Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Iamthefallen's Journal: Presidential debate #1 recap 18

Journal by Iamthefallen

Bush: I love puppies, and babies.

Kerry: I also love puppies, and babies, but in a better way.

Bush: Much like my good friend M'shakalakalaka, an elementary school janitor in Zimbabwe, I enjoy petting bunnies.

Kerry: I also enjoy petting bunnies. I have a plan on how we can all better pet bunnies.

Bush: Bla bla bla.

Kerry: I agree that bla bla bla. I just think the president failed in it. I served in Vietnam, I should know.

Bush: I promise more of the same.

Kerry: I have a 12 step program to deliver more of the same in 21 days.

The only really good point I heard was Bush telling Kerry that if your attitude is that the war in Iraq is wrong, in the wrong place at the wrong time, how the fuck are you going to get former allies to join the war effort? 't was a nice bitchfight though.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Presidential debate #1 recap More

Presidential debate #1 recap

Comments Filter:
  • I couldn't hear a lot of it, but that pretty much sums up what I heard.

    Very nicely done! :-)

    ....Bethanie....
  • Kerry made a good point too: nuclear proliferation. It's a serious problem, and one Bush has failed adequately to address.
    • But he didn't really make the point when it counted-- in the Senate. Kerry says that when we went to Iraq there were nine other countries that were a larger threat. If that were the case, why did he vote for us to go to Iraq?

      Additionally, why hasn't he bothered to go to the Senate this year and argue that we go deal with these countries? He's been to work like eight days this year! How is it responsible leadership to take the attitude of "I'm not doing my job, so you should give me a bigger one"?

      • If that were the case, why did he vote for us to go to Iraq?

        Because Bush leads the way for Diplomacy as that's his office, and Bush promised the Senate he'd "exhaust" the UN before going to war.

        How is it responsible leadership to take the attitude of "I'm not doing my job, so you should give me a bigger one"?

        John Kerry and John Edwards are two men in a hundred; the Senate can go on without them. More to the point, deciding who is going to be President will move the course of the world for the next fo
        • Who's going to censure him? The Republicans hold the majority and I'm sure they are perfectly happy to have two fewer Democrats showing up to vote against them.

          The fact is that they are two men in a hundred who were elected by their citizens and who are being PAID to do their job. When Dole ran against Clinton in 1996, he resigned from the Senate to campaign.

          Try this: don't go to work for the next eight months. Then come back, walk into your boss's office, and tell them you want a promotion. That's

          • Oh come on. Running for President is not exactly the same as asking for a promotion at work. You don't have to convince an entire country that you deserve a promotion. If Kerry and Edwards didn't take the time to campaign, they wouldn't have a snowball's chance and you know it. This is just a way of saying "don't vote for him, he's campaigning!" How much time do you suppose Dubya has actually been spending on his job lately? For that matter, how much time has he ever spent on his job?
            • The President is still doing his job. Has a bill sat on his desk unsigned because he is too busy campaigning?

              The employers of an elected representative are the people. Asking the people to make him President is exactly like asking for a promotion at work: he is going to his employers and asking them to give him a bigger job.

              I never suggested that Kerry and Edwards don't take time to campaign. I suggested that if they aren't going to bother to do their jobs, they should have the class to step down rat

          • Try this: don't go to work for the next eight months. Then come back, walk into your boss's office, and tell them you want a promotion.

            Faulty Analogy.

            Let's say that I was a regional manager for a corporation, and the CEO has made some seriously bad decisions. I set my region in working order, and I head out to discuss my becoming CEO with the corporation's board and stockholders.

            Should my not showing up for my regional office while talking to said board members be counted against me?
            • That depends. Are you neglecting your job, or are you attempting to do it during that time? Bush is still doing his job. Kerry & Edwards have left Massachussetts and North Carolina with only half representation. Additionally, you can (and hopefully would) delegate some authority to those below you, but have them contact you if you were needed. Senators can't give others permission to vote for them-- the only way they can do their job is by showing up and doing it.
              • the only way they can do their job is by showing up and doing it.

                Yes, which percludes campaigning. So are you saying that Senators and Represenatives should be excluded from running for President?

                The President, on the other hand, can do his job from almost any point in the globe. He could be fishing in Montana and sign a bill into law, flying aboard a jet while commanding a military strike, or just leaving a rally at a mall as he issues a federal pardon.

                • No, I am saying, once again, that they should have resigned. Dole did it in 1996. Why can't they?
                  • Kerry is a democrat, and the governor of Massachusetts is Romney, a republican, who would choose his successor. Allowing that would be wholly irresponsible to his duties to the people of Massachusetts (who are generally strongly liberal, dispite the tendancy to elect republican governors). Edwards isn't doing it because that would make Kerry more of a target.

                    i.e. they're not doing it because of politics 101. Don't hand your enemies an advantage.

        • Because Bush leads the way for Diplomacy as that's his office, and Bush promised the Senate he'd "exhaust" the UN before going to war.
          Hah! The UN exhausted itself. Iraq was in breach of what, 20+ UN resolutions? It was painfully obvious that this impotent organization was never going to do anything - Bush only messed around with them for a solid year (the much tossed-about "rush to war", this) to give them a chance to prove their relevancy.
          Kofi Annan can say whatever he likes about the "illegal" America
          • The UN exhausted itself.

            Not even close. The inspectors wanted more time, and Bush did in fact cut them off. He gave an undetailed demand, Hussein made the first steps to complying with it, and rather than sending it back and saying "you need to do more", we just invaded.

            You seem to forget that the UN was an organization designed to prevent WWIII, not enforce the status quo or preserve the liberty of the people of the world. So, yes, Kofi saying that the war was "illegal" is preposterous, but neverthel
            • You seem to forget that the UN was an organization designed to prevent WWIII

              If I have forgotten this, than so have THEY, because the UN has little to say about preventing WWIII, and has long preferred to posture as some kind of holy savior and defender of all that is good in the world. So I ask again, why DIDN'T they invade Iraq themselves?

              not enforce the status quo

              Funny - they seem to do this best of all. Perhaps a new mission statement is in order?

              Oh, and just to keep it civil, how about you come out

      • why did he vote for us to go to Iraq?

        He didn't. Common misconception. He voted to leave the decision up to Dubya, a horribly bad idea to be sure, but not the same thing as a vote to invade.

        argue that we go deal with these countries

        Handling the problem of nuclear proliferation is far more complex than just "dealing with these countries." You seem to assume he wants to invade them or something. There is much more to it, it's not just a matter of deciding who to attack next. Kerry, as he himself pointed

  • What Kerry was saying is that the war came along incorrectly. When Kerry voted for the war it was with the understanding that there would be certain guidelines, ie having international help, etc... which bush tried for but then just threw out the window.

    I think a lot of the troops realize that this was not the best thing to do, and the goal now is to pick up the pieces. Part of why Kerry is running is because he doesn't want other Iraq's to happen, because he felt that it was wrong the way Bush went abou

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Close