White Knight Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry was inpersonating Bush's Character in that Debate thats what I noticed, Kerry, if elected, will most likely do a 180 degree turn on what he said yesterday at the first debate. Thats a bad thought too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Last night convinced me that John Kerry is a very dangerous man indeed. I pray the power of the US presidency never touches his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 i didn't watch. i was bowling. more fun, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I haven't posted in a while on here, but I can't hold off on this. First off, I am in Rome and I was unable to watch the debate since it was on at 3:00 in the morning here. Reports seem to indicate that Kerry won, but I don't know how much effect it will have. The electorate is so divided, I think a lot of people have made up their minds. Second, let me address this Michael Peroutka business. This guy has absolutely zero percent chance of winning the election. None, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. If you live in a state that is guaranteed to vote for either Bush or Kerry and your vote can't possibly change that, then by all means, vote for Peroutka and send a message. If you live in a state where the outcome is in doubt however (i.e. Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Michigan, Nevada, and New Mexico among a few others) then please, PLEASE, vote for Bush if you really want to make a difference in the pro-life movement. Third, I don't have time to debate this, but I just want to say that the war in Iraq was just IMHO regardless of whether or not there was any link to al Queda, terrorism, or if they had WMDs. To those who claim it was unjust or simply do not support it, please justify your statement in light of Catholic social teaching that we are obliged to take action against moral evil. Have we forgotten that in the Iraq that was ran by Saddam Hussein, it was ROUTINE for young children to be killed in front of their parents, people were thrown into wood shredders, off of buildings, shot at point blank range, women were raped, men had electric charges hooked up to their testicles and were shocked, and women had the same done to their vaginal area. People were kidnapped against their will, kept in cold jail cells without food or water, were not given adequate restroom facilities, and were forced to urinate and defecate on themselves. Men were suspended from ceilings by their testicles, women had their breasts cut off, people were beaten, killed, and tortured for no reason whatsoever. Young girls were sold as sex slaves and people of all ages were forced to do slave labor. Those of you who are so opposed to this war, please, defend the above actions. Explain to us why you would rather see these things going on than the Iraqi people living in freedom. The only way the Iraqis were ever going to be free of Saddam was if he was forcibly removed, lest we forget he gave the proverbial middle finger to the U.N. 17 times when they issued resolutions demanding that he disarm. We have an obligation to defend our fellow human beings. As far as I'm concerned, this is something that should have been done years ago. How dare we wait so long! OK, that should do it for my rant on that topic. Finally, my last rant of the day. CBS has again reported on a false story to make the Bush administration look bad. First, they used documents that were forged to make it appear that the President had not fulfilled his National Guard duty. Now, they have run with a story circulated on the internet by some crazy e-mailer that the President wants to bring back the draft for men AND women ages 18-26. A couple of things, first of all, there is a bill before Congress to reinstate the draft, but guess who are the chief sponsors of it? Rep. Charlie Rangle from New York and Sen. Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, both of whom are extreme left-wing partisian DEMOCRATS! Secondly, CBS totally ignores the fact that the President can't do that to begin with. Just like anything else, it must originate in Congress, and then he can sign it. CBS is really getting rediculous. Their partisianship is so blatant it is funny. They ought to start calling themselves DNCTV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 BOWLING!!!! One of 'em shoulda just said "watch this!", show off those bowling shoes from behind the podium, or slam one of those shoes on the podium a la Kruschev, and then run out and do this: [img]http://sportsposterwarehouse.com/warehouse/nixonbowling03lf-1.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 :rotfl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 One more thing, then I'm headed to bed. It's late here. There is a lot of talk from the Kerry camp about Osama bin Laden. Ok, fair enough. I want him as bad as the next guy. But can we step back and consider the facts for a moment please? Fact 1-Osama bin Laden was in control of al Queda when the bombing in Afghanistan started. Fact 2-bin Laden had a severe kidney disorder severely limiting his mobility. Fact 3-bin Laden released many taped addresses to Al Jazeera television shortly after the U.S. led invasion to oust the Taliban. Fact 4-bin Laden has not been seen or heard from in nearly two years if my memory serves me correctly. (I could be wrong on this point, if that is the case, please correct me.) Fact 5-bin Laden's second guy in command Al Zacarawi (sp?) has made a few videos recently and released them to the above named T.V. network. Fact 6-U.S. forces dropped thousands of bombs on the mountains of the Torra Bora region of Afghanistan where OBL was believed to be hiding. Among these were 2,000 lb. bunker-buster bombs. When we add all of this up, it is completly possible that bin Laden may be dead and his body in a million-and-one pieces. Personally, when I add up the fact that bin Laden was in the area, he was sick, we dropped so many bombs in there, and that he is only one man who has been really a nobody since 9-11 makes me believe anyway, that he is dead. I could be wrong. That's just my theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enda Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Well JP, I believe the guy in chrage of finding him under Bush basicly came out and said he thinks what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azaelia Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 [quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Oct 1 2004, 06:03 PM'] Third, I don't have time to debate this, but I just want to say that the war in Iraq was just IMHO regardless of whether or not there was any link to al Queda, terrorism, or if they had WMDs. To those who claim it was unjust or simply do not support it, please justify your statement in light of Catholic social teaching that we are obliged to take action against moral evil. Have we forgotten that in the Iraq that was ran by Saddam Hussein, it was ROUTINE for young children to be killed in front of their parents, people were thrown into wood shredders, off of buildings, shot at point blank range, women were raped, men had electric charges hooked up to their testicles and were shocked, and women had the same done to their vaginal area. People were kidnapped against their will, kept in cold jail cells without food or water, were not given adequate restroom facilities, and were forced to urinate and defecate on themselves. Men were suspended from ceilings by their testicles, women had their breasts cut off, people were beaten, killed, and tortured for no reason whatsoever. Young girls were sold as sex slaves and people of all ages were forced to do slave labor. Those of you who are so opposed to this war, please, defend the above actions. Explain to us why you would rather see these things going on than the Iraqi people living in freedom. The only way the Iraqis were ever going to be free of Saddam was if he was forcibly removed, lest we forget he gave the proverbial middle finger to the U.N. 17 times when they issued resolutions demanding that he disarm. We have an obligation to defend our fellow human beings. As far as I'm concerned, this is something that should have been done years ago. How dare we wait so long! [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I havent been on here in a while (I worked during the summer or was at the lake, and other than that this place sort of got on my nerves)... but I'd just like to say that Kerry did a much better job at the debate than George Bush. Thats indesputable. Anybody who actually knows anything about debate can tell you that - regardless of who kills babies and who protects marriage. I don't like Kerry becuase of the whole abortion/marriage deal, but on the foreign policy - as a foreigner mind you - front, Kerry is my clear favourite. My personal favourite part was when Bush said that "We had to attack! They attacked first!" And Kerry had to remind him that it was Osama, not Iraq, to which Bush replied "I know its Osama! Of course I know its Osama! Ha!" Seeing as how peopel will totally misconstrue this post and decide that I'm some pro-abortion creep and decide to switch the topic to how Kerry is an immoral creep which makes Bush a morally sound godboy, I'm not quite sure I should be posting this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Okay, I did some more thinking on the debate today. Everyone was saying Kerry had to win... and he did have to win this debate to really stay on. However, so did Bush. The theme of this debate was the one picked by the Bush people. They feel that National Secqurity and Iraq are their big cards. Most of the people were excepting Kerry to "lecture" and Bush thereby to win the debate. However, Kerry didn't lecture, those adding a new dyanamic. With Kerry beatting Bush on fair grounds and on Bush's strong point, little less remains nice for Bush. And as a side note, many people, myself inculded, are jumping on "the lies" of the debate. Because none of us are overly versed in their canidate I would recommand this article [url="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271"]http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271[/url] from FactCheck.Org. FactCheck is a non partisian group. Want proof go look at their front page, the "gotchas" are nicly divided. Kerry is slamed here, Bush here, however, the relative number on the front page is still partly dependent on the number of ads they run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 What upsets me so much is that people take a position simply to oppose the guys on the "other" side, and don't think about whether or not something is right or wrong. Lately I've felt really upset about the state of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 John Kerry lost the war on terror deabte when he said he would use preemption only if it passed the "global test." I don't want to "outsource" my security into the socialistic hands of France and Germany or the anti-Christian United Nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 You don't win a debate based on things which are based on personal opinion - you win based on fluidity of speech, preparedness, reactions, etc. Bush totally lost, and I've spent the last few months doing debate carp for school so don't bother telling me how to win a debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Well, I actually fell asleep during the middle of the debate. But I did catch the following from Kerry: on Iraq, we are wrong for being 90% of the effort, we should have more partners; in Afghanistan, we are wrong because we involved the local warlords in the hunt (actually, Kerry used the word "outrsourced"). Hmm....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now