Presidential Debate #2

[deezel]

Ok guys, I'll risk starting a new topic for the debate coming up tonight. The previous topics have been interesting, funny, and a little monotonous. So, I would like to propose/request that we follow some ground rules for posting in this thread. I don't imagine that these will be followed strictly, but its worth a shot to try...

 

GROUND RULES:

1) Please don't waste everyone's time with posts like "go GWB" or "Bush sucks", the poll thread is appropriate for those.

2) Comments about the content of the second Bush/Kerry debate are welcome.

3) Please try to back up your opinions with facts and/or sound reasoning.

4) Criticisms of one candidate should be accompanied by an explanation of how the other candidate does not have the same flaw, position, or policy.

 

Looking forward to another interesting discussion...

[AUTOGUY]

I'll be the first one to break the rules...check these out...

 

http://www.jibjab.com/

[r8rs4lf]

Basically, another thread of getting no where!

 

I can't wait for tonights debate.

 

Late- Alex

[deezel]

My favorite Bush quote: "I own a timber company???"

 

Seems to me like there was a little more substance to this debate. Squeezed some more info out of them on details of plans. And a few hints of how they would deal with international policy. Both candidates were evasive on specifics of how they plan to reduce the deficit.

 

Points for Bush:

He brought up the UN, its lack of effectiveness and the corruption in the oil for food program. Kerry had no response on these.

He listed many of the programs effective under his administration that have been mostly overlooked or downplayed in the media.

 

Points for Kerry:

He actually responded to questions instead of incessantly attacking Bush.

He sounds reasonable when talking about tort reform - he should, he's a lawyer.

He claimed that more taxes on the rich would pay for his programs.

 

My spin:

 

Kerry still can't account for how he plans to reduce the deficit AND fund all the programs he wants to run. He says $89 billion will be found by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 1%. But, he does not account for the other $2-3 trillion needed to fund his programs.

 

Both guys need to give better details on reducing the deficit.

 

Bush again failed to hammer the flaw in Kerry's argument on the Iraq situation. Kerry keeps saying that we went to war because we were falsely convinced there were WMDs in Iraq. THIS IS NOT TRUE. We went to war in Iraq because Hussein failed to comply with over 10 years of UN Resolutions. The UN resolution promising "serious consequences" is why we went to war in Iraq.

[Lee]

"I own a timber company

Yeah, wasn't that a hoot? Nothing like a guy who knows what assets he has.

[SSminneapolis]

with regards to Iraq - i have heard about enough from both sides.

 

they BOTH had the same information in the beginning of all this. they BOTH wanted to go in there. now that things aren't going as quickly as they would like - he says it was a mistake...

 

the thing that really ticked me off last night was when he said: transcripts found here Debates.org

 

KERRY: Not necessarily be in power...

Sadam wouldn't necessarlity be in power? WTF does that mean...that the sanctions that haven't been working for years were just going to work, and Sadam would remove himself from power...keep dreaming...

but here's what I'll say about the $87 billion.I made a mistake in the way I talk about it. He made a mistake in invading Iraq.

same mistake you voted for Mr Kerry.

Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that he had the policy wrong and I wanted accountability. I didn't want to give a slush fund to Halliburton. I also thought the wealthiest people in America ought to pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted us to pay for it, since we're at war. I don't think that's a bad decision.

so Mr. Kerry, you wanted to hold the Bush administration accountable...great...do so with something else other than voting to refuse the money to supply the troops with that they needed. there are better ways to make a point. and if anything - Mr. Kerry should take some responsibility for what he is doing. call some of the families that have lost their loved ones..or go see soldiers that have been wounded -

"I'm sorry i didn't vote for the $87billion supplimental that would have protected you or your son/daughter/father/mother, but i really wanted to hold the Bush administration accountable for the mistake of going into iraq - the same mistake that i agreed with and voted for - but now that it isn't going as fast as i would like i am going to disagree with it..unless of course we win and they have free elections...then i was/am all for it"

[TexaSS]

You need some wood?

[deezel]

Another thing that bothers me about Kerry's stance on Iraq/terrorism is this:

 

Kerry says that he would have made a different decision than Bush. He claims he would have waited longer for the U.N. sanctions to work and to build a bigger coalition of countries to deal with Hussein. Ok, in retrospect its easy to say that. And we can even beleive he would have actually done that if it were his decision to make. He does not explain what conditions would have led him to make the decision to take out Saddam, nor how he would have persuaded other countries to join the cause.

 

Furthermore, Kerry says Bush made a grave mistake by letting OBL slip through the cracks. But, he does not explain how he would have apprehended bin-laden at Tora Bora. Bush was trying to do exactly what Kerry accuses him of not doing - work with other countries to deal with terrorists. So is Kerry saying that he would NOT work with other countries in the case of OBL at Tora Bora, but wait for other countries to get on board in the case of Iraq? Sounds like another case of indecision and flip-flop to me.

[FwyFlyr]

I can't stand Kerry. He tries to make decisions/policy via popularity poll. Been tried in the past, but never worked.

 

No one seems to bring up the fact that during the Clinton years, our military was looted, bases closed and little effort to recruit new troops.

 

How much of the 100&whatever billion was needed because of the above?

 

How has the lack of enlistment shorted us in our effort?

 

On the domestic side, My wife and I benefited from the Tax cuts. We are at a level that Kerry could hurt us financially.

 

Kerry says the tax cuts are wrong and was embarassed to take them. Did he send in a couple extra million because it was the right thing to do ? Uh... probably not!

 

Is Edwards prepared to give up his wealth to help secure med insurance for all ? Why not, He got most of it via malpractice suits.

 

Most people of average intelligence can see through the K/E rhetoric. It's easy to critisize another's actions, we all know the "armchair quarterback" always throws a

touchdown.

 

As far as "More of the same", God I hope so. Since Bush took office, my household income has increased 30% with 90% of that in my pocket.

 

During Clinton, my income was unchanged for over 3 years, and my wife lost her job to "downsizing". And no it was'nt outsourcing, it was a slowing economy and the retail giant she worked for needed to cut overhead.

 

Anyone who can afford to own a Silverado SS will not benefit from a Kerry administration. More than likely, we will suffer increased taxes, more red tape, increased concern over our jobs, generally more Gov't B.S.

 

I question anyone who plans to vote for Kerry to explain why? What could you possibly hope to gain? How in the heck can they pay for all those grandiose plans? BTW also let me know how much extra you'll be sending in to help the effort!

 

Just my .02

[TBSS]

I guess you guys want a hothead in the White House who is a bomb waiting to go off - a guy who basically does whatever he wants without regard for others, without thinking about consequences. I don't.

 

Video: Bush Flips Out

[FwyFlyr]

I guess you guys want a hothead in the White House who is a bomb waiting to go off - a guy who basically does whatever he wants without regard for others, without thinking about consequences.  I don't.

 

Video: Bush Flips Out

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You did'nt answer a single question...... Oh teah.... I see you don't own an SS either!

[deezel]

NakedAv is ok. He's entitled to his political views just like the rest of us. And he has made attempts to support his views by posting links to information. I'll admit I have not looked at all the links, but give him credit for trying.

 

I can see where some people might view Bush as a hothead. He definitely can get "riled up" when talking about something he has strong feelings about.

[TBSS]

I can't stand Kerry. He tries to make decisions/policy via popularity poll. Been tried in the past' date=' but never worked.[/quote']

Most politicians make decisions via what the people want (if you call that 'popularity', so be it). This is called representative government, or democracy, which, in case you are unaware (recent events aside), is actually what we have here in the United States.

 

The type of government where someone does whatever they want is called a dictatorship, which of course is what Bush has always said he wants.

 

Back to the spirit of your point....I am guessing that you are implying that Kerry tries to shape his position based on what ideas people hold who he thinks will vote for him....if you think Bush (and more importantly, Karl Rove) don't do the exact same thing, you're living in a fantasy land.

 

I suggest you read Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential if you are in doubt that Bush does the same thing.

 

No one seems to bring up the fact that during the Clinton years' date=' our military was looted, bases closed and little effort to recruit new troops. [/quote']

Bases were closed and the military consolidated because the biggest threat to the U.S. was now gone - the Soviet Union. Simply put, there was less need for a military that size. Of course, need increases when you start wars unnecessarily, which is what is happening now.

 

If you understand the term "Military-Industrial Complex," you understand how unused supply (ships, planes, tanks, weapons systems, bombs, armament, etc.) creates need for demand (war)....especially when those who have the supply manufacturing capability are your biggest political supporters (Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, etc.).

 

How much of the 100&whatever billion was needed because of the above?

There is a basic concept in economics called "guns or butter" which of course means that if you spend money on military' date=' you can't spend it on domestic needs. What's interesting is that this administration is spending devastingly huge sums of money on an unnecessary war, while actually letting domestic security lapse.

 

If GWB were truly concerned with "defending our nation", our airports would be safer (they're not), our shipping ports of entry would have increased security (they don't), our hospitals and fire houses and police forces would have increased funding and training (their funding and training is being cut), the CIA and FBI would have had a serious housecleaning (they haven't).....the list goes on.

 

How has the lack of enlistment shorted us in our effort?

Incredibly. And look for increased attrition and decreased enlistments rates to continue as long as the present and post-war needs of those laying themselves on the line continue to be ignored by this administration. Cutting of veterans' benefits, extensions of tours beyond reasonable rotation times, there are too many examples to list of how this administration has hung our young men and women out to dry while acting as if they are just pieces on a game board. The war was poorly planned and poorly executed, experienced war strategists and tacticians have said as such (and many been retired because of speaking out).

 

On the domestic side' date=' My wife and I benefited from the Tax cuts. We are at a level that Kerry could hurt us financially.[/quote']

Well, I see that like the rest of the hawks, you are neither ready nor willing to make sacrifices for this country, or the war you've gotten us into. Do you think all of this is free? I am blown away by the absolute ignorance and selfishness of those in charge and those who think that what we're doing doesn't cost money. You are living in an fantasy world if you think a tax cut is wise or desired at this point in time.

 

In case you're unaware, we're at war, and again, in case you're unaware, wars cost money. Who do you think is buying all those tanks and Hummers and Predators and bombs and bullets? I won't even mention those "special" services that no one else can provide, that we're paying Halliburton and KBR through the nose for, like drilling oil and serving meals.

 

What this administration is doing would be the equivalent of you quitting your $75,000/year position and getting a job at Starbucks.....then saddling yourself with a new car payment, running your credit cards up to the max, then sending those applications you usually throw away in for more credit, and running those up as well. Don't you get it? Don't you see where we're headed? If you don't, you soon will.

 

While living in New York, I rubbed elbows with some pretty well-off people, and I was there for the big tax cut. The intelligent ones were mortified by the fact that they were getting money back. They didn't need it, and thought it was really a bad move to decrease governmental revenue at a time when government expenses were going up. Without fail, they thought their taxes should go up. Myself, I don't have a problem with my taxes going up if that's what it takes to balance our budget. If that's the price of admission, so be it.

 

Most smart people realize that the only reason they are able to make the money they make is because of the great country we live in. And they are more than willing to pay for the privilege to do so here. This present culture of looting the country while selfishly extracting its wealth is a brand-new NeoCon concept and not sustainable. The wake-up may not come for a while, but it will come, and when it does, look for all the ultra-rich Neocons to snag their money from the Caymans and retire to somewhere....more safe.

 

Kerry says the tax cuts are wrong and was embarassed to take them. Did he send in a couple extra million because it was the right thing to do ? Uh... probably not!

You don't get the point. A tax cut in a time of war is stupid. If cutting taxes is so good ' date=' then why don't we just stop the income tax altogether and shut down the government? I mean, that is really the absurd conclusion to that poorly thought-out argument. Taxes are revenue for the government, and cutting revenue while increasing expenses is a recipe for....BANKRUPTCY! Of course, if you know anything about GWB's past history, you know he is running the U.S. right now just like he ran his other businesses - into the ground.

 

There is a parallel between this poor reasoning and how publicly-traded companies often boost their stock price. In times when stocks prices are flagging and need a boost, they will cut their workforce. The rationale is "we will make more with fewer people and people-related expenses." Well here's a question for you, if you can make so much more money with 30% fewer employees, just imagine how much money you could make with no employees! You'd be rich!

 

Of course, this is absurd, just as it is absurd to expect that cutting revenue while fighting a war. The results are borne out in the outcomes of those tactics - in the short-term things may perk up, in the long-term, it's a really bad move. IMO, the only people who should have a tax cut are those making less than $100,000. If I have to wait longer to buy a new car, so what. My country's safety and long-term health is more important than my personal comfort.

 

Is Edwards prepared to give up his wealth to help secure med insurance for all ? Why not' date=' He got most of it via malpractice suits.[/quote']

Don't know, but it is clear that GWB doesn't care for the common man, when his pro-pharma policies ensure high industry profits and high prescription costs for everyone.

 

Most people of average intelligence can see through the K/E rhetoric. It's easy to critisize another's actions' date=' we all know the "armchair quarterback" always throws a touchdown.[/quote']

Most people of average intelligence are buried under the Rove propaganda machine, a campaign of confusion, fear-mongering, and absurdity. I have to hand it to them, however - it was brilliant to attack a Vietnam Veteran before he could attack GWB (Guard deserter) and Cheney (8 deferments). I mean, that would have been a slam-dunk for Kerry. But did he do it? No, he was a bigger man than that.

 

Instead, GWB/Cheney knew they were weak in the area of patriotism, so they pre-emptively (sound familiar?) attacked Kerry for being unpatriotic, putting him on the defensive. Was that low? Of course it was, especially since Kerry could have done a much better job of slamming Bush and Cheney first. But was it politically effective? Yes, it was brilliant, and did a fantastic job of diverting the American people away from the fact that GWB is driving this country off a cliff.

 

As far as "More of the same"' date=' God I hope so. Since Bush took office, my household income has increased 30% with 90% of that in my pocket.[/quote']

There you go, keep thinking about yourself. Whatever you do in life, be sure to think not about what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you. You're the kind of coutryman we really need.

 

During Clinton' date=' my income was unchanged for over 3 years, and my wife lost her job to "downsizing". And no it was'nt outsourcing, it was a slowing economy and the retail giant she worked for needed to cut overhead.[/quote']

Sorry to hear about your wife's job. That often happens in a Capitalistic society when consumer choice dictates markets. Hope she has acquired a good skill set that makes her marketable and valuable in the workplace.

 

Anyone who can afford to own a Silverado SS will not benefit from a Kerry administration. More than likely' date=' we will suffer increased taxes, more red tape, increased concern over our jobs, generally more Gov't B.S.[/quote']

So I take it you're a Libertarian? Those guys are the most anti-government of all the parties out there. I hope you don't think that the Republican party is anti-goverment....they're not. For all intents and purposes, Halliburton is now part of the government. Anytime a government entity assigns work to another entity with an open checkbook (as GWB's administration has done with its no-bid, cost-plus contracts to Halliburton and KBR), that entity is now part of the government. If they weren't, there would be bidding....that's how an effective government in a Capitalistic society is supposed to work.

 

So while these guys in office now like to brag about making government smaller and 'privatizing' government, all they are really doing is making government more wasteful while creating a new cronyism, unheard of in size and scope in U.S. history.

 

I question anyone who plans to vote for Kerry to explain why? What could you possibly hope to gain? How in the heck can they pay for all those grandiose plans?  BTW also let me know how much extra you'll be sending in to help the effort!

Because I love my country, that's why, and can't stand to see it's future in the hands of someone so stupid and dangerous as GWB. I've said this before but it's worth repeating - I'm not voting for Kerry, I'm voting against Bush.

[TBSS]

John Eisenhower, the Republican son of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, has recently bailed on the party he was a member of for more than 50 years, registered as an Independent, and will be voting for John Kerry this coming election.

 

Read why here (unless, of course, your mind is closed, then don't bother).

[KoTToN]

Sounds like kerry has something to hide to me talking about other peoples countries being so small. I like how bush isnt afraid to make a decision even if he knows hes going to get bitched at. I feel safer with him as pres then I would kerry so he gets my vote.