Bush vs Kerry

[Spr.Earl]

Just watching the debate on replay via BBC.
What thoughts do you have ?

Any Anti U.S. bashing will not be tolerated and your post's will be deleted!!
So be for warned!!!!

Lets see a constructive discussion.

 

[pappy]

hummmm is this a loaded question or what?

I'd say first that this second debate was better then the first one.  But the VP debate was better, maybe we should switch...  (but Edwards just don't have enough experience to handle being President)

I support Bush no big supprise, even with all his flaws.  No one can plan for every turn and twist a war can take, has he made the best choices? no, he has made mistakes.
Personally I feel Iraq should have been dealt with in 1991.  But he's going after the bad guys and that has to be done.  All the BS about Iraq distracting the US military from Afgainistain I think is media BS, we could have dropped the entire US military in Afgainistain and may not have caught Osama, we still might not find him.  But this war isn't about one individual, that was a big media and political mistake.  Lets see Russia had how many troops there for how years and never got him.

But Kerry, he's the typical career politician, everytime I see him I feel I need a shower.  I've always thought he was two-faced.  I hope his idea for winning the war isn't the same thing he did in Vietnam, namely switch sides and give aid and comfort the the enemy.

All the political BS from both sides about the economy was typical.  The Democrates cooked the books in the 1990's , thier so-called surplus was based on projections 10 to 15 years out.  Wish I could balance my checking account that way.  But spending money like a drunken salior on shore leave like the rebulicans are doing ain't the best either.  But we are in the middle of a war.

And sad to say the economy in the US ain't as bad as some countrys around the world.

I don't think the US president no matter which party controls the economy, that elepant does what it chooses.

But tougher questions this debate, at least both came to play this time.  But debates are of only limited use, most have mad thier minds up by now.

Both sides played fast and loose with the facts.... no different the any other countys politicians.

But Nader should have been invited, hell he may have made some "lesbians are after my daughter" type comment like Ross P. did in 1990, that was funny  ;D

 

[brin11]

I watched the last debate with great interest.  I found it to be extremely well managed and wish the Canadian debates could be that civil.  They just seem to try to talk over each other even with a moderator.

I must say I'm hoping that Kerry will win although I think they both did quite well in the debate.  I caught a bit of the first so I can't really compare the two debates at all.  Bush makes me uncomfortable with his beliefs on abortion and stem cell research, for example.  Also, the last election seemed like such a debacle that I always wonder who really won; not that Gore would have been much of a prize either.

Looking forward to the last debate.

 

[Pencil Tech]

I saw both debates and thought Kerry was far better. Kerry said the rationale for the war in Iraq was WMD and a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda - both of which have been proven wrong - and that the real war should be Afghanistan, which I agree with.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I can't really stand politics at all but i was interested in watching the american debates but didn't get a chance to. When are more planned?

Pappy Why is it no big surprise you support bush?  Is it a soldier thing? On TV it seems like more and more soldiers are starting to support Kerry (through interviews). Also a lot of soldiers who got home and left the service.
I just watched some news footage about rumsfield making a surprise trip to iraq. He told the troops not to expect to go home anytime soon. The spin was 'more and more soldiers are starting to support kerry'

 

[Brad Sallows]

The candidates have been speaking publicly and taking and defending positions on a wide range of issues for years.  Anyone who needs more information from a short, staged, artificial performance either hasn't been paying attention or doesn't care.  I would be just as happy if such people never voted.

 

[winchable]

Who will it be Jack Johnson or John Jackson??

I agree with Brad the debates shouldn't have as much weight as they do if people actually voted on the issues and stances the parties take and have been taking for years instead of how Kerry's botox looks or how much they think Bush looks like a monkey and bumbles through speech.(Not that i noticed him doing it much)

For what it's worth I think Kerry's a good orator, but so was Hitler (not comparing the two at all in any other sense..besides kerry lacks any semblance of passion) however I think it's especially indicitave of how the democratic process is marred by people who only live in a democracy once every 4 years instead of all the time like they should given that who they vote for has a huge impact on how they live for the following 4 years. If people would take the time more often to follow their countries politics we might actually get to see some proper democracy.

Personally I think the vice-presidential debate is the most entertaining. Looking at it from the surface Edwards is a little boy while cheney is constantly looking like he's about to mutter with his deep gravely voice "I could have your sweet southern head on a pike outside of my office if they'd let me out of my cage more than once a year."

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

On TV it seems like ... The spin ... 'more and more [is] ... support kerry'

  :-X

 

[pappy]

The reason I support Bush are many.  I won't go into them all.  Hes far from being perfect, no president has been.  He makes mistakes, name one president that hasn't, the fog of war prevents planing for every single event.  You make the best decisions you can, he took the fight to the enemy of the US.  The fact that the US hasn't been hit with a terrorist attack since 9/11 is proof it's working.  Granted the loss of every single life of US (or Canadian) military personnel is sad, the casualty rates in Iraq are extremely low.  The Marine Corps lost 5 or ten times that many in some island invasions in WW2, lets not even go into the casualty rates of WW1.

The fact that Rumsfield told the troops not to get their hope up and that they won't be coming home soon, well is truthful.  Americans have gotten spoiled to expect instant results.  The war againest Islamic Fundamentalist, which is what it's about,  (Terrorism is a tactic, not "an" enemy) is going to be a very long war.  This crap has been building since the late 1960s early 1970's so no should expect it to be over overnight. Personally I think we should have mobilized the entire US male population of draft age to go into the military after 9/11/01.  But that is / was highly unlikely.

The Islamic fundamentalist we're fighting are the same groups that have been hijacking and blowing up planes for over 30 years, it is not just something new since the Bush administration.  The same people that blew up the Embassies, USS Cole, trained and fought with the militias in Somalia, the same that blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut Lebanon.  The same funding and training Hamas in Israel, the same that tossed an old man off a tour boat in the Mediterranean, the list is endless.  It can be traced back to the Barbary Coast days in 1805.

Since this war on "terrorism" (to use the popular phrase) is going to take us years and years, we had to get rid of Saddam.  It should have been done in 1991, but the UN lacked the balls to finish the job.  A political end to a war, when a military end should have been let to run the course.  Even if the coalition forces shouldn't have done it, the biggest mistake of that war was telling the Iraqis to revolt and when they did we let them hang out to dry and let Saddam kill them by the 10,000's.  The US and Britain where spending billions to contain Saddam, with the no fly zones, etc since the 1991 Gulf war.  Saudi Arabia is not that stable or will be for long, they have major political problems they need to fix, maintaining our forces there was / is risky.  With Saddam still in power if Bush hadn't removed him, he would have been a threat to our rear forces in the area.  The UN sections where making him stronger not weakening him, look at the oil-for-food scandal being investigated.  Funny how the people(i.e France) saying don't invade where the ones getting the most bribesand kick backs from Saddam. I've seen pics of brand new arms and ammo with shipping labels from France that where shipped during the sanction years.  Saddam was just playing a waiting game.  Most of the world thought he had WMDs, he used them in the past, he said he had them, this time it was a buff.  How we see that, when we invaded it appeared he did, hindsight is always 20/20.  Saddam said himself he would have started building them again as soon as the sanctions where over.  The UN was losing it's resolve to contain Saddam, 12 plus years of sanctions was long enough.  It had to be done.

Don't kid yourselves, no matter who gets elected it will just be a matter of time before Syria and Iran are the next targets, whether they strike us first or we them.  As these countries are major threats.  But with Saddam in power we couldn't take on these countries safely with him at our backdoor.  Pouring more US troops into Afghanistan would just make it a more target rich environment for the reminets of the Talibon and Al Qeada.  The Spec Ops groups where designed to train and lead local forces as they are doing with great results.  The Russians poured 100,000 of troops into Afghanistan and spent ten years and lost.  The Afghanis NEED to fight for their OWN country, Free election just held there, yes some flaws, but free elections for the first time,  Thats improvement by anyone political leaning.  A free Iraq will be just a helpful in the middle east.  One can't expect things there to change overnight.  Our own revolution took years.  The war in Afghanistan contrary to the media was not a war againest one man, Ben Laden, you can't just go after one man and call it done when he's gone.  If he's still alive it will only be a matter of time, but one man can't be the focus of the entire war on Terrorism.  We ARE fighting Al Qeada in other countries, you just don't hear about it.  SF units are all over the world working with local governments.

As far as Kerry goes, I'm 45, I've seen what Kerry stands for since he appeared on the political radar in 1970-71.  His Anti-war activities where / are nothing short of treason.  Bush may have been smoking dope and staying home, but at least he didn't commit treason.  BTW, the planes Bush trained to fly where pretty much removed from frontline units in the early 1960's if not the 1950's.  At that time the NG was nothing like it is today.  Besides Kerry's treason lost us the war before all the hoop-la about Bush leaving the Air Guard in 1973/74.

Kerry did win medals in RVN, but even his own diaries confirm at least 2 of 3 Purple Hearts where due to self-inflection.  A small piece of shrapnel that barly broke his skin and didn't require more then iodine and a bandaid did not rate a PH.  Those that served with him including the Unit commanded said they "let" Kerry use the loop hole to leave RVN after only 3 months because they knew he was a glory-seaking reckless puke only out to selfserve his future political career.  Hummm he's the one playing off his RVN service in the campain.  NO other member of that unit or any other Swift Boat unit took that 3-PH and your out loop-hole.  Even the ones wounded in battle.  Kerry refuses to releases his complete records that would document the fact that he was a risk to his own side, his actions put Americans at risk for his own glory seaking.

After he came back he provided aid and comfort to the enemy by his actions in the anti-war movement.  He disgraced all vets not just VN era ones.  Yes some vets support him, thats their right.  But the vast majority know the truth and don't support him.  He never apologized for these actions to this day.

He's a slimly career politician that will say and do anything to get elected.  His own 20-year senate history will prove that over and over.  He and his kind gutted the Us military and Intelligence community for years and years.  The left leaning media "looks" the other way.  Kerry's plan to "win the war againest the terrorist" is simply surrender and appeasement.  His election will only put more people at risk, be they American or Candians, Brits, etc, etc.

Enough ranting.....  most here in the US have made up their minds by now. the outcome of the election is close and who knows who will win, it will be Bush or Kerry, thats all thats certain at this point.  Life will go on.  Who ever gets elected will cause lives to be lost, the numbers and the way they lose their lives will only be a matter for historians to debate in years to come.

As Zapata put it:
"It's better to die on ones feet then to live on ones knees"

In my opinion a win for Kerry means America will be on her knees.
Others I'm sure will have a different opinion, as is their right.

 

[lfejoel25]

I'm not an american, so i really don't care one way or the other who runs another country.  that being said, i'll state what i think from my perspective.

1.  beef-the canadian beef industry has excellent safety standards, the standards were proven when a diseased cow was discovered before it went anywhere. (before being sold anywhere), and i think they destroyed all of the cattle in that herd, and maybe even a couple of neighbouring ones.  what does that mean to the bush.  let's use this opportunity to screw the canadian beef industry.

2. lumber-the US invented some claim with the wto, in order to put huge trade tarrifs on canadian lumber, and screw the entire canadian lumber industry.  the wto eventually decided that the claims were unjustified, but the US never did reimburse canadian lumber companies for the tarrifs, and i think some tarrifs are still in place.

3. cross border labour-the US came down hard on border issues after post 9/11.  i can't blame them.  but they came down even harder on cross border workers.  bush talked about foreigners taking american jobs.  which is fine as well.  but i live in a community that is close to the US border and i know that all it did was leave some US community without any qualified workers.  most importantly in the community that i live by was nurses.  the new regulations made the hospitals in the area seriously understaffed.

4. iraq-while i don't disagree with pappy about iraq, i don't credit any of it with bush, except for the problems.  personally i think pappy is bang on when he mentions about "should have been done in 1991".  which leaves me with the question why now?  because he had a good excuse.  and while like i said before, i don't live there, but if i were an american, i wouldn't be too happy about the way he dealt with the UN or other countries.  he basically alienated the US from other countries with the attitude he presented. "either you're with us or against us".  it could have been dealt with so much better, and probably could have saved the administration and the country a lot of the backlash they received over the whole thing, and might have had more international support.  not to mention that he has personal ties to the companies contracted to do most of the work in the whole thing for a ludicrous dollar value.  in canada, that would have been the equivalent of the sponsorship scandal.  and that almost cost the liberals the election.

5. tax breaks to the rich?  how can that be justified when so many people are

6.  unemployment-people are losing their jobs.  either that or they are being replaced by part-time, or pay cut positions.  the same thing is happening in canada.  when i lost my $60k a year job at nortel, i was offered another position at a fraction of the salary.

7.  the deficit-while i'm not the typre to go screaming and yelling whenever the government has a deficit, the US has hit a record.  and that ain't good.  one of bushes successes was convincing congress to pass a bill allowing the country to go further into debt to support the war.  why is that considered any good?

i'm not saying that kerry would be any better, but i am saying i don't think he could be worse.  and the whole debate in the us right now seems to have nothing to do with policy OR capability.  it's all strictly PR and slander campaings.  what does either of their military records have to do with their qualifications to run the country.  other than that if i were to go to war for my country, i wouldn't mind being sent there by a leader that knows how it feels to get shot at.

 

[Kirkhill]

Given a chance I would be voting for President Bush.

The President is straight forward and "common".  Kerry spends so much time trying to stay in the middle he gets trapped by his own words.  He has no plans beyond getting elected.  A plan that he has been working on since at least the time that he asked for duty on the Swiftboats.

Kerry is a politician.  Bush believes.

Cheers.

 

[NavyGrunt]

I know all my family are voting for BUSH and they are ass stomping Marines from Texas....so maybe thats a given......

 

[clasper]

The President is straight forward and "common".

While it is important for politicians to have "the common touch" so they can relate to their constituents, I would suggest that for someone holding the office of "the most powerful man in the free world" we aspire for something more than "common".  Call me an elitist, but I think the skills required to be a good president require someone who is extraordinary, rather than ordinary.

Bush believes.

And yes, Bush has very strong beliefs.  Belief, in and of itself, is NOT a virtue.  It is what you believe that makes you virtuous, and it is the ability to reason which makes it possible to communicate effectively with those who don't share your belief.

We could discuss Bush's and Kerry's beliefs ad naseaum, and haul up outrageous lies told by both sides to win points, but for me, Bush's big failure is his inability to reason and communicate with others who don't share his belief.  If you're on his side, then everything's great, but if you're on the other side, you get screwed.  That may be an acceptable tactic when dealing with fundamentalist terrorists abroad, but is not an acceptable tactic when dealing internally with elected officials in a democracy.  In 2000, Bush campaigned using the phrase "I'm a uniter, not a divider", which turned out to be a ridiculous fabrication.  In today's fractured electorate, we need someone who can build a concensus.  Kerry's definitely not the right man for the job, but I think he's marginally better than Bush.  It is pretty depressing that Americans, when choosing their president, get to pick between the lesser of two evils.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

4. iraq-while i don't disagree with pappy about iraq, i don't credit any of it with bush, except for the problems.  personally i think pappy is bang on when he mentions about "should have been done in 1991".  which leaves me with the question why now?  because he had a good excuse.  and while like i said before, i don't live there, but if i were an american, i wouldn't be too happy about the way he dealt with the UN or other countries.  he basically alienated the US from other countries with the attitude he presented. "either you're with us or against us".  it could have been dealt with so much better, and probably could have saved the administration and the country a lot of the backlash they received over the whole thing, and might have had more international support.  not to mention that he has personal ties to the companies contracted to do most of the work in the whole thing for a ludicrous dollar value.  in canada, that would have been the equivalent of the sponsorship scandal.  and that almost cost the liberals the election.

Actually, the Duelfer Report (Iraq Survey Group) said that France and Russia (and China) were all dealing illegally with Saddam against the sanctions.  Among others, Chirac was specifically targeted and bribed.  To say that Bush "alienated" other countries requires an extreme elasticity of the definition of the word: France, Russia, the UN, etc. accepted bribes to oppose the US and abandon the people of Iraq. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/07/wmd107.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/07/ixnewstop.html

 

[Kirkhill]

Call me an elitist,

OK Clasper, you're an elitist. ;D

I come from a culture that values the common.  As in the House of Commons.  As in Common Sense. 

A culture that values the decision of the Jury more than the decision of the Judge.

A culture that values Parliament over the Courts.

A culture where the Presbytery, not the Pope, appoints the Minister.

A culture that values the Common Man and looks askance at any that describe themselves as Intellectuals an Elites.

A culture that admires acceptance of the will of the Majority over the importance of being Right.

I like a "Common" politician.  I like a "Common" leader.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>If you're on his side, then everything's great, but if you're on the other side, you get screwed.

Sounds just like the way my principles and interests are treated by the Liberals and NDP when they hold federal and provincial power.

 

[brin11]

The President is straight forward and "common". 

I don't think either Bush or Kerry appear "common".  They're both rich boys that made tons of money. 

 

[ramy]

If I had a vote it would go to George W Bush.

 

[pappy]

I'll be brief with some comments, you make good point so I'm not slaming you, just providing a US side of things....

I'm not an american, so i really don't care one way or the other who runs another country.   that being said, i'll state what i think from my perspective.

"1.   beef-the canadian beef industry ..."

Mad-Cow was blown way out of porpotian by the news media, and the uninformed of the US masses scremed bloddy murder and forced the US goverment into doing something, stopping the small percentage of canadian imports was a bit over the top.  But the US beef industrary is getting jammed by the Japanese market doing the same.  Either way it ain't right I agree.  Mad-cow desiese need to be dealt with, but knee-jrek reactions won't do anything.  I think the same would have happened no matter who was president.  The world in one big global economy wheather we like it on not.

"2. lumber-the US invented ..."
Not sure what details get to Canada about Oregon, but we've taken it up the ### in the lumber industary in the last 20-30 years.  Oregon has the worse employment rates in the US becasue of it.  Granted it's still better here them many European countries, World economy crap again.  I'm not going to say I'm a expert on the Canadian Timber industary.  But they do get subsidies from the goverment, The US puts tarriffs on imports, both sides get screwed.  Lets face it the timber industary itself is it's own worse emeny.  I wonder now many Canadian compaines are owned by the same people that own US compaines.  As far as things go here, most of the problems are due to mismanagement in the lumber industary itself, not a fault of the goverment, but again knee-jerk reactions to events on the gobal economy doesn't help either side.  It happens in tons of markets not just Timber.  More to blame on the gobal recession then one goverment or the other.  Everyone is to blame equally, and all but the rich take it in the shorts.

"3. cross border labour-the US came down hard on border issues after post 9/11.   i..."
Well the US boirder has been a miss for years.  9/11 was a big shock to some in the US, some knew it was a matter of time.  Terrorism has been going on for years.  9/11 hurt the US economy, since the US/Canada and the entire world is one big economy what happens here effects others, can't be helpped.  The fact that some of the 9/11 hijackers came in from Canada, well both side have to take blame for that crap.  The US had it's head in the sand thinking it would never happen to us, again knee-jerk reactions from the uninformed masses screaming to the politicians.

"4. iraq-..."
Look at the "oil-for-food" scandel going on, the major players that where againest the war where the goverments getting the big kick backs and bribes, the UN was making billions off santions, they never wanted to end them.  it's was a simple military necessity, WMDs was the wroung reason, but it was a justifiable reason.  Hindsight says it wasn't so much of a p[roblem, But what if we had done nothing and it had been real.  When it comes to WMDs I'd rather our goverment take action rather then wait for some moron to pop off a nuke inside the US.

All plans made before wars go into the trash when the bullets start to fly, you can never know what the other side will do.  Considering the fact the there are what 6-9 million Iraqis and only 150,000 coalition troops,  if we didn't have the support of most of Iraqis nothing would stop them from winning.  It's simple numbers.  I have many friends and realitives over there in both Afgainistain and Iraq.  Whats really happening on the ground is not what the left leaning media wants everyone to believe.  The begining years of WW2 didn't eactactly go the Allies way either.  This is not a video game where you have the advantage and it's over in a few hours or when you hit the pause button.

I think we can find giant goat screws in every single war any countrys been in.  4 years in WW2 cost the US 250,000 dead, 3 years of the "war on terrorism" has cost over 1000, each one of them sorely missed.  But you have to admit we and our allies have done so much with so little.

"5. tax breaks to the rich?   how .... "
Well I think the rcih can and should pay much more, but in every country the rich buy the politicians. But it wasn't all Bush that passed them, Congress and Senate pass the laws.  
Considering the fact that the KErry's paid only 13% and are one of the riches couple in the US and at the same time the Bush's paid over 30% goes to shown Kerry not going to change things for him and his rich friends.  It will take more then a new president to change the way taxes are done here in the US.  

"6.   unemployment-people "

Current US employment rates are well below the rest of the industrial west.  US is like 5-6%, Canada 8%, etc.  The Bush administration has lost jobs, but in the last few years they also created more jobs then France, Germany, Britian and Japan combined.  Gobal recession, one has to expect job losses.  I live in Oregon, it has the worse imployment rate in the US, some cities are worse, but I'm talking at the sate level.  I quit my last job a few years about 18 months ago and was going to take off 6 months, I couldn't stay unemployed for 6 weeks with out getting a better job.  Most cronic unemplyed here expect 6 figure paying jobs on a high school diploma, ain't gonna happen.

"7.   the deficit-"
The so called "surplus" from the Clinton administration people blame Bush for lossing was based on a set of cooked books, it was based only on unrealistic projections 10 to 15 years into the future.  Gobal reccession, Stock market over valuved / crash, 9/11 war, they all cost moeny.  Your giving the US president too much credit for controling the economy.  Granted the US politicians on both side have been spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.  It sucks I agree.  The US President submits a buget plan, but Congree and senate do the actually spending. All three branches of US goverment are to blame.  But there are only so many things the goverment can do during a war.

 

[clasper]

OK Clasper, you're an elitist. ;D

I come from a culture that values the common.   As in the House of Commons.   As in Common Sense.    

A culture that values the decision of the Jury more than the decision of the Judge.

A culture that values Parliament over the Courts.

A culture where the Presbytery, not the Pope, appoints the Minister.

A culture that values the Common Man and looks askance at any that describe themselves as Intellectuals an Elites.

A culture that admires acceptance of the will of the Majority over the importance of being Right.

I like a "Common" politician.   I like a "Common" leader.

I agree with some of what you say here, but I have to point out a couple of things.   The House of Commons should be filled with commoners (ie people who are not part of the nobility), not necessarily people who are ordinary.

Looking up the definition for common, and some of them fit what is appropriate for a politician:

Belonging equally to or shared equally by two or more; joint: common interests.
Of or relating to the community as a whole; public: for the common good.

And some of them would be pretty scary in a leader:

Not distinguished by superior or noteworthy characteristics; average: the common spectator.
Of no special quality; standard: common procedure.
Of mediocre or inferior quality; second-rate: common cloth

I think what you're trying to say is you don't want politicians to be in an ivory tower, fed with a silver spoon, etc. (absolutely true).   But I still maintain that a president should be someone with a remarkable background and capabilities, and society shouldn't look askance at them for being elite.   (Although we should certainly look askance at them for being an arrogant prick who thinks he's better than everyone else...)