U.S. Presidental Debates

[coreybyrnes]

who watched the debates last night? i watched every second...


my take: anyone who votes for Bush cares nothing for foreign policy, peace, the truth, andgood-judgement... i'm not saying i love Kerry... i think the vote will be for the lesser of two evils... but i am stnogly anti-Bush... i'm just saying that bush is a complete moron and if he is elected president i will be devastated and disappointed in my fellow americans for electing such a spineless anddishonest fool

[jayavo]

i didnt watch one second.


i think that there is a much bigger problem than this one election. and it is the control of america by the two parties as both are in turn controlled by corporations. the founding fathers launched a revolution against britain for this very, exact reason. its time we the people do the same. i know, i know, this isnt the election to vote third party....but when will be?


there is a history of america supporting the lesser of two evils. stalin was the lesser against hitler. saddam was the lesser against iran. bin laden was the lesser against the russians. it doesnt work long term. and i still dont see how kerry will be much different. he wont pull troops. his exit strategy is the same. wait til its stable and the iraqis are running their security. well , thats bushs' as well. everyone on the left seems to forget that it was the democrats that bombed the hell out of iraq and afghanistan in the 90's. without UN approval. kosovo, whether you agree with it or not , was without UN approval. jophn kerry has said he would act preemptively, just as bush says. it was also the democrats that strengthened the sanctions against iraq, didnt matter that the only people those sanctions hurt was the people of iraq, not its dictator. like hitting a kid and saying thats for your deadbeat dad.


yeah i want bush out....but i want corporate control out more.


jason


"This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."


Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State, when asked on US television if shethought that the death of half a million Iraqi children from sanctions in Iraq was a price worth paying.

[coreybyrnes]

Originally Posted by jayavo

i think that there is a much bigger problem than this one election. and it is the control of america by the two parties as both are in turn controlled by corporations.

i couldn't agree more... but where's the reality in that right now? two rich white men are running for president and there's nothing we can do about that for this upcoming election... one step at a time... first step is to get bush out of power...

[cille]

i watched like ½ of it andto me it looked more like show business than politics [img]smileys/smiley5.gif[/img]

[jayavo]

Originally Posted by coreybyrnes

icouldn't agree more... but where's the reality in that right now? two rich white men are running for president and there's nothing we can do about that for this upcoming election... one step at a time... first step is to get bush out of power...

yeah, thats why i certainly understand that position. but i fear that people will consider things finished if bush loses.


you know what it is? i think people are frustrated at the way things are ona level not seen since the 60's. and they want real change. and like the hippies of the 60's, people just dont know what to do with that desire. and so a lot of people have latched onto the defeat bush thing and think things will be better with him gone. and they probably will be , but not in any meaurable way i would consider important. and after we will all fall back asleep as if our job is done. thats why imscared of bush losing. this desire for change is fleeting. people will fall back into their routine and things will be status quo next time around. we will still have two rich white guys, probably from the same fraternity like kerry and bush are, fighting over power. meanwhile the corporations will be laughing at us all. not caring who wins because they know, either way, they are the ones who hold power.


but they still do fear us if we get too close. in the 60's people were very unhappy with the countrys' direction. in '64 third parties combined for less than 1% of the vote. but in '68, 12%. antithird party blitz follows. in '72, back to 1.4%. 1% in '76. now in 80 again, people were very nervous about where we were going. up to 7%. it was an electoral blowout by reagan but only 9 % vote-wise. we were making them nervous again. bang....'84 we are back at .5%. '88, 1%. but 92 people were once again worried. bush led into war, an uncertain economy. boom! perot gets 19%! 19! from a doofus. why did he get 19? his platform was change. time to fear us again. i remember voting for perot. and getting yelled at by clinton supporters saying i almost cost the election. it was on the news too. very similar to the whole nader thing today. so '96 we drop to 8%. then 3%. now nader is getting crucified in the press and polls show 1%. thats the mission accomplished.


the politicians in power have laid the rules for gaining power. they have made it literally impossible for a third party candidate to win in one election. it takes time. small, short victory for long term gain/change. the media reinforces the belief that we have this one or that one. the media is run and owned by the very same companies that run and own the politicians. in every nader interview ive seen on t.v. the interviewer has portrayed nader as almost this evil selfish guy. hes not. what he is, is a threat to the power structure of this country. and it isnt repub or dem. those two fight over who will be the corporations whore, not who will run the country. the only way for real change is change. and that sounds so stupid but with only two parties to choose from, where is the opportunity for that change?


i know im preaching to the choir with you, i guess im just saying dont declare victory after the election should kerry win. make this the d-day of wwII. the beginning of liberation.


and dont forget, damien rice becameknown likehe is practically through word of mouth alone. in two years he went from unknown to worldwide fame. he couldve made it even quicker if he went against his values. sold out to the man. took their advice that their way was the only choice. but it would have cost him something. it would have cost him control over himself. but over the long term we see he is much more free. because he didnt take the short way. some things take time.but in the end he is more free because of his patience and convictions.


jason


Our [the working class] weakness is not knowing our strength


-Jim Bond


i would rather vote for something i wanted and lose, than to vote for something i dont want and win.


-(i forget[img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img])





Being activist is not rolling rocks up hills, or digging useless ditches, or blowing into the wind, or opposing gravity. It is part of the single most important, courageous, and productive undertaking in all human history, one with deep roots and a winning future. Do those who think resigning makes sense really want to say that the abolitionists were wrong, that workers in daily struggles for better wages and conditions have all been wrong, that the advocates of women and blacks and Latinos being people were wrong, that seeking liberation has been and will be wrong? Do they really want to assert that wage slavery is forever? That it violates nature and reason that human beings should control their own lives rather than most people being subject to the domineering will of a very few? Do they really want to say people can't conceive and implement systems in which poverty and starvation and death by preventable disease and denial of dignity and stature are eradicated? On what grounds, do they proclaim such pessimism? Once upon a time, when Pharaohs whipped slaves into building their tombs, or when emperors dragooned peasants into fighting lions for imperial entertainment, or when slave owners lynched growers into subordination, was it desirable to resign from opposition? So why is now any different? Does someone, somewhere, suddenly have a crystal ball which says that no matter how hard humanity struggles, there will be no better future?


Michael Albert

[Wheels]

I don't know how half of the US could want W as their leader...

And how did ANYone think that W won the debate? He was flustered... unclear... if he gets like that when a few mild jabs are thrown at him, how does he get in the situation room? I think the rest of the world knows the answer to that one.

Believe it or not the world actually likes America... well... it used to... and it wants to...

PLEASE vote for Kerry.

[Hendrik]

Bush looked like a pissed off leprechaun...his mouth went rollercoaster when Kerry said something critical.

[Donsie B!]

i watched most of it..kerry came across as more..i dunno..powerful then usual..confident kinda..and bish looked twitchier!


wat y'all thing of kerrys chances?

[Hendrik]

Btw: I love his helpless, whiny and arrogant face expressions...(see also Moore's 9/11) [img]smileys/smiley4.gif[/img] Edited by: Hendrik

[raeisuppose]

I'm very glad I am not old enough to vote this year, because I wouldn't know which way to vote...On all of his policies and ideas I would say that I agree with Kerry, and I hate that Bush threw us into this war when it wasn't needed...but it seemed to me most all of what Kerry said was empty. He kept saying,"I have a plan." and then pounding on the podium saying, "WE WILL GET THEM." ...HOW? And Bush, "Er...em...uhh.. we will win this war, uhh..um..." Bush seems to be out there to try and be the most powerful and not think much about morals or whether something is a wise decision, he's the president, he can do whatever he wants right? It seems like thats what he thinks. Kerry seems to be in it for fame, I read that one of his purple hearts from the Vietnam War was from a scratch on his arm. He threw a grenade too close to himself, a peice hit his arm, scratched him, he went in to get a bandaid and demanded a purple heart. I know you can't beleive all stuff that you read like that...but it made me think anyway... It's just been hard to take either of them seriously.

[Krystian]

hmmmminteresting ad they've made here

[Wheels]

Rae... you don't know which way to vote??? SERIOUSLY, is the rest of the world taking this more seriously than the US? VOTE BUSH OUT. He has DESTROYED your reputation in the world... The effects haven't been too bad because we think you guys got cheated the last time... you voted for Gore and got Bush... not your fault... but if ye vote Bush back in... after everything he has done (not just Iraq) thenI don't think I'd have any respect left for ye.

[OSully]

Originally Posted by Wheels

SERIOUSLY, is the rest of the world taking this more seriously than the US? VOTE BUSH OUT. He has DESTROYED your reputation in the world... The effects haven't been too bad because we think you guys got cheated the last time... you voted for Gore and got Bush... not your fault... but if ye vote Bush back in... after everything he has done (not just Iraq) thenI don't think I'd have any respect left for ye.

I'm so glad to see that people in other parts of the world feel as passionately as you do--do you think you could come over here and cast a vote for Kerry on Nov. 2nd?? [img]smileys/smiley1.gif[/img] Seriously, not that I needed ANY convincing whatsoever, but it was nice to see Kerry mop the floor with that megalomaniac the other night!! I know that you probably didn't make that comment directly at all of us over here, but what you said is what a lot of us fear will happen if Bush is re-elected--that even more respect will be lost, and everyone will just throw their hands up and be done with us. Unfortunately, I feel (along with many others) just as frustrated as you seem to about people who are still supporting Bush...I feel like shaking them violently!!![img]smileys/smiley18.gif[/img]

[raeisuppose]

I just mean that I don't like Kerry either. It's not that I would vote for Bush, I have not seen anything positive or good come from him being in office.

[Donsie B!]

Originally Posted by Wheels

Rae... you don't know which way to vote??? SERIOUSLY, is
the rest of the world taking this more seriously than the US? VOTE BUSH
OUT. He has DESTROYED your reputation in the world... The effects
haven't been too bad because we think you guys got cheated the last
time... you voted for Gore and got Bush... not your fault... but if ye
vote Bush back in... after everything he has done (not just Iraq) thenI
don't think I'd have any respect left for ye.

i know..ive a frend in american campaigning 2 help kerry as he's frm
boston bt lives in ireland..and says a worryingly high figure of ppl
are unsure who 2 vtoe for.

[Wheels]

What's wrong with Kerry? Why don't people like him?

From what I can see, it's all just because the Bush camp have put out so many lies... and keep telling them... and it makes people worry.

The Bush camp are the same on everything... make people fear. Fear is what Bush lives on.

So he lies over and over again to scare people into voting for him.

[Bumpman]

part of the problem is that whoever coordinates the republicans public attitude to the opposition seems to have two ways of going about it, either trying to spread as many lies about people who threaten them as possible, or spouting off one-liners on tv that make people feel all warm and cuddly inside...

is there anyone in the igloo who would agree that despite their constitution, america does not have free press at all</font>

[Hendrik]

I would think so, yeah, Bumpman.

I mean, look at the Dixie Chicks...they were half slaughtered in the media over there, just because they said that they don't like Bush and his war. That's fascism and NOT a free press, sorry, people. [img]smileys/smiley7.gif[/img]

That never ever would've happened here - just because of expressing a simple f**king opinion.

Americans should get a new election system at first. It's a ridicolous Kindergarten election system nowadays, and nobody seems to notice that. (What about corruption and electors, huh? [img]smileys/smiley22.gif[/img] )

I don't think that Kerry would be a complete new president (what does he think of the Kyoto protocol btw?). But I agree with Wheels that Bush has to get out and he's the greater "evil" and he f**ked it up (no, not Wheels [img]smileys/smiley5.gif[/img] [img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img] ). New chance, new luck. Kerry. Edited by: Hendrik

[Wheels]

Well Kerry was giving out to Bush during the first debate about Bush pulling out of Kyoto... so I'd imagine Kerry would renew it... but I'm not 100%

[jayavo]

Originally Posted by Wheels

Rae... you don't know which way to vote??? SERIOUSLY, is the rest of the world taking this more seriously than the US? VOTE BUSH OUT. He has DESTROYED your reputation in the world... The effects haven't been too bad because we think you guys got cheated the last time... you voted for Gore and got Bush... not your fault... but if ye vote Bush back in... after everything he has done (not just Iraq) thenI don't think I'd have any respect left for ye.

[img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img]even in ireland they are telling us we have but one of two choices.


no offense, but i wouldnt base my vote on what you thought. i dont think that , while placing your vote in your home country, that it ever entered your mind ' well, what would the americans prefer?'


i certainly understand wanting allies and workingwith the community, butmy vote should be based on my thoughts and wants for and of my country, not the rest of the world. kim jong il of north korea has said heprefers thatkerry wins, should i vote for bush because of what that foreign country wants?


jason


A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular.
Adlai Ewing Stevenson

[jayavo]

Originally Posted by Bumpman

is there anyone in the igloo who would agree that despite their constitution, america does not have free press at all

our press is now owned by the very corporations that pay big to both parties. the politicians are paid big bucks. the politicians make the rules. they just relaxed the rules even more and now it is even easier for corps to own as much media as they want. free press my ass.


jason


brit hume of abc news regularly golfs with president bush. how many tough questions do you think he will ask?

[coreybyrnes]

Originally Posted by jayavo

yeah, thats why i certainly understand that position. but i fear that people will consider things finished if bush loses.

absolutely. i understand your fear. and unfortunately you are describing a lot of americans. being engaged in politics and world affairs is not simply going to vote every november 2nd people. it's like people who go to church on christmas. you're fooling yourself into thinking you're making a difference.

Originally Posted by jayavo

no offense, but i wouldnt base my vote on what you thought. i dont think that , while placing your vote in your home country, that it ever entered your mind ' well, what would the americans prefer?

and no offense to you but that's a very selfish way of looking at it. we are all part of this bigger world and to ignore that we all need each other to work somewhat harmoniously together is just plain ignorant. i'm not saying that your primary concern when votingshould be thinking about what other countries would hope for. i'm simply saying that it should definitely play a part, especially when our foreign relations are in shambles as they are right now. we have lost the world's respect and it must be regained. voting bush in to power again will NOT help.

Originally Posted by OSully

I'm so glad to see that people in other parts of the world feel as passionately as you do

indeed... this is not just the election of our president who makes decisions that affect our taxes and our healthcare system... this is an election for our next president that will mend open wounds that bush and his adminstration (let's not forget the numerous evil people backing him) have created. this election affects the world and i am glad that so many around the world are concerned. i'm scared to think about what will happen if bush is elected again. i'm geniunely frightened for our lives, your lives, our children's lives, their children's lives, etc. if you think i am exagerrating, please do the research and realize this is real.

[cille]

Originally Posted by jayavo

brit hume of abc news regularly golfs with president bush. how many tough questions do you think he will ask?

oh you mean like: "what's your handicap?" [img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img]

[jayavo]

Originally Posted by Wheels

What's wrong with Kerry?

ill give one example and it is a rampant one throughout our politics.


A Senate colleague was trying to close a loophole that allowed a major insurer to divert millions of federal dollars from the nation's most expensive construction project. John Kerry stepped in and blocked the legislation.
Over the next two years, the insurer, American International Group, paid Kerry's way on a trip to Vermont and donated at least $30,000 to a tax-exempt group Kerry used to set up his presidential campaign. Company executives donated $18,000 to his Senate and presidential campaigns.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../nation/presid ent/2004-02-04-kerry-aig_x.htm
usatoday is known as a liberal paper. no foxnews smear tactic.
this is exactly the kind of sh*t kerry rails against. he is a politician through and through. i will givemore reasonslater....
jason
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...articles/2004/ 02/27
/kerry_is_no_gandhi_on_corporate_donations/
In the mid 1990s, Johnny Chung illegally funneled $8,000 to Kerry. This month arms contractor Bob Majumder pleaded guilty to illegally funneling between $13,000 and $25,000 to Kerry. Kerry wrote 28 letters from 1996 to 1999 supporting Majumder for federal funds for a proposed missile system. The company received $150 million in federal funds.


On the stump, Kerry castigates "Benedict Arnold" companies that evade taxes and take jobs overseas.


But this week, The <ORG idsrc="NYSE" value="WPO">Washington Post</ORG> reported that Kerry's presidential campaign has received more than $540,000 from either companies that have moved operations overseas to avoid taxes or from fund-raisers run by executives who help companies move to tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Then there are the media and telecommunications. Kerry's top career contributor ($231,000), the law firm of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, is heavily involved in telecommunications. Kerry's third-biggest donor is media conglomerate Time-Warner ($141,000). Fourth is the law firm of Hale &amp; Dorr, which is significantly involved in telecommunications and biotech. Fifth is the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &amp; Flom, which does work for nearly half of the Fortune top 250 industrial and service corporations.


Media companies, including Viacom, have given more than $300,000 to Kerry. Viacom has contributed a total of $3.2 million to political campaigns in the 2000 and 2002 election cycles, with 81 percent of the money going to Democrats. Kerry has played a role at helping telecom lobbyists control the timing of airwave auctions and helping media conglomerates by voting for telecom deregulation in 1996.

[jayavo]

Originally Posted by cillecille

[oh you mean like: "what's your handicap?" [img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img]

haha exactly! i watch these news conferences and im like ASK A f**kIN REAL QUESTION!


jason


do you think trading sammy sosa was your biggest mistake?


-real question at a presidential news conference on iraq

[jayavo]

Originally Posted by raeisuppose

I just mean that I don't like Kerry either. It's not that I would vote for Bush, I have not seen anything positive or good come from him being in office.

good for you. dont let anyone badger you into anything in life, ever.


jason


how can anyone vote democrat ... the party actively doing everything possible to keep ralph nader off the presidential ticket. im aware they dont want to lose votes. but is this a good reason to try and quash the american peoples choice? women have a right to choose even if you think abortion is illegal but neither man nor woman should have a right to choose ralph nader? they need to look up what the name democrat is based on. saddam used violence and fear to ensure youd vote for him; the democratic party usesfear and the courts. both are trying to force you not to vote for someone else. they should be ashamed.

[jayavo]

Originally Posted by coreybyrnes

and no offense to you but that's a very selfish way of looking at it. we are all part of this bigger world and to ignore that we all need each other to work somewhat harmoniously together is just plain ignorant. i'm not saying that your primary concern when votingshould be thinking about what other countries would hope for. i'm simply saying that it should definitely play a part, especially when our foreign relations are in shambles as they are right now. we have lost the world's respect and it must be regained. voting bush in to power again will NOT help.

first, to be blunt, i dont think there is anything wrong with being selfish. if you hit it big will you give all your money earned to charity? of course not. that is being selfish. keeping what you earned. selfish has been given this evil-like connotation and it just simply is not. the extreme of selfishness is bad, as is the extreme of selflessness. but selfish on its own is not bad . if people werent selfish they would let their own kid starve before that of their neighbor.


second, i said i am aware of the need to cooperate and work together. however,it would not bethe basis of my vote.


third, i think you are the first person to suggest im ignorant concerning global affairs. [img]smileys/smiley2.gif[/img]


jason


'i would not ask permisson from other countries to protect the vital interests of this country.'


-john kerry

[cille]

i think when countries get selfish things CAN get nasty very fast

[coreybyrnes]

Originally Posted by jayavo

if you hit it big will you give all your money earned to charity? of course not. that is being selfish.

time out... i'm not trying to quibble and argue, but in all fairness you don't know me. if i ever hit it big i would most certainly give a lot of money away to charities and i would spend a lot of time helping others in the US and the rest of the world because everyone deserves a better chance. i already live my life in this fashion and i don't even have enough money for myself to get by. but this is not about me or youbeing selfish. this is about the US being selfish and ignorant to the fact that we depend upon the world just as much as the world depends on us. but once again... i'm not trying to start a fight here... i'm just taking it one step further because i think it IS important to think about US foreign relations when we vote on nov 2nd and every day after that as well.

Originally Posted by cillecille

i think when countries get selfish things CAN get nasty very fast

exactly.

[jayavo]

Originally Posted by coreybyrnes

time out... i'm not trying to quibble and argue, but in all fairness you don't know me. if i ever hit it big i would most certainly give a lot of money away to charities and i would spend a lot of time helping others in the US and the rest of the world because everyone deserves a better chance. i already live my life in this fashion and i don't even have enough money for myself to get by. but this is not about me or youbeing selfish. this is about the US being selfish and ignorant to the fact that we depend upon the world just as much as the world depends on us. but once again... i'm not trying to start a fight here... i'm just taking it one step further because i think it IS important to think about US foreign relations when we vote on nov 2nd and every day after that as well.

my apologies. i certainly didnt mean to start an arguement, especially as we agree on the issue. i only meant to say being selfish isnt bad on its own. anything we have beyond means of survival is technically considered being selfish. thats all i was saying. i would alsospend a great deal on others but my lamborghini would be a selfish act on my part and i wouldnt feel bad for it in other words. absolutly meant no judgement upon you.


as i said, i do think it is important to consider the relations with foreign countries. i think we need to work together. i , personally, would not base my vote on who the world leaders want. i assume that the world leaders would not want ralph nader in charge as well. but i will still vote for him. that part was a personal opinion. not a blanket statement about it not being an important issue.


on a personal level ....from what i have seen of you on the board, albeit very limited, you seem like a very caring individual. respectful as well. someone i wouldnt mind having a beer with. hope we are cool.


jason


i agree we are very selfish as a nation.