The Presidential Debate

[KCFlyer]

Well it is nice to hear that you don't consider lying to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice a federal offense.

"Did you have sex with that woman?" - High crime or misdemeanor?

And yes, time really does matter. Funny how when current events are brought up, you have to try to defend them with 20 year old actions.

Odd that you were arguing about a 30 year old war record just a few weeks earlier, eh?

George Bush never declared war. He initated military action after seeking and obtaining approval from congress.

Correct...in part. There were two stipulations in that authorization for war from Congress, both of which Bush ignored. High Crime or misdemeanor?

Funny you should mention leadership here because I have a good one for you since you seem to be an expert on it.

Why did Kerry vote to authorize military action against iraq if, as he says he has had only one posiiton on the war and that it was the wrong war at the wrong time and wrong place. If he was any kind of a leader, he would have stood up on the senate floor when it came time to vote and said "Mr. President I cannot support you in this action because..." and state the same reasons he is trying to pass off now. That is leadership, not voting for something then saying you would still vote for it but that you never meant for it to take place so you vote for funding it before you vote against funding it then say you would still vote for it but it was the wrong war at the wrong time yet you have only had one position on the war at least since you starting running for president and keep getting called on all your various positions.

Is that your idea of leadership?

THere are a lot of folks who believed it when Bush said that Saddam posed a threat to the US. I wasn't one of them, but there are folks who did. And given what they had to look at (the documents Bush provided them) they most likely felt that they HAD to vote for it. Remember....the docouments that showed that cast a whol lot of doubt on what Bush presented to Congress showed up just months after the war was started. And it takes a real man to say "the information I used to make my decision was wrong." Oh yeah...the "I'd vote the same way again"...you know how the spinmeisters have said "what the president meant to say was that this war cannot be won in the conventional sence" or "when Vice president Cheney said 'this is the first time I have ever met you' he meant that he hasn't seen him on the floor of the Senate". Well, here's how I interpret that..."Given the information that I had at the time, I would have voted the same way". Bush won't admit he's made any mistakes. None. He sounds like Bart Simpson...."I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it! You can't prove anything!".

Oh, btw Clinton didn't so much lead as just stay the heck out of the way. He fought congress every step of the way. In fact, just in case you don't remember, he vetoed 2 balanced budgets before he reluctantly signed the third one.

And he had.....A BALANCED BUDGET. Despite the vetos. How's Bush doing at balancing the budget? a trillion bucks needs a whole lotta trickle down to balance.

At least you know where this president stands. Like it or not you know where he stands. That is leadership.

I said it before, I'll say it again...being principled is admirable. Being principled and wrong is a tragedy. YOu know, it's too bad Bush wasn't in the navy. Because he sure seems to understand that he captain must go down with the ship.

 

[USAir757]

"Did you have sex with that woman?" - High crime or misdemeanor?

It wasn't the action itself, but the perjury. Keep your eye on the ball KC.

Correct...in part. There were two stipulations in that authorization for war from Congress, both of which Bush ignored. High Crime or misdemeanor?

Neither. He used his executive authority to protect this nation.

THere are a lot of folks who believed it when Bush said that Saddam posed a threat to the US. I wasn't one of them, but there are folks who did.

I guess we didn't have the benefit of a crystal ball.... lend me yours next time.

And he had.....A BALANCED BUDGET. Despite the vetos. How's Bush doing at balancing the budget? a trillion bucks needs a whole lotta trickle down to balance.

Clinton would have had that too, if he had actually acknowledged that terror was at our door instead of sweeping it under the rug. Could have prevented 9/11 too. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

 

[KCFlyer]

It wasn't the action itself, but the perjury. Keep your eye on the ball KC.

It was "perjury" by being asked a question that had absolutely NO BEARING on the safety, security or performance of the job of chief executive of this country. You call that perjury, I call that "witch hunt".

Neither. He used his executive authority to protect this nation.

Congress was going to allow him to do just that, once they had met two stipulation. Neither of which were even attempted. Ignoring congress on a matter such as war - high crime.

I guess we didn't have the benefit of a crystal ball.... lend me yours next time.

It's called good old common sense...Saddam not part of 9/11...Saddam not posing any kind of threat to USA...wrong war. wrong place. wrong time.

Clinton would have had that too, if he had actually acknowledged that terror was at our door instead of sweeping it under the rug. Could have prevented 9/11 too. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

The jury is still out....lets wait 5 more years shall we? After all, the first attack on US soil occured 8 years before 9/11. So if you are willing to wait 8 years before saying the "sweeping it under the rug" was the cause of 9/11, then lets see if there aren't anymore attacks on American soil in 5 more years before we declare a unilateral invasion of a country that had questionable...if any...ties to the 9/11 attack on the US as protecting America. Deal? I didn't think so.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Can someone clear this one up?

France is an Ally of which country?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041007-123838-3146r.htm

[post="188815"][/post]​

Now is it France's dealings with Iraq that have you upset, or just the competition they provided for Dick Cheney's Halliburton?

"Cheney has long criticized of unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he says penalize American companies. He has pushed for a review of policy toward Iraq, Iran and Libya."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../24/80648.shtml

Yet Cheney STILL refuses to answer questions regarding his dealings with Iraq, Iran and Libya when all three nations were under UN and US sanctions.

 

[USAir757]

It was "perjury" by being asked a question that had absolutely NO BEARING on the safety, security or performance of the job of chief executive of this country. You call that perjury, I call that "witch hunt".

Princeton University defines perjury as: a criminal offense of making false statements under oath.

Still want to say he didn't commit a crime?

It's called good old common sense...Saddam not part of 9/11...Saddam not posing any kind of threat to USA...wrong war. wrong place. wrong time.

Common sense that you had, but the CIA, KGB, British Intelligence, United States Senate, and the office of the President of the United States did not have. We need to get you in the war room!

The jury is still out....lets wait 5 more years shall we? After all, the first attack on US soil occured 8 years before 9/11. So if you are willing to wait 8 years before saying the "sweeping it under the rug" was the cause of 9/11, then lets see if there aren't anymore attacks on American soil in 5 more years before we declare a unilateral invasion of a country that had questionable...if any...ties to the 9/11 attack on the US as protecting America. Deal? I didn't think so.

This is a different world now. The sooner you embrace it, the better off we all will be. If we don't embrace it, and this nation elects Senator Kerry to the presidency, the long-term effects of that decision will likely have catestropic effects on the overall security and viability of this nation. (IMHO, as you say)

 

[KCFlyer]

Princeton University defines perjury as: a criminal offense of making false statements under oath.

Still want to say he didn't commit a crime?

There is actually a stronger legal definition of perjury which says that the false statement should be material to the case at hand. NOw...given that...did the Starr commission feel that a blowjob was the best they could do to make up for not getting anything out of whitewater? Was a blowjob in and of itself an impeachable offense? I tend to believe that many past presidents had illicit sex during their time in office. It had no impact of the saftey or security of the nation. So technically yeah, he committed purjury if you look only at the base definition of the word. When looking at being "material to the case at hand" and the only "case at hand" was whether or not he got a blowjob, then you have to further ask yourself "is this a frivolous lawsuit".

Common sense that you had, but the CIA, KGB, British Intelligence, United States Senate, and the office of the President of the United States did not have. We need to get you in the war room!

Outside of the President of the United States, I didn't see any of those agencies saying that the best course of action was to conduct an immediate attack on Saddam Hussein. Common sense would dictate that. But you are right, Bush might have conviction, but he lacks common sense.

This is a different world now. The sooner you embrace it, the better off we all will be. If we don't embrace it, and this nation elects Senator Kerry to the presidency, the long-term effects of that decision will likely have catestropic effects on the overall security and viability of this nation.

You've been listening to too much Cheney. Why is it that it's vital that the government have the right to search my library and bank records in the name of safety, but port security....that can go to the back burner. IMHO, Kerry would do more to increase security right here on our shores, where the American people would get the most benefit from it.

 

[atabuy]

[/QUOTE]
This is a different world now. The sooner you embrace it, the better off we all will be. If we don't embrace it, and this nation elects Senator Kerry to the presidency, the long-term effects of that decision will likely have catestropic effects on the overall security and viability of this nation. (IMHO, as you say)

[post="188932"][/post]​

[/quote]
We already had a catastopic situation under Bushs' watch.
You republicans are really unbeleivable and will find flimsy excuses why he should be kept in office.
I think there is going to be a big upset this time because the American public is tired of being screwed by poloticians that don't even try to hide what they are doing to us.
Remember Flori-duh.
Oh yeah, Bushs' brother works there, doesn't he.

 

[USAir757]

Outside of the President of the United States, I didn't see any of those agencies saying that the best course of action was to conduct an immediate attack on Saddam Hussein.

Perhaps not, but they WERE saying that there was a strong possibility of WMD's in Iraq, and that Saddam and his crew were working with terrorists to attack US interests. I guess we took it into our own hands in that respect.

We already had a catastopic situation under Bushs' watch.

You guys always talk about the "bipartisan 9/11 commission"... so let's not forget that there was no blame placed as a result of their findings. Yet, I have to remember that these guys were allowed to fester and cultivate for 8 years under the Clinton administration, and Bush was in office for less than a year when 9/11 happened.

You republicans are really unbeleivable and will find flimsy excuses why he should be kept in office.

The only thing flimsy here is John Kerry's lacking consistency on just about every issue.

I think there is going to be a big upset this time because the American public is tired of being screwed by poloticians that don't even try to hide what they are doing to us.

Your [non-expert] opinion is noted.

Remember Flori-duh.
Oh yeah, Bushs' brother works there, doesn't he.

Yeah, I live in Florida. And most of the people here like Jeb Bush, or else he wouldn't have won his re-election in a landslide over Bill McBride. And it's a "swing state", a state Kerry needs quite badly to win this election, so I wouldn't count it out so poorly like you do.

 

[atabuy]

USAIR757,

You guys always talk about the "bipartisan 9/11 commission"... so let's not forget that there was no blame placed as a result of their findings. Yet, I have to remember that these guys were allowed to fester and cultivate for 8 years under the Clinton administration, and Bush was in office for less than a year when 9/11 happened.

.

Who knows? Did you ever think that if Dole won the crooked State of Florida, (Just my own unexpert opinion)911 might never have happened. He might have been a little quicker on the uptake than Bush.
They saw Bushs' resume too.

Your [non-expert] opinion is noted.

.


I didnt realize I was among experts here.

Yeah, I live in Florida. And most of the people here like Jeb Bush, or else he wouldn't have won his re-election in a landslide over Bill McBride. And it's a "swing state", a state Kerry needs quite badly to win this election, so I wouldn't count it out so poorly like you do.

.


Well that explains it pretty well.

The only thing flimsy here is John Kerry's lacking consistency on just about every issue.

.


How about the one that will raise taxes on 200,000 or more revenue earners to redistribute weath back into the nation.

You know if you don't give back, they, will eventually come and take it from you.
It's happened before in history, and it can happn again.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Perhaps not, but they WERE saying that there was a strong possibility of WMD's in Iraq, and that Saddam and his crew were working with terrorists to attack US interests. I guess we took it into our own hands in that respect.

[post="188959"][/post]​

If you tell the intelligence folks what findings you want and disregard any data that doesn't legitimize the course of action you've already chosen, then it's not possible to blame it all on bad intelligence later.

You guys always talk about the "bipartisan 9/11 commission"... so let's not forget that there was no blame placed as a result of their findings.

Yes, they studiously avoided apportioning any blame but the details of their investigation make it possible to form your own conclusions. The warning signs in the Summer of 2001 were all pointing to terrorists in the US, yet nothing was done.

Yet, I have to remember that these guys were allowed to fester and cultivate for 8 years under the Clinton administration, and Bush was in office for less than a year when 9/11 happened.

Yet, I have to remember that they were armed, trained, used to our purposes, than allowed to fester over a period of 12 years under Reagan/Bush I and that on those occasions when Clinton did attempt to deal with them he was accused of playing politics with US lives by the very people who now criticize him for not acting. Another example of an interesting double standard there.

Yes, Bush was in office for less than a year before 9/11 but he had all the intelligence apparatus in our arsenal at his disposal, and none of the political drama that prevented Clinton from acting, and he did nothing. Even though those who were supposed to advise him of the danger were trying to do so, he chose to disregard them because he was focused on Iraq. Another case where his Iraq fixation that passes for 'resolution' has caused this nation harm.

 

[atabuy]

USAIR757,.
Who knows? Did you ever think that if Dole won the crooked State of Florida, (Just my own unexpert opinion)911 might never have happened. He might have been a little quicker on the uptake than Bush.
They saw Bushs' resume too.

[post="188971"][/post]​

I meant to say Gore.

 

[atabuy]

My wife happened to see a sign on a lawn that was written in black letters:
Clinton lied, no one died.
Seems like a good slogan for the campagne against Bush.

 

[FredF]

So many Thoughts so little time to reply.

I think I will start wiht the perjury bit.

First, Clinton lied under oath before a federal grand Jury. That matter actually involved the Paula Jones Sexual harrasment suit so I would say that lying about receiveing oral gratification in your office from a subordinate would be considered relevant to the case.

He lied under oath, that was perjury. He did it before a Federal Grand Jury. That made it a Federal Felony punishable by time in Federal Big Boy Prison.



The difference between what Haliburton did and what france did is that one of them worked withing the UN sanctions and one worked outside them in fact in violation of them. The diference here is also that the same one that worked in violation of the sanctions also was used as a pawn to try to keep us from enforcing the sanctions against Iraq. So yet there is a diference here between France and Haliburton. A blind man could see it in a minute.

Now back to that redistribution of wealth idea. I go back to say that socialism will not work nor has it ever. The government is entitled to enough money to provide the basics of defense and other items such as infrastructure and such. They are NOT entitled to confiscate my money and give it someone else so that they don't have to get off their but and get a job.

History has proven beyond any shadow of doubt that government cannot and will not ever be able to tax an economy back to health.

I think that this is probably the first time in the history of this country that a candidate is running on the promise that they will raise taxes. And if you think that kerry only wants to raise taxes on those making over 200k/year then you probably agree that he has only had one position on the war in iraq.(at least this week)

He want to continue this class warfare and shift as much of the tax burden on as few people as he can so that the liberal socialist democrats can keep as many people dependant on them so that they can stay in power.

See, this is not about doing what is right for the country, it is about getting the democrats in power so they can stay there. The whole of their efforts this campaign season has not been about doing what is right for america is has been about doing what they can to get back in power.

Their ideals are to get as many people dependant on the federal government as they can so that they can sit up in washington and stay in power and tell each other how important they are. They are not about bringing this nation together. They are about dividing this country into the haves and the have nots and they siding with the have nots and thelling them that they haves are responsable for their lot in life and than only the democrats can feel what it is like and will take care of them.

The country should be about people taking care and responsability for themselvs. This country is about opportunities to make something of yourself not to rely on monther government to provide for you. Somewhere along the line that is what the republicans stood for and that has gotten lost. The liberals in congress have for so long created soo many programs to provide for soo many people, that they are winning this battle. It is not the governments responsability to provide you medical coverage. It is not the governments responsability to provide you with a job. It is not the governments responsability to ensure that your children get an education above public schooling.(12 grade for all you government school products) It is not the responsability of the government to provide for your retirement nor to ensure that you can afford medicine. This country has turned from a society where everyone was responsable for them selves to one where everyone is trying to get the other guy to pay the bill.

HMO's were a good concept when they first came out, but look at them today. My kid has a runny nose. Take them to the doctor it only costs $10. If they are sick or need medicine fine, but people run to somebody else everytime little johnny sneezes.

Enough already.

 

[USAir757]

Who knows? Did you ever think that if Dole won the crooked State of Florida, (Just my own unexpert opinion)911 might never have happened. He might have been a little quicker on the uptake than Bush.

All I really remember is right after 9/11, there wasn't a single person I spoke to that didn't seriously thank the heavens that Al Gore wasn't elected to the presidency. And I'm surrounded by democrats, too. But you're right though, who knows?

How about the one that will raise taxes on 200,000 or more revenue earners to redistribute weath back into the nation.

You know if you don't give back, they, will eventually come and take it from you.
It's happened before in history, and it can happn again.

Why do you think I'm voting for Bush? I have to say I'm with Fred on this one, and I don't feel like I need to be taxed even more on my hard-earned money than I already am. Afterall, the top 5% of the income producers in this country are now paying over 85% of the taxes paid. Why should this income bracket be penalized so heavily? Simply because John Edwards paints the picture of "two Americas" and makes wealthy people feel guilty about having made a financially successful life? That's ridiculous. I don't need John Kerry's government to stick their hands even deeper into my pockets so they can decide how to spend my money. Not that this is totally relevant, but I donate to charities as often as I can, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Breast Cancer Society, and the Florida Food Bank among others. So don't call me a money-grubbing freak, I share with people in need. And I take enjoyment in the fact that it is voluntary, and not a democratic heart-bleeding liberal in the White House forcing me to do it through raised taxes.

If you tell the intelligence folks what findings you want and disregard any data that doesn't legitimize the course of action you've already chosen, then it's not possible to blame it all on bad intelligence later.

You're so stuck on this consipiracy theory... one that clearly isn't provable unless you were sitting in the war room with the president himself. Your internet blogs don't always tell the absolute truth... the President looked at the same data as John Kerry did. Plain and simple. And they both voted the same way. Just as John Kerry says, he would have done the same thing Bush did in going into Iraq. But then he said later that he wouldn't have because he needed it as an edge for his election.

Yes, they studiously avoided apportioning any blame but the details of their investigation make it possible to form your own conclusions. The warning signs in the Summer of 2001 were all pointing to terrorists in the US, yet nothing was done.

Isn't that what we're all doing here? Forming our own conclusions? The warning signs to a terrorist attack have been around since the 80's... through Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton and GWB... by January 2001 when GWB took office, these guys were already here in the US, (living in Florida as a matter of fact), they had completed their flight training and their plans were ready to roll. All under the watchful eye of a Clinton administration. Talk about bad intelligence.

 

[atabuy]

All I really remember is right after 9/11, there wasn't a single person I spoke to that didn't seriously thank the heavens that Al Gore wasn't elected to the presidency. And I'm surrounded by democrats, too. But you're right though, who knows?
Why do you think I'm voting for Bush? I have to say I'm with Fred on this one, and I don't feel like I need to be taxed even more on my hard-earned money than I already am. Afterall, the top 5% of the income producers in this country are now paying over 85% of the taxes paid. Why should this income bracket be penalized so heavily? Simply because John Edwards paints the picture of "two Americas" and makes wealthy people feel guilty about having made a financially successful life? That's ridiculous. I don't need John Kerry's government to stick their hands even deeper into my pockets so they can decide how to spend my money. Not that this is totally relevant, but I donate to charities as often as I can, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Breast Cancer Society, and the Florida Food Bank among others. So don't call me a money-grubbing freak, I share with people in need. And I take enjoyment in the fact that it is voluntary, and not a democratic heart-bleeding liberal in the White House forcing me to do it through raised taxes.
You're so stuck on this consipiracy theory... one that clearly isn't provable unless you were sitting in the war room with the president himself. Your internet blogs don't always tell the absolute truth... the President looked at the same data as John Kerry did. Plain and simple. And they both voted the same way. Just as John Kerry says, he would have done the same thing Bush did in going into Iraq. But then he said later that he wouldn't have because he needed it as an edge for his election.
Isn't that what we're all doing here? Forming our own conclusions? The warning signs to a terrorist attack have been around since the 80's... through Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton and GWB... by January 2001 when GWB took office, these guys were already here in the US, (living in Florida as a matter of fact), they had completed their flight training and their plans were ready to roll. All under the watchful eye of a Clinton administration. Talk about bad intelligence.

[post="189111"][/post]​

This is for you and fred,
I was just looking back at the tax tables and in 1995 you paid 10,000 more in taxes if you made 256,500 per year.
Under the 2003 tax tables the highest rate I saw for people over 311,000 is 35 % tax liability.

Now when Fred talks about parties buying their vote, I think 10,000 is a pretty good trade for one vote.
This vote is nothing about money saved by GOP voters.
All the other issues are used as a smoke screen.