Presidential Debates

[C-Desecration-]

It's running right now so I don't really have any comments or anything, but this should be interesting. Moreso than usual, since this election itself is generating a lot more heat/interest than those in the past (go figure).

[MacReady]

When's this taking place?

[C-Desecration-]

When? Well Kerry and Bush are debating right now at the University of Miami.

Now I'm shooting for kerry here, so I'm waching this all from a bias standpoint, but it seems that bush is basically trying to get across that he's an optimist and kerry's the pessimist here. Only it seems bush's optimism is unfounded. But when you're dealing with this kind of topic (the war on terror) people want optimism . . . unfounded or not.
Hm.

And for anyone who wants you can check it out live, online--
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123725/?GT1=5100

[MacReady]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040930/040930_debate_040930_618p.v2.jpg
"It end here, Bush. It ends here."

Sorry, I couldn't resist!:D

[Tweek]

LOL at the end when they shook hands and kerry whispered something to dubya, for a passing second i thought it was "It's all ova, Bush-y!"



I enjoyed the debate, mostly because listening to Bush speak is amusing. Not so much what he's saying but how he says it.

[Cyclonus]

Before I say anything further...did anyone catch the part where Bush...just froze for a moment? For a split second I wondered if there would be a repeat of his infamous "classroom bit," as shown in Farhenheit 9/11.

[bmain77]

Overall I'd have to say Kerry came out on top this time around. Bush did seem to freeze up or something a few times. Maybe he was composing his thoughts, but it came across as though Kerry had him flustered. But to be fair Kerry also slipped up once early on.

I think where Kerry wiped the floor with Bush was when W was trying to paint a rosy picture of the war in Iraq, but Kerry burst his bubble with the truth. Mentioning the lack of armor and so on. I want to look more into the claims of parents actually purchasing body armor and sending it to their children in Iraq, because they wouldn't otherwise be equipped with it. If that is true I'm completely flabbergasted.

I thought Kerry did a decent of job of explaining his change in stance in the war by shooting back at Bush that he supported the war that Bush had presented to America, not the one that has transpired up to now.

It was definitly a much more fun debate to watch than the past elections debates with Bush and Gore seeming to agree on everything.

Going into this debate I would have predicted Bush will win the election, though not because of my vote. But Kerry actually showed some guts and personality tonight. If he continues this and things in Iraq continue to break down to the degree that they are Kerry if we are lucky just might pull off the upset. That is assuming anybody is actually watching the debates.

[Thrizzle]

Bush employed a few tricks to get an edge. For example; what kind of a leader says, "wrong place, wrong time" during a war.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Bush employed a few tricks to get an edge. For example; what kind of a leader says, "wrong place, wrong time" during a war.

Well, according to Bush, we're not at war, remember?

Anyway, I thought it was fairly clear Kerry won. I was taking notes for part of it..

Q1 I gave to Kerry. Q2 I declared a tie (well, close enough anyway). Q3 I thought Kerry barely took, though it was close. Q4-6 I gave to Kerry. Q7 was a tie, though I was actually going to give it to Bush until he insisted on an extra 30 seconds and made an ass of himself. Then I missed some, and labeled the questions again.. QA Kerry. QB was barely Kerry, possibly a tie. QC I gave to Kerry, but this would have been a tie if Bush hadn't grabbed at an extra 30 seconds to make an ass of himself. QD/E were also Kerry. As far as closing, I thought they both were pretty good, but I would again give the edge to Kerry.

The thing is though, my "ratings" are based on a couple factors. First is speaking and speed type of deals, which Kerry is roughly 10,000 times better at than Bush. Bush is a bad speaker, and it was obvious in a few questions he was regurgitating a prepped response to a similar, but not identical, question. This is not to say Kerry isn't doing the same thing, but he simultaneously recalls from memory prepped bits and interweaves things Bush has just said, and also responds directly to the question. Kerry is simply far better at this than Bush.

The second bit is the believing factor. Kerry is technically extremely proficient, but sometimes he seems sort of.. Cold, I guess. I'm not sure how to describe it other than that. If I didn't have a pretty strong dislike against Bush, and didn't know of his long history, I would be more inclined to believe him on some things. It is this factor that allows Bush to cling to the edges in debate.

[Lynn7]

I enjoyed these debates. It was nice to see issues discussed instead of conspiracy theories. I thought Kerry came across suprisingly well. he was concise and articulate. I thought Bush was his usual self in speaking. He is not a great speaker but I thought he made excellent points.

__________________________________________________
I think where Kerry wiped the floor with Bush was when W was trying to paint a rosy picture of the war in Iraq, but Kerry burst his bubble with the truth. Mentioning the lack of armor and so on. I want to look more into the claims of parents actually purchasing body armor and sending it to their children in Iraq, because they wouldn't otherwise be equipped with it. If that is true I'm completely flabbergasted.
________________________________________________

BMain- I did not see it as bush painting a rosy picture. he said it's hard times but that we must and will win. Kerry mentioning the lack of body armor opened himself up to the criticism that he voted against the 87 m(b)illion dollars for the soldiers to arm them. (I've heard the number so many times and yet I can't remember!)
I also agreed with Bush about how it is going to be impossible for Kerry to get other coutries to participate in a war that Kerry thinks is simply a diversion. Also, why would soldiers want to risk their lives for a commander in chief who does not see the sense in this war? Bush beleives this is a battle for freedom's very survival- people will be willing to die for that. Kerry sees this as an unnecessary diversion. Bush made some very good points, IMO.

They definitely toned down Kerry's tan which was helpful - he looked pretty good. Bush looked tired- I guess he was out seeing hurricane victimes during the day and that probably didn't help him look his best. Anyway it was a good debate. Leher (?sp) did a good job moderating. I don't like how one person gets 2 minutes and the other person only gets 90 seconds to respond. I think each should get 2 minutes.

[MarkItZero]

The debate was better than I expected. But I still think it is a lousy format. How can they expect to have any actual meaningful discussion of the issues if they are only given two minutes and they couldnt even talk to each other.

Lehrer: Ok, lets talk about the foriegn policy of the most powerful country on the planet...in less than 2 minutes. Ready, go!

It disturbs me to think that most of the population is unable to pay attention for more than 120 seconds on any particular topic. So instead of actually learning what these canidates think, we get sound bites and one liners. Me good, he bad.

I am voting for myself in this election, because I am by far the best canidate. If any of you schmoes are like me and fed up with both parties, then join me and write in MarkItZero on your ballot come Nov 2nd!

[jeo4]

I don't see a clear winner. I also see anyone who is anti-Bush instantly saying Kerry won the debate. (Every question? Come on! Let's be reasonable.) It looked like more of the same from both candidates. I think the win for Kerry came in his composure during the debate. Bush looked angry about a number of comments, while Kerry maintained his composure and responded with calm demeanor.

I think the first half of the debate was more Bush's than Kerry's, but Kerry took over in defending his decisions about Iraq. His main point was a good one...when you're determined to make a change, you change it until it's right. (I'm paraphrasing here.) That comment alone was a turning point for the debate, because it says that Kerry agreed that Saddam was a threat, but he didn't agree with specific allocations on the war. Kerry played it smart.

Another thing about the debates is the level of respect between the candidates was refreshing as opposed to the last six debates, all of which got nasty at some points. The candidates were even complimentary of one another. It showed real maturity and class.

[C-Desecration-]

Bush looked angry about a number of comments, while Kerry maintained his composure and responded with calm demeanor.


Speaking of which, anyone notice that everytime Bush started answering Kerry got this nice and smug look (he was practically grinning a few times) . . . you could almost hear the guy thinking "Ha! Got you now Bush!" So at the very least Kerry seemed pretty confident about everything.

I'm not that educated about either guys' stances or anything, but one part of the debates seemed to have Bush just refusing to say he was wrong in respect to how he handled this war on terror. I know Bush doesn't believe he was wrong, but but the way he went about it was . . . off. Instead of repelling what Kerry said about how we delt with this (that we went about it the wrong way), Bush goes (not an exact quote at all) "What? You think we're wrong? You can't go in and tell the troops that we were wrong! That's not leadership! Kerry's a flip-flopper".
And about that flip-flopper, Bush was really hanging onto that but I didn't notice any flip-flopping in the debates.
Lastly, a few times it didn't see like Bush was defending himself, just reading of a statement he prepared prior to all this since a lot of the times he never really answered the question. I guess that was expected though. Bush isn't that great a speaker. And I doubt Cheney will do any better.


Another thing about the debates is the level of respect between the candidates was refreshing as opposed to the last six debates, all of which got nasty at some points. The candidates were even complimentary of one another. It showed real maturity and class.

Don't much remember the past debates, but yeah, that was great. I don't like Bush (as the president) or anything, but both him and Kerry came across as very likable. And the atmosphere was mucho relaxed.

[JohnTheHenchman]

They both sucked, no one said a single thing that was good. I'll give to Kerry for his eloquence and on that alone.

[Tweek]

It disturbs me to think that most of the population is unable to pay attention for more than 120 seconds on any particular topic.

i dont think it's that so much as time constraints.


they have a lot to get to.

[Zebra 3]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bush beleives this is a battle for freedom's very survival- people will be willing to die for that. If he really believes this then he's a bigger idiot than I thought he was.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Zebra 3
If he really believes this then he's a bigger idiot than I thought he was.

I beleive it too so I'm also an idiot.





__________________________________________________ _
And about that flip-flopper, Bush was really hanging onto that but I didn't notice any flip-flopping in the debates.
Lastly, a few times it didn't see like Bush was defending himself, just reading of a statement he prepared prior to all this since a lot of the times he never really answered the question. I guess that was expected though. Bush isn't that great a speaker. And I doubt Cheney will do any better
__________________________________________________

C-Desecration,
Kerry did not flip flop in the debates- he was very well prepared. he typically does not flip flop in the course of one speech (with the exception of the time he said he voted for the 87 billion beofre he voted against it) H eflips from speaking engagement to speaking engagement based on which audience he is speaking to - he is a true politician. If he is speaking to the auto makers, he speaks of how he owns many SUVs but when he is talking to environmentalists he says he does not own any- when pressed on the contradiction he says it is his FAMILY that owns those SUVs.

Bush does not defend himself good. He does not feel the need to explain himself. That is often a disappointment to conservatives who wish he would do a better job in explaining how we beleive- he is our spokesperson and he is not the best speaker. Cheney will do a good job- he is soft spoken and says what he thinks. He is articulate and can be funny at times. He got off a few good jokes against Leiberman last time.

[C-Desecration-]

He does not feel the need to explain himself.


That's . . . pretty right-on. A lot of times during that debate he seemed almost thunderstruck that he has to explain his actions. Makes sense (I mean it jives with the type of person he seems to be).

[Jim H]

Kerry mentioning the lack of body armor opened himself up to the criticism that he voted against the 87 m(b)illion dollars for the soldiers to arm them. (I've heard the number so many times and yet I can't remember!)

It was 87 billion. If I remember correctly, he voted against it because he didn't like the way it was allocated.

He got off a few good jokes against Leiberman last time.

Good. Lieberman should be mocked as much as possible. Man I dislike that guy... Everytime he opens his mouth I want to smack him.

Bush beleives this is a battle for freedom's very survival- people will be willing to die for that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If he really believes this then he's a bigger idiot than I thought he was.

I'm going to have to agree that is a silly belief... I fail to see the connection between the SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM ON EARTH and any armed conflict in the world in recent years.

[ANavissi500]

John Kerry totally won the debate. It was a very pathetic display on behalf of the pres. He seems tired. He didn't have that fire that he did in 2000.

[Scarface98.9]

I think Kerry's the winner here, as he came and showed a lot more power and charisma than I've ever seen him show. But I do remember laughing extremely hard when Bush kept trying to remind everyone that Poland's in the coalition

[The Postmaster General]

I felt Bush would distort what Kerry said, while Kerry would respond to what Bush said.

That coincides with the claims that Bush seemed more scripted.

Kerry: I don't support the war.

Bush: Kerry just said he doesn't support the troops!

Then Bush would repeat that over and over.

Most of the time, I found Bush's responses totally off-the-mark, as if he didn't UNDERSTAND what Kerry was saying. It was like he needed Kerry to just look him in the eye, and say: "War bad! American soldiers good! Stopping Sadam good! Sloppy war bad!" Then just point at Bush and say: "You, Bush - Ideas good. Planning bad. Your faith strong - convictions good. But things messed up bad. Stay the course bad - Change good."

And what was with Bush not being able to remember who we were waging the war against, then looking at his notes, and saying "a group of people"? That was just absurdism at it's best!

There is no doubt that Kerry was a better bickerer.

IMO, I don't think either won, because it's really not going to change the way anyone is going to vote. This election was locked in a long time ago. The only point in watching the debates is to hear the candidate you like reassure you that they are really doing what you think they are going to do. Otherwise, you just watch the other guy waiting for them to goof up. They may as well just had MTV make a celebrity death match between the two, because it would have been just as insightful.

Also, I'm slightly uncomfortable with the notion that things getting worse in Iraq would be better for Kerry. That's an awful thing to hope for, regardless of how it effects things in the long run. It's called stacking odds in favor blood, or something like that, and is generally looked down upon. I don't think things getting worse in Iraq will have any effect on the election. Do you Kerry supporters really mean to tell me that if tomorrow, all the insurgents gave up, and turned their guns in for voter registration cards, then signed treaties saying they would, for repayment of their acts, travel the country registering Iraqis to vote, and they would make sure the Iraqis could make it to the polls - then the next day a giant rainbow appeared over Iraq, and all the Jews and Muslems came together, and started singing "Hells Bells" as they joined hands and traded their opium in for some American pharmicuticals -- I mean, do you all mean you'd vote for Bush?? Really?

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove


IMO, I don't think either won, because it's really not going to change the way anyone is going to vote.





Not true. Atleast with me. Prior to this debate I knew literrally nothing about Kerry except for all the jokes I keep hearing about him changing his opinions on the issues (which now that I've listened to him I have to say that I don't really find it funny anymore). I thought Kerry came off really well. Before the debate I wasn't sure if I was with Kerry (because like I said, I knew nothing about him) but for now I can safely say I am on Kerry's side.

[Criminal Rock]

How can people say Kerry won? How can people say anyone won? It wasn’t even a real debate... have any of you been to a real debate before? This was absolutely NOTHING like a real one, it doesn’t even compare!

This wasn’t about who argued better, this was about who memorized more of their written opinions then the other. Obviously Kerry did, Bush stumbled a lot for the reason that he wasn’t prepared for all the “written questions” that Kerry shot at him.

Bush was on the defensive side the whole time, while Kerry was on the offensive. I predict it’ll change soon, I think that bush will try harder then he did before to be more on the offence, and Kerry will be on the defensive.

I heard absolutely nothing new in these “opinion reminiscing” arguments, I’ll probably watch the next one just because I have nothing better to do.

[Jim H]

How can people say Kerry won? How can people say anyone won? It wasn’t even a real debate... have any of you been to a real debate before? This was absolutely NOTHING like a real one, it doesn’t even compare!

I outlined how I scored it above. I agree with what you're saying though - I wish they would get into a real, back-and-forth type of dealie debate... We're not going to get it though.

[Lynn7]

That sounds good in therory but I would hate to see a shouting match like the political debate show where the loudest person can talk and the quieter one gets lost in the shuffle. Also it gives me a headache! I'm glad its civilized but the time constaints are not good. More time for each question would be good.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
Not true. Atleast with me. Prior to this debate I knew literrally nothing about Kerry except for all the jokes I keep hearing about him changing his opinions on the issues (which now that I've listened to him I have to say that I don't really find it funny anymore). I thought Kerry came off really well. Before the debate I wasn't sure if I was with Kerry (because like I said, I knew nothing about him) but for now I can safely say I am on Kerry's side.

But Kerry was not being himself inthis debate. He was very carefully prepared fo this debate. he came off as nice and charming and polished but that is not who Kerry is. Kerryis condescending and aloof and uncaring. It is like saying that you love a certain actor in a film where he plays a nice heero but then in real life the guy is a real turd. Now that you like Kerry, keep your eye on him as he gives interviews or the way he is when he is not "ON".

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Bush was on the defensive side the whole time, while Kerry was on the offensive. .


Say wha-? Don't get me wrong, I think both were on both offense and defense, but to say Bush was defensive the whole time??? Bush even prides his character for its offensive nature.

"I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap. Anyway, that's for another debate." - Bush has started to bring up what he'll talk about in the NEXT debate. How much more on the offensive can you get?

"My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a "great diversion."


"That's totally absurd. Of course, the U.N. was invited in. And we support the U.N."


And I don't appreciate it when candidate for president denigrates the contributions of these brave soldiers.


The only consistent about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent.


You cannot lead the war on terror if you keep changing positions on the war on terror and say things like, "Well, this is just a grand diversion."


You can't change the dynamics on the ground if you've criticized the brave leader of Iraq.


My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense.

I admirer the fact that he served for 20 years in the Senate. Although I'm not so sure I admire the record.


Again, I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It's precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. (Bush has just suggested Kerry's thinking plays into enemy hands.



I think the final quote here pretty much sums up Bush's stand on taking the defensive:

"But again, I repeat to my fellow citizens, the best way to protection is to stay on the offense."



There was also tons of physical cues - Did you notice that Bush was all the way to Kerry's side of the stage when Kerry walked out, because Bush was double stepping? Bush, especially during the character comments, broke in and added his own comments as Kerry spoke. Also, Bush utilized the 30 second extensions far more than Kerry (who only asked for it once) Also, while Kerry chose not to make offending remarks about Bush's character, Bush went on with his remarks, even after saying it was a "loaded question".


I have a huge difference of opinion on this topic, but realize that it's all just a matter of perception.

[Lynn7]

The very nature of Kerry's speech was to criticize Bush's character. He has campaigned by bringing up Bush's national guard service in a negative way, said Bush has lied to the Amercian people, said that Bush misled and also that he had poor judgement and is responsible for the deaths of thousands. he also said he refuses to work with others. If that is not criticizing Bush's character then i do not know what criticism is.

Kerry was so coached for this thing! Even his comment about how he mispoke about the 87 billion but Bush made a mistake about going into Iraq- just as recently as this week he tried to claim he was tired when he made that comment becasue it was late at night- he was exposed becasue that speech was made at 11 am. The comment at the debate was memorized from something his handlers came up with. It was a good comeback but it was not him. He is always misrepresting everything. That deep tan he had this week- they said it was from a pick up game of basketball. Come on!!!!! If that wasn't a professional tan....

[Jim H]

Kerry was so coached for this thing! Even his comment about how he mispoke about the 87 billion but Bush made a mistake about going into Iraq- just as recently as this week he tried to claim he was tired when he made that comment becasue it was late at night- he was exposed becasue that speech was made at 11 am. The comment at the debate was memorized from something his handlers came up

That's what both of them did, and what they do in all televised debates now.. That's why there was so little actual debating, so they could just quote memorized quotes and facts. Kerry is just a lot better at it than Bush.

[Criminal Rock]

Say wha-? Don't get me wrong, I think both were on both offense and defense, but to say Bush was defensive the whole time??? Bush even prides his character for its offensive nature.

I'm not saying Bush wasn't ever on the offensive stand, I was saying that Kerry was moreso then Bush, and thats very true.

I exaggerated a little.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The very nature of Kerry's speech was to criticize Bush's character. He has campaigned by bringing up Bush's national guard service in a negative way, said Bush has lied to the Amercian people, said that Bush misled and also that he had poor judgement and is responsible for the deaths of thousands. he also said he refuses to work with others. If that is not criticizing Bush's character then i do not know what criticism is.



I'm not saying Kerry hasn't said anything about Bush's national guard service, but I'm really kind of clueless on it. As far as I knew, it was just left/right media throwing extra garbage out to our faces to support their side.

Kerry is trying to show Bush's flaws as a President. That's not criticizing his character. His morals and ethics are not at concern when discussing why you think your opponent has not done his job well and needs to be replaced.

If Kerry, and the entire democratic party thought Bush was superb on all aspects, then there would be no reason to have a vote. It'd be George W. stomping a mudhole against Ralph Nader.

I also don't think that the election is "sewed up", because a vast majority of Americans out there are not decided. They are not right-wing, left-wing folks. Many of them it will take until November to decide who to vote for. If they do have an idea on who they want to vote for, the very essence that they are Independent can result in them 'flip-flopping' their vote via a negative/positive portrayal.

I've been for Kerry all along thus far, but only on the basis that he is a democrat. He was not my first choice for Dem. candidate, but I kind of trudged along because I'm not real thrilled with the last 4 years with Bush as president. After watching the debate, I was happy with how Kerry handled himself, and he addressed issues that are what "foreign diplomacy" means. Not outsourcing your diplomacy to other countries, and remain stubborn with a 'with us or against us' type of government.

Ahhh with all that said I think I've made myself hungry for some freedom fries.

[The Delfonics]

Bush: "Kerry is sending Mexed Missages"

[Jim H]

I also don't think that the election is "sewed up", because a vast majority of Americans out there are not decided. They are not right-wing, left-wing folks. Many of them it will take until November to decide who to vote for. If they do have an idea on who they want to vote for, the very essence that they are Independent can result in them 'flip-flopping' their vote via a negative/positive portrayal.

After the debates, the lead Bush had up until recently in several polls is gone.. I'd say it is anyone's game still. Except for Nader.

[The Postmaster General]

Right on, TM Jew!

Lynn - No one has denied that Kerry has criticised Bush. However, could you find a case in history where a political opponent hasn't criticised the incumbent? I mean, what do you expect Kerry to say? "I don't have any criticisms of the acting president, so I'm suggesting the voters fix something that ain't broke!"



And also can I suggest that it is really unfair to say either was on either a defensive or offensive? The questions were asked of them -- Bush and Kerry didn't ask them on their own:

Question #1 (To Kerry): Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?

#2: (To Bush): Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?


It isn't exactly like either of those questions call for an answer of constructive praise toward either candidate. By nature, both of those questions were intended to allow the candidates criticism of one another. That is what Bush meant when he refered to a "loaded question" - Most of the questions were of the same nature as that character one.





ONE OTHER THING, I WANT BOTH SIDES TO THINK ABOUT:

Did the TV cameras follow the agreed upon rules?

RULE: No reaction shots of one candidate when the other candidate is answering a question.


Was there, or was there not a bunch of reaction shots? Maybe it was just during the rebuttles, and minute extensions, I dunno -- But did any one else feel like this rule was broken (even if only on a technicality...)

[Zebra 3]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
ONE OTHER THING, I WANT BOTH SIDES TO THINK ABOUT:

Did the TV cameras follow the agreed upon rules?

RULE: No reaction shots of one candidate when the other candidate is answering a question.


Was there, or was there not a bunch of reaction shots? Maybe it was just during the rebuttles, and minute extensions, I dunno -- But did any one else feel like this rule was broken (even if only on a technicality...)
:eek: - NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[jeo4]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Right on, TM Jew!

Lynn - No one has denied that Kerry has criticised Bush. However, could you find a case in history where a political opponent hasn't criticised the incumbent? I mean, what do you expect Kerry to say? "I don't have any criticisms of the acting president, so I'm suggesting the voters fix something that ain't broke!"



And also can I suggest that it is really unfair to say either was on either a defensive or offensive? The questions were asked of them -- Bush and Kerry didn't ask them on their own:

Question #1 (To Kerry): Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?

#2: (To Bush): Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?


It isn't exactly like either of those questions call for an answer of constructive praise toward either candidate. By nature, both of those questions were intended to allow the candidates criticism of one another. That is what Bush meant when he refered to a "loaded question" - Most of the questions were of the same nature as that character one.





ONE OTHER THING, I WANT BOTH SIDES TO THINK ABOUT:

Did the TV cameras follow the agreed upon rules?

RULE: No reaction shots of one candidate when the other candidate is answering a question.


Was there, or was there not a bunch of reaction shots? Maybe it was just during the rebuttles, and minute extensions, I dunno -- But did any one else feel like this rule was broken (even if only on a technicality...)

Bent, broken and burned to ashes. You are correct, sir.

[Lynn7]

To Dead Walk and Bubba,
I don't mean to say that it isn't OK to criticize your opponents strategies and actions but when it gets to the point where one person is saying that the other is deliberately lying to the Am.people instead of the fact that he simply has a different philosphy on how to fight terror....it's pretty low, IMO.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
To Dead Walk and Bubba,
I don't mean to say that it isn't OK to criticize your opponents strategies and actions but when it gets to the point where one person is saying that the other is deliberately lying to the Am.people instead of the fact that he simply has a different philosphy on how to fight terror....it's pretty low, IMO.


You mean Kerry just has a different philosophy than Bush?

Well, listening to Bush speak, I was under the impression that Kerry was misleading the public by "flip-flopping for political gain." I mean, that is what Bush said.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
To Dead Walk and Bubba,
I don't mean to say that it isn't OK to criticize your opponents strategies and actions but when it gets to the point where one person is saying that the other is deliberately lying to the Am.people instead of the fact that he simply has a different philosphy on how to fight terror....it's pretty low, IMO.

Didn't Bush say that he had irrefutable that Iraq had WMDs? That's a flat out lie if I ever heard one (and you call him a 'good christian'...)

[Criminal Rock]

Didn't Bush say that he had irrefutable that Iraq had WMDs? That's a flat out lie if I ever heard one (and you call him a 'good christian'...)

Ok, now its getting kind of dumb... every single person remotely interested in politics knows that everyone was told the same thing by our intelligence. EVEN JOHN KERRY!!! Lying isn’t the correct word, it was a mistake on the intelligences' part for not fully partitioning the old facts from the new.

Listen, I’m not the most devout fan of G.B., (although I despise Kerry even more) but I know he’s not a liar. If he truly lied he’d be impeached by now.

Its just my logic speaking, sorry.;)

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Listen, I’m not the most devout fan of G.B., (although I despise Kerry even more) but I know he’s not a liar. If he truly lied he’d be impeached by now.


Although I am on the "other side" (a Kerry fan), I agree with this statement.

[Lynn7]

I liked the VP debates- I thought Cheney did better in the first half and that he lost steam towards the end. I think that he chose not to answer back to some of Edwards criticisms so he would not be put on the defenseive- it was an interesting strategy. Edwards spoke very well but he did not respond to any of cheney's points. He just kept saying the talking points- he is a good speaker though. I think he is seriously over his head to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. It is very troubling that he is not going to senate meetings. Being a senator is not a hard job but people should at least show up.

[jeo4]

Polls are split right now. A CBS poll says that Edwards won. ABC's poll says Cheney won. I didn't see a clear winner in this one.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by jeo4
Polls are split right now. A CBS poll says that Edwards won. ABC's poll says Cheney won. I didn't see a clear winner in this one.


these 'polls' probably also depend on the partisan attitude of the news company...

i thought they both did a lot better than i expected them to.




Rockin' Like Dokken

~darchangel~

[The Postmaster General]

Pretty interesting story on how both candidates fibbed (at least a bit....)

http://www.iht.com/articles/542260.html


Cheney said he never claimed there was an Iraq/9-11 link -- which refutes what he was leading to on Meet The Press.

Edwards said that Cheney pulled strings for Halliburton, which isn't a fact.



God bless America!

[Jim H]

Being a senator is not a hard job but people should at least show up.

Tons of them don't. It's kind of sad how much of congress is absent a good chunk of the time.

[Tweek]

Cheney also said he never met Edwards before the night of the debate.
I saw on the news they showed footage of them shaking hands at some function.

[Lynn7]

Bubba, Actually Rush played Cheney's entire quote in context yesterday and he did not say there was a link between 9-11 and Iraq- it was taken totally out of context and misinterpretted just like the other quote he said last month about if Kerry gets elected we would be attacked again- he really said if Kerry gets elected and we get hit again then it would be bad if we reverted to treating terrorist attacks like law enforcement issues instead of war.

Jim, the scary thing is that the senators are the jury so to speak. They are supposed to be hearing evidence and then voting on bills. if they aren't present to hear evidence then they are voting without knowledge.

Tweek= your right! cheney blew his best line!Too bad. He should have said he had never met him in the sentate before- not that he had never met him. It was a good one though while it lasted, LOL!

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bubba, Actually Rush played Cheney's entire quote in context yesterday and he did not say there was a link between 9-11 and Iraq-


Yes, this is why prefaced the comments with "fibbed (at least a bit)"

I've heard the entire speech, and it seemed that, at the time, Cheney was pointing to an Iraq/9-11 link. Yes, he did not say so, but it would be like me saying "Yeah, a lot of movie lovers visit certain sites. You have things like Joblo.com out there." Then later saying that I never said movie lovers would visit Joblo.com

Right, neither Cheney nor Edwards lied, but both were clearly skirting there.





I think the best LOL blunder was the factcheck.com/org mishap. DOH! Honest mistake. I like what John Stewart said about himself really being confused and going to fatchicks.com

:p

[Tweek]

I like what John Stewart said about himself really being confused and going to fatchicks.com

that's so wrong.
But so funny.

[Jim H]

he did not say there was a link between 9-11 and Iraq

As far as I know, they've never flat out stated it, but they mention one then the other, back and forth, or they'll say something like "Al-Qaeda is an evil terrorist organization. There are evil terrorist organizations in Iraq" in an attempt to draw connections in people's minds. The HUGE number of Americans who now think Saddam and Iraqi's had something to do with 9/11 (even as directly as being hijackers) shows that well.

Jim, the scary thing is that the senators are the jury so to speak. They are supposed to be hearing evidence and then voting on bills. if they aren't present to hear evidence then they are voting without knowledge.

One would assume it is the same with the amount of time Bush has been absent from office. They often don't need to be there because of the superiority of modern communication. But, personally, I think they SHOULD be there.

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by Lynn7
He should have said he had never met him in the sentate before- not that he had never met him.

Even that wasn't true. He swore Edwards in, they showed the footage on CNN. He shook hands with him and talked to him

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Ok, now its getting kind of dumb... every single person remotely interested in politics knows that everyone was told the same thing by our intelligence. EVEN JOHN KERRY!!! Lying isn’t the correct word, it was a mistake on the intelligences' part for not fully partitioning the old facts from the new.

What about the alleged Uranium purchases in Africa? Didnt the CIA tell the White House they were false, yet Bush said Iraq was seeking Uranium in Africa in the State of the Union anyway?

[The Postmaster General]

Every defense this administration has brought up thus far has been technicalities.

"You forgot Poland"

[Lynn7]

Again as far as the linking goes after 9-11 we declared war on all terrorists. How long did we see AlQaeda training camps on TV and thought why aren't we doing anything? and what other terrorst organizations are there that we don't even know about? Let's hit all of them and not wait around until we get hit by them.

This is why Bush is so great. He is not treating the terrorist problem like a law enforcement issue- he declared war on all of them and put the world on notice that any support to terrorists would be looked on as an act against the US. In law enforcement they wait until something bad happens and then go out and look for the culprits. In terrorism, the culprits aren't even the main thing- lots of times the culprits kill themselves so it's not about catching the individuals but stamping out the entire culture of terrorism by cleaning out the abcess and then creating a healthy environment wherever it is possible.

In Iraq it was possible becasue Husseins situation had ripened over the years. He broke agreements with us repeatedly and we finally held him accountable. I f we hadn't taken action then we'd be in bad shape now since we found out other countries were dirty dealing with Iraq and he would have eventually taken action against us- we would have been percieved as very weak after 9-11. Eveeryone would've been striking at us- taking great encouragement from the successfula ttack of 9-11. We needed a show of US force to keep reminding enemies not to mess with us. Iraq was a great demonstration of our might. I'm also not convinced that Bin Laden is not dead already. In three years why does he not speak? If I were him (alive) I'd be taunting my enemies with videotapes. Oh well.

As far as Cheney's screw up with Edwards (and it was a screw up) it does not change the fact that Edwards and Kerry both have miserabale attendance in the senate. They can use this as a diversion though.

Jim, it is not the same as with the pres not being in his office casue the pres gets daily briefings. I expect that our senators will be attentive to what is going on and in this case it is not as if all senators miss all meetings, it is these two showhorses that do that.

I really do not understand why these guys are doing so well in the polls. If they were at a job interview they would never be hired. in this case voters are willing to overlook a lot, especially integrity.

If these two get in, the Dem party is doomed in the next ten years. and the media that now seems to love Kerry will despise him after a short time as he dismisses them and lies to the people. If he did not work in the senate he will not work in the white house. If he changes positions in the campaign he will not be reliable int he white house.

[Twisted Sister]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I think the best LOL blunder was the factcheck.com/org mishap. DOH! Honest mistake. I like what John Stewart said about himself really being confused and going to fatchicks.com

:p

I wonder how many hits fatchicks.com had after that...


:D

[Lynn7]

Last night's debate was very good. Both men came out powerfully and it was fun to watch. I think Kerry's smile is getting to be a littel too strained though. Sometimes it was funny just to see him with that unnatural grin on his face.

It was funny when Gibson tried to ask Bush some more questions before Bush had a chance to respond to Kerry's time and Bush just talked right over poor Gibson. I did think Gibson was wrong to interject like that casue it caused a break in the tension for Bush but it made Bush look rude. I do think he did the right thing though casue Gibson wasn't doing that to Kerry and I think he knew it.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Last night's debate was very good. Both men came out powerfully and it was fun to watch. I think Kerry's smile is getting to be a littel too strained though. Sometimes it was funny just to see him with that unnatural grin on his face.

It was funny when Gibson tried to ask Bush some more questions before Bush had a chance to respond to Kerry's time and Bush just talked right over poor Gibson. I did think Gibson was wrong to interject like that casue it caused a break in the tension for Bush but it made Bush look rude. I do think he did the right thing though casue Gibson wasn't doing that to Kerry and I think he knew it.

They'd both had the same number of turns at that point, and Gibson tried to move on, and Bush interrupted him. Bush made himself look like a jackass there, but I thought as a whole he did well - much better than the previous debate.

I did like how often they both SOOOOOOOOO obviously ducked many of the questions and went on semi-related tangents. Like when someone asked Bush what three mistakes are and how he corrected them, and he gave ZERO (he did mention he'd made mistakes when he appointed people, but he didn't mention who or how he'd fixed any of that).

I also expected traffic to be horrible around here, or to see some other effects, but other than a lot more police around and on the streets, no problems. Good job on that, whoever managed it. I live around 20 minutes from Washington University.

[Lynn7]

I might be wrong but I thought Kerry ahd given his debate point and then Bush was about to respond and then Gibson wanted to ask him a question before he spoke to direct Bush's response in a different direction. This happened twice and Bush was saying For Gibson to just give him a chance to answer. The second time it happened he just talked right over Gibson. It was awkward but I knew where Bush was coming from.

It's like if I said that Jennifer went to the store on the night of the murder and you wanted to respond that Jennifer had INTENDED to go to the store but she went to the party instead but before you could respond, the questioner interfered and said "Let me ask you about Jennifer's cat'"--- You would want to make your point about the store before you began to address Jennifer's cat. That is the way I saw the Gibson/Bush situation.

In that question about what mistakes he has made he said right off the bat that he knew where she was coming from with that question. That is a question I hear all the time on the political debate shows about Bush making mistakes. Bush does not beleive he made a mistake going into I raq ( Ihappen to agree that he did not make a mistake) and so why should he be forced to say he made one. He had a different point of view. He really depends on his experts-it's not like he dreams up any of these solutions- he listens to his experts and then decides what course to follow.Where people are concerned there could be 4 different opinions on how to slice a baloney sandwich so it's not suprising their were different opionions on IRaq- none are wrong they are just different opinions. I would have liked to know who he was sorry he appointed though.

[Jim H]

It doesn't matter about Iraq (that would have been one mistake, anyways, not three). EVERY person who makes the amount of decisions Bush has made will make mistakes. Hopefully, such a person will also be wise enough to attempt to correct them.

The train of political thought around now just doesn't allow politicians to readily admit error (both canidates have done it, but they always mask it with about 60000 words before it that are vaguely related, 4 words saying something was a slight error, and then another 60000 words that are vaguely related afterwards), so Bush basically didn't.

[Lynn7]

Last night's debate was great. I was suprised at how good the moderator was- he asked great questions. both candididates did well but I thought Bush was spectacular (of course I realize I am biased). i think Bush really did a good job explaining how conservatives think.

I think Kerry was wrong to bring up Cheney's gay daughter-it was very forced and out of place. I was a little disappointed that when they were asked about the women in their lives that Bush did not mentionhis mother. I also thought poor Teresa came off bad when Kerry said he had married up- very up (funny line) but then he did not say anything personal about her like what a great wife she is etc. I felt kind of bad for her.

I saw at the end, Teresa and Laura really embraced sincerely and I thought that was kind of touching.

[BadCoverVersion]

I personally felt Kerry trounced Bush.

His arguments were articulate, well-rounded...and more importantly, I supported the vast majority of his viewpoints.

The Tony Soprano comment was pure gold...and I felt his points re: the more 'tender' issues - most notably abortion and religion - really hit the spot.

I also favour his non-aggressive, controlled approach. He may lack va-va-voom according to some...but I like his cool, calm 'n' collected persona. It'll serve him well during these testy times.

Controversial subject...but did anybody else get the distinct feeling Bush was being 'fed' figures during last nights debate...!?

At one point when referring to the number of times Kerry had voted for waiving budget caps he appeared to 'estimate' a figure of around 200 times. No sooner had the sum left his lips did Bush seem to pluck the more precise figure of 277 out of mid-air...add to that the fact that he was blinking like a disorientated pageant queen...

:confused:

Maybe I'm just making something out of nothing, but it all seemed a bit sus' around 2:30am this morning.

Oh, and about the alleged ("Where is Osama bin Laden? ") "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned. " comment...just another one of those "exaggerations" or simple fact?

I was led to believe that Bush GENUINELY said this.

In the words of big-chinned falcon lover Craig David, FILL ME IN!

PS: Forgive the shitty grammar and stuff...I haven't slept in about 30 hours.

[jeo4]

I think Kerry was at his worst last night. I also think that Kerry made himself look bad on several occasions. Bush was okay, but the debate wasn't anything special. I don't see a clear winner on either side because so many issues were dodged in all three debates.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
Oh, and about the alleged ("Where is Osama bin Laden? ") "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned. " comment...just another one of those "exaggerations" or simple fact?

I was led to believe that Bush GENUINELY said this.

In the words of big-chinned falcon lover Craig David, FILL ME IN!

PS: Forgive the shitty grammar and stuff...I haven't slept in about 30 hours.

He actually said this, believe it or not. I distinctly remember it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

"Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time ...

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you ...

And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run."


I agree completely with BCV. Bush got completely pwned by Kerry in the debates. Go Kerry. Get this fucking madman out of office.

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion


The Tony Soprano comment was pure gold...and I felt his points re: the more 'tender' issues - most notably abortion and religion - really hit the spot.


What was the Tony Soprano comment? I think I missed that one.

I didn't pay attention to the whole debate, but it was hard to know who won since most of the debate was comprised of a lot of figures and statistics that'd take a long time to verify, time I don't have a lot of

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by Scarface98.9
What was the Tony Soprano comment? I think I missed that one.

"Being lectured by the president on fiscal responsibility is a little bit like Tony Soprano talking to me about law and order in this country''

Go Kerry.

Thanks for confirming Bake.

:)

That Bush, he's a fruit.

[Zebra 3]

:D - Kerry's Soprano comment was great! I give all three presidential and the one vice-presidential debates to the two Democratic candidates.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion -I personally felt Kerry trounced Bush.

His arguments were articulate, well-rounded...and more importantly, I supported the vast majority of his viewpoints.
________________________________________________







He is very articulate but the substance of what he is saying does not make good sense. He wants to pour more money into governmental programs as if we don't have gazillions of dollars being wasted all ready- no one is starving in America unless they are not getting up and getting help. Teh illegal immigrants are even getting health care for crying out loud so his arguments about health care are bogus. A lot of people do not CHOOSE to have health care becasue they are young and healthy. I know this for a fact from the company my husband works with. Many workers choose not to have it. They don't need it. It is very expensive but Bush said it right- the reason health insurance is so expensive is becasuse the consumer is not involved in choosing the products- no competition- also law suits cause defensive medicine which drives up premiums- Kerry's answer is more taxes!





______________________________________________

The Tony Soprano comment was pure gold...and I felt his points re: the more 'tender' issues - most notably abortion and religion - really hit the spot.
______________________________________________







I f anyone knows anything about Kerry they will know that he does not watch the Sopranos. That is why that comment did nothing for me. i saw it as a deliberate attempt to connect with the common folk- that is, the common folk who can afford HBO!




_______________________________________________

I also favour his non-aggressive, controlled approach. He may lack va-va-voom according to some...but I like his cool, calm 'n' collected persona. It'll serve him well during these testy times.
__________________________________________________ _






He was very calm and controlled during these debates but he is really pretty aggressive with his tongue when he is campaigning. He does not work well with other people- he is not known for that. He does things his own way and he is also very secretive. Alex Pelosi did a documentary on him and the Dem candidates for pres and she said that he was not at all cooperative- this coming from the daughter of the Democratic house minority leader. You think he would've given abreak to a colleague's kid!




____________________________________________
Controversial subject...but did anybody else get the distinct feeling Bush was being 'fed' figures during last nights debate...!?At one point when referring to the number of times Kerry had voted for waiving budget caps he appeared to 'estimate' a figure of around 200 times. No sooner had the sum left his lips did Bush seem to pluck the more precise figure of 277 out of mid-air...add to that the fact that he was blinking like a disorientated pageant queen...
______________________________________________-



No- not at all. These guys have been drilled by researchers who have done their homework and they memorize all this crap. Poor Bush does blink a lot.



__________________________________________________ __
Oh, and about the alleged ("Where is Osama bin Laden? ") "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned. " comment...just another one of those "exaggerations" or simple fact?

I was led to believe that Bush GENUINELY said this.

In the words of big-chinned falcon lover Craig David, FILL ME IN!
_______________________________________________-


Yes, Bush did say this but the comment did not mean what people are trying to say that it meant. Bin Laden is on the run and if he is alive he is certainly having a hard time by having to keep a low profile and some of his top people are in jail or dead. I think he is dead too but I know there is no proof of that. I bet Bush thinks he's dead too.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes, Bush did say this but the comment did not mean what people are trying to say that it meant. Bin Laden is on the run and if he is alive he is certainly having a hard time by having to keep a low profile and some of his top people are in jail or dead. I think he is dead too but I know there is no proof of that. I bet Bush thinks he's dead too.

If that's the case, than why dosen't he flat out say that Bin Laden's dead? From my view he's simply quit since Osama too good a hider for him to catch (one could argue that he might of went to war with Iraq in an attempt to catch an easier "bad guy" and "distact" Americans from his obvious failure. It's definetely a long shot and probably just a 10 cent conspiracy, but it kinda makes a little sense. At least to me). Even if he's dead, shouldn't Bush get the body? Ya know, to give the very people who he had several thousands killed some closure.

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by Lynn7


I f anyone knows anything about Kerry they will know that he does not watch the Sopranos. That is why that comment did nothing for me. i saw it as a deliberate attempt to connect with the common folk- that is, the common folk who can afford HBO!


Whether he watches it or not, I don't think you need to even watch the show to know that Tony Soprano isn't exactly the model citizen for law and order

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by Lynn7
He is very articulate but the substance of what he is saying does not make good sense. He wants to pour more money into governmental programs as if we don't have gazillions of dollars being wasted all ready- no one is starving in America unless they are not getting up and getting help. Teh illegal immigrants are even getting health care for crying out loud so his arguments about health care are bogus. A lot of people do not CHOOSE to have health care becasue they are young and healthy. I know this for a fact from the company my husband works with. Many workers choose not to have it. They don't need it. It is very expensive but Bush said it right- the reason health insurance is so expensive is becasuse the consumer is not involved in choosing the products- no competition- also law suits cause defensive medicine which drives up premiums- Kerry's answer is more taxes!

Sorry Lynn, but I don't agree.

"No one is starving in America unless they are not getting up and getting help"

Well, somebody needs to tell them this!

Why are they starving in the first place?

I realise life isn't handed to you on a plate, but there are many who strive to succeed, but fall by the wayside.

I don't believe Kerry mentioned MORE taxes, except for those in the 'upper brackett'.

Originally posted by Lynn7
If anyone knows anything about Kerry they will know that he does not watch the Sopranos.

Um, how can you posssibly tell?

:confused:

Originally posted by Lynn7
He was very calm and controlled during these debates but he is really pretty aggressive with his tongue when he is campaigning. He does not work well with other people- he is not known for that. He does things his own way and he is also very secretive. Alex Pelosi did a documentary on him and the Dem candidates for pres and she said that he was not at all cooperative- this coming from the daughter of the Democratic house minority leader. You think he would've given abreak to a colleague's kid!

I'd rather just trust my own instincts.

There's so much shit being slung from either side I'd only be left confused and smelly.

Originally posted by Lynn7
No- not at all. These guys have been drilled by researchers who have done their homework and they memorize all this crap. Poor Bush does blink a lot.

Oh well, just a theory.

;)

His blinking is seriously off the chart though.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes, Bush did say this but the comment did not mean what people are trying to say that it meant. Bin Laden is on the run and if he is alive he is certainly having a hard time by having to keep a low profile and some of his top people are in jail or dead. I think he is dead too but I know there is no proof of that. I bet Bush thinks he's dead too.

Regardless of how the comment was intended...he obviously DID say it.

Plus "I know he is on the run" doesn't really translate into Bush thinking he is kaput.

So, he lied then...

Ho-hum.

[MacReady]

Since I missed part of the debate (read: nearly all of it) I don't know what was Bush's response about gay marriage. Could anybody fill me in?

[C-Desecration-]

Bush thinks America is a place where you should be accepted for who you are, whatever sexual preference you might have, but he says courts are basically changing what marriage is. And that he has deep respect for the sanctity of marriage, which is between a man and woman, not a man and a man.

That's all I can remember.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
Bush thinks America is a place where you should be accepted for who you are, whatever sexual preference you might have, but he says courts are basically changing what marriage is. And that he has deep respect for the sanctity of marriage, which is between a man and woman, not a man and a man.

That's all I can remember.

I wonder if Bush knows that at one time in North America, voting was defined as something between a white male and a voting booth. Oh well, the status quo must be upheld, even if many people complain and there's no benefit...

[Lynn7]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
[B]Sorry Lynn, but I don't agree.

"No one is starving in America unless they are not getting up and getting help"

Well, somebody needs to tell them this!

Why are they starving in the first place?
______________________________________________


I am really not aware of anyone who is starving in the US. I know many people who have fallen on hard times and the government has tons of programs to help them out. No one needs to go without healthcare or food in the US. I think every citizen knows this. As I've mentioned before I went to a community college and while I was paying hundreds of dollars for my books almost everyone around me got their books paid for by the government. Kerry and the Dems always bring up class warfare to bring up resentment and get people to vote for them. As a former nurse, I can tell you that the people off the streets (drug abuser, alcohol abuser who lived ont he street) when admitted to the hospital got the exact same health care as the regular patients.


_________________________________________-
I realise life isn't handed to you on a plate, but there are many who strive to succeed, but fall by the wayside.
___________________________________________

Yes, I agree. I have had friends who had been very poor when their deadbeat husbands left them with little kids. There are tons of programs that helped them out. Some drug abusers who can't hold down jobs, get apartments etc do end up on the street but they can go to shelters to sleep and they can go to soup kitchens to eat. They can even get rehab paid for if they choose to take advantage but they often dont choose it. What can you do? You cna't pay for their apartment and their drugs or alcohol- that would enable the behavior that sends them to an early grave from AIDS or liver damage.


_______________________________________________
I don't believe Kerry mentioned MORE taxes, except for those in the 'upper brackett'.
______________________________________________

This guy is my senator- he loves to tax. These guys do not use care when starting new programs.We have programs that duplicate other programs and there is so much waste of tax money. Instead of being more carefulw ith how they spend money they just want to tax more. And then they just use our tax money to give cushy jobs tot heir friends and family. It's really disgusting. We get taxed on everything. Tax for city, state, federal, income tax, gas tax, shopping tax, death tax, car tax, tax tax tax- how about cutting back on excessive spending? It's especially maddening when you hear what some of our money goes to- there are reports by certain organizations each year about crazy things the gov spent money on- it's good for a laugh but then you just get really mad.

________________________________________________
Um, how can you posssibly tell?
_________________________________________________


Kerry is a beautiful person. He would never sully himself by watching the Sopranos. Beleive me! As I've mentioned before a local radio station periodically had people call in with stories they have about when they have had contact with Kerry and he is notorious for cutting in front of people in line and saying "Do you know who I am?" when questioned about taking special favors. He goes to restaurants and when presented with a check he signs the check and not the charge reciept- in other words he has no intention of paying. One story in one of the papers yesterday said that when Kerry was married to his first wife a girl whose family worked for his campaign was doing a lot of babysitting for them and she was sitting near by when she heard Kerry tell Julia that he did not want the girl to eat with the family that night because the guests that were coming over for dinner did not beleive in eating with the help. Julia put her foot down and said the girl would be eating dinner with them that night. Kerry complied but the girl felt like crap after hearing what Kerry had said. He is a beautiful person, for sure.

Below is an email I got that shows the hypocrisy in this campaign:






Let me see; have I got this straight?
>
>
>Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
>
>Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...!
>
>Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
>
>Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-
>good...
>
>
>
>Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
>
>
>Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
>
>
>
>Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...
>
>
>
>Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
>
>Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...
>
>
>
>
>
>No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
>
>No WMD found Iraq - bad...
>
>
>
>Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good!
>
>Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
>
>
>World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
>
>
>
>Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
>
>Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...
>
>
>Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
>Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
>
>
>
>
>Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
>Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
>
>
>
>
>
>Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
>Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
>
>
>Ahh, it's so confusing!
>Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax
>burden
>on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the
>day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
>
>This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been
>since 1991.
>
>
>
>It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice
>anything special about those dates?
>
>
>Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are
>actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave
>no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men.
>
>
>
>Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas.
>
>
>
>Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort
>home in Idaho
>
>is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average
>A-frame).
>
>
>Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound
>right?
>
>The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to
>avoid paying his own.
>
>

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
>Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-
>good...
>
>
>
>Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Bush kills 11000 civilians in this war and proves that it's hypocritical to say that what Saddam did was evil when he's just as guilty of causing the death of innocent Iraqis - Good...

[Thrizzle]

>Republican Lies - good!....


And i have to say, that when a country is spending billions of dollars in money not accounted for in a budget, all the while in record debt, tax raises are inevitable. I hate how republicans keep saying, "Oh no, he'll raise taxes!! That's baaad."

So, is Bush going to raise taxes on the rich? Theres no way in hell. Will Bush stop spending? He hasnt yet.

Where will this money come from?

[arto_j]

Originally posted by Lynn7

I am really not aware of anyone who is starving in the US.

What's the current percentage of Americans living below the poverty line? I've understood it's quite a lot. These people may not be starving to death, but they're probably not exactly the jolliest folk on the planet.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Kerry is a beautiful person. He would never sully himself by watching the Sopranos. Beleive me! As I've mentioned before a local radio station periodically had people call in with stories they have about when they have had contact with Kerry and he is notorious for cutting in front of people in line and saying "Do you know who I am?" when questioned about taking special favors. He goes to restaurants and when presented with a check he signs the check and not the charge reciept- in other words he has no intention of paying. One story in one of the papers yesterday said that when Kerry was married to his first wife a girl whose family worked for his campaign was doing a lot of babysitting for them and she was sitting near by when she heard Kerry tell Julia that he did not want the girl to eat with the family that night because the guests that were coming over for dinner did not beleive in eating with the help. Julia put her foot down and said the girl would be eating dinner with them that night. Kerry complied but the girl felt like crap after hearing what Kerry had said. He is a beautiful person, for sure.

:confused:

I honestly don't know what in the name of Jesus titty-fucking Christ (tm Team America) you're talking about here.

Do you even read what you write?

Go back and read that paragraph again.

I'm amazed that you can derive what show he does or does not watch from whatever the fuck you just rambled on about.

So let's say, by some frickin' miracle, you KNOW for absolutely sure that Kerry is a stuck up, elitist prick. Does that mean The Sopranos is only watched by lowlife scumbags who have no respect for themselves?

What you're implying is pretty fucking disrespectful. I watch The Sopranos and absolutely love it to death.

All I ask is you read what you write before you post it and edit it for clarity and common sense.

[The Postmaster General]

Lynn, why does your example of people not starving include college students?

Also, it makes no sense to say that the proof of people getting healthcare can be found in the people inside the hospital.

Most of what you are saying is the same thing as saying: "Everyone has money in their pocket. Take for example, I have money in my pocket right here right now, and I'm just one person! Ha! So anyone saying that people have no money in their pocket obviously haven't talked to people with money in their pocket."



The truth is that before I left Florida, I was seeing food banks being shut down left and right -- and you would see starving people all the time. Of course Florida is a long ways from Mass., a state that along with New York, bused people down to Florida as a solution to the homeless problem. You know -- because finding bums frozen to the sidewalk was a problem, and The Sunshine State would ensure they could beg year round.

As far as the health care comment -- i can't say how it is in the NorthEast, but in Florida the VA was a joke, and public health services were almost nonexistent.

I'm sure where you come from is much different than where I come from, because you are not seeing things much the same as I am. For instance, the crime-rate index down there was twice as much as Boston (not sure what city you're in), we had fewer people with college or trade schools, fewer hs graduates, fewer schools, people earn less, and our houses are worth a 80k versus 190k, on average (this was before the hurricanes.)

All I know is that Massachusettes sounds like a pretty peachy, go-lucky place to live -- with no homelessness, no starvation, and health-care for everyone. And I thought Mickey Mouse was in Florida!

Source: City-data.com

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
:confused:

I honestly don't know what in the name of Jesus titty-fucking Christ (tm Team America) you're talking about here.

Do you even read what you write?

Go back and read that paragraph again.

I'm amazed that you can derive what show he does or does not watch from whatever the fuck you just rambled on about.

So let's say, by some frickin' miracle, you KNOW for absolutely sure that Kerry is a stuck up, elitist prick. Does that mean The Sopranos is only watched by lowlife scumbags who have no respect for themselves?

What you're implying is pretty fucking disrespectful. I watch The Sopranos and absolutely love it to death.

All I ask is you read what you write before you post it and edit it for clarity and common sense.

Like Bake, I'm abso-friggin-lutely BAFFLED!

I'd like to parrot everything said in the above post.

The Sopranos is probably the sharpest show on the box right now. I find it ludicrous that you appear to associate it with the 'common folk'.

[free]

Kerry is a beautiful person. He would never sully himself by watching the Sopranos.

I don't presume to speak for her, but to be fair, I think she being sarcastic. She was saying that Kerry viewed himself as being better that watching some peasant's show, not to say that the show was bad, but that in his mind, he would sully himself by watching it.

(I happen to disagree, though)

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
:confused:

I honestly don't know what in the name of Jesus titty-fucking Christ (tm Team America) you're talking about here.

Do you even read what you write?

Go back and read that paragraph again.

I'm amazed that you can derive what show he does or does not watch from whatever the fuck you just rambled on about.

So let's say, by some frickin' miracle, you KNOW for absolutely sure that Kerry is a stuck up, elitist prick. Does that mean The Sopranos is only watched by lowlife scumbags who have no respect for themselves?

What you're implying is pretty fucking disrespectful. I watch The Sopranos and absolutely love it to death.

All I ask is you read what you write before you post it and edit it for clarity and common sense.


For someone who claims not to understand what I wrote you picked up my point just fine. That is exactly what I am saying.Kerry is an elitist. People who live in that echelon would probably not be watching the Sopranos- they would think it beneath them. No insult- my husband and brothers watch it. Most intellectuals do not watch much TV at all and if they did they would be watching history channel or A&E or PBS. They tend to spend their time reading or going to art shows and opera. I have known a lot of these people and there are few exceptions. Kerry is not known for being a common man.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Lynn, why does your example of people not starving include college students?

Also, it makes no sense to say that the proof of people getting healthcare can be found in the people inside the hospital.

Most of what you are saying is the same thing as saying: "Everyone has money in their pocket. Take for example, I have money in my pocket right here right now, and I'm just one person! Ha! So anyone saying that people have no money in their pocket obviously haven't talked to people with money in their pocket."



The truth is that before I left Florida, I was seeing food banks being shut down left and right -- and you would see starving people all the time. Of course Florida is a long ways from Mass., a state that along with New York, bused people down to Florida as a solution to the homeless problem. You know -- because finding bums frozen to the sidewalk was a problem, and The Sunshine State would ensure they could beg year round.

As far as the health care comment -- i can't say how it is in the NorthEast, but in Florida the VA was a joke, and public health services were almost nonexistent.

I'm sure where you come from is much different than where I come from, because you are not seeing things much the same as I am. For instance, the crime-rate index down there was twice as much as Boston (not sure what city you're in), we had fewer people with college or trade schools, fewer hs graduates, fewer schools, people earn less, and our houses are worth a 80k versus 190k, on average (this was before the hurricanes.)

All I know is that Massachusettes sounds like a pretty peachy, go-lucky place to live -- with no homelessness, no starvation, and health-care for everyone. And I thought Mickey Mouse was in Florida!

Source: City-data.com


There are homeless here- the drug users, the alcoholics and the mentally ill. Im sure it is the same in Florida. I feel really bad for them and I do contribute regularly to the Salvation Army and to the Rescue Mission. I'm sure if there are food banks closing down the churches or the Salvation Army is right there picking up the pieces. Im sure if people were starving it would be all over the news and people would be right there helping- i would be the first to send money. Look at all the contributions for the Hurricanes.
I visit NYCity every so often and see the homeless on the streets- none of them is starving. Most of the time they are sleeping off a hangover while collecting money in a hat. City shelters tell people not to give them money cause it keeps them buying booze and stops them from going to get rehab.

Mass might be different in some respects but in America you can make a living if you choose to- you might have to work a menial job to start with but you can do it. My grandparent came as immigrants and worked the lowest of the low jobs. My grandmother was pulled out of school in the sixth grade to work to help support the family. Our poor in this country live like kings compared to other places in the world. I used a college example to show how there are good programs to help poor people get an education, never mind food and shelter. If our people are starving then why are there so many people pouring over the Mexican border and how do they find work here that enables them to live whiel they are here?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
Like Bake, I'm abso-friggin-lutely BAFFLED!

I'd like to parrot everything said in the above post.

The Sopranos is probably the sharpest show on the box right now. I find it ludicrous that you appear to associate it with the 'common folk'.

I have seen the show and I happen to disagree. I don't think it is sharp at all- different? Yes.

[Jim H]

Im sure if people were starving it would be all over the news and people would be right there helpin

People go hungry in America. Few people starve to death in America, but there are a lot of malnourished children.

f our people are starving then why are there so many people pouring over the Mexican border and how do they find work here that enables them to live whiel they are here?

America is better than Mexico. I'm not sure that is something to be particularly proud of. You might impress me by saying droves of people were coming from other first world countries.

My grandparent came as immigrants and worked the lowest of the low jobs. My grandmother was pulled out of school in the sixth grade to work to help support the family. Our poor in this country live like kings compared to other places in the world.

Class change is, of course, possible in America. But it's an exception, not the rule, and the number of people moving from the lower to the middle or upper classes has been dropping for 30 years. You should remember that yes, people do it, but they're not the norm, and many people try hard their entire lives and never do it.

I don't see the problem with the government assisting them more.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H
People go hungry in America. Few people starve to death in America, but there are a lot of malnourished children.



America is better than Mexico. I'm not sure that is something to be particularly proud of. You might impress me by saying droves of people were coming from other first world countries.



Class change is, of course, possible in America. But it's an exception, not the rule, and the number of people moving from the lower to the middle or upper classes has been dropping for 30 years. You should remember that yes, people do it, but they're not the norm, and many people try hard their entire lives and never do it.

I don't see the problem with the government assisting them more.

You know, you birng up a good point. There may be children starving cause there are lots of idiots neglecting their kids but that is not becasue of the government. That is a people problem. There are gov programs to provide for kids and of course foster care etc. children are always able to get health care if their parents bring them to clinics.

There are lots of people from first world countries waiting for citizenship. My husband's aunt and uncle had to wait years befor they could enter the country, once they applied and then once they were here they had to wait more years. Their kids had reached majority during the wait and then they had to apply themselves. One of them could not enter the country to see his parents until his process was at a certaing point but they did it cause they thought it was worth it. It was very hard.

Class change used to be totally common here when my grndparents came and it is still possible but many in our society have become lazy and just want everything handed to them. Things were a lot worse a hundred years ago so I can't beleive people cannot improve their lot in life if they apply themselves. Many businesses complain casue their employees are so bad- they don't show up for shifts and they just leave jobs without giving notice- Icna't beleive it would be hard to shine and get promoted, considering the horrible quality of the work force these days.

If you are saying by class change going from middle to rich, then I agree that it is not the norm but I live a really good middle level life. I would not even want to be rich to tell you the truth. I am so happy right where I am. I know some people who struggle finanically all the time who are happier than some of the rich people I know.

[Jim H]

Class change used to be totally common here when my grndparents came and it is still possible but many in our society have become lazy and just want everything handed to them. Things were a lot worse a hundred years ago so I can't beleive people cannot improve their lot in life if they apply themselves.

Class change has never really been common; rags-to-riches has always been an exception, not a rule. And, of course, the vast majority of wealth in our country is inheirited. The rich have better eductation, better contacts, better resources, and they control the cultural values and communication of American soceity.

Anyway, you have to look at actual, hard numbers for this type of thing - anecdotal evidence is worthless. The numbers show it - the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. Just because YOUR ancestors did it does not mean all or most poor people did. BTW, that does include most of my ancestors (I pretty much have to call them that - the most recent people in my ancestry I'm aware of came here in the mid 19th century) - the oldest of which were Bavarian farmers, who did indeed do better in the land of opportunity (not yet the country at that time).

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by Lynn7
For someone who claims not to understand what I wrote you picked up my point just fine. That is exactly what I am saying.Kerry is an elitist. People who live in that echelon would probably not be watching the Sopranos- they would think it beneath them.

Most intellectuals do not watch much TV at all and if they did they would be watching history channel or A&E or PBS. They tend to spend their time reading or going to art shows and opera. I have known a lot of these people and there are few exceptions.

Okay, elitist or intellectual? Which one is it to be?

Only a faux-intellectual derides cultural phenomenons and sneers at television.

Take Peter Cook for example; the Cambridge educated British satirist and quite literally one of the most intelligent men to grace this planet. Cook was both an avid media follower and self-confessed TV and radio enthusiast. The great man spent his years devouring print - both tabloid and broadsheet, reportedly EVERY publication printed on EACH day - and staring at the goggle box.

Stephen Fry is another fine example...a man who gobbles up shows not unlike The Sopranos and Six Feet Under with vim and vigour.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Kerry is not known for being a common man.

I suppose Bush has that simple man vibe going on though...

If he's such a Cowboy how come we never see him on his horse?

Originally posted by Lynn7
I have seen the show and I happen to disagree. I don't think it is sharp at all- different? Yes.

Fair enough, but I completely disagree.

Bring me the head of a more canny show currently gracing the box and we might just talk some more.

[DaMovieMan]

Im posting on the Politics Thread for the first time!!

Anyway,

I think Kerry won all 3 debates and the last one i was just astounded at people thinking that Bush was better. THey keep making fun of Kerry for the Soprano thing (which i think was pretty cool, and a good way to paint the picture) and bringing up Chenney's lesbian daughter. The whole Chenney family went after him saying that it was a cheap political trick. If you have such a huge problem with it, then you must be having problems at home. When Edwards mentioned it, Chenney said they were 'kind words' and now its a cheap trick? Please.

Not to mention the amount of times Bush fucked up.
I felt like some adviser told him that the night would be about domestic issues and so the most important part of domestic issues is education. Poor Bush was thinking about education so much that nearly every question Shaffer asked he asnwered it with Education!! "What do you say to the man who lost his job to someone else overseas?" "I say, here's some money, get an education!" [Conan O'Brien impression] HUH?

When he was talking about his wife he said "She speaks better English than me" i laughed...hard. The president of the United States acutally said this? It's embarassing in my opinion. But everyone else thought it was sweet when he talked about his wife. Please.

Anyway a little more than two weeks away, I hope Kerry wins because Bush just doesn't deserve to be in the White House. He fucked up so many things (economy, jobs, health, security etc.) in the home front and made nearly every other major country ridicule him because of Iraq. Like any typical red neck American he thinks the world evolves around America and they could do anything they wanted with no ones permission's. Wake up. More people hate you now more than every before. you just added to the numbers (Serbs, Middle-Easters, Vietnamese, Japanese etc.).

Anyway, Im off for now :)


DMM

[Lynn7]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BadCoverVersion Okay, elitist or intellectual? Which one is it to be?
_____________________________________________

I think he is an elitist who prides himself on being an intellectual.

______________________________________________

Only a faux-intellectual derides cultural phenomenons and sneers at television.

Take Peter Cook for example; the Cambridge educated British satirist and quite literally one of the most intelligent men to grace this planet. Cook was both an avid media follower and self-confessed TV and radio enthusiast. The great man spent his years devouring print - both tabloid and broadsheet, reportedly EVERY publication printed on EACH day - and staring at the goggle box.

Stephen Fry is another fine example...a man who gobbles up shows not unlike The Sopranos and Six Feet Under with vim and vigour.
________________________________________________



I think that Camille Paglia is very intellectual and she loves pop culture. Eats it up. I do admire people who can relax and enjoy all aspects of life but come on! That is just not Kerry! To be fair, Bush does not watch TV shows either- he is totally into sports. The two men are what they are. I would say that I thought GEorge Bush Sr was also an elitist but the son is not.


______________________________________________
I suppose Bush has that simple man vibe going on though...

If he's such a Cowboy how come we never see him on his horse?
____________________________________________

You don't have to ride horses to be a Texan. He is not a cowboy and has never claimed to be- he just lives on his ranch, that's all.



_____________________________________________
Fair enough, but I completely disagree.

Bring me the head of a more canny show currently gracing the box and we might just talk some more.
__________________________________________________ __

It's really pathetic but right now I can't think of one canny show that is on right now- I say it 's a real dry period in TV right now.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by DaMovieMan
Im posting on the Politics Thread for the first time!!

Anyway,

I think Kerry won all 3 debates and the last one i was just astounded at people thinking that Bush was better. THey keep making fun of Kerry for the Soprano thing (which i think was pretty cool, and a good way to paint the picture) and bringing up Chenney's lesbian daughter. The whole Chenney family went after him saying that it was a cheap political trick. If you have such a huge problem with it, then you must be having problems at home. When Edwards mentioned it, Chenney said they were 'kind words' and now its a cheap trick? Please.

Not to mention the amount of times Bush fucked up.
I felt like some adviser told him that the night would be about domestic issues and so the most important part of domestic issues is education. Poor Bush was thinking about education so much that nearly every question Shaffer asked he asnwered it with Education!! "What do you say to the man who lost his job to someone else overseas?" "I say, here's some money, get an education!" [Conan O'Brien impression] HUH?

When he was talking about his wife he said "She speaks better English than me" i laughed...hard. The president of the United States acutally said this? It's embarassing in my opinion. But everyone else thought it was sweet when he talked about his wife. Please.

Anyway a little more than two weeks away, I hope Kerry wins because Bush just doesn't deserve to be in the White House. He fucked up so many things (economy, jobs, health, security etc.) in the home front and made nearly every other major country ridicule him because of Iraq. Like any typical red neck American he thinks the world evolves around America and they could do anything they wanted with no ones permission's. Wake up. More people hate you now more than every before. you just added to the numbers (Serbs, Middle-Easters, Vietnamese, Japanese etc.).

Anyway, Im off for now :)


DMM

Well, I think that Bush did not do well in the first debate although I agreed with everything he said. The second two I think belonged to Bush. Kerry has no answer for the social security crisis looming and his answer to Iraq is what???????? And as to gay marriage he is against it.

Teh mention of Cheney's kid was a deliberate effort by Kerry and Edwards to try to suppress the evangelical vote to inform voters who did not know Cheney's daughter was a lesbian. It won't work- most of us evangelicals do not have hatred for homosexuals although the media likes to pick a few nuts and paint our whole community like that.

Now Kerry is trying to scare people into voting for him saying Bush will institute a draft (though Bush said he would never do it and everytime it has been introduced it's been by a Democrat). Now he is trying to scare seniors by saying Bush is going to take away their social security even though Bush said any changes made would be for the younger workers and would not affect the current elderly. Kerry is a real dirt bag in my opinion. and his debating skills are good but he is too relaint on statistics and I tended to get sleepy as he kept reciting them. I don't think statistics are so great a techiques since they can be manipulated by either side to support any point of view.

[DaMovieMan]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Well, I think that Bush did not do well in the first debate although I agreed with everything he said. The second two I think belonged to Bush. Kerry has no answer for the social security crisis looming and his answer to Iraq is what???????? And as to gay marriage he is against it.

I dont konw how you see that the last two belonged to Bush but I assume there's no point of us going 'I think it was Kerry's'...'I think it was Bush's' so I wont go on about it. But Kerry's answer to Iraq is quite simple: get the troops out as soon as possible (within 6 months I think he said), give them everything they need (equiptment etc.) and train the Iraqis to fight for themselves. Now Bush is saying basically the same thing but the view on Iraq is the striking difference. Kerry realizes the mess that Iraq has become and Bush is still saying that it's all good. The news alone show how fucked up things are and are getting more and more each day but Bush keeps on saying how Kerry would only wait for America to be attacked then respond. This coming from the man who was president during 9/11, did nothing for nearly half an hour, then after went after a couple of months went after bin Laden couldn't find him (or found him but let others to take care of him), wasn't concerend about him and then turned his attention to a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 and bombed it!!!!!!

Yeah, Kerry's answer to Iraq might be similar to Bush's but the former realises that two fundemental facts: a)Iraq is a mess and b)it had nothing to do with 9/11 and the latter just steps over these facts killing thousands of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. Now that American is knee deep in the shit, Kerry can't have any other answer than the one he's giving so that's not the issue. The issue is the approach.

Gay Marriage: Kerry's agains't gay marriage but so is Bush so I dont know what you meant by putting that in. Bush is still shaking his head and saying 'I dont know...I really dont know' to the question of 'Is homosexuality a choice?' where Kerry is firm and says 'Of course it's a choice'. So to quote Bill Maher The jury is in on these issues and Bush is still acting like it is out. Please. Dont mention gay marriage if you are a Bush supporter coz that's like hypocracy.



The mention of Cheney's kid was a deliberate effort by Kerry and Edwards to try to suppress the evangelical vote to inform voters who did not know Cheney's daughter was a lesbian. It won't work- most of us evangelicals do not have hatred for homosexuals although the media likes to pick a few nuts and paint our whole community like that.

That "deliberate" effort was welcomed by Cheney in the beginning with the kindest of words and then he turned into an "angry father" when Kerry mentioned it. Please, Kerry said only the nicest things and with great respect when he talking about Cheney's daughter and Dick's wife is calling him a 'bad man'. Something's wrong here alright but its not with Kerry or Edwards, it's with the Cheney family and how they really feel about their daughter's homosexuality.


Now Kerry is trying to scare people into voting for him saying Bush will institute a draft (though Bush said he would never do it and everytime it has been introduced it's been by a Democrat). Now he is trying to scare seniors by saying Bush is going to take away their social security even though Bush said any changes made would be for the younger workers and would not affect the current elderly. Kerry is a real dirt bag in my opinion. and his debating skills are good but he is too relaint on statistics and I tended to get sleepy as he kept reciting them. I don't think statistics are so great a techiques since they can be manipulated by either side to support any point of view.

Bush saying there will not be a draft does the same for me when someone says tomorrow might be a sunny day or it might not. In other words, I'm a bit skeptical when hearing Bush talk about anything to do with Iraq becuase anything he said in the beginning about Iraq has just turned out to be a lie.
On social security, I really dont know. Bush said it will be privitized which only spells bad for the seniors. Didnt Bush say there wont be any changes to Social Security? (My God...is he flip flopping?)
I agree that statistics are a bore but I dont agree that Kerry uses them all the time. And when he does, it's only to make a point.




DMM

[Lynn7]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaMovieMan I dont konw how you see that the last two belonged to Bush but I assume there's no point of us going 'I think it was Kerry's'...'I think it was Bush's' so I wont go on about it. But Kerry's answer to Iraq is quite simple: get the troops out as soon as possible (within 6 months I think he said), give them everything they need (equiptment etc.) and train the Iraqis to fight for themselves.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




He retracted that statement about getting out of Iraq in 6 months becasue that would be desserting Iraq in a time of need. Terrorists could lay low for 6 months and then take over the country.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now Bush is saying basically the same thing but the view on Iraq is the striking difference. Kerry realizes the mess that Iraq has become and Bush is still saying that it's all good. The news alone show how fucked up things are and are getting more and more each day but Bush keeps on saying how Kerry would only wait for America to be attacked then respond. This coming from the man who was president during 9/11, did nothing for nearly half an hour, then after went after a couple of months went after bin Laden couldn't find him (or found him but let others to take care of him), wasn't concerend about him and then turned his attention to a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 and bombed it!!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I 've siad this many times on this board but we went inot Iraq to preemptively go after people who could be a threat to us. Hussein hated us and would stop at nothing to get us. He supported terrorists like Zarkawi (sp?) and he was in leaugue with dishonest people from the UN to accumulate money from the Oil for Food program- he kicked out weapons inspectors , was shooting at our planes and refused to comply with any of the requirements HE had agreed to after the Gulf war. Bush gave him numerous chances to comply- he called our bluff. We did not balk as he was sure we would.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah, Kerry's answer to Iraq might be similar to Bush's but the former realises that two fundemental facts: a)Iraq is a mess and b)it had nothing to do with 9/11 and the latter just steps over these facts killing thousands of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. Now that American is knee deep in the shit, Kerry can't have any other answer than the one he's giving so that's not the issue. The issue is the approach.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Kerry is all over the place on Iraq- during the primaries he was Mr peacenik to appeal to the Dem base and now he has been back and forth between dove and hawk. He doen'st know if he is coming or going. He will make a mess in iraq- mark my words, if he gets in.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gay Marriage: Kerry's agains't gay marriage but so is Bush so I dont know what you meant by putting that in. Bush is still shaking his head and saying 'I dont know...I really dont know' to the question of 'Is homosexuality a choice?' where Kerry is firm and says 'Of course it's a choice'. So to quote Bill Maher The jury is in on these issues and Bush is still acting like it is out. Please. Dont mention gay marriage if you are a Bush supporter coz that's like hypocracy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why can't I mention gay marrige? I am an Amercian citizen who has the right to weigh in on this or any subject (we are not communists after all). I was just listening to a guy on tV (Richard Cohen) who wrote an article saying Bush was really off base saying that he didn't know if being gay was a choice or biology. Well I have never heard that there was proof of biology being involved so I thought Bush gave a fair answer. I happen to beleive that some people are gay from birth and some are not. Bush said no matter what that gay people are to be treated with respect and dignity. He just thinks marrige should stay between a man and a woman. That is a fair postition and it is just as fair as the other point of view that feels that gay people should marry. It is ok to have different opinions inthis country.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
That "deliberate" effort was welcomed by Cheney in the beginning with the kindest of words and then he turned into an "angry father" when Kerry mentioned it. Please, Kerry said only the nicest things and with great respect when he talking about Cheney's daughter and Dick's wife is calling him a 'bad man'. Something's wrong here alright but its not with Kerry or Edwards, it's with the Cheney family and how they really feel about their daughter's homosexuality.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

You know, I cringed when Edwards brought it up the first time but I thought Cheney was very gracious in not making it an issue. Edwards was complimenting the Cheneys' on their loving behavior toward their gay daughter. That was the end. When Kerry brought it up it was not to compliment them it was just to use her agaisnt her father's ticket. Almost everyone agrees that it was low. It was all the worse because Edwards had already gone there. It looks like a strategy and then Mary Beth Cahill (manager of Kerry's campaign) said that Mary Cheney was "fair game" further making the point that she was a target of a hunter.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bush saying there will not be a draft does the same for me when someone says tomorrow might be a sunny day or it might not. In other words, I'm a bit skeptical when hearing Bush talk about anything to do with Iraq becuase anything he said in the beginning about Iraq has just turned out to be a lie.
On social security, I really dont know. Bush said it will be privitized which only spells bad for the seniors. Didnt Bush say there wont be any changes to Social Security? (My God...is he flip flopping?)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Bush has really tried to stand by what he says. He is known for that and even criticized for that. You can pretty much count on what he says. Kerry changes with the politcal weather. I dont think the soldiers will find a commander in chief who really cares for them. He voted against a package to buy them armor etc (wan't he only one of four senators to vote against it? It was not politcally expedient at the time of the vote cause he was trying to appeal to Dems during the primaries. Also, when he came back from Vietnam he sold them all out. He used them to help promote his political agenda. if he was for the soldiers he would have said "Let's bring the soldiers home becasue they are dying in a war that does not make sense. The good and noble people who have servedtheir country well." No, he compares them to Ginghas Kahn and tells of all the atrocites they are committing to the poor innocent Vietnamese. When the soldiers come home they are spit on and reviled. No honor for them despite risking their lives. Of course Kerry's service is to be honored!! he was the one honorable soldier- three purple hearts for superficial wounds that ended his Vietnam tour after 4 months on a technicality. What a noble man!!!!

[Lynn7]

Here is a good article by Christopher Hitchens from Slate on the Nuke aspect of Hussein, if you are interested:



Hitchens (http://slate.msn.com/id/2107972/)

[MacReady]

Allright, I need to ask this:

WTF makes Kerry an elitist? You call him that all the time and I don't hear any examples. I mean, dosen't Bush have a fairly solid history of not taxing the rich?

BTW about half a million Vietnamese kids were tortures, raped and killed during the war, so I can't say that Americans weren't brutal. Of course you don't think it's evil for American soldiers to bomb Iraqi civilians since "terrorists" (AKA soldiers following orders and trying to protect their country from enemies) are in the way so I guess I shouldn't be to surprised.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I 've said this many times on this board but we went inot Iraq to preemptively go after people who could be a threat to us. Hussein hated us and would stop at nothing to get us. He supported terrorists like Zarkawi (sp?) and he was in leaugue with dishonest people from the UN to accumulate money from the Oil for Food program- he kicked out weapons inspectors , was shooting at our planes and refused to comply with any of the requirements HE had agreed to after the Gulf war. Bush gave him numerous chances to comply- he called our bluff. We did not balk as he was sure we would.

Hussein was no threat to you guys. Did you see how you just walked right over his army? Also, did this Zarkawi ingage in anti-American terrorist activites? If not, then you can't call him a threat. You also can't say you don't support any terrorism of any kind since there are other countries with terrorist problems (such as the freshly attacked Spain). Finally, Bush seems to be selectively prosecuting Iraq. If he started making demands like that to other countries that might possibly be a threat, wouldn't there be friction like the one Saddam gave?

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by MacReady
Allright, I need to ask this:

WTF makes Kerry an elitist? You call him that all the time and I don't here any examples. I mean, dosen't Bush have a fairly solid history of not taxing the rich?

Like you, I'm perplexed.

Bush is renowned for 'looking after his own', and I can't help but be reminded of the footage in which he banters with "the haves and have-mores"...or as he refers to them, his "base".

Link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/politics/main242210.shtml)

*Cue mucho chortling from champagne quaffing twunts*

As for the Kerry speculation re: his refusing to dine with 'the help' and jumping a few queues and whatnot...this really amounts to nothing more than ill-spirited tittle-tattle.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by MacReady
Allright, I need to ask this:

WTF makes Kerry an elitist? You call him that all the time and I don't hear any examples. I mean, dosen't Bush have a fairly solid history of not taxing the rich?

BTW about half a million Vietnamese kids were tortures, raped and killed during the war, so I can't say that Americans weren't brutal. Of course you don't think it's evil for American soldiers to bomb Iraqi civilians since "terrorists" (AKA soldiers following orders and trying to protect their country from enemies) are in the way so I guess I shouldn't be to surprised.

You do realize that the people we're fighting in Iraq are not soldiers of the military by any means.

[DaMovieMan]

Originally posted by Lynn7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I 've siad this many times on this board but we went inot Iraq to preemptively go after people who could be a threat to us. Hussein hated us and would stop at nothing to get us. He supported terrorists like Zarkawi (sp?) and he was in leaugue with dishonest people from the UN to accumulate money from the Oil for Food program- he kicked out weapons inspectors , was shooting at our planes and refused to comply with any of the requirements HE had agreed to after the Gulf war. Bush gave him numerous chances to comply- he called our bluff. We did not balk as he was sure we would.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saddam never attacked the United States. He never even threatened. Him hating America is no reason to bomb because you would go right ahead and bomb more than half the world (because face it, after Iraq and Bush more than half the world doesnt agree with and some even hate you) Zarquawi never attacked the US either. No it was the guy called bin Laden who was cornered and then let to escape, and now isn't even caught and is still hiding. Why should Saddam comply with anything the Americans demanded of him? He was making a statement, but anway thats beside the point. Killing civilians is not right and if you think you liberated these people becuase now they can vote you're gravely mistaken. More Iraqis hate you, children are being brought up hating you and you are just breeding more terrorists.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry is all over the place on Iraq- during the primaries he was Mr peacenik to appeal to the Dem base and now he has been back and forth between dove and hawk. He doen'st know if he is coming or going. He will make a mess in iraq- mark my words, if he gets in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry cannot make a mess in Iraq, becuase it is already a mess and the media and news show it to be true. He can only try and fix the mess that Bush has left him and I think he's got the right idea. Kerry's idea is not all over the place on Iraq. The mission must be completed no matter how far off track it went and he understands this.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why can't I mention gay marrige? I am an Amercian citizen who has the right to weigh in on this or any subject (we are not communists after all). I was just listening to a guy on tV (Richard Cohen) who wrote an article saying Bush was really off base saying that he didn't know if being gay was a choice or biology. Well I have never heard that there was proof of biology being involved so I thought Bush gave a fair answer. I happen to beleive that some people are gay from birth and some are not. Bush said no matter what that gay people are to be treated with respect and dignity. He just thinks marrige should stay between a man and a woman. That is a fair postition and it is just as fair as the other point of view that feels that gay people should marry. It is ok to have different opinions inthis country.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry's stance is exactly the same only he knows and says its not a choice. The general opinion is that homosexuality is not a choice, even most republicans say its not a choice. Only Bush seems to be dumbfounded. It doesnt need to be proved by science becuase Bush is a religious man and me and you both know that homosexuality is something he doesnt like and opposes because the church opposes it. He thinks its wrong and the only reason why he said 'I dont know' is because he cannot say 'I think its a choice and I am against it'. As a reminder The respect, toleration etc. is everything Kerry said.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, I cringed when Edwards brought it up the first time but I thought Cheney was very gracious in not making it an issue. Edwards was complimenting the Cheneys' on their loving behavior toward their gay daughter. That was the end. When Kerry brought it up it was not to compliment them it was just to use her agaisnt her father's ticket. Almost everyone agrees that it was low. It was all the worse because Edwards had already gone there. It looks like a strategy and then Mary Beth Cahill (manager of Kerry's campaign) said that Mary Cheney was "fair game" further making the point that she was a target of a hunter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry did compliment them and I bet you any money that if you went and asked Mary Cheney 'if homosexuality is a choice' she would say no and would say exactly what Kerry said she would say. Anyway, this shouldn't even be an issue and the Republicans made it an issue for what? Let it be and get over it becuase its so miniscule to the bigger picture that its not even funny.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush has really tried to stand by what he says. He is known for that and even criticized for that. You can pretty much count on what he says. Kerry changes with the politcal weather. I dont think the soldiers will find a commander in chief who really cares for them. He voted against a package to buy them armor etc (wan't he only one of four senators to vote against it? It was not politcally expedient at the time of the vote cause he was trying to appeal to Dems during the primaries. Also, when he came back from Vietnam he sold them all out. He used them to help promote his political agenda. if he was for the soldiers he would have said "Let's bring the soldiers home becasue they are dying in a war that does not make sense. The good and noble people who have servedtheir country well." No, he compares them to Ginghas Kahn and tells of all the atrocites they are committing to the poor innocent Vietnamese. When the soldiers come home they are spit on and reviled. No honor for them despite risking their lives. Of course Kerry's service is to be honored!! he was the one honorable soldier- three purple hearts for superficial wounds that ended his Vietnam tour after 4 months on a technicality. What a noble man!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush is more noble? The man who skipped it all together with an 'honorable discharge'? Dont talk about nobility because Bush never had any wounds to begin with so who's more noble? The man who actually went to fight for America or the man who stayed home and ... did nothing? Kerry's view on Vietnam is understandable after he's been in it and of course he could say anythign he wants and we all know by now how the Americans treated the Vietnamese civillians so its not like he was spreading lies. He was speaking the truth which sometimes hurts and is hard to gulp down but is nevertheless the truth.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
Allright, I need to ask this:

WTF makes Kerry an elitist? You call him that all the time and I don't hear any examples. I mean, dosen't Bush have a fairly solid history of not taxing the rich?

BTW about half a million Vietnamese kids were tortures, raped and killed during the war, so I can't say that Americans weren't brutal. Of course you don't think it's evil for American soldiers to bomb Iraqi civilians since "terrorists" (AKA soldiers following orders and trying to protect their country from enemies) are in the way so I guess I shouldn't be to surprised.

Kerry considers himself to be socially superior to the common folk. In Mass, there are tons of stories about how he routinely cuts lines, when questioned says "Do you know who I am?" and he also is said to sign his name to the check instead of to the bill- he neveer wants to pay his checks (thinks the owners should pick up the tab). One time in a furniture store he wanted to pay cost and when the management said they didn't do that for anyone, Kerry stormed around the store writing down numbers so he could get the furniture elsewhere.

There is a radio show host from Boston who knows tons about Kerry and he has a place on his website called Kerry corner. The main webwsite is HowieCArr.com if you are interested.

Come on- do you think it is coincidence that he has married two women who are supremely rich? He loves to live the good life- who doens't but that is where his values are. He wants to raise taxes but when given the option to pay more taxes by checking off a box onhis tax return, he checks the no box. That from a man who says that he should be taxed more money along with all the other rich people. He knows damn well that tax money would be misspent like most of our other wasteful programs. He just wants us to pay higher taxes so he can create programs that will help him get reelected.


The reason bush wants low taxes on the "rich" is becasuse it is the companies that create jobs and are good for the economy. By overtaxing the "rich" it casues companies to start going out of the country for cheaper labor, lay people off and slow down on production.Why in the world would Bush want to arbitrarily let the rich off without paying taxes- are they all his friends? it makes no sense except it'sa great way to excite people to vote who really eat up class warfare.

Just like in Iraq it is the bad V. people who were brutalizing the civilians not the Americans. The bad Vietnamese killed the innocents. Why blame our good soldiers who were serving the country and risking their lives to stop the spread of communism? It is becasue of the stories that Kerry and his pals spread- no wonder the vets are pissed at him. The damage to their reputations continues to this day as evidenced by your post.


don'thave time to address other posts right now. BBL

[Jim H]

do you think it is coincidence that he has married two women who are supremely rich?

Wasn't he rich before? Rich people marry rich people, and poor people marry poor people.

Just like in Iraq it is the bad V. people who were brutalizing the civilians not the Americans.

That's not true. Americans did a lot of brutalizing, rape and murder themselves. It is very difficult to say how widespread such behavior was, but it definetly happened - and for the most part, little was done to stop it or punish those who did it. Look up the Tiger Force.

[free]

It is becasue of the stories that Kerry and his pals spread- no wonder the vets are pissed at him.

I had two uncles in Vietnam who told me first hand accounts of soldiers raping women, and one that told me his CO gave a gernade to a young boy and told him it was a piece of candy and he had to get his mother to pull the pin out to get it (he still has nightmares about hearing teh blast to this day). Could they be full of shit? Maybe, but I trust both of them, and know the kind of intergrity they both have.

I'm not naive and I know not everyone did these things, but to pretend they didn't happen is self-deluding.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Just like in Iraq it is the bad V. people who were brutalizing the civilians not the Americans. The bad Vietnamese killed the innocents. Why blame our good soldiers who were serving the country and risking their lives to stop the spread of communism? It is becasue of the stories that Kerry and his pals spread- no wonder the vets are pissed at him. The damage to their reputations continues to this day as evidenced by your post.

First off, those soldiers weren't brave young men who volunteered to go to war and fight against something that was certain to attack the US next, they were mostly young, sometimes jaded folks who'd been practically enslaved into fighting for a cause some of them didn't believe in and some didn't fully understand.

Second, and I'm sorry to break this to you, but U.S. did indeed kill innocent Vietnamese (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1026-06.htm). In fact about one million Vietnamese were killed during the war. Are you telling me that magically all the innocent ones didn't get offed by Americans? I know it's a hollywood movie, but Platoon was made by a guy who went to Vietnam.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/iraqis_tortured_60min2-o.jpg
"Man, that's one pale looking Iraqis terrorist..."

Third, invading a country to impose it's political ideaology is wrong, but by invading Vietnam and killing off it's population (who didn't ask for your help, nor did they give you permission to kill them) just so it dosen't end up in a political idealogy that your government hates, aren't you doing the same thing? Remember: even Mussolini hated communism.


Finally, sometimes your ideas of how America has never been in a war where innocent people have been killed by troops. Or how all christians that caused bad things aren't christians, and that christianity dosen't really have innocent blood on it's hands. It's a dangerous method of thinking adn one that can lead to more mistakes since you can't even admit you did them in the first place.

[Lynn7]

I am not saying that our soldiers have never done anything bad- don't we have criminals here in the US? Just walk down any major city's street and watch your back. I do object to the idea that all our soldiers were doing bad things. That seems to be the feeling. It's funny but when our Vietnam vets came back they were reviled and treated like crap. Since then, the country repented and realized how unfairly they were treated and honored them with a beautiful memorial and now they have been held with esteem again------until John kerry. Now, in order to make Kerry look honorable it is OK to diminish these guys again and start bringing up antecdotal evidence to cast them all as murderers once again. Weird times we live in.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
Hussein was no threat to you guys. Did you see how you just walked right over his army? Also, did this Zarkawi ingage in anti-American terrorist activites? If not, then you can't call him a threat. You also can't say you don't support any terrorism of any kind since there are other countries with terrorist problems (such as the freshly attacked Spain). Finally, Bush seems to be selectively prosecuting Iraq. If he started making demands like that to other countries that might possibly be a threat, wouldn't there be friction like the one Saddam gave?

I guess it just comes down to a difference in philsophy. bush is trying to cut out the cancer at the cellular level and you guys want to wait until the cancer becomes visible to the eye. Zarqawi was involved in AlQaeda and now he is a major player in Iraq. Al Qaeda does not operate out of any one country. They ahve been training in many countires over the years and they are infiltrating all nations.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
Like you, I'm perplexed.

Bush is renowned for 'looking after his own', and I can't help but be reminded of the footage in which he banters with "the haves and have-mores"...or as he refers to them, his "base".

Link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/politics/main242210.shtml)

*Cue mucho chortling from champagne quaffing twunts*

As for the Kerry speculation re: his refusing to dine with 'the help' and jumping a few queues and whatnot...this really amounts to nothing more than ill-spirited tittle-tattle.

That was a joke at a fundraiser becasue that is how Dems are always characterizing Repubs -as a rich men's club. All Repubs thought the joke was funny becasue we know better. Lot's of blue collar worker Repubs, you know.

Repubs in the 50s-60s might have been a rich men's club but the party is totally different now. Now it seems like a lot of the mega rich people are inthe Dem party. Look around. Many of the huge corporations are Dem- look at the celeb millionaires- almost all of them are Dem. Look at the richest senators- DEm, Dem, Dem... check out this link:

rich senators (http://tommcmahon.blogspot.com/images/2003senatewealth.gif)

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I am not saying that our soldiers have never done anything bad- don't we have criminals here in the US?

Yeah, and usually we try to punish them. That is my biggest problem. William Calley should be six feet under, he shouldn't be walking around today.

I should mention we did punish a fair number of soldiers for things... Something like 100 if memory serves.. But that is a mere fraction of what is generally thought to be the atrocities. Far fewer were convicted than should have been for a variety of reasons - lack of evidence due to field conditions, political reasons, a simple desire to cover up such things, etc.

Of course, the Vietnamese got away with the same type of thing...

Just a generally horrible war that we made worse, that's the way I see it.

It's funny but when our Vietnam vets came back they were reviled and treated like crap. Since then, the country repented and realized how unfairly they were treated and honored them with a beautiful memorial and now they have been held with esteem again------until John kerry. Now, in order to make Kerry look honorable it is OK to diminish these guys again and start bringing up antecdotal evidence to cast them all as murderers once again

I fail to see who is doing that. Kerry testified that war crimes were being commited and nothing was being done about it, today people agree with that. What's the problem? I haven't seen anyone making blanket accusations.