So who saw the debate?

[EzE]

And who do you think won. I think Kerry won this by a land slide. Bush was having trouble answering questions. I mean The President should have all the answers its his job to know. The thing that throws me completely is the fact that these questions were handed in ahead of time. Even with all the time to prepare Bush still loss... why?

By the way "its hard work" made me laugh.

[Stinkbog]

First off, I like and am voting for Bush. I vote mostly concerning social policly and since I lean to the conservative I agree with most (not all) of Bush's policy's concerning the things I care about.

Having said that. Senator Kerry did much better job last night than Bush. He was more clear and concise, he showed that he was knowledgable about a variety of issues and actually surprised/impressed me somewhat. Though my impression of him was very low so he needn't have done much to go up in my book.

Bush more or less just towed the line so to speak. Kept bringing up the same things and such. Not much new on his side.

Summary- If things continue the way they are, Bush is clearly going to have a second term (accordinging to most of the polling). I do not believe it will be nearly as close as 2000. While Kerry did well last night, he really needed to own the "debate" and really blow Bush out of the water, which he didn't do. With only 30 some odd days left, some sort of landslide needs to happen to push Kerry's stock up. I just don't see it happening.

[Diablo]

****, I voted on Bush by accident. Can anyone put my vote on Kerry?

[Killenator 5000]

Kerry won. He went up there on the attack and stayed on the attack. Insta-polls showed the Chimpanzee to have been crushed by his continued evasion and lies. He sounded like a broken record player w/ his constant (innacurate) respones of "Flip-flop flip-flop"

I think its safe to say that this hurts the Bush Iraq war platform.

[Kartel]

I watched the whole thing, and what I saw was two wealthy standard-issue politicians blowing smoke up my butt as usual. However, Bush is already the "devil I know", and voting for him is totally out of the question. Kerry, on the other hand, is too "iffy" imo. But I'd still take him over the neo-con liar Bush in a hot second. Kerry is also a much better public speaker, and explained himself surprisingly well. I really wish Nader had been in the debate though.

[[BBF]Switchback]

Debates have very little effect on things anyways, unless someone does something surprisingly awful... I mean REALLY awful.

How many peple haven't already made up their mind who they are voting for? I believe the exit polls usually show the debate doesn't change a significant number of minds.

And your opinions affect who you think wins the debate. Ok, you can say who spoke more clearly, but that doesn't really matter when it comes to the issues... they candidates are just speaking their agenda like they have been for months, so you're either going to agree with what one of them is saying or not... and you tend to say the winner was the one you agreed with. Just human nature.

I would personally like to see more candidates debate.. I think nader is a nut job, but to each his own.. I like the libertarian candidate's stance on most issues other than the war on terror and I know he could hold his own in a debate against those two.

[LordFu]

I watched the whole thing, and what I saw was two wealthy standard-issue politicians blowing smoke up my butt as usual. However, Bush is already the "devil I know", and voting for him is totally out of the question. Kerry, on the other hand, is too "iffy" imo. But I'd still take him over the neo-con liar Bush in a hot second. Kerry is also a much better public speaker, and explained himself surprisingly well. I really wish Nader had been in the debate though. I couldn't agree with you more, Kartel. Two faces on the same monster are not really choices. Politicians are the last people we need in charge of this country. At least Ralph Nader actually cares about people. These two waste of air don't have opinions other than what their corporate financers tell them to think.

[Bea Wary]

Kerry intentionally discarded his combat decorations .... the symbols of the American people's gratitude for his combat service. He not only disrespected everyone in the United States but his comrades that died in that same combat situation that never had the opportunity to be personally awarded or wear those same medals. I don't care about his "outstanding military record" his actions spoke much louder than anything anyone could ever say about him in print.
I am a firm believer in the old axiom "A leopard cannot change his spots" and would never vote for Kerry if he was running against Elmer Fudd.

Bea

[Citizen]

Debate summary:

Bush: "It's hard work, hard work, 9-11, wrong place wrong time, september eleventh, hard work, wrong place wrong time, wrong place wrong time, wrong place wrong time, 9-11, wrong place wrong time, hard work, 9-11, you forgot Poland, hard work, hard work, wrong place wrong time."

Kerry: "<insert very, very well presented bull>"

Overall Bush was a seriously broken record saying the same three things all over again while mumbling like a fool. Kerry never really answered any of the questions directly, but presented it in a very intellectual manner. The whole debate seemed to be all about which side could make the other side look worse about Iraq.

My suggestion? Vote for Eddie... or a sock puppet... or Bush becuase he might as well be a sock puppet.

[Sahib]

I don't think neither candidate won the debate. In my opinion it was closer to a draw. Like someone else said, these debates don't have a huge effect on the polls anyways.

Kerry was a more polished speaker. He seemed to have things well planned out. Bush seemed to be more sincere though, and not just up there rehearsing his lines. To me, he seemed more personal.

[LordFu]

Kerry intentionally discarded his combat decorations .... the symbols of the American people's gratitude for his combat service. He not only disrespected everyone in the United States but his comrades that died in that same combat situation that never had the opportunity to be personally awarded or wear those same medals. Just because he was awarded medals and served with enough honor and valor to recieve them in the first place (I can't comment on what everyone says about the actual circumstances he recieved his medals under, as I was not there, and they obviously thought he deserved them at the time) he's not allowed to have his own opinion? He can't disagree with the leadership of the country because they gave him a reward for his service? I don't agree with that at all. Are you also one of the people who thinks it's unpatriotic to disagree with the Bush administration because we are at "war"? It's bad logic all the way. He was not the only Vietnam vetran that felt the way he did, so I can't say that he insulted them.

[FlaminDeath]

I'm not sure I would say either of them really won, as they both only did a mediocre job in my opinion. Bush was a lot more defensive then I expected, and said "Wrong War, Wrong place, Wrong time" or whatever more times than I can count, while kerry referred to his military service almost as much :P. It was almost all about Iraq, while there are many, many other issues which need to be discussed. But there will be more debates :P.

Kerry won because Bush said "uh, uh, uh" a lot :laugh: . Plus he made annoying faces when Kerry was talking, while Kerry was a lot more professional.

[actionjack]

I am not much on politics, and only saw few moments of the debate last night, but I will still rant about it a bit….)
Anyhow, I think Kerry clearly took the lead. However, I just feel his arguments are a bit weak. Can’t really blame him, but it just seems to me much of his debates are criticizing Bush’s past action and saying what he “could of done better”. Post Facto, almost anyone can say there are things they wish they “could of done better”. I just feel that Kerry is pointing out mistakes and faults of Bush, and not really explain in greater detail what he would of done to make it better. I most also say, Bush, clearly not a master debaters. :)

[Xavz]

I have to say Kerry sounded better, but no one really won the debate. It seemed like neither candidate ever actually said anything significant or useful.

[Bea Wary]

Just because he was awarded medals and served with enough honor and valor to recieve them in the first place (I can't comment on what everyone says about the actual circumstances he recieved his medals under, as I was not there, and they obviously thought he deserved them at the time) he's not allowed to have his own opinion? He can't disagree with the leadership of the country because they gave him a reward for his service? I don't agree with that at all. Are you also one of the people who thinks it's unpatriotic to disagree with the Bush administration because we are at "war"? It's bad logic all the way. He was not the only Vietnam vetran that felt the way he did, so I can't say that he insulted them.

Kerry served his country and swore allegiance to the flag and all it stands for and then dishonored it with his public displays of disapproval of the US's policies as many others did.
The only distinction there is that the other opinionated people you refer to aren't running for President of the United States, will he once again switch positions after his election? His poor wife has probably never had an orgasm he switches positions so much.

I presently carry a valid military ID and have sworn to obey all the orders of my superiors and the President regardless of my views on any policies or who resides in the White House.

Bea

[Felix Aval]

I have to say Kerry sounded better, but no one really won the debate. It seemed like neither candidate ever actually said anything significant or useful.

That's how I feel. I think Kerry is a better public speaker, but both of them sounded like broken records last night. I nearly threw up when Kerry said that line about "Which is worse..." about his funding flip flop versus the war in Iraq. God, even they're admit this election is a matter of the lesser of two evils.

I wish Nader had been in the debate too. I don't know much about his views and I think it'd be a good idea to get a fresh, third party in there and make people realize that OMG THERZS OTHER CANDIDATES!!!!11

On a side note, my awesome history teacher said Thursday that on Friday we'd vote for who won the debate in true 1960s style - who looked the best! I voted for Jim...

[Green Dream]

Kerry served his country and swore allegiance to the flag and all it stands for and then dishonored it with his public displays of disapproval of the US's policies as many others did.

He voluntarily went to Vietnam. When he saw what was happening there and that thousands of American soldiers were needlessly loosing their lives, you're damn right he said to stop the war when he got back. He was speaking from his personal experience: Vietnam was a mistake. He didn't dishonor his country; he tried to stop a war that was killing his country (not to mention fighting for the rights of a lot of the soldiers there that were drafted and didn't really want to be in Vietnam in the first place).


will he once again switch positions after his election? His poor wife has probably never had an orgasm he switches positions so much.

I always hear about how much Kerry "flip-flops" from Bush supporters, but it is always spoken in the general. Actual examples have yet to be given. Please cite an example of these "flip-flops." Thanks. :)

[Killenator 5000]

Kerry won on all the Independant voter polls so he won the debate.

[FlaminDeath]

The main flip-flop they bash Kerry over is that he agreed with and voted for the war against terror but then after the cost of the war had topped (100?) billion dollars and was draining the country (humongous deficit even after Clinton boomed our economy into the trillions of surplus) and was killing hundreds of American soldiers. In other words he voted for the war, then voted against it and continued funding for it after seeing its effects. Believe it or not that happens to just about everyone- some people are just to stubborn to admit it (*cough*Bush*cough). But Kerry had to be bashed for something, so they will call him a flip-flopper and say that he cnanot make a decision and hold by it, etc. I believe they also call him a flip-flopper for saying at one point a few years ago that Saddam Hussien and Iraq had to be dealth with, and were dangerous, but now says "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time". But he explained that he felt Saddam and his rechime had to be dealt with- but not by invading there country. I did like how he bashed Bush for his own flip-flopping in the debate though :).

(Correct me if I'm wrong in any of the facts here, but some of it is just opinions :) )

[Green Dream]

The main flip-flop they bash Kerry over is that he agreed with and voted for the war against terror but then after the cost of the war had topped (100?) billion dollars and was draining the country (humongous deficit even after Clinton boomed our economy into the trillions of surplus) and was killing hundreds of American soldiers. In other words he voted for the war, then voted against it and continued funding for it after seeing its effects. Believe it or not that happens to just about everyone- some people are just to stubborn to admit it (*cough*Bush*cough). But Kerry had to be bashed for something, so they will call him a flip-flopper and say that he cnanot make a decision and hold by it, etc. I believe they also call him a flip-flopper for saying at one point a few years ago that Saddam Hussien and Iraq had to be dealth with, and were dangerous, but now says "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time". But he explained that he felt Saddam and his rechime had to be dealt with- but not by invading there country. I did like how he bashed Bush for his own flip-flopping in the debate though :).

Okay, but as you said, the first one sounds more like he was actually of the honest opinion to give Bush that power, and then honestly changed his mind when he saw that it was a mistake (saw Bush was messing up). And in the other "flip-flop" you mentioned about Saddam, Kerry didn't ever change his opinion; his opinion was just misstated.

The connotations of the term "flip-flop" imply that the person does not honestly believe what they are saying; they just say whatever is highest in the polls (and change their "opinion" accordingly). These don't seem to be examples of such behavior (unless the term "flip-flop" is just applied to anyone who learns from their experiences, which would include the entire human race ;) )

Other than that one definition, I basically agree with your post. Thanks a lot for the information! :)

[Sahib]

On a side note, my awesome history teacher said Thursday that on Friday we'd vote for who won the debate in true 1960s style - who looked the best! I voted for Jim...

Thats scary. By the way, his name is John Kerry (if thats who you mean).

Here is a nice Kerry flip flop:

“Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’”

How can you bash the war and then expect the soldiars to follow you with respect? Thats one of the points Bush brought up.

[Bea Wary]

He voluntarily went to Vietnam. When he saw what was happening there and that thousands of American soldiers were needlessly loosing their lives, you're damn right he said to stop the war when he got back. He was speaking from his personal experience: Vietnam was a mistake. He didn't dishonor his country; he tried to stop a war that was killing his country (not to mention fighting for the rights of a lot of the soldiers there that were drafted and didn't really want to be in Vietnam in the first place).

It isn't the fact that he protested Vietnam ... but he didn't have to dishonor the military decorations he had been awarded by discarding them like trash. He was probably present and witnessed someone burning the flag also. That kind of behavior is not representative of a person I want to be elected to the highest position in the nation.


I always hear about how much Kerry "flip-flops" from Bush supporters, but it is always spoken in the general. Actual examples have yet to be given. Please cite an example of these "flip-flops." Thanks. :)

Read the Congressional Record it is all there in black and white .... he has reversed himself on so many votes its laughable. He votes for something and then vetoes the funding for it.

[D.Lustmord]

****, I voted on Bush by accident. Can anyone put my vote on Kerry?

Are you from Florida? :P


It isn't the fact that he protested Vietnam ... but he didn't have to dishonor the military decorations he had been awarded by discarding them like trash. He was probably present and witnessed someone burning the flag also. That kind of behavior is not representative of a person I want to be elected to the highest position in the nation.

So, you won't vote for him because of something he did in his 20's?
What? 30 years ago?

Atleast he went to war.



Read the Congressional Record it is all there in black and white .... he has reversed himself on so many votes its laughable. He votes for something and then vetoes the funding for it.

Finding exploitable votes in a 20 year Congressional Record is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Again, atleast he has a Voting Record.
George Bush doesn't.

And it's not that he voted Against funding the weapons.. He voted against funding the weapons the way the President drafted the bill-
IE he voted against screwing over the middle class.
200 billion dollars is Alot of money. Who do you think's paying for it?




The fact is that Kerry won this debate. He won it by showing how the President mislead the nation.
The President told us that Iraq was harboring Al Qaida, stockpiling Nuclear weapons, and that he would exhaust every possable avenue of diplomacy before rushing into a ill-planned war.

There are no Nuclear weapons, or any other WMD, and no links to Al Qaida.
If the President would have cooperated with the UN Weapons Inspecters, he would have known that.
His justification for this is "The Enemy attacked us."

Sen. John Kerry was kind enough to point out to the President that Iraq did not attack the Twin Towers. Al Qaida did.

The President claimed that he would form a Grand Coalition to share the financial burden of this war.
But, as Sen. John Kerry pointed out, When America supplies 90% of the Troops and pays for 90% of the cost, is it NOT a Grand Coalition.

The President went against the wishes of his own general's and engaged this war without a Plan.
Now we have over 1,000 American soldiers dead after he declared "Mission Accomplished."

The President promised to hunt down any nation who would threaten us with Nuclear weapons.
Yet we are still stuck in Iraq where there are no weapons, and Korea admits to having several.



Kerry is offering a 4 point plan to ending this War.
Bush's only answer is "more of the same".

More Americans dead. More Hostages.
More of the most expensive and fruitless war in American history.


The funny thing here is that National Security is supposed to be Bush's Trump Card.

I can't wait for the next debates on the Economy and HealthCare.
I wonder how Dubya will try to justify screwing over the middle class?

[Ancient]

Thats scary. By the way, his name is John Kerry (if thats who you mean).


I think he really meant Jim, the guy posing the questions for the debate. And yeah he was secksy :oops:

[FlaminDeath]

Jim Lehrer or whatever? Hehe ;)

Yay I was just writing what Bush and the republicans say- not what I believe :D

[[BBF]Switchback]

Well, here's a flip flop from the debate itself. Let's see if this measures up to your definition of flip flop, or if it's just a mistake or a lie.

Jim Lehrer ask Kerry about the times he has accused the president of lying about Iraq. Kerry responds "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word as you just did." So, Kerry denies accusing President Bush of lying.

December 2003, Kerry says, in a New Hampshire editorial board, that Bush had lied about his reasons for going to Iraq.

September 2003. Kerry: "this administration has lied to us."

[Killenator 5000]

I hate this Flip-Flop nonsense. Its utter crap, peoples pinions change as what the know changes if it doesnt then they are a stick in the mud who cant accept progress.

[[BBF]Switchback]

I agree peoples opinions changed, but my last post had nothing to do with opinion... and the problems that I see are not him changing opinions, but the times when he sounds like he's just saying what he wants people to hear... such as the whole SUV thing... I own and SUV, I don't own an SUV, well my family owns an SUV.

It's not whether he owns the SUV, I don't give a crap. It's the fact that he just tells people what they want him to tell them, so you never know when he's actually saying what he believes, or when he's just feeding you a line.

[Green Dream]

Here is a nice Kerry flip flop:

“Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’”

First of all, cite your source of this quote please. :)

Second, this isn't a "flip-flop" unless you have another quote somewhere in which he bashes the troops or says they aren’t honorable or something...


but he didn't have to dishonor the military decorations he had been awarded by discarding them like trash. He was probably present and witnessed someone burning the flag also. That kind of behavior is not representative of a person I want to be elected to the highest position in the nation.

He was protesting against the war. That’s what people protesting against the war did. That's what got peoples attention.


Read the Congressional Record it is all there in black and white .... he has reversed himself on so many votes its laughable. He votes for something and then vetoes the funding for it.

Yes, I am aware Bush supporters have accused Kerry of "flip-flopping." I asked for examples please. Do you have a specific vote you would like me to look at? :)


Switchback]Jim Lehrer ask Kerry about the times he has accused the president of lying about Iraq. Kerry responds "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word as you just did." So, Kerry denies accusing President Bush of lying.

December 2003, Kerry says, in a New Hampshire editorial board, that Bush had lied about his reasons for going to Iraq.

September 2003. Kerry: "this administration has lied to us."

My personal take would be that he wouldn't change his opinion based on such a minor detail on polls. He probably wasn't specifically talking about Iraq when he said that, or he was referring to the administration as a whole, not Bush in particular. Or maybe he didn't even remember that particular interview at the time he said it. ;) I don’t remember things I said a month ago; it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t remember that he did say the administration lied a year ago in an obscure interview. That doesn’t mean he changed his opinion, it just means he used harsher wording in the past.

I suppose if you wanted to be really anal and you insisted on assuming he remembered that particular interview a year ago when he was speaking during the debate, then you could say he “lied.” But, please, do tell me something you specifically remember yourself saying a year ago, and quote it word for word. ;)


If you want a “flip-flop” then I’m looking for something more along the lines of this:

He basically has to not really believe what he is saying, and he has to just be saying it to gain some benefit out of it at the time (most commonly used example is that it polled high at the time).

For example, I’m going to take a Bush “flip-flop” posted on a previous thread. I’m going to say upfront that I think pretty much anything can be taken out of context, so this is an example more of what people can do with words and random one-liners. I don’t actually expect you to defend Bush because I’m already assuming this is just propaganda, and that if you look on the internet long enough you can find what he was “really” saying. It’s just being used as an example of what people are doing to Kerry:

From http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263 :

First, imagine it’s 4 years ago. Bush is Gov. of Texas right? He isn't going to have any of those "Homos" marrying in his state, and he has no power to stop it if gays gain rights through the federal government instead of the state one...so:
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]

Ta Da! It's a state issue, lets let the states decide. Sounds reasonable, until...

Suddenly, flash forward, he no longer has control over an individual state government; he is now head of the federal government. ;) Guess who he wants to decide the gay marriage issue now?:
...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]

Unless someone wants to consider this a “flip-flop” for Bush, I don’t see how half-truth quotes and one-liners taken out of context prove Kerry is a “flip-flopper.”


Also, will one of you please respond to D.Lustmord? He seems like he put a lot of effort typing out his post and no one has even tried to rebut his points yet (unless you concede to them?).


Edit:

Sorry, posted this before I saw your next post Switchback ;) :

Switchback]It's the fact that he just tells people what they want him to tell them, so you never know when he's actually saying what he believes, or when he's just feeding you a line.

Again, cite your example please. :)

[Uthar]

I presently carry a valid military ID and have sworn to obey all the orders of my superiors and the President regardless of my views on any policies or who resides in the White House.

Ah, but see, Kerry did do his duty while under military command... he only protested once he was a civilian again. See?


Personally, I think Kerry beat out Bush... but as an old guy I know put it, "I ain't votin' for neither one o' them! They both crooks!"

First off, no more stupid things about flip-flopping. I guess I would rather have a man who would err on the side of looking at too many sides of an issue than one who would just choose one side of an issue and refuse to be swayed from it.

Secondly, if I was a soldier over in Iraq, I would sure as hell want someone saying that we have no business being there. The intel we went over on was wrong, the war was done for the wrong reasons. I would want my possible death to be for the right reason.

Anyways, this leads to who I endorse for President: Dave Barry! (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/)

[[BBF]Switchback]

Yay, let me try to make my point more clear..

Kerry says 'I didn't use a word as harsh as liar'... implying that liar is a very harsh word to him, and he would not have said something like that... except he did. But now, he doesn't want to admit to that, because it would make him look bad to have called the president a liar.

And he wasn't talking about Bush, he was talking about the administration? C'mon Yay... don't feed me that crap... youre posts make sense and you seem like too reasonable of a person to actaully believe something like that is a valid reason... I'm not meaning to attack you if it soudns that way, I just think that was really over the top...

example... If I say you're parents are complete morons... you get pissed, and say I called your mom a moron. Whoa whoa, wait a minute. I would never use a word that harsh towards your mother. I didn't call your mom a moron, I called your parents morons. It's rediculous... and i think you know it.

[Green Dream]

Switchback']Yay, let me try to make my point more clear..

Kerry says 'I didn't use a word as harsh as liar'... implying that liar is a very harsh word to him, and he would not have said something like that... except he did. But now, he doesn't want to admit to that, because it would make him look bad to have called the president a liar.

And what my main point was against this was that he probably didn't remember something he said a year ago. You are trying to make it look like he intentionally lied.

I'll refer you to my previous post. :) :

Or maybe he didn't even remember that particular interview at the time he said it. I don’t remember things I said a month ago; it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t remember that he did say the administration lied a year ago in an obscure interview. That doesn’t mean he changed his opinion, it just means he used harsher wording in the past.

I suppose if you wanted to be really anal and you insisted on assuming he remembered that particular interview a year ago when he was speaking during the debate, then you could say he “lied.” But, please, do tell me something you specifically remember yourself saying a year ago, and quote it word for word. ;)

I can't find anything within the past 6 months in which he says the president lied. Do you honestly believe that he knows every single quote he ever made throughout is career? I don't think he "lied"; I just think he most likely didn't remember that quote and it was an honest mistake.



Switchback]And he wasn't talking about Bush, he was talking about the administration? C'mon Yay... don't feed me that crap... youre posts make sense and you seem like too reasonable of a person to actaully believe something like that is a valid reason... I'm not meaning to attack you if it soudns that way, I just think that was really over the top...

example... If I say you're parents are complete morons... you get pissed, and say I called your mom a moron. Whoa whoa, wait a minute. I would never use a word that harsh towards your mother. I didn't call your mom a moron, I called your parents morons. It's rediculous... and i think you know it.

I'm not trying to "feed you crap" (and it's a bit insulting that you would think I would). I have heard people say before that they approve of Bush but dislike his administration (John Ashcroft in particular). There are even people who claim Bush is a puppet and that Cheney is really running everything. I wasn't sure exactly what Kerry was trying to say in the quote you gave because you only gave me one single line. Maybe if you can find the original article somewhere and link to it I can better read through the context clues (I looked for it and I can't find it anywhere so the "cite" itself is questionable).

As for the parents/mother example: In every definition of the term "parents," the mother is included, like squares are a type of rectangle (I'm not going into adoption or gay parents for this one so go with me here...). When talking about the "administration," though some definitions may include Bush, not all of them seem to do so (or at least not everyone seems to be talking about Bush when they bring it up).

This isn't an exact example of what I'm trying to say, but within the family analogy you have brought up, its the closest I could come up with: Lets say you have a mother, a father, a brother, and a sister. Now, lets say your father, brother, and sister all lie a lot (but your mother never does). Someone says "your family lies a lot." This statement is true because most of your family does, indeed lie. However, remember, the mother never did lie (which is also true).


But, anyway, as I was saying, this was just one guess I had of what he might have been talking about (my main guess being he just didn't remember his exact wording in that particular interview) and I will need you to find the actual article if you want anything more than that. Again, I still think anything composed of one-liners is iffy because they are so easily taken out of context.

[[BBF]Switchback]

my apologies for insulting to you. I didn't intend to, but I do see how it came across that way, so I'm sorry for that.

/cheer for public apology time :biggrin:

[FlaminDeath]

So where's our link to that quote? :P

[D.Lustmord]

Kerry says 'I didn't use a word as harsh as liar'... implying that liar is a very harsh word to him, and he would not have said something like that... except he did. But now, he doesn't want to admit to that, because it would make him look bad to have called the president a liar.

Would you rather have a President who lied about Nuclear Weapons, or a President who lied about whether he did or did not use the word "Liar"? :dizzy:

[cynicalcrab]

Would you rather have a President who lied about Nuclear Weapons, or a President who lied about whether he did or did not use the word "Liar"? :dizzy:
I'd rather have a president who didn't lie at all. But that will NEVER happen. The best politicians are the most accomplished liars. Sad.

[[BBF]Switchback]

I don't believe he ever lied. Was the intelligence all correct? No, but all the congressman that voted to authorize use of force saw the same intelligence the president saw, and I do not believe the president lied about it.

For the last 10 years everyone in the world believed (or knew) that Saddam was manufacturing illegal weapons. He used them on his own people, so we know he had them!

The UN found shells with nerve gas (illegal) before the invasion ever occured, so there was no doubt that Saddam had illegal weapons, and theres no telling (actually, very probable) if there were weapons that left the country or are still hidden.

But... whatever.

And Yay, I'd like to know your take on this one... you're explanation of the funding of the war "flip flop" made sense (although I disagree with Kerry's opinion) and your explanation of the debate "flip flop" does make sense, however you give Kerry much more credit than I do... so, I just came across this while reading some articles on-line, so tell me what you think about it.

"An Arab-American audience in Michigan last fall heard all about how Israel's security is just "another barrier to peace." As Kerry put it, "I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the Green Line -- cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis' security over the long term, increase the hardships to Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder."

In the run-up to Super Tuesday -- which included a primary in notably Jewish New York -- Kerry spoke out of a different side of his mouth. "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense," he said. "No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel."

[hopbounce]

You know, I ALWAYS re-elect a President, unless they've done something during their presidency that's horribly bad. ALWAYS. This means I voted for Clinton, and I would have voted for Bush Sr. if I had been voting age then. I even voted for Bush Jr. last election. As long as there's nothing they've done that's horribly bad, well, I'll vote for them.*

Bush has done something horribly bad. Bad, as in kill thousands of people bad. Everyone knows I'm talking about the War in Iraq. It's positive that Bush knew that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists. He didn't know Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. (if we had known, then where are they?) Therefore, the only purposes for the War in Iraq were 1) a publicity stunt 2) Bush felt like it 3) some hot-blooded Americans felt like it 4) Bush's image.

None of those are reasons to kill people. Sure, Bush didn't know the casualties were going to be that high, but it's STILL KILLING PEOPLE. You don't kill people without good reason. You don't kill people because you ****ing feel like it. If you wanna kill people, you better think about it for a looonnnngggg time, and then think about it some more. You better be sure that your opponent is guilty (Bush wasn't sure of that), you better be sure they deserve it (OK, so Saddam deserves it), you better be sure that you won't hurt innocent people doing it (everyone knows this is impossible to avoid), and you better be sure it's worthwhile.

Honestly enough, I would rather my stuffed teddy bear be President than Bush. I have a sincere fear of my life if Bush gets re-elected. How bad will our foreign policy further deteriorate? Will he mindlessly declare another war? Are we going to find ourselves in the midst of World War III?

I don't know whether Kerry would be a better President than Bush. Every President has been known to flop around issues every which way once they assumed Presidency. This is why I always re-elect a President if he's doing a decent job; better to brave waters I know, than to brave waters that I don't know.

Bush is an exception. If he's President, I'm afraid of thunderstorms, whirlpools, you name it. It's better to sail a completely unknown sea, than to re-elect Bush.

That's why I'm voting for Kerry.

[Green Dream]

Hello again Switch :)

Switchback']"An Arab-American audience in Michigan last fall heard all about how Israel's security is just "another barrier to peace." As Kerry put it, "I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the Green Line -- cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis' security over the long term, increase the hardships to Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder."

In the run-up to Super Tuesday -- which included a primary in notably Jewish New York -- Kerry spoke out of a different side of his mouth. "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense," he said. "No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel."

Okay, I looked this up and actually found this exact “flip-flop” allegation on several conservatively biased sites, but in the future providing a link would be very helpful. :)

I have highlighted the important sections. The ironic part about this "flip-flop" is that, not only is it taken out of context (again, lol ), but the second quote is actually a further explanation of the first quote.


I found the actual details at this site: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1077608445534

I'm going to quote the relevant parts:

US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, described Israel's construction of a security barrier as a "legitimate act of self defense" after Sunday's suicide bombing in Jerusalem, clarifying a position he took in October when he told an Arab American audience, "We don't need another barrier to peace."

Kerry's position on the fence was misconstrued after the October speech. While he has objected to the route of the fence – as has Bush – Kerry has never opposed Israel's right to build the barrier for security reasons

When Kerry said, "We don't need another barrier to peace," he meant a barrier that deviates from the Green Line and makes peace talks harder

And, finally, the piece of information I think says the most; this is straight from the people he supposedly "flip-flopped" against:

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, said he sees no contradiction between Kerry's two statements.


Again, if you are going to continue to try to find "flip-flops" I ask you to 1) make sure you have the entire transcript of the speech and not just a small snippet (I assume I don't have to repeat my issues with small snippets ;) ) and 2) if it is a biased source, please find what the sources on the other side of the argument are saying as well (or even better would be if you could find an unbiased source, but those are rare on the internet).

[[BBF]Switchback]

as I said, I just wanted your take on the situation. I wasn't tryin to trap ya, just wanted your opinion, and now I have it, and I appreciate it.

And as for unbiased sites... I'm a firm believer that an unbiased source does not exist. Every human is biased to some extent, and it's quite hard, if not impossible, to ignore your bias when reporting information.

That is the reason I wanted your opinion.. I'm biased against Kerry, as many people here are biased against Bush. Being biased is not a bad thing... I am biased for a reason... I've looked at his views on the issues, and I disagree with many of them... therefore it's pretty easy to start thinking you disagree with everything he says, even when your logic tells you that isn't the case. The people that are biased against Bush have their reasons as well.

[FlaminDeath]

Therefore, the only purposes for the War in Iraq were 1) a publicity stunt 2) Bush felt like it 3) some hot-blooded Americans felt like it 4) Bush's image.

You forgot 5) Oil and 6) Saddam attempted to assassinate his dad :P

(braces for attack)

[Sexicutioner]

****, I voted on Bush by accident. Can anyone put my vote on Kerry?

Re-count!!! :laugh: :rolleyes:

chad says: "no! your vote will be thrown out and be used to help the one that should have lost the election...er... poll." :rolleyes:

[FlaminDeath]

By the way Yay is my new hero because he is good at checking his sources :P.

[Green Dream]

:biggrin: .

[shaag]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?oref=login

Anyone else read this?

The Bush administration went to war without intelligence, not because of bad intelligence. What the congress saw was not what the administration saw. They wanted Iraq for reasons completely apart from the reasons they gave. I mean, they threatened us with mushroom clouds for gods sake, without a single piece of credible evidence. They spoke of these things as facts. If that isn't a reason for removal from office, I don't know what is. In fact, they should be prosecuted in my opinion. I am constantly amazed at how military people still support Bush after this. Maybe Bea wary can shed some light on this.

I mean Bea, you are going to Iraq soon, right? The reasons we were given for the imminent need to attack Iraq have all been proven false. They told us what they knew would push our buttons and get our support. There was no threat from Saddam, yet your fellow soldiers are dying daily. Doesn't that make you mad?

Not sure if that link will work, but its a NY Times article from Oct 3 on the intelligence failures.