Presidential debate

[alf1]

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.

Have you read the text about Bush and religion ?? ( some posts above) when you was not sure it was the truth. I put link to the page relating it.

 

[jrubicante]

alf:

Yeah, I read it. Thanks for posting that. I'm not sure what my reaction is to that so I didn't comment on it in my last post. I'll have to give it another read.

 

[alf1]

Oh that was just informative, you wondered if it was real.
As you see the article is quite old.

 

[MayDay1]

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.

Why not? I'll be the first to admit Clinton wasn't perfect but compared to Bushes One, Two and Reagan he was pretty good. Unfortunatly all he's rememberd for is Mouthgate and the constant attacks he got from Republicans. You can discredit it all you want but the fact remains under Clinton there was a surplus in job growth. Under Bush there is only dissent.

 

[nessonite1]

Not to argue, Mayday, but wasn't the huge growth in jobs under Clinton (disregard the "jobs UNDER clinton" pun) largly due to the fact that he changed the definition of employment to include part-time work and other things not previously defined as "employment"?
I have heard he used lots of tricks like that to bolster his numbers.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Why not? I'll be the first to admit Clinton wasn't perfect but compared to Bushes One, Two and Reagan he was pretty good. Unfortunatly all he's rememberd for is Mouthgate and the constant attacks he got from Republicans. You can discredit it all you want but the fact remains under Clinton there was a surplus in job growth. Under Bush there is only dissent.

A note on this: While Bush is partly, if not mostly, to blame for the situation we are in economically at the moment, it wasn't his fault that the tech bubble burst in 2000/2001. That was a factor that, had Clinton been here for a third term, would still have happened. That doesn't make his actions all without fault, but it does give him a SMALL amount of sympathy from me.

 

[coloman]

As far as the economic climate during the Clinton administration and the economic climate now with the Bush administration it's not fair to give all the credit to Clinton or heap all the blame on Bush. There were many, many factors both then and now that were the reasons for how the economy was then and is now. Inflation, Unemployment, Foriegn trade, the value of the dollar compared to the value of say the British pound , German Marc and Japanese Yen to name just three major nations of the world, and the volume of trading on the the stock market come to mind as some major factors. These factors will always be part of the equation in regard to the economy. Whoever the President of the United States is whether it's now or ten years from now or even who it was ten years ago they were or are only a minor part of the total economic climate. An excellent way to improve the economic climate in this country would be for the Senators and House Members to give up their special retirement benefits that only they and all the members of the current and former Presidential administrations are entitled to because they voted to give it to themselves years ago. If they were forced to retire and live on Social Security and Medicare plus what they would get from any IRA's they own and their 401K plan like the rest of us do instead getting most of the annual salary they drew the last year before they retired every year for the rest of their lives we would we some real quick changes in retirement benefits. While it would be nice to see that happen I don't think we will see it occur anytime soon because every current member of the House of Representatives and every current Senator would go to any means necessary to keep their future retirement income and the current retirement income of retired Senators, Congressmen and former Presidents and the members of their administrations at the amount they voted to award themselves many years ago.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

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.

Exactly Ness.

And the reason I brought that up was because I feel that Bush would crack down on something like this. Kerry, he'd make it worse and easier to get around by giving even more supplements and rights to these deadbeats (those abusing the system).

I especially agree that people that think "the world owes them a living" and people that want something for nothing, and bitch and whine when they don't get freebies, extras and handouts, that its wrong to blame the other side for being better off. Just because someone is in a better financial state than someone else doesn't mean they should be penalized, criticized, or have to continue to pay for these leeches and bottom-feeders.

I have compassion for the homeless, the poor, and the disinfranchized. I do not however have compassion for people that are perfectly able of getting themselves out of whatever rut they most likely surrendered to. While the same could apply to a homeless man, thats honest poverty. The people that have some means always have options.

Thats not Bush's fault. Thats them being too weak-willed to handle their own life. Opponents of Bush act as though under his leadership there is no chance to live the American Dream. The American Dream is just as alive as it ever was. But its only lived out by those who mean to have it, strive to have it, and do what they can to have it. Its attainable to the people that are serious in life, know what they want, and find a way, despite their financial situation.

I myself am barely middle-class, its not as if I'm some rich boy who wipes his mouth with 100 dollar bills instead of napkins. LOL

I know that despite my current financial situation (which isn't as bad as it could be, and I'm thankful to God for His graces, gifts and overflowing bounties), I can live out my dreams, as simple or as complex as they may be.

People that are bottom feeding, making it by without an instability to their life or are making just enough to survive and are complaining deserve to be where they are.

"The Force is within you. Force yourself!"- Harrison Ford LOL

 

[MayDay1]

Not to argue, Mayday, but wasn't the huge growth in jobs under Clinton (disregard the "jobs UNDER clinton" pun) largly due to the fact that he changed the definition of employment to include part-time work and other things not previously defined as "employment"?
I have heard he used lots of tricks like that to bolster his numbers.

Okay then. Fine.
Since Bush took office the unemployment rate went up 6%. Now that may not sound like a lot right off the bat but keep in mind that's 3.3 million people more than four years ago for a grand total of over 9 million people. Are you suggesting that these 3.3 million people were previously written as part time employees at the Burger Jerk that don't count anymore? Also keep in mind that 43 million people have no health insurance. Now if Clinton was simply lucky and Bush is not fully to blame for the job market, that's your rap. But Bush sure as shit isn't doing anything to fix the ecomomy.

As for the people who milk the financial aid system, do you honestly think Bush will crack down on this? The only way he'll do that is by cutting welfare funding outright to get more money for his war in Iraq. And if memory serves, Bush is a more exagerated version of milking a cash cow. Remember that every company that Bush ever owned (and consequently ran into the dirt) was given to him by his father. Not exactly a self made millionaire. Besides, Ashcroft is outright wiping his ass with the U.S. constitution with that sham called the Patriot Act. If you want to get upset about someone manipulating programs and policies for their own gain, start there. Not with some lazy schmuck down the hall.

So how's that hunt for Osama going?

 

[nessonite1]

You dont see me jumping up and saying that Bush is the best thing that will ever happen to this country. I've never been 100% loyal to anyone running in ANY election from school board to president. The goal is to vote for the person you think will do the better job and in this case I just don't think Kerry is it.
Anyway, Im really not acheiving my goal of not getting involved...

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Thats pretty much how I've felt about it. I never was one for politics. In the end it really does just boil down to who you think will do a better job or who has the potential to do a better job in whatever they propose and bring to the table.

I see Bush as more stable and capable of doing the things he says he will and has done.

I found that Bush has had a rough term as president also. He had to deal with 9/11 and the aftermath of that. No other president has ever had to deal with something quite like that before. You can see how badly he's aged over this. His hair is almost completely grey now. I remember that pre 9/11 his hair was darker and he didn't have the pits under his eyes, and he looked more healthy. Regardless of what anyone thinks of him, his heart is in the right place and these unfortunate sequence of events have taken a personal toll on him I'm sure. It would have taken a toll on anyone leading this country.

Regardless of that fact, I don't support him for that reason, and despite the stresses of his presidency thus far, he's remained solid like a rock and seems more stable to me in action than Kerry is in just talks and debates. Kerry would have caved, in my opinion and we'd be open season by many more terrorists.

To quote Bush:

"We'll do generations a favor."

I honestly believe thats true in the greater scheme of things. I personally see a difference even if the long term effects have not yet been felt. The dust is still in the air in all these matters and we won't know how it will turn out. Bush didn't have much to talk about in the last debate because not much has changed. John Kerry had the luxury of talking out of the context of a man without the responsibilities of presidency.

If Kerry seemed to be winning the last debate, its because of this very reason, in my opinion. Its not that Bush was weak, its that he still has things on his plate. It would have been no different for Kerry if the situations were reversed.

In a way, to not be the president right now gives Kerry a very outstanding advantage, no matter what he says. Bush is being steadfast and true however, so its going to be tough for Kerry to pull one over on Bush, especially when he's changing his mind all the time. And no, thats not an exageration. Its a fact that Kerry has literally been a flip-flop on some of the issues, and that should bother anyone, democrat, republican, or whatever.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I'd rather have a man (or woman in future elections) as president whose made some mistakes but is correcting them than to have a man (Kerry) who seems as though he could have debates with himself...

 

[alf1]

His hair is almost completely grey now. I remember that pre 9/11 his hair was darker and he didn't have the pits under his eyes, and he looked more healthy. Its a fact that Kerry has literally been a flip-flop on some of the issues, and that should bother anyone, democrat, republican, or whatever.

Yah poor Bush eh ? grey hairs ow that's sad........is that really so important ??????
And he's also a flip flop : he said that there were weapons of md in Iraq, that Saddam is linked with 9/11 etc etc .............. now they admit it was all false.
Who's the flip flop then ? or a big liar ?

 

[MayDay1]

Jesus tapdancing Christ.......

Are you paying attention, Vlad? Bush is wrecking the country and you're giving me "he's giving it the old college try. Give him a break." And his hair is falling out? God forbid!

Do yourself a favor. Get more involved. You're basing your intire political agenda around an idea, not the man himself or his administration. If you dug deeper you'd be appalled.

As far as the "we'll do generations a favor" quote. He's doing us a favor by selling out our future with an oncoming debt that will bankrupt the next five generations at least. His kind of favors I don't need.

 

[alf1]

Jesus tapdancing Christ.......

JC was a tapdancer :wooha: i.......i can't believe it 😉

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Jesus tapdancing Christ.......

Are you paying attention, Vlad? Bush is wrecking the country and you're giving me "he's giving it the old college try. Give him a break." And his hair is falling out? God forbid!

Do yourself a favor. Get more involved. You're basing your intire political agenda around an idea, not the man himself or his administration. If you dug deeper you'd be appalled.

As far as the "we'll do generations a favor" quote. He's doing us a favor by selling out our future with an oncoming debt that will bankrupt the next five generations at least. His kind of favors I don't need.

Well, I disagree. I'm sorry. What a wonderful country we live in, huh? 🙂

I know whats going on, and it doesn't concern me, and my life hasn't been altered or changed because of him. And no, I'm not refering to the war, I'm refering to the economy here at home. I've felt no pinch, sting, or reprecussion because of him. I doubt I will either, and believe it or not, it has nothing to do with my financial security. I'm doing just as good as I would if Kerry were the president.

Part of the myth of demonizing a president you don't like is to assume that if one things goes wrong all things have or will. I simply don't see that logic and I simply am not affected by it either way. Have I settled for less than better? No. I've simply refused to believe in a perfect president.

 

[jj82277]

As far as the economic climate during the Clinton administration and the economic climate now with the Bush administration it's not fair to give all the credit to Clinton or heap all the blame on Bush. There were many, many factors both then and now that were the reasons for how the economy was then and is now. Inflation, Unemployment, Foriegn trade, the value of the dollar compared to the value of say the British pound , German Marc and Japanese Yen to name just three major nations of the world, and the volume of trading on the the stock market come to mind as some major factors. These factors will always be part of the equation in regard to the economy. Whoever the President of the United States is whether it's now or ten years from now or even who it was ten years ago they were or are only a minor part of the total economic climate. An excellent way to improve the economic climate in this country would be for the Senators and House Members to give up their special retirement benefits that only they and all the members of the current and former Presidential administrations are entitled to because they voted to give it to themselves years ago. If they were forced to retire and live on Social Security and Medicare plus what they would get from any IRA's they own and their 401K plan like the rest of us do instead getting most of the annual salary they drew the last year before they retired every year for the rest of their lives we would we some real quick changes in retirement benefits. While it would be nice to see that happen I don't think we will see it occur anytime soon because every current member of the House of Representatives and every current Senator would go to any means necessary to keep their future retirement income and the current retirement income of retired Senators, Congressmen and former Presidents and the members of their administrations at the amount they voted to award themselves many years ago.

the roth IRA is the greatest retirement vehicle available to middle and lower class Americans (and yes for all those lefties out there that includes social security). through this vehicle you can save up to 4000 dollars a year of principal and the interest and gains are not taxed, at all (that means free). example maxing one out and over 25 years a person would have saved 100,000 dollars and depending on the rate of return in a good/average situation (10-12% annually) you could be looking at close to a million dollars if not more. so if you drew out 9% a year then you would be looking at a 90,000 dollar a year sallary that the government doesn't even want to touch. that's pretty good for a single person. I say that because in a married couple each person can get one, that means 8000 for the couple. That is about as good as a retirement vehicle can get, unless they up the cap which they are doing, and plan on doing to keep up against inflation. but ofcourse the idea of couples being able to retire in their mid to late fourties on an income close to 200,000 dollars a year tax free without ever touching the principle might cause them not to believe the myths that social security is the only way to retire unless your rich in this country, or that only affluant can invest people invest, so in the defense of the democrats pride senator kerry felt the need to vote against this measure. but hey, he's fighting for the people right.

 

[nessonite1]

That's amazing, jj. I don't think I've ever heard of the Roth IRA before. I'll ask hubby about it, maybe he'd be interested. Any idea what the max anual income is to qualify and what happens to your saved money if you reach it?

 

[coloman]

I agree Roth IRA's are a nice way to save some money for retirement. I would like to roll my current ones into a Roth IRA after I talk to my bank as to what you need to do. Now to change the topic. I have to join forces with Vladislav in disagreeing with MayDay on his opinions of President Bush. But then I think MayDay and I are probably on opposite sides of the fence on almost any issue you would care to mention. But that's what makes our country great. Everybody has a right to his own opinion and the freedom of speech to state it however they wish.

 

[jrubicante]

Well, I disagree. I'm sorry. What a wonderful country we live in, huh? 🙂

I know whats going on, and it doesn't concern me, and my life hasn't been altered or changed because of him. And no, I'm not refering to the war, I'm refering to the economy here at home. I've felt no pinch, sting, or reprecussion because of him. I doubt I will either, and believe it or not, it has nothing to do with my financial security. I'm doing just as good as I would if Kerry were the president.

Part of the myth of demonizing a president you don't like is to assume that if one things goes wrong all things have or will. I simply don't see that logic and I simply am not affected by it either way. Have I settled for less than better? No. I've simply refused to believe in a perfect president.

If you're not concerned with what's going on on the other side of the world because Bush has kept your money in your pocket, I would say that you are a selfish person and that voters like you are this abusive administration's dream come true. How would you like it if Bush revived the Draft and sent YOU off to Iraq? Or if the President succeeded in pissing off the REST of the countries of the world (that he hasn't already) and we had a World War III? People like you think that Bush is making us safer, in fact the opposite is true.

America must show the rest of the world that we do not believe in Bush's personalized agenda for this country by voting him out of office. If we don't, then I believe the U.S. will learn the REAL meaning of the word "terror"... the word "terror" will no longer merely be a political tool as Bush has made it in post 9/11 America.

So please, look beyond yourself and your own domestic situation! Do me a favor and look back at my earlier posts, and if you don't believe what *I* say about President Bush's actions between 9/11 and Iraq, then for God's sake do some research. Non-partisan research. Just don't be intellectually lazy because you've felt no pinch, sting, or reprecussion.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I'm not a selfish person, I'm speaking quite literally however- I- literally- have- not- been- affected- by- Bush, thats all I'm saying, and you are taking what I said out of context.

How would I feel about the draft? I cannot be drafted, but if I was, I would serve my country gladly. And with some limited experience of my own, I think that my chances of survival are decent.

World War III is something I couldn't prevent no matter what I did or who I supported. You really are going out on a limb for this.

I didn't say Bush is making us safer, please stop assuming and putting words in my mouth I did not say.

I'll do as I wish, and what I do is sufficient. Any opinion I have isn't derived out of any sense of loyalty so refering to "non-partisan" research is really assuming alot of what you presume to think I believe and practice as a DEMOCRAT.

This just boils down to opinion, yet again, and I simply don't agree with you. I'm sorry. Some bad things have happened, some horrible, horrible things, but thats not anything I can control. You have to wake up and realize that you have no power what so ever. If something is going to happen, its going to happen.

I don't trust in a man, a principality, a rule, or a standard more than I trust in my God. My Lord is all I need among this political strife. He is my refuge and my strength. Not some republican or democrat. I don't live for men, I live for God, and thats good enough for me.

Really now, all I said was that in my opinion I'd rather vote for Bush than Kerry. Just because I don't want to argue with you or engage in a conversation that is redundant doesn't mean I'm not aware or that I don't care, or that I'm lazy or irresponsible.

You have your ways and I have mine. We both have the same ability and choice. Be glad.

 

[MayDay1]

This just boils down to opinion, yet again, and I simply don't agree with you. I'm sorry. Some bad things have happened, some horrible, horrible things, but thats not anything I can control. You have to wake up and realize that you have no power what so ever. If something is going to happen, its going to happen.

You have your ways and I have mine. We both have the same ability and choice. Be glad.

Bullshit. You can make things happen. It's called voting. It's called speaking out against injustice. It's called making some fucking noise! How do you think Viet Nam came to an end? Cuz Nixon had a change of heart? My ass! It's because of public outcry, that's what! If everybody thought the way you do then we'd be in a worse mess than we are now. This country was founded by radicals. They didn't like the way they were being treated in England so they started a new colony under their own set of beliefs. If you think these people just sat around and assumed that the government would make everything just peachy, you're out of your god damned head.

(Although these said radicals are guilty of raping the indians of their land and dignity, fanatical puritism, and basic hypocritacal B.S., my point still stands)

Now if you and John Shmidt could stop heavy petting each other for a moment and take a look at what's going on in the world, things aren't going so hot. The deficit is real as well as unemployment. Other countries hating our guts is not some liberal sob story. It's a fact. Soldiers dying because of not having the right equipment. That's true too. The "It's not his fault" argument is as limp as month old asaragus. Did you pick up the paper today? Did you see the headline? "Report shows no WMD in Iraq." Isn't that Bush's reason for bombing Iraq? Uh oh.....your boy just ate some nasty shit.

Now if you want to play ostrich and pretend nothing bad could ever happen, then what can I do? With all the rhetoric you have been spilling out, I feel like I could get a better argument from a totem pole right now. As for me, my eyes are wide open. Just because I've grown tired of arguing with zombies doesn't mean I've gone off the warpath. You can't ever hope to shut me up.

I'm not voting to get Kerry in. I'm voting to get Bush out. As wishy washy as you make Kerry sound, at least he's not a puritanical madman with a bogus agenda.

The thing about the draft? Believe it. If Bush gets another four years, that bill will get passed. (I never say if Bush gets re-elected because he was never elected in the first place)

One last thing, never leave anything up to God. You need to make things happen on your own. Be your own God. Don't take this as a jab at Christianity. Take this as advice from someone who knows God's will is a crapshoot at best.

I'm MayDay and I approve this message.

 

[coloman]

Agreeing with someone elses point of view and defending them against your viewpoint on politics or anything else for that matter is not "heavy petting" MayDay. Like I said in an earlier post I am pretty sure you and I probably are on the opposite side of the fence on almost any topic or issue you could name. The great part about our country is that we are free to vote for whoever we want to and try to get things changed we don't like. One thing you are overlooking is that we would not have this type of freedom today if the people in the generations before us and our own had not been willing to fight and even die for them. That started at the very beginning of our country in the Revolutionary War and it continues to this day. I bet there have been critics of every President who was in power during a War as well as supporters and that there have been arguments as to why we were fighting that war and I am sure there always will be. I am also positive that you will never shut up when it comes to defending your point of view on the issues. Please be assured Mayday that you will never shut me up either in my defense of my viewpoints. I love a good argument and it has been a lot of fun arguing with you. Thank goodness people have different viewpoints and are willing to argue to defend them because it would be a pretty dull world if we all thought the same way about everything.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Very well said, sir. And yes, I will call you sir from time to time, I feel you've earned it.

As for me, I have faith that things will work out in one way or another. I don't have to fume, fester, brood and boil to get my points and opinions acrossed. Just because I am relaxed, passive, calm and collected on the matter doesn't make me ignorant, stupid, foolish or narrow-minded. This is of course not directed at you Mr. Schmidt, but anyone who has a problem with what I'm saying.

Theres no point in me getting angry over anything here, what good would that do me? It doesn't make me any more or less legitimate to be as I am. Certainly I don't have to defend what I believe if I don't wish to. I know it for me to be a truth, my words need no validation. My opinion should be enough, my words enough. In the end, we all have the same options. You just have to make what you feel is the right decision. Its only as complex as you make it.

 

[jrubicante]

Ok. I just want to say a few things here. John D. Schmidt, all your posts are exactly the same and have no content save one 'fact': we each have the right to our own opinions, no matter how coerced or misguided.

Vlad, you claim that Bush has literally had no effect on you. Yet you admit that horrible, horrible things have happened in the Middle East. These things were caused by Bush. If the fact that you're still voting for him isn't proof that you're a selfish person, I don't know what is.

I put that stuff about World War III and "non-partisan research" (ha ha! like there's such a thing) in my post on purpose. I just went to show that anybody with any conservative lean is likely going to scrutinize over Kerry's record and question his claims about how many millions of dollars went where, than give real pause and answer the questions that Kerry had posed of the Bush Iraq war. Just like you felt the need to analyze every line in my post, as opposed to giving a defense for Bush's actions and why you're still supporting him. I have yet to hear a republican answer any of the charges brought against the Bush administration by Kerry or Edwards. Bush didn't do it in round 1, Cheney also failed to do it. I hope tonight's debate shines some light.

One more thing. If you're truly a man of God, you should be concerned with how Bush uses God as a political tool to justify his "gut" decisions.

Note: Yeah it's been pointed out that Lincoln also used God in his speeches. But Honest Abe was humble in the face of God, not something we see in Bush.