Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
wally

the brawl is on / debate

Recommended Posts

C'mon Greg. How many people do those 30 nations have on the ground? How many have pulled out since the threats on their people? The idea that there is a viable coalition at the moment is laughable. But then we wouldn't want to forget Poland...

 

Tell me, Michelle, how many would be on the ground if this were a UN Mission? 90% U.S., guaranteed. Many of the coalition partners are contributing in other ways. Is that a problem for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was Kerry's statistic last night? 90% of the cost and 90% of the casualties. Such and incredible and helpful alliance we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, compare the current quagmire to the first gulf war. How much of the financial burden are we shouldering this time vs. the other? How many allies lent help that time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Britain and Uzbekistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Greg that W appeals to the common man more so than Kerry, but after thinking about it last night, I am notso sure I want to settle for a common man in the White House. It takes a special person to hold that office and to command respsct and provide leadership. Most common men do not possess this quality. I do not want my buddies running this country. I want someone qualified. The other reason I am now leaning more towards Kerry is that while the Iraq situation was supposed to be Bush's strong point, and he showed us last night that it might not be and Kerry hung with him, I am really being pulled to the Left with Bush's take on the environment and what is going on within our borders at home. The next two debates should be interesting as those are supposed to be Kerry's strong suits. On another note, any idea why Cheney declined a post interview with major networks when John Edwards came on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want someone who doesn't read, that has limited experience in the world, that is inarticulate, or that is plain dumb. I want someone who is on the ball to be president, who has the where with all to make sense out of the constant stream of information and advice that is coming his way, and that has the sophistication to deal with complex national and world issues, and that will make sound judgements You want a common man? Then join a bowling team. You want a leader? Then pick wisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross Spain off your list, Scott. They withdrew on May 21. BBC news story

 

How many troops could Afghanistan possibly spare? Don't they have more trouble to take care of at home?

 

1000 Australians: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/13/iraq.australia.troops/

 

3000 Italians: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120336,00.html

 

And, of course, the Poles: the Polish military presence is to be reduced next year (source: http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/Aug/10-505037.html).

 

Edited by slothrop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want someone who doesn't read, that has limited experience in the world, that is inarticulate, or that is plain dumb.

 

If you did, why did you vote for Clinton, Dukakis, or Carter? Each had limited experience in the world, had communication problems, and had their share of gaffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...why did you vote for Clinton, Dukakis, or Carter? Each had limited experience in the world, had communication problems, and had their share of gaffs.

 

How many gaffs do you suppose they had between them?

gaff%20nashg.gif

 

Or did you mean gaffes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think gw could only repeat

 

wrong choice wrong time wrong war no matter what the question was... rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

Edited by RuMR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want someone who doesn't read, that has limited experience in the world, that is inarticulate, or that is plain dumb.

 

If you did, why did you vote for Clinton, Dukakis, or Carter? Each had limited experience in the world, had communication problems, and had their share of gaffs.

 

Greg, that's ridiculous and you know it. Clinton and Carter are both quite clearly more experienced, worldly, and articulate than Bush. Dunno about Dukakis, I was too young when he was in the news. Everyone screws up their lines when speaking publicly, but Bush takes it to another level.

 

Clinton and Carter have written books. Bush admits he doesn't even like to read the news. There's no contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want someone who doesn't read, that has limited experience in the world, that is inarticulate, or that is plain dumb.

 

Yah, but he watches TV! You can't take that away from him. How much experience do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want someone who doesn't read, that has limited experience in the world, that is inarticulate, or that is plain dumb.

 

If you did, why did you vote for Clinton, Dukakis, or Carter? Each had limited experience in the world, had communication problems, and had their share of gaffs.

 

Greg, that's ridiculous and you know it. Clinton and Carter are both quite clearly more experienced, worldly, and articulate than Bush. Dunno about Dukakis, I was too young when he was in the news. Everyone screws up their lines when speaking publicly, but Bush takes it to another level.

 

Clinton and Carter have written books. Bush admits he doesn't even like to read the news. There's no contest.

 

How was Clinton more prepared, having been the two-bit governor of some backwater state? Carter? Same thing. These guys learned on-the-job, like Reagan did, like Clinton did, Carter never learned until afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

taking the most vacations of any president in history is hard work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carter was voted in based on his being a "common man with decent morals" - a "peanut farmer". Yes he didnt have that much experience, and was baptised by fire. Carter wasnt a great president, but sheeet look at him now! The man's on fire!

 

Dukakis was a tool.

 

Clinton was voted in because he was a rock star, and the elder Bush, while much more experienced, was on the tail end of 12 years of GOP in the White House. People wanted change.

 

Thats one reason Bush was elected in 2000, people just wanted change. Bush seemed moderate even to most Dems, and so people werent particular enthralled with Gore, and were just like "what the hey?"

 

I think 2004 is very different. I have spoken to very few people who are voting Bush, though there are some that I work with. Most people are like "what were we thinking??"

 

I heard and later watched the debate. I thought Bush held his own against a vastly more prepared Kerry, which means that he didnt leave the audience gaping at how much of an idiot he was. But I think Kerry presented himself in a much better light than Bush. Interestingly, Bush himself used to be quite a good debater. He's gotten much worse over time, perhaps because he's just not practiced at it. Maybe he isnt

 

"Hungry

like a fuckin younger me."

-eminem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed this too. Bush was much, much more smooth during the 2000 campaign. He was a lot more relaxed. Perhaps he's just on too much of the defensive these days. He's a different person than back in 2000. After all, his campaign was anchored on a hatred of nation-building! yellaf.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a fact check on the debate from the Annenberg Center: http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271

 

Plenty of misquoting, inflated figures, and flubbed words all around.

 

My favorite is this, though:

And Bush overstated matters when he said "My administration worked with the congress to create the department of homeland security." In fact, Bush opposed creation of the separate department for nearly nine months before turning around and supporting it.

Ah, the irony!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

off the cuff rant..

 

GW is an idiot

lets pretend for a moment that he actually is smarter than Alfred E. Newman...

He still looks and talks like an idiot to everyone who isn't an idiot. How the hell is he going to get international respect with that 'go it alone, cowboy, fuck all y'all' attitude?

America is one of the most hated country's on the planet because of the principles, values, and attitudes GW represents.

And I'm tired of references to GW being 'down home'!! he's NOT a good ole boy...he's a freakin multi-millionaire! Since when does 'dumb as dirt' give someone an elevated likeability???

I will be voting for the candidate that's smarter than I am!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was born, Carter was Governor of my "two-bit backwater" state as Greg put it. He attended Georgia Tech and then graduated from the US Naval Academy. He then served for seven years as a naval officer on a submarine, and during that time did graduate studies in Nuclear Physics at Union College.

 

He moved back to GA and farmed while getting into state politics. After 8 years in various roles including the State Senate, he ran for Governor and won. After serving a term as Governor, where he concurrently acted as chair of several regional school and economic development commissions, he ran for President, beating Ford.

 

 

Now compare:

 

A military academy grad who served for 7 years as an officer, grauate studies in nuclear physics, sucessful in one of the toughest businesses around (family farmer), 12 years in state politics including a governorship that actually has power

 

to

 

An AWOL coke head alcoholic, who can't even pronounce "nuclear" much less understand the physics behind it, who failed in every business venture he tried, and held a ceremonial post as Gov of Tejas.

 

Mars, bitch! And don't forget Poland. fruit.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×