Kerry wins the first

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween


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?

It was a completely differant scenario in 2000. We had to choose between candidates with no presidential record (unless you wan to count Gore's VP attempt). In that election, we chose between 2 greenies.

In this election, Bush has had experiance. Kerry can sway votes if he puts forth better plan that Bush. All he currently is doing is complaining about how sucky bush is. But he has no plans for how he is going to be better. The second he puts forth a good plan, I will switch my vote.

Until then, he is riding on his image. I remain unimpressed by his all-pleasing, Livestrong-band wearing, botox-numbed, fakebaked persona.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anyone who supports Bush at this point needs to get their head checked.

I supposed supporting a candidate (Kerry) that also does stutter from time to time and at times makes absolutely no sense, a candidate that mixed Osama bin Laden and Saddam... is much better.... ??

Now, who needs to get their heads checked are those people that agree with Kerry that the US "should not protect itself" unless the whole world agrees with the reaction the US will take... That the US must disarm and halt all development of advanced weapons systems when the whole world is upgrading theirs... and that in order to have Iran in check is to give them nuclear fuel in exchange for promises...those are the people who have to get their heads checked...

[edit on 2-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Actually, I gave Kerry a slight edge in the debate, having only listened, rather than watching. I was oblivious to most of things that people have found objectionable about Bush's performance. I only gave Kerry an edge because, it sounded like Bush was on the defensive during most of the debate, which is understandable since he was the only one on stage with a record to defend.

Now, I'm beginning to wonder if Bush did better than Kerry by letting Kerry speak so much as to give Bush plenty of ammunition for the campaign trail. Bush is using virtually every piece of twisted logic uttered by Kerry against him to great effect.

Kerry is is own worst enemy. Bush no matter how inarticulate is a sensible man. Kerry no matter how glib can contradict himself two or three times in a single sentence. Kerry simply does not have a coherent plan for America. His entire campaign has been a criticism of what Bush does.

Kerry is the man with no values, no commitment, no identifiable position. In thirty years, he has not progressed one bit from the sophomoric impudence and effete snobbery of his youth.




[edit on 04/10/2 by GradyPhilpott]

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


Nah, this couldnt possibly be, could it? nah

Originally posted by dgtempe
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.

This is utter non-sense and is just one more of the idiotic conspiracy theories we see on this site all the time by people who reconstruct a scenario based upon disjointed facts and a sick mind.

Accusations like this only reflect upon those who are stupid enough to make them.


[edit on 04/10/2 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by dgtempe
Nah, this couldnt possibly be, could it? nah

Show some proof please...proof...you know what that means right?

your proof is...the president made a comment out of context so the only explanation is that he had an earpiece..... so why did Kerry stuttered so much at the debate and confused Osama Bin Laden and Saddam?? he must have been wearing an earpiece too...ya...that's it... I got it....thanks for letting me in in the constipation dg...i mean conspiracy....




[edit on 2-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Rain King
It was a completely differant scenario in 2000. We had to choose between candidates with no presidential record (unless you wan to count Gore's VP attempt). In that election, we chose between 2 greenies.

In this election, Bush has had experiance. Kerry can sway votes if he puts forth better plan that Bush. All he currently is doing is complaining about how sucky bush is. But he has no plans for how he is going to be better. The second he puts forth a good plan, I will switch my vote.

Fair enough. Now you state above: The second he puts forth a good plan, I will switch my vote.

That can mean many things, so maybe you can clarify for me. You will switch if he comes up with a good plan. why? Are you not pleased with Bush's plan? If you were why bother switching? Also, a good plan suggests something other than the current plan. Kerry has outlined a plan, one that entails a more treaty like aprroach than Bush's it's my way or the high way. Finally, what exactly do you expect from Kerry, that he reverse gears and pull out?

Until then, he is riding on his image. I remain unimpressed by his all-pleasing, Livestrong-band wearing, botox-numbed, fakebaked persona.

But isn't that what your sentiment reflects of Bush, after all your statement suggests to me that you look for an alternative to the current plan, if that is the case why decide to back a proven losing plan?

Originally posted by TomSawyer
That a post debate, Zogby poll of 650 registered voters found.

Wow...a total of 650 voters.....that's a lot huh? That counts for all the country...and not to mention that Bush is winning in most democrat and republican states.....

650 voters....hummm...yep, that's probably the total amount of people that will vote for Kerry.....

[edit on 4-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Now, who needs to get their heads checked are those people that agree with Kerry that the US "should not protect itself" unless the whole world agrees with the reaction the US will take... That the US must disarm and halt all development of advanced weapons systems when the whole world is upgrading theirs... and that in order to have Iran in check is to give them nuclear fuel in exchange for promises...those are the people who have to get their heads checked...

I agree, if anyone sides with a leader who says they would not protect their country unless the whole world agrees, then they should have their head checked. However, that was not what Kerry said on either account, and to publicly distort his statements is either malicious or a reflection of poor interpretative skills.

Wouldn't it be egregious to cast a vote based on distortion?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

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.

Research of what was and was not accomplished has little to do with the "Essence" of an administration. I am not saying that he was a great president, nor am I claiming that there was a great hidden love of him from silent americans. I am simply pointing out that his time in office was infact not a disaster as you claimed.

If you want to talk about a disasterous administration from the same standpoint of nothing more than what has been and has not been accoplished. Not how liked the president is or how he makes you feel all warm and fuzzzy.. but just pure accomplishment or lack there of then you have no further to look than the last 4 years.

By the way, I know a good number of people who were arround at that time, they share my setiment. Also if you are saying that your presence gives you some special insite then I will just mention that I lived in Dallas when Bush was ellected Governer and I saw first hand what he did to Texas, first hand what he did to the Texas Rangers, and first hand what he did to the companies that his dad bought for him to run. ALL of them failed under his watch.

Wraith

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

That can mean many things, so maybe you can clarify for me. You will switch if he comes up with a good plan. why? Are you not pleased with Bush's plan? If you were why bother switching? Also, a good plan suggests something other than the current plan. Kerry has outlined a plan, one that entails a more treaty like aprroach than Bush's it's my way or the high way. Finally, what exactly do you expect from Kerry, that he reverse gears and pull out?

But isn't that what your sentiment reflects of Bush, after all your statement suggests to me that you look for an alternative to the current plan, if that is the case why decide to back a proven losing plan?

You misinterperate me, partially for my lack of clarity, which I acknowledge.

I stated in my first paragraph, but neglected to do so in the latter, that if Kerry comes up with a BETTER plan than Bush's. You caught me through semantics. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because a plan is better, that it has to be radically differant. Bush has made many mistakes throughout the war. A good plan does not mean a differant plan, just a more efficient one.

I DO support our President, and all he does, but I believe elections are an opportunity for improvement. If anybody suggests that Bush cannot be improved upon, they are deluding themselves.

I would be glad to vote for Senator Kerry, if he puts forth a BETTER plan than Bush's.