Rolo, the question always is:

In Iraq, what SUDDENLY CHANGED to make military action an absolute requirement? How did you end up with ONLY the military option left?

Rolo, your "warmongers in the arctic" is fucking hilarious. You really need to stop smoking or snorting whatever that stuff is, because it is making you goofy! Our military will protect our borders, but we are not warmongers.

Get a grip, answer the questions instead.

Alex

Either the Hans Island issue is a "Wag the Dog" public attention stunt (look how strong our goverment is), or Canadian politicians are really meaning what they are saying - ex. Stockwell Day from the opposition saying:

Now ofcourse the issue about Hans Island is amusing to me, since its a perfect example on how the same issue can be looked at from different point of views, and it just adds to the story that in this issue its Canada who is the "big", "aggressive" part... who would have tought that Canada would be driven by things like greed and power in international issues - I´m guessing everyone else, but a few canadians ;-))

So as Jesus said "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone" ;-)))

To answer your Iraq question, then I hope there were more than 1 reason why military action was required - you do not go to war over 1.3 mile of rock in the arctic without having more than the rock to fight for. Also like every other war in history, then objectives are changed depending on how the war is going... what might have been good reasons for invading 1½ years ago, have probably been modified/replaced by other good reasons for staying today.

Rolo, I've never seen you funny. This is the most amusing argument I've seen in a few months ;-)

Alex, I know your opinion on Kerry. I'm interested in what ways you think Bush outperformed Kerry in the debate.

The issue for Democrats is that once again they don't intend to vote proportionally. There are more Democrats in the US than Republicans but Republicans are more likely to vote in this election.

Prehaps difference of perception? However the truth is that my punchlines are always too weak, too late, and misunderstood - I´m not a funny board guy :)

Prehaps difference of perception? However the truth is that my punchlines are always too weak, too late, and misunderstood - I´m not a funny board guy :) [/b][/quote]
All I know is that in one post you managed to combine evil vikings, eskimos, igloos, NATO, Ottowan warmongers, "arctic terrorism" and the imagery of danish flags all over the island.

Even Alex thinks your funny and he has no sense of humor ;-) ;-) *

*j/k Alex, Keep sending the traffic ;-)

Colin, I think Bush's strongest point was re-using the single phrase "wrong war, wrong time"etc over and over during the debate. He was strong at redirecting questions to the subjects or themes he wanted to talk about. His prepared answers on subjects, when they hit exactly on what he had prepared were clear, using short words that the average voter could understand.

Do you remember the "who is going to win the debate" thread? I posted (before the debate):

Kerry did as I expected, and Bush reacted EXACTLY as expected. Bush will be remembered in this debate as the stuttering, confused, and often SILENT adversary... a man that truly did not look to be in charge of the facts.

Alex

I thought Bush overused that phrase. I thought he only had one strong moment in the whole debate and that was when he quoted Kerry and showed that he flip flopped on Iraq. Bush really didn't look like he wanted to be there. I guess he has something better to do than try to convince the American people that he knows what he's doing -- too bad for him, because only 39% of people think he has a clear strategy on Iraq as opposed to 52% for Kerry. That was Bush's strong issue.

He better get his shit together if he wants to win -- this election, like Colin says, is up for grabs.