the debate

[TehUser]

Strong?  At what?  The only "strength" I have ever seen in Bush is his persistence in sticking to his convictions, which, while not a fault in itself becomes largely bothersome in the face of REASON.  The man all but said he leads by faith alone during the debates.

Capable?  Capable of making us the most hated country on earth, maybe.  Capable of getting things done?  Of course not, which is why we're still in Iraq and still searching for bin Laden.  Although I guess he was capable of usurping some Middle Eastern oil fields.  That's always good.

Leader?  He "led" us into a war that we should not be involved in.  He "led" us out of September 11th with propoganda that ultimately ended up passing what is possibly the worst violation of civil rights this country has ever seen the government impose, which was so unconsitutional we're thankfully starting to repeal it.

So yeah, I guess that does make him a "strong, capable ... leader".

[quasi-modo]

If they guy is not getting any electoral votes it really is kind of pointless to vote for him.

No it isn't. If a third party gets 5% of the popular vote (not too unlikely--it's happend before), their party is automatically on the ballot the next year, and it gives them access to public funding or something like that.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. That happened with nader back in the day....

[quasi-modo]

Kerry did offer solutions. He wants bilateral talks with N. Korea. He wants to earn back the US's reputation in the rest of the world (which is in *tatters*), by listening to other countries and being diplomatic, and becoming involved with international efforts to make the world a better place. In his words, 'statesmanship'.

He is on the path to winning respect by calling our allies jokes basically. I love how he acts like we went into the war alone, when we went in with spain, england, australia, poland, etc.

Who's got the best record, over their lifetime, according to your worldview? Who'd be a better president? Both of them have good points. I just agree with more of Kerry's.

I persoanlly do not like Kerry's track record. His voting record is disturbing.

[quasi-modo]

Well, Bush has served as President through September 11th, and a war which even if you disagree on whether or not we should be there, nearly everyone agrees is being handled correctly strategically. He is clearly a strong, capable, moral leader, something which I believe John Kerry can never be.

But to whos morals? Everyone has different morals, different beliefs. So people believe what he did was immoral, so it's all on perception and interpretation. I believe what Arta said.

Bush is moral to everyone but the Amish because he wears buttons on his clothing   .

[Arta]

This coalition of the willing stuff is such nonsense. The US has more troops in Iraq than all the other coalition members put together. The only other country to have troops in iraq in significant numbers is the UK, and even we have only 8,000 or so, compared to 290,000 US troops (or something of that order). This is an American war with some 'allies' (with practically no power to influence strategy or policy) thrown in for PR purposes.

He's simply another liberal career politician saying whatever he can to get elected.

Why do people say this? Bush is equally as guilty of that - he said plenty of things during the 2000 campaign that he never did. I can look some up if I really have to but hopefully common sense will prevail and I'll be spared the task. For that matter, Why is Kerry 'simply another liberal' while Bush, apparently, is not 'simply another conservative'?

What differentiates between a candidate who is saying what they believe, and a candidate who is saying whatever they think will appeal to most people? Besides which, isn't it the job of a selfless polititian to represent the wishes of the people in his constituency, rather than furthering own? Thus, isn't it better to do what most people want?

I'd be very surprised if anyone here started the campaign with an open mind and no preference, and has been persuaded by a candidate to support them. I think the vast majority of people started out either supporting or not supporting Bush, and are sticking to their guns. I am. I freely admit that I want Kerry to win, simply because he is not George W. Bush. I cannot think of a single foreign policy decision Bush has made that I've agreed with.

[MyndFyre]

What differentiates between a candidate who is saying what they believe, and a candidate who is saying whatever they think will appeal to most people? Besides which, isn't it the job of a selfless polititian to represent the wishes of the people in his constituency, rather than furthering own? Thus, isn't it better to do what most people want?

No.  The job of a delegate is to represent the wishes of the people in his constituency.  The job of a representative is to govern how he best believes the people will be expressed.  The United States is a representative government.

Unfortunately, Arta, there is an even split about what people want here in the States.  Generally speaking, about half of people are on one side of a diametric issue, although not all are always on the same side.

Isn't it odd, though, that moderate Democrats are supporting Bush?  That ought to tell the Kerry campaign something.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

He wants to earn back the US's reputation in the rest of the world (which is in *tatters*), by listening to other countries and being diplomatic, and becoming involved with international efforts to make the world a better place.

Honestly, I don't give a flying fuck about what the world thinks when stuff like Oil for Food exists.

This coalition of the willing stuff is such nonsense. The US has more troops in Iraq than all the other coalition members put together.

That couldn't possibly be because America commands the largest, most powerful, potent, and effective military in the world, would it? I believe that the United States is, in fact, the majority of the UN's military might. I wouldn't be surprised if the UN's military presence in other regions of the world had the US providing more troops than all the other members put together. Why don't you whip out the facts and prove me wrong, Arta?

Besides, you're not a citizen, are you?

[hismajesty]

The only other country to have troops in iraq in significant numbers is the UK, and even we have only 8,000 or so, compared to 290,000 US troops (or something of that order).

And, according to Kerry, we don't have enough troops there.

Edit: I got to thinking, somebody will probably take my comment the wrong way - so I'll clarify. Yes, I know Kerry didn't make that statement first, Paul Bremer did, I was meaning Kerry supports that conclusion.

[quasi-modo]

Your damned if you do damned if you dont. If we have more troops we have too many, less too few. No matter how many we have it is not going to be correct. The democrats are using this like a political football.

[muert0]

No I think what they are saying is we shouldn't be over there at all but if we are over there we should have a few more troops there. And since somebody dug this hole it's a little to deep to just climb out of it in one step.

I didn't get to see all of the debate tonight but from what I saw it looked like edwards kicked the dicks ass. And I like how he pointed out the flip-flops from president Bush and afterwards it seemed like it kind of had Dick at a slight loss for words.

[hismajesty]

Anyone watch the VP debate?

I beleive Cheney was the obvious winner. A liberal blog I visit often called 'conservative fighter' even crowned him king. Edwards seemed less sure of himself, and more polite than needed. I was studying while watching it and fell asleep before any of the post-debate shows came on. I was real tired. Anyway, Kerry also seemed to have his facts straight. Edwards made some of the same inaccuracies as Kerry did, even after Kerry was corrected on almost every news channel. muert0, Edwards pointed out what? two of the presidents 'flip-flops'? And, just before, he said flip-flopping was good. Now he's criticising the president for it. Anyway, compare the amounts and your point really has no go. Cheney was confident in all of his answers, and despite the one poll I've seen, I think he won.

[quasi-modo]

I agree. I think Cheneye had a decisive victory. I would not call it a land slide, but Cheney had some nice zingers. I love how he went after Edwards on his numbers and his record. That Halliburton stuff was funny because it was so Bogus. I liked the NBC response to it this mourning. NBC even called it crap, I believe this is what one of their reporters said on good mourning America "No bid contract? More like a no one else can bid contract. Halliburton was the only company that could perform the neccessary jobs within the neccessary time frame".

[SNiFFeR]

Hmm, It's kinda funny because the only reason we're in war is because of Cheneye, and his oil companies. We all know who the puppet of the nation is...

[hismajesty]

Hmm, It's kinda funny because the only reason we're in war is because of Cheneye, and his oil companies. We all know who the puppet of the nation is...

I'd really love hardcore evidence that that was the governments intention instead of just your liberal opinion crap. You can speculate that that was their reasoning as much as you want, but frankly - nobody has proved it.

[quasi-modo]

Hmm, It's kinda funny because the only reason we're in war is because of Cheneye, and his oil companies. We all know who the puppet of the nation is...

I'd really love hardcore evidence that that was the governments intention instead of just your liberal opinion crap. You can speculate that that was their reasoning as much as you want, but frankly - nobody has proved it.

Not to mention there is not a hint, not a whiff, of it. Its just bs that is circulating by people who use the issues like a political foot ball and want their guy to win. People who will blatantly lie just to see their candidate get into office, never mind the good of the nation.