posted
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
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.
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
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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
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
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
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
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
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.
IP: Logged |
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
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.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
