democrat deathmatch!!!!

[corplinx]

I could only score the first round before I lost interest. Listening to that many politicians answer questions without hip waders on can be a bad experience.

First Round:
Braun: answered the question, poor answer, empty
Sharpton: same
Edward: dodged the question
Kerry: answered vaguely, basically BS'ed his way through it
Graham: idiot
Kucinic (sp?): answered honestly and clearly on his views, even though I didn't agree with him I respect him, he should clearly be the neo-liberal's choice
Dean: plain _wrong_, baaaaaaaaa!, thanks for playing
Lieberman: answered well, definitely the pragmatist's choice
Gephart: dodged question and instead gave prefab speech unrelated to the question

I ducked in and out to see lots of references to Haliburton (surprisingly, none of the candidates seemed to know the actual name of the subsidiary that got the contract they were so enraged over). I felt upset over the outbusts from the LaRouche camp. I may not agree with 80 percent of what was said in the debate, but I think I would have had to whip someone's ass if they started that shouting near me.

I ducked in during the informal questioning at the end, I got to see something interesting.

Juan Williams asked them for a yes/no answer on the 87 billion. Every candidate except Kucinic (sp?) couldn't give a straight answer. So, the guy from savoy asked the spinners for a clarification. He asked that if they didn't get all their petty demands if they would vote no. The only person who gave a straight answer was Kerry! 2 points for Kerry. After giving vague or bs answers the whole debate he _finally_ answered something.

The big losers?
Dean, flopped bigtime. Now that everyone else has stolen his bash-bush schtick he looks like just another schmoe in the crowd.

Gephart. He answered nearly every question with a prefabbed speech, most of the time only marginally related to the point. What a friggin bore!

The big winners?

Kucinic (sp?, btw, ill never get this guys name right). He showed what a straight talking socialist progressive _should_ be. He made Dean look plain shallow. I have a lot of respect for this man. He didn't spin answers and took clear stands.

Lieberman. I think Joseph Lieberman showed that only he could lead the country out of the group. Face it dems, Lieberman is the only man for the job. The president's job is foreign policy and Lieberman seemed to be the only candidate with the resolve to last out the war on terror. I might vote for the man in the primaries. My only fear is that a Lieberman presidency might estrange the muslim world. Many of the countries we think of as moderate would show their true colors if we had a jewish president. Part of me says, fine, let em show their colors, if they dont like it they can lump it. The pragmatic part of me however says its just not time for a jewish leader of the free world. Its sad but true.

I guess I'll be voting for 4 more years of the HALIBURTON SECRET DEALS! Man, subgenius must be helping these guys write their answers.

[Jude]

"Amen, brother." That was fun.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jude
"Amen, brother." That was fun.

Saw that part. Put a big smile on my face.

[corplinx]

I am having the worst night. My wife has a brain injury and I love the dear but as a result she isn't always the sharpest knife in the drawer.

The problem is, she watched the entire debate and is now convinced that Bush:
has reduced the amount of money in social programs
has given the wealthy special tax cuts
has made policies that intentionally target blacks negatively

The frustrating part is that any amount of hard numbers or facts cannot contradict these views now! No, I am not joking, she actually believes these things. I guess they are liberal equivalents of weird things dumb conservatives believe like "saddam was involved with the WTC attack".

[DavidJames]

"The frustrating part is that any amount of hard numbers or facts cannot contradict these views now! "

What hard numbers would you show her to contradict her views?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

One thing they all have in common is that none will get my vote.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by corplinx
I am having the worst night. My wife has a brain injury and I love the dear but as a result she isn't always the sharpest knife in the drawer.

The problem is, she watched the entire debate and is now convinced that Bush:
has reduced the amount of money in social programs
has given the wealthy special tax cuts
has made policies that intentionally target blacks negatively

The frustrating part is that any amount of hard numbers or facts cannot contradict these views now! No, I am not joking, she actually believes these things. I guess they are liberal equivalents of weird things dumb conservatives believe like "saddam was involved with the WTC attack".

It is no coincidence that liberal arguments are geared towards the mentally challenged. Besides the lack of a Geraldo video showing Saddam caught in the act, give me one good motive why Saddam would not be involved.

edited to give Heraldo a sex change - d'oh.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
It is no coincidence that liberal arguments are geared towards the mentally challenged. Besides the lack of a Heraldo video showing Saddam caught in the act, give me one good motive why Saddam would not be involved.

Unless that was a jab at his masculinity, it's Geraldo.

And by your logic, God does exist? :eek:

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Unless that was a jab at his masculinity, it's Geraldo.

And by your logic, God does exist? :eek:

Thanks for the spelling correction and the strawman argument. I'm not asking you to think like a skeptic on this one, think like a cop. What motive did Saddam have not to be involved and provide aid to al-Queda or any other terrorist organization. Common goals, common enemies, plenty of motive to cooperate, what motive existed not to cooperate?

[Gem]

What motive did Saddam have not to be involved and provide aid to al-Queda or any other terrorist organization. Common goals, common enemies, plenty of motive to cooperate, what motive existed not to cooperate?

He had plenty of motives. Now show me that he did actually help them.

A possible reason why they didn't cooperate is because Osama Bin Laden wanted to help Saudi Arabia against Sadam in Kuwait. (He was pissed that the USA got the job, but that's another story.) In other words, he doesn't like Sadam because he invaded Kuwait, and that Saddam is SECULAR.

Gem

P.S.: As for the democratic nominees, I'll give them some hope when Hilary Clinton comes in. I'll have to look at her political portfolio.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Thanks for the spelling correction and the strawman argument. I'm not asking you to think like a skeptic on this one, think like a cop. What motive did Saddam have not to be involved and provide aid to al-Queda or any other terrorist organization. Common goals, common enemies, plenty of motive to cooperate, what motive existed not to cooperate?


With all the money they got from Saudi royals, why would they need Saddam's help?

Seriously, we know that this mission worked because nobody in Al Q. knew the details. That said, while Al. Q's friends in the Saudi government and other governments (iraq a possibility, no smoking gun) knew that something was going to happen; they in fact did not know what.

Saddam. He didn't need to know. His underlings were the ones in contact with Al Q. and not himself. Not to mention, Al Q. did not need his help to pull it off.

We know now that there indeed were links between members of Saddam's government and Al Q.. However, no sort of cooperative relationship was in place that would have helped them carryout 9-11.

Remember, Saddam's government have sheltered and funded terrorists, however they blow up buses and not trade centers.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Gem


He had plenty of motives. Now show me that he did actually help them.

A possible reason why they didn't cooperate is because Osama Bin Laden wanted to help Saudi Arabia against Sadam in Kuwait. (He was pissed that the USA got the job, but that's another story.) In other words, he doesn't like Sadam because he invaded Kuwait, and that Saddam is SECULAR.

Gem

P.S.: As for the democratic nominees, I'll give them some hope when Hilary Clinton comes in. I'll have to look at her political portfolio.

Interesting theory. In Osama's September 11 speech, he defends Iraq more times than he defends Palestine.

Osama's September 11 speech (http://biharnews2k1.hypermart.net/1008_binladen_speech.htm)

According to CIA director George Tenet:


"Their ties may be limited by divergent ideologies, but the two sides' mutual antipathies toward the United States and the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical co-operation between them is possible," Mr Tenet said.


Story (http://epic-usa.org/action/alert.php?n=13)


When you eliminate the impossible, that which is left, no matter how improbable, is the answer.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by corplinx

With all the money they got from Saudi royals, why would they need Saddam's help?


Two words, that old oxymoron; "military intelligence".

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Thanks for the spelling correction and the strawman argument. I'm not asking you to think like a skeptic on this one, think like a cop. What motive did Saddam have not to be involved and provide aid to al-Queda or any other terrorist organization. Common goals, common enemies, plenty of motive to cooperate, what motive existed not to cooperate?

Because we're possibly going to spend a half-trillion on this foreign policy abortion and I'm not satisfied with justifications for the invasion being, "he might have" and "why wouldn't he?" If we're going to mortgage the future, when we're already in debt up to our eyeballs, when we're not even finished (or seemingly concerned) with Afghanistan which did harbor terrorists who did attack us and and we're going to start pre-emptively attacking nations on what they "might" do to us - then we'd better have pictures of Saddam and Osama shaking hands over plans for the WTC and a table full of photos of the 19 hijackers.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

Because we're possibly going to spend a half-trillion on this foreign policy abortion and I'm not satisfied with justifications for the invasion being, "he might have" and "why wouldn't he?" If we're going to mortgage the future, when we're already in debt up to our eyeballs, when we're not even finished (or seemingly concerned) with Afghanistan which did harbor terrorists who did attack us and and we're going to start pre-emptively attacking nations on what they "might" do to us - then we'd better have pictures of Saddam and Osama shaking hands over plans for the WTC and a table full of photos of the 19 hijackers.

As if Saddam didn't do enough on his own to make it worthwhile to take him out of power? By "we're not concerned about Afganistan", who is the "we're" you are referring to? I think we were more concerned with what Saddam was planning to do to his neighbors, than us. He was in a position to destabilize the world into WWIII. How much would you spend to head off the possibility of WWIII? I hope your answer is more than you'd spend on "curing" global warming.

Why is no one complaining about the potential costs of sending troops to Liberia, which is clearly no threat to the US? Granted, there are not many troops there, yet.


The UN official said he hopes that United States can take responsibility in restructuring the Liberian army and other security forces.


Story (http://allafrica.com/stories/200309080551.html)

On one hand, the UN slaps us in the face about Iraq, then on the other, it's our job to help Liberia. Where's all those do-gooder UN troops when they are needed? They'd rather jockey for position in Iraq because they have great financial interests there.

The pictures I'd like to see would be Saddam being taken into custody, like an episode of "Cops". I can hear him now.... "I didn't do nothing, man, that was so-and-so's dope. I've never seen it before. I didn't do nothing wrong"

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
As if Saddam didn't do enough on his own to make it worthwhile to take him out of power?

How many f***ing times are you Apoligists going to have to get a history lesson?
1. No one disagrees that Saddam was a tyrant. But there are tyrants in many nations, why don't we go after all of them as well? Because it's not in our interest to just invade nations and toss out tyrants and install cronies - that's called Imperialism, and we're not an imperialist state.

2. Because Saddam being a tyrant wasn't offered as one of the reasons we were going to invade Iraq by the President. It was all about WMDs and that New York City could disappear in a cloud of nuclear smoke.

Remember this?
There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

3. Your comment has strayed completely from your original assertion that Saddam and 9/11 must must somehow be related and that would constitute another justification for war. You're backing away from supporting that Saddam and 9/11 are connected, to "he's a tyrant."

That's called moving the goalpost and it's not a good way to justify foreign policy when we're talking about a half-trillon dollars, the lives of American soldiers and American political capital.

By "we're not concerned about Afganistan", who is the "we're" you are referring to?

The chickenhawks who are running the DoD and President Bush, that's who. We're f***ing up in Afghanistan. The country isn't stable, Karzei is basically mayor of Kabul and the infrastructure is still in shambles. We had a chance to eliminate Afghanistan as a terrorist hideout, and to gain a buffer state between Pakistan and Iran, and we blew it. We'll be lucky that the county doesn't wind up in Taliban hands again at this point.

I think we were more concerned with what Saddam was planning to do to his neighbors, than us. He was in a position to destabilize the world into WWIII.

I think George Bush was more concerned with making his daddy proud. I wish I'd have accomplished more before my dad died, but if I were in G.W.'s spot, I don't think kicking Saddam's a** would have been my top priority, he was doing fine with Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Saddam was no more in a position to start WWIII in 2003 than he was in 1990... such an assertion is rediculous.

How much would you spend to head off the possibility of WWIII?

Hmmmm, How about checking a history book and see how much we spent between 1945 and 1990 - then get back to me.

I hope your answer is more than you'd spend on "curing" global warming.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Please don't pull a Rusheque "lump everyone who disagrees with me" strawman argument.

Why is no one complaining about the potential costs of sending troops to Liberia, which is clearly no threat to the US? Granted, there are not many troops there, yet.

More argument from prognosication and changing the subject? Whether anyone carps about Liberia is not relevent to whether Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks or wether the invasion of Iraq was ill concieved, ill timed and (occupation wise) ill executed and that's in addition to being marginally justified.

Apparently all we have let for justification is, "he was a tyrant." Sorry, that's still not good enough for me.