View Poll Results: Who will win tonights presidential debate

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • John Kerry

    23 58.97%
  • George Bush

    16 41.03%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 82

Thread: Kerry or Bush

  1. #41
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]I hope he doesn't have to. But I know that he will do whatever it takes to protect the security of the American People.[/b][/quote]

    Like securing the borders? Like creating the terror alert system and raising it to high based on outdated scetchy info? Like telling people you are more likely to die in another attack if the opponent wins? Like allowing Saudi nationals to flee the country without even brief questioning? Like "selling" 5000 bombs to Israel? Like spending billions on new military technology like a missle defense system or mini-nukes? Its hard work.

  2. #42
    [quote][i]Originally posted by YoungJetsFan[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 01:27 PM
    [b] I am not going to sit here and go through all the domestic problems in the united states. If you look at it where we are now and where we were. Everything has gone downhill from education to healthcare to the economy etc

    The middle class is really struggling in this country. Things are not the way they were 5 to 7 years ago. I know young people my age, that are filing for bankruptcy. I have friends with degrees from Penn State and that passed the bar and have law degrees, that can't get steady and solid work.

    [/b][/quote]
    I don't know where to start either, but just to point out two things here...

    This country's economy was already heading in this direction when Clinton handed W the keys to the White House. W was working towards turning that around when 9/11 happened. I don't want to make excuses, but I think it's fair to say that no matter WHO was in office in 2001 they would have had a disasterous econbomy to deal with on 9/12.

    The middle class IS struggling in this country. I'm not going to hash out back and forth what Bush has done for them because you and I will always disagree on whether his policies have helped or hindered the middle class. What I DO believe, though is that I'd rather our men and women defending this country NOT be on welfare as many currently are thanks to the horrible 8 years leading up to W's election.

  3. #43
    You drank the coolaid and took the brown acid palazzo!!

    How can say that no one lied or mislead anyone! the neo cons wanted to invadedf Iraq since 1997..(Cheney/Feith/Rummy/Wolfi/ Pearl)
    Go back and read THe PNAC..They spell it out themselves...
    since 11:00am on 9-11-01 the people of the US have been misled about Iraq...We were told that iraq was an imminent threat..tied to al qeada..a threat who is developing nukes to use against us!
    THAT was NOT based on edidence..there was no eveidence..there were two trucks that the bush/cheney translated to being mobile bio weapons labs!
    There was some tubes that bush/cheney translated into being for Nukes!
    CHENEY has wanted the invasion of iraq for years!!that has been proven...so don't tell mw that we were not misleD OR THAT CHENEY ONLY reacted to the evidence...

  4. #44
    "Like telling people you are more likely to die in another attack if the opponent wins?"
    THE TRUTH HURTS... DON'T IT THOUGH?

    "Like allowing Saudi nationals to flee the country without even brief questioning?"
    THE SAUDIS ONLY LEFT AFTER AIR TRAVEL WAS OPENED FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ONLY AFTER RICHARD CLARK PERSON ALLY APPROVED THE SAUDI DEPARTURES.

  5. #45
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 02:01 PM
    [b] You drank the coolaid and took the brown acid palazzo!!

    How can say that no one lied or mislead anyone! the neo cons wanted to invadedf Iraq since 1997..(Cheney/Feith/Rummy/Wolfi/ Pearl)
    Go back and read THe PNAC..They spell it out themselves...
    since 11:00am on 9-11-01 the people of the US have been misled about Iraq...We were told that iraq was an imminent threat..tied to al qeada..a threat who is developing nukes to use against us!
    THAT was NOT based on edidence..there was no eveidence..there were two trucks that the bush/cheney translated to being mobile bio weapons labs!
    There was some tubes that bush/cheney translated into being for Nukes!
    CHENEY has wanted the invasion of iraq for years!!that has been proven...so don't tell mw that we were not misleD OR THAT CHENEY ONLY reacted to the evidence... [/b][/quote]
    That's right... since 1997, when Saddam Hussein publicly ordered "American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces." And we worked with the UN on its numerous resolutions that Saddam Hussein FAILED to adhere to. Time was up. He had paid for terrorist bombers in Israel who murdered Americans, shoeltered American-killing terrorist Abu Nidal, bomb maker for the World Trade Center Bombing in 1993 and Al Zarqawi. Al Zarqawi's residence in Iraq WAS and REMAINS an imminent threat. We've only slowed him down by removing Hussein.

  6. #46
    "Things are not the way they were 5 to 7 years ago. "

    YJF, I've got news for you. Things are not going back to the way they were 5-7 years ago for a long time. Don't you realize that was a bubble economy ? Do you remember Alan Greenspan's "Irrational Exuberrance" speach ? I worked on a trading desk for a nasdaq market making firm at the time. My co workers and I would just shake our heads at the prices people were willing to pay for dog$s**t companies w/ no earnings. And as we know today, many of the companies that did report earnings were the result of shady accounting practices. Anyhow in retrospect it's pretty obvious that the economic levels of the late 90's were a total anomally and were not sustainable. To say the Bush has done a bad job w/ the economy because there is a net job loss, or because the stock mkt is down is not fair. Personnally I think he's done a very good job of getting us out of the recession. One of the very first things that he did when he took office was make CEO's sign off on their co.'s financial statements making them personally liable. Consequently you don't see nearly as much accounting fraud. Also I believe that tax cuts have helped. So does Alan Greenspan. Anyhow to compare where the economy is today vs. where is was in 1998 w/o taking into consideration all of the factors that led to the bubble bursting is unfair, and intellectually dishonest.

  7. #47
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 11:58 AM
    [b] do you think Bush will open another front in the ME? if you do, and you are still voting for him, doesn't that make one "pro-war" ? [/b][/quote]
    If we have to, yes. He's getting my vote because he's already shown himself to be as brave as any American President to date.

    Pro-war? If raiding the nests of evil is "pro-war" then I'm prowar. I can spin my chair around and look out the window and see the open space in the sky and on the ground where thousands died on 9/11. Bush is doing what he can to stop that s**t from happening again. It's all he can do, it's all we can do. Kerry, and he's reasoned this, wants to make it a law-enforcement issue. After all these months of war and occupation in Iraq, we're still at a 3-1 9/11 victim to US casualty ratio. We've had not a single attack here on our soil since, knock on wood and everyday's a blessing, yet some runt like Young Jet Fan says it's all a "total failure" and it's time for a "regime" change. He yearns for a weaker America. There is no other explaination for his logic.

  8. #48
    [quote][i]Originally posted by kevin45[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 02:15 PM
    [b] "Things are not the way they were 5 to 7 years ago. "

    YJF, I've got news for you. Things are not going back to the way they were 5-7 years ago for a long time. Don't you realize that was a bubble economy ? Do you remember Alan Greenspan's "Irrational Exuberrance" speach ? I worked on a trading desk for a nasdaq market making firm at the time. My co workers and I would just shake our heads at the prices people were willing to pay for dog$s**t companies w/ no earnings. And as we know today, many of the companies that did report earnings were the result of shady accounting practices. Anyhow in retrospect it's pretty obvious that the economic levels of the late 90's were a total anomally and were not sustainable. To say the Bush has done a bad job w/ the economy because there is a net job loss, or because the stock mkt is down is not fair. Personnally I think he's done a very good job of getting us out of the recession. One of the very first things that he did when he took office was make CEO's sign off on their co.'s financial statements making them personally liable. Consequently you don't see nearly as much accounting fraud. Also I believe that tax cuts have helped. So does Alan Greenspan. Anyhow to compare where the economy is today vs. where is was in 1998 w/o taking into consideration all of the factors that led to the bubble bursting is unfair, and intellectually dishonest. [/b][/quote]
    nice post...
    and not to mention the dotcom collapse.

  9. #49
    [quote][i]Originally posted by sackdance[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 02:20 PM
    [b] Kerry, and he's reasoned this, wants to make it a law-enforcement issue. [/b][/quote]
    Well in all fareness to Kerry... he doesn't feel this way anymore. The polls told him that wasn't working so now he wants to hunt these dern critters down wherever they are. That's his line and he's stickin' to it... unless another poll says he shouldn't.

  10. #50
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NC in the Hizzy
    Posts
    928
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Enrique Pallazzo+Oct 13 2004, 12:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Enrique Pallazzo @ Oct 13 2004, 12:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bman[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 01:32 PM
    [b] There are plenty of reasons i am voting for john kerry..
    Reason number 1 is an anti Bush vote though..
    They lied and people died..You need to be held accountable in this country..
    FEAR NOT..the sky will not fall kerry.. [/b][/quote]
    You drank the koolaid...
    No one lied. No one misled anyone. We took information we had and made a decision based on that. That information turns out to not have been reliable, but no one lied. [/b][/quote]
    I really hate to go into political discussions on sports board but some info regarding lying about WMD.

    I have two very good friends in the reserve who were sent to Iraq just before the invasion. They returned safely, after 1 year in Iraq, (thank goodness). During their debrief prior to the invasion, they were told not to worry about WMD, because they had intelligence that Iraq had no nuclear weapons, and they had very little if any nerve gas. Even if they had nerve gas, they had no means of delivering it - i.e. no way to use it in a massive way.

    Mind you, this was the debriefing they were given PRIOR to the invasion. Both guys each told me this at separate times. Take it for what you will, but they knew before going in that Iraq had no WMD.

  11. #51
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MysticalJet[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 02:29 PM
    [b] [/QUOTE]
    I really hate to go into political discussions on sports board but some info regarding lying about WMD.

    I have two very good friends in the reserve who were sent to Iraq just before the invasion. They returned safely, after 1 year in Iraq, (thank goodness). During their debrief prior to the invasion, they were told not to worry about WMD, because they had intelligence that Iraq had no nuclear weapons, and they had very little if any nerve gas. Even if they had nerve gas, they had no means of delivering it - i.e. no way to use it in a massive way.

    Mind you, this was the debriefing they were given PRIOR to the invasion. Both guys each told me this at separate times. Take it for what you will, but they knew before going in that Iraq had no WMD. [/b][/quote]
    Thank God they returned safetly.
    I still don&#39;t believe based on everything we know that anyone lied or was mislead, though.

  12. #52
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Oct 13 2004, 12:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Oct 13 2004, 12:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bitonti[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 11:58 AM
    [b] i got a serious question 5ever (and any Bush supporter brave enough to answer)

    do you think Bush will open another front in the ME? if you do, and you are still voting for him, doesn&#39;t that make one "pro-war" ? [/b][/quote]
    Bitonti, I honestly don&#39;t know the answer to your first question. What countries are you talking about? Iran, Syria?

    If you advocate non-war at all costs, does that make you pro-terrorism? Does that make you pro-appeasement?

    Incidentally, Matt, you plan on voting for a man who authorized this war. Bush wouldn&#39;t have been able to launch it without the support of Congress and John Kerry and John Edwards. Does that make you pro-war? [/b][/quote]
    Iran and Syria just to name two... Say what you want about Kerry but he&#39;s more experienced in the ways of warfare than Bush. He will have qualified people working to clean up Bush&#39;s mess (which will be this nation&#39;s "responsibility" for decades)...

    [quote][b]
    However, all you ever do is whine about how we shouldn&#39;t have invaded Iraq but should have gone after Saudi Arabia. Do you still feel that way? If so, does that make you pro war?[/b][/quote]

    That&#39;s not all i ever do... it&#39;s one argument i have put forth. I feel that _if_ pre-emptive war was justified it would be against Saudi... however only in certain cases is pre-emption a successful tactic.

    Kerry said in his debate that pre-emptive war was a right a President should always enjoy... frankly I disagree. The "police action" loophole in the constitution gets exploited every 5-10 years to keep the military machine rolling.

    [quote][b]
    What about people who agreed with the Afghan War but disagree with the current Iraq War? Are they pro or anti war?
    [/b][/quote]

    Cmon, did we really NEED iraq? sackdance&#39;s "nests of evil" exist more plentifully in many other places worldwide. We are sacrificing US forces at a slow burn rate as a substitution for actually dealing with the root causes of terrorism.

    I don&#39;t understand the Bush voter. Do you people really believe that Islamic people hate America cause they are crazy? Yes they are stuck in the Stone age but that doesn&#39;t change the fact

    _THE FACT_

    that the west has exploited them for energy resources for almost a century.

    we shamelessly support Israel, a "nation" that we created, and then defended...

    we have bombed ridiculous amounts of middle eastern targets

    we support horrible freedom-killing regimes like the House of Saud and General Monsurraff of Pakistan

    is it any wonder that the terrorists are willing to die to make a point?

    these people have no opportunity. Im not condoning their behavior but this s**t doesn&#39;t come out of a vacuum guys

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Bitonti, thanks for the good-faith reply.

    Even if we stipulate that you are 100% correct, we now have just as much of a reason to "hate" terrorists as they do to hate us. They&#39;ve killed innocent Americans, Americans who have nothing whatsoever to do with their gripes, however legit or illegitimate they are. You can talk about root causes all you want. Are some poor minorities in this country violent criminals solely because of their upbringing? Sure. Is "society" to blame for creating come violent criminals? But that doens&#39;t mean we don&#39;t have to protect the rest of society from people who are, for whatever reason, active violent criminals. Terrorists are trying to kill us. They already exist and are already pissed off. It wouldn&#39;t matter if we stopped funding Israel tomorrow and signed a Congressional order forbidding us from ever doing so again. The muslims simply wouldn&#39;t believe us.

    You are (again) examining things in a vaccuum, as if the House of Saud has been the only thing standing between democracy and prosperity for all Saudi citizens. We can buy oil from anyone&#33; Fine, let&#39;s say the US never supported the House of Saud. What would have ocurred in their abscence? What would Saudi Arabia look like today??

    The problem already exists - the question is...what do we DO about it? Today?

  14. #54
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 03:21 PM
    [b] Say what you want about Kerry but he&#39;s more experienced in the ways of warfare than Bush. He will have qualified people working to clean up Bush&#39;s mess (which will be this nation&#39;s "responsibility" for decades)...

    [/b][/quote]
    This couldn&#39;t be further from the truth. Let&#39;s forget that Kerry sh*t all over his "comrades" in arms. Out of the two of them BUSH is the only one to now have ANY experience in running a war. Yes he learned it all in the last four years, but that&#39;s more experience in that than Kerry has. Bush is currently cleaning up the mess left to HIM. What&#39;s gone on in the last four years is not HIS fault and he&#39;s doing a great job of dealing with the cards he was dealt.

  15. #55
    We should be doing more, killing our enemies, the terrorists, faster and more efficiently. Forget leaving their Holy Sites alone. Those sites, and the scum inside, should be destoryed at EVERY turn.

    Terrorists speak one language and that language is power. Our only choice is to show them the true scope of American power.

  16. #56
    palzazzo&#33;
    BUSH started the Iraq war..It WAS a war of choice...NOT necessary...Bush does NOT know how to run a war..I&#39;m not saying that Kerry does..BUT clearly little bush does NOT..he&#39;s a spoiled school yard bully.."If you weren&#39;t with us then you can&#39;t have any of the contracts"&#33;&#33;&#33; I mean gimme a break&#33;

    I hate how some people think that US soldeirs or commanders won&#39;t listen to kerry b/c kerry was anti war after he returned from nam...There are PLENTY of active and ex generals who are pro kerry and HATE the way the us has acted under Bush...

  17. #57
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Darkstar Rising[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 03:41 PM
    [b] Forget leaving their Holy Sites alone. Those sites, and the scum inside, should be destoryed at EVERY turn.
    [/b][/quote]
    Do that an you alienate us from everyone including our allies. It would give the terrorists the backing they need, proving to the the rest of the world that their cause is just.

  18. #58
    look..it&#39;s a catch22...YOu can&#39;t kill every terrorist..Iraq wasn&#39;t the enemy or the main threat facing the US...Al qeada is and was..and everyday you stay there you create at least one more terrorist..
    there is NO victory in this war..it&#39;s not as though there are 1000 terrorists and all you have to do is find and kill those 1000....
    the longer we occupy iraq the larger the threat becomes...eventually we must look at the causes of terrorism and rectify them....

  19. #59
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 02:51 PM
    [b] becomes...eventually we must look at the causes of terrorism and rectify them.... [/b][/quote]
    What are they and how do we rectify them? Does this process involve any necessary changes on their end, or is all of the onus on us? Does the mere existence of terrorism justify it?

  20. #60
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 03:44 PM
    [b] palzazzo&#33;
    BUSH started the Iraq war..It WAS a war of choice...NOT necessary...Bush does NOT know how to run a war..I&#39;m not saying that Kerry does..BUT clearly little bush does NOT..he&#39;s a spoiled school yard bully.."If you weren&#39;t with us then you can&#39;t have any of the contracts"&#33;&#33;&#33; I mean gimme a break&#33;

    I hate how some people think that US soldeirs or commanders won&#39;t listen to kerry b/c kerry was anti war after he returned from nam...There are PLENTY of active and ex generals who are pro kerry and HATE the way the us has acted under Bush... [/b][/quote]
    Oh I&#39;m sorry. I didn&#39;t mean to insinuate that our military wouldn&#39;t LISTEN to Kerry. They listen to whoever the Commander and Chief IS. That&#39;s their duty&#33; I question what Kerry will DO with the power to control our military. I would think it would resemble Clinton&#39;s ideology. Our country saw 10 times more force deployment in Clinton&#39;s 8 years than in ALL administrations COMBINED since the end of WWII. There will also probably be the lack of morale that we saw in the 90s that resulted in the lowest resigning from our armed forces in the history of the country. I just don&#39;t see us being safer with Kerry in office than I do with Bush.
    The United States and our allies (although Kerry seems to think we only have one) went to war because this country was attacked and we needed to respond. We continued to get intelligence reports that showed us where these terrorists were harbored... where they spent and kept their money... where they were recruiting. According to those reports we CHOSE to go into Iraq because the man running that country was negotiating with and harboring terrorists. He didn&#39;t cause 9/11 or organize 9/11, but he sure as sh*t had backed the people who did.
    Heck, our minds are already made up on who we&#39;re voting for. I can only hope that maybe you forgot to register. LOL JK
    Peace.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us