Who watched the debate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

You know, you're right. Bush is stupid, I mean the someone miss-speaking themselves is the litmus test for inteligence right? I'll admit it, when he said vociferously I lost a mouthful of Lowenbrau. Making fun of people for misprounouncing things made me feel intelectually superior when I was twelve. It has since worn off.

---

Here are some definitions of intelligence:

The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.

the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations

The faculty of thought and reason.

Sure, "miss-speaking" isn't the only litmus test for intelligence, but he sure doesn't seem to be applying the definition of intelligence to his "stead-fast resolve" and the way he is directing this country.

And you are seriously trying to say that screwing up the square(not the city) in which KGB headquarters was in is being ignorant by a factor of 20? I am more likely to give the nod for being intelligent to a guy saying the wrong square then to someone who consistently shows he's incapable of forming complex arguments and thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

Apparently mr_gyptian believes in the Bush camp's strategy that if you say something enough, it will be true.

---

actually no, but again, thank you for the ham fisted Nazi allusion.

this actually outlines the strategy a little better.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/20041...5iIZmRrDHug%3D

should get you guys all lathered up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ski Monkey

Here are some definitions of intelligence:

The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.

the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations

The faculty of thought and reason.

Sure, "miss-speaking" isn't the only litmus test for intelligence, but he sure doesn't seem to be applying the definition of intelligence to his "stead-fast resolve" and the way he is directing this country.

And you are seriously trying to say that screwing up the square(not the city) in which KGB headquarters was in is being ignorant by a factor of 20? I am more likely to give the nod for being intelligent to a guy saying the wrong square then to someone who consistently shows he's incapable of forming complex arguments and thoughts.

---

Yes, when you've been on the Senate Intelligence committee for as long as Kerry has. when you are trying to build a platform for your supposed foreign policy experience. I expect you to know not only the name of the square, but the exact latitude and longitude of the KGB's HQ. I also expect you with all of your vast foreign policy experience to at least mistake the name of the place with another square, hell anywhere in the former USSR. Not a former Nazi Death Camp!!!!

One of my favorite moments was when the question was posed to Kerry "What do you feel is the most serious and growing threat to America?" and he responded immediately (before Jim Lehrer finished) nuclear proliferation. I swear, GW's look when it was his turn was so nuc-u-lar proliferation? good gawd, I'm so glad that they didn't ask me this one first!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

you're right, it was 260,000 per year. This according to the World Health Organization.

when was the last time NK attacked another nation? Six nation talks are resuming, isn't that what you want?

A NK with no Chinese and SK support is a toothless tiger to say the least. They have absolutely no natural resources with which to fight a war if they wanted to. The accuracy of their nukes should ahve South America as worried as we are.

---

Do you have a link to the 260,000 people per year figure? Regardless of the number, removing a brutal dictator is fine, but that wasn't why we were told we were going to Iraq. We were told there were weapons of mass destruction and we were threatened. Where the fuck are they? Now they try and say that WMD's weren't the main reason and it was more for removing Saddam to make Iraq free(very 1984'ish). Ok, fine, then back up your moral reason and get your ass in Sudan or any number of countries with brutal dictators.

As far as NK nukes, I don't think you should worry about them being accurate delived in their convention sense, I think we need to worry about them being sold on the black market or them ending up in a truck or on a boat.

I do want the talks to resume, but I also want our military ready to defend us if needed, as a last resort as they say.

Bush is an intelligent guy who doesn't speak well. It seems that most are thrown off by that and can't read between the lines. Then you have someone like Kerry who speaks like slick Willy....

Bush surely did repeat the whole "wrong war" quote from Kerry, but it rings true.

Kerry kept repeating his plans for a "Summit in Iraq" (and his ramblings of "Afghanistan Warlords looking for Osama").. It's funny how Kerry keeps talking about this "Summit" of his in Iraq to repair relations with other countries, but on the same hand only cares to name 3 countries having our back to go into Iraq, when there were about 35.....good start Kerry ya MORON.


Bush is a guy that means well, is doing well, and is going to win in November.

Kerry is a well spoken bullshit artist who is going to say anything he can to try and win this Fall.

If you'd read what I said, I didn't say Bush is stupid, or Kerry is smarter or any of that. I agree that everyone has moments where they aren't articulate.

I said that there are evidently people out there who perceive Bush to be stupider than Kerry and for some sick reason that's WHY they want to vote for Bush. He comes off as ignorant and that comforts them - like it makes him a "nice guy" or he's at their level because he doesn't sound intellectual. THAT is what disturbs me.

Why in the hell can't people find an issue they care about and vote based on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Bush is an intelligent guy who doesn't speak well. It seems that most are thrown off by that and can't read between the lines. Then you have someone like Kerry who speaks like slick Willy....

Bush surely did repeat the whole "wrong war" quote from Kerry, but it rings true.

Kerry kept repeating his plans for a "Summit in Iraq" (and his ramblings of "Afghanistan Warlords looking for Osama").. It's funny how Kerry keeps talking about this "Summit" of his in Iraq to repair relations with other countries, but on the same hand only cares to name 3 countries having our back to go into Iraq, when there were about 35.....good start Kerry ya MORON.


Bush is a guy that means well, is doing well, and is going to win in November.

Kerry is a well spoken bullshit artist who is going to say anything he can to try and win this Fall.

---

Less than 25,000 non-American troops in Iraq. Not to denigrate those 35 other countries, but most of them have fewer than 100 troops in Iraq and little military capabilities to begin with. Go back a page and compare that to the coalition that Bush Sr. set up in 1991.

And you gotta love McG pulling figures out of his ass! 260,000 a year? Try not to make things up from now on. No way has Saddam killed 2.6 million Iraqis since the end of PGW1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

Let's see, taking out Saddam has removed a major cash cow(mind you not the only one, Iran and Saudi Arabia are next) for quite a few different terrorist organizations. It also stopped Iraq from being a safehaven for terrorists such as Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. Please don't come back with more terrorists being there now. there are, there are also more dying than we could have ever hoped to eliminate by a search and destroy.

I do not look at Iraq as an end in the war on terror. It is a battle in the war on terror. Just like the Korean war and the Vietnam war were wars fought for a larger cause to end communism. Please don't take the last sentence to mean that I undermine either of those wars, it was meant to underline their importance in every sense.

---

Great, now the reason we're in Iraq is that Saddam was a terrorist cash cow? This is the rationale we're reduced to? I guess it's a logical digression since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no real connection with al-Qaeda, has no WMD, and was not an imminent threat to the U.S.

If we're going to go after terrorist cash-cows, why aren't we going after the BIGGEST cash cow of them all--Saudi Arabia? Oh, I know--that wouldn't be good for the good ol' oil pals of Bush and Cheney, would it? Why don't we move towards energy independence not only with more exploration but also more CONSERVATION? Oh, that might hurt Haliburton's bottom line, no?

Answer this: who was the bigger terrorist threat to the U.S. before we started the mess in Iraq? Saddam or Osama? (Please note the difficulty that Bush had with saying the phrase "Osama bin Laden" during the debate, since it has been a while since he's uttered said phrase.) If you say Saddam, you're delusional. Did Saddam provide haven for a few known terrorists? Yes. But Osama is the head of the whole god-damn network!!! Osama was DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11. Why did we send 145,000 MORE troops to look for Saddam than Osama? Why don't we have ALL our military capability turning over every rock, sniffing in every crevice, and looking in every cave in Afghanistan? Instead our military is fucking stuck in Iraq in a mess that WE made, that will go down as one of the most mismanaged wars in the history, and from which we have NO exit strategy. It makes NO sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

(and his ramblings of "Afghanistan Warlords looking for Osama").. It's funny how Kerry keeps talking about this "Summit" of his in Iraq to repair relations with other countries, but on the same hand only cares to name 3 countries having our back to go into Iraq, when there were about 35.....good start Kerry ya MORON..

---

His "ramblings" on Afghanistan happen to be true. If everyone who supports Bush does so primarily for his "handling" of the war, then let's examine this. The US had Bin Laden and about 1000 of his fighters trapped in Torah Bora early in the war. But Bush and his political handlers (most Rove)feared sending US troops into the mountains to root them out, as they feared there would be high US casualties (which there may have been). And with pictures on TV of dead soldiers, the populace might not have the stomach for their greater ambitions (Iraq). Might have turned the average person/voter "off" to sacrificing US troops (like in Vietnam). So, they instructed the CIA to negotiate with these tribal warlords to get them to go and get Bin Laden and his gang vs. sending the US soldiers to do it....true facts, look it up.

We all know what happened next. Those tribal warlords basically let Bin Laden and his gang slip out the back-door, as they had no intention of following US orders....

That was a colossal misjudgment, US Military commanders have said as much.....and doesn't that ring hollow: your call of "Kerry willing to say anything to win the election"?

[QUOTE=shamrockpow]Less than 25,000 non-American troops in Iraq. Not to denigrate those 35 other countries, but most of them have fewer than 100 troops in Iraq and little military capabilities to begin with. Go back a page and compare that to the coalition that Bush Sr. set up in 1991.
QUOTE]

The first Gulf War was easy to get people on our side. Saddam invaded Kuwait because he wasn't getting as much money for his oil because of them, so he invaded....clearly in the wrong.

The second Gulf War ment a lot more to us then to other countries because we just went through 9-11, and had declared a "war on terror", which Saddam clearly supported. Saddam had kicked weapons inspectors out, backed palestinian suicide bombers families financially, and the intelligence was there for WMD's, which were found there after the first Gulf War. Saddam could have cooperated, he didn't and was found hiding in a hole. If anything it sets an example to the rest of the world that we're not going to fuck around. I loved how Bush put it last night about not "playing the popular game" in order to defend ourselves. Guys got balls, unlike Kerry who used the term last night "we'll find em and kill 'em"....Gawd, that guy will say anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freshies

His "ramblings" on Afghanistan happen to be true. If everyone who supports Bush does so primarily for his "handling" of the war, then let's examine this. The US had Bin Laden and about 1000 of his fighters trapped in Torah Bora early in the war. But Bush and his political handlers (most Rove)feared sending US troops into the mountains to root them out, as they feared there would be high US casualties (which there may have been). And with pictures on TV of dead soldiers, the populace might not have the stomach for their greater ambitions (Iraq). Might have turned the average person/voter "off" to sacrificing US troops (like in Vietnam). So, they instructed the CIA to negotiate with these tribal warlords to get them to go and get Bin Laden and his gang vs. sending the US soldiers to do it....true facts, look it up.

We all know what happened next. Those tribal warlords basically let Bin Laden and his gang slip out the back-door, as they had no intention of following US orders....

That was a colossal misjudgment, US Military commanders have said as much.....and doesn't that ring hollow: your call of "Kerry willing to say anything to win the election"?

---

Our CIA and such know how it works over there. Our troops don't speak the language, don't know the terrain, and aren't intertwined like the rest of those people. We made an attempt to get Osama, and it failed....shit doesn't always work. Believe you me that if Bush caught Osama, or if he does in the next month, it'll be a landslide victory for Bush.

That being said, that wasn't what I was talking about when I said Kerry will say anything to win, only that many were saying Bush kept answering with the same answer, I was showing Kerry was as well.

Quote:

---

sniffing in every crevice,

---

While I agree with you, this really hit home more than anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

John Stewart for president.

---

He said it best last night:" This is probably the first time for alot of people where they aren't just NOT voting for Bush but are probably excited about voting for Kerry."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Saddam had kicked weapons inspectors out, backed palestinian suicide bombers families financially, and the intelligence was there for WMD's, which were found there after the first Gulf War. Saddam could have cooperated, he didn't and was found hiding in a hole. If anything it sets an example to the rest of the world that we're not going to fuck around.

---

So why isn't Osama learning this same lesson? Is killing 3,000+ U.S. citizens on U.S. soil NOT enough for us to "set an example to the rest of the world that we're not going to fuck around"? What ELSE does Osama have to do to get 160,000 troops in his backyard?

And yeah, with how well the War on Iraq is going, I bet the rest of the world, including North Korea, is REALLY quaking in its boots now. :rolleyes: Mess with the U.S., and we will initiate a quagmire, the likes of which you will NEVER believe! LOOK OUT!

[QUOTE=BlurredElevens]Our CIA and such know how it works over there. Our troops don't speak the language, don't know the terrain, and aren't intertwined like the rest of those people. We made an attempt to get Osama, and it failed.QUOTE]

I really have a hard time accepting any argument that defends the decision to use Afghanny "troops" in Tora-Bora. I personally believe that the Amercan people would be far more willing to accept Amercan casualties incurred in the search of Osama than for Saddam. I also feel that the soldiers would be far more accepting of these casualties as well. Soldiers are trained to fight wars too defend America and as a soldier when would you rather put that training be put to use, in a war against a force that just killed 3000 Americans or a guy that hasn't bothered anyone (except his own citizens) in 10 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

I loved how Bush put it last night about not "playing the popular game" in order to defend ourselves.

---

I don't doubt it, that's how you act on this board, too.

In my OPINION, this attitude by Bush will lead to many more American deaths and many more foreign deaths in the future. Creating bitter enemies will be more costly in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slippy

I don't doubt it, that's how you act on this board, too.

In my OPINION, this attitude by Bush will lead to many more American deaths and many more foreign deaths in the future. Creating bitter enemies will be more costly in the long run.

---

Amen. Glad someone see this problem, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Bush is a guy that means well, is doing well, and is going to win in November.

---

Means well? Please explain to me how basing all your decisions, including sending US soldiers to their death, on a plot to invade Iraq that's been brewing for over ten years has anything to do with meaning well. Tell me, how this improves anything for anybody that isn't upper-upper class. You think GW gives 2 shits about you? Even better, do you really think that he has had anything to do with the decision that have been made while he has been President. That is so misguided and such bullshit. Our economy is in the crapper, social security is dying, health care costs are through the roof, we're experience the largest deficit in history and people's fathers/mothers/sisters/brothers/sons/daughters are dying over a country that posed NO THREAT to you or I.

George Bush doesn't mean well, He means to make money for his father and friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardrider

Soldiers are trained to fight wars too defend America and as a soldier when would you rather put that training be put to use, in a war against a force that just killed 3000 Americans or a guy that hasn't bothered anyone (except his own citizens) in 10 years?

---

Most people forget this, but Saddam did shoot at American planes in the no-fly zone. Military people (one of my roomate's is an ex-Ranger) tend to look at Saddam a little differently then the average American. They know how dangerous he was (on a local level).

And for Blurred: obviously it was easier to get other countries to fall in line for PGW1 b/c it was in their own interests. But that's the point: we shouldn't commit the brunt of our military to one operation (especially a long term one) unless our vital interests are threatened. If our vital interests aren't threatened, but there is an action worth taking we need to find a way to get help: hopefully this ends up happening in the Sudan (maybe the US gov't could spend more like $2b on aid, a 10x increase, if European/Arab countries agree to send peacekeepers). If George Bush had real reasons that Saddam was a threat to world peace AND used better diplomacy he could have gotten more help. Unfortunately the people that calculated Saddam as not a great threat were probably right. The people that foresaw a long hard slog towards a democratic Iraq with waves of guerilla resistance were probably right. And the people who said that Americans don't have the attention span/political system to really build a free Iraq were probably right. If you're in the realist school you recognize that when one country threatens many others, there is typically a balancing reaction. This is not an inherently isolationist view of world politics, it's just the reverse of Wilsonian idealism/liberalism in int'l politics (which is what Bush is all about).

And here's what President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland had to say about the coalition: "They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altagirl

Speaking of politics and other boards...

A chick on another board I was reading last night said that she agreed that Bush seemed uninformed, unprepared, and not particularly intelligent, but that made her more sure she'd vote for him - because he seems like a normal guy and she doesn't like intellectuals like Kerry.

Jesus Christ. I wouldn't be shocked if mr_gyptian does end up happy after the elections, but the above will be why.

---

seriously... i don't know how people can tout bush being a 'good ol boy' as a reason for voting for him. i should think that an ideal president would be worldly, intelligent and an exemplary orator among other things, not just one of my fuck up friends. this is your goddamn president and the 'leader of the free world', not your drinking buddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freshies

DEADLINE for registering to vote is OCTOBER 18th

---

in your state. Every state is different, some allow registration at the polls.

*crickets*

Where did all the Bushies go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Our troops don't speak the language, don't know the terrain, and aren't intertwined like the rest of those people

---

Actually, we built the damn place (torah-bora) during the Soviet Union invasion. I am sure changes were made, But we should have a decent base knowledge of whats there. If we don't, why the hell were we there in the first place. We should have done more homework on the area before going in. Didn't Bush also say, when we first initiated the war on terro, that there would be high American casualties. If we truely had Bin Laden cornered, we should have used whatever force was necessary to capture him "dead or alive" (Bush's words). It is a reflection of poor communication between agencies, and shows a failure on the policy's and procedures of the administration to do two things: communicate effectively; and develop and adhere here to sound policy; two things that every effective leader must have.

Leave it to Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" to get the big scoop on debate night. What was John Kerry intently scribbling on his note pad while President Bush was speaking? Stewart got his hands on the pad after the debate and revealed Kerry’s words to "The Daily Show" audience: "I'm so crushing him."

I do believe that John Kerry grape-stomped Bush into a sullen mash.