The Debate

[Remington]

How did they do in the debate?

[mjknapp]

I dont like to involve myself in political discussions, but I think Bush did a good job last night, Kerry wanted to do nothing but throw insults around, I was proud that bush called kerry a good father, and a good person, Kerry was so busy throwing insults at the president that he was taken off gaurd by that, and took him a while to recover after that......

[Remington]

I have no problem discussing politics. It should never be something to be ashamed of.

Personally I felt Kerry did a good job with his demeanor but I still aren't sure what he believes and what he stands for. He seems to lie a lot or is misinformed.

Bush didn't deliver and at times I felt I could have come up with a better rebuttal. Bush seems tired and peeved but the thing is we all know where he stands.

I think Kerry had a great opportunity last night to tell the American people a strategy on the future and how we were going to deal with Iraq. He says with his plan he could have brought the troops home within 6 months. I wish he could tell me the plan, and most of all I wish he could tell everybody the plan. The problem is there is no plan so he focuses on the past.

Kerry passed up a good opportunity to reveal a plan but instead wasted his time on how going to war was wrong.

Hindsite is 20/20. The American people want to know how we are going to deal with the task at hand rather than the "ifs", "should haves", "could haves".

Bush will definitely win the election unless something drastic happens in the next 30 days according to historical statistics. Nobody has ever lost the election with a lead like this with only 30 days left.

[Weston]

:-#

[tt3]

I watched only a small fraction of it. My wife watched a lot more. I left when Kerry mentioned again his service record in Vietnam. Rem, I agree, for someone to lead this country they need to spend more time discussing the future, not the past.
I'm voting third party. Maybe in a few decades there will be a strong equally funded third candidate...

[mjknapp]

I have no problem discussing politics. It should never be something to be ashamed of.

I never said I was ashamed of discussing polotics, I simply stated that I dont like to get caught up in political discussions, or religious discussions for that matter.......who am I to tell a person that what they beleive is not right in my opinion.......

[Remington]

Yea I hear ya!

I see nothing wrong with voicing your opinion. The problem is that some people feel you are forcing a belief down their throat.

The problem also arises through our actions when one person's belief infringes on another. I am fine with people having their own beliefs but if their belief is it is fine to kill innocent people then that infringes on my belief and therefore I need to take action.

[Jackson's Dad]

Well, I have a different position on the debate. I thought Kerry did a fine job of explaining his position, and proposing his plan for moving forward (as much as you can in a debate). I found him to be clear and focused. Bush on the other hand, did quite poorly. He repeated the same party lines over and over, without really responding to any questions (was Karl Rove feeding him lines?). He simply restated the same tired accusations and canned responses, without ever listening or responding to Kerry's answers. If he has a plan for the future, I wish he'd clearly articulate it.

BTW, of course Kerry attacked Bush -- that's his "job" as a challenger, and he has some sound and valid arguments.

Also, Kerry didn't say he had a plan to bring the troops back in 6 months. Bush misquoted him (once again) as saying that. Kerry said that he had a plan to begin reducing troops in 6 months.

[waldo]

Kerry is clearly a more polished debater. I suppose as a senator you would expect that though, as that is pretty much their job. I think Bush has a hard time getting out exactly what he wants to say so will often fall back on a canned response. I liked his statement about not getting permission from other countries in order to defend our own. Yeah, we've heard it before, but it was a high-point of the "debate".

I dunno why, but I just get a creepy feeling about Kerry. But then again, I get a creepy feeling about politics in general, tending to lean towards the "their all puppets with powerfull faceless puppetmasters" idea. I think it probably hardly matters who is president, only the powers-at-be that control them. Do I sound paranoid? :shock: :lol:




Waldo

[SAHF]

Yes..yes you do! :shock:

But then again.....there maybe some truth to what you say.

[Jackson's Dad]

You gotta stop reading Kafka before going to bed!

[Weston]

I read some Kafka last night...

This morning my wife had turned into a cockroach :shock:

[tt3]

I dunno why, but I just get a creepy feeling about Kerry.

Its not my policy to discuss politics in public for reasons stated above both by me and not by me, BUT he gives me the same chills, so did Clinton.

[hockeydad]

siding with JD on this Kerry - out dueled Bush. Yeah he has more complexity and nuanced intelligence. but he is trying to be the leader of the most powerful country. I want a leader who has a brain not a stubborn streak and a swagger.

unfortunately the debate is not about what the candidates did or said. it's about how the campaigns spin it. and republicans are far better at spin. fear and misinformation - funny reasons to elect a president.

hockeydad

[Jackson's Dad]

I think the first ad that Bush's camp released after the debate is very telling. In his debate, Kerry mentioned that our government needs to make its case for war to all Americans, calling it a "global test" (with "global" meaning "all encompassing"). Bush changed the meaning of that one word, and in the ad implies that it means Kerry wants to get "permission" from all foreign leaders. This is simply not true (check the transcripts), and is such a blatant and diliberate distortion it's surprising. Why couldn't Bush take Kerry's statement as intented, and actually debate it? I would've been most interesting in hearing his reasoning. But no, they took the low road. And now, for all the people who didn't watch the debates, and who trust Bush, he completely mislead them on to what went on.

Bush and his team don't give me chills, they scare me.

[Weston]

I think the debate is a good way for Americans to become familiar with both canidates.

However, I don't need the debates to tell me who I'm going to vote for (I'm definitely not what they would call a swing voter).

To me its about the issues and where the canidates stand on them.

There is a distinctive difference between the two on where they stand on certain issues - Tax cuts, the environment, foreign policy, social issues, etc.

If everyone would just take the time to look into those issues, I don't think there would be as many "swing voters"

[Anonymous]

Something for you to think about and perhaps draw your own conclusions.

Regardless of who won in the debate.... The Republican Party controls all branches of Gov't.
Legislative
51% of the Senate versus 48% (one Independant),
46% of the House versus 32%, (the rest being independant or tied)
Judiciary
7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices (appointed by Republican presidents)

and of course the Executive branch.

Now, The Framers of the Constitution, deliberately made the Executive Branch the weakest of the three because they had the potential of weilding the most authority. (not as contradictory as this might outwardly appear). So a series of checks and balances were instituted by the Framers to keep this power in check through "consent governing" by the two other branches thereby preventing a system of government akin to the the English domineering Parliamentary system (aka an autocratic monarchy). As the situation currently exists, the checks and balances have effectively been removed. The constitution therefore stands in jeopardy by our own doing and consequently our own civil freedoms.

You speak of Puppets and Puppet Masters well here is an interesting example and one that few have picked up on. Were this the other way around and the Dems in power controlling all three branches, I'd be equally concerned. We have come such a long way in so short a time precicely because of our freedoms given us by a handful of brilliant men.

Quod Erat Demonstratandum.

[Remington]

I think the most important issue is obviously our safety. Without safety we won't be able to implement domestic issues, because there won't be a homeland.

When we invaded Iraq it became a new concept to some of our younger generations of WMD's and terrorists. To other countries that's all they knew. Americans are so spoiled and we go into this war beleiving we understand what is happening.

When John Kerry says "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time..." he made it clear he does not understand the fundamentals behind the war on terror. The Clinton administration admitted that Iraq was a hub for terrorists and Hussein funded several terrorist organizations including Al Quaida. WMD's don't need to be found to understand this.

There are many fronts to this war, just as the President explained in 2003. He said he would route out and kill the terrorists and those that harbor terrorists and Bush had an 85% approval rating.

How soon we forget. Kerry says there are many terrorists coming into Iraq daily. Well, Iraq harbors terrorists that's why. Why would terrorists defend a country if it didn't support them? Duh!

We see what we want to see. There would be no motive to stop Iraq from being free if they didn't harbor and fund these terrorist organizations? Are we that silly to sit at home and beleive that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorists.

Also, I think Bush hit the nail on the head when he said he isn't going to seek approval by foreign countries to defend America. There is no spin on that whatsoever. Yea, Bush doesn't always do the most popular thing but this isn't a popularity contest.

Bush went to war rightfully so. Kerry wants to solve things by negotiating. We have already tried this for the last 100 years and it doesn't solve anything. Look at your children tonight as they sleep soundly in their beds. These people want your kids dead. They feed on hate. Those that do not believe in their ideology deserves to be brutally murdered.

If you need to seek out Joe and Fred and Paul's approval to protect your own children, you lack natural affection and love. Who cares if Fred dislikes me at the moment. Would I rather have Fred approve of what I do and have my child killed because of it?? Or would I say sorry Fred but I need to do my duty as a SAHD and protect my children even though you disagree??

Bush is not the best speaker, but he understands what is happening. He got us through 9/11 and the country took a blow. If Gore was the president there would also have been issues here at home. You can't blame the president for everything. It is a time we pull together and not a time to criticize strong men and leaders that are fighting a rightful war.

This happens with every war. We sit at home and squabble while young men and women fight for freedom. It is America's tradition.

Do you want to be the critic or do you want to be a team leader and a helper and work together to continue to fight for what is right??

One last thing... when you are standing at the polls on November 2nd, think to yourself, If I were Osama Bin Laden who would I want as the American president right now, and then vote the opposite.

Kerry is going to withdraw men, he is going to seek more approval from the UN. These people aren't changin their minds. Kerry is in for a huge surprise. Osama bin Laden and other terrorists would love for us to leave Iraq. Why? So Iraq can return to the terrorist hub it once was.

I am not saying Kerry is horrible, but he has no idea what he is up against.

[Remington]

Yea I saw that earlier today.

Kerry is not electable. If the democrats had somebody they, themselves, could trust, Bush may have lost the election.

The times we are living in is different than 5 years ogo. America has always been this way during times of war. We tend to choose Presidents with strong military approval and somebody that is confident and unwavering.

Kerry may have won before 5 years ago... maybe! But Kerry is not a good war time president. His history is questioned and ever since Vietnam up until now his stance has changed drastically.

If Kerry changed his position 10 or 15 degree that is one thing, but on a lot of issues he has changed his position 180 degrees. It is hard to trust a president like this. How do we know he won't change his position 1 year after he becomes president?

We don't!

[Jackson's Dad]

Well Rem, it's obvious that you and I are never going to get the other to change their mind. :) But it's interesting discussing the different positions. Here's a few thoughts on your thoughts

> Kerry says there are many terrorists coming into Iraq daily. Well, Iraq
> harbors terrorists that's why. Why would terrorists defend a country
> if it didn't support them?

Because we invaded and now occupy that country. Of course every anti-US militant Islamic group is now going come to the aid of the "freedom fighters" in Iraq! We walked into a danger zone and painted a target on our back. This is a situation we have helped create by invading, not remedy.

> If Kerry changed his position 10 or 15 degree that is one thing, but on
>> a lot of issues he has changed his position 180 degrees.

Yes, Kerry changes his opinion. So what? This whole "flip flop" issue is a straw horse cooked up by the Bush campaign. Any thinking person will be willing to change their opinion based on new information. I am more afraid of people who are unwilling to change their mind, even when evidence shows they were wrong.

> "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time...".

Sigh. Bush's team do have a knack of taking a statement out of context and repeating it adnasuem, until the original meaning is lost.

If Bush believes that this is the "right war, place and time" then why have all of his reasons for invading come to naught? His rationale for invading this one country could apply to so many others. If Bush was concerned about going after places that harbor terrorists, there are many other countries that do that, and do it more openly. If he was interested in going after countries with WMDs, there are many countries that have that. (Iran in fact, just announced that their missiles can now reach Europe, and basically threatened the US, saying that we should now "know better" than to attack them.) So why did he go after Iraq? Why not Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc.? He has never been able to answer that effectively.

> The Clinton administration admitted that Iraq was a hub for terrorists
> and Hussein funded several terrorist organizations including Al Quaida.

And Bush's own father knew of this, and yet decided it was foolish to invade.

Which person does Bin Ladin want elected? Probably the one that stopped looking for him, and then distracted his own country from the search for him.

> think Bush hit the nail on the head when he said he isn't going to
> seek approval by foreign countries to defend America

Kerry said the same thing. His desire to build coalitions is not "seeking permission" -- it is making sure we do not cut ourselves off from allies, and paint ourselves into a corner. Much like we have in Iraq.

> Bush went to war rightfully so. Kerry wants to solve things by
> negotiating. We have already tried this for the last 100 years
> and it doesn't solve anything

Negotiating got us out of the Cold War safely. Negotiating has kept North Korea from erupting further. Negotiating is keeping China as an ally instead of a hostile. Using war to solve a problem as tricky as terrorism is such a pre-9/11, pre-Vietnam mentality.

OK, as fun as this is, I must go and feed the little boy now ("wahhhhhhhh!" says he). I'm actually going off on a family vacation through the end of the week, so I apologize for dropping out of our conversation. Have a good week everyone.

Dan

[benj]

Have a great holiday Dan. Drop by the local internet cafe if you need a DSH fix. Cheers

[Remington]

Because we invaded and now occupy that country. Of course every anti-US militant Islamic group is now going come to the aid of the "freedom fighters" in Iraq! We walked into a danger zone and painted a target on our back. This is a situation we have helped create by invading, not remedy.
That is the half truth. When we invaded, the terrorists fled. They saw they could not win. This is why we basically pranced our way into Baghdad untouched. They regrouped and declared out right Jihad. They contacted other terrorists in other countries to come to their aid. To say no terrorists were in Iraq is completely obsurd. There are more now then there were and that is actually a good thing, not a bad thing. We have brought the war to Iraq and not onto our homeland. We did mess up and Russia paid for it, but the terrorists only have to be right once to make an impact. Us fighting the war need to be right 100% of the time which is very difficult to do.

So, yes, there are more terrorists in Iraq now. There were terrorists located all over the globe.

Yes, Kerry changes his opinion. So what? This whole "flip flop" issue is a straw horse cooked up by the Bush campaign. Any thinking person will be willing to change their opinion based on new information. I am more afraid of people who are unwilling to change their mind, even when evidence shows they were wrong.
What is the new intelligence? You cannot turn your back on all issues 180 degrees. This started happening when Kerry realized he needed a platform, so he decided to disagree with all issues as President Bush. Secondly, people are freakin out because they think there are not enough troops to get the job done. Let's remember it was the democrats, including John Kerry himself that voted AGAINST more troops and less funding. Why on earth would you not support something like that and then complain Bush isn't giving the troops what they need to get the job done. Sorry but any intelligent voter will understand that this is a complete left wing setup.

Sigh. Bush's team do have a knack of taking a statement out of context and repeating it adnasuem, until the original meaning is lost.
I believe it was Howard Dean that said this first and Kerry ran with it. This is not a twist. Kerry said this at the debate and he has said this on several occasions. There is no spin here. Kerry does not support the war in Iraq. He believes we should be at war with Osama bin Laden and not Iraqi terrorists. He has made it very clear that it is the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.


If Bush believes that this is the "right war, place and time" then why have all of his reasons for invading come to naught? His rationale for invading this one country could apply to so many others. If Bush was concerned about going after places that harbor terrorists, there are many other countries that do that, and do it more openly. If he was interested in going after countries with WMDs, there are many countries that have that. (Iran in fact, just announced that their missiles can now reach Europe, and basically threatened the US, saying that we should now "know better" than to attack them.) So why did he go after Iraq? Why not Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc.? He has never been able to answer that effectively.
I don't claim to know all the classified information. There are many countries that harbor terrorists. There was a defintely link between Saddam Hussein and terrorists. Remember there are many fronts to this war. Iraq has oil and Saddam had lots of money. He was funding terrorists big time. Instead of going after all these countries you need to go straight to the source. Some people can understand that without money and funding you can't obtain these chemicals and weapons. Terrorists needed Saddam Hussein's money, and still do.

We are actually running a smart war but there are too many critics sitting at home shuffling through the channels listening to our liberal media and beleiving it all.

And don't be fooled. We moved on to Iraq because we have bin Laden on the run. As long as he is on the run he is disabled. Bin Laden is in the same condition Hussein was, the only difference is we haven't found him.

I am sure once Bush wins the election we will be doing something about the other countries that want to kill us.

[hockeydad]

holy polarization batman. why I've always said being a moderate always took the most cojones.
Bush stuck his head up his ass on Iraq. there were two reasons given to go to war. both turned out to be untrue. untrue rem - no WMD, no link to 9/11. period.
but he did do ok with Afghanistan. we needed to go after Osama and disrupt the Taliban - a gov't that really did support terrorists. most importantly we needed to do something.
on the domestic front the republicans couldn't educate my butt to fart but they were right on tax cuts (at least to a point). they're bad with balancing budgets but good to small business. neither side comes within a mile of fixing the health care mess.

things aren't easy and black and white. which is why I like kerry cause he has the balls to think. while bush can't move beyond his first reaction. not that it matters voting in a red state.

[Weston]

Speaking of which "not that it matters voting in a red state"

Has anyone heard of the bill that's been submitted in Colorado - splitting up the electoral college votes according to the percentage of actual votes?

i.e. - If Bush gets 51% of the vote then 5 electoral votes goes towards his re-election while 49% for Kerry would give him 4 electoral votes. Or vice versa.

Interesting idea huh?

I have heard though that the timing of this is politically motivated, but what isn't? :?

Side note:

Hey Hockeydad, how do you like Montana?
My in-laws are from Butte. father in law worked in the copper mine there.

During a backpacking trip in the northern part of Yellowstone, I crossed into Montana briefly. Some of the most amazing scenery! :D

[Remington]

First off nobody said Iraq was tied to 9/11. That is liberal spin and that is how small liberals think. They can't think outside of the box.

There is a link between Iraq and terrorists. Iraq funds and supported terrorism. The people that flew into the world trade centers were terrorists.

It is not a hard concept to understand.

Osama bin Laden is disabled. He no longer is making decisions and that is why we have other leaders stepping up to take his place. We are still trying to kill bin Laden but why would we continue to do just that when we could do more??

The democrats say the republicans are in denial or some such crap. In fact, democrats are the ones that cannot see the broad scope, the bigger picture to this war. All they seem to do is focus on just one simple detail.

Don't believe it for a minute that the 2 John's have a better plan. They have yet to spell it out. They can't even show up to vote.

Why would anybody blame somebody for not doing something when they themselves, voted against it?

John Kerry and John Edwards are trying to talk the talk but if you look at their history and voting records they are dangerous to America.

I am not trying to say democrats are bad people but the extreme Liberal minds encased within the democratic party borderlines on socialistic values which is very dangerous in a free society.

[hockeydad]

I always liked liberals - they had the best weed in college. but I ain't one. and as far as lunatic fringe same can be said of the religious conservatives. everybody has their warts. repubs got the bible thumpers and dems got the loony left (ralph nader eat my shorts). small vocal minorities should be ignored.

the administration and especially cheney were the ones who claimed or hinted at the connection between Iraq and Al Queda.

one phrase I would love to see out of the vernacular "liberal media" god I'm sick of it. almost as bad as "activist judges" and "vast right wing conspiracy"

nobody has any frickin clue what Osama is doing right now. that's why nobody's caught him.

do like the fact that its two johns vs a dick and a bush.

good idea splitting electoral votes. I hate that my vote doesn't count.

J. monkey - I love montana. lived in Mass, OR, and NY and traveled all over. Montan was the best and where I belonged. it's got its problems - bad economy and horrible bagels. but the scenery, hiking, and winter sports are unrivaled.

Ahhh Butte, MT. largest superfund site around. home of Our Lady of the Rockies, great people, and the best dang onion rings in MT. I'm heading down there on Saturday to play some hockey in their rink. Missoula's isn't open yet. my in laws were in mining too. Sunshine silver mine outside of Kellogg, ID. also one incredibly beautiful place. your in laws still in Butte?

were you hiking around the NorthEast entrance of Yellowstone or did you go out of Gardner/North entrance?

[Weston]

You know, it's been ten years ago since that backpacking trip and I can't remeber the exact location. I think it was more north-central, but I know that it was on the northern border 'cause I remeber looking on the topo map at the time.

The trip was during a larger month long excursion through the western states. Went to the painted desert, grand canyon in Arizona; Bryce and Zion in Utah; and Grand Tetons and Yellowstone in Wyoming.
I wasn't that impressed with Yellowstone as a whole but loved that one area on the northern border.

[hockeydad]

yeah got to agree on yellowstone. not my favorite - mostly cause of the dang tourists. Glacier NP about 3 hours north of here is far more impressive :!: :!: :!:
hock