The Official Thread of the Second Presidential Debate

[Back]

Some of you may be sick of this stuff already, so just click that little link up there that says ”Today’s Posts” and you’ll be fine.

Pre-gaming the debate right now and thinking about the recent news. Its official. Bush has the worst job creation record in 70 years. Don’t forget, this country went through a world war in that time span.

Bremer busts out with Iraq problems... then like everyone else who criticisizes this administration, flip-flops back.

The chief weapons inspector says there were no, and wouldn’t have been any time soon, WoMD in Iraq.

CIA reports no viable links between Iraq and Al Queda.

This ought to be good.

[Chadj]

Yes, this should be most excellent and amusing.

However, if it is as one sided as the last one, I will go and masturbate furiously for a while. That would prove to be more productive and educational on todays politics.

[Artha]

Don’t forget, this country went through a world war in that time span.

Unless soldier doesn't count as a job, I don't see why that would matter. You have people who normally wouldn't have jobs making things (like tanks, ammo, guns, planes, whateva), housewives (who normally didn't work back then) included.

[Back]

Originally posted by Artha

Don’t forget, this country went through a world war in that time span.

Unless soldier doesn't count as a job, I don't see why that would matter. You have people who normally wouldn't have jobs making things (like tanks, ammo, guns, planes, whateva), housewives (who normally didn't work back then) included.

Exactly. We went through Pearl Harbor and WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam and all those Presidents created jobs. WTF?

I know WTF. Taxes.

[Hulkein]

How is it Bush's fault he inherited a recession and than had to face 9/11 and corporate scandals? There has been great job growth for like ten months now.

Bremer has always supported the president, it's not a flip flop.

The report also said the sanctions were falling apart because of the corruption and the second they were lessened (which they would've been with certain countries in his corner) Saddam would've went after WMD again. It also said Saddam was still a threat.

Heh, you act like those points are one-sided for your view. Don't neglect the other half of the story.

[Drew2]

Kerry is totally winning.

It's incredibly hilarious.

[Scott]

Bush needs to stop laughing at Kerry......

[Latrinsorm]

Argh. First I forget about it on account of those crazy Sox, then I tune in and it's the EXACT SAME THING as the last one. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! I'm consistent! I'm consistent! :barf:

Aha, but Bush is Reagan now. That's cool.

edit: Kerry is crashing and burning.

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Back]

Kerry grey hairs > Bush grey hairs

[Tsa`ah]

Both in my opinion are craching and burning equally.

Answer the damned questions already. I'm sick of the pre-answer build up BS and then the lack of answers.

[Latrinsorm]

Mr. President, please stop yelling at the moderator. :(

[Bobmuhthol]

It's a good thing this thread was created on the internets.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Both in my opinion are craching and burning equally.

Answer the damned questions already. I'm sick of the pre-answer build up BS and then the lack of answers.

I agree.... both are absolutely pissing me off. Kerry is dodging questions a lot more the Bush, though that doesn't suprise me. However Bush seems to be going off the handle (like yelling at the moderator and just running over him.) Bush was owned in the first debate, doesn't seem to be the case this time..... Although, none of them are doing anything other then making me want to vote for Ralph Nadar.

[Latrinsorm]

Things Kerry Says Too Damn Much
95% of the Cargo!
13 years to get the nukes!
I can do better!
That's not a grand coalition!
Hunt down and kill terrorists!

Things Bush Says Too Damn Much
Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time! (fuckin' just did it again!!!)
POLAND (even though he's right)
Workin' hard! (hyuck!)

Alright, domestic time. This should be better. :)

"Go figure." - John Kerry

GO FIGURE?!?!??

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Back]

He was talking about numbers. Numbers, as opposed to people, don’t lie.

[Latrinsorm]

"You gotta stand up and fight sometimes!" - Kerry

...

I'm sure glad Kerry's going to bring back the boom of the 90's, though.

ROFL! "2.2 trillion is the fuzzy math, it just isn't the number." WTF IS THE NUMBER THEN!!!

Ok, how damn cool does it have to be to have the President talk to you, and have him punctuate the remark with "sir"?

Once again, I really want a realtime factchecker. "The President's lying!" "Nu-uh!"

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Latrinsorm]

p.s: Now a women's right to choose is part of the Constitution. Sweet.

edit: OK, I'm saying Bush won, but by a smaller margin than Kerry won the first debate. If I hadn't seen the first debate, I'd say they were about even, but I didn't hear ANYthing new from Kerry.

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Latrinsorm]

Bush hit this debate hard. He was offensive, forward and definatly didn't back down. He won this and I'm very happy with his performance.

- Arkans

[Back]

I’d rather snipe you off than respond to that statement.

[Psykos]

got wood?

[Psykos]

BTW: Bush won this debate, hands down. Poor showing at first, but came through in the end. Kerry was pratically babbling at a few points.

1-1. With one to go.

[Ilvane]

I really think it depends on where you stand politically on how you see how someone did.

Bush was babbling a bit too... I was trying to understand one of his answers and he went off on something making absolutely no sense at all.

Kerry seemed to keep calm, and I thought he did well answering questions, and made Bush so upset by some things, that he was yelling at Charlie Gibson and getting really irritated at points..

-A

[Sean]

I didn't watch it but I opted for baseball instead but this is how my roommate explained it to me:

XXXXX: you watch any of the debate tonight?
Tijay2000: nope
XXXXX: it was like, president bush, here is a question, you have a minute and a half to answer. and bush comes up and says basically kerry is a douche bag
XXXXX: so then kerry is allowed to retort
XXXXX: and basically just calls bush an idiot
XXXXX: and they went back and forth for 2 hours

[Drew2]

The real question is:

Why is Tijay talking to his roommate over IMs?

Someone is lazy.

[Ravenstorm]

I give it to Kerry though I readily admit my bias. Even so, it was nowhere near the massacre of Bush the first one was. Much, much closer to a draw though I wouldn't be surprised to see Kerry get a bit of a bump from it.

Raven

[Sean]

Originally posted by Tayre
The real question is:

Why is Tijay talking to his roommate over IMs?

Someone is lazy.

Because he went home for the weekend?

But more to the point. I don't enjoy the debates. I generally don't find much interesting or new information to come out of them. I do however tend to glance over the transcipts at my leisure once they are released incase I did miss something.

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Tijay]

Kerry really looked like he was falling apart at some points. Bush came out guns a blazing and looked extremely prepared for the debate. If he can make this strong of a rebound, I'm extremely confident in his last debate. I will predict that Bush will get another few points in the polls, getting an even further lead.

- Arkans

[peam]

Originally posted by Arkans
Kerry really looked like he was falling apart at some points. Bush came out guns a blazing and looked extremely prepared for the debate. If he can make this strong of a rebound, I'm extremely confident in his last debate. I will predict that Bush will get another few points in the polls, getting an even further lead.

- Arkans

Did you even watch or listen to the debate? Bush was stumbling over words and uncomposed, just as he most always is.

[Scott]

Originally posted by peam

Originally posted by Arkans
Kerry really looked like he was falling apart at some points. Bush came out guns a blazing and looked extremely prepared for the debate. If he can make this strong of a rebound, I'm extremely confident in his last debate. I will predict that Bush will get another few points in the polls, getting an even further lead.

- Arkans

Did you even watch or listen to the debate? Bush was stumbling over words and uncomposed, just as he most always is.

So was Kerry, almost just as bad. Most people expect it from Bush though.

WTF? Are you high? He seemed a lot more fluid and composed than before. He did a complete 180 and put out a strong showing. He finally looked like the strong President that we need.

- Arkans

[Back]

Kerry kicked Bush’s ass tonight. That was history.

Yeah, he was definatly kicking Bush's ass when he was running his hands through his hair with that lost look on his face.

- Arkans

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
Kerry kicked Bush’s ass tonight. That was history. Why do you think that? Did Kerry say a single thing you didn't hear at the first debate? Did he make any point that Bush didn't refute (usually at the expense of the moderator)? Did you miss all the times Bush made a particularly damning indictment and Kerry was smiling and nodding his head?

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Arkans
WTF? Are you high? He seemed a lot more fluid and composed than before. He did a complete 180 and put out a strong showing. He finally looked like the strong President that we need.

- Arkans

It wasn't a 180. More like a 45. Bush was more composed at time and other times he was on the edge of going ballistic.

I'm sorry, but anyone who pronounces mistake as McSteak ... has some issues.

The debate was a toss up between two very incompetent persons. The only thing Bush clearly answered questions about was abortion. Not surprising is that he answered this question right around the same time he answered the question about new appointees to the Supreme Court. I believe he answered that question with the comment about not bringing personal views into decisions. The irony was just thick.

I am actually surprised he didn't say "except for those fucking faggots" when he spoke of adoption.

There wasn't a winner in this debate ... they really didn't say anything new. Most everything stated was just regurgitation from the first debate.

Bush did take notes instead of making the constipation face. Here are some samples.

Click me (http://www.thatsuncalledfor.com/debate_notes/)

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Backlash
Kerry kicked Bush’s ass tonight. That was history. Why do you think that? Did Kerry say a single thing you didn't hear at the first debate? Did he make any point that Bush didn't refute (usually at the expense of the moderator)? Did you miss all the times Bush made a particularly damning indictment and Kerry was smiling and nodding his head?

Because Kerry said it straight-up. This President wants to distract you from his fuck-ups by attacking a non-incumbent. The second worse President on jobs was his father. Once head of the CIA. DURRR!@@!!!!!!!

[Farquar]

The debate was much closer, and Bush was definitely better than during the first debate. Anyone who says Bush "clearly won", however, is naive and lacks any political savvy.

I couldn't help but wince when Kerry said "orwellian". Although I knew exactly what he was getting at, I could just sense all the blue-collar schmucks zoning out the moment he said it.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Farquar
The debate was much closer, and Bush was definitely better than during the first debate. Anyone who says Bush "clearly won", however, is naive and lacks any political savvy.

I couldn't help but wince when Kerry said "orwellian". Although I knew exactly what he was getting at, I could just sense all the blue-collar schmucks zoning out the moment he said it.

I agree. I don't think anyone was the winner.... I think anyone that says Kerry was the clear winner or Bush was the clear winner obviously has a bias that they are not able to overcome for any reason.

People that assume that those that decided there was a winner have a bias or are naive in politics need to get off their high horse.

- Arkans

PS: Fucking commies.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Arkans
People that assume that those that decided there was a winner have a bias or are naive in politics need to get off their high horse.

- Arkans

PS: Fucking commies.

No, you are a idiot.... It has nothing to do with bias....


PS: Fucking moron

lol Gemstone is all like...

"IM OFFENDD"

Hahahahahahaha

- Arkans

[Tsa`ah]

The flaming stops here.

[4a6c1]

It was nice to see Bush stumble over words and Kerry babble and all of the issues getting rehashed but the top of the evening was Mr. President yelling,"NO, I AM GOING TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION." and coming at the moderator like he was going to beat him over the head with a mic. It was like 'Cops come to the White House' or something.

:bouncy:

I loved Bush's attitude, it seems a lot more genuine than Kerry's.

- Arkans

[4a6c1]

I just like it when he yells at people.

Yay for Presidents loosing they're cool.

[Chadj]

I caught a whole 10 minutes of this debate unfortunately. I forgot it was on, and was masturbating furiously through most of it.

However, from what I saw, and what I hear, Bush won.. slightly. I'd call it a tie, but thats cause I'm biased. Anyways, does anyone know when the third is?

[Keller]

what I like the best is Bush going to kerry/edwards voting record, or lack there-of. That is just playing on the populations ignorance of political practice. Both of those senators know whether a bill will pass before they wake up the day it will be voted on. that determines whether it is worth their time (and more importantly, my money) to show up and vote.

Don't be retarded people, they will attack kerry/edwards on petty issues until the cows come home because their own record sucks. Face it.

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Keller]

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Chadj
I caught a whole 10 minutes of this debate unfortunately. I forgot it was on, and was masturbating furiously through most of it.

However, from what I saw, and what I hear, Bush won.. slightly. I'd call it a tie, but thats cause I'm biased. Anyways, does anyone know when the third is?

:lol:

I think you spent your time better jerking it. I also got bored after a bit and had to party.

Oddly enough, I caught the first 3 debates all by accident. Ionno bout the times, but someone should post them.

Anyone?

[Keller]

and also, on the embrionic stem-cell portion of the debate ... does Bush really consider frozen embryios in fertility clinics alive? Cause if he does, and he really believes that they are lives and we need to promote a culture of life, watch your uteruses women. Next he will legislate that all non-pregnant woman must give up nine months of their lives to carry those frozen embryios to term. What a fucking politician.

[4a6c1]

:clap:

Keller is on a roll tonight.

:shibby:

[Pallon]

Crap, I missed the debate...now I'll be out of the loop on all the unintentionally hilarious catchphrases that Bush coined a la "You forgot Poland"

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Pallon
Crap, I missed the debate...now I'll be out of the loop on all the unintentionally hilarious catchphrases that Bush coined a la "You forgot Poland"

I wouldn't worry about it too much, I'm sure you'll be able to read all about it on the internets.

[Ilvane]

Okay, so this is one of the exchanges where I was listening to Bush and saying..what the hell did he just say?

GIBSON: I want to extend for a minute, Senator. And I'm curious about something you said. You said, “It's not when, but if.” You think it's inevitable because the sense of security is a very basic thing with everybody in this country worried about their kids.

KERRY: Well, the president and his experts have told America that it's not a question of if; it's a question of when. And I accept what the president has said. These terrorists are serious, they're deadly, and they know nothing except trying to kill.

I understand that. That's why I will never stop at anything to hunt down and kill the terrorists.

But you heard the president just say to you that we've added money.

Folks, the test is not if you've added money; the test is that you've done everything possible to make America secure. He chose a tax cut for wealthy Americans over the things that I listed to you.

GIBSON: Mr. President?

BUSH: Well, we'll talk about the tax cut for middle class here in a minute. But yes, I'm worried. I'm worried. I'm worried about our country. And all I can tell you is every day I know that there's people working overtime, doing the very best they can. And the reason I'm worried is because there's a vicious enemy that has an ideology of hate.

And the way to defeat them long-term, by the way, is to spread freedom.

Liberty can change habits. And that's what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.

huh???

-A

[Ilvane]

Here's another exchange, where Bush seems to confuse who he is talking to..seeing as he is talking to Senator Kerry, what does Kennedy have to do with it? They weren't talking about him or anything.

BUSH: Let me see where to start here.

First, the National Journal named Senator Kennedy the most liberal senator of all. And that's saying something in that bunch. You might say that took a lot of hard work.

The reason I bring that up is because he's proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending, and he says he going to tax the rich to close the tax gap.

He can't. He's going to tax everybody here to fund his programs.

That's just reality.

And what are his health programs? First, he says he's for medical liability reform, particularly for OB/GYNs. There's a bill on the floor of the United States Senate that he could have showed up and voted for if he's so much for it.

Secondly, he says that medical liability costs only cause a 1 percent increase. That shows a lack of understanding. Doctors practice defensive medicine because of all the frivolous lawsuits that cost our government $28 billion a year.

And finally, he said he's going to have a novel health care plan. You know what it is? The federal government is going to run it.

It's the largest increase in federal government health care ever. And it fits with his philosophy. That's why I told you about the award he won from the National Journal.

That's what liberals do. They create government-sponsored health care. Maybe you think that makes sense. I don't.

Government-sponsored health care would lead to rationing. It would ruin the quality of health care in America.

GIBSON: Senator Kerry, we got several questions along this line, and I'm just curious if you'd go further on what you talked about with tort reform. Would you be favoring capping awards on pain and suffering? Would you limit attorney's fees?

KERRY: A follow-up...

GIBSON: Yes. A follow-up on this for...

KERRY: Yes, I think we should look at the punitive and we should have some limitations.

But look, what's really important, Charlie, is the president is just trying to scare everybody here with throwing labels around. I mean, “compassionate conservative,” what does that mean? Cutting 500,000 kids from after-school programs, cutting 365,000 kids from health care, running up the biggest deficits in American history.

Mr. President, you're batting 0 for 2.

I mean, seriously—labels don't mean anything. What means something is: Do you have a plan? And I want to talk about my plan some more—I hope we can.

Now, here's the transcript if you missed it.

-A

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6209704/

[Valthissa]

Our Friday night crowd (seven this week) watched most of the debate. We sipped our wine, laughed a little, pointed out non-sequiters by both candidates, argued over whether a candidate answered the questions or recited talking points.

We did reach one conclusion:

No matter what we do, we are going to wake up November third and one of those two politicians is going to be president of the United States <insert heavy sigh here>.

C/Valth

[xtc]

If you look at my posts you will see I have been crtical of both candidates. Here is my 2 cents

Bush needed to make a strong showing and he did, he was on the offensive and did very well.

Kerry was articulate and direct, he had a couple of great lines. He was well informed and answered questions like a he was writing a paper he tied everything in nicely.

Bush slammed Kerry on his voting record. Kerry opened himself a few times and Bush didn't fail to pounce. 98 votes to increase taxes.

Kerry also slammed Bush a few times.

It may have seemed evenly matched and in many ways it was but here is why I think despite Kerry's strong performance that I give the upper hand to Bush. The point of the debate is to connect with voters and sway the undecided. If you looked at the audience reaction to both they were much more connected to Bush. They nodded their heads, smiled moved their eyes to where he was. When Kerry talked they weren't connected to him there was no reaction to him from the audience. Now you may say that is Missouri. However I think Bush comes across as more likeable. Kerry is trying to win this election like an intellectual, he needs to throw more of his heart into this. I am not saying that he doesn't care tremendously. He has look more like he does.


2 points that hurt Kerry last night.

He waffled on the abortion issue, while Bush said he was clearly Pro-life. Kerry did some 1/2 thing not committing to being Pro-choice fully

When they asked Kerry if he was in power if Saddam would still be in power he wasn't definitive, probably not was his answer.


Bush needed a strong showing and he got it. That said Kerry did very well also. This is a horse race. I am looking forward to the next debate

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by xtc]

[Hulkein]

Ilvane, he said Kennedy by mistake. Kerry was rated the most liberal I believe. No surprise he said Kennedy by mistake, they're pretty close to one in the same :)


Bush showed up and did much better than last time. I believe he'll win the election with that performance. He had to save his credibility from what it was after that first debate and he definitely did that.

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Hulkein]

[Latrinsorm]

I didn't even notice he said Kennedy. He's kind of a mumbler anyway. ;)

[CrystalTears]

I only got a chance to see the first half hour of the debate, however I taped the rest of it to see after I get out of work.

As much as I agreed with a lot of Bush's point, he did worry me a bit that he seemed upset and aggravated with the line of questioning. I can see how he would, seeing as how people won't drop the "lied to the people" comments and having to backup his efforts every single debate and questioning, however he still shouldn't have shown it as much as he should.

With that said, I felt that Bush showed how much he truly cared about how people felt and how he wanted to set things straight. I will say that both of them were guilty of wanting a chance to bash each other and not deal directly with the question at hand. Kerry just seemed wishy-washy to me. He didn't impress me at all.

I gained some new respect for Bush just with the first part of the debate. I'm anxious to see how he did in the rest of it, seeing as how I keep hearing how he did better later on. This debate strengthened my decision to vote for Bush.

[Back]

Isn’t it amazing how people can have such varying opinions on the same subject?

To me, and really this boggles my mind that not everyone agrees, Bush looked and sounded pathetic while Kerry came off really strong. Hands down. No contest.

[Scott]

Not really, I'd be fairly certain that I could name a lot of people on these boards (who are involved in the political debates) and tell you who they think won this debate before they say it...... Looking at who's sad what so far, I wouldn't have had a single one wrong yet. No offense to you Backlash, but unless Kerry jumped over the table and tried to strangle someone in the crowd, I think you'd say Kerry won no matter what.

EDIT: Typo

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Gemstone101]

As a neutral party member, I'd say that Nader won the debate. :forehead: Sorry I'm tired.

[Hulkein]

He didn't look or sound pathetic at all, in my eyes.

I also think Kerry looked okay. He stumbled more than last debate, though.

I think if this was boxing Bush would've won by a split decision. The catch here is that even if it is considered a draw, that is a HUGE victory for Bush. It's like Rocky I when Rocky is seen as pretty much tying the match... It's still a huge victory for him.

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Hulkein]

[Kefka]

I'd say the debate was about even with me leaning towards Kerry, of course. Bush scored points because he wasn't as horrible this time as he was in the first debate. He also lost points since he looked ready to jump on the moderator. Kerry lost points for allowing Bush to lead him into a bashing contest.

What killed it for Bush was the question about naming 3 mistakes he made and how he intends to fix em. He didn't answer with even one, which tells me that he believes he can never do wrong. A true leader is honest enough to point out that he's not exactly perfect.

[Hulkein]

Wasn't that last question a tough one? When I heard that I was like 'oh damn, way to put him in a tough spot ON THE LAST QUESTION.'

Kefka, we both know if Bush had admitted a mistake it would've been used as ammunition for both talking points and ads for Kerry. He did what he had to do as a politician in the midst of a neck and neck race and danced around the subject. He interjected a little humor and got the hell out.

[Ilvane]

Come on, being angry somehow makes him stronger and more believable? I'd not want to get on Bush's bad side..Disagree and you get yelled at.;) heh.

-A

[CrystalTears]

I said that I understood why he was angry, I didn't say him showing it was a good idea. If people keep on saying that you lied to the people when you clearly didn't and were doing something to help the people, I'm sure you would be pissed off by the upteenth time you've had to defend your actions. I'm still not saying he should have jumped the moderator, I'm just saying I understood it. Big difference.

Quite frankly I'd rather have a president like Bush who gets gung ho about a topic, than someone wishy-washy that can't even take a definite stand about anything, even something he says he really believes in. I don't see the indignation to do anything about anything as far as Kerry is concerned.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Come on, being angry somehow makes him stronger and more believable? I'd not want to get on Bush's bad side..Disagree and you get yelled at.;) heh.

-A

Bush came across as likeable, genuine, and determined. He also did a better job as portraying himself as a leader. Before you jump on me read all my political posts I am pretty even

[xtc]

Originally posted by Kefka
I'd say the debate was about even with me leaning towards Kerry, of course. Bush scored points because he wasn't as horrible this time as he was in the first debate. He also lost points since he looked ready to jump on the moderator. Kerry lost points for allowing Bush to lead him into a bashing contest.

What killed it for Bush was the question about naming 3 mistakes he made and how he intends to fix em. He didn't answer with even one, which tells me that he believes he can never do wrong. A true leader is honest enough to point out that he's not exactly perfect.

That question was a loser, he was damned no matter what he said. His answer was that he had made mistakes in his appointments to boards that we have never heard of but that he wasn't going to name names.

[Chelle]

My favorite part was when Bush brought up the fact that Kerry had a chance to vote on the issues he's for/against if he had just fucking showed up to a Senate meeting to do so. My opinion: If Kerry can't do his job as a Senator how the hell can he do it as a President.

My second favorite part was when Bush wanted to respond to a question but Gibson wanted to move on, Bush was like, STFU I am the President and I'll respond if I want to. :lol: That was just sexy. I was like daamn George musta took a viagra tonight.

I'm quite pleased that Bush did so well this time. He was strong, clear, and did some good slammin.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Chelle
My favorite part was when Bush brought up the fact that Kerry had a chance to vote on the issues he's for/against if he had just fucking showed up to a Senate meeting to do so. My opinion: If Kerry can't do his job as a Senator how the hell can he do it as a President.

My second favorite part was when Bush wanted to respond to a question but Gibson wanted to move on, Bush was like, STFU I am the President and I'll respond if I want to. :lol: That was just sexy. I was like daamn George musta took a viagra tonight.

I'm quite pleased that Bush did so well this time. He was strong, clear, and did some good slammin.

I watched the debate with some friends and when Bush responded to Kerry's comment and talked over the moderator there was a collective gasp. I thought he needed to do and couldn't let the point pass, but I was in the minority with my opinion.

......and I just don't get the Bush is sexy thing but then I am a guy.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Kefka
What killed it for Bush was the question about naming 3 mistakes he made and how he intends to fix em. He didn't answer with even one, which tells me that he believes he can never do wrong. A true leader is honest enough to point out that he's not exactly perfect.He specifically said he wasn't perfect on national television. What more could you possibly want?

[Keller]

Not only does Bush own $84 in a lumber company, now he owns half of it (no financial stats on worth available I guess). I agree his human side in the "Need some wood?" comment was great and definately scored points with voters. I just think it's characteristic that he was fucking wrong.

I just don't understand why they both lie all the time. I mean, he says he gave an extra $1000 child tax credit, it was only $500. He said Kerry's tax plan would affect 900,000 small-business owners, it would only affect 471,000. Fuckin-A, 471,000 business owners who have to cut jobs because of a tax plan is a big deal -- tell me the truth and I might vote for you!! If either candidate told us the truth and forced their opponent to justifiy their policies instead of sling mud at each other for lying they would win. Maybe they both agreed to fabricate a little so they would have sometime to fill their 2-minutes except, damn -- he's a lyin son uva bitch.

[Keller]

Question: Name three mistakes and how you will fix them.

Answer: I am not perfect.

Example 2:

Question: Name your kids and give me their birthdays.

Answer: I'm not infertile.

[Tsa`ah]

Actually the point Kerry made in mentioning the lumbar dividend was that it sets both Bush and Cheney up as small businesses, thus giving them a wider tax shelter. Hence his comment "That's the way they do things" ... meaning the the tax breaks.

Bush didn't get it because he's rather dense.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Kefka
What killed it for Bush was the question about naming 3 mistakes he made and how he intends to fix em. He didn't answer with even one, which tells me that he believes he can never do wrong. A true leader is honest enough to point out that he's not exactly perfect.He specifically said he wasn't perfect on national television. What more could you possibly want?


Nobody's perfect, but that's not answering the question. That was a job interview question. These past 4 years was far from perfect. People want to hear that you're not gonna make the same screw up mistakes that you made before. Point out the problems and fix it. Make people understand that you at least acknowledge the problem.

For those who haven't noticed, his non response is much worse than any response he would've given. It makes Kerry's arguement that Bush is in denial much stronger.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Actually the point Kerry made in mentioning the lumbar dividend was that it sets both Bush and Cheney up as small businesses, thus giving them a wider tax shelter. Hence his comment "That's the way they do things" ... meaning the the tax breaks.

Bush didn't get it because he's rather dense.

Bush owns the Lone Star Trust which is categorized as an Oil & Gas Exploration Company. Part of that trust earned a measly $84 in income. The guy is a multi-millionaire. Technically if you own a mutual fund you own a tiny part of many companies, can each of you here list each firm that is within that mutual fund company that you own? I can’t

I think Bush genuinely was unaware he earned a whopping $84 from a firm in an income trust. Kerry made it sound like all of Bush’s income would be taxed as a small business instead of a measly $84. Tax cuts for small businesses are good for the economy; they generate GDP growth and jobs.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html

[Hulkein]

<<For those who haven't noticed, his non response is much worse than any response he would've given. It makes Kerry's arguement that Bush is in denial much stronger.>>

I disagree.

[Ilvane]

[quote]He waffled on the abortion issue, while Bush said he was clearly Pro-life. Kerry did some 1/2 thing not committing to being Pro-choice fully[quote]

I disagree here. I understood what he was saying completely. I'm also Catholic. I do not personally believe in abortion, but I also feel that it's not my choice to make for other people who don't believe the same way I do. As he said, you can not legislate someones personal decision like that.

I think that he was clear..it's sometimes the Republican way to make things more confusing than they need to be.

-A

[Tsa`ah]

I don't trust any politician that espouses a pro life/choice opinion. It's lip service only.

[Ilvane]

Don't you think it is a personal decision?

I really think that if it's put back to the old way, it will be the rich women getting abortions because they can afford it, and can pay the doctors to do it, while the poor women who can't do so will have to either have children that they don't have the money or will to support, or they will go to the butchers again that were around back then when it was illegal, and wind up being hurt.

-A

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Chelle
My second favorite part was when Bush wanted to respond to a question but Gibson wanted to move on, Bush was like, STFU I am the President and I'll respond if I want to. :lol: That was just sexy. I was like daamn George musta took a viagra tonight.



This was exactly what made me look at him and think you're nothing but a hot-headed spoiled brat. You thought it was sexy? I also found his winks to be totally inappropriate during a presidential debate.

He just reinforced all the reasons that I can't stand him. He doesn't even have the decency to follow the rules that were agreed upon. It is NO surprise to me why the world seems to think that Bush is bad news.

I had hoped that Kerry would do a bit better, but after that first debate - George had no place to go but up...again the bar of expectations is set extraordinarily low.

On the upside, I saw some family and friends this week - all voting for Kerry. Music to my ears since I live in Ohio.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Ilvane

He waffled on the abortion issue, while Bush said he was clearly Pro-life. Kerry did some 1/2 thing not committing to being Pro-choice fully
I disagree here. I understood what he was saying completely. I'm also Catholic. I do not personally believe in abortion, but I also feel that it's not my choice to make for other people who don't believe the same way I do. As he said, you can not legislate someones personal decision like that.

I think that he was clear..it's sometimes the Republican way to make things more confusing than they need to be.

-A

Bush may be pro-life but he doesn't intend to take away abortion fully. Kerry officially lost me when he voted against the ban for partial abortion. For me, there is NO excuse to do that for ANY circumstance, especially in the third trimester. At that point, have a cesarean and deliver the child, don't kill it.

The way I see it, and I'm obviously quite alone in the matter, is that Bush is in it for the compromises, Kerry is in it for the power and I don't trust him. He's in it for the gain for himself and doesn't see the big picture and goes along with whatever his people tell him to say to gain popularity. The man is a snake in my eyes. If something happens in the next debate that Bush completely flubs it, I'm voting for Nader. Kerry is never getting my vote.

[Edited on 10/10/2004 by CrystalTears]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Bush may be pro-life but he doesn't intend to take away abortion fully.

Of course he does. The man's an Evangelical Christian. He'll work to overturn Roe v Wade so quickly your head will spin.

He's a proven liar and has demonstrably pandered to the extreme right to secure even one vote. Just like he broke just about every single one of his promises regarding gay issues, he'll think nothing of doing it for abortion.

I'm sorry but anyone who believes otherwise is deluded and willing to overlook his track record.

Raven

[CrystalTears]

What did he do to gay rights? He's getting them civil unions, he just doesn't want them to be considered marriages just yet. I may not completely agree with it and personally don't see anything wrong with gay marriages, however he also has to work with the majority of the people, and there are still people out there who don't approve of gay people at all, let alone allowing them to have the same rights as straight couples. He's doing this in small steps and I don't fault him for that. Better small steps than no steps at all.

I probably am biased and just don't see all this lying people keep on saying he did.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Kefka
People want to hear that you're not gonna make the same screw up mistakes that you made before. Point out the problems and fix it. Make people understand that you at least acknowledge the problem.

For those who haven't noticed, his non response is much worse than any response he would've given. It makes Kerry's arguement that Bush is in denial much stronger. What mistakes do you think he made? I originally had a bunch of party lines after this, but they weren't really necessary.

Did you miss xtc's post? He correctly recalled that Bush said he had made mistakes in appointing unnamed people. It's fine by me if he doesn't name them on national TV. Praise in public, chastise in private works great.
Originally posted by Ilvane
it's sometimes the Republican way to make things more confusing than they need to be. How can you look at their two responses and say that? HOW? You drive me nuts sometimes. There's no way oversimplifying an issue can make it confusing.
Originally posted by TheRoseLady
He doesn't even have the decency to follow the rules that were agreed upon.None of the four participants in the recent debates followed the rules. None of them. Furthermore, I'd want to hear a debating aficianado's opinion on the type of rule-breaking before I get all worked up about it. Every sport bends the rules. Why not debating?

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Bush may be pro-life but he doesn't intend to take away abortion fully.


Not yet anyway.

I will never vote for anyone who doesn't support a woman's right to choose.

I don't know why Kerry didn't vote for the ban on PBA but I assume that it's like most legislation, there were parts of it that weren't acceptable. Perhaps we'll get more background on that decision in the near future.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Bush may be pro-life but he doesn't intend to take away abortion fully.

Of course he does. The man's an Evangelical Christian. He'll work to overturn Roe v Wade so quickly your head will spin.

He's a proven liar and has demonstrably pandered to the extreme right to secure even one vote. Just like he broke just about every single one of his promises regarding gay issues, he'll think nothing of doing it for abortion.

I'm sorry but anyone who believes otherwise is deluded and willing to overlook his track record.

Raven

How many members of the Supreme Court would he have to replace to overturn it and how many are looking like they might croak in the next four years.

You don't have to be religious to want to see Roe Vs Wade overturned. I understand the women in that case says she made a huge mistake and is now working hard to overturn it.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
None of the four participants in the recent debates followed the rules. None of them. Furthermore, I'd want to hear a debating aficianado's opinion on the type of rule-breaking before I get all worked up about it. Every sport bends the rules. Why not debating?

It's my opinion that he showed total disrespect for the moderator by just basically steamrolling him and just going off on his tangent about "denigrating our comrades".

You like Bush, I like Kerry. You might not find his actions to be reprehensible - but I did. That, in my opinion, typified the real Bush. A hot headed blowhard who can't even keep it together long enough to get through a 90 minute debate without seeming like he could lose control.

I think that the RNC have seriously erred, along with his administration by severely limiting his press conferences and by filling his campaign stops with Bush supporters who have to fill out a loyalty card in order to get seated. As several pundits have pointed out, Bush doesn't like it when he gets challenged and it showed quite loud and clear. He's not accustomed to being challenged - he was barely able to keep himself from flying off the handle.

I guess if you like that sort of 'Jerry Springer' type response, then you would see him as a big he-man sporting his big ole' can of whoop-ass. I can see that kind of stuff 24/7 in my real life, I want a president who doesn't remind of me of some backwoods redneck jackass.

It's purely my opinion. But really it's not my opinion or yours that mattered on this, it's those of the undecided voter.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
He's getting them civil unions

Please, please, please document this. Because no, he isn't. Every single piece of legislation the Republican Party has proposed has banned civil unions, domestic partnerships, and anything by any other name.

Once, one sole time right beforte the RNC convention, in an effort to appear more moderate, Bush suggested he might be willing to support some type of civil union. And then the convention was over and he never once said it again. And yet, several more state amendments are on ballots for this November banning same-sex marriage, civil unions and any sort of domestic partnership.

So where exactly is Bush giving us civil unions?

Listen to twelve loyal Bush supporters he met with four years ago. The Austin 12 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/10/MNG0996S3R1.DTL)

Bush is either a blatant liar or he abandoned a million loyal supporters in order to pander to a larger voting block. Neither instance makes him a strong leader nor a man of integrity. What it does make him is a hypocrite or liar who will 'change his opinion to gain votes' (sound familiar to anyone?).

And you think he can be trusted on abortion? It's pretty accepted that at least one Supreme Court Justice will retire in the next four years. Possibly two, maybe three. Scalia might very well end up Chief Justice (and what a terrifying thought that is). Overturning Roe vs Wade is a very distinct possibility.

Raven

[Ilvane]

Actually CT, Kerry voted against the ban because it didn't include an exception for the life of the mother.

I'd personally say if the mother was going to die that it was a pretty damned good reason.

Here are some things that were said by Bush's staff on abortion rights:
A letter to him about Karen Hughes.
http://www.house.gov/maloney/issues/choice/042704HughesChoice.pdf

Or this health plan:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/articles/040928_faith.html

Or this:
In 2001, President Bush, on his first day in office, reinstated the so-called Mexico City Policy, also known as the global gag rule. That was a policy put in place by the Reagan administration in 1984 and revoked under the Clinton administration.

It bars U.S. family-planning assistance to any foreign health care agency that uses funds from any source to perform abortions, provide counseling and referral for abortion or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country. To receive U.S. funding, the agencies may perform abortions only when there is a threat to the woman's life or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Many clinics were forced to shut down in the wake of Bush's decision; still others lack funding needed to operate and face closure. In Kenya, for example, three family planning clinics shut down after Bush made the change and six more face closure; In Bangladesh, seven clinics closed after the policy's reintroduction and services were suspended in seven others. And in Tanzania, three clinics in hard to reach areas face closure.

The lack of clinics prevents men, women and children from receiving basic health services such as pap smears and treatment for respiratory infections, health care advocates maintain. It also takes away distributors of condoms and other means to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The Bush administration has also scaled back funding for the United Nations Population Fund, the world's largest international source of funding for population and reproductive health programs. Funding shortfalls have led to unwanted pregnancies, unnecessary abortions and the deaths of mothers and children in many countries, program officials say.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has promoted a policy of abstinence until marriage, a transition that Coen called "really scary." The administration's so-called ABC policy — A for abstinence, B for be faithful and C for condoms when necessary — undervalues the need for condoms to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, health care advocates say. They also complain that a percentage of U.S. funding for HIV/AIDS is also directed to abstinence before marriage, taking funds away from other programs they consider more important.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Actually CT, Kerry voted against the ban because it didn't include an exception for the life of the mother.

I'd personally say if the mother was going to die that it was a pretty damned good reason.

Here are some things that were said by Bush's staff on abortion rights:
A letter to him about Karen Hughes.
http://www.house.gov/maloney/issues/choice/042704HughesChoice.pdf

Or this health plan:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/articles/040928_faith.html

Or this:
In 2001, President Bush, on his first day in office, reinstated the so-called Mexico City Policy, also known as the global gag rule. That was a policy put in place by the Reagan administration in 1984 and revoked under the Clinton administration.

It bars U.S. family-planning assistance to any foreign health care agency that uses funds from any source to perform abortions, provide counseling and referral for abortion or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country. To receive U.S. funding, the agencies may perform abortions only when there is a threat to the woman's life or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Many clinics were forced to shut down in the wake of Bush's decision; still others lack funding needed to operate and face closure. In Kenya, for example, three family planning clinics shut down after Bush made the change and six more face closure; In Bangladesh, seven clinics closed after the policy's reintroduction and services were suspended in seven others. And in Tanzania, three clinics in hard to reach areas face closure.

The lack of clinics prevents men, women and children from receiving basic health services such as pap smears and treatment for respiratory infections, health care advocates maintain. It also takes away distributors of condoms and other means to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The Bush administration has also scaled back funding for the United Nations Population Fund, the world's largest international source of funding for population and reproductive health programs. Funding shortfalls have led to unwanted pregnancies, unnecessary abortions and the deaths of mothers and children in many countries, program officials say.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has promoted a policy of abstinence until marriage, a transition that Coen called "really scary." The administration's so-called ABC policy — A for abstinence, B for be faithful and C for condoms when necessary — undervalues the need for condoms to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, health care advocates say. They also complain that a percentage of U.S. funding for HIV/AIDS is also directed to abstinence before marriage, taking funds away from other programs they consider more important.


During the debate Kerry said he supported a ban on partial birth abortions.

And Planned Parent hood is a far from a unbiased source. Bush did stipulate that if you accept US money you must not use it to perform abortions. If you don't agree you don't get the money. As you mentioned Reagan had the same policy. It is called he who pays the piper calls the tune.

India has more ultrasound clinics than the USA. Abortion is rampant there.

I understand Ilvane you are Pro Abortion however 1/2 the country is Pro-Life. At least Bush came out and clearly stated his position on the issue. Kerry did a flip flop all in the same sentence. I am catholic but it is an issue left best to each state. HUhhhh...

[Edited on 10-10-2004 by xtc]

[Hulkein]

<<Actually CT, Kerry voted against the ban because it didn't include an exception for the life of the mother.>>

The National Health Association has stated there is never a time that a partial birth abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.

When the life of the mother is at stake the doctors have the leverage to do whatever they can to save her life and it will not fall under what is banned in the partial birth abortion bill.

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by Hulkein]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
The National Health Association has stated there is never a time that a partial birth abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr02-13-02.cfm)


The policy statement noted that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision."

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
It's my opinion that he showed total disrespect for the moderator by just basically steamrolling him and just going off on his tangent about "denigrating our comrades". Well duh. That wasn't the point. I think a lot of NFL players are exceedingly disrespectful, however, it'd be inaccurate of me to single out TO in an Eagles-Giants game without also pointing at Shockey.

I don't really follow the Jerry Springer reference, but I think it's a Good Thing when a politician doesn't hide their real emotions. Is Bush a good ol' boy amongst liars and cheats? Naw. He does his share of politicking (Missourah?).

Ilvane, what method is more effective in preventing AIDS, HIV, every sexually transmitted disease in existence, and pregnancy? Abstinence, or condoms? Therefore, which method would it be better to promote?

[CrystalTears]

I'll have to look into what Bush has actually done, but in the debate he said he's working to have civil unions. If you think he's lying about what he's proposing, I suppose I can't stop you from believing that. Just like Kerry promises a whole bunch of things that I don't think he'll deliver, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sorry but Kerry saying that he's Catholic, for the woman's right to chose and voting against the ban for partial abortions all in one breath made me literally sick to my stomach. Shit or get off the pot. If the life of the mother is SO at stake for her to take the pregnancy to full term and she's in the third trimester, is it so bad to just do a cesarean and give birth to the child? Why go to the extreme of killing the child? Why? I see no, none, zip reason to end the life of the child in that extreme. Zero.

I certainly won't vote for someone who thinks that it's necessary. I'm pro-choice and even I see that it shouldn't be a birth control option, it should be the LAST option, but still an option, with partial births NEVER being an option.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I'll have to look into what Bush has actually done, but in the debate he said he's working to have civil unions.

Please do find that as I heard no mention at all about civil unions in either debate. Nor can I find it searching the transcripts. It's vaguely possible I could have missed it. It's vaguely possible every single news site devoted to gay issues could have failed to mention it. I doubt it but it's possible.

I think though that you are incorrect and that he didn't propose anything of the sort. His ultra conservative base would have had apoplexy.

Raven

[Ilvane]

Xtc, let me set you straight. I am not pro-abortion.

You may see my support a right to choose as being that way, but I would not personally want an abortion.

I just don't think that's my decision to make, it's the person in the situation.

-A

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I'll have to look into what Bush has actually done, but in the debate he said he's working to have civil unions.

Please do find that as I heard no mention at all about civil unions in either debate. Nor can I find it searching the transcripts. It's vaguely possible I could have missed it. It's vaguely possible every single news site devoted to gay issues could have failed to mention it. I doubt it but it's possible.

I think though that you are incorrect and that he didn't propose anything of the sort. His ultra conservative base would have had apoplexy.

Raven

You're right. My mistake. I could have sworn he said it in one of the debates, but I guess I misheard something. I had been speaking with my fiance and he mentioned that he does support civil unions but I'll have to find out where.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
You're right. My mistake. I could have sworn he said it in one of the debates, but I guess I misheard something. I had been speaking with my fiance and he mentioned that he does support civil unions but I'll have to find out where.

I'm almost sorry to hear that. He's probably referring to that one brief interview right between the two conventions when Bush was behind and trying to appear more moderate. Everything he's done before and since has put the lie to his words though.

Raven

[Ilvane]

From Bush's website:

Defending Marriage

President Bush believes that marriage between a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, and the foundational building block of our society. President Bush has fought to defend traditional marriage laws from activist judges who threaten to legislate from the bench to impose same-sex marriage and deny the voice of the people.

In his second term, President Bush will:

Protect the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - Vigorously defend the constitutionality of DOMA, which was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress in 1996.
Pursue a Federal Marriage Amendment - Continue to urge Congress to send to the states for ratification an Amendment to the Constitution to define and protect the institution of marriage in the United States.


This is the amendment that would have been added to the constitution and what President Bush supported:

The amendment, as proposed by Allard, would add these two sentences to the Constitution:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

-A

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Well duh. That wasn't the point. I think a lot of NFL players are exceedingly disrespectful, however, it'd be inaccurate of me to single out TO in an Eagles-Giants game without also pointing at Shockey.

I don't really follow the Jerry Springer reference, but I think it's a Good Thing when a politician doesn't hide their real emotions. Is Bush a good ol' boy amongst liars and cheats? Naw. He does his share of politicking (Missourah?).


I'm sorry but I don't hold NFL players to the same level that I do a candidate for President of the US.

Since you are insisting on making a comparison, I'll say this, why is a personal foul a 15 yard penalty and a false start just 5 yards? Not all penalties are created equally.

This wasn't a football game, it was a debate for arguably the most powerful position in the world.

I think that Bush shows his emotions, but as in anything, there is an appropriate manner. George is anything but presidential in my eyes. He insults my intelligence with his simpleton view of the world and his policies.

As for his real emotions, why does Bush seat his campaign stops with people who swear loyalty to the Republican ticket? He's the president, why can't everyone have access to him?

I'm glad that you were pleased with his performance, as I said before - the bar of expectations was very low for him - he could only go up and he STILL didn't do that as well as I would have expected him to do.

[Latrinsorm]

:?: The point of the NFL comparison was that EVERYONE does it, therefore you can't pick on ONE person.

I don't know why he does a lot of the things he does, so I can't answer for his odd campaign stop strategy.

[GSTamral]

<<
This wasn't a football game, it was a debate for arguably the most powerful position in the world.

I think that Bush shows his emotions, but as in anything, there is an appropriate manner. George is anything but presidential in my eyes. He insults my intelligence with his simpleton view of the world and his policies.
>>

Let's take a look at some of the most successful presidents of our time

FDR
Eisenhower
Reagan
Clinton

gosh, of those four, only one, Clinton, did NOT use a simpleton view of the world. He's the only one to leave a recession in the following term as well.

The job of the leader is not to micromanage, and not to know all the details about everything underneath him/her. There are other people for that. The leader can absorb the information and make a decision based on it. The leader is not a fact-checker. He MUST TRUST the people working for him/her to present him with the facts. When those people fail to do the job, or there are conflicts in reports, the leader must assess the situation and make a decision based on which side he/she chooses to be the most likely to be correct.

You are correct in that Bush is over-emotional, and acts like a little baby under pressure, and often makes decisions based on his own gut feelings instead of what is in front of him. But I do believe he is trying to make decisions based on what is best for the country, albeit in a twisted evangelical way, because you are right, he is not the smartest man. Neither was Reagan. Neither was Gore, Neither was Kennedy, and neither was Eisenhower.

It is easy to criticize every step of every action in hindsight. Kerry has proven himself to be up there with ted kennedy as the ULTIMATE monday morning quarterback. The problem really is this. Kerry will do whats best for Kerry and his party. He has proven this time and time again. His track record in the Senate, as well as the state of massachusetts in education has also been quite indicative that his record is nothing to write home about either.

The true question boils down to this.

Do you want a stupid man making decisions that, while often stupid, are done in good faith, even though he is trying to retie church and state (any evangelical, in good faith or not who tries to impose personal religious beliefs upon others in a "free" country can fuck off, they are no better than extremist Muslims in that regard), or do you want a smarter man who doesn't care one lick about the country or our armed forces making the decisions, one whom you know will choose himself and his own personal gain (just like vp cock cheney), over the american people 100% of the time.

Thus the dilemna.

Simpleton views however, are not an issue. Businesses don't succeed because the leaders speak in techno-babble and confuse employees to show how smart they are. They succeed because there is a simple vision, a simple goal, and simple processes. Nations work in much the same way.

[xtc]

Hell of a decision.

I am going with the uber liberal as much as I don't like him. It is time for a change.

[Keller]

I agree with the assessment Tamral, except you say Kerry doesn't care one-lick about the country and would make self-serving decisions.

I am honestly asking why ... maybe I am just ignorant, but I don't see it.

[GSTamral]

Here's a couple I can think of off the top of my head.

in 2000, he was part of a bloc of democrats that voted to remove funding for future hydroelectric expansion. Why did he do this? because at the time, only environmentalists cared about this issue, even though now he takes the opposite stance, now that the issue of energy is more in the limelight. Flip-flopping for votes.

He has not given up his Senate seat during his run for presidency. He is currently not doing the job he is being paid to do, because in case he loses, he wants the job. Instead of allowing someone else to actually try and do the job, he chooses to have nobody serve, so he does not lose his place in washington in case he loses.

In vietnam, many men of his rank risked life and stature to do what was right. Actually go out and arrest servicemen in vietnam who commited crimes against humanity. Many of them not only did so, but did not disrespect the lives of other servicemen by blasphemizing our armed forces for political gain when they returned. Kerry did it the other way around. He watched these people do these things, did nothing about it, then came back to the US and made his case in the limelight.

Many times whats best for Kerry will end up being whats best for America. But in the times when that is different, watch out.

Here's another little one:

23-Sep-04 MILONE, MICHAEL D.
Senior Vice President 4,500 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
8-Sep-04 ZIMMERMAN, JAMES M.
Director 2,500 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
8-Sep-04 USHER, THOMAS J.
Director 2,500 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
8-Sep-04 BUNCH, CHARLES E.
Director 2,500 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
8-Sep-04 CHOKSI, MARY C.
Director 2,500 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
8-Sep-04 COLEMAN, LEONARD S. JR
Director 2,500 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
8-Sep-04 COORS, PETER H.
Director 2,500 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
8-Sep-04 OHARE, DEAN R
Director 2,500 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
8-Sep-04 SWANN, LYNN C.
Director 2,500 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
8-Sep-04 HOLIDAY, EDITH E.
Director 2,500 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A
8-Sep-04 KENDLE, CANDACE B.
Director 2,500 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share. N/A


These are the latest insider trading moves in Heinz Corp. Wow, you talk about the rich being too rich and the middle class needing tax cuts, then tell me why your wife is one of several people being given quarterly 0 dollar options (one of the many ways to avoid taxes on corporate profits by using non-pay based 0 dollar yield options) in the amount of 2500 shares? At 35 bucks a share, that's.. let's see, oh, about 100 grand in free money they hand out quarterly to anyone of director rank and above..... The same kind of shit enron did, only they misreported these bonuses and hid cash to do it, then made false in revenue statements to fake where the cash was going on top of this.

Interesting that he is so tough on corporate fraud and wants to nail down on these corrupt free money executives... oh shit, his wife is one.

[Latrinsorm]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, Tamral, but I don't see Teresa Heinz on that list.

[GSTamral]

You are right, I didn't copy far enough down the list to capture her apparently, but yes, she is on it.

[Ravenstorm]

What's the link? I'll go look at it.

Raven

[GSTamral]

most of it is available at yahoo.com in finance I believe, however the resource I looked at was an inside page at work.

the Edgar database has the most comprehensive collection on insider trade activity over the last year though.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by GSTamral

A bunch of stuff....

I'll take Kerry any day of the week over Bush. Regardless of your views and opinions on him - he represents what I feel the country needs.

That's the beauty of our country is that we are still free to vote. Never in my entire adult life have I ever been as concerned about the direction that we are headed, as I am now. I am MORE than willing to take a gamble on a "left wing liberal" in the hope that our country gets headed back in the proper direction.

There's zero chance I'll vote for Bush.

[GSTamral]

<<
TheRoseLady:

your opinion doesn't matter I'm still voting for Kerry
>>>

That's fine. Go ahead and do it. But then don't be disparaging to those who have a different view if you expect them to be respectful of yours.

[Wezas]

Been gone all weekend, but just noticed the change. If this has already been posted, my appologies.

Electoral-Vote.com for Oct 11, 2004 (http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct11.html) Kerry - 280 vs. Bush 254

Amazing how things have changed from two weeks ago. The republicans still saying Bush won the debates?

Electoral-Vote.com for Sep 28, 2004 (http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep28.html) Kerry - 207 vs. Bush 317

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by GSTamral
<<
TheRoseLady:

your opinion doesn't matter I'm still voting for Kerry
>>>

That's fine. Go ahead and do it. But then don't be disparaging to those who have a different view if you expect them to be respectful of yours.

:?:

[Wezas]

Yahoo's insider transactions for Heinz:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=HNZ

No Teresa Kerry on there at all. And it goes all the way back to 2001.

As for Edgar - eesh, that is a mess of a search. The most I've found is 3 transactions - the latest being 1995.

Could you post a link to what you are talking about Tamral? If not we'll just assume you're making things up. :whistle:

[Hulkein]

Most of the polls are within like 1-2 percentage points Wezas. If you look at ones that are statistically significant, and not ones that actually put a state in someones column because of a 1 point 1 poll lead, Bush is ahead.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Electoral%20College%20Projection.htm

http://realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/RCP_Electoral_Count_Chart.html

Yes, I believe Bush won the second one. Don't think anyone said he won the first.

[Edited on 10-12-2004 by Hulkein]