USA - General discussion (Part 1)
 

I watched the debate Live on Yahoo! and I music say that Kerry obviously won this one as well as the one before. Bush, on the other hand contradicted himself and even made up a word - "Internets". What the...? Anyway, here's a review of the debate with humor. The comments of the start of the debate are at the bottom, the summary comment is at the top.
_________________________

Paul Begala's Debate Blog

Editor's Note: Paul Begala, co-host of CNN's political debate program "Crossfire," is providing a view from the left on the second presidential debate through this CNN.com blog. Follow along as he shares his observations and send us your own by typing them in the "Share Your Comments" box to the right.

Posted: 10:48 p.m. ET

Good debate. The press will say it's a draw, but I think Kerry bested Bush -- or rather Bush made a few errors. Two words for President Bush: anger management. He spent much of the debate nearly yelling at the audience.

About two-thirds of the way through he calmed down, used a little humor. But overall he hectored more than visited with people. Kerry was much more conversational, certainly not the pedantic, pompous senator some expected.

Bush can't name a mistake
Posted: 10:34 p.m. ET

Kerry's going right at Bush on the issue of mistakes. He's hammering Bush for the way he went to war. Then he admitted he's made mistakes in how he's talked about the war, while Bush made mistakes in how he went to war.

Bush was asked to name three mistakes he's made. He can't name one. Breathtaking arrogance. He's had the hardest job in the world for almost four years and he cannot name a single mistak. Either he's the Second Coming of the Messiah, or he's so damned arrogant he's dangerous.

Kerry 'heartfelt' on religion
Posted: 10:29 p.m. ET

Missouri has a very strong pro-life movement, well represented tonight. The woman who asked Kerry about federal funding for abortion was poised and clear and strong. A far cry from the hysterics you usually see in the national media when abortion is covered.

Kerry's answer is sensitive. It's one of the few times he's talked about his religion in public -- and it's clearly heartfelt.

Bush says "I'm trying to decipher that." I (obviously) like Kerry. But even still I thought his answer was sensitive, and Bush's attempt at humor was callous.

The Bush litmus test
Posted: 10:26 p.m. ET

Supreme Court: A guy asked Bush who'd he appoint to the Supreme Court. "I'm not tellin,'" he said. Good use of humor. But I cringed when he said, "I want 'em all votin' for me." Is that a reference to Florida? To the Supreme Court case that put him in office?

He says he'll only appoint judges who oppose slavery. Wow, that's a great litmus test. Only anti-slavery judges for Bush. There goes David Duke's vote.

Bush incoherent on stem cell question
Posted: 10:22 p.m. ET

Careful, senator. A woman asked him about embryonic stem cell research from what is plainly a very pro-life position.

Good. Kerry is showing great respect for her values and her religion. And he's plainly energized by the prospects of the research.

Bush just said categorically, "Embryonic stem cell research destroys a life. I am the first president to fund embryonic stem cell research." :bum:

Huh? He said it's killing, but he's funding it? That's incoherent. That's our Bush.

Sneak and peek
Posted: 10:17 p.m. ET

Kerry just said he is against "sneak and peek" searches under the Patriot Act. How much you want to bet Bush thinks "sneak and peek" is a panty raid?

The weird turns pro
Posted: 10:14 p.m. ET

Hunter S. Thompson famously said, "When the going gets tough, the weird turns pro." Bush is definitely a pro.

Kerry referred to a timber company that pays Bush $84. I have no idea what he's talking about -- and neither did Bush. After ridiculing Kerry's argument by asking incredulously, "I own a timber company?" He paused for an awkwardly long time. Then he asked Charlie Gibson, "You wanna buy some wood?"

Definitely weird. (What THE... ?)

Kerry hits on 'Orwellian' language
Posted: 10:08 p.m. ET

Kerry's giving you the sense he's the Man with the Plan. He just ripped through his 3-point jobs plan. Now he's into his health care plan. If voters want a plan, he's there for them. It'll be interesting to see if voters come away with the sense that he's got good ideas.

Kerry clearly cares a lot about the environment, but hasn't talked about it much in the campaign. He nailed Bush for the Orwellian language Bush uses on the environment, education, etc.

In the middle of his answer, Kerry pointed to "Nicki" in the audience and brought her back in. Nice touch.

'Off-road diesel engines?' :laugh:
Posted: 10:06 p.m. ET

Environment: Bush began by simply saying, "Off-road diesel engines." Huh? Where's the verb, sir? He's throwing out a lot of jargon and Orwellian language, like "Healthy Forest Initiative."

The question was about air and water, and he's talking about how chopping down trees is the answer.

Kerry gets honest laugh
Posted: 10:01 p.m. ET

Kerry just got the first honest laugh -- and it was not an attack line. It was an affectionate reference to Charlie Gibson, saying Charlie would be the only person other than Bush and Kerry who'd pay the higher tax rate under Kerry.

Remember when Bush jumped ugly with Charlie? I said the audience wouldn't like it -- the audience identifies with Charlie. Now Kerry has shared a laugh with Charlie -- much more human, much more pleasant.

Kerry soothes voters on spending
Posted: 9:59 p.m. ET

Kerry was asked a very direct question. A guy asked him to look into the camera and promise he won't raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. He said yes. Unequivocally. Can't get any clearer than that.

He also said he's trimmed back on some of his favorite spending programs, which should be soothing to voters worried that he's a big spender.

Bush challenged on spending
Posted: 9:57 p.m. ET

Bush's response to Charlie Gibson's question about how he would cut the deficit in half. He said he'd control Congressional spending. But wait a minute, isn't that the guy who hasn't ever vetoed a single spending bill?

Bush was asked a tough question about why he hasn't vetoed a single spending bill. This is a direct challenge to Bush's vote with his base. Bush is nothing if not in tune with his conservative base. He's blaming everyone but himself for his deficit.

Kerry defended his health care plan against the attack that it was big government by saying, with a chuckle, that it's totally voluntary. He was conversational.

Bush hits the 'L-word'
Posted: 9:52 p.m. ET

Bush is clearly programmed to get on the L-word. Kerry's response is to say Bush isn't a compassionate conservative.

You can bet you will hear Bush repeat the L-Word again and again tonight -- and through November 2.

Bush just said, "The National Journal has rated Sen. Kennedy the number one most liberal senator."

Mr. President, you're not running against Ted Kennedy. You're running against John Kerry.

A woman just put Kerry on the spot over Edwards being a trial lawyer. Kerry's ready for it. Says he has a plan for tort reform, but more important, a plan to lower the health care costs for folks in the audience.

Bush is licking his chops. He truly hates trial lawyers.

This is a strikingly negative debate. I'm very surprised.

Bush just ripped into Kerry, then finished with a wink. He's clearly feeling like a cocky frat-boy.

First domestic question
Posted: 9:47 p.m. ET

Kerry again cited a Bush broken promise from the 2000 campaign, reminding people that he said in 2000 that importing drugs from Canada made sense. Kerry is strong on this one -- it's much more a Democratic issue.

Kerry's on offense. Bush is on defense.

First domestic question: Why, Mr. President, did you ban importation of prescription drugs from Canada?

Bush's answer raised the lame defense that they're not safe. :lol: Sure, that's why all those Canadians are dropping like flies every time they pop a Xanax.

Bush calms down
Posted: 9:42 p.m. ET

Bush has finally gotten control of himself. He cited his Homeland Security budget in response to Kerry's criticism that Bush preferred a tax cut to homeland security. And he's doing it in a conversational way. Maybe his outburst a moment ago got it out of his system.

Kerry not speaking 'Senate-ese'
Posted: 9:41 p.m. ET

Did Kerry just say "we got a whole buncha countries" and, "Lookit..." :D

He's actually speaking American, not Senate-ese.

Kerry launched a guided missile, saying that if Missouri were a nation, it'd be the third largest country in our coalition. Beautiful. Clintonian. Instead of burying us in facts and figures, he had one telling, killer anecdote.

Relax, Mr. President
Posted: 9:40 p.m. ET

Wow. The first moment of the debate.

Charlie Gibson tried to ask Bush a follow-up question, but Bush jumped him, almost yelling. He went right up to the edge of losing it. :rolleyes: (How rude! [- Kate]) People do not like it when politicians hammer nice, pleasant moderators like Charlie Gibson.

Bush needs to switch to decaf. His answer on the draft was desperate and rambling. Relax, Mr. President. Enjoy yourself.

Kerry's response seems much calmer, more reasoned. He ran through a list of generals and admirals who support him.

The 'Internets?' :lol: (When I actually heard him say it, I thought it was an error in the live streamming of the video... but it turns out that he really really said it. OMG!!! What a &*^%#* moron. He doesn't even know what internet is! What planet is he from? :rolleyes: [- Kate])
Posted: 9:37 p.m. ET

Bush just said: "I hear there's rumors on the Internets." Is there some secret second Internet I don't know about? Perhaps that's where Bush gets the information that tells him things are so peachy in Iraq and the economy's strong. He's living in his own Private Idaho, apparently reading things on his own private Internet.

Kerry is walking closer to the audience than Bush is. There's a piece of red tape that the candidates are not supposed to cross. You can't see it on TV, but if Kerry's ignoring it in order to get closer to the audience, good for him.

The town hall format requires the candidates to actually have a conversation -- not with each other, but rather with the audience members.

Bush pleased with himself
Posted: 9:31 p.m.

Bush seemed extremely pleased with himself to be able to tell you about how the generals said, "Yes, sir Mr. President." But he didn't respond to Kerry's point that Bush ignored the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Shinseki, who said they'd need 200,000 troops to successfully occupy Iraq. Because the truth is, he ignored Gen Shinseki, despite his comment that he always listens to his generals.

Lower your voice
Posted: 9:28 p.m. ET

Bush really needs to lower the register of his voice. He's pleading, trying to hard, almost yelling. He bit off and spat out the name of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi like it was a stale piece of garlic bread.

Kerry's counter was more calm than he was a few minutes ago. And a lot more calm than Bush. All over America people are asking, "Who is this angry man, and what have they done with that pleasant Mr. Bush?"

Kerry on fire
Posted: 9:22 p.m. ET

Kerry's using comments from GOP Senators Lugar and Hagel against Bush. His quotes are accurate, and they hurt Bush. What do you suppose Bush is thinking? Whatever it is, you can imagine it's not publishable on a family blog. :lol:

Kerry is on fire. He's putting the wood to Bush like a wayward pledge at the Deke house. Bush just said the Iraqi finance minister was optimistic, but then he turned on the TV and it made him pessimistic. Huh? If he's that big a weenie, what's he doing in Baghdad?

Angry responses
Posted: 9:17 p.m. ET

The first question to Bush was, like the one to Kerry, right at his vulnerability. Bush, too, has his answer down pat. But he's too angry, he's speechifying, his voice is rising. He shouldn't be hectoring and yelling at these people. Why isn't Bush connecting like the genial governor I knew in Texas?

Kerry's response to Bush is just about as angry as Bush's. Both of these guys need to be more conversational. They're jacked up on adrenaline and, to tell you the truth, looks like they just don't like each other.

Kerry prepared for flip-flop question
Posted: 9:12 p.m. ET

The first question went right to Kerry's greatest weakness: Are you wishy-washy? Kerry seems to want it -- he obviously has prepared this one many times. He's going through issues quickly: Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind. Even more than the specifics, he's trying to project a sense of strength and certainty. He doesn't seem at all nervous.

Bush, too, wants this question. He's gone through his litany of Kerry flip-flops. But there's great risk in being too negative. I think he'd be better off doing fewer specifics on Kerry's flip-flops and instead telling the questioner what he stands for.

He said his tax cut is "right up the middle class." If I were a more scatological person I might take it the wrong way.

Sox win a good omen
Posted: 8:33 p.m. ET

We're 30 minutes before the debate, and I can tell you, John Kerry is one happy man. No, not because the latest Time magazine poll shows the race tied. Not even because the latest Associated Press poll shows Kerry up by 4. No, Kerry's happy because his beloved Red Sox just defeated the Anaheim Angels with a dramatic, 10th inning walk-off home run by David Ortiz.

Both Kerry and Bush are huge baseball fans, and baseball fans are superstitious. I'm sure Kerry sees the Sox win as a good omen.

Source: CNN.com

More laughs: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT...08/klein.blog/

I think americans have some sort of disfunction. After such humiliating, vague, cynical answers from Bush, they say "it's a tie"!!! WHAT?! :eek: You know, I live in a small european country where people have less access to information, and still everytime our president or prime-minister lie or explain things vaguely or contradict themselves, they are immediately kicked out of their position as soon as the nation votes! And we only have 30 years of democracy! So America must have some serious problems, its citizens are obviously very easily manipulated.
And what was up with the audience watching the debate on location? Were they paid not to show any emotions? They all looked like rocks, and even when the candidates were talking about controversial issues, they just sat there like they were hipnotized.

Exactly my opinion, too! I expected them to clap for Kerry, cuz he was brilliant most of the time, and to "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" Bush who's answers were bullsh1t (excuse my French). :rolleyes:

How can anyone support Bush is beyond my understanding.

tskk tskk, you're obviously too biased. Didn't watch a minute of the debate but I'm sure the president did fine. And if it's a tie then Bush is still ahead. :coctail:

spyretto, are you kiddin'? Bush sucked. Just read the blog above! Jeez. The ignorance is what will get Bush re-elected. :rolleyes:

Well, honestly, I watched half the debate just a while ago and I didn't see that much of a difference. Bush didn't stagger much and wasn't exactly incoherent when answering the stem cells question. He just said that he wants to balance ethics with scientific research and that was it.
Not to mention that for the most important aspect of the debate - the Iraqui war, and the war on terrorism - the viewers in America were swayed towards Bush. ( according to CNN ).
So basically Kerry has to cover a lot of ground before he can emerge as favourite. There's of course the argument that Bush is a dumbass who is not liked by anybody; Well, for a dumbass he did pretty good. Nobody would ever sustain that Kerry is dumber than Bush; it's just a matter of convincing some of the conservative voters to stray from the path and vote for Kerry on the grounds of being a better choice for a president... and, so far, he hasn't been that convincing...

Yeah, yeah, yeah :blabla:

spyretto do you have any personal saddistic pleasure that Bush wins?

Just because he raises his voice tone and acts like he's the saviour of America, sure that gets him more votes from dumb people that are easily manipulated

In short: 1) yes I do :D 2) maybe, we'll have to wait and see how dumb Americans can really be.

In my opinion, any intelligent person can see through Bush - he went to Iraq for oil and other personal benefits, he put all his good "friends" to lead Iraq so that they will come visit him in America everyday and drink tea in the White House while people in Iraq are being slaughtered, he always sides with big companies to make sure they get all the profit, he doesn't care about the Americans, he cheats, he plays dirty, he's stupid, he can't carry himself like a president.

hehehe, most of the time that i watched the debate, i just sat there and made fun of how bored the people were.... i was rather impressed with Kerry during this debate, especially with how well he handled the abortion and stem cell questions.... but I honestly don't know how you decide who "Wins" these thingers

I think that the audience was specially trained not to show any emotion... :rolleyes:

I think you're all missing the point...Bush is so bad he just has to be re-elected...that's how life goes...

And when he does i'll enjoy it with a nice port. :p

hello...

Well first, that article Kate gave is obviously biased. Which is fine, most everything is, but you have to recognize it.
Second, staringelf, you need to think before you speak. I've seen a few of your previous posts; what you say often makes you look arrogant, and worse, ignorant.

As for the debate, I will go with a slight win for Kerry. He can speak, and maybe knows a thing or two. That always helps. As for the elections, I believe Bush will win, but it will be a close one, similar to the 2000 elections. The American people, on the most part, have taken to Bush, for how he lead the nation after 9/11. Bush still wins the vast majority of security polls. And in a time like this, security is crucial.

The article only had opinions from the left-wing perspective. Kate never bothered to show us the opinions from the other side. ;)
Bush wins the security polls because the war on Iraq was his own thing, so it's obvious voters would believe he's better equipped to get the US out of this mess . How Kerry will deal with this issue is a mystery, we'll see after he's elected ( if he ever ).
As for my prediction, I hear that Kerry might just clinch it - although I close my ears and stand by my initial prediction of a landslide victory for Bush - maybe by a few thousand votes. :gigi:

by the way, I'm sure yahoo.com is a Democrats endorsing website, so don't take what they write for granted. ( I have no problem with that at all though; nor with the fact that the Sisters of Mercy is a "left-wing institution" )

all i have to say is:

the voting system in USA is f*cked up yo!

Here i found a bbc page on how the USA elections work, presented in a very 'american' way :laugh: ... anyways... the whole thing is so weird, but the last - #4 step - when they count the votes, if a state has voted 51% to 49% for one of the candidates, he/she gets ALL the electorial points. Each state has different number of electorial points ...and the others get NONE, even though it was so close! funny I just found out from that article that the CONSERVATIVE state i live in - Nebraska - awards additional votes to candidates who win the states' House of Representatives Districts. Wonder how true that is....

here is the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...ml/default.stm

it's the exact opposite of the "direct proportional" system, and let me tell you, it's anything but democratic. But it's in line with the American motto "the first is first, the second is nothing" :D

If Bush will win, it'll only be by cheating. :) I don't believe American people are that stupid to re-elect him again. But a lot of big companies benefit from Bush being the president, and that will probably make him win.

Can people participating in this debate who are actually entitled to vote in this elections (or at least Americans) raise their hands? Thank you. :rolleyes:

:newyear:

eh, what do you mean 'at least Americans'? Only... and only americans can vote, not even permanent residents of the country :gigi:

oh, and about you people commenting about the audience.. the whole thing was very strictly moderated.... what did you expect? jungle yelling and screeming? couldnt you see that 90% of the people asking questions had trembling voices and couldnt speak right out of embarrasment/worrying/whatever else... and were reading from a piece of paper... in the worst possible way :lol: ....besides if you ask me.. some of them did show emotions while asking the questions, as much as the situation permited. I think they said those were ramdomly selected by the Gallup organization.

My favourite one was the White Trash Woman with the AMERICAN FLAG Sweater! :laugh: :flag:

Yes, but not all Americans can vote. There is age threshold when you can vote.

Which makes one wonder why are american elections debated by Swede, Potugese and New Zealander.

:newyear:

:spy: WHO is the swede? :gigi:

If you are talking about me, I am Bulgarian, who has lived in USA for 7.5 years

OK, my mistake. So why are American elections debated by Bulgarian, New Zealander and Portugese?

:newyear:

no prob. and why not? why do you debate about the Wars and you are a Slovene? besides you are forgetting a Greek too :heh:
and esp about me - why not? I live in the country ... maybe for the next elections I will be still here and will be able to vote :heh:

Because that is american internal matter.

Because I study history.

I was going fromt he top of my head here.

But I guess not these ones.

:newyear:

maybe we all study politics :heh: so I guess that makes it ok, eh? :coctail:

oh gosh, I think luxxi is an American muslim voter who's also a EU citizen with Turkish nationality :p

Relax, my friend, have a glass of wine or something :)

Well, resorting to personal insults, are we? What a fine example for a moderator.

Obviously I am not going to respond in the same way, but I will clarify my position.

Yes, I think Americans are disfunctional when it comes to politics. No matter what you say, the truth is George W. Bush, due to the decisions he made, is responsible for millions of deaths, in the name of false weapons of mass destruction, and in the middle he got lucky and caught Saddam Hussein. All this of course, because he is SUCH a nice man who now only wanted the Iraqui people to have a free land - especially if the 'democratically' elected government can give him more oil than Saddam would. And because he is SUCH a nice man, why doesn't he invade Saudi Arabia where people are tortured if they badmouth the government, women have no rights and people live in repression? Oh, maybe because Saudi Arabia gives him enough oil, so that way people can live opressed, in fear, with few to non-existent rights. The truth is, as long as oil keeps coming in, Bush doesn't care how many people get killed, tortured, humiliatied or have their rights removed. The truth is, Bush prefers that women don't have the right to choose, he would prefer abortion to be ilegal, and by doing so he would be leading to clandestine abortion, where women could die from lack of conditions. I am completely against abortion, but if a woman thinks she should do it, I am not more than her to judge her, especially in the name of God like many do. The truth is, Bush is against gay people and wants to ban them, starting with gay marriages and ending God knows where. Americans may be about to re-elect this man, which proves many Americans are easily manipulated by populist speeches by this politician, which in my opinion shows that many Americans don't take full use of their huge access to information to reflect on how this hedious human being affected America and the World in the past few years, but prefer to be fooled and be the laughing stock (or hated, which is much worse) in the rest of the world. There are societies that have much less access to information are more aware politically and socially and would never allow such a prepotent man to rule their country once, let along twice. So, yes, I am criticizing America regarding their political awareness. Not all America. The America that voted for Bush and is still going to vote for Bush, which I hope is not the majority. I am not anti-American. I have been there and I appreciate many, many things about the American people and culture. I just don't appreciate that many are ruining their country and putting it far away from being "the land of the Free", allowing to become a land ruled by hypocrisy.

The people on the forum who have read more than just "a few" of my posts, know this is my position and know that I am not a xenophobe. If you don't know me, mr. moderator, maybe you should also think before you speak to insult me.

goku, I don't think that resorting to personal insults will resolve any of your personal issues and/or political issues in America. On this forum we respect other people's opinions, even if you don't share some of them. Chill. OK?

I wonder how many people will realise we get more oil from Mexico than we do any Middle Eastern Country... At least that's what all the text books and figures i've seen are telling me (up to date).

StaringElf, i don't like Bush, but he didn't make any decisions alone, it's true. And i HATE HATE HATE when people say that "he caused thousands of deaths" because, i'm sorry... my brother served in Iraq and everyone he knew was killed by the Iraqis... it's not him who's technically killing them, My brother was giving children clothes, giving them food, that's what most of the soldiers are doing over there... and yet we're the evil still because of George Bush. I don't think that the war in Iraq is a bad thing... because, if you weigh it all out, should ANYONE be ruled in such a way? Why won't anyone just stand up and go "you know, this isn't right"

I know, should anyone have the right to police the world, i'm not sure... but i think we can all agree that no man in power should all of sudden deside to gas bomb an innocent village of Kurds in the middle of night...


So OK... am i horrible person? I'm american and i support this war. I'm not voting for Bush because of his"born-again-higher-than-though-christian-anti-pro-choice-screw-stem-cell-research" campaign... and well, i'm so sorry our system is messed up, and i wish we could change it. I think we just need to start new, completely new people, new ideas, new idealogy... but i'm afraid it won't happen... It's the one flaw in our system... BUT, i'm sorry... don't act like you know all the answers, NONE of US do, and WE won't know REALLY what's happening over than for a long while, probably when it's over... and who knows how it will be....

i find it funny being criticised for our political awareness, cause i dunno... everywhere i turn i see something political... everyone supports someone and shows it, and no one is afraid to speak their mind. We're pretty aware of our faults, and we DO try to fix them...

:: i'm sure this made no sense, but i'm getting sick of pointing fingers ::

In the cases where it can be done in a right and fair way. This was/is definitely not one of them.

Where did I say I know all the answers? Just because I'm against war, intolerance, discrimination and hypocrisy, it doesn't mean I hold all the answers.

I don't know if you use "we" as in "people like me" or "we" as in "absolutely every American". If it is the 2nd choice, I don't see how anyone would try to fix a country's faults by voting for a dumb hick. And yes, no shit he didn't do the decisions alone, he wouldn't even have the brains to do so, he's weak and greedy.

Your brother served in Iraq, I am very sorry to hear that. He gave clothes to children, that's good, though. And of course you can't expect to invade a country and try to manipulate its culture and then wait for everyone who lives there to say "Oh, thank you so much for bombing us and telling us what to do with our society, you are so welcome here". Obviously there would be resistance. This war wasn't even supported by the UN, for me it is a shame for humanity and a shame for America. And so you get more oil from Mexico? Well but all the oil you can get is good, isn't it? At least for Mr. Bush. There is a certain strategy that is something like this: "We'll do EVERYTHING that we can to become richer", even if it means being a hypocrite, contributing for war - not only deaths, but also a cultural war, and being the country which most pollutes the world just so it can be the one to produce more and get more profit, no respect for nature. I don't agree with this. I don't agree with this blind greed.

I criticize the political awareness because when more than 40% of such a huge nation still sees Bush as "mr. Right" there is clearly something wrong, and some questioning urgently needs to be done.

That is my opinion. Only. I do not hold all the answers. I am not anti-American. And I wouldn't be half worried if America wouldn't be such a powerful nation as it is - I find it sad that such a country thinks it has the right to do whatever it wants and get what it wants at whatever cost, even going against the UN. America is bringing people and cultures even further appart this way, and this is not the brave America that should be, a country that stands for freedom, instead of feeding war, greed and injustice. On Sep 11th I was surprised that such an attack was possible - not only because of the security issues, but because I wouldn't expect so much hate towards America. Now, I would expect it, it wouldn't surprise me, after all the damage and greedy, hypocritical image America has due to its president. Of course I would and will never tolerante any kind of terrorism or hate, but right now it doesn't surprise me anymore, since those people are very traditional and fundamentalist and everything that disturbs their environment, every change, is very hard for them to face. And face it: even if you dislike them, you can't eliminate them, you can't just manipulate their society and tel them what to do and who to be. It can't work that way.

You think the war is a good thing, I respect it, but I could never agree with that. And one thing would be finding it to be necessary for a certain period, another thing is saying it's good. Anyway, I respect it, but I could never agree to something like that, it's disturbing and selfish.

Once again: this is MY opinion. ONLY. There are no absolute truths, especially coming from me. So don't put words in my mouth, please.

Bush aimed to own the oil companies, or to help other large organisations own them. The oil doesn't have to go to USA. They can sell it to elsewhere and gain huge profits.

By saying that Bush is evil, people mostly mean that it's the Bush administration that is. Bush is just a Barbie doll that is operated by people who profit from him being the president. Bush chose to listen and act in favor for those people. If he was a patriot or had just a little brain of his own, he would have stepped down or refused to help the companies. Or maybe he can't do that, cuz those companies helped him cheat and win the last election.

Exactly!! I totally agree. We call ourselves civilised and we should act accordingly.

On November the 2nd, the fate of Siria, Iran and North Korea will be decided. Oh, and the rest of the world's fate as well.

umm... we never bombed the areas that my brother passed out food...

TRUE STORY... they would be on a convoy to some different town, and they would be driving through nothing but desert all around, and all of a sudden there would be children, abandoned children right smack dab, no adults, no one to take care of them... THAT'S who my brother helped. And when parents would push their children into american trucks, hoping they would stop to avoid hitting them and hopefully crash or just stop so they could ambush the americans... you know. They were told while being there never to harm ANYONE unless they are shooting at you... so, maybe you just don't understand... but being against the war means to completely undermine what my family and country have SACRIFICED... would you all be happy for me to sit and here and cry because i lost my brother over a war you're all against... would his life (and the lives of those already lost) have been for absolutely NOTHING?! ... thanks, thanks SO VERY much for your support

It probably hasn't been for nothing. We'll probably get to see the "democratization" of Iraq, eventually... that's always a good thing....can also take Bush's and his administration's logic for granted - that Iraq under Saddam Hussein would have gotten the help to develop weapons of mass destruction and would have posed a serious threat to US's security sometime in the future, etc.etc. That's all there is for now. No connection between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda has been established as yet.
I think Bush might come up with something more should he decide to invade Iran next year.

I apologize staringelf, I was a little out of line. It came out not the way I meant it to. katebeidar is right as always, your opinion is just as good as anyone elses. This is a forum of tolerance, after all? There is a line though, and as a moderator I need to decide when someone crosses that line and if it needs to be corrected. In this instance, I was looking to see if you were insulting a particular nationality (i.e. Americans are stupid, Russians are ignorant, etc...). We have no need for insults, as we said earlier. This goes for everyone. However, I did misinterpret your intentions, and I'm sorry I came after you. But there had been a history of your posts, that at least I felt were insulting or degrading to people, and I felt the need to speak up. I should not yell or act brashly; rather, mention that people may be offended by what you say, it is always important to be delicate.

As for my opinion on the issue, this is coming from a Russian standpoint. I agree and disagree with what you said. One thing we have to remember is that America is the sole super power in the world. A byproduct of this is jealousy from foreign nations. It is much easier for a less powerful nation to say they could do better, differently, morally, but it hardly turns out that way. I believe that many nations, if given the information accessability of the US, could do a better job with running their country. But if they also recieved power, wealth, hatred, status, etc.. they would crumble. Corruption is present in every country, but it's very hard for new nations with wealth to handle it. I also believe that the American public is manipulated by it's leaders. As is every nation. They are no different from everyone else, who eat propaganda and are lied to every day. And if other countries are such NICE nations, why don't they provide aid to Rwanda, South Africa, the Balkans... The world is reliant upon America to some point. Thats why we're talking about this in the first place. No one debated about the South African presidential elections that took place a few months ago. It's lonley at the top, and vulnerable. However, I feel that the American people, along with any people, have the right to do whatever they please with their country. If they want to elect someone who takes away their freedoms, they should be able to.

Well I couldn't disagree more. Maybe you can speak for your country, but not for every nation.
Want an example? Our prime-minister here in Portugal has been suspected to pressure a very popular political analyst who was mysteriously fired from a TV station. In response to this scandal and huge drop in (what was left of) his popularity, the prime-minister came on TV to say he is going to lower taxes, raise retirement wages and raise public workers. More than 85% of our nation is against him and consider these statements pure propaganda, there are protests everywhere. Because we know our finances will not allow those raises and he will only do that to hide the rotten side of his ruling here. And NO I am not speaking for myself or for my circle of friends, I am talking about an attitude which corresponds the huge majority of people in Portugal right now. So even with such propaganda and raises, people know this man is being a hypocrite and people are demanding for the President of the Republic to set new elections asap. My nation is not manipulated by politics' propaganda.
Want another example? Spain. The 11th March scandal. The PP government blamed ETA for the bombings in Madrid, manipulated TVE (the public broadcasting network) so it would just show reports of how ETA was to blame and not Al-Qaeda, but the people knew something was very strange and badly explained, everybody knew ETA wouldn't operate like that. It was Al-Qaeda, and the spanish government wanted to ignore this, because it meant that Spain was turned into a target of international terrorist by having supported Bush in the war against Iraq, and this few days away from elections would mean a loss for PP, so did they everything they could to manipulate TVE and many newspapers even. It didn't work, the people got united in protest, and after being caught they admitted there was evidence of Al-Qaeda after all and of course lost the elections. Nobody needed to make movies and write books for them to realize their government was lying to them and not explaining what it should explain, they just thought and came to that OBVIOUS conclusion, giving PSOE [the opposite party] its best result in spanish history, in a clear sign of disapproval for the lies of the PP admnistration.
And I have no doubt that our portuguese prime minister will have the same fate, because the ones who take the privileges they have to manipulate the media to serve their propaganda are punished by the people who always have their eyes open.
So don't tell me every nation is manipulated by its leaders and their propaganda. Speak for your country [whatever country it is], don't speak for every nation. It is very unpolite and unconsiderate.

I have already made an official complaint about your little 'decision', we will see if it is right for a moderator to insult an user just because he couldn't interpretate the message in the right way. Cause if it is, then moderators lose all credibility and we all might as well insult everyone just out of the blue everytime we think something is not right or our opinions don't match. If you think me having a different opinion from you is 'crossing the line' and you feel the need to insult me, no wonder it doesn't bother you that Americans plan to vote for such an intolerant man named George W Bush.

Boooo. I come back and all the interesting subjects have been discussed to death without me already. Everything's been said already.

I'd just like to reply to Luxxi about the elections being an USA internal matter. It's all about USA being a super-power and it's great influence it has on the world, not only politicaly and economicaly, but also socialy. The world politics these last few years has been hugely effected by the US as a sole superpower left in the world. So I guess American elections are an interest of all of us. At least as far as the international politicies are concern.

yeah, freddie, I think its just that luxxi seems a bit strict.. and i think he meant its none of non-american business because non-americans CANT vote - so in a way, in a very strict manner, its pointell to discuss it since we cant participate.

But if you ask me, we can discuss anything we want :coctail:

and dont worry, more is to be said, tonight is the last debate.. .on internal matters ... but how much do you wanna bet its still going to revolve around Iraq and the War :heh:

lol staringelf, you're just asking for it.. Anyways, I already said it wasn't my intention to insult you, I wanted to warn you. No moderator or admin purposely insults a user; we have other ways of dealing with it. And using your logic, just because you don't agree with me, I am wrong? Maybe I felt insulted by what you said, whether you meant to or not.
This is how I should've said it. Rather, don't make absurd generalization. As for your point about propaganda, I don't even know where to start. You just seem to be completely ignoring history. Nevertheless, I am done with this discussion. I hope you don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to insult you, or make an enemy.

Back on topic, I see what you are saying coolasfcuk, and luxxi as well. Who the American people choose as their president has a large impact on the rest of the world. But as non-voters technically we don't get to choose what happens. As for the debate tonight, it was President Bush's best one so far. I might even go as far to say as he beat Kerry. Certainly the closest. Now how these debates will imapct the votes will be interesting.