Since you turned this away from the debate and want to argue politics, why don't we.
Kerry doesn't have a belief on those issues you talk about. There is no gray. He votes black. He votes white. He talks about black. He talks about white. There is no gray. Kerry and you may care to try and push that across.
My favorite parts of the debate were the fibs. Kerry says the war is costing $200 billion. It's $120 billion Mr. Kerry. Oh and by the way, you were the one telling Tim Russert on Meet the Press to spend more. Of course you voted against spending more. Then there was Kerry making up the fact that Bush hadn't put sanctions on Iran. Yes Mr. Kerry sanctions were there. Clinton put them there and Bush renewed them. There can be no further sanctions. Bush has been working to pressure Iran with the world.
At the end of the day Kerry and Edwards both voted for the war. So did Bush. They all say they want to win. Kerry however is claiming to be an anti-war president for the left and a strong defender on the right. He talks about coalitions for Iraq but then coalitions are bad for North Korea.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by AGDee
I found the debate to be more engaging than I had expected. When it was over, I was surprised that 90 minutes had passed already.
As a known Kerry supporter here, I have these observations:
Bush was flustered at times, searching for the words he wanted and Kerry did not have that problem. I was disgusted with him though, as I usually am.
I completely agree with Bush that he rules from the heart and his values system. I completely believe that he BELIEVES he is right and has strong convictions which do not change. This is also what frightens me. It is what is comforting to some people. I think our President should be ruling with his head, not his heart. Some believe that the President should rule with his heart and never waver from his own belief systems. Ultimately, I am frightened by his belief systems. He sees things as black and white. Things are right or wrong, period. There are no grey areas. We will win. We had to go war when we did. Homosexuals should not marry. Iraq was a threat to the US. Marriage is essential in our society (by heterosexuals). I completely believe that Bush thinks his views are correct and I admire him in some ways for that, but at the same time, I don't agree with his value systems and views, so it frightens me that he is so unwavering. I can say that he is sincere.
I prefer a leader who, with more facts, can change his mind about an issue. l prefer a leader who can see the grey areas and know that sometimes he might not personally agree with something, but that doesn't make it right, Constitutionally. I don't want someone to be so convinced that his way of thinking is the only way of a thinking that all policies are based on that alone. There are 275,000 million people in this country and we aren't all going to agree that what one man believes is the best thing for our country. It doesn't mean that we're unpatriotic or heathens. We just have a different point of view.
Everybody agrees that Iraq was a threat. The more important question is: Were they an immediate threat that required immediate action? Did we have Iraq contained with the weapons inspectors present and working there at the time that we decided to go to war? Was it more important to keep our primary focus in Afghanistan and on Osama bin Laden?
Do you feel we are less likely to have a major terrorist attack here in the U.S. than we were on September 10, 2001? I don't.
Dee
|