Kerry Tanked it?

[no1tovote4]

What's the URL for that other site? I'd like to see that myself...

I am uncomfortable posting links to other boards, I am not here to attempt to move people to another board but to get a view from other people than the ones that I know on that board. Is there a rule against it? If not I will post it.

 

[wade]

Well, however you want to try to deny it, the general consensus is that Kerry won the first debate, especially amougn undecideds.

Did you see Bush stand there like a deer in the headlights on one question, not saying anything for almost 15 seconds? LOL - kinda like his reaction when told the country was under attack!

Wade.

 

[eric]

A man's policies, convictions, and his ability to make decisive decisions are not predicated on his inherent talents of articulation, debate, and argument. To me, these debates have very little value in determining who should lead this nation.

 

[krisy]

A man's policies, convictions, and his ability to make decisive decisions are not predicated on his inherent talents of articulation, debate, and argument. To me, these debates have very little value in determining who should lead this nation.

I agree,eric. I think the majority of people have allready made up their mind and the debates aren't going to change them. There probably are a few undecideds out there who will watch all 3 and then decide.

 

[eric]

There probably are a few undecideds out there who will watch all 3 and then decide.

Agreed !!

 

[Comrade]

Well, however you want to try to deny it, the general consensus is that Kerry won the first debate, especially amougn undecideds.

Did you see Bush stand there like a deer in the headlights on one question, not saying anything for almost 15 seconds? LOL - kinda like his reaction when told the country was under attack!

A Micheal Moore fan, I see. Why am I not surprised, wade?

I always have to guess about your shining examples, like the 'one question'? When is Bush a deer and not a monkey?

The few seconds of pause here after Kerry's remark is the longest I recall, hardly 15 seconds. And the 'Global Test' statement from Kerry is worthy of pause!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?


KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War.

I won't even bother to pull up Kerry's voting record on this!

And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

Kerry being against the 'great doctrine' he describes, per his record.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But? Does Kerry have a 'but'?

But

if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.[/b]

Global fucking test?

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

"Had to?" You wish! And this 'apology' netted what?

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

So the FRENCH trusting us, that's the global test!!! :shocked:

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.

Who the hell is Kerry talking about? Not Poland, or UK, or Australia, but who?

This is why Bush is looking frustrated!!!

Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet.

OMG, thats like classic Quaylism!

"We don't want to go back to tomorrow, we want to go forward."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle

"I have made good judgments in the Past. I have made good judgments in the Future."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle

"The future will be better tomorrow."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle



"Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet."
-- Senator John Kerry


Worthy of a quote in the 'Best of the Web' among the 'Great orators of the Democratic Party' section! I'll forward it to them, so look for it soon!

http://www.opinionjournal.com/

But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time --
anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress.

Oooooops! Freudian slip!

Anyone remember Kerry in the DNC speech?

"We will double our special forces to conduct terrorist operations --- anti-terrorist operations."

It's stuff like this where some see Kerry as the ultimate involuntary flip-flopper.

And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.

Now who the hell is he kidding? What refusal of which treaty caused 9-11 again?

[/QUOTE]
You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.[/QUOTE]

And Kyoto was naturally why OBL bombed the US.

Look at the question:

LEHRER: What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: .....You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.

WTF, not just Bush is confused!

KERRY: You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.

To France, right?

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

At this point I am speechless.

BUSH: Let me --

Couple secs pass with Bush speechless.

This is where you get your 15 seconds of Bush in the headlights.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.

To anyone, including Bush, you can only pause in disbelief. Where do you start? The Cuban Missile Crisis? How JFK convinced France to step in and scare the Soviets off from Cuba? And this JFK will get France to fix Iraq for us?

My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

BINGO! Look, a president who claims American interests are paramount! Let's elect him!

My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions.

And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.

And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.

My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.

But what of France?



Do people get the impression that Kerry doesn't understand the job description of being an American President?

You work for America and not France. Let's recap Kerry:

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But...

pass global test...
cowtow to UN...
France loved JFK...
force environment treaty on Congress.

And you buy that tripe and think he won the debate on those arguments? We're you listening?

 

[wade]

Comrade - the general consensus, from virtually all media sources, INCLUDING FOX, and all polls, is that Kerry won the debate.

Are you seriously denying this?

As for the "Global Test" statement, i think he should have clarified this, but I think it is clear he meant the global test of time - i.e. your arguments for going to war had better hold up. Bush's did not, there were no WMD's.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Comrade - the general consensus, from virtually all media sources, INCLUDING FOX, and all polls, is that Kerry won the debate.

Are you seriously denying this?

Do you think I made the numbers and links to the polls up?

I mean WTF took you so long to see I'm saying Bush indeed won?

As for the "Global Test" statement, i think he should have clarified this, but I think it is clear he meant the global test of time - i.e. your arguments for going to war had better hold up. Bush's did not, there were no WMD's.

Then instead of explaining how Kyoto treaties help stop Iran from getting nukes he should have actually made sense like you'd imagine this making.

 

[wade]

Do you think I made the numbers and links to the polls up?

I mean WTF took you so long to see I'm saying Bush indeed won?

Well, you are just about alone in this opinion. Virtually everyone else except the far right can see Kerry won, and pretty handily too.

 

[Comrade]

Well, you are just about alone in this opinion. Virtually everyone else except the far right can see Kerry won, and pretty handily too.

Why don't we circle back on Nov. 3rd and we'll see who this 'everyone' is you speak of, alrighty wade?

 

[wade]

Why don't we circle back on Nov. 3rd and we'll see who this 'everyone' is you speak of, alrighty wade?

The debate is hardly the election. There is no doubt that Bush has the advantage overall. And if he doesn't win fair and square, he will cheat like he did before.

 

[Avatar4321]

The debate is hardly the election. There is no doubt that Bush has the advantage overall. And if he doesn't win fair and square, he will cheat like he did before.

Problem is President Bush never cheated to begin with. Simply because you dont like him and the courts prevented Vice President Gore from cheating like he wanted to does not mean the President cheated. President Bush won the original count. He won the two official recounts that followed. He won the recount using Gore's methods of counting. He won the the unofficial media recounts after the election. At no time did Vice President Gore hold a lead in any of the counts of the Florida vote. President Bush held the lead even after Vice President Gore had the military ballots cast out.

But youre a commie so why the heck do i expect you to be honest about anything. You cant even be honest with yourself.

 

[Comrade]

I agree with Avatar4321, you can't be honest with yourself so why should anyone be willing to believe you anymore?

We've talked enough that I know two things:

1. Any Bush victory won 'fair and square' is an impossible condition to you. When Bush is re-elected I will expect you will never accept it was earned and not swindled. You're simply setting up the idea of him cheating in advance y bringing up your preconditioned 2000 perception. This is lie we see, and you should admit.

2. Claims like this reminds me of how you've been sold on Leftist propaganda for so long, you can casually toss that out... Bush cheating in 2000? Sure, we hear the moonbat left claim that on the internet, which you re-iterate automatically.

But think about it...not even Kerry, or even Dean during his 15 minutes of fame, ever openly accused Bush like this.

You want to know why neither brought it up when speaking for the same Democrats under Gore who originally sued to dispute the results?

Because Democrats know deep down that such baseless, fanatical beliefs are really just too ridiculous to state openly.

Only a rare few among the hard left buy this accusation anymore. And sure, that includes most of France.

But obviously Kerry would drive off more moderates than he could gain from his 'anyone but Bush' guarantees by declaring something so bold like you would.

And that says something about you, doesn't it?

When will you stop yanking our chain and just come out of the closet to declare your support for the hard left? We just want a little honesty!

So just where have you been getting your info before you came to USMB?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In case anyone is wondering, it's clear wade has no core self. He's hawkish one day, a peacenik the next. His mind is a series of fallback positions on the path of retreat from reality, like most libs.

 

[Comrade]

I hear that.

Wade, one moment you are a warmongering madman who says we should have unleashed neutron bombs to take out Saddam (and several city blocks, too!) to create a solution in Iraq (was it ever a real threat?), and the next you are saying the US should shift billions in aid from Israel to Palestine (ie. Arafat and his totalitarian, decades old, terrorist sponsoring regime), which is undeniably a far left agenda, shared by Saddam who personally gave millions to Palestine, as you propose the USA does. After we kill him.

But no matter how you might obfuscate the obvious, what it all means is that Bush must go.

Now you've suggested all the conflicts between Islam and the world can eventually end as a result of taking out Saddam and giving money to Palestinians.

No don't get me wrong, I like to discuss crazy ass ideas, and welcome them in debate.

But on the other hand, who are you kidding? If Bush had assasinated Saddam, abandoned Israel, and gave billions to the PLO and others, your position would still be:

1. Bush cheated to win the election.

2. Bush is mad to have uselessly nuked Iraq, murdering thousands in a helpless country .... henious war crime ... international outrage...etc.

3. Bush supports Arafat and terrorist driven government distribution of funds by giving billions to them and yet complains of Arab charities? And nukes Saddam?

or

3. Bush occupies Palestine with troops to allegedly distrubute billions in aid and projects. (Because Jews want us to do their dirty work?)


I don't really know what alternative events might have unfolded had we used your solutions since 9-11, but I can honestly say I have no doubt that if Bush had done either, you'd be still calling him a cheat from 2000 and all those things he did per you were just as stupid and ignorant as the other thing.

You've gotten better about condescending to others, and Kudos to you for not being baited by insults recently. But I hope you see the difference between higher rated liberals here who are at least honest and reasonable with their positions, instead of in denial.

 

[wade]

I never said to abandon Israeal, or to stop providing them military aid, in my suggestion that we buy off the Palastinians. The two things are not mutually exlcusive.

Where do you come up with thosands of innocent Iraqi casualties? The area of effect of a small neutron bomb is a couple of city blocks - there are not thousands of innocents within that distance of the target areas. Perhaps a few hundred maybe.

As for Bush having cheated in the 2000 election - the actions taken to either prevent opposition voting or to invalidate those votes is cheating.

 

[dilloduck]

I never said to abandon Israeal, or to stop providing them military aid, in my suggestion that we buy off the Palastinians. The two things are not mutually exlcusive.

Where do you come up with thosands of innocent Iraqi casualties? The area of effect of a small neutron bomb is a couple of city blocks - there are not thousands of innocents within that distance of the target areas. Perhaps a few hundred maybe.

As for Bush having cheated in the 2000 election - the actions taken to either prevent opposition voting or to invalidate those votes is cheating.

Your ignorance of the mid-east situation is nearly as bad as your claims of what happened in the 2000 elections.

 

[sitarro]

I never said to abandon Israeal, or to stop providing them military aid, in my suggestion that we buy off the Palastinians. The two things are not mutually exlcusive.

Where do you come up with thosands of innocent Iraqi casualties? The area of effect of a small neutron bomb is a couple of city blocks - there are not thousands of innocents within that distance of the target areas. Perhaps a few hundred maybe.

As for Bush having cheated in the 2000 election - the actions taken to either prevent opposition voting or to invalidate those votes is cheating.

Wade ,
Your posts remind me of the answers given on the celebrity jeopardy parody on Saturday Night Live . Your complete and total belief in everything the Democrats shovel down your throat only makes you naive at best or a dumbass at worse .. . . I don't mean anything bad by that though .