Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever

[ggw]

Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
  But he did clearly outshine Bush.
 

So did Al Gore, but it didn't seem to matter.
 
 

Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
  May I ask who you will vote for? If its for the Republicans, I would love to know why?

I will vote Republican because I think it's better than the alternative.
 
 The Democrats won't really change much in Iraq.  They will also try to tell everyone that the government can provide great retirement security and cheap quality healthcare for everyone. They can't do either, but they will be happy to take more and more of my money while they postpone the inevitable failure of the entitlement bureaucracy.
 
 
 One of Kerry's points which I didn't understand is North Korea.  If it was bad for us to go to Iraq without an alliance, why is he so adamant about breaking up the alliance negotiating with North Korea, and proceeding with one-on-one talks only?

[markie]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  One of Kerry's points which I didn't understand is North Korea.  If it was bad for us to go to Iraq without an alliance, why is he so adamant about breaking up the alliance negotiating with North Korea, and proceeding with one-on-one talks only?

Thanks for being candid.
 
 Obviously we will not agree.
 
 Still dont you think negotiating with N.Korea would have been the right strategy from the get-go?

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 
 One of Kerry's points which I didn't understand is North Korea.  If it was bad for us to go to Iraq without an alliance, why is he so adamant about breaking up the alliance negotiating with North Korea, and proceeding with one-on-one talks only?

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)

[ggw]

Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
 Still dont you think negotiating with N.Korea would have been the right strategy from the get-go?

I'm not sure what you mean.
 
 Kerry said that he would move for bilateral talks -- just North Korea and the U.S.
 
 At the same time, he said that we made a "collosal mistake" in going alone in Iraq ("90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost" "90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost" "90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost" "90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost" "90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost").  He didn't really explain why an alliance is vital for the one situation but counterproductive for the other.
 
 As for negotiating all along -- the US negotiated twice before and both times the result was failure.  Don't you think that bringing in China adds a lot to the negotiations?  Certainly they are more engaged with North Korea on a regular basis and, presumably, can bring more to bear on NK than we could alone.

[ratioci nation]

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.  

[ggw]

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)

[ggw]

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.      

[Arthwys]

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?

[ratioci nation]

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.

[hitman]

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!

[kosmo vinyl]

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.  

[kosmo vinyl]

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...

[godsshoeshine]

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.

[chaz]

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."

[Sailor Ripley]

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...