Presidential Debates

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Sep 30 2004, 10:18 PM'] I just listened to it all, and Kerry lost... [/quote]
thanks theo! i ddint watch any of it but i did want to know about the end! LOL this is great! you saved me alot of time

[Dave]

[quote name='ilovechrist' date='Sep 30 2004, 10:57 PM'] i have a VERY important question brought up by a friend..

does anyone know if Kerry's 1st marriage was annulled? his marriage to Ms. Heinz is his 2nd... and this is key for another blow to his system if i can find this info out.. [/quote]
My mom, who is even more abreast of political stuff than me, said that Kerry's first marriage was indeed annulled -- that his current wife demanded it.

[Brother Adam]

Yes, Bush lost as a debater. I don't think he won as a debater in 2000. But clearly, he has better policies. That much, I believe, he won.

[ilovechrist]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Sep 30 2004, 11:16 PM'] I would say that is lacking. The issues should decide your vote. [/quote]
wow jacob..

i just wanted to know a certain answer. this is a question that came up in a discussion between a friend and myself. and guess what--the issues [i]are[/i] deciding my vote. unfortunately, Kerry doesn't know WHAT he believes on the issues, since he contradicts himself twice in one debate... of which i won't go into time to point out.

and i can explain why Bush was not prepared for some of the questions--know why? cuz Kerry is changing his platform on almost [i]everything[/i] whenever he talks to the press--Bush didn't know what to expect!!! first Kerry is for the war against terror-now he's against. THEN he's for the war again, but only if he's in charge of it. he's now personally opposed to abortion, but he still votes against pro-life laws. John Kerry, 4 words... MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!

[Guest Aluigi]

i think kerry was very wily and cunning...

voting to give the power of war to a president is something you do when you're prepared for him to use that power. if he wanted conditions to be met before the power was used, he should have withheld his vote for the president to have the power of war until those conditions are met.

but he did cunningly try to show one clear position, though it was logically wrong.

i see bush's argument that iraq is center of war on terror not as only trying to talk current events insurgants and stuff, but also say Iraq was an important part of it b4 we went to war. Iraq had ties w/ Al Quaida (kerry lied about 911 commission, it didn't say they didnt) and the power of WMD making, as well as the WMDs he never accounted for since last he had em..

argh... w/e... neither one won though. it was a tie, bush couldve/shouldve done better, oh well.

[ilovechrist]

PS-thank you Dave for the answer to my question.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Neither candidate did a good job in this debate. Bush, I think, was holding back some and trying to keep from taking the easy shots on kerry. One point of Kerry's that I didn't like was how he always seemed to emphasize getting a coalition together to make decisions. Sometimes as a leader you have to decide to do something without having everyone on board. Sometimes, you have to do it yourself. That and I don't like the idea of having our foreign policy dictated by other nations. We'll be yanked around by our necks the second we let that happen.

Kerry seemed to say that he only voted for the authorization of use of force by the president as a deterent method and that he didn't want to actually use it. In my opinion, this is the 'more of the same' on which Kerry was harping. Had we done what Kerry said he would do in his wisdom.. ahem.. hindsight, Saddam would still be in power doing all those awful things he did and Iraq would definitely be a breeding ground for terrorists.

Did anyone catch the new Bushism? TRANSHIPMENT

[Theoketos]

I must qualify my last post, I think that Kerry spoke really well, but Had no real answer other then I would have done it different, but at the time he did the same things as Bush...

[Iacobus]

[quote name='ilovechrist' date='Sep 30 2004, 10:33 PM'] and i can explain why Bush was not prepared for some of the questions--know why? cuz Kerry is changing his platform on almost [i]everything[/i] whenever he talks to the press--Bush didn't know what to expect!!! first Kerry is for the war against terror-now he's against. THEN he's for the war again, but only if he's in charge of it. he's now personally opposed to abortion, but he still votes against pro-life laws. John Kerry, 4 words... MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!! [/quote]
Ben,

This wouldn't explain why Bush didn't seem to know Bush's statement. Bush wasn't supposed to come in knowing the inside and outside of Kerry's plan but to know his own plan. IF Bush fully understood and had a devolped plan and clear program in his head, that it wouldn't have mattered if Kerry came in and said "I think Osama is an alien." He would have still been able to hold his own.

Futhermore, I have listened to a few of Kerry's speechs these past weeks and a breakdown on the stump speech. Most, over 90%, of Kerry's statements tonite where almost pulled stright from those speechs. Bush should have been familar with what Kerry has done this past few weeks, therefore, any changes in Kerry's view would have had no impact on this debate.

[quote]voting to give the power of war to a president is something you do when you're prepared for him to use that power. if he wanted conditions to be met before the power was used, he should have withheld his vote for the president to have the power of war until those conditions are met.[/quote]

Al,

The voting for use of force was needed. Sadam may or may not have granted the access he did to the inspectors without force, however, the UN and US had to let Sadam know that they were seruous in the disarmarment talk. Thus, a threat of force would be needed. A threat to get a threat of force would bear no diplo weight, therefore, Kerry was justified in granting a "yay" vote in the use of force.

[quote]i see bush's argument that iraq is center of war on terror not as only trying to talk current events insurgants and stuff, but also say Iraq was an important part of it b4 we went to war. Iraq had ties w/ Al Quaida (kerry lied about 911 commission, it didn't say they didnt) and the power of WMD making, as well as the WMDs he never accounted for since last he had em..[/quote]

As to the 9/11 Commission, they did publicly state and publish that they found no link between Iraq and Al Quaida. Kerry was not lieing on that count.

[url="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june04/iraqconnection_06-18.html"]We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al-Qaida operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States.[/url]

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/"]The panel said it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."[/url]

Even the Wall Street Journal said "No Iraq-al Qaeda Link."

Futhermore, neither the US or the UN, under Blix or Kay, have been able to find any WMD or any evandice that WMDs were sought. Therefore, I would refrain from using that to support your arguement.

[Guest Aluigi]

the 911 commission said that al quaida and iraq did not cooperate in the 911 attacks. read the context.

[HartfordWhalers]

mulls... you like UConn and the Yankees? I have yet to meet another person outside of my family who likes both the Huskies and the Yankees (most of them are Red Sox fans.. eww). Are you from Connecticut? I was born there, but unfortunately we moved when I was young, in grade school. Anyway, I saw we won 6 4 but didn't know it was a walk off... old man still has some pop in his bat.

[HartfordWhalers]

I like how Bush said Kerry was in a 9-10 mindset

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Jacob, the 9/11 commission found no connection between Saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks, not Al qaida in general. Al qaida is an incredibly huge organization. Most cells and even commanders don't know what the other cells are up to.

[Iacobus]

I know the 9/11 commission found that it was 9/11 only, however, that was the key to the "Iraq AQ" claims.

[Guest Aluigi]

We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al-Qaida operatives [b]with regard to the attacks on the United States.[/b]

there IS evidence that Al Quaida and Iraq were in some cooperation though. i don't feel like providing the evidence, but I know it's out there. perhaps another time, must sleep now.