The Debates: Foreign Policy

[Karen]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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...

Miulang

[Linkmeister]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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/Colu...ditorial39.htm

[Miulang]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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