Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on October 01, 2004, 12:16:28 AM
-
Brace yourself... it aint over...
The Bush team made the first debate about foreign policy... because that was his strong point. And he wanted to hit the gate runnin'.
Fumble...
Next!
The next debate is about domestic issues...
OMG.... anyone know CPR?
Or... let me rephrase that....
Anyone think Bush is gonna win this next debate on the domestic agenda?
Does anyone seriously believe that Bush has a grasp on what is actually happenin' within his very own country?
Gonna be 0-2 for the guy....
-
nah it was more even imo.
kerry did his damage and bush did his so lets just say it was a tye, but who is keeping score anyways?
-
Laura looks much friskier than Theresa.
(http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/noughty/icon_hump.gif)
-
Bush did much better. Kerry sounded like a political guy in a debate, or giving a speech. Bush sounded like a guy talking in a relatively normal manner. Not unlike Reagan. And, like it or not, that's what gets peoples votes.
One of them comes off like the quintessential carreer politician, and the other one comes off more like a texas oil man talkin world affairs. Americans usually vote for the guy who appears more "real".
-
Yeah an oilman that is lining his pockets while we shell out for overpriced barrels.
-
Who won the debate? * 654273 responses
Pres. Bush 31%
Sen. Kerry 69%
Source MSNBC
-
People really watch MSNBC? :p
-
Now in all fairness, you have to consider who would vote in this msnbc poll. Its more likely that a Kerry supported would go out and vote that Kerry did better than Bush because there guy did so horrible. Still it was pretty obvious that Kerry shined in foreign diplomacy.
:D
-
At least 654273 people do.:aok
-
CNN pole also showed that kerry won the debate (53/37). Gonna see it myself in 40 minutes.
-
Come on, this debate was a gimmee to Kerry. One would be hard pressed to argue that US foreign policy has been a success since shortly before the invasion of Iraq.
-
Bush in an electoral landslide..... get used to it.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Bush in an electoral landslide..... get used to it.
Wow, statement based on what...wishful thinking...and total meaningless and irrelevant. Wow again, congratulations.
Here's another one. A million dollars will fall into my lap....get used to it.
-
Just a question. I just saw Bush saying that he wants to get rid of the worlds wmd's. Does that also mean those that the USA has?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Wow, statement based on what...wishful thinking.......
no this:
(http://www.pogbird.com/ebay/poll_100104.jpg)
90% of skerries states have him leading Bush by less than 2%
90% of Bush states show him leading skerry by more than 10%
PLay with it here yourself:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/election-test-fl,0,1851284.flash?coll=la-home-headlines
-
ROFL Eagler, can you read the 'Your Scenario' on top of the map??
You pic is nowhere near the latest poll data: Bush 177, Kerry 153, Up for grabs 208
How's the weather in Disneyland?
-
Where do you get your data De Seyls?
Here is how CNN calls the electoral college vote now...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/electoral.map/index.html
(http://i.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2004/special/president/electoral.map/popup.electoral.map.9.30.04.gif)
-
As put so eloquently by a caller last night after the debate: 'Bush 3 glasses of water to Kerry's 1 sip of water.'
haha Bush was nothing but a broken record repeating the repub party spin that Kerry was undecisive. Bush offered nothing new. Nothing new at all. Absolutly nothing!!! The best he had was we are in for more of the same. Well how ****ing grand!!!
Anyone watch the 'live' daily show afterward? Anyone see the anti-spin that Stewart was attempting to hold rudolf gulianni (newyork dude) too?? Omg that man, Gulianni, is a POS...
-
Yes Guliani is an awful POS - he ruined New York City!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Where do you get your data De Seyls?
??? I get it from the link that Eagler posted...
You NeoCons should show a better coordination :p
-
I think Americans are getting pwned.
-SW
-
Ooooh the N word...
:rolleyes:
Lemme try:
And yiou stupid al qaeda loving communists should go shove it..
YeA!!!
-
Wow I must've hit a nerve... :eek:
-
Not really.
-
Ah...ok then. Funny thing is that I considered to use 'republiclown'... then I thought that I shouldn't be too offensive and used 'neocon' instead (honestly I didn't know that it had a bad meaning).
Do you want me to come back to my first version and edit my post ;) ?
-
lol deSelys
-
No not all, dont change anything, I was just messin with ya..
-
Néocon IS offensive ...
C'est vrai quoaaaa se faire traiter de "chatte" à tout bout de champ ça doit énerver à force :D
-
Ltest msnbc poll Kerry 63% Bush 27% on who won the debate.
Prolly not gonna change the election results, but shows who gots the brains of the 2.
-
It only shows who is the better speaker.
Be careful confusing public speaking ability with intelligence, and I mean that generally even beyond this Bush vs Kerry context.
-
Shut up Grun, you hamburger loving freedom fry eating snot brain.
Oooooooo.
-SW
-
:rofl
I see you paid attention in tjhe Hortlund school of advanced adult-like swedish arguments..
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Who won the debate? * 654273 responses
Pres. Bush 31%
Sen. Kerry 69%
Source MSNBC
This is absolutlly 100% true. This poll # you quote is correct.
what you forgot to mention is that in the very same poll that said Kerry won the debate
When Asked who would be the better commander in cheif Bush is still ahead and lost only 1 % point.
So Basically they said Kerry has the better line of BS but we still think Bush is the better man
and in the election thats the only opinion that matters
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
This is absolutlly 100% true. This poll # you quote is correct.
what you forgot to mention is that in the very same poll that said Kerry won the debate
When Asked who would be the better commander in cheif Bush is still ahead and lost only 1 % point.
So Basically they said Kerry has the better line of BS but we still think Bush is the better man
and in the election thats the only opinion that matters
Yes, but its dirty pool starting a war just to try to win the next election. No president has ever lost an election during a war.
If you have relatives or friends in the military, especially in Iraq, you know they are quietly begging for a change.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Yes, but its dirty pool starting a war just to try to win the next election. No president has ever lost an election during a war.
If you have relatives or friends in the military, especially in Iraq, you know they are quietly begging for a change.
And how would George W. Bush be doing in the Polls right now if he did not invade Iraq?
-
I was actually more disappointed in Kerry. He looked a lot older than he did in his last move "Bruce Almighty" and was not nearly as funny.
And what’s this about North Carolina getting nuclear weapons?
-
sorry ameristalkers but those electorial maps tell the story.... sure, kerrie would be great to have witty conversation with in the cab on the way to the opera or a play but....
middle America likes the way Bush speaks better. Middle America likes to get a tax cut because they are raising children. Middle America is not comfortable with the image of kerrie and jane fonda shrilly screehing at a protest...
I know that you will all be shocked that Americans are so dumb as to vote Bush back in and not support socialism and letting the world run America but.... we are just to darn stupid and independant. Just like the talking heads on our TV.... you have no clue as to what America is.
My guess is that Bush picked up more of the ones who were really gonna vote and were wavering than kerrie did... My guess is that kerrie picked up a huge amount of liberals who won't vote.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nash
Does anyone seriously believe that Bush has a grasp on what is actually happenin' within his very own country?
Gonna be 0-2 for the guy.... [/B]
Evidently he has a very firm grasp, otherwise, you would be eating dirty bomb Cheerios for breakfast.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Evidently he has a very firm grasp, otherwise, you would be eating dirty bomb Cheerios for breakfast.
lmao and why is that you think Jackal? What a load of chit..
-
I dont think either candidate did very well. Bush spoke like crap as usual and Kerry, although he sounded better, didnt say anything I liked.
Worst. Debate. Ever.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I dont think either candidate did very well. Bush spoke like crap as usual and Kerry, although he sounded better, didnt say anything I liked.
Worst. Debate. Ever.
Like what for instance? What did he say you did not like?
-
what did he say that we didn't like? he wants more control of the U.S by the un.... he wants to take away the tax cuts... he claimed that he made mistakes in speaking when what he reall did was make mistakes in voting.... he voted against the afghanistan operation until he seen it was a success and voted for the iraq invasion before he seen it was turning into a tough little war.
plus.... he looks like a snotty liberal herman munster.
lazs
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
Yeah an oilman that is lining his pockets while we shell out for overpriced barrels.
RT, do you really believe that, or are you trolling?:lol
-
The Final Toll (http://www.electoral-vote.com/fin/oct01p.html)
Hmmmm?
-
Originally posted by Rude
The Final Toll (http://www.electoral-vote.com/fin/oct01p.html)
Hmmmm?
Wow.
I gotta get the hell out of NY.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
what did he say that we didn't like? he wants more control of the U.S by the un.... he wants to take away the tax cuts... he claimed that he made mistakes in speaking when what he reall did was make mistakes in voting.... he voted against the afghanistan operation until he seen it was a success and voted for the iraq invasion before he seen it was turning into a tough little war.
plus.... he looks like a snotty liberal herman munster.
lazs
Add to that:
He wants to give Iran nukes.
"Global Test"
-
he wants more control of the U.S by the un....
He said no such thing. He simply stated our country needs more foreign support in our foreign policies. How is that related to the UN controlling the US? Is the statment that the US needs help in Iraqi wrong?
he wants to take away the tax cuts...
Tax cuts that you have not seen yet. How much will they effect you Lazs? You think you might save more than $500? In the long run those tax cuts will cost much much more..
he claimed that he made mistakes in speaking when what he reall did was make mistakes in voting....
Was this last night? I saw no such statment.
he voted against the afghanistan operation until he seen it was a success and voted for the iraq invasion before he seen it was turning into a tough little war.
He voted to give the president the power to goto war after he was told this administration would do everything in it's power to not goto war. He helped this administration with a bargaining chip that was prematurely used.
I did not know he voted against the Afgan war. Could you give a link please?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Add to that:
He wants to give Iran nukes.
"Global Test"
Nice spin! But I only give you a 3 on it.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
RT, do you really believe that, or are you trolling?:lol
I do in some ways. Either way we're all paying too much for gas. Perhaps Kerry being inconsistent can help the country through a lot of changes.
As for the debate...I missed it because of a function which was worth it (we won dodgeball tourny against other frats and now we get beer breakfast....on...get this...my birthday!)
I tried to read all the news about it and it just seemed even, with Bush getting angry, and Kerry being told he was inconsistent.
I just want to see a change in things.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Nice spin! But I only give you a 3 on it.
Where is the spin? He said both of those things.
Care to show the spin, or do you just feel obligated to flap your gums and release no substance?
Heck, your rebuttal to laz shows you didn't even watch the debate.
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
As for the debate...I missed it because of a function which was worth it (we won dodgeball tourny against other frats and now we get beer breakfast....on...get this...my birthday!)
If I send you a six pack, will you not vote, too?
Please?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Where is the spin? He said both of those things.
Care to show the spin, or do you just feel obligated to flap your gums and release no substance?
Heck, your rebuttal to laz shows you didn't even watch the debate.
OMG talk about flapping. Its seems your listening skills are right on par with your civil speaking ability.
What he said was..
Instead of Iran receiving nuclear material from France, Russia, and Germany for nuclear POWER, the US should have offered the same first. If we had we would have been able to control the situation much better. We could have sent OUR people in to test, report, and come back to US (america) and give the US (america) the real story that was going on in Iran. As it is now, we have absolutly zero control over what fission material Iran receives and what they do with it.
But martlet.. Keep on spinnin man!
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
OMG talk about flapping. Its seems your listening skills are right on par with your civil speaking ability.
What he said was..
Instead of Iran receiving nuclear material from France, Russia, and Germany for nuclear POWER, the US should have offered the same first. If we had we would have been able to control the situation much better. We could have sent OUR people in to test, report, and come back to US (america) and give the US (america) the real story that was going on in Iran. As it is now, we have absolutly zero control over what fission material Iran receives and what they do with it.
But martlet.. Keep on spinnin man!
You mean like what Clinton did for North Korea? That turned out well.
Like I said. Kerry wants to give Iran nukes. You can spin it anyway you'd like. The end result is the same.
Keep drinking that Kool Aid. Fortunately, most of voting America isn't that stupid.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You mean like what Clinton did for North Korea? That turned out well.
Like I said. Kerry wants to give Iran nukes. You can spin it anyway you'd like. The end result is the same.
Keep drinking that Kool Aid. Fortunately, most of voting America isn't that stupid.
When did NK start it's program?
It doesnt really matter. You seem to still be believing that Iran is not capable of recieving fission material. The fact is they have. Seems a great deal better if we were the ones in control of it. But, our one track administration lacks the thinking ability to see past this or even see it coming..
Its not the same thing martlet.. But keep spinning as if it were. Perhaps now they will develop a uranium weapon. But how could we know since we have absolutly no control nor say about it. We cant even know how much they have.
-
I like the "fact" that Kerry is gonna confiscate all the loose nuclear material in the world in 4 years.
Yep , I believe that
And he's gonna hold a "summit" with all the UN countrys and make sure they pay thier fair share in Iraq.
Yep , I believe that
And the fact that he will open a dialog with NK, and then NK will give up thier nuke program
Yep I believe that will be productive (for NK)
Fella's, there's only 2 things that come out of Massachusits politics-Kerry and that slimeball Ted Kennedy.
Just the facts that they are buddys is enough to convince me Not to vote for Kerry.
O , and Kennedy should be in jail for murder, just as Kerry should be in jail for treason.
Goes to show ya, "Birds of a feather..."
-
As for Irans Nuclear program, I'm sure that Isreal has plans for That.
-
So because Kerry is (or if he was or will be) president you think Iran's leaders would suddenly warm up to the great satan america to such an extent as to allow us so much influence over their nuclear program?
That kerry guy is amazing..
He can miraculously get all the worlds oyther leaders to do what we want them to do - just because he says so.
Thats it, I'm voting for him.
-
And the fact that he will open a dialog with NK, and then NK will give up thier nuke program
Yea.. That might be good for NK.
It would be better for the world.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Yea.. That might be good for NK.
It would be better for the world.
Are you aware of the fruit produced by the Clinton Admin's Bilateral talks....if so, how could you support Kerry's viewpoint?
Fool me once kinda thing I think.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
When did NK start it's program?
Ask them. I'm sure they'd be glad to tell you.
It doesnt really matter. You seem to still be believing that Iran is not capable of recieving fission material. The fact is they have. Seems a great deal better if we were the ones in control of it. But, our one track administration lacks the thinking ability to see past this or even see it coming..
So you're suggesting that Iran, or any other country for that matter, would submit to unilateral inspections? What's the threat? Unilateral sanctions?
Perhaps now they will develop a uranium weapon. But how could we know since we have absolutly no control nor say about it. We cant even know how much they have. [/B]
I agree there, and I would take it one step further: We can NEVER be sure that they don't. So, if we honestly believe that they are developing nuclear arms, and we believe that they intend to export those arms, then it is certainly in our best interests to blow the ever living piss out of their ability to do so.
Aside from that, they don't (and shouldn't) give us a second thought (because of the distance between us, the only actions we could take would be wildly against our own self interest). But, if we got some of Iran's more powerful neighbors on our side (enter, 'free Iraq'), then we would have a more viable option than the distasteful invasion or the toothless UN
(http://home.comcast.net/~steveheadley1/04.10.01.GlobalTest-X.gif)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Are you aware of the fruit produced by the Clinton Admin's Bilateral talks....
Talks can produce fruit? AWESOME!
-SW
-
So you're suggesting that Iran, or any other country for that matter, would submit to unilateral inspections? What's the threat? Unilateral sanctions?
They are already being inspected. But not by the US.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
When did NK start it's program?
It doesnt really matter. You seem to still be believing that Iran is not capable of recieving fission material. The fact is they have. Seems a great deal better if we were the ones in control of it. But, our one track administration lacks the thinking ability to see past this or even see it coming..
Its not the same thing martlet.. But keep spinning as if it were. Perhaps now they will develop a uranium weapon. But how could we know since we have absolutly no control nor say about it. We cant even know how much they have.
In control of it? Like we were in control of Korea? IRAN is in control of it. If we gave it to Iran, you think they'd just give it back? No, we'd put sanctions on them. That's worked well so far, huh? It worked well in North Korea, huh?
How's it not the same thing? It's EXACTLY the same thing.
Keep spinning....
-
Guess I'll buck the trend and try for an honest and (hopefully) inciteful review of the debate.
Granted, I missed about 40 minutes of the middle of the debate. However, from what I saw I thought Kerry’s performance was slightly better, not in what he said, but how he said it. The problem is, there was very little substance beyond attacking the President. When asked directly by the moderator (who did a respectable job, I’d add) to tell the people what he would do different or better in keeping America safe, he simple repeated the same criticisms of the President he has made before. He didn’t really present any coherent plan of his own, i.e. he never answered the question.
For the President’s part, his answers were short and to the point…sometimes too short. He occasionally appeared to finish his answers so quickly, that he found himself looking for something else to say. He could have made much better use of this “dead-air” to go back on the offensive.
The biggest area where I felt Bush scored points was in the area of dealing with allies and would-be allies. Kerry made his usual remarks about how the President “went it alone”, and how he (Kerry) will be work to build international help, but with nothing to back it up. Bush counter-attacked, effectively I thought, saying Kerry’s constant belittling and denigrating of the Coalition partners (including the UN-sanctioned interim prime minister of Iraq) was not the mark of a great statesman. I think Kerry also made a mistake in stating he, as president, would re-open bi-lateral talks with North Korea. Here, he was on the opposite side of his own arguments, which is that we should always act in concert with international partners. Again, Bush made good use of this, by stating strongly that bilateralism would be a huge mistake, and led to the NK’s being able to secretly develop nukes in the first place. China, he argued, had great influence on Pyongyang, and that b-passing them would be a blunder. Finally, I felt Kerry’s remark about military action needing to pass a "global test” gave Bush another opportunity to paint Kerry as one who would only act after going to the UN, hat in hand, to ask permission...with no answer to what he would do if the UN said, "No."
Bush’s biggest problem was he let these opportunities to hammer his opponent drop after his initial response. All in all, it was Bush saying he’s done a good job, with Kerry arguing the President had done a poor one. The President also didn’t pound Kerry much about his record (or lack thereof) in the senate; all the missed intel briefings, committee meetings, critical national security votes, etc. He had an opportunity to paint Kerry as not only unqualified to lead, but also disinterested in leadership opportunities he’d had as a senator. Bush squandered some great opportunities, I believe. On the other hand, Bush can claim to have kept the moral upper hand, in that he focused primarily on what he had accomplished, and wished to yet accomplish, rather than on simply attacking his opponent.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Yea.. That might be good for NK.
It would be better for the world.
LOL I can picture it now.
UN:" NK We have just passed a resolution saying that you must disarm"
NK: "Screw off"
UN: "NK We have just passed another resolution stating that you are in violation of the previous resolution. And you must Dis arm now"
NK " Are you still there? what part of Screw off dont you get?"
UN : "NK WE have just passed another resolution stating you are in violation of the previous resolutions calling for you to Disarm.
Dis arm now or else face serious consequences"
NK: "What do you mean by "Serious consequences?"
UN: "Why.. We'll pass another resolution!"
Yea,,, That'll work
this current situation with NK is a great arguement against Isolating and containing countries like NK and Iraq.
We Isolated NK for how long. Now NK has nukes and if I remember correctly a missle system capable of reaching the US.
Guess what.
NK aint so isolated anymore.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
In control of it? Like we were in control of Korea? IRAN is in control of it. If we gave it to Iran, you think they'd just give it back? No, we'd put sanctions on them. That's worked well so far, huh? It worked well in North Korea, huh?
How's it not the same thing? It's EXACTLY the same thing.
Keep spinning....
sure sure martlet.. but the fact is they have all the fisson material they need.. Kerry was not proposing anything new for them.. They ALREADY have it.. Kerry's only point was its too bad we have a short sited administration that has now placed us in a postion inwhich we have absolutely no control over. In his idea we could have had at least a small measure of control over what they do with said material or even how much they have/get.
In martlet world this makes kerry want to give Iran nuclear weapons.. Doesnt matter they already have the material..
-
LOLH,
Let me just say that after the way Bush rushed to war with Iraq I do not trust him and before last night I was not thrilled with Kerry and felt he lacked what it took to be an effectivce president.
After last night…
I couldn't wait to see the response from the hard core Republicans. You know in your heart your guy was out classed, out smarted and lacks the intelligence and experience to keep his job compared to John Kerry. The depth of knowledge and experience Kerry demonstrated compared to Bush on all the topics last night was crystal clear.
The debate last night was amazing. Kerry showed last night that he really knows what he is talking about; bush only knows what he is told to talk about. That was evident and clear. I think there was a point where even Bush realized Kerry would be a much better president. lol.
Hmm, Kerry is an intelligent person with 19 years of political service behind him. 19 years on the Foreign Relations Committee. He is a Vietnam War Vet. This guy has spent the majority of his life serving his country in one facet or another. You’re right he is a terrible choice for President. :RollEyes:
Global Test, Flip Flopper, please! Kerry said we lost a lot of respect and stature in the world and he is right. He stated that during the Cuban Missile crisis, Kennedy went to France to deliver proof of the missiles in Cuba and the French response was, "We don't need to see the pictures, the word of the United States President is good enough." That is not the case any longer.
Yes Kerry said Saddam was a threat, yes Kerry said he should have been dealt with. Kerry agreed he should have been dealt with the way Bush said he was going to deal with him. Building a coalition that had the support of the world’s leaders, exhausting every avenue before going to war, producing proof of WMDs. None of which Bush did. Bush flip flopped and rushed to war with a poorly built coalition and with little proof of WMDs.
Even the weapons inspectors were saying Iraq did not have WMDs and everyone can now agree they were right. Iraq was a diminishing and contained threat. I think it was brilliant when Kerry pointed out, that out of 40 countries Iraq was 35th on the list of threats to America when we invaded.
I loved how Kerry pointed out how little of a coalition Bush really put together. The next biggest troop build up in Iraq is by Great Britain with 4000 troops. He said there were 2 other countries with less than 4000 in country and all the other countries in the coalition number in the hundreds.
I found it funny how all Bush could do is repetitively reply with talking points and all that did was allow Kerry to ram home why those points are false.
Unless Kerry totally fks up this is going to be a great race and I can’t wait for the next three debates. I’m glad Kerry stepped up and delivered. Now we get to see what GW is really made of and if he can recover. One thing is for sure last night Kerry looked a lot more presidential then Bush ever has, out side of 911 where Bush stepped up but has yet to do since.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL I can picture it now.
UN:" NK We have just passed a resolution saying that you must disarm"
NK: "Screw off"
UN: "NK We have just passed another resolution stating that you are in violation of the previous resolution. And you must Dis arm now"
NK " Are you still there? what part of Screw off dont you get?"
UN : "NK WE have just passed another resolution stating you are in violation of the previous resolutions calling for you to Disarm.
Dis arm now or else face serious consequences"
NK: "What do you mean by "Serious consequences?"
UN: "Why.. We'll pass another resolution!"
Yea,,, That'll work
this current situation with NK is a great arguement against Isolating and containing countries like NK and Iraq.
We Isolated NK for how long. Now NK has nukes and if I remember correctly a missle system capable of reaching the US.
Guess what.
NK aint so isolated anymore.
Great joke on the UN's expence. Funny how you dont see anyone on this board actually talk about how well the UN sanctions work. Need proof? Its all right here infront of you and for certain the biggest blunder of our generation.
The UN sanctions worked in Iraqi as is proven with the lack of WMDs inside the country. For all practical purposes, SH had disarmed and he was NO threat to us or any surrounding country.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
sure sure martlet.. but the fact is they have all the fisson material they need.. Kerry was not proposing anything new for them.. They ALREADY have it.. Kerry's only point was its too bad we have a short sited administration that has now placed us in a postion inwhich we have absolutely no control over. In his idea we could have had at least a small measure of control over what they do with said material or even how much they have/get.
In martlet world this makes kerry want to give Iran nuclear weapons.. Doesnt matter they already have the material..
They already have it, so we should give them more? And giving them more would allow us to have control over it? Like we have control over the material in North Korea? That kind of control? Worked out so well for us there that we should do it again?
You're arguing a failed point. One that you moonbats tried already and failed at.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
They already have it, so we should give them more? And giving them more would allow us to have control over it? Like we have control over the material in North Korea? That kind of control? Worked out so well for us there that we should do it again?
You're arguing a failed point. One that you moonbats tried already and failed at.
BS.. I'm arguing your rediculous spin. Your STILL spinning. Kerry said NOTHING about giving them more. Where do you come up with this stuff??
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Source MSNBC
That is not a scientifically valid poll.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
BS.. I'm arguing your rediculous spin. Your STILL spinning. Kerry said NOTHING about giving them more. Where do you come up with this stuff??
So he WOULD have given them nukes THEN, but he won't give them nukes NOW.
I get it. Sounds like his stance on most other issues.
The bottom line is Kerry wants to give our biggest threats the start of a nuclear program. He thinks that's how we'll control them. Just like we did in North Korea.
In moonbat world, that probably makes sense.
You're still arguing a failed point.
SPIIIIIINNNNNNN :aok
-
Originally posted by mars01
LOLH,
Let me just say that after the way Bush rushed to war with Iraq I do not trust him and before last night I was not thrilled with Kerry and felt he lacked what it took to be an effectivce president.
After last night…
I couldn't wait to see the response from the hard core Republicans. You know in your heart your guy was out classed, out smarted and lacks the intelligence and experience to keep his job compared to John Kerry. The depth of knowledge and experience Kerry demonstrated compared to Bush on all the topics last night was crystal clear.
The debate last night was amazing. Kerry showed last night that he really knows what he is talking about; bush only knows what he is told to talk about. That was evident and clear. I think there was a point where even Bush realized Kerry would be a much better president. lol.
Hmm, Kerry is an intelligent person with 19 years of political service behind him. 19 years on the Foreign Relations Committee. He is a Vietnam War Vet. This guy has spent the majority of his life serving his country in one facet or another. You’re right he is a terrible choice for President. :RollEyes:
Global Test, Flip Flopper, please! Kerry said we lost a lot of respect and stature in the world and he is right. He stated that during the Cuban Missile crisis, Kennedy went to France to deliver proof of the missiles in Cuba and the French response was, "We don't need to see the pictures, the word of the United States President is good enough." That is not the case any longer.
Yes Kerry said Saddam was a threat, yes Kerry said he should have been dealt with. Kerry agreed he should have been dealt with the way Bush said he was going to deal with him. Building a coalition that had the support of the world’s leaders, exhausting every avenue before going to war, producing proof of WMDs. None of which Bush did. Bush flip flopped and rushed to war with a poorly built coalition and with little proof of WMDs.
Even the weapons inspectors were saying Iraq did not have WMDs and everyone can now agree they were right. Iraq was a diminishing and contained threat. I think it was brilliant when Kerry pointed out, that out of 40 countries Iraq was 35th on the list of threats to America when we invaded.
I loved how Kerry pointed out how little of a coalition Bush really put together. The next biggest troop build up in Iraq is by Great Britain with 4000 troops. He said there were 2 other countries with less than 4000 in country and all the other countries in the coalition number in the hundreds.
I found it funny how all Bush could do is repetitively reply with talking points and all that did was allow Kerry to ram home why those points are false.
Unless Kerry totally fks up this is going to be a great race and I can’t wait for the next three debates. I’m glad Kerry stepped up and delivered. Now we get to see what GW is really made of and if he can recover. One thing is for sure last night Kerry looked a lot more presidential then Bush ever has, out side of 911 where Bush stepped up but has yet to do since.
Be careful what you wish for......also, I'm suprised you cannot see what Bush is made of and even more suprised you fly in the 13th TAS....next time I'm online, check your six carefully:)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So he WOULD have given them nukes THEN, but he won't give them nukes NOW.
I get it. Sounds like his stance on most other issues.
The bottom line is Kerry wants to give our biggest threats the start of a nuclear program. He thinks that's how we'll control them. Just like we did in North Korea.
In moonbat world, that probably makes sense.
You're still arguing a failed point.
SPIIIIIINNNNNNN :aok
see my quote please.. you fall under the fool portion..
I am arguing facts.. you are arguing fiction..
-
Ahhh....Dude?
Answer please?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
When did NK start it's program?
It doesnt really matter. You seem to still be believing that Iran is not capable of recieving fission material. The fact is they have. Seems a great deal better if we were the ones in control of it. But, our one track administration lacks the thinking ability to see past this or even see it coming..
Its not the same thing martlet.. But keep spinning as if it were. Perhaps now they will develop a uranium weapon. But how could we know since we have absolutly no control nor say about it. We cant even know how much they have.
And you keep saying that if we give them the basis for a nuke program, we'd control it. Just like North Korea? That worked out well, didn't it?
That's the bottom line. Kerry wants to give nuke programs to countries that would be a threat to us. Just like North Korea.
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
see my quote please.. you fall under the fool portion..
I am arguing facts.. you are arguing fiction..
Fact: Kerry thinks it's better to give nations that may oppose us the basis for a nuclear program in the belief he can control it.
Just like North Korea. How did that turn out again?
You're still spinning a failed argument. :aok
-
Originally posted by Rude
Ahhh....Dude?
Answer please?
4??
-
Originally posted by Martlet
And you keep saying that if we give them the basis for a nuke program, we'd control it. Just like North Korea? That worked out well, didn't it?
That's the bottom line. Kerry wants to give nuke programs to countries that would be a threat to us. Just like North Korea.
Wrong again.. kerry only illistrated his desire to attempt that the US have more control over what fission materials Iran recieves.. THEY ALREADY HAVE IT YOU SEE>..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Wrong again.. kerry only illistrated his desire to attempt that the US have more control over what fission materials Iran recieves.. THEY ALREADY HAVE IT YOU SEE>..
now you're making up facts to further your spin.
Keep digging!:aok
-
Originally posted by Martlet
now you're making up facts to further your spin.
Keep digging!:aok
lol explain how that is different from what I have been saying? They (Iran) were gonna get it one way or another..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
lol explain how that is different from what I have been saying? They (Iran) were gonna get it one way or another..
So if something bad is going to happen inevitably, we should just do it ourselves?
Is that your point? :lol :lol :lol
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
4??
I'm asking you if you are aware of what Kerry suggested as his plan for bilateral talks with NK and the result of the same bilateral talks with NK by the Clinton Admin.
Do you support Kerry's NK solution?
-
Originally posted by Rude
I'm asking you if you are aware of what Kerry suggested as his plan for bilateral talks with NK and the result of the same bilateral talks with NK by the Clinton Admin.
Do you support Kerry's NK solution?
No idea. Only thing I can say is attempting to talk is better than thumbing our nose at them. But please, I'm all about being educated.. 8)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So if something bad is going to happen inevitably, we should just do it ourselves?
Is that your point? :lol :lol :lol
No, my point with you is your foolish attempts at rediculous spin and made up futures..
-
It would have been nice to hear more details on both the bilateral and multilateral approaches. Something worth doing some personal research to see what's what and why.
Charon
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
No idea. Only thing I can say is attempting to talk is better than thumbing our nose at them. But please, I'm all about being educated.. 8)
We trusted Kim and gave him the nuke fuel to run his power plants....he then proceeded to build the nukes Kerry blames Bush for last night. Maddeline Albright admitted two weeks ago that we were tricked.
Kerry feels we should offer the same deal to Iran....like I said, fool me once.
If only the world was as easy to figure out as some of you think:)
I'm certain Kerry will work it all out and well short of the 16 months Bush has been at it.
-
Be careful what you wish for......also, I'm surprised you cannot see what Bush is made of and even more surprised you fly in the 13th TAS....
LOL, I did not know political affiliation had anything to do with the who is allowed to join the TAS.
...next time I'm online, check your six carefully
I guess the two nights out of the Tour I'll have to be careful. :D
The problem is I do see what Bush is made of. I wanted McCain not Bush I saw it back then. Everything I was worried about when he got elected came true. The world is not a safer place, it is more expensive, there are less jobs, the middle class is shrinking and American boys are dying in a war that is and was not any more connected to terrorism then any of the other countries in the region.
Even Bush's dad knew invading Iraq was a bad idea. We'll unfortunately GW didn't listen or learn from his father.
I wish we focused our energies on completing the mission in Afghanistan, capturing Osama Bin Laden and keeping the proliferation of nuclear materials in check. Protecting job loss in America, closing the loophole that gives tax breaks to corporations whom offshore work. I could go on but I have to actually get some work done.
-
I have to agree I find it odd that Kerry wants unilateral dealings in Iraq, but is ok with Bilateral talks in North Korea.
I could possibly understand this if his intent with the bilateral talks is to foster a unilateral discussion. I agree with Charon, without more details from both sides this is all conjecture.
At least Kerry has Nuclear Proliferation as a hot spot. I think the 15 years it is going to take Bush to account for all the Nuke material in Russia is far too long. I would like to see how Kerry plans on doing it in 4 years. For god sakes Russia could be a dictatorship in the next two years the way it's going and then who knows what is going to happen to all the unaccounted for material.
Kerry showed a lot of intelligence and tact last night, something Bush doesn't show very well.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
No, my point with you is your foolish attempts at rediculous spin and made up futures..
Made up futures? North Korea is a made up future? How did that turn out again? Well enough that we should give it another try?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Made up futures? North Korea is a made up future? How did that turn out again? Well enough that we should give it another try?
Ya, made up futures about Iran's future. You have no idea, same as the rest of the world, what would come from it.
Is NK the only country we have given nuclear materials to? I dont think so..
One bad apple does not dictate the rest.. Ya, foolish attempts at spin and made up futures.. keep making your fictionous points martlet...
-
Kerry feels we should offer the same deal to Iran....like I said, fool me once.
martlet can sell you that easily Rude?
Understand that Iran, as is proven, was going to get the material one way or another. Kerry offered an idea that could have given the US more control and knowledge about that material. Whats better for the US, a small measure of control, or no idea???
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Ya, made up futures about Iran's future. You have no idea, same as the rest of the world, what would come from it.
Ahhh, you're one of those guys that keeps putting their hand in the fire thinking one of these times he might not get burned. I do know what the future would bring. They got nuclear materials. Look what they did with them.
Is NK the only country we have given nuclear materials to? I dont think so..
What other rogue nations have we given nuclear materials to?
One bad apple does not dictate the rest.. Ya, foolish attempts at spin and made up futures.. keep making your fictionous points martlet...
Is that how it goes in moonbat land? If we keep doing it, someday we'll get good results? That works fine when your planting a garden. Not so well when you're giving nations nukes. That's exactly why Kerry in the White House would make the world a more dangerous place for us.
Understand that Iran, as is proven, was going to get the material one way or another. Kerry offered an idea that could have given the US more control and knowledge about that material. Whats better for the US, a small measure of control, or no idea???
Control like we had with Korea? How did that turn out again?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, you're one of those guys that keeps putting their hand in the fire thinking one of these times he might not get burned. I do know what the future would bring. They got nuclear materials. Look what they did with them.
What other rogue nations have we given nuclear materials to?
Is that how it goes in moonbat land? If we keep doing it, someday we'll get good results? That works fine when your planting a garden. Not so well when you're giving nations nukes. That's exactly why Kerry in the White House would make the world a more dangerous place for us.
Control like we had with Korea? How did that turn out again?
What part about they ALREADY have the material do you not understand??
Clearly I was wrong before, your not a fool; your a slave!
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Great joke on the UN's expence. Funny how you dont see anyone on this board actually talk about how well the UN sanctions work. Need proof? Its all right here infront of you and for certain the biggest blunder of our generation.
The UN sanctions worked in Iraqi as is proven with the lack of WMDs inside the country. For all practical purposes, SH had disarmed and he was NO threat to us or any surrounding country.
Odd. I see nothing of the sort.
Absence of evidence is still evidence of absence.
No, NK is a prime example of how well Sanctions and containment work.
Its people are starving and NK has nukes.
Now THERE is a blunder
Yup, worked real well
As my father used to say during the cold war
"Eat drink and be merry. For tomorrow you may be radio active"
-
Did the UN place sanctions on NK or just the US??
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
What part about they ALREADY have the material do you not understand??
Clearly I was wrong before, your not a fool; your a slave!
You clearly are trying to scramble out of your box. First you say I can't see the future, then you say it isn't the future, it's the present.
You've been watching Hanoi John for too long.
-
Odd. I see nothing of the sort.
Absence of evidence is still evidence of absence.
No, NK is a prime example of how well Sanctions and containment work.
Its people are starving and NK has nukes.
Now THERE is a blunder
Hey Dred,
The one good thing about the debate last night is at least NK is now getting some real attention.
Yes NK has Nukes even though sanctions were levied. Though the sanctions did not stop them from getting Nukes they may have helped to prolong the process. Sanctions worked in Libya.
What is next then for NK? Do you think not having communications is a beneficial strategy? China is not against us having bilateral talks. I would thing if the talks are used to bring a unilateral discussion to the table then there would be some merit to them.
I do agree no more deals can be made between Kim and us. But something has to be done. This is the same thing Bush did with Osama pre 911. Ignore it until it blows up in our face.
-
Originally posted by mars01
I wish we focused our energies on completing the mission in Afghanistan, capturing Osama Bin Laden and keeping the proliferation of nuclear materials in check.
what makes you think that energies are not being expended on the capture of Bin Laden.
simply because its not being talked about in the news does not mean its not being done. In fact its probably better that way.
Had everything been focused on Bin Laden you would have all the media attention in Afghanastan and probably geraldo Rivera and every other journalist in the world would be trying tpark himself outside of bin ladens doorstep 3 days in advance so as to catch the capture on film.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You clearly are trying to scramble out of your box. First you say I can't see the future, then you say it isn't the future, it's the present.
You've been watching Hanoi John for too long.
Wrong again.. let me quote myself:
Wrong again.. kerry only illistrated his desire to attempt that the US have more control over what fission materials Iran recieves.. THEY ALREADY HAVE IT YOU SEE>..
Understand that Iran, as is proven, was going to get the material one way or another. Kerry offered an idea that could have given the US more control and knowledge about that material. Whats better for the US, a small measure of control, or no idea???
sure sure martlet.. but the fact is they have all the fisson material they need.. Kerry was not proposing anything new for them.. They ALREADY have it.. Kerry's only point was its too bad we have a short sited administration that has now placed us in a postion inwhich we have absolutely no control over. In his idea we could have had at least a small measure of control over what they do with said material or even how much they have/get.
In martlet world this makes kerry want to give Iran nuclear weapons.. Doesnt matter they already have the material..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Wrong again.. let me quote myself:
Here, let me quote you too.
And thanks for proving my point again. You should take a nap and spare yourself further embarrassment.
Ya, made up futures about Iran's future. You have no idea, same as the rest of the world, what would come from it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Here, let me quote you too.
And thanks for proving my point again. You should take a nap and spare yourself further embarrassment.
Whats your point? I see none here.. I said that and I still agree with the statement..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Whats your point? I see none here.. I said that and I still agree with the statement..
If you can't follow the own tangents you try to take your failed arguement, don't expect me to help.
You've proven my point for me yet again.
Thanks! :aok
-
Originally posted by Martlet
If you can't follow the own tangents you try to take your failed arguement, don't expect me to help.
You've proven my point for me yet again.
Thanks! :aok
LoL I love it.. You dont even attempt to argue your initial foolish spin. You just start making watermelon up from thin air!! cya later martlet
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
LoL I love it.. You dont even attempt to argue your initial foolish spin. You just start making watermelon up from thin air!! cya later martlet
I don't blame you for bailing either. You've been trying to make that lame argument stick for 2 pages now. You must be getting tired.
Thanks for proving my point on your way out, though! :aok :aok
-
I think this episode of "TheDude and Marlte" show can come to end now.
Topic? What topic?