Jump to content
270soft Forum

Vice Presidential Debate


Recommended Posts

Mantis. All it seems you do is call people's posts, fraugelent claims. 

You cannot makes statments and think people will not use your statements against you.  Instead of calling us liars, maybe it's that we misunderstood you.  If someone says you said something you didn't, then correct it.  You seem to think everyone is out to get you, we are not.

NJo Jo SPiv, only those that clearly are fraudulent. Most of the tripe that you have inflicted on people reading this has been outright lies about my positions or small bits of my position taken entirely out of context. Perhaps you would have some more success if you actually debated the issues rather than continuing to lie about other people's positions. If you don't like getting called on it, don't do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I qouted you directly, did you say that thing yes, so the way I interperted it is in theory correct, and if you want to go on the whole thin OK, are the leaders of Iran, Syrai and Suadi Arabia "murderer, brutal tryrant, thief and a maniac" So why Saddam why not them instead, I would say that Iran is a more imidiate problem (I am not saying an invasion is a good idea)

Link to post
Share on other sites

See thats where you're argument falls apart. You say, 9/11 irrelevant. Bad info before the war, irrelevent we are there. But we have to pre-emptivly attack those that are threats.

How can we trust the inteligence? Itseems from the Dulfor report that the sanctions, and no-fly zone was working perfectly. 1100 American Soldiers are dead, and 7500 are wounded for nothing. You are not from this country, you don't have to worry. I know people in the millitary, I don't want them to die. You don't seem to give a shit, since you want to completly level parts of Iraq, the result of which would jsut be fore Anti-American(that's right, AMERICAN) sentiment. You're being canadian makes me wonder if you rally do care about the troops over there. I love them much more then you, cause I want them to live, and come home to see thier families. You want them to fight foreveer because that's what it will take to get rid of all terrorism. Plase do not get on your high horse calling my statements fragulent, or anytihng of that nature. i am 100% serious about this. Why isn't Canada in the coalition? Doesn't canada care about freedom? Why don't you focus on your own coutnry, and leave us to solve our problems. We have enough, and conseratives from other coutneis that have nothing to lose promoting this war is just as bad a hawks who never served a day in uniform, but are fine with sending other peoples children, and parents to die.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I qouted you directly, did you say that thing yes, so the way I interperted it is in theory correct, and if you want to go on the whole thin OK, are the leaders of Iran, Syrai and Suadi Arabia "murderer, brutal tryrant, thief and a maniac" So why Saddam why not them instead, I would say that Iran is a more imidiate problem (I am not saying an invasion is a good idea)

I did not say that it was a good idea to go and attack those other countries without a good reason. What I clearly said was that with or without WMDs, removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing.

Perhaps you have no ideas of your own and would rather keep harping on about what amounts to water under the bridge. I, on the other hand, think we need to move on and get the job done. The justifications for the war are irrelevant. The only issue that has any validity is figuring out what we need to do now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
See thats where you're argument falls apart. You say, 9/11 irrelevant. Bad info before the war, irrelevent we are there. But we have to pre-emptivly attack those that are threats.

How can we trust the inteligence? Itseems from the Dulfor report that the sanctions, and no-fly zone was working perfectly. 1100 American Soldiers are dead, and 7500 are wounded for nothing. You are not from this country, you don't have to worry. I know people in the millitary, I don't want them to die. You don't seem to give a shit, since you want to completly level parts of Iraq, the result of which would jsut be fore Anti-American(that's right, AMERICAN) sentiment. You're being canadian makes me wonder if you rally do care about the troops over there. I love them much more then you, cause I want them to live, and come home to see thier families. You want them to fight foreveer because that's what it will take to get rid of all terrorism. Plase do not get on your high horse calling my statements fragulent, or anytihng of that nature. i am 100% serious about this. Why isn't Canada in the coalition? Doesn't canada care about freedom? Why don't you focus on your own coutnry, and leave us to solve our problems. We have enough, and conseratives from other coutneis that have nothing to lose promoting this war is just as bad a hawks who never served a day in uniform, but are fine with sending other peoples children, and parents to die.

What would you do, JoSpiv???? Drop everything and leave? That is a totally irresponsible position. You are right, Canada did not join the war and there are a lot of people who believe that we should have. I am one of those people. It was Conservatives in Canada who were all in favour of joining our allies in the war against Saddam Hussein as we did the first time in 1991.

Nobody in their right mind would simply withdraw right now. The only responsible action is to complete the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do have my own opinions if you read my posts you might see them, don't accuse me of not having opinions I do, and can cite many places where I have expressed them.

Then express them as opposed to lying about what I or others did or did not say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my statements in the transcript of the interview I gave I think it's lcear I agree that we have to get the job done. I said, "We cannot cut and run"

However, it is not irrelevant that every piece on information used to go into Iraq was wrong. People are dead because of those false documents, and info. That's why it's not irrelevant. They went into Iraq thinking they were protecting America, Iraq posed NO threat to America. It's not irrelevant, because noow how can we trust anything the Pres, VP, DCI, Sec of State, Sec of Defense, NSA say? That's why it's important. Maybe facts, anf peple actually dying for something don't mean anything to you, but to me it does. What are they dying for? Iraqui Freedom? Why is ther freedom more important than peple in Africa where thousands are dyin everyday. Why is thier freedom more important then thsoe that lie under Kim Jong Il? I think it's cause under thier feet flows, BLACK GOLD. That's all this war is about, and has ever been about. It's not irrelevent. If you think the thngs I mentioned are irrlevant, then I can only assume you think the 1100 deaths are irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Ive been a little lax in my job as moderator but that is because I cant be on 24/7. I would like to state for the record however that this is a debate between the VP Candidates and no one else has the right to post comments or questions other than myself or the VP Candidates. If others on the board do not want to follow this rule then I will cancel the debate.

Now my next question will go to Swing Voter and then other candidates can answer as they please. Many Americans are claiming that Bush has a failed Foreign policy when it comes to gaining and keeping allies in the war on Terror and especially the war in Iraq. How would your foreign policy differ from that of Bush??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok Ive been a little lax in my job as moderator but that is because I cant be on 24/7. I would like to state for the record however that this is a debate between the VP Candidates and no one else has the right to post comments or questions other than myself or the VP Candidates. If others on the board do not want to follow this rule then I will cancel the debate.

Now my next question will go to Swing Voter and then other candidates can answer as they please. Many Americans are claiming that Bush has a failed Foreign policy when it comes to gaining and keeping allies in the war on Terror and especially the war in Iraq. How would your foreign policy differ from that of Bush??

First of all, we will work with the rest of the world instead of against it. We will do this in several ways, first of all we will work to get UN support of the Occupation. Second we would allow other non-colaltion nations to help with the re-building. Thirdly we will never give a no bid contract like the Bush administration has to Haliburton. We will do this because we think that it isour reasponsiblity to the tax payer to get the best value instead of rewarding our friends. We also will continue to hunt Osama Bin Laden who will be our top priority, unlike Mr. Bush who said "I just don't worry about him that much, he's not a problem" We also hope that if we place a well trained Iraqi military in charge we can withdraw sooner. The way to do this i to bring in UN forces to help train them, and to also give them supply's that are not 20 years old. We also will help our troops by not cutting their pay when they are in combate, or cutting money for the VA to help them recover should they be hurt or need medical care. They also need body armor and safe trasports, so we will do any and every thing in our power to get them these things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok the next question goes to Mantis but others can reply to the question already asked.

It has been implied that the Iraqi PM should step up and appeal to Nato for security aid and aid in training soldiers. Certain candidates believe that this will help us win the peace in Iraq. If you and HRC are elected President, would you try and persuade the PM to appeal to Nato? Please Explain your answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok the next question goes to Mantis but others can reply to the question already asked.

It has been implied that the Iraqi PM should step up and appeal to Nato for security aid and aid in training soldiers. Certain candidates believe that this will help us win the peace in Iraq. If you and HRC are elected President, would you try and persuade the PM to appeal to Nato? Please Explain your answer.

Absolutely I would. I would like to see many things done in Iraq and having the new Iraqi leader step up to the plate and begin to actually run his country would be one of them. It is important to get the new Iraqi government engaged in the process of securing, stabilizing and rebuilding that country. Having the Iraqi PM appeal directly to our NATO allies would send a powerful message. I believe that it could even give holdouts such as France and Germany an opening through which they could join our efforts without having participated in the war.

Certainly, the coalition needs to maintain it's presence in Iraq until things are stable and secure. It is also important for the coalition to take concrete action against terrorists and their strongholds. Places like the city of Faluja need to be brought under control. We cannot shy away from doing whatever is necessary to stop the terrorists from disrupting our rebuilding efforts and from trying to destabilize the Iraqi government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

President Bush has done an excellent job in the war on terror. Thus, there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 911 and 40 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan have been liberated.

Libyan dictator Muammar Al-Quadafi has heeded the warnings and has now dropped his WMD program. You see what happens when leaders like Saddam Hussein are removed from power? The ripple effect is quite extroadinary.

Swing Voter and the far-left have no answers to the war on terror except becoming slaves of the United Nations - A body which is led by anti-American diplomats and dictators. This body has proven itslef, time and time again, to be against American interests. The United Nations was involved in the Food for Oil scandal and have shown that they cannot lead and that they have no interest in protecting the American people.

That is EXACTLY what the Keyes 2008/Roger Winchestor ticket will do! We will fight the war on terror effective and through strenght not of weakness. We will not allow American security to be compromised and we seek NO PERMISSION SLIP from France or the United Nations to protect the American people.

They do. We don't.

That's the difference and it is a clear and stark one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Swing Voter have such deep animosity towards the traditional values that are shared by the overwhelming majoritiy of the American people?

This is a question he will have to answer and I hope it will be him instead of SS Vegeta coming onto the VP debate when he is not supposed to.

The overwhelming majority of Americans agree with our platform when it comes to the homosexual agenda: No to Gay marriage; it is between a man and a woman. it is a sacred institution that for thousands of years have served as an act of procreation between a husband and his wife.

The overwhelming majority of Americans agrees with me and Mr. Keyes on this issue. Swing Voter disagrees with it and instead advocates ramming the elitist liberal agenda down the throats of Americans.

Most Americans also believe in equal but not special or excessive rights for homosexuals. So do we.

As you can see, time and time again, when the American people make their voices heard through polls or referendums they are resolutely AGAINST gay marriage and the radical homosexual agenda. Swing Voter and the SS Vegeta campaign dismisses the will of the American people and instead advocate a position which is directly contrary to that of most Americans.

Another clear difference - Keyes/ Roger Winchestor for traditional values that are held by most Americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
President Bush has done an excellent job in the war on terror. Thus, there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 911 and 40 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan have been liberated.

Ok since this debate is probably pretty much over im going to respond to your comment here Roger. Before 9/11 when were we attacked last on American soil?? 1993! it took 8 years for a new attack. So by your own analogy there I could say Clinton kept another attack from happening and after Bush got in office we were attacked again. I dont believe that is the case. I just believe this shows how long it takes al-qaeda to plan these attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...