NationStates Jolt Archive

Welcome to the Debate Thread. The Debate Thread's primary purpose for existing is to answer the questions of the American voters about the two dominant presidential candidates:

President George W. Bush, Republican
Senator John Kerry, Democrat

Additional positions for the Green Party and Libertarian Party is still open, provided the Republican representative agrees. I myself am the Democratic rep, and the host of this debate thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will be following some of Gymoor's ground rules for this debate:

No ad hominem attacks. Simply calling someone a liar is unacceptible. If you think your opponent is being untruthful, please be specific and back up your charge with sources. The moderator will be in charge of accepting or rejecting the sources cited.
No "straw man" arguments. Restating your opponents position in an untruthful or overly simplistic way in order to attack the degraded position is not allowed.
Avoid labels and generalizations. Simply calling someone a conservative or a liberal is not proof of the weakness of their argument. Again, attack the assertions and specific points, not the debater.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will kick off the debate here at 9:00 AM EST (roughly) on Oct. 20. If you have questions you wish to pose to the debate participants, please message them to Planta Genestae, who is moderating the debate. The SARS Monkeys is also a moderator, and has the fun task of calling us when we flub up.

PLEASE DO NOT VOTE IN THE POLL UNTIL THE DEBATE GETS UNDERWAY.

Bumps and tags are allowed. :)

No ad hominem attacks. Simply calling someone a liar is unacceptible. If you think your opponent is being untruthful, please be specific and back up your charge with sources. The moderator will be in charge of accepting or rejecting the sources cited.
No "straw man" arguments. Restating your opponents position in an untruthful or overly simplistic way in order to attack the degraded position is not allowed.
Avoid labels and generalizations. Simply calling someone a conservative or a liberal is not proof of the weakness of their argument. Again, attack the assertions and specific points, not the debater.
Let's keep it Politically Correct. If your opponent is a liar, don't tell it, but say he is untruthful because of his uneducated background (of course this is because the republicans didn't give enough money to the schools). Don't talk about black criminals, islamic terrorists, or affirmative action, but talk about minorities rights.
Yeah I'm ready, bring it on!
Unless you have a disability of braveness (sorry I don't know how to say 'coward' in PC language or in some way that makes it look like it is a good thing)

So he gave up?
We haven't even started ... I guess I must have misoverestimated him.

I am waiting for the moderator to post a question. :D

Welcome to the Debate Thread. The Debate Thread's primary purpose for existing is to answer the questions of the American voters about the two dominant presidential candidates:

President George W. Bush, Republican
Senator John Kerry, Democrat

Additional positions for the Green Party and Libertarian Party is still open, provided the Republican representative agrees. I myself am the Democratic rep, and the host of this debate thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will be following some of Gymoor's ground rules for this debate:

No ad hominem attacks. Simply calling someone a liar is unacceptible. If you think your opponent is being untruthful, please be specific and back up your charge with sources. The moderator will be in charge of accepting or rejecting the sources cited.
No "straw man" arguments. Restating your opponents position in an untruthful or overly simplistic way in order to attack the degraded position is not allowed.
Avoid labels and generalizations. Simply calling someone a conservative or a liberal is not proof of the weakness of their argument. Again, attack the assertions and specific points, not the debater.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will kick off the debate here at 9:00 AM EST (roughly) on Oct. 20. If you have questions you wish to pose to the debate participants, please message them to Planta Genestae, who is moderating the debate. The SARS Monkeys is also a moderator, and has the fun task of calling us when we flub up.

Where's the Punch and Pie?

Where's the Punch and Pie?
Here.
* Punches Planta Genestae *

Here.
* Punches Planta Genestae *
And the Pie?

Where's the Punch and Pie?

<emails it to Planta Genestae> Now give us the @$^@$&^&@$^@)$ questions! ;)

<emails it to Planta Genestae> Now give us the @$^@$&^&@$^@)$ questions! ;)

I'm not in charge!

Brown sauce?

Never let a liberal organize anything.

Er, I thought I made you moderator to ask the questions? :P

Er, I thought I made you moderator to ask the questions? :P
No problem I'll ask the questions.

First question : How much pots do you liberal smoke per day?

If you aren't receiving any questions, just ask your own in an impartial, balanced manner.

And Psylos...bad organization cuts across the entire political spectrum. It's not a Democrats-only phenomenon.

Psylos, that is uncalled for. Kindly try to remain rational.

That is not a fair question for you to ask Psylos.

Besides, Plant is the moderator. HE asks the questions

Besides, Plant is the moderator. HE asks the questions

Not received any yet.

Ok First question to both of you:

"Many critics and political analysts have said that there is not much difference between John Kerry and George W Bush and John Kerry. In one word summarise what your candidate has that the other does not."

Not received any yet.

Ok First question to both of you:

"Many critics and political analysts have said that there is not much difference between John Kerry and George W Bush and John Kerry. In one word summarise what your candidate has that the other does not."
Guts.

Translates "Corona" (for the illegal mexican immigrants around here).

Integrity.

John F. Kerry is a decorated war veteran who has been to the battlefield, has smelled the smoke and seen the dead bodies. Unlike Bush and many of us who have never tasted war in a personal sense, Kerry has been there. Being IN the war dispels all the glorious illusions that often accompany it. John Kerry came back from that war and told the truth to the American people, even though in many quarters that was an unpopular thing to do. America needs to restore integrity to the White House.

-Shalrirorchia (D, OHIO)

Integrity.

John F. Kerry is a decorated war veteran who has been to the battlefield, has smelled the smoke and seen the dead bodies. Unlike Bush and many of us who have never tasted war in a personal sense, Kerry has been there. Being IN the war dispels all the glorious illusions that often accompany it. John Kerry came back from that war and told the truth to the American people, even though in many quarters that was an unpopular thing to do. America needs to restore integrity to the White House.

-Shalrirorchia (D, OHIO)

Ok but I did say one word only.

My next question however is to you alone Shalrirochia:

"Kerry has been identified by his critics as a man who has 'flip-flapped' on the war on Iraq, changing position as often as the changing of the shape of the moon.

What would you say to these critics?"

has smelled the smokeOf Marijuana?

Of Marijuana?

Psylos none of that please. Keep it civil and sensible!

By the way anyone else reading this conversation who wants to ask a question, do not just post on here just send me as moderator an e-mail at slw614@hotmail.com. I will pose the question. If it's done like that then we will prevent the board getting clogged.

The Bush Campaign, in conjunction with political action groups like the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, have spent millions of dollars trying to paste the "flip flop" label to John Kerry's back. During the debates, however, we saw a different John Kerry than the one portrayed in the ads. We saw a Kerry who was calm, in command of the facts, and who knew what he wanted to do AND how he intended to do it. Kerry has a history of being anything BUT a flip-flopper. I think the American people can believe their own eyes and ears over the advertisements.

-Shalrirorchia, (D, OHIO)

The Bush Campaign, in conjunction with political action groups like the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, have spent millions of dollars trying to paste the "flip flop" label to John Kerry's back. During the debates, however, we saw a different John Kerry than the one portrayed in the ads. We saw a Kerry who was calm, in command of the facts, and who knew what he wanted to do AND how he intended to do it. Kerry has a history of being anything BUT a flip-flopper. I think the American people can believe their own eyes and ears over the advertisements.

-Shalrirorchia, (D, OHIO)

"So what was John Kerry's position on Iraq, and what, if he is elected President, would he do now?"

Guts.

Translates "Corona" (for the illegal mexican immigrants around here).

Sorry to butt in, but I do believe Corona means head or crown, such as in the Coronal Suture of the skull.

Or... you could have been making some sad attempt to be funny. Either way, I thought I would let you know you're wrong.

Sorry to butt in, but I do believe Corona means head or crown, such as in the Coronal Suture of the skull.

Or... you could have been making some sad attempt to be funny. Either way, I thought I would let you know you're wrong.

Thanks for pointing that out. Psylos don't respond you will get your turn to speak.

The position is very stable and always has been. Saddam Hussein was a vile, rapacious, and evil man. He was, in a fashion, a danger...more to his own people than us. But he was not an immediate threat to the security of the United States of America...and in a world replete with -serious- threats to U.S. national security, Iraq was a distraction from the global War on Terror that has cost us greatly.

We're not saying that we would have left Saddam Hussein in power. But in a military sense, preserving U.S. national security demands that we eliminate the greatest threats first. And Saddam Hussein was down on the bottom of the list somewhere.

-Shalrirorchia (D, OHIO)

The position is very stable and always has been. Saddam Hussein was a vile, rapacious, and evil man. He was, in a fashion, a danger...more to his own people than us. But he was not an immediate threat to the security of the United States of America...and in a world replete with -serious- threats to U.S. national security, Iraq was a distraction from the global War on Terror that has cost us greatly.

We're not saying that we would have left Saddam Hussein in power. But in a military sense, preserving U.S. national security demands that we eliminate the greatest threats first. And Saddam Hussein was down on the bottom of the list somewhere.

-Shalrirorchia (D, OHIO)

So what would you do about Iraq and the War on terror if you were elected?

Let's make it productive. I don't have all the day. His time is up.

Let's make it productive. I don't have all the day. His time is up.

Please don't interrupt. I am just about to move across to you. Could you please keep answers short and concise both of you though to save long waits.

Any strategy to prosecute the War On Terror and the war in Iraq must meet two criteria:

1.) Hunt down and destroy the terrorists where they plan and hide.
2.) Address the underlying causes that spawn terrorists in the first place.

Unless you do both, you will see a never-ending cycle of violence. As for the first problem, we need to work closely with our allies and not push them away, as this president has done. The United States of America did not win the Cold War by unilateral action. It instead wove together an intricate network of friendships and treaties that allowed America to project its' power over a much broader area than might have otherwise been possible. We should do the same for the War On Terror. The United States -cannot- be everywhere in the world at once. But if we work with all of our allies and form a global dragnet, we can put the hurt on the terrorists before they bring the war to American streets.

As for the second problem, we MUST invest time and money in understanding why America is not trusted in the Arab world. We have to engage these nations and push them towards democratic reforms...and you can't inspire democracy by dropping bombs. It's a long and expensive process. The United States can, with its' allies, slowly begin to transform the Middle East. And we must have the patience and forbearance to let democracy there evolve at its' own pace.

Any strategy to prosecute the War On Terror and the war in Iraq must meet two criteria:

1.) Hunt down and destroy the terrorists where they plan and hide.
2.) Address the underlying causes that spawn terrorists in the first place.

Unless you do both, you will see a never-ending cycle of violence. As for the first problem, we need to work closely with our allies and not push them away, as this president has done. The United States of America did not win the Cold War by unilateral action. It instead wove together an intricate network of friendships and treaties that allowed America to project its' power over a much broader area than might have otherwise been possible. We should do the same for the War On Terror. The United States -cannot- be everywhere in the world at once. But if we work with all of our allies and form a global dragnet, we can put the hurt on the terrorists before they bring the war to American streets.

As for the second problem, we MUST invest time and money in understanding why America is not trusted in the Arab world. We have to engage these nations and push them towards democratic reforms...and you can't inspire democracy by dropping bombs. It's a long and expensive process. The United States can, with its' allies, slowly begin to transform the Middle East. And we must have the patience and forbearance to let democracy there evolve at its' own pace.

Thank you.

Now Psylos. Iraq is in a constant state of unrest. American or Allied troops as well as large numbers of civillians are being killed almost every day in Baghdad, Basra or Fallujah. This death and destruction. It's all unnecessary isn't it? The war on Iraq is completely unjustified is it not? Therefore surely President Bush is unfit to hold the highest office in the land.

Thank you.

Now Psylos. Iraq is in a constant state of unrest. American or Allied troops as well as large numbers of civillians are being killed almost every day in Baghdad, Basra or Fallujah. This death and destruction. It's all unnecessary isn't it? The war on Iraq is completely unjustified is it not? Therefore surely President Bush is unfit to hold the highest office in the land.It is an investment. It will pay in the long run.
And to the one who corrected me about the corona, I don't have time to study tribal languages. I have a job you know.

It is an investment. It will pay in the long run.

But how can it if surely America is more despised now than at any other time in its history. The necessary aid that is needed before Iraq can get on its feet is not happening because aid agencies are fearful of the safety of their aid workers people who are there not fighting and not bombing, some from countries like France which completely objected to the war. Therefore Iraq is left poor and destitute and ripe for terrorist activity and support. How can you sit there and say that this war is anything but a disaster for American foreign policy and is the biggest mistake made by any President of the USA?

We have to engage these nations and push them towards democratic reforms...and you can't inspire democracy by dropping bombs. It's a long and expensive process. The United States can, with its' allies, slowly begin to transform the Middle East. And we must have the patience and forbearance to let democracy there evolve at its' own pace.Because you think those people want democracy? It is only you the democrats who want democracy and you think everybody should want it, never mind if they actually do.

Careful, Planta. You're sounding like me. :D

It is an investment. It will pay in the long run.
And to the one who corrected me about the corona, I don't have time to study tribal languages. I have a job you know.

If you don't know it, don't quote it.

Are you even capable of running this debate? It wouldn't seem so.

And tribal languages? This is a language taught in pretty much every high school across the country.It's the primary language of Mexico and Spain. The only thing tribal is your ability to debate.

Because you think those people want democracy? It is only you the democrats who want democracy and you think everybody should want it, never mind if they actually do.


Please answer the question.

And Shir, I am only doing my job. Prepare yourself for some tough questions later on.

Because you think those people want democracy? It is only you the democrats who want democracy and you think everybody should want it, never mind if they actually do.

That's not true. But I DO believe it will make America safer if the people of the Middle East are given equality. And democracy is a more equal system than what they've got now.

If you don't know it, don't quote it.

Are you even capable of running this debate? It wouldn't seem so.

And tribal languages? This is a language taught in pretty much every high school across the country.It's the primary language of Mexico and Spain. The only thing tribal is your ability to debate.

Ok alright please do not interrupt the debate!

But how can it if surely America is more despised now than at any other time in its history. The necessary aid that is needed before Iraq can get on its feet is not happening because aid agencies are fearful of the safety of their aid workers people who are there not fighting and not bombing, some from countries like France which completely objected to the war. Therefore Iraq is left poor and destitute and ripe for terrorist activity and support. How can you sit there and say that this war is anything but a disaster for American foreign policy and is the biggest mistake made by any President of the USA?
Because we'll be less dependant on Saudi Arabia and France can say whatever they want, they'll be dependant on us because we'll control their supply. The world hate us, so what? They hated us before the war, they'll hate us after.

Shiz, please allow Psylos to compose his thoughts without interference. You CAN comment after all questions are asked and responded to :)

Because we'll be less dependant on Saudi Arabia and France can say whatever they want, they'll be dependant on us because we'll control their supply. The world hate us, so what? They hated us before the war, they'll hate us after.

So you are now admitting that the war in Iraq was about oil?

So you are now admitting that the war in Iraq was about oil?I like how I put it. You don't need to repeat what I say in your words just to make it sound bad.

I like how I put it. You don't need to repeat what I say in your words just to make it sound bad.

Isn't that my job? To decipher the truth from your argument which is that you are saying that this President has defied international convention and law, mislead Congress and the citizens of the United States in taking his country to war over Oil.

Anyway let's talk about something else other than Iraq.

Democrats.

"How can the people of America trust John Kerry and his promises on Tax in view of his, to put it politely, dubious voting record in the Senate on the issue?"

Isn't that my job? To decipher the truth from your argument which is that you are saying that this President has defied international convention and law, mislead Congress and the citizens of the United States in taking his country to war over Oil.Oh come on. Who did the president mislead? Anyone with half a brain knew what this war was about. Why do you think the US was the only country to support this war? Like americans were any less intelligent than the pinko europeans...
This PC is killing me.

Oh come on. Who did the president mislead? Anyone with half a brain knew what this war was about. Why do you think the US was the only country to support this war? Like americans were any less intelligent than the pinko europeans...
This PC is killing me.

Fair enough but please watch the abuse. Remember that I too am European.

Anyway it's the democrats turn to speak.

Fair enough but please watch the abuse. Remember that I too am European.

Anyway it's the democrats turn to speak.
Weren't you from UK?

Weren't you from UK?

Yes, but the UK is in Europe so.

back, sorry. Net kicked on me. Replying

Democrats.
"How can the people of America trust John Kerry and his promises on Tax in view of his, to put it politely, dubious voting record in the Senate on the issue?"

Well, for one, his record in the Senate is not dubious. There is an advertisement circulating (courtesy of the Bush campaign) which accuses John Kerry of voting for taxes like, 87 times. It's not true. The Republicans are counting ALL the votes Kerry made on those issues (such as simple procedure votes) as votes for tax increases. In addition, they counted any time Kerry voted against a tax cut as a tax "increase". Consquently, his numbers are highly inflated. It's wrong, but the Bush campaign is hoping that the American people won't look those numbers up themselves.

As for the tax plans, many Americans are not aware of the ENORMOUS giveaway that Bush has given to the rich in this country. His tax cut bills, altogether, range into the -trillions- of dollars. Of all that money, over 50% went to the top dogs, the 1% of America's richest persons. When you got your tax cut check, you received perhaps two-hundred dollars. When Bill Gates got HIS check, it was enough to by a new Lexus. Kerry's plan is to retain the middle-class tax cuts while repealing the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, and to close the loopholes that give 80 billion dollars a year to big business.

-Shalrirorchia (D, OHIO)

I have to go now. I have a job and everything I can't spend all my time smoking pot like a hippie surfing the internet.
Ask all your questions to the liberal and post several questions at the same time to me. I'll answer when I have spare time.

Try not to lie too much if you can.

I have to go now. I have a job and everything I can't spend all my time smoking pot like a hippie surfing the internet.
Ask all your questions to the liberal and post several questions at the same time to me. I'll answer when I have spare time.

Try not to lie too much if you can.

See ya.

What do you think about what was said about Social Security?

A professor of Sociology of mine said that if the current system of Social Security is not changed by around 2010, then our generation (those in College now or just entering the work place) will be unable to support both ourselves and the Baby Boomers.

I'll take over for Psylos. I don't like Bush very much but I could do a much better job at debating for him. I'm sure Shalrirorchia would like at least some degree of challenge here.

Very well.

I would first like to improve on a point made earlier, regarding the justification of the war on Iraq.

It is known that Saddam Hussein has been giving money to the families of suicide bombers. This is a direct support of terrorism. Iraq was a crucial key to advancing in the war on terror.

With the money they have received, terrorists will be able to get their hands on more weapons. Their weapons will be more lethal, their tactics more successful. We aren't fighting terror just for the safety of the nation. We are fighting terror for the safety of the world. The war in Iraq has cost lives, yes. Lives of innocent men and women, unfortunately, have also been lost. However, the number of innocents lost could be so much higher if terrorists still receive their funding and support. The damage may seem severe now, but the long term goal is what is really important here.

g2g guys cya

g2g guys cya

We need a new moderator. I'd volunteer, but I'm biased, even though I pride myself in my intellectual honesty.

We need a new moderator. I'd volunteer, but I'm biased, even though I pride myself in my intellectual honesty.
The old mod didn't seem too unbaised either. Besides, I'm debating for Bush when I'm already biased and voting for Kerry. For the sake of debate though, I'm playing devil's advocate. Would it be much to ask for you to do the same?

Fair enough

I would first like to improve on a point made earlier, regarding the justification of the war on Iraq.

It is known that Saddam Hussein has been giving money to the families of suicide bombers. This is a direct support of terrorism. Iraq was a crucial key to advancing in the war on terror.

With the money they have received, terrorists will be able to get their hands on more weapons. Their weapons will be more lethal, their tactics more successful. We aren't fighting terror just for the safety of the nation. We are fighting terror for the safety of the world. The war in Iraq has cost lives, yes. Lives of innocent men and women, unfortunately, have also been lost. However, the number of innocents lost could be so much higher if terrorists still receive their funding and support. The damage may seem severe now, but the long term goal is what is really important here.

As a follow up to this question: What was important about the timing of the attack on Iraq? Some critics have accused the Bush administration of "rushing" to war without letting the inspectors finish or gaining enough CONCRETE international support. How do you respond? Knowing what you know now, would you have proceeded exactly as the US did?

As a follow up to this question: What was important about the timing of the attack on Iraq? Some critics have accused the Bush administration of "rushing" to war without letting the inspectors finish or gaining enough CONCRETE international support. How do you respond? Knowing what you know now, would you have proceeded exactly as the US did?

I wouldn't have gone at it in the exact same manner. I would have first changed my reasoning. I would have focused more on the terror threat than the WMDs as it would have proven less embarassing in the end and would not be as big a risk.

I do agree however that we should have had more support at first. Sure, we can't be dependent on the approval of other nations when doing things, but our international image was at stake. Milliions now hate what we are so proud of because of it.

Regardless, the removal of Saddam Hussein is a good thing and is being overlooked. The Iraqi people are now in the streets protesting the troops, but the fact still remains that for once in their life, they are protesting, and they are doing so without fear of torture or death.

Shalrirorchia, the charge has been made that John Kerry is too liberal too effectively lead the nation as a whole. Kerry has already stated that he would not suggest a Supreme Court Justice that would be inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade. Kerry has repeatedly voted to reduce military spending and intelligence spending. A Massachussets liberal is seemingly incapable of gaining support from the majority of the people from the South. Kerry's economic policies seem to favor the middle class at the expense of those that create jobs for those self same middle class citizens. How can Kerry hope to lead this divided country?

Can I debate for the Libertarians?

Can I debate for the Libertarians?

yes. You'll get the next question and a follow up after the Democratic delegate answers their question and follow-up

Can I debate for the Libertarians?

No, you get to be arrested instead. ^_^

*runs naked through the hall, grabs a cup of punch and throws it in the face of someone nearby, steals all the booze, and runs out giving everyone a glimpse of his buttocks which read HAIGE IN 88*

No, you get to be arrested instead. ^_^

Plese refrain from commenting in the debate (though I appreciate the joke!) unless you are one of the participants.

Give me a question, I want some votes.

I only have one so far, and that was me.

Give me a question, I want some votes.

I only have one so far, and that was me.

If your candidate were to be elected, what would his number one priority bew upon entering office?

The number one issue effecting the American people and true platform of the Libertarian Party is the value of individual rights and responsibilities. We will move immediately to protect the rights of the individual from both other individuals and the government.

The greatest interference to the individual's rights and responsibilities lies in the marketplace. We will end government's preference for corporations that has led to the corporate power and corruption that has become so prevalent today.

We will also push a constitutional amemdment requiring a balanced federal budget and promote government responsibility through the limitation of taxation.

The number one issue effecting the American people and true platform of the Libertarian Party is the value of individual rights and responsibilities. We will move immediately to protect the rights of the individual from both other individuals and the government.

The greatest interference to the individual's rights and responsibilities lies in the marketplace. We will end government's preference for corporations that has led to the corporate power and corruption that has become so prevalent today.

We will also push a constitutional amemdment requiring a balanced federal budget and promote government responsibility through the limitation of taxation.

As a Third Party, how would your candidate get the amount of cooperation needed to pass a bill, much less an Amendment? Once that cooperation is gained, what are the specific steps needed to reduce corporate power and corruption without imposing more governmental control, since governmental control is the main adversary of the Libertarian movement?

An American transition away from big business and towards the rights of the individual in the marketplace will be a difficult and long one. Changes must be made to government that will allow for the evolution to take place.

First and foremost would be the elimination of both the bureaucratic method in which government is run. Checks must be placed on politicians who may cast their vote biased toward large contributers.

We must also start a revolution in the way we think about government and its role, changing the perception from "a protector of the people", to "a protector of the people's rights."

That's nice, but you didn't answer my questions. How will you get the cooperation needed and what are the specific steps your candidate is proposing. Feel free to post a source from the Libertarian party with your description of it.

You have caught me, I tried to be a politician and dodge the question, my apologies.

It is my opinion that the entrance of a third party would cause a drastic change in the amount of cooperation in the government. No longer would party lines be so devisive amongst legislators and cause a much less partisan stance on policies. So with a more open system and a method of compromise and moderation, our positions may slowly be filtered in and the slow process of changing our government could take place.

Corporations by definition are a government entity, they are entitled to tax breaks, legal benefits, and political benifits that are not afforded to smaller businesses. The only way to allow for a free market is to remove these benefits that government has given these corporations.

Now we are waiting for the Democratic debater's answer to my prior question.

It seems our debate has fallen on hard times, would anyone like to take over the for the moderator or either of the republicans or democrats?

I'm still here. I'm merely waiting for the debaters.

And I'm merely waiting for the Democratic Representative's turn to end.

Perhaps we need a new Democrat.

*peels off Michael Badnarik mask to reveal Ted Kennedy*

looks like you have yourself a democrat

Are you going to debate yourself then? Doesn't that grow hair somewhere?

I'll ask a question then...or..if absolutely needed, try arguing for the Democrat side.
Im not a democrat mind you, but I do support Kerry in this election.

I would first like to improve on a point made earlier, regarding the justification of the war on Iraq.

It is known that Saddam Hussein has been giving money to the families of suicide bombers. This is a direct support of terrorism. Iraq was a crucial key to advancing in the war on terror.

With the money they have received, terrorists will be able to get their hands on more weapons. Their weapons will be more lethal, their tactics more successful. We aren't fighting terror just for the safety of the nation. We are fighting terror for the safety of the world. The war in Iraq has cost lives, yes. Lives of innocent men and women, unfortunately, have also been lost. However, the number of innocents lost could be so much higher if terrorists still receive their funding and support. The damage may seem severe now, but the long term goal is what is really important here.Ha ha ha. You guyz are a joke. A liberal trying to argue republican line by keeping everything absolutelly PC. If you are going to argue for the republican side, you have to tell the truth and clearly. Your post is making anyone here with half a brain laughing his ass.
Let's get this debate back on track, will we?
I'm sick of those liberals and their PC. The situation cristal clear to anyone with eyes now, you can't hide behind democracy and terrorism anymore. So let's discuss the issue for god sake, we've been playing around enough now.
The americans are not going to go to work by bicycle, fish trouts and smoke the pipe around the fire looking at the stars and calling spirits to make the rain. You must be too high on crack if you believe this.
So get your facts straight and stop calling the americans idiots. Everybody know we need oil and everybody know we're going to get it one way or another so please stop your PC bullshit, it is getting us nowhere. Integrity, my ass! Anyone with half a brain know Kerry is a politician and know integrity has nothing to do with politics. Now let's talk seriously and try to get a brain not high on dope and get me an actual plan for getting this oil you are going to burn on your plane trips to your useless democrat meetings all over the country.
Yeah that's what I want to talk about : reality, not democracy bullshit.

Psylos, you're a nut case! :P

Next question. <:D

Ha ha ha. You guyz are a joke. A liberal trying to argue republican line by keeping everything absolutelly PC. If you are going to argue for the republican side, you have to tell the truth and clearly. Your post is making anyone here with half a brain laughing his ass.
Let's get this debate back on track, will we?
I'm sick of those liberals and their PC. The situation cristal clear to anyone with eyes now, you can't hide behind democracy and terrorism anymore. So let's discuss the issue for god sake, we've been playing around enough now.
The americans are not going to go to work by bicycle, fish trouts and smoke the pipe around the fire looking at the stars and calling spirits to make the rain. You must be too high on crack if you believe this.
So get your facts straight and stop calling the americans idiots. Everybody know we need oil and everybody know we're going to get it one way or another so please stop your PC bullshit, it is getting us nowhere. Integrity, my ass! Anyone with half a brain know Kerry is a politician and know integrity has nothing to do with politics. Now let's talk seriously and try to get a brain not high on dope and get me an actual plan for getting this oil you are going to burn on your plane trips to your useless democrat meetings all over the country.
Yeah that's what I want to talk about : reality, not democracy bullshit.

You make me sad. Almost like a puppy dog that's about to get hit by a car kinda sad.

What's the point of having Pyslos argue for Bush? He can't stick to the issues, and he is even willing to destroy his own candidate's arguments if it means putting in a partisan flame.

The old mod didn't seem too unbaised either. Besides, I'm debating for Bush when I'm already biased and voting for Kerry. For the sake of debate though, I'm playing devil's advocate. Would it be much to ask for you to do the same?

OI! I thought I was pretty fair! :mad:

What's the point of having Pyslos argue for Bush? He can't stick to the issues, and he is even willing to destroy his own candidate's arguments if it means putting in a partisan flame.So what are my own candidate arguments?
the WMD in Iraq? Please...

Is there a way we can find a few reasonable debaters and lock everyone else out, this Psylos dude is ruining this, and it wasn't that good to begin with.

Maybe we should start over?

Yeah have fun with your PC debates. If you can fool anyone, maybe you will have an orgasm.

Let's give them democracy and let's protect america from the evil terrorists. Look behind your back, the evils are here to get you, they want to kill your freedom, because they are EVIL!!!! But fortunately, when america give freedom and democracy to the world the good will prevail and we'll all be rich. That is what the founding fathers wanted and it is what has made america prosperous and the land of the brave and the land of freedom, it is democracy and peace and happyness.

By god don't let them say that america is rich because it used slaves, exploited the third world and kicked the shit out of the middle east to get their oil. Those people abuse their freedom of speech. The freedom must be protected by the brave american people and we must shut up the evil.

Yeah have fun with your PC debates. If you can fool anyone, maybe you will have an orgasm.

Let's give them democracy and let's protect america from the evil terrorists. Look behind your back, the evils are here to get you, they want to kill your freedom, because they are EVIL!!!! But fortunately, when america give freedom and democracy to the world the good will prevail and we'll all be rich. That is what the founding fathers wanted and it is what has made america prosperous and the land of the brave and the land of freedom, it is democracy and peace and happyness.

By god don't let them say that america is rich because it used slaves, exploited the third world and kicked the shit out of the middle east to get their oil. Those people abuse their freedom of speech. The freedom must be protected by the brave american people and we must shut up the evil.

I take it to say that your argument boils down to two phrases:

1.) The ends justify the means

2.) Might makes right.

excellent. What you have there is a recipe for Nazi Germany.

I'm assuming that our friend Psylos is being sarcastic.
I assume these are the points he is making

1)that it is naive to think that we can spread democracy and freedom across the globe because freedom is subjective and many people will be unreceptive to democracy.

2)that our present view of those who oppose us being evil is an oversimplification

3)that America is not using its force to spread peace but to secure global domination in foreign markets

As the Libertarian side of this debate, and as a voice for all of the liberals here, I completely agree with you

I am, however, unaware whether you support our present actions or are against them.

So what are my own candidate arguments?
the WMD in Iraq? Please...
Let's see...

Bush keeps talking about "spreading democracy and freedom to Iraq and the Middle East."

You say that it's bad and that only Democraps want it.

You seem to be in this thread arguing your own opinions when you should be arguing for Bush.

I'm assuming that our friend Psylos is being sarcastic.
I assume these are the points he is making

1)that it is naive to think that we can spread democracy and freedom across the globe because freedom is subjective and many people will be unreceptive to democracy.

2)that our present view of those who oppose us being evil is an oversimplification

3)that America is not using its force to spread peace but to secure global domination in foreign markets

As the Libertarian side of this debate, and as a voice for all of the liberals here, I completely agree with you
I agree with these points, but Pyslos is supposed to be arguing Bush's position, not his own.

Siljhouettes and Gymoor, or anyone interested, do you want to get this started again? Maybe with some moderator support. I can debate any of the positions, although it would be a challenge to support Bush.

I was supporting Bush and the republicans, not emulating them. Bush is a puppet and a joke, he doesn't even believe in what he says himself.
Having a remake of Bush vs Kerry is useless, just download the debate if you want to laugh.

Siljhouettes and Gymoor, or anyone interested, do you want to get this started again? Maybe with some moderator support. I can debate any of the positions, although it would be a challenge to support Bush.
Good luck with that. Playing a clown is not easy. You are going to feel ridiculous quickly.

Siljhouettes and Gymoor, or anyone interested, do you want to get this started again? Maybe with some moderator support. I can debate any of the positions, although it would be a challenge to support Bush.

I'm down.

You were also failing to make any points, you can only respond hyperbole, rhetoric, and sarcasm. That is a very poor way to debate.

Which position would you want Gymoor, like I said I'm up for any of them.

You were also failing to make any points, you can only respond hyperbole, rhetoric, and sarcasm. That is a very poor way to debate.
I made the point that the war on Iraq was an investment and that it will pay in the long run.
Then it went all PC and we started (especially the liberal side) to talk democracy and bullshit, like we are going to install a democracy in Iraq and protect the american people from the evil terrorists.

I just had to re-focus the debate on the issue of the question.

The point you made was that invading Iraq would pay off in the long run because it would cause France and Saudi Arabia to be dependent to us.

That was a well made point my friend.

Can you further explain how that improves our security or well being seeing as that neither of those nations have ever fought against us, ever.

The point you made was that invading Iraq would pay off in the long run because it would cause France and Saudi Arabia to be dependent to us.

That was a well made point my friend.

Can you further explain how that improves our security or well being seeing as that neither of those nations have ever fought against us, ever.It doesn't improve security at all. I'ts not about security. It is about taking the plane to go from New York to Los Angeles for a reasonable price.

Do you think the American public or government is willing to face large amounts of troup casualties and terrorist attacks to secure an oil source, that will most likely dry up or be rendered obsolete within the next century?

Do you think the American public or government is willing to face large amounts of troup casualties and terrorist attacks to secure an oil source, that will most likely dry up or be rendered obsolete within the next century?
We send mexican emmigrants. Everything is ok.

They don't even have to be immigrants, we could just send Mexicans, they are even cheaper than immigrants.

If I run for president will you be my Rumsfeld?

They don't even have to be immigrants, we could just send Mexicans, they are even cheaper than immigrants.

If I run for president will you be my Rumsfeld?
Ideally, we would send the polish.

"Ideally, we would send the polish."

That would be perfect, everyone would forget about them, and when the world least expects it, WHAM!!, 10 million Pollocks bearing down on the middle east with a rage that only burns in the Polish heart.

"Ideally, we would send the polish."

That would be perfect, everyone would forget about them, and when the world least expects it, WHAM!!, 10 million Pollocks bearing down on the middle east with a rage that only burns in the Polish heart.Yes but how will you convince the polish government to send their troups instead of our mexican immigrants? They already provide some troups because they want our support in the EU, but they just can't provide enough troups to replace ours.

Ideally, we would send the polish.

Well, since you failed to capitalize the "P" I can only assume your solution to Iraq is to clean their boots?

Well, since you failed to capitalize the "P" I can only assume your solution to Iraq is to clean their boots?Very funny. My solution is not to send more polish troops, that is not possible. My solution is to continue the war on terror and to keep our troups there for as long as it takes to secure the oil supply. For that we have to stay on orange terrorist alert or even better switch to red, so we can keep people busy and have some kind of censure of whatever dirty is happening there because the average american doesn't need to know and anyway the average american doesn't have all the necessary educational level to understand that.

Sorry. Secrecy invariably leads to greater corruption. I can support no such strategy.

Sorry. Secrecy invariably leads to greater corruption. I can support no such strategy.
Then don't vote.

Then don't vote.

Why? So the most secretive administration, possibly surpassing Nixon, can stay in power? I think not. Screw the tyranny of ignorance.

That would be perfect, everyone would forget about them, and when the world least expects it, WHAM!!, 10 million Pollocks bearing down on the middle east with a rage that only burns in the Polish heart.
With vodka!

Hehe, seems like Pyslos is a real Machiavellian Big Brother.

He is the first true NeoCon I've talked to on here, the rest of the republicans are just fans.

He drank the kool aid, ate the ergot and swallowed the hook, line and sinker.

It's not that Bush followers are less intelligent. It's that the Bush campaign has been more effective at spreading disinformation, as the PIPA survey proves.