Post by: Maximumbeing on September 30, 2004, 06:46:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 30, 2004, 07:14:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 30, 2004, 07:46:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on September 30, 2004, 07:48:00 PM
kerry has mixed messages... kerry explained...
terrorists are scary... kerry explained his stance...
wrong war, wrong time, wrong place... kerry explained...
he mentions these with every response...
kerry is dominating this debate... of course its only an hour in, but even bush supporters should admit this...
*the ammusing thing is, is that bush looks so anxious to respond and he just states the same few things...
Post by: HeLiuM on September 30, 2004, 08:05:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Oct 1 2004, 03:58 AM) |
| Well it's easy to say what you want to do, but actually getting the cooperation needed to do what he wants is quite hard. |
That's right.
That's exactly why international cooperation is necessary (we have to cooperate with them, not expect them to adapt to US agenda, which is what you just described.)
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 30, 2004, 08:11:00 PM
Very well spoken.
Bush seemed to talk in circles, Kerry had some strong points, and I think Kerry might have an edge now.
Bush - "And may god continue to bless this great country."
You just had to say it didn't you Bush?
Please, let's liberate our own country for a change.
Post by: K98 on September 30, 2004, 08:19:00 PM
Post by: pegasys on September 30, 2004, 08:21:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on September 30, 2004, 08:31:00 PM
gcskate: I'm glad to hear other people notived that as well. he was very anxious to get his turn, but then paused for sometimes 5 seconds before sputtering something out to get rid of the silence.
Did you take notice of the responses. Kerry actually had intelligent things to say. He had responses that weren't filled with pauses and repetition.
Bush said iraq attacked us. WTF?! I don't even need to comment on this.
not that i really care but if you watched c-span they had the split screen bush had 3 glasses of water to kerry's 1 sip in the first 5 minutes.
i watched this debate hating bush and liking kerry so of course i'm going to say kerry won. But when people like k98 (who i think is nemt, anyone else?....anyways) going around saying it's even. It seems pretty obvious who won
thomes08
Post by: The unProfessional on September 30, 2004, 08:36:00 PM
| QUOTE |
i watched this debate hating bush and liking kerry so of course i'm going to say kerry won |
But consider something thomes, I think you said "Kerry won" before the debate even began.
Post by: thomes08 on September 30, 2004, 08:37:00 PM
"you can't send mexed missages"
gwb
Post by: brandogg on September 30, 2004, 08:37:00 PM
Now, did anyone notice Kerry's flip-flops that actually happened in the debate? I remember him saying that we had too many troops in Iraq, and not enough in Afghanistan, only to minutes later say we don't have enough troops in Iraq.
Post by: thomes08 on September 30, 2004, 08:41:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Oct 1 2004, 04:39 AM) |
| But consider something thomes, I think you said "Kerry won" before the debate even began. |
ummmmm..... that's EXACTLY what i was saying.
"watched this debate hating bush and liking kerry so of course i'm going to say kerry won"
^^^ i was stating right there that i didn't go into this thinking it was going to change my vote.
but on that note. People from Bush's campaign were already making up excuses for Bush losing this debate. i read one article on that and some guy from his campaign was on the daily show explaining the Bush loss.
So it wasn't just me or other democrats who went into this debate knowing who was going to have the upper hand, bush's campaign had that mindset too
thomes08
Post by: thomes08 on September 30, 2004, 08:42:00 PM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Oct 1 2004, 04:40 AM) |
| Bush NEVER said Iraq attacked us. He said the enemy attacked us, which is why several months later, after going into Afghanistan, we went into Iraq. Now, did anyone notice Kerry's flip-flops that actually happened in the debate? I remember him saying that we had too many troops in Iraq, and not enough in Afghanistan, only to minutes later say we don't have enough troops in Iraq. |
he said the enemy attacked us, and that's why we're in iraq
Post by: The unProfessional on September 30, 2004, 08:50:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on September 30, 2004, 09:05:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 30 2004, 08:46 PM) |
| Kerry is also known to be a beter orator, and that just put Bush at his weakest point. That doesnt represent real world situations where you have time to think things out. |
surely a real world application would be diplomatic meetings with other countries leaders... preparation wouldnt be everything in that situation...
Post by: thomes08 on September 30, 2004, 09:34:00 PM
edit: sorry for saying i think you're nemt, but it's obvious you are not neutral
Post by: pug_ster on September 30, 2004, 09:58:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Oct 1 2004, 04:53 AM) |
| I just don't think either one delivered anything impressive. It was Kerry's big opportunity, and he wasn't nearly as aggressive as he should've been. |
No, Kerry could've been agressive. But it could've have a negative impact in the upcoming Bush commericals.
I expected the same old crap from Bush, talking about nothing. At least Kerry was more elaborate about his positions. One thing I am surprised that Kerry didn't talk about how REALLY bad it is in Iraq.
It would be more surprising in the other 2 debates. Especially that Bush have nothing to show in the domestic issues.
Then again, Bush is leading in the polls, but Kerry won the debate. Gore won the debate at 2000 but lost the presidency anyways. But there will always be people voting for Bush regardless of what he thinks of the International and Domestic policies anyways.
Post by: LepPpeR on September 30, 2004, 10:03:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 30 2004, 11:53 PM) |
| I just don't think either one delivered anything impressive. It was Kerry's big opportunity, and he wasn't nearly as aggressive as he should've been. Hey Pug_ster I have one question. What is Kerry's plan in Iraq if he wins and how does it differ from our current Presidents plan? |
I agree. I think both of them had good and bad moments. I do not think that this will in all reality affect the outcome of this election. They always talk about the undecided but everyone I seem to talk to already has their opinion.
Post by: dss311 on October 01, 2004, 12:14:00 AM
FYI From the Net (cut and paste)
--------------------------------------
Kerry stated: 'That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there.' (Driving home point that Bush as not done enough to protect the country.)
The NYC subway did not close at all during the convention, according to a report on cable outlet NY1, even though Penn station was shut for several hours...
--------------------------------------
Kerry also misspoke when he referred to looking at KGB records in "Treblinka Square" in a visit to Russia. Treblinka was a Nazi death camp. He meant Lubyanka Square...
--------------------------------------
LOCKHART: DEBATE CONSENSUS A 'DRAW'
Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , The consensus is it was a draw.
Post by: gcskate27 on October 01, 2004, 01:33:00 AM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 30 2004, 09:12 PM) |
| So in diplomatic meetings you have 90 seconds to make your point, and dont know what kind of questions you're going to get? I would hope not |
well for all intents and purposes, yes... at least thats what you should be prepared for, that youll get unknown questions and have difficulty relating to the other person... sort of what being a good diplomat is about... not parroting a prepared set of answers...
now im not one to say that bush cant think for himself and has to have aids feed him answers all the time, but if you keep coming back to the same 'points' (regardless of how well they relate to the issue you are being asked to discuss) that have already been adequately explained, it shows you have nothing really worthwhile to talk about...
bush kept saying kerry changes stances... kerry explained that it was true that he changed his mind: he also admitted that he was mistaken and explained why he changed his mind on the iraq issue... yet bush kept coming back to 'he changes his mind erratically'...
bush might as well not have been there and there been a cutout with signs taped to it saying: 'kerry flip-flops', 'terrorists are scary' and 'kerry hates our troops'...
would have been as effective...
*mind you i only saw the first hour so bush could have had some actual points in the latter bit of the debate that i missed...
Post by: pug_ster on October 01, 2004, 02:43:00 AM
Kerry did get his message out about what he is going to do in Iraq.
- Close borders in Iraq so that Terrorists can't bring troops and Arms to Iraq.
- As absurd it may be, try to get more involvement from the UN
- Do not retreat from a secured city.
Post by: tarheelsnipe on October 01, 2004, 05:36:00 AM
BTW, i was impressed with Kerry. When Bush called him a political flip-flopper, he simply stated his position on Iraq in plain English over and over.....and that line, "Help is on the way" is a winner. he should use that line all the way up to election day. And the economy is a no-brainer. A democrat led us out of the Depression, and another democrat led us out of the '92 recession. Who will lead us out of this one?
Post by: gronne on October 01, 2004, 08:35:00 AM
Post by: Ween311 on October 01, 2004, 10:33:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Only 60 million saw the debate |
Where exactly does that number come from? How does anyone know what I am watching on TV, or through a webcast at work, or even on the radio while I work out.
Post by: scorpionking77 on October 01, 2004, 10:56:00 AM
Post by: Spency234 on October 01, 2004, 11:11:00 AM
| QUOTE (scorpionking77 @ Oct 1 2004, 01:59 PM) |
| Our politcal system needs to be blown up and start from scratch. this two party one mind crap is getting old and as a human race we are not going anywhere. I wish i cld just mod my car into a sup up nasa approved space ship and fly somewhere where there are less ignorance and greed. Just start up my planet with 23 males and 12 females. whos with me |
Sure why not, just one thing.
Can we have a few more females??
Post by: Baner on October 01, 2004, 11:19:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Kerry did get his message out about what he is going to do in Iraq. |
-He complains that Bush spends billions of dollars in the war.
-States that he wants to pull the troops out of Iraq.
-Wants to put troops in Afghanistan(sp?) to find Bin Laden. (I thought I heard somewhere that people think he's in Siberia)
Doesn't relocating (is it 100,000 troops?) cost a good bit of money? Wouldn't restarting the war in Afghanistan and ending the war in Iraq cost the same amount as keeping the war in Iraq? Kerry had good points,but he left gaps. Sadly, Bush overlooked them.
Also with the "Allowing Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora", it reverts back to the great saying, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." If he did find Bin Laden then this war might have been over, but if he didn't catch Usama then Kerry would have been asking why he sent all those troops on a wild goose chase.
I wanna run for Pres.
, too bad I'm a foriegner 
.| QUOTE |
| Tbh I can't see Bush winning any debate's with Kerry unless arm wrestling or snap crops up in the next debate/s. |
We all know that speaking isn't Bush's strong point, and Kerry going to the best dabating college in the country helps out just a little bit...
It's hard to take the advantage over someone who hasn't had the chance to do anything wrong, and when your debating the Pres, especially in a time of war, you have tons of ammunition to use.
I agree with whoever said that in the real world, you're not going to have 90 seconds to annouce a topic to the world. Sure, you might have a time limit to talk to foriegn officials, but it won't be 90 seconds, and you'll most likely be having a converstation with them, not having to worry about this making or breaking you because of your one statement. When talking face to face to a person, you can always "Sound out" what your trying to say. Drawing examples and so-on.
| QUOTE |
| Where exactly does that number come from? How does anyone know what I am watching on TV, or through a webcast at work, or even on the radio while I work out. |
Taken from a census of people who have boxes that are attached to thier tv sets that monitor what they watch. They are placed in random homes, making sure to take an accurate reading. I forget the ratio of houses that have them.
Edit: My 2 cents... Kerry had that one.
Post by: thomes08 on October 01, 2004, 12:34:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Oct 1 2004, 07:22 PM) |
| -He complains that Bush spends billions of dollars in the war. -States that he wants to pull the troops out of Iraq. -Wants to put troops in Afghanistan(sp?) to find Bin Laden. (I thought I heard somewhere that people think he's in Siberia) Doesn't relocating (is it 100,000 troops?) cost a good bit of money? Wouldn't restarting the war in Afghanistan and ending the war in Iraq cost the same amount as keeping the war in Iraq? Kerry had good points,but he left gaps. Sadly, Bush overlooked them. Also with the "Allowing Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora", it reverts back to the great saying, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." If he did find Bin Laden then this war might have been over, but if he didn't catch Usama then Kerry would have been asking why he sent all those troops on a wild goose chase. I wanna run for Pres. , too bad I'm a foriegner .We all know that speaking isn't Bush's strong point, and Kerry going to the best dabating college in the country helps out just a little bit... It's hard to take the advantage over someone who hasn't had the chance to do anything wrong, and when your debating the Pres, especially in a time of war, you have tons of ammunition to use. I agree with whoever said that in the real world, you're not going to have 90 seconds to annouce a topic to the world. Sure, you might have a time limit to talk to foriegn officials, but it won't be 90 seconds, and you'll most likely be having a converstation with them, not having to worry about this making or breaking you because of your one statement. When talking face to face to a person, you can always "Sound out" what your trying to say. Drawing examples and so-on. Taken from a census of people who have boxes that are attached to thier tv sets that monitor what they watch. They are placed in random homes, making sure to take an accurate reading. I forget the ratio of houses that have them. Edit: My 2 cents... Kerry had that one. |
i'm in a hurry to go home so i only read your first comment on kerry and iraq. and i think you couldn't have taken his position on what he wants to do out of context anymore if you tried. Who's talking about taking 100,000 troops out of iraq to put them in afghan? not kerry i know that.
and he NEVER has said he is going to stop the war in iraq and focus on something else. he said the opposite. he knows we have to stay there and get the job done.
The only think bush overlooked was the comments kerry made about all the other countries gaining or close to gaining nukes under bush's leadership because we have are hands so tied with an unplanned iraq war.
you're basically being fox news the way you are either lying about kerry's position, or you just didn't listen to what it was and made your own judgment and passed it off as fact.
thomes08
Post by: fishlord on October 01, 2004, 12:35:00 PM
Post by: pegasys on October 01, 2004, 12:40:00 PM
Post by: LepPpeR on October 01, 2004, 12:44:00 PM
| QUOTE (fishlord @ Oct 1 2004, 03:38 PM) |
| poor goergie. his low iq really puts him at a disadvantage in thngs like a debate... maybe they should arm wrestle instead to even out the chances. |
actually a lot of people think his style works to his advantage as he relates to the common man. After all, if you look thru the south and middle America where the so called common man is found he seems to have an advantage there. Besides, John Kerry has one large disadvantage, he is from Mass.
Post by: thomes08 on October 01, 2004, 01:13:00 PM
the common man is the uneducated man. the man who thinks there is only one right and one wrong. the man who doesn't think through issues and understand complex issues such as foreign relations. The common man isn't someone you want in the white house. You want a superior man
Post by: Baner on October 01, 2004, 01:35:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| The only think bush overlooked was the comments kerry made about all the other countries gaining or close to gaining nukes under bush's leadership because we have are hands so tied with an unplanned iraq war. |
I thought everyone was against the USA being the world police? I guess because it could be used against Bush, then America should be the world police, right?
Please enlighten me if I'm still lying and trying to pass it off as fact.
Post by: pegasys on October 01, 2004, 01:36:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on October 01, 2004, 01:50:00 PM
with other countries joining, there would be other countries troops as well... i believe kerry could be a good diplomatic president and could renew ties to other countries that weve pretty much told 'fuck off, we dont need you anyway'...
Post by: brandogg on October 01, 2004, 01:55:00 PM
Kerry has disrespected basically all of our allies, and our troops, which is a critical mistake. He did "speak well" last night, but to me it seems like he just kept digging himself a bigger grave. The guy is a failure as a presidential candidate, and is nothing but a puppet for the DNC (especially Bill and Hillary Clinton - who, by the way, is who the Democrats are actually trying to get into office) and has no clear position of his own.
Post by: Baner on October 01, 2004, 02:09:00 PM
I see what your trying to get at, but even if more "International" Troops aid in Iraq, Kerry wants to go to Afgan. and wants to better suit our troops. I don't condone either, but it's going against what he's saying about saving money.
Post by: johnnobts on October 01, 2004, 02:54:00 PM
i also found it funny to hear kerry complaining about our buker-busting nuke program, sounds like jsut the thing we need to take out the cave-dwellers along the border. he's full of double-talk, and those who listened carefully to him in the debate realize he presented 3 diiferent positions on iraq, not just one.
Post by: Colonel32 on October 01, 2004, 03:28:00 PM
| QUOTE (johnnobts @ Oct 1 2004, 10:57 PM) |
| kerry's lies (factual innacuracies) were relevant, to say the NYV xubway system had to be shutdown during the RNC was a total fabrication, he's using fear tactics again. likewise, to complain about our going it alone, placing sanctions on iran, when it was the clinton administration who had those sanctions in placeyears prior. also, to make it out as though the us did not send a delegation to iran along with GB and other nations to meet Iran is a complete lie. i really don't want this guy, mr. appeasement, the guy who repeatedly fought against the reagan administration, who wanted a nuclear freeze during the middle of the cold war, calling the shots in dealing with countries like n. korea and iran. i also found it funny to hear kerry complaining about our buker-busting nuke program, sounds like jsut the thing we need to take out the cave-dwellers along the border. he's full of double-talk, and those who listened carefully to him in the debate realize he presented 3 diiferent positions on iraq, not just one. |
johnnobts:
4 things:
The subway was a mess, while not innactive, a lot of mistakes were made and admitted to. Anything else is revisionist.
The Iran talks Kerry was right, You are wrong. Search google. The US joined very late, Kerry rebutted your response last night when Bush said what you did. Bush did not respond because Kerry was right.
Kerry fought Reagan on Iran Contra. He was right, it's one of the few things I respect about the guy. He in fact was fighting against the appeasement policy of Reagan - so which one is it??
GWB said last night there was a 'tax gap' in Kerry's plan for homeland security. Nuke money is fine though. Can you see Kerry's point now. Those bunker busters might have been useful two years ago, now they are an expensive toy... I, and John Kerry wouldmuch rather see that money spent on securing the borders and port security. makes sense. nukes aren't going to do jack shit fighting terrorists, look at the outrage when daisy cutters were used, imagine how pissed the world would be if the US dropped another nuke. That will win some friends back.
I agree all of these things were relevant because Kerry glossed fact.. Back to critical thinking, what about GWB last night troubled you. Because from where I, and the rest of the world was sitting, GWB said a lot of nothing last night. For instance, GWB said that China wouldn't like bi-lateral talks with North Korea.... That is what China is asking for, how's that for factual innacuracy... he also followed up by not remembering the name of the summit he was disagreeing about... Kerry had said it not one minute earlier
What's the bigger deal, Subways, or nuclear weapons
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on October 01, 2004, 03:40:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Oct 1 2004, 11:31 PM) |
| For instance, GWB said that China wouldn't like bi-lateral talks with North Korea.... That is what China is asking for, how's that for factual innacuracy... |
Please feel free to post some sources regarding China's request for the USA to have bi-lateral talks with North Korea. Kerry should be gassed for even suggesting such a retarded idea. China has the greatest influence in that region (they also provide more aid to North Korea than the US, and let's not forget the most important thing, they are after all, communist); there is no logic behind bi-lateral talks between the USA and North Korea.
Post by: Colonel32 on October 01, 2004, 05:27:00 PM
Lots of fuel for the spin machine. Man they are fast, I would try and do the same for Bush but he didn't really say anything. That is surely why all their focus is on how bad Kerry is and not how good Bush's record is.
Can some of your Repubs see where there would be a little frustration coming from
http://www.georgewbu...ad.aspx?ID=3706
I'm tired of talking about Kerry's tan
EDIT:BTW, in no way am I saying that bi-lateral talks are a better idea. Just that what Bush said was innacurate since everyone has lists on Kerry. AND John Kerry was BRUTAL at that debate last night as well to be fair. Good for him, still bad.
Post by: K98 on October 01, 2004, 07:54:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| The common man isn't someone you want in the white house. You want a superior man |
I thought all men were created equal? Do you want only land owning white males being the only ones to vote? Only superior people should be able to vote for a superior Pres?
Kerry is a joke. He does what ever is popular not what is always right.
Vote Libertarian
Heres a site for you Kerry lovers.
http://www.communistsforkerry.com/
Post by: CommunistsforKerry2004 on October 01, 2004, 08:18:00 PM
Post by: CommunistsforKerry2004 on October 01, 2004, 08:31:00 PM
Post by: fishlord on October 01, 2004, 09:45:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Oct 2 2004, 03:57 AM) |
| I thought all men were created equal? Do you want only land owning white males being the only ones to vote? Only superior people should be able to vote for a superior Pres? |
so you think the fact that gwd daddy was rich (and pres himself) has nothing to do with where he is now?
and where the fuck did the white stuff come from? superior person = intelligent, good morals, and not a fucking war monger.
Post by: LepPpeR on October 01, 2004, 10:24:00 PM
| QUOTE (thomes08 @ Oct 1 2004, 04:16 PM) |
| to those of you who don't know the common man is the uneducated man. the man who thinks there is only one right and one wrong. the man who doesn't think through issues and understand complex issues such as foreign relations. The common man isn't someone you want in the white house. You want a superior man |
That is not the difintion of the common man. I am a common man, one who lives day by day in this confusing world. I am a college graduate (educated) and live in a nice area in which I call home.
I do not want your so called superior man making decisions for me. I want someone that i can relate to making decision in my best interest. I do not want France, Canada, Germany, Russia making our foreign policy either which your so-called superior man supports. I want an American, a common man defending this country.
Are you saying the common man who can be found through out this country is just an uneducated sucker of the American System? I am not sure your definition of the common suits it very well espically in the state in which you live.
Post by: K98 on October 01, 2004, 10:25:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| so you think the fact that gwd daddy was rich (and pres himself) has nothing to do with where he is now? |
Exact same thing with Kerry except he married into a billionaire family. I think hes got more money than gwb
| QUOTE |
| and where the fuck did the white stuff come from? superior person = intelligent, good morals, and not a fucking war monger. |
OMG u are a dumbass. Learn some history you dumb fool, and you'll see even the founding fathers didnt think commoners could be trusted to vote for a President. Only people who could vote were land owning white males.
Lepper said it well on his above post, which i was trying to say but got sidetracked.
Post by: brandogg on October 01, 2004, 11:00:00 PM
Post by: brandogg on October 01, 2004, 11:54:00 PM
Post by: brandogg on October 02, 2004, 03:43:00 PM
Post by: bluedeath on October 02, 2004, 06:25:00 PM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Oct 2 2004, 07:03 AM) |
| Kerry has a TON more money that Bush. What did he do to get his money? Married a gold diggin bitch. The Bush family actually worked for their fortune. |
Obviously you are a financial advisor. How can I make a "TON More money"?
Post by: melon on October 03, 2004, 06:27:00 AM
You have had ONE bombing. Thats it just one! We lived with the IRA for years. Margaret Thatcher was in a hotel when it was bombed. She carried on as normal.
How can you fight a war against terror anaway? its impossible.
Do you honestly belive countries like Iran or N. Korea are going to attack you?
They would have every right to do so as the US along with the UK helped Saddam defeat Iran and the US enforce the publically unwanted seperation of Korea.
But thats not the point neither country is stupid enough to attack you. They wouldnt be stupid enough to attack us and our Armed forces are a fraction of the size of yours.
I just cant belive the most important factor in choosing the new president is how he will deal with terror! Bush has increased the possability of America being targeted again tenfold by going to war with Iraq, this information was presented to him before the invasion by the CIA, he chose to ignore it.
There are more important issues such as the redistribution of wealth away from the elite 2% or the increasing unemployment rate.
Say your country does get attacked again, there is nothing any of you as individuals can do about it. So why worry? We could get bombed but the issue would never decide our own election early next year.
You have to look at who benefits from this fear culture that has been created. Is it you? or is it the government that has the blessing of the people to take their rites away, increasing its power and being applauded for doing so.
This war is all about money and power. Thats why the entire population of England is against it and Tony "poodle" Blair is constantly under attack because of it.
Bush gets people to belive what he is saying is true because he says the same lie over and over again untill it is taken as fact. The whole world see's this but unfortunetly your media which is owned by the elite 2% that Bush protects benefit from him being in power.
I know not all Americans belive the bullshit they are being force fed but it is scary that so many are.
Post by: icantstandtoburntolong on October 03, 2004, 02:14:00 PM
| QUOTE (melon @ Oct 3 2004, 06:30 AM) |
| I find it funny as an Englishman watching most Americans live in fear of "terror". You have had ONE bombing. Thats it just one! We lived with the IRA for years. Margaret Thatcher was in a hotel when it was bombed. She carried on as normal. How can you fight a war against terror anaway? its impossible. Do you honestly belive countries like Iran or N. Korea are going to attack you? They would have every right to do so as the US along with the UK helped Saddam defeat Iran and the US enforce the publically unwanted seperation of Korea. But thats not the point neither country is stupid enough to attack you. They wouldnt be stupid enough to attack us and our Armed forces are a fraction of the size of yours. I just cant belive the most important factor in choosing the new president is how he will deal with terror! Bush has increased the possability of America being targeted again tenfold by going to war with Iraq, this information was presented to him before the invasion by the CIA, he chose to ignore it. There are more important issues such as the redistribution of wealth away from the elite 2% or the increasing unemployment rate. Say your country does get attacked again, there is nothing any of you as individuals can do about it. So why worry? We could get bombed but the issue would never decide our own election early next year. You have to look at who benefits from this fear culture that has been created. Is it you? or is it the government that has the blessing of the people to take their rites away, increasing its power and being applauded for doing so. This war is all about money and power. Thats why the entire population of England is against it and Tony "poodle" Blair is constantly under attack because of it. Bush gets people to belive what he is saying is true because he says the same lie over and over again untill it is taken as fact. The whole world see's this but unfortunetly your media which is owned by the elite 2% that Bush protects benefit from him being in power. I know not all Americans belive the bullshit they are being force fed but it is scary that so many are. |
Well said. I agree completely. But the Bushites will say just becaue other countries dont defend themselves against terrorism that doesnt mean we shouldnt. So they think bombing civilians around the globe will make us safer. If terrorists are going to attack us here what good will bombing them there do? We cant kill them all and we are just creating more future terrorists than we would have had otherwise.
Post by: LepPpeR on October 03, 2004, 03:53:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Melon:You have had ONE bombing |
Incorrect. Extremely Incorrect. The USS Cole, Our Embasies in two african countries, The first world trade center bombing, and more, not to mention that Osama and his so-called network declared war(JIHAD) on the United States of America. Be sure to support your replies with facts. Please remember that apeasment has never stopped a war. Hilter and Germany prior to WWII and during were given free reign because people did not stand up to him.
Post by: LepPpeR on October 03, 2004, 03:57:00 PM
| QUOTE (cainedna @ Oct 3 2004, 12:10 PM) |
| Seriously dude. Come back when you have references that go beyond what you imagine to be the truth, and the MTV programs which told you this. I never said that he didn't have access to the money of his wife, but how many of these "like 5 houses but maybe 3 OMFG WTF" are in his name? How much property does Bush own, would you say? Finally, name a single presidential candidate who won in the last 150 years who wasn't rich by the standards of the day? I don't sit around thinking up reasons to support Kerry, it's obvious he's a stronger candidate than Bush. The debates were just one simple example of this. |
can you please elaborate on why you believe that Kerry is a stronger candidate other than this debate?
Post by: cainedna on October 03, 2004, 05:37:00 PM
Seriously though, I don't understand what people approve of in Bush. How does stirring up hate for the US in Iraq make any of you feel safer? Osama bin Laden, the only foreign entity (be it country or person) to launch any attacks on the US in the longest time, hasn't been captured yet! How can you say he supports the troops, when he quite clearly has put through policies to the opposite? How long have we been "almost at a recovery," but when the numbers come in, we still blame it on 9/11? How is 9/11 anything but a horrible repeated blemish on his track record?
Post by: K98 on October 03, 2004, 06:27:00 PM
http://www.dailyrecy...ever-cheat.html
Shows him pull somethign out of his pocket when he's kinda turned from the audience. Bringing outside materials to the debate session is against the rules.
Post by: thomes08 on October 03, 2004, 06:37:00 PM
K98... what do you think that could even be that would give him an advantage? This is an extremely poor excuse for whatever you're ashamed of
thomes08
Post by: K98 on October 03, 2004, 06:52:00 PM
You cant get extra views from what footage is already taken everyone knows that. The lowered quality is also just for internet streamign purposes so the file isnt as large. try using full screen it says that on the site.
Well whatever it is Kerry broke a written agreement between him and Bush not to use extra materials which he more than likely violated.
Post by: K98 on October 03, 2004, 06:55:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on October 03, 2004, 06:59:00 PM
If it were a big deal the bush campaign would be making it a big deal and they aren't. If he was breaking the rules there would be bad press about this and there isn't. Just a smear web site and you (who claim to be neutral, is that still true or were you just bullshitting?). And neither of those are very credible
thomes08
Post by: thomes08 on October 03, 2004, 07:10:00 PM
1st off the podiums were at an angle so when he was walking away from some people, he was still in sight of one side of the audience. 2nd when he actually gets it out, it is clearly above the podium whil ehe is facing the audience.
if there is one thing a politician, especially presidential canidate, knows is that NOTHING is away from people or cameras.
at first i thought you were nemt because you started posting right after he stopped. you're ignorant, hateful, and war hungry like he is, but you're not as smart at picking your arguments
have fun hoping this will make him look bad
Post by: K98 on October 03, 2004, 07:17:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| have fun hoping this will make him look bad |
Nah there's so much other stuff that makes him look terrrible. This was just a interesting thing to watch.
Post by: thomes08 on October 03, 2004, 07:21:00 PM
and out all of the other things politicians bitch about, for some reason they're just going to let this one go. I don't even see fox covering this one (although i don't watch fox 24/7 so i can't be sure)
Gimme a break if he was breaking the rules on a debate that a large majority claimed kerry the victor, the bush camp would (and i would too if i were them) make a huge shit about this one.
Post by: thomes08 on October 03, 2004, 07:38:00 PM
Post by: Colonel32 on October 03, 2004, 08:27:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Oct 4 2004, 02:30 AM) |
| Take a look at this from Kerry I found it interesting. http://www.dailyrecy...ever-cheat.html Shows him pull somethign out of his pocket when he's kinda turned from the audience. Bringing outside materials to the debate session is against the rules. |
It did make the sheeps happy. You posted it. This was the point of it, to take the heat off Bush because he made an ass out of himself and your country at a debate viewed around the world.
It was leaked through the Matt Drudge by the RNC. If you had the slightest bit of an open mind you would have noticed Bush doing the exact same thing as Kerry with the folded piece of paper.
You attention is too focused on Kerry to notice that....
Regardless, if Kerry had snuck in a cheat sheet, how did it make GWB look like a babbling ape filled with talking points and no understanding of the policy he is running.
Post by: brandogg on October 03, 2004, 08:39:00 PM
Post by: brandogg on October 03, 2004, 09:24:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on October 04, 2004, 12:52:00 AM
Post by: thomes08 on October 04, 2004, 06:50:00 AM
yeah how many times did bush say "it's hard work" in order to try and connect with the "common man"? Doeas anybody know?
thomes08
Post by: esc1 on October 04, 2004, 08:06:00 AM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Oct 3 2004, 10:42 PM) |
| No understanding? Kerry is the one who seems so out of touch with what is actually going on. "His" plan for Iraq is a copy of the Bush Administration's. Kerry thinks Iran purchased nuclear components so that they could pursue them for "energy resources" - they don't need any new energy sources, the ARE the oil industry. I'll admit Kerry did speak well, but what he actually said is a different story. I'll also tell you this, Bush did look tired, but he spent all day (for the 6th time in recent weeks) passing out food and aid to those who need it, in my state, Florida, while your friend Kerry was getting his nails done. |
LMAO!!
So true!
Post by: SKoT on October 04, 2004, 09:39:00 AM
Post by: cainedna on October 04, 2004, 11:02:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| kerry kept saying, 'well jim,....' like he was talking to just him and not the american people... sincere? |
I don't think it implies much of anything to address the person who asked you a question. How does that even begin to hint at insincerity to you?
Things like this, and the equally ridiculous "hidden materials" are the most pathetic attempts to try to soften the horrible blow the Bush administration took during the debate. The fact is that Bush didn't have much of a leg to stand on content wise, combined with his poor speech skills, and the fact that he was intimidated by Kerry.
Post by: Baner on October 04, 2004, 11:45:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| the fact that he was intimidated by Kerry. |
Watch the begining of the dabate, Kerry shakes, it's called anticipation. Hell, I'd be intimidated if I was infront of the nation, preparing to make a "speech" that could end or begin my career as president.
As for the dabate being a "horrible blow for the Bush administration," It's more than likly a slight blow. Although Bush did get his ass handed to him in the dabate, Kerry only stated "facts" (won't go to indepth with that since it has already been discussed) that we (people who are semi-educated about the canidates) already knew. Everything stated at the debate is on Kerry's website.
I just wanna recap all the irrelavent material presented in this topic:
kerry kept saying, 'well jim,....'
http://www.dailyrecy...ever-cheat.html
"like 5 houses but maybe 3 OMFG WTF" (I'm glad you put that in qoutes... not misleading or anything
)Everything about Bush vs Kerry in the financial section of their lives
CommunistsforKerry2004
How does all this bullshit end up in the discussion?
Post by: melon on October 04, 2004, 01:21:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Incorrect. Extremely Incorrect. The USS Cole, Our Embasies in two african countries, The first world trade center bombing, and more, not to mention that Osama and his so-called network declared war(JIHAD) on the United States of America. Be sure to support your replies with facts. Please remember that apeasment has never stopped a war. Hilter and Germany prior to WWII and during were given free reign because people did not stand up to him. |
Sorry to bring shit up from 2 pages back but i cant let this slide.
Firstly you cant count incidents outside of your borders (no smartarse comment about embasies being American soil). I dont know who bombed the trade centre first time around but wow 2 bombs, our countries have been dropping more than that in a day on Iraq since the first Gulf war - and we were meant to be at peace.
How dare you compare Saddam to Hitler!
There was appeasment because people had suffered during the first world war which was horrific beyond explanation. It heralded the tank and trenches for the first time with millions dead. People just didnt have the stomach for another war, it was a completely different situation to Saddam and you belittle the memories of all those who died in doing so.
Post by: Baner on October 04, 2004, 02:33:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| no smartarse comment about embasies being American soil |
Won't even go further than this with that comment...
Post by: Ween311 on October 04, 2004, 02:47:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Firstly you cant count incidents outside of your borders (no smartarse comment about embasies being American soil). |
What? It doesn't count? This isn't a game. Those attacks were attacks against Americans. It doesn't matter if it happened inside or outside of our borders. I really don't understand your reasoning there.
Post by: The unProfessional on October 04, 2004, 03:21:00 PM
| QUOTE |
How dare you compare Saddam to Hitler! |
I've seen countless comparisons between Bush and Hitler. But you can't compare known tyrant?
Post by: thomes08 on October 04, 2004, 03:49:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Oct 4 2004, 10:36 PM) |
| How about Timmy McVeigh (sp?), he may not be your ideal image of a terroist, but a terrorist none-the-less. The New England sniper? Although he's not a bomber, he's still a terrorist. Won't even go further than this with that comment... |
ummmmmm timmy and the sniper were unpreventable attacks. the snipers were more of serial killers anyways. Timmy was an american as were the snipers. The sniper attacks don't even belong in this thread, they're on a completely different level. And explain how to stop timmy's bombing? There was no way.
some bad things are going to happen in this world that we have no way of stopping. But if you're going to count murderers as terrorists the best way to stop murders would be to stop selling guns and make them illegal. But that's another topic
thomes08
Post by: The unProfessional on October 04, 2004, 04:32:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on October 04, 2004, 07:39:00 PM
Guns are much less important than alcohol.
Post by: The unProfessional on October 04, 2004, 08:17:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on October 04, 2004, 08:33:00 PM
That market just happened to be dominated by a few groups.
No matter what these gangs are illegally smuggling, you can be sure that they're armed.
Post by: thomes08 on October 05, 2004, 06:45:00 AM
thomes08
Post by: Ween311 on October 05, 2004, 08:11:00 AM
Back on topic. I agree with you cainedna. The debates really don't mean a whole lot. Most people have already made up their minds on who they are going to vote for. I don't think the first round of debates has really changed anybodies mind, except maybe the people who don't really pay attention to politics anyway. That's who the debates are really targeted to. I do like to watch them, for entertainment value. The Vice Presidential debates tonight should be pretty fun to watch.
Post by: thomes08 on October 05, 2004, 11:10:00 AM
thomes08
Post by: Ween311 on October 05, 2004, 11:57:00 AM
I think that by now, one month from the election, people who follow politics have their minds made up. Do you personally know anybody who was going to vote for Kerry or Bush that has changed thier mind after watching the first round of the debates? Nobody I know has. They have been following the election news since the Democratic primaries or even before. I think that the debates are a dog and pony show for the swing voters who are on the fence right now and don't know who they want to vote for. Nothing wrong with that, I just don't think that the majority of American voters fall into the category of "swing" voters. I still enjoy the debates very much. Don't get me wrong. Like I said the VP debates tonight should be very amusing.
Post by: Baner on October 05, 2004, 12:34:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| ummmmmm timmy and the sniper were unpreventable attacks. |
Tell me one way that the OKC Bombing was unpreventable but the WTC attack wasn't.
Serial Killer = Terrorist
Terrorist =/ Serial Killer
Same thing as a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square right?
Terrorism
I don't see how they we're on different levels... the snipers struck enough fear into people to keep themselves and their childrens in their homes, and Tim's purpose was to "teach" people why abortion is bad...
| QUOTE |
| Guns are much less important than alcohol. |
I know! My weekends would be so bland without it!
Post by: thomes08 on October 05, 2004, 12:43:00 PM
Post by: Baner on October 05, 2004, 12:56:00 PM
Post by: pegasys on October 05, 2004, 01:15:00 PM
Post by: Baner on October 05, 2004, 01:19:00 PM
I'd rather have people who are trained , have the equipment, and are across the ocean deal with the problems.
I feel a lot safer having the fighting over there, rather than waiting for it to get here to deal with it.
Post by: thomes08 on October 05, 2004, 01:25:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Oct 5 2004, 08:59 PM) |
| We are, it's called the police force. |
is that a joke?
look up how many murders there are each year in america from "terrorists" and then compare that to the number of americans killed per year because of real terrorist attacks. The numbers aren't even close.
Post by: pegasys on October 05, 2004, 01:31:00 PM
Post by: Baner on October 05, 2004, 01:52:00 PM
You guys say that terrorists are everything and nothing right? (I can go quote it if you want me too...) How are we suppose to defend against something that we can't see until it's too late, or close to being to late. WTC attack is a great example. People thought the first plane was just an accident. Even the higher officials (ie. CIA, White House Administration) thought it was an accident too. Not untill the second plane hit was it a reality.
We could pay to have an army patrol every street corner, have fighter planes flying 24/7, and redirect all incoming traffic, to the United States, to Ellis Island again. I wouldn't mind hearing some of your ideas for homeland security. What would it do? How? Who would control it? Just trying to figure out how homeland security will run in your eyes.
Post by: pegasys on October 06, 2004, 10:18:00 AM
Post by: brandogg on October 06, 2004, 10:30:00 AM
Post by: Baner on October 06, 2004, 11:07:00 AM
I agree that we should fix things that we can... (if that made any sense). Like get rid of Social Security... Most out of date reason to tax ever. If you can't save your own money, sucks for you. I kinda think the same for healthcare. I don't see why someone who doesn't work, can go to a hospital, have their injuries fixed, and not have to pay a penny. While I, and others who manage their money and pay taxes, have to pay for that persons bills, and pay the incredibly ridiculous prices that hospitals charges, ie ambulance charges, room charges, prescription drug prices.
We need to overthrow the government and start over... Who's with me?
Post by: pegasys on October 06, 2004, 11:53:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Like get rid of Social Security... Most out of date reason to tax ever. If you can't save your own money, sucks for you. I kinda think the same for healthcare. I don't see why someone who doesn't work, can go to a hospital, have their injuries fixed, and not have to pay a penny. While I, and others who manage their money and pay taxes, have to pay for that persons bills, and pay the incredibly ridiculous prices that hospitals charges, ie ambulance charges, room charges, prescription drug prices. |
i agree, butwhat I don't agree with is tax cuts for the rich, and not the poor to upper middle classes. I am a conservative but I also have very liberal ideas drug legalization ect. so no candidate really appeals to me, IMO Bush is not doing a good job and is wastimg american lives, if we do need to go after terrorists, do it in a batter way, you can't attack a country to get to terrorists, we need more special forces (Kerry) to go after individual terrorist cells. I'm reaslly tired so forgive any grammar mistakes.
-
Title: The Debate
Post by: melon on October 06, 2004, 12:19:00 PM
-
pegasys excellent post.
This is my last comment about this debate but Ween shows perfectly why Bush has got such a great chance of winning the upcoming election.
The republicans knew Bush was going to look a fool next to Kerry so they downplayed it before hand. That is extremely good politics!!!!
They prepeard people for what would happen, that Bush would look stupid. By doing this they can brush it off when it does happen. They have lessened the impact because people like ween buy into it.
The Republicans are very good at manipulating situations and completely spinning around a negative into a heroic positive. They have learnt the trick of tricking the majority of people. In a pure Political content they are the democratic world leaders.
They have used amazing tactics again and again, Bush has got some trully gifted people working for him. Orwell would be impressed though pretty unhappy.
This all raises two issues with me.
1 This stretches the boundaries for a Government of a democratic country which is
never a good thing.
2 The fact they had to use these tactics to protect the president from looking
completely out of his depth and unable to utter two coherant sentances is also
never a good thing.
-
Title: The Debate
Post by: Baner on October 06, 2004, 12:30:00 PM
-
I believe what Bush is doing as of right now, is the best thing he can do. Relocating the troops would cost more money and take up too much time, and bringing them home would lower Americas moral drastically. I'm sure the special forces are over there, doing more than we know of. Of course, their missions are confidential. Look at the Black Hawk Down stories. Many of the people who were interviewed for that were still kept confidential, and many parts of the mission weren't told.
Peg, we got more in common then I thought
, but since your a demo, we can't be friends .
Melon, aren't the elections in the UK coming up soon? What are peoples views over there about their government? We don't get much international news in America, still thinking about isolation I guess.
-
Title: The Debate
Post by: pegasys on October 06, 2004, 03:50:00 PM
-
Banner: I am a swing voter, I'll vote for who ever I think is best for the country and me, after the election we'll probably be on the same side of most actual issues. It seems that we only disagree on the way the problems in our country should be delt with hence the Bush/Kerry debates.
-
Title: The Debate
Post by: Ween311 on October 07, 2004, 09:36:00 AM
-
Post by: melon on October 06, 2004, 12:19:00 PM
This is my last comment about this debate but Ween shows perfectly why Bush has got such a great chance of winning the upcoming election.
The republicans knew Bush was going to look a fool next to Kerry so they downplayed it before hand. That is extremely good politics!!!!
They prepeard people for what would happen, that Bush would look stupid. By doing this they can brush it off when it does happen. They have lessened the impact because people like ween buy into it.
The Republicans are very good at manipulating situations and completely spinning around a negative into a heroic positive. They have learnt the trick of tricking the majority of people. In a pure Political content they are the democratic world leaders.
They have used amazing tactics again and again, Bush has got some trully gifted people working for him. Orwell would be impressed though pretty unhappy.
This all raises two issues with me.
1 This stretches the boundaries for a Government of a democratic country which is
never a good thing.
2 The fact they had to use these tactics to protect the president from looking
completely out of his depth and unable to utter two coherant sentances is also
never a good thing.
Post by: Baner on October 06, 2004, 12:30:00 PM
I believe what Bush is doing as of right now, is the best thing he can do. Relocating the troops would cost more money and take up too much time, and bringing them home would lower Americas moral drastically. I'm sure the special forces are over there, doing more than we know of. Of course, their missions are confidential. Look at the Black Hawk Down stories. Many of the people who were interviewed for that were still kept confidential, and many parts of the mission weren't told.
Peg, we got more in common then I thought
, but since your a demo, we can't be friends . Melon, aren't the elections in the UK coming up soon? What are peoples views over there about their government? We don't get much international news in America, still thinking about isolation I guess.
Post by: pegasys on October 06, 2004, 03:50:00 PM
Post by: Ween311 on October 07, 2004, 09:36:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| They have lessened the impact because people like ween buy into it. |
Excuse me? I never said I bought into it. I'm probably one of the most cynical people you would ever meet when it comes to politics.
Sorry if you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to make excuses for anyone. I was just explaining why the debates didn't matter that much. For example, everyone knew going in that Kerry would be a better speaker than Bush in the first Presidential debate and that was what happened. People expected Cheney to do better than Edwards in the VP debate last night, and guess what? That's what happened. Its good that the undecided voters get to hear all the candidates pandering and trying to appeal to the widest variety of groups, but the people who follow politics already have their minds made up and they already know what is going to happen. I don't know why you are trying to call me out with that post, but you totally misunderstood the point of it. Cheers!
Post by: thomes08 on October 07, 2004, 10:22:00 AM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Oct 6 2004, 07:10 PM) |
| ^^Seems to be a bit confused... I agree that we should fix things that we can... (if that made any sense). Like get rid of Social Security... Most out of date reason to tax ever. If you can't save your own money, sucks for you. I kinda think the same for healthcare. I don't see why someone who doesn't work, can go to a hospital, have their injuries fixed, and not have to pay a penny. While I, and others who manage their money and pay taxes, have to pay for that persons bills, and pay the incredibly ridiculous prices that hospitals charges, ie ambulance charges, room charges, prescription drug prices. We need to overthrow the government and start over... Who's with me? |
looks liek we got another spoiled, sheltered little boy on ourhands that has no idea what it's like to struggle with an uphill battle
Post by: Baner on October 07, 2004, 11:02:00 AM
Considering when I came to the states, my family had nothing. Us being illegally here didn't help matters much either. My parents worked full-time, with lots of over-time, while my brother (7 at the time) raised me (3 at the time). It was like that for almost 5 years. My dad was lucky enough for one of his friends to help invest into an alteration business (which he still owns). But then again, I'm spoiled and don't know how it is to be with nothing and have to work for everything you have right?...Fuckin prick
Post by: Ween311 on October 07, 2004, 11:03:00 AM
Mad TV Debate
Post by: thomes08 on October 07, 2004, 02:51:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Oct 7 2004, 07:05 PM) |
| Oh thomes.. It's amazing that you know so much about me! Considering when I came to the states, my family had nothing. Us being illegally here didn't help matters much either. My parents worked full-time, with lots of over-time, while my brother (7 at the time) raised me (3 at the time). It was like that for almost 5 years. My dad was lucky enough for one of his friends to help invest into an alteration business (which he still owns). But then again, I'm spoiled and don't know how it is to be with nothing and have to work for everything you have right?...Fuckin prick |
there you go, you just said they were lucky. Not everyone is as lucky as that. Not to mention with so little jobs available how would someone nowadays do that? Believe it or not there are people who aren't lucky. Who are stuck in dead end jobs with a family to raise, or can't even find a job. Schooling is out of the question for them because of cost and time. So explain how they're supossed to find good jobs when none are available. I wash dishes, go to school full time, and i'm lucky enough to get a lot of financial help from my dad, and it's still really hard. I wouldn't be able to do it if i wasn't so lucky, and neither would your parents. Not everyone is as lucky as us and because of that you think they should get no help? Medical bills are so high mostly because of heathcare. When most people go in the hospital from soemthign they don't pay the $25,000 fee, insurance pays it. So how is someone (your parents when they came here for example) supossed to make pay for a $25, 000 dollar hospital bill if somethign had come up? Please explain that i'd love to know. I bet if that happened you'd be signing a different tune
Post by: Baner on October 08, 2004, 06:33:00 AM
Sure, my family got lucky, but you really think we had a huge array of jobs my parents could work for? Considering A. My mom spoke very little english (arabic) B. We had no legal papers C. Everything our family owned fit into 2 suitcases (lack of nice clothing). Sure, it takes luck, but why give money to people who don't even try to find a job. If they don't get rid of these, they need major reforms.
I had asma when I was younger, before we had health insurance. My parents had to pay for medical bills and prescription drugs paycheck after paycheck. Sure, it was hard, but not impossible. Just because helathcare doesn't pay for your medical expenses, doesn't mean that's the only way to take care of the payments.
My parents are smart enough to get health insurance, my brother gets free health insurance thru his work, (Costco) which paid for the removal of a sist he had (allowing him to pay far much less for the surgery), and I get free health insurance thru the company I work for, (Jackson Emc, for any of you Gwinnett/Duluth residents of the forums)But I guess because my family managed their money well, they should be penelized by paying for other's bills.
Sorry for how jumbled this post is, I was trying to go back and cover all points, tell me if I missed something.
Edit: Luck did play a large role, but that doesn't explain why we are where we are now. Initiative played a much larger role.
Post by: thomes08 on October 08, 2004, 11:57:00 AM
Post by: Ween311 on October 08, 2004, 12:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (thomes08 @ Oct 8 2004, 02:00 PM) |
| fine whatever be an ass to everyone who didn't get lucky. Be an ass to the people who come over here legally who have to struggle harder than you because they didn't get a lucky as you did |
I'm not trying to sound like an ass or flame you or anything, but sometimes you have to make your own luck.
I started working a couple of months before I turned 16. Before that if I wanted anything (NES, games, clothes) I had to mow yards or babysit to earn my money. My dad was out of work a lot with health problems and my mom worked two jobs to support our family during those times. My sisters and I were never handed anything. Since then, I have always had a job. I have my own children now and have to work to provide for them. My job provides insurance, but that is not luck. I have to go and work my ass off everday. I'm still not rich and me and my two kids do without a lot of things but we live within our means and don't worry about having all the latest and greatest.
I understand that people need help from time to time, but its not that difficult to go out and get a job. I hear all the time about jobs not being available but I have never really seen the reality of it. I work in the IT department of a call center in my town and we are always hiring. It might not be the best paying job in the world that they offer, but it does provide health, vision, dental, paid time off, holidays off. When I come in contact with younger people that are looking for jobs, I always tell them we are hiring. The most common answer I hear is, "Cool, but they don't pay a whole lot." Well, its better than mooching off of other hardworking people.
I'll be the first to say that there should be programs in place to help people in times of need, but we have those already, and I do not want to have my taxes raised to pay more for people who do not want to work. If for some reason, you can't work, that's a whole other issue and we should have something to help those people out.
Post by: melon on October 08, 2004, 02:40:00 PM
baner and ween I know what your talking about exactly. And ween maybe with hindsight i meant people more like nemt.
My mum was an economic immigrant from a tiny village in Ireland, I was brought up in a part of the country which is so poor and rough, people outside of the city are instantly weary of you. . I was brought up in poverty just like a lot of my friends. it was normal to help a neighbour push start their car. I dont know how but i managed to somehow go to university. I was the only one out of all my friends. This has allowed me earn decent money even though i watched people spending all their student loan on a coat when i had to live for 3 months on mine.
My upbringing is why i am quite left wing in my politics. I want to help out people less fortunate than myself because i know how lucky i am to not be down there.
Thats why i dont understand people like yourselves.
I can understand well off people supporting a right wing government because even if they are being selfish they will benefit.
That is why Bush has all the corporations and the richest men on his side. He is looking out for the rich, look at the background of 99% of the conservative party (our right wing), they are all very rich people from upper class backgrounds who have "movwed up the social ladder".
I look at the left wing parties and i see ex miners and dockers. ok most of the Labour and Lib Dems (even more left), our middle class themselves, but they are not upper class and our deputy primeminister is even working class like me.
There policies involve spreading wealth to give more opurtunites for people who dont have them, so that in 10 years time there will be more people from our backgrounds.
You argue about kids not wanting to work or for paying for peoples benefits.
BUT, this is for my country but will be even more true in yours is, that the actual cost to the tax payer to cover peoples benefits is approximetly 10% of what would be earned in fairly taxing the super rich and the corporations that are subsidised by our governments.
It would benefit you both to support a left wing government but you choose to support one which looks after the rich.
As Bush famously said "some people call you the elite. I call you my base"
I really would like you to explain why you do.
Post by: The unProfessional on October 08, 2004, 03:15:00 PM
| QUOTE |
As Bush famously said "some people call you the elite. I call you my base" |
Gosh, that statement was taken way out of context by that jackass, Moore.
And the dems aren't really saints looking out for the not-so-rich. What about all those selfish movie stars and media giants who who live in lavish Malibu homes and spend their free time slandering the republicans and pretending to be "regular hard-working americans."
Post by: Ween311 on October 08, 2004, 03:18:00 PM
I totally respect your opinion. You have supported it instead of just flaming and calling people retarded. Different opinions are what makes the world go around after all.
I am more for a "Welfare to Work" type program that teaches people job interview skills and helps them find jobs. If you are made a job offer, you would have to accept it or have a very good reason not to or else you are out of the program. People do need help sometimes and I am not just some cold hearted person that wants people to live in the streets or be denied medical care, but I also don't think it is the federal governments job to care for every lazy person in the country. I know people that when they get laid off (it happens to the best people) they think they can just chill for a couple of months because they are going to still get a paycheck for their unemployment benefits. B.S., get out there and get another job.
You were given an opportunity because you had neighbors that helped each other out and your mom probably worked hard to make sure you had the opportunity to go to university and better yourself. Too bad more people don't have the discipline that you and your mom had to be able to make due without a lot and get by on what you had. You are probably a much better person for it. You'll have a better work ethic because you have a much better appreciation for what it takes to earn that money.
Post by: thomes08 on October 08, 2004, 03:35:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Oct 8 2004, 11:18 PM) |
| Gosh, that statement was taken way out of context by that jackass, Moore. And the dems aren't really saints looking out for the not-so-rich. What about all those selfish movie stars and media giants who who live in lavish Malibu homes and spend their free time slandering the republicans and pretending to be "regular hard-working americans." |
yeah what did he say there.... i'm not being an ass i would really like to know the context it was in.
and about those rich selfish movie stars.... all they're doing is talking on MTV, they don't make any decisions at all regarding american policy so that's kind of a moot point to even bring up as an argument
Post by: The unProfessional on October 08, 2004, 03:49:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on October 08, 2004, 05:34:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Oct 8 2004, 11:52 PM) |
| Rich company owners don't have any more or less influence on politics than rich movie stars. Rich movie stars contribute to campaigns in the same manner as republican supporters... except they also have the benefit of reaching millions of weak-minded people behind their TVs.... who are capable of voting. |
.... like the o'reilly factor
anyways does anyone have the full bush quote?
Post by: melon on October 11, 2004, 11:58:00 AM
I can state that I belive the Conservative party, if they got into power, would destroy the NHS because they want to allow the affluent to be able stop paying their contributions. To me one of the greatest things about this country is a free health service, without the contributions of the richer proportion of the country (of which my proffesion will soon allow me to join), it would not be able to function.
The conservatives would decrease oppurtunites to those that have never had them by allowing grammer schools. This would have the effect of inner city schools having even less resources because the grammer schools would attract the better teaches would be given more money. This is looking after the people who already have wealth.
The conservatives would move us into a marginal role within Europe. Since a massive percentage of our trade is done within the EU we should be moving closer instead of being America's bitch, used and abused at need.
They would introduce tax cuts the wealthy (upper middle class and upper class), while scrapping tax benefits for the working and lower middle classes.
The Labour government (war apart), have done a lot of good. They introduced a national wage, i remember working as a waiter during the summer and earning £12 for working 6 hours, and the resteraunt manager kept the tips!
They have introduced a lot of schemes to get people into jobs and given them decent working conditions. This applies to people like us as well.
The latest law is to guarentee workers at least 27 paid days holiday a year, this used to be 20.
There are many more examples and I havnt touched on Tory policies which help out big business while squashing the small independent family owned busines'
I do have some questions.
How exactly do Bush's policies better you were a democratic party wouldnt?
Was the economy better under Clinton or Bush?
How exactly are you better off?
I just want to understand why normal people who earn a normal wage could vote Republican.
Post by: Baner on October 11, 2004, 12:25:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| How exactly do Bush's policies better you were a democratic party wouldnt? |
What?
| QUOTE |
| Was the economy better under Clinton or Bush? |
The economy was good for the first 3/4 of Clinton's presidency, began to drop towards the end. Huge drop right after 9/11. Slightly rising now.
| QUOTE |
| How exactly are you better off? |
Compared to what? We haven't seen what Kerry can do. Nothing to compare.
Tell me if I missed any points you wanted me to hit.
Post by: The unProfessional on October 11, 2004, 02:09:00 PM
We've reached a point in time where politicians of all types, colors, parties, mascots, etc have their eye on the green more than anything else.
Post by: pug_ster on October 11, 2004, 02:38:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Oct 11 2004, 08:28 PM) |
| 3. Kerry's policies don't quite make sense. ie. He wants to A. Spend less on the War on Terror B.Slowly withdrawl out of Iraq C.Hunt for Bin Laden D. Better equip our troops. Somehow I don't think he could save money by doing all that. |
I read somewhere that the top 20% of the population pays around 80% of the taxes. Imaging raising that top percentage from 28% to around 33%, the way it was during the Clinton Era. It would definately raise the tax revenues.
Since we don't have enough people employed, the people who are not working are getting public assistance which also cost taxpayer money. Under Kerry's plans, we can get these people jobs which reduce the need for taxpayer money.
With these 2 simple principles, Clinton was able to get us out of the deficit. Bush in turn, reversed the 2 policies above which created this deficit. In addition, most republician Presidents would greatly reduce government spending. But Bush decided to increase government spending instead. Tax cut + increased government spending = increased deficit.
http://www.cato.org/...ugy-030212.html
Bush said Kerry's tax policies can't be done without increasing the middle class' taxes. Well, if you trust someone who can't balance the budget or from a fiscal irresponsibile Administration.
Post by: melon on October 11, 2004, 03:53:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| New Labour? More like New conservatives |
I am under no illusion that Labour is still a left wing party, more middle centre now.
BUT It is still doing a lot which goes unoticed like the funds it gives to the charity sector. My girlfriend manages a community forum and a lot of charities would close down if the tories came back in power. Labour are in the process of bringing in a law to strip establishments such as Eton of there charitable stuatus (for all you americans thats a very good thing). The tories wouldnt do this.
Labour are not perfect and so what if the minimum wage is low, its still there. It stops people getting as exploited as they was. The tories wouldnt do this.
My friend is a newly qualified doctor and both her parents have been doctors in this country for about 20 years. We had a long drunken discussion about the NHS one weekend at her house. Her parents said it is improving, slowly, but they slated the last tory regime for there policies and pushing the NHS into a decline.
Im not going to deny big business still rules but if i want, as a recent graduate, i can go and get a grant to help me set up my own business. Labour isnt perfect I vote Lib Dem but its a million times better than the tories being in power.