Now that the campaigns are in full swing it's interesting watching the Chess match. Kerry has made a smart move trying to institute a series of debates with Bush. It puts Bush in an awkward position if he refuses which would play into Kerry's current theme that the Bush administration has something to hide. But Bush has nothing to gain and alot to risk by debating Kerry. Kerry, on the other hand, has everything to gain and little to lose.
Kerry wants debates for several obvious reasons:
-His campaign has far less money than Bush so this is free publicity to make up for that disparity.
-Kerry is a much more studied actor than Bush, who is not the greatest public speaker off the cuff.
-The Bush campaign has based much of its strategy on not equating Kerry as a peer. Seeing the two of them on the same stage would undermine that message.
So get ready to squeal, my friends on the left, because it would surprise me if the Bush campaign agrees to a series of debates.
US President, 2005-2008
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
index_html
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 2:01 am
Bush shouldn't avoid debating. I think if Kerry makes this a strong issue pointing out his refusal it does indeed make him appear like he has something to hide, even if he has nothing to hide. That he is uncertain of a head to head confrontation.
I disagree Bash, I think the administration will agree to start debates earlier then normal so that the voters will have forgotten about this by election time. So that they can argue that, "we started debates earlier then we ever have!" To those whom argue that Bush avoided them at first. They wont start them soon, but definitely earlier then normal. But we will see.
I am not arguing that it is impossible for someone to be brilliant and a poor debater. But usually those who are brilliant and cannot debate well tend to be more shy and socially anxious, bush is not either by any stretch of the imagination.
From the right I have heard that it just isnâ??t traditionally the time, but the left hasnâ??t traditionally chosen a candidate so quickly. If the right administration saw it as a strength they would likewise be pushing for it, tradition or no tradition.
If I was Bush I would find it a little insulting that many in my administration think debating is a poor strategy. But that is just left-wing spin talking.
I disagree Bash, I think the administration will agree to start debates earlier then normal so that the voters will have forgotten about this by election time. So that they can argue that, "we started debates earlier then we ever have!" To those whom argue that Bush avoided them at first. They wont start them soon, but definitely earlier then normal. But we will see.
I am not arguing that it is impossible for someone to be brilliant and a poor debater. But usually those who are brilliant and cannot debate well tend to be more shy and socially anxious, bush is not either by any stretch of the imagination.
From the right I have heard that it just isnâ??t traditionally the time, but the left hasnâ??t traditionally chosen a candidate so quickly. If the right administration saw it as a strength they would likewise be pushing for it, tradition or no tradition.
If I was Bush I would find it a little insulting that many in my administration think debating is a poor strategy. But that is just left-wing spin talking.
Who cares if he's a dope? As a famous person, Ben Franklin if I remember correctly, once said, "The wisest person in the world knows enough to surround himself with people who are far smarter than he is." Besides, Bush has the guts to actually defend America against outside threats, as opposed to certain "appeasers" who shall remain nameless.
Let's see: Bush, or Mr. Quick-Change himself? There's no choice here
.
Let's see: Bush, or Mr. Quick-Change himself? There's no choice here
.
I'll take that Bash,
"With us, or against us."
"Evil doers"
"Fuzzy Math"
"Coalition of the willing"
"The united states army shouldn't be used for nation building"
The fact that his administration thinks its a bad idea to start the debates now with John Kerry!
In the past, he had very low academic standings, this in itself doesn't mean he is a dope, its just another chip on the cookie. Especially considering the privileged life he was entitled too!
What president actually comes out and says you are with us or against us, when it comes to war? I mean even parts of me support the war, but overall I tend to be against it. Yet an entire nation is expected to see such an action as clearly the right course of action? No questions asked?
He trivializes some of the most complex issues my generation has seen.
He makes a deck of cards with the terrorists names on them. Thinking that each one he kills, he eliminates al qaeda. When you kill a leader, a new one comes. Killing the leaders itself is not an effective way to end a cause. An army yes, a cause no.
He seems to believe in killing off the â??bad people,â?
"With us, or against us."
"Evil doers"
"Fuzzy Math"
"Coalition of the willing"
"The united states army shouldn't be used for nation building"
The fact that his administration thinks its a bad idea to start the debates now with John Kerry!
In the past, he had very low academic standings, this in itself doesn't mean he is a dope, its just another chip on the cookie. Especially considering the privileged life he was entitled too!
What president actually comes out and says you are with us or against us, when it comes to war? I mean even parts of me support the war, but overall I tend to be against it. Yet an entire nation is expected to see such an action as clearly the right course of action? No questions asked?
He trivializes some of the most complex issues my generation has seen.
He makes a deck of cards with the terrorists names on them. Thinking that each one he kills, he eliminates al qaeda. When you kill a leader, a new one comes. Killing the leaders itself is not an effective way to end a cause. An army yes, a cause no.
He seems to believe in killing off the â??bad people,â?
Goob, I see nothing in your post to indicate *dopeyness*. You've stated (often misstated, actually) some of his political positions and some of his methods (the cards were for the troops to identify who they were looking for) but nothing that shows he's a *dope*. To me it smacks of smug intellectual elitism, often unwarranted. I've seen many of you exhibit it as a sole justification for disliking the man. But what makes you think he is stupid? I don't understand this leftist syndrome that you all are somehow better because you cling to the conceit that you're more *enlightened* than the rest of us when really all it comes down to is you seem to judge intelligence solely by how closely someone else agrees with you. How would you characterize me, a person who was once passionately left and has matured into a conservative. Did I grow dopey and senile in my old age?
"Goob, I see nothing in you post to indicate *dopeyness*"
Then read it again, I know numerous-- in fact the majority--of conservatives whom I know and respect, would never use these catch phrases. I wont go through my argument again, but hope you will. To highlight "dope"
Trivialized and unrealistic catch phrases
Won't debate
poor academic standings
Uses poor visual aids for very serious situations
Makes fun of very serious situations
Has a wreckless history.
These have to do with the presentation of his political beliefs and his past in general outside of politics. You can assume I think he is an idiot because I disagree all you want, but that is just derailing the issue.
If you want people to listen to you, presentation of your argument is everything. There is never a thread I am involved in where if Will or Palzon posts, I don't read it. They try and make their arguments logical and provide the logic that exists behind their beliefs. Rather then just try and mow the other person down. Too many of you try and support Rush's view that, "we are trying to defeat them," and not consider the merits of their views before and after you present their own.
Most conservatives I know who support the death penality, still give the subject the utmost respect it deserves. Bush's number goes way over.
I do not judge intelligence by how closely someone matches my view, I judge it on them giving some consideration too the oposing view and not trivializing it.
There has never been an Arizona election that I could vote in, that I didn't vote for McCain. I disagree with him on almost everything, but he understands that the other view cannot be trivialized! Both views have a foundation of logic.
Then read it again, I know numerous-- in fact the majority--of conservatives whom I know and respect, would never use these catch phrases. I wont go through my argument again, but hope you will. To highlight "dope"
Trivialized and unrealistic catch phrases
Won't debate
poor academic standings
Uses poor visual aids for very serious situations
Makes fun of very serious situations
Has a wreckless history.
These have to do with the presentation of his political beliefs and his past in general outside of politics. You can assume I think he is an idiot because I disagree all you want, but that is just derailing the issue.
If you want people to listen to you, presentation of your argument is everything. There is never a thread I am involved in where if Will or Palzon posts, I don't read it. They try and make their arguments logical and provide the logic that exists behind their beliefs. Rather then just try and mow the other person down. Too many of you try and support Rush's view that, "we are trying to defeat them," and not consider the merits of their views before and after you present their own.
Most conservatives I know who support the death penality, still give the subject the utmost respect it deserves. Bush's number goes way over.
I do not judge intelligence by how closely someone matches my view, I judge it on them giving some consideration too the oposing view and not trivializing it.
There has never been an Arizona election that I could vote in, that I didn't vote for McCain. I disagree with him on almost everything, but he understands that the other view cannot be trivialized! Both views have a foundation of logic.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
That's normal for the leader to refuse to give excess face time to his opponent. He has nothing to gain by it, only Kerry does. Conversely, when Kerry was leading John Edwards it was Kerry who refused to increase the debates to accept Edwards proposal to have one a week starting immediately...Gooberman wrote:The fact that his administration thinks its a bad idea to start the debates now with John Kerry!
He got a masters from Yale, try that one time and tell me your dumb if you get one too. Oh, in the arena of priviledged, Kerry is so far ahead of Bush it's silly, his biggest ever annual paycheck is maybe $200,000 yet he buys and sells 10 million dollar vacation homes on a regular basis. At least Bush doesn't think he's special, just knows he's fortunate.Gooberman wrote:In the past, he had very low academic standings, this in itself doesn't mean he is a dope, its just another chip on the cookie. Especially considering the privileged life he was entitled too!
Uh, the great ones...Churchill said something similar I believe. Only the ones who know they are in the right and don't wait for permission from other nations.Gooberman wrote:What president actually comes out and says you are with us or against us, when it comes to war?
The army did that so the soldiers on the streets of Iraq would be familiar with the faces of the scumbags they were looking for. Pretty cool idea I'd say.Gooberman wrote:He makes a deck of cards with the terrorists names on them. Thinking that each one he kills, he eliminates al qaeda.
It worked rather well in Iraq and against the Taliban....Reagan shut down Khaddafi's cause with just a near miss...Gooberman wrote:When you kill a leader, a new one comes. Killing the leaders itself is not an effective way to end a cause.
He already had the job before 9/11.Gooberman wrote: He has pumped fear into this nation and made his carrier off of it.
Also, he was praised by democrats and republicans and the whole world for reacting with great restraint after the attack, no talk of fear mongering, only when his actions interfered with other peoples/nations political/financial ambitions did they start to change their tune. He has been pretty solid and unwaivering in his ideals and plan of attack.
Just some thoughts off the top of my head after reading your post. I better stop now before I find myself wanting to support the guy again, he sounds pretty good
Vote third party!!! Any party!!!
Again, Goob, you seem to take issue with the man's style and methods. When one can't score points on him for incompetency because his policies are working then it always ends up at childish personal attacks. He's a dope. Is he ugly too? Does he talk funny? Is he too short? Big ears? Does he have cooties? All hail the enlightened ones. 
Is he ugly too? Does he talk funny? Is he too short? Big ears? Does he have cooties? All hail the enlightened ones. But not preemptive war. If your getting your ass kicked, its more clear that, "your with us or against us." If you are going out to kick someone elseâ??s ass, a lot more controversy is involved. Second, do you have an exact quote for curiosity purposes, with a date on it so I can see if this applies fairly? (it may)Churchill said something similar I believe.
Bush was admitted to Yale, despite his poor record at Andover, due to the fact that his grandfather, and I believe his father were Yale members. I also believe he had a C average. Many believe this is affirmative action for the rich. Why should the fact that someones father went there, give you precedence?He got a masters from Yale, try that one time and tell me your dumb if you get one too.
These arn't causes. People join AQ because that is the organization that supports the beliefs that they already have.It worked rather well in Iraq and against the Taliban....
Bash, that is a perfect reason why "with us or against us," shouldn't be a catch phrase. It is just more complicated then that.
Like I said above, parts of me definitely support the war. I see the reason behind it, and really can't argue against, "they are probably better off." If we went after AQ before 911 I would of likewise not have been completely to one polar side or the other! My argument isn't political, it's that it isn't that simple!
Like I said above, parts of me definitely support the war. I see the reason behind it, and really can't argue against, "they are probably better off." If we went after AQ before 911 I would of likewise not have been completely to one polar side or the other! My argument isn't political, it's that it isn't that simple!
I think it is that simple. If you harbor or facilitate or turn a blind eye to what terrorists are plotting on your watch, in your country, then you will share in the responsibility for what they do in other countries. I detect nothing *dopey* about that at all. He is saying we will keep our house clean and we will respond when we have reasonable cause and we expect others to do the same. He just used simpler terms for it so there could be no room for *nuance* or misunderstanding. Funny thing is, you seem to have misunderstood.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Gooberman,
The Churchill quote I don't have. I'm just going on memory, I believe it was a speech he gave aimed at the U.S. because while England faced ruin at the hands of Hitler the U.S. sat on their thumbs talking about it. Also, he didn't use a one-liner, he was much more eloquent than Bush (no difficult task there). The jist of his point was the same however.
Reagan also used the same rhetoric when describing the evil empire.
It's just pep rally talk designed to get people to quit trying to equivocate and rationalize evil into something more complex, something that deserves concession.
How Bush got to Yale or whether or not affirmative action should be reserved for students of color has nothing to do with your point that he is not smart. I simply said that he did recieve a masters degree at a relatively high ranking university. I don't think they just gave it to him because his daddy went there. He has proven he's smarter than his opponents give him credit for many times. As he would say, 'you've misunderestimated him'.
As to 'destroying a leader ends the cause', no I shouldn't have put it that way but the net result often takes the fight out of the underlings so it reduces the cause to nothing more than a desire to do us harm rather than an army or orginazation engaged in doing us harm. The hostilities in Iraq dropped drastically within 48 hours of Saddams fall and the number of Iraqi's willing to give intel went up dramatically once they knew Saddam was not going to come back. Killing the leader has always been a very good move.
I don't doubt you have good reasons to oppose Bush on many domestic issues but I do dispute the contention that he's stupid and his execution of the war on terror is mismanaged. I'll bet that 10 years from now history will have a very favorable take on the Bush Doctrine, he'll be credited for implimenting sweeping change in the middle east, change for the better...unless your a terrorist that is.
I just hope he's got the ball rolling so fast that if he's not re-elected the momentum of his actions will carry us through to complete the mission, otherwise we should all just learn to be french and get comfortable with taking whatever comes our way.
The Churchill quote I don't have. I'm just going on memory, I believe it was a speech he gave aimed at the U.S. because while England faced ruin at the hands of Hitler the U.S. sat on their thumbs talking about it. Also, he didn't use a one-liner, he was much more eloquent than Bush (no difficult task there). The jist of his point was the same however.
Reagan also used the same rhetoric when describing the evil empire.
It's just pep rally talk designed to get people to quit trying to equivocate and rationalize evil into something more complex, something that deserves concession.
How Bush got to Yale or whether or not affirmative action should be reserved for students of color has nothing to do with your point that he is not smart. I simply said that he did recieve a masters degree at a relatively high ranking university. I don't think they just gave it to him because his daddy went there. He has proven he's smarter than his opponents give him credit for many times. As he would say, 'you've misunderestimated him'.
As to 'destroying a leader ends the cause', no I shouldn't have put it that way but the net result often takes the fight out of the underlings so it reduces the cause to nothing more than a desire to do us harm rather than an army or orginazation engaged in doing us harm. The hostilities in Iraq dropped drastically within 48 hours of Saddams fall and the number of Iraqi's willing to give intel went up dramatically once they knew Saddam was not going to come back. Killing the leader has always been a very good move.
I don't doubt you have good reasons to oppose Bush on many domestic issues but I do dispute the contention that he's stupid and his execution of the war on terror is mismanaged. I'll bet that 10 years from now history will have a very favorable take on the Bush Doctrine, he'll be credited for implimenting sweeping change in the middle east, change for the better...unless your a terrorist that is.
I just hope he's got the ball rolling so fast that if he's not re-elected the momentum of his actions will carry us through to complete the mission, otherwise we should all just learn to be french and get comfortable with taking whatever comes our way.
I sure hope so, it will be a true test of democracy for sure, since this democracy is planted and surrounded by a bed of thorns. As far as getting the ball rolling, I can see that case too for voting for him, Bush has a lot more too loose if Iraq fails in the next four years then Kerry does. There is an argument there for voting for Bush even if you disagree with all his U.S. social stances. If Iraq drastically fails and Bush is in office during the next four years, Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history to many. Bush will do anything to keep this from happening. Never have republicans before been so loose with their money under his administration! If Iraq fails drastically and Kerry is in office, it is just another Bush ★■◆●-up for having us there in the first place.I'll bet that 10 years from now history will have a very favorable take on the Bush Doctrine, he'll be credited for implimenting sweeping change in the middle east, change for the better...unless your a terrorist that is.
I just hope he's got the ball rolling so fast that if he's not re-elected the momentum of his actions will carry us through to complete the mission,
-
MehYam
- DBB Head Flapper
- Posts: 2184
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
- Contact:
Life experience. It's all subjective, I admit, but If I were choosing a president, I'd pick a competent person who's able to discuss the issues at the drop of a hat because he's immersed in them, he's interested in them, and has developed an affinity and passion for them. I mean, these qualifications should go without saying for any presidential candidate, they're so obvious, and yet I feel that Bush has none of these qualities. I'm honestly not sure I'd trust him to drive my car, never mind lead a country. Thank god he's surrounded himself with smart people. That shouldn't be the saving grace, though.bash wrote:Kai, what makes you think he's a dope?
In Clinton's parting discussions with Bush, Wild Bill made a top five list of what he felt were the greatest international concerns for the new administration to deal with. Al Qaeda and the Palestine situation were in the top four, with Iraq appearing fifth. Bush disagreed, placing Iraq as the #1 threat to the U.S. I wonder if he even knew what Al Qaeda was.
My faith in humanity is hinging entirely on the hopes that people didn't vote for Bush, but voted along party or policy lines.
Kai, it sounds like you're accepting Richard Clarke's opinion on faith, as well. I thought this was cute:
Clarke: Bush's Saddam-Obsession Delayed Iraq Attack
(2004-03-22) -- A new book by Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism coordinator for the Bush administration, charges that the president was so obsessed with Saddam Hussein that he delayed invading Iraq for 19 months after the 9/11 terror attacks "just so he could let his hatred of Saddam simmer in his mind."
Mr. Clarke told CBS reporter Leslie Stahl that, from the beginning, the Bush administration didn't take the al Qaeda threat seriously and was focused on attacking Iraq.
"The 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda were such an utter surprise to [National Security Advisor] Rice and [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld, that it took them almost a month to retaliate against the Taliban," said Mr. Clarke. "By contrast, Rumsfeld started planning to hit Saddam from the moment he took office in January 2001. Sure enough, only 26 months after that he unleashed a lightning strike on Iraq. He would have launched the attack sooner if Bush hadn't been so obsessed with Saddam that he couldn't see straight."
The former official said even the war against the Taliban was part of the president's obsession with Saddam Hussein.
"Bush foolishly believed that there was a link between al Qaeda and Iraq," Mr. Clarke said. "So, in order to bring down Saddam Hussein, he first attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan in October 2001, because they harbored al Qaeda. Bush thought that if the Taliban fell, Saddam would soon follow. It's clear that Rumsfeld and Rice have thought about nothing but Iraq for more than three years now."