2nd Presidential Debate

[Xander]

Who do you think did the best during the debate?
I personally think President Bush did the best job of answering the questions that were posed to him. Kerry on the other hand danced around every question and took every opportunity to attack Bush. He was always saying he had a plan to make this or that better and to fix what Bush has done. He never explains his "plan" he just says "I have a plan...".

[primesuspect]

http://www.keyboardjockey.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=278&hl=

:D

[Xander]

Awesome :thumbsup:

[Xander]

Excerpt from the debate:

KERRY: Yes, I think we should look at the punitive and we should have some limitations.

BUSH: You're right, what does matter is a plan. He said he's for — you're now for capping punitive damages?

That's odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the Senate and voted for it then.

:Pwned:

[keto]

I cant post at kbj not interested in joining. Green eyeshades are a cliche for accountants. That is all. :cool:

[pseudonym]

Theres an election going on? bleh....

[Clutch]

Don't want to start up anything. So I'm not going to say who I thought won, but I already know who I'm voting for.

[Dexter]

Bush's tax records show he has had patial ownership of a timber growing venture for years. See my post at KBJ for the link to FactCheck.org.

Dexter...

[Dexter]

Who do you think did the best during the debate?
I personally think President Bush did the best job of answering the questions that were posed to him. Kerry on the other hand danced around every question and took every opportunity to attack Bush. He was always saying he had a plan to make this or that better and to fix what Bush has done. He never explains his "plan" he just says "I have a plan...".


Dude, when you are running against an incumbent, this is what you do, you attack their record. That's just how it has been done for hundreds of years. :rolleyes:

Kerry answered a lot of questions pretty succintly, and danced around a few. That's what politicians do. Look at Bush with his name 3 mistakes question...still waiting to hear them... :D

Kerry mentioned very often that for details of his plans, go to his website:

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

If he were to fully explain his different plans every single time a question came up, that's all he would get in, the format of the debate does not allow someone to flush out all the details. They get 90 second answers and 30 second rebuttals. It would take 5 minutes to explain one of the plans on an issue. Can't be done. So he told people where to find the details. Bush never mentioned his website...does he even know he has one....?

Dexter... ;D

[Camman]

Watched the debate, Bush won hands down, Kerry needs to get a clue.

[Black Hawk]

IMHO if you (or anyone else) favor one candidate before watching the debate, you're already inclined to think that person won no matter what (at most you'd think it was a tie). Worthless debating about it unless you were undecided from the beggining, so all those "omg bushx0rs pwned teh flip flopper kerry!!!111" and "hehehe that war mongering bush is a dumbass and lost to mistar articulaterad kerry weeeee!!1" statements are pointless.

[primesuspect]

Words of wisdom from our Puerto Rican friend.......

These debates aren't gonna change anybody's mind.... It's the undecided voter that needs to pay attention.

[csimon]

I voted Bush. :scratch:

[^Ben]

I would say it was pretty even.

[TheSmJ]

I've come to that same conclusion myself, but I still find the debates intresting.

At least the second one was. No real information actually came out in the first, as neither candidate was even allowed to answer eachother's questions directly. I'm glad they changed things the second time around.

[Dexter]

No real information actually came out in the first, as neither candidate was even allowed to answer eachother's questions directly. I'm glad they changed things the second time around.

They did not change any of the agreed upon rules. The only thing different in the 2nd Presidential debate was the stand-up format and questions from a carefuly screened non-partisan audience. But by the rules, neither candidate was supposed to adress each other directly nor question each other directly, nor answer each other directly. It did happen, on both sides, because it is such a natural human reaction, and the Moderator did not really address it at all because it was very innocuous and appeared uncalculated.

The next debate goes back to the same format as the first.

Here is the memorandum of understanding (aka "The Rules") for those who may not have seen it:

http://www.npr.org/documents/2004/2004.debate/debate_memo.pdf

(long and technical legal document warning) :)

Dexter...

[pseudonym]

http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/04/10/09/1315259.shtml?tid=103&tid=219

http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346
http://www.votecobb.org/

If anyone wonders why I'm always down on American politics thats why. I could care less who won the stupid debates because they are rigged on who may particiapte. I'm not a libertarian, nor a green but the fact that the next two largest parties are not allowed in the debates makes me sick.

[Nomad]

Libertatians are not the next largest party, Greens and Independent, although the independent party didn't run a presidential candidate this year, are the next largest parties. Once any party gains more than 5% of the vote in the previous presidential election they are allowed to petition to enter the debate.

I think it was a draw.

[Clutch]

Kerry mentioned very often that for details of his plans, go to his website:

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html




FINALLY, someone listens in on the debate, imagine that :scratch: Glad I wasn't the only one who got that one, lol

[Nomad]

Okay, Dexter, I read his book and it made no sense, and his plans say nothing more than, "I have a plan for xxxxxx," same with his website. It offers absolutely no detailed information on the subject such as spending.

Examples:
"Protect Our Borders And Shores
Today, our borders, our ports, and our airports are not as secure as they must be. John Kerry and John Edwards will make our airports, seaports, and borders more secure without intruding upon personal liberties."

All right, sweet, how? There's not spending, nothing?

Another:
Track And Stop Terrorists
Many of the intelligence problems that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed. John Kerry and John Edwards will improve our ability to gather, analyze, and share information so we can track down and stop terrorists before they cause harm.

Again, how are they going to improve the ability to track terrorists?

[Dexter]

And if you look on the right hand side of the pages, there are links to more info:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland_security/homeland_plan.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/terrorism.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/bioterror.pdf

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/military.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/strategy.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/chemical.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/intel.html

That's just a few to get you started. And some of those have more links with more info.

Now, what about Bush's website? You want to tell me how this page is any more specific that those above...?

http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/Chapter.aspx?ID=4

It is not.

Dexter...

[TheGr81]

I didn't see much of the debate, I was too tired to watch. But from what I saw, neither did a very good job of answering questions. Both of them did answer a couple, but of course they both dodged and evaded some questions.

I don't know why I even try to keep up with this election, I'm not old enough to vote yet... :shakehead

[Nomad]

Bush doesn't have to have such a comprehensive plan, since people will be electing him on how they thing he has done the last four years. His plan is to continue what he's been doing, which doesn't need elaboration on since we've seen it for the last three years.

"Expand America's Active Duty Forces by 40,000 to relieve the strain on today's military."

Okay, that either means straining our national guard and reservists by activating 40,000 of them, or you're going to initiate a draft to get 40,000 more people. The only way he could get that many people to join is to offer large incentives to people who join, and that would detract from other places in the military.

"Complete the Process of Technological Transformation by ensuring that our military has the most modern equipment and technology available."

I hate to bring this up, but under the Clinton administration, the part of the United States military that was dismantled was equivilant to that of the entire British military, money for military equipment has been voted down time and time again.

"Expand NATO Beyond Kabul. As president, Kerry will exercise real leadership by getting NATO to accelerate the expansion of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) outside Kabul and commit to sustaining an expansion of its troops beyond the election period."

Foreign governments have stated that no matter under what administration they don't plan to send any more troops to Afgahnistan or Iraq, yet somehow Kerry is going to get these countries to commit more troops, the only way he'd really get them is by giving them a 'charitable foreign donation' which would go back to his comment of the coalition of the bribed.

[pseudonym]

Libertatians are not the next largest party, Greens and Independent, although the independent party didn't run a presidential candidate this year, are the next largest parties. Once any party gains more than 5% of the vote in the previous presidential election they are allowed to petition to enter the debate.

I think it was a draw.

Ross Perot had that one year and they didn't let him in. I could care less if they have 5% or not, this system needs to be shook up.

[Nomad]

What's your definition of shook up? Most third parties that enter the election would be on the left, specifically the greens. Now imagine if the greens won 20-30% every year, the democrats would never win basically (Understand that not one vote that goes green would ever go towards a republican generally speaking).

[profdlp]

Ross Perot had that one year and they didn't let him in. I could care less if they have 5% or not, this system needs to be shook up.
The problem is that you have to cut it off somewhere. Otherwise I could just declare myself a candidate and show up at the debate expecting a chance to have my say. (You guys would all vote for me, right?) :D

When you look at the drawbacks of highly fragmented political systems a two-party system has some advantages. A major one being that our coalitions are formed before the election, not after. Neither way is perfect.

[Clutch]

Bush doesn't have to have such a comprehensive plan, since people will be electing him on how they thing he has done the last four years. His plan is to continue what he's been doing, which doesn't need elaboration on since we've seen it for the last three years.

.

You are right, we have seen it in the past three years alright. I mean just look at ALL those WMD we have found. Lets continue to fight for what his poor daddy couldn't finish, haha You are right no elaboration is needed.

[profdlp]

This thread will be closed soon, I'll bet... :rolleyes:

[Clutch]

lol, yea it will be. Everyone here knows that nobody means any harm in their posts, or at least I hope so. We a close mad tight community up in here yo.

[Thrax]

Actually, now that I know you're against the war on Iraq, I'm going to stab you in the face at SMLAN'05. Then I'll kick your car. :thumbsup:

[profdlp]

...Then I'll kick your car. :thumbsup:
No need. Just wait for that ol' left-hand turn... :hair:

More evidence that Clutch needs to go to the right! ;D ;D

Clutch, (I'll go back to being serious for a second), what you said before proves Nomad's point. You are obviously going to base your vote on the president's past performance, as will nearly all of those who will vote the other way.

I think both sides would (and should) be more scared if Bush were to say something along the lines of "If re-elected, I plan on doing many things quite differently in my second term", without being specific.

EDIT: The post which followed was deleted because I goofed on editing a typo in this post... :O

[primesuspect]

No it won't be closed yet. We have to wait for somebody who doesn't normally participate to come in and start making personal attacks that are vaguely based on the thread topic, or for someone to bitch and complain about our site policies. Only when the plebians rise up in defiance do we step in to quash the rebellion before anybody gets any bright ideas :D

[Nomad]

BURN THE WOMENFOLK!

Oh, sorry.

Anyways Clutch, as Prof explained you just proved my point, you're going to be basing your vote off of what Bush has done the past three years (I exclude the first year off office because really apparently no one cares about it). Also, as much as it sounds cruel to say, third party politics can kill democracy at times, because it will basically shut down one viewpoint by completely fragmenting the party. Example: American Whigs in the 19th century.

[Clutch]

I support the war on terrorism. I am by no means a anti-war hippie or anything like that, my dad went to war for this country and so did my grandfather. If I would have been allowed to join the AirForce after High School, then I to would go to war for our country.

But tell me this, if we are not supposed to base our vote on the performance of the current president in his term then what are we supposed to base it on? Act as though he has neve been president? :scratch:

So If I were to vote for Bush, do I just say "it doesn't matter what he has done in his term so far that would be biased?" I mean come on, let me know what you mean in case I am missing something here.

[profdlp]

..But tell me this, if we are not supposed to base our vote on the performance of the current president in his term then what are we supposed to base it on? Act as though he has neve been president? :scratch: ...
I think the point is that you are supposed to base your vote on his performance.

If you generally approve of him, why go for a pig in a poke?

If not, and you are convinced the other guy could do better, why stick with the guy you have now?

Basically, we have had three and a half years to get an idea of where he stands on things. Some love him, some hate him, many are somewhere in between.

The question which was raised is what will the other guy do. He has lots of "plans" but is not very specific about them.

[Nomad]

"But tell me this, if we are not supposed to base our vote on the performance of the current president in his term then what are we supposed to base it on? Act as though he has neve been president?

So If I were to vote for Bush, do I just say "it doesn't matter what he has done in his term so far that would be biased?" I mean come on, let me know what you mean in case I am missing something here."

Huh? That's not what I was saying, I'm saying Bush already has presented his plan, it's the same stuff he's done his first four years in office, and you can take that how you want, I didn't say don't vote on what he did in office, because that's how you base an opinion of an incumbent.

[Clutch]

Ok, there for a minute I thought you were saying it is bad to not vote for Bush on what he has done or not done in his term. Bush has presented his plan, we are to find the WMD which we have already found SOOOO many you know :shakehead

And I'm really glad that Kerry mentioned the "No child left behind" act that Bush passed. Do you remember the "No child left behind" act? I know I do, back in 2002. Got to give good education to those kids who can't afford it you know...so where is the 9.7 BILLION dollars he cut from them this year? I bet everyone forgot about the kids, wonder how many kids got "left behind"?

Also Bush said there were 100,000 trained Iraqi troops, which isn't true. Unless you say someone who has had 3 weeks of training a "troop" when there are actually around 8,000 who are ready to fight as "troops" with proper training.

Maybe everyone forgot about these things, I know the parents of the children that "got left behind" sure didn't. We know where his priorities are, and I'm sure an oil pumps is very near it.

[Nomad]

All of the 100,000 combatents that Bush mentioned have had atleast six weeks of military training, which is your basic U.S. military standard (Navy is only four I think, and Marines is eight).

[Clutch]

All of the 100,000 combatents that Bush mentioned have had atleast six weeks of military training, which is your basic U.S. military standard (Navy is only four I think, and Marines is eight).


Sorry, do not pass go do not collect $100. Did you hear what Armitage said? I guess not, let me tell you briefly.

"It's 100,000 total security forces...." "..I don't want anyone to make the mistake that security force equals soldier.." ".could be policemen, and it could be the eight-week trained policemen, of which there are a little over 8,000, or it could be what I refer to as the shake-and-bake three-week police force"


:scratch:

[Clutch]

Did anyone else hear about Bush possibly being wired during the first debate? Well here is the picture that is being talked about. You can see some kind of object under his jacket, and it is not his back brace is has been known to wear sometimes. Take it as you would like.

[profdlp]

Did anyone else hear about Bush possibly being wired during the first debate?...
BOTH candidates were wearing lapel mikes running to a wireless transmitter. The mike on the podium was the main one; the lapel mikes were there to allow the candidates to turn to the crowd at the right and left for a more natural speaking effect. The preacher at my church wears the same rig every Sunday morning. :cool:

I know a lot of people hate Bush so much that they'll leap at any chance to criticize him, but a little bit of fair-minded reasoning should tell you that this is a bunch of crap. We are talking about the president of the US, who certainly would have some pretty nifty technology at his disposal if he wanted it. If he really was going to cheat don't you think he would have come up with something a little less obvious? Fer cryin' out loud - you could buy a better rig on ebay.

Besides, the worst thing I could imagine would be debating someone on live TV in front of millions of people and having someone whispering in my ear all the time. It was hard enough for me to type this with the football game on in the background... :p

[Clutch]

lol. The funny thing is it happens all the time. There is some media file on the whitehouse website I think, anyway it is of GW speaking and you can hear someone in his reciever telling him something, then a second later he says the same thing as the person on the other line. I think that is why he stutters alot, so he can hear what he is really supposed to say. But if both candidates where wearing something, then I dont think there would be stories of only the President. So something sure does seem fishy there. It wouldn't be an issue if both had one a wire.

[EgoShowcase]

politics and religion.

[GHoosdum]

Don't you think Bush would have performed better in the first debate if he really was wired? ;D

Of course there would be stories of only the President wearing a wire - to those with political left leanings, it would seem to make sense that our President who stumbles over words would be wired - but of course no reasonable person would make that claim about Kerry, who can speak clearly (mostly) without needing a wire. However, first of all, Bush would need an earpiece to be wired, which was clearly not present, and second of all, his performance was so sub-par in the first debate, I really can't imagine that he could possibly be wired.

As far as the wood thing that Dexter mentioned earlier: apparently, Kerry got his information from the Annenberg Foundation (who runs FactCheck.org) and that's what Dex used to back up the claim that Bush did own a lumber company - the latest news is that FactCheck was in fact wrong about that.

As for the second debate, I said that I don't think either did better than the other. It's too close to call, I think, - and it depends upon personal preference of the viewer. Personally, this time around I preferred Bush's style - he appeared to be strong and forceful, speaking with authority and a little bit more apparent concern for the topics he was speaking about, with less personal attacks (in this particular debate) than Kerry.

Both candidates made flat-out promises during the second debate that I think it's important to pay attention to:
Bush said there will absolutely be no draft.
Kerry said he would absolutely not increase taxes for anyone making less than $200,000 per year.

I wonder if the elected party will be able to live up to his promise...

//edit: OT: One of the sigs above my post is causing a script error somehow.

[primesuspect]

Has any presidential candidate EVER lived up to all of his campaign promises after election?

[Dexter]

As far as the wood thing that Dexter mentioned earlier: apparently, Kerry got his information from the Annenberg Foundation (who runs FactCheck.org) and that's what Dex used to back up the claim that Bush did own a lumber company - the latest news is that FactCheck was in fact wrong about that.



Not quite, read it for yourself:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html


Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

Kerry got his information from an article we posted Sept. 23 stating that Bush on his 2001 federal income-tax returns "reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article.


So let's see, a trust company owned by Bush in turns own 50% of a tree growing business. Factcheck incorrectly described the item in question from Bush's tax return, but the $84 came to him from this timber company, through his oil and gas trust company.

No matter how you slice it, Bush still owns 50%, through his trust company, of a timber company. It is possible that if he does not micromanage every aspect of his trust's portfolio, he may not know what it owns. That does not mean that he does not own it, just that he does not know it.

Dexter...

[GHoosdum]

Actually, I'd already read that article.

50% is still not outright ownership - he'd need 51% to be considered "owning" it - at 50% all he owns is shares in it. Saying he owns it is like saying I own IBM because I've got a share of their stock. And don't forget that the figure Kerry was quoting was $84 in income that comes from the company that has a 50% share in the timber company NOW but not at the time of the $84 - that was back in 2001.

[Dexter]

My boss owns 10 % of a night club. He is an owner of that night club. As a owner, he owns it, along with the other owners. If someone were to sue the owners of the nightclub, he would have to help pay the lawyers, because he would be listed on the legal documents as being an owner.

He owns 25% of another company, and 33% of another one and otehr percentages of a couple of other business. Some of those are owned through his trust company. He still owns them, earns moeny from them (well, some of them, anyways ;) ) and he goes to shareholder meetings for them. If the business were to go bankrupt, as an owner, he would lose the money in them.

Bush *owns* 50% of a company. He is an owner. He owns it.

Dexter...

[redoulent]

I liked Kerry's answer to Bush accusing him of voting against something he claims to be for. He said the law that Bush passed did nothing to protect the mother if delivering the baby would kill her. Or how he doesn't think a 16 year old girl should have to get her Dad's permission to abort the pregnancy he caused!

I would vote against that too!

I just want Bush out of office. You had your four years, I wasn't impressed. A president should spend four years proving he/she is good enough for another four.

[GHoosdum]

My boss owns 10 % of a night club. He is an owner of that night club. As a owner, he owns it, along with the other owners. If someone were to sue the owners of the nightclub, he would have to help pay the lawyers, because he would be listed on the legal documents as being an owner.

He owns 25% of another company, and 33% of another one and otehr percentages of a couple of other business. Some of those are owned through his trust company. He still owns them, earns moeny from them (well, some of them, anyways ;) ) and he goes to shareholder meetings for them. If the business were to go bankrupt, as an owner, he would lose the money in them.

Bush *owns* 50% of a company. He is an owner. He owns it.

Dexter...

Sweet - by your argument I *own* IBM!

Seriously, what I'm saying is - there's a difference between partnership and corporation. Bush's trust owns 50% of the shares in a corporation that does something with wood. The way that a business that is a corporation works is that owning shares makes one a shareholder in that corporation. In a partnership, an individual who is a partner in a partnership does own the business (even at less than 50% partnership), and is legally liable for the actions of the company. A corporation, however, acts to mitigate the legal liabilities of the shareholders for the actions of the company. In addition to this, a shareholder is not considered an owner of a corporation until more than 50% of the shares of that corporation are owned by said individual. Therefore, I don't actually "own" IBM, though I am a shareholder. Nor does Bush "own" Lumber Corporation or whatever it's called, though he very nearly does so.

[Leonardo]

Bush's trust owns 50% of the shares And that's the key - for any US President -- Clinton, Bush Sr, GW Bush... Their investments are held in blind trusts - they usually don't even know what's in them. If Kerry were elected to President, his investments would be held and managed in a blind trust. (Oops! His wife's investments.)

[profdlp]

Leo! How's it going! (http://www.short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?p=196170#post196170) :)

...the pimp strikes again... :vimp:

[redoulent]

I forget who gets credit for this one, but the three most powerful people in our government are Bush, Dick, and Colon..... That about says it all!

[Black Hawk]

I forget who gets credit for this one, but the three most powerful people in our government are Bush, Dick, and Colon..... That about says it all!
I would change Colon for Donald.

[Clutch]

*waits for Nomad to appear again in the thread*

Maybe he is counting all those 100,000 troops again ;)

[Nomad]

Everyone else pretty much said what I was going to say, Particularly Leo and Prof.

[Clutch]

So you still think that all 100,000 "troops" got 6 weeks of training?

[Leonardo]

You are right, we have seen it in the past three years alright. I mean just look at ALL those WMD we have found. Lets continue to fight for what his poor daddy couldn't finish, haha You are right no elaboration is needed.
Alright I have to respond now. The following is facts, not opinion.

I was over there during Iraqi Freedom and for a couple months immediately preceding the invasion of Iraq. I can't go into details about what my job was in the Army at that time, but suffice it to say I was in a position to see highly sensitive documents. It genuinely appeared that there were stockpiles of WMD, and certainly the capability to make and deliver such weapons. Were we accurate in our assessments? Perhaps not? Perhaps yes. The Iraqis, throughout their years of playing chess with the UN-directed post Gulf War inspections (when the inspectors were actually allowed to inspect), learned how to move just about anything around and hide it, quite skillfully. A second BIG point: the years leading up to Iraqi Freedom saw deep cuts in US Military Intelligence, FBI's limited intel components, and the CIA -- one of the reasons our pre-9/11 and pre-Iraqi Freedom intelligence wasn't first rate. During his Senate career, Kerry was one of the most consistent voters when it came to decreasing military and intel budgets. Over the years, such tight restrictions have been put on the DoD and the CIA that human sources (informers, so to speak) for intelligence, even in foreign countries, must essentially be be without criminal records and of 'good character'. If you want to know what slime is doing, you've got to make inroads with slime. (This trend of reigning in the intel services started about 30 years ago and got worse every decade. Not blaming it all on Kerry.)

"...poor daddy couldn't finish." President Bush (GHW Bush) executed the Gulf War (1st) mission EXACTLY in accordance with the LETTER and spirit of the UN Mandate to push Iraq out of Kuwait. If we had continued, we would have been outside of the graces of the UN Mandate and would have instantly lost allies. (BTW, I was in Iraq during Desert Storm with the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment.) If Bush had unilaterally charged to Baghdad - and we were ready and awaiting the order, he would have been guilty of what so many people are hand wringing about now, that the current President Bush acted without thorough UN blessings. So, which is it? Ignore UN, or court their leadership(?).

[primesuspect]

But it doesn't matter that we are currently outside of the "graces" of the UN? This invasion was not supported by the UN... Why did it matter then, but not now?

[Leonardo]

I didn't say it did matter before! :)

[test_tube_tony]

my two cents...

in my opinion, the only thing kerry cares about is "wining" the election. its like its all one big game to him. if you look at his past, you can see that. one example is when he did that video taping over in nam. to me thats just saying, "HEY! LOOK AT ME!" pretty lame if u ask me. it also seems that most of kerry's campaign has been alot of bush bashing. again, no real talk of his plans. in my mind he cares more about getting to go into the history books as a president that his country.

you cant blame bush for a poor economy either. it was handed to him while it was on a down fall. for all of you people that think the pres can just fix things, get a clue. its the consumers that more or less decide how the economy grows. and if anyone should have helped stop 9/11 from happening, it was clinton. bush was just getting into office at the time.
:rant:
i dont entirely agree with everything bush has done either, but atleast he gives a crap about his country. and im sure not gonna throw my vote away and vote for some independant party or something. i am truely afraid to see kerry in office. i really am.

[Leonardo]

Just some moderator guidance here;

Good job so far, guys. We usually don't allow threads on politics or religion; but sometimes the staff permits it. So far, emotionalism is not prevailing over discussion. So far there is no name calling or ad hominem attacks. Thanks. Let's keep it that way.

[redoulent]

Kerry does thump his medals a lot.

Anybody reading up on the rumors that Bush is using wireless devices and being coached in his speeches? I don't really think there is anything wrong with that. Especially if they also used his to protect the president. Like if his coach says threat 2, he knows there is a threat and to take the 2nd route to safety.

There were times during each speech when Bush said something that indicated he was reacting to his coach, and not the moderator or Kerry. It would be kinda funny if someone jammed his signal next debate. Would they arrest the person who did the jamming? Would they be willing to admit they were being jammed?

[Clutch]

There is nothing wrong with getting help I guess, but in a debate you can have no outside help, so there is something wrong in that case.

[Dexter]

Sweet - by your argument I *own* IBM!

Seriously, what I'm saying is - there's a difference between partnership and corporation. Bush's trust owns 50% of the shares in a corporation that does something with wood. The way that a business that is a corporation works is that owning shares makes one a shareholder in that corporation. In a partnership, an individual who is a partner in a partnership does own the business (even at less than 50% partnership), and is legally liable for the actions of the company. A corporation, however, acts to mitigate the legal liabilities of the shareholders for the actions of the company. In addition to this, a shareholder is not considered an owner of a corporation until more than 50% of the shares of that corporation are owned by said individual. Therefore, I don't actually "own" IBM, though I am a shareholder. Nor does Bush "own" Lumber Corporation or whatever it's called, though he very nearly does so.


Dude, you own shares of IBM. It is a publicly traded corporation.

Bush owns 50% of LSTF, LLC. As you probably know, LLC means Limited Liabilty Company. Short-Media is an LLC. Who owns SM? Media-Man, Shorty, and Prime. Is it wrong to say that any one of them owns a tech website? They each have partial ownership, therefore, they are owners.

From Bush's own tax statement attachment:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/BushTreeGrowingCompany.pdf


Company is owned equally by The Lone Star Trust (George W. Bush, Grantor) and John Taylor.)


(Bold emphasis mine.) It does not matter whether you agree or not GH....the rules of the IRS says he owns it. Bush says so by his tax statement.

And according to the researchers at FactCheck.org, whom Cheney cited as being credible resources (although he called them a .com and subsequently got pwned;) ) :

Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company.

Now that this has been taken far astray from the point, let's get back to that point: why is this important? Because, accroding to the Republicans in a recent ad, Kerry would raise taxes on small businesses and hurt jobs. What their ad failed to mention is that some of those small businesses are owned by multi-millionaires like Bush and Cheney.

http://www.factcheck.org/article265.html

A Bush-Cheney '04 ad claims Kerry would raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses and "hurt jobs." But it counts every high-salaried person who has even $1 of outside business income as a "small business owner" -- a definition so broad that even Bush and Cheney have qualified while in office. In fact, hundreds of thousands of those "small businesses" have no jobs to offer.

Furthermore, by the Bush definition 32 million "small businesses" would see no tax increase. The ad doesn't mention that, of course. Nor does it mention Kerry's proposals for some tax cuts specifically targeted for small businesses.

*President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)

(Oct 9; CORRECTION: What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. We were confused because The Lone Star Trust currently owns 50% of another company, "LSTF, LLC", described on Bush’s 2003 financial disclosure forms as a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." So, Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such.)
*Vice President Cheney and his wife Lynne qualify as "small business owners" for 2003 because 3.5% of the total income reported on their tax returns was business income from Mrs. Cheney's consulting business. She reported $44,580 in business income on Schedule C, nearly all of it from fees paid to her as a director of the Reader's Digest . But giving the Cheneys a tax cut didn't stimulate any hiring; she reported zero employees.



Are Bush and Cheney small business owners? Yep. Do they deserve a tax break for it? Bush's net worth is estimated between $9 and 26 million (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20040823.html) or $7 to $18 million (http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=1&act=pfin) depending on what you count. Cheney sold his Halliburton shares for $30 million shortly just before he became VP. He is worth between $23 and $111 million . Should these guys get a small business tax break? Kerry's plan says no. Bush's says yes. You get to decide.

Dexter...

PS - on the issues of Presidents, blind trusts and tax returns, this is an interesting article:

http://www.frugalfun.com/presidential-tax-returns.html

[Dexter]

And that's the key - for any US President -- Clinton, Bush Sr, GW Bush... Their investments are held in blind trusts - they usually don't even know what's in them. If Kerry were elected to President, his investments would be held and managed in a blind trust. (Oops! His wife's investments.)


Leo,

my understanding is that there is not a specific law that requires them to use blind trusts, just an ethics guideline. My quick googling failed to turn up an actual law regarding blind trusts. Do you have a reference to a law?

Personally, I think it is a good policy, and as stated, it shows that Bush may not have known that he owns part of a timber company....although if the Democrats could find out so easily via public documents and sites like FactCheck, you'd think that Bush's people could have as well.... :)

Dexter...

[Nomad]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Hallock/networth.jpg

[primesuspect]

Read the bottom line: Includes spousal and dependent information.

Teresa Heinz-Kerry is fabuluosly wealthy. If you took her out of the picture (say they get divorced or something), that graph would change mightily.

[a2jfreak]

Bush has a trust which owns shares of a company. The trust does not own the company. The trust is not a "partner" in the company. Unless the trust had the majority of the shares of the company then the trust doesn't own it. Therefore Bush does not own the company.

Kerry doesn't own Heinz, although the Kerry's have 4% of the shares and somehow I think that 4% of Heinz is worth more than 50% of a timber company.

[Dexter]

Read the bottom line: Includes spousal and dependent information.

Teresa Heinz-Kerry is fabuluosly wealthy. If you took her out of the picture (say they get divorced or something), that graph would change mightily.


From the link I posted above:


But including Teresa Heinz Kerry's personal fortune isn't wholly accurate. As Heinz Kerry has publicly noted, a prenuptial agreement keeps her money separate. Also, federal election laws limit how much of his wife's funds Kerry can use.

In 2002 financial disclosures, Kerry stated that assets in his own name were worth $409,000 to $1.8 million, and he had an additional $300,000 to $600,000 in assets owned jointly with his wife.

So without his wife's money, Kerry is less wealthy than Bush. But no matter how you count it, both are rich even without a presidential salary.


A2J, backup and read Bush's own tax statement that says " Company is owned equally by The Lone Star Trust (George W. Bush, Grantor) and John Taylor.)"

Owned equally. OWNED equally. If he OWNS something, than he is an OWNER. The IRS, Bush's own accountants, and an independent fact checking organization run from a University's public policy center all agree that Bush *owns* the company. I don't understand why you don't agree, but I think the sources above are somewhat more authoritative on the matter. :)

Dexter...

[CyrixInstead]

I think this all goes to show that it is not about cold, hard facts. It never is, it's the spin you put on those facts i.e. how you present them, that counts.

Why don't you guys take a look at the views of our good non-american news site The BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3728744.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3726486.stm

~Cyrix.

[Nomad]

Read the bottom line: Includes spousal and dependent information.

Teresa Heinz-Kerry is fabuluosly wealthy. If you took her out of the picture (say they get divorced or something), that graph would change mightily.

Yeah I know, however, Kerry has full access to most of his wife's finances.

*Edit*

Why does the world seem more interested in our politics than their own? I was told today by a Swedish friend of mine that his, "Current Politics," class focuses about 75% of the time on America. I would think that number would be considerably smaller when you factor in the Chinese/Indian industrial revolutions, as well as what's going on in Africa now.

[Black Hawk]

Why does the world seem more interested in our politics than their own? I was told today by a Swedish friend of mine that his, "Current Politics," class focuses about 75% of the time on America. I would think that number would be considerably smaller when you factor in the Chinese/Indian industrial revolutions, as well as what's going on in Africa now.
Cause the US is the current "hyper power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpower)" and a lot of their political decisions (mostly foreign relations) affect most countries around the world.

[GHoosdum]

Are Bush and Cheney small business owners? Yep. Do they deserve a tax break for it? Bush's net worth is estimated between $9 and 26 million (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20040823.html) or $7 to $18 million (http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=1&act=pfin) depending on what you count. Cheney sold his Halliburton shares for $30 million shortly just before he became VP. He is worth between $23 and $111 million . Should these guys get a small business tax break? Kerry's plan says no. Bush's says yes. You get to decide.

I say yes. Not for Bush and Cheney, but for all of the legitimate small business owners who seem to be the only places employing folks like me at a decent wage these days (all the big companies are outsourcing me to India) I think that a tax break is deserved. I'm going to really need a job come January. I think if Kerry rolls back the tax cut, then it will be even more difficult for me to find one. I'm all for closing the tax loopholes, but not for rolling back the tax cut.

I missed the name of the Lumber company - I did not realize it was an LLC, and was arguing based on the knowledge of his 50% share, assuming it was a corporation. I was wrong.

Bush's statement during the debate was not incorrect, however. It was news to him that he owns a timber company.

[profdlp]

Interesting chart, Nomad.

At somewhere between $2K and $32K Dennis Kucinich is way overvalued, seeing as how he is a national laughingstock. So where do I end up when I moved 500 miles away from Charlottesville, VA? Right in the heart of his congressional district... :rolleyes:

[EMT]

Tony, I'm very surprised to see that reasoning. I never thought about it like that; that Kerry might be going for Pres just to be remembered rather than because he wants to fix the world (as much as he's able). But honestly I don't see that at all. If you could provide some kind of evidence that'd be great. Personally I'm extremely confident in Kerry's caring for the country, his open view of the world, and his sensitive approach to problems. Does Bush have these qualities?... I don't think he's demonstrated them much. The caring bit could be argued for and I don't want to stereotype Republicans. The other two I want in a President and most people don't see in Bush (although I bet I'll be contradicted there). Anyway, since a lot of folks pin the Repubs with being power-hungry for Presidency and whatnot, it was like I said surprising to hear someone throw that at Kerry.

[profdlp]

Tony, I'm very surprised to see that reasoning. I never thought about it like that; that Kerry might be going for Pres just to be remembered rather than because he wants to fix the world (as much as he's able). But honestly I don't see that at all. If you could provide some kind of evidence that'd be great...
He's been in the Senate for twenty years. What has he done there to that end?

[Xander]

One thing that really gets me about Kerry is that he has seemingly lied about something.
I believe that he lied about his support of the right to bear arms. He has appeared in pictures donning an orange vest and armed with a shotgun. He claims he has been avid hunter all his life and talks about deer hunting with his "trusty double barrel". Yet if you look at his voting record, whenever a bill for gun control came up for approval he voted for it every time. Kerry voted (1998 Senate vote No. 244) to put you in prison for up to a year and impose a $10,000 fine upon you if a juvenile criminal steals your firearm and exhibits it in a public place.

Kerry has a 100 percent rating with the Humane Society of the United States and they call him an "animal protection leader". Why do they call him when he supposedly defends your hunting rights?

Xander signing off.

[Thrax]

I don't believe Kerry cares about the world, particularly.

It's easy to give a caring appearance when youre entire campaign can be modelled on the hindsight bias. It's very easy to go back and say you would've done something differently.. That's why there's an entire psychological study dedicated to such a bias.

Does that necessarily state he doesn't care? No. I'm simply saying that Kerry's "Bigger, better, harder, faster" platform doesn't fly with me, because it's too easy a road to take to make a clear differentiation between it, and real caring.

[Leonardo]

Personally I'm extremely confident in Kerry's caring for the country

I believe every President in my lifetime (since 1961) has cared deeply about the USA. One's feelings are not the basis for earning my vote. I care about results. How can we attempt to predict the results? We can look at the record and extrapolate into the future. Foolproof? Of course not; but it's the most reliable predictor.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
-Old Adage

"Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold -- but so does a hard-boiled egg."
-Anonymous

No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions..."
-Margaret Thatcher

The philosophy and principles of any candidate are worthy of note however, words must be backed by deeds to be credible.

[Clutch]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Hallock/networth.jpg



Ok so what does this prove again? Besides the small writing on the bottom?
:scratch:

[Clutch]

Cause the US is the current "hyper power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpower)" and a lot of their political decisions (mostly foreign relations) affect most countries around the world.

Exactly, most of our decisions affect most countries, I mean we are at war with a country becuase they have WMD, I mean we found them, we have them all in a safe right.....................¿¿¿ :scratch:

[GHoosdum]

I agree with Xander - Kerry's stance on gun control is totally counter to his claims of being a hunter. Personally, I'm all for the protection of my second amendment rights, not the erosion of rights. And John Kerry consistently votes to erode my second amendment rights.

Also, Kerry's 'good intentions' don't really sit well with me. Judging by the way he's run his career, it seems like he's been building up to run for President since the Vietnam war. Even during, it seems like he was running for President. Why else would he make films of himself for use in a Presidential campaign? His entire career seems to be building toward a run for the Presidency, rather than a legitimate desire to serve the country. Wouldn't he have showed up for more important votes if he legitimately cared about the US? Have you seen the images of his photo up in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum?

[profdlp]

Exactly, most of our decisions affect most countries, I mean we are at war with a country becuase they have WMD, I mean we found them, we have them all in a safe right.....................¿¿¿ :scratch:
Clutch, you're becoming a johnny-one-note. :D

WMD have been found in Iraq. (Source) (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-25-iraq-sarin_x.htm) Not the vast quantities expected by the CIA, UK, France, Germany, the UN, Hans Blix, etc etc etc, but they were found. Two litres worth (so far). Of course, that's only enough to kill 500,000 people so some folks aren't impressed...

The whole world thought they were there, yet you seem to lay all the blame for intelligence failures on one man, Bush. (You might want to check out Kerry's consistent record of voting for cuts in our intelligence spending - was that part of his "plan"?)

We have been at war with Iraq since the UN authorized it following Saddams invasion of Kuwait in 1990. There was a cease-fire (after he got his ass royally kicked) contingent on a number of things, including allowing inspectors to search for WMD. Saddam waited until the world got bored with the situation and kicked the inspectors out. The UN passed 19 different resolutions warning of "stern consequences". Saddam told them to go piss up a rope. Someone finally did something about it, though.

Would anyone be happy to see Saddam back in power? If so, why?

If Bush had done nothing about him and Saddam had managed to help terrorists kill millions of people (picture a repeat of the twin towers, except this time the dust from the collapsing buildings has been replaced by a cloud of nerve gas) the same people jumping all over Bush for acting would be blaming him for those millions of deaths.

Perhaps the most important difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush has shown that he will take the fight to the terrorists. John Kerry says "Any attack will be met with a swift response..." That might be a little late, don't you think?

[Dexter]

Why does the world seem more interested in our politics than their own?

Let me take a stab at this...at the risk of being majorly flamed....

Here in Canada, we are your biggest trading partner. Billions of dollars of trade flow in both directions across our shared border. In fact, my company is a distributor almost exclusively of products manufactured by an American company. We share the world's largest undefended border. We have cities within close distances to each other, close enough to be affected by the pollution, crime / drug problems of the other. Some of them are also close enough to be within the impact zone of a nuclear warhead, the radiation zone of a dirty bomb, the infection area of an airborne virus or a contact spread epidemic.

If someone who hates you decides to nuke cities in upper Michigan, New York, etc, or release a killer virus, Canadian cities will be affected. We would be colleratoral damage, an acceptable result to the perpetrators, justifiable by our close ties with "the great satan", even though *our* foreign policies may not what caused them to hate *you.*

It has also been the case that some terrorists have looked to Canada as a way to get into the US. Not many years ago they caught a fellow with a car full of explosives on a ferry between BC and Washington state. They believe his goal was to set it off at LAX airport. The result was that the US clamped down severely on the northern border, slowing down cargo trucks and regular tourists, subjecting them to new searches, tighter rules, etc. The US blamed Canada for being soft on terrorists and of having lax immigration policies, then threatened trade sanctions if we did not change our immigration laws to suit you. Meanwhile, 19 terrorists came directly into the US without passing through Canada or Mexico, hijacked some planes, and flew them into some buildings. The knee-jerkers blamed Canada again....then had to eat some crow when the truth came out. But for those few days after 9/11, trade screeched to a halt at the borders, and anyone in a turban driving a truck was treated like a terrorist, because it was incorrectly assumed that Canada let the terrorists into your country.

Every major policy decision your country makes affects ours in some way. Annd sometimes, vice versa. When our country discussed legalizing small quantities of marijuana, the US leaned on us with threats of trade sanctions and border snarls to not do that. They wanted to control the policy of our government and our courts, and did not hesitate to use their economic influence to do so.

Globally, the US does the same through out the world. Anywhere a decision is made that is contrary to your country's "interests" in the area, economic pressure is applied to that country. If the EU wants to up certain exports, and the US thinks that will cause lower prices for one of it's industries, perhaps resulting in a decline in sales or job loss, the US does not hesitate to threaten and unilaterally impose other trade sanctions. Often these US actions are contrary to signed trade agreements. Case in point, the softwood lumber dispute with Canada. The US has been bound by NAFTA to follow certain procedures if it feels that our softwood exports are unfairly susbidized. Instead, they ignore that treaty, and impose crippling exprt tarrifs, forcing us to take you to the NAFTA arbitration courts. Each time we do, you lose the decision. You end up paying us back most of the tarriff money. Then, 10 years later, under a new goverment on your side, you do it again. And you lose again. But every time, the US lumber companies with deeper pockets force a couple of smaller Canadian ones into bankruptcy...then try to buy them out to exert more control over our economic policies. With friends like that......

Why else.....?

- US foreign policy over the years has been hypocritical, denouncing civil rights abuses by one country, while propping up the dictator next door who does the same thing. Saddam Hussein was okay while he was your country's puppet, you financed and equipped him when he was at war with Iran. The US encouraged him to go to war with Iran, and sold him the bombs, bullets and mustard gas to do it. Then he decided to invade Kuwait, but didn't ask you first. All of a sudden, he is a bloodthirsty, oil-hungry dictator with WMD's, no regard for human life and delusions of grandeur. Umm, no. He was all those things all along, you just chose to ignore it so long as it met your foreign policy interests in the area at the time. Now change the names and places above using words like Noriega, Panama, Taliban, Afghanistan, and see that the story stays true. Why was it okay for the US to fund and train mujahideen warriors in Afghanistan and the Contra fighters in Nicaragua in the use of terrorism to achieve political ends in the 80's? Because it was in your best interests. Because they were portrayed as "freedom fighters" against Soviet communism. But when insurgents in Iraq fight your troops with the same tactics they are "terrorists." I guess the distinction depends on whom is shooting, and who is being shot. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

- The US trumpets it's policies of freedom and justice and liberty for all, then locks up "enemy combatants" in violation of those ideals and in violation of Geneva conventions. I know the rhetoric, they are not soldiers of a country, they are terrorists without a geo-political base who has signed the treaty. But why not afford them some rights anyway? You want everyone else to aspire to the ideals of justice, why not set the example? Think of the Predator guided missile attack on some *suspected* terrorist leaders in a car in Yemen last year. Those men were executed in a country in which you were not in a state of war with. They were tried, convicted and executed in absentia. How does that encourage other nations to follow the ideals of democratic justice? It doesn't. Then when Isreal does the same thing in Gaza, how can the US denounce it? What if North Korea did the same thing to some suspected enemies in Japan? Would the US denouce that? How can they, without being hyprocrites?

- the US pressures other countries into nuclear non-proliferation treaties, while at the same time it abandons nuclear treaties it signed itself. That is not reassuring to many other countries, all of whom are aware that only one country in history has ever used an atomic weapon on it's enemy in a time of war. Spare me the justifications that it saved lives in the long runs. I know this, I read the same books. Look at it from the outsider's perspective for a moment: it saved a lot of *American* lives. Sure, it saved a lot of Japanese soldiers from dying on the battlefield as well, but that is NOT why you did it. You did it to save American lives. Well, how is the rest of the world to know that if you had a gung-ho warmongering black-and-white "You're either with us or against us" administration, that you would not use nuclear weapons again to save American lives? When you peruse the chat forums around the net and see so many Americans using words like "f**k all those towel heads, let's make glass parking lots of their countries" and you have a President who acts like a Texas cowboy shooting first and asking questions later, you have to be a little nervous about just how willing the US would be to use a nuke or two to save lives in the future.

When you live in the country with the largest economy in the world, the most powerful military in the world, economic interest around the world with a hypocritcal and hackneyed foreign policy history, and have a history of using that military and economic force to influence goverments and policies throughout the globe to suit your interests and needs at the time, you have to expect that other citizens of other countries are going to take a keen interest in who becomes your next president.

Before anyone flames me in response, you should understand that I am married to an American, making my kids half American, and I have extended family in the US. I believe in and support many of the ideals that the average American stands for. I fly an American flag proudly beside the Canadian flag at my house. I am a Commisioned Officer in the Canadian Forces reserve, and believe in and would defend the same ideals of freedom and justice and equality that your country does. And I don't think you are bad, evil, warmongering people. So don't reply calling me an American-hater...it is simply not true. I would be willing to live and work in the US. It is certainly preferable to most other countries in the world. After my home country of Canada, it would be my 2nd or 3rd choice of where to live (close call with Australia....) Heck, I would even be willing to pursue US Citizenship if my career path took my family and I there . But when you look with an outsider's eyes at US foreign policy over the last 100 years, and the US's willingness to do whatever suits them economically and even militarily to protect their own self interests, you should be able to understand why we want to know what the interests, policies and ideals of your leaders and potential leaders are.


Many people in your own country see this history of foreign policy hypocrisy which causes international tensions, and are willing to speak about it openly...most of my research sources for these facts came from American sites. But these are simply some of the reasons why other countries take a keen interest in your policies...as stated by others above, many decisions your country makes affect many people in many nations, and not all of them are happy about them all the time.

Whew, that was long...that took my whole lunch break to type, my apologies for the length.

Dexter... :)

[profdlp]

...But when you look with an outsider's eyes at US foreign policy over the last 100 years, and the US's willingness to do whatever suits them economically and even militarily to protect their own self interests, you should be able to understand why we want to know what the interests, policies and ideals of your leaders and potential leaders are...
That's certainly reasonable enough. I followed the recent election in Australia for the very same reason, knowing the results would have an impact on my own country.

I think where most Americans get ticked off is when people in other countries seem both mystified and angry (I'm not referring to you) that we do act in our own self-interest. I wouldn't expect the government of Canada (or any other country) to behave any differently. That is their job, after all.

Also, while some may disagree with you on some points, I can't see anyone flaming you for anything you just said.

[Dexter]

I think where most Americans get ticked off is when people in other countries seem both mystified and angry (I'm not referring to you) that we do act in our own self-interest. I wouldn't expect the government of Canada (or any other country) to behave any differently. That is their job, after all.




Prof, that is absolutely a great point on the topic. We all want our countries to act in our best interests. And since the US with it's mega-economy has wide-ranging and far-flung interests, it impacts the interests of nations everywhere. The trick is knowing what your country's interests really are, and whether what your goverment is telling you is really in your best interests.

As the American government found it with the Vietnam conflict, a large and loud segment of the population did not agree with their government's assesment that being in Vietnam was in your country's best interests. The aftermath of that is till felt today, one almost cannot discuss Iraq without comparisons to Vietnam, and the word "draft" sends shudders down the collective spine of American youth. There are definite parallels, and many feel that the best interests of your country could have been better served by staying out of Iraq. The divisions are going to run deep and hard, the longer that war drags on. For your youth's sake I hope it does not drag on, and that rumors of a draft stay as simply rumors.

Would have been so much easier if they found some real WMD's in Iraq...make it a lot more cut and dried. :)

Dexter...

[Clutch]

Clutch, you're becoming a johnny-one-note. :D

You mean like Bush saying "It's hard work" over and over? hehe I love you Prof



Perhaps the most important difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush has shown that he will take the fight to the terrorists. John Kerry says "Any attack will be met with a swift response..." That might be a little late, don't you think?

Ok so you want to talk about late response? How about on 9/11 Bush was told at 9:03 AM by Chief card that "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." so you would think that the President would stop what he was doing and attend to the Country right?







Well he didn't, he sat in the classroom he was in for over 5 minutes just doing nothing, he didn't stop to tell the teacher he had to leave because the country was under attack, he just sat there. Now we can talk about being a little late on things. I know I couldn't just act as if nothing happened when I just found out thousands of people are dying.

[Nomad]

Yes Clutch, because if George W. had left that instance, he could have single handedly stopped the other two planes that were hijacked that day.

"one almost cannot discuss Iraq without comparisons to Vietnam, and the word "draft" sends shudders down the collective spine of American youth. There are definite parallels, and many feel that the best interests of your country could have been better served by staying out of Iraq. "

I would refute that the comparisons between are Iraq and Vietnam are nominal, I normally see them as an attempt to draw this war to an unpopular war and liken them so much as to cause people distress. This simply isn't true, the casualty rates between the two are just not at all the same. Some similarities could be drawn between the Vietcong and the insurgents we currently have, but those insurgents could also be compared to dozens of other factions through history.

While the word draft may send a shiver down some peoples spines, I think you'd be suprised how many young Americans are considerably just not worried about it at all, because they know it's political suicide for anyone who would initiate a draft. While many may feel it is in our best interest, it's clearly not the majority, a recent gallup poll showed 60% of Americans still agreed with the war in Iraq.* This is even shown by the fact that the Democratic challenger of the incumbent says he intends to put more troops in Iraq.

*This is different then people agreeing with how it's being handled.

[Clutch]

Yes Clutch, because if George W. had left that instance, he could have single handedly stopped the other two planes that were hijacked that day :rolleyes: He actually left that classroom and went to New York against the advisement of his security staff.


I guess you missed the whole point, maybe you were still counting those "100,000" troops you know about that others don't :rolleyes: its beyond common sense to say he couldn't stop the other two planes. It isn't the fact that he sat there for over 5 minutes knowing the country was under attack either :shakehead You just don't sit there with a dumb look on your face when you hear news like this. If someone came to you in class and told you that your car is on fire, would you sit there and act as if nothing was wrong? I don't think so.

[Dexter]

What is more interesting to know just what Bush knew, and when he knew it that morning. According to this essay, what he knew and when he knew it depends on whom you aked and when you asked them. Various reports had him knowing before he got to the school, after he got to the school, while he was sitting with the children, etc. Apparently Bush's own statement on that time period changed and contradicted itself over time:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

Of course, it's easy to sedond guess after the fact, isn't it? Granted, Bush could not have made a big difference in those 7 minutes, that's what there are government and military officials for. But I don't think I could have just sat there either, and I think Kerry's answer made sense..."Boys and girls, I'm sorry, but the President of the United States has to go take care of something."

Dexter...

[Clutch]

On to another subject before the final debate tonight.

Lets talk about Jobs. How about the $180 million that Bush cut from the Youth Opportunity Grants in 2003, so much for young peopel getting jobs, guess there not important. Or how about the $399 million cut from the Health Resources and Services Administration? How about the entire $10 million for universal hearing screening for newborn babies?

Under Bush's plan he was to increase $40 billion increase per year to medicare, how come in 2004 he was 85% away from this goal?

[Nomad]

On to another subject before the final debate tonight.

Lets talk about Jobs. How about the $180 million that Bush cut from the Youth Opportunity Grants in 2003, so much for young peopel getting jobs, guess there not important. Or how about the $399 million cut from the Health Resources and Services Administration? How about the entire $10 million for universal hearing screening for newborn babies?

Under Bush's plan he was to increase $40 billion increase per year to medicare, how come in 2004 he was 85% away from this goal?

Go to the final debate thread for that, I'd expect John Kerry to bring up things like that tonight so you'll see the answers from Bush himself.

"If someone came to you in class and told you that your car is on fire, would you sit there and act as if nothing was wrong? I don't think so."

Since you said that my statement missed the whole point, I'm going to say yours misses mine. The fact is, there is nothing that could have been done during that time of him leaving, it would have changed no events in what was happening, it is absolutely pointless to debate five minutes in which nothing could have been done. The teacher of the classroom said something to the same effect as it was calming to have the president there in that time of need.

[Clutch]

Like I said, "its beyond common sense to say he couldn't stop the other two planes" that was your point right? Since we were talking about being a little late ( read prof's post above" ) I came back with Bush being a little late on the whole reaction to him being told the country was under attack. So I'm just guessing that you would sit there while someone told you that your car was on fire. I'm glad it is real calming to know that the President was sitting down in a classroom as if nothing happened while his country was under attack, hey that makes me calm enough not to vote for him.

[profdlp]

...If someone came to you in class and told you that your car is on fire, would you sit there and act as if nothing was wrong? I don't think so.
No. I might be able to put the fire out. I am not, however, capable of stopping an airplane from crashing into a building while sitting in an elementary school classroom.

I did once stay in class and act as if nothing were wrong while my car was being towed. One of my classmates came in and told me what was going on. Since the student lot I was in was a fifteen minute walk across the campus I knew there was nothing I could do about. I spent the next two hours trying to do something constructive, in this case that happened to be attempting to master a few Spanish verbs. ;D

Let's face it. Had Bush leapt to his feet and raced out of the room he would be criticized for scaring a bunch of little kids, not to mention possibly panicking the entire nation.

Of course, it could have been much worse... (http://www.washingtondispatch.com/page2/archives/000468.html)

[Clutch]

Well I mean he said "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to...and I would have attended to it." so if he was the president this is what he would have done. Even I didn't know what to think when I heard the news, but if I were the leader of the country there would be only time to react, just like Kerry said. Half of America didn't know what to think during that time, but you do expect the President to do more than sit there as if he hadn't just heard what happened. Maybe that is just me though.

[entropy]

What is more interesting to know just what Bush knew, and when he knew it that morning. According to this essay, what he knew and when he knew it depends on whom you aked and when you asked them. Various reports had him knowing before he got to the school, after he got to the school, while he was sitting with the children, etc. Apparently Bush's own statement on that time period changed and contradicted itself over time:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

Of course, it's easy to sedond guess after the fact, isn't it? Granted, Bush could not have made a big difference in those 7 minutes, that's what there are government and military officials for. But I don't think I could have just sat there either, and I think Kerry's answer made sense..."Boys and girls, I'm sorry, but the President of the United States has to go take care of something."

Dexter...

Ugh, ok. I actually didn't have the time/patience to read that entire article. But I agree with some of the others. WHAT would the kids think, if while reading for the president, he just says he has to go, with no explanation? Not good.

Also, did you notice in that article (I read about 1/3 and skimmed the rest) how there was an awful lot of assumptions, and butchered quotes? Far too many for my liking.

I'm sorry Dex, I know you're almost always very well versed and have a bucketful of reasons to back up your opinions, but I felt that page was a complete hackjob who's sole purpose was to portray Bush as some sort of "horrible procrastinator".

And they're full of it. He looked pretty damn distracted after he was told what happened. I, at least, could tell that he was only half-there ... it didn't seem like what he was saying was the main thing he was thinking about.

He did the right thing, in my eyes. YES, I'm pro-Bush, YES, I'm anti-kerry. I really don't like Kerry one little bit, and Bush isn't even close to what I would love to see in a President. But, the lesser of two evils, I feel...

EDIT: Guys, in all honesty, it was a matter of a handful of minutes. It isn't that important. There is nothing more he could've accomplished with those few minutes, other than manage to confuse a room full of children and confuse and/or anger the teacher and everyone else in that room. If he'd've ran out right away, there would be people screaming, "Look what Bush did! He just up and left right away. He was too rash and probably scared all the kids. What a terrible man!" ....

[Nomad]

The quotes in that article were so butchered, they were like.

"Hey ... is ... that my ... bacon ... sandwich?"

[Clutch]

haha, that was too damn funny. lol. "Would.....you...like....fries...with.....that"

;D

[Leonardo]

“Let me take a stab at this...at the risk of being majorly flamed....”

Thanks for your comments. It is very valuable for anyone to view their own country or culture through the eyes of someone from a foreign country. My nine years living overseas provided insights that I probably would have never gained otherwise

"It has also been the case that some terrorists have looked to Canada as a way to get into the US. Not many years ago they caught a fellow with a car full of explosives on a ferry between BC and Washington state. They believe his goal was to set it off at LAX airport. The result was that the US clamped down severely on the northern border, slowing down cargo trucks and regular tourists, subjecting them to new searches, tighter rules, etc. The US blamed Canada for being soft on terrorists and of having lax immigration policies...”

The US certainly has its flaws. Both Canada and the US have international borders thousands of miles long to protect. Canada does many things, but not all, well. When I say ‘Great neighbors to the North’, I really mean it. (Oops, actually, you are southeast of me now.) If I were to give letter grades for border security, I’d give the US a ‘C+’ (improved since 9/11). I’d probably give Canada a ‘D’. Canada never has taken border security seriously. Until very recently, Canada has been renowned as a country very easy for a foreigner to enter with very little risk of scrutiny of identity or background. No slam on Canada. Both our countries certainly have room for improvement.

“Globally, the US does the same through out the world...”

Actually, I agree with much of what you wrote above in your post above. I do though, believe any country’s leaders should look out for their own people first; but breaking or ignoring treaties is not right. If a treaty is deemed illogical or unsound, then the dissenting nation should formally pull out of the treaty, as in the case of the US formally separating itself from the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. (Concerning the US’ erratic behavior concerning NAFTA: yup, we are pretty big hypocrites when it comes to ‘free trade’. I hate unwarranted protectionism, whether sponsored by the left or the right - it just damages all parties’ economies.)

“US foreign policy over the years has been hypocritical, denouncing civil rights abuses by one country, while propping up the dictator next door who does the same thing.”

To a point - yes. But that’s oversimplification. We can’t turn around every evil government in the world. We would need an Armed Forces several times the size it is now. We would need a president even more stubborn and determined than GW Bush. I can just imagine the cries of "American emperialism...cowboy foreign policy". Pragmatism dictates that we must balance the needs of our own country and the desire to spread democracy. I think it is undisputed though, that we have cottoned to regimes in the past that we shouldn't have. It really is a difficult balance, and sometimes well fall flat on our face. The only way to avoid mistakes, and the resultant deserved criticism is keep to one's self and avoid national expression. But then, we'd be in another mileau - isolationism. Not an apology here - just the way it is as I see it.

“Saddam Hussein was okay while he was your country's puppet, you financed and equipped him when he was at war with Iran. The US encouraged him to go to war with Iran, and sold him the bombs, bullets and mustard gas to do it.”

Correct, except for the "mustard gas". At the time, Iran was considered a greater threat to world stability than was Iraq. Radical, fundamentalist Islam controlling a nation with nuclear weapons intentions and modern military hardware was viewed as dangerous to the world and the US. And the fact that our entire US embassy staff was held hostage by "students" with the tacit approval of the ruling mullahs didn't exactly set the stage for equality of treatment concerning Iraq and Iran. Also, I don't think a "puppet" would have invaded it's master's friend - Kuwait.

"Then he decided to invade Kuwait, but didn't ask you first."

It was believed that Saddam’s intentions went beyond acquisition of Kuwait.

Had Iraq taken the Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields, there would have been global economic chaos. OPEC would be philanthorpists by comparison. And, by the way, the ramifications would have been much worse for Europe and Asia than for the US. And for those that disdain American unilateral military action, the Gulf War (I) was fully sanctioned and encouraged by the UN.

”The US trumpets it's policies of freedom and justice and liberty for all, then locks up "enemy combatants" in violation of those ideals and in violation of Geneva conventions.”

“Violation” is debatable. It really all depends upon whether the detaining nation has formally declared war. Prisoners of war are always detained or imprisoned. (Of course, war criminals shoot legitimate prisoners.) The legality of the action hinges on definition of war without a formal declaration of such. My personal opinion is that if the coalition picked up armed combatants in Afghanistan that weren’t 'friendlies', they are therefore “enemy combatants” subject to prisoner of war status if they are in uniform; subject to indefinite detention if not uniform.

“But why not afford them some rights anyway?”

They were, and have been! They have received necessary medical care, shelter, adequate food, and even access to religious clerics of their particular faith.

“The US pressures other countries into nuclear non-proliferation treaties, while at the same time it abandons nuclear treaties it signed itself.”

Abandon? If you are referring to the 1972 ABM treaty with the USSR: that treaty had a provision that the signatories could withdraw with formal announcement - as the US did in 2002. The provision was applicable to the USSR as well. I am not one to view anti-ballistic missiles as threatening to anyone. The US has kept its word on treaties based on SALT, START, START II, and INF and has not abondoned those agreements.

“When you live in the country with the largest economy in the world, the most powerful military in the world, economic interest around the world with a hypocritcal and hackneyed foreign policy history, and have a history of using that military and economic force to influence goverments and policies throughout the globe to suit your interests and needs at the time, you have to expect that other citizens of other countries are going to take a keen interest in who becomes your next president.”

Indeed. I think you’ve expressed the view of millions of people who are not US citizens. No flaming you, Sir. I think you’ve brought a lot of food for thought into this thread. Although I’d love to debate you ad nauseam, with my apologies, I’m simply not going to take the time needed to do so. Not avoiding your articulate arguments at all - I would concede much of what you posit.

” I believe in and support many of the ideals that the average American stands for. I fly an American flag proudly beside the Canadian flag at my house. I am a Commisioned Officer in the Canadian Forces reserve, and believe in and would defend the same ideals of freedom and justice and equality that your country does.”

Although I just became a civilian a couple weeks ago, I salute you! Thank you (personally and collectively as a nation) for being my neighbor. (Wow! Leo gets warm and fuzzy - and he really means it. :bawling: )

“Many people in your own country see this history of foreign policy hypocrisy which causes international tensions, and are willing to speak about it openly...”

And so it must be for any democracy to flourish, freedom of speech must not only be allowed, but must be encouraged.

“Whew, that was long...that took my whole lunch break to type, my apologies for the length”.

No apologies necessary. (Besides, I’m just getting warmed up. I’ll probably need to apologize when I’m done.)

---------------------------------------------

"word draft' sends shudders down the collective spine of American youth"

Those who shudder should quit listening to self-serving idiots who don’t care whom they frighten. New York and South Carolina voters should express their dismay with their respective politicians, Rep. Charles Wrangel (D) and Sen. “Fritz” Hollings (D) respectively. Also, the sky-is-falling site stopthedraftnow.com would do wall to research what they react to for more than three minutes.
Associate Press Summary of MTV Stunt and Rumor (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_go_co/the_draft)
Time Magazine Article on Origin of Rumor (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041018-713207,00.html)

-----------------------------------

“You mean like Bush saying "It's hard work" over and over?”

And every time he says it, he’s absolutely correct. It’s not a 45 minute television show where Hollywood puts all the pieces back together in one episode. It took nearly ten years in central Europe after the crushing of fascism in Germany, Italy, and Romania to build lasting democracies. (No offense Clutch - I respect your opinion, just disagree.) Cleaning up a mess always takes much longer than making a mess. I’ve been to two wars in that region, in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. As Paul Harvey would say: “It is not one world”. It will take MUCH hard work and dogged determination to transform a nation that has known nothing except dictatorial tyranny and monarchy, a nation surrounded by dictatorships and religious oligarchies, into a functional democracy.

So, we weren’t prepared for the war’s aftermath? No, we weren’t. Unfortunate - but so what? It's water under the bridge. We’ll make the best of it. We weren’t prepared for nearly all of our most significant campaigns in the entire history of our nation. Strange, I don't recall FDR being castigated by historians for being nearly completely unprepared for WWII.

-----------------------------

"I would refute that the comparisons between are Iraq and Vietnam are nominal, I normally see them as an attempt to draw this war to an unpopular war and liken them so much as to cause people distress.”

But, the intentions were good in both wars. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson thought Vietnam was justified - great intentions to prevent an assumed “domino effect” of Communist takeovers. Intentions as they were for Congress and President Bush, were also good for the Iraq invasion. So what’s the deal? I thought good intentions immunized leadership? (Yeah, tongue in check. Let’s just make sure we apply our standards the same to leaders from both sides of the spectrum.)

---------------------------------------

“Lets talk about Jobs. How about the $180 million that Bush cut from the Youth Opportunity Grants in 2003, so much for young peopel getting jobs, guess there not important. Or how about the $399 million cut from the Health Resources and Services Administration? How about the entire $10 million for universal hearing screening for newborn babies?”

"Under Bush's plan he was to increase $40 billion increase per year to medicare, how come in 2004 he was 85% away from this goal?” Of course, such funding would only increase the budget deficit, which would be entirely Bush’s fault."

Keep in mind how much of the press and most tax-and-spend politicians (left and right) define “cut”. It means that the rate of increase is lower than projected or promised. If my employer promised me a 25% raise, but only provides a 10% raise, it is not a cut, but an increase. Of course, I could whine and cry that my pay was cut, and probably get many people to believe me. I tend to be honest, though. If these are actual cuts, please correct me. To my knowledge, their have been no real cuts in social spending. In fact, Bush has pumped enormous amounts of money into many of the opposition party’s darling social programs. If one party increases spending, they are heros and care about the ‘common man’. If another party increases spending, it’s a cut, “taking food out of the mouths” of the needy, and forcing the elderly to choose between prescription medications or their meals. If one party increases taxes on social security income (not the present Administration), it's called fiscal responsibility. If another party wants to try something new and let people invest part of their own Social Security taxes in order to beat Social Security's abysmal returns, well, well....we just can't trust the common man to make decisions for himself.

(No offense to the poster. It’s a matter of press speak when they don’t like a particular politician or party.)

(OK, my apologies. I got so addled staring at this screen so long that I strayed way off topic. Well, it is all about the debate, right? :scratch:

[Leonardo]

For continuity, please move to this thread (http://www.short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?p=197572&posted=1#post197572) .

That is all. Return to your stations.

[CyrixInstead]

One final comment on the Bush waiting thing. 5 or so minutes is a very long time to react when you have just been 'invaded'. Think if that had been The Russians in the Cold War - in that time they would have had every single nuke they owned on it's way over to you and God knows what else.

It didn't matter what Kerry did, he wasn't the president then. It didn't matter what anybody else did, sod the children - have you ever been at school and the fire brigade have come to do a talk and they've had to bugger off to a fire partway through? They can't just sit around for 5 minutes.

OK so Bush couldn't have done anything about the planes then, but he has a duty to the people to be there for them at such a time, making decisions like grounding all planes etc etc.

~Cyrix