Debate #2

[spectacle]

Originally posted by Calesta@Oct 12 2004, 02:47 PM
Yet another oversimplification... it's never as simple as yes or no.

[post=401548]Quoted post[/post]​

Baaaaahahahahahaha

you sound like Kerry now LMAO

yes, no, maybe so aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I digress...

 

[asmallsol]

Originally posted by spectacle+Oct 12 2004, 12:20 PM-->

Calesta

@Oct 12 2004, 02:47 PM
Yet another oversimplification... it's never as simple as yes or no.

[post=401548]Quoted post[/post]​

Baaaaahahahahahaha

you sound like Kerry now LMAO

yes, no, maybe so aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I digress...

[post=401605]Quoted post[/post]​

A Bill is not as simple as "give troops more supplies" and thats it. There are things called christmas tree bills that get lots of little additions to the orginal bill. So when you vote yes or no on the one tiny issue, you also vote yes or no for all the other things attached to the bill.

 

[xj0hnx]

Kerry's responses are textbook campaign jargon, nothing more, he doesn't have a clue. And yea it's easy for him to say that he would have done things different, but guess what? He didn't, he didn't speak out when he could have, so that makes him as guilty as Bish, er, Bush.

 

[Sabz5150]

Originally posted by 92b16vx@Oct 12 2004, 02:22 PM
he didn't speak out when he could have, so that makes him as guilty as Bish, er, Bush.

[post=401721]Quoted post[/post]​

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

This is what Kerry said on the floor when he cast his vote to give Bush authority to invade Iraq.

Now, what were you saying?

 

[xj0hnx]

Yippy, the mindless quote game!!!

Originally posted by John Kerry
Nov 12, 1997: In response to a question about unanimity over a U.N. resolution, kerry responded: where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq....It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge. crossfire

Feb 23, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." The Disgrace of John Kerry by Kevin Willmann Saturday, April 05, 2003

Oct 9, 1998: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others.

Oct 10, 1998: "We know from our largely unsuccessful attempts to enlist the cooperation of other nations, especially industrialized trading nations, in efforts to impose and enforce somewhat more ambitious standards on nations such as Iran, China, Burma and Syria, that the willingness of most other nations — including a number who are joined in the sanctions to isolate Iraq — is neither wide nor deep to join in imposing sanctions on a sovereign nation to spur it to `clean up its act' and comport its actions with accepted international norms." Senate Floor Speech Try to figure out what he just said there!

Sep 6, 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times

Oct 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senate Speech

Oct 9, 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

Oct 9, 2002: The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. johnkerry.com speeches (Thanks Scot!)

Oct 9, 2002: "Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution." Speech on senate floor (Thanks Aaron)

Jan 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job.†(CBS’ “Face The Nation,â€) (watch)

Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now.†(CBS’ “Face The Nation,â€) (watch)

Dec 2, 2003: Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did. Now that's what I call presidential! www.johnkerry.com

Dec 15, 2003: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..."

Aug 9, 2004: Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there. In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Must be another one of those "I'm for it, but against it because I'd do a better job of it" moment....

And where exactly does he speak out against it?

 

[Citizen_Insane]

Originally posted by asmallsol+Oct 12 2004, 10:49 AM-->

Originally posted by spectacle@Oct 12 2004, 12:20 PM
Calesta

@Oct 12 2004, 02:47 PM
Yet another oversimplification... it's never as simple as yes or no.

[post=401548]Quoted post[/post]​

Baaaaahahahahahaha

you sound like Kerry now LMAO

yes, no, maybe so aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I digress...

[post=401605]Quoted post[/post]​

A Bill is not as simple as "give troops more supplies" and thats it. There are things called christmas tree bills that get lots of little additions to the orginal bill. So when you vote yes or no on the one tiny issue, you also vote yes or no for all the other things attached to the bill.

[post=401631]Quoted post[/post]​

Many bills have shit like: "give the troops new supplies....and give NYC 20million for icecream." There is a lot of extra irrelevent shit that get tagged on the end of lots of bills. There are a million and one reasons why Kerry voted against the bill, some of which may or may not be related to giving the troops arms.

 

[Sabz5150]

Originally posted by 92b16vx+Oct 12 2004, 04:44 PM-->

Yippy, the mindless quote game!!!

John Kerry

Nov 12, 1997: In response to a question about unanimity over a U.N. resolution, kerry responded: where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq....It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge. crossfire

Feb 23, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." The Disgrace of John Kerry by Kevin Willmann Saturday, April 05, 2003

Oct 9, 1998: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others.

Oct 10, 1998: "We know from our largely unsuccessful attempts to enlist the cooperation of other nations, especially industrialized trading nations, in efforts to impose and enforce somewhat more ambitious standards on nations such as Iran, China, Burma and Syria, that the willingness of most other nations — including a number who are joined in the sanctions to isolate Iraq — is neither wide nor deep to join in imposing sanctions on a sovereign nation to spur it to `clean up its act' and comport its actions with accepted international norms." Senate Floor Speech Try to figure out what he just said there!

Sep 6, 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times

Oct 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senate Speech

Oct 9, 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

Oct 9, 2002: The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. johnkerry.com speeches (Thanks Scot!)

Oct 9, 2002: "Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution." Speech on senate floor (Thanks Aaron)

Jan 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job.†(CBS’ “Face The Nation,â€) (watch)

Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now.†(CBS’ “Face The Nation,â€) (watch)

Dec 2, 2003: Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did. Now that's what I call presidential! www.johnkerry.com

Dec 15, 2003: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..."

Aug 9, 2004: Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there. In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Must be another one of those "I'm for it, but against it because I'd do a better job of it" moment....

And where exactly does he speak out against it?

[post=401794]Quoted post[/post]​

He agreed that the authority should have been given, as it was. However, the authority to attack was only to be used as a trump card to get Saddie to turn over his weapons, not a go ahead to send in the troops which Bush used the authority for. Look at the last quote. He said that he would have voted for the authority knowing what we know now. NOWHERE IN THAT PARAGRAPH did he say he's blindly invade with the coalition of the bribed.

"Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did. Now that's what I call presidential!"

A-fucking-men! I haven't fucked up that bad since... ever! He lied, why can't you accept that? Who gives a shit if it was the 'right choice', a lie is a lie. Try lying to your employer for the 'right choice', you'll be one step closer to a pink slip. He's made a complete mess of the Iraq situation, which if he were to have used the authority like he should, we would not be in!

Cops have guns and the authority to use them so they have a damn good chance that you won't fuck with them, not so they can plug anyone they don't like.

 

[driverunknown]

Originally posted by Havok+Oct 11 2004, 12:03 AM-->

Don't even get me started on Fox News, that piece of shit station is so biased. Country bumpkins with shotguns run that channel.

[post=401020]Quoted post[/post]​

Biased? Oh yeah just like CBS huh? Mr. Dan Rather comes to mind on this.

Calesta
How? Who knows. He's not going to be able to spell out a complete plan in 90 seconds of debate time. Which? England and France are two of the major ones that he mentioned.

[post=401020]Quoted post[/post]​

Actually England is already in on it, and the French have clearly stated that they will not go in. They are still pissed off about being caught selling weapons to Saddam for oil.

 

[Sabz5150]

Originally posted by driverunknown@Oct 12 2004, 07:06 PM
Biased? Oh yeah just like CBS huh? Mr. Dan Rather comes to mind on this.

[post=401835]Quoted post[/post]​

Typical right winger BS. Okay, so this is the SAME CBS that pulled the Moveon.org ads during the superbowl as a favor to get a piece of FCC legislation passed? The same CBS that refused to play The Regeans after much yelling from the Right?

Get real. The media is only as liberal as the conservative owners let it. Nothing needs to be said about RepiblicanCo Fox and and the O'reily Fucktor, they're as right winger as they come. Sinclair? Airing an anti-Kerry documentary with no commercials during prime time on ALL their stations. Wanna know what Sinclair owns in the way of TV?

# WTTA - Tampa
# KMWB - Minneapolis
# WPGH & WCWB - Pittsburgh
# KOVR - Sacramento
# KDNL - St. Louis
# WBFF & WNUV - Baltimore
# WTTV & WTTK - Indianapolis
# WLFL & WRDC - Raleigh - Durham, NC
# WZTV & WUXP - Nashville
# WCGV & WVTV - Milwaukee
# WSTR - Cincinnati
# KSMO - Kansas City, MO
# WTTE & WSYX - Columbus, OH
# WFBC & WLOS - Asheville, NC
# KABB & KRRT - San Antonio
# WTTO & WABM & WDBB - Birmingham, AL
# WTVZ - Norfolk, VA
# WUTV - Buffalo, NY
# KOCB & KOKH - Oklahoma City
# WXLV & WUPN - Greensboro, NC
# WKEF & WRGT - Dayton, OH
# KVWB & KFBT - Las Vegas
# WCHS & WVAH - Charleston, WV
# WRLH - Richmond, VA
# WEAR & WFGX - Mobile, AL
# WSMH - Flint, MI
# WDKY - Lexington, KY
# KDSM - Des Moines
# WSYT & WNYS - Syracuse
# KBSI & WDKA - Paducah, KY
# WUHF - Rochester, NY
# WGME - Portland, ME
# WMSN - Madison, WI
# WEMT - Tri-Cities, TN
# WGGB - Springfield, MA
# WYZZ - Peoria, IL
# WTWC - Tallahassee, FL
# WMMP & WTAT - Charleston, SC
# WICS & WICD — Springfield, IL
# KGAN — Cedar Rapids, IA

Rupert Murdoch, the owner of FOX... the most biased, conservative, right wing station EVER imagined, owns enough media to be seen by THREE QUARTERS OF THE PLANET. And you guessed it, everything in his grasp is just as right winged. Why? Because Murdoch is a close friend of the 'Pubs.

Biased? You damn right. All you conservatives draw and quarter a journalist over one report, but look away whistling while duped reports about Al-Qeida and Saddam links and yellowcake go by without even one bit of scrutiny. You'll follow Rush Limbaugh all the way to his pill popping grave, but holy shit, the media is all liberal when even one thing is said against your poster boy.

 

[ahedau]

1) Did Kerry vote for the Iraqi war for Bush when they Saddam invaded Kuwait? No.
Did he vote for the Iraqi war for Bush when KERRY thought they had WMD? Yes. Is that the same position on Iraq? NO

2) France and Germany have already stated they will NOT join a coalition in Iraq even if Kerry is President of the US. Where the hell is he going to get his world army? Has he mentioned a single other nation?NO

3) Kerry said that Bush just charged in there and invaded Iraq. Do you people not remember the televised (worldwide) speeches that Bush gave letting Saddam know that time was running out and that unlike the previous panty-waste of a president, he actually meant what he said? Do you folks not recall that the UN did provide a resolution ending the time that Saddam had to continue to jerk the world around?

4) Has no one read about the most recent crimes against the world perpetrated by France and Germany in the food for oil scandal? Have you heard about it on CNN? CBS? NBC? no? Why not?

5) Foxnews is, dare I say it, a non-partisan news organization. The problem is that the liberal media has indoctrinated us for so long that when we see a news format that is truly centrist it appears right of the perceived center.

Folks, face it. A vast majority of America is moderate leaning left. They call this large group "the silent majority" For over 10 years they have been letting the PC left apply labels to those that are intolerant of their political views. For 10 years they have watched as their schools systems have disintegrated. Now students have to have parental permission for aspirin but not for condoms.

In 2000 and again in 2002 we saw the majority of America vote their conscience, not what the media through their biased and partisan polls told them to.

More recently we have seen this normally subdued group rise up in throngs voting to keep the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Several states have on the November ballot resolutions, laws, referendums, etc seeking to amend their state's constitution in an effort to stem liberal judges from legislating from the bench.

It is my sincere belief and hope that once again the silent majority will speak out when asked to do so. Not in any poll, not around the water cooler at work but on the day when it matters, November 2, 2004; Election Day.

 

[Sabz5150]

Originally posted by ahedau@Oct 12 2004, 10:07 PM
5) Foxnews is, dare I say it, a non-partisan news organization. The problem is that the liberal media has indoctrinated us for so long that when we see a news format that is truly centrist it appears right of the perceived center.

[post=401952]Quoted post[/post]​

You... cannot be helped.

 

[dohcvtec_accord]

I like how no one disputed 95% of what 92b16vx posted about John Kerry.

He's as slimy as any other Democratic president that we've had in office during the past 20 years.

Anyone want to start an official Hondaswap.com thread (if Kerry gets elected, that is), beting when he'll have his first in-office affair? :bo: We can even have a side bet to see if he'll lie to the American public about it.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by dohcvtec_accord+Oct 13 2004, 05:13 AM-->

I like how no one disputed 95% of what 92b16vx posted about John Kerry.

[post=401981]Quoted post[/post]​

That's because there's nothing to dispute, he has no plan, didn't speak out against the war, and is relying on peoples blind hatred of Bush to win him votes, and it's working. The man was hand in hand with Bush on Iraq, noiw he want s to try to say he was not because that's what you people want to hear, and are trying to interput.

John Kerry
SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA): "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that Bush knew more than he said and had an alternate agenda going in, but sorry to say we are here now, and Kerry isn't going to have the cojones to fix it.

 

[Sabz5150]

Originally posted by 92b16vx+Oct 13 2004, 01:25 AM-->

dohcvtec_accord

@Oct 13 2004, 05:13 AM
I like how no one disputed 95% of what 92b16vx posted about John Kerry.

[post=401981]Quoted post[/post]​

That's because there's nothing to dispute, he has no plan, didn't speak out against the war, and is relying on peoples blind hatred of Bush to win him votes, and it's working. The man was hand in hand with Bush on Iraq, noiw he want s to try to say he was not because that's what you people want to hear, and are trying to interput.

Of course we hate Bush. He's done nothing but lie and fail in his promises.

Remember the CIA agent that was outed by someone in the administration? Why haven't we done anything to find this traitor?

We've been fed almost ten changing reasons to go to war with Iraq? Which one is it now? Speaking of being a flip flopper.

Privatizing Social Security as the Prez has suggested will cost trillions. With you asking how Kerry will pay for his policies, how are we going to pay for this one?

Remember that guy that killed thousands of Americans about three years ago? Where is he? Why isn't he rotting in jail?

There are over sixty nations that currently harbor terrorists, and we go where the oil is!

We're cutting funding to the VA while soldiers come back in pieces... literally! Does this sound like a good policy?

What about his national guard duties? Ya can't spell AWOL without W.

What about the ones responsible for the whole Anthrax thing? Where are they?

Remember that guy that killed thousands of Americans about three years ago? Where is he? Why isn't he rotting in jail?

The tax burden has been shifted to the middle class (if there's one left) and the rich are getting away with paying little to no taxes. Wheeee!

Millions in poverty, millions more without healthcare and the first president to oversee a net job loss in seventy years!


When I vote, I ask myself "Am I better off now than I was four years ago?". Well, with my job off in some country I can't pronounce, gas topping two bucks a gallon and a war costing the lives of thousands of Americans over a threat that didn't even exist... HELL NO I AM NOT BETTER OFF!

I'm gonna give Kerry my vote. If he botches it up, we'll boot him in four years. Plain and simple.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that Bush knew more than he said and had an alternate agenda going in, but sorry to say we are here now, and Kerry isn't going to have the cojones to fix it.

[post=402022]Quoted post[/post]​

What's worse? Not having the balls to take apart your car's engine or not having the brains to put it back together?

 

[ahedau]

Rupert Murdoch, the owner of FOX... the most biased, conservative, right wing station EVER imagined, owns enough media to be seen by THREE QUARTERS OF THE PLANET....

You obviously forgot about who owns CNN. A Channel that is seen by 100% of the planet.

His name is Ted Turner. Maybe some of you have heard of him? He gave one billion (yes, BILLION) dollors to the U.N. which, the non-partisan media will truthfully tell you, is corrupt.

He was married to a lady named Jane Fonda. In the '70's she was affectionately refered to as "Hanoi Jane" by Vietnam Vets. Google her to find out why. If you really want to know, go to the library (HA!) and read articles written in the '70's rather than the pacified, watered-down liberal, whitewash version you'll read today. This was not a marriage akin to Matalin and Carville. It was two people that share the same ideology. More like Sarandon and Robbins

If Richard Murdoch has any influence over the news or how it is presented, he learned from Mr. Turner.

 

[driverunknown]

wow...I didn't even have to reply.
Thanks ahedahu, I too was thinking about cnn, but fanatics like to see only one side of the whole picture.
It is they who can't be helped.