No in our attitude not mine. I am glad that who we elect President in the United States makes a difference to the rest of the world. I say that because we usually make the right decision most of the time and if in your opinion or mine we don't there will always be another election four years later.
-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
Presidential debate
- Thread starter frye45
- Start date
-
- Tags
- debate presidential
jrubicante
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
- Messages
- 204
- Points
- 0
John D. Schmidt said:
Lumping "people who oppose America" and "people who oppose the President" is a very dangerous way of thinking, and exactly the kind of thinking that led to the suspension of democratic values in this country after 9/11. Bush knew what he was doing when he said "either you are with us, or with the terrorists." He was silencing all criticism of his administration by labelling it as "unpatriotic", ending any possibility for full and fair discussion of the facts, which is essential in a democratic nation. This allowed the President to carry out his agenda in Iraq without anyone so much as lifting a finger against him.
Please be very careful when you say things like that!
Kalamos
Level of Lemon Feather
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 12,915
- Points
- 63
Well, that's quite obvious America does a difference.
That's not in doubt.
What I ask is: what kind of difference?
That's why I'll repeat my first post here: your decisions as voters DO affect the rest of the world.
That's because of the relative unity USA enjoys, and the power that the leader of such a big coalition of states wields.
Simply put, Europe cannot wage war as easily as USA can and does.
And that's how America makes a difference, for instance.
Nothing is as world shattering as committing a whole continent's armed forces against a single country.
That's why you, as voters and electors, should listen to the whole world, before deciding who will command those armed forces in the [few?] next years.
That's not in doubt.
What I ask is: what kind of difference?
That's why I'll repeat my first post here: your decisions as voters DO affect the rest of the world.
That's because of the relative unity USA enjoys, and the power that the leader of such a big coalition of states wields.
Simply put, Europe cannot wage war as easily as USA can and does.
And that's how America makes a difference, for instance.
Nothing is as world shattering as committing a whole continent's armed forces against a single country.
That's why you, as voters and electors, should listen to the whole world, before deciding who will command those armed forces in the [few?] next years.
nessonite1
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 9,517
- Points
- 0
Im not reading this whole thread cause I dont like to see people argue and seeing ya'll say nasty things to one another will probably just make me mad at the lot of you so I'll just casually skip over it 😛
Run on sentence. Sue me.
Anyway, I'm voting for Bush. When you vote for someone it doesn't mean you're 100% behind everything the person has said or done or that you agree with everything his party is saying but it's the person you think is best for the job. And seeing that the people who served with Kerry have banded together of their own volition to tell people what a douche he is really doesnt make me think he's "fit for command" as it were.
Anyway, thats my vote. Hate me for it if you want (you probably will) but that's me. Personally I'd rather see one of the partys throw out a good candidate but it's just not gonna happen this year.
I generally vote republican because I am in favor of smaller government. Ideally I'd be voting Libertarian or Constitutionalist but that too, just aint gonna happen.
Run on sentence. Sue me.
Anyway, I'm voting for Bush. When you vote for someone it doesn't mean you're 100% behind everything the person has said or done or that you agree with everything his party is saying but it's the person you think is best for the job. And seeing that the people who served with Kerry have banded together of their own volition to tell people what a douche he is really doesnt make me think he's "fit for command" as it were.
Anyway, thats my vote. Hate me for it if you want (you probably will) but that's me. Personally I'd rather see one of the partys throw out a good candidate but it's just not gonna happen this year.
I generally vote republican because I am in favor of smaller government. Ideally I'd be voting Libertarian or Constitutionalist but that too, just aint gonna happen.
pre enlightenment
As a former party member i understand the fact that democrats don't really listen to what's said and only what appears on the surface. I would agree that Kerry stood up a little bit straighter, and talked a little bit slower than Bush in this debate. If you think that earns him a win in the debate then i am sorry to hear that. When you look at the two positions, and their differences it was clear to see that Kerry was the newcomer, and that Bush has had his ear to the international ground for the past 4 years. In the war on Iraq Kerry's plan is that "if everything goes the way i want it too the troops can start coming home in six months." If everything went the way anyone planned then the troops would have come home a long time ago. This is hard work and will not allow for any dream scenarios. He flip flopped mid debate from "wrong war wrong place wrong time", to "Sadaam was a threat and he needed to disarm. I just think that we should have done it with more support from our allies." Those are two conflicting statements, but he did say them with a great deal of presidential charm. Kerry kept talking about having a summit with the allies, and Bush made two very good points: "there are summits already going on, and no matter how hard you try you can't get other countries to join an effort you dream the ' wrong war wrong place wrong time'“ When you look at history Sadaam may rank second only to Adolph Hitler in his crimes against humanity, and i know that you democrats didn't want to go get him either, even as he was slaughtering millions of innocent people. And i will forgive the fact that you weep for the 1000 brave souls who still believe in their commander and chief and made the sacrifice that most of them have dreamed about since the first time they watched G.I. Joe, but are all in favor of continuing the practice that has taken the lives of 20,000,000 Americans (abortion). Overlooking those obvious Hypocrisies, lets move to the Kerry idea that Bush had Osama cornered in the mountains and let him go. i am sorry but we do not suffer from the same short term thinking that the left does. That would make no sense. Even if the grand, "just to make money" theory behind the war was true, it would have been a bad business move. If he had the opportunity to deliver Osama's head on a platter he would have taken it because in that case this election would be a mere formality, and there would be no threat to the proliferation of his "money maker. The more likely explanation is, as Tommy Franks said, that there were no real credible reports, only flashes in the pan. Moving from Iraq let's look at North Korea. Kerry says that he wants to engage in bilateral talks with this country. Bush's reply was that that was the former policy when he entered office and CIA intelligence tells us that there were 2-3 nuclear weapons pre 2001; that means that there had to be an aggressive nuclear program during the Clinton administration. If that is true then that disproves the viability of bilateral talks, and the reason that they were halted by the president is that he doesn't want to be lied too. it was not the "he felt threatened by Bush so he armed himself" theory purported by the left. That just doesn't make any sense. When you look at the history of the great Roman Empire, the model of our society, you find that it fell from within: women no longer wanted to have children; people no longer had the moral integrity to fight wars, and rampant homosexuality and immorality. I am personally voting for someone who has the core beliefs to fight against the internal forces that stand against our great nation, not a politician who will say whatever he thinks we want to hear the way he thinks that we should hear it.
from the right i'm jj82277
As a former party member i understand the fact that democrats don't really listen to what's said and only what appears on the surface. I would agree that Kerry stood up a little bit straighter, and talked a little bit slower than Bush in this debate. If you think that earns him a win in the debate then i am sorry to hear that. When you look at the two positions, and their differences it was clear to see that Kerry was the newcomer, and that Bush has had his ear to the international ground for the past 4 years. In the war on Iraq Kerry's plan is that "if everything goes the way i want it too the troops can start coming home in six months." If everything went the way anyone planned then the troops would have come home a long time ago. This is hard work and will not allow for any dream scenarios. He flip flopped mid debate from "wrong war wrong place wrong time", to "Sadaam was a threat and he needed to disarm. I just think that we should have done it with more support from our allies." Those are two conflicting statements, but he did say them with a great deal of presidential charm. Kerry kept talking about having a summit with the allies, and Bush made two very good points: "there are summits already going on, and no matter how hard you try you can't get other countries to join an effort you dream the ' wrong war wrong place wrong time'“ When you look at history Sadaam may rank second only to Adolph Hitler in his crimes against humanity, and i know that you democrats didn't want to go get him either, even as he was slaughtering millions of innocent people. And i will forgive the fact that you weep for the 1000 brave souls who still believe in their commander and chief and made the sacrifice that most of them have dreamed about since the first time they watched G.I. Joe, but are all in favor of continuing the practice that has taken the lives of 20,000,000 Americans (abortion). Overlooking those obvious Hypocrisies, lets move to the Kerry idea that Bush had Osama cornered in the mountains and let him go. i am sorry but we do not suffer from the same short term thinking that the left does. That would make no sense. Even if the grand, "just to make money" theory behind the war was true, it would have been a bad business move. If he had the opportunity to deliver Osama's head on a platter he would have taken it because in that case this election would be a mere formality, and there would be no threat to the proliferation of his "money maker. The more likely explanation is, as Tommy Franks said, that there were no real credible reports, only flashes in the pan. Moving from Iraq let's look at North Korea. Kerry says that he wants to engage in bilateral talks with this country. Bush's reply was that that was the former policy when he entered office and CIA intelligence tells us that there were 2-3 nuclear weapons pre 2001; that means that there had to be an aggressive nuclear program during the Clinton administration. If that is true then that disproves the viability of bilateral talks, and the reason that they were halted by the president is that he doesn't want to be lied too. it was not the "he felt threatened by Bush so he armed himself" theory purported by the left. That just doesn't make any sense. When you look at the history of the great Roman Empire, the model of our society, you find that it fell from within: women no longer wanted to have children; people no longer had the moral integrity to fight wars, and rampant homosexuality and immorality. I am personally voting for someone who has the core beliefs to fight against the internal forces that stand against our great nation, not a politician who will say whatever he thinks we want to hear the way he thinks that we should hear it.
from the right i'm jj82277
jrubicante
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
- Messages
- 204
- Points
- 0
jj: Wow, that's a lot of propeganda. Congratulations on your first post.
Let me just say a few things. You said, "If everything went the way anyone planned then the troops would have come home a long time ago." The key flaw there is that Bush never had any plan for getting our troops home in the first place. Kerry would have had a plan before committing our ground troops.
You said, "As a former party member i understand the fact that democrats don't really listen to what's said and only what appears on the surface." That's exactly what I think of people like ness and John D. which are voting based on loyalty to party lines. When you look at the facts you're realize that the consequences of this election going to Bush are far more important to think about than which ideology you support.
We are voting for a man, we are not voting for a political party.
Bush has gotten us into a giant mess in Iraq with his bull-headed approach to international politics. When you said "Bush has had his ear to the international ground for the past 4 years" the image of an ostrich comes to mind.
Bush has ignored advice from the professionals around him and compromised America by committing our troops to an Iraqi quagmire which prevents the U.S. from exerting overwhelming force anywhere else in the world. We would PROBABLY have captured Osama bin Laden if Bush had not been eager to use 9/11 as an excuse to nab Saddam.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. The international community will respect John Kerry as President because his election will have shown the world that American citizens do not support the Bush administration and the personal agenda that Bush has executed.
Even if you don't support liberal causes, I don't see how one could vote for Bush unless one didn't care about the future of the world.
Bush played right into the hands of Osama bin Laden by providing terrorists a place to attack Americans. Bush suspended the democratic values that make this country great when he, after 9/11, said "either you are with us, or with the terrorists." In doing so - and I realize I've said this before - he silenced all critisism of his administration by labelling it unpatriotic.
If you're a Republican, you agree with Bush that America's responsibility is to spread democratic values to the world. You should, then, vote against Bush, because that is the only way to restore democratic values in THIS country.
I'm done for now.
Let me just say a few things. You said, "If everything went the way anyone planned then the troops would have come home a long time ago." The key flaw there is that Bush never had any plan for getting our troops home in the first place. Kerry would have had a plan before committing our ground troops.
You said, "As a former party member i understand the fact that democrats don't really listen to what's said and only what appears on the surface." That's exactly what I think of people like ness and John D. which are voting based on loyalty to party lines. When you look at the facts you're realize that the consequences of this election going to Bush are far more important to think about than which ideology you support.
We are voting for a man, we are not voting for a political party.
Bush has gotten us into a giant mess in Iraq with his bull-headed approach to international politics. When you said "Bush has had his ear to the international ground for the past 4 years" the image of an ostrich comes to mind.
Bush has ignored advice from the professionals around him and compromised America by committing our troops to an Iraqi quagmire which prevents the U.S. from exerting overwhelming force anywhere else in the world. We would PROBABLY have captured Osama bin Laden if Bush had not been eager to use 9/11 as an excuse to nab Saddam.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. The international community will respect John Kerry as President because his election will have shown the world that American citizens do not support the Bush administration and the personal agenda that Bush has executed.
Even if you don't support liberal causes, I don't see how one could vote for Bush unless one didn't care about the future of the world.
Bush played right into the hands of Osama bin Laden by providing terrorists a place to attack Americans. Bush suspended the democratic values that make this country great when he, after 9/11, said "either you are with us, or with the terrorists." In doing so - and I realize I've said this before - he silenced all critisism of his administration by labelling it unpatriotic.
If you're a Republican, you agree with Bush that America's responsibility is to spread democratic values to the world. You should, then, vote against Bush, because that is the only way to restore democratic values in THIS country.
I'm done for now.
jrubicante
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
- Messages
- 204
- Points
- 0
uttahcee said:
I don't get your point. I never said Saddam was not a bad guy.
And Bush got him. But now look at us - was this worth it? The situation in Iraq gets worse every day... 1000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in addition to the 15000 Iraqi citizens, most of whom were totally innocent. Was this the best way to go about removing Saddam Hussein? That's the question Bush never asked himself.
If you think that things are going great in Iraq... if you believed Bush when he said the war was over... then it's you who needs to stop watching 'the political spin'.
XaviarRkR
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Messages
- 227
- Points
- 0
too many nations think that they can destroy the entire world with war and polution and that their own nation will somehow survive because a mere few have a few billion quid in their pockets and because they also think that their war or money obsessions is faverable to some god or other.
Stupid muppets.
if they spent more time tickling instead of "grabbing and waisting", the world would be a much happier place.
Stupid muppets.
if they spent more time tickling instead of "grabbing and waisting", the world would be a much happier place.
MayDay1
1st Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,170
- Points
- 0
jrubicante said:
Everything you said goes double for me. Bush is easily the worst president this country has ever seen. That's no small feat considering his old man and Tricky Dick. Remember, this is the man who said "A dictatorship would be a lot easier, just as long as I'm the dictator."
Something else to keep in mind. 1000+ U.S. troops are dead. 800 of those died after the "Mission Accomplished" P.R. fiasco. Food for thought.
I don't feel that "Bush suspended the democratic values that make this country great when he,after 9/11 said" "either you are with us, or with the terrorists" In this instance I don't think there was any kind of middle ground. On that issue or any other issue for that matter I think most people after they have thought it over are either for or against it. It could very well be that there are quite a number people who take a stance in the middle on a lot of issues but I am not one of them.
alf1
4th Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,914
- Points
- 0
That don't let US people many choices though. Is Bush a kind of dictator ??John D. Schmidt said:
And after he says : the USA are a great democracy. Everybody has a freedom of speech.
Decrypted it means : shut the f*** up and let us do our job.
So if you vote against Bush you're a terrorist or what ? go to jail ? banished from the US ? what else ?
Last edited:
jrubicante
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
- Messages
- 204
- Points
- 0
John D. Schmidt said:
Saddam Hussein was not one of the terrorists that did all the damage on 9/11. That would be Osama bin Laden.
John D. Schmidt said:
That is exactly the type of black-or-white fallacy that the Bush administration wants America to adopt. What Bush said, in effect, was: If you don't agree with what I'm doing, you agree with the terrorists. This implies that there is only one way to deal with the problem of terrorism, and that is Bush's approach. That is exactly the problem with this soon-to-be one term president. He makes all of his decisions based on gut, relies on the people under him to execute his plans, and pays no heed to logic or the opinions of the experts around him, not to mention the international community.
I'm glad to see a healthy debate going on here. And even though I don't support Bush, I'm glad to see some Bush supporters weigh in on the issues. As for Saddam being second to Hitler, I think Stalin might get my vote on that account. Or maybe the Catholic Church during the Inquistion. But who's counting?
I have Republican friends who say that the entire Middle East is all part of the larger war on terror, and that's probably true. So what are we going to do? Invade every country in the Middle East and impose our version of democracy on them? There are larger reasons--cultural and religious--that we've incurred so much hatred from the Muslim world, and the fact that this administration has done nothing to try to understand that is what I find so troubling. From what I've read and heard, Osama was spurred to action because of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, ground that he considers sacred to Islam. So what do we do in Iraq? Build more bases! If the terrorists care nothing for their own lives, and see this as some holy jihad, it makes no sense to me to keep killing, killing, killing. Maybe there's a better way. As Howard Dean said, the war isn't between the West and Islam, it's between moderate Islam and radical Islam. We need to befriend the moderate factions and convince them we are on their side. As it stands, I wouldn't be surprised if even the moderates are afraid of us. And I think that's a big part of it. They may hate us, but they are terrified of us. That's not the United States I know. We should be respected not because we can blow you up, but because we offer something better.
I have Republican friends who say that the entire Middle East is all part of the larger war on terror, and that's probably true. So what are we going to do? Invade every country in the Middle East and impose our version of democracy on them? There are larger reasons--cultural and religious--that we've incurred so much hatred from the Muslim world, and the fact that this administration has done nothing to try to understand that is what I find so troubling. From what I've read and heard, Osama was spurred to action because of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, ground that he considers sacred to Islam. So what do we do in Iraq? Build more bases! If the terrorists care nothing for their own lives, and see this as some holy jihad, it makes no sense to me to keep killing, killing, killing. Maybe there's a better way. As Howard Dean said, the war isn't between the West and Islam, it's between moderate Islam and radical Islam. We need to befriend the moderate factions and convince them we are on their side. As it stands, I wouldn't be surprised if even the moderates are afraid of us. And I think that's a big part of it. They may hate us, but they are terrified of us. That's not the United States I know. We should be respected not because we can blow you up, but because we offer something better.
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.
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.
Note to waynec: It's no claim, I am a Viet Nam Era veteran. I proudly served in the US Army from 1970 to 1973 and also in the National Guard. As far as the rest of your post goes you are certainly entitled to your opinion even though I don't share it with you.
Celtic_Emperor
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 9,619
- Points
- 0
John D. Schmidt, you've got nothing but my respect. You don't take shit from no one and you believe strongly in your ideals, you don't flim flam around, I like that. And your service to our country is very noble. Thank you. You're definitely a class act.
Celtic_Emperor
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 9,619
- Points
- 0
Well, I myself was in ROTC (by choice of course, it was fun), not that its anything compared to the real military. But I can understand what it is to respect men and women that HAVE been in the service, such as Major Gerdes (our main instructor) and Master Sergeant Salsedo. They were two miltary men I came to admire.
And oh, my Uncle was in Nam too (as well as Gerdes, most likely by no coincidence), and while it was before my time, my mother told me how he came back and what a phychological mess he was for a while and how much weight he had lost. Through that I can fathom but not completely feel what you, my uncle, and so many others went through then and in other wars.
People just don't respect sometimes the atmosphere of where you were and what you did and what you experienced. Its something no human being should have to go through, and thats something I feel you and so many others need to be acknowledged for.
So many people tend to forget our veterans- people who laid it all on the line for a cause. And thats a damn shame. Veteran's Day isn't as blown up or celebrated as it should be.
Your type are few and far between, and thats a shame...a real shame.
In any event, you're very welcome, you deserve it, and thank you for your own compliment to me. :happy:
And oh, my Uncle was in Nam too (as well as Gerdes, most likely by no coincidence), and while it was before my time, my mother told me how he came back and what a phychological mess he was for a while and how much weight he had lost. Through that I can fathom but not completely feel what you, my uncle, and so many others went through then and in other wars.
People just don't respect sometimes the atmosphere of where you were and what you did and what you experienced. Its something no human being should have to go through, and thats something I feel you and so many others need to be acknowledged for.
So many people tend to forget our veterans- people who laid it all on the line for a cause. And thats a damn shame. Veteran's Day isn't as blown up or celebrated as it should be.
Your type are few and far between, and thats a shame...a real shame.
In any event, you're very welcome, you deserve it, and thank you for your own compliment to me. :happy:
Last edited:
