**OFFICIAL** Kerry/Bush Debate Thread: 2nd Debate to be 'Town-Hall' Style

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: conjur
Another reason to vote for Kerry
by kos
Sat Oct 2nd, 2004 at 05:46:18 GMT

Sometimes, I actually get some time to read my emails:
I think you (and maybe your readers) will be interested in a personal experience I had last night while watching the debate.
My 19 year-old (former foster) son, who has never been interested in politics, sat down with me and began silently watching about 10 minutes into it.

About half an hour later he turned to me and said, "Dad, am I able to vote?". I told him he would have to register but that yes, he could vote. I asked who he wanted to vote for, and he said "Kerry's the tall dude, right?". I said yes, and he said, "I'd vote for Kerry".

I asked him why, and he replied, "Because, I can tell if they were both captured by terrorists Kerry would keep telling them to go f*** themselves, and Bush would cry like a baby and tell them anything they wanted to know".

Today we registered him to vote.

-- Proud Dad

And yes, this is a true story.

nice story, but I have to take anything from Kos with a grain of salt.

 

[MrPALCO]

I enjoy hearing the comments of Liberals regarding the debate.

I am reminded once again how some people follow style instead of substance.

Kerry is a good presenter, as was Adolph Hitler.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
I enjoy hearing the comments of Liberals regarding the debate.

I am reminded once again how some people follow style instead of substance.

Kerry is a good presenter, as was Adolph Hitler.

As was Jesus Christ.

 

[chess9]

Red:

Ouchee!

-Robert

 

[Jhhnn]

Near as I can tell, Kerry played well to the undecideds. And, unlike the 2000 debates, which Gore actually won, Repubs haven't been able to create the proper after the fact spin to steal it back...

Style vs Substance is as far as they've gotten, and anybody who actually watched recognizes that's a complete non-sequiter.

What substance do you speak of? The smelly stuff horses leave behind? Yeh, the Bush Admin has put out plenty of that...

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The smelly stuff horses leave behind? Yeh, the Bush Admin has put out plenty of that...

I prefer to call it Bovine Processed Pasturage

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
I enjoy hearing the comments of Liberals regarding the debate.

I am reminded once again how some people follow style instead of substance.

Kerry is a good presenter, as was Adolph Hitler.

I am reminded again that no matter how many people have to die for lies, some simply don't care.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
Now, read that and let it sink in and you'll see the truth in that statement.

Isn't it amazing? People use out of context hyperbole to slam Bush and when it's turned around they reflexively go into a full body spasm, making silly remarks and the accusation that you don't think for yourself.

Now let me make my "partisan hack"-ness completely clear. Bush sucked in the debate. Then again, so did your man, your Kerry-cature for president. Saying nothing of any real substance with flair is still saying nothing of substance. Read Kerry's statement again:

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

If and when you do it? If and when you do what? Preempt the right to act in the interests of the US? Is this yet another example of Kerry flipfloppedness? 'No president throughout all of American history has ever ceded that right, but if and when you do!' Jeez John-boy, what are you telling us here? That you might very well be the first to cede that right?

You act as if Kerry's statement makes friggin sense. It doesn't. His phrases bumble just as badly as Bush's. He merely wrapped them up in perfume and makes the morons believe there's content because they think it smells good.

You never preempt the right of the US to act in its own interests. You never put it to a global test because other countries don't give a flying crap what's in the US interest. They care about their own interests, as the UN vote on Iraq and the subsequent Oil-for-Food debacle demonstrate only too well.

Now, hope you got that because there will be a "gloable test" on this later.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Now, hope you got that because there will be a "gloable test" on this later.

That's the plan!! Glad you agree.

Go Kerry!!

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

What this first debate did was it changed the momentum from Bush over to Kerry's side, or at least it stopped it for the time being. If Kerry can successfully debate and beat Bush in the next two debates he should win this election. Remember the attention-span of the average American isn't very long, and if they see Kerry as performing strong in this last month it may not matter how he performed prior.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Now, read that and let it sink in and you'll see the truth in that statement.

Isn't it amazing? People use out of context hyperbole to slam Bush and when it's turned around they reflexively go into a full body spasm, making silly remarks and the accusation that you don't think for yourself.

Now let me make my "partisan hack"-ness completely clear. Bush sucked in the debate. Then again, so did your man, your Kerry-cature for president. Saying nothing of any real substance with flair is still saying nothing of substance. Read Kerry's statement again:

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

If and when you do it? If and when you do what? Preempt the right to act in the interests of the US? Is this yet another example of Kerry flipfloppedness? 'No president throughout all of American history has ever ceded that right, but if and when you do!' Jeez John-boy, what are you telling us here? That you might very well be the first to cede that right?

You act as if Kerry's statement makes friggin sense. It doesn't. His phrases bumble just as badly as Bush's. He merely wrapped them up in perfume and makes the morons believe there's content because they think it smells good.

You never preempt the right of the US to act in its own interests. You never put it to a global test because other countries don't give a flying crap what's in the US interest. They care about their own interests, as the UN vote on Iraq and the subsequent Oil-for-Food debacle demonstrate only too well.

Now, hope you got that because there will be a "gloable test" on this later.

I truly like your spin. Your reading comprehension must be truly off.

By "It" Kerry is refering to pre-emptively striking and not ceding the right to pre-emptively strike. Since the question was, "What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?" and in the first sentence, Kerry says that he would not cede the right to pre-emptively strike to protect the United States.

Then he expands on that by saying "But if and when you do it(pre-emptively strike another nation), Jim, you have to do it(pre-emptively strike another nation) in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. "

Of course the Iraq war was completely the opposite of that. After the WMD reason fell through and the ties to Al-Qaeda fell through we were left with nothing but free the Iraqi people which was not the reason at the forefront of the war. Which led people to believe both in America and in Iraq and across the world that we attacked for the oil since the only two real reasons for us to go to war with Iraq were proven wrong. No imminent threat and no ties to Al-Qaeda.

 

[DoubleL]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
And Bush can tell about how dangerous being a jet jockey was like the time he almost killed himself trying to land his jet when he was still stoned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know this has nothing to do with the topic but to put it in it's place, Yes being a jet jockey as you call them was a very dangerous job- A put down to the men that flew I take it, Did you know that the F-102 fighter was one of the most danerous aircrafts to fly and had one fatal accident per 40,000 flight hours. Did you know their was more LT's killed in the states flying F-102's than commanders on swift boats in vietnam, Or does things like that matter

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: conjur
Another reason to vote for Kerry
by kos

Continuously infatuated with the usual assortment of anarchists and Che Guevara aficionados revering Markos "Screw them" Zúniga, I see.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

[Reading is fun-da-mental Chicken:]

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

[Meaning: No president has ever surrendered possession of the right to (pre-emptively strike) in order to protect the US of A and neither would Kerry.]

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. [/i]

[Meaning: If and when you STRIKE, you have to do it in a way that everyone understands and that you can prove had a legitimate basis in the first place. Bush's shifting rationale for the war (or flip-floppedness as you'd call it) never really landed on a legitimate basis for a pre-emptive war.]

If and when you do it? If and when you do what? Preempt the right to act in the interests of the US? Is this yet another example of Kerry flipfloppedness? 'No president throughout all of American history has ever ceded that right, but if and when you do!' Jeez John-boy, what are you telling us here? That you might very well be the first to cede that right?

You act as if Kerry's statement makes friggin sense. It doesn't. His phrases bumble just as badly as Bush's. He merely wrapped them up in perfume and makes the morons believe there's content because they think it smells good.

You never preempt the right of the US to act in its own interests. You never put it to a global test because other countries don't give a flying crap what's in the US interest. They care about their own interests, as the UN vote on Iraq and the subsequent Oil-for-Food debacle demonstrate only too well.

Now, hope you got that because there will be a "gloable test" on this later.

 

[burnedout]

The WaPo mildly rebukes Terry McAuliffe and an overzealous reader for an e-mail sent 4 hours and 14 minutes before the actual debate:

[...]

Not many readers responded so enthusiastically to Mr. McAuliffe as to give us their reviews before the debate took place, but many began weighing in during and after the debate; certain phrases began cropping up again and again.

Now, we love to hear from readers, and we admire the sincerity and passion of anyone who wants to get involved in the political process. But our goal is to present a sampling of genuine reader opinion, not to become one more battlefield in the spin wars raging all around. And we especially like to hear from readers who can think and write for themselves.

Washington Post

Heh. With the obvious exception of John "I hate Kentucky basketball" Feinstein, I always knew there were good reasons for reading the WaPo.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
And Bush can tell about how dangerous being a jet jockey was like the time he almost killed himself trying to land his jet when he was still stoned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know this has nothing to do with the topic but to put it in it's place, Yes being a jet jockey as you call them was a very dangerous job- A put down to the men that flew I take it, Did you know that the F-102 fighter was one of the most danerous aircrafts to fly and had one fatal accident per 40,000 flight hours. Did you know their was more LT's killed in the states flying F-102's than commanders on swift boats in vietnam, Or does things like that matter

Which explains why he was so eager to quit fllying. He lost his nerve. He didn't have "the right stuff" and still doesn't.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: conjur
Another reason to vote for Kerry
by kos
Sat Oct 2nd, 2004 at 05:46:18 GMT

Sometimes, I actually get some time to read my emails:
I think you (and maybe your readers) will be interested in a personal experience I had last night while watching the debate.
My 19 year-old (former foster) son, who has never been interested in politics, sat down with me and began silently watching about 10 minutes into it.

About half an hour later he turned to me and said, "Dad, am I able to vote?". I told him he would have to register but that yes, he could vote. I asked who he wanted to vote for, and he said "Kerry's the tall dude, right?". I said yes, and he said, "I'd vote for Kerry".

I asked him why, and he replied, "Because, I can tell if they were both captured by terrorists Kerry would keep telling them to go f*** themselves, and Bush would cry like a baby and tell them anything they wanted to know".

Today we registered him to vote.

-- Proud Dad

And yes, this is a true story.

Another "we'll take any vote we can get, regardless of the reason" point for the dems. Let's hope, for the dems' sake, more votes like this can be drummed up. Heaven forbid a vote is based on the issues.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Link


Flash Polls vs. Election Results.

:roll:

Cliffs Notes: Blogs for Bush is a pro-Bush website.

Duh..... Just this one time, I will draw you a picture DonVito.

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Link


Flash Polls vs. Election Results.



Disclaimer:-----> ( Statements, within this quote, that are expressed as opinion will be bolded)



Spin is underway, and a variety of polls are suggesting a Kerry victory in the debate last night.

Truth be told, Kerry exceeded expectations, but when it came to substance, he came up short.

The flash polls still suggest Kerry won the debate, which Democrats think makes Kerry suddenly unstoppable. Historically speaking, that's hardly the case. Otherwise, we would have seen President Mondale, President Dukakis, President Perot, and President Gore.

Since 1984, no Republican has won in the flash polls from the first debate, but has won 3 out of 5 of those elections.

Ross Perot beat both Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush in the flash poll with 47%. Michael Dukakis beat George H.W Bush 38-29... don't forget, this is the same debate Dukakis gave an emotionless response when asked if his wife were raped and murdered.

In 1984, Reagan was said to have lost the first debate 54-35.

Reagan (the Republican incumbant) was reelected after winning 49 states.

The Kerry camp thinks they should be celebrating right now. But the flash poll is not the election. We can debate who won the debate until we're blue in the face, but no matter how you slice it, in the end substance still is more important than style, and Bush had the monopoly on substance.

Thanks for the opportunity to repeat, with bolding, the important parts of the post...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO
I truly like your spin. Your reading comprehension must be truly off.

By "It" Kerry is refering to pre-emptively striking and not ceding the right to pre-emptively strike. Since the question was, "What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?" and in the first sentence, Kerry says that he would not cede the right to pre-emptively strike to protect the United States.

Then he expands on that by saying "But if and when you do it(pre-emptively strike another nation), Jim, you have to do it(pre-emptively strike another nation) in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. "

Of course the Iraq war was completely the opposite of that. After the WMD reason fell through and the ties to Al-Qaeda fell through we were left with nothing but free the Iraqi people which was not the reason at the forefront of the war. Which led people to believe both in America and in Iraq and across the world that we attacked for the oil since the only two real reasons for us to go to war with Iraq were proven wrong. No imminent threat and no ties to Al-Qaeda.

My reading comprehension is just fine, tyvm, as is my knowledge of proper grammatical constructs. I understand what Kerry intended to say. The problem is that he didn't say it correctly. So we have yet another possible president that can't correctly formulate his thoughts into words.

Go ahead and make apologies though based on what he actually intended to say, even though it's not what he truly said in his statement. Nor is this complaint different than any of the complaints I hear about Bush's speaking faux pas. It's simply overlooked by the same partisan hacks that would take Bush to task for the same thing.

And remember to remove those blinders before you take that global test.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Thanks for the opportunity to repeat, with bolding, the important parts of the post...

That's one person's (heavily biased) opinion, with zero objective data to back it up. The consensus of the polls is that Sen Kerry won on style and substance (though I agree the latter was closer than the former). I honestly can't begin to imagine how anyone could perceive what happened on Thursday as a victory for President Bush in any aspect, but since that website is nothing but a pro-Bush feelgood-fest, they're obviously going to argue he won.

A more detached review, by a vehemently pro-Bush author, is this one, in the National Review.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
I enjoy hearing the comments of Liberals regarding the debate.

I am reminded once again how some people follow style instead of substance.

Kerry is a good presenter, as was Adolph Hitler.

It was GW Bush (not Kerry) that attacked Iraq without provocation or necessity.

Well over 15 thousand innocent civilians dead--many more suffering.

All without justification.


I am reminded how some follow neither style nor substance. They just follow without any semblance of reasoned thought in their head.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Thanks for the opportunity to repeat, with bolding, the important parts of the post...

That's one person's (heavily biased) opinion, with zero objective data to back it up. The consensus of the polls is that Sen Kerry won on style and substance (though I agree the latter was closer than the former). I honestly can't begin to imagine how anyone could perceive what happened on Thursday as a victory for President Bush in any aspect, but since that website is nothing but a pro-Bush feelgood-fest, they're obviously going to argue he won.

A more detached review, by a vehemently pro-Bush author, is this one, in the National Review.

The whole idea of a debate is that it is not a football game: It is up to the individual to decide who they believe "won".

What an individual feels is important in these debates is up to them. The consensus of the polls is irrelevant to your personal review. To be frank, there is little objective data when it comes to debate in the first place; style and substance are inherently subjective.

The libs here seem to attack anyone who thinks Bush won this debate, as if their subjective analysis is greater.

quote:
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.



Now, read that and let it sink in and you'll see the truth in that statement.

Of course, then you are treading on what is a "legitimate reason" and what isn't.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO
I truly like your spin. Your reading comprehension must be truly off.

By "It" Kerry is refering to pre-emptively striking and not ceding the right to pre-emptively strike. Since the question was, "What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?" and in the first sentence, Kerry says that he would not cede the right to pre-emptively strike to protect the United States.

Then he expands on that by saying "But if and when you do it(pre-emptively strike another nation), Jim, you have to do it(pre-emptively strike another nation) in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. "

Of course the Iraq war was completely the opposite of that. After the WMD reason fell through and the ties to Al-Qaeda fell through we were left with nothing but free the Iraqi people which was not the reason at the forefront of the war. Which led people to believe both in America and in Iraq and across the world that we attacked for the oil since the only two real reasons for us to go to war with Iraq were proven wrong. No imminent threat and no ties to Al-Qaeda.

My reading comprehension is just fine, tyvm, as is my knowledge of proper grammatical constructs. I understand what Kerry intended to say. The problem is that he didn't say it correctly. So we have yet another possible president that can't correctly formulate his thoughts into words.

Go ahead and make apologies though based on what he actually intended to say, even though it's not what he truly said in his statement. Nor is this complaint different than any of the complaints I hear about Bush's speaking faux pas. It's simply overlooked by the same partisan hacks that would take Bush to task for the same thing.

And remember to remove those blinders before you take that global test.

If you would take your blinders off, you would see that it is not the Kerry supporters who are wearing them and we certainly aren't apologizing for Kerry kicking Bush's ass in the debate.

Isn't apologizing for Bush getting to be "hard work"? :laugh:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Thanks for the opportunity to repeat, with bolding, the important parts of the post...

That's one person's (heavily biased) opinion, with zero objective data to back it up. The consensus of the polls is that Sen Kerry won on style and substance (though I agree the latter was closer than the former). I honestly can't begin to imagine how anyone could perceive what happened on Thursday as a victory for President Bush in any aspect, but since that website is nothing but a pro-Bush feelgood-fest, they're obviously going to argue he won.

A more detached review, by a vehemently pro-Bush author, is this one, in the National Review.

The whole idea of a debate is that it is not a football game: It is up to the individual to decide who they believe "won".

What an individual feels is important in these debates is up to them. The consensus of the polls is irrelevant to your personal review. To be frank, there is little objective data when it comes to debate in the first place; style and substance are inherently subjective.

The libs here seem to attack anyone who thinks Bush won this debate, as if their subjective analysis is greater.

Then according to the polls, there must be a lot of "libs" in this country.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Thanks for the opportunity to repeat, with bolding, the important parts of the post...

That's one person's (heavily biased) opinion, with zero objective data to back it up. The consensus of the polls is that Sen Kerry won on style and substance (though I agree the latter was closer than the former). I honestly can't begin to imagine how anyone could perceive what happened on Thursday as a victory for President Bush in any aspect, but since that website is nothing but a pro-Bush feelgood-fest, they're obviously going to argue he won.

A more detached review, by a vehemently pro-Bush author, is this one, in the National Review.

The whole idea of a debate is that it is not a football game: It is up to the individual to decide who they believe "won".

What an individual feels is important in these debates is up to them. The consensus of the polls is irrelevant to your personal review. To be frank, there is little objective data when it comes to debate in the first place; style and substance are inherently subjective.

The libs here seem to attack anyone who thinks Bush won this debate, as if their subjective analysis is greater.

Then according to the polls, there must be a lot of "libs" in this country.

No, there's a lot of libs here. I say Kerry won this debate, yet you don't see me criticizing people who thinks Bush won.