Presidential Debates

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Sep 30 2004, 09:25 PM'] I think they both worship at the altar of democracy a bit to much. [/quote]
Amen.

(Too much= at all)

I agree also with what you said concerning Truth.

And I am not sure of the validity of the war, although I support Bush over Kerry mostly, I think the war was probably unjust. Obviously the world is safer w/o Saddam. In any event, Catholic persecution now seems to be greater than ever in Iraq, much more than before the war, at least from what I've read. In the 90s there were nearly 1/2 million Catholics in Iraq, now there are 175,000 and dwindling.

[azaelia]

As a friend of mine so articulately put it...

"Kerry's a car salesman."

[Ash Wednesday]

Beauty is going to be in the eye of the beholder here. Democrats and Kerry supporters will say "Kerry won" and Republicans and Bush supporters will say "Bush won."

Of course Kerry had to step it up, or else it would be OVER for him.

I don't think the debate will determine the outcome of the election no matter what BS and spinning will be going on with the news media out there. It's all so predictable, it grates my inner chalkboard. I wonder if the news media tries to play things up to boost their ratings, because I've completely lost my trust in them. I find the blogs to be more accurate as far as how the public feels about things, and the blogs are the most interesting part of this election -- far more interesting and pivotal than tv news and has-beens and biased reporters like Dan Rather, who has enough egg on his face for a nice family restaurant-sized omlette.

From what I have read online, the general consensus has been: neither really screwed up, Kerry did better than expected, but voters have already made up their minds and probably won't be persuaded one way or another.

P.S. I watched the debate with Voice of America online voa.gov.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

If we had struck at Afghanistan prior to September 11 the same people would be complaining and 3000 people would still be alive.

[Enda]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Oct 1 2004, 12:16 AM'] Kerry won, hands down. And I for one am not surprised. He came in 180* from what everyone was expecting. It tossed Bush off balance, and cast his as low. Kerry was short and clear in his speaking and came across as very informed. However, Kerry did not lose that element of articulicness that Bush lacks so often. Kerry had by far fewer stumbles, pauses, stutters, and other slips. Moreover, at times Bush almost seems unsure of his answers, rehashed the same things over and over again, and seemed slower to reply, such that he was given an air of poorly informed and dumb. Kerry debated circles around Bush. [/quote]
I don't think you understand American politics very well.

Studys have proven that Americans perfer not to oust thier politicans out of office unless they think the contender can do a better job. Bush doesn't nessacrily need to be articulate in expressing his opinions in this, or any of the three debates. He has had four years to do that through his actions. Americans know Bush no problem. Kerry, they've never heard of (unless you're from Massachuetes, or a Veitnam vet). It is therefore Kerry's main respsonbilty, not so much Bush's, to be articulate.

Kerry's main problem is that he really has no unified opinion on anything, and therefore can't be articulate. The Bush campign is very wise for calling him on this issue prior to the debates, and Kerry totally flip-floped in the debate at least twice that I saw.

He said Saddam Hussien was a threat, and that's why he voted for the war--ultimately even coming out [i]for[/i] the pre-emptive war ideaology (what the heck?). Yet his constant response was, "I disagreed with the method Bush used." Huh? Exactly what "method" does he want to use? He seemed to have [i]agreed[/i] with Bush's method in Congress, but now says he doesn't, and gave Americans no alteritives as to what he would actually do differntly.

The second time he flip-floped was on North Korea. He wants to tell our Pacfic allies to screw off and engage in "bilateral talks" with the North Koreans. Meanwhile, he criticzizes Bush for "going it alone" in Iraq. He simply had absoutely no consistecy anywhere on almost any issue other his service in Vietnam which as President Grant teaches us, doesn't nessacily make you a good President. I would be very surprized to see him win the election.

Edited October 1, 2004 by Enda

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Sep 30 2004, 09:56 PM'] I won't lol. I am just saying John Kerry is a much better speaker. [/quote]
Satan has slick speech, too...

[Ash Wednesday]

"Flip-flop" seems to be the biggest buzzword of this whole election.

Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!

[popestpiusx]

Kerry contradicted himself so many times it wasn't even funny.

However, I don't think Bush did all that great either.

I'm still voting for Mike Poroutka.

[azaelia]

Call me ignorant...but who's Mike Poroutka?

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Am I the only one who saw that what Kerry was saying does not correspond with his voting record? If he gets elected he'll do more stuff that goes against what he's campaigning on than what he is campaigning on. The sad part is that the stuff he'll do that he says he'll do is appoint judges who will uphold Roe v. Wade. He will not do anything to try to ban gay marriage. Yeah he would probably get ousted after four years, but he'll send this country to hell in that time.

[dUSt]

I didn't understand what Kerry proposed to do about Iraq as far as the troops. I think he said he'd give them more and better weapons, but didn't he vote against doing that earlier? He also said that he'd get a true coalition in Iraq? Who? Who would he be able to get that's not already there? He never said he'd bring the troops home either, all he kept saying is "I would have done it right" and "I will do better". I never really understood [b]how[/b] he plans to do this though...

[StMichael]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Sep 30 2004, 08:55 PM'] Does anyone else see a hole in Bush Iraq central war on terror deal?

He is saying Iraq is central because we are fighting insurgents. However, the war in Iraq which ended on May 1, 2003 did not invole the terrorists, most came over to Iraq after the war. So Iraq now might be part, after and due to the war, but it wasn't part of the war, we brought it upon us. Therefore, how is Iraq part of the war on terror? [/quote]
Absolutely not.

Intelligence reports dating as far back as 1997 cite Iraq as harboring muslim terrorism.

Everyone forgets that Saddam himself gave $25,000 to the familes of each Palestine suicide bomber. This would be the support of Hamas which is strong in neighboring Syria & Iran.

The mission was to oust & capture a dictator who has had and used WMD's. That part was accomplished.

Rebuilding a nation will take far longer.

Terrorists that were involved in 9/11 somehow found solice in Iraq, money, etc.

The disturbing part of all of this is that our solidiers are being killed with guns, bombs and ammo made and sold by our good friends in France, China & Russia who seemed to ignore the trade embargo altogether.

To take it a step further, you clear out a house filled with vermin, room by room, floor by floor.

[StMichael]

[quote name='Dave' date='Sep 30 2004, 10:24 PM'] 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. [/quote]
He never sought an annullment and this is only one reason why the Catholic church has given him a modern excommunication.

He is currently living in sin with Ms. Heinz.

[MC Just]

[quote name='mulls' date='Sep 30 2004, 09:52 PM'] i like how Bush said he prayed with the mother of the soldier who died.


i didnt like how Kerry said "God Bless America" at the end.

poser. [/quote]
I hate it when Pro-death democrats say "God Bless America" when at the same time they are trying to kick him out....out of their public life, out of the schools and out of the country...

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='azaelia' date='Oct 1 2004, 08:12 AM'] Call me ignorant...but who's Mike Poroutka? [/quote]
Michael P[b]e[/b]routka is the Constitution Party's nominee. When I took one of those "who should you vote for" polls or "who matches you" polls, he was the highest percentage the same as I am; however, no one was very close, considering I disagree completely with the American system of secularism. I think for Johnsonville brat Gephardt I had 0% agreement on personal (moral) issues (same with the Green Party candidate). Petroutka's website is: [url="http://www.peroutka2004.com/"]http://www.peroutka2004.com/[/url]. His platforms are: honor God, protect the family, and save the Republic (or restor it). We differ greatly on the last point, since I am for a Kingship. A Republic could be permissible if it had the same ends: namely a Catholic State, but it is much less likely to happen in that system, since the voters decide what is what, so the system can change at any whim of the Senators. Nevertheless, if it had the same end, it would be a viable but still (in my opinion) an inferior system. He is as pro-life as you can be (literally, not like Bush who deviates from pro-life and I'm not talking about capital punishment; I'd say not having capital punishment would be against life); he is against the war; he is against women in the military ("It is the God-commanded order that men are to fight for and protect women and their country. Women are not to fight for and protect men and their country"); he is against the draft; he supports the Constitution Restoration Act ["Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."]; he wants to abolish income tax; he is obviously against a New World Order (socialism, globalism, etc.). He is pretty much good on all the issues (all the ones here I listed I agree with him), but he always comes back to the Constitution being supreme and a Republic being restored. The Constitution has no authority without the authority given by God, which he seems to miss, considering that he supports the Constitution, which gives no credit to God and arguably restricts Church and state relations (if including the amendments). He does say that: "The Constitution Party is committed to the American View that the purpose of government is to protect and secure rights that come from God." However, he neglects that not only must rights from God be protected, but His rule of the country must be, as well, and he neglects that the Constitution doesn't do that at all... in any event, I think he is the best candidate running, as far as I know.

Is that a sufficient explanation?