Opinions about the Presidential Debate

[DieTrying]

Wanna hear everybody's thoughts on tonight's debate. I personally think Kerry did a pretty good job, althought it is much easier to criticize than it is to defend..

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Kerry did better than I thought and Bush let too much slide. I was bumbed on Bush's performance for sure. If his people told him to "be above it all" they totally screwed him. Kerry slipped, and Bush let him slide by. I was bothered when Kerry would say something that "I" could have responded to and Bush would just let it go.

Bush started out strong, so if ppl's attention spans are as short as we all assume, he'll come out ok. But, if people held on to the whole debate AND are uneducated on some of the issues, it was bad for Bush.

The one hope there is for Bush is that if the people agreed on the positions he took. I think everyone was expecting slick talking kerry to do well in the debates. So I guess we'll see when the polls come out about a week from now.

Overall, Bush really just need to elaborate on his responses. Some he would elaborate on, we already know about. Other's he'd keep short that he should have educated the public about.

 

[darius]

Here are some polls already:
CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE

Kerry: 53
Bush: 37

CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:

Kerry: 44
Bush: 26
Tie: 30

ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:

Kerry: 45
Bush 36:
Tie: 17


----------------------------------------------------------

Bush is a horrible debater. He was studdering, forgetting what he was saying, and went on and on and on on how Kerry was a flip flopper. His facial expressions were especially funny. I guess it was hard for such an arrogant man to hear the words coming out of Kerry's mouth. Kerry was cool, confident, and spoke very well. Bush rambled. He was nervous, unprepared, and seemed like he didn't really care, in which he should have. Bush beated around the bush lol. Kerry explained his flip flopping-ness and apologized. What I got from it was that he was always strong in his beliefs and they never really changed, it just came out confusing and plus all the negative republican ads made it worse. He explained himself well. Bush kept talking and talking about Iraq like a robot, when Kerry had to remind him each time it wasn't right to go there in the first place. WTF was Bush writing down on his little paper? God only knows.. but he was scribbling on that paper so intensely the whole night lol. Bush totally lost this one. Republicans wont change parites and neither will democrats with something like a debate. Undecided voters, however will. They are slanting to Kerry now.

 

[DougMan]

Yea Kerry definitely gave Bush a run for his money. Bush seemed to think he was so right that it didnt even matter. Kerrys positions arent black and white. Which in the modern day of ignorance is not a good thing. People just want to know what is good and what is bad.I thought he did well in making his case. He got my vote but I was leaning that way anyway. Atleast Kerry will waste money domestically! Plus as a future computer science engineer I cant like how Bush doesnt care about outsourcing. Good for the economy long term my ass!

 

[kwyckemynd00]

.... Kerry was cool, confident, and spoke very well. Bush rambled. He was nervous, unprepared, and seemed like he didn't really care, in which he should have. Bush beated around the bush lol. Kerry explained his flip flopping-ness and apologized. What I got from it was that he was always strong in his beliefs and they never really changed, it just came out confusing and plus all the negative republican ads made it worse. He explained himself well. Bush kept talking and talking about Iraq like a robot, when Kerry had to remind him each time it wasn't right to go there in the first place. WTF was Bush writing down on his little paper? God only knows.. but he was scribbling on that paper so intensely the whole night lol. Bush totally lost this one. Republicans wont change parites and neither will democrats with something like a debate. Undecided voters, however will. They are slanting to Kerry now.

The part I highlighted above is what I worry about. It also, no flame intended, highlighted that you're just a blind kerry follower. Does it seem logical that someone with Kerry's articulation skills could "accidentally" make such a mess with his words over the course of his entire senate career that the republicans could make a case out of his flip-floppedness? In reality that doesn't make any sense. He's just a good liar and a good debator.

I think Bush suffered from too much bad advice as to how to debate this round. I've seen him debate before and when he is "debating" instead of reading talking points he does well. He also made some very good points and flat out busted Kerry on factually incorrect information that he was spewing right there on teh floor. I.E. Sanctions on Iran, Korea, etc. Kerry just weaseled his way out incredibly well. I mean, in just one example, he said that we should have put embargo's on Korea; Bush said we did already; then he said Bush shouldn't have done it unilaterally; Bush laughed and said it was done way before his time in office and they couldn't possibly embargo any more. Stuff like that happened frequently.

Honestly, how stupid does this position sound: Kerry wanted to make sure we have a grand coalition for Iraq, yet he wants bilateral talks between ourselves and korea? WTF is that?

Kerry said many other ridiculous things such as the "pass the international test" and mentioned that we'd make sure we "always" had proper UN approval, etc and Bush either let him slide or came out with quick answer and didn't elaborate. He really missed this one.

I honestly coulndn't believe that Bush was just sitting there and letting some of this stuff go right by him.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

.... Plus as a future computer science engineer I cant like how Bush doesnt care about outsourcing. Good for the economy long term my ass!

I hate to tell you buddy, but you're not going to see any outsourcing reform under Kerry. Heinz outsources 150K jobs and is #2 in the US. Now, I know Teresa and Kerry don't run the show, but they pull weight and could / should put pressure to bring those jobs home, especially since outsourcing is part of his platform.

Kerry is also actively involved in the company; I've seen him in China working deals.

I was goin' the comp sci route myself, but, I may just have to make it a minor now. I"m gonna go to med school. Comp. Sci. is to uncertain ATM. Plus, programmers are putting themselves out of business. The more sophistaced the languages they create the less educated the programmers have to be. pretty soon there will be an elite few and the rest of the filed will be like those web designers and photoshopers. Just MHO.

 

[darius]

No, I understand Kerry quite well, its just sorta hard to explain and it makes him SEEM flippy floppy.

Kerry carries some wisdom.. Bush, seriously lacks that. Kerry vows to strengthen and grow our U.S. Special Forces and use them specifically for terrorists (which is a great idea). It takes time to grow peaceful relations. The middle east hates us because they have a misunderstanding of us. We hate them because we have a misunderstanding of them. The media is partially to blame on BOTH sides. You cannot fight terrorism with bullets and expect it to go away any time soon unless you plan on killing EVERYONE associated with it, all the way from the people who make up propaganda and tie it in with Islam to those who carry the ak47. That is just not going to work. Look at Nam.. our first "terrorist" war. We were getting owned. We called a victory and got the **** out. Why? Cause nobody knows how to fight terrorists. You cannot fight terrorists with bullets. The misunderstanding needs to be broken.. and peace NEEDS to be made. AT THE SAME TIME, we cannot sit back and get shot up by them. Kerry knows this and it is what makes him seem like a flip flop. Nobody said it was going to be easy. They hate us more for pulling **** like Iraq. If we mind our own businesses, have respectful foreign affairs, allies that actually like us, and work on destroying the misunderstanding, it will be way more benefical for our future, even if it takes a long ass time. Remember if you wanna fight them, you gotta kill them all. We all know thats impossible. Kerry is doing what is best for the future. Fighting terrorism with terrorism has proven quite nicely to not work but actually explode the situation more.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

No, I understand Kerry quite well, its just sorta hard to explain and it makes him SEEM flippy floppy.

I can explain it for you if you'd like.

Kerry carries some wisdom.. Bush, seriously lacks that. Kerry vows to strengthen and grow our U.S. Special Forces and use them specifically for terrorists (which is a great idea).

How's he gonna grow the armed forces? Do you seriously believe that we're turning down soldiers or something? We're soaking them up like a super-sponge. They're trying to get every person they can!

Use them specifically for terrorism? The guy's an idiot (Kerry); all he talked about when he mentioned terrorism was Afghanistan. Not to mention he repeatedly misled that that is where UBL is. All of the experts are in agreement that he is most likely in Pakistan. Not to mention those "resources" that were supposedly diverted to Iraq "were not". (That according to Gen. Tommy Franks tonight!) The only thing that was diverted were funds that were not needed in Afghanistan, and Gen Tommy Franks said most of which was replinished!

It takes time to grow peaceful relations. The middle east hates us because they have a misunderstanding of us.

No, they hate us becaue they are ruled by a crazy Islamic Theocracies and dictatorships who teach hate of "infidels" and the western world from their first breaths. Their school are all about a twisted version of Islam.

We hate them because we have a misunderstanding of them.

No, we hate them because a) some of their radicals blew us up and b) there was a great majority of their people dancing in the streets handing out candy when our people died!

The media is partially to blame on BOTH sides.

Yeah, the partial side is the complete cover up of the depth of the hate, evil, etc. that resides in fundamentalist islam. They also play down the severity of the situation of it over there and they blame us for most of their problems!!

You cannot fight terrorism with bullets

You can't? What they hell else are you supposed to do? You have two choices: 1) kill 'em 2) convert to Islam.

and expect it to go away any time soon unless you plan on killing EVERYONE associated with it, all the way from the people who make up propaganda and tie it in with Islam to those who carry the ak47.

It's not Islam? Who is it then? Educate me.

That is just not going to work. Look at Nam.. our first "terrorist" war.

That wasn't a terrorist war. That was a war against communist in an effort to free south Vietnam and we had our hands tied politically; the only similarity is the guerilla warfare.

We were getting owned. We called a victory and got the **** out.

Owned? IF you talk numbers we worked them. In fact, a Vietnamese General wrote a book on how he was about to throw in the towel and "specifically" John Kerry and Jane Fonda inspired him to keep fighting....We could have run that who place over militarily in no time. We didn't; thank you left-wing, PC, weenies!!

Why? Cause nobody knows how to fight terrorists. You cannot fight terrorists with bullets.

I agree; bombs are more suitable.

The misunderstanding needs to be broken..

The misunderstanding that needs to be broken is that beaurocracy can fix any terrorism.

and peace NEEDS to be made. AT THE SAME TIME, we cannot sit back and get shot up by them.

We finally agree

Kerry knows this and it is what makes him seem like a flip flop.

How does it do that?

Nobody said it was going to be easy. They hate us more for pulling **** like Iraq. If we mind our own businesses, have respectful foreign affairs, allies that actually like us, and work on destroying the misunderstanding, it will be way more benefical for our future, even if it takes a long ass time. Remember if you wanna fight them, you gotta kill them all. We all know thats impossible. Kerry is doing what is best for the future. Fighting terrorism with terrorism has proven quite nicely to not work but actually explode the situation more.

We dont need to kill them, we need to destroy the mechanism which creates them; i.e. Fundamentalist Islamic Theocracies and Dictatoriships! Freedom and truth will free them from ignorant hate. I'd like to see someone try to sit down and talk with UBL or Al-Zarqawi...they'd just get their damn head cut off....

 

[darius]

Well fighting just makes them more mad/agressive/out for our blood. If you wanna play your game, you better load up alot of bullets and bombs and be prepared to kill almost everyone on that side of the world including tons of innocent people. Do you believe in God? If you do, you should know that man will be held responsible for his actions here. Bombing the **** out of some country that has many innocent people and a few terrorists scattered isn't exactly ethical. I guess thats the difference between Bush and Kerry. With Bush, its war only. With Kerry, its war, but also the ideology to fix things at the roots. You just have to decide who you wanna vote for, and in your case, its obvious.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Will fighting just makes them more mad/agressive/out for our blood. If you wanna play your game, you better load up alot of bullets and bombs and be prepared to kill almost everyone on that side of the world including tons of innocent people. Do you believe in God? If you do, you should know that man will be held responsible for his actions here.

I'll leave the judgement to God and not yourself.

Bombing the **** out of some country that has many innocent people and a few terrorists scattered isn't exactly ethical.

No, it's not. That's why we need to make these governments work with us.

I guess thats the difference between Bush and Kerry. With Bush, its war only. With Kerry, its war, but also the ideology to fix things at the roots. You just have to decide who you wanna vote for, and in your case, its obvious.

Fix things at the root? That's the whole ideology behind the importance (outside of WMD's) of Iraq! Fixing it at the root! The root of this probem is these governments in the Middle East who breed these terrorists!! There are already reformers in Iran that really want to kick the existing theorcracies! If Iraq and Afghanistan are successful democracies it will spread. These people will rise up and they will have supportive neighbors as well America on their side! I'd like you to hold me to my words over the next couple decades. I'd guarantee my words with fingernails

 

[size]

Thought you guys might find this interesting:
KERRY CLAIMS HE'S "NEVER, EVER" USED WORD "LYING" IN REFERENCE TO PRESIDENT BUSH ON IRAQ. JIM LEHRER: "New question, Senator Kerry. Two minutes. You've repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before, of not telling the truth about Iraq. Essentially, of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth." SEN. KERRY: "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word as you just did." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

BUT IN DECEMBER 2003, KERRY TOLD NEW HAMPSHIRE EDITORIAL BOARD BUSH "LIED" ABOUT REASON FOR GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ. "Kerry also told a New Hampshire newspaper editorial board Friday that Bush had 'lied' about his reasons for going to war in Iraq, a word Kerry has been reluctant to use publicly for months. Yesterday he said he did not plan to use the word again." (Patrick Healy, "Kerry Camp Lowers N.H. Expectations Behind In Polls, Senator Now Seeks Spot In 'Top Two,'" The Boston Globe, 12/8/03)

AND IN SEPTEMBER 2003, KERRY SAID BUSH ADMINISTRATION "LIED" AND "MISLED." "This administration has lied to us. They have misled us. And they have broken their promises to us. The president promised to the people and the Congress that he would build an international coalition, respect the United Nations' process and only go to war as a last resort. I will tell you that from my war fighting experience, I believe there is a test for a president as to how you go to war. And that test is whether or not you can look in the eyes of parents and say to them, 'I did everything possible to avoid the loss of your son and daughter, but we had no other choice in order to protect the security of our nation,' and I know this president fails that test in Iraq."

Remark from Lockhart:
Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.�

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Thought you guys might find this interesting:

KERRY CLAIMS HE'S "NEVER, EVER" USED WORD "LYING" IN REFERENCE TO PRESIDENT BUSH ON IRAQ. JIM LEHRER: "New question, Senator Kerry. Two minutes. You've repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before, of not telling the truth about Iraq. Essentially, of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth." SEN. KERRY: "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word as you just did." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

BUT IN DECEMBER 2003, KERRY TOLD NEW HAMPSHIRE EDITORIAL BOARD BUSH "LIED" ABOUT REASON FOR GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ. "Kerry also told a New Hampshire newspaper editorial board Friday that Bush had 'lied' about his reasons for going to war in Iraq, a word Kerry has been reluctant to use publicly for months. Yesterday he said he did not plan to use the word again." (Patrick Healy, "Kerry Camp Lowers N.H. Expectations Behind In Polls, Senator Now Seeks Spot In 'Top Two,'" The Boston Globe, 12/8/03)

AND IN SEPTEMBER 2003, KERRY SAID BUSH ADMINISTRATION "LIED" AND "MISLED." "This administration has lied to us. They have misled us. And they have broken their promises to us. The president promised to the people and the Congress that he would build an international coalition, respect the United Nations' process and only go to war as a last resort. I will tell you that from my war fighting experience, I believe there is a test for a president as to how you go to war. And that test is whether or not you can look in the eyes of parents and say to them, 'I did everything possible to avoid the loss of your son and daughter, but we had no other choice in order to protect the security of our nation,' and I know this president fails that test in Iraq."

Remark from Lockhart:
Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.�

Great post You're helping expose the d*ck for what he is.

This is very reassuring. People are more intelligent that I though

Poll: Kerry tops Bush in debate

But Bush gets nod for believability, toughness


Link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.poll/

So let me get this straight? People actually picked it up like I did? Kerry's BS sounded really good, but they knew it was BS? There is hope for America!!! :thumbsup:

 

[Physicist]

Honestly, how stupid does this position sound: Kerry wanted to make sure we have a grand coalition for Iraq, yet he wants bilateral talks between ourselves and korea? WTF is that?

You noticed that too? I was sitting at home thinking the same as you, WTF!!, make up your mind Kerry!!

How's he gonna grow the armed forces? Do you seriously believe that we're turning down soldiers or something? We're soaking them up like a super-sponge. They're trying to get every person they can!

They're still kicking out fags as fast as they can find them, about 10,000 over the past 5 years. I'm pretty sure a liberal like Kerry would try to change that. (One of my old roommates used it to get out of the military, he's straight, but he's pretty good at pretending.)

 

[kwyckemynd00]

You noticed that too? I was sitting at home thinking the same as you, WTF!!, make up your mind Kerry!!

Glad I"m not the only one who noticed

They're still kicking out fags as fast as they can find them, about 10,000 over the past 5 years. I'm pretty sure a liberal like Kerry would try to change that.

I'm still undecided on whether or not that's a good or bad thing. I can see that it would be hard for the straight guys in there, but it wouldn't bother me, honestly.

(One of my old roommates used it to get out of the military, he's straight, but he's pretty good at pretending.)

Maybe he's just pretending he's straight I'd check yoru bathroom for cameras and mirrors!

 

[NPursuit]

I'll let you guys continue breaking it all down. All I have to say is, if I were an uneducated, undecided voter my vote would be going to Kerry right now. Bush really needs to learn debate tactics. He backed up very little, and I was embarassed for him.

 

[Funny Monkey]

Bush could of done better but I thought that he was speaking from his heart where as Kerry was just being slick.

My friend that was over here was undecided and now he is voting for Bush. He like the part where Bush said we need to be strong and steadfast and stay on the offense.

I thoughth that Kerry changed his position on Iraq in the midst of the debate and I though this opinion on Korea was also contradictory to his thoughts on Iraq but I dunno I am just a kid this is my first election that I have watched closely

 

[CDB]

Something to consider is who each candidate was trying to appeal to, which voters each wanted. Kerry went into the debate seriously behind Bush on defense issues and a base of voters that's split on the issue. He didn't just have to rationalize his previous wandering positions, which while not a bad thing, people can change their minds, did happen. He had to do that and convince people who were flat out not for him on the issue that his position was the correct one. Bush did a good job, not a great one, of pointing out his inconsistencies. The war is a grand diversion and a mistake, but we're gonna get more countries involved. I don't think it's possible for him to lead not only our own troops but other countries in a military action against which he has voiced serious opposition. Bush also called him out on factual mistakes, listed above by other posters. When Kerry said there was no coalition Bush jumped on him and then he had to back off and say there was a coalition, just not the grand one we were promised. All in all, Kerry went in on the attack but when all was said and done scored very few solid points.

Bush on the other hand has a solid voting base for the most part. Republicans that are pissed with him are either Buchannan types on foreign policy or just annoyed at the ballooning national budget. He's done enough domestically to appease them I think. He had to appeal to people who were undecided about this critical issue. Had he been on the attack, he would have alienated people. He put forward reasonable, practical ideas. Some points in his favor: factual mistakes Kerry made on Iran and Korea; inconsistent approach to axis of evil states; foggy plans on what exactly to do (like it or not, Bush's plan of find them and kill them is simple and direct); believing the same thing Bush believed based on prewar intelligence and then changing position afterward, which is convenient for a senator but not something the president can do; that in a country like Iraq where they were cutting off people's hands not too long ago you don't just say "democracy" and magically have it be so; that setting an arbitrary pull out date is unrealistic, pulling out as the Iraqis are able to take on the security responsibilities themselves is more realistic and reasonable.

All in all, when it comes to appealing to the voters each of them wanted to get I'd call it a tie. Kerry did a reasonable job with his first priority of solidifying his base. Democrats who previously were iffy on him, or that were pissed about his lack of strategy and coherent message will find enough here to justify voting for him. Undecided voters are another story. He sounded slick, but he had to back off too many times and screwed up too many factual issues which will shake out post debate and have to be dealt with.

Bush while inarticulate sounded reasonable. The reasonableness will appeal to people, the inarticulateness won't, it's that simple. Had he tried less to speak memorized responses and offerred more off the cuff responses he'd have done a lot better. Despite what the left says he's a smart guy with good instincts. He was a pilot, you don't get to fly a jet if you're a flat out moron as many suggest he is. He offerred a more nuanced approach to foreign policy on most issues than I think Democrats expected, but kept a hard line on terrorism. He just didn't speak too well overall and that's what hurt him most.

 

[houseman]

They're still kicking out fags as fast as they can find them, about 10,000 over the past 5 years. I'm pretty sure a liberal like Kerry would try to change that.

That has to be about the most ignorant statement I have read in a very long time.

Good to see some of us still live in the 50's! :thumbsup:

(One of my old roommates used it to get out of the military, he's straight, but he's pretty good at pretending.)

:think:

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I'll let you guys continue breaking it all down. All I have to say is, if I were an uneducated, undecided voter my vote would be going to Kerry right now. Bush really needs to learn debate tactics. He backed up very little, and I was embarassed for him.

That's my principal concern...

 

[CDB]

That has to be about the most ignorant statement I have read in a very long time.
Good to see some of us still live in the 50's!

We keep men and women seperate in the army for a reason. I don't doubt gays want to fight as bad as straights, don't doubt their ability to do so, aside from an aesthetic opinion I personally think they and everyone else should be allowed to screw in the streets if they want. Doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, it's none of my business or the government's.

However, most straight guys probably wouldn't feel comfortable showering with gay guys, just as most men and women, once the novelty factor blew over, wouldn't prefer showering together, and I guarantee their commanders would find it to be a logistical nightmare. There's matters of privacy and discipline involved, not easily solved either.

 

[DougMan]

I hate to tell you buddy, but you're not going to see any outsourcing reform under Kerry. Heinz outsources 150K jobs and is #2 in the US. Now, I know Teresa and Kerry don't run the show, but they pull weight and could / should put pressure to bring those jobs home, especially since outsourcing is part of his platform.

Kerry is also actively involved in the company; I've seen him in China working deals.

I was goin' the comp sci route myself, but, I may just have to make it a minor now. I"m gonna go to med school. Comp. Sci. is to uncertain ATM. Plus, programmers are putting themselves out of business. The more sophistaced the languages they create the less educated the programmers have to be. pretty soon there will be an elite few and the rest of the filed will be like those web designers and photoshopers. Just MHO.

I am at Michigan, number 7 in the nation for CE/CSE... I am in the elite (And most ahead of us dont put out that many engineers in terms of numbers, except that damn UCB) I am interested to see where you got that 150K number, I do believe it though. But even if Kerry stopped the loss of even 1 job, that would be an improvement over Bush.

I disagree with your statement about programmers putting themselves out of business. 80% of the cost in software is maintenance.

If I seem arrogant its a reaction to people talking down to me saying things like "hate to tell you buddy". And I hate to tell you buddy, but insurance costs are killing doctors around the nation. Not to mention its becoming harder and harder to even get into med school. But now I am stating the obvious.

People say going to Michigan has makes you liberal, not at all. I am still republican, but I dont believe a thing Bush says. If what he said was true I would definitely vote for him... but he consistenly contradicts the facts. Kerry may suck, but Bush has already proven that he does. Unless you are in the armed services and like war, then its FOUR MORE YEARS!

 

[DougMan]

I am looking forward to the debate on domestic issues. Shoddy border security, outsourcing, tax cuts while waging war, corporate scandals... Kerry should have a field day.

 

[jarhead]

I'm not a huge bush guy but kerry sits on both sides of every fence it seems. Ex.- last night he criticized bush for not involving other countries when dealing with iraq and then turns around and criticizes him for having 6 countries involved in the talks with korea. Just like serving in the war and then coming home and calling his fellow soldiers "monsters." His whole stance on iraq is the same way, and it's easy to look back on things and say "i could have done better " which is a huge part of his campaign, but he has yet to give SOLID, significantly different view on what he would have done. bush has gone thru things that No other american president has had to deal with. unless you're president at the time of 9/11 etc., who can honestly say FOR SURE exactly how they would have handled these things, considering the emotions that were involved. I know I was deeply affected, and I don't have the incredible burden of being the president of the United States of America. That's why ,to me ,some of kerry's points are complete b.s. The sad thing is, I honestly believe kerry could have won this election hands down if he had focused his campaign on what he CAN do for this country instead of what he did in vietnam, especially since alot of veterans consider him a backstabber after the way he handled himself when he got back from the war. But all this is moot in my opinion anyway. We will never have a president that is TRULY for the people until there is a major reform of the government. How can a guy who has millions of dollars relate to the average guy making 30 grand a year, trying to support a family? But that's another subject all together.

 

[CDB]

Kerry's problem is that up until now he has focussed almost exclusively on the message "I would have done better knowing what we know now." I guess unlike Bush, Kerry has a time machine so he can go back and correct mistakes. It's easy to look at an admittedly less than perfect operation over in Iraq and say, "I would have done better." He didn't. With very few exceptions he agreed with Bush at the beginning of this thing. He has yet to lay out a cohesive plan of what he's going to do now, although he touched on that a bit last night. If he shifts further to a past is the past, let's concentrate on the future message, he'd do better. If he stopped blaming Bush and admit he would have basically done the same thing as Bush up to a point, he'd do a lot better. He'd completely disarm Bush of the "flip flop" charge by doing that because people can change their mind when presented with a changed scenario, but they can't go back in time and do things differently.

Bush's problem is he's an inarticulate tree stump, pure and simple. He's got a plan, it's reasonable, it's far from ideal and I ain't voting for him or Kerry because I think they're both full of crap. But overall I think when Bush's point of view is sold by an effective speaker it's the more attractive, reasonable and consistent approach.

As an aside, both Bush and Kerry are idiots economically speaking. If you want to stop outsourcing you have to make it more attractive to do business here than elsewhere without raising the overall costs. People overseas are delivering a more acceptable product at a better price, plain and simple. Any attempt to deal with that in any way other than reducing restrictions and costs here overall will lead to more problems down the line. There's a reason why people aren't outsourcing to Africa, which has some of the lowest wage rates on the planet. It's because those areas have costs that need to be accounted for that are worse than the US, like lack of security, unofficial taxes (bribes) that need to be paid, and rampant corruption. We need to cut taxes, reduce the costs of entry into the market and the costs of doing business, and we need to do this without subsidization that merely shifts the costs instead of eliminating them. Reduce the costs and businesses will stay here and thrive, raise them or rearrange them and things will get worse.

 

[size]

An individual is capable of saying alot but actually says very little. Kerry seemed to fit that statement. Kerry certainly looked and sounded better. However, one needs to question what exactly was stated.

Info on day of debate:
Kerry spent time getting a manicure at a spa
Bush spent the day interacting with hurricane victims

 

[jarhead]

One thing I liked is when Bush was asked the question about Kerry's character. He said he admired his service to his country and complimented Kerry and his family on other things. I think that takes a man to acknowledge the things he did when this campaign has been as rough and personal as it has. I mean whether you like him or agree with his policies or not, Bush didn't become president to TRY and screw things up. Trying to deal with the events of the last couple of years had to be hard enough and all the while to have your main oponent calling you a liar and thrashing everything you've done during your presisdency would cause alot of people to handle it differently.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Kerry carries some wisdom.. Bush, seriously lacks that. Kerry vows to strengthen and grow our U.S. Special Forces and use them specifically for terrorists (which is a great idea).

How is he going to strengthen the military when he voted against the 87 billion and has a voting record of voting against the military?

Kerry explained his flip flopping-ness and apologized.

No he didn't. In fact he lied again. Kerry's first statement was that he made the I voted for it before I voted against it statement at a might night rally. Guess what? he made the statement at noon. He also didn't explain very well why his positions have changed in Iraq. At first Sadam was a threat , Then knowing what he knows now he would still have voted for the authorization, even though we didn't find WMD's Sadam still should have been removed. Now he said that the whole war was a mistake and implied that we should have left Sadam in power. He can't explain the flip flops because he is a flip flopper. Kerry's problem is no matter what he said or says in future debates he has had the opposite position at one point.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Despite the poll numbers. The American people know that Bush is a horrible debater and frequently stumbles over his own words. We know what to expect with Bush. It's not like they were expecting him to be articulate and got up there and stuttered the whole debate. All Bush has to do is run out the clock. Kerry has to score a hail marry at one of the debates. He needs to have a moment that makes bush look horrible like Dan Quale had when his opponent said I knew JFK and your no JFK. Did Kerry perform better? Yes but that's not enough. Kerry didn't explain his Flipping positions or spell out what he would do different in Iraq. Which he reaqlly needed to do. His position is still he can get the support of the UN even though they were getting paid off by Sadam. Also the French prime minister just said no matter who gets elected they aren't sending troops or money.

 

[jweave23]

I love how the right makes excuses for Bush. We've set the bar so low that as long as he looks one step above a primate, that's actually acceptable, according to them

 

[goes4ever]

They're still kicking out fags as fast as they can find them, about 10,000 over the past 5 years. I'm pretty sure a liberal like Kerry would try to change that. (One of my old roommates used it to get out of the military, he's straight, but he's pretty good at pretending.)

yep you are correct, Kerry wants the gays in the military to be open about being homo

Gay and lesbian issues
Kerry: Opposes same-sex marriages but also opposes a constitutional amendment to ban them. Supports recognition of civil unions to extend all federal benefits to same-sex couples. Kerry sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which bans job discrimination against homosexuals. Supports including gays and lesbians in the protections of the Federal Hate Crimes Law. Supports repealing the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

 

[jarhead]

In response to jweave's lastcomment-And i love how kerry's supporters overlook the fact that he's a war hero, yet came back and protested the war, calling his fellow soldiers monsters. If he won't stand beside and defend his own brothers in arms who are responsible for protecting and supporting each other during combat, what the hell is he gonna do as president? He'll just take whatever stance on an issue that's popular at the time in order to help him get elected. Nothing solid, just fluff. Bush might not be an elegant speaker, OR the best president we've had, but at least we know where he stands on important issues.

 

[houseman]

And i love how kerry's supporters overlook the fact that he's a war hero, yet came back and protested the war, calling his fellow soldiers monsters. If he won't stand beside and defend his own brothers in arms who are responsible for protecting and supporting each other during combat, what the hell is he gonna do as president? He'll just take whatever stance on an issue that's popular at the time in order to help him get elected. Nothing solid, just fluff. Bush might not be an elegant speaker, OR the best president we've had, but at least we know where he stands on important issues.

Bullshit.

Here's a guy who WENT to war of his own accord and based on what he felt, obviously, was justifable reasoning given to him by his own Government. He gets over there only to learn that he's there under flase pretenses and for no real purpose or reasoning.

Would you not say that HE has every single right to do and say what he wants about the war when he got back? I give him credit for actually standing up for what he learned to be wrong.

That's just my take on it. I realize others have a different opinion and he should have kept his mouth shut.

 

[CDB]

I love how the right makes excuses for Bush. We've set the bar so low that as long as he looks one step above a primate, that's actually acceptable, according to them

And the left doesn't do the same for Kerry? All partisan spinmasters are full of ****. I'm not voting for either one, I have no care in the world about either one. I'm voting Libertarian, and their policy is probably to execute a swift pull out without regard for the consequences that follow. They are strict noninterventionists. In the end Bush has not only been more consistent, he makes more sense if you believe in some type of interventionism. Kerry wants to focus the war back on UBL, but somehow still wants to make winning in Iraq a priority. He wants to fund the troops, but voted against the funding as a protest vote. He would have done a lot of things differently knowing what he knows now, but he can't go back in time so it's a pointless exercise, and actually self defeating since his position used to be so close to the president's.

 

[synesta]

Actually I can't believe these two are the best our country can produce for the presidency. You have one that can't make up his mind, and the other who says "the wrong place at the wrong time" would look bad, so keep dying for the sake of the appearance of the President's ability to make wise decisions. I found neither one a "slick talker".

 

[jarhead]

houseman-It's not bullshit. There were many soldiers/Marines who served over there HONORABLY, yet kerry blanketed them all with the term "monster." It has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the war and that wasn't my point. Yeah he had the right to protest the war but at the expense of dishonoring the people he served with to advance his political aspirations? class act. He could have singled out specific units or troops to throw his acussations at and still protested the war. But at that time he separated himself from them declaring them "monsters", and this while admitting to commiting attrocities himself! And he wants to run a campaign based on his honorable service? F him. Isn't also a big coincidence that at the time the popular stance was anti war? hmm. I'm not just pulling this **** out of my ass, watch those senate hearings or read the transcripts and you'll see kerry say it himself. To me that's a huge character issue. I'm not totally pro bush either by the way.

 

[houseman]

houseman-It's not bullshit. There were many soldiers/Marines who served over there HONORABLY, yet kerry blanketed them all with the term "monster." It has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the war and that wasn't my point. Yeah he had the right to protest the war but at the expense of dishonoring the people he served with to advance his political aspirations? class act. And isn't it a big coincidence that at the time the popular stance was anti-war. HMM. I'm not pulling this out of my ass- watch the senate hearings or read the transcripts and you'll see kerry say it himself. To me that's a huge character issue. I'm not totally pro bush either by the way.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Kerry also serve honorably?

Perhaps he was attemting to further his political aspirations. I don't know. I've heard an interview between him and Mike Wallace (I beleive) at the time where he specifically said he had no Presidental aspirations at that time.

I'm not saying what he did was RIGHT, I'm just saying it was his right, if he felt, to argue against the war and the reasons behind it because after all... he HAD served.

That's all.

Personally, I think both Bush and Kerry are idiots.

 

[jarhead]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Kerry also serve honorably?

Perhaps he was attemting to further his political aspirations. I don't know. I've heard an interview between him and Mike Wallace (I beleive) at the time where he specifically said he had no Presidental aspirations at that time.

I'm not saying what he did was RIGHT, I'm just saying it was his right, if he felt, to argue against the war and the reasons behind it because after all... he HAD served.

That's all.

Personally, I think both Bush and Kerry are idiots.

I absolutely agree with you that it was his right to protest. It's just some of the things he did that are upsetting. Where's Ross Perot when you need him?:thumbsup:

 

[jboogie]

houseman-It's not bullshit. There were many soldiers/Marines who served over there HONORABLY, yet kerry blanketed them all with the term "monster." It has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the war and that wasn't my point.

Let's cut the horseshit and look at the actual quote, shall we?

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn’t know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned With a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

As a veteran and one who feels this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

So, for those of you without critical reading skills, he's using the word "monster" to describe an awful epidimic of traumatized veterans caused by the US government entering them into a meaningless war.

This "monster" is veterans who are pissed off at the US government for their perceived betrayal. Notice that Kerry includes himself in this group. He's saying that they are a monsterous force to be reckoned with, because they're mad as hell, not going to take it anymore, etc. etc.

Let me repeat. He is not describing Vietnam vets as inhuman psychopathic monsters who should be shot. He's describing them as a pissed off force angry at the government, and who will take action against that government and expose how meaningless a war Vietnam is. (Hey, perhaps by testifying in front of senate committees, even?)

 

[jarhead]

Let's cut the horseshit and look at the actual quote, shall we?




So, for those of you without critical reading skills, he's using the word "monster" to describe an awful epidimic of traumatized veterans caused by the US government entering them into a meaningless war.

This "monster" is veterans who are pissed off at the US government for their perceived betrayal. Notice that Kerry includes himself in this group. He's saying that they are a monsterous force to be reckoned with, because they're mad as hell, not going to take it anymore, etc. etc.

Let me repeat. He is not describing Vietnam vets as inhuman psychopathic monsters who should be shot. He's describing them as a pissed off force angry at the government, and who will take action against that government and expose how meaningless a war Vietnam is. (Hey, perhaps by testifying in front of senate committees, even?)

thanks for the" enlightenment", but that's not the only time he used that term. And your quote is not the only time he talked about what he saw in vietnam. put your "critical reading skills" as you say to use reading quotes other than picking and choosing the one's that defend kerry if you want to call bullshit. Oh and he has also referred to them as "drug addicted baby killers and mindless drones." How are you gonna spin that one?

 

[jboogie]

thanks for the" enlightenment", but that's not the only time he used that term. And your quote is not the only time he talked about what he saw in vietnam. put your "critical reading skills" as you say to use reading quotes other than picking and choosing the one's that defend kerry if you want to call bullshit.

Then please, by all means, supply some direct quotes from Kerry to back your position. I see you've provided one:

Oh and he has also referred to them as "drug addicted baby killers and mindless drones." How are you gonna spin that one?

I don't have to spin it. I can't find any source attributing kerry to that quote. I can, however, find who actually said it:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/kerry.vietnam/

"He was the father of the lie that the Vietnam veteran was a rapist, a baby killer, a drug addict and the like," said John O'Neill, who served in the same Navy patrol unit where Kerry served and who sparred with him on national TV during the tumult of 1971.

So, actually, someone who was pissed about his senate appearance said it. Kerry never did.

Here's what appears to be full text of Kerry's senate hearing. Feel free to quote more stuff out of context, and I will refute it providing sources and the original transcript:

http://southerncrossreview.org/36/editorial2.htm

 

[Funny Monkey]

^^ Yup the military should NOT be an equal opportunity employer^^

 

[jarhead]

Then please, by all means, supply some direct quotes from Kerry to back your position. I see you've provided one:



I don't have to spin it. I can't find any source attributing kerry to that quote. I can, however, find who actually said it:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/kerry.vietnam/



So, actually, someone who was pissed about his senate appearance said it. Kerry never did.

Here's what appears to be full text of Kerry's senate hearing. Feel free to quote more stuff out of context, and I will refute it providing sources and the original transcript:

http://southerncrossreview.org/36/editorial2.htm

dude get a grip, that's a similar quote, not the same one.It was not even said in 1971.Itook nothing out of context. Just because someone says something similar you think kerry didn't say it? And yes kerry did say what i quoted, hence the quotation marks. The one's that i mentioned are just a FEW of his quotes.There is even AUDIO of kerry saying these types of things. Type in the words kerry and vietnam into any search engine and you will have plenty of quotes to "refute. " So you can stop with the whole "i'm smarter than you act." Again, I'm not an avid bush supporter, but i am a veteran, and have relatives who served in vietnam and are still paying for it, and if you choose to turn a blind eye to what kerry has done, that's your choice. The "transcripts" you provide aren't the ones that i was talking about so how do you think you're "refuting" anything? I'm not recruiting Bush voters and have nothing to gain by bringing this stuff up, but the truth is the truth and to SOME people that's important, especially when it comes to politics.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Kerry exceeded expectation.
Bush did not.
Kerry didn't win any Bush votes.
The Ultimate question: Did he change your mind? Are you going to vote for John F. Kerry now? Or he is a decent speaker?

 

[goes4ever]

Kerry won't do the simple of thing to signing the form to release his military record. Why not? Bush has released his and the democrats say he is the one who is "stonewalling."


Subject: Kerry's Discharge
The enclosed brings up a new issue. I had noticed that his discharge was dated in 2001 but didn't think much about it. The enclosed raises some interesting aspects.

"Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore, while Kerry has adamantly refused to authorize the release of his military records. Most think it's because of his phony battle medals. I think the real reason is below. He was not granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after his ostensible service term had ended! This is very much out of the ordinary, and highly suspect.

There are 5 classes of Discharge: Honorable, General, Other Than Honorable, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable. My guess is that he was Discharged in the '70s, but not Honorably. He appealed this sometime while Clinton was doing trouser-tricks in the Oval Office. Political pressure was applied, and the Honorable Discharge was then granted. His file is probably rife with reports of this, submissions and hearings on the appeal, reports of his "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy, along with protests that were filed with respect to his alleged valor under fire.

This will blow up in his face before October 15th.

===============================================================

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for 6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & #5).

Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training.

Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war. It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.

Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year."

On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.

Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released?

Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?

On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve - Inactive.

On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.

3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.

4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.

5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.



Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution! 's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No personshall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath tosupport the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL SEAL Authentication Team -Director AuthentiSEAL Phone 707 438 0120 "The only service where all investigators are US Navy SEALs"

Chuck Klusmann

[email protected]

1065 Chandelle Lake Dr.

Pensacola, Fl. 32507

Home (850) 492-5806

Cell (850) 723-0804

 

[Nullifidian]

goes4ever, and you Bush supporters claim negative talk on Bush is liberal propoganda? What you posted is the biggest steaming pile of rightwing bull#### propoganda I've ever seen.

 

[jboogie]

dude get a grip, that's a similar quote, not the same one.It was not even said in 1971.Itook nothing out of context. Just because someone says something similar you think kerry didn't say it? And yes kerry did say what i quoted, hence the quotation marks.

Which is it? Is it a "similar quote", or is it "kerry did say what I quoted"? Are you flip-flopping?

The one's that i mentioned are just a FEW of his quotes.There is even AUDIO of kerry saying these types of things. Type in the words kerry and vietnam into any search engine and you will have plenty of quotes to "refute. "

Actually, I have done just that, I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about. Please send me a link. I'm ready to see the light.

So you can stop with the whole "i'm smarter than you act." Again, I'm not an avid bush supporter, but i am a veteran, and have relatives who served in vietnam and are still paying for it, and if you choose to turn a blind eye to what kerry has done, that's your choice.

What did he do again? Find me the quotes your talking about.

The "transcripts" you provide aren't the ones that i was talking about so how do you think you're "refuting" anything? I'm not recruiting Bush voters and have nothing to gain by bringing this stuff up, but the truth is the truth and to SOME people that's important, especially when it comes to politics.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=refute

Actually, I have directly "refuted" the quotes that you have erroneously attributed to Kerry by providing explaination and sources. You accuse me of quoting things out of context, while I have actually quoted things in context to correctly explain why Kerry used the word "monsters" to describe Vietnam vets.

You can continue calling me an asshole and telling me how stupid I am, or you can send me to a web page that will prove what I'm saying is wrong. I leave it in your hands which course of action to follow, but I'm not going to keep arguing with your baseless acusations. Why do I have to be the one to do all the research? Perhaps you should take this opportunity to educate yourself about the facts that you claim to care so much about.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Bush has many weaknesses.
The Democrats nominated a complete loser to try and beat him.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I am at Michigan, number 7 in the nation for CE/CSE... I am in the elite (And most ahead of us dont put out that many engineers in terms of numbers, except that damn UCB) I am interested to see where you got that 150K number, I do believe it though. But even if Kerry stopped the loss of even 1 job, that would be an improvement over Bush.

Yes, it would be an imporvement if there was one saved job, but I"m just saying that it's not going to happen outside of rhetoric. Here's the 150,000 job citation: http://www.c-n.com/news/c-n/story/0,2111,1040788,00.html

I disagree with your statement about programmers putting themselves out of business. 80% of the cost in software is maintenance.

I understand the costs, but I'm just saying that as the programming languages get less difficult to use, the less educated the users must be to make programs. Now, I'm not talking assembly level, or lower code. I'm talking run of the mill programs will be made with HTML-ease. But, I'll concede my opinion, b/c you've more insight on the matter.

If I seem arrogant its a reaction to people talking down to me saying things like "hate to tell you buddy". And I hate to tell you buddy, but insurance costs are killing doctors around the nation. Not to mention its becoming harder and harder to even get into med school. But now I am stating the obvious.

I'm fully aware of the way things are going for medical school. I know where the problems lie. I know the insurance costs wouldn't be so high if it wasn't for the despicable John Edwards' of the world who make their living off of those who devote their life to a profession that "directly" helps people. That's one of my biggest qualms with the (D) party and the dirty lawyers who run it (and are running for office).

People say going to Michigan has makes you liberal, not at all. I am still republican, but I dont believe a thing Bush says. If what he said was true I would definitely vote for him... but he consistenly contradicts the facts. Kerry may suck, but Bush has already proven that he does. Unless you are in the armed services and like war, then its FOUR MORE YEARS!

You lost me on this one...I don't kow where you're trying to go here. BTW, I've got plenty of famliy members in the service and my cousin just got back from Afghanistan. Those people are taking pride in what they're doing...in Iraq and otherwise. That's what he says at least...I guess I'll never know what "everybody" believes though.

 

[dito]

I watched the debates to help make up my mind. I don't like the Bush administration. But was frightened by Kerry as well. After the debates last night. I am leaning towards Kerry. He was confident and did have better points most of the time. Bush did not seem sure of himself. Although he also had a few decent points. But both had stretched the truth on some of the things. We'll see what happens on the next one.

 

[Funny Monkey]

goes4ever, and you Bush supporters claim negative talk on Bush is liberal propoganda? What you posted is the biggest steaming pile of rightwing bull#### propoganda I've ever seen.

So you just think that is all lies? If those statements were true how do you explain them? I am sure if those things were true somebody will bring it up sooner or later