Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever

I don't know. He didn't really explain himself on this issue and, as many times as Bush said it would break the 5-party ("6-party, 5-party, 6-party….") talks, Kerry never disputed that and simply reiterated that he didn't think Bush was doing the right thing in NK and that he (Kerry) would push for bilateral talks.

His website doesn't really give any details either.

Originally posted by pollard:
I have not followed this issue as much as others, but basing it solely on the debate, Bush was the only one saying that negotiating with North Korea directly would break the alliance. Kerry never said it was his goal to do so at the expense of the alliance. Is it generally accepted that one on one negotiations would break any alliance involving China? (genuinely asking)

We don't need to invade Iran – we've hired some goons to take care of those pesky mullahs for us.

Originally posted by pollard:
Not really a response to anybody, but the cynical side of me took Bush's eagerness to say diplomacy will work in North Korea but not necessarily Iran as a tip to his list of countries to invade. :D

ggw interpreted what i was trying to say correctly. I should've said "voting for the candidate "

I also agree w/ ggw in that I will vote republican because it's better than the alternative. I have never since i set eyes on him liked Bush, and was rather more of a McCain supported last election time. Given a choice between a dummy who's policies i mostly agree with, or a brillaint politician that supports things I don't, i'll take the dummy. Then again, last time was the same deal for me and I chose to abstain. A lot of people say this is really bad, but i fail to see how i should support one or the other when i think both shouldn't be president. Shall i just vote for the lesser evil?

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
We don't need to invade Iran – we've hired some goons to take care of those pesky mullahs for us.

Ah, I had not seen that. Well seeing how American politicians are not allowed to discuss issues involving Israel intelligently, I guess we wont see this coming up much in the debates. I was even surprised to hear Kerry mention Israel. Seeing Powell's quote in the article reminded me how often Kerry invoked Powell's name, must have really pissed Bush off.

Unfortunately I was on the road, and didn't catch the debates. But from what I've seen on TV, Kerry seemed to do very well.

As far as other points. Kerry can change Iraq to a point, by being likeable and respected by other nations that Bush has pissed off. Garnering that support can only help take the financial burden off our shoulders. No matter what, people in general, no matter what the party need to realize that democracy will never work in that country or many others in the Middle East for that matter.

I think the N. Korea thing is that there are people out there that feel China is screwing up the negotiations, basically because China's govt. may be as nuts as N. Korea. And no matter what, N. Korea is a place where we need to intervene, because it is proven that they have the WMDs.

And as far as taxes go…just pay them. The tax cuts do nothing. Yeah, they put some extra bucks in our pockets, but is that really needed against the common good. The deficit has gotten completely worse under Bush, and so had govt. funding of necessary programs because of the stinking tax cuts. People want all the shit the govt. does for free. Everyone needs to shut the fuck up and just pay the damn taxes!

i'm glad to have choosen to spend the evening listening to Sloan, a good old American band on shuffle and get my debate info from Kosmette and the rest of the board. :D

well at least the forum is having an intelligent discussion about the canidates unlike hearing "The Democrats Suck", "Kerry Sucks"… Kosmette had someone shout "Fuck Kerry" at her while driving down the BW Parkway. The best encounter was on the Metro while going down to class, she overheard someone saying something along the lines of "Why is a Kerry supporter taking the Metro, I thought all of them were rich enough to own a car" WTF…

in case anyone was wondering, we can't send mixed messages, and kerry said the war was the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. amazing that dub still flubs saying the two same things over and over.

i guess i should vote for kerry no matter how big of a douche he is because he's closer in political ideology to me.

Originally posted by pollard:

And what is so wrong with the global test line anyway? The fact that Bush gave a simpletons reply to that of "We aren't going to let the rest of the world decide what we do" just shows what is fundamentally wrong with his administration.

My favorite Bush-ism was how he ended this quote. "……I'll decide what we do."

What I came away with after last night was: Kerry is much better informed and more knowledgable on the issues.

Oh, and Poland is on our side…

An idea I had last night while watching and just remembered this morning is….even if only a few Poles have died in Iraq, what percent of their population is it? Would it be anywhere close to the percent of our population that has died? I think i'm gonna do a bit of research on this….

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
in case anyone was wondering, we can't send mixed messages, and kerry said the war was the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. amazing that dub still flubs saying the two same things over and over.

i guess i should vote for kerry no matter how big of a douche he is because he's closer in political ideology to me.

you forgot about the "good people doing hard work" :)

Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:

I'm surprised that neither used the, "Riddle me this…" tagline from Batman. It would've been a surefire stinger.

hahaha. that would have made the whole debate. lol :D :D :D

Originally posted by Arthwys:
An idea I had last night while watching and just remembered this morning is….even if only a few Poles have died in Iraq, what percent of their population is it? Would it be anywhere close to the percent of our population that has died? I think i'm gonna do a bit of research on this….

Thirteen members of the Polish troops have died since May 2003. Source: Brookings Institution Iraq Index, page 6

The population of Poland is approximately 39 million. Source: CIA

Originally posted by Arthwys:
An idea I had last night while watching and just remembered this morning is….even if only a few Poles have died in Iraq, what percent of their population is it? Would it be anywhere close to the percent of our population that has died? I think i'm gonna do a bit of research on this….

13 casualties - not sure of deaths (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/ - click graphical breakdown)

2,600 troops (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163780/posts)

38,626,349 population (http://www.indexmundi.com/poland/population.html)

Well, i checked on Bulgaria since that seemed like it would be the one that has the most deaths w/ smallest population. They have had 6 deaths. With a population of 7,517,973 according to CIA factbook online. I figured we have 38.97 percent more people in the US. So if they were as populous as we are, they should have 38.97 times more deaths than they do to be even with us, right? That only brings them to 234 deaths. Which actually isn't too far off, I expected it to be worse. We've only had 1,195. Damn, just realized how morbid all of this is, but at least it shows that other coutries are doing their bit even if it is still only about a quarter of the job we are doing.

I missed the debate last night because I spent the evening at the National Symphony Orchestra. After a brief skim of this thread, I have to admit that those voting for Bush seem far more sure of why they're voting for him than those voting for Kerry.

Originally posted by econo:
I missed the debate last night because I spent the evening at the National Symphony Orchestra. After a brief skim of this thread, I have to admit that those voting for Bush seem far more sure of why they're voting for him than those voting for Kerry.

I think most people who are voting for Kerry are fairly certain it is because he is not Bush.

And as Kerry told us, you can be certain and still be wrong. :D

I believe we have way more than 38% more people than Bulgaria. An extra 38% would put us at about 11 million population.

Originally posted by Arthwys:
Well, i checked on Bulgaria since that seemed like it would be the one that has the most deaths w/ smallest population. They have had 6 deaths. With a population of 7,517,973 according to CIA factbook online. I figured we have 38.97 percent more people in the US. So if they were as populous as we are, they should have 38.97 times more deaths than they do to be even with us, right? That only brings them to 234 deaths. Which actually isn't too far off, I expected it to be worse. We've only had 1,195. Damn, just realized how morbid all of this is, but at least it shows that other coutries are doing their bit even if it is still only about a quarter of the job we are doing.

Originally posted by hitman:
People want all the shit the govt. does for free. Everyone needs to shut the fuck up and just pay the damn taxes!

While it is politically convenient to paint anyone that wants lower taxes as a simple greedy whore, it masks the larger issues. Not everyone wants "all the shit govt. does."

I don't want the government running my healthcare. I don't want them in my retirement savings. I don't want them paying billions in sugar subsidies, or corn subsidies, or funding an emergency wool and mohair program in case there is an interruption of imported fabric. I think we could all find dozens of things the government does that none of us want or need.

The government shouldn't be doing those things that people could better do for themselves. Not only for financial reasons, but also because an increasing reliance on government ultimately undermines true community, where people should be looking out for their common good among themselves.