Presidential debate

[jrubicante]

I feel you keep playing the "we can have our own opinions" card to avoid discussing facts that are uncomfortable to you. If you had dismissed this whole thread as a statement of opinion only, then you would have stopped posing a long time ago. We all know you're voting for Bush. Are you planning on making any posts with actual content?

Mr. Schmidt said earlier that the truth hurts. He also claims to be a veteran.
How bad does it hurt that Bush's first proposed overtime takeaway was to take it away from veterans? Or maybe while Iran and Korea are building nuclear capabilities, we instead went to Iraq, where the biggest weapon found are the sandstorms? Or, telling us Iraq had ties to Al-queida, which has since been proved wrong? (Using the same intelligence that Bush used to make that claim!) Or, showing us NAFTA is only OK if it helps make corporate America rich, ie, Canada is part of NAFTA, but we can only export jobs, not buy the cheaper drugs from there. Or, not including legislation in China Trade to stop sweatshop operation or forced abortions in China, while claiming to be Christian and Pro-life. Or the fact our job growth is negative, and the biggest job gain in his term was when seasonal construction workers and striking grocery store workers went back to work. Or blasting France and Germany for their stance on Iraq when they were right.
But, I guess I'm naive, I forgot I'm SUPPOSED to vote for a president that wants to take my overtime, further weaken international unions, export good American jobs, and put our finest men and women in harms way for nothing.

Aside from one or two sentences, nothing in there is stated as an opinion. These are facts, just like the facts in previous posts which you ignored by playing the "that's your opinion" card.

For instance, what do you feel about the fact that Bush took overtime away from veterans, being a veteran yourself?

How do you respond to the charge that Bush surrounds himself with yes-men who never say anything harsh about his actions, which is why he has closed the town-hall style debate from the swing-state voters not pledged to the Republican Party?

When I say that President Bush suspended the democratic values of this country after 9/11, I supported my claim with facts. If you don't think that I'm right, I'd like to see you offer a counter argument. That's how these things work.

 

[MayDay1]

If you two are done jerking each other off, I have a quick comment.

As far as I've read, NO ONE has blasted the troops for being over in Iraq. These men and women volunteered, I'll repeat it, VOLUNTEERED to put their lives on the line to protect this country. I'll be the first to say that's an admirable thing they are doing. Our troops deserve our encouragement more than anyone since they are the one's protecting us from terrorists....

BUT!

I do not support this war because this is simply a smoke screen to get oil money. If this were truly a war on terrorism, they would be in Saudi Arabia and giving Osama some ironic justice. But they are not. They're in Iraq following vague and contradictory orders from:

* A man who got out of the draft because of his dad and then drank and snorted any shred of intelligence he may have had in the first place.

* A heartless monster who won't think twice about sending more people to die to line his pockets

* A peeping tom so inept he lost an election to a dead man.

* A boogie man with a color coated chart to keep you in fear so you'll vote Republican

* A token mouthpiece to take the brunt of the critism and like it

The fact that good men and women are over there dying for these twats makes me ill.

I support the troops: BRING 'EM HOME!

Fuck the Bush regime. I didn't like it the first time when it was called the Third Riech.

 

[jrubicante]

If you two are done jerking each other off, I have a quick comment.

Grr. I'm just going to assume that this is not referring to me, and the timing of our posts was just poor :-|

 

[MayDay1]

No, not you. You responded before I did.

 

[jj82277]

jobs

I am sick and tired of the argument about job growth and outsourcing. George Bush has no sole control over either of these aspects of the economy, and neither would John Kerry. The question you need to be asking yourselves is why would you leave the proliferation of your families lifestyle to someone else in the first place. Outsourcing is an economic certainty that businesses will never shy away from. Jobs are a function of wether or not a producer will hire a processor. if the producer can get the same production out of less people or cheaper ones across the globe they will. I think that the focus of all Americans should be in some capacity to own their own job. The country was founded by land/business owners. You know the coolest thing is that as a second generation business owner that who ever wins i provide a service that is needed and if i have to pay a little more in taxes so be it. And as a 20 year old african american male if you think anyone gave me or my father anything you better get that crap off your mind. its hard its not guarenteed, but as a lot of people in this country found out you better make your own guarentee. But you're tight not all people can own businesses, how can they acquire wealth? The government came up with something called the roth IRA that allows people to save money any where they want tax FREE, only for middle and lower class, that senator KERRY voted AGAINST, but he's for the working people. I handle retirement planning, and i would hate to see his politics in the white house for that very reason. We're trying to tell you he doesn't care about you he just wants you to vote for him.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Very well said.

If Bush wins the election again I want to see him do something about the misuse of the welfare system. That system is getting conned out of so much money by people that just keep having babies, have a live-in boyfriend, and multiple families living in the same house in some cases. I've seen such people. In fact, just a few apartments over theres an old couple and the the old man is letting his son and his son's wife live there with him and his wife, his son, his son's wife and their kid and their newborn. I know for a fact its a one bedroom apartment.

The old man's son is a leech, he doesn't have a job aparently, and the only one seemingly working is the old man. Thats not right. Also, they seem to have the money to spend on things it looks like they cannot even afford. Things such as a satalite dish, and several cars.

All of this from a household where only one person works? Nah, they're abusing the system, they have to be. And I know its because the son's wife is collecting welfare on their youngest child and the newborn while living with a man (her husband and his father, possibly even the wife but I'm pretty sure she doesn't work) capable of supporting her and them having cars and such and just loafing around.

I want people like this dealt with. They are a drain on the system, an unfair drain, and I want to see the welfare system being legitimately used without any loopholes that these people and so many others find and exploit.

The welfare system was meant to help single parents without any support. Not a SUPPOSED single parent, with a live-boyfriend who can support her (in this case, this one doesn't) and the fact she has the children by him means she'll that get welfare check, she'll collect double for until their youngest is over 18 years of age. All they have to do is have another kid and they'll get double coverage again. Thats disgusting.

I'm proud to say my mother raised me all by herself. I'm proud of my mom and am grateful. I'm also proud of the fact that she never signed up for welfare when she could have and it would have been legitimate. She seemed content to earn her own way in this world and provide for me and her.

We didn't need welfare, we had and have something better, much better- God the Almighty. Thats why we never needed it, thats why we never went without, and thats why we always had plenty, more than we needed dispite the single income she provided. The blessings were very bountiful.

Other people can lie all they want and cheat the system, but I don't want them getting away with it. Something needs to be done to make sure the system is being used properly.

 

[alf1]

I don't feel I ever was being insulting to Europeans

When you say : "you speak english cause we liberated you in both war" ; it seems that one major thing is forgotten.
Don't you know countries that battled for the independence of the USA ???
There were not only americans, there were most europeans fighting for you !!!!!!
Pulaski heard of ??? Lafayette heard of ???
Forgotting that is insulting enough.
And your country has not even 300 years of existence so don't come and tell about history right ?

 

[coloman]

I know forieners helped us fight the Revolutionary War but most of that was because they were against the British. I don't think how old a country is is much of a yardstick to measure it by. Since you brought it up however, the europien countries are at least twice as old as the United States and they haven't done any better of a job at helping the world be at peace or be any safer.

 

[alf1]

They helped you anyway.
I was talking about history that's why i mention your country "age".

 

[Kalamos]

I know forieners helped us fight the Revolutionary War but most of that was because they were against the British. I don't think how old a country is is much of a yardstick to measure it by. Since you brought it up however, the europien countries are at least twice as old as the United States and they haven't done any better of a job at helping the world be at peace or be any safer.

That is the point: those weren't foreigners yet.

You used to be British, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, German, Dutch, Polish, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and even African or Asiatic before becoming American.

Indipendence was from Europe [UK, actually] when you decided you weren't colonies anymore, but a self-determined union of states.

America didn't spring from nothing, out of thin air: either your blood is European, African or Asiatic. If you are a white anglosaxon citizen, odds are you are *not* a Native American - even if, shocking idea, your grand-grand-parents married natives.

And no, this wasn't meant to demean your family, or anybody's else: but even patriotism has to know some limits.

What next? Will you colonize Mars and start regarding "Terrans" as strangers?

 

[frye45]

Vladislav, I'm sure everyone has a story about some kind of fraud or systemic abuse, but that doesn't make it endemic. People love to say, "I know this family that takes advantage, therefore, it's happening all over." We do have Welfare Reform in this country to try to deal with the abuse. Whether or not it works, I think the jury is still out. But more to the point, what about the billions of dollars of corporate welfare the government doles out in the form of tax breaks and incentives? What about bailing out Chrysler? Or the S&Ls? Do you really think we live in a true free market economy? And just so you know where I'm coming from, I've worked my entire life, been laid off a few times, scrounged by on next to nothing and never collected a dime from the federal government. But to watch the upper classes collect a fat tax cut while I, by the way, got nothing last year. Is that fair? Is it fair I don't get a tax cut because I don't have a house or a wife or children? That's my choice, but evidently I'm being penalized for it?

Okay, I'll get off my soap box now.

 

[nessonite1]

When did not getting something extra become being punished? I guess I'm unusual but even though I have barely any money of my own I'm not rushing out to attack the wealthy for being succesful.
And there IS widespread abuse of the welfare system. It isn't a small problem or isolated to large cities. The fact that practically everyone has anecdotal evidence "I know someone who..." shows you how widespread it is.
As you, Vlad, I was raised mostly by a single mother though mine did accept aid when we needed it. The difference between her and some other people I've known is she didnt sit on her ass all day pumping out children and fattening her check.
That boggles my mind how someone could do that. If you're already living in squalor why continue to have children?? It just seems inhumane. A woman next door to me when I was a teenager had 4 kids by 2 different fathers and was pregnant and gave birth to a fifth by a third father. All this in a miniscule 1 bedroom duplex identical to the one my 3 member family was barely squeezing into.
Unfortunately reforming a system that so many millions of people have made themselves dependant on is perhaps an impossible task. You'd have to not only change the rules but wean millions of multi-generation welfare families off of the support they've been using AND change the "I deserve a free ride" mindset. I think blaming the problem on one president or relying on one president to fix it is overly simplistic.

 

[frye45]

I didn't think I was attacking the rich for being successful. I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy of a system that villifies people on welfare, while at the same time, giving all kinds of entitlements to big corporations. And I don't defend people who leech off of the system. Unquestionably it's a problem, but the number of people who have too many babies just to collect a welfare check are, I bet, not nearly the financial drain on the taxpayers that Enron and Chrysler and the Savings & Loans are.

As I said, I have always worked for a living. I don't ever anticipate being wealthy, and that's fine. But the majority of the rich in this country were born into it, like the President, and didn't pull themselves up by their bootstraps, a component of the American dream that seems harder and harder to achieve.

As far as tax cuts go, when one group receives a benefit and another group does not, isn't that, in a sense, being penalized. My tax dollars go to public schools and all sorts of other programs that I have no personal vested interest in (other than a, hopefully, well-educated populace) and I have no problem with that. It just seems arbitrary to give tax cuts to people for having children--and isn't that a form of welfare--or owning a house. And again, I never got a tax cut last year. I guess I didn't make enough money.

 

[alf1]

Also one thing that have not been said so far is that Bush uses religion as a political point.
He says Iraq is evil and the US are god ( aka axis of evil )
He's also persuaded that christ will ressurect:weird: ( that's why he support Israel againt Palestine ) All people around him are deeply "christians conservatives". That's scary.
It is proved that Bush "christians allies" are very influent and have a program if Bush's elected for locking hardly individual liberties in the US.
If you don't like christianism........well you'll have to go with whataver you want or not.
Think about it people. Don't be all sheeps.
You don't even imagine what they have in mind. And it's better not, otherwise you'll not vote for them.

 

[jrubicante]

Also one thing that have not been said so far is that Bush uses religion as a political point.
He says Iraq is evil and the US are god ( aka axis of evil )
...
It is proved that Bush "christians allies" are very influent and have a program if Bush's elected for locking hardly individual liberties in the US.
If you don't like christianism........well you'll have to go with whataver you want or not.
Think about it people. Don't be all sheeps.
You don't even imagine what they have in mind. And it's better not, otherwise you'll not vote for them.

That's a good point. I remember I was amazed when the President came out with his "axis of evil" declaration, and named several specific countries that he considered to be a part of the 'axis of evil'.

If you were a country, how would you feel if the President of the United States labelled you as 'evil'? Would you be motivated to cooperate with the U.S.?

If you would, it would probably be out of fear that the U.S. would come after you with overwhelming force.
Moreover, seeing as our military is bogged down in Iraq, we don't have the power to exhibit overwhelming force anywhere!

So President Bush's "axis of evil" speech, which was a bad idea in the first place, turned out to be a diplomatic blunder, as the countries on the "axis of evil" - not only are pissed off at us - but can now do pretty much whatever the hell they want.

He's also persuaded that christ will ressurect:weird: ( that's why he support Israel againt Palestine ) All people around him are deeply "christians conservatives". That's scary.

I never understood why the U.S. supported Israel instead of taking a neutral stance before. It seems so stupid to me. By pissing off the Palestinians even more, our government is encouraging terrorist behavior on both sides, as opposed to moving towards a diplomatic solution.

I never heard of the explanation alf gives for this before.
I'm not convinced there's any truth to this explanation, but if there is then yes, I agree, this is very, very scary. Whatever happened to separation between church and state?

In conclusion, by changing leadership, America will have a fresh start with all the nations that Bush pissed off with his 'axis of evil' speech. Kerry would have an opportunity to apologize for the past actions of our country, and possibly form some diplomatic solutions to the world's conflicts at the same time.
That - and not what Bush is doing - is the way to fight terrorism.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

If you would, it would probably be out of fear that the U.S. would come after you with overwhelming force.
Moreover, seeing as our military is bogged down in Iraq, we don't have the power to exhibit overwhelming force anywhere!

Just a little note on this one. We DO have troops in quite a few places many have forgotten, holdouts from the Cold War. For one, Germany has something like 20,000 US troops based there full time. The UK has some, as does Japan. While Japan arguably has need of them (North Korea), do Germany of the UK? Doesn't seem to me that the former USSR (Which is who they were sent there to deter) is a danger to anyone other than insurgents within its borders at this point (Excluding its nuclear stores, notoriously poorly guarded, if the reports are to be believed).

A last little tidbit: Texas has more troops than Afghanistan. While most (Hopefully most) of those troops are in training, it still seems a wee bit strange to me. I doubt Mexico is going to try and reclaim land lost in the Mexican War back in the 1800s.

 

[alf1]

I never heard of the explanation alf gives for this before.
I'm not convinced there's any truth to this explanation, but if there is then yes, I agree, this is very, very scary.

Well it's from all medias around the world, it's nothing really new. It began more evident since 9/11.
Also here in Europe and other countries in the world it's more talked about, and maybe the US medias can't talk about it i don't know.
I have an article but i must manage to make a link for that page.
www.csmonitor.com/2003/0317/p01s01-uspo.html
Yay it worx 🙂 You'll see i was not joking.

 

[coloman]

Note to Kalamos: I realize that my ancestors came from Europe, in fact my Grandfather was English and Germany is where my other ancestors came from. But the point is that they came to America, became American citizens and that makes them Americans and the last four generations of my family that came from my Great Grand Parents and my Grandfather on my mothers side of the family AMERICAN . I won't offer my opinion on your "they didn't come from Mars" comments because I am sure you would not like what I said no matter what it was and because this is becoming an argument that neither one of us will give in on so it's useless to continue it any further.

 

[Kalamos]

Note to Kalamos: I realize that my ancestors came from Europe, in fact my Grandfather was English and Germany is where my other ancestors came from. But the point is that they came to America, became American citizens and that makes them Americans and the last four generations of my family that came from my Great Grand Parents and my Grandfather on my mothers side of the family AMERICAN . I won't offer my opinion on your "they didn't come from Mars" comments because I am sure you would not like what I said no matter what it was and because this is becoming an argument that neither one of us will give in on so it's useless to continue it any further.

Goodness, so much has been posted and you actually replied to MY post?
It was post #85... this is #94. You've digged deep to find it.

At any rate, feel free to reply as you see fit: this forum has always been known for its tolerance and defence of free speech.
A little verbal abuse won't bruise me too much. 😀

But while you don't come from Mars, you clearly come from a different state of mind: I am an individual, first of all. And then, only then, an European citizen, and Italian inhabitant.

You are an AMERICAN, in your words. And I can't understand what's so different between us. I don't eat through my ears, and I suppose you don't drink from the fingers...
As it seems, your patriotism and pride toward your country come first and before any other consideration.

You probably consider it a virtue; I am not sure about it.

 

[coloman]

A very interesting reply Kalamos and a little verbal abuse will not bother me either. There probably is no great difference between us but I AM extremely proud of my country and not the least bit shy to display my patriotism. However, that dosen't mean pride for my country comes first before any other consideration as you put it. I will never shy away from saying what I want to say exactly as I feel like stating it and I am glad this forum is a champion of free speech. I am a union member and member of the board of directors of my townhome association and I express my opinion on the issues that effect each of them. That includes the issues that I agree with as well as those I disagree with. I think this would be a pretty dull world if everyone thought the same way and never debated or argued about the issues that they feel strong enough to take a stance on.

 

[jrubicante]

Since you are glad this forum is a champion of free speech, what did you think when President Bush said, "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists?" That effectively stymied all talk against the war in Iraq because anything disagreeing with the President was labelled as unpatriotic.

Did that bother you at all? Or is it ok to block the free speech in this particular case because you're conservative and agree with everything the President does?

 

[MayDay1]

Patriotism sure works in funny ways, doesn't it?

The way I see it, the most unpatriotic thing you could possibly do is vote for Bush. The man has wrecked everything Clinton worked so hard to fix and in an alarmingly short amount of time. How's the economy? Crap. How many dead in Iraq? Hmmmm.... How do other countries feel about the U.S.? Uh oh. Why is it Ken Lay got off scott free after embezzling billions of dollars while Martha Stewart's going to the can for an amount that's essencially chump change? Why is it I can't critisize the president without being labeled a traitor? Where did all this pollution come from? What's the big deal if two homosexuals want to get married? Questions you conservos should be asking yourselves.

And another thing about you conservo types. Why is it you stick up for a Bush after all the atrocities he's done yet you wanted to impeach Clinton for a blow job? Is it because Republicans can't get head without paying for it?

What do Republicans use as birth control? Their personalities.

Yes I know that's childish but I don't give a shit anymore.

 

[uttahcee1]

ah ken lay is still awaiting trial i think you mean the tyco ceo and cfo, but the real issue no one is talking about is the 57 trillion debt that is facing us in the form of the baby boomers impending retirement, this will be an extreme strain on our up and coming budgets for the next 50 years our country would have to increase our GNP by 30% to make any gain to reach solvenency, yet you hear nothing spoken about this fiscal time bomb. I don't think any candinate will have much impact on this issue the IOU were piling up since the 1960's the next 5 generation are really screwed this is the first generation as a collective group who won't do better than thier parents generation in accumlating saving ie wealth.And to hear people not wanting to increase taxes back to the old levels before Bush,I have one staement Irather have an TAX and
Spend democract THAN A SPEND AND CUT TAX PRESIDENT. year1 250 billion red year2
358 billion red year3 389 billion red this year 493 billion maybe we should reelect him i'm dying to see if he can hit 1trillion in the red hespent more money than regan and his father did without and arms build up a plane built and without accomplishing athink accept for free a country of americain hating people

 

[coloman]

As I stated earlier when President Bush made his for or against statement I think his intent was to rally support against the terrorists and not block free speech. I think everyone has their own opinion of politicians MayDay. You think Clinton was good and that Bush is bad. I don't think either one of them did everything right but I don't think you can give Clinton all the credit for how the economy improved while he was President any more than you can blame Bush for all the stuff you want to blame him for. As far as you last comment goes I won't reply to it because as you said it is childish and doe not merit a responce.

 

[jrubicante]

As I stated earlier when President Bush made his for or against statement I think his intent was to rally support against the terrorists and not block free speech.

Well, this really is a question of opinion. Neither one of us know what the President was really thinking.

But when you look at how history unfolded, you see that everything led to Bush's war on Iraq under the premise that Iraq was "a safe harbor for 'terror'".
If Bush had intended his statement to rally support against the terrorists, why didn't he finish off Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, instead of outsourcing the job to Afghan warlords and moving the U.S. towards war with Iraq? Osama bin Laden murdered thousands of Americans, you'd think his capture would be the number one priority, if the President was trying to motivate support against the terrorists.

This is why I believe that the President made his statement to limit free speech, so that his war of choice in Iraq became possible. His actions support my assertment.

Also, I don't get conservatives who criticize Kerry for speaking in abstractions, when it's the Bush administration that insists that they can defeat an intangible concept ("terror") with physical weapons.

IMO, they use the abstract term "terror" because it's the only way they can even come CLOSE to linking Saddam with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. Without "terror" the war against Iraq could not have been "justified" even by the conservative definition of the word.