Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board: THE DEBATE

This is topic THE DEBATE in forum Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk at Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.allstocks.com/stockmessageboard/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/000109.html

Posted by osubucks30 on :

Can't wait to see the debate tomorrow night!
I'm hoping Kerry will pressure Bush on his policies and make him buckle. If Kerry can get Bush to get off of his "script" he will be fine. Bush will just say "we will stay the course" every time Iraq comes up!

Anyone else going to watch?

Posted by glassman on :

only 19% of people think they are EXTREMELY important to help make up their minds.....

but i have my kettle corn and i might even video tape it...

wonder if there's any chance it will get more viewers than the superbowl???
sadly no....

Posted by keithsan on :

I'll be watching, not crazy enough to tevo it though-glass.

should be rather boring. i'm there for the car wreck. I think kerry has a lot of selling to do, and i wouldn't be surprised if he breaks the rules and questions bush directly.

Posted by glassman on :

Kerry should. Bush has shown himself to be disingenuous since he was the governor of Texas,
he is just a typical politician.

unfortunately the times demand an extraordinary human to lead us forward and there is no-one to be found.....

Posted by glassman on :

ask the parents of the 35-40 children killed in Iraq today if the world is better off with Bush in charge...

Bush will try to tell US it's not his fault....
the heck it ain't....

nothing is his fault right?

[This message has been edited by glassman (edited September 30, 2004).]

Posted by keithsan on :

glass, are you kidding me?

its the bombers/terrorists fault. thats insane. and sad.

Posted by glassman on :

no keith i'm not kidding

this is what a lot of us have been spending so much energy trying to show everybody....
the war in Iraq has been mis-managed from day 1. there was never any need to have ANY of this happen the way it has....

the terrorists there right now are OUR creation....

the admin clearly says--BETTER OFF THERE THAN HERE--what else can that mean????

you are glad those are not OUR children.

Posted by glassman on :

Bush was told ALL of this would happen...
he was told by the CIA, and the military.
he has fired many for saying so....
the military people that he fired asked for more than twice as many troops to do the job correctly...the CIA people not only got fired, they even EXPOSED an operative, risking many long-term contacts lives...

if you subscribe to the theory that Bush is smart and has a plan, it's even worse....

cuz the plan i see is to keep Iraq unstable for an indefinite period of time so we can maintain a miltiary presence there indefinitely. this will require the draft that we are hearing rumors about.. and it will lead to HOLY war.

Posted by glassman on :

think about it...
why has this rebel leader al-Sadr been let go TWICE (that we know of) to start more trouble???????

it's ALL straight line logical thnking...

the twists and the kinks and the insanity are what the propaganda machine has been PUMPING .....not me

[This message has been edited by glassman (edited September 30, 2004).]

Posted by keithsan on :

you think bush created???? terrorists, hmmm..... maybe we should look at all the presidents that allowed all of the terrorist training camps to thrive and produce more terrorists than our soldiers.

i dont buy the "the war created it" theory, i am more likely to buy the killem before we get killed theory and iraq is a better place to do it than N.Y.

I would like to see us FLATTEN those parts of iraq and other terrorist training countries immediately! and without the U.N.

Posted by glassman on :

i agree with you about wiping them out Keith, BUT

that is not the Bush plan, that's what i've been trying to tell everybody for so long.

having a collective enemy is politically EXPEDIENT....

why is Osama still alive?
we have the BEST recon forces in the world. they could have gotten him.

the Osam issue is a major flip-flop that Bush has done and nobody cares....
first he said wanted dead or alive, now he doesn't care...and Bush has said that in so many words....

why would we want to encourage terrorism in iraq? check out the price of oil....

eventually it may be our oil. why? because a democratic iraqi government won't get off the ground in a meaningful way ....so we will just have to run the place ourselves...

the propaganda machine is cranked up and has a full head of steam.....

if Kerry is for real (and i question that) he will slam Bush on these issues and Saudi tonight.

Posted by kbpkt on :

Tonights debate should be interesting. Kerry is already whinning about the placement of the lights. Maybe he does not want his tan showing so well on T.V. His advisors said they were going to bring their own screwdrivers tonight to take down the lights. I hate how Bush is favored to do much better than Kerry, it puts too high of expectations on him. Thats why he did so well last year, because everyone expected him to do poorly. Tonight is make or break for Kerry. If he does not do well, he is done.

Posted by keithsan on :

i agree with you currently its not the bush plan. i also think its not the kerry plan. i honestly dont think kerry has a plan though.

it seems that the sunni triangle is now down to two cities, a little slowly, but two. I think with the upcoming election there will be a lot going on over there from terrorists and hopefully nothing over here.

I assume when bush wins, and he feels he has more options he will hit those cities harder.

Here are the odds for osama:

What will be the fate of Osama Bin Laden before 12/31/05? (Note: first option to occur will win, all others will be losers)

Will be consigned to U.S. Authority (Dead or Alive) -200

Will be M.I.A. +150

Will join Saddam Hussein in a World Tour named "World Criminals Unite" +15000

Will visit T.R.L. as a guest +15000

Posted by glassman on :

my problem at this time centers around the facts that Bush DID NOT get elected the first time with a majority, and has behaved as though he won by a landslide. he is nowhere near to being a great leader or even a minor UNITER (as he claimed he would be)
if he does win, he will continue doing WHATEVER HE WANTS cuz that's what he has already done.

Posted by thinkmoney on :

I ALSO find ALOT of fault in Bush admin - bettr of there than here - Actually by us being there and because of bush policy - more hatred towards us - more terrorists created - and more - so ultimately more -process feeds itself ,more to fight us and more to eventually attack here.

i am shocked at bush thinking. the sad part is kerry is not a leader either.

Posted by osubucks30 on :

I just wish that Kerry and Bush could have a TRUE debate. Most of the rules were but in place by BUSH!!! Heck if Kerry didn't agree with it Bush probably wouldn't debate!

Bottom line, if it was a TRUE debate I think the Kerry would crush Bush!

Posted by osubucks30 on :

I also hate the arguement of "better fight them over there then here"! If I was an arab I would be mad. Who to say they want us to fight on their land. I agreed with going into Afghanistan! But Iraq did not have bombers striking daily when Saddam was in power. Plus who knows the TRUE number of civilains who have been killed because of are actions.

The military calls it "collatoral damage"!

Posted by keithsan on :

quote:
Originally posted by osubucks30:
I just wish that Kerry and Bush could have a TRUE debate. Most of the rules were but in place by BUSH!!! Heck if Kerry didn't agree with it Bush probably wouldn't debate!
Bottom line, if it was a TRUE debate I think the Kerry would crush Bush!

LOL-true but- bush would be hung if he didnt debate. kerry just rolled over again. says a lot for character

Posted by keithsan on :

quote:
Originally posted by osubucks30:
I also hate the arguement of "better fight them over there then here"! If I was an arab I would be mad. Who to say they want us to fight on their land. I agreed with going into Afghanistan! But Iraq did not have bombers striking daily when Saddam was in power. Plus who knows the TRUE number of civilains who have been killed because of are actions.
The military calls it "collatoral damage"!

a lot of people hate that argument, but, it works for me. I hate the we created more now argument. Obviously bin laden is training none now, at least in big volumes, the terrorist camp in northern iraq is now not training anyone....

there are a million more but, ya gotta start somewhere.

Letting these places produce terrorists for the last ten years was the worst thing we could've done and we found out the hard way.

Posted by glassman on :

Keith no Al-Queda training camps have EVER been active in Iraq PRIOR TO OUR INVASION according to CIN, CIA, and the 9-11 commission....

the only terrorism Saddam is known to have supported is palestinian, and that is a very different problem.....
not to be ignored, BUT it has ALSO gotten ALOT worse since the invasion of Iraq.....

Bush's policies are making more terrorists RIGHT NOW than we are killing--PROVEN fact admitted even by Rumsfeld....

we are NOT safer today....
the world is NOT better off because we invaded Iraq....

we are launching a major offensive in Sammara RIGHT NOW against 2000 fighters. this city was off-limits to US troops by interim prime minister Allawi's directives...

[This message has been edited by glassman (edited September 30, 2004).]

Posted by keithsan on :

i never said al-queda, nor did i mean too. yes there were training grounds for terrorists.
yes sadam supported terrorism against palestine.

tell me how there are more TRAINED terrorists now than before. and if there ARE new, bigger or better training camps than there were in afghanistan i have missed something.

Are there more people in the middle east that hate us now since the first invasion, i find it hard to believe, did we create more terrorists going into kosovo?

If we attacked syria and iran tomorrow simultaneously and wiped'em out, would there be more terrorists....

or less...

[This message has been edited by keithsan (edited September 30, 2004).]

Posted by glassman on :

Rumsfeld admitted this stuff himself earlier this week.....

the terrorist training ground IS Iraq now....
this is the BEST way to build a guerrilla army.

think about the AK-47s the Iraq police and troops are getting back from US...how do WE track who is who???

in a gunfight the weapon is what you are trained to shoot....the uniforms aren't any better either. from what i see on TV they are in civvies....

how do you propose we attack Iran and Syria?? with bombs?? bombs don't win wars...troops win wars.....strategically we are hurtn bud..... i know you don't want to hear it. but there is a reason that the Natl. Guard is being used so much.

the repubs say don't mention the bad stuff--it encourages the terrorists...they don't care....they are going to fight to the death...that is their home......
you would too, if they were here....
we are going to have to kill a lot of people soon.

the Iraqi's didn't welcome US as liberators and they don't think Allawi is their leader..they think he is our puppet, and they are correct.....

Bush said they would welcome US as liberators even tho he was told differently.....again, is this lying or ignorance?? does it matter anymore?

Posted by keithsan on :

on the job training ok, i can take that for an answer. I dont want terrorist training and plotting to fly here swim here or walk here and kill us. they can learn and die there.

ansar al islma terrorist group well known, operating in iraq.
http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml

Posted by glassman on :

General
Ansar al-Islam is a radical Kurdish Islamic group that is supportive of Saddam Hussein's regime. This group is located in the pseudo-autonomous Northern Iraq. This group has ties with Taliban and al-Qaeda. It is the most radical group operating in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.

first paragraph i have a problem: Kurds are the ones Saddam was gassing....HMMMMM

[This message has been edited by glassman (edited September 30, 2004).]

more.... we supported Kurdish rebels after the gulf war...the Turks give us a hard time because of that support.....it is one of the reasons that we had such a hard time putting together a coalition....

who wrote this stuff??? there is no author or references listed!!!!

[This message has been edited by glassman (edited September 30, 2004).]

Posted by glassman on :

Keith, do you realise this web-site has no author????
LOL
it's just more propaganda.....

Posted by glassman on :

bush isn't answering question 1.....
same as always....
answer the question Mr. President...

Posted by glassman on :

CNN is cheating! LOL they are showing both face at the same time..LOL

Posted by Wallace#1 on :

Glass, neither one is answering the questions! Politicians both, not representatives of the people. What about the goddamn domestic issues? What about medicare? What about the huge debt? What about jobs going elsewhere? What about fair taxes? IT'S ALL A BUNCH OF CRAP!!!!
Get off that Iraq sh*t. Enough said by either man. We are there, we must finish the objective and then we must get the hell out ASAP.

Posted by glassman on :

Wallace this debate was about Iraq. there are 2 more debates about domestic issues..

i think Kerry won this one but not by much...

Bush looked to be a little tentative....
he also seemed to repeat himself alot.....
like he didn't really know what to say....
Bush looked annoyed a lot...hmmmm

Kerry still needs to do more to take the election away from Bush if he really is behind.......

Posted by glassman on :

i think Kerry broke thru the spin...FINALLY

Posted by keithsan on :

quote:
Originally posted by glassman:

[b]
General
Ansar al-Islam is a radical Kurdish Islamic group that is supportive of Saddam Hussein's regime. This group is located in the pseudo-autonomous Northern Iraq. This group has ties with Taliban and al-Qaeda. It is the most radical group operating in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.

first paragraph i have a problem: Kurds are the ones Saddam was gassing....HMMMMM

[This message has been edited by glassman (edited September 30, 2004).]

more.... we supported Kurdish rebels after the gulf war...the Turks give us a hard time because of that support.....it is one of the reasons that we had such a hard time putting together a coalition....
who wrote this stuff??? there is no author or references listed!!!!
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited September 30, 2004).][/B]

well, radical would be considered different, therefore, he was not fighting the radical ones. i.e. we are fighting radical islam not islam..... see the difference.

anyways, DD the hell out of it, i'm not backing that sight at all. I just know they were there, had the front end of an airplane and had terrorist ties.

Posted by keithsan on :

Rather boring debate. Kerry didnt get stuck which was good for him. sounded most solid.

had some minor gaffes as did bush. bush said same ole

draw.

no car wreck.

Posted by keithsan on :

Glass, dig for these authors.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ansar.htm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5571

this article has nytimes quotes: http://www.meforum.org/article/579

msnbc: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4428430/

http://www.fact-index.com/a/an/ansar_al_islam.html

not vowing for any of these sites, but, dont ignore that they were obviosly there.

People are bound by their hatred, hell look at partisan politics in this country. you can always see what you want.

I just know these folks were there.

In the morning you will here bush said "they attacked us" meaning terrorists but dems will spin it as he thinks Iraq caused 9/11

watch!

Posted by Wallace#1 on :

I think Kerry ended up with a slight edge. Still rather close. Look forward to the domestic issues. That's where I think they will part ways more radically. Domestically, Bush is in bad shape as far as I am concerned.

Posted by keithsan on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wallace#1:
I think Kerry ended up with a slight edge. Still rather close. Look forward to the domestic issues. That's where I think they will part ways more radically. Domestically, Bush is in bad shape as far as I am concerned.

i have been wondering why kerry hasnt been attacking that angle. since he was failing so far, i dont think we'll see a change in polls after debate, maybe a point either way.

supposedly good job news coming out, may be why kerry stayed away. we'll find out soon enough. (i know they couldnt discuss in debate)

Posted by glassman on :

Keith, i agree with you that Sadam was a bad guy and needed to be dealt with. i am a republican...
there were bad guys there with him too, but MY OWN take was/is that he was an iron-fisted dictator that we had under our OWN thumb with the no-fly zones etc. yes there were problems, but now....sheesh we got a major problem there now....

remember this about Saddam..he hated and feared religious leaders... now we have a bunch of them to deal with and we can't use the same tactics he used...thats why i think the iraq war was a mistake...

Posted by Wallace#1 on :

Yeah, I think Kerry's advisers have been giving him a short stick with all the concentration on Iraq. If he concentrated just on medicare, he should be able to win Fla, Ariz and maybe a good part of the South.

My wife just retired and what was costing her about 400 to 500 per month is now going to cost over $1000 with Bush's medicare program. I'm thankful I have the VA.

Posted by kbpkt on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wallace#1:
Glass, neither one is answering the questions! Politicians both, not representatives of the people. What about the goddamn domestic issues? What about medicare? What about the huge debt? What about jobs going elsewhere? What about fair taxes? IT'S ALL A BUNCH OF CRAP!!!!
Get off that Iraq sh*t. Enough said by either man. We are there, we must finish the objective and then we must get the hell out ASAP.

Thats how this debate was structured. The second debate is a town hall debate, while the third debate will be about domestic issues. If that is what you care about the most, then watch the third debate. This one was about foreign policy.

Posted by glassman on :

Kerry has Bush beat hands down on the polls taken on domestic issues.....

Kerry was losing the polls on terror and Iraq so he had NO CHOICE but to take the fight where he was losing it...
smart move IMO....

Kerry didn't go directly after Bush on Saudi, but he mentioned terror funding twice that i caught...he's hinting about something......

Posted by kbpkt on :

Kerry spewed a lot of "facts" that were not facts at all. He said that the Bush administration put the snactions on Iran, when they have actually been in effect since the Carter administration. He said a few other things like that that were just plain B.S.

Posted by Wallace#1 on :

I will be watching the other debates, especially the third. Did not realize this one had a particular issue.

My point above about his advisors and concentrating on Iraq was about the commercials and such, not the debate.

Posted by user095263 on :

well stated glassman. at least we had some kind of control over a one-man threat. now it's perceived as a religious, global war. thx to Bush.
~BB

quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Keith, i agree with you that Sadam was a bad guy and needed to be dealt with. i am a republican...
there were bad guys there with him too, but MY OWN take was/is that he was an iron-fisted dictator that we had under our OWN thumb with the no-fly zones etc. yes there were problems, but now....sheesh we got a major problem there now....
remember this about Saddam..he hated and feared religious leaders... now we have a bunch of them to deal with and we can't use the same tactics he used...thats why i think the iraq war was a mistake...

Posted by user095263 on :

fact: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

oh, wait, ummmm..

there's misstating information, and there's starting a war on misstated information.
~BB

quote:
Originally posted by kbpkt:
Kerry spewed a lot of "facts" that were not facts at all. He said that the Bush administration put the snactions on Iran, when they have actually been in effect since the Carter administration. He said a few other things like that that were just plain B.S.

Posted by tigertony on :

The democrats had a great chance to defeat bush,they just have the wrong candidate.kerry can't win this.I think his v.p. could have.Bush was ripe for the taking.

Posted by kbpkt on :

quote:
Originally posted by betting babe:
fact: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
oh, wait, ummmm..
there's misstating information, and there's starting a war on misstated information.
~BB

Information that was given to him by a faulty intelligence agency, who the leader of has since resigned. Bush relied on the CIA for that faulty info, but the bottom line is that the world is better off w/o Saddam. Kerry mistated information that is available in any high school textbook. Huge difference. If Gore had won in 2000, he would have recieved the same info from the CIA that Bush got, you know, the same info that Kerry got when he voted for the war before voting against it before voting for it.

Posted by kbpkt on :

quote:
Originally posted by tigertony:
The democrats had a great chance to defeat bush,they just have the wrong candidate.kerry can't win this.I think his v.p. could have.Bush was ripe for the taking.

I agree, Bush was very vulnerable. The Dems just ran the wrong person. Thats how it was out here in California last election. Our governor was extremely vulnerable but the Rep. ran the wrong guy, which ended in a costly recall election to finally get rid of Grey Davis by replacing him with Arnold. If the Reps ran anyone but Bill SImon in the first place, Davis would have lost before a recall.

Posted by tigertony on :

Shh kerry likes to pretend,when he had the same info and voted for against,for,forget what did he say today.LOL Sorry could'nt help myself

quote:
Originally posted by kbpkt:
Information that was given to him by a faulty intelligence agency, who the leader of has since resigned. Bush relied on the CIA for that faulty info, but the bottom line is that the world is better off w/o Saddam. Kerry mistated information that is available in any high school textbook. Huge difference. If Gore had won in 2000, he would have recieved the same info from the CIA that Bush got, you know, the same info that Kerry got when he voted for the war before voting against it before voting for it.

Posted by Spyder5000 on :

I wish Ralph Nader would have been asked to debate with these too. I am so tired of the Republican/Democrat spins, its time for something new.

Posted by kbpkt on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spyder5000:
I wish Ralph Nader would have been asked to debate with these too. I am so tired of the Republican/Democrat spins, its time for something new.

I agree. It was the Democrats who did not want him there this year, or in 2000. I find that funny given that the Republicans "allowed" Ross Perot to debate back in 1992. Perot "cost" Bush the election back in 92 even more so than Nader did to Gore in 00.

Posted by Spyder5000 on :

I will vote for Nader anyway.. I can't trust either of these guys to run my country. Wish he had more of a chance to get out there and let his positions be known, but no way the media would ever allow that to happen.