Just Watched the Democratic Presidential Debate

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Thats all I'm trying to say. And yes I agree it is nice not to have another 4 billion going out with a 24 billion loan restructuring package....:) The will of the Turks had a greater role than the French.

I don't think so. THey were willing to make the deal until a better one came along.

Now maybe they didn't like the French deal quite as much, but that it was poltically easier to accept made the difference, but to say that the French had nothing to do with the last minute Turkish decision is not true.

Maybe those members of the Parliment were looking for any excuse to vote no and the French gave them that excuse.

[aaron_mag]

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that a government caved into pressure from its own people? I don't see why you find this so difficult to accept. Why do the French have to be the source of all our diplomatic problems? They are simply NOT that powerful. Let's accept that the anti-french theory is a house of cards and is a nice security blanket but does nothing for us if we want to deal in reality!!!

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Why is it so hard to accept the fact that a government caved into pressure from its own people? I don't see why you find this so difficult to accept. Why do the French have to be the source of all our diplomatic problems? They are simply NOT that powerful. Let's accept that the anti-french theory is a house of cards and is a nice security blanket but does nothing for us if we want to deal in reality!!!

Because they did threaten certain members of the Turkish parliment with their entry into the EU in order to persuade them to vote no.

If they hadn't then I'd not say a thing about their involvement. But they did. That constitutes their involvement.

Without that interference it is very likely the vote would have passed yes, since it appeared by all accounts it was moving that way prior to the interference.

I'd like to think they listened to their people, but no, they didn't

[Rooster]

"They HATE Lieberman."

Of course they do. They are liberals. Logic has no place in the liberal mind. Lieberman is the only Democrat candidate with a chance of beating Bush.

Please liberals, vote for Dean. And watch as I laugh when you go down in flames. Again.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Rooster
"They HATE Lieberman."

Of course they do. They are liberals. Logic has no place in the liberal mind. Lieberman is the only Democrat candidate with a chance of beating Bush.

Please liberals, vote for Dean. And watch as I laugh when you go down in flames. Again.

We'll see. The democrats didn't even lose the popular election in the last presidential bid. One side or the other will have to be eating some crow on AO when the results are in :) (P.S. I hope it is YOU!!! )

[Rooster]

Thats becuase Gore is a moderate, and Bush is a moderate. Deam doesn't have a snowball's chance in you know where.People who havn't votd in years will vote for the expressed purpose of making sure this country is not under the control of a moron, er liberal.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


We'll see. The democrats didn't even lose the popular election in the last presidential bid. One side or the other will have to be eating some crow on AO when the results are in :) (P.S. I hope it is YOU!!! )

It's possible, but I'm not counting on it quite yet. Assuming two things (which I think are likely, but they're not definites) Bush will be invincible, especially from the far left like Dean. Those two things are the obvious choices that you all know, a stronger economy and a relativly stable Iraq. I think we'll see both and that will make Dean a long shot at best.

But, you never know.

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by Rooster
"They HATE Lieberman."

Of course they do. They are liberals. Logic has no place in the liberal mind. Lieberman is the only Democrat candidate with a chance of beating Bush.

Please liberals, vote for Dean. And watch as I laugh when you go down in flames. Again.

Let me first preface this by saying I am not racisct, sometimes though we have to look at how other people will react to our actions - and this is a sad reality.

Lieberman is probably one of the better qualified candidates running today, and is one of two democratic candidates I would seriously consider (the other being Wesley Clark) and I am generally right of center. He is well versed in politics, intelligent, and seems to be utterly capable of running a country. That being said, the reason I would not vote for him, what would happen in the middle east if our president was Jewish. What if it had been a Jewish president that had made the decision (rightly I think) to dodge (not go against, the UN never issued a resolution condemning the invasion of Iraq (I think)) the UN and invade Iraq? Lieberman would have a disadvantage no other candidate would in dealing with problems that are going to be there for the forseeable future.

[Collegeboy]

I am still waiting for them to announce that General Wesley Clark will seek the Democratic nomination.

A first in class west point graduate, 4 star General, former supreme commander of NATO, vs. a deserter.

That would be a classic match, one which I am sure that Bush will lose.

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am still waiting for them to announce that General Wesley Clark will seek the Democratic nomination.

A first in class west point graduate, 4 star General, former supreme commander of NATO, vs. a deserter.

That would be a classic match, one which I am sure that Bush will lose.

And you sir, are either an idiot or just too arrogant to not understand how that remark takes any form of civil discussion out of the equation.

I will give General Clark his due, and in fact understand how good of a contender he could be. I will also note that had the British followed his command in Serbia to retake the airport from the Russian troops BY FORCE that we would have all sorts of issues on our hands now. BTW, I'm sick of seeing the US and its Allies bow to the slightest show of force by others and am not sure this was not the correct military order given the time.

For you to label our sitting President a deserter is idiotic - now to label Clinton a draft dodger was accurate. Bush may have been given special treatment, but he did not dodge serving in the military. I'd even go as far as to give you special treatment because of who he was... but you take things too far, you use key talking words (that are not accurate) and mark yourself as... well, you can get my opinion.

I would like to see the General run... I beleive his running, the competition between him and Bush, the dialogue that would have to be discussed, would be good for the course of the country, regardless of who won in the end. I also beleive that either would make a competent leader and continue a path that would make Americans safer. I will not go as far as to state "I am sure..." about anything in politics before I see the results, and even then, I think to do so speaks of an arrogance that has no place in debates.

PS - my apologies to any I have offended - I beleive in civil discussion... I do not beleive that we need to use words intended to incite to have this discussion.

[Collegeboy]

Bush is a deserter not a draft dodger. This will NOT turn into a Clinton vs. Bush military service debate.

Bush went into the Texas National Guard and deserted his unit and went awol for something like 25 days while he was suppose to be in Alabama.

The Generals career is well known.

There is NO WAY that Bush can win a debate against the General. In fact I would say that Bush would not even debate him given the chance.

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

There is NO WAY that Bush can win a debate against the General. In fact I would say that Bush would not even debate him given the chance.

I somehow beleive there must be more to the story then is being told on the first part... but will move on and shrug... its neat, I can do that, I can look at a fact, say "I don't care" admit it, and move on.


The part I quoted... I said this about Gore... I figured in the debates Gore would just destroy Bush... he should have. The fact that he did not.. well, especially considering the talk, hurt him badly. Might keep this in mind before we trash Bush too much.

I look at this election the same as Dole vs Clinton - basically the Republicans could not have won (I still would have loved to see Lamar Alexander run) and held unto all the good candidates until Gore - letting one of the party faithful (Dole) have their shot - a shot everyone knew going in was shot - this served the purpose of basically getting rid of the person from the party (no longer in office) and rewarding them for what they had done for the party.

I kind of think this is what is going to happen in '04 - Hillary, Gore (maybe?), Clark, are all likely to run in '08. Right now the democratic party leaders are just seeing who to send out as the sacrifice (I might be surprised). I'm not knocking any of the candidates at this time, nor am I preaching for Bush (I think there are better candidates out there, just not any that are going to be available to vote for in '04). I am just stating what I beleive to be factual. Please note though, nothing is ever certain in politics, and I understand that.

[1stdeadeye]

CB,
How much do you know about Clark? Politics is going to destroy him. There is a reason he was FORCED to retire. He damn near started WWIII in Kosovo. The British Commander played the nato "red card" and refused Clark's orders to forcibly remove Russian troops from a Kosovar Airport. Clark was forced out very soon after that incident. Time did a great Expose on CLark. He is an arrogant, stubborn, self righteous man. He does not compromise and that is a necessary trait in the world of politics. I wonder how many voters know about how close he pushed Nato into a shooting war with Russia? That story alone is going to sink him when it becomes widely known. Plus Clark's own wife is against him running. That says alot.

Just remember that Clark could have lead us to war if not for a courageous Brit.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
CB,
How much do you know about Clark? Politics is going to destroy him. There is a reason he was FORCED to retire. He damn near started WWIII in Kosovo. The British Commander played the nato "red card" and refused Clark's orders to forcibly remove Russian troops from a Kosovar Airport. Clark was forced out very soon after that incident. Time did a great Expose on CLark. He is an arrogant, stubborn, self righteous man. He does not compromise and that is a necessary trait in the world of politics. I wonder how many voters know about how close he pushed Nato into a shooting war with Russia? That story alone is going to sink him when it becomes widely known. Plus Clark's own wife is against him running. That says alot.

Just remember that Clark could have lead us to war if not for a courageous Brit.

Everyone has skeletons in their closets. I would say what Bush has done, but that would start another debate.

I understand what he did, but think about what might have happened if he would have. Russia would not have attacked us, WWIII would not have happened, it would have been a diplomatic nightmare, with apologies needing to be exchanged. But it might have made the situation there a lot better.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Everyone has skeletons in their closets. I would say what Bush has done, but that would start another debate.

I understand what he did, but think about what might have happened if he would have. Russia would not have attacked us, WWIII would not have happened, it would have been a diplomatic nightmare, with apologies needing to be exchanged. But it might have made the situation there a lot better.

A diplomatic nightmare? Nato forces launching an attack on a Russian military position? If you think the Russians would have rolled over and took it, you are sadly mistaken. How would it have made the situation better? Nuclear tensions escalated and the Russians pulled out a few days later anyway.

To each their own. I am not going to change your train of thought and you shall not change mine.

I am not going to debate you on this!