3rd Debate

[once a runner]

I agree with what anybody could get out of the debates. All we have to do is look at what Bush said in 2000 and we know full well that the promises made in a debate aren't kept. He talked about helping senior afford prescriptions (he even said that all poor seniors would have their prescriptions paid for), reforming social security, claimed he would not use force on Milosevic if he didn't leave peacefully....he said it was up to the people of the region to learn how to live peacefully, and I really like this question/answer


How would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force? Generally.

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interests. And that means whether or not our territory -- our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.

Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.

And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops.


Yeah, it's clear the debates are no predictor for the next 4 years.

[LionPride]

Hey sportsguy - I wasn't being patronizing. But hey, take it however you want. If you listen to a guy like foghorn, you're in trouble.

I'm guessing your a young person, and I think it's great that you're getting involved in the political process at a young age. I know I didn't and wish I would have. I was just trying to push you to research the issues that are important to you and make you own choice.

So if you thought I was patronizing you, I apologize. Foghorn knows that if you spend time to look at the issues, you'll probably come down on the good side.

[LionPride]

Today I sat in the audience of a debate between Newt Ginrich and James Carville. Newt had an interesting idea. Let's implement the Kerry Maximum Tax. Every American will pay no more than a 12% income tax, just like John Kerry did.

BTW - Carville fumbled today but did have an interesting point. He feels that if Kerry loses this election, the Democratic party will split. On the other hand, as Southpaw pointed out earlier, Bush is in dangerous waters here. Newt even agreed with this. Going into the final days tied is not good for an incumbent.

So all you Republicans out there, PLEASE get out and vote on November 2. President Bush needs your support and we need 4 more years of steady, determined leadership. Terrorist are hoping for a Kerry win, let's not give it to them.

Carville admitted that if Kerry loses Pennsylvania, he loses the election, period. Let's put PA in the win column for President Bush.

[foghorn]

Dawg -- Maybe Kerry is full of himself -- but what about W, strutting around during his appearances iike some bantam rooster He's became insufferable.

[southpaw]

runner get off it. If your going to look at what Bush said in a debate four years ago before 9/11 that changed the country forever and cry foul you don't have the sense God gave you. If your going to do that then lets just look at how many time Kerry has flipped and flopped just in this campaing. For the war, against the war. I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it. If anybody is a hypocrit its Kerry and his supporters.

[sportsguy]

I agree with this, at least Bush fits in with his crowd when he makes appearences and doesn't wear those three piece suits like Kerry. I will also say that I think Bush can do a lot better job in Iraq than Kerry, and with Iran and North Korea.

[once a runner]

That's exactly my point southpaw. Kerry's senate record of the last 20 years has been brought up over and over. The economy has changed, the military status has changed and our foreign affairs have changed. The decisions he would make as president could be very different than those he made as senator. If Kerry's record for last 20 years is fair game, then so is GW's.

And as for the 87 billion...its's been explained before by others, but one more time.... the bill was originally for 67 billion, which Kerry voted for. Then 20 billion was added which would give Halliburton a no bid contract. Kerry voted against the extra 20 billion. I know it's hard to imagine a democrat being fiscally conservative (in this case).

That's the whole trouble with judging a senate voting record. There are so many riders and changes to bills that it's hard to know the voters intent unless you look at a case by case scenario.

[southpaw]

The point is Kerry's senate record has not been the focal point is must be. The media has given him a free pass on his record. He didn't even vote to support the First Gulf War in 1990 when we had a "coalition". His votes on domestic issues nothing but socialism. The Haliburton thing is a moot point they have a bidded contract with the gov't. Haliburton is the only company in the US that can do the massive reconstruction it was hired to do in Iraq. Or maybe you want to give our tax dollars to a French or German company like Kerry would hand over our soverignty to the UN!

The mispeak about the 87 billion is exactly the problem with Kerry he tells so many lies he can't keep track of them all.

In a post 9/11 world Kerry hasn't changed his philosophy at all. His postions are still the same. No flexibility at all the same garbage his idol George McGovern ran on over 30 years ago. Weak on defense, tax and spend liberal.