Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

First Debate (Foreign Policy) to Kerry-Fox News

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    I meant to do that...I'm sorry..give me sometime...I'll return.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Jane Mas...do me a favor!

    Can you please darken your answers? It is too confusing....would you that?

    Regards,
    Conciencia

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Re: Jane Mas...I see no never own business or investments....hmmmmmm.,....

    Concencia:
    I see you have been taken by the Lawyers and their silver slick tongue...You see JM, it is obvious you are not into investments nor do you are aware of teh Presidents duties wwhile in office....You see Kerry is beting ignorants like you will feed on trhese issues and fall flat on them....

    But lets debate to expose your severe ignorance...I will quote you quoting me...

    JM:
    Your right. I don't know much about economics, but it doesn't take a genius to know that Capitalism only benefits the rich. It is a pyramid system in which only a few can make it. Therefore the poor aka workers deserve more than the crumbs they are given by greedy corporations and big businesses. I will leave this economic debate for Suki or the others who know more than I do.


    conciencia:
    We can go on and on with debating if Bush has the gift of orator or elocuency when he opens his mouth, I will be the first to admit it...he simply does not! He is a tough cowboy...filled with simplicity and strait forward talk. That is what i like about this guy...even if he is not the best we have these days....but compared to the Flip flopper, Vietnam traitor, Lawyer silver talker....etc..etc!

    JM:
    Why is he a traitor? Many Vets don't think so and still support him whole heartedly. He was not the first nor the last to speak against an unjust war. He was not the first to speak against the atrocities many (not all) soldiers committed. Anyone can lose their minds in a time of war. That is the ugly reality of war. There were movies and articles on this before him. Why is he the only one attacked? Because he's running against a Bush?


    conciencia:
    Wrong! In a society, where marriage still exist....it is just not a woman's decision...it is a man and a woman (couple decision).Ethic and morality always clash especially for woman's like you whom think you have the right to make decisions that affect a whole society, but tend to be so selfish....ignores such fact. Like violating the right of life inside a womb....your body maybe yours....but you have a potential and a living live inside you...you just cannot commit murder! Period!

    JM:
    You are WRONG! My body is NOT your business. If I got raped and wished to abort before the 1st semester it is my business not YOURS! Your God is not my God, your laws are not my laws, and my body is not your body! If I had a chance to live vs having a baby...it is mine, my husband's and my family's decision not YOURS! My decision does not affect your family life, your work, your peace of mind. If so, then where were you when I needed you? When I'm hungry are you there? When my child and I are hungry and cold and I'm struggling to survive (and don't call me lazy because 5.15 an hour without medical benefits does not pay my rent) where were you? Oh you want to be involved in my personal decisions but are unwilling to acknowledge me as your equal and call me poor and lazy when I can't live on a 5.15 an hour and assume I have the ability to acquire what you have?


    conciencia:
    Bush was very clear when he eluded that these 22 samples of stem cell were already destroyed....so he is not taking another life to save another...he was also specific in that it is only exception to these 22 samples period...and no more were to be used....he is for adult stem cell research...he was very clear on that...so do not spin it...and act like Kerry!

    JM:
    Oh so now Bush is God and can elude and make exceptions?


    conciencia:
    Yeah...where is Osama? why he has not in the latest video? Tapes? why he is not showing himself...why only his right hand shows up?....Seems to me that Osama is the Tora Bora Mountains properly buried...by USA bombings....However you are missing the point again...the fight is we the Islamic terrorist extremist....and have eliminated 75% of these killers...and we still are eliminating them....so if we are ridding off the Al quedas and Osama is no where to be found,,,give the credit to where is due...stop being a pessimist like Kerry...he is just trying to become the President and is doing the same traitorship acts as he did in Vietnam...can you see through his silver junk speech?

    JM:
    Eliminated 75%? Yeah sure...if you believe those figures I'm convinced Afganistan and Iraq will become Catholic in a decade. What does it matter how many Talibans you've caught if you generated 10 times as many worldwide since the invasion of Iraq?


    conciencia:
    I am very well aware of the support...I am benefitting from it...I am a small business owner...thank to the Republicans and Bush...If it would have been for the Democrats I would still be in the Bronx ignorant....

    JM:
    Let me provide some info for you:

    "Who do you trust on tax analysis-- Bush or WSJ and WP?
    BUSH CLAIMS: “Now, he says he's only going to tax the rich. You realize 900,000 small businesses will be taxed under his plan, because most small businesses are Subchapter S Corp.S or limited partnerships and they pay tax at the individual income tax level. And so when you're running up the taxes like that, you're taxing job creators, and that's not how you keep jobs here.”


    REALITY: “Undoing Tax Cuts Will Have Little Impact on Small Businesses” according to the Wall Street Journal and “Bush Assertion on Tax Cuts Is at Odds With IRS Data” according to the Washington Post. George Bush uses a misleading definition of small business, a definition that factcheck.org points out would include George Bush himself because “He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise.” The Wall Street Journal says that, “Few of them [small businesses] make enough money to be affected by Sen. Kerry's proposal to undo the Bush tax cuts on those with incomes above $200,000.” Finally, the Bush charges ignore the 35 million small businesses that pay lower taxes under the Kerry proposals – including tax cuts for small businesses that create jobs, provide health insurance, zero capital gains for startup investments in small businesses, and a 5 percent reduction in the corporate rate. [Wall Street Journal, “Undoing Tax Cuts Will Have Little Impact on Small Businesses,” 4/1/2004; Washington Post, “Bush Assertion on Tax Cuts Is at Odds With IRS Data,” 2/24/2004; factcheck.org, “A Bush-Cheney ad says Kerry would raise taxes for 900,000 ‘small businesses’ and ‘hurt jobs.’ It’s a big exaggeration,” 9/23/2004]"


    "conciencia:
    He is for getting the lazy to work (cut the warefare check)

    JM previously wrote:
    Lazy. True many are lazy, but if the companies stopped going overseas and stay here willing to pay 10 dollars an hour with medical benefits, which is decades OVERDUE...YOU WOULDN'T NEED WELFARE!"


    Concencia's response to that:
    Welfare, is NOT a new system under Bush...where have you been? We Puertorricans are victim of this Liberal had out...taking about a no plan to retrieve the welfare and help educate and get a job....thank to the Liberal we are what we are today! I explain the outsourcing issue already....it applies here too...learn a new skill then a get a job, Forget about the sweat shops, forget about the low paying jobs...let get with new technology! Let be a Leader in the world!

    JM: I never said welfare was a system under Bush. That's right let's get with technology. We are a system of consumption. We need countries to consume...so now we have to make those contries open to consumption by making them democratic and free...free to consume!

    conciencia:
    He always ends his speech with "May God bless this Nation"

    Concencia:
    You keep missing the point, now you indulge in sarcasm....but hey that happens when you have no material to use. JM, you do not even understand what seperation of state and church.......You must first understand that this nation was based on religious fundamentals...in fact the courts still use references to God and the Bible.....but you can make a clear line do you?.....What you call mistake...I call major accomplishments....If you call getting rid of the Taliban and giving the God giving right to the Afganistani woman wrong...then you are an extreme Liberal....If you think getting rid of Saddam...was a mistake...then you are totally out of touch of your surrondings and an extreme Liberal....But hey....Liberal are like that very flip floppers and always wrong![/b]

    Saddam was an excuse to sooth the people who we hungry for revenge when they couldn't find Osama after letting him get away.

    Here is my understanding of Church and State. Pay attention to the BOLD part:

    About the First Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    The First Amendment was written because at America's inception, citizens demanded a guarantee of their basic freedoms.

    Our blueprint for personal freedom and the hallmark of an open society, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

    Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change.

    That's my understanding! To avoid RELIGIOUS FANATICS CONTROLLING THE GOVERNMENT MAKING LAWS BASED ON THEIR RELIGION MY LAWS!

    [Edited by JaneMas on 12th October 2004 at 00:03]

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Jane Mas...I see no never own business or investments....hmmmmmm.,....

    Jane Mas,

    I see you have been taken by the Lawyers and their silver slick tongue...You see JM, it is obvious you are not into investments nor do you are aware of teh Presidents duties wwhile in office....You see Kerry is beting ignorants like you will feed on trhese issues and fall flat on them....

    But lets debate to expose your severe ignorance...I will quote you quoting me...


    "Re: Well, here we go!
    conciencia:

    We can go on and on with debating if Bush has the gift of orator or elocuency when he opens his mouth, I will be the first to admit it...he simply does not! He is a tough cowboy...filled with simplicity and strait forward talk. That is what i like about this guy...even if he is not the best we have these days....but compared to the Flip flopper, Vietnam traitor, Lawyer silver talker....etc..etc!

    JM:

    I see you overlooked Bush being ignorant on what he owns.
    See how you overlooked the facts. Bush is a real flip flopper (such a stupid word in the field of politics). First he was against HomeLand Security, now he's for it.

    JM, The President like many investors are oblivious of their investments since many business do have other sub-business under for many purposes; i.e. taxes loss purposes...I invest in many funds....and these funds invest in other funds as well...so what is the point? However that was not the issue...the issue was based on the qualification or requirements of "SMALL BUSINESS" you missed the whole point all together! You should try to do more research and stop seeking for blood against the Republicans...I tell you if Kerry start taxing even more the small business and big business...you have not even seen outsoursing yet....You see in order to compete in a world economy...our product, pay and overhead must be minimized....if Kerry carries out what he intends...USA will die quick...however Kerry true intention are exactly that!

    "conciencia:
    He is anti abortion

    JM:
    So are the Dems. Abortion is not an excuse to avoid a child. But in cases already mentioneddddddddd....it should be a woman's issue not a MAN'SSSSSSSSSSS issue with my body and his God!"

    Wrong! In a society, where marriage still exist....it is just not a woman's decision...it is a man and a woman (couple decision).Ethic and morality always clash especially for woman's like you whom think you have the right to make decisions that affect a whole society, but tend to be so selfish....ignores such fact. Like violating the right of life inside a womb....your body maybe yours....but you have a potential and a living live inside you...you just cannot commit murder! Period!

    "conciencia:
    He is anti embrionic stem cell

    JM:
    Oh boy....Isn't he allowing those embryonic cells already in existence to be experimented with. Talk about flip flop."

    Bush was very clear when he eluded that these 22 samples of stem cell were already destroyed....so he is not taking another life to save another...he was also specific in that it is only exception to these 22 samples period...and no more were to be used....he is for adult stem cell research...he was very clear on that...so do not spin it...and act like Kerry!

    "conciencia:
    He is firm in the Irak war

    Ride em Cowboy! Where's Osama?"

    Yeah...where is Osama? why he has not in the latest video? Tapes? why he is not showing himself...why only his right hand shows up?....Seems to me that Osama is the Tora Bora Mountains properly buried...by USA bombings....However you are missing the point again...the fight is we the Islamic terrorist extremist....and have eliminated 75% of these killers...and we still are eliminating them....so if we are ridding off the Al quedas and Osama is no where to be found,,,give the credit to where is due...stop being a pessimist like Kerry...he is just trying to become the President and is doing the same traitorship acts as he did in Vietnam...can you see through his silver junk speech?

    "conciencia:
    He will no let Europe, Russia or China pressure him.

    JM:
    I guess you didn't comprehend what Kerry said either. Is Kerry speaking another language?"

    Can you be clear and explain your and Kerry positions...then we can debate...stop avoiding the facts would yah?

    "conciencia:
    He is pro small business supporter

    JM:
    Check that link and see how pro he is."

    I am very well aware of the support...I am benefitting from it...I am a small business owner...thank to the Republicans and Bush...If it would have been for the Democrats I would still be in the Bronx ignorant....

    "conciencia:
    He is for small government

    JM:
    So what has he done?"

    How about small business tax break for starters, how about the medical drug cards, how about the education vouchers, how about giving us tax back money for us to spend and not taking it away for the government to take...this is just for starters!

    "conciencia:
    He is a tax cutter for the 200k and above (we are the one whom pay for 80% of the taxes in USA.

    JM:
    BS! Where's the plan to bring back the companies from overseas? Or is he planning to copy Kerry's plan?jajaja. Ops! Your a rich guy. No wonder. You are also the ones making a 500% profit by refusing to pay Blue Cross to your workers by insisting on part-time employment via temp agencys as a permanent source of un-permanent workers! This unjust practice also avoids providing Vacation, and Holiday pay to employees!"

    JM, you simply do not understand how the market, better yet how world economic works...I can see your main problem...you see Kerry prays on people like you....lack of knowledge...not stupid but just ignorant (no offense)...Bush supports outsoursing....this let our corporation compete with world economics...the companies make the profits and invest them into our financial institutions...the financial institutions invest in the constructions, loans, mortages, research and developemet for new technologies, inventions, educations...so as a society we grow stronger, intelligent and military powerful....this is what provides the job force we need to sustain our new economy...JM you must understand the new system...in a Capitalist society we must keep changing and advancing to mantain our strength and be competitive with the world.

    "conciencia:
    He is for other sources of energy research.

    JM:
    Bush didn't know how to answer that question...comeonnnnnn!"

    Again...Bush stumbles in all his speeches...he is not an adecuate speaker...he is strait forward....but if you look in the fact org site you can see that Bush actually answered great...again substance!

    "conciencia:
    He is for a stronger military in the ofensive and defensive.

    JM:
    And he's sprouting more terrorists every day. Gonna need a bigger military."

    This is a subject I debated with many of these Islamic terrorist....ever since Islam surfaced....we have been at war....crusades and conflicts...please read your history...you will see that Bush did not blew the twin towers....Bush did not pay terrorist to kill his own father, bush did not pay palestinian terrorist family money for killing Israeli and americans....you got it all wrong....this clash against these terrorist had to be taken...somebody had to make a stand...Bush did USA did....just like WWI, WWII...KUWAITI Invasion...etc...etc...I recommend you to stop listening to CBS, especially Dan Rather...he simply want to believe something that is not true....get your facts strait!

    "conciencia:
    He is for getting the lazy to work (cut the warefare check)

    conciencia:
    Lazy. True many are lazy, but if the companies stopped going overseas and stay here willing to pay 10 dollars an hour with medical benefits, which is decades OVERDUE...YOU WOULDN'T NEED WELFARE!"

    Welfare, is NOT a new system under Bush...where have you been? We Puertorricans are victim of this Liberal had out...taking about a no plan to retrieve the welfare and help educate and get a job....thank to the Liberal we are what we are today! I explain the outsourcing issue already....it applies here too...learn a new skill then a get a job, Forget about the sweat shops, forget about the low paying jobs...let get with new technology! Let be a Leader in the world!

    "conciencia:
    He is for a better health system

    JM:
    So what's taking him so long?"

    Do I have to place Bush accomplishments in this forum..(it is along one by the way...I have a feeling you are just oblivious of his accomplishments?

    "conciencia:
    He is for a open markets

    JM:
    uh huh....saying and doing...remember that."

    JM, what? are you serious? or do you what me to eucate you?

    "conciencia:
    He is for new education in new technology (get manufacture jobs out of USA)

    JM:
    No child left behind is a mandate without and FUNDS!"

    remember the space craft that flew into space in less then a week twice? How about new technology in the hands of the people....not the government! See the difference? See how the Republicans believe in the people, not believe in me give me more taxes...I make the space craft attitude...you know big government....?

    "conciencia:
    He always ends his speech with "May God bless this Nation"

    JM:
    And does this clear him from doing harm, being incompetent, incapable of making a mistake and being...wrong for the people? Heck I too would say May God Bless This Nation...can I get your vote if I say that? May we continue to have SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!"

    You keep missing the point, now you indulge in sarcasm....but hey that happens when you have no material to use. JM, you do not even understand what seperation of state and church.......You must first understand that this nation was based on religious fundamentals...in fact the courts still use references to God and the Bible.....but you can make a clear line do you?.....What you call mistake...I call major accomplishments....If you call getting rid of the Taliban and giving the God giving right to the Afganistani woman wrong...then you are an extreme Liberal....If you think getting rid of Saddam...was a mistake...then you are totally out of touch of your surrondings and an extreme Liberal....But hey....Liberal are like that very flip floppers and always wrong!



    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Re: Well, here we go!

    conciencia:

    We can go on and on with debating if Bush has the gift of orator or elocuency when he opens his mouth, I will be the first to admit it...he simply does not! He is a tough cowboy...filled with simplicity and strait forward talk. That is what i like about this guy...even if he is not the best we have these days....but compared to the Flip flopper, Vietnam traitor, Lawyer silver talker....etc..etc!

    JM:

    I see you overlooked Bush being ignorant on what he owns.
    See how you overlooked the facts. Bush is the real flip flopper (such a stupid word in the field of politics). First he was against Home Land Security, now he's for it. It is not how stupid Bush is on Camera...it is the substance of what he says. There is nothing there. He is saying nothing. The only thing he is doing when he speaks is feed on the fears and hate of the people who are gullible. For this BUSH IS VERY SMART! Bush is proof that people are gullible. Americans are the only people that get abuducted by SPACE ALIENS. Now I know why!!!!!!!!!!!

    conciencia:
    He is anti abortion

    JM:
    So are the Dems. Abortion is not an excuse to avoid a child. But in cases already mentioneddddddddd....it should be a woman's issue not a MAN'SSSSSSSSSSS issue with my body and his God!

    conciencia:
    He is anti embrionic stem cell

    JM:
    Oh boy....Isn't he allowing those embryonic cells already in existence to be experimented with. Talk about flip flop.

    conciencia:
    He is firm in the Irak war

    Ride em Cowboy! Where's Osama?

    conciencia:
    He will no let Europe, Russia or China pressure him.

    JM:
    I guess you didn't comprehend what Kerry said either. Is Kerry speaking another language?

    conciencia:
    He is pro small business supporter

    JM:
    Check that link that Cheney provided and see how pro he is.

    conciencia:
    He is for small government

    JM:
    So what has he done?

    conciencia:
    He is a tax cutter for the 200k and above (we are the one whom pay for 80% of the taxes in USA.

    JM:
    BS! If everyone who makes less than 100k (I'm not even going to use 200) stops paying taxes this country would FALL APART. Where's the plan to bring back the companies from overseas? Ops! Your a rich guy. No wonder. You are also the ones making a 500% profit by refusing to pay Blue Cross to your workers by insisting on part-time employment via temp agencys as a permanent source of un-permanent workers! This unjust practice also avoids providing Vacation, and Holiday pay to employees! It's the new way of making money off the poor's labor.

    conciencia:
    He is for other sources of energy research.

    JM:
    Bush didn't know how to answer that question...comeonnnnnn! Yeah, "I wanted the drugs from Canada to be safe first!" lol! The drugs from Canada were being BOUGHT FROM THE USA and they knew this. You believe his LIES?

    conciencia:
    He is for a stronger military in the ofensive and defensive.

    JM:
    And he's sprouting more terrorists every day. You could have the largest active volunteer military in the world, but how are you going to fight a war with thousands of terrorists all over the world multiplying daily by your actions? No wonder our soldiers are going AWOL.

    conciencia:
    He is for getting the lazy to work (cut the warefare check)

    conciencia:
    Lazy. True many are lazy, but for the majority of the poor if the companies stopped going overseas and stay here willing to pay 10 dollars an hour with medical benefits, which is decades OVERDUE,...YOU WOULDN'T NEED WELFARE!

    conciencia:
    He is for a better health system

    JM:
    So what's taking him so long?

    conciencia:
    He is for a open markets

    JM:
    uh huh....saying and doing...remember that.

    conciencia:
    He is for new education in new technology (get manufacture jobs out of USA)

    JM:
    No child left behind is a mandate with partial FUNDS! He realized it was too much money offered and stalled the rest. Four years and he's provide a portion of what he promised. Do you know which areas most of the money went? Have you noticed knew curtains worth thousands of dollars dressing the schools windows and the expensive art designs on the school grounds while books are outdated?

    conciencia:
    He always ends his speech with "May God bless this Nation"

    JM:
    And does this clear him from doing harm, being incompetent, incapable of making a mistake and being...wrong for the people? Heck I too would say May God Bless This Nation...can I get your vote if I say that? May we continue to have SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

    [Edited by JaneMas on 11th October 2004 at 11:22]

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Well, here we go!

    We can go on and on with debating if Bush has the gift of orator or elocuency when he opens his mouth, I will be the first to admit it...he simply does not! He is a tough cowboy...filled with simplicity and strait forward talk. That is what i like about this guy...even if he is not the best we have these days....but compared to the Flip flopper, Vietnam traitor, Lawyer silver talker....etc..etc!

    However, substance, facts and truth...no spinning is what we must seek.
    These are the main reasons Bush is my preference:

    He is anti abortion
    He is anti embrionic stem cell
    He is firm in the Irak war
    He will no let Europe, Russia or China pressure him.
    He is pro small business supporter
    He is for small government
    He is a tax cutter for the 200k and above (we are the one whom pay for 80% of the taxes in USA.
    He is for other sources of energy research.
    He is for a stronger military in the ofensive and defensive.
    He is for getting the lazy to work (cut the warefare check)
    He is for a better health system
    He is for a open markets
    He is for new education in new technology (get manufacture jobs out of USA)
    He always ends his speech with "May God bless this Nation"

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Suki:

    Ms. Mas did you like the made up speech? Lol. There are some lines I paraphrased that he said for real in there.>

    JM:

    I thought he had an earpiece guiding him! jaja! How about that comment in which he compared his presidency to Regans? The audacity. He didn't answer anything directly. Every response was a republican response...dogging...dogging...and dogging. The media is full of it. So now Bush did well because???? He didn't look stupefied. American Journalism is in danger of lacking truth!

    Great orators are rare today. The Irish have great orators too. Michael Noonan is one of those. Here's an excerpt of his:

    However, a small intellectual elite of idealistic, intelligent, well-researched but often naive people on the conservative side of the spectrum in the United States has decided that democracy was on the back foot in the 20th century and that it must be spread and become a worldwide system in the 21st century. This elite is prepared to use the force of the greatest power the world has ever seen to do so. This approach is naive, although I recognize its idealism.

    We all deplore the time when the United States, through the CIA, was prepared to support any dictator anywhere in the world provided that dictator supported American interests. The new philosophy and ideology, of the United States is such that it is prepared to topple dictators by intervention and replace them with democratic regimes. However, the ways and means of doing so have not been thought out and those who propagate the theory are not able to implement it in practice. They have neither the knowledge, skill, information, world view familiarity with other people’s cultures, ambitions, desires or domestic programmes to allow them do so. Thus, they enter a quagmire that is sucking them down.


    In any debate one must provide substance, clarification, articulacy and facts, none which Bush provided. And know exactly what you OWN (explained further on the last paragraph subject). In a debate it is impossible to give the public a complete picture of your plans and how exactly you’re going to go about accomplishing those plans, but an idea provides a path. As of today Bush has given no ideas on how he is going to accomplish what he set out to do 4 years ago. Saying you’re going to do something and actually doing it are two different things. Having a plan without funding is having no plan at all. The argument between the two candidates isn't hard at all. One feeds on fear and the other hope. When the poor are struggling on 5.15 an hour or with unemployment the economy suffers.

    So does Bush have a Timber business he doesn't know about? I bet he does...read below:

    Bush & Cheney as "Small Business Owners"

    An interesting aside came while Kerry was rebutting Bush's assertion that the Kerry tax plan would put a tax burden on small businesses. To drive home his point that there were too many loopholes in tax law, Kerry said that both Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, qualified as small businesses. 'President Bush owns a timber business,' Kerry said.

    Bush blew it. "I own a timber business? You want some wood, Charlie?" he chuckled.

    It's likely to come back and bite him - here's why. The other day, Cheney suggested that people should go check factcheck.org (though Cheney misstated it when he called it factcheck.com, which sent a lot of people on a web
    hunt).

    To find examples of this we need look no farther than the top of the Bush-Cheney ticket:

    President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)
    (Oct 9; CORRECTION: What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. We were confused because The Lone Star Trust currently owns 50% of another company, "LSTF, LLC", described on Bush’s 2003 financial disclosure forms as a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." So, Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such.)

    Vice President Cheney and his wife Lynne qualify as "small business owners" for 2003 because 3.5% of the total income reported on their tax returns was business income from Mrs. Cheney's consulting business. She reported $44,580 in business income on Schedule C, nearly all of it from fees paid to her as a director of the Reader's Digest . But giving the Cheneys a tax cut didn't stimulate any hiring; she reported zero employees.




    [Edited by JaneMas on 11th October 2004 at 03:17]

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Hi Yautia,

    It is practically impossible that a particular party or candidate will mirror all of your concerns or beliefs. The hard part about living in the US democracy is having to choose which candidate will fulfill as much or your agenda as possible.

    I happen to look for balance. We currently have an extremist government. A swing in political belief is required to reestablish balance.

    But beyond that, I am a believer in civil rights. I also believe Bush himself presents a larger threat to our civil rights. The possibility that the supreme court may shift its position from a balance court to a conservative court is something we cannot contemplate. Very few of us have had to live in an era where our rights were limited or questioned thanks to having had a slightly liberal court for the last 40 years. This will change if Bush is reelected.

    I believe in fiscal responsibility. I am fiscally responsible in my home and I expect it of my government. Bush has broken all records (globally, not just US) for the most fiscally inept and irresponsible leader of any nation, in the world, ever. Now, I for one believe, that calls for a change in leadership.

    I believe the future of the world is inevitably heading towards a globalization of economies, societies, policies, etc. This president has taken the concept of isolationism and quite successfully transformed it into a hate magnet for us. The world hates us, and is finding ways to do business without us. The concept that the everyone else can't do without us is wrong. China, Singapore, Japan, the EU, Russia, and others are waiting in the wings to step in and build production economies on the ashes of our political stupidity.

    I could go on and on...

    There are two realistic choices for US president. I have made the choice I believe meets most of my concerns and addresses the crises we face due to the current adminstrations actions or inactions.

    Jose

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Bush is not into Debates, but then........

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by JoseNestor
    [B]Bush has played into the hands of the muslim fundamentalists behind these attacks from the beginning

    Re:
    Bush's policies continue to endanger our future security. We are going down the worng path. Bush saying he has chosen the right path does not make it so. Think and expand your mind, you will see the truth will be revealed behind the "plain" talk.

    José
    _____________________________________________________________

    Dear Jose:

    The problem is there are not too many people out there who are willing to deal with the issues. Now we are going to have a debate this evening, after reading NOW with Bill Moyers, it seems a waste of time.

    Here is the transcript re. the debate format for the so called "Town Hall Meeting" I attend and organize a lot of Town Hall Meetings, none of them are anything like this one coming up tonight. People want to speak out about politics and the economy, about jobs, health and education. The format is supposed to give life to the concept of democratic participation for the society and the community. The discussion should be open. But no, it will, I bet, be very much like the last one. This is what I mean:

    Debates 2004
    09.24.04
    Archive:
    NOW Transcript

    Transcript

    ANNOUNCER: From our studios in New York, David Brancaccio and Bill Moyers.

    BRANCACCIO: Welcome to NOW. There are an awful lot of voters out there who say they're going to wait to make up their mind until after the candidates debate.

    They'll get their chance Thursday night. President Bush and Senator Kerry will meet at the University of Miami for their first debate. The thing is, even the form of these debates is debatable.

    MOYERS: Which brings me, David, to a book I read years ago that changed the way I see the world. The title is THE IMAGE and in it the historian Daniel Boorstin argued that so much is being staged and scripted in American life that we are losing touch with reality. He described it as the triumph of pseudo-events — counterfeit happenings, fabrications, replacing what's real with illusions of truth.

    I think of Daniel Boorstin every four years on the eve of the presidential debates. These debates have become exactly what he found so deeply troubling — the packaging of politicians and politics to create a phony transcendence that simulates democracy while subverting it.

    Here's our report, produced by our colleague Peter Meryash.

    MOYERS: They've been dubbed the Super Bowl of politics. At no other time during a campaign do so many millions of Americans focus on the choice before them. Debates can make or break a candidate.

    John Kennedy said he wouldn't have won the presidency in 1960 if he had not debated Richard Nixon.

    Jimmy Carter said he won in 1976 because of his debates with Gerald Ford and then, Carter says, he lost in 1980 because of his debate with Ronald Reagan.

    When Carter squared off with Reagan, sixty percent of American TV households were watching. But over the past quarter century, there's been a big change. During Gore versus Bush four years ago, less than thirty percent of TV households tuned in.

    George Farah thinks he knows what's happening.

    FARAH: When you have stultified debates that produce scripted sound bites rather than authentic discussion, the American people are gonna turn off their television sets.

    MOYERS: Farah founded a nonpartisan organization called Open Debates. He says Americans are not getting the presidential debates we deserve.

    FARAH: The American people want to hear and see popular candidates discuss the important issues in an unscripted manner. That's what's at stake. Whether or not we're gonna have the right to witness an important conversation.

    MOYERS: And why aren't we getting that kind of discussion between the candidates now?

    FARAH: Because the Commission on Presidential Debates secretly submits to the Republican and the Democratic candidates and allows these candidates to sanitize the debate format, excludes popular voices, avoid discussing critical issues.

    MOYERS: Farah has written a book laying out his case. It's been endorsed across the political spectrum from the conservative patriarch Paul Weyrich of the Heritage Foundation to the Texas populist Jim Hightower.

    What unites them in outrage is the Commission on Presidential Debates, the official sounding, supposedly nonpartisan sponsor.

    Don't be fooled, says Farah.

    FARAH: The Commission on Presidential Debates, although it claims to be a nonpartisan organization, was created by the Republican and Democratic parties for the Republican and Democratic parties. By design, it was established to submit and conceal the wishes and demands of the Democratic/Republican nominees.

    MOYERS: The result, he says, is an event tightly controlled by the candidates, a glorified press conference with rules rigged to serve the candidates, not the public.

    Listen to moderator Jim Lehrer as he opened the 2000 debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore:

    LEHRER [10/3/00]: Tonight, we'll have the candidates at podiums. No answer to a question can exceed two minutes. The candidates under their rules may not question each other directly.

    MOYERS: Those were the rules the candidates demanded. For a reason.

    MOYERS: You say that what makes these debates so valuable to voters — confrontation, spontaneity, audience size — terrifies the candidates. Why?

    FARAH: Because if the candidates were forced to be confrontational, if the candidates were forced to engage in spontaneous discourse, if the candidates were forced to confront issues they were uncomfortable with, they might make a mistake.

    MOYERS: That's just what happened to the first President Bush back in 1992, during the town hall debate with challengers Ross Perot and Bill Clinton.

    AUDIENCE QUESTION: How has the national debt personally affected each of your lives? And if it hasn't, how can you honestly find a cure for the economic problems of the common people if you have no experience in what's ailing them?

    BUSH: I think the national debt affects everybody.

    AUDIENCE QUESTION: You personally.

    BUSH: Obviously it has a lot to do with interest rates.

    SIMPSON: She's saying, "you personally."

    AUDIENCE QUESTION: You, on a personal basis, how has it affected you?

    SIMPSON: Has it affected you personally?

    FARAH: The President was very flustered with the question. He didn't know how to handle it. What do you mean affect me?

    AUDIENCE QUESTION: What I'm saying is…

    BUSH: I'm not sure I get... Help me with the question and I'll try to answer it.

    FARAH: Well, this revealed much to the public that he had a very difficult time relating to everyday working people and how they are affected possibly by the budget deficit. And it's precisely because of that that the candidates decided afterwards for the next two election cycles and in this election cycle to manipulate and sanitize the town hall format.

    MOYERS: The candidates got their way.

    LEHRER: The audience participants are bound by the following rule. They shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion. And the questioner's microphone will be turned off after he or she completes asking the question.

    MOYERS: What's more, town hall questions would have to be submitted in advance.

    FARAH: They had every member in the town hall audience write their questions on index cards and give them to Jim Lehrer.

    He would point to the individual and have him ask the question. The consequence, of course, was no matter how good a person Jim Lehrer is, he's still asking all the questions.

    The audience members are just there as props. He's still picking the ones to be asked. So it shows the sanitization of the town hall format, showed the evolution of how the candidates are increasingly controlling whatever they can control to avoid mistakes.

    MOYERS: Let's go back to the second debate in 2000. You say that was probably the most agreeable Presidential debate in history.

    BUSH: Yeah, I agree.

    GORE: I agree with that. The Governor and I agree.

    BUSH: I think the administration did the right thing.

    GORE: I agree with that.

    LEHRER: You have a different view of that?

    BUSH: No, I don't really.

    MOYERS: Gore and Bush agreed to send more money on anti-ballistic missiles, on mandatory testing in schools.

    GORE: I agree with Governor Bush that we should have new accountability. Testing of students…

    MOYERS: On training Colombian troops for the drug war.

    BUSH: You know, I supported the administration in Colombia.

    MOYERS: They agreed that we should prevent gays from being allowed to marry.

    BUSH: A marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    LEHRER: Vice President Gore?

    GORE: I agree with that.

    MOYERS: They agreed to sign a racial profiling law, to bail out Mexico with IMF loans.

    LEHRER: Is there any difference?

    GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.

    BUSH: Well I think it's hard to tell…

    MOYERS: And later on in that debate, Bush said…

    BUSH: It seems like we're having a great love fest tonight.

    MOYERS: "We're having a great love fest right now." You remember that?

    FARAH: Absolutely I remember that. The point of the Presidential debate is to highlight the differences in authentic discussion for the American people. And when you have a debate like you see in 2000 with a moderator posing very simple questions and with the candidates agreeing on those questions and actually not being able to address each other, you end up with 37 percent of the answers and the candidates agreeing with each other.

    And when Bush said we're having a great love fest it doesn't just relate to the fact that on the various issues they're agreeing on, it also relates to the fact that they're not even confronting each other in debate. It should be a more confrontational process with Candidate A saying, "I disagree with that point. I challenge that point." And in 2000 when Gore tried to challenge President Bush and tried to raise a question to President Bush, the moderator said, "Now, now, Vice-President. You have to stop. You're violating the rules."

    MODERATOR: Both of you have now violated, excuse me. Both of you have now violated your own rules. Hold that thought.

    GORE: I've been trying so hard not to.

    MODERATOR: I know, I know. But under your all's rules you are not allowed to ask each other a question. I let you do it a moment ago.

    BUSH: Twice.

    MODERATOR: Now you just… twice, sorry.

    GORE: That's an interruption, by the way.

    MODERATOR: That's an interruption, okay. But anyhow, you just did it so now…

    BUSH: I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Vice President.

    MODERATOR: You aren't allowed to do that either, see?

    FARAH: I thought this was outrageous. This is a debate. This is not a little conversation going on in a living room. This is a debate. We're supposed to have the candidates talking to each other.

    These aren't gods. These are our public servants. And it's their responsibility to discuss something in front of each other.

    MOYERS: So, what happens if there's a moment of spontaneous debate?

    GORE: Affirmative action doesn't mean quotas. Are you for it without quotas?

    BUSH: I may not be for your version, Mr. Vice President, but I'm for what I just described to the lady. She heard my answer.

    GORE: Are you for what the Supreme Court says is a constitutional way of having affirmative action?

    MODERATOR: Let's go on to another…

    GORE: I think that speaks for itself.

    BUSH: No, it doesn't speak for itself, Mr. Vice President, it speaks for the fact that there are certain rules in this that we all agree to, but evidently rules don't mean anything.

    MOYERS: Do you think the people watching knew that the rules had been written by the two parties?

    FARAH: Oh, of course not. They had no idea. They thought the Commission on Presidential Debates, whose name sounds like a government commission, it sounds like a lovely agency that was commissioned or chartered by Congress. They thought this: organizations had decided that these rules best served the public interest. They had no idea that behind closed doors leading negotiators hand-picked by the candidates were determining that the candidates could not even ask themselves questions.

    MOYERS: The Commission is in fact a private corporation, founded by the then chairmen of the Republican and Democratic national parties. They're still running the show.

    FARAH: Every four years, the Commission on Presidential Debate publishes candidate selection criteria and proposes debate formats in order to comply with federal election law.

    But questions concerning debate format and debate schedule are ultimately resolved behind closed doors between negotiators for the Republican and Democratic nominees.

    MOYERS: That wasn't the case in the beginning. The first televised presidential debates, between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960, were sponsored by the networks.

    President Lyndon Johnson refused to debate his opponent, Barry Goldwater, in 1964 and the next debate didn't occur until 1976. By then, the nonpartisan League of Women Voters had become the sponsor.

    MOYERS: In the interest of full disclosure I have to acknowledge that I was a moderator in 1980 I think, probably before you were born. At that time, the debates were under the auspices of the League of Women Voters. And I have to say thanks to the League, this sort of thing was not happening.

    FARAH: The League of Women Voters was a genuinely nonpartisan organization that fought on behalf of the American people. It took its role as a sponsor seriously. In 1980, when John B. Anderson bolted the Republican Party to run as an Independent for the Presidency of the United States, the League decided to invite John Anderson to participate in the Presidential debate.

    MOYERS: Republican John Anderson had served in Congress for almost 20 years before becoming an independent candidate for President.

    FARAH: President Jimmy Carter at the time refused to debate Anderson because he thought Anderson would take more votes away from him. So the League was confronted with a dilemma. Does it capitulate to the President of the United States? Or does it invite an Independent candidate the American people want to see. Well, the League had guts and it went forward and it invited Anderson to participate in a 1980 Presidential debate even though President Carter refused to show up in front of 50 million viewers.

    MOYERS: In 1984, four years later, the League had to stand up once again to intimidation from the major party candidates. Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale kept vetoing every journalist the League proposed as a questioner.

    FARAH: The campaigns got together and tried to get rid of all the difficult questions. What did the League do? Well, instead of silently accepting this reality it held a press conference in Washington. And it lambasted the candidates for, quote, "totally abusing the process."

    MOYERS: Moderator Barbara Walters was left without a full panel of journalists.

    WALTERS: The candidates were given a list of almost 100 qualified journalists from all the media and could agree on only these three fine journalists. As moderator and on behalf of my fellow journalists, I very much regret as does the League of Women Voters, that this situation has occurred.

    MOYERS: So there came this moment when these uppity women at the League of Women Voters said to the Presidential candidates, "You can't write the rules." And the two parties then did what?

    FARAH: The parties were sick and tired of a women's organization telling their boys who they had to participate with, in what format, with whom, and what questions would have to be asked.

    MOYERS: So the two parties got together.

    FARAH: Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush negotiated the first Memoranda of Understanding in 1988. So they hand it to the League.

    The League says, "What is this? We don't do this. We don't put our respected name and trusted name onto a secret document you've negotiated. We refuse to implement this."

    NEUMAN: The League of Women Voters is announcing today that we have no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public. Under these circumstances, the League is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debates.

    FARAH: It's precisely because the League of Women Voters was willing to fight on behalf of the public interest and refused to comply with the secret demands of the Republican and Democratic nominees, that the parties got together and created their own compliant commission.

    MOYERS: And that's how the Commission on Presidential Debates came into being. It has supervised every presidential debate since 1988.

    But not until the publication of George Farah's book this year had anyone but a handful of insiders seen the secret contracts for the last three debates, negotiated between the candidates and then handed to the debate commission.

    Those contracts were leaked to Farah.

    MOYERS: This is one of those Memorandum of Understanding that you got.

    FARAH: Yes.

    MOYERS: This is the 1996… the "agreement," it calls itself. Describe this to me.

    FARAH: It's a binding contract.

    And this contract dictates who will participate, who will ask the questions, the heights of the podiums, every detail conceivable.

    It's a glorified bipartisan press conference. They get a question from a moderator that they selected and they can predict… they've memorized the response to. They issue a memorized sound bite which fits a very nice perfect 90-second response slot that has been stipulated in the contract.

    Their opponent cannot challenge their answer because they're prohibited by the contract. The moderator can't challenge their answer because they can't ask follow-up questions.

    Imagine for a moment if we could have a debate in which the candidates actually responded to each other. That's what a debate is. Person A makes a statement. Person B responds to the statement.

    MOYERS: Dictionary, Webster I think, calls it a contentious exchange between two parties.

    FARAH: A contentious exchange. Well, I haven't seen a contentious exchange in 17 years since the Commission of Presidential Debates has hosted these forums because the candidates can't even communicate. This is not a confrontation. And the American people sitting back at home don't know why these candidates can't communicate with each other. Don't know why they're just reciting the same memorized sound bites that they're reciting in their 30-second ads. And they're turning off their television sets.

    MOYERS: Something else the public didn't know: the secret contracts gave the Republican and Democratic candidates veto power over other participants.

    In 1992, the Republicans believed candidate Ross Perot would hurt Bill Clinton's chances and the Democrats didn't want to alienate Perot supporters, so the two parties invited the feisty Texan to take part in the debates.

    PEROT: Now, all these fellows with thousand-dollar suits and alligator shoes running up and down the halls of Congress that make policy now, the lobbyists, the PAC guys, the foreign lobbyists, and what-have-you, they'll be over there in the Smithsonian, you know because we're going to get rid of them.

    MOYERS: But four years later, in 1996, neither side wanted Perot there.

    FARAH: 1996 is a wonderful example of what happens when the candidates control the Presidential debate process. Bill Clinton, who was the Democratic nominee, and Bob Dole, who was the Republican nominee, hatched a secret agreement to exclude Ross Perot from the Presidential debates. Bob Dole desperately wanted Perot excluded because he thought that Perot would take more votes away from him. And Clinton wanted what George Stephanopolous called a non-event. The smallest possible audience because he was virtually 20 points in the poll and didn't want anything to shake up the race. So they hatched a secret agreement.

    MOYERS: That secret agreement specifically spelled out only Bill Clinton and Bob Dole would debate. So Ross Perot was left out in the cold.

    Four years later, in 2000, the Republican and Democratic candidates kept Pat Buchanan out of the debates too, although he had qualified for more than 12 million dollars in public financing.

    Ralph Nader, who had made it onto the ballots in 43 states and the District of Columbia, was not only kept out of the debates but was prevented from getting into a debate site even though he showed up with a credential.

    NADER: We all have the same so-called badge. Everyone got in but me.

    MOYERS: Wouldn't including not just Nader and Pat Buchanan but the Libertarian candidate and other third parties that might arise, wouldn't that lead to a kind of chaos in our political system, a kind of anarchy?

    FARAH: Well, that's what the Commission on Presidential Debates would like the American people to believe. They claim that hundreds of candidates run for office every year. And they're right.

    Hundreds do run like Billy Joe Clegg of the Clegg Won't Pull Your Leg Party and Jeff Costa of the Crustacean Liberation Party whose entire platform is committed to the liberation of crabs and lobsters from our nation's oceans and seas.

    MOYERS: Farah says you don't have to open the doors to just anybody. There are ways to include viable, legitimate third-party candidates. And democracy is served when we do.

    FARAH: Third-party candidates don't regularly win federal elections. They don't. But they raise critical issues that the major parties eventually co-opt.

    Third parties are responsible for the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, public power, public education, social security, unemployment compensation, the direct election of senators, the formation of labor unions. The list goes on and on. And these candidates before Presidential debates were ever established raised these issues in public forums.

    Millions of Americans listened to their ideas, read about them in newspapers, heard about them on the radio. And it forced the Republican and Democratic parties to co-opt these issues and integrate them into law. Now the American people never get to hear about an issue and the third-party candidate cannot break the bipartisan conspiracy of silence on critical issues the American people care about.

    MOYERS: That happened when Ross Perot was excluded from the '96 presidential debates. But he had the money to fight back with ads of his own.

    1996 PEROT INFOMERCIAL: 76% of Americans want Ross Perot in tonight's debate. The Republicans and Democrats are desperate to keep Ross out. But why? Maybe it's because the eleven big companies that fund the debate commission pump millions into forcing NAFTA through congress and are giving millions more to the Democrats and Republicans. That trade deal has cost more than half a million American jobs.

    MOYERS: In the first three debates in 2000, you never heard the word corporation mentioned?

    FARAH: Never, not once.

    MOYERS: There was no reference to the World Trade Organization, to free trade or to labor.

    FARAH: When you have two parties who receive 80% of their contributions from business interests excluding other voices who are critical of corporate power, and excluding moderators and panelists who might question them sharply on their relationship with corporate power, you end up with a Presidential debate that entirely excludes possibly the most important or one of the most important issues confronting the American people. That is growing corporate power and how it undermines our democratic process and economic system.

    MOYERS: You have a chart in your book on page 13. I suspect that most of my viewers and most of the people who will be watching the debates in a couple of weeks don't know this. That the national sponsors of the Commission on Presidential Debates include, 1992: AT&T, Atlantic Richfield, Dun & Bradstreet, Ford Motor Company, Hallmark, IBM, J.P. Morgan, Philip Morris, Prudential. 1996: Anheuser Busch, Dun & Bradstreet, Lucent Technologies, Philip Morris, Sara Lee, Sprint. In 2000, Anheuser Busch, US Airways, 3Com.

    You say that this results in the debates becoming corporate carnivals.

    FARAH: Yes. If you attend a debate site what you see are huge Anheuser Busch tents. Anheuser Busch girls in skimpy outfits and they're passing out beer and they're passing out pamphlets that denounce beer taxes. You have giant posters of the various corporate sponsors also passing out other materials that are promoting their goods, their products and their political issues.

    MOYERS: The public at home never sees this.

    FARAH: Oh, they never see this. These are the corporations who are primarily paying for the debates that tens of millions of Americans are watching. And they get to bring their clients to debate sites, entertain them. They bring them to a nice suite. And they take them to the debates and sit in the front rows of these presidential debate forums. They get tax deductions for their major contributions to the Commission on Presidential Debates.

    And when I asked Frank Farenkopf, co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates, whether he thought it was okay for beer and tobacco companies to be hosting and sponsoring these presidential debates, he said, "Boy, you are talking to the wrong guy. I'm a lobbyist for the gambling industry."

    MOYERS: George Farah says there is an alternative to partisan control of debates sponsored by corporations and run by lobbyists: a Citizens' Debate Commission. He spells it all out in the book and a lot of people have already signed on.

    MOYERS: Why do you care about this so much?

    FARAH: Because this is a democracy. And we have to fight on behalf of our democratic process. Our democratic process is at stake.

    Your viewers have power. These are political candidates that are fighting desperately for their votes. They can demand of these candidates that they want real debates.

    This is the most important country in the world. And we need to have an authentic debate so the American people can choose the most powerful human being in the world.

    MOYERS: You can find out a lot more about George Farah and Open Debates by going to the NOW page at pbs.org. You'll see that they and other reform advocates are claiming some modest success this week.

    For the first time in 16 years the contract between the two campaigns — the memorandum of understanding — has been made public. This is a copy of it. We'll post it on our Web site. And for the first time in 12 years there will be more than one moderator, the Commission, not the candidates, has chosen them. Even so, the Commission is insisting those moderators sign the agreement, to make sure no sudden journalistic urge violates the boundaries set by the candidates.

    Meanwhile, a federal judge has called for an investigation into whether the Commission acted in a partisan manner when it refused to allow any third-party candidates to attend the 2000 debates. And this week the President of the National Urban League accused the Commission of organizing the debates to keep urban and civil rights issues off the agenda. So here we go again, with what David called those debatable debates controlled by what amounts to a political cartel.

    _____________________________________________________________

    So, Jose: Can you imagine The Urban League (que usualmente no se quejan contra nada Republicano), acusando a la comision responsable por el formato de los debates, de que no van a discutir asuntos de derechos civiles en la agenda. Yo se que El Urban League y El NAACP, dos organizaciones con mucho prestigio en entre la poblacion negra de los EEUU le preocupa mucho el asunto de "Racial Profiling and the Patriot Act".

    Veremos que pasa esta noche.

    Yautia




    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    BUSH has played into the hands of the enemy from the beginning.

    Bush has played into the hands of the muslim fundamentalists behind these attacks from the beginning

    1. Their goal was and continues to be to weaken our military capability
    2. increase their numbers by ancillary recruitment
    3. increase awareness of their issues in the muslim world
    4. split the international community so a truly united front cannot be put against them
    5. shake up the leaders of the arab nations (like Saudi) and make them look even closer to the US position (something not very popular in the Middle East these days) to weaken their position
    6. invade Iraq and plow the way for a near-future fundamentalist state in Iraq
    7. bring Israel into the conflict by letting the situation in Iran go from bad to worse, and force or ask the Israelis to take military pre-emptive action
    8. These violent fundamentalists do not care about their own death, only their goal, in fact, the more are killed, the stronger their movement becomes.

    I can continue, but I think I will leave it at that for now.

    Bush's policies continue to endanger our future security. We are going down the worng path. Bush saying he has chosen the right path does not make it so. Think and expand your mind, you will see the truth will be revealed behind the "plain" talk.

    José

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Suki and Jane

    I'm sure that Osama, Saddham, Al Jazzera, the terrorists in Iraq, and all the people in our country that want the Government to create agencies to give them something, support Mr. Kerry. President Bush will support tax cuts and an economy that will help you doit on your own. His policies will help all Americans live better. His Military stand is not wimpy. Let's see the rest of the debates and see what happens. My vote after all three debates is with President Bush!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Yujike,

    Excellent summation of the debate. I would only add to your observation Bush's drinking from an empty glass in between questions. He realized the glass was empty, but continued to drink anyways. I guess when you are trying to maintain an illusion you have to be committed to the course.

    José

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    K vs W.

    Judging by Rivera and the Oppressor response, this debate did nothing for the republican fanatics, it was directed at the undecided and I believe they got the message, Kerry sounded in control and "presidential", a viable candidate.

    The best part of the debate was when Kerry said that attacking Iraq in response to 9-11 was like Franklin D. Roosevelt attacking Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.

    The other one was when he quoted Bush Sr. as saying that the reason he did not go pass Bahgdad in the first Gulf war was because there was "no viable exit strategy" at the time, and unfortunately that is were we find ourselves now.

    Used to adulation and applause from his constituents, with no hard questions to answer, Bush seemed aloof, out of focus and completely bored by the whole enchilada. His father did the same thing in his debate, eyeing his watch nervously and exasperated. All he kept repeating was that it was a difficult job.

    Kerry was helped by his experience as a savvy orator and President of the Debate Team at Yale, Bush did not benefit from his Cheerleading stint in college. No wonder some critics said that at times Kerry sounded pompous; but judging by the reduced intellect across the room, this seems totally plausible.


    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Cowboy LD prez is gonna keep America safe. I always knew there was a deep sense of Cowboy shoot em up mentality in the USA social consciousness. Bush brings that out. Is that safe in Nuclear Ages and Terrorism? No, it is HIGHLY dangerous. But, people will pursue their 'paradigms' and must learn the hard way at times.

    Ms. Mas did you like the made up speech? Lol. There are some lines I paraphrased that he said for real in there. Do you know the speech I liked the most in the Democratic National Convention was Al Sharpton's. I loved that pulpit Southern Baptist Black tradition of great oratory. It is the opposite of boredom. "I am the son of a single mother...etc. etc." I woke up. Most of the others bored me. I was listening to an old speech of Berrios from 1966, my mother told me I was present in the speech (she took me to it)and didn't I remember it? I said "Mami, how could I? I was ten months old." And she smiled. Ruben was a lot more fiery in his early years.

    One of the best orators I have ever heard was "Albizu Campos" and also, I liked, many others. Marti, Betances, Che was good too. I like passion, intellect, conviction, intelligence and power. It galvanizes people those great speeches. Some are better writers and not so good at oration. Others were fantastic orators and not so good writers. But at times you get both. That is so much fun. I like debate. I always have. C ya later.

    Some African revolutionaries from the African continent. If you read their speeches in the original French or English or Zulu translated into English. It is the most incredible orations I ever heard. Too bad so many people aren't into African continent oratory. They should be. It is highly interesting.
    Suki.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    jajaja Suki. I can't believe people support a man like this. I think there's a new study going on called "Smart and Intelligent people led by Dimwits" Imagine if he had a medical degree? He bet on peoples fears. The whole period of his presidency is a fluke!

    Rivera Bush said NADA. All he did was repeat "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time or erh, can I answer that, ehe, ehe, errr, that one is for another debate" jajaja.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X