Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Opinions about the Presidential Debate

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


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.


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


Invalid Link Removed

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.
First of all, i haven't called you an asshole or stupid. Secondly, you HAVE NOT REFUTED ANYTHING. what you say you "put into context" WAS NOT THE QUOTE I GAVE. I don't know how to make it any more clear so give up on the broken record tactics.You have not done "research, so don't give me that b.s. you found a quote that suited your needs. It's funny that that's the only thing you could find on the subject was that. give me a break. you want a link? here ya go yahoo.com. Type in Kerry and Vietnam. it's that simple. you will find more links than i can post here. from sources such as cnn and the washington post. but of course you won't because that would destroy your fantasy image of kerry and you might have to take his poster off your bedroom wall. Oh but wait, then your autographed "hanoi" jane fonda picture would get lonely.
 
Nullifidian said:
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.
that's not propaganda, that's PUBLIC RECORD.
 
jarhead said:
First of all, i haven't called you an asshole or stupid. Secondly, you HAVE NOT REFUTED ANYTHING. what you say you "put into context" WAS NOT THE QUOTE I GAVE. I don't know how to make it any more clear so give up on the broken record tactics.You have not done "research, so don't give me that b.s. you found a quote that suited your needs. It's funny that that's the only thing you could find on the subject was that. give me a break. you want a link? here ya go yahoo.com. Type in Kerry and Vietnam. it's that simple. you will find more links than i can post here. from sources such as cnn and the washington post. but of course you won't because that would destroy your fantasy image of kerry and you might have to take his poster off your bedroom wall. Oh but wait, then your autographed "hanoi" jane fonda picture would get lonely.
I guess I have no clue what you're talking about. I specifically searched for the quotes you have said and found them. I have shown that the "monster" comment was taken out of context and your claims that kerry meant it in a negative way were untrue. The only other quote you have mentioned is the "drug addicted baby killers" line, which I also showed was hyperbole used by one of Kerry's opponents. Care to remind me again what the the quote was that you think I have not refuted?


And I didn't find a quote that "suited my needs". I took the quote that "suited your needs", and showed the entire paragraph before and after it. You are the one quoting things out of context.

If it's so easy to find the quotes you're talking about, why can't you spend 30 seconds finding one for me? I type Kerry into yahoo.com and the first result I get is "Kerry a hero in Vietnam, vet says":

Invalid Link Removed

The first page of stories that are returned on this query do not support your position. Let me help you. Click on the link below, then cut and paste the story that supports your position and cites the quotes you have attributed to Kerry:

Invalid Link Removed

You accuse me of being the raging Kerry fanboy, but you can't support your argument and refuse to acknowledge that your have glaring inaccurate misconceptions at what Kerry said in the early 70s that you cannot support and refuse to acknowledge are false, despite direct evidence to the contrary.

How can you win? How can you get me to shut up? PROVIDE A QUOTE. Show me I'm wrong. You say it's so easy to find these things, how long have you spent replying to me? How much has your blood pressure gone up? Find me a news story where it says "John Kerry runs over Vietnam vets with his car and rapes their mothers", or whatever you think he did.
 
jboogie said:
I guess I have no clue what you're talking about. I specifically searched for the quotes you have said and found them. I have shown that the "monster" comment was taken out of context and your claims that kerry meant it in a negative way were untrue. The only other quote you have mentioned is the "drug addicted baby killers" line, which I also showed was hyperbole used by one of Kerry's opponents. Care to remind me again what the the quote was that you think I have not refuted?


And I didn't find a quote that "suited my needs". I took the quote that "suited your needs", and showed the entire paragraph before and after it. You are the one quoting things out of context.

If it's so easy to find the quotes you're talking about, why can't you spend 30 seconds finding one for me? I type Kerry into yahoo.com and the first result I get is "Kerry a hero in Vietnam, vet says":

Invalid Link Removed

The first page of stories that are returned on this query do not support your position. Let me help you. Click on the link below, then cut and paste the story that supports your position and cites the quotes you have attributed to Kerry:

Invalid Link Removed

You accuse me of being the raging Kerry fanboy, but you can't support your argument and refuse to acknowledge that your have glaring inaccurate misconceptions at what Kerry said in the early 70s that you cannot support and refuse to acknowledge are false, despite direct evidence to the contrary.

How can you win? How can you get me to shut up? PROVIDE A QUOTE. Show me I'm wrong. You say it's so easy to find these things, how long have you spent replying to me? How much has your blood pressure gone up? Find me a news story where it says "John Kerry runs over Vietnam vets with his car and rapes their mothers", or whatever you think he did.
try "kerry after vietnam."(i left out after) you keep resaying the same ****. john kerry could come to your house and say this **** to you and you'd still deny it. i'm not the only person to mention this ****. don't flatter yourself, you're not raising my blood pressure, you're just sad and blind. i personally could give two shits about who you vote for.
 
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

go ahead spin away. these are just a couple of randaom examples i grabbed of how kerry acted after vietnam. there are hundreds more. my whole point has been that kerry backstabbed his fellow soldiers after vietnam and that is why i don't like him, so quit arguing semantics. this view is shared by MANY vietnam vets.
 
dito said:
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.
Kerry is a better speaker, he had less substance. When you read a transcript of the debate which gets rid of all visual and auditory cues, Bush is the winner. When you watch it, Kerry is the winner. On several points Kerry was asked for specific points of his plan and he answered with criticisms of Bush. His whole "I would have done things differently" approach is irrelevant minus a time machine. Trying to call Bush out by asking him if he'd do things differently based on what we know now regarding WMDs is also irrelevant minus a time machine. I have no idea how Kerry is suggesting he get more nations involved and "win" the war when he regards it quite vocally as a major **** up, and so do those nations. Bush, while he may be looking through rose colored glasses at Iraq, still sounds more practical and reasonable, once you get past the fact that he's so damn inarticulate.

I don't know that Kerry is so much a flip flopper because people have a right to change their minds as info becomes available. What I worry about is that he can't articulate a plan for Iraq, mostly because when he does it sounds just like Bush's plan and that gets him no where. Oddly enough, because of that I'm starting to think the real clincher in this election will be domestic policy because it's the only substantial difference between the two.
 
I think a no holds barred steel cage match should replace the debates. kerry has zero charisma and bush has trouble putting sentences together, so i think it be alot more exciting. let's settle this in the ring!!!:D
 
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
Bush was horrible....... no question about it. I listened to it on the radio and missed his facial expressions ect. I don't know if he was bad enough to give some votes to Kerry. I don't think he was that bad but you never know. My question is what is the alternative? Turning over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN? Raising taxes? Getting us into international treaties that will triple your energy bills? Entering a international criminal court that can prosecute US solders and citizens? It's not that I am a Bush supporter. It's Kerry will run the United States in to the ground.
 
kerry greatly exceeded my expectations. the newsweek poll just released has kerry up by 3% [edit: up by 2%, not 3%, my bad] (though i don't trust newsweek polls) and LA times poll of registered voters who watched or heard about the debate has kerry now up by 2%.

personally i do not think this election is about the undecideds - **** 'em. they'll follow others and split maybe 50/50 anyway. it's more about whether the already decided voters will also decide to show up at the voting booth on nov 2.

the real victory was that kerry enegized his base. before people were just voting for him because he wasn't bush, but now they saw a strong, steady, consistent and presidential kerry who deserves their support.

i know the pro-bush people buy into all the flip flop bs and other attacks on kerry's character, and i'm sure they saw a very different story on their tv screens, but that's not what people in general saw. there are a lot of people who disapprove of bush's job performance, but couldn't previously bring themselves to support kerry either because of the picture the republicans have successfully painted of him - now they will say that hey, kerry's okay.

-5

p.s. bush has a reputation as a great debator. he beat al gore and ann richards, plus he got exactly the debate format he wanted, so he has nothing to whine about.
 
Last edited:
CDB said:
Kerry is a better speaker, he had less substance. When you read a transcript of the debate which gets rid of all visual and auditory cues, Bush is the winner. When you watch it, Kerry is the winner. On several points Kerry was asked for specific points of his plan and he answered with criticisms of Bush. His whole "I would have done things differently" approach is irrelevant minus a time machine. Trying to call Bush out by asking him if he'd do things differently based on what we know now regarding WMDs is also irrelevant minus a time machine. I have no idea how Kerry is suggesting he get more nations involved and "win" the war when he regards it quite vocally as a major **** up, and so do those nations. Bush, while he may be looking through rose colored glasses at Iraq, still sounds more practical and reasonable, once you get past the fact that he's so damn inarticulate.

I don't know that Kerry is so much a flip flopper because people have a right to change their minds as info becomes available. What I worry about is that he can't articulate a plan for Iraq, mostly because when he does it sounds just like Bush's plan and that gets him no where. Oddly enough, because of that I'm starting to think the real clincher in this election will be domestic policy because it's the only substantial difference between the two.
I am not going to go through and read the debate. What I saw and heard was enough. Nor did Bush offer any plan. The only thing he has planned is to keep doing the same thing that he is now. What he is doing now is not working. Maybe it's time for a new approach.
 
dito said:
I am not going to go through and read the debate. What I saw and heard was enough. Nor did Bush offer any plan. The only thing he has planned is to keep doing the same thing that he is now. What he is doing now is not working. Maybe it's time for a new approach.
All I see Kerry doing is just what happened in Vietnam...politicizing the war. Politicians are what keep the Generals from doing their job most efficiently.

I better understand now exactly how educated the average kerry supported is. Although Kerry spoke eloquently, he was long winded and never really pushed any message except "bush sucks". He made a few statements which he passed of as facts, which Bush disputed right off and Kerry had no comebacks. He sounded like a fucking bullshitter, or a salesperson....maybe, kinda like a lawyer. i.e. Kerry said that around the country Bush was cutting down on fire and police; Bush immediately responded that he'd upped spending 3.1 billion dollars! (kerry was silenced). Kerry said Bush should have taken part in putting pressure on Iran and the Kerry himself would have worked to place sanctions on Iran. Bush responded again that the US did take part along with France, GB, and Germany and we'd already sanctioned them and we can't sanction them anymore! Kerry said that we need a grand coalition for our Iraq, yet he wants bilateral talks for North Korea. What freaking sense does that make?

Bush did a shitty job. He didn't explain his positions well; Kerry did exactly what he should have. He was long winded, used pretty words, and convinced those who know no better. It was painful watching Bush keep his answers so short and unclear. He tried to sound witty with his answers and it didn't go well form him atall. It was really stupid. IF you judge who won the debate off of who was the best debator, Kerry won hands down. If you judged off of "factual" substance, consistency, and believability, Bush won without a doubt. The polls even said he was the more believable of the two and seemed tougher on terror and foreign policy.

I just don't see how anybody who is educated current politics and intelligent on could have truly been convinced by Kerry. It's disheartening to me that people could be swayed by his 90 minute acting performance full of basless claims and accusations.

Did you hear what he proposed to do for security as far as rail stations, etc, etc, etc.? Man, what does he think? Are we going ot take have of our GDP and dump it into that project? Can you even imagine how much money that would take? It has taken us nearly a century to build on that and he thinks he's going to turn all of that infrastructure into a security fortress in 4 years? ROFLMAO. Please don't anybody tell me that you believe that BS.
 
NEWSWEEK POLL SHOWS BUSH LEAD GONE

Oct. 2 - With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president’s lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race.
Removing Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who draws 2 percent of the vote, widens the Kerry-Edwards lead to three points with 49 percent of the vote versus the incumbent’s 46 percent. Four weeks ago the Republican ticket, coming out of a successful convention in New York, enjoyed an 11-point lead over Kerry-Edwards with Bush pulling 52 percent of the vote and the challenger just 41 percent.

Among the three-quarters (74 percent) of registered voters who say they watched at least some of Thursday’s debate, 61 percent see Kerry as the clear winner, 19 percent pick Bush as the victor and 16 percent call it a draw. After weeks of being portrayed as a verbose “flip-flopper� by Republicans, Kerry did better than a majority (56 percent) had expected. Only about 11 percent would say the same for the president’s performance while more than one-third (38 percent) said the incumbent actually did worse that they had expected. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans felt their man out-debated the challenger but a full third (33 percent) say they felt Kerry won.

Kerry’s perceived victory may be attributed to the fact that, by a wide margin (62 percent to 26 percent), debate watchers felt the senator came across as more confident than the president. More than half (56 percent) also see Kerry has having a better command of the facts than Bush (37 percent). As a result, the challenger’s favorability ratings (52 percent, versus 40 percent unfavorable) are better than Bush’s, who at 49 percent (and 46 percent unfavorable), has dipped below the halfway mark for the first time since July. Kerry, typically characterized as aloof and out of touch by his opponents, came across as more personally likeable than Bush (47 percent to the president’s 41 percent).

In fact, Kerry’s numbers have improved across the board, while Bush’s vulnerabilities have become more pronounced. The senator is seen as more intelligent and well-informed (80 percent, up six points over last month, compared to Bush’s steady 59 percent); as having strong leadership skills (56 percent, also up 6 points, but still less than Bush’s 62 percent) and as someone who can be trusted to make the right calls in an international crisis (51 percent, up five points and tied with Bush).

Meanwhile, Bush’s approval ratings have dropped to below the halfway mark (46 percent) for the first time since the GOP convention in late August. Nearly half of all voters (48 percent) say they do not want to see Bush re-elected, while 46 percent say they do. Still, a majority of voters (55 percent versus 29 percent) believe the president will be re-hired on Nov. 2.

Neither man was seen as a particularly stronger leader (44 percent Bush, 47 percent Kerry), more negative (37 percent Bush, 36 percent Kerry) or more honest (43 percent Bush, 45 percent Kerry).

Perhaps because the debate topic focused on foreign policy—and largely was dominated by the war in Iraq—that issue rates higher as a voter concern than it did a month ago. Twenty percent of all voters say Iraq is the issue that will most determine their vote, up from 15 percent. Tied with Iraq is the economy (21 percent), and still leading the list is terrorism and homeland security (26 percent). And key for the president is the fact that he is the preferred man on the issues more important to voters. On homeland security, Bush is preferred 52 percent to Kerry’s 40 percent (a significant spread, but a narrowing one: Last month the spread, in the president’s favor, was 58 percent to 34 percent). On Iraq Bush is preferred 49 percent to 44 percent (compared to 54 percent versus 39 percent a month ago). Kerry is even with the president on the question of which man is better suited to guide foreign policy in general (48 percent Bush to the challenger’s 46 percent) and clamping down on the proliferation of nuclear materiel (47 percent Bush, 43 percent Kerry).

Where Kerry clearly leads is on domestic issues, which will be the focus of the third debate on Oct. 13, in Tempe, Ariz. The Democrat is preferred to Bush by double-digit spreads on who would be better at handling the economy (52 percent to 39 percent), foreign competition (54 percent to 36 percent) and health care (56 percent to 34 percent).

Although the subject of the draft was only briefly addressed during the debate, four in ten voters (38 percent) believe that because of the war in Iraq—which 50 percent of all voters now view as unnecessary—a second Bush administration would reinstate the draft. Just 18 percent feel the same would happen if Kerry were elected. Nearly two thirds (62 percent) feel a draft should not be considered at this time and 28 percent said a draft should at least be considered. But only 46 percent feel going to war was the right decision in the first place with just as many (45 percent) under the impression that the administration deliberately misled the nation into war with falsified evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, echoing a recurring refrain of Kerry’s, more than half of all voters (51 percent) think the Bush administration has not done enough to engage other nations (43 percent feel they have done enough or even gone too far in that direction as it is).

For the NEWSWEEK poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,013 registered voters aged 18 and older between Sept. 30 and Oct. 2 by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
 
I saw that I dont buy it though.

Here's LA Times:
LA TIMES POLL SUNDAY: Bush's favorability rating among debate viewers actually improved slightly (although within the survey's margin of error). Before debate, 51% of watchers viewed Bush favorably, 49% unfavorably; after, numbers were 52% and 47%...

I'm waiting on Gallup
 
dito said:
I am not going to go through and read the debate. What I saw and heard was enough. Nor did Bush offer any plan. The only thing he has planned is to keep doing the same thing that he is now. What he is doing now is not working. Maybe it's time for a new approach.
Maybe it's time to realize you don't say, "Democracy, shazam!" in a place like Iraq and magically they're having elections and respecting human rights. As for what was seen and heard, I watched the debate and was impressed with Kerry and thought Bush was a putz. Reading it is a another thing entirely. Don't know why you'd voluntarily want to limit your perspective on these two if you're one of those who think they're the only choices, but go ahead.
 
CDB said:
Maybe it's time to realize you don't say, "Democracy, shazam!" in a place like Iraq and magically they're having elections and respecting human rights. As for what was seen and heard, I watched the debate and was impressed with Kerry and thought Bush was a putz. Reading it is a another thing entirely. Don't know why you'd voluntarily want to limit your perspective on these two if you're one of those who think they're the only choices, but go ahead.
What was your impression after reading it? Did you pick up on Kerry's long-winded and often erred, and even baseless explainations, rebuttals, assumptions, etc? (I heard that during the debate. I was listening more intensely than most would though.)
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
All I see Kerry doing is just what happened in Vietnam...politicizing the war. Politicians are what keep the Generals from doing their job most efficiently.

What is Bush doing?

I better understand now exactly how educated the average kerry supported is. Although Kerry spoke eloquently, he was long winded and never really pushed any message except "bush sucks". He made a few statements which he passed of as facts, which Bush disputed right off and Kerry had no comebacks. He sounded like a fucking bullshitter, or a salesperson....maybe, kinda like a lawyer. i.e. Kerry said that around the country Bush was cutting down on fire and police; Bush immediately responded that he'd upped spending 3.1 billion dollars! (kerry was silenced). Kerry said Bush should have taken part in putting pressure on Iran and the Kerry himself would have worked to place sanctions on Iran. Bush responded again that the US did take part along with France, GB, and Germany and we'd already sanctioned them and we can't sanction them anymore! Kerry said that we need a grand coalition for our Iraq, yet he wants bilateral talks for North Korea. What freaking sense does that make?

They both had flaws in their debate. Both also lied. I had read somewhere that Bush said that they would not have talks with Vietnam but Powel has already talked to them a few months ago. If I could vote for Nader I would. But that's just throwing away my vote. I just don't see any good that Bush has done for the country. It's just choosing the lesser of two evils.
 
dito said:
What is Bush doing?
Bush isn't politicizing the war by any means. It's hurting him drastically. That's what everyone who hates him, hates about him. He's just defending his decision to go to war and his belief that the world will be safer for it. He's taking huge political hits for a caush he truly believes in. Is it right? I guess that's debatable. While I don't think we needed to go into Iraq, I see past the WMD's and see what a free and democratic Iraq means to the world. It in combination with Afghanistan provides a forum for reform-minded youths to take a stand against their government and turn the middle-east into a peaceful and democratic society. Let me ask you something...how many terrorist, genocidal, nations are democratic? Hmm....none. There is wisdom in being there. The debate is about whether or not people are willing to give life for the cause. But I'll stay out of that.
They both had flaws in their debate. Both also lied. I had read somewhere that Bush said that they would not have talks with Vietnam
Vietnam???

And tell me where Bush lied, I'd like to see that. Lying is one thing he's only known for by the extreme leftists how theorize that there is a Bush famiy connection with Hitler, etc, etc. (no joke)
but Powel has already talked to them a few months ago. If I could vote for Nader I would. But that's just throwing away my vote. I just don't see any good that Bush has done for the country. It's just choosing the lesser of two evils.
I personally don't think that a vote for Nader is throwing away a vote. I think it's a step toward a multi-party system, which would be very healthy for our democracy. When people have more political choices, politicians have to better represent their people to stay in power. I'm voting Bush b/c I think the libertarian candidate is a dumbass after hearing him on TV a few months back.
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
What was your impression after reading it? Did you pick up on Kerry's long-winded and often erred, and even baseless explainations, rebuttals, assumptions, etc? (I heard that during the debate. I was listening more intensely than most would though.)
It was more of a draw with Bush having a slight edge most of the time. When reading it became obvious Kerry had no plan. At several points he was asked for specifics on his plans and only responsed with criticisms of Bush. As for factual errors they both made their share of mistakes. Bush overall comes across as more practical and realistic when you read the debate, while Kerry is high on rhetoric and criticism but doesn't offer anything substantially in depth or different from Bush in terms of plans for Iraq.

I had to throw this in on an edit, I'm not voting for either one of these jokers. I'm a Libertarian, and so goes my vote. I'm very anti interventionist in my foreign policy stances, I think we'd have been much better off staying the hell out of most if not all of the conflicts in the world over the course of the last century. Few people realize how much of what's happening now is traceable all the way back to WWI, a lot of it is. That said, on practical terms, were I to vote for one or the other on these two guys, I'd pick Bush with regards to Iraq. Kerry just doesn't hold up.
 
Last edited:
Here is the link to where both lied, I am not sure if it is still a working link: Invalid Link Removed
 
CDB said:
It was more of a draw with Bush having a slight edge most of the time. When reading it became obvious Kerry had no plan. At several points he was asked for specifics on his plans and only responsed with criticisms of Bush. As for factual errors they both made their share of mistakes. Bush overall comes across as more practical and realistic when you read the debate, while Kerry is high on rhetoric and criticism but doesn't offer anything substantially in depth or different from Bush in terms of plans for Iraq.
Exactly! Did you notice how whenever the moderator would say, so let me get this straight, you agree on this one right? Bush would go "yep" and kerry would say, yes but I <insert long winded circular statement that offers nothing different>.
I had to throw this in on an edit, I'm not voting for either one of these jokers. I'm a Libertarian, and so goes my vote. I'm very anti interventionist in my foreign policy stances, I think we'd have been much better off staying the hell out of most if not all of the conflicts in the world over the course of the last century. Few people realize how much of what's happening now is traceable all the way back to WWI, a lot of it is. That said, on practical terms, were I to vote for one or the other on these two guys, I'd pick Bush with regards to Iraq. Kerry just doesn't hold up.
Kerry doesn't hold up on any issue. Any time he mentions any of his social programs and someone asks how he's going to pay for it, he says by repealing the tax cuts Bush gave to the rich. ROFL. That would cover only a small fraction of what he's proposed. Not to mention the jerk-off had the option is Massachusets to not accept the tax cut and basically donate that portion that existed before the cut to the governments social programs, etc, and he (not so suprisingly) opted not to pay those taxes! ROFLMAO.

I would vote libertarian; but I'm not a die-hard isolationist, so I was turned off the their presidential candidate. Anyone who says they would pull all of the troops out of Iraq in 6 months just sounds like a morron to me (including Kerry). Did you hear his lame excuse? "I never said I was going to pull outin 6 months, I said I would start pulling out in 6 months if everything goes well." Once again...he's a moron. Unfortunatey to the average joe-blow-doesn't-know voter it sounded like a good excuse. They probably though, Oh those republicans are just blowing his actions / statements out of proportion, that's all. Grrr...I think lawyers should be banned from running for the presidency!
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
I would vote libertarian; but I'm not a die-hard isolationist, so I was turned off the their presidential candidate. Anyone who says they would pull all of the troops out of Iraq in 6 months just sounds like a morron to me (including Kerry).
True, but practical considerations would stop that from actually happening. Also it's important to remember there's a difference between isolationsim and noninterventionism. The former is more Pat Buchanan's approach, the latter implies no economic restrictions of any kind, no foreign aid, little to no military presence in other countries, and end to entangling alliances, etc. They are two very different approaches stemming from two very different sets of principles.

I think lawyers should be banned from running for the presidency!
Lawyers in government are a bad idea period. Fox guarding the hen house problem.
 
CDB said:
True, but practical considerations would stop that from actually happening. Also it's important to remember there's a difference between isolationsim and noninterventionism. The former is more Pat Buchanan's approach, the latter implies no economic restrictions of any kind, no foreign aid, little to no military presence in other countries, and end to entangling alliances, etc. They are two very different approaches stemming from two very different sets of principles.
True, good point. But the LP candidate came off like Buchanan to me. Buchanan's a smart man, I just think he outsmarts himself sometimes.

Lawyers in government are a bad idea period. Fox guarding the hen house problem.
Agreed :)
 
Kerry lied about the amount of money spent in iraq.
Bush lied about the number of iraqi soldiers that have been trained.

I already posted this in the thread but I will post it again b/c I find it interesting:
Remark from Joe Lockhart immediately following the debate:
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.�

I find it interesting b/c it appears that outsiders view things very differently.
 
size said:
Kerry lied about the amount of money spent in iraq.
well, he either lied more than that, or ignorantly threw out Michael Moore comments as well.
Bush lied about the number of iraqi soldiers that have been trained.
The 100K soldiers thing. What is the deal with this anyway? Can you show me to a link that shows "exactly" how this is a lie. I"m not doubting it is, I just haven't heard anything that suggests truth or fiction from either side. Ive seen plenty of reports saying we've trained 100K and 125K by next year, etc. I just need the opposing view (not from bush hater sites) I hear BS artists on the other side trying to say that not one single soldier has been trained, etc.
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
well, he either lied more than that, or ignorantly threw out Michael Moore comments as well.The 100K soldiers thing.........What is the deal with this anyway? Can you show me to a link that shows "exactly" how this is a lie. I"m not doubting it is, I just haven't heard anything that suggests truth or fiction from either side.

I think both are cases of "interpretting" the numbers to fit the need.



You guys may be interested in CLAIMS that Kerry CHEATED during the debate. Apparently, Kerry removed something from his coat pocket during the debate and placed it on the podium(in video from the debate) This was contra the regulations set up for the debate.
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
well, he either lied more than that, or ignorantly threw out Michael Moore comments as well.The 100K soldiers thing. What is the deal with this anyway? Can you show me to a link that shows "exactly" how this is a lie. I"m not doubting it is, I just haven't heard anything that suggests truth or fiction from either side. Ive seen plenty of reports saying we've trained 100K and 125K by next year, etc. I just need the opposing view (not from bush hater sites) I hear BS artists on the other side trying to say that not one single soldier has been trained, etc.
Fox had something on this. Apparently the number is only that high if you count all troops that have received any kind of minimal training. So it might be true but a better number would be how many have received training on the level that would allow the pull out of US forces. Kerry quoted what was authorized for spending in Iraq, not what was actually spent so far.
 
the real victory was that kerry enegized his base. before people were just voting for him because he wasn't bush, but now they saw a strong, steady, consistent and presidential kerry who deserves their support.

i know the pro-bush people buy into all the flip flop bs and other attacks on kerry's character, and i'm sure they saw a very different story on their tv screens, but that's not what people in general saw. there are a lot of people who disapprove of bush's job performance, but couldn't previously bring themselves to support kerry either because of the picture the republicans have successfully painted of him - now they will say that hey, kerry's okay.
If Kerry hasn't energized his base utill 30 days before the election than he is in trouble. Before and after the nomination is the time to do that. There is nothing to buy into about the Flip flops. It is a fact that Kerry's position on Iraq has changed every time the wind blows.
 
size said:
...You guys may be interested in CLAIMS that Kerry CHEATED during the debate. Apparently, Kerry removed something from his coat pocket during the debate and placed it on the podium(in video from the debate) This was contra the regulations set up for the debate.
I could give a rats ass pesonally. I don't think he had to cheat and if he didn't it wouldn't have mattered. Bush did a piss poor job as far as I'm concerned with making himself sound impressive so the he could win-over the "undecided" (a.k.a. absent-minded) voter.

Honestly, I do believe that you have to be compeletely absent-minded to not have chosen a position by now. That's why I think O'Reilly is so full of ****. But, I don't blame him. Look at his ratings...
 
VanillaGorilla said:
If Kerry hasn't energized his base utill 30 days before the election than he is in trouble. Before and after the nomination is the time to do that. There is nothing to buy into about the Flip flops. It is a fact that Kerry's position on Iraq has changed every time the wind blows.
E-x-a-c-t-l-y! I dont' see how people can be so ignorant as to not notice his position changes.

The fact is that his so called "flip-flops" have almost entirely occured during times when it was in his political interest to hold a certain position. I.E. Look back at the primaries, then look at post primary, then look at pre election, etc, etc. Each time it was politically expedient for him to win-over the voters by changing his position. I think he's not lying when he say's he's held one position all along; it's just that he's expressed multiple positions just for political gain. I believe he truly is the anti-war candidate. And I believe he's a royal POS as a politician...
 
Ready for the stupid election process to be over....
 
E-x-a-c-t-l-y! I dont' see how people can be so ignorant as to not notice his position changes.

The fact is that his so called "flip-flops" have almost entirely occured during times when it was in his political interest to hold a certain position. I.E. Look back at the primaries, then look at post primary, then look at pre election, etc, etc. Each time it was politically expedient for him to win-over the voters by changing his position. I think he's not lying when he say's he's held one position all along; it's just that he's expressed multiple positions just for political gain. I believe he truly is the anti-war candidate. And I believe he's a royal POS as a politician...
If Bush Flip Flops as bad as Kerry has I would be saying the same thing about him. Unfortunately allot of people let their political ideology blind them. How can Kerry criticize that the troops don't have the vests they need or armored cars when he voted against the money to support them.
 
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.
Some of the people who served with Kerry said that he told them he was going to be president one day. Further evidence to support this is the guy had a film crew follow him around and recreated some of the situations he was in. Why would some one do that if they had no political aspirations? The most Damming evidence is there are a hell of allot of troops that don't support him and very few that do. What they have said is that Kerry knew he was going into politics and was afraid if he dodged the draft it would stop his political aspirations. He served knowing that if you got three purple hearts you go home. So he applied for purple hearts for extreme superficial wounds. The first one the doctor that treated him said was smaller than a thorn and barely drew blood. The doctor described the wound as a tiny scratch. The solders that were with him reported that Kerry got the wound from misfiring his grenade launcher not from enemy fire. When he criminally requested a purple heart the doctor refused and Kerry apparently went over his head some how. The " shrapnel" that's in his ass he allegedly got from throwing a grenade to close to rice. The most damming evince in my opinion is Kerry's reaction to this. You would think that someone who made his service in Viet nam the corner stone of his political career would more vocal about this and release all his military records, yet he hasn't done this.
Also as a side note this is a perfect example of media bias. Did 60 minutes cover this story at all? Yet they base their whole story on Bush at the national guard on one person with a history of mental problems. Yet Kerry has several people who were in the military say he is unfit for command and they ignore him. If 10 guys from the national guard came together against Bush do you thing they would have covered it the same way?
 
NEWSWEEK POLL SHOWS BUSH LEAD GONE
The problem with polls like that is what we need to know is how Kerry did in key states not all over the country. For example, Florida decided the 2000 election. It doesn't matter what people think in Massachusetts. It matters what people think in Florida. All the votes aren't tallied together each state gets counted and the points are given to the candidate that wins that particular state. There are a few key states that will probably decide this election so that poll doesn't tell us too much. It obviously could be pretty easy to skew. Poll more people from CA and MA and you will get Kerry a more favorable poll number.
 
Thursday, Sept. 30, 2004 10:37 p.m. EDT
Lehrer Stacks Deck Against Bush

Presidential debate moderator Jim Lehrer showed once again Thursday night why top aides to President Clinton used to call him "our moderator" when presidential debate time rolled around in 1996.

The questions, which Lehrer announced at the outset had been authored exclusively by him, were supposed to help the American people determine which candidate would be a better steward of U.S. national security in a post-9/11 world.

But there were no queries to Sen. Kerry about his long Senate record of voting against defense appropriations, or his sponsorship of a bill to cut CIA funding by $6 billion a year after terrorists struck the World Trade Center in 1993, or Kerry's support of the nuclear freeze movement during the height of the Cold War.
Kerry wasn't asked why he teamed up with Jane Fonda to protest the Vietnam War while his band of brothers were still on the battlefield, or why he met with enemy leaders in Paris, or why he accused fellow soldiers of being "monsters" and "war criminals."

Most Americans would consider the answers to those questions extremely relevant to the selection of any U.S. commander in chief during a time of war.

But not Jim Lehrer. Instead, he focused on Iraq with question after question that suggested Bush had blown it.

Here's a sampling:

"You said there was a miscalculation in Iraq," Lehrer asked the president. "What was it and how did it happen?"

"What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion," Lehrer asked Kerry, "has President Bush made in these areas [Iraq]?"

To Bush: "Mr. President, has Iraq been worth the cost in American lives -10,052 - I mean 1,052 up to today?"

To Kerry: "You've repeatedly accused President Bush of lying to the American people on Iraq. Give us some examples of the president being untruthful on Iraq."

Despite his focus on Iraq, however, Lehrer never asked why Kerry voted to authorize the war, then turned around and voted against the legislation to fund it. Or why he voted against authorization for the first Gulf War, even though President Bush's father had amassed just the kind of coalition Kerry says the U.S. needs now.

Likewise, the PBS host declined to ask Kerry about comments in recent days from French and German officials who announced they have no intention of sending troops to Iraq, even if Kerry is elected.

That's quite a stunning development, given that Kerry's Iraq policy rests almost solely on the promise that he'll persuade Old Europe to pitch in and take some of the load off U.S. forces.

But not stunning enough, apparently, to interest Mr. Lehrer.
 
goes4ever said:
LOL........you must be a fan of Sean hannity
I listen a bit. He's not my favorite, but he does bring up some good points others dont.

VanillaGorilla said:
If Bush Flip Flops as bad as Kerry has I would be saying the same thing about him. Unfortunately allot of people let their political ideology blind them. How can Kerry criticize that the troops don't have the vests they need or armored cars when he voted against the money to support them.
These people who are so blinded by their ideology...are they the same people who claim to be of the open minded persuasian??? :p

VanillaGorilla said:
Thursday, Sept. 30, 2004 10:37 p.m. EDT
Lehrer Stacks Deck Against Bush

Presidential debate moderator Jim Lehrer showed once again Thursday night why top aides to President Clinton used to call him "our moderator" when presidential debate time rolled around in 1996.

The questions, which Lehrer announced at the outset had been authored exclusively by him, were supposed to help the American people determine which candidate would be a better steward of U.S. national security in a post-9/11 world.

But there were no queries to Sen. Kerry about his long Senate record of voting against defense appropriations, or his sponsorship of a bill to cut CIA funding by $6 billion a year after terrorists struck the World Trade Center in 1993, or Kerry's support of the nuclear freeze movement during the height of the Cold War.
Kerry wasn't asked why he teamed up with Jane Fonda to protest the Vietnam War while his band of brothers were still on the battlefield, or why he met with enemy leaders in Paris, or why he accused fellow soldiers of being "monsters" and "war criminals."

Most Americans would consider the answers to those questions extremely relevant to the selection of any U.S. commander in chief during a time of war.

But not Jim Lehrer. Instead, he focused on Iraq with question after question that suggested Bush had blown it.

Here's a sampling:

"You said there was a miscalculation in Iraq," Lehrer asked the president. "What was it and how did it happen?"

"What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion," Lehrer asked Kerry, "has President Bush made in these areas [Iraq]?"

To Bush: "Mr. President, has Iraq been worth the cost in American lives -10,052 - I mean 1,052 up to today?"

To Kerry: "You've repeatedly accused President Bush of lying to the American people on Iraq. Give us some examples of the president being untruthful on Iraq."

Despite his focus on Iraq, however, Lehrer never asked why Kerry voted to authorize the war, then turned around and voted against the legislation to fund it. Or why he voted against authorization for the first Gulf War, even though President Bush's father had amassed just the kind of coalition Kerry says the U.S. needs now.

Likewise, the PBS host declined to ask Kerry about comments in recent days from French and German officials who announced they have no intention of sending troops to Iraq, even if Kerry is elected.

That's quite a stunning development, given that Kerry's Iraq policy rests almost solely on the promise that he'll persuade Old Europe to pitch in and take some of the load off U.S. forces.

But not stunning enough, apparently, to interest Mr. Lehrer.
I've been hearing about this all the time; along with the *wink*, but it will never make it to the general public...pity.
 
Latest polls: Bush maintains (or regains, depending on how you look at it) lead by five points despite majority believing Kerry won debate.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Last edited:
tomorow night Edwards will attack Cheney on halliburton
Cheney wont attack Edwards on being a scummy trial lawyer
The republicans are such pussies
And the democrats even worse
 
I like Cheney. He's a mean, sarcastic, old bastard. And he's smart as hell. I can't wait for that one :D That'll be 10X better than the presidentail debates.
 
Back
Top