posted
Hey, it's not MY fault if your preferred candidate is a raving nutjob endorsed by the Southerners for the Restoration of Dixie, who calls for the use of the U.S. military to defend our borders from "invasions" of illegal immigrants, has vowed to disband the Supreme Court and end abortion on his first day in office, and believes that the state has no compelling interest in mandatory education, as the Law of the Creator God clearly delegates that role to parents.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: George Washington feared two threats to America above all others. First, the corrupting influence of political parties with their spirit of faction and selfishness; and second, the weakening of the influence of religious morality on public life.
Um, wasn't Washington a deist?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What makes this especially odd, to me, is that both candidates were provided all the questions asked last night well in advance, so that they were able to prepare not only for their own questions but for the questions asked their opponent -- a point, I might add, that was specifically demanded by the Bush camp.
Are you sure about this, Tom? I seem to remember the guy moderating the debate (Lehrer, right?) saying in his introduction that he was the ONLY one knowing the questions beforehand. It was at 3AM for me, so I could be wrong, but, as you say, the debaters really didn't give the impression that they were prepared for the specific questions in advance.
quote:Michael Peroutka and the Constitution Party will fight to defend America against its foreign and domestic enemies in order to return to a Republic of Sovereign States based on Biblical principles.
posted
Perhaps they had a list of possible questions, but not the specific ones?
Some person with more time and interest could probably research that, but I'm not going to do it right now. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps they had a list of possible questions, but not the specific ones?
I'm quite sure their respective handlers did their very best to prepare them for what they thought was possible/probable questions. Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of the questions came as a surprise. I'm sure everyone on this thread could've articulated Bush and Kerry's position as well, if not better, than the candidates themselves.
Someone on Bush's team clearly dropped the ball on the debate preparations.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope Tom doesnt mind me pulling something off of ornery... Tom said this an hour ago over there, not sure when he will look at this thread again.
"It looks like I was wrong. The candidates required that they be told of the specific CATEGORIES of questions, but not the specific questions themselves. So they knew what type of question they'd be getting, but not exactly how it would be worded."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"omeone on Bush's team clearly dropped the ball on the debate preparations."
I think its more likely that Bush simply can't speak unless teleprompted. Thats been the story of his whole presidency...
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I've seen someone else say, I had the impression that Bush often had a prepared statement that was 40-50 seconds long and which he delivered fairly well. Then he made a short pause and started to ramble. He would have been better served by cutting his answers a little short. He might even have made Kerry sound long-winded by comparison with that strategy.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From a couple segments on NPR, I've heard several commentators note that Bush is an excellent speaker, and could likely trounce Kerry, if he is prepared.
Sounds like he wasn't prepared last night-- I didn't watch, so I don't know. (Fable addiction + kids in bed + wife @ a primary meeting = me on the Xbox)
Meh. I'm not voting for either candidate.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think its more likely that Bush simply can't speak unless teleprompted."
That's a sad thought. Bush has been hammering the same message over and over again on his campaign trail. Surely his messages, famous for their simplicity, are easy to remember and regurgitate.
I think Bush was unprepared or took the debate too lightly.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, Kerry didn't say he would withdraw troops in 6 months. If you are going to quote him, at least do your homework and make sure you get what he said right.
quote: CStroman -- nothing flip-flop about it. Kerry's position is that there need to be more troops overall in Iraq, and fewer US troops. He proposes to do this by actually working to pull in foreign troops, unlike Bush's plans, which have worked to cause nations to pull out their troops (spain and poland are the current big departures, I believe).
In 6 months not even Superman could get countries with NO troops in Iraq INTO Iraq and fighting and have all the contract negotiations finished.
Also, what will happen the first time a French, German, or other wussy nation get's attacked by an insurgent? They'll throw up their hands and pull out. Then we'll be SHORTHANDED.
And actually BUSH's plan had nothing to do with Spain pulling out of Iraq. The terrorist attacks in Spain did.
My opinion is to do what Bush's plan does. Put the Soldiering and Policing of Iraq into IRAQI hands.
Bringing in MORE international troops while giving away the farm only means that the insurgents will have different color flags to put in their crosshairs.
Also, one thing I think the President should have gone after Kerry about is his "foreign policy".
When I vote for a president, I am voting for the President of the United States. Not France, Not Germany, Not Russia, and not the U.N.
First and foremost his obligation is to DO what the American People WANT, NOT what other countries say he should.
I think Bush could have done a better job at attacking him on that as well.
posted
A duel can't be won with no ammunition. It's not that Bush wasn't prepared. It's just that there are no answers that could justify his record. When you promise WMDs and no WMDs show up, what can you say? You can shift the debate to your opponent's leadership ability, which Bush attempted last night and at his convention, but you can't avoid having to explain when the question is asked directly.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I thought Lehrer said that they had not heard the specific questions before?"
Yep. I did some double-checking, and it appears that while the candidates were provided with categories for the questions, they were not given the exact wording of questions in advance -- and nor will they be.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm more amused by the fact that you called Germany a wuss, Chad. But please tell me again how manly Poland is. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I'm trying to figure out your definition of "wussy." Does it involve not sending troops somewhere on a regular basis?
Is it possible for a country to be "humanitarian" without using their military? Can a country be "manly" without a military at all, or is some military required for non-wussiness?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been undecided on this race because I knew very little about Kerry. So I listened to/watched a large portion of the debate last night with the specific goal of learning something about him.
I was not impressed. Not at all. I don't know that a lack of stuttering is enough to make me pick him over Bush.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A wussy is someone who can't defend themselves, has no military power, offers nothing to the world, makes threats but cowers when confronted, but feels like they have a right to dictate their wishes on those who do.
Basically a wuss is someone who promises "Do X or you will receive Y as your recompense". Then when X fails to be done, they just don't fulfill their Y.
Also, when help is called for on RISKY humanitarian needs, a wussy doesn't answer that call.
That is my definition as it applies to this thread.
I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how Germany is NOT a wussy.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how Germany is NOT a wussy."
Hm. Is it your contention that, when calling someone something, it's automatically true unless someone refutes it?
I await your proof that Bush is not, in fact, into shoving gerbils into his nether orifices. Until then, I'm afraid I'm going to have to assume that he does.
*laugh*
------
BTW, UofU, I'm going to dispute that you were in fact undecided. Nothing I've ever seen you post on this board would suggest that you would, for a moment, consider voting for Kerry.
Indeed, I would say that the only group who doesn't think Kerry won that particular debate hands-down is the group who is pretending for its own inexplicable reasons to be undecided.
posted
I think when you insult a sovereign nation the burden of proof is on you, not on the rest of the world.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was not impressed. Not at all. I don't know that a lack of stuttering is enough to make me pick him over Bush.
Not impressed with what part?
I can agree that a lack of stuttering is no reason to pick a president. But Kerry offered a vision of the world in which America is leading the world against terror, rather than fighting against our allies over Iraq (and letting Al Qaeda advance in the meanwhile). Isn't THAT enough to make you pick him over Bush?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you stating that the vision Bush presented was one in which America fights against its allies?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, Germany has done "nothing" in the international spectrum to give "aid" to the world. They have also not used their Military in "any" way either humanitarian wise or in defense of "anything", "anywhere".
Gulf War I? Missing. Yugoslavia? Missing. Anywhere in Africa? Missing. Anywhere in the world? Missing.
They DID however give the Black September terrorists their freedom (made a "deal" with the terrorists).
It basically boils down to "Well you killed alot of Jewish athletes during the Olympics, but we'll let you go as long as you don't attack us."
I've provided my proof. Their wussies, and John Kerry's future "war friends".
I shudder to think of that future.
EDIT: Removed caps and attempted to bring the thread back on topic with John Kerry.
posted
CStroman, I don't know how many treaties and stuff still apply today, but after WWII, I don't think Germany was allowed to actually have much of a military. I can't believe you can call them wussy when it is arguable that they started both of the major world wars in the past hundred years.
Is their historical consciousness wary of war as a result. Yes. But Germany is far more of a sleeping giant than France. It isn't the French you don't want to tick off, it's the Germans. The Germans, if roused, go about destruction far more methodically and cold bloodledly, and still would today if pressed that far. They also have a history of producing pretty darn brilliant military minds, even if their brilliance has been squandered by incompetent leaders. (Rommel for example, if he hadn't been force to commit sucide his tactics would have made it very difficult for the Allies to get anywhere.)
As far as today. Germany still has huge technological expertise, in industrial and scientific realms. BASF anyone? (and I could list half a dozen other companies too!) The only reason Chemistry students aren't Very Strongly encouraged to take German anymore, is because they've consented to dual publish their scientific papers in English.
posted
Tom:"BTW, UofU, I'm going to dispute that you were in fact undecided. Nothing I've ever seen you post on this board would suggest that you would, for a moment, consider voting for Kerry."
Why? Is it because you think I wouldn't vote for a Democrat? I actually have voted for many more Democrats than Republicans over the past eight years or so. I voted for Clinton in 96. I voted for Gore in 2000. I really, really didn't like the idea back then that Bush was going to be President.
I would not hesitate to vote for a Democratic candidate now, either. I am not in love with Bush. I think that he and I have some very significant differences in values and priorities.
I just haven't known much about Kerry, except as filtered through rather biased sources on both sides. I haven't heard much of anything from his own mouth. Now that I have, I am not impressed.
"Indeed, I would say that the only group who doesn't think Kerry won that particular debate hands-down is the group who is pretending for its own inexplicable reasons to be undecided."
I don't think either man "won" the debate, either hands down or otherwise. Maybe it's because I never took debate in high school, but I find the very idea of "winning" a debate rather strange. It's not a boxing match. There's nobody scoring the thing, and raising one contender's hand in victory at the end. It is simply an opportunity for all of us to hear what each of them have to say, and specifically to hear how they each respond to the positions of the other.
As for the little aspersions cast by that last comment of yours, I don't appreciate the implications.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Germany has done 'nothing' in the international spectrum to give 'aid' to the world."
This can only be considered true if your definition of "aid" involves unilateral invasion, as Germany provides peacekeeping troops to the U.N. and is one of the top financial donors abroad. Are we defining "aid" as "invading a country to save it?" Because, if so, there are very few countries out there which aren't wussy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Given their recent past history in the international spectrum you get:
zilch.
Well, maybe we get to be better "friends" with them, but I honestly can't see how adding a country who has done and will do nothing to our list of "coalition" members does anything but give them a foot in the door without doing anything in return.
John Kerry wants them in, but for no other reason than the "warm fuzzy feeling" we get from having someone we can call a friend.
That's just my opinion on Germany and what it brings to the table. They bring nothing but want to take away alot.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I honestly can't see how adding a country who has done and will do nothing to our list of coalition members does anything but give them a foot in the door without doing anything in return."
Have you seen our list of coalition members? I don't think our application requirements are really all that stringent.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: as Germany provides peacekeeping troops to the U.N. and is one of the top financial donors abroad.
How many German troops were in Yugoslavia? How about any other countries where the U.N. has troops deployed in the world? Where are those German U.N. troops stationed?
And to WHOM have they given financial aid?
What do they offer to Iraq?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you stating that the vision Bush presented was one in which America fights against its allies?
Yes. Bush has made it clear that his policy is to push allies away if they don't agree with us, and to take a course in the war on terror that is certain to leave very few agreeing with us.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Federal Foreign Office supported 307 projects for humanitarian aid, humanitarian mine clearance as well as disaster prevention, all over the world in 2003 to the tune of EUR 71.5 million.
Some 237 projects totaling EUR 52.5 million received support from the humanitarian aid budget. This funding was used to look after victims of natural disasters or armed conflicts and provide life-saving commodities such as clean drinking water, food and medication. The aid projects were implemented by German non-governmental organizations, United Nations subsidiary organizations and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
As in previous years, Africa received the most funding, EUR 16.6 million, which was used to support 97 projects focusing primarily on the Great Lakes region, West Africa, the Horn of Africa and southern Africa. In Iraq, 20 projects were supported with EUR 11.2 million, and in Afghanistan 22 projects with EUR 4.5 million. Further regional focal points included Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, with some EUR 8 million; the Palestinian territories with approximately EUR 3 million; and Chechnya with some EUR 1.2 million. In South America, various projects were granted support of EUR 2.3 million. Most recently, the Federal Foreign Office has granted emergency disaster relief of EUR 800,000 for the earthquake victims in Iran.
I can agree that a lack of stuttering is no reason to pick a president. But Kerry offered a vision of the world in which America is leading the world against terror, rather than fighting against our allies over Iraq (and letting Al Qaeda advance in the meanwhile). Isn't THAT enough to make you pick him over Bush?
I was not impressed, among other things, with Kerry's narrow view of the fight against terror. He kept protesting that it was all about Bin Laden. How many times did he repeat that? In my opinion, Bush didn't do a good enough job of refuting that claim. I don't see how a fight like this can be all about one man. He also kept saying, or strongly implying, that Afghanistan was the only country we could have any reason for going into to fight terrorists. I don't see the justification for that limitation.
Kerry said that he voted to support action in Iraq at first, but with the understanding that certain other actions would be taken by the administration first, e.g. more work with U.N. inspections and alliance building. That's fine, but the implication is that he would have approved of war if those things didn't work. How does that square with his repeated claims that Saddam Hussein and his regime were completely irrelevant to the war on terror?
I can understand his disapproval with the way things are being handled in Iraq, and I welcome ideas for better ways to handle our activities there right now. I didn't hear anything from him that convinces me he knows a better way. The only thing of substance was a promise to get other countries ("allies") more involved. I don't know 1) how he would talk them into it, 2) what role he would have them play, 3) who these "allies" are, or 4) why he thinks this would make things better in Iraq than they are now, except that having more people from different countries makes it likely that our troops would represent a smaller percentage of the casualties that would happen regardless of who is there.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
(Note: this link is UN-only. Note that Germany is also committed to a sizable NATO peacekeeping force in Afghanistan.)
Germany is also one of the largest sovereign donors to the United Nations, the World Bank, and UNICEF, and its population is also near the top for personal giving to international charities.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm most interested in what the polls that focus on undecided voters show in the next couple of days. I expect we'll see a move - not necessarily a dramatic one - in Kerry's direction.
Pretty much by definition, the undecideds aren't real crazy about either candidate (OK - the same can be said for some of us "decideds" as well. )
I watched interviews with two small groups of undecided voters and in both cases the vote was unanimous - Kerry carried the debate. A minority of the groups said they were moving in his direction, with the rest on the fence.
It will be interesting to see how the next one plays out. The "town hall" format is supposed to be a stronger one for Bush. But the subject - domestic policy - is where he is weakest with undecided voters.
Some interesting commentary last night on MSNBC - Bush might have been a victim of two things. One is his own mastery of the soundbite - after giving a 30 second answer, he didn't quite know what to do with the rest of the time. The other thing is that Bush has been pretty cushioned from direct argument on his positions - dissenters were culled from his administation early on and the rest learned the lesson. His press conferences are limited. On the campaign trail, he plays to small, carefully screened audiences so there won't be any protest signs or awkward questions to deal with (and no - the Kerry campaign doesn't do this.).
By my count, it was Bush who initiated every request for extended conversation on a question (did someone else mention that?) - it added to the overall impression of someone who was not on top of the situation.
I was very surprised by Bush's performance - I know he is capable of doing better than this. Maybe he's lost some of his edge from interacting almost entirely with like-minded people.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I didn't hear anything from him that convinces me he knows a better way."
Honestly, I think Kerry as president will have some difficulty, mainly because Bush would have dealt him a bad hand; fixing a bad foreign policy decision made by your predecessor is considerably harder than not making a bad foreign policy decision in the first place.
That said, my PERSONAL motivation for booting Bush is to punish him for making bad decisions in the first place. Why should we think that he can fix what he already screwed up?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
