I thought one would be raging by now - or did one get moved??
Printable View
I thought one would be raging by now - or did one get moved??
Kerry dominated Bush in the Debate. I imagine the repubs dont wanna talk much about it. :D
Indeed. I was going to stay away from the polls this November, but now I've got a candidate.
He's still a politician, though. And that means he suxors balls. But at least he's better than the other guy.
Greetings..
Kerry stepped-up as a viable candidate
Bush stayed on point.. offered mantras instead of answers..
Both kept it pretty clean and showed statesmanship..
Both highlighted their positions so we know where they stand..
Bush accused Kerry of sending mixed messages.. Kerry accused Bush of failing to change the wrong message..
The next big agenda, N. Korea, made its debut..
Bush was clearly rattled a few times..
Basically:
Bush.. screw the rest of the world, America needs to be safe..
Kerry.. We're all in this together, lets find a solution..
Bush.. single-minded focus, regardless of consequence..
Kerry.. Cooperative efforts..
So, if you favor Capitalist Cowboys with a knack for "smoke and mirrors" and you like the status quo, vote Bush.
If you favor change with a flavor for good diplomacy and the resolve to back it up.. vote Kerry.
Although Bush will likely get quick results in foreign policy, we may not like the results.. already we are losing many long-time allies..
Kerry favors working solutions, not imposing doctrines..
Good luck and Be well..
and let's not forget poland! :D
lol, that was the best line in the whole thing.
Here's what I think would happen if Kerry was elected.
The rest of the world would get on board with bringing Iraq back to sovereignity. This won't happen with bush in the whitehouse.
Your economy down there would improve because people would have trust in making investments in america, which the market trends show they currently do not have under Bush.
Some of you might get your 65K a year jobs back instead of working those two new jobs for half the money that happened to you under the Bush admin.
good luck down there. Do you really want 4 more years of war and the rest of the worlds disdain for you because of a the Bush admins transparent hegemonic ways?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not certain either one will make much of a difference, but I think Kerry would have a stronger grip on the warhawks in the pentagon and wouldn't be such a yes man to them.
On the other hand, both of them are elite rich kids, so what will the real difference be beyond the rest of the worlds perception?
Probably not much I guess, but perception plays a lot into how reality becomes.
My favorite part was when Kerry said proliferation and then it became Bush's new favorite word!
It's all a bit Coke or Pepsi isn't it? Those warhawks will own Kerry just as much as Bush for the above reason.
"Membership Has Its Privileges:
Inside the Order of Skull & Bones
Your Next President Masturbated in a Coffin!"
What a line!
That's the best summary of the debates that I've read. Nice Bob.Quote:
Originally posted by TaiChiBob
Greetings..
Kerry stepped-up as a viable candidate
Bush stayed on point.. offered mantras instead of answers..
Both kept it pretty clean and showed statesmanship..
Both highlighted their positions so we know where they stand..
Bush accused Kerry of sending mixed messages.. Kerry accused Bush of failing to change the wrong message..
The next big agenda, N. Korea, made its debut..
Bush was clearly rattled a few times..
Basically:
Bush.. screw the rest of the world, America needs to be safe..
Kerry.. We're all in this together, lets find a solution..
Bush.. single-minded focus, regardless of consequence..
Kerry.. Cooperative efforts..
So, if you favor Capitalist Cowboys with a knack for "smoke and mirrors" and you like the status quo, vote Bush.
If you favor change with a flavor for good diplomacy and the resolve to back it up.. vote Kerry.
Although Bush will likely get quick results in foreign policy, we may not like the results.. already we are losing many long-time allies..
Kerry favors working solutions, not imposing doctrines..
Good luck and Be well..
Apparently, running the country is hard work.
Bit early to say anything substantive about results now, but overall I'd say Kerry did well & Bush held to his positions.
Kerry needed to show himself as presidential [which he did] and to explain [in part] what his positions were. That second part is where he did damage to himself.
For instance, he was insistent - throughout the election - that multilaterism is the way to go, yet for North Korea, oddly, he wants to go it alone.
Also, he confirmed everything Zell Miller said when he stated he'd cancel yet another weapons system.
Last, when Bush spoke of his close relations with Putin, I instantly started to think about what kind of relations Kerry might have with Putin - and I realised he wouldn't be half as effective in that instance.
But, again, too early to tell for sure what the end results will be. The Debates are more important to swing voters than they are to commited partisans.
From where I was watching there seemed to be a majory disparity between the two. I'm sure some agree, but I find it a bit annoying how inarticulate President Bush is. I think Kerry's best assets are his experience and ability to put full sentances together. Although there were points in the debate where it did in fact seem like he was flip flopping between stances on issues. I think his best moment was when he said "just because you are certain, doesn't mean you are right." I thought that was well put.
I think the part about Bilateral talks with N. Korea was because, as he pointed out, talks between US and N. Korea have all but ceased in the last two years thanks to Mr. Bush, and in this time they have now armed themselves with Nuclear Weapons - and the best way to get back on track and show US commitment with diplomacy would be to have one on one discussions.
Zim - what did you think of Kerry's statement about what is going on with Russia today?
not exactly zim.Quote:
yet for North Korea, oddly, he wants to go it alone
what he said was that he thought that instead of using China as a proxy to speak to North Korea, they should speak directly with North Korea.
What Bush is doing is speaking to china in order to get a message to NK. Which China has quickly used to show that America is too weak and needs Chinas help to deal with Kim Il Jung.
If I had my druthers, I would take Kerry's choice on this and go speak with Kim Il Jung as opposed to using China as a moderator in any way shape or form.
Transcript here
I don't, personally, think there's much sense in talking to North Korea by ourselves when its clear they've no intention of respecting any agreements we might come to. This was made clear when they began development of nukes with the materials they gained from the Clinton Administration in contravention to their specified use. Kerry's proposals all go the "Saint Bill" route- hold summits, give fissile materials to various countries "for peaceful purposes" after gaining agreements they might not abide by, etc. I don't know if he'll be as capable as Clinton was at it- and then, Clinton got snookered a couple of times, too, so there's always that risk.Quote:
I think the part about Bilateral talks with N. Korea was because, as he pointed out, talks between US and N. Korea have all but ceased in the last two years thanks to Mr. Bush, and in this time they have now armed themselves with Nuclear Weapons - and the best way to get back on track and show US commitment with diplomacy would be to have one on one discussions.
Which? The nuclear materials or the centralization of authority?Quote:
Zim - what did you think of Kerry's statement about what is going on with Russia today?
KL- China will say whatever they'll say. The point, I think, was that China has more leverage currently than we ourselves do in that part of the world. If we're eager to have the question of Rogue States with nukes settled, then I'll take that help. I surely do not want a repeat of the same process that resulted in the current situation.
China and "entire international community" seem to agree that the 6 nation talks are the way to go.
That's it for me. Gotta go. I'll get back to this later.
I predict Kerry fukks it up just as bad as anyone else. He's not strong enough to lead the country where it's at right now.
that's right, cause Kerry - the politician - would never use smoke and mirrors to get to where he wanted.Quote:
So, if you favor Capitalist Cowboys with a knack for "smoke and mirrors" and you like the status quo, vote Bush.