Home | Community | Message Board

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3206787 - 10/02/04 03:04 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Or perhaps just bewildered


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3207086 - 10/02/04 05:12 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Flummoxed.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #3207092 - 10/02/04 05:14 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

nonplussed



Quote:

bewildered



Quote:

Flummoxed




Are you guys talking about Antimeme, or Bush?


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3207194 - 10/02/04 05:58 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

pinksharman is definately doing a good job of drawing the focus of this thread (at least according to the majority of the posts) away from his misuse of power to petty bickering.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: newuser1492]
    #3207283 - 10/02/04 06:24 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

cb9fl writes:

pinksharman is definately doing a good job of drawing the focus of this thread (at least according to the majority of the posts) away from his misuse of power to petty bickering.

Still smarting over getting sucked in by that Noam Chomsky parody interview, I see. That was a knee-slapper, wasn't it?

As for "misuse of power", why is it that Skikid16, Cervantes, Gijith, Psilygirl, Fiend, JesusChrist, and KingofTheThing all managed to express their opinions on my observations with no trouble and no reference to the supposed "misuse"? Sometimes in more than one post? It wasn't until MrCrisper decided to whine that some said, "Cool! We can avoid commenting on anything of substance by giving pinky shit instead".

Need I remind you the two who drew focus away from the topic of the thread were MrCrisper and AntiMeme -- not me.

Since you are so admirably concerned with getting the thread back on topic (kudos to you, btw), do you have anything to say about the actual thread topic? We'd all dearly love your thoughts on the debate.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3207331 - 10/02/04 06:37 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

pinky,
before you badmouth Me, Skikid, Cervantes, Psily, Fiend and KOTT, please understand that most accusation of misuse wasn't so much in regards to the locking, as it was to the sticky. When I first posted, the thread was locked, but not stickied. I'm not exaclty sure when you stickied it, but it was definitely after you locked it. As soon as I saw it was stickied, I clicked on the thread, saw MrCrisper had beat me to the punch and agreed with him.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 5 years, 13 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3207347 - 10/02/04 06:42 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

i told you what i thought, but what the fuck, i'll repeat it AGAIN

while both had some factual exaggerations, i thought BUSH GOT HIS ASS KICKED, HE FUCKING SUCKED. his policies sucked, his debating skills sucked, his crap about the widow was so fake it was unbelievable... everything about him sucked

while kerry wasnt always filled with the best facts/ideas, they were presented much more clearly and more filled with intelligence. he had an introduction, body and conclusion that was logical. he didnt act like a child and revert back to saying "well... he... he FLIP FLOPS DAMMIT" like bush when he couldnt think of anything to say. he was confident and presdiential and WON THE DEBATE.

we disagree, let it go. i dont care what blogs you read, what transcripts you read, you didnt see it, plain and simple. you're allowed to have you're opinion. i dont share yours. chill the fuck out.

we're allowed to have this opinion stop attacking us like we're not.


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 5 years, 13 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Psilygirl]
    #3207356 - 10/02/04 06:44 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

oh yeah and quit with the nitpicking of every sentence, i'm not gonna fucking respond to you're "what do you mean by "attack" give a specific example" quarrels.

its so fucking annoying.


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEkstaza
stranger than most
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/03
Posts: 4,322
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 6 days, 20 minutes
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3207560 - 10/02/04 07:36 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said to cb9fl:

Since you are so admirably concerned with getting the thread back on topic (kudos to you, btw), do you have anything to say about the actual thread topic? We'd all dearly love your thoughts on the debate.

pinky




I did but you paid no attention.
Do you care to look at it now?
Quote:

Ekstaza said:

Question to Bush: Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?

- if we lose our will, we lose, if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy. (sly dig at Kerry's defeatism. Kerry doesn't want to win, Kerry wants to cut and run). Nonsense, Kerry sees the problems involved with a cut and run strategy and is prepared to go the distance in Iraq with a plan for the inevitable and necessary reduction of American troops in the region.


- But we also have to be smart, which means not diverting attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against ObL (no proof ObL is even in Afghanistan anymore. If he is, he no longer has govt support there) That's not the point. The point is that ObL should have been our focus instead of Saddam, who was contained and predictable.

- and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein (bullshit, and many Americans know this. No connection between Hussein and 9-11, okay. No connection between Al-Q and Iraq? Nonsense) This statement leads me to believe that you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what the truth may be.

- and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. (again, most Americans recognize there was more to the war than WMD -- which Kerry always said were there anyway. Besides, Kerry himself voted for the "Iraq Regime Change" bill when Clinton was pres, as well as voting to authorize Bush to go to war. He has even said that knowing what we know now he would still have voted for that authorization) Kerry voted for the authorization of force, plain and simple, giving the president the tool of force to be used when necessary. He does not believe that it was necessary at the time it was used. I believe that cops should have guns and that they should be authorized to use them when necessary, but I don't think that all situations are necessarily the time to use that force.

- president has made colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president (tough to make this "judgment" charge stick given Kerry's past statements on Hussein, WMD, Iraq, voting for war, etc. Kerry can't win on this no matter what he says because his prior statements impeach him. Grievous tactical error to go on the attack here because he himself is so vulnerable to devastating counterattack. The only reason he can get away with it is that he is the last to speak here. He needs to hope Lehrer doesn't do a followup. Fortunately, since Lehrer is a Libbie himself, there's little chance of that.)As Kerry said in the debate, he made a mistake in the way he spoke about the war. Bush made a mistake in going to war. Big Difference. Kerry's statements have been twisted and taken out of context in order to take credibility away from him.

- proud that important military figures support me -- Shalikashvili; Eisenhower's son, Admiral William Crown; General McBeak (yeah. all ex military. Big whoop. Extremely lame. "These guys think I'd be better, and they should know, cuz they used to be generals.") Exactly what are you getting at here? I think that the men and women who are fighting or have fought for our country have plenty of valid opinions on national security and if they don't support the current war president, there is a reason.

- ObL escaped, we had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the president outsourced that job too. (Huge error there! You can bet your bottom dollar your average American didn't appreciate the "outsourcing" comment in this context!) I appreciated it very well as I am trained in an industry that is overly outsourced at the moment and I have to work a crappy production line job that endangers my health. With that statement Kerry craftily noted Bush's mistake while tying it to a current issue in the lives of many Americans.

Weak response from Kerry. Lists a few ex-Generals, blames Bush for not micro-managing the commanders in charge of the Tora Bora campaign, uses the tired old "diversion of resources" saw. A big mistake in trying to claim there was no connection between Hussein and terrorism, even knowing that most Americans believe there were. Hell, a significant portion still believe Hussein was involved in 9-11 itself! His many many "stances" on the war in Iraq will hurt him here as well. The "outsourcing" comment was a blunder, pure and simple.

Conclusion -- Bush wins this one handily, despite the cheap shot question he was handed. Lehrer should be ashamed of himself for that one. Bush gets a "B+", Kerry gets a "C-"

Your interpretations of the content of the debate are unique if nothing else.






--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Ekstaza]
    #3207694 - 10/02/04 08:36 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Ekstaza said:
I appreciated it very well as I am trained in an industry that is overly outsourced at the moment and I have to work a crappy production line job that endangers my health. With that statement Kerry craftily noted Bush's mistake while tying it to a current issue in the lives of many Americans.




"I am trained"  You listed your occupation as college student in April of 03.  You are trained at nothing.

"In an industry that is overly outsourced"  What, do you make sneakers?  Or should everybody else pay to prop up YOUR salary?  Stop whining and find a career with a future, like plumbing.

"I have to work a crappy production line job that endangers my health"  No you don't.  Or do you think you have to support the sixteen year old mother of your two kids slaving over the toxic fumes of a fry-o-lator? 

Aside from your own tiny self interest, just what jobs do you think the government should protect at the expense of the consuming public?  Some college student with no dependants?  ALL protection is at the expense of the consumer.  You fucked up.  The good news is that you are still young and may still find a useful niche in the work world some day.  I'd give up the IT thing though.  Really just fancy receptionists. :cool:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Gijith]
    #3208291 - 10/02/04 11:14 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Gijith writes:

before you badmouth Me, Skikid, Cervantes, Psily, Fiend and KOTT, please understand that most accusation of misuse wasn't so much in regards to the locking, as it was to the sticky.

I have no intention of badmouthing any of you. What, now it's not enough that I get shit for what I did, but for what I might do?

Damn. Too many of y'all have waaaaay too thin skins (hence the affinity to Kerry, perhaps) to have a chance of making your own way in the world without government assistance. Try to understand that it's not always all about your desires.

I find it exquisitely amusing that those who claim to be so flexible, so "of the moment", so "in tune with the flow", so "open-minded" because of the sacred fungi find it so devastatingly harsh to be faced with the unexpected: "Gee, we can't just respond directly to this thread as we have always done in the past (we have always been at war with Eastasia) -- for a whole twenty hours we must actually first click on a link and then respond to the thread. But... but... this just isn't right!"

Adaptability is all, grasshopper. There will be many times in life when no one clad in an aluminum foil beanie is there to hold your hand and tell you exactly which chad of the butterfly ballot you must dislodge (completely, mind you) in order to reach nirvana.

The freaking thread was stickied for approximately seven hours. I thought we hippies of the Sixties and Seventies had a problem with delayed gratification, but I had no idea that I could enrage a whole generation of mushroom consumers who couldn't handle a wait that encompasses less time than a standard four dry gram mushroom trip.

I guess that even after more than half a century of living on this wonderful and amazing planet, there are still things about my fellow humans that can amaze me. Good to know. Sometimes a wakeup call can be refreshing.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3208333 - 10/02/04 11:22 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
It wasn't until MrCrisper decided to whine that some said, "Cool! We can avoid commenting on anything of substance by giving pinky shit instead".




That's all I was referrring to. No thin skin here, Master Po.

:cheers:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,517
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 5 months, 20 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3208334 - 10/02/04 11:22 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Pinky said:
As for "misuse of power", why is it that Skikid16, Cervantes, Gijith, Psilygirl, Fiend, JesusChrist, and KingofTheThing all managed to express their opinions on my observations with no trouble and no reference to the supposed "misuse"?




Bush said we were attacked by Sadam. Kerry corected him. Bush curtly replied, "I know who Bin Laden is!"

Look it up.

Bush misled the country into supporting war by repeatedly confusing Iraq with Al Quaeda. This is the core argument stating Bush misused his power by leading the USA to war with Iraq. During the State of the Union Address, Bush said Iraq was persuing nukes! Bush mentions Iraq and Al Quaeda all the time without distinguishing the two. During the debate, Bush said Iraq attacked us!

Is it any wonder 40% of Americans still believe Sadam attacked us on 9-11?

Bush mislead his country to go to war by lying, misguiding and confusing. THAT is MISUSE of power.

Get it Pink?

THAT is why liberals say Bush misused his Presidential power.

Last Thursday, Bush said Iraq attacked us, on live tv, during a debate. Kerry jumped on it and set the record straight.

All Bush could say was, "I know who Bin Laden is!"

Pathetic.

I'm afraid I can't find this part of the debate in your post Pink. You abridged a lot. Perhaps it was deleted.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Edited by Rose (10/02/04 11:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEkstaza
stranger than most
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/03
Posts: 4,322
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 6 days, 20 minutes
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3208384 - 10/02/04 11:37 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

"I am trained" You listed your occupation as college student in April of 03. You are trained at nothing.
What do you know about jack shit? Nothing! I am a college graduate with two associates degrees in computer sciences. I didn't start college in 2003, but I was still a student then.

"In an industry that is overly outsourced" What, do you make sneakers? Or should everybody else pay to prop up YOUR salary? Stop whining and find a career with a future, like plumbing.
What are you, some kind of blue collar supremecist? Do you think that worthwhile work only consists of labor intensive tasks? I don't plan on breaking my back the rest of my life to make someone else rich. That's why I got an education. Don't blame me for your life choices, because that's what you seem to be doing, complaining about me wanting a decent salary and job security.

"I have to work a crappy production line job that endangers my health" No you don't. Or do you think you have to support the sixteen year old mother of your two kids slaving over the toxic fumes of a fry-o-lator?
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you assume that everyone shares the same details in their life as you do? I am successfully childless, the way I plan to be for some time to come. In the civilized world of today, some of us have figured out ways to prevent unwanted births, unlike your parents.


--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.


Edited by Ekstaza (10/03/04 11:11 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Ekstaza]
    #3208385 - 10/02/04 11:37 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Yes Ekstaza, you are one who actually adressed the substance of my comments and deserve an answer. I had intended to get around to it within 24 hours, but I hope you understand that I do have a life outside The Shroomery. Thank you for your patience.

Ekstaza writes:

Nonsense, Kerry sees the problems involved with a cut and run strategy and is prepared to go the distance in Iraq with a plan for the inevitable and necessary reduction of American troops in the region.

As is Bush. The difference is that Bush wants to win the war first and then decide how best to withdraw. Kerry wants to decide how to withdraw without hurting himself politically. He doesn't give a rat's ass whether the war is won first.

That's not the point. The point is that ObL should have been our focus instead of Saddam, who was contained and predictable.

Kerry may find it difficult to walk and chew gum simultaneously. Bush (and the average American) don't share that handicap.

This statement leads me to believe that you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what the truth may be.

And the above statement leads me to believe that you choose not to investigate the numerous well-documented connections between Ba'athist Iraq and Islamofascist operators.

Kerry voted for the authorization of force, plain and simple, giving the president the tool of force to be used when necessary. He does not believe that it was necessary at the time it was used. I believe that cops should have guns and that they should be authorized to use them when necessary, but I don't think that all situations are necessarily the time to use that force.

Then your beef is not with Bush, but with Kerry. Congress abdicated its responsibility to declare war by voting as they did. They washed their hands of the whole matter, of their own free will.

s Kerry said in the debate, he made a mistake in the way he spoke about the war. Bush made a mistake in going to war. Big Difference. Kerry's statements have been twisted and taken out of context in order to take credibility away from him.

Kerry'smistake was not in how he spoke, but how he voted. Anyone with an IQ moderately in exceeding that of a modern microwave oven could see that the vote relieved Congress of the responsibility and passed it to the Commander and Chief. If the war went well, they could all pat themselves on the back. If it hit a rough stretch, they could cry "But we didn't think you'd take us seriously!" Actions have consequences.

I appreciated it very well as I am trained in an industry that is overly outsourced at the moment and I have to work a crappy production line job that endangers my health. With that statement Kerry craftily noted Bush's mistake while tying it to a current issue in the lives of many Americans.

What part of "average American" do you have difficulty grasping? The average American is in no danger of having his job outsourced. I feel sympathy that the career path you have chosen to pursue is one open to foreign competition, but to claim that you represent the "average American" is to indulge in what psychologists term "projection".



pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Rose]
    #3208394 - 10/02/04 11:40 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Cervantes writes:

During the State of the Union Address, Bush said Iraq was persuing nukes!

They were.

I'm afraid I can't find this part of the debate in your post Pink. You abridged a lot. Perhaps it was deleted.

This is why I was careful to include a link to the transcript of the debate in my post. You can click on the link and refresh our memory by reviewing the transcript.


pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,517
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 5 months, 20 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3208408 - 10/02/04 11:44 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

You're the one who didn't notice...

... and the FOX link's dead, BTW.

But, I'll dig it up.

Lazy bastard.

:smirk:


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,517
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 5 months, 20 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3208446 - 10/02/04 11:55 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

From MSNBC:
http://msnbc.msn.com/?querytext=debate+t...action=fulltext

I bolded key statements from Lehr, Kerry and Bush... to help you spot it. I included the entire question and all of its answers so you could read the event as it unfolded... in black and white. All you miss is how defensive Bush sounded... and how uncomfortable he looked.

LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running?when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I?d be doing that.

But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.

I think that by speaking clearly and doing what we say and not sending mixed messages, it is less likely we?ll ever have to use troops.

But a president must always be willing to use troops. It must?as a last resort.

I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq. It was falling apart. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was hoping that the world would turn a blind eye.

And if he had been in power, in other words, if we would have said, ?Let the inspectors work, or let?s, you know, hope to talk him out. Maybe an 18th resolution would work,? he would have been stronger and tougher, and the world would have been a lot worse off. There?s just no doubt in my mind we would rue the day, had Saddam Hussein been in power.

So we use diplomacy every chance we get, believe me. And I would hope to never have to use force.

But by speaking clearly and sending messages that we mean what we say, we?ve affected the world in a positive way.

Look at Libya. Libya was a threat. Libya is now peacefully dismantling its weapons programs.

Libya understood that America and others will enforce doctrine and that the world is better for it.

So to answer your question, I would hope we never have to. I think by acting firmly and decisively, it will mean it is less likely we have to use force.

LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.

KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, ?The enemy attacked us.?

Saddam Hussein didn?t attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. al Qaeda attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn?t use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world?s number one criminal and terrorist.

They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.

That?s the enemy that attacked us. That?s the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That?s the enemy that is now in 60 countries, with stronger recruits.

He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.


If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, ?What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?? we?d be in a stronger place today.

LEHRER: Thirty seconds.

BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.

And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion.

We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons.


LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Senator.

KERRY: Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he?s been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea?s gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide.

The world is more dangerous. I?d have made a better choice.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Edited by Rose (10/03/04 01:17 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/03
Posts: 10,855
Last seen: 9 months, 25 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: ]
    #3209109 - 10/03/04 05:55 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

How is us being like 90% of the Iraq force, with the remaining countries comprising the rest, qualify as a "strong coalition"? It seems to me like it's us and a few tag alongs that make a negligible difference.





Do you not realise that most other countries do not have large military forces?
I don't EXPECT Canada, or Poland, or Turkey, or whatever other country you might think of, to send much of a force.
Hell, they don't when the UN sends in an international force either.
The strength isn't their numbers but their commitment.

Quote:

North Korea now has nukes? Why, if Bush thinks nukes are the scariest threat to America, did he let North Korea get Nukes? Oh yeah... Iraq.




May.. have nukes.
And North Korea is not idealogically married to the idea that America is the Great Satan that must be destroyed.
they just don't like us very much, and realize that we've got a lot more stuff than them, and that by banging on the nuclear issue they can get things for free. Didn't Clinton give them a shitton of oil to give up on their nuclear program?
North Korea wants wealth and respect.. not our destruction. Same deal as China, basically.

Quote:

Is it any wonder 40% of Americans still believe Sadam attacked us on 9-11?




What I find wonderous is that, considering 80% of Americans are barely bright enough to tie their shoes, that half of them know anything about Saddam OR Bin Laden.

Quote:

From MSNBC:
http://msnbc.msn.com/?querytext=debate+t...action=fulltext

I bolded key statements from Lehr, Kerry and Bush... to help you spot it. I included the entire question and all of its answers so you could read the event as it unfolded... in black and white. All you miss is how defensive Bush sounded... and how uncomfortable he looked.




Note in there that Bush never said Saddam attacked us. We were attacked -- things were going downhill for America. Kerry grabbed the Saddam-attacked-us comment out of left field.

Quote:

He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.




Saddam has been continually violating the no-fly zones and either kicking weapons inspectors out of his country or delaying them for periods of time long enough to hide any weapons that may have been at the facilities they were attempting to inspect.
He didn't give two shits when Clinton kept trying that. What makes you think he's give two shits if Kerry tried the same things over and over?
HE LOVED IT. Dead baby parades.. SEE what the EVIL AMERICAN SANCTIONS are doing to us!



John Kerry just made himself look stupid. Sorry, but he did. Think about what he was saying.. it was stupid.
More weapons inspectors when for the past decade they haven't been able to do anything. Saddam's been disrespecting them and the UN for this long -- why would he suddenly change?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEkstaza
stranger than most
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/03
Posts: 4,322
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 6 days, 20 minutes
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Mushmonkey]
    #3209357 - 10/03/04 10:58 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Mushmonkey said:

Quote:

North Korea now has nukes? Why, if Bush thinks nukes are the scariest threat to America, did he let North Korea get Nukes? Oh yeah... Iraq. 




May.. have nukes.
And North Korea is not idealogically married to the idea that America is the Great Satan that must be destroyed.
they just don't like us very much, and realize that we've got a lot more stuff than them, and that by banging on the nuclear issue they can get things for free.  Didn't Clinton give them a shitton of oil to give up on their nuclear program?
North Korea wants wealth and respect.. not our destruction.  Same deal as China, basically.





Oh really!!?
Just take a look at how the North Korean educational system is teaching their kids about the Great Satan. :thumbdown: :sad: :mad2:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/26/60minutes/main602415.shtml


--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* In deference to nugsarenice...
( 1 2 all )
Phred 1,529 20 05/24/02 12:42 PM
by wingnutx
* Kerry cheats at first debate?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Phred 6,594 148 10/05/04 02:53 PM
by Vvellum
* Old Debate Cont'd.... nugsarenice 577 3 07/09/02 08:21 AM
by hongomon
* Superb analysis of the financial "bailout"
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Phred 5,151 105 09/29/08 02:29 PM
by johnm214
* Should US Presidential Debates be hosted by private parties? Should they be allowed to copyright it? johnm214 712 7 04/22/08 12:53 PM
by Ferris
* An Ontological Anarchists critique of traditional activism and reality? Mystic_Cannibal 1,494 9 01/06/08 11:55 PM
by zorbman
* Preemptive nuclear strike?
newuser1492
574 2 09/12/05 11:10 PM
by newuser1492
* How can Kerry win the debates...
( 1 2 3 all )
Phred 2,962 46 10/04/04 12:18 AM
by Rono

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,753 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.