Debate survey

[flatfloor]

If you watch the "debate" lets hear who you think won. No long winded answers please.

BTW, The John Bridge Debate survey has correctly predicted the winners of the last four Presidential Elections.

[Sponsored Links]

[LadyGodiva]

Our future President, John Kerry.

Dubya stumbled and bumbled as usual. That short enough for you FF?

[muskymike]

I fell asleep 20 min. into it. From what I saw GB.

[Shaughnn]

President Bush appeared unprepared and confussed, and lost his temper on several occasions. Senator Kerry was confident and unusually concise. The most telling for me was President Bush's reliance on canned responces and recycled talking points from the past few weeks of his speaches. John Kerry's responses were topical and demonstrated an understanding of the material.
I think that John Kerry won the debate and I appologize for my overlong answer. Life is just more complex than "black or white".
Shaughnn
PS: Watched the debate on C-Span and avoided any commentary or outside interpretations that way. I think I got a lot more from the debate from two stationary cameras than I would have from countless camera angles and endless yammerings by pundits with axes to grind.

[jerrym4]

I think Kerry was better prepared and only a slightly better debater.

[Steven Hauser]

I think we all lost.

They were both giving short sound bite answers with very little substance. I still have no idea how each of them practically plan to pull off their plans.

Steven's take Bush slightly ahead, but really no clear winner.

[mizzou_kx]

I watched the entire mostly boring thing. Don't think either one could be declared a winner. Just more of the same from both sides. I heard nothing new. Didn't change my mind. :crazy:

[smee]

I watched the whole thing. And I realized that sadly it doesn't really change much. I don't think that one over wholly 'prepared' debate between these two candidates will change an outcome or minds. At best a flatliner. Everyone knows that GW is not good at debates....hello. Everyone knows that John Kerry is about as exciting to listen to and watch speak as watching mud dry :)

The thing I came away with is more discontent with the system of politics.

[yadax3]

Kerry.

[Mike2]

Foul play...not an even match.

Kerry pewt me to sleep right after GW. For those of you who watched the whole thing....did he pewt hisownself to sleep??

[cx]

Didn't watch, only listened, although why is a question not even I can answer. :rolleyes:

I agree that America lost, but we knew that before the debate began.

I think the guy who has held the office for four years should have been a lot better prepared, not by virtue of his handlers training him, I mean he should know most of the answers because he's allegedly had all the information and made all the decisions. He didn't sound like he knew diddly, just had some canned answers - mostly about everything being "a hard job."

The other socialist seemed better prepared and seemed to know some of the subject matter. I'd hafta give the match to Kerry.

But the worst part was the "moderator." Isn't that bozo supposed to be a big-time news guy (again, a non-television person here)? I think the very best that could be said of most of his "questions" would be that they were inane; if in a less generous mood, one might accurately characterize them as dumb.

Que waste of time!

My opinion; worth price charged.

[Scooter]

Kerry "won" by appearing more prepared and not blowing it. However, he didn't look at the camera, and seemed to look either to the moderator or the audience, I'm not sure which. He had a couple mistatements.

Bush, ("wrong war, wrong time, wrong place") did what his handlers told him to do, and made his key points that Kerry is a flip flopper and the war in Iraq is just going great. He too, had a couple mistatements, ("messed mixages") which he repeated and blew several times. I give high kudos to Bush for using the word vociferous, and actually being able to pronounce it.

Meanwhile Iran and North Korea have nukes, and we don't need weapon inspectors to tell us that, and we don't have the troops to do anything about it.
Sigh.

[yadax3]

I think the guy who has held the office for four years should have been a lot better prepared, not by virtue of his handlers training him, I mean he should know most of the answers because he's allegedly had all the information and made all the decisions.
I totally agree. ;)

[tileguytodd]

I guess i would like to know how Kerry can gaurantee anything when it comes to russia.
Making gaurantees when it comes to another soverign nation??
Pretty pathetic .
Prepared? a plan?? i didnt hear no plan.And once again,your dealing with religous extremists and fanatics over there which precludes any gaurantees.

And sure,Kerry could have talked and talked to Iraq's leadership and he could have even kept it from coming to war.
Of course Isreal would have to go.Blah blah blah with absolutly no real content.
Bush looked his normal self.terrible public speaker,lousy debater,Strong arm mentality etc etc.He did however Look like a president.more than i can say for Kerry who looks like a talk show host ;)

[Scooter]

All of you except John and I are too young to remember.

I remember Richard Nixon in 1968 when running for office. He would speak and tell everyone that he "had a plan" to get us out of Viet Nam." He said he wouldn't and couldn't tell us what that plan was because it would undermine President Johnson's ability to wage war as commander in chief. But he had a plan. He would take his right hand and tap his left breast pocket, like the plan was sitting right there, and he wouldn't tell us. What a pile of crap.

His plan was, of course "Peace with Honor" and whilst I was a draftee running around jungles getting shot at in 1969, it was a frigging joke. I woulda given a months pay to frag that SOB.

The fact is that this stupid Iraq war has caused huge damage to our nation, our defense, and to our otherwise solid allies. Examples:

1. 200 Billion spent over there. Do you have any idea how many fire stations, port inspections, homeland security officers 200 Billion buys. So much, that we could give everyone a 25% tax break after we spent it all like drunken sailors. This thing has destroyed whatever economic comeback we might have had and we are running a record deficit. Bush gets an "F" in economics.

2. Destroyed Colitions. France and Germany were with us in Kuwait and supported us in Afghanistan. Russia even supported us in Afghanistan. We couldn't ask them for 25 cents right now. We look greedy and stupid. Bush gets an "F" in diplomacy.

3. Troops Stretched Too Thin. If North Korea exploded a bomb today, we wouldn't have a single division to fight them. They and Iran have nukes, and we don't need weapon inspectors to prove that. We are helpless against them. Sigh. Bush gets a "D" as commander in chief. Dumbsfeld gets an "F" and should resign.

4. Iraq in Civil War. I will stick my neck out here and say that this stupid war will ultimately cause chaos and civil war in Iraq, and thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of folks will die over there. At least when Hussien was there, he could govern the place. There were no stinkin car bombs. This type of chaos is a de-stabilizing force in an area that needs solid countries. Bush gets a "D" in military planning.

5. There is no Plan. I will agree with Tod that there is no plan to get us out, because this is a stupid war and there is no exit strategy.

His Daddy said in his book five years ago: "Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

If only his son could read. Sigh.

Kerry can do no better than Bush on an exit plan, but for Christs sake, he can't do any worse. Bush gets an absolute "F" for the lack of a clear exit plan in this stupid war.

[tileguytodd]

So can anybody tell me why gas is now costing me 1.93 per gallon now that we occupy the rich oil nation of iraq when gas was 1.56 when the war began??

I Filled my Truck tank today and damn near needed to take out a loan ;)

[muskymike]

Sounds like my truck half a hundy to fill her. The 2 bored me to sleep.

[flatfloor]

Well Scooter, you win for the longest answer without an answer. You a politician?

BTW I give a slight edge to Kerry.

[Davestone]

Kerry was clearly better prepared,i guess when you're hungry for it.W kinda reminded me of his dad,seemed tired of answering the same questions and unwilling to attack the other on their voting records.And didn't mention the U. N.s castrated ability to defend the victims of genocide in Africa. Well, Kerry's got a hell of a commitment to live up to,if he gets in. :sick:

[Scooter]

Hey Jim--

1. Do you think Iraq is just going fine and we are making progress like GWB says? We had 5 amputees yesterday in Baghdad. One of them was a pen pal from BooksforSoldiers.com. George called it a Peeance Freeance Iraq a while back. Have we achieved a Peeance Freeance Iraq yet, Jim? Like whats going on? Pick a side here. I think its a friggin mess.

2. If things aren't going well, do you think anyone has a friggin plan to get us out of this mess? I don't think so. That includes Kerry for me. Its just a mess, without any light at the end of the tunnel.

3. Do you like the 200 Billion price tag? Like paying for it? Are you ready for the increased taxes that it will cost? Glad its getting spent? Getting good value for it? Hey, buddy, express an opinion here.

4. Do you think we have enough troops? The Cold War Scenario was enough divisions to fight 2 regional conflicts at once. Do we have enough for Iraq and other contingencies? Whaddya think there, buddy?

I'd just like to know howya think there?

[flatfloor]

Gee Scooter, does that mean you think Bush won the debate or does it mean Kerry did? :bang:

[Unregistered]

Only 1 week away from federal elections here in Australia and its a bit concerning that people are starting to worry more about the outcome of YOUR elections! No great ideological difference between any runners here, just throwing money at the electorate. I know you guys dont have compulsory voting like we do here, but I urge you all to get in the booth on polling day and participate: your decision doesnt only affect you but will have an impact on people all over the globe; in Iraq and in all the other nations participating in the war. Get amongst it, have a dip and dont stuff it up!!

[cx]

Yep, Scooter, that was the question. :D

Not whether either one of'em is fit to defend our Constitution against all enemys, forign or domestic. I think we already know the answer to that one. :(

Wonder why they didn't invite the Libertarian candidate. :rolleyes:







Sorry, Jim, couldn't help myownself. :o

[flatfloor]

It's OK CX at least you answered. ;)

[John Bridge]

I can't answer either. I tried very hard to watch the "debate," but about ten minutes into it, I turned to one of the old movie channels. I think the whole process is disgusting. ;)

[T_Hulse]

I nominate Scooter for President. He can dodge a simple question with the best of 'em. :D

Kerry.

[rob 223]

I think kerry, we need a president who has a chance at regaining a positive backing from other countries, because it does matter what the rest of the world thinks maybe not for what we choose to do in our country but when we start invading other countries I would prefer not to be looked at as disregarding what the rest of the world thinks.

Being president is being a PR rep for the United States to the world and bush has basically said you dont like it tuff we will do whatever we want, and that sounds like a dictator to me. Truthfully I am sure whomever gets elected there will be lots of new crappy policies and amendments that will further undermine our freedom and the foundation of our country, like the "Patriot"act Key word ACT!

[Shaughnn]

So can anybody tell me why gas is now costing me 1.93 per gallon now that we occupy the rich oil nation of iraq when gas was 1.56 when the war began??

I Filled my Truck tank today and damn near needed to take out a loan ;)

Hell, I just filled up this morning at $2.47 per gallon. Wish I could find the cheap stuff like Todd's got. :D
Shaughnn

[jjwq8]

Recently treated my lawyer to dinner and was surprised to learn that he was at college with Kerry and has maintained contact. He also knows Dubya through Dubya Senior.

Whilst freely admitting that Dubya is a five star knot-hole he still prefers him to Kerry.

How sad can it be for the world's democratic leader that these two specimens are the best that you can find?

Is it not of greater import that Jimmy Carter found evidence of large scale fraud in Florida ahead of the elections?

What point a debate if the fix is already in? Political Cynicism at its worst. :shake:

[Davestone]

Scooter,it was just a survey,pump your brakes :bow: I'm not gonna cloud Flatfloors thread with comments,but no one likes these aholes killin our boys and payin for it,or 2.00 gas,but blame the right people,if it wasn't this war it would be something else,the terrorists want to destroy us,want to kill us,and they are going to attack us any way they can,we know Iraq didn't attack us,but he financed and gave safe haven to these jerks,and somebody telling us he can make things all better by talking to them is b.s.As far as nukes,look at China under Clinton,they got the technology stolen from us under Monikas' nose.If Kerry gets in i can only hope things get better.See now i went and filled up Flatfloors thread,darn it! :D

[tileguytodd]

Who is the libertarian candidate anyways?? :D
You talking about Nader??
God help us if he were ever to become president.That would be like putting a chicken into a fox pen.they'd eat him up before lunch and gnaw on his bones for dessert :D
There are some potentially good candidates out there but many of them are unwilling to run.President of the United States gives a whole new meaning to the word Stress!!!
Not a bad retirement plan though if you dont get assasinated ;)

[Stoneguy]

Unfortunately, no matter which one won the debate, nor which one wins the elections, I think we know who the real losers are.

We are.

All of us.

Gas prices, food prices, cement prices, wood prices, and yes, (keeping this forum related), probably even TILE prices are going to keep going up.. And there ain't $hit any of us can do about it.

[jd77]

Kerry was the clear winner on style. Good debater and was not challenged much at all.

Bush won on substance - hands down. If you listened on the radio you got the substance without being distracted by his poor public persona.


Kerry is an empty suit with a tan and a manicure and couldn't make a decision to save his own life.

Bush, at least, has a big set and makes unpopular decisions every day that sometimes have to be made when you're the President.

You can't please everyone (just look at all of the whining going on). :D


JD

[flatfloor]

:)

[Bill Vincent]

The way I see it, Bush seemed unprepared and preoccupied. He sounded more like a broken record, than anything else, with the same exact 4 or 5 phrases again and again, throughout the entire debate. Very disappointing. Kerry, on the other hand, was very precise and to the point. He addressed every question and accusation as best he could. As for his plans, they're WAY far fetched, and either he's lying his ass off trying to get elected and then just chalk them up to another politician's broken promises, or he has absolutely NO idea what he's talking about.

I agree with alot of the previous posts. We all lost.

[cx]

The Libertarian candidate for President is Michael Badnarik, Todd.

Never heard of him? I'm not surprised. The two "major" parties have legislated everyone else out of contention. The American people have been taught they have to vote for the lesser of two evils. I'm a slow learner. :)

For those of you who recognize that you don't want either of the two Constitutionally challenged socialists you saw on TV Thursday evening, but think you have no other choice, I suggest you are not correct; you have other choices.

If you think the Libertarian candidate has no chance of winning, just think if it as a vote for none-of-the-above. If just 30 or 40 percent of the registered voters who actually go to the polls would vote for Mr. Badnarik, whether because they are tired of the status quo and really want less government and a return to the Constitution or because they are just tired of the status quo, we would see a major change in the way the federal government operates in this country.

You have a choice. You had an even better choice last Presidential election cycle and the one before that, but you still have a choice. You can vote for the lesser of two evils and still get what you don't want, or you can vote for what you actually want and possibly make a difference.

Easy choice for me.

My opinion; y'all know the usual value. :shades:

[John Bridge]

Here's another Libertarian vote. :)

[Bri]

Around here, shouldn't that be the Liberrytarian vote? :)

[flatfloor]

Brrrrriaaaaaaaaan! :shake: :rofl:

CX, you're making me think, I hate that.

[sdaniels7114]

Kerry was clear and concise and not at all 'wonkish.' I was never too thrilled with him as a Senator, he always seemed stuck in Kennedy's shadow, so I've been supporting him as more of an ABB candidate. He continues to impress me, the more time he spends outside of Teddy's shadow.

[flatfloor]

Speaking of Teddy Steve, we were wondering how, in view of Chapaquidick, he keeps getting reelected. Any thoughts?

[cx]

All of you except John and I are too young to remember.

I remember Richard Nixon in 1968 when running for office. He would speak and tell everyone that he "had a plan" to get us out of Viet Nam." He said he wouldn't and couldn't tell us what that plan was because it would undermine President Johnson's ability to wage war as commander in chief. But he had a plan. He would take his right hand and tap his left breast pocket, like the plan was sitting right there, and he wouldn't tell us. What a pile of crap.

His plan was, of course "Peace with Honor" and whilst I was a draftee running around jungles getting shot at in 1969, it was a frigging joke. I woulda given a months pay to frag that SOB.Well, Scooter, that was my first Presidential election as a voter, so I remember it at least a little. The deceit of the campaigns, both Primary and General, wasn't fully known until years after the election, was quite successfully kept out of the general public eye even then, and there was not a sufficient outcry when it was mostly revealed (some will, of course, never be known).

A good read about some of it is available in Daniel Ellsberg's (he of The Pentagon Papers) book, "Secrets." It is likely to leave you wondering, "is the same thing going on right now?" Given what we know about all the campaigns and administrations since then, it's difficult to imagine the American people are not being similarly deceived today, and with equal arrogance and distain.

[sdaniels7114]

Speaking of Teddy Steve, we were wondering how, in view of Chapaquidick, he keeps getting reelected. Any thoughts?


There's only about 30% of the population of MA that's Republican, they certainly never vote for him, but that's it. Everyone else has forgiven him or doesn't care. I doubt that he would be jailed even today, let alone that many years ago. He has always fought for those less fortunate, and he does have a strong family reputation. Even his enemies say he's a good Senator. Personally, I think we should have never found out what sort of Senator he is. Leaving her there while he protected his political future is inexcusable, his career should have ended that night.

[smee]

Hey- back when GW was running against Gore some commentator was saying - I don't remember who it was - they said, believe it or not, it comes down to who would they like to have a beer with....how nuts is that. And, they weren't kidding.

well, I guarantee nobody wants to throw a ginny down with with Mr. ED.

Here's my question: why aren't we dealing with the CRAP system we have? And why don't people get that they are the opposites of the same thing - and probably the not so opposite...there is so much damage in heading down a course, and then changing that course, then changing it again....Again, why aren't we focusing on creating a more unified government and tackling these problems?
These problems we face have nothing to do with 'parties' in this country. And they certainly don't have a thing to do with which guy looks good in a suit. They are both flawed. One is not better than the other. The system under which they function is the culprit. I DO not want these bastards now chopping up Alaska looking for oil. Why aren't we all moving toward hybrids? It's cA RAP de la Grande

I am calling out to the none of the above.

[Gerry]

As John Kerry pointed out,
More Americans died in July then June.
More Americans died in August than July.
More Americans died in September than August.

Bush's solution -- keep on going in the same direction.

Sheesh. Give me a break - it's time for a change.

[LonnythePlumber]

I don't even own a television. I was an Army Infantry Captain in 1968 and the killing sickened me. Few ideas are worth giving your kid's life for.

[cx]

I am calling out to the none of the above He'll be on your ballot, Linda, under the name Michael Badnarik, Libertarian. :)

[tileguytodd]

Actually you may want to recheck those death toll figures in Iraq.
Unless of course your including everybody not just US soldiers.

A Libertarian vote is Likely going to end up favorable for Bush according to the scuttlebut ive heard from the forcasters.
He sounds Russian Kelly :D

[tilesnake]

I have never been less enthusiastic about voting then now, our entire
goverment needs a MAJOR enama. :bang:

[tileguytodd]

Libertarian Party Views On

#1-Crime-Libertarians will push to legalize Drugs which they say is a major reason for violent crime.Comparisons are made using the crime problems of today and prohibition crime rates in the twenties.
By legalizing Drugs,costs will come down and crime will drop accordingly.We will no longer have prison overcrowding because 50% of the people in Prison are there for drug related non violent crimes.

My Opinion-This is poorly thought out and based on personal responsibility.
Its a great way to get our school children addicted to hard drugs at a young age.Sure,they wont be able to buy these legal drugs but then again,they cant buy cigarettes either can they.
This one gets a :tongue:

#2-Environment-The party doesnt say one way or another.They have a statement by a doctor that they let do the talking for them citing government as the largest polluters and enjoying sovergn immunity to prosecution.Where does the Party actually stand??

My Opinion-I cant give one,i dont know where they are with this.

#3-Social Services and Welfare-The Party would like to eliminate by slowly phasing out Social services.This goes along with thier Personal responsibilty stance.One of thier ways to eliminate would be to increase jobs by aiding small business and eliminating alot of the stumbling blocks government has put up that makes it difficult for the entrepeneur.

My Opinion-They have some good ideas for how to do this but alot of people would get hurt in the process,People who actually need welfare.Dont get me wrong, I am a firm believer the social services system is a failure and needs revamping.We are a charitable nation and libertarians are hopeful that private charities would take up the slack.I believe if the system were run properly like a business there wouldnt be a problem and people wouldnt have to get hurt in the process.To put the burden on the private sector to choose between a family in the USA in trouble needing help(1 charitable option) or feed 20 starving children in another country,which would we choose??
The Libertarians need to be far more specific here about an actual Plan!!

#4-Foreign Aid-Thier position seems to be to stop the handouts and make those who are getting aid accountable.Aid does not promote economic growth and we have sent 400 billion dollars since WW@ in aid to many nations,few of which have gotten out of the dependant stage.Much of what is sent dissapears into the rulers coffers and is lost forever to the people it was intended for.

My Opinion. The Libertarians forgot one firm resolve of both major parties and the people of the USA and that is to spread democracy and freedom.Certainly things could be looked at and revised perhaps.Much of this Money is spent or given in aid to stabilize area's of the globe and prevent human disaster.Much is sent to deter communism from making headway into these societies.There is far more to this than the statement-We spent 400 billion and what have we gotten in return?
Here is an area that the general public knows little about as to the Why s.Why do we aid this country and not that one etc etc.

#5-Taxes-I see nothing here but the same promises made by all politicians multiplied 10 fold and no actual substance as to how it will be accomplished while maintaining our ability to defend our country,feed our starving,deal with our natural disasters ,house our ailing and elderly etc etc

#6- Immigration-They believe in and Support Open Immigration.this is qualified by the statement that this is an oportunity not a handout.

My opinion-Immigration needs to be controlled.In fact, I am against immigration beyond that of reletives of existing US citizens,at least until our economy stabalizes and our deficit is not only gone,but the ability to create a deficit abolished!!

#7- Freedom of speech-They oppose censorship vehomently and while this means that your child can discuss religion,it also means that another kid can hand out pornography.
My Opinion-Freedom of speech is a constitutional right,that right was given when Morality was not confronted with much of what is with us today.I'm not one of the moral majority here but no censorship at all??Talk about a springboard to moral decay!!!

While the Libertaian party has some good idea's, they have a few that have no grounds in reality in my opinion.Fredom is a great thing but some of what they propose is a license for the extremist to run rampant.
No Thanks, Even though i like some of thier stances, Chaos in America is not something i would ever hope to see!!

[Scooter]

OK, I thought Kerry won, by a clear margin.

Bush with his facial expressions and smirks looked bored, tired, and like he wanted to be anyplace other than in the debate. Jeez, thats no way to apply for a job.

Then the statndard "Wrong War, Wrong Time Wrong Place" catchy phrases that his handlers taught him sounded, well, contrived and insincere.

He also sounded really stupid when Kerry pointed out that Osama BL attacked us, not Sadaam, and George responded "I know that."

Finally one of his often repeated comments for keeping his job was that he was working really hard. He must have said that 3-5 times, and it sounded stupid.

This was a debate on foreign policy, Bush's strong suit and he got his ass kicked. The next debate is a town hall format, favoring Kerry and is on domestic issues, again, favoring Kerry.

Bush's handlers and Bush better wake up and change the attitude at these debates. There are an enormous block of undecideds who will, in large measure, be swayed by these debates. We could be witnessing a debate costing an election.

[smee]

Mr or Ms Unregistered - I think those type of comments are totally unnecessary and if you'd like to make them - why don't you have enough integrity to assume responsibility for your comment instead of hiding behind the skirt of technology...

if you don't have something intelligent or at the very least participatory to say - I'd like to suggest you keep it to yourself.

[jvcstone]

Well said, Linda Thank you
JVC

[COBALT]

I must be the only Bush supporter on this entire site. Wow. I thought people would have picked up on some obviously contradictary things Kerry said. So far I haven't seen anyone mention them.

So...to avoid getting anything heated started here I'll just highlight some of the things I considered while watching the debates.

1. Yes, President Bush had a hard time containing himself, but as a lot of analysts have been saying he's quite the "unorthidox" debator. Bush's strategy is simple: don't follow any of the classical debate rules. Usually it's considered bad form in a debate to either take things personal or appear as defensive. Normally I'd agree with this, but after watching the debate I noticed something interesting. Several times Bush had the opportunity to take note in something Kerry said that was obviously contradictary, and didn't. Immediately following Kerry would elaborate on what he was saying, and end up exposing it himself.

2. This brings me to my second point. Kerry's inability to remember what he just appeared so convicted about 30 seconds before. He's said he feels that a strong international coalition wasn't developed before the Iraq war, and would promise to deliver one if he were president. Yet, he has a bad habit of trashing the international community who is supporting the war right now, or have managed to align themselves with the US in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Meanwhile he says the Iraq war was a mistake (even though he did support the US going to war in the first place), but also says it is essential for the war in Iraq to be successful. What country is going to send their troops to support the US in this war if they don't think the American President thinks it's a good idea to be there?!? I wouldn't support it. He made the outrageous remarks about soldiers not having the right equipment and body armor when he was a strong opponent of providing the necessary funding for it.

Unfortunately Kerry appeared quite a bit more polished, refined, and ready for the debate, but what he spent his time saying didn't make much sense. He cluttered his speaking time with a dozen issues at a time never focusing on one specific thing. His challenges were argumentative.

Bush appeared to not have a very good handle on being at the debate in the first place, but at least he was consistent, and I honestly believe he has the principles and conviction. They come out when he is in a defensive posture, which is what caused Al Gore so many problems in the 2000 debate. He appeared much more personable, and allowed his character to be seen, and even if he did appear defensive he answered with SPECIFICS. Something the challenging candidate didn't seem to do very well. He didn't appear "out of touch", lost, or unable to answer questions. He did spend a significant amount of time to appear as though he was thinking about HOW he wanted to say something. To some it may appear he doesn't know what say, but I'd argue he knows the kind of hot seat he's on, and I think he wants to make sure what he says is not miss-interpreted. To me that's being thoughtful. To others it may appear as ill-prepared.

He spent less time marking up his speach cards as Kerry did. Whenever Kerry waited for his turn to speak he marked up his cards. Whenever Kerry listened to a challenge he would grin. That can either be interpreted as confident or arrogant. Probably a mix. Bush however kept his eyes glued to his opponent. Kerry didn't do that. That is what I found most interesting.

Overall Kerry concerns me. He spent a lot of time throwing curve balls, which is the proper stance for him to take in the debate, but wasn't paying much attention to what he was saying when he threw them. He was lofting out what he's been saying on the campaign trail for months. That doesn't impress me.

What also concerns me is the aparent lack of criticism on what Kerry spent his time saying. Glaring contradictions should be explored not passed over as a by-product of political debates. Also, calling Kerry the winner by default without any real concentration on the issues is a mistake.

[Scooter]

The bottom line on this from almost every source is that the Bush "lost" the debate last week. His poll numbers are slipping in every major poll as a result of the debate.

We can argue about policy in another thread, but the fact remains that Bush's debating skills are terrible, and unless he can turn this around and change his style, he better call in sick for the next two debates.

I hope for all you GOP guys out there that Bush pulls this off. He must change his style if he intends to win this.

Of course, being a quasi-communist, I assume that the leopard (Bush) won't change his spots, and I hope for a dead heat or a slight Kerry advantage going into the election. Maybe this time, the Supreme Court will stay out of it, if the Democrat wins.

In any event, GWB hopefully will have a new job as a cocktail waitress

[Scooter]

And just to show you that I'm not mean-spirited, if Kerry loses, he'll have a similar job:

[Scooter]

And there is the Vice President:

[Scooter]

Lest us not forget John Edwards:

[flatfloor]

Ok you two, who won the debate? :rolleyes:

[Scooter]

Bush was quite the "unorthidox" debator. Bush's strategy is simple: don't follow any of the classical debate rules.

Well he better shape up, or he'll be shipped out. Seriously, those smirks looked really crappy.

Kerry had a bad habit of trashing the international community

Well, I think most of the international community needs trashing. Most countries can barely stand Bush, and thats no secret. Perhaps a new face might get the job done.

Calling Kerry the winner by default without any real concentration on the issues is a mistake.

Debates aren't "won" by the issues. They are won by style, likeability, sound bites, looking Presidential, and "gotcha" moments. Your too young to remeber Kennedy, although you might remember Ross Perot and his stupid charts. He actually had a great bead on the issues, but came across has a nerd. And Gore, even though he had some great policy ideas, was terrible with his sighs and his manerisms [Memo to Bush, remember Gore]; and finally, George H. Bush, who seemed bored and kept looking at his watch. Issues are not an issue in Presidential debates, only style.

There's lotsa Bush supporters here, its just with GWB nosediving last week, they are little scarce right now. I always think I'm the only Democrat.

[flatfloor]

Scooter.. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Bill Vincent]

I don't know where the hell I'VE been, but I just saw the pics for the first time. I stopped laughing hysterically long enough to call my wife over and take a look, and her response was to tell you, Scooter-- you need to spend more time settin tile!! ROTFLMAO :rofl: :yeah:

[jd77]

#1 I must be the only Bush supporter on this entire site. Wow. I thought people would have picked up on some obviously contradictary things Kerry said. So far I haven't seen anyone mention them.

#2
What also concerns me is the aparent lack of criticism on what Kerry spent his time saying. Glaring contradictions should be explored not passed over as a by-product of political debates. Also, calling Kerry the winner by default without any real concentration on the issues is a mistake.


Cobalt,

You're not the only one here. I just get tired of arguing. Kind of gets to be like :bang: Thanks for taking the time to make your points. I certainly agree.

As for the second part of your quote - is it any wonder we don't see much criticism of content with attitudes like this (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/30015.htm) in the major media?

The more I have to listen to Senator Kerry the less I can stand his droning condescending attitude. He insulted everyone at the debate in St. Louis by saying he could tell, just by looking around, that the only ones under his plan to have their taxes raised would be himself, the President and Charlie Gibson. How insulting.



It's hard to believe people are actually buying this " I have a plan" crap.

John Kerry actualy said this at a news conference in Englewood Colorado on October 7th -

"I don't know what I'm going to find on January 20th, the way the President is going. If the President just does more of the same every day and it continues to deteriorate, I may be handed Lebanon, figuratively speaking. Now, I just don't know. I can't tell you. What I'll tell you is, I have a plan."

He doesn't know what he's going to find but he "has a plan". Wow :D

I just know what I saw in the second debate - the guy I'm voting for is the one in charge - GWB.

No apologies here.



JD

[jjwq8]

Cobalt,


He doesn't know what he's going to find but he "has a plan". Wow :D

I just know what I saw in the second debate - the guy I'm voting for is the one in charge - GWB.

No apologies here.



JD

So you're voting for someone who doesn't have a plan or a single clue what he's doing and could apparently care less? :D

No apologies here either :D

[Bill Vincent]

There are alot of things that could be said about Bush, but to say he could care less is not one of them. He's made mistakes, no doubt, but not because he didn't care. I'm sorry. That, I have a hard time stomaching.

[jjwq8]

The care less refers to the many hundreds of innocents being lovingly recorded as collateral damage not far from where I sit and whom he basically shrugs off as an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of his war on terror/saddam/wmd/al-qaeda/old uncle tom cobbly and all.

Linda
Unregistered's comments are not original.
In the late seventies the late Alex Harvey sold out a gig or two on the east coast, and in his broadest glaswegian snarl admonished each of his audiences "America, worrrrlds greatest country! Right?" Rapturous Riotus Response.
"America, worrrrlds greatest democracy! Right?" Rapturous Riotus Response.
"Well doan F@#$ it up!" Even wilder Rapturous Riotus Response.
Somewhere I have the bootleg to confirm it.

[Steven Hauser]

Jeremy,

Are you blatently ignoring the other part of the equation for a reason?

I ask you about the terrorists where is your anger for them?

[jjwq8]

Steve
my anger is unrepeatble and unprintable in this or any other fora.

Find them and rid the world of their presence. No fanfare, no CNN, just do it. One of the greatest faults of your wonderful constitional democracy is the right to be kept informed. It means that issues that are simply tasks to be accomplished become public policy debates.

Your drains are blocked, clear the damn things. Don't invite your neighbours and the local paper to discuss it! And ferrcrissakes don't afford the politicians an opportunity to pick it up and run with it.

And if you can't clear the drains yourself, then subcontract it, don't bitch about the cost and give the subby all the help and wherewithal he requires. Oh and somebody try telling the Generals that you can't locate a terrorist if the closest you get is 60,000 feet.

[Bill Vincent]

The care less refers to the many hundreds of innocents being lovingly recorded as collateral damage not far from where I sit and whom he basically shrugs off as an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of his war on terror/saddam/wmd/al-qaeda/old uncle tom cobbly and all.


Sooooo, we should just pack up and let them do as they please, and then fight them on our own shores once they record the same or much more "collateral damage" over here?? F*&K THAT!! Once was enough, thank you. Let me tell you something-- when all this first started, I called the local recruiting office to see if I could get back in, but I was told I'm too old now. Knowing what I know now, I STILL would have joined back up!!



Steve
my anger is unrepeatble and unprintable in this or any other fora.
(part 1)
Find them and rid the world of their presence. No fanfare, no CNN, just do it. One of the greatest faults of your wonderful constitional democracy is the right to be kept informed. It means that issues that are simply tasks to be accomplished become public policy debates.
(part 2)
Your drains are blocked, clear the damn things. Don't invite your neighbours and the local paper to discuss it! And ferrcrissakes don't afford the politicians an opportunity to pick it up and run with it.
(part 3)
And if you can't clear the drains yourself, then subcontract it, don't bitch about the cost and give the subby all the help and wherewithal he requires. Oh and somebody try telling the Generals that you can't locate a terrorist if the closest you get is 60,000 feet.

Now, lets take this last post apart, a piece at a time.

Part one-- That's the other side of a double edges sword. Part of the reason our system works is because the government CAN'T hide things from us, and in todays age of satellites and so forth, if CNN DIDN'T report it, we'd be the only ones who didn't know what was going on!!

Part 2-- That's just what Bush did, and now he's catching hell for it. He said screw the neighbors-- they have their own agendas or want to be pussies!! We'll do what has to be done (and it DID have to be done, sooner or later-- he just refused to put off the inevitable).

Part 3-- two words-- tora bora

[jjwq8]

Bill
my critique, if it may be deemed such, was to the point that you should simply do it, not make such a song and dance about it.

For many tears the Brits operated sanctioned elimination squads in Ulster. The terrorists mouthpieces bitched and bleated about the unfairness of it all but conveniently ignored the fact that they were simply on the receiving end of the same tactics they employed themselves.

You also have forgotten that one of the basic tents of your democracy is that it is better that a thousand guilty go free than one innocent be punished.

Tora Bora made fine cinema. How many actual terrorists did it eliminate? Toting a gun and secreting oneself from an invading force does not make you a terrorist. Ask George Washington.

As to your wish to re-enlist. Admirable sentiment. I have not served nor have I ever been called to serve. I am in awe of those who have and do. That does not prevent either of us holding or expressing an opinion on how things are progressing. Human collateral damage may be unavoidable. It is never acceptable. Equating the deaths of innocents at the hands of the US military with the deaths of innocents resulting from terrorist acts is unwarranted and I am sure unintended as it places each on convergent tracks. One does not justify the other unless you are willing to accept the label of terrorist.

[jd77]

Oh and somebody try telling the Generals that you can't locate a terrorist if the closest you get is 60,000 feet.


Jeremy,

With all due respect to your right to express your opinion, that smarmy statement disrespects the bravery of our volunteer forces on the ground and spits on the graves of those that have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Allies included.


You also have forgotten that one of the basic tents of your democracy is that it is better that a thousand guilty go free than one innocent be punished

You must think terrorism should be prosecuted as a crime instead of dealt with as an act of war.


So you're voting for someone who doesn't have a plan or a single clue what he's doing and could apparently care less?

Golly gee, Jeremy. Me thinks yur too smart by half. I'm just a simple tile guy from Kansas who don't know nuttin'. I just figgered that the President prolly knows a little more 'n me on that there plan stuff. What's wrong? He don't talk flowery 'nuff for ya'? :D

JD

[John K]

Neal Boortz for president. :D :D :D

[jjwq8]

If you think I disrespect or otherwise disparage or beliitle those that have paid with their lives you are entirely mistaken.

Reference to 60,000 is to remind people that bombs (aerial or otherwise) don't discrimante.

You are deliberately misconstruing my reference. The importance is the protection of the innocents, not the manner of dealing with the terrorists, who I would also remind you are being dealt with by a court even if it is not called such when they are captured.

No I don't think Dubya talks flowery. I think he talks entirely too much and almost none of it makes cogent sense ;)

[John Bridge]

What was the question? ;)

I removed "unregistered's" remarks because they violate the rules of the forum. There are only a couple rules. One of them is that you can't be mean and hateful, especially when you haven't registered nor let people know who you are. :)

[lazybumranch]

In response to the remarks about W's smirks- Did anyone see the VP debate? Can anyone give good reason why no Meat Puppets beat John Edwards ass for smirking, etc? He did the EXACT same thing as Bush, with no public beatings issued. :bang:
My favorite part of the VP debate was when the Skipper smacked Gilligan with his hat... :tongue:

[sdaniels7114]

I'm wondering who advocted for the second Pres debate to be on a Friday evening? Its not exactly prime time, especially with the Baseball playoffs on. I'd still say Kerry came out on top, but wasn't nearly as decisive, since the President had that radio transmitter attached to his back :twitch: with Karl Rove obviously feeding him his lines:uhh:

Anyhow, I'd guess that whoever on the Dems side who suggested it be on Friday is getting a raise and whoever on the Repubs side who did likewise is probably looking for a new job.

[oma]

According to the info I have, it was officially ascertained that the lump on Bush's back was not a wire mechanism, but a spine (grin).

[lazybumranch]

Steve

Find them and rid the world of their presence. No fanfare, no CNN, just do it. One of the greatest faults of your wonderful constitional democracy is the right to be kept informed. It means that issues that are simply tasks to be accomplished become public policy debates.

Your drains are blocked, clear the damn things. Don't invite your neighbours and the local paper to discuss it! And ferrcrissakes don't afford the politicians an opportunity to pick it up and run with it.


Wait- are you saying that we should have not even tried to put together a coalition? That going in with out France and Germany on board is ok? This is contradicting the Dem Party Line, and at least 1/2 of what John Kerry claimed to believe(this week).
It also seems to be inferred that you believe we should send in the troops for up close and personal Hand -to-Hand combat, with no air support to help them. Should we ignore ALL the lessons we have learned over the years?

If the Terrorists were worried about collateral damage, then I might be too. However, they choose to live amongst the civilians, and the civalians appear to agree with the arrangement. The terrorists are blowing up children, ferrcrissakes. And that is thier INTENDED TARGET, not collateral damage! :bang:

[lazybumranch]

According to the info I have, it was officially ascertained that the lump on Bush's back was not a wire mechanism, but a spine (grin).
Some have never seen a politician with a spine-cut them some slack... :D