The Debates: Foreign Policy

[pzarquon]

Tonight was the first of three schedule debates between George W. Bush and John F. Kerry. Held in Florida, the topic was foreign policy. Did you tune in? Catch any of the soundbites and clips? Read the blow-by-blow by blogs?

CSPAN was the best outlet to watch. They just kept a steady split screen showing both candidates, all the time. So much for the meticulous and restrictive demands of the debate agreement. And while the candidates did play by the rules, the exchange turned out to be a tad more lively and spontaneous than most predicted.

Of course, fans of both camps are claiming victory. Some are saying a draw.

I don't think there were any knock-out blows, or deal breakers. I'd score it 65/35 in Kerry's favor, which is nice, but won't turn the tide.

Kerry fans were encouraged by Bush's awkwardness and almost unbelievable repetition (and their candidate's sudden ability to not ramble on for once). Bush fans howled at Kerry's "pass the global test" line. Kerry came across as resolute and sure, defying much of how he's been framed by the Bush camp. Bush, at least at times, was gracious (not taking the "character flaw" bait) and playful (though I think the "leash" remark about his daughters will ruffle some feathers). Lots of material to seize on and argue about until the next one, at the very least.

I don't suppose those of us strongly in one camp or the other were swayed at all. I wonder how the all-important undecideds will judge the proceedings?

[Miulang]

For the 5 or 10 minutes that I watched the darn thing, the thing I noticed most (and I was watching this on CBS, I think, which also had a split screen of both candidates--wasn't that against the rules?) was Bush looking very grumpy at times but mostly looking like one of those deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming car that's going about 80 mph!

Man, if that had been a real debate, you can bet Kerry would have been at Dubya's jugular...reminds me of the analogy I came up with one day about the difference between a data geek (code cruncher) and an IT analyst:
A data geek is very focused on the task in front of him, to the exclusion of everything else around him. An analyst is very big picture oriented and is always looking at all the alternatives. You need both kinds of people to have a successful organization, but you have to be careful who you select for which kind of job.

A CEO, for instance, should never be a data geek. Because once he gets fixated on doing one thing, he shuts everything else out. He will lead his staff/troops over a cliff á la lemming style because he will never see the cliff...he is only honed in on his objective. He will do his appointed task, on time and on budget, most of the times as long as you leave him alone.

An analyst, on the other hand, is contantly searching for alternatives. It will take him forever to come up with an answer because he is always thinking there's a better way to do things. He is constantly distracted by other things but when he finally totes up all the input he has received, he will generally come up with a better answer. An analyst is more of a strategic thinker.

From the sound byte I saw last night, I think Bush is more of a geek. He kinda sorta admitted (or maybe I was hallucinating this) that maybe the war in Iraq was wrong but he couldn't--wouldn't--change course because that would look bad to the troops. He had to remain constant in his resolve, no matter what. So he wants to save face while his troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are getting their asses wiped? Hmmm...

Miulang

[Tutulady]

No doubt last night's debate was Kerry's albeit by a small margin. It certainly gave me much more confidence in Kerry's ability to lead than I gave him credit for. As for Bush, LOL... He scored a couple of points but overall what I got out of the whole 90 minutes from him was a bit of amusement from his splenetic antics. :p

[Albert]

I listened on the radio, so don't know if they violated the rule against "making faces".

In style, I think Kerry was the clear winner. (Is there anyone without a life who has counted the number of times Bush2 said "uh" ... )

At one point Bush2 sounded so distressed I wondered if he would cry.

In substance .... well, I did have to agree with Bush2 (a VERY rare event) when he opposed Kerry's notion that the USA should conduct direct discussions with North Korea, instead of including China and Japan. I'd be more in favor of leaving the entire thing to China and Japan. It's in their backyard, and they probably have far more influence than we do.

And I really doubt that Kerry has the ability to form a worldwide "alliance" to deal with the mess we've made in Iraq. Would France and Germany be more likely to get involved with Kerry in control? Most doubtful.

Outside Hamilton Library this morning there were people shouting at me "register to vote!" I shouted back, "give me someone worth voting for!"

[LikaNui]

I thought Kerry won it by a mile; Bush once again sounded like his IQ is lower than his age. Especially loved it when Bush commented about Iraq causing 9/11 instead of Al Qaeda.
:eek:
Also loved Bush's comment "I know how the world works."
:eek:
Too many polls are taken with just a miniscule random sampling, so I found it interesting to see the poll currently at CNN.com. When asked who won the debate, as of 10:30 this morning they had 735,840 responses:

John Kerry 71% 519,942
George Bush 22% 158,670
Tie 8% 57,228

Don't know how long they'll keep that poll open, but.

[Glen Miyashiro]

It seemed to me that Bush used words like "absurd" and "ludicrous" quite often when talking about Kerry's statements. It sounded like he was in denial.

[Linkmeister]

Regarding North Korea, the Chinese have repeatedly asked the US to get into bilateral discussions with the Koreans, contrary to what Bush kept saying about the six-party talks collapsing if we did so. That was one of the points made in the "Debate Referee" section of the WaPo today.

If you didn't see the video, Albert, you missed a display. Bush looked "petulant," according to the NYT. According to me, he just looked like he really didn't want to be there and saw no reason why he should be questioned at all; that's understandable, since he's apparently surrounded by "yes-men" and all his campaign crowds are vetted in advance for their support.

[Albert]

"Bush looked "petulant," according to the NYT. According to me, he just looked like he really didn't want to be there"

Sounds like that amazing sequence in "Fahrenheit 911" in the schoolroom.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Albert, the debate is available online for viewing if you like. C-SPAN (http://www.c-span.org/) has the split-screen version that pzarquon mentioned.

[LikaNui]

"Bush looked "petulant," according to the NYT.

Go to http://www.democrats.org/ and see a 30-second video of all the faces Bush made during the debate!
(Mahalo to Ian Lind for the site.)

[Albert]

Prairie Home Companion this weekend was very amusing about the debate. I hope Bush2 wasn't listening.

And someone was counting. Garison said Bush2 used "mixed signals" 14 times.

[Karen]

I saw maybe half of the thing, and Bush did look annoyed, as if he felt like "Hey, I am the PRESIDENT and I shouldn't have to do this!" LOL, and were I the most powerful man in the world, I think I would have felt the same way, like "dang, those pesky debates."

I don't think debates swing any voters, and I haven't ever really trusted the honesty of people that claim to be undecided a month before such a major election. I think Kerry looked better that day, but problem for Kerry is that the way one presents their self in a public debate isn't one of my criteria for choosing a president. What he stands for, and will do for this country IS.

Kerry kept saying he has a plan, for Iraq, but he won't admit what that plan is. LOL...cute ploy, but not honest. He says the war was a mistake, and that isn't going to encourage or endear our troops to him, nor help him get any but a tiny minority of their vote. I don't trust or respect Kerry, he isn't open with his plans, except he is making the news that he will still give IRAN Nuclear Fuel!! Oh yeah baby...what a smart man he is, or a fool?

Terrorism is a huge threat, I intuitively expect more on our soil, and I do not feel safe when I think of Kerry at the helm, plus so many that served with him in the military said he was a loose cannon. Made me think of Hillary clinton, and how they are probably each other's alter egos, YECH.

Kerry can talk real good. (G) How nice! That is one of the few things I can say about him that are good. I suspect Kerry can talk real good like the proverbial snake in the grass, oh yeah, he can talk, deceive, and is mostly all talk, not substance or action.

Kerry thinks we can NEGOTIATE with our enemies, with terrorists! He said he would, as president, still give Iran fuel for nuclear capabilities "if Iran pledges to use it for peaceful capabilities!!" LOL GOOD GRIEF, oh yeah, and they would never lie to us, would they, so he'd hand it over.

YOu feel safe voting this man into office?

Anything but Bush...that mentality will harm us all, and generations to come.

God Help us, if Kerry squeaks out a victory. I doubt he will, and God help us, seriously, if he does.

[Linkmeister]

Karen, if you can make a case for Bush as an employee (CEO) of the shareholders (we the people) not being fired, please do.

That doesn't mean making the case for why Kerry shouldn't be hired; I've seen all of your reasons why you think that's a bad idea. Just explain why Bush has done such a superlative job in your mind that he should be rehired.

[Glen Miyashiro]

I saw maybe half of the thing, and Bush did look annoyed, as if he felt like "Hey, I am the PRESIDENT and I shouldn't have to do this!" LOL, and were I the most powerful man in the world, I think I would have felt the same way, like "dang, those pesky debates."
That's the difference between democracies and monarchies: in democracies, the leaders are accountable to their people. I don't think Bush is all that keen on that idea. It makes for all sorts of trouble when you have to answer all those irritating questions.

[Miulang]

Have you guys seen the buggah who found a loophole in the Florida election rules that allows anyone with a Florida address and/or the stated intention of residing in Florida to get a Florida ballot? He's appealing to all the carpetbagger snowbirdies from the north who winter in FL to register in FL because NY is not a swing state.

Bet Katherine Harris, her successor and Jebbie are red faced over that one. Can they now hurriedly change their laws to close this loophole?

I heard on a radio show after the debates one political pundit talking about "voting strategically". She said if you don't reside in one of the swing states where the vote is going to be too close to call, make sure you vote and vote for Kerry and not for any of the other candidates. Because a no/abstain vote = a vote for Bush. The object of the voting strategically group is not so much to vote Kerry in as it is to vote Bush out.

Miulang

[Miulang]

That's the difference between democracies and monarchies: in democracies, the leaders are accountable to their people. I don't think Bush is all that keen on that idea. It makes for all sorts of trouble when you have to answer all those irritating questions.
Heh. If Dubya had been a contestant on Donald Trump's reality series, he would have been bounced even before the show aired!

Miulang

[Karen]

Linkmeister, sure I can!

You and I don't have the real opportunity, the viability to be president, as we have only 2 real choices, and we all know that. It remains a very easy call, to vote for Bush over Kerry, to even pray so. I've already made part of my case here, either you see it, or you don't.

I'll make more of my case, as it comes to mind, and hope you don't miss it. Consider this!

“When he laid out the Kerry Doctrine, he said that America has to pass a 'global
test' before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. Think about this:
Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto
power over our national security decisions.

“I have a different view. When our country is in danger, the president's job is
not to take an international poll. The president's job is to defend America.
I'll continue to work every day with our friends and allies for the sake of
freedom and peace. But our national security decisions will be made in the Oval
Office, not in foreign capitals.”

- President Bush, 10/2/04

As I said, Kerry would put us in more danger than we are in, with his mindset. Either you see this, or deny what is before you because of your stubborness to be rid of Bush. "ABB" anything but Bush is very dangerous, given what you are desperately about to vote for.

[Karen]

Linkmeister, watch the current unrest in Iran in the news. Just this morning, on the Perry and Price show, KSSK talked about this and wondered aloud why the mainstream media is largely ignoring what is happening in Iran, then look the other way and admit recent Kerry quotes about the fact he is ready to give Iran fuel for nuclear ability as long as they "promise to use it for only good, safe things." LOL...I will say it again and maybe you will realize the truth of it,

Kerry thinks you can TALK, have summits with our most dangerous enemies, negotiating with terrorists!! Is he THAT stupid? or just wanting to be loved by all, win a popularity contest as some sweet peace maker?! this mindset is VERY dangerous. It is psyche 101 that the mugger salivates at the very appearance of WEAKNESS and attacks the one that looks vulnerable. So it is with any bully mentality, and terrorists are bullies. Now consider THIS quote....Bush vs. Kerry!

"I've never seen a meeting that would depose a tyrant or bring a terrorist to
justice.”

- President Bush mocking John Kerry's promise in the debate Thursday that if
elected he would call a summit to seek more international help for Iraq, 10/1/04

There ya have it, quote after quote, as some of you enjoy mocking our president for style, vocabulary, etc...the SUBSTANCE of how he leads and will continue to do so is biting Kerry in the butt, showing him a much more dangerous leader. and you want to vote this man in!!!

Boggles the mind~

[Miulang]

Terrorism is a huge threat, I intuitively expect more on our soil, and I do not feel safe when I think of Kerry at the helm, plus so many that served with him in the military said he was a loose cannon.
Kerry can talk real good. (G) How nice! That is one of the few things I can say about him that are good. I suspect Kerry can talk real good like the proverbial snake in the grass, oh yeah, he can talk, deceive, and is mostly all talk, not substance or action.


Ya know, if we were still in the Cold War era and if terrorism had a face (i.e., a country) to it, we actually were not invaded by Iraq. I would willingly go to war in this country if we had been invaded by Iraq here on our shores.

We were invaded, but not by Saddam or any of his henchmen. We were invaded by bin Laden and his transnational band of terrorists. If you are logical, you can say then that we should be waging war against bin Laden and al Qaeda, right? Were they not the ones who invaded the US? If you can agree to that, then how can you say that we should be in Iraq? The real reason we're there is because of what Iraq has: oil.

This is a different war, waged at a different time, with different weapons; the enemy is no longer one country, it is every country that harbors terrorists.

Miulang

[Karen]

Miulang,

at this very moment, in considering Kerry vs. Bush, Iraq doesn't even matter. why? because you are apparently ignoring Kerry's substance, and he will make us all more unsafe by his very mindset, his substance, when you can get him to admit what his beliefs are.

We have enemies in tons of countries, we don't even know where all terrorists are trained, financed and sheltered. You and I can go to the thread that debates Iraq and do it again and again, and probably never agree. Even our troops in Iraq now, thankfully most of them feel unlike you, they feel confident and right about what they are there doing, say that saddam WAS a threat to us all. How can a madman NOT be a threat to the whole world? I read that if our country tapped all of our suspected underground oil, we could only last a certain number of years, so like it or not, WE ARE dependent on the oil that is across the globe from us, and saddam threatened not only his own country, but neighboring countries, and if he ever could have choked off the oil supply to us, he would have, and you are as dependent as we all are, on that oil. That part of the world truly does have us by the bowling balls, and there's nuttin (G) we can do to change this.

Our troops echo rumors that Saddam also DID have WMDs being made, if not already made, again. remember, or do you choose to ignore that saddam had USED them before, on his own people that were found in mass graves?! Well, rumor is he simply moved, in between inspections, them into Syria.

Oh well, I didn't mean to start debating Iraq here, again. We are there, and with a president Kerry, GOD FORBID I hope...we will be in more danger there, but thankfully, one madman is in chains and his sicko sons are dead, no thanks to Kerry, and once out of Iraq...Kerry wants summits to chat with our other maniacal enemies!!! You vote for him to your own peril, and mine, too.

[Miulang]

.

We have enemies in tons of countries, we don't even know where all terrorists are trained, financed and sheltered. You and I can go to the thread that debates Iraq and do it again and again, and probably never agree. Even our troops in Iraq now, thankfully most of them feel unlike you, they feel confident and right about what they are there doing, say that saddam WAS a threat to us all. How can a madman NOT be a threat to the whole world? I read that if our country tapped all of our suspected underground oil, we could only last a certain number of years, so like it or not, WE ARE dependent on the oil that is across the globe from us, and saddam threatened not only his own country, but neighboring countries, and if he ever could have choked off the oil supply to us, he would have, and you are as dependent as we all are, on that oil. That part of the world truly does have us by the bowling balls, and there's nuttin (G) we can do to change this.

You vote for him to your own peril, and mine, too.

You know what, Karen? I'm neither a died in the wool Republican NOR Democrat. I am a pragmatic realist. Do you realize that during the Cold War, we had the power (yes power) to bring the Cold War to a screeching halt just by refusing to sell wheat to the USSR and the other communist block countries (we used to control that commodity)? What ended the Cold War?

Is the Prez being considered the laughing stock of the world an inconsequential thing? Hell, even Dubya's own father said that the reason he didn't invade Iraq when he was president was because he couldn't see how we would ever be able to pull out once we were there!

You will vote your conscience, as will every other American (I hope). The important thing is for each voting individual to make up his or her own mind by looking at both candidates. We are at a critical juncture in this country: either the nation wakes up from its slumber of sheep counting and moves in a different direction or I fear that we will go the way of the Romans and Greeks as their societies disintegrated after being held as "golden" for centuries.

BTW: NIGERIA produces more oil than Iraq does, and Saudi Arabia is in bed with us, so if we never got another drop of oil out of Iraq, the current administration would allow more oil drilling in the Alaskan tundra and off California and keep all our gas guzzling vehicles happy and well fed---at $5 a gallon. Can we be in Nigeria and Venezuela helping to quell the unrest there at the same time that we're trying to keep Iraqi oil safe for us?

Miulang

[Karen]

BTW: NIGERIA produces more oil than Iraq does, and Saudi Arabia is in bed with us, so if we never got another drop of oil out of Iraq, the current administration would allow more oil drilling in the Alaskan tundra and off California and keep all our gas guzzling vehicles happy and well fed---at $5 a gallon. Can we be in Nigeria and Venezuela helping to quell the unrest there at the same time that we're trying to keep Iraqi oil safe for us?Miulang,

it isn't just Iraq oil that we need! That was my point, we "need" oil from several sources, and most of them were very much in danger from Saddam. Even when we first moved in, he had some of his OWN oil fields torched, that is how freakin crazy he is, and should he have had the chance, he would have threatened our entire flow of oil from more than one of his neighboring countries. He couldn't beat us militarily and surely would've beaten us with oil, had he and his sons been left unchecked. It wasn't a question of IF he would, but when. It wasn't a question of IF he would use WMDs...HE HAD! it was when....again?! He can't now, thanks to Bush and clearly no thanks to Kerry.

You are a one-issue voter, it appears. That's like gagging at a gnat, while being about to swallow a camel, with voting for John Kerry. The only thing I dread about him right now is when will the next time be that he actually is open enough to admit his next opinion of substance, and what the heck it will be. That man is a danger, and it is sad you do not, apparently, see it. Political offiliation, nor the lack of, helps you right now, since you seem to be so stuck on Iraq, and your disagreement of it, that you will apparently vote against Bush, and for the likes of Kerry, because of Iraq. I am not a one issue voter, far from it, and Bush passes muster on several issues with me. Bush, the more he talks, and I can freeze frame quotes of substance of the man, earns more of my respect, while Kerry sends up red flags.

Sadly, I think you are also wrong on people voting their conscience. I wish all people did, then the party of gay rights, baby killers, no fault divorce, sexual promiscuity encouraged....would never have a chance, but too many people are partisan, and in Kerry's case, are voting against Bush, not "for" Kerry. Some people that hate Bush a lot almost seem to have contempt for Kerry, so they just curse the entire system, while admitting they will vote for Kerry. We are in much danger because of terrorists that hate every free thing we stand for, but more, literally, if Kerry becomes president, oh yes, the bullies will salivate all the way to and from every summit with him, knowing he is mostly hot air.

[Miulang]

No need to resort to name calling. I told you: I am a pragmatic realist. You are a Republican. Nuff said.

Miulang

P.S and, if --heaven forfend-- the Prez is defeated, will you move to another country, or will you continue to be the loyal opposition? ;)

As to the war, I will tell you that Iraq is not really my war. I am a child of the 60s. I was against Vietnam. I saw what it did to the troops to be over there in an unpopular war. I know what continues to happen to the survivors of that war...alcoholism, suicides, unemployment, PTSS...Been there, bought the t-shirt, don't need another one. This war is for the Gen x-ers. And they really need to start getting involved in their government or they may find themselves headed out to some godforsaken place halfway around the world.

[Linkmeister]

Bzzt! Counselor, that's not responsive!

Karen, if you can make a case for Bush as an employee (CEO) of the shareholders (we the people) not being fired, please do.

That doesn't mean making the case for why Kerry shouldn't be hired.

You have merely repeated why you don't like Kerry. Fine. I know you don't like Kerry. Please explain why George Bush is competent to be rehired.

From my perspective, he has needlessly declared war on Iraq, on the American environment, on the middle class with his tax cuts for the wealthy, and on the truth. He's declared war on science by repeatedly using ideology rather than fact to make policy. He's destroyed all the international goodwill this country has built up over the past 60 years, to the point where countries don't trust us at all. He's created more terrorism by alienating the entire Islamic world with an unnecessary invasion of an Islamic country and with his absolute devotion to Ariel Sharon and Israel's right-wing, making no effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem (widely believed in the Middle East to be of far more importance than Saddam Hussein was).

He hasn't earned anywhere close to a good performance evaluation from me; he doesn't deserve to be rehired.

[Miulang]

Sadly, I think you are also wrong on people voting their conscience. I wish all people did, then the party of gay rights, baby killers, no fault divorce, sexual promiscuity encouraged....would never have a chance, but too many people are partisan, and in Kerry's case, are voting against Bush, not "for" Kerry. Some people that hate Bush a lot almost seem to have contempt for Kerry, so they just curse the entire system, while admitting they will vote for Kerry. We are in much danger because of terrorists that hate every free thing we stand for, but more, literally, if Kerry becomes president, oh yes, the bullies will salivate all the way to and from every summit with him, knowing he is mostly hot air.
Heh. You mention partisanism? Um, is that not what you also are? You have not answered da Linkmeister's question about what attributes you believe that Mr. Bush has that would, if he were the CEO of a publicly held company, keep him in that big leather chair? Moderates don't necessarily want Kerry to win, but they most certainly don't want Bush to win, either. The CEO of Peoplesoft was just fired by that Board for "overexaggerating claims" made to shareholders over the proposed Oracle takeover of the company. Is there not some similarity to what Mr. Bush has done to his "Board" members (the American electorate)?

Miulang

Actually, your line of reasoning reminds me of my mother-in-law, I love her dearly, but whenever we talk about the election and bring up the Prez (and it happens to be a point less flattering to him), she figuratively puts a finger in both ears and starts singing, "lalalalalalalala" to drown us out! :rolleyes:

Or put it another way: it's not Bush who's the dangerous one. It's CHENEY. When 9/11 happened, the Prez was in a classroom in FL with kids. The Secret Service let him stay with the kids for quite awhile. Cheney, on the other hand, as soon as word came that we had been hit by terrorists, was whisked into the underground bunker by hoards of SS. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, which, as we now know, has received millions--if not billions-- of dollars for services in Iraq...some of it obtained while he was still at Halliburton. Can you say "conflict of interest"? I really think Cheney is the one running the country. The Prez cannot be the one who's hatched some of the harebrained, vindictive things that have happened recently. Only a man like Cheney, who's used to fighting dirty and carrying grudges, could have masterminded some of those things.

[Karen]

No need to resort to name calling. I told you: I am a pragmatic realist. You are a Republican. Nuff said."Name calling?!" I did not call you a name, what are you talking about?! Oh, do you mean what I called an entire political party? That is more than fair game, and it is the truth, and it wasn't towards you, for as you said, you are NON-partisan.

Move to another country? LOL nope, I am not one of those Hollyweird freaks, I'll stay right here, and if I move, it will be home to South Central Texas. You?

All you say now about Iraq is that it "isn't your war." You then speak of Viet Nam. had I been older at that time, I like you, would NOT have supported it! it is hard to even trust history at times, but I don't see how we were threatened by Viet Nam, and I do not believe we are supposed to police, or save the world. I am against the draft for just this reason. We don't have a draft now, and the majority of our troops in Iraq SUPPORT this war. War, as you said, is hell. yet we have, right now, I think almost a total, combined-branch military force of about two million, or almost that, and this surely includes even the Coast Guard that stays stateside. We have this huge a volunteer force and they all know what their job is training for, while they signed up surely hoping to never have to use it, and go to war.

We clearly were threatened by Saddam and those that deny it are either uninformed, slow, or dishonest. He was/is crazy, pure evil and he has been defeated, and the oil that we all NEED, is flowing, not just from Iraq, but from all of his neighboring countries.

Yes, I will sincerely continue to pray for Bush to be re-elected, and cringe and probably pray a lot more for my own butt, if Kerry gets in, clearly a MUCH worse choice. What a plastic piece of.......he is.

[pzarquon]

"When he laid out the Kerry Doctrine, he said that America has to pass a 'global test' before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. Think about this: Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions."I knew the moment Kerry said it that the Republicans would make hay with that statement, and sure enough, they did. I pretty much agree with Kerry that that singleminded post-debate focus is "pathetic (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/kerry.global/)." Then again, the Dems didn't help their cause any with juvenile "smirking Bush" music videos (when Bush's appearance alone made a pretty good case), so...

Anyway, I thought Kerry was fairly clear on the issue (emphasis added):
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."What's more, while Bush tries to get a giggle out of all this, Condi Rice has meanwhile validated Kerry's sentiment this weekend, when, reacting to Kerry's criticism, she said the administration did make its case -- offering "explanation after explanation" -- to the world. Whether or not the world drank the Kool-Aid was another matter, I guess.

The point is, acting unilaterally is not something any president should rule out. But the ramifications of that decision on the global stage shouldn't be entirely disregarded, either.
You are a one-issue voter, it appears. That's like gagging at a gnat, while being about to swallow a camel, with voting for John Kerry.To be fair, I think you've also focused primarily around foreign policy and national security, and as the topic of the debate being discussed, it seems to be a reasonable tendency.

That said, I think Link and I and some of Bush's critics here have made clear that we would flunk Bush across the board for his performance - on fiscal issues, on environmental issues, on humanitarian issues, on labor and trade issues... If anything, the "single-issue" label could more easily be applied to the President's supporters, who'd much rather debate Kerry's fitness to lead the War on Terror (which I'll gladly concede is unproven) than a whole heap of domestic policies.

[Glen Miyashiro]

That said, I think Link and I and some of Bush's critics here have made clear that we would flunk Bush across the board for his performance - on fiscal issues, on environmental issues, on humanitarian issues, on labor and trade issues... If anything, the "single-issue" label could more easily be applied to the President's supporters, who'd much rather debate Kerry's fitness to lead the War on Terror (which I'll gladly concede is unproven) than a whole heap of domestic policies.
Well, just wait till the domestic policy debate. Stem cells, abortion, gay marriage, gun control. (Budget balancing? What's that? :p )

[Karen]

I knew the moment Kerry said it that the Republicans would make hay with that statement, and sure enough, they did.Of course you did! it is insanity...it is dumb, dangerous and it wreaks of world govt. Kerry said it and he meant it. It wasn't just some brain fart that you 'knew" would be fodder for its convenience, this man is a DANGER to us, and nothing less. We are a sovereign nation, but Kerry sounds like world governing of us is best.
To be fair, I think you've also focused primarily around foreign policy and national security, and as the topic of the debate being discussed, it seems to be a reasonable tendency.You want me to focus on domestic issues? Bush has the same moral stands as I do, he earns a high score here, too. He earns a high score on taxes, education, and oh so many things. You, Pzarquon, make "national security" some issue that I focus on too much?!! Ahem...hang on, this world's about to get rougher, and even on our soil. We as a country have been very blessed by God, the same God we mock, & dare Him to not correct us for not obeying conscience. Forget religious doctrine, I don't attend ANY church....we all, of every color, race and creed have consciences, and we all basically know right from wrong, while not doing it. This country has rough times ahead, and National security is a top issue, below economy and education for the first time in many years, if ever.
That said, I think Link and I and some of Bush's critics here have made clear that we would flunk Bush across the board for his performance - on fiscal issues, on environmental issues, on humanitarian issues, on labor and trade issues... If anything, the "single-issue" label could more easily be applied to the President's supporters, who'd much rather debate Kerry's fitness to lead the War on Terror (which I'll gladly concede is unproven) than a whole heap of domestic policies.It is the left leaning tree huggers that keep us as dependent on foreign oil as we are, even though reports are that if we tapped all of ours, we wouldnt' last forever. No, I am not a single issue voter, but the opposite. Kerry loses in oh so many categories. At the moment, you guys on here haven't stated good PRO Kerry stuff, just anti Bush. I can vote conscience, I have posted pro-Bush stuff with anti-Kerry stuff, and thank goodness, we will be voting soon. We can then get along with the business of blaming whomever gets into office, instead of debating them. (G)

[Miulang]

Isn't that what the term "loyal opposition" means? :D

If we can turn all that into something constructive that will move this country forward in a direction that keeps us a world power, that I think should be the goal of all this discussion. The devil is in getting everybody to decide what that direction is!

Miulang

[Glen Miyashiro]

It is the left leaning tree huggers that keep us as dependent on foreign oil as we are, even though reports are that if we tapped all of ours, we wouldnt' last forever.
You mean, the left leaning tree huggers who've been pushing for higher auto mileage standards and trying to promote renewable energy sources, so that the USA reduces its overall consumption of petroleum? Those left leaning tree huggers? :rolleyes:

[edit] And really, considering the amount of foreign oil that we use, and the global CO2 contributions that we make, oil consumption does qualify as a foreign policy issue.

[Miulang]

You mean, the left leaning tree huggers who've been pushing for higher auto mileage standards and trying to promote renewable energy sources, so that the USA reduces its overall consumption of petroleum? Those left leaning tree huggers? :rolleyes:
The ones the current Administration would like to put into that space shuttle and blast into the stratosphere...If the Administration had its way and there were no left leaning tree huggers, the Alaskan wilderness will be covered with oil derricks, and the beaches in Santa Barbara would be covered in black sand (and not because it was naturally colored black, either). Or we'd have to annex Iraq as the 51st State (that would be better than Puerto Rico, because all we get from Puerto Rico is welfare cases).

Miulang

[pzarquon]

We are a sovereign nation, but Kerry sounds like world governing of us is best.We are a sovereign nation, but we don't operate in a vacuum, and that's a point of view I agree with. And again, what Kerry said in the debates was: "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America." The ridiculous assertion that Kerry would "outsource" national security is a dicey one for the administration, anyway, considering how we handed off the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.
You, Pzarquon, make "national security" some issue that I focus on too much?!!Actually, my primary point was, of course we're focusing on "national security." That was the substance of the debate, and the debate was the launching pad for this thread. I was only noting that pigeonholing Miulang as a "single-issue voter" might've been premature.

It is the left leaning tree huggers that keep us as dependent on foreign oil as we are, even though reports are that if we tapped all of ours, we wouldnt' last forever.The "foreign oil" versus "domestic oil" debate strikes me more as a "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" excercise, actually. It's dependence on oil, period, that I think needs to be changed.
Sadly, I think you are also wrong on people voting their conscience. I wish all people did, then the party of gay rights, baby killers, no fault divorce, sexual promiscuity encouraged....would never have a chance, but too many people are partisan, and in Kerry's case, are voting against Bush, not "for" Kerry.As strongly as you assert that your vote for Bush is in line with your political and deeply held moral beliefs, Karen, I hope there can be room in your worldview to acknowledge that there are different political and moral perspectives, and that people voting for Kerry might very well be doing so for valid reasons, and might very well be voting their conscience... and not because they're devil-worshipping demons who want the world to go to hell in a handbasket.

Heck, I've made clear that Kerry is not my perfect candidate. But he's closer to it than Bush is... even though that's like saying Neptune is a little closer to the sun than Pluto. Although pro-choice politically, Kerry is actually pro-life personally, whereas I'd prefer a non-conflicted, firmly pro-choice candidate. Kerry is against gay marriage, but against a constitutional amendment, whereas I'd prefer someone more open to gay rights. That candidate may arrive someday, but Kerry's all I've got for 2004.

Kerry's beliefs may be the furthest thing from yours, but that makes them wrong for you and those who share your beliefs, not wrong for everyone.

[Miulang]

For those who support the current administration and who would like to lump all the "rest of us" into the "niggling nabobs of negativity" camp (gawd! That was my all time favorite Spiro Agnew saying!), I did come up with one positive thing about the President. I am truly grateful (and I'm not being facetious about this, either) that the Prez has been healthy and hale enough to survive his term in office. I am grateful because Cheney was therefore unable to exert even more influence on the policies of this country. If, heaven forfend, Dubya was struck down by illness or worse, that means Dick Cheney would have all that power. In which case, be afraid, be verrrry afraid. :eek:

Miulang

[Glen Miyashiro]

True. I thought for sure he'd choke on another pretzel by now. :p

[Linkmeister]

If we left-leaning tree huggers folded our tents tomorrow and said, fine, George, drill everything, "though the United States is the second largest producer, and by far the largest consumer of oil, it holds only 2.2 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. The majority of the US reserves are located in Alaska, California, and Texas."

Source: The Physics Factbook (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/SohailAhmed.shtml)

That's as of 2000. Somehow I don't think we've gotten new oil reserves since then.

So we'd still run out of oil within several years if we only could tap all those reserves immediately, which we can't since it takes time to build wells in those sites. Thus conservation, new energy sources, and new forms of powering automobiles will be required soon.

[Karen]

Will this report change minds about the war in Iraq? Making Bush look mighty right, as usual.

Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

[Karen]

If we left-leaning tree huggers folded our tents tomorrow and said, fine, George, drill everything, "though the United States is the second largest producer, and by far the largest consumer of oil, it holds only 2.2 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. The majority of the US reserves are located in Alaska, California, and Texas."

Source: The Physics Factbook (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/SohailAhmed.shtml) Thanks for this info! Very clearly we needed to halt saddam's manical regime, before he could deter the flow of oil to the rest of us, in his region. We truly are dependent on that part of the world's oil.

[Karen]

Kerry's beliefs may be the furthest thing from yours, but that makes them wrong for you and those who share your beliefs, not wrong for everyone. Hi Pzarquon,

You need to rethink your closing statement to me! Kerry's beliefs can harm you a lot, and you need to see it. It isn't just my opinion, but FACT that kerry says he will give Iran nuclear fuel "if they promise" to not use it in bad ways. (gagging as I type this, I can't believe this guy is this STUPID, or...worse...loose cannon was said about him by those that served with him)
Kerry clearly thinks he can TALK his way into more safety for us, vs. bullies/terrorists and I can't make you see it, while it remains true, that it is impossible to negotiate with terorrists.

It isn't just an opinion thing about me not liking Kerry, it is a huge SAFETY issue, and an issue of our being a sovereign nation, where Kerry will want to pass an international test, before he acts, as president.

Oh how I wish I only disagreed with the buffoon over abortion, gay rights, and moral issues. If he was strong, and wise....I could rest peacefully if he gets the office of prez, but he clearly is not, and I will not be able to.

You mean, the left leaning tree huggers who've been pushing for higher auto mileage standards and trying to promote renewable energy sources, so that the USA reduces its overall consumption of petroleum? Those left leaning tree huggers? :rolleyes:

[edit] And really, considering the amount of foreign oil that we use, and the global CO2 contributions that we make, oil consumption does qualify as a foreign policy issue.
I agree, it is a foreign policy issue, and was a darn good reason for invading Iraq, but alas, the issue of saddam being a direct threat to us in another way is making news just today. (per the news item I posted before seeing your post to me, here.)

Oh if what you listed was ALL tree huggers have done! (rolling my eyes & exaggeratedly opening them same time)

I mean tree huggers that put animals and environment before the rights of humans. Tree huggers that prevented a man from building a housing development in Morgan Hill, CA. in the eighties, because a couple of salamanders were found in a tiny creek or ditch on the land, and the salmanders weren't to be moved, it was THEIR habitat!! to hell with the man, his family and their right to benefit from their own land.

Tree huggers that destroyed the lumber industry in Oregon over the spotted owl, the owl that flies, and can change home locations and still has TONS of trees to live in there, to hell with the families making a living in the lumber industry, the owl was more important, and nevah mind that the lumber people planted several trees for the one, giving back MORE than they were taking from Mother Earth.

Tree huggers that scare people off from drilling for oil in more places, yes, keeping us most dependent on foreign oil.

[Miulang]

Will this report change minds about the war in Iraq? Making Bush look mighty right, as usual.

Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

Hey Karen, unfortunately you're not going to sway too many people by flinging the above little news snippet at them. Who is CNS.com? It's the Catholic news service. What is interesting is that they are sending this stuff out now, especially since Kerry is one of their own. Notice how everything is written is the past tense and that what was cited is from 2000? As a journalist and under the Freedom of Information Act, I have to ask them to cite their sources, please.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Sticks and stones may break our bones, but calling Kerry silly names is a sign of being backed into a corner with no way out except by hurling invectives. I don't think any of the niggling nabobs of negativity have ever once ridiculed the President in the way the anti-Kerry people have been flinging around the muck.

Miulang

[pzarquon]

You need to rethink your closing statement to me! Kerry's beliefs can harm you a lot, and you need to see it.I admire your convictions, Karen, honestly, and maybe I'm just not expressing myself clearly... but to me, as a participant in this conversation, there's a big difference between "I think you are wrong and here is why" and "you are dead wrong and you just can't/won't see it." The former leaves room for further debate, the latter gives me the impression that there's no point.

No I don't think either of us will change each other's minds. But I think we can spar and play without completely dismissing the other's point of view. I honestly am interested in what you have to say, as I know you're a smart woman. I'd just like to think you're giving me the same consideration.

You might believe "Kerry is wrong for everyone." Yet, frankly, even if Kerry's international outlook worried me, I feel that it's Bush's beliefs and the policies of his administration that pose the greatest threat of long-term harm to this country. I don't think I'm alone.
It isn't just an opinion thing about me not liking Kerry, it is a huge SAFETY issue, and an issue of our being a sovereign nation, where Kerry will want to pass an international test, before he acts, as president.You've repeated this a few times already, and I know it's number one on the Republican "talking points" this week. Yet both the actual statement in the debate (which we both watched) and Kerry's subsequent statements directly disprove this assertion. Between what Bush supporters or the Bush campaign says Kerry said, and what Kerry says he said, which is more credible?

If you're going to put so much emphasis on what Kerry said, wouldn't it make sense to be certain of what he said?
If he was strong, and wise....I could rest peacefully if he gets the office of prez, but he clearly is not, and I will not be able to. The most reasonable thing I've heard a Christian say about this election came from a born-again believer interviewed on the radio this afternoon. The man said, as a child of god, he believes Bush - a fellow born-again - is in the right, prays that Bush hears God's word and is doing God's work, and hopes that Bush wins the election.

The man also said, however, that he knows he is just a man, and he doesn't see all the cards... and that if Kerry wins the election, it can't be a surprise to God, and he will then devote his prayers to hoping Kerry hears God's word and does what is right. He saw the President for what he is, just one person at the head of one nation... and if one has faith in one's God, it's pointless to rage and protest and claim righteousness over easily half one's countrymen.

"God's will will be done, either way," he said.

I don't believe in God (or a god), but if I did, I'd find this an admirable, humble, enlightened perspective.

Tree huggers that scare people off from drilling for oil in more places, yes, keeping us most dependent on foreign oil.I think Link posted a pretty good explanation as to how little tapping all our oil resources would help, stretching things out at best a few years at the expense of environments and species we could lose forever. On this front, it is the tree huggers that advocate pollution controls and energy efficiency who I believe are on the right track.

[Linkmeister]

I think Link posted a pretty good explanation as to how little tapping all our oil resources would help, stretching things out at best a few years at the expense of environments and species we could lose forever. On this front, it is the tree huggers that advocate pollution controls and energy efficiency who I believe are on the right track.

Did you not see Karen's response? Very clearly we needed to halt saddam's manical regime, before he could deter the flow of oil to the rest of us, in his region. We truly are dependent on that part of the world's oil.
That just reinforced her belief that we had to take out Saddam, so he wouldn't reroute his oil to people other than us.

So it was "all about oil," then, despite all those protestations otherwise by Administration apologists?

[Karen]

Hey Karen, unfortunately you're not going to sway too many people by flinging the above little news snippet at them. Who is CNS.com? It's the Catholic news service. What is interesting is that they are sending this stuff out now, especially since Kerry is one of their own. Notice how everything is written is the past tense and that what was cited is from 2000? As a journalist and under the Freedom of Information Act, I have to ask them to cite their sources, please.That's okay, Miulang, about not swaying anyone with this. If people were able to be swayed, they'd be simply by hearing Kerry's plans for Iran, and for fighting terrorism. I doubt at this late hour in an election year, that anyone will be swayed by anything, even more terrorism on our soil, God forbid. I've heard people say the terrorists want to strike, as they did in Spain just before the election, thinking they can help elect Kerry. (hmmmm) but as I see it, with our safety being a huge plus with Bush, I think if the evil of terrorism hits our shores again, it will only swing more voters to Kerry, if anyone is swayed at all.
On this front, it is the tree huggers that advocate pollution controls and energy efficiency who I believe are on the right track.
It doesn't make a bit of sense to let the tree huggers have their way, and staying so dependent on foreign oil. We are blessed with oil, we should be tapping it. No one that wants to drill for oil on their own land is suggesting we ignore energy efficiency. You seem to imply we have the tree huggers to thank for that. Not so.

Pzarquon, I also feel a tad of, "why bother" with this debate. I agree that we won't change each others' minds, so why continue speaking about it? In hopes the lurkers that read and do not post may be touched, or swayed? Perhaps, but even that is a stretch.

It is not a personal insult to you, my tone you allude to. It is indeed my convictions, and I don't know how to state what I truly feel, any other way. I've never known how to sugar coat what I need to say. I mean I know how to do it, but it feels fake and dishonest, even. I know people that are very crafty and can do this, but I can't. I type as I think, brainstorming from a sincere heart, without malice. I do know we are all in a land mine, when debating at forums, because it is the written word, so very void of conveying the way a person says something. I never worry about offending anyone in person because they read me, from tone of voice, expressions to body language, etc.

You aren't concerned about Kerry giving nuclear fuel to Iran, and Iran is chaotic right now, and you aren't concerned that he actually thinks summits with terrorists are THE way to handle them! I am NOTTT insulting you, I am not sure how to say how amazed I am that you are NOT concerned. I can only suspect it is that "ABB" mindset, anything BUT Bush, and damned the torpedoes ahead, you cannot vote for Bush, so Kerry is what you will vote for. No insult intended, it boggles my mind.

I admit I was so settled on voting for Bush per his moral convictions that I didn't give any attention to what Kerry said most of the year. The more I play catchup and listen to him, the worse the vibes from him get. Of course, I admit my believing the bible plays into everything I do. Bush doesn't violate what my bible does nearly as kerry, but soon as I say that, I admit that Kerry seems so fake, like a plastic person I would've met at some cocktail party, not real and not sincere.

I will hush, it is late, and as we both agree, we aren't going to change each others' minds. I thank you for every post, and that goes for others on this thread.

[pzarquon]

I thank you for every post, and that goes for others on this thread.Karen, I thank you for being here, for sticking to your convictions, and especially for sharing them despite being all but overrun by Kerry supporters. (Actually, I'd have to say "Bush detractors," as you've reasonably observed that Kerry gets lots of votes simply by virtue of not being the incumbent.) Yes, we won't change each others' minds, but we can still learn, or at the very least, stretch out our brains in this rhetorical exercise.

Like I said, I admire how strongly you feel about this, and any, issue. I admit, I'm perhaps a bit hypersensitive, as well. I'm more than used to being told I'm wrong (in real life, I'm surrounded by people of a generally opposite political and moral persuasion), it's just when the weight of a god or absolute power is thrown behind it that rubs me the wrong way. I do understand, however, that that's often the nature of faith.

I do know we are all in a land mine, when debating at forums, because it is the written word, so very void of conveying the way a person says something. I never worry about offending anyone in person because they read me, from tone of voice, expressions to body language, etc.
I know what you mean. I'm active in half a dozen message boards, and it's amazing how wacky things can get sometimes, often just because of one ill-chosen word, or one missing emoticon. :) Fortunately, I have to say, our debates don't hold a candle to what goes on elsewhere. Even if we disagree on morals or politics, I know I'd still love to chat with you about Hawaiian music, or meet you for lunch. I can't say that for some of the more aggressive folks in other online communities.

You aren't concerned about Kerry giving nuclear fuel to Iran, and Iran is chaotic right now, and you aren't concerned that he actually thinks summits with terrorists are THE way to handle them!
Well, this may be a moot point, as Iran has essentially told Kerry he's on crack (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=674DFDE8-C4FB-4EA4-B47DBB34C81465AC&title=Iran%20Rejects%20Kerry's%20Nuclear%20Proposa l&catOID=45C9C78D-88AD-11D4-A57200A0CC5EE46C&categoryname=Mideast). I'll readily agree that the whole proposal is somewhat bizzare. On the other hand, the battle against nuclear proliferation makes for some pretty bizzare maneuvering in general. The U.S. is in a tough position, sitting on nuclear weapons and nuclear power and trying to tell other nations, "You can't play with this stuff." The "babysitting" role is tough to avoid (remember the cameras we had inside North Korea's facilities).

Basically, Kerry was calling Iran on its assertion that they want nuclear technology for purely peaceful purposes. "Oh yeah? Then we'll happily handle the stuff for you... we want you to have nuclear power, sure!" Big surprise, Iran said no.
I can only suspect it is that "ABB" mindset, anything BUT Bush, and damned the torpedoes ahead, you cannot vote for Bush, so Kerry is what you will vote for. No insult intended, it boggles my mind.
As I've mentioned before, my voting for Kerry is certainly no wholehearted endorsement of the man. But I do want to cast a vote, for whatever it's worth, and I also strongly feel that Bush has been bad for our country and our family and will therefore seek to replace him. Would a blank vote be better? Even if the "lesser evil" was even less appealing to me, I guess I find not participating to still be worse.

Think, in your mind, of one person in elected office now that you can't stand. A politician already in power who, for whatever reasons, you feel is absolutely unacceptible. Now imagine he or she has a challenger, someone toward whom you might only feel ambivalence, but a challenger nonetheless. If you got to cast a vote in that election, given the opportunity to remove the objectionable incumbent, wouldn't you give the challenger a chance?

I just don't think it's so unbelievable that someone might feel strongly about Bush, and therefore vote with his or her genuine convictions for Kerry.

And you do mention that personal aesthetics play a part in your support for Bush. That he just feels more like you in spiritual outlook, and that Kerry looks fake and plastic. I hope you can acknowledge, then, that such surface traits can equally be seized on by those who dislike the president as one reason for their vote. Kerry might look like a horse and sound like a lawyer, but I think Bush comes across as a guy who's guided entirely by advisers, is stubbornly singleminded to the exclusion of alternatives, and wouldn't know "hard work" if it bit him in the butt. :)

I've enjoyed the conversation to date, Karen, and hope we can continue the contest. I promise I won't say you're blinded by your faith if you don't say I'm going to hell. ;)

[Karen]

I've enjoyed the conversation to date, Karen, and hope we can continue the contest. I promise I won't say you're blinded by your faith if you don't say I'm going to hell.
LOL I luv it, you got it! Oh thanks for this last post of yours, for I do see how someone that doesn't share belief in God or His bible can be turned off by my references to my faith, so nonchelantly and regularly! I really can stop and imagine it, especially with, and now, I may need to offend others of faith if they happen to read this, but I do not know they exist and are reading this thread, right? so true!

The tv and the world is full of "plastic as Kerry" bible thumpers. I grew up in a world with them, along with some sincere believers, but all together, butts warming pews, parroting "Praise the Lord" like on Tammy Baker's old tv show. They turn me off, too and I have a lot of belief in common with them.

You debate with me and my faith of course can annoy or turn you off, cuz of what it reminds you of. I have to be careful here, for tooting my own horn, bragging is not right. Ahem...but since you don't know me, I will bluntly tell you that my faith is geniune, it is not rented from a church or anything, I see that to attend church is a great social place if you want a relatively safe place to meet good people, but not being lonely, I have no use for churches. I see through the fake in religion, I read in my bible that "narrow the way, few find it" and the red flag goes up! churches of more denominations than I can count are full all over every city, and country....few find it? Well....a whole lot of fake religion out there, or something doesn't compute, for the bible is true, but.....

Sigh...humans have represented it so pitifully that many are made unbelievers thanks to....what so-called believers exhibit! I would even ask all non-believers to please try to not blame God for we believers, try to know He exists and is holding his nose, too, at what calls itself by His name! Gotta be true...and I ain't walking on water, so include me IN This, and forgive my tyrade, please.

I can't stop myself from nonchelantly and spontaneously referring to something as profound an ingrained in me as my beliefs, as I have had them personally proven to me, but that's another thread, heck another forum. I have a confidence IN my convictions that is as solid as a diamond.

As for telling others they are going to hell...again, that is from the plastic "born again" group. Listen, millions have fake salvation, while they tell others they are going to hell. Scary, but true, and some of them I put my life in danger if I even tell them that, if and when....the opportunity arises. Discretion being the better part of valor, I know when to say nothing.

I am blessed to see through so many false beliefs that seem to come right from bible. I can't know if you are going to hell, not even per my beliefs, and your absence of them IN my bible. God isn't one that is gotten by a recipe. If I could tell the plastic ones, this is what they don't understand. God is spirit and He sends people to heaven or hell per His own personal reading of the heart. Fake salvation claims that you say a prayer and
BINGO, you're in for life. My point is that there is a very good chance that you may make heaven, not claiming this churchy salvation, while many that claim it go to hell. Oh I could say so much about this, because it is TRUE and I have seen it for myself.

BUT I just remembered what thread I am on, and you guys may need to delete this post cuz of my subject matter here, sorry. By email I could really explain some eye opening things about false salvation, or bore you to death. Feel free to email me if you ever wish, for now I hush.

aloha huggz...sincerely....motor mouth, over and out~

[Karen]

Truth spoken isn't slinging, it's blunt talk. I can't speak for others, but everything I've said about Kerry is true.



Sticks and stones may break our bones, but calling Kerry silly names is a sign of being backed into a corner with no way out except by hurling invectives. I don't think any of the niggling nabobs of negativity have ever once ridiculed the President in the way the anti-Kerry people have been flinging around the muck.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Truth spoken isn't slinging, it's blunt talk. I can't speak for others, but everything I've said about Kerry is true.
Don't take it personally, Karen. I was mostly meaning what I see in the political ads on TV... :D

Miulang

[Linkmeister]

Truth spoken isn't slinging, it's blunt talk. I can't speak for others, but everything I've said about Kerry is true.

Nope. Everything you've said about Kerry is your perception of truth. It sure ain't mine.

[Karen]

Nope. Everything you've said about Kerry is your perception of truth. It sure ain't mine.We can take this slowly, so it doesn't get burdensome.

Two questions I have for you!

Why do you think Kerry has a good, & wise idea in his willingness to give unstable Iran nuclear fuel? Please explain..

Why do you think terrorism, and the war in Iraq can be solved, or even best dealt with, by talking? Since I have stated on this thread that it is simply Psyche 101 that the bully attacks the one that with the perception of weakness, please explain to me how this isn't so, that I say, and that Kerry has a better idea than Bush, in saying he will have summits, to deal with these problems.

I have more questions later, about Kerry's stances, and why you perceive them as better than Bush's, even that you perceive them at all, good.

[Tutulady]

Too bad that the billions of dollars now being spent on this war is coming from the back of my grandchildren and their children. Too bad all those dollars, couldn't be squandered on such non-essential research, development and implementation of such useless things like fuel cell technology, energy efficient, environmentally friendly vehicles, machinery and manufactured consumer goods that would make our dependence on foreign oil a thing of the past.

I would hate to think that somewhere in the near future, there's gonna be some pretty pis$ed off adults shouldering what should have been more responsible investing in their future.

[Linkmeister]

We can take this slowly, so it doesn't get burdensome.

Two questions I have for you!

Why do you think Kerry has a good, & wise idea in his willingness to give unstable Iran nuclear fuel? Please explain..



Why do you think terrorism, and the war in Iraq can be solved, or even best dealt with, by talking? Since I have stated on this thread that it is simply Psyche 101 that the bully attacks the one that with the perception of weakness, please explain to me how this isn't so, that I say, and that Kerry has a better idea than Bush, in saying he will have summits, to deal with these problems.


I have more questions later, about Kerry's stances, and why you perceive them as better than Bush's, even that you perceive them at all, good.


From the NYT transcript of Kerry-Bush 1:
With respect to Iran, the British, French and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort, without the United States regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better. I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.(My emphasis.)

He is not offering to do so now. He is suggesting that it could have been done before Iran had gotten to the point of defying the IAEA, which it is now doing. Makes sense to me. "You want to develop reactors for energy? We can help." That way we know precisely what they have, rather than this mess we're in now where we haven't a clue.

Why do you think terrorism, and the war in Iraq can be solved, or even best dealt with, by talking?

Again, from the NYT transcript:
I will never let those troops down. And we'll hunt and kill the terrorists wherever they are.

This is talking?

And if you're directing the question at me rather than Kerry, I have never said I thought we should fight terrorism or solve Iraq by talking. I thought going into Afghanistan was necessary. It's a shame it wasn't finished by our soldiers at Tora Bora, but the focus was shifted to Iraq for reasons that didn't make sense then and don't make sense now. Regrettably, we're stuck; the most we can do is secure the country so elections can be held, offer to help keep it secure while it's getting its own army together to secure itself, and then walk away. We can't keep any bases there or it will become just as much a thorn in Osama's side as the bases in Saudi were.


I'm ready for the next batch, thanks.

[Karen]

I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes.
THERE's that mentality...give it to an unstable country & trust they won't lie to us. Kerry, again thinks one can negotiate will bullies. I KNOW we cannot. It isn't possible. If the point is to have less nuclear capability, this give it to them and see what happens afterwards is a dangerous mindset.

And if you're directing the question at me rather than Kerry, I have never said I thought we should fight terrorism or solve Iraq by talking.
Of course I direct it at you, because you told me you don't share my worries & opinions OF Kerry, so I want you to defend ideas of his that I find the most dangerous. You don't, but problem is, I can't vote for you. Kerry DOES believe talk can settle things with bullies. Therefore we are in peril if Kerry gets elected.

Linkmeister, you say that Kerry isn't offering to do so now, concerning Iran. Problem with this is that Kerry may speak tomorrow on it,and suggest that is what he will do. I really have my homework to do, to find quote after quote after ....you get my point, of Kerry, on any given subject, to find how many times he has talked out of both sides of his mouth.

Leno is a comedian, and often jokes about reality, of course. Leno is right, should kerry become president, he will be the first one to give the state of the union address, AND its rebuttal.

Do you, Linkmeister, support Kerry's "international test" to take action militarily?

After newstime, will try to post more tomorrow. I can't talk to Kerry, so I'll accept your invitation to ask you more questions as to what postures of his that you defend/agree with. Thank you~

[Linkmeister]

The "global test" talking point the RNC and Bush have decided to attack on, you mean?

From a certain historical document:

"...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

If it's good enough for Thomas Jefferson, it's good enough for me, and that's the test I think Kerry meant.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Sounds like Karen and Linkmeister differ on one of the most basic philosophical questions around: is man basically good, or basically evil? Do you trust that someone will act well, and then change your attitude if he acts badly? Or do you assume that he will act badly, and not extend that trust in the first place? I think this is a key difference between Bush's and Kerrry's approaches toward foreign policy.

[Karen]

Hi Linkmeister,

You posted "...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

You try to give Kerry a copout here that isn't working. I don't blame you for trying. "declaring" isn't the same as "passing a test." Declaring is communication, and it is necessary, while it does nothing in solving problems with bullies/terrorists.

We are supposedly a sovereign nation. SOVEREIGN...no body gives us no stinking test (G) and we adhere to no one else's direction, nor their plans for us. Bush spoke well on this one, while Kerry didn't, while I doubt "what you think he meant" ever entered his mind that goes both ways on most things, anyway.

Glen, personally, I can't generalize all men as basically good, or all men as basically evil, never! People are too individual. for every up, there's a down, and we all know this. There are good, and there are bad, people. I am trying to discern if Kerry is good, or if he is evil, not all of mankind. I would never insult some of the wonderful people I know, in the same group as some I have encountered in my life, sadly.

[Miulang]

Why do you think Kerry has a good, & wise idea in his willingness to give unstable Iran nuclear fuel? Please explain..

Here's another history lesson for us so we don't forget that we have meddled in Iran before: it has been well documented now that the coup in 1953 that overturned the regime at that time and installed the American puppet Shah Reza Pahlavi and his merry band of thieves was in large part, fomented by our very own Christians in Action. The main reason for overthrowing the regime and installing the Shah at that time was, as is the case in Iraq, OIL.

Miulang

More here: http://www.counterpunch.org/faruqui05282003.html

[Linkmeister]

That's the Declaration of Independence I quoted, Karen. You don't think explaining what you want to do and why you want to do it to the rest of the world matters if you're trying to find allies? Apparently you haven't taken the old phrase "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" to heart.

As to the "test": again, Senator Kerry, from the NYT transcript:
I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and when we are leading strong alliances. I'll never give a veto to any country over our security, but I also know how to lead those alliances.

What is so difficult to understand about that sentence?

[Miulang]

Don't really know if this belongs in this thread or not, but I really didn't think it merited its own thread. Anyway, the link on this page goes to The Iconoclast, which is a local Texas newspaper in Crawford, Tx. In this editorial, it clearly states why, although it strongly endorsed Bush/Cheney in 2000, it is today endorsing Kerry/Edwards in 2004. Kind of amusing that the newspaper that is published in Dubya's neck of the woods has turned on him this time around!

Miulang

Here: http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

[Miulang]

For all you "conspiracy" lovers, here's an article from Salon, in which an expert claims that that bulge in Dubya's suit jacket was in fact some sort of electronic device...cracks me up that his handlers just deny deny deny that there was anything back there. Hell, they could have said he was wearing kevlar and that probably would satisfy some of the people now speculating on the fairness of at least that first debate!

Miulang

Technical expert: Bush was wired
A Bush spokesman tells Salon there is nothing to the story. But as the final presidential debate looms, speculation grows about the mysterious bulge.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dave Lindorff



Oct. 13, 2004 | Speculation continues to run wild about President Bush's mystery bulge. Since Friday, when Salon first raised questions about the rectangular bulge that was visible under Bush's suit coat during the presidential debates, many observers in the press and on the Internet have wondered aloud whether the verbally and factually challenged president might be receiving coaching via a hidden electronic device.

Now a technical expert who designs and makes such devices for the U.S. military and private industry tells Salon that he believes the bulge is indeed a transceiver designed to receive electronic signals and transmit them to a hidden earpiece lodged in Bush's ear canal.


"There's no question about it. It's a pretty obvious one -- larger than most because it probably has descrambling capability," said Alex Darbut, technical and business development vice president for Resistance Technology in Arden Hills, Minn. Darbut examined photographs of the president's back taken from the Fox News video feed at the first presidential debate in Coral Gables, Fla., as well as 2002 photos of the president driving and working in a T-shirt on his Crawford ranch, which were posted on the White House Web site.

Darbut speculates that the device the president wears is provided by the Secret Service, noting, "They're not going to have him driving around the countryside on his ranch without being in instant contact with him."

No one in the White House or Bush campaign, however, has offered such an explanation. In fact, the Bush camp has shed little light on the mysterious protuberance, turning aside questions with dismissive humor or rising tones of exasperation. The president is "a regular guy," White House chief of staff Andy Card told Salon before the second debate last week. "Maybe his suit had a little lump in it or something." Campaign spokeswoman Nicolle Devenish took the same line with the New York Times on Saturday: "It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric." But Devenish, the Times dryly noted, "could not say why the 'rumpling' was rectangular." Campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel brushed aside a questioner in a Washington Post chat session by saying, "I think you've been spending a little too much time on conspiracy Web sites."

On Tuesday, in response to repeated questions from Salon, the Bush camp finally issued a flat denial. Campaign spokesman Reed Dickens denied that Bush has ever used an electronic device to aid his public speaking, insisting the president was wearing "nothing during the debates." When asked about the pictures taken at the Bush ranch, Dickens said the president has never used any devices except for cutting tools and earplugs to protect his ears from the high-decibel chainsaw. Nor has the Secret Service outfitted Bush with a hidden communications device, according to Dickens: "He doesn't need something like that because the Secret Service is always with him. They ride in the truck in the back. Wherever he goes, they're with him."

Despite the official denials, the bulge brouhaha is still ballooning. On Tuesday, the New York Daily News produced a master tailor named Frank Shattuck who, after viewing photos from both debates, confirmed, "There's definitely something there, in between the shoulder blades. I can't say what it is, but it's not hidden very well. They should have come to me. I can hide a pistol under the breast."

In Orlando, Florida, TV station WFTV polled its viewers, asking, “Do you believe the accusations that President George W. Bush was wired during the presidential debate?” Of 35,000 respondents, only 42 percent answered no, while 36 percent replied yes, and 22 percent said possibly.

Meanwhile, blogs, chat rooms, bulletin boards -- and Salon's letters pages -- continue to buzz with discussion about Bush's possible electronic enhancement. Reports are flying around the Web about earlier televised events where audio glitches allegedly permitted TV viewers to hear someone directing what Bush to say, including his public remarks at the Sea Island G-8 summit meeting in June, his D-day anniversary speech in France, and a New York speech following 9/11.

One thing is certain: During the final presidential debate in Tempe, Ariz., on Wednesday night, all eyes will be on Bush's back.


salon.com

[Glen Miyashiro]

He should have just worn the thing in a different spot on his body. "Is that a transceiver in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?" :D