Bush/Kerry Debate

[MissTara]

Aba21 said:

Although I am not a fan of eitrher of these two candtidates, I do have a probelm with Kerry saying he wants to reduce the Terrorism to a nusiance..............uh I don't know about you but I like living in a country that has never really been attacked in a full fledged war at home. Maybe if your home is destroyed, or your city, or someting tangible you can see, then you might be affected by tall this. Terror is the number one problem we face in the world to, IMO.

I'm not a fan of the two either. I am not voting for Kerry, I'm voting against Bush. Terrorism scares me to death. Each and everyone of the beheadings that has gone on this year, have made me literally sick. Cryed with all of them in much sympathy. It really wouldnt matter which one was in office, I wouldnt feel any safer with either of the two. If that makes sense.

[janebse]

Debates do not determine which individual would be the best president. Debating is one kind of skill. It does not mean the candidate has leadership skills, relationship skills, morals, and everything else needed to be a good leader.

I believe that those who watched the debates had already made up their minds and so saw in "that chosen candidate" all the good qualities they wanted to see.

I haven't forgotten the number of people who wanted a certain person to run for president because he was good-looking.

What distresses me the most about present day politics is that "all parties" are only interested in power and control. No one is interested in the good of the country. If party A comes up with a good idea for something, then party B is usually against it or will find fault with it. No one seems concerned about what might actually work. I suspect both parties pretty much believe in the same thing, but each party wants control. It's all about power.

And, unfortunately, while someone may have an idea to help people, all too often what is seen as "help" only weakens the individual. I think welfare is just another form of slavery. Believe me, when you get something from the government, the government controls you. That old saying, "You don't get anything for nothing" is all too true. I realize that people often need help, but there should be opportunity for growth and independence of people, not a format which keeps the person forever tied to welfare. All too often the individual gives up his freedom for that help. Some officious, pompous government employee tells him what to do and what he should do. And this applies to all parties.

[MissTara]

I'm sure some of you don't wanna hear it, but tough stuff cream puff!
I left my kids father when my youngest was 7 months old. I had medicaid, (government health insurance), food stamps, and daycare assistance. I wouldnt know what to do if those types of welfare weren't available.
My kids are 6 and my youngest is almost 5...No medicaid, no food stamps, no daycare assistance. I finally woke up and realized I am smarter and have more experience than I thought I did. Got my butt into a continuing education program, now I work under the discretion of the state. The Insurance Commisioner is technically my boss.
Anywho, the point to the sob story is, If I can do it, anyone can...

[keres]

I usually don`t vote at all...

[mcribs]

janebse said:

Debates do not determine which individual would be the best president. Debating is one kind of skill. It does not mean the candidate has leadership skills, relationship skills, morals, and everything else needed to be a good leader.

What distresses me the most about present day politics is that "all parties" are only interested in power and control. It's all about power.

I agree with your assessment of politics, Jane. It is a tragic shame that the best man for the job will never get elected as President. It is impossible to get elected to any public office without prostituting oneself to powerful lobbyists or corporate interests. What this country really needs is someone who has proven that he/she has the leadership skills to run something: a top business leader like Bill Gates, for example. The status-quo political system we have in place will only get us more of the same type of hinge-head goons like we currently have running for office.

One thing I can say for Bush is that he has proven that he is not incapable of making a decision, while Kerry seems incapable of forming an opinion without checking the polls. Bush may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he seems to have convictions and beliefs, while Kerry has shown me that he marries for money, and not much more. I think most of the people voting for Kerry are choosing him ONLY to vote against Bush. Am I wrong?

[MissTara]

McRibs said:

I think most of the people voting for Kerry are choosing him ONLY to vote against Bush. Am I wrong?

Not wrong IMO

[janebse]

Yes, Miss Tara, I do realize that many people are helped. I was thinking of situations where people are penalized if they accept welfare and get a job. I have read where you are only allowed to earn so much income before they take the welfare away, and often, that income is so little no one could live on it. In those cases the government is not encouraging growth at all but stifling it.

But I do understand that in many cases, people are given the change to rise, and they do. And my hats off to them. You are right. It can be done.

This may seem off the subject, but I am always reading soooo.. I was reading medieval history and what amazed me was the movement between the upper class and the peasants or slaves. To my surprise smany in the upper class did not stay there, but due to inability, laziness, whatever, they began to work their way down while some of the slaves, peasants worked hard and suddenly were on their way up. There was much more movement going on in both directions than I had ever realized.

And after reading about the medieval period, I happened to pick up two books where blacks were researching their genealogy. In both cases they were aware that their ancestors had been involved with the "plantation owners." Now here comes the interesting part. When they went back to find the white descendants of the plantation owners, these people were poor and had lost ownership of all the land. But the blacks who were doing the research were all very successful, college graduates, etc. One was a writer, another one an executive of a computer company, a rather famous one too.

It was the same story I had encountered in the medieval history. What goes up must come down. What is down rises. Or maybe it's that old "Rags to riches and back to rags" in three generations.

[brunneng]

MissTara said:

I'm sure some of you don't wanna hear it, but tough stuff cream puff!
I left my kids father when my youngest was 7 months old. I had medicaid, (government health insurance), food stamps, and daycare assistance. I wouldnt know what to do if those types of welfare weren't available.
My kids are 6 and my youngest is almost 5...No medicaid, no food stamps, no daycare assistance. I finally woke up and realized I am smarter and have more experience than I thought I did. Got my butt into a continuing education program, now I work under the discretion of the state. The Insurance Commisioner is technically my boss.
Anywho, the point to the sob story is, If I can do it, anyone can...

Yes, we do what we need to do to survive. People never know how strong they can really be until they find themselves in a tough spot. Good work, Miss Tara! Also, keep up the good work.




...you know you could have been a cool crook...

[Ivory]

uh I don't know about you but I like living in a country that has never really been attacked in a full fledged war at home.

Well, then let me invite you to NOT re-elect a man who has done nothing but WORSEN an already p** poor international policy.

rhetorical question ............. why is ok to attack another country as long as WE are the only ones doing it?

[Ivory]

It does not mean the candidate has leadership skills, relationship skills, morals, and everything else needed to be a good leader.

I realize you're speaking in general terms but other than the "relationship" skill, I'm not sure Bush has any of those things you just listed.

What distresses me the most about present day politics is that "all parties" are only interested in power and control. No one is interested in the good of the country.

Kinda reminds you of O and Dennis doesn't it?

while Kerry seems incapable of forming an opinion without checking the polls.

But you see McRibs that's a GOOD thing. That indicates that he cares what others think. I want a president that is going to consider our place in the global community, not one who's going to act like we (Americans) are above the law.

[Beej]

This is one discussion I wasn't expecting to see on the Tempts Board!



"Well, then let me invite you to NOT re-elect a man who has done nothing but WORSEN an already p** poor international policy."

That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it, Ivory, but let's look at that assertion a little closer. Now, by "international policy" I assume you're referring to strained foreign relations, particularly with our European allies. If not, please elaborate and I'll reply accordingly.

If I read you right, however, I'd put the onus for poor relations squarely on the shoulders of the international community. After 12 years of deceiving and halting UN weapons inspections, breaching countless UN Security Council resolutions, defying and subverting international sanctions and routinely attacking U.S. aircraft monitoring the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone, the Hussein regime had to be dealt with once and for all.

The Bush administration gave the UN every opportunity to take the lead...first with a unanimous 15-0 UNSC vote declaring Iraq in breach of the very terms that allowed Hussein to stay in power after the first Gulf War and, later, by permitting UN inspectors to look for banned weapons systems.

By March of 2003, it was obvious the regime was not fully complying and the UN was then faced with a decision: continue the charade of cooperation or enforce the resolutions and take action to remove Saddam from power. For the U.S. and Great Britain (based on the best intelligence available at the time), it was primarily a matter of national security...but also one of humanitarianism. For the other prominent members of the UNSC -- France, China, Russia and Germany -- it was a matter of protecting the secret deals they had made with the Hussein regime...deals which were in stark violation of international law.

The truth is our allies actively worked against us to protect their investments and to hide their illegal activities. From their perspective, it was better to keep Hussein in power to secure their deals -- regardless of how many sanctions he violated or citizens he massacred -- than to have the United States-led coalition go in and remove him. From our perspective, it was imperative to our national security that we rid the world of one of history's worst mass-murderers and free millions of Iraqi men, women and children from an oppressive dictator we believed was stockpiling illegal weapons.

History will judge that -- through a free Iraq -- George W. Bush and the United States was RIGHT for taking action to remove Saddam Hussein from power...and those who worked against us did so out of greed and corruption. The very beginning of this shameful activity is starting to surface in the Oil For Food scandal. The credibility of the UN as an international body dedicated to peace, justice and humanitarian efforts is forever damaged.



"rhetorical question ............. why is ok to attack another country as long as WE are the only ones doing it?"

Wow. Where do I begin? Honestly, this is deserving of a thread unto itself...on a political board.



"But you see McRibs that's a GOOD thing. That indicates that he cares what others think. I want a president that is going to consider our place in the global community, not one who's going to act like we (Americans) are above the law."

No, indecision and weakness are not good things...especially in a time of war. Catering to the very leaders who turned their backs on us -- even when we gave them an opportunity to step up and do what's right -- is a deep character flaw. Furthermore, our place in the global community is already well-defined...we are the world's lone superpower. As such, we have certain responsibilities and requirements to the world community that set us apart from other countries. We are by no means equal...nor should we be. Any presidential candidate who would place world opinion ahead of taking unilateral action to preserve our own national security is unfit to lead.

I could write a chapter or two on the failures of the Bush administration...on various fronts...and a novel on why John Kerry's historical weakness, indecisiveness, poor judgment on matters of national security and shameless opportunism make him an unviable option.



I really hate to have this conversation here, though. This is a place where people of different races, gender, wealth, education and nationalities COME TOGETHER to express our love for the greatest vocal group ever assembled. Discussing politics is something I enjoy immensely, but it tends to divide more than unite...and I'm all about spreading the L-O-V-E!

[brunneng]

I like to spread it all day, too! Keep your shovels handy!




...ball of confusion...

[mcribs]

Ivory said:

But you see McRibs that's a GOOD thing. That indicates that he cares what others think. I want a president that is going to consider our place in the global community, not one who's going to act like we (Americans) are above the law.

No, Ivory, that is not a good thing. A president should be able to express his opinions regardless of what polls say. It is the job of the Congress (who are actually the ones responsible for some of the things you would hang on the President) to represent the people. The President could not have sent troops without the approval of Congress.

This country's international relations will never be perfect--there are always going to be countries that resent us. We cannot please the rest of the world no matter who is in control or what we do. The US can no longer ignore what is going on in the Middle East. People in that part of the world do not respect anything but force and brutality and to not respond to 9/11 would have invited more attacks. How can you think that the correct response to the terrorist attacks would have been to let the UN handle it, or perhaps to send diplomats? It is extremely naive to believe that Saddam Hussein was not involved in some way in the terrorist strikes against this country. Taking pre-emptive action against him will, if nothing else, dissuade the next crazed dictator from thinking that we are so concerned with pleasing the international community that we will not protect ourselves.

[brunneng]

Only 2 more weeks of political ads!

:faint

I am so tired of all the: :bs :bs :bs ... :bs :bs :bs ... :bs :bs :bs ...




...around and around and around...

[Ivory]

Beej, this is not a Temptations board, this a board for Temptations fans. (I'm pretty sure that was my intent when I created it. ) As long as we stick it in the right spot, practically any topic, including this one, is open for debate. But I'm glad we finally found you something to post about and I hope to see more of you!

You and I obviously have our minds made up so there's really no need for a whole dialogue about it 'cause neither one of us is going to change our mind.

However I stand by what I said. I think it's wrong for the US to "take the law into our own hands" so to speak and act like we're better than the rest of the world. Bush used 9/11 as an opportuntiy to carry out a personal vendetta. He led us to believe that Hussein was responsible for the attack and has yet to provide any proof of that (if he does, I'll start singing another tune.)

I would agree that Hussein was a corrupt leader who killed his own people. The irony is that the US has been giving aid to corrupt leaders who kill their own people FOR YEARS. There names are Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon.

So you see, some of the world perceives us as hypocrites. I don't think that assesment is too far off.

This country's international relations will never be perfect--there are always going to be countries that resent us.

So we just throw up our hands, give up and say "screw it, we're gonna do what we want to do"? Nah, I don't like that.

People in that part of the world do not respect anything but force and brutality and to not respond to 9/11 would have invited more attacks.

Well, I don't think it's fair to judge an entire group of people based on their ethnicity or their homeland but even if that WERE true, there not all that unlike us, are they?

Anyway, I don't have a problem with responding to 9/11. As a matter of fact, I wish the President would go BACK to responding to 9/11. Four words, "Where is Bin Laden?" So when Kerry called the war a "diversion" I knew exactly what he meant.

How can you think that the correct response to the terrorist attacks would have been to let the UN handle it, or perhaps to send diplomats?

No, I thought the response to 9/11 was appropriate. The President got Bin Laden out of power and I appreciate that. But he's spent billions on this little tangent he's on now, not to mention the 1,000 plus lives that have been lost (and that's only counting the Americans.) And we still don't know where Osama is.

It is extremely naive to believe that Saddam Hussein was not involved in some way in the terrorist strikes against this country.

Ok then. Tell me what he did. The president is incapable of doing so.

Dick Chaney can't even tell me and he's the brains behind the whole operation.