Presidential Debate Discussion

Kerry has never flip-flopped until his presidential campaign. He was undoubtedly against all defense programs until he decided to run. Now his opinion was directly based on poll results until Carville joined his campaign and told him to take a definitive side 10 days ago. I don't like the idea of a Scarecrow-In-Chief.
 
I guess you're forgetting that the man in office chose to do nothing to increase the defense of America untill after we were attacked...don't forget this

I guess you are forgetting that this president actually DEMINISHED the effort of anti terrorism untill the day we were attacked...do not forget this

in addition, the man in office chose to do nothing to defend this country when he was warned with precise information that we were about to be attacked, (within months), by bin laden, by the tali ban, by afghanistan, by highjacking commercial airliners, by using them as weapon, in new York, aimed at financial and political structures...do not forget this

somebody...anybody... wants a man that ignored such precise information making four more years of decisions like this?...hmmm..interesting patriotism indeed

I guess you are forgetting that in an almost identical situation, with an almost exact warning, the former president of this nation put the country and our deferse on high alert, did whatever was neccessary to defend this the United States of America...this president had and affective template to follow

by stark contrast, this presidendt decided doing nothing was a better idea,,,he didn't even take a day off from his vacation

then the walls came down

and you are forgetting that the man in office thought the former president was overly obsessed with bin laden...and the man in office decided bin laden was not the threat that svsen his own anti terrorism czar insisted bin laden was...(oh, and still is, thanks to the actions and inactions of the man in office)

he also thought it was a great idea to ignore his aids who implored him to defend this country against Afghanistan IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ATTACK, lest, the defense of this nation would be much harder fought


Who so ever, in this mans land, believes that they them selfs would not have made better choices then the man in office?

I challenge each supporter of this president to tell us;

do you think that had you been president of this land, that you would not have made much better decisions then the man that is in office?
 
Perris, you're STILL ignoring two things...your "facts" are not facts, but after-the-fact observations and knowledge on your part, and the part of the pro-Kerry camp...and NOBODY with any integrity would let a man like John F Kerry lead them ANYWHERE! Damn, take a good hard look at this guy! It's not too hard to figure out he doesn't have the "stuff". Is George W Bush perfect? Hell no, who is?! But most of us still can't see Kerry calling the tough shots when they're needed. We can, however, see Bush doing it, he already has. The debate polls show Kerry won, but the election polls still show otherwise. Kerry dug his own grave starting with his digusting tyrade on his comrades in his post-Vietnam years, and continued digging with his pathetic Senate voting record. He is not leadership material, he never was leadership material and he never will be leadership material.

Yes, I probably would have made the same decisions GWB made, as most of us would. Would those decisions be the same knowing THEN what we know NOW? Of course not. But they were not "facts" then. Observations maybe. Advice maybe. Not facts. The facts were: Osama was on the run, and being persued; Saddam, per Putin, was planning attacks; Saddam was ignoring UN resolutions for 10+ years; the possibility that he had WMDs in house per intel at the time was real; the FACT that he used those weapons before, and thus would be likely to use them again...and the number one FACT...there is now a huge melting pot of terrorist-types in Iraq, being eradicated daily, and there has not been an attack in the US since 9/11...what were the numbers today? 100 insurgents to 1 American. My heart is truly broken over that one American life, but that 100, you don't really think those are all Iraqi's do you? Guys, come on, the terrorist-types are tripping over each other trying to get to Iraq and get a piece of the American war machine. Of course, the piece they get is very small for the price we exact on them...re:todays casualty numbers. Take a look at the big picture here...it's working.
 
ThePatriot said:
Perris, you're STILL ignoring two things...your "facts" are not facts, but after-the-fact observations and knowledge on your part, and the part of the pro-Kerry camp.

these are facts as reported long before the war...I posted these facts before the war...making believe this is hind sight doesn't change the FACT that this was foresight

NOBODY with any integrity would let a man like John F Kerry lead them ANYWHERE!

EXCUSE ME?

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

THE MAN IN OFFICE HAS NOT ONE SHRED OF INTEGRITY, HAS LIED, AND CHANGED WHAT HE'S HAD TO SAY EVERY SINGLE STEP OF THE WAY so he could start a war of personal obsession

his own aids have told us time and again, and under oath, that this man exagerated and missrepresented the information he was given...they even tell us that they told him BEFORE THE WAR that he was missrepresenting the information he was telling America...why?...so he could mount an offensive he's been wanting to mount even before he became president

to a man, not one person that I know in the military think that this "commander in chief" has any military clue what so ever...not one that I have spoken about want to "follow" this man at all.

Damn, take a good hard look at this guy! It's not too hard to figure out he doesn't have the "stuff".

and it seems to me you are surely talking about the man in office, the man that has brought us to the place this country is now, that brought us to the place the world is now.

how on earth you want the man that actually STOOD DOWN when we were attacked, though he was implored to take immediate action...more, that actually STOOD DOWN when he was told with precision of an impending attack...this is beyond little old me

most of us still can't see Kerry calling the tough shots when they're needed.

kerry can't take the tough shots?...you find that hard to see?

the man that has called the shots you think has done well?

he has brought ruin to this nation, her reputation around this planet, and ruin to the reputations of our very own citizens...we Will pay a price untold for generations un known, because of the military giant that is currently calling these "shots" you speak about

you yourself have mentioned any number of times what a poor example of military strategy this president has had in deplorement.

there is no question in my mind, you would have done more, and you would have done better, I KNOW AS A FACT I would have done more then this man...AND ANYONE THAT BOASTS AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE would have made better decisions then the man in office, and we all would have defended this nation with more vigor, responsibility and affectiveness

We can, however, see Bush doing it, he already has.

he allready has done what?

he has NOT defended this nation...he has stood down, he has failed every test

I'll say this again, and it is clear as day...the man that is in office has brought ruin to this nation, her reputation, her sanctity...for now and for generations, at a price untold

Yes, I probably would have made the same decisions GWB made, as most of us would.

not a chance on the planet (imho)...you've already told us how badly this effort was campaigned on the ground, and the poor strategy, lack of resources this president imployed.

he had a failed strategy going in, no strategy while we were and remain to be there, and no strategy to get out

Would those decisions be the same knowing THEN what we know NOW? Of course not. But they were not "facts" then.
sorry, the facts were known before the war...they were reported then before the war, byt ...this is not hind sight, and these are not "liberals" that tell us what this president KNEW before the war

these are his own aids that tell us what this president was informed of before the war

The facts were: Osama was on the run, and being persued;

the facts are this president STOOD DOWN when he should have been vigorous, immediately after the attack...when he was implored by his most trusted aids to take action and defend this nation, he did not

Saddam, per Putin, was planning attacks;

per the inteligence we knew then, and is obvious now in our failed aggression, saddam was surely was a smaller threat then ever before, and surely a smaller threat then much more dangerous countries,,,this is known, and this WAS known

the man in office has wrought a more dangerous world
 
"per the inteligence we knew then, and is obvious now in our failed aggression, saddam was surely was a smaller threat then ever before, and surely a smaller threat then much more dangerous countries,,,this is known, and this WAS known"

mainly the last part "and this WAS known" is a lie...if that was known then why would Senator Kerry and the rest of congress vote to go to war?
 
Let me just reply with this little story I read:

QUOTE:
Sept 29

Iraq Marine: Troops 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency

U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq are "terrified" at the prospect that Americans back home might elect John Kerry president, a Marine and Iraq veteran who is on his way back to the front lines said Monday.

Asked how Kerry's election would affect troop morale in the combat zone, Lance Cpl. Lawrence Romack told KWEL Midland, Texas, radio host Craig Anderson, "It would destroy it."

"We're pretty terrified of a John Kerry presidency," added Romack, who served with the 1st Marine Tank Battalion in Iraq.

The Iraq war vet said he fears that most of the news coverage is being skewed to make the mission look like a failure in order to give the Kerry campaign a boost.

"What they're trying to do is get Kerry into the White House, because they know he doesn't want us to stay [in Iraq]," he told Anderson.

Asked if Americans back home were getting an accurate picture of what's happening in the war, the Marine corporal said: "No, they're not. It's not even close. All the press wants to report is casualty counts. They don't want to report the progress we're making over there."

Romack noted that in the southern part of the country, Iraqis welcomed U.S. troops when they set up an immunization programs for children, opened schools and began distributing food.

"Almost immediately people were lining up to get their kids shots," he told Anderson.

Contrary to reports that the general population was too afraid to help ferret out insurgents, Romack said, "We had Iraqis pointing out former Baath Party members for us to arrest."

When the KWEL host opened up the phone lines, a member of the 82nd Airborne who had returned from Iraq in March was first on the line.

He agreed with Cpl. Romack that media reports coming out of Iraq were often inaccurate – and sometimes even dangerous.

"The news media – sometimes I felt like I had as much to fear from them as I did the Iraqis," he complained.
END QUOTE

I don't know who your military aqaintences are, but there's a few voices heard that are direcly affected by leadership ability. Looks like they believe in what we're doing, how come you and John Kerry can't? And just to keep this on the light side...I DON'T wanna hear and "D.A.T." wisecracks! :p Don't know what a D.A.T. is? Don't worry, it's only funny if you do know/were one.
 
Tuffgong4 said:
"per the inteligence we knew then, and is obvious now in our failed aggression, saddam was surely was a smaller threat then ever before, and surely a smaller threat then much more dangerous countries,,,this is known, and this WAS known"

mainly the last part "and this WAS known" is a lie...if that was known then why would Senator Kerry and the rest of congress vote to go to war?

EXACTLY :)
 
ThePatriot said:
Let me just reply with this little story I read:
.


now I guess you're grabbing for straws...or are you saying you haven't read letters from the military that are firghtened out of their bird that bush reamin in office
 
Tuffgong4 said:
"per the inteligence we knew then, and is obvious now in our failed aggression, saddam was surely was a smaller threat then ever before, and surely a smaller threat then much more dangerous countries,,,this is known, and this WAS known"

mainly the last part "and this WAS known" is a lie...if that was known then why would Senator Kerry and the rest of congress vote to go to war?

ThePatriot said:

a lie?

hardly, this is reproted under oath by this president own aids

he hid vital information from the very people you ask about for the sole purpose of starting a war for his personal obsession...under oath, his own aids tell us they told he was exagerating and missrepresenting information

clear as day
 
Yeah, that's a favorite of mine. The President hid information from Congress. The problems there are, one-Congress knew more than him and two-our Govt leaks like a sieve, no one withholds anything from anyone of that magnitude.
 
Ah yes...if only you could see the error of your ways...and if only I could learn to type what I'm thinking and spell it right...the world would be perfect! :D
 
perris said:
not a chance...this president was told their was NO threat in iraq, NO weapons of mass destruction

we were engaged in a front defending this nation against a country that atacked us...there is no chance kerry would have started a second front...simple war 101...YOU DO NOT VOLUNTARILY ENGAGE YOUR FORCES ON TWO FRONTS....this president thought voluntarily engaging war on two fronts is grand military strategy

saddam has been an obsession with this president since before he came to office...saddam was impotent, this president knew from his own aids that the saddam "threat" was the least threat it had ever been

this president admits that he actually tried to attack iraq INSTEAD of afghanistan, though he was implored to take immediate action against the tali ban

not a chance on this planet kerry would have taken our boys and our girls out and away from the defense of this nation, and not a chance he would have started a front that was unasociated to the attack against this land


what needed to be done was that our country needed to deal with terrorists and terrorism...what we needed to NOT do was engage a war of personal obsdession, divert resources from the defense of this nation.


it's huge


of the two men we are talking about, the person that has waffled and flipflopped the more is the man that's in office

however, the marketing of the republican party has this country beleiving otherwise

in your opinion which your allowed , but if you needed to pick my post apart in every point I guess you now think your right :0) lol

but you are right in your own mind , you can pick things apart but you wont change my opinion , just as when I made the remarks I did not look over the thread to see how I would pick apart.

:p
 
I just wanted to point out a little something...

kerry and the rest of the senators and the like did not vote to go to war...

president bush of the united states of america asked for the authority to use force as a last resort in order to negotiate better..

bush's very own words

Sept. 19, 2002

Response to a reporter's question

"If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. ... This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.''

free reps to anyone who can point out to me where exactly it was that bush was seeking a direct vote on going to war rather than authorization to use force if necessary :cool:

next time anyone makes a comment about "but kerry voted for the war" please do refer back to this comment from president george bush himself...

kerry has not flip-flopped on this particular point... neither has he flip-flopped on most of the other positions... heck he has not even flip-flopped as much as bush himself...

the bush administrations continuous charges about kerry's changing positions are simply to avert attention from their own ever changing positions on various topics..

the first thing post debate I heard was rudy guiliani saying "look kerry flip-flopped again" and I am sitting there looking @ him and thinking, how f#ckin retarded do you have to be, to watch that debate and thats teh first comment that comes out... it had no merit and has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that bush has run out of ideas...

if anything the most worrying problem for me is the assertion bush made that iraq attacked america and thats why he went to war... kerry quietly pointed out as bush, being president of the united states of america should have known, that it was not saddam but al-qaeda that attacked us...

in good conscience it would be very difficult for me to vote for this man... kerry is attacked, generally baselessly for a lot of things that bush gets a free pass for... if the same level of scrutiny were applied to bush's fallacies and his changing positions and messages this would be a no-contest...

w/o bush's political spin team... he would not be in the position he is in right now and if he wins (which he likely will) he owes them a massive pay increase for managing to fool millions of americans once again :)

those that support bush blindly will not understand why he is the wrong man for the job till many years on when they look back and see his legacy...
 
are you kidding, the media has done everything, including lie, to impeach bush's character.
 
if I ever see a good thing in the media about bush I will vote for kerry!

both about as much chance of happening as Bill gates running apple and jobs running microsoft
 
j79zlr said:
are you kidding, the media has done everything, including lie, to impeach bush's character.

and your proof for this accusation is?

feel free to prove that the vote congress held was not to authorise bush to use force if necessary but rather a vote to go to war...

I am sure you will find that the .gov sites are not out there to slander bush's character...
 
Tuffgong4 said:
if I ever see a good thing in the media about bush I will vote for kerry!

both about as much chance of happening as Bill gates running apple and jobs running microsoft

from september 11, 2001, for about a year and a half there was barely a negative thing about bush... then with the invasion of iraq there was coverage of the protestors (generally denounced as non-patriotic, and un-american louts)...

plenty of positive bush news print in that purple patch for him where anything he asked for, he got...

however post iraq with the casualties increasing there was increased coverage of bush in a more main-stream light...

naturally for conservatives anything that portrayed bush as anything less than a messiah == blasphemy and evil media doing their evil left-wing liberal things and conspiring to bring down the empire or something....

there is no conspiracy when everything is looked @ in context...
 
and your proof for this accusation is?

uh, the CBS scandal?

I have three cousins in Iraq, they have been a part of alot of this, and they have said 99% of the people are beyond happy for what we've done, have you seen that on the news?
 
j79zlr said:
and your proof for this accusation is?

uh, the CBS scandal?

I am on record as saying that the bush national guard records mean jack squat wrt the bigger picture... I said this when the first hints of it started coming out many many months ago via kennedy...

I find it hard to swallow when some people say "bush didn't dodge any service" because that is blatantly wrong... his own released records show he did not do his duty to its fullest... but he was honorably discharged and thats that...

cbs has no bearing on my decisions because I don't watch that channel... I don't watch cnn (cept the last day or two for the mt St. helens reports) and I sure as hell don't watch fox news or msnbc...

wrt my previous post... I did not make an accusation... I pointed out what bush said... you have not disproved it and instead are seguing into new territory while disregarding what i pointed out...

cbs has nothing to do with what bush said... no one does...

what bush said contradicts what he and cheney and giuliani and others from his camp allude about kerry voting for the war and proves correct kerry's statements that he voted to give the president the authority he sought to maintain the peace...

after accusing others or making ignorant and baseless posts, I would suggest you take your own advice and do the same...

---

[edit] yes I have read many things that have happened in iraq... do not assume that I do not have friends in iraq... class-mates of mine from florida volunteered or were called up to go to combat... other friends of mine went as contractors (big bucks)

I hear about the positive projects all the time... but I also hear about the insurgency and the sense of fear and the lack of security...

when former class-mates turn up in the obituary pages, obviously I am not singing and dancing for the progress being made there... it is difficult because you know the sacrifices many people are making...
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Threads
62,015
Messages
673,494
Members
5,620
Latest member
alexexists11
Back