Printable View
I can imagine who would have been horrified if Clinton had been asked the same thing....the Democrats....just like the Republicans are horrified that the question was asked of Bush. It's a partisan thing.
As for the question, maybe it shouldn't have been allowed, but, it was, and the fact remains that he did not totally answer the question.
Aly, I agree with you. I thought he would make a great president, too. I won't make that mistake again with him. Let's hope Shrub doesn't win.
I don't have a problem with the question being asked, but why wasn't it asked of Kerry as well. After all he has spent years in the Senate and surely could have come up with at least three easily. I can think of several already.Quote:
Originally posted by mugsy
As for the question, maybe it shouldn't have been allowed, but, it was, and the fact remains that he did not totally answer the question.
From what I saw, Bush looked pretty worked up and pissed off. Kerry kept his cool through the whole thing. If I'm not mistaken, Bush, not long ago, PROMISED that he'd be bringing our guys home from Iraq. So, what happened there? We're still over there. Not to mention wasting all this money trying to rebuild some other country(as they laugh in our faces hating our guts) when we should be taking care of our own people and back yard.
Then there's the issue of jobs (a real sore subject with me). Thousands of people are out of jobs. Why? The economy sucks (thanks to Bush), and Bush is giving tax breaks to companies who move out of the U.S.
I can't wait to vote and get that money wasting Daddy's boy outta here. Send HIM to Iraq to fight.
Bush has said that we will be there as long as it takes to get the job done. Kerry was the one setting 'pie in the sky' dates. In all honesty I don't think it much matters who wins when it comes to bringing our people home. I personally can't understand Kerry's logic that countries are going to want to join in now, especially in light of the fact that he is saying it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, but *Oh, by the way, y'all come and join in now!* I would love to be wrong here but unfortunately I doubt it.Quote:
Originally posted by moosmom
If I'm not mistaken, Bush, not long ago, PROMISED that he'd be bringing our guys home from Iraq.
Bush in that debate looked like he didn't a leg to stand on. Kerry had everything under control during the debate. Bush basially pushed this war on the america people and is using money from our economy to finance it. No wonder everythng is going up in price,gasoline, food, while jobs are getting scarce. Bush is letting the economy go downhill. Kerry is the one I'm voting for. This country can't take four more years of Bush!
Pam, the questions were from the audience and this particular woman chose Bush, so that's why it was only Bush. I'm surprised too that they allowed the question without someone else being allowed to ask the same question of Kerry. I do agree with LH that the question should never have been allowed. Charlie dropped the ball on that one.Quote:
Originally posted by Pam
I don't have a problem with the question being asked, but why wasn't it asked of Kerry as well. After all he has spent years in the Senate and surely could have come up with at least three easily. I can think of several already.
I also agree with Kerry that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time because we should be concentrating on Afghanistan, but, the fact remains that we are there and we need to finish the job. I started getting negative about Iraq and then started listening to people who are actually there instead of listening to the media that spins and twists everything to their satisfaction and I hear a totally different story....things ARE getting better, albeit slowly....Rome wasn't built in a day (OOOOHHH BAD cliche).
So, as much as I hate to admit it, I'm not going to slam Georgie boy on that one....oops....I flip flopped on that one...:)
I also think the economy sucks, but, again, as much as I hate to admit it, it's not ALL W's fault. We have a Republican majority Congress and THEY are the people who make the policy. The president can ask for a bill, but, can only sign it if it gets to his desk after going through both Houses of Congress. I wish we had more jobs too. I wish Mike could find a job in computers again and I wish if Kerry gets elected that those things would happen, but, sadly, I don't think it will....not yet.
Now, those defenses of Bush aside. His education policies (as I have said before) are absolutely WORTHLESS (I don't have any strong opinions about it)...and Kerry says NCLB is a good thing....NOT! His environmental policies are beyond horrific, which I am assuming (I know I shouldn't do that) will also translate to companion animals. Now, Bush, in the debates was talking about concentrating on alternative fuel, but, also is a big supporter of opening up drilling in the Arctic...hmmmmm.....
Ok, I'm done now....let the games begin....lol
A new President, one who didn't spurn other countries and create the mess we're in, would have the credibility to reopen the issue of sending troops/aid to Iraq. All Kerry has to say is that, regardless of his or other countries position on Iraq the fact is we are there now and if we are not successful in Iraq the whole world is in very big trouble. It benefits the entire world that Iraq become a peaceful nation and not a vaccuum for terrorists. The middle east cannot afford that sort of instability, and Europe is much closer to them than we are and so they have even more to lose.Quote:
Originally posted by Pam
I personally can't understand Kerry's logic that countries are going to want to join in now, especially in light of the fact that he is saying it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, but *Oh, by the way, y'all come and join in now!* I would love to be wrong here but unfortunately I doubt it.
Kerry would also allow other countries' businesses to work in Iraq, rather than let HALLIBURTON be the only one allowed in like Bush and Cheney have done.
Soledad, I'm not disputing most of what you said, but, I do have to ask.....when exactly has the Middle East ever been stable? It's been a hotbed of fighting since Biblical times! (and before).
I agree with Pam. Kerry has done many wrong things. he has way more than 3 mistakes.
Kerry doesn't have anything under control. He just wants power, and he doesn't have any plans like he says.
This election may be regarded as an "internal affair" by Americans, but due to the huge power that the country exerts in the world today, and not least the development of "globalization", it actually concerns everyone on the planet. So I think everyone has the right to comment on it. Here are some random thoughts.
The "debates":
I have followed the debates, and must admit that at first sight Kerry reminded me of a wooden puppet. But he seems intelligent and sane and to have Presidential qualifications. On the other hand, Bush comes across as being a very shifty and unbalanced person, neither mature nor open minded. Bush gets along fine hiding behind his massive propaganda and talking to people who already support him without question, but in open debate becomes unconvincing and shows no signs at all of being a competent and strong leader. I will never have faith in a man who has made thousands of important decisions, but refuses to admit ever having made a wrong one. He even very cleverly turned it round, implying that some people he had chosen were at fault. Very sneaky, no class at all. That sort of response must surely make it very difficult for anyone to have any respect for him.
Quote from Christa:
A LOT of people are voting for John Kerry for the mere fact that he's NOT George W. Bush. That makes me soooooo mad! They have no political opinions what so ever, they know no facts, they have no intelligent ideas of their own.
Well thank you very much! You really must excuse me, but I find that a very unintelligent comment. A totally narrow minded, arrogant, dogmatic Republican view in fact! I mentioned in an earlier post that, for the first time in my life (if I could vote in this election), I would be prepared to accept the devil I don't know over the one that I do. And by so doing, you are implying that I have no political opinions, know no facts and have no intelligent ideas of my own. Luckily I don't take your views seriously. Are you absolutely sure that you have the right "facts" yourself? This sort of attitude is precisely what is wrong in America at the moment, and the reason that the rest of the world has turned against a country that was previously regarded as a friend and a protector of freedom and democracy.
On trade:
Here are a couple of recent quotes from BBC's International News:
"History shows that countries that choose to fight against terrorism or oppression by non-democratic means never succeed".
"The widely-held view is that America has squandered the huge stockpile of international sympathy and support it had after the 11 September attacks by acting in defiance of international law".
It really does seem more and more obvious that the present American administration is no longer interested in the lessons of history and are too arrogant and self absorbed to heed the views of the rest of the world. And this from a country that brags about the great future of a global economy! No country, no matter how powerful, can ignore the rest of the world and live in a vacuum.
India is at the moment the fastest growing economy of all, China is awakening fast, Russia has signed the Kyoto treaty thereby getting itself more goodwill and trade, and the European Union is slowly becoming stronger. World trade depends on trust and friendship. Without either, a lot fewer will want to trade with the USA. And with such a HUGE national debt, the USA surely needs all the business it can get.
On democracy and free speech:
I was speculating recently that the present administration seems to be acting more and more like one of those classic "banana republics" (though I have only travelled in The Dominican Republic and Haiti). America doesn't even seem to be able to count votes fairly and democratically any more, and the stories of the Diebold machines and the "#80 pound white card stock paper" are most disconcerting and raise suspicion. Why should there be so many obstacles to something as basic as facilitating someone's right to vote? There are just too many indications of corruption, lies and hypocrisy in this administration.
Now I see there is a book out titled "Banana Republicans" (I haven't read it yet). A few years ago I would have considered that silly name calling, but it is beginning to look more and more as if there is some truth in it. The largest national newspaper in Denmark has now begun to call America the "Disunited States". Not something to be proud of. And it's not just "everybody else's fault" either. This is something that the Bush administration alone has created in four short years.
On religion:
I was brought up in a Christian home, and hope and believe that my morals are acceptable. I believe in tolerance and understanding, the right to freedom of speech and all those sort of things. And not least trying my best to accept and understand people who think and live very differently than I do. But I don't think that God or Jesus has picked me for any special task, or that my views or beliefs are the only right ones. That is a very arrogant and dangerously presumptuous attitude, and not becoming of the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. Personally, I don't even think it has anything to do with being a good Christian. The notion that God wrote one or another book has always been a source of dangerous divisions throughout history. There is a long list of current religious conflicts in the world today, Jews vs. Muslims in Palestine, Orthodox Serbs vs. Catholic Croatians in the Balkans, Catholics vs. Protestants in Ireland, Buddhists vs. Hindus in Sri Lanka, and so on and so on. Now it looks as if we have Muslims vs. the Western World as well. With the spread of modern weapons and other destructive technology, these divisions are rapidly becoming extremely dangerous to civilization itself.
I thought that one of the main criticisms of Islam was precisely that it mixes religion and politics, and that extremism and fundamentalism were what we're fighting against. The worst possible way to fight the terrorist threat is by making it a religious conflict. Talking of "crusades" for example is a very unintelligent way to tackle the situation. It seems that nowadays, even in America, religion has become a substitute for national identity and an excuse for violence. President Bush is shamelessly using this to his own ends.
… and to Richard:
I still haven't worked out exactly what it is you try to say in your posts. If you're trying to defend or support Republicans or the Bush administration, I suggest you forget it. You are almost a caricature of all that people detest in them, doing them much more harm than good. I can only judge from your posts in Pet Talk, but I have to say that you appear to be the most unpleasant person I have ever tried to discuss a serious issue with. You just close your mind, rant and rave incoherently and fire off insults and condescending jokes. I love humor, what I don't like is malicious humor and infantile jokes when discussing a serious subject. If you are typical of what Americans are becoming, then I certainly wouldn't give much for the future of a short sighted and narrow-minded America.
Why can't you just let people try to discuss complex issues in peace? Or try to state your case sanely without gross distortions and stupid jokes? Surely you would rather spend your time polishing your guns and thumping yourself on the chest, or threatening people who you mistakenly believe want to come and "rattle your cage"? It all seems rather pathetic and counter productive. You are just polarizing the situation even more and intensifying the dissension and misunderstandings. When you start doing that, people have a tendency to react in kind, and all sense and reason evaporates, the discussion becomes meaningless. So you have achieved nothing but generate even more hostility. Is there any significance in your posts - or aren't we supposed to take anything that you say seriously? If so, why do you bother?
Surely the intelligent way to face a common enemy is to rally together and fight united against them. That's what normally happens in an intelligent, civilized society. Nobody can deny that the Bush administration has done the precise opposite, polarizing the country and splitting it into two bitterly opposed factions. This problem has to be solved NOW if America is to continue to flourish. The Bush administration obviously can't achieve this.
It must be time for a change in leadership.
No argument from me here. But the fact is, since the middle east is as unsteady as it is, failure in Iraq is just not something the world can afford. Thus it benefits every peace loving country to participate in the clean up of this mess.Quote:
Originally posted by mugsy
Soledad, I'm not disputing most of what you said, but, I do have to ask.....when exactly has the Middle East ever been stable? It's been a hotbed of fighting since Biblical times! (and before).
Jonza,
I believe what Christa was saying was that if you are voting for Kerry ONLY because he is not Bush is not the way to vote. You should vote because you agree with more of the candidate's views. I think that's what she meant. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but, that is the way I interpreted what she said.
As for Richard, I think what he has to say is valid and his humor is there to help diffuse arguments. I personally think he's a very funny man that is highly intelligent, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I honestly think that Richard is like me--independent. Mike and I are proud to call Richard a friend. On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoy your insight as well. You are also highly intelligent and your command of the English language is amazing!!
As far as the debates. I too felt (and to some extent still feel) that Kerry is like a wooden puppet, but, he is obviously a better public speaker than Bush. I felt that Bush was on the ropes WAY too much during both debates.
THANK YOU MUGSY!Quote:
Originally posted by mugsy
[B]Jonza,
I believe what Christa was saying was that if you are voting for Kerry ONLY because he is not Bush is not the way to vote. You should vote because you agree with more of the candidate's views. I think that's what she meant. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but, that is the way I interpreted what she said.
(I'm gonna cool down, and then I'll respond to Jonza . . . )