Kerry reads ATS, takes Bout Time's Advice!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Bout Time
....I'll tell you what: Let Kerry & Bush debate once a week from now until Nov.2. It can even be a two on one, with Dick Cheney sliding his hand up Bush's arse & playing puppet master like he did with their 9/11 commission testimony.

Just start talking policy, accomplishments and proposals at some point. If not, resign yourself to wear the Fascist label that so aptly applies by avoiding what counts. & focusing on a collective American mindF***K as a re-election strategy!!!

Kerry Challenges Bush to Weekly Debates

"America deserves a serious discussion about its future. It does not deserve a campaign of fear and smear," the Massachusetts senator told a crowd at a community college near Minneapolis. The campaign said the audience was chosen from undecided voters.
******************************************************
"I hope he will get his staff, his attack dogs and all those other folks out there to pull back and start focusing on how we're going to make America stronger here at home and more respected in the world," Kerry said on Thursday.

"Let's meet every week from now until the election and talk about the real issues that will make America strong again."

BUSH: Campaign "events" where one has to sign a fascist oath pledging allegiance to the Bush elction before getting access to the candidate. Then, only scripted questions are allowed. The "debates" that they will agree to will be 3 or less and scripted as well, with the candidates knowing beforehand what questions will be asked. No doubt, Bush's "hair style" will change to accomodate for the earpiece
!!!

KERRY: Open events, making an earnest effort to speak to undicided voters and wanting a debate a week.

What is more befitting our American democratic process: educated, full access to the participants seeing how they handle themselves and where their grasp of policy knowledge sits OR stage managed event with no insights given and sound byte sloganism void of deep thought & corroborating data (i.e. the Bush Presidency) ??
One of these will be the lead up to the most important election in our life times.

We need more debates and this is a good thing! The only problem is that we need at least one more party involved. Libertarian or Reform would be great!

Let me guess, Bush hasn't agreed.

Well, I have a fear of public speaking to, just not the president. Also, as someone said, the questions would be given to Bush before hand, his answer would be written out before hand, have a earpiece for the times that Kerry gets a question in that wasn't scripted before hand. They wouldn't be real debates, it would be Bush being himself and Kerry giving his thoughts, ideas, and his arguements.

I would love to see weekly debates, with third party candidates involved. We are trying to make this country, the best it can be aren't we? So why wouldn't we want to consider all ideas, on how to do it? Or do the two major parties have a monopoly on good ideas? Bah ha ha ha ha. :-)

Edit: Bout Time, I see it now.

Tom Sawyer

[edit on 27-8-2004 by TomSawyer]

Ocurss he can not agree with weekly debates, Bush will have to learn how to explain why this country is in the gutter, but with the swift boat groups doing the dirty job for him all he has to do is sit relax and let them do the campaign for him.

Like that he does not have to explain why he really went into Iraq and why our economy sucks.

People in this country is more interested in medals and a 30 year war, even when the economy down side is kicking them in the arse.

Yes, Bush's camp did decline the weekly debates challenge. Any surprise? Where are all the Bush supporters on this thread, I'm interested to know their views on this (although I'm sure they will come up with some good reasons, ). By the way Marg, you're new avatar is kinda scary, LOL.

27jd,

By the way Marg, you're new avatar is kinda scary, LOL.

That is the whole idea, somebody on another thread tried to push me a littler bit to hard, so it represents my mood.

You were kidding with the title of this post, weren't you? The cry for debates is as predictable as anything at this stage of the campaign; ask any high school civics student. One more clue: it happens every four years.

The intensity of the cry for debates will be directly proportional to the distance that the loser (the one calling for the debates) is falling behind.

Originally posted by 27jd
Yes, Bush's camp did decline the weekly debates challenge. Any surprise? Where are all the Bush supporters on this thread, I'm interested to know their views on this (although I'm sure they will come up with some good reasons,

).

It's not a Bush thing, or a Republican thing. It's Political Science 101. The loser is becoming frantic and thus cries out for debates. The person ahead will of course not let his opponent control the strategy of the campaign.

And if it hasn't been pointed out here yet, the loser will, after being snubbed, cry out with oh- such- righteous- indignation that his opponent is afraid to defend his record.

Democrats do it to Republican challengers, too. Read your history book; you'll see that it's true.

Uh, how is Kerry losing? I have seen polls, and they all say either ahead or tied. Doesn't sound like he is losing to me. Unless you mean in the fact that the election is already stolen and Kerry knows it.

Sorry, Kerry is up for it, Bush isn't. Why? People might find out Bush has the grammer and mind of a 4th grader. If it was Bush calling for weekly debates and Kerry saying no you would say the winner cries out for debates while the loser declines. But since it is the opposite, you say the opposite.

"Yes, Bush's camp did decline the weekly debates challenge. Any surprise? Where are all the Bush supporters on this thread, I'm interested to know their views on this (although I'm sure they will come up with some good reasons," This pretty much explains it, right 27jd?

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Sorry, Kerry is up for it, Bush isn't. Why? People might find out Bush has the grammer and mind of a 4th grader. If it was Bush calling for weekly debates and Kerry saying no you would say the winner cries out for debates while the loser declines. But since it is the opposite, you say the opposite.

Equate this to a football game (American football), fourth quarter, sixty seconds left. Home team is ahead by one point, control the ball, first down and ten, and the visiting team has no timeouts left. All they can do is watch the clock run out as the home team snaps the ball and takes a knee.

That's the scenario, pure and simple. Don't read more into it than is there. Bush would not call for debates, as you suggest. Neither would Kerry if the roles were reversed. I'm surprised that so many don't see this; it happens almost on cue, every four years.

Tell him to mention the need for disclosure on the US Government and UFO's.

I'm not saying to go Jerry Brown with it, but in recent history every winning Democratic presidential candidate has promised "to look into it" ala Carter and Clinton.

Missed opportunity with former VP contender Bill Richardson going public for Roswell Disclosure, but I still think Edwards is the better man.

Kerry just needs a good Foo Fighter story from Nam and he's in.

The conspiracy theorist voting block is only getting bigger, as proven by F911 success. The "alien" angle is non-partisan (on the face of it) though we all know who's really in bed with the corrupt military on this one...so it's a natural angle for Dems since our guys keep getting assassignated and people like Former CIA Director Bush keep roadblocking Dem Presidents from access to the truth.

Originally posted by RANT
Tell him to mention the need for disclosure on the US Government and UFO's.

I'm not saying to go Jerry Brown with it, but in recent history every winning Democratic presidential candidate has promised "to look into it" ala Carter and Clinton.

Did it ever occur to you that they checked into it and found nothing? And realized that to report so would turn the faithful against them, as certain people have one thing proved to them and they just ignore the proof or start to focus elsewhere.

As for Bush and Kerry debating it will probably not be too good for Bush if they limit the number of debates�however as things look to be heading their way I think they will, unfortunately.

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by RANT
Tell him to mention the need for disclosure on the US Government and UFO's.

I'm not saying to go Jerry Brown with it, but in recent history every winning Democratic presidential candidate has promised "to look into it" ala Carter and Clinton.

Did it ever occur to you that they checked into it and found nothing? And realized that to report so would turn the faithful against them, as certain people have one thing proved to them and they just ignore the proof or start to focus elsewhere.

No. It never occured to me they just "found nothing" since President Carter said CIA Director Bush told him he wasn't privy to that information and John Podesta said his greatest regret was not being able to fulfill Clinton's first two private requests as President...to find out who shot Kennedy and what the government knows about UFO's because of intelligence stonewalling against sitting Democratic Presidents.

Originally posted by jsobecky
It's not a Bush thing, or a Republican thing. It's Political Science 101. The loser is becoming frantic and thus cries out for debates. The person ahead will of course not let his opponent control the strategy of the campaign.

And if it hasn't been pointed out here yet, the loser will, after being snubbed, cry out with oh- such- righteous- indignation that his opponent is afraid to defend his record.

Democrats do it to Republican challengers, too. Read your history book; you'll see that it's true.

Actually James is correct, the polls have them more or less tied, unless you look at the new electoral college poll, heres a transcript from the Countdown with Keith Olberman show from 8/26/2004:

OLBERMANN: Good evening. This is Thursday, August 26, 68 days until the 2004 presidential election. But tonight, the key numbers may be 2 to 1 and 286. The latter is the number of votes in the electoral college currently within John Kerry�s grasp, according to the polling done in the so-called purple states. Two to one? That now the number of witnesses at the swift boat event who now support John Kerry�s version of it, not Larry Thurlow�s. And the new one is an anti-Kerry retired Naval chief petty officer.

To put a number on it, Zogby says just the blue and red states right now would make it Kerry 286, Bush 214 in the electoral college, so much of a margin that even if both remaining yellow states, Missouri and Florida, went to Mr. Bush, it wouldn�t matter. Still, Kerry by 34 votes; 16 more than needed for electoral certification. Tim Russert would not even have time to get out his grease board.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

(They also discuss the debate challenge.)

The way I see it is, the Bush administration is in trouble, and they know weekly debates would drive the last nail in his coffin. So of course they will avoid as many debates as possible, they would be stupid not too, it would only further harm Bush.









[edit on 29-8-2004 by 27jd]

Originally posted by 27jd
The way I see it is, the Bush administration is in trouble, and they know weekly debates would drive the last nail in his coffin. So of course they will avoid as many debates as possible, they would be stupid not too, it would only further harm Bush.

Anyone who watches the weld debate knows that Bush would need a few debates just to try to get him nailed down on his two way answers.

Yes, it was a tounge in cheek thread title.
Yes, challengers ask to debate, incumbants decline.
No, as outlined by the Electoral College poll, (you know, that entity you & all the Bushies love to quote in the 2000 presidential theft by team Dim Son) the repeated semantic of putting Kerry & loser analogously is false.

But more importantly, and looking past the obvious that your horse in this race has a lame wheel ( his mind): Don't you think our political process would be served better by more frequent debates? I've tried to find a reason supporting the 'less is better' frame of mind, but I can't. What say you ?

[edit on 30-8-2004 by Bout Time]

Originally posted by Bout Time
Yes, it was a tounge in cheek thread title.
Yes, challengers ask to debate, incumbants decline.
No, as outlined by the Electoral College poll, (you know, that entity you & all the Bushies love to quote in the 2000 presidential theft by team Dim Son) the repeated semantic of putting Kerry & loser analogously is false.

But more importantly, and looking past the obvious that your horse in this race has a lame wheel ( his mind): Don't you think our political process would be served better by more frequent debates? I've tried to find a reason supporting the 'less is better' frame of mind, but I can't. What say you ?

[edit on 30-8-2004 by Bout Time]

BT, I'll look past your little personal attacks and name calling right now, because they never lend anything to the debate, and I will answer your question: Would more debates better serve our political process? Probably, to a point. But they also serve as fodder for the next election in the form of "broken promises", which muddies the waters. Too often, the best-intentioned presidential policies are waylaid by a partisan Congress. That is why voting records are so important (they expose trends), and why former governors are more likely than former Senators to become presidents.

Originally posted by Bout Time
I've tried to find a reason supporting the 'less is better' frame of mind, but I can't. What say you ?
[edit on 30-8-2004 by Bout Time]

here is a possible reason for at least liberals to support fewer debates�although libertarians and greens would probably say this is all the more reason for debates.

www.americandaily.com...
55% of Kerry supporters stated they were voting for Kerry more to vote against Bush than to support Kerry. Only 44% were voting for Kerry because of Kerry. Whereas only 16% of Bush supporters indicated their vote for Bush was primarily a vote against Kerry; 83% were voting for Bush because of Bush.

What those numbers would lead me to conclude is that the more that Kerry speaks the more likely he is to scare his own support away, as most of his voters are just trying to not vote for Bush. And for any of those voters looking for an alternative visit www.lp.com

Make it a 3 way debate with Badnarik and then you'll see some nasty stuff happening.

Badnarik has asked for debates with all other candidates, for debates with head honcho's at Fox and so on, yet they all decline.

Why you ask? Because Badnarik is one damn smart cookie that doesn't need his staff to write speeches for him.

This guy can debate unscripted and unrehersed about any topic.