Wanna buy some wood?

It was just you.

Posted by 68.98.241.230 on October 09, 2004 at 09:49 AM EDT #

From what I saw last night, Bush started out OK, but got on the defensive almost immediately. His volume was way overboard and it seemed like he was scolding one of his kids as he talked. Still, I was giving him credit for keeping a fairly neutral face... Up until he all but ignored Charlie and started rambling on about what ever it was he was incensed about. That was when I have the debate to Kerry outright. I don't care if you are God, you follow the rules that both your side and Kerry's side spent, God knows how long working out, and you don't ignore the moderator. Kerry lost a little ground near the end when he started stumbling a little bit, but there was no way he was going to drop below Bush's snub of the moderator. One thing that both my wife and I are really confused about. Why are they always surprised about who gets the next question? When Bush gets a question, Kerry is the last one to speak. Kerry then get's the next question. There really shouldn't be any surprise there at all. Neither one of them ever figured this out. Even after two debates! Ah well, it's nice to see Kerry win these debates. So long as he keeps his head, he will (in my mind) win the debates. Bush has proven over and over again, that he can't keep his head. Simply because he doesn't seem to have one. :)

Posted by Dave M. on October 09, 2004 at 04:19 PM EDT #

After watching the debates, It's getting scary thinking that this guy was at the wheel for the past 4 years.

Posted by 68.184.42.244 on October 09, 2004 at 05:47 PM EDT #

It turns out that Kerry was right, facts on factcheck.org.

Posted by 68.184.42.244 on October 09, 2004 at 08:44 PM EDT #

Check the fact check.org story at the following link

Posted by 68.214.238.16 on October 10, 2004 at 05:00 AM EDT #

Yes, of course everyone knows Bush is horrible and only idiots would vote for him.

At least that what so many of you adhere to.

Why must you always lower yourself to the level of a highschool kid?

Debate the issues and recognize reasonable people will disagree. I don't agree with Kerry, but I won't call him names, etc.

Posted by Brian on October 10, 2004 at 05:36 AM EDT #

Well, Brian. I'll be happy to debate the issues with you. What issue shall we talk about first?

Irresponsible tax cuts? Balloon deficit blamed on others? Using Iraq as an excuse to justify increased government spending with no way to pay for it? Attacking Iraq without finishing the first job in Afghanistan? In ability to get UN to help with the rebuilding of Iraq (I wonder why we need them now we didn't before).

Pick a topic and we'll begin. Also, to be honest, the President is the one calling names: liberal, flip-flopper, etc.

Posted by Jesus M. Rodriguez on October 11, 2004 at 02:25 PM EDT #

Vote!

Posted by Jesus M. Rodriguez on October 11, 2004 at 02:26 PM EDT #

Calling someone a liberal or conservative is OK. They are defining terms. Flip-flopper might be considered derogatory, but it's a valid descriptive term. But Bush doesn't have a head/mind? Comm'on man!

Posted by Brian on October 11, 2004 at 06:28 PM EDT #

Brian, name one other President that has had as many "ISM's" has Bush has had Bushism's. Everyone is allowed one or two, but hundreds, maybe thousands?

Posted by Dave M. on October 11, 2004 at 06:34 PM EDT #

Ok, Bush as a person, may be alright, but as a president he comes off as an imbicile. Did you see him speak prior to the Iraq war when he was followed by Tony Blair? If you saw that you would agree that he comes off as an idiot.

But like you stated in an earlier post "Debate the issues". So let's assume that Bush does have a brain and speaks so eloquently that he had only a few "isms".

How about his lack of fiscal responsiblity?
What about declaring Iraq free and the war won when we're still there getting bombed?
What about the accusation that Kerry is planning to "spend" lots of money, what do you think the current administration has been doing?
Why doesn't W. learn from his father?

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different and perhaps barren outcome.

What issues would you like to discuss?

Posted by Jesus M. Rodriguez on October 11, 2004 at 07:17 PM EDT #

Wow, and I just want to get the next version of Roller up and running internally ;) Look, everyone can complain about Bush, but Kerry is just as bad...at least Bush tends to respect his audience. Kerry just talks down to them like they're children. Kerry said: "Looking around the room, only 3 people in this room would not be impacted by my cut on those making more than $200,000". That's an insult to anyone in that room who might be a consultant, or small business owner who does pull in some money and earn over that amount. And what's funnier is, Kerry only makes about $150,000. So in reality it would only be "two" people. Anyway, I don't trust Kerry at all to be our president. Terrorists a nuisance? Wow. Talk about giving them insentive to act. The difference is, I believe the world changed three years ago...and those who supprt Kerry tend to not believe it has changed. But that's my opinion, and it's not going to be changed...just like no one else's on here is going to be changed. Paul Harvey reported today that the average monthly income in Iraq has increased 50% since the Saddam era. In addition, power consumption has increased due to the new facilities being built. Over 70% of the children have been vaccinated. Yes things are bad in some areas...but things are getting better. If Iraq stays the course, they have the know how to be the next Japan or Korea. But that's not why I came here...to talk about this...I just want more Roller :D

Posted by Mike Cornell on October 11, 2004 at 08:01 PM EDT #

Wow, I thought that only Bush and Cheney were the only ones who believed that "Things are getting better" in Iraq!

"Kerry just talks down to them like they're children."

I think I would rather be talked down to, than to be interrupted and ignored.

"The difference is, I believe the world changed three years ago...and those who supprt Kerry tend to not believe it has changed."

Guess what Mike, we all believe that the world changed after 9/11. We just don't all agree on the way it was handled afterword. Going after Bin Laden, good. Invading Iraq for no reason, bad.

Posted by Dave M. on October 11, 2004 at 08:20 PM EDT #

You don't think it changed the way I do.

Al Queda is just one terrorist organization. Bin Laden is just one man.

For me, this is more important than Bin Laden, more important than Hamas, more important than the IRA.

This is about all terrorist organizations, and making it more expensive for them to do business. There is a reason that you have fewer bombings in Isreal right now.

But like I said, I'm not going to change your mind, nor will you change mine.

Posted by Mike Cornell on October 11, 2004 at 09:48 PM EDT #

You don't think it changed the way I do.

First off, what, now you know me personally or something? How is it that you think you know what I know?

Your right, I don't think the way you do. Instead of thinking that this is something that only started after 9/11, I know that it's been happening for decades before 9/11.

This is about all terrorist organizations, and making it more expensive for them to do business. There is a reason that you have fewer bombings in Isreal right now.

What, you only care about Israel? What about Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Egypt, and of course Iraq. Since Bush invaded Iraq, there has been a huge increase in attacks all over the world. Why, because he left Bin Ladin to take out Saddam Hussein.

But like I said, I'm not going to change your mind, nor will you change mine.

Your only half right, you won't change your mind. Being independent, my mind has changed a couple of times in the last couple of years.

Pity more people don't have open minds...

Posted by Dave M. on October 12, 2004 at 12:08 AM EDT #

If you wish a flame war, please you can email me, no need to hog up the blog. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my posts and it sounded like a flame, and if so, I apologize...I'm not trying to change your mind...I respect your opinion. It's what makes this country great, that you and I can disagree. Regardless, I don't just care about Isreal...just one example. As you outlined, there are plently of places that have issues, and only so much that one country can bear. I am an independant myself, and have strong feelings on some issues that I disagree completely with our president on. One's pretty easy to figure out if you look for it. It's just that the one that I find most important trumps that one. And that's where I stand on it today.

Posted by Mike Cornell on October 12, 2004 at 12:23 AM EDT #

Dave M.

Being independent, my mind has chanegd a couple of times in the last couple of years.

Be careful Dave M. folks who change their minds are often called "flip-floppers". Sorry I couldn't resist. Good points you brought up. I'm checking out of this debate now since I'm not convincing anyone that Bush messed up by invading Iraq. He had full support for Afghanistan. But when they started talking about Iraq, I knew something was fishy with their focus.

Posted by Jesus M. Rodriguez on October 12, 2004 at 12:27 AM EDT #

Mike's right about changing minds... When all you are willing to hear is one side, it's pretty tough to see anything other than that opinion.

My only problem with Kerry is that he isn't clear when he makes his statements. He states: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." Right wingers immediatly jump on the quote and say he isn't strong on terrorism. Left wingers see he is being realistic about terrorism and that it's going to be impossible to eliminate all terrorists everywhere.

Ah well, what was the original post about? Oh, Do I want to buy some wood. :)

Posted by Dave M. on October 12, 2004 at 12:52 AM EDT #

Blogging Roller

Wanna buy some wood?

Welcome

Related entries