Kerry ocassionally seems to be more intelligent

Occasionally?

more willing to admit when something has gone wrong, and less focused on personal interests than W, at least W never seems to contradict himself. with Bush, i may not be 100% happy with the product i'm getting, but at least i know what i am getting.

Nothing personal, but just trying to comprehend that as a serious argument makes me feel dumber. I wish you were joking.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 2, 11:43.

What? Being undecided? It's just as hard for me to imagine being so sure. For the longest time I was a registered independent and I've voted roughly 50/50 for candidates from both parties

Yeah. I wasn't referring at all to party affiliations though.

Speaking of which, here's an interesting article: "Why I Will Vote for John Kerry for President," by John Eisenhower.

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

EDIT: Linkage:

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 1, 15:24.

I didn't hear enough to be able to pick a winner, but from what I understand, polling picked Kerry as the winner but no real shift in the polling numbers regarding the election was noted.

It's too early to detect a significant change in the polling numbers. Several undecided swing state voters that I saw interviewed on TV said that they had decided to support Kerry, however, and in all the polls I've seen concerning the debate Kerry won by an overwhelming majority. Even the Republican pundits were giving it to Kerry.

Some of you guys sound like you watched a different debate. Kerry spoke very clearly and articulately, while Bush floundered and repeated the same empty points ad nauseum. I was much more impressed with Kerry than I expected to be, even though I supported him previously. And Bush was Bush.

I'm not sure how people can think that Kerry doesn't have a clear-cut plan; I keep hearing things like that from people, and it's dumbfounding, and absolutely a result of Bush's campaign tactics: repeat the same over-simplified (or deceptive, or outright false) talking points over and over until people unconsciously accept them as truth. I've heard people make casual statements about Kerry as though they were based on evidence when they were purely a regurgitation of the Republican propoganda. That's frightening.

As for his position on Iraq, I think he made that clear as well. Everyone supported the President because we believed he was going to use our resources wisely and responsibly. He hasn't. It's downright depressing that people can't (or won't) understand that these situations aren't as cut-and-dried as "He changed his mind! First he supported it and then he didn't! Flip flopper!" But again, I can see that that concept is much easier to grasp. I can't, however, understand how anyone could support Bush in his idiotic conceit that remaining steadfast and unwavering in everything we do is the key to success. The entire time he was trying to make Kerry look bad for being critical of people and things; that's what the president is supposed to do! Critical thinking is good! Nothing pisses me off more than that. "Staying the course" doesn't do anyone a goddamn bit of good when you're not on the right course to begin with. The world already thinks we've made mistakes, remaining resolute in those mistakes is not going to help anything, and trying to correct those mistakes is not "sending mixed messages," it's intelligent leadership. Bush's irrational hubris shouldn't be allowed to send this country into a downward spiral.

Here's a transcript for anyone interested: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.transcript.1/index.html

A number of sites are hosting the video as well.

~Steve

EDIT:

My understanding is that the debate went to Kerry. Reading the commentaries on it has not moved me one way or the other however.

Still looks like a coin-flip to me right now.

That's extremely hard to imagine. There's still time though. Watch the debates, reading commentaries does not give an accurate impression. And everyone register to vote, that deadline is fast approaching.


This comment was edited on Oct 1, 13:11.

So, let me be the first to say that Bush got himself pwned last night. That is all.

~Steve

Halsy == dsmart

He's totally lost it folks.

~Steve

Bill Gates gave my school $20 million today. They're gonna tear down this old building and put up a new one, which is good because the old one smells like shit.

Steve

(yes, go ahead and argue that Rainbow Six is somehow completely different from Counter Strike and vice versa, ITS THE SAME DAMN GAME RETARDS)

No it's not.

One Police officer was beaten in NY by a protestor.

Well there you go folks, all democrats are evil! QED!

~Steve

Not sure what movie to see tonight,
Ray

See Garden State.

And uh, Myst mist missed.

Staying on topic,

~Steve

This comment was edited on Aug 10, 00:58.

Having magical doors in the wall open and something coming out of it only goes so far.
This has happened 2 or 3 times as well.

Two or three times, 2 or 3 times. It's the way half the monster spawn for the first half of the game, it's litteraly 2 or 3 hundred times.

Uhhm no. He said "something coming out and only goes so far"...meaning whatever it was didn't get through the door at you and retreated. There has only been a few instances of this. Can't refer to specific events since I don't like leaving spoilers, especially in a game that relies on the element of surprise.

(pedant mode on)

You seem to have misread. He said: "Having magical doors in the wall open and something coming out of it only goes so far." As in, the idea works for awhile, then it gets old. "Having things come out of magically opening doors" would've probably been a better phrasing, but I think it was clear enough.

(pedant mode off)

~Steve

Oh well. You're a hopeless troll.

~Steve

Josh, you're full of hot air. You have no argument to present. The point of the link was collating relevant information and presenting it. It was not editorial in any way, it was a collection of links. Links to sites like nytimes.com and whitehouse.gov. Learn to keep quiet until you've got something to say.

By the way, the link has been screwy, here's a mirror:

http://kokogiak.com/thatboxinthecorner/TheyKnew.html

~Steve

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/

~Steve

For months after playing Super Mario Brothers I would jump on mushrooms and stomp turtles or was it stop mushrooms and jump on turtles?

No no no, you're supposed to eat the mushrooms, then it will all make sense.

~Steve

Josh, that was a pretty laughable attempt at debunking. At least put some effort into it.

~Steve

And I really like Kerry's plans for Iraq - "I have a secret plan that I am not going to share with anyone until I am elected".

I've no idea where you got that, but here, inform yourself some more:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html

A snippet:

As complicated as Iraq seems, there are really only three basic options: One, we can continue to do this largely by ourselves and hope more of the same works; Two, we can conclude it’s not doable, pull out and hope against hope that the worst doesn’t happen in Iraq; Or three, we can get the Iraqi people and the world’s major powers invested with us in building Iraq’s future.

Mistakes have complicated our mission and jeopardized our objective of a stable free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders. We may have differences about how we went into Iraq, but we do not have the choice just to pick up and leave—and leave behind a failed state and a new haven for terrorists.

I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq. But it is also true that failure is not an excuse for more of the same.

Here is how we must proceed.

First, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them.

But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome and they must be brought in.

To accomplish this, we must do the hard work to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. To do so, the President must lead. He must build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States.

The coalition should endorse the Brahimi plan for an interim Iraqi government, it should propose an international High Commissioner to work with the Iraqi authorities on the political transition, and it should organize an expanded international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under US command.

Once these elements are in place, the coalition would then go to the UN for a resolution to ratify the agreement. The UN would provide the necessary legitimacy. The UN is not the total solution but it is a key that opens the door to participation by others.

In parallel, the President must also go to NATO members and others to contribute the additional military forces and to NATO to take on an organizing role. NATO is now a global security organization and Iraq must be one of its global missions.

To bring NATO members and others in, the President must immediately and personally reach out and convince them that Iraqi security and stability is a global interest that all must contribute to. He must also convince NATO as an organization that Iraq should be a NATO mission—a mission consistent with the principles of collective security that have formed the basis of the alliance’s remarkable history in the pursuit of peace and security.

To bring others in it is imperative we share responsibility and authority. When NATO members have been treated with respect, they have always – always – answered the call of duty. So too with other key contributors. Every one has a huge stake in whether Iraq survives its trial by fire or is consumed by fire and becomes a breeding ground for terror, intolerance and fear.

I know that some will say that this is an impossible task, but I believe it is doable with the right approach. We must lead but we must listen. We must use every tool of diplomacy and persuasion to bring others along.

It took me all of a minute to find this. Again I wonder if you're bothering to look.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Aug 2, 15:03.

True, but THAT WAS NOT BUSH's FAULT! You cannot blame him for the CIA blowing their part of the job.

You missed the point. I said it was irresponsible to present it to the public the way that they did. I'm talking about Colin Powell making speeches with a vial of anthrax, Ashcroft talking about "imminent threats" and such. Come on man, can you really forget about this stuff so quickly? Go watch Farenheit 9/11 for a refresher.

I agree, but what harm has it done? I don't want an essay, give me ONE concrete example of how you personally are harmed by the Patriot Act.

Stop being so fucking simple. No, it hasn't done anything to ME. But there have been plenty of very frightening examples of the government "protecting" us. The complaceny and ignorance you're demonstrating is the scarier part, however. There was a particular story involving the FBI detaining a professor illegally and refusing to release the corpse of his wife that I couldn't locate, but these oughta suffice:

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usapatriotactlibrary.htm
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR29.1/scarry.html
http://www.patriotwatch.org/
http://brownequalsterrorist.com/artiststatement/
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/03885837.asp

Happy reading.

In the long run, yes. The country was a known supporter of terrorism

I don't think so. You do realize that there were other options besides a ground war, right? You do realize that there was no connection established between Al-Qaeda and 9/11 and Saddam, right? You do realize how many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died in Iraq, right?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.pdf

"Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12,President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11. “See if Saddam did this,” Clarke recalls the President telling them.“See if he’s linked in any way."

"Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks."

"Arguing that the case for links between Iraq
and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons."

There's a lot more, but you can read it yourself. Again, does this information correspond with the manner in which the Bush administration presented the case to the American public? I don't think so. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're not close with anyone who's over there, or who has been killed in Iraq? Somehow I feel if this were the case, or if you had to go yourself, you'd feel a little differently. Or maybe you'd jump at the chance to torture petty criminals in an Iraqi prison, who knows.

He DID support the war, but constantly lies about it.

Example?

I just mentioned it as an example of a President stating a position in his candidacy and keeping that stand after being elected despite intense political pressure.

Uh, right, because Bush has led exactly the way he indicated he would when he was running for election...

Honestly, it seems very clear that you just don't like Kerry for some reason and are reaching for ways to justify it. I agree that the guy isn't terribly charismatic and I think that this nation could probably do better, but that's all very much beside the point. I think you need to clear your head and do some more reading and considering.

~Steve

The Pixies kick ass. That's all I thought of on reading Ray's earlier comment. Screw Nirvana.

Digging for fire,

~Steve

The conclusion that Iraq had WMDs were not the result of the administration's interference. That was their INDEPENDENT conclusion.

And considering the nature of the intelligence, which we now understand was not very reliable, the administration was irresponsible in presenting it to the public the way that they did. That they presented it to the senate the same way doesn't affect that.

Again, the truth isn't refuted by you, just glossed over and hopefully forgotten.

No, I just don't feel like writing you a fucking essay about the USA PATRIOT act. Obviously we need to give law enforcement the ability to enforce the law, but not with sweeping pieces of broadly worded legislation that can be very easily abused.

I don't know about you, but my rights have not been infringed upon.

...yet. Pull your head out of the sand once in awhile.

No, I'm outlining why Bush has been doing the things NECESSARY to protect this country.

So you still think that invading Iraq was NECESSARY to protect this country?

hings Kerry probably wouldn't have the guts to do without the French holding his hand and saying, "It's OK, we approve".

And on that childish note, I think I've wasted enough time talking to you. Your most recent post was far too long to bother wading through, so I won't.

EDIT: Wow, do you really not understand the flaw in the flip-flopper attack? Do you not realize how dense you sound in obstinately replying "But it's true!" The point is, it isn't necessarily a shortcoming. That's like calling someone "nerd" because they're intelligent. Situations change, and new information comes to light. "Sticking to your guns" is a fucking stupid way to lead. Bush's position on stem cell research was idiotic, and still is. But you've gotta applaud his consistency, right? Wrong.
This comment was edited on Aug 2, 03:00.

Exactly, the same info Bush had.

Not true, as I understand it.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/

If they were all signed on prior to the war based on the info they had, then don't flip-flop later if the info turned out to be bad.

Huh? If you believed before the war that there were WMDs, then learned that there weren't, the responsible thing to do is to stick by your original belief? That's idiotic.

After the war it was: This is Bush's evil war. Bad, Bush, bad.

Bush's, and his administrations. Did you read the 9/11 commission report? It spoke of the atmosphere of "groupthink," the fact that the administration seemed determined to go to war regardless of the accuracy of intelligence.

And Bush is the guy who may have told us that "God instructed him to strike at Saddam."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

But seriously, the flip-flopping attack is so weak, give it a rest.

EDIT:

"Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions and starved for basic information technology."

Please. Propoganda. But hey, let's trade more liberty for security.

Right now, we need real leadership and foresight to take us through this war on terrorism. Kerry just doesn't have what it takes.

I don't see how you've supported this argument. "Real leadership?" What's that mean? "Foresight?" You honestly believe that Bush has these things? You're grasping at straws.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Aug 1, 18:06.