Debates !

Imgrimm01 · Post by **Imgrimm01** » Saturday Oct 02, 2004

I sat and waited for a few days now to see what was going to be said about the debates Ecspecially by those who a few months back posted saying " If you really want to see who's qualifiied wait until the debates " well we all waited and finally they came, and then what ? Well you tell me ? I have to think that if Bush hadn't looked so STUPID up there some of you would have posted by now telling us how " Bush was the man, man he showed Kerry" BUT since the results were the opposite No one NO ONE said anything ! Hmmm... I watched the debate live and recorded it so that I could see it again later to see if I missed anything, I just finished watching again and you know what ? I didn't miss a thing and I have been right all along BUSH is an IDIOT ! 2 more debates to go and I bet " W " will look like a chimp in a suit at those as well.

stonekrow · Post by **stonekrow** » Sunday Oct 03, 2004

I agree 100%, there hasn't been much said, follows suit with what Bush himself said behind the podium, NOT MUCH!!...lol, I loved it. Im very anxious for the next ones.

byndrsn · Post by **byndrsn** » Sunday Oct 03, 2004

Imgrimm01 wrote:I sat and waited for a few days now to see what was going to be said about the debates Ecspecially by those who a few months back posted saying " If you really want to see who's qualifiied wait until the debates " well we all waited and finally they came, and then what ? Well you tell me ? I have to think that if Bush hadn't looked so STUPID up there some of you would have posted by now telling us how " Bush was the man, man he showed Kerry" BUT since the results were the opposite No one NO ONE said anything ! Hmmm... I watched the debate live and recorded it so that I could see it again later to see if I missed anything, I just finished watching again and you know what ? I didn't miss a thing and I have been right all along BUSH is an IDIOT ! 2 more debates to go and I bet " W " will look like a chimp in a suit at those as well.

Ya know what - I did the same thing! I was waiting for someone to say something. And, I was not disappointed - A FUCKING LIBERAL HAD TO SAY SOMETHING!!!

No, I will respond to this when I don't have any alcohol in my viens. I will respond to this when I am ready.

I will respond. It is not my main priority - but I will respond.

stonekrow · Post by **stonekrow** » Sunday Oct 03, 2004

Yep, I think thats what Bush must have been thinking too during the debates, "I will respond, not now because I have to go ask for help and study, but I will respond to you Mr. Kerry, not now but I will respond" give me a break.

Sanctify · Post by **Sanctify** » Sunday Oct 03, 2004

see my most recent post here...

http://rockpage.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.ph ... &start=100

Imgrimm01 · Post by **Imgrimm01** » Sunday Oct 03, 2004

My conservative friends I know it's tuff to watch your hero make an ass of himself, I've been there when Metallical released Load I was redfaced and heartbroken for months but then I finally admitted " OK they sold out they are not what I thought they were " and I want to tall all of you admitting is the first step it gets easier I promise, So all together now 1.....2......3...... My wonderful hero " W " is a dummy ... Now see don't ya feel better? Good ! I'm glad I could help.

I just watched SNL man they had a friKKin field day with this baffoon's performance.

Sanctify · Post by **Sanctify** » Sunday Oct 03, 2004

sorry... I didn't watch snl... I was out supporting live music...

sorry if you feel the need to part of a popular movement...

grimmbass · Post by **grimmbass** » Sunday Oct 03, 2004

Let's sum up the debates, shall we?

1. Public speaking is tough. I can excuse anyone for not being able to respond on their feet. Anyone, that is, except my President.
2. The man was tongue-tied and lacked any genuine cognitive responses. It was painful to watch W stumble through his answers.
3. Kerry, love or hate him, is a much better debater and a much more eloquent speaker. One of the most important parts of leadership and diplomacy is being able to quickly respond to unexpected questions. Based on Thursday night, how well do you think that W would be able to verbally respond to a difficult situation without a script?
4. As a registered independent who is affectionately referred to as a "conservative" among his liberal friends, I cannot honestly believe that anyone felt that W's performance was stunning or even adequate.

The only way to find truth is to is to let go of your desired outcome. Don't try to color the facts to make them mean what you want to mean. Let them be what they are.

In this case, the fact is that W cannot speak in public without a script or a controlled environment.

Peace,

Kent, Bass, The Grimm

CHICKSINGA · Post by **CHICKSINGA** » Sunday Oct 03, 2004

As the debate went it is evident that Kerry had a stronger presence. I support Bush, but it can’t be denied that Kerry was very aggressive. But the truth is this – he still said the same things – facts that are easy to debunk as rhetoric. Just because he said the words with a more commanding performance his supporters want to give him accolades that make no sense. Kerry knows now that to speak against the war on terror won’t be wise for his numbers. So he has a plan to address terrorism. But can you tell me what his plan is? And how it differs from Bush’s? To involve the United Nations again? Are you so naive to think that is the answer? It seems to be more important to appear strong rather than have a true strong goal and mindset. Kerry supporters are looking for someone to tell them what they want to hear rather than be resolved to do the best for the country as a whole. Those who subscribe to liberal doctrines are concerned with freedom as it pertains to their agendas, not what is best for society.
I don’t let Dan Rather, Bill Maher, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity or ANYONE tell me what to think. I watch and research and make up my own mind, based on what makes sense, for all. And when it all comes to light, a President who panders to everyone has no true strength. Leaders don’t follow – they make decisions based on facts, not spin.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sunday Oct 03, 2004

Yep, I was waiting for somebody else to start another political thread.

My impression was that Kerry did exactly what he had to do as well as he could do it. Logically, he had the unenviable position of having to be negative about the status quo without being "mean-spirited". On the other hand, Bush needed to take an optimistic point of view and that is a lot easier and appealing position to take. Without a doubt, Kerry is a better orator than Bush, but it is far more important to listen to what a person says rather than how they say it.

We know what Bush said in no uncertain terms and I doubt that anyone here believes he would do otherwise. However, I've heard it time and time again...don't listen to what Kerry says, look at what Kerry does.
What did Kerry say in this debate?

The war in Iraq was a mistake and it should not have happened.

What did Kerry do?

He voted "aye" to the resolution authorizing military force in Iraq based on intelligence information given to him as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. There is no room in the oval office for a Monday morning quarterback.

What did Kerry say?

He will give the troops body armor and other equipment needed to win the war.

What did Kerry Do?

He voted "nay", against an $87 billion funding bill to support the troops in Iraq.

Kerry is proposing changes in healthcare, taxation and other items that can only be done in the legislature. Do you really think a Republican congress is going to give Kerry any of it? Forget it.

The one thing that really, really scares me is that, without question and without exception, John Kerry will hand over U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations. As chief executive, that is one thing he CAN do without congressional approval.

I could go on and on with this, but you get the point. John Kerry is the living stereotype of the politician who will promise everything and deliver nothing or the exact opposite. Furthermore, his proposed Iraq policy is no different that what is already in place, except that he wants to commit 2 more divisions to the fighting and double the special forces strength. I wonder where he's going to find these 2 divisions? If Kerry wins, you'd better get those draft cards ready..........

shadesofjuneGuitar · Post by **shadesofjuneGuitar** » Monday Oct 04, 2004

Sanctify wrote:see my most recent post here...

http://rockpage.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.ph ... &start=100

First of all, what you have conviently left out of your statements, was the fact the Bush made several inaccurate statements as well. This was pointed out in a mini-debate between campaign managers on the Today Show. I forget all of the details at the moment, but I actually remember them saying that Bush, overall, made incorrect statements more often than Kerry.

Secondly, I am having a hard time understanding what is occurring in our country. Last week, I watched a program that had Bush leading the polls at 56%. Out of the 56%, 72% of these people said that the entire Bush administration would have to change completely on several issues to avoid disaster in our country.

Forgive me for being ignorant then in saying ... "THEN WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU VOTE FOR HIM?" If he did the wrong things at the wrong times, and our country is in dire need of a "real" leader, then how can these people justify voting him in for a second term.

Thirdly, and lastly for this post...
You can say what you want about John Kerry, but I'll tell you what John Kerry hasn't done that W has:

1.) Bush, along with his Oil Exec. cabinet, invaded a country unassociated with the September 11 attacks. Immediately after the war in Iraq started, the only building guarded was the Oil Embassy.

2.) The Bush Administration lied to the American public about the creation and storage of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

3.) The price of gas is "GOING UP" - (this really pisses me off).

4.) The Bush Administration completely turned their backs on North Korea, a "real" threat, to continue the attacks in Iraq. NOW NORTH KOREA HAS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES.

5.) Relies on morality, religion, and fear as a basis to gain votes.

etc....

WHAT JOHN KERRY HAS DONE:

1.) Actually served in the military during a conflict.

2.) Married a woman that happens to make Ketchup.

3.) Changed some of his views as the times have changed ... (I don't understand why this is wrong... Personally, I would like someone that stays with the times and can evolve as a President as well as a human-being. Being concrete in the decision process can be very damaging.)

Diavolo · Post by **Diavolo** » Monday Oct 04, 2004

As a Bush supporter, I was more than aggravated with his horendous performance in the first debate. I agree with many of the Bush administration's policiy positions but can not believe he can't present himself well in a debate in front of 60 million viewers!?!?! How can he and his campaign managers allow this to happen?
Having said that, Kerry was great. He presented well and was very articulate (certainly compared to Bush). But... The bottom line remains: Do you want style or substance? For example, John Kerry was the guy that said we have a weak coalition of the "coerced and the bribed" and should have built a stronger coalition yet now indicates he wants no alliance whatsoever in negotitating with the North Koreans who have already walked away several times from the table. The North Koreans, whose economy is in shambles want a U.S. ransom payment. Bush wants to work with the Chinese, Japanese and other Asain countries to resolve the nucear issue in North Korea.
Where are hte media in pointing out this inconsistency/lack of substance?

mad hatter · Post by **mad hatter** » Monday Oct 04, 2004

It must be us FUCKING LIBERALS who have all the common sense. Maybe we should lend some to our brainwashed, right-winged friends here at RP.

Sanctify · Post by **Sanctify** » Monday Oct 04, 2004

you are right I left out the bush facts... primarily cause this post is "for the kerry fans" I know there was a "for the bush fans" thread but I didn't see it... so I'll post the bush stuff here... not a problem... and btw these aren't MY findings... (the kerry ones or the bush ones) but stuff I found.... so enjoy!!

BUSH SENDS MIXED SIGNALS ON TERRORISM

At last night's debate, President Bush said that we could not hope to defeat
terrorists if we have a leader who sends mixed signals. Bush said, "you cannot
lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our
troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our
allies." But, throughout his presidency, Bush has sent mixed messages on
fundamental terrorism-related issues.

For example, in September 2001 Bush said that he was determined to capture Osama
bin Laden "dead or alive." Six months later Bush said, "I don't know where he
is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that
concerned about him."

In April of this year, Bush said that we could win the war on terrorism.
Then, on August 30, he said "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]."
The next day, he said "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win
[the war on terror]."

Sources:

1. "Transcript: Does Bush see Kerry character flaws?," CNN.com, 10/01/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1200618&l=60179.
2. "Wanted: Dead or Alive," ABC News, 9/17/01,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1200618&l=60180.
3. "President Bush Holds Press Conference," The White House, 3/13/02,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1200618&l=60181.
4. "President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference," The White
House, 4/13/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1200618&l=60182.
5. "Bush: 'You cannot show weakness in this world'," Today Show, 8/30/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1200618&l=60183.
6. "Remarks by the President of the American Legion," The White House, 8/31/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1200618&l=60184.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Monday Oct 04, 2004

1.) Bush, along with his Oil Exec. cabinet, invaded a country unassociated with the September 11 attacks. Immediately after the war in Iraq started, the only building guarded was the Oil Embassy.

I wish somebody would explain to all Americans just exactly what the war on terror is. It's not a hunt for bin laden. He's no longer a factor in the grand scheme of things. Its not about getting revenge for 9/11. Its about cleaning out terrorists worldwide. It just so happens that most anti-U.S. terrorists are in the middle east, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon. Afghanistan was a no-brainer, but to clean out the middle east, you have to take out the biggest guy on the block first. Buh-bye Saddam. The rest are shaking in their boots, wondering when we'll come for them. Soon enough. Sorry, this isn't about revenge for 9/11. Its about pre-empting terrorists worldwide so that we never have another 9/11.

2.) The Bush Administration lied to the American public about the creation and storage of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

If you consider that a lie, then you must consider everthing that Kerry said in the debate to be a lie as well. At least Bush was acting in good faith with bad information when he told us of WMDs in Iraq. Kerry just stood there and most eloquently told us he was going to do everything that Bush is already doing even though his senate voting record shows us the exact opposite. His voting record confirms that Kerry lies every time he opens his mouth and noise comes out.

3.) The price of gas is "GOING UP" - (this really pisses me off).

There's a reason for this, but it doesn't have anything to do will Bush, Cheyney, Halliburton, or Iraq. Does anybody else here know the reason?

4.) The Bush Administration completely turned their backs on North Korea, a "real" threat, to continue the attacks in Iraq. NOW NORTH KOREA HAS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES.

North Korea is better left to the russians and chinese...for now. North Korea is NOT an imminent threat to the U.S. and Kim is not going to give away any of his precious nuclear arms to terrorists. North Korea is an argument for the uninformed.

5.) Relies on morality, religion, and fear as a basis to gain votes.

etc....

Not worth answering.

WHAT JOHN KERRY HAS DONE:

1.) Actually served in the military during a conflict.

2.) Married a woman that happens to make Ketchup.

3.) Changed some of his views as the times have changed ... (I don't understand why this is wrong... Personally, I would like someone that stays with the times and can evolve as a President as well as a human-being. Being concrete in the decision process can be very damaging.)

Hasn't done much, has he.

shadesofjuneGuitar · Post by **shadesofjuneGuitar** » Monday Oct 04, 2004

I wish somebody would explain to all Americans just exactly what the war on terror is. It's not a hunt for bin laden. He's no longer a factor in the grand scheme of things. Its not about getting revenge for 9/11. Its about cleaning out terrorists worldwide. It just so happens that most anti-U.S. terrorists are in the middle east, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon. Afghanistan was a no-brainer, but to clean out the middle east, you have to take out the biggest guy on the block first. Buh-bye Saddam. The rest are shaking in their boots, wondering when we'll come for them. Soon enough. Sorry, this isn't about revenge for 9/11. Its about pre-empting terrorists worldwide so that we never have another 9/11.

Kerry never actually disputed the fact that there was a problem in Iraq. He merely said that after September 11th the target that Congress and the general American public were ready to go to war with was Osama bin Laden... not Iraq. It was Bush Sr.'s fault that Iraq is still standing now in the first place... Don't even get me started on that one.

And ... please ready this closely...
If you think that the "War on Terror" is actually going to stop terrorism like you said in your previous post, then... WAKE UP. These people have nothing to lose ... That is the whole principle behind the act of terrorism ... instill fear into your enemy and never give up.

They live in freaking huts in the the middle of the mountains ... we had one of those kind once ... remember - Ted Kaczynski !

If you consider that a lie, then you must consider everthing that Kerry said in the debate to be a lie as well. At least Bush was acting in good faith with bad information when he told us of WMDs in Iraq. Kerry just stood there and most eloquently told us he was going to do everything that Bush is already doing even though his senate voting record shows us the exact opposite. His voting record confirms that Kerry lies every time he opens his mouth and noise comes out.

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. First of all, the 9/11 commission caught Bush in a lie when he said that he didn't have prior information of an impending attack on US soil. They uncovered that the administration had intelligence up to a year prior to the actual attack. Secondly, I STRONGLY SUGGEST that you get away from the Propaganda machine that so many other Americans have fallen victim to and start thinking for yourself. These ads that are being aired on TV that are bashing Kerry are nothing more than copy / paste deals. They make a situation look completely different than it originially did. It may seem like Kerry had "flip-flopped" on his voting, but if you would actually look at this situation, Kerry voted to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq BECAUSE OF THE INFORMATION THAT BUSH HAD PRESENTED TO CONGRESS. Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction ... and, oh yeah, Hussein was harboring bin Laden.... Kerry never said war was not needed... HE SAID THAT IT WAS NOT WAGED CORRECTLY.

There's a reason for this, but it doesn't have anything to do will Bush, Cheyney, Halliburton, or Iraq. Does anybody else here know the reason?

Please enlighten me... Because I know something too ... Like we have millions and millions of gallons of crude oil in Alaska and Texas that is virtually untouched. Why the hell are we relying on the Middle East when we have the goods here... That is like driving to Maine to get peanut butter when all you have to do is go down the street.

North Korea is better left to the russians and chinese...for now. North Korea is NOT an imminent threat to the U.S. and Kim is not going to give away any of his precious nuclear arms to terrorists. North Korea is an argument for the uninformed.

First of all, ever since General McArthur led a charge from South Korea into North Korea and attempted to invade the Southern section of China, there has been a fine line for how we may act toward North Korea. McArthur tried to push the Koreans back into China and, like any country would, China got very angry with this manuver. They immediately sent 1 million ground troops over the border and kicked our asses back to the 38th parallel. Ever since then, there has been a kind of unwritten rule that China will back North Korea, if for no other reason than ... it is on their doorstep.

Not worth answering.

Thanks for being kind... I never attacked you and I kind of resent the arrogance in which that statement came across. From your unspoken tone, I definitely say that you are a Bush fan.

Sanctify · Post by **Sanctify** » Monday Oct 04, 2004

shadesofjuneGuitar wrote: If you think that the "War on Terror" is actually going to stop terrorism like you said in your previous post, then... WAKE UP. These people have nothing to lose ... That is the whole principle behind the act of terrorism ... instill fear into your enemy and never give up.

They live in freaking huts in the the middle of the mountains ... we had one of those kind once ...

Kerry voted to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq BECAUSE OF THE INFORMATION THAT BUSH HAD PRESENTED TO CONGRESS.

#1 so trying to stop the terrorists will not work?... I guess we should just let them do what they want? oh yeah... I forgot summits are the new answer... correct me if I'm wrong but I swear that I heard Kerry say in the debate that he will "hunt down and KILL" the terrorists? sounds like war to me... or were you saying that our current war is not enough?

#2 I'm glad that everyone realizes that Bush got this information on his own (insert sarcasm here) apparently he must have gotten it when he went on a recon mission into Iraq with Dick Cheney... wtf... why can't/won't anyone realize that OUR MILITARY/CIA/GOVERNMENT supplied this errant information? yeah it sucks that we were wrong... but you can't blame it on a single person... I hate to tell you this but just cause the president changes, that doesn't mean so does the entire Government...

I'm not attacking you, kerry fans, bush fans or rp fans... I simply try to put a little logic into the equasion... Whether it's Bush or Kerry I certainly don't forsee the end of the world or the end of America... I just hope America doesn't back down from what it's supposed to stand for...

btw... I know I screwed up the whole quote thing... I've tried it several times and can't seem to work it... feel free to email or pm me "how to use quotes on rp for dummies"

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Monday Oct 04, 2004

If you think that the "War on Terror" is actually going to stop terrorism like you said in your previous post, then... WAKE UP.

I didn't say that in my post. I said that the idea is to pre-empt terrorists so that we can prevent them from hitting our home soil. I agree, there will probably always be terrorists, but we don't need state-sponsored ones and that's what this is all about. Going after the governments that sponsor terrorists so they have no safe refuge. I can't think of a better way to minimize terrorism. Can you?

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. First of all, the 9/11 commission caught Bush in a lie when he said that he didn't have prior information of an impending attack on US soil. They uncovered that the administration had intelligence up to a year prior to the actual attack......

Now you are making things up. Bush wasn't even in office a year before the attack. Although he had info that al-quaida was planning an attack on U.S. soil, there wasn't a hint of how or when that attack would occur. Nobody had all the facts all in one place. The 9/11 commission confirmed that and also exonerated Bush. That's public knowledge and anything else is pure spin.

I don't pay attention to the spin on TV (except for amusement from both sides) and I'm sick of hearing the Kerry gaff about voting for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Its simple...he voted against it. If you apply the logic that Bush's unknowing relay of incorrect information constitutes a lie, then surely, anything that Kerry says that contradicts his recorded votes in the senate must be considered even more of a lie. You know, whats good for the goose...

...I can stomach a gold-digging Kerry and a left-wing liberal Kerry, but I can't take this new "just to the right of attilla-the-hun" hawkish conservative Kerry. Can you?

Ever since then, there has been a kind of unwritten rule that China will back North Korea, if for no other reason than ... it is on their doorstep.

Yes, that's China's policy for a land invasion of Korea, however, that is not the subject. Since China (and Russia) is "on their doorstep", they are a lot more concerned about N. Korean nuclear proliferation than we are. This is one of the main reasons for allowing Chinese diplomacy to work with Kim first. We are cooperating with China on this issue. I can't think of a better way to handle it. Can you?

Thanks for being kind... I never attacked you and I kind of resent the arrogance in which that statement came across.

Don't take it personally, but there's no sense in addressing comments that aren't actually about an issue. It showed up in the paste and I probably just should have just erased #5 since it was of no interest to me.

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Monday Oct 04, 2004

Sanctify wrote:#1 so trying to stop the terrorists will not work?... I guess we should just let them do what they want?

It's asinine to declare war on abstract nouns. Look at how sucessful the War on Drugs* is. Most people think that destroying symptons will alleviate the cause. Terrorists don't wake up and say, "You know what, I hate those damn Americans and their prosperous capitalistic ways; let's go bomb them." They're retaliating against American foreign policy. (which has been less than kind to many countries) I'm not sympathizing with their plight or trying to justify what they do, but bombing people is not the answer. If we're going to retaliate against everyone who doesn't like us, we're going to be in perpetual war. Most people have a very limited scope of the world and merely see things in the simple sound-bite terms that they witness on MSNBC or CNN. Bush really needs to go down to the community college and take a few sociology courses, because it's obvious that he's clueless about those kind of things.

As far as suscribring to liberal doctrines - If you think the conservatives don't have agendas, think again. They may say "small government", but what they really mean is small government for corporations; they're more than happy to legislate morality, whom you should sleep with, and what you can do with your body.*

*God, I'm a flaming libertarian.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Monday Oct 04, 2004

Please enlighten me... Because I know something too ... Like we have millions and millions of gallons of crude oil in Alaska and Texas that is virtually untouched. Why the hell are we relying on the Middle East when we have the goods here... That is like driving to Maine to get peanut butter when all you have to do is go down the street.

Although that doesn't explain the recent run-up on oil, you hit the nail on the head as far as long-term U.S. foreign oil policy is concerned. Since the 1973 oil embargo, U.S. policy is to use up as much foreign oil as possible as cheaply as possible. Not only does that conserve U.S. reserves, but it serves to deplete middle eastern countries' only power base. If prices remain high, a lot of those reserves will be tapped. Most spot wells in Texas don't make a penny unless the price of oil is at least $30/bbl.

For the shorter term, there were several supply and demand factors that got the price of oil up to $40-$45/bbl.

On the demand side is the industrialization of China and southeast Asia. As of 2003, they became the number 2 consumer of oil in the world. In 1993, they became a net importer of oil and that import number is growing rapidly. This is causing a strain on supply.

On the supply side, oil production is having a problem keeping pace with these new demands. Couple that with disruptions in south america and hurricanes in s.e. U.S. and supply became problematic.

In 2003, during the Iraq war, Iraq oil production dropped to about 1.3 million bbl/day, but has rebounded to pre-war levels of 2.4 million bbl/day. It is hoped that they will ramp up to 1979 pre-Saddam levels of 3.7 million bbl/day, and beyond.

When oil hit $45/bbl and tended to peak there, there was a lot of short selling in the futures contracts. Speculators sold oil they didn't have at $45/bbl, hoping to buy it later at a lower price and pocket the difference. The hurricanes (not you guys, Bobby, lol) put the fix to that, and since then there has been a short-covering frenzy to minimize their losses. That is what's driving the $50 price right now. If this sort of speculation continues, we could hit $60/bbl.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Monday Oct 04, 2004

Terrorists don't wake up and say, "You know what, I hate those damn Americans and their prosperous capitalistic ways; let's go bomb them."

Actually Paul, yes they do. You are correct about the retaliation against U.S. foreign policy...especially the Palestinian/Israel problem, but it goes way beyond that. I have taken soc. classes and yes, even one centering on 3rd world blight brought about by western influence and technology. In the Arab world, the common people live dirt poor (except in Kuwait), but they see and want the same kind of tech marvels that we have in the U.S. They are incredibly jealous of our society and it causes an undertone of resentment towards us. That kind of environment is a breeding ground for terrorists. That was in that soc. class and also on a Discovery channel documentary.

Hey...it looks like Vizitor might go LIVE! Scott, Jesse and I are meeting Friday to talk about making the recording project a live band. Yeah, we'll probably have to do covers...doh!

tornandfrayed · Post by **tornandfrayed** » Monday Oct 04, 2004

I can''t even post about this.

One World, Music can bring people together. But can it bring people together faster then Politics or Religion can tear them apart?

We are a small group of people in the Centeal PA area and agree on very few things. The thought of a world without terrorism is a pipe dream.

I congratulate both candidates for being able to gather the power and resources neccesary to run a successful campaign. I also do not envy them in the least.

I applaud all of you for doing such an eloquent (mostly) job of stating your cases anmd making valid points.

I recently was involved in a study of "Cults and World Religions". I found it wildy amusing that a cult is defined as;

1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

So based on the difnition any religion or group could be considered a cult. Are Republicans and Democrats cults? Hell I don't know, I just know that depending on where you are sitting at the time things can look different.

I also heard a Methodist pastor tell me that the Islam religion is about death and killing. Jihad is not mentioned in the Koran and the Islam faith seems to extol prayer, tithing and love. Again Hell I don't know.

I am not as strong with quotes or as commited to facts as you guys are. I approach politics like I do music, I go from my gut and hate to repeat what has already been done, especially when I didn't really like it that much the first time. Seems like the political debate is a lot like covers , everyone does them because that is what people want to hear. I would like to see a candidate get up there and say "Hell I don;t know but I have few ideas!"

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Tuesday Oct 05, 2004

lonewolf wrote: Hey...it looks like Vizitor might go LIVE! Scott, Jesse and I are meeting Friday to talk about making the recording project a live band. Yeah, we'll probably have to do covers...doh!

Coolness,

You'll have to rock out on Keep Running Away.

ROCKPAGE

Debates !

Debates !

Re: Debates !

I Know

Here goes...