|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/01/2004 05:41:27 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
just debates. |
would you say the same if Bush "won"? |
Ive been saying it all along. |
Yes, on that you've been consistent. Unlike Kerry, in general. :) |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 06:46:10 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by bdobe:
From Last Night's Presidential Debate:
BUSH: My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland?
---------------------------------------
And here's what the president of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski, said recently (March 2004) about the Iraq War:
ALEKSANDER KWASNIEWSKI (translated): They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride.
--[ //www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1069242.htm ] |
1. Whatever Kwasniewski may think about the war, it doesn't change the historical fact that they were (and are) part of the coalition, and that in dismissing their participation, Kerry denigrated the country and their sacrifice.
2. I'd be interested to see/hear more of the interview in context. The use of the pronoun "they" is ambiguous, and the use of an english idiom in the translation ("took us for a ride") is unusual. (Of course, I don't speak, understand or read Polish, so I'd always be at the mercy of the translator.) |
Not long ago Costa Rica officially asked the Bush administration to not name it as member of the coalition. Likewise, it appears that Poland, unlike what Mr. Bush may have tried to suggest last night, is not a willing partner in Iraq:
"Poland is planning to withdraw its troops from Iraq in the coming months, dealing another blow to the US-led coalition forces there." [April 20, 2004]
//www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0420/3783682793HM1SCALLY.html
Mr. Kerry is right, we need a fresh start in Iraq, with credible leaders at the table representing the US -- so that our allies can share the burden of rebuilding the country.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 07:01:25 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Not long ago Costa Rica officially asked the Bush administration to not name it as member of the coalition. Likewise, it appears that Poland, unlike what Mr. Bush may have tried to suggest last night, is not a willing partner in Iraq:
"Poland is planning to withdraw its troops from Iraq in the coming months, dealing another blow to the US-led coalition forces there." [April 20, 2004]
//www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0420/3783682793HM1SCALLY.html
Mr. Kerry is right, we need a fresh start in Iraq, with credible leaders at the table representing the US -- so that our allies can share the burden of rebuilding the country. |
Some interesting selective quoting there. Here's my selective reading from that story:
"However, indicating evident confusion within the government, the Polish President, Mr Aleksander Kwasniewski, was quoted yesterday pledging to keep Polish soldiers in Iraq. He bemoaned the Spanish decision to withdraw and said he hoped that the Latin American members of the coalition would keep their troops in Iraq."
And we already knew Spain caved after they allowed terrorists to sway their elections. (I didn't even realize their troops were still there.) Sad. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 07:32:17 PM · #29 |
if it wasn't for the right wing, one sided, hate spewing, lie spinning, all commentary fox "news" then bush wouldn't even stand a chance. the fact that kerry is doing as well as he is thus far against such a machine is a credit to his campaign and his ability to rise above the power of the fox news agenda.
last night's debate was the begining of a new trend in this race. this is the last month before the election. this is where kerry comes out swinging and doesn't go back to his corner until his opponents are down for the count. the distorted views of the fox news team will be exposed and reduced to meaningless dribble.
did anyone catch bush's convention after the debate? he looks great in front of a cheering crowd, but compare that to how he looked when facing his opponent - uncomfortable, agitated, tired, and droaning. and its one thing to be repetitive, but to be repetitively repetitive? its getting more and more obvious all the time that he has no plan, just rhetoric against those that oppose him. no wonder fox news likes him so much.
at least when the daily show with john stewart puts their spin on things they are upfront about the fact that their news is FAKE, and even they are prone to criticizing both camps, as long as they deserve it.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 08:11:31 PM · #30 |
Indeed he dosnt look good when the heat is on.
The faces of frustration
How Bush did |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 08:13:10 PM · #31 |
Darcy,
I couldn't agree with you more. Mr. Bush's entire platform can be condensed to these bumper sticker slogans: "strong," "steadfast," "resolute," "keeping our word," "never waver," "stay on the offensive," "lead," "we cannot send mixed messages." Yet, aside from the immediate and superficial impact of these slogans, Mr. Bush's rhetoric is completely empty.
However, when asked to go beyond the five second sound-bytes, Mr. Bush cannot even begin to outline why we're in Iraq (First it was WMDs; then it was, Saddam is a bad man; this then became, We're bringing freedom to the Iraqi people; and now, Mr. Bush simply says, We can't leave because we have to be resolute.); Mr. Bush can't even begin to outline why we cannot afford the security measures we so desperately need (i.e., shipment container security, more FBI personnel, etc.), simply because he squandered the largest surpluses our nation had seen when his massive tax-giveaways were enacted. I ask, when in history has a nation passed tax-giveaways when at war? War, after all, is precisely the time when a nation must rely on the treasury to finance the war effort. (I'm speaking of an actual "hot" war, as this president reminds us by anointing himself a "war time president.")
Last night's presidential debate crystallized John Eisenhower's, son of President Eisenhower (Republican), endorsement of Mr. Kerry for me. Here's what Mr. Eisenhower wrote in his endorsement:
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we "always have." We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
[...]
"The fact is that today's "Republican" Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar."
[...]
"In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, "If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both." I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation's financial structure sound."
---------------------------------------
//www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 08:23:58 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by darcy:
if it wasn't for the right wing, one sided, hate spewing, lie spinning, all commentary fox "news" then bush wouldn't even stand a chance. the fact that kerry is doing as well as he is thus far against such a machine is a credit to his campaign and his ability to rise above the power of the fox news agenda.
last night's debate was the begining of a new trend in this race. this is the last month before the election. this is where kerry comes out swinging and doesn't go back to his corner until his opponents are down for the count. the distorted views of the fox news team will be exposed and reduced to meaningless dribble.
did anyone catch bush's convention after the debate? he looks great in front of a cheering crowd, but compare that to how he looked when facing his opponent - uncomfortable, agitated, tired, and droaning. and its one thing to be repetitive, but to be repetitively repetitive? its getting more and more obvious all the time that he has no plan, just rhetoric against those that oppose him. no wonder fox news likes him so much.
at least when the daily show with john stewart puts their spin on things they are upfront about the fact that their news is FAKE, and even they are prone to criticizing both camps, as long as they deserve it. |
So Fox, who is the most unbiased off all American media outlets and routinely allows people from both sides to come on the air and have their say so we can here both sides of a debate, is supposed to be the bad guys?
I guess it doesn't matter to your sensibilities that CBS, one of the most liberaly biased news organizations, got caught spewing a fake story and said that it didn't matter that the documents they reported on concerning G.W. were fake because the truth was irrelevant?
Truely, you have an amazing intellect...
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 08:30:21 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
I guess it doesn't matter to your sensibilities that CBS, one of the most liberaly biased news organizations, got caught spewing a fake story and said that it didn't matter that the documents they reported on concerning G.W. were fake because the truth was irrelevant? |
The "expert" who said the documents were fake has since recanted his statement, as there was a typewriter known to be in use by the Air Force at that time which was capable of producing that document.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 08:41:19 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
I guess it doesn't matter to your sensibilities that CBS, one of the most liberaly biased news organizations, got caught spewing a fake story and said that it didn't matter that the documents they reported on concerning G.W. were fake because the truth was irrelevant? |
The "expert" who said the documents were fake has since recanted his statement, as there was a typewriter known to be in use by the Air Force at that time which was capable of producing that document.
-Terry |
Beat me too it Terry :) |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 08:49:15 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
I guess it doesn't matter to your sensibilities that CBS, one of the most liberaly biased news organizations, got caught spewing a fake story and said that it didn't matter that the documents they reported on concerning G.W. were fake because the truth was irrelevant? |
The "expert" who said the documents were fake has since recanted his statement, as there was a typewriter known to be in use by the Air Force at that time which was capable of producing that document.
-Terry |
Beat me too it Terry :) |
Just because there is a typewriter capable of doing the documents does not mean they are not fake.
I have not seen any news outlet actually reversing story and saying yes...these are factual and not fake.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 08:49:56 PM · #36 |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 08:52:09 PM · #37 |
I dont read the NY times...and I am not signing up. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 08:55:11 PM · #38 |
ok so first he said they are real, then said they were fake, then said they were real again? lol.. you've called Bush a flip flopper for less then that...
Even the family of the officer said they were fake, along with numerous other experts... the secretary who worked for the man, while she thought the story was true, said the documents were fake as well... they were not typed with terminology the AG used either... the guy that gave CBS the papers is a huge democratic lobbyist and Bush hater... those documents were about as real as John Kerry's newly aquired orange suntan... not to mention Bush and the man who supposedly typed the papers were not in the Air Force...
Plato? Socretes? Aristotle? Morons I tell you. Even they could not have come to the dizzyingly brilliant conclusions that you have... you guys really amaze me...
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 09:15:16 PM · #39 |
| How about keeping the insults to yourself Anachronite. I donât see people who disagree with you insulting you and making demeaning and condescending remarks. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 09:30:30 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
How about keeping the insults to yourself Anachronite. I donât see people who disagree with you insulting you and making demeaning and condescending remarks. |
I would agree with that.
I think sometimes we get a little caught up, but name calling goes over the edge. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 10:27:45 PM · #41 |
Anyone watch these? The 1st one especially.. Hilarious. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 11:23:19 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
How about keeping the insults to yourself Anachronite. I donât see people who disagree with you insulting you and making demeaning and condescending remarks. |
While I agree that my comments were very sarcastic, they were hardly what I would call demeaning and condescending. If you took it to be demeaning and condescending, it wasn definately not meant to be taken that that way. As for name calling, I didn't call anybody any names, other than Plato and his friends, and they are dead. If calling dead people names is unacceptable in this forum, my apologies. As for the sarcasm of calling Plato and Socrates morons, this was simply to show my disbelief in the conclusions that were drawn.
Until recently, I have not posted to the political forums in a long time for one reason, people are Solipsists. Solipsists are affected by a theory called Solipsism, which holds that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing. Here's a great link to a more verbose definition of the theory: Solipsism
Basically what it means is that no matter how well someone argues their point, regardless of the truth from either side, most people are not going to change their minds on how they feel about a subject they are passionate about, because their thought patterns and personal life experiences are so different that they cannot relate to the other persons line of thinking. Kind of like when you hear about someone committing a horrible crime and you say to yourself, "Wow that's terrible. How could someone do such a thing". We simply cannot relate to that person, because our personal experiences and thought patterns are completely different. Think about it, for those of us with our minds already made up, it would take something amazingly powerful for us to change our positions. We are our own existence and that will never change easily. Which makes it very easy to do what Riggs said, "we all get a little caught up", and that can be frustrating.
Now, just to make sure this post has a little more to do with the thread topic, there is one thing I did disagree with Bush on. He said that Kerry voted based on the same intelligence reports he did. This cannot be true because Kerry attended less than 25% of the intelligence committee meetings that he should have. Which in turn means, he was making uninformed decisions. I would think that a Senator would want to be as completely informed as he could, especially considering the seriousness of the information contained in the reports and the fact that he was going to vote for his constituents based on the information he had when he voted.
Message edited by author 2004-10-01 23:32:09.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2004 10:33:40 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
because Kerry attended less than 25% of the intelligence committee meetings that he should have. |
Never heard that before. I hear that number bandied about by the right in supposed regard to Kerry's alleged voting record, tho! :D
Perchance, do you have a link? |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 10:36:32 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by bdobe:
From Last Night's Presidential Debate:
BUSH: My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland?
---------------------------------------
And here's what the president of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski, said recently (March 2004) about the Iraq War:
ALEKSANDER KWASNIEWSKI (translated): They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride.
--[ //www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1069242.htm ] |
1. Whatever Kwasniewski may think about the war, it doesn't change the historical fact that they were (and are) part of the coalition, and that in dismissing their participation, Kerry denigrated the country and their sacrifice. |
To my mind, it would seem Bush denigrated their country and sacrifice by deceiving the President of Poland into action. That seems to be the Polish Presidents point, as well. |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 10:44:06 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
because Kerry attended less than 25% of the intelligence committee meetings that he should have. |
Never heard that before. I hear that number bandied about by the right in supposed regard to Kerry's alleged voting record, tho! :D
Perchance, do you have a link? |
How about FactCheck.Org
An exerpt:
"A Bush-Cheney '04 ad released Aug. 13 accuses Kerry of being absent for 76% of the Senate Intelligence Committee's public hearings during the time he served there. The Kerry campaign calls the ad "misleading," so we checked, and Bush is right.
Official records show Kerry not present for at least 76% of public hearings held during his eight years on the panel, and possibly 78% (the record of one hearing is ambiguous).
Kerry points out that most meetings of the Intelligence Committee are closed and attendance records of those meetings aren't public, hinting that his attendance might have been better at the non-public proceedings. But Kerry could ask that his attendance records be made public, and hasn't.
Aides also claimed repeatedly that Kerry had been vice chairman of the intelligence committee, but that was Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, not John Kerry."
|
|
|
|
10/02/2004 11:15:00 AM · #46 |
| Oh comon those video's were hilarious.. You guys are no fun :/ |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 12:17:35 PM · #47 |
Senator Kerry clearly was the better prepared and IMO delivered his message more professionally. I was disturbed by President Bush's facial expressions, thumping of the podium, repeated repeatings because he hadn't even gotten to the green light yet let alone the yellow, his getting stride too late on some answers...after the red light was blinking, and most of all was disturbed that the PRESIDENT was actually raising his finger to seek permission to respond. I was disapointed. Senator Kerry, however, was quite dishonest in several of his charges and I did not appreciate his "glee" at getting the President's gander up and then smirking throught the 90 minutes as he piled on untruth after untruth. His sentences were well structured. His message was well planned. His language was well choosen. But is was still false.
Kerry won the debate in my opinion. Unlikely though, that I will vote for him. |
|
|
|
10/02/2004 12:27:04 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Oh comon those video's were hilarious.. You guys are no fun :/ |
I thought they were funny. Bush is by no means as good of a speaker as Kerry is and he can make himself look foolish at times. I don't think anyone doubts that.
But... I think that can be a plus for Bush for some people. He comes off more as a normal person where Kerry can come off as a polished used car salesman saying all the right things to make the sale.
I tend to look more at what they say and how they back it up rather then how they say it.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2004 01:54:23 PM · #49 |
Although Kerry came across as a better debater, I think Bush will ultimately win in the next few weeks. Mainly because Bush didn't say anything that can be used against him. Kerry on the other hand dug himself into several holes. I predict most of the following will come back to haunt him on the campaign trail:
1. Passing a "global test" to earn the right to protect themselves won't play well with most Americans.
2. Knocking Bush for the lack of a coalition in Iraq and then saying Bush should go it alone in the talks with North Korea is a major inconsistency that will be hard to dodge.
3. Complaints about diverting our attention off Osama at Tora Bora will be used to reinforce the idea he's soft on terror elsewhere in the world.
4. Saying he'll bring allies back to the table while belittling the ones that are already in Iraq certainly won't help his cause.
5. Complaining about the lack of proper armament for the troops will most certainly be paired with his $87 Million vote comment.
6. Kerry's plan to add two active divisions to the US Army may be interpreted as a reimplementation of the draft.
7. The "I've never wavered in my life" comment will most certainly make it in the next Bush commercial.
8. Saying he'll shut down the bunker-busting nuclear weapons project after just listing all the rogue countries acquiring nuclear weapons won't go over well with most Americans.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2004 03:07:55 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
because Kerry attended less than 25% of the intelligence committee meetings that he should have. |
Never heard that before. I hear that number bandied about by the right in supposed regard to Kerry's alleged voting record, tho! :D
Perchance, do you have a link? |
How about FactCheck.Org
An exerpt:
"A Bush-Cheney '04 ad released Aug. 13 accuses Kerry of being absent for 76% of the Senate Intelligence Committee's public hearings during the time he served there. The Kerry campaign calls the ad "misleading," so we checked, and Bush is right.
Official records show Kerry not present for at least 76% of public hearings held during his eight years on the panel, and possibly 78% (the record of one hearing is ambiguous).
Kerry points out that most meetings of the Intelligence Committee are closed and attendance records of those meetings aren't public, hinting that his attendance might have been better at the non-public proceedings. But Kerry could ask that his attendance records be made public, and hasn't.
Aides also claimed repeatedly that Kerry had been vice chairman of the intelligence committee, but that was Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, not John Kerry." |
1) Factcheck.org is not exactly an unbiased source!
2) your 76% figure is from bush attack ad, never a good source of accurate info, I would say. Here is the Kerry/Edwards website reply to the ad. It looks way more complicated than the Bush ad or Factcheck presented it:
FUZZY MATH AND BAD STATS MISLEAD ON KERRYâS RECORD
Ad Text: âAs a member of the intelligence committee, Senator Kerry was absent for 76% of the committeeâs hearings.â
Selective math and sketchy methods:
The Bush-Cheney Campaign is using misleading numbers and cannot pretend to have the facts. They rely only on whether Sen. Kerry made statements in one of a small number of open hearings. For example from 1993-1998 the Select Intelligence Committee held more than 329 meetings, hearings and markups. Just 65 of these were open meetings. [Senate Report 104-1; Senate Report 105-1; Senate Report 106-3]
Ad Text: âIn the year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Kerry was absent for every single one.â
Fuzzy Math Again:
Again, the Bush-Cheney Campaign is using misleading numbers and cannot pretend to have the facts. They rely only on whether Sen. Kerry made statements in one of seven open hearings. All in all, during the 103rd Congress, the Committee held a total of 103 on-the-record meetings and hearings. There were seventy (70) oversight hearings and seven (7) business meetings. Twelve (12) hearings were held on the budget including the Conference sessions with the House. Hearings on specific legislation totaled nine (9) and nomination hearings totaled one (1). [Senate Report 104-1: Oversight Over Intelligence Activities in the 103rd Congress].
The following Republican members also failed to speak at a public hearing that year: John Chaffee; Malcom Wallop, Ted Stevens, Slade Gorton, John Danforth
Kerry was part of the âmost significant counterintelligence legislation ever.â According to Republican Chair and Bush Campaign Co-Chair Arlen Specter: âThe Committee pioneered the most significant counterintelligence legislation ever passed in the Congress.â The legislation addressed intelligence problems uncovered by the Committees investigation of the Aldrich Ames case, including the failure of the FBI and CIA to coordinate on counterintelligence. [Senate Report 104-1: Oversight Over Intelligence Activities in the 103rd Congress].
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/10/2025 06:54:17 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/10/2025 06:54:17 AM EDT.
|
