world democracy decides U.S. presidential election!

We have a saying in Texas... it's fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...uh...you can't get fooled again."

(paraphrased)

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

How true.

Damn, I didn't know the debate discussion was HERE. No wonder the other thread was so dry.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's a wonder Bush still has a chance.

S1lent said:

Haha, some of this is very funny. Ok disciples of Moore, have fun with your little liberal fun-talk. It's cute. Anyways, I'm done here, obviously no matter how much evidence you put in front of a bush hater, they will never open their eyes to see the truth.

Yes, and I'm sure you're going to provide us with a very credible, reliable, unbiased source to convince us of this "truth" that you so firmly believe in...

S1lent said:

Educate yourself scaryjohnkerry.com

...................
I believe no comment is necessary.

Danarchy said:

We have a saying in Texas... it's fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...uh...you can't get fooled again."

(paraphrased)

Video here.

I've actually seen that quote posted on conservative spam as an attack against Kerry? I'm not sure exactly how that could be construed as such.. unless maybe you're illiterate.

I think that all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary decent people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired.

sargebaldy said:

I've actually seen that quote posted on conservative spam as an attack against Kerry? I'm not sure exactly how that could be construed as such.. unless maybe you're illiterate.

It's kinda like how both the pro-Kerry and pro-Bush people dug up a bunch of old Dan Quayle quotes and just crossed out Dan Quayle and wrote the other guy there instead, then sent them around via e-mail. Ah, Snopes, where would I be without you?

sargebaldy said:

that kind of bugged me as well, since personally I'm voting 3rd party.

agreed man.

Scuba Steve said:

In debates George has a significant disadvantage. He's used to making a little joke while pandering to an audience of supporters and getting a roar of laughter. In a debate, you'll notice when he says something that he tries to make into a joke, he'll pause as if waiting for laughter and then recieves none because it's a debate and not a pep rally. A good example was Wed night when he made a joke about not trusting Popular News media sources, trying to play on the Dan Rather bumble knowing that the moderator also worked for CBS. The crowd was dead silent and his attempt at humor fell flat on it's face.

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."

I laughed, the crowd wasnt allowed to make any noise

and in response to Bushisms, I bring on Kerryisms

"Integrity Integrity Integrity, those are the three words."

"You break it, you fix it."

sargebaldy said:

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

If anyone takes that as the way it's quoted, you must be clinically retarded.

The thing that gets me about all of this really pissed off is the fact that either way, Kerry or Bush the problems still won't be fixed. Kerry has impossible goals of world friendship and Bush is just a dumbass. But dumbass or not the thing that I can respect about Bush is that he has a plan, Terrorism is a very very important problem and one that will affect the world for many years to come and I don't think that giving in to your critics just to make friends like Kerry seems to want to do is the right answer. And that is the problem, we don't know how to handle this and because America is a world leader or better yet the leader of the free world we have to protect that freedom which we all hold for granted.

We catch alot of heat for that. The world claims that we make bad choices, I don't know if that is true or not but atleast but we make choices. There is no text book on how to handle this is a long term way and know with the enemies of the free world showing extreme prejudice and a willingness to do whatever it takes we are entering a very gray area. The persistence of America to achive our goals are going to be tested in the years to come and I don't know if I want a spinless leader who shows no real strong convictions on anything, running the country, but I also don't know if I want a dumbass Texan with his finger on a red button going "I wonder what will happen if I press this?" All I know is that the United States and the free world need a strong leader and although Bush might be a bad choice he is in my opinion better than Kerry.

Ralphis said:

I laughed, the crowd wasnt allowed to make any noise

I think you missed my point... George Bush becomes very uncomfortable on stage when he doesn't immediately recieve laughter after a "joke"... he's used to pep rally's that he gives all across America. Laughing at home doesn't help him on stage, he still pauses and waits for a crowd reaction despite the crowd's silence.

Ralphis said:

and in response to Bushisms, I bring on Kerryisms

"Integrity Integrity Integrity, those are the three words."

"You break it, you fix it."

Why are those funny? If you support Bush that's fine, but don't try to pretend he's a fantastic speaker or anything. Those specific Kerry quotes really aren't that funny.

Ralphis said:

"You break it, you fix it."

Actually that was Powell to Bush about Iraq.

Goliath said:

Kerry has impossible goals of world friendship and Bush is just a dumbass. But dumbass or not the thing that I can respect about Bush is that he has a plan...

I think this is a common misconception. While I don't totally agree with Kerry's plan for Iraq, he has for the most part laid out the basic points of what he hopes to do. He would like to bring the UN back into the picture... how feasable this is is unknown since the UN has some hurt feelings since Bush cast them aside. He also doesn't want to build military bases in Iraq like the President wants too. Now, while this may not be the most comprehensive plan... it is at least as comprehensive as George Bush's "plan". He has continually said "Stay the Course" in regards to Iraq, but the course doesn't seem to be working... the situation is escalating to the point that reporters fear for their lives and can't leave their hotel rooms.

Whether Kerry will be able to impliment his plan for Iraq is unkown, but to say the President has a more comprehensive plan is just ignorant.

Goliath said:

...I don't think that giving in to your critics just to make friends like Kerry seems to want to do is the right answer.

Again this is a misconception. You may call Kerry a "flip flopper" all you want (despite the Dick Cheney endorsed factcheck.org saying otherwise) but he has been very consistent and not said otherwise that he would never let another nation have veto power over the US... he has just stated that we need to embrace other nations rather than tell them to feck off.

Goliath said:

The thing that gets me about all of this really pissed off is the fact that either way, Kerry or Bush the problems still won't be fixed. Kerry has impossible goals of world friendship and Bush is just a dumbass. But dumbass or not the thing that I can respect about Bush is that he has a plan, Terrorism is a very very important problem and one that will affect the world for many years to come and I don't think that giving in to your critics just to make friends like Kerry seems to want to do is the right answer. And that is the problem, we don't know how to handle this and because America is a world leader or better yet the leader of the free world we have to protect that freedom which we all hold for granted.

First of all, I don't think we need to go solving all the world's problems. We just can't do it all, and anyone who thinks they have to will inevitably drive themselves insane.

That said, terrorism has always been a problem in the world. Terrorism is just another term for crime as far as I'm concerned, because what are these people doing? In the case that we're all concerned with, it's blowing up a building (or three). Hmm... so there's never been arson or other destruction of property before? Granted, this was on a much larger scale, but why do we call it terrorism? Terrorism, by definition is supposed to inflict terror on one's victim. And while Bush will tell you that Osama/Sadaam/[insertrandomdictatorhere] is bent on causing terror for us, does that make it true? Who knows exactly what Osama's intentions were? But labeling it "terrorism" is certainly a more convenient way to get your country on your side, isn't it? There's a word for this, a word the republicans like to throw around sometimes. It's called hype.

The point is that shit happens... this is just the first time that shit has happened to US on such a large scale. We aren't used to it, so now we're running scared and inventing color charts and stuff, despite the fact that there haven't been any other terrorist attacks.

Goliath said:

We catch alot of heat for that. The world claims that we make bad choices, I don't know if that is true or not but atleast but we make choices. There is no text book on how to handle this is a long term way and know with the enemies of the free world showing extreme prejudice and a willingness to do whatever it takes we are entering a very gray area. The persistence of America to achive our goals are going to be tested in the years to come and I don't know if I want a spinless leader who shows no real strong convictions on anything, running the country, but I also don't know if I want a dumbass Texan with his finger on a red button going "I wonder what will happen if I press this?" All I know is that the United States and the free world need a strong leader and although Bush might be a bad choice he is in my opinion better than Kerry.

And what makes you believe that Kerry isn't a strong leader? More hype. Now, I'm well aware that Kerry's campaign gives out its own share of hype about Bush, but they don't need to hint at the fact that Bush is a dumbass (as anyone who isn't, to use Ralphis's term, clinically retarted, can see for themselves).

The Bush campaign's biggest "flip-flop" style attack is the one about Iraq - Kerry first voted to send troops, then he criticized the action. We all need to realize how oversimplistic he was being, as Kerry stated later that he spoke to the Senate the day he voted for sending troops, and gave warnings on how it should be done. When these warnings were (inevitably) not followed, THEN he had a problem with it. I can guarantee you that if more people caught on to this oversimplifying of his, Bush wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell anymore.

Suba_Steve the sad fact is that Americans are hoping that Kerry is the light at he end of the tunnel and he is going to get us out of Iraq and that just isn't going to happen. People want to see a complete 180 in our forgein policy and that is just not going to happen, until our current plan proves to be ineffictive which it has not then there is no need for change and our although Kerry claims that we will be out of Iraq in 6 months I just can't bring myself to believe him and for the most part I don't disagree with the Bush plan to rid the world of terrorists. My only problem is that we aren't being harsh enough! Leaders like the Saudi's royal family are im my opinion more important that Saddam, however I understand why at this current state in our country they shall remained untouched. Just to make it clear, because Bush's plan hasn't not worked I see no need for change and I wan't to see what 4 more years of this policy will do to make the world safer. Mostly because I don't know what the right plan is so it is unfair for me to judge his.

Just to finish this off, I find the plan (not nessesarly Kerry's) of Defence and then offense after we are attacked is just not ever going to work. Sure it will provide a FALSE sense of security for a while but the fact is that the free world can't afford to pay for defence. Hell, security for the olympics cost 1.12 billion dollars and that is just a sporting event. The sad fact is that just sitting around waiting to see if we will get attacked again will criple the western world and in the long run might destroy it.

Goliath, yes or no will do...

1.) What instances do you feel show that the war in Iraq has been constructive?

2.) Do you propose taking the same actions against other nations we took against Iraq... particularly North Korea or Saudi Arabia?

3.) Do you think the United States military has the capacity to invade another nation like it did Iraq... while still maintaining its presence in Iraq, which is likely until at least 2006.

Scuba Steve said:

I think you missed my point... George Bush becomes very uncomfortable on stage when he doesn't immediately recieve laughter after a "joke"... he's used to pep rally's that he gives all across America. Laughing at home doesn't help him on stage, he still pauses and waits for a crowd reaction despite the crowd's silence.


Why are those funny? If you support Bush that's fine, but don't try to pretend he's a fantastic speaker or anything. Those specific Kerry quotes really aren't that funny.

uh well the pottery barn rule is pretty funny to me anyway. It's supposed to be "You break it, you buy it." which he applied to Iraq, but changed the rule to "You break it, you fix it." I laughed at it.

Oh and the fact that integrity repeated three times isn't three words, it's just one word repeated three times. He's said other stupid things that I don't really care to remember.

It's clear Bush isn't the best public speaker, but I've always believed in substance over style personally. But don't listen to me, I can't vote anyway

Scuba Steve said:

3.) Do you think the United States military has the capacity to invade another nation like it did Iraq... while still maintaining its presence in Iraq, which is likely until at least 2006.

Don't forget about Afghanistan

Goliath said:

Just to finish this off, I find the plan (not nessesarly Kerry's) of Defence and then offense after we are attacked is just not ever going to work. Sure it will provide a FALSE sense of security for a while but the fact is that the free world can't afford to pay for defence. Hell, security for the olympics cost 1.12 billion dollars and that is just a sporting event. The sad fact is that just sitting around waiting to see if we will get attacked again will criple the western world and in the long run might destroy it.

The sad fact is, that we WILL in fact be attacked again. It's inevitable. Some kind of crime will be committed against our country sooner or later, and no amount of money spent is going to change this. Unless we're going to build a giant dome over the entire country, you can't totally keep terrorists out. It isn't going to happen. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't protect ourselves, but we're just being paranoid, and it shows.

"Offense after we are attacked is not going to work." What are you implying, that offense before we're attacked IS going to work? With that mentality we may as well go ahead and nuke every other country in the world, because as soon as you "liberate" one country, its terrorists just escape into another. You could do this, but where do you draw the line? It seems to me that our attacks on them are just showing them our real fear of them. If we really want to appear unafraid, we should accept the fact that shit happens, has happened and will continue to happen, and instead of blowing up whatever country looks at us funny, just defend ourselves at home and leave the rest of the world alone. Because the only people we're scaring are the civilians in these countries - the terrorists can see right through it.

Ralphis said:

Don't forget about Afghanistan

What about it?

netnomad312 said:

The sad fact is, that we WILL in fact be attacked again. It's inevitable. Some kind of crime will be committed against our country sooner or later, and no amount of money spent is going to change this. Unless we're going to build a giant dome over the entire country, you can't totally keep terrorists out. It isn't going to happen. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't protect ourselves, but we're just being paranoid, and it shows.

"Offense after we are attacked is not going to work." What are you implying, that offense before we're attacked IS going to work? With that mentality we may as well go ahead and nuke every other country in the world, because as soon as you "liberate" one country, its terrorists just escape into another. You could do this, but where do you draw the line? It seems to me that our attacks on them are just showing them our real fear of them. If we really want to appear unafraid, we should accept the fact that shit happens, has happened and will continue to happen, and instead of blowing up whatever country looks at us funny, just defend ourselves at home and leave the rest of the world alone. Because the only people we're scaring are the civilians in these countries - the terrorists can see right through it.

The main problem is that you can't draw the line. In order to defeat terrorists you have to become more violent than they are, and I don't know if the world can stomach that..but let me tell you this, if the terrorists get a nuclear bomb or other form of WMD then you can bet your ass they will pay. In crudest terms, 3000 people just isn't enough dead to change the world but 1000000+ is and that is the next big attack. And trust me, the middle east will either change over night where terrorism is now fought against by every human on this planet or Americans will have a pretty nice place to park their cars.

A good start to fixing things might be the American government officially coming out and saying to the middle east "Sorry we've been completely fucking you over since 1912. Our bad." The fact is that the U.S.S.A. has been poking that beehive for a long time and getting stung was inevitable. Now Bushy has gotten them into the shit so deep in Iraq that they're pretty much hooped. It's going to be a looooong time before Iraq is back on it's feet and if they pull out before then things will get very bad for the US. They will lose what meager credibility they still have with the rest of the world and the power vaccuum created in Iraq will most likely be filled with another fanatical lunatic creating a brand new terrorist factory.

The US can't just cut-and-run, it's too late for that now. They have to *really* fix things or everywhere else in the world will view their government (and in effect the whole country) as weak and stupid. The middle eastern fanatics will celebrate the victory, feed on this weakness and attack with much more enthusiasm. You don't stop attacking your enemy just because they begin to retreat, not when your only goal is their complete destruction.

You can't defeat terrorism with violence unless you completely erradicate every Muslim from the face of the earth and even then others will take up the cause in their place. The harder you hit them the more moderates will become fanatics. America needs to stop acting so... american. Stop trying to strong-arm them into submission, you can't do it. Here's a thought, try being nice. People are less likely to fly planes into buildings when you aren't blowing up their relatives.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that THEY didn't start it. We (Honky Crackers/Goddamn White Guys) did. Karma's a bitch.

Goliath said:

The main problem is that you can't draw the line. In order to defeat terrorists you have to become more violent than they are, and I don't know if the world can stomach that..but let me tell you this, if the terrorists get a nuclear bomb or other form of WMD then you can bet your ass they will pay. In crudest terms, 3000 people just isn't enough dead to change the world but 1000000+ is and that is the next big attack. And trust me, the middle east will either change over night where terrorism is now fought against by every human on this planet or Americans will have a pretty nice place to park their cars.

Damn... what an incredibly pessimistic view of this situation. I guess Bush really got to you. 3000 people not changing the world? I'd say the world has changed pretty signifigantly in the last three years. And yes, if they got WMDs they could cause major damage, but guess what? They don't HAVE WMDs. They never did (Iraq, anyway). I'm all for tracking down and getting rid of the WMDs, and Kerry intends too. But every time some nutcase blows up a building, we can't go changing the governemntal system of two or three countries (even if it's for the better - it's none of our damn business).

Ralphis said:

Don't forget about Afghanistan

Bush certainly did.

Am I the only one who sees the great irony in the fact that the only people who want to vote for Bush on these forums, can't?

All I have to say about that is "nyah, nyah".

Ralphis said:
and in response to Bushisms, I bring on Kerryisms

"Integrity Integrity Integrity, those are the three words."

"You break it, you fix it."

You are really grasping at straws.

Captain Red said:

You are really grasping at straws.

I just thought they were funny, that's all

Scuba Steve said:

YES or NO will do...

1.) What instances do you feel show that the war in Iraq has been constructive?

....




Yes...?

No!

/me suddenly thinks how cool it would be for Kerry to answer "you fail it"

Scuba Steve said:

Goliath, yes or no will do...

1.) What instances do you feel show that the war in Iraq has been constructive?

;_;