Did Anyone See Kerry's Speech Last Night?

[La Flames Fan]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Jul 30 2004, 07:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Jul 30 2004, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-La Flames Fan@Jul 30 2004, 04:15 PM


CNN obviously didn't have a delay on, so watch out for the FCC!# Powell and his cronies will come down on CNN hard I bet.

Please. That's so narrow minded it's pathetic. [/b][/quote]
You're an angry guy DFF....Man. You jump on people hard. It's just talk brother, its not the end of the world. I don't hammer you for your opinion why do you think it just to hammer mine?

And tell me, what was so "pathetic" about my statement. When there is "indecency" on the airwaves isn't the FCC the one who imposes fines? Aren't they the "sheriffs" of the airwaves? The word ###### was on TV. That's an FCC issue.

[Displaced Flames fan]

[quote]Originally posted by La Flames Fan@Jul 30 2004, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan,Jul 30 2004, 07:24 PM

You're an angry guy DFF....Man. You jump on people hard. It's just talk brother, its not the end of the world. I don't hammer you for your opinion why do you think it just to hammer mine?

And tell me, what was so "pathetic" about my statement. When there is "indecency" on the airwaves isn't the FCC the one who imposes fines? Aren't they the "sheriffs" of the airwaves? The word ###### was on TV. That's an FCC issue.

It's pathetic because of the context you put it in. The FCC will come down hard because it is led by Colin Powell's son and the incident occurred at the DNC.

I don't recall the FCC ever coming down hard on anyone involved in an NFL broadcast when the mikes accidentally catch some irreverant trash talk. This seems like a similar situation.

You're characterizing people I support unfairly and that p*sses me off. I'm not angry until I read CRAP. Then I get angry, for a second or two.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Jul 30 2004, 01:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Jul 30 2004, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-300spartans@Jul 30 2004, 08:24 PM
Kerry would never have even made the mistake in the first place of trying to invade Iraq which is what p*ssed of all the allies, inlcuding us.

If I'm not mistaken, he voted in favour of action in Iraq.

Cowperson[/b][/quote]
Kerry and Edwards voted to give Bush authorization to take military action (i.e. he voted for a war), but he could probably make an argument that he didn't vote for this war -- a war with an extremely limited coalition against the wishes of the United Nations.

The Joint Resolution authorizing force passed on Oct 11, 2002 providing "Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions" Link

Using that support Bush then went to the UN and got Resolution 1441 passed on Nov 8, 2002, which lead to inspectors being allowed back into the country who were given greater cooperation than at any previous time. However this wasn't enough for the Bush admin. They went back to the UN on Feb 5, 2003 to try to get a second resolution which they failed to get, and never went back to Congress, starting the war on March 20.

So if I were Kerry I'd argue that I'd given Bush the authority so he could go to the international community and build a consensus, which was achieved with 1441. When Bush went to war without international support or an express resolution he should have gone back to Congress for authorization to launch unilateral action. He didn't and Kerry never had a chance to approve or disapprove of this war.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Mike F+Jul 31 2004, 12:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Jul 31 2004, 12:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

If I'm not mistaken, he voted in favour of action in Iraq.

Cowperson

Kerry and Edwards voted to give Bush authorization to take military action (i.e. he voted for a war), but he could probably make an argument that he didn't vote for this war -- a war with an extremely limited coalition against the wishes of the United Nations.

The Joint Resolution authorizing force passed on Oct 11, 2002 providing "Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions" Link

Using that support Bush then went to the UN and got Resolution 1441 passed on Nov 8, 2002, which lead to inspectors being allowed back into the country who were given greater cooperation than at any previous time. However this wasn't enough for the Bush admin. They went back to the UN on Feb 5, 2003 to try to get a second resolution which they failed to get, and never went back to Congress, starting the war on March 20.

So if I were Kerry I'd argue that I'd given Bush the authority so he could go to the international community and build a consensus, which was achieved with 1441. When Bush went to war without international support or an express resolution he should have gone back to Congress for authorization to launch unilateral action. He didn't and Kerry never had a chance to approve or disapprove of this war. [/b][/quote]
The average American voter would just view that as tap dancing. The GOP, in particular, would view that argument as an opportunity and not a calamity. They'd beat him over the head with it like he was a baby seal.

Politically, he's just better off saying "I voted for the war but I used another vote to protest."

Just my opinion. And I'm hoping Kerry wins.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Jul 30 2004, 08:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Jul 30 2004, 08:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-300spartans@Jul 30 2004, 08:24 PM
Kerry would never have even made the mistake in the first place of trying to invade Iraq which is what p*ssed of all the allies, inlcuding us.

If I'm not mistaken, he voted in favour of action in Iraq.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Yeah, but lets not forget that President Bush presented a bunch of evidence that was filled with inaccuracies (lies). I'm sure there are lots of people on both sides of the fence that would like to re-cast their vote, since the weapons of mass distraction smoke screen turned out to be just that, a big smoke screen.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Jul 31 2004, 01:46 AM

Yeah, but lets not forget that President Bush presented a bunch of evidence that was filled with inaccuracies (lies). I'm sure there are lots of people on both sides of the fence that would like to re-cast their vote, since the weapons of mass distraction smoke screen turned out to be just that, a big smoke screen.

Good God, it amazes me that people are still throwing the word 'lies' around. If the Bush administration was lying they would've made sure that they had those lies backed up. You don't lie and hope you're right. You lie and make damn sure you're right.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Jul 31 2004, 02:21 AM
Good God, it amazes me that people are still throwing the word 'lies' around. If the Bush administration was lying they would've made sure that they had those lies backed up. You don't lie and hope you're right. You lie and make damn sure you're right.

No you don't. Many people nowadays are becoming so idealogically divided that they don't really hold 'their side' accountable for anything. Look how many people don't care they were misled about WMD's in Iraq (ex: "Well, at least we got rid of Saddam..."). The Liberals staying in power as the governing party of Canada as well.

Second, if you lie and get caught, all you need is a scapegoat. CIA, FBI, Clinton, etc, in this case...

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Jul 31 2004, 02:53 AM

No you don't. Many people nowadays are becoming so idealogically divided that they don't really hold 'their side' accountable for anything. Look how many people don't care they were misled about WMD's in Iraq (ex: "Well, at least we got rid of Saddam..."). The Liberals staying in power as the governing party of Canada as well.

Second, if you lie and get caught, all you need is a scapegoat. CIA, FBI, Clinton, etc, in this case...

Come on now....you're reaching. You and I both know that with all the vocal protest both within the US and internationally that the administration KNEW that getting another 4 years in office likely depended on everything they said about Iraq being proven true.

Do you really think they'd go knowing that there was nothing there and say we'll just blame the CIA and believe they'd get re-elected?

I don't.

Bush isn't THAT stupid, and neither are the people who surround him.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Jul 31 2004, 10:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Jul 31 2004, 10:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Jul 31 2004, 02:53 AM

No you don't. Many people nowadays are becoming so idealogically divided that they don't really hold 'their side' accountable for anything. Look how many people don't care they were misled about WMD's in Iraq (ex: "Well, at least we got rid of Saddam..."). The Liberals staying in power as the governing party of Canada as well.

Second, if you lie and get caught, all you need is a scapegoat. CIA, FBI, Clinton, etc, in this case...

Come on now....you're reaching. You and I both know that with all the vocal protest both within the US and internationally that the administration KNEW that getting another 4 years in office likely depended on everything they said about Iraq being proven true.

Do you really think they'd go knowing that there was nothing there and say we'll just blame the CIA and believe they'd get re-elected?

I don't.

Bush isn't THAT stupid, and neither are the people who surround him. [/b][/quote]
I'm not so sure he's all that smart. His IQ is hardly presidential - in fact it's the lowest in some time. Maybe his EQ makes up for it but at this point I tend to think he's not even calling the shots.

An analysis of Presidential IQ's over the past 50 years:

* 147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
* 132 Harry Truman (D)
* 122 Dwight D. Eisenhower ®
* 174 John F. Kennedy (D)
* 126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
* 155 Richard M. Nixon ®
* 121 Gerald Ford ®
* 175 James E. Carter (D)
* 105 Ronald Reagan ®
* 099 George HW Bush ®
* 182 William J. Clinton (D)
* 091 George W. Bush ®

Gerald Ford, not noted his being bright, trumps both Bushes in the study. Not that it's a prerequisite (other things count like personablity and such) but it seems a tad meager. Maybe he did do all of that, I don't know. It can't be counted out though.

Completely on another topic, Carter, Clinton Kennedy and Nixon are Mensa material.

[Displaced Flames fan]

You can go ahead and post your source anytime you like. There is zero chance that those numbers hold an ounce of water for more than a second. It's an impossibility to state that those are the IQ's of those Presidents and actually have a straight face.

[dangler22]

Whether those I.Q. scores are true or not the fact of the matter is President Bush is borderline ######ed.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Jul 31 2004, 05:15 PM
You can go ahead and post your source anytime you like. There is zero chance that those numbers hold an ounce of water for more than a second. It's an impossibility to state that those are the IQ's of those Presidents and actually have a straight face.

The actual link to obviously contrived results.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b522afc4cd9.htm


Among other amazing things, including the criteria for determining IQ's of past presidents, you'll find this description of the authors:

Dr. Lovenstein lives in a mobile home in Scranton, Pennsylvania with his long time companion Patricia F. Dilliams. When the two are not publishing reports for their Lovenstein Institute, they run an internet business www.collegedegreesforsale.com

Secondly, the first polls post-convention give Kerry a slight boost.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5568072/site/newsweek/

Cowperson

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Jul 31 2004, 01:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Jul 31 2004, 01:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

If I'm not mistaken, he voted in favour of action in Iraq.

Cowperson

Yeah, but lets not forget that President Bush presented a bunch of evidence that was filled with inaccuracies (lies). I'm sure there are lots of people on both sides of the fence that would like to re-cast their vote, since the weapons of mass distraction smoke screen turned out to be just that, a big smoke screen. [/b][/quote]
A contribution to this topic from the New York Times today:

A senior leader of Al Qaeda who was captured in Pakistan several months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was the main source for intelligence, since discredited, that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to members of the organization, according to American intelligence officials.

Intelligence officials say the detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle, recanted the claims sometime last year, but not before they had become the basis of statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda that involved poisons, gases and other illicit weapons.

You may have to register to view this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/internat...ast/31inte.html

Cowperson

[jimmy11]

I actually thought the speech was terrible. I think the democratic party needs to be worried about how speakers like Clinton, Obama, and Howard Dean stole the convention and John Kerry sat there saying basically nothing, taking a stand oin nothing and really not laying out his plan for the first 100 days and beyond.

I'm a conservative, but many of my left wing friends though, like me, that Kerrys speech had very little substance and was filled with vague, grandious staments. I wanted to hear his stand on Gay rights, on abortion, on Iraq, but he dosen;t want to talk about that.

The reason for this is that the base of the democratic party is not represented by this nominee, and moreover, if the American people heard Kerrys stance on some things, it's a land slide win for GWB. I hope it is.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by dangler22@Jul 31 2004, 05:23 PM
Whether those I.Q. scores are true or not the fact of the matter is President Bush is borderline ######ed.

Link?

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Aug 1 2004, 07:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Aug 1 2004, 07:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dangler22@Jul 31 2004, 05:23 PM
Whether those I.Q. scores are true or not the fact of the matter is President Bush is borderline ######ed.

Link? [/b][/quote]
I wasn't trying to run and hide. I was asleep. Besides, Cowperson already posted my link.

Not credible. I admit that. But interesting. I admit that. This is a man who cannot pronounce "nuclear", either because he can't, or consciously because it has some appeal in some parts of American. If it was the latter I'd say he's smarter than I give him credit for but to me he's nothing more than a priveleged frat boy.

And I don't have a link to that either.

What really amazes me is that Dis holds me to higher accounts of facts than he does the President, who has yet to present a shred of credible evidence for going to war in Iraq for WMD's. Amazing that you'd let that fly, but get really peeved about an IQ test that hasn't cost the lives of 900 people.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Jul 31 2004, 11:07 PM
Not credible, but interesting. I admit that.

The link to IQ's is hilarious but . . . . I wouldn't call it "interesting" in the sense that it contributes anything since it obviously has a political bias and worse, zero basis in fact.

The Lovenstein Institute denies it ever issued such a study and it appears to be an internet hoax:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/lovenstein.html

Funny, isn't it, that the guy with the highest IQ, the only President with his IQ actually published and therefore the only one in the article guaranteed to be real, was also the guy who authorized a mission into Iran where he thought Americans could land in the desert of a hostile country, drive brazenly into Tehran in jeeps, pick up their hostages and drive out again. That being Jimmy Carter.

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Hey DoreFro....can I call you that? If you'll go back to where I posted 'Link?' you'll see that it was directed at Danlger "What other choice do they have?" 22, not you.

I was alseep as well, so I certainly hadn't assumed that you were hiding and wouldn't have anyway because I don't recall you hiding from anything before.

As for your IQ post, I'd take just as much exception with JFK's 175 as I would GWB's 91. I doubt both of them with equal intensity.

What is the cut off for MENSA by the way?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Jul 31 2004, 11:07 PM


What really amazes me is that Dis holds me to higher accounts of facts than he does the President, who has yet to present a shred of credible evidence for going to war in Iraq for WMD's. Amazing that you'd let that fly, but get really peeved about an IQ test that hasn't cost the lives of 900 people.

Here we go again.

First of all, based on the intelligence of the day Bush was speaking to what he believed and trusted to be fact.

Secondly, there are shreds of credible evidence. There have been things found, just not on the grand scale that everyone expects.

Finally, I questioned the Bush's administration's justification and I am somewhat satisfied with it. I questioned your information and am now satisfied with your use of it given your admission it means nothing. So you see, I don't hold you to a higher standard at all.

[Cowperson]

I'd like to know if Dorefro KNEW his Bush IQ story was an internet hoax before he posted it here.

Was he trying to mislead us deliberately with information he knew to be false?

Or did someone give him the link without confirming it first, Dorefro only posting the link because someone else said it was legitimate?

What did he know and when did he know it?

EDIT: Come to think of it, DoreFro didn't post a link. I had to do that.

Cowperson