* * * OFFICIAL * * * Bush / Kerry Debate . . .

[jackschmittusa]

Bush's antics would be comical if I didn't think that's how he acts in the Oval Office too.

 

[GoingUp]

Why the hell does Kerry talk for 30 seconds on something that has nothing to do with the question asked? He does it on almost every question! Then he doesnt answer the questions half the time.

 

[ThunderDawg]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Touch 2nd question.

75% brought to justice?

Excuse me.

Does "Brought to Justice" still mean in a Court of LAW?
I have only seen 2 or Terrorists brought before a Judge.

 

[abaez]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Why the hell does Kerry talk for 30 seconds on something that has nothing to do with the question asked? He does it on almost every question! Then he doesnt answer the questions half the time.

Can you tell me the 3 mistakes bush gave as the answer to the last question?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: batchusa
President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265.html

goddamned... damning how he just directly lied to the american people, chuckling along knowing some people lap up anything he says.


AND WTF!! no one noticed what he said about DRED SCOTT?? that comment came out of nowhere really. how is dred scott an example of activist judging? its as literal constructionist as it gets. property is property in any state. document says black people are property. so property is property. good god thats as literal as it gets. those are godly judges by bushies own standards. good god. the activist position would be abolition the "liberal" position.

and this is the man that thinks he knows enough to pick supreme court judges?

its shameful.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: batchusa
The non online polls have Kerry winning it by 4-5%. The momentum continues....

what polls? I don't see any non online polls getting released...

ABC &CNN

abc has kerry winning by 2% w/ more democrats surveyed than republicans

Every national poll should have more democrats because there are more democrats in the country.

really? the election in 2002 had more republican voters than democrats...how do u explain that?

 

[0roo0roo]

republicans are the minority, they are just morelikely to vote.

 

[sharad]

I too think, Bush turning his back on the debate host says a lot about how arrogant he is and how he feels about others (and other countries).

"I am the president of the US of A and here is what I am going to do, too bad if you don't like it."

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
The problem with the idea that the moderator should call out inconsistencies, or lies if you prefer, is that then we have to worry about who the moderator is and what he/she believes is truth. Its better to let the debaters say what ever they want, make public record of it, and then let them be held accountable for their words later.

Facts are facts. $200 billion has not been spent on Iraq - this is a lie, regardless of who the mod is. This is what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by: Sonic587
SViscusi is correct. When Kerry/Edwards mention 90% of casualties are on the US side they are talking about coalition deaths. They aren't trying to play up a false number.

I also think it's wrong to use the iraqi body count in such a manor that the Bush/Cheney ticket has. You have to have a lot of guts to try and spin a US death toll into a more positive light.

It takes a lack of guts to spin it the other way, which is what Kerry is doing. Again, both sides are guilty.

Originally posted by: ThunderDawg
Excuse me.

Does "Brought to Justice" still mean in a Court of LAW?
I have only seen 2 or Terrorists brought before a Judge.

The wages of death are death.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and this is the man that thinks he knows enough to pick supreme court judges?

its shameful.

Kerry is going to do better? "Will only nominate Supreme Court justices with a record of respect for Roe v. Wade" - from johnkerry.com.

 

[Genx87]

he simple fact is that Bush put us roughly $8 trillion farther into the red than when he took office.

I am a bit confused on this.

The record I can see for our public debt before Bush took office was 5.67 Trillion dollars. The debt as of 9-30-04 is 7.418 Trillion.

Your notion he put us 8 trillion farther into debt is incorrect.
Over 4 years he has managed to put us a little under 2 trillion more into debt.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and this is the man that thinks he knows enough to pick supreme court judges?

its shameful.

Kerry is going to do better? "Will only nominate Supreme Court justices with a record of respect for Roe v. Wade" - from johnkerry.com.

:thumbsup: sounds like a good plan to me.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Genx87

he simple fact is that Bush put us roughly $8 trillion farther into the red than when he took office.

I am a bit confused on this.

The record I can see for our public debt before Bush took office was 5.67 Trillion dollars. The debt as of 9-30-04 is 7.418 Trillion.

Your notion he put us 8 trillion farther into debt is incorrect.
Over 4 years he has managed to put us a little under 2 trillion more into debt.

its democrats spewing out false "simple facts", they do it continuously, get used to it. It's a good thing the country isn't doing as bad as they say, cuz if it was it'd be like we were in the great depression and about to lose WW2 at the same time, "the sky is falling".

 

[Sonic587]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sonic587
SViscusi is correct. When Kerry/Edwards mention 90% of casualties are on the US side they are talking about coalition deaths. They aren't trying to play up a false number.

I also think it's wrong to use the iraqi body count in such a manor that the Bush/Cheney ticket has. You have to have a lot of guts to try and spin a US death toll into a more positive light.

It takes a lack of guts to spin it the other way, which is what Kerry is doing. Again, both sides are guilty.

Uh, maybe I'm missing something here. How is Kerry/Edwards spinning the US death toll?

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=272.html

Cheney disputed Edwards's statement -- often repeated by Kerry -- that US forces have suffered "90% of the coalition casualties" in Iraq, saying that in fact Iraqi security forces "have taken almost 50 percent" of the casualties.

Both men have a point here, but Edwards is closer to the mark.

Edwards is correct counting only "coalition" forces -- those of the US, Britain and the other countries that took part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. According to CNN.com, which keeps an updated list, 1,066 US service men and women had died from hostile action and other causes during the Iraq operation as of Oct. 5, of a total 1,205 for all coalition countries. That's just over 88% of the coalition deaths.

We know of no accurate count of deaths suffered by Iraqi security forces, but an estimate reported both by the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post puts the figure at 750. Lumping those estimated Iraqi deaths with fatalities suffered by coalition forces produces a total of 1,955. Of that, the estimated Iraqi portion is 38% (not "almost 50%" as Cheney claimed) and the US total amounts to 55%.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: loki8481
:thumbsup: sounds like a good plan to me.

Yeah, I noticed you quit posting in the discussion on this issue. You're either closed minded (so regardless of what is said, you won't change your mind, e.g. Klixxer) or don't want your mind changed by any persuasive argument, or you plum forgot to check the thread again.

Originally posted by: Sonic587
Uh, maybe I'm missing something here. How is Kerry/Edwards spinning the US death toll?

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=272.html

:roll: I wish people could quit pretending that their candidate is a saint and the other a sinner. Or maybe you genuinely don't see it? Either way is spin. Fact is, the death toll is xxx. What percent of that is what is a matter of interpretation and, thus, spin. Both statistics are true, you're just selecting the one you like and presenting it as somehow more true, which is ridiculous.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: loki8481
:thumbsup: sounds like a good plan to me.

Yeah, I noticed you quit posting in the discussion on this issue. You're either closed minded (so regardless of what is said, you won't change your mind, e.g. Klixxer) or don't want your mind changed by any persuasive argument, or you plum forgot to check the thread again.

man, that's the pot calling the kettle black

it's the last one, though. I've been in OT most of the night.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ThunderDawg

Originally posted by: Engineer
Touch 2nd question.

75% brought to justice?

Excuse me.

Does "Brought to Justice" still mean in a Court of LAW?
I have only seen 2 or Terrorists brought before a Judge.

That question was set straight on CNN after the debate. The 75% is 75% of the original 12 masterminds of Al-Queda....not 75% of the estimated 18,000 Al-Queda around the world. Bush tried to spin it to looking like we had brought 75% of all of Al-Queda to justice when it was simply 9 of the 12 masterminds (not saying that we haven't caught a few of the 18,000 too.....just the stats released were geared on the 12 original based on CNN commentary).

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: dwell
I want Kerry to win so we can see how he can't fix Iraq either.

I want Bush to lose so badly for ignoring the fact you mention above and rushing to war anyway. Even Bush's father said it was a bad idea to attack Iraq. Cheney said it back in '91. Too bad Bush Jr was too stupid to take their advice.

 

[buckmasterson]

Originally posted by: sharad
I too think, Bush turning his back on the debate host says a lot about how arrogant he is and how he feels about others (and other countries).

"I am the president of the US of A and here is what I am going to do, too bad if you don't like it."

Oh man, good point. He is so arrogant... How can we let this guy be the leader to peace? It ain't gonna happen with him in office. I can't imagine being the leader of a poor nation and having this a-hole sitting in the same room with me.

He thinks he's the ultimate power. He's gonna find out in November just who has the power!

 

[nCred]

So, who won the debate?

 

[chess9]

Bush was better in the first 15 minutes and last 10 minutes than he was in the last debate. In between he was terrible, and he was consistently terrible.

Kerry was much worse at times than in the first debate, principally because he kept repeating the "tax cuts for the rich" theme (what, 8-9 times?) which drove me nuts. They have limited time and should cover as much as they can and STAY FOCUSSED. Overall, Kerry did a better job with the facts and figures because he GAVE facts and figures, whereas Bush, for the most part, appealed to fear.

But, when it comes to platitudes, corn, and ineptness, no one can beat Bush. In that regard he was the hands down winner.

I also thought Bush should have been sanctioned, or perhaps invaded , for interrupting Gibson so strongly. That was the low point in the night and to Bush's everlasting shame. He can't play by the rules. Why should we be surprised?

When asked what mistakes he had made and how he corrected them, Bush lost a HUGE opportunity to pump life into his performance. The ability to learn and correct our course when we screw up is one of the hallmarks of HONESTY and intelligence. Bush probably does learn from his mistakes, in all fairness to him, but you have to deliver the goods. For me, this was the most important question and answer because it reflects on character. I regret that Kerry didn't offer a response for himself, though he wasn't asked the question. Few people, other than the questioner, seem to grasp the importance of the question as reflected in part by the comments by the pundits and in part by Kerry's response. That suggests a very sad state of affairs and much moral/ethical confusion.

Kerry was occasionally diffuse, I thought. He sometimes lacked focus, failing to answer the question because he had his agenda to fulfill. NOT GOOD. Of course, Bush did the same thing almost every time, but we expect it of Bush.

The business of balancing the budget and restoring the surplus is sheer nonsense on the part of both of them. Bush can't do it with tax cuts and Kerry can't do it with spending. These guys have obviously never had to balance a budget! Conservatives (as opposed to neocons in particular) would not be amused.

Kerry was weak on the abortion question, IMHO and Bush was his strongest.

Bush was having a very hard time controlling his emotions again this debate. He is like a first grader at times. No wonder he was an alcoholic because he has serious anger management issues. Is this the kind of man we want to have a finger on the red button? Good grief....

The questions were much better this debate. Gwen Ifill, one of my favorite people, should have had some help on the questions before the last debate.

Gibson did a supurb job.

Kerry won the debate in my view, but Bush did better than last time.

The tide is moving strongly to Kerry. Bush must do something to halt the perception (and reality) that he is a bumbling moron. I can't imagine what that would be.

-Robert

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: chess9
Bush was better in the first 15 minutes and last 10 minutes than he was in the last debate. In between he was terrible, and he was consistently terrible.

Kerry was much worse at times than in the first debate, principally because he kept repeating the "tax cuts for the rich" theme (what, 8-9 times?) which drove me nuts. They have limited time and should cover as much as they can and STAY FOCUSSED. Overall, Kerry did a better job with the facts and figures because he GAVE facts and figures, whereas Bush, for the most part, appealed to fear.

But, when it comes to platitudes, corn, and ineptness, no one can beat Bush. In that regard he was the hands down winner.

I also thought Bush should have been sanctioned, or perhaps invaded , for interrupting Gibson so strongly. That was the low point in the night and to Bush's everlasting shame. He can't play by the rules. Why should we be surprised?

When asked what mistakes he had made and how he corrected them, Bush lost a HUGE opportunity to pump life into his performance. The ability to learn and correct our course when we screw up is one of the hallmarks of HONESTY and intelligence. Bush probably does learn from his mistakes, in all fairness to him, but you have to deliver the goods. For me, this was the most important question and answer because it reflects on character. I regret that Kerry didn't offer a response for himself, though he wasn't asked the question. Few people, other than the questioner, seem to grasp the importance of the question as reflected in part by the comments by the pundits and in part by Kerry's response. That suggests a very sad state of affairs and much moral/ethical confusion.

Kerry was occasionally diffuse, I thought. He sometimes lacked focus, failing to answer the question because he had his agenda to fulfill. NOT GOOD. Of course, Bush did the same thing almost every time, but we expect it of Bush.

The business of balancing the budget and restoring the surplus is sheer nonsense on the part of both of them. Bush can't do it with tax cuts and Kerry can't do it with spending. These guys have obviously never had to balance a budget! Conservatives (as opposed to neocons in particular) would not be amused.

Kerry was weak on the abortion question, IMHO and Bush was his strongest.

Bush was having a very hard time controlling his emotions again this debate. He is like a first grader at times. No wonder he was an alcoholic because he has serious anger management issues. Is this the kind of man we want to have a finger on the red button? Good grief....

The questions were much better this debate. Gwen Ifill, one of my favorite people, should have had some help on the questions before the last debate.

Gibson did a supurb job.

Kerry won the debate in my view, but Bush did better than last time.

The tide is moving strongly to Kerry. Bush must do something to halt the perception (and reality) that he is a bumbling moron. I can't imagine what that would be.

-Robert

Very nicely put.
:beer:

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: chess9
Bush was better in the first 15 minutes and last 10 minutes than he was in the last debate. In between he was terrible, and he was consistently terrible.

Kerry was much worse at times than in the first debate, principally because he kept repeating the "tax cuts for the rich" theme (what, 8-9 times?) which drove me nuts. They have limited time and should cover as much as they can and STAY FOCUSSED. Overall, Kerry did a better job with the facts and figures because he GAVE facts and figures, whereas Bush, for the most part, appealed to fear.

But, when it comes to platitudes, corn, and ineptness, no one can beat Bush. In that regard he was the hands down winner.

I also thought Bush should have been sanctioned, or perhaps invaded , for interrupting Gibson so strongly. That was the low point in the night and to Bush's everlasting shame. He can't play by the rules. Why should we be surprised?

When asked what mistakes he had made and how he corrected them, Bush lost a HUGE opportunity to pump life into his performance. The ability to learn and correct our course when we screw up is one of the hallmarks of HONESTY and intelligence. Bush probably does learn from his mistakes, in all fairness to him, but you have to deliver the goods. For me, this was the most important question and answer because it reflects on character. I regret that Kerry didn't offer a response for himself, though he wasn't asked the question. Few people, other than the questioner, seem to grasp the importance of the question as reflected in part by the comments by the pundits and in part by Kerry's response. That suggests a very sad state of affairs and much moral/ethical confusion.

Kerry was occasionally diffuse, I thought. He sometimes lacked focus, failing to answer the question because he had his agenda to fulfill. NOT GOOD. Of course, Bush did the same thing almost every time, but we expect it of Bush.

The business of balancing the budget and restoring the surplus is sheer nonsense on the part of both of them. Bush can't do it with tax cuts and Kerry can't do it with spending. These guys have obviously never had to balance a budget! Conservatives (as opposed to neocons in particular) would not be amused.

Kerry was weak on the abortion question, IMHO and Bush was his strongest.

Bush was having a very hard time controlling his emotions again this debate. He is like a first grader at times. No wonder he was an alcoholic because he has serious anger management issues. Is this the kind of man we want to have a finger on the red button? Good grief....

The questions were much better this debate. Gwen Ifill, one of my favorite people, should have had some help on the questions before the last debate.

Gibson did a supurb job.

Kerry won the debate in my view, but Bush did better than last time.

The tide is moving strongly to Kerry. Bush must do something to halt the perception (and reality) that he is a bumbling moron. I can't imagine what that would be.

-Robert

Very nicely put.
:beer:

I agree!

(bewildering moment of the debate....Judges and Supreme court stuff......."SLAVERY"?.....huh?....today?..... )

 

[chess9]

Engineer:

Yes, I agree about the Supreme's qualities, except for strict constructionist (which is ALL he should have said).

Also, Bush really bungled the drug re-importation issue. Among seniors and those with chronic conditions this is a HUGE issue. He's given us four years of stalling simply to please his donors, the drug companies. There is no safety issue because most of the drugs we buy in the U.S. are NOT manufactured in the U.S. anyway! They are made in Ireland, the Phillipines, Taiwan, Mexico, etc. Not only are the drug companies reaping record and obscene profits at the expense of sick people they are exporting jobs to do it! Their hypocrisy and greed is monumental. This poiint was missed by Kerry's people and would have destroyed Bush's "safety" argument. Regardless, Bush missed an opportunity to tell us WHEN he was going to allow re-importation if he really was going to do it, which he isn't.

By the way, I buy my prescribed drugs from India and save about 80% of their cost here.

-Robert

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How does making $84 off a timber company constitute owning it? I think I'm missing something here. If that's all he made, I'd have to assume he chopped down an old tree and made it into about 25 2x4's, as that's what $84 amounts to.

I believe this was part of a point Kerry was trying to make regarding Bush's acusations that his tax cut would hurt small business owners. He was pointing out how broad the classification of small businesses was using the president's statistics.

 

[CaptnKirk]

There is no safety issue because most of the drugs we buy in the U.S. are NOT manufactured in the U.S. anyway !
They are made in Ireland, the Phillipines, Taiwan, Mexico, etc.
Not only are the drug companies reaping record and obscene profits at the expense of sick people,
they are exporting jobs to do it!

I've got to point out something here based on that statement. - . . ( SUPER-RANT )

Importation of drugs & medications - Why was the shortage of the Flu Vaccines not discussed ?
Here is a pure example of importing of drugs from abroad - we don't even make it here anymore.
The potential health and well-being oF the general populus is compleetely outsourced anD compromised.

Britan produces just over 1/2 of the total we receive - 52%, and France (of all people) the balance.
Any vaccine that we even get this year will be from the very same France that Bush insults.

Wow ! What a vulnerability to terrorist attacks this has the potential to be - should we actually be
faced with a pandemic this season, we are in for a potential public disaster, as in WMD.
(Worldwide Medical Disaster)
Suppose that the Avian Flu Strain that is currently in Asiawere to mutate,
as viruses have been known to do, and we have a shortage by half of the supply.
What if there was a shut down of the French Labatories as did those in England ?
But again, these companies are actually American Owned - they just outsourced the
work to labs that they controlled in foriegn countries to maximize profits. Smart move.
Cubic Dollars and Proffit wins out over the health and well-being of our citizens.

Who let this take place, why was it allowed to happen, and how do we get back into
control of our own destiny ? This is not some import car or appliance that you can dispose
of in a couple of years, this is how we take care of ourselves and our citizens.

Danger of importing Drugs and Medication from other countries - indeed !