Bush's grand vision is a good one. It has to do with the ability to execute.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 06:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Jansar:
Troops have never left Afghanistan.
What do you mean by that? There are still troops there, of course. But many American troops have left Afghanistan. Bush even mentioned that in the debate.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:00 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,