Kerry wins the first

Originally posted by curme

What about his big straight buddies? Doncha' think that was a little uncalled for?

How many ways can I say "no!" without getting slapped with a fine. Let's see. His big straight buddies spit in his eye when he tells them to, "Get over it!" His girlfriends slap his face, when he tells them to, "Get over it!"
His mother sends him to his room, when he tells her to, "Get over it!" His father kicks his butt, when he tells him to, "Get over it!" His little gay friends yell, "Well! I never....! You can just shove it, Mary!" and prance off when he tells them to "Get over it!"

How does that sound?

[edit on 04/10/1 by GradyPhilpott]

I agree with our Marine friend, and no it isn't because I hate Kerry, or because I love Bush.

Bush has screwed some stuff up. He has made mistakes. He hasn't functioned to his full capacity. However you want to say it. At least he has plans for the nation. He knows how to lead, and he isn't too bad at it. He has goals. He has HEART and he isn't out to please the world.

Kerry has NO POLICY. NO PLAN. He just talks and talks and decides what the voters want to hear and talks some more. It's fine to point out Bush's faults. But what has he suggested he will do different? Oh, he has said he WILL change things. HOW? He has a four-point plan.... right? He does.... noone knows what it is.... but he has one.

Kerry would be a TERRIBLE commander in cheif. How could he settle any foreign affairs whilst pleasing every nation at once?

He may have won the debate, but as so many have said, we don't elect debators, we elect leaders.

Originally posted by wraith30
Disasterous as Nixon... Interesting.. you mean the disaster of ending VN... the Disaster of opening trade with China and improving relations with the USSR? The disaster of ending the draft possibly? Perhaps you mean the tragic disaster of his meetings with Russian leader Leonid I. Brezhnev that produced a treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons.

There are no absolutes, Wraith. Nixon ended Vietnam? Not a chance. Nixon withdrew US combat troops that led the eventual defeat of South Vietnam and the million or so boat people who fled out of fear for their lives and the millions of murders that occured in Southeast Asia as a resulted.

Nixon didn't end the draft. The all-volunteer miliatary has worked thusfar, but history has plenty of examples of failed mercenary forces. Draft registration is still required and in time there will be another general call-to-arms.

Nixon was not without his successes, but his legacy is one of failure and nothing will ever change that and he went to his grave calling himself "the last casualty of Vietnam."

I lived through those times. Where were you?

[edit on 04/10/1 by GradyPhilpott]

Hands down, Bush gave the most abysmal debate performance I have ever seen by any candidate. He was so rattled he was downright incoherent at times. He showed absolutely no command of facts and his body language suggested anger and resentment. He is capable of one thing only - repeating simple buzzwords and catch-phrases. The United States needs a president who is capable of high mental agility/accuity and the ability to speak extemporaneously. Kerry was all that last night.

Did anyone see Bush start copying Kerry (scribbling thoughts down)? That was hilarious.

Oh yeah, Kerry has all the rights to using the pen and pad provided on the podium. I will never be caught "copying him again"

Did you see Kerry copy Bush (drinking from his water glass) ? Hilarious...

Hello? Bush was so flustered and caught in the headlights, as someone else said, he was drinking invisible water!

Kerry scribbling notes as they went shows, unlike Bush, that he doesn't need a script. He actually understands the issues at hand and doesn't need some knowledge nanny telling him what to say.

Kerry did well. Bush completely lost it.

I have an explanation to offer as to why there are so many people who feel that Bush won the debate. People today, with the enormous upgrade in the communication industry over the last ten years, are exposed to far too much information than the average human mind has the ability to process. Therefore, most Americans feel the need to latch onto a media outlet to interpret the information for them and only expose them to the information they "need". Unfortunately, many Americans have chosen Fox News as their "interpreter" of choice. Keep in mind that Fox is the only major network that will not put their news on their primary network. Instead, they have created a separate channel for their news. The reason is simple. The demographic that Fox targets is the same demographic that should remember that Fox introduced American television to the "immoral TV revolution". Anyone over the age of 25 should remember the controversy of shows like 'Married with Children' and 'Ellen'. The majority of Bush supporters now are the same people who were up in arms when Fox allowed Ellen Degeneres to come out of the closet on their network during prime time, no less. Fox brilliantly manipulated the system by creating a "separate" channel completely devoted to "news". Fox News is taking advantage of good, down to earth, God-fearing Americans by sending the message that change leads to destruction. Most (hopefully) Americans realize why they would send this message......without elaborating any further, Power/Control of the Masses.

Clearly, Kerry won this debate by a landslide, but if you watch Fox News they would have you believe that the debate was a draw, although Bush made several important statements. Rather than pointing out those statements, they once again resort to attacking Kerry's "flip-flopping".

One last note.....if anybody saw the "debate" between Al Gore and Bob Dole at SMU this past Monday, you would have heard Bob Dole himself say that comparing a candidate's Senate record to how he will perform in the White House is absurd. Bob Dole knows this because these are the same tactics the Democrats used to defeat him in 1996. There is simply no comparison....completely different set of "political rules" to follow. I see that several posters have already done a great job explaining this, so I won't elaborate.

My conclusion.......if you depend on Fox News as your source of information, watch the next two debates and take some time to digest what you see on your own time. Do not turn the TV to Fox News until you have completely digested and processed everything you watched (seeing is believing, right?). Tune into Fox News only after you have drawn an objectional conclusion to what you watched and see if their "reporting" matches your logic.

Unfortunately, thingking about an "answer" is detremental. I didnt get a job 2 weeks ago within my company and it was explained to me it was due to my lack of spontaneity.
Bush not only didnt have a quick answer, but looked as though he were listening to an earpiece (maybe) for the answer.
AND when he did answer, it was: well...er... we're at war with the "folks"..... huh?
Pathetic. The world must be rightfully having a field day with this.

Originally posted by Utopia2020
Unfortunately, many Americans have chosen Fox News as their "interpreter" of choice. Keep in mind that Fox is the only major network that will not put their news on their primary network. Instead, they have created a separate channel for their news. Clearly, Kerry won this debate by a landslide, but if you watch Fox News they would have you believe that the debate was a draw, although Bush made several important statements. Rather than pointing out those statements, they once again resort to attacking Kerry's "flip-flopping".

I think your analysis of why Fox has a news network is wrong. Fox Entertainment and Fox News are two separate divisions of NewsCorp. Fox News was designed to compete with other cable news agencies like CNN and MSNBC. Network news is moribund and Fox has known that for a long time. I've been watching the news for the better part of fifty-five years. I can tell you that I am so glad a new agency exists that just tries to be "fair and balanced." Anyone can watch whatever news they want. I choose Fox because they insult my intelligence far less often than anyone else.

My conclusion.......if you depend on Fox News as your source of information, watch the next two debates and take some time to digest what you see on your own time. Do not turn the TV to Fox News until you have completely digested and processed everything you watched (seeing is believing, right?). Tune into Fox News only after you have drawn an objectional conclusion to what you watched and see if their "reporting" matches your logic.

What are you talking about? Fox provided the cameras for all the news agencies for the debate. Even though the RNC and the DNC decided not to let agencies use a split screen or show the candidates reactions to the other each other, Fox signed no such agreement and used a split screen and otherwise gave a balance view of the debate.

Why are you trashing Fox without a single solitary fact?

This is what Fox is reporting:

www.foxnews.com...
www.foxnews.com...
www.foxnews.com...
www.foxnews.com...
www.foxnews.com...
www.foxnews.com...
www.foxnews.com...
www.foxnews.com...



[edit on 04/10/1 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


Did anyone see Bush start copying Kerry (scribbling thoughts down)? That was hilarious.

I got a funny one for you. The word is that Bush was working on a "New York times crossword puzzle" while he was debating.. Can you believe this crap?
Honest...As if he has the mentallity for this puzzle, much less DURING the debate????

1. I think Grady needs to apologise to Loki. That was uncalled for.

2. I've never seen so many polarised, happy and confident democrats since now. Kerry has really united the party and the Reds can't stand that. Even the "Reagan Democrats" are coming back over.

Many have made the transition from seeing Kerry as "not bush" to actually liking and respecting John Kerry. And I'd buy him a beer before Bush anytime. Well, maybe to set Bush back onto alcoholism but thats another vindictive story.

We have confidence, we will not be jeered. Not by Rove, not by anyone.

As far as debating went, they were both fairly repetative. You can only debate the same topic for so long before you come back to the same material again and again (which both did, but Bush was a bit more than Kerry)

As far as who "won", who's to say. It really depends on 1) how you view the world, 2) how the best way to fix it is, and 3) what side you lean to in the begining.

I would say that Kerry "won" if that is even the right word. But it's a straight lie to say that Kerry trounced him. Kerry whopped Bush's ass if you liked Kerry or hated Bush and searched for "lies" from the start.

On the other hand, folks like Grady (who like to say they know the truth about Kerry that the Dems "just can't see", but then again the Kerry people have been doing that all along too so I don't get the vitriol) who liked Bush's message and his resolve.

It's subjective. Why is this even such a huge topic? The points made might be more important.

But one thing I DO want to say about the debates that was a damn joke. Watching some of the "post-game" action, I noticed the rediculous things these people were talking about.

1) George Bush's height and how the camera stacked up between them
2) Facial Expressions

Talk about disinformation. We just had the big two out there talking about all kinds of problems with very little solution

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by RockerDom
I don't even know how to respond to that. You know I have respect for your service to our country, but that statement is so incredibly disrespectful, and hateful to be embarassing.

Lighten up, RockerDom. I might be highly educated and extraordinarily articulate and objective, but I am, after all, a Marine. I think you can forgive me a little indiscretion from time to time. A little butt kicking sometimes is worth a million words. Sometimes a little facetiousness is good for the soul.

[edit on 04/10/1 by GradyPhilpott]

True, thankfully Bush didn't act the way you would have liked him to. Although, it would have been great...and I've often daydreamed that he would do something immature like that. His chances of re-election would go down the toilet for sure.





[edit on 093131p://555 by Weller]

Originally posted by Weller
...and I've often daydreamed that he would do something immature like that. His chances of re-election would go down the toilet for sure.

With the following that "professional wrestling" has in this country, if Bush smacked the dog-do out of Kerry, he'd win by a landslide. George Bush is a genuine individual and that goes a long with with a lot of folks. Kerry's pompous, coiffed, air-brushed and botoxed personna is not really going to go over very well with the hoi-polloi.

Factor in his back-stabbing, treachery and I don't think he's going to do very well, at all.

I could be wrong, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.


[edit on 04/10/2 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Rain King
I agree with our Marine friend, and no it isn't because I hate Kerry, or because I love Bush.

Bush has screwed some stuff up. He has made mistakes. He hasn't functioned to his full capacity. However you want to say it. At least he has plans for the nation. He knows how to lead, and he isn't too bad at it. He has goals. He has HEART and he isn't out to please the world.

Kerry has NO POLICY. NO PLAN. He just talks and talks and decides what the voters want to hear and talks some more. It's fine to point out Bush's faults. But what has he suggested he will do different? Oh, he has said he WILL change things. HOW? He has a four-point plan.... right? He does.... noone knows what it is.... but he has one.

Kerry would be a TERRIBLE commander in cheif. How could he settle any foreign affairs whilst pleasing every nation at once?

He may have won the debate, but as so many have said, we don't elect debators, we elect leaders.

I'm hoping those are more than just more motherhood statements. What plan does Bush have that differs today from the last 44 months? How is he going to implement those plans?

How do you know Kerry will be a terrible commander in chief? Has he led your military yet, and how did you know Bush in 2000 would be a good CiC given his lack of a record as well?

Finally, I submit this to you; Bush did nothing but undermine the U.N and malign both the U.N and the anti-war nations for a year. As much as some like the rah rah ' I will not give a permission slip to the U.N" speech, he bent too late with his concession on Iraq to garner support and not until he heard his opponent talk of the necessity to do just that. There is no longer talk of the redundancy of the U.N, notice?

As well, I hear and see much talk of Kerry's plan being no different. Well, that difference considering teh choices can only be marginal since it is obvious that it is to either stay or leave. What Bush supporters fail to see is that to stay under the current stubborn course is futile, but a simple tweaking such as restructuring the plan and asking for assistance in return for spreading the investment from the Halliburton monopoly to others just might get somewhere. After all, would any sane person invest "blood, treasure" and funds in a failed company where someone else claims the profits?

It seems to me that Kerry's main policy that he and his machine keep pounding away at is that he isnt Bush.

Hardly Presidential.

I'm not really sure what the point of having reems of text on which is the "devil" or a "better leader" when they both clearly suck. True supporters are in the minority in this election.

But have fun anyway.

We all know:

-Swift boat veterans
-AWOL
-bushisms
-flip flops
-orange sun tans
-etc

really matter. They are the things that will plan our action in the world in a time of serious policy change.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Nixon was not without his successes, but his legacy is one of failure and nothing will ever change that and he went to his grave calling himself "the last casualty of Vietnam."

I lived through those times. Where were you?

[edit on 04/10/1 by GradyPhilpott]

Nixon did infact remove our troops from VN thus ending our involvment effectivly then ending the VN war for us.. so yes.. I think it is still an accurat statement.

He also ended the draft.. for VN when he ended our involvement there. I am well aware of the neccessary regestrations.

So if you admit taht Nixon did do an number of good things how can you say that the his time in office wa a disaster? His legacy is one of someone who got caught.. not a failure. For those who have the mind to look past the headlines and see what was and was not accomplished his administration was a mild success in the scheme of things.

Where was I.. so sorry.. I did not exist, perhaps youd like to think that is my fault. Perhaps with that comment you think that histroy has no pertenance in our lives simply because we were not there to expeiance it. there is obviously nothing that can be learned by Nepolians overextending his armys and attempting to drive deep into Russia jsut prior to winter simply because we were not there. And there is nothing to learn from the Sparten troops of whom you have to thank for the modern training techniques of our military which you went through because you were not born over 2 mellenia ago.

Absence of existance does not deny me the ability to research accounts and records and form my own opinions. Though it seems to me that anyone who has a differance of opinion to you is nothing more than an uninformed mindless slave of an American traitor who likly deserves execution.

Wraith

Originally posted by wraith30
Absence of existance does not deny me the ability to research accounts and records and form my own opinions. Though it seems to me that anyone who has a differance of opinion to you is nothing more than an uninformed mindless slave of an American traitor who likly deserves execution.

Well, somewhere in your research of the facts, you missed the essence of Nixon's terms of office. Had you lived in that time you would better understand and I suggest that maybe you listen to some people who lived in Nixon's time. We're not that old and there are plenty of us around.

2004 :
Bush Blows Debate: Talks to Rove in Earpiece!
9 comment(s).
During the Presidential Debate Bush made what may be his most costly error- he exposed that he�s using an earpiece to help him answer debate questions. In the middle of an answer bush said, "now let me finish" as if someone was interrupting him - yet nobody did - he was talking to the person in his earpiece.

Listen to the mp3 yourself- or watch the video at c-span
rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project/c04/c04093004_debate1.rm
ffwd to 40 min 30 sec

There is an mp3 with the audio at NYC indymedia

I�ve been thinking for years that we need something major to blow this scam wide open, like Bush exposing himself on national tv. Last night he did just that.

The �let me finish� quip was clearly bush talking to someone (probably Rove) in his earpiece- saying �let me finish� (before you give me the next answer). He blows it 60 seconds into his 90 second reply- so no warning lights had gone off and the moderator had not motioned for him to end as there was plenty of time left.

There is really no other plausible explanation for this huge blunder- who was he telling to �let him finish�? The voices in his head? Is he talking to God again? Shouldn�t this be enough to warrant a major investigation of some sort- bush is so incompetent he needs an earpiece to speak in public! The entire Bush regime is a house of cards- let this be the first card pulled from the bottom tier - send this fool and his evil cabal to the ICC for War Crimes.

This info has been sent to the Kerry campaign, will they do anything with it? If it were Kerry�s blunder, you know Bush�s team would be all over him. If Kerry won�t do the same, one must ask- why not?

by : John Reynolds
Saturday 2nd October 2004


I thought so.