Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

the debate is at 9 ET, and it will be the second organized one between Kerry and Bush. Live from St.Louis and this one should be a little bit better than the first one, maybe??? Well lets hope that we atleast achieve a clear sense of what John Kerry is about (and Bush too) by the end of this debate.

To the politically pensive CCers, what are your expectations, (and reactions)?

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 08:59 pm: Edit

I'm betting that Kerry wins again.
Bush should do better in this more personal and informal type of debate, but I think his lack of knowledge on the issues and the fact that he doesn't know the questions this time around (yeah, he did THAT bad last time and he actually knew the questions) will end in another defeat for him.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 09:16 pm: Edit

its been 15 min and kerry is OWNING

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 09:30 pm: Edit

HAHAHAHA

Kerry QOTD: "They were killed with ammos..."

LOL.

On the other hand, I, VANCAT, am probably a better public speaker than Bush.

By Hhboyji (Hhboyji) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 09:32 pm: Edit

oh.. Bush is extremely mad. Anyone can see that. If you can't control your emotions, you're lost regardless.

Why is this debate all about WAR again..? I was expecting to hear something else like demostic policies. They are talking about the exact same thing they did last week. Man, it's getting tedious.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 09:35 pm: Edit

Don't you all get the feeling that this fragile thing called the United States and democracy could fall apart any second? It's scarry...

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 09:42 pm: Edit

www.isbushwired.com

By Techiedork (Techiedork) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit

55 minutes into it...

there's been a lot of focus on iraq...but that's been a bit divereted but the topic seems to keep going back to it. health care has been the big focus right now...

and some of the stuff they're saying is definitly a repeat from last time. but it is better than the last one.

but bush does seem to be a bit bitter and emotional...especially more so than kerry.

whatever did happen to our country?

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Haha, Bush just got a question about the environment. Hold on for the spin.

By Pkpat2000 (Pkpat2000) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit

Kerry won.

But I hated the conservative questions and the conservative moderator.

By Taffy (Taffy) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:41 pm: Edit

HAHAH OH MY GOD DOES BUSH OWN A COMPUTER?


he just said: "theres been a lotta rumors goin round on the internets" yes.. plural... interNETS... christ. thats like my texan uncle saying "im gonna go on the online".

By Techiedork (Techiedork) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:44 pm: Edit

kerry definitly won.

and bush bombed the environment question.


and yet i wouldn't want either of them running our country.

By Taffy (Taffy) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:49 pm: Edit

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#survey
79% say kerry won, 21% say bush won.

bush sure tried to make something outa nothin, he could have just come out and said that if you prefer a clean environment, hes not your man. bush also completely dodged the question about naming 3 things hes done wrong. the guy is stuborn and thinks everything hes done is perfect.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:53 pm: Edit

Bush clearly won. He was funny, in command of the issues, and most importantly did not contradict himself every other point the way Kerry did. Kerry's postion on Iraq is now that he voted to let the President bluff. Pretty silly position for someone who wanted President Clinton to get rid of Saddam because Saddam had WMD. Kerry's requiement to meet a global test before we protect ourselves is nuts.

By 1212 (1212) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:56 pm: Edit

bush wasnt funny. well he was if u look at it a certain way. but kerry definitely flipped flopped a lot. not very impressive for both

By Joseancer (Joseancer) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:00 pm: Edit

"Kerry's requiement to meet a global test before we protect ourselves is nuts.

jesus, he was speaking metaphorically... its just another way of saying what he's kept saying, that america needs to cooperate more with the rest of the world. even my frightingly right-wing sister (we're talking fascism here) understood it.

now if it keeps being brought up just to make him look bad, thats fine... its all politics, but please, i hope people don't actually think that he was talking about a real test?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Taffy, its ridiculous how you much you believe quicky internet polls. I'm assuming you don't belong to other various partisan discussion boards like I am(arf, p-b, f-a, etc...). If you did, I would assume that you knew that quicky polls like these can be easily hit again and again simply by deleting your cookies, resetting temp. internet files, etc... In fact, on my other more fun discussion boards that I post on, we make it our mission to Hit those Polls over and over. And I've trolled on enough liberal discussion boards to know that they do the same. In conclusion, I have no idea why you keep on trying to use these quicky polls as proof that someone won. I'd rather trust scientific polls, regardless of who they say is the winner.

Example: One MSNBC poll in the past (Bush vs. Kerry) recorded 80328230 hits while it was posted online. Obviously, a EXTREMELY disproportionate majority supported Kerry.

I'm saying that internet polls are usually, if not always hacked or "adjusted" in someway. Me and my fellow posters hit these polls like crazy, and I know for a fact that liberal discussion boards do it too.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Ridiculous moments of the debate:

1. Kerry says, "they were killed with the ammos..."
2. Bush's whiny little voice in the beginning.
3. Kerry and an old lady hit heads at the end.
4. BUsh says, "the internets..."
5. NBC using HIllary Clinton as the post-debate "opinion-giver"
6. Bush wearing a blue tie.
7. Kerry got paler.
8. That woman trying to get a picture after the debate with Laura Bush but Laura kept inadvertently turning her back and shutting her out.

By Feuler (Feuler) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:24 pm: Edit

You left off one of the most hilarious moments ever:

Bush: "I guess you could say I've been a good steward of the land."

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:49 pm: Edit

Let's do Kerry Math: Increase spending 2.3 Trillion dollars. Raise taxes on those terrible rich people to collect $800 billion. Give more tax breaks to the middle class. From this we get a 50 percent reduction in the deficit. Even the Moderator could not figure out how Kerry's proposal adds up. It does not. Kerry will raise everyone's Federal Income taxes and when taxes are raised, jobs are lost.

By Hhboyji (Hhboyji) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

It bothers me that neither of men, who will be a president of united states, can answer simple questions. They both talked about their philosophies and idealogies, but none of them were able to speak about their "plans" in details.

Kerry spoke well, having a lawyer background and all, but he didn't do better than last time. Bush Did do better than last time. He attacked Kerry's inconsistent voting record, which was a focal point, and Kerry did not give good responses to those attacks.

Nobody won, in my opinion. It was very tedious, predictable debate without passion or excitement. (although it was quite amusing to see both candidates, trying to control their emotions. HAHA)

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:33 am: Edit

It was a tie, IMO. Kerry wins on what was SAID, Bush wins on the STYLE.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:35 am: Edit

See.... thinkingoutloud, that point is a good example of why NOT to trust everything the candidates say. You heard Bush and Kerry both trash each others' math. The campaigns hire people whose sole job is to manipulate numbers to tell their story. Sure, the numbers are "factual" but you can also be sure that they do not tell the whole story.

I don't know whether or not you checked those numbers out.... but I wouldn't take what was said in the debate at face value.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit

My favorite question was the Supreme Court one. I thought Kerry and Bush both had good answers on it.

I also liked Kerry's line about how he was going to "talk about something that this President doesn't understand"... balancing the budget. Zing! Also when Kerry talked about making a mistake in talking about voting for the 87 billion, but Bush made a mistake in going to war in Iraq. Which is worse?

BTW, about the lumber company... I saw something tonight that said Bush would be classified as a small business under Bush/Cheney's NEW plan. But Bush only earned like 82 dollars last year from his lumber business. So again, distortion on both sides. Kerry led us to believe that it was some big company, but Bush said there was nothing at all.

By Blammo (Blammo) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 01:00 am: Edit

I think it is ridiculous to say that Bush "clearly won", Thinkingoutloud. There are of course the hardcore, rah rah rah Kerry supporters who will say he definitely won, and there are the hardcore, rah rah rah Bush supporters who will say he definitely won. The rest of us who base our opinion on what actually happened in the debate regardless of which candidate we support have to admit that it was a close debate; both candidates did very well.
Bush definitely did much, much better than last time, and Kerry continued to do well as he did in the first debate.
As is usually the case, Bush does better when the issue is Iraq and foreign policy, and KErry does much better on domestic issues.
Anyway, that's my opinion.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 01:42 am: Edit

Ok folks. See...we are talking about who won the debate not who did better from debate #1. Of course Bush did better since debate #1...he did about as poor a job as he could have in that. The fact is that Bush has very little substance when it comes to his points. Kerry at least describes his plans. Bush does not, all he says is that Kerry flip-flopped on this and didn't vote on that. IT MAY ACTUALLY BE A GOOD THING TO CHANGE OPINIONS SOMETIMES!!! If you are given overwhelming evidence that things are not what you said they were (9/11 Commission Report, Bremmer Report, the new Jobs report) and when your reasons for going to war have been proven completely wrong, you must not keep saying them!

Now, there is a theory (only a theory folks, dont jump down my throat) that the mass media will call this debate for Bush so that there will be higher ratings for the 3rd debate. I think on absolute substance, no one doubts Kerry won this debate. On style, it is debatable. Kerry probably should have been more passionate about his positions and Bush should have stopped screaming so much. In my opinion its about 65-75% Kerry, 25-35% Bush.

By Enjoyingthis (Enjoyingthis) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 02:09 am: Edit

I am so weary with those of you who keep complaining that you aren't very impressed with either man in terms of their debating skills. Imagine the stress of having to get up in front of the world and quickly recall all those facts! A lot of us who are close in ages to these men find that names don't pop into our heads nearly as quickly as they used to, so it takes my breath away that they can. Look at the citizen questioners in contrast. Most of them shook with nerves and stumbled just to READ their questions!


I'm also tired of people whining that they can't make up their minds between the two because they just haven't heard enough of the facts about what the candidates would DO. (As if THEY know all the answers and exactly how every last problem should be remedied.) Don't these folks get it? The idea is to elect the best person, the one you feel has the most integrity and the smarts to deal with whatever comes up. Nobody's going to be able to predict exactly what each challenge in the future will be.

I think Kerry comes across as a highly intelligent man who understands that everything in life isn't black and white. Bush, on the other hand, just doesn't seem that bright. And my personal test-- he reminds me of the type of guys in college I wouldn't have DREAMED of dating! Honestly, how can you trust a person who can never admit to a moment of doubt or regret about anything he's ever done? The only mistake he could admit to was appointing "certain people." In other words, the mistakes are someone else's. I call this a huge character flaw.

But hey, I don't feel fearful for our country. I'm hopeful that we are just about to show the watching world how we boot out leaders who outrage us. Bush has foolishly squandered the goodwill afforded us after 9/11. It really is time for a fresh start.

By Taffy (Taffy) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 03:01 am: Edit

funny how vancat dodges what i really said and went after "those dang internets polls!"

theoretically, if ammo is ammunition, then the plural of ammo(ammunitions) would be ammo's, i guess we would have to ask somebody who served what the correct terminology is

does it scare anybody that the man who said "internets" probably has rarely, if ever, sat in front of a computer? sure doesnt represent america.

ok so vancat: dodge 3 questions, bullshitted environment question, never seen one of those pesky computer boxes.

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 03:20 am: Edit

Taffy:

You seem increasingly Michael Moore-esque in that you continuously twist things around so that everything is a criticism of President Bush. Somehow you turn Kerry's malaprop into another insult hurled at Bush's service record, and then you rather crudely mock Bush on his misspoken word. I suppose if you were debating in front of the entire nation, your nerves of steel would prevent you from making such grievous errors.

And I think most posters here, both liberal and conservative, will agree that Vancat is one of the best in explaining what he says, backing it up, and not dodging questions, which is more than what we can say for you. I don't mean to flame, but it's that sort of attitude (on either side, Democrat or Republican) that makes political discussions so frustrating.

Since most of us have decided who to vote for already, these debates don't really establish much, and for you to take so much stock in a malaprop is folly.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 04:07 am: Edit

I still don't know which one I will vote for.

It's very difficult because I tend towards Kerry's positions on domestic issues, but I think he is dead wrong on his "plan" (whatever it may be) for fighting terrorism. The whole concept of the a "global test" when our enemies are bribing the "global testers" is absurd.

I dislike most everything about George Bush, but I think he is fundamentally correct in his thinking on terrorism.

Since I feel that terrorism is far and away the over-riding issue of our time, you can see my dilemma.

By Taffy (Taffy) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 04:07 am: Edit

"I suppose if you were debating in front of the entire nation, your nerves of steel would prevent you from making such grievous errors."
- im not running for president, but he is. i do believe the president of the United States of America should be able to spell potato, and at least have a basic understanding of the internet.

until vancat confronts the comments as a whole, he will be a nit-picky-question-dodger.

and yeah, the debates are for the undecided, and its completely silly how after the debates, they ask people who, before the debate, obviously already WERE decided. yeah lets ask the most liberal guy who he thinks won the debate, then ask the most conservative guy who he thinks won. shenanigans!!

By Songman (Songman) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 09:11 am: Edit

Ok Bush said: NO DRAFT! did anyone hear what Kerry said: He beat around the issue but I did not hear definitely "No Draft" did you?

By Enjoyingthis (Enjoyingthis) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 10:55 am: Edit

But Bush lies.

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 11:09 am: Edit

Intersteddad, actually Kerry would do a better job in fighting terrorism. As enjoyingthis noted, Bush has squandered all the world goodwill towards us. The whole world embraced us after 9/11. To fight terrorism, you do need support and cooperation of the world and MONEY. You need infrastructure at home, and leadership in the world. The president of the US has to be respected in the world. The decisions and rationales have to be right. As it stands currently every justification for the war was wrong. A misleader can't be a leader. Is Bush respected in the world? His proposed bribe of about $25 billion didn't even pursuade Turkey to join. The $200 billion could have been spent much more wisely and effectively in eradicating terrorism from the world.

A leader sees things in shades of grey. Only dictators and ayatollahs see things in black and white.

Did you have any sympathy for a bully in your high school?

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit

It's hard work!

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 11:59 am: Edit

drink a shot everytime Kerry says "I have a plan"

with all his plans, I wouldn't be surprised (if he got elected) if he decided to raise all our taxes 100%! Where does he think money comes from to pay for all his "plans"?

I think Bush won this. Kerry seemed highly uncomfortable with the format and Bush was in his element, talking to people. He seemed like a leader.

I loved when Kerry would get questions he didn't expect and he would have to go off his stupid script and think for himself-- his true self came out. He rambled and wavered and didn't answer the question...really gave himself away on abortion, nice job, Kerry.

Kerry makes Freudian slip: "unwanted children...I mean pregnancies" oops

Why does Kerry INSIST on repeating the thing about "internationalizing" our allied forces??? France and Germany have clearly said they don't give a crap who's elected, they're not helping!

No one wants to say it, but Bush and Kerry aren't that different politically (esp on foreign policy). Kerry's just not as good.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Taffy, you amaze me that you can continue to type with that bayonet shoved so far up into your butt.

Kerry: "They were killed with the ammos..."

Any bum on the street will tell you that this was a completely ridiculous and wrong use of the word "ammo".

Bush: "They used the internets..."

Any bum on the street will tell you that this was a completely ridiculous and wrong use of the word "internet".


>>Taffy, As Pookdogg rightfully pointed out, you are possibly the most uptight and Michael Moore-esque poster on this board.

By Enjoyingthis (Enjoyingthis) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Songman-- maybe you missed it. Here's Kerry's quote as printed in the Oregonian: "I don't support a draft."

Babybird-- I thought Kerry's explanation of his views on abortion--a complicated and shades-of- gray-type issue if there ever was one-- were quite eloquentand probably reflect the mixed feelings of many. If you want someone who says, "No abortion ever, no matter what," Kerry is obviously not your candidate.

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 01:37 pm: Edit

babybird: I thought Kerry was quite clear in the message.....that I will not legislate morality.

There is a thing called separation of church and state. The countries that abide by that tenet have flourished. In the countries that have religion intermingled with public policy, women have to wear veil, and rape is woman's fault.

Bush has a binary value system - it is either 0 or 1.

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit

I thought Kerry's abortion speech was his WORST moment of the debate. He gave a long response, basically dancing around the question because he knows it would be unpopular.
Bush responded much better, criticizing Kerry's answer and stating simply that no tax dollars would go to abortions.

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 02:41 pm: Edit

simba, not true.

The woman asked very clearly whether her tax dollars would go to support abortion if she didn't support it. Somewhere in there, I think the answer was yes, although he tried to mask it. He even talked about the lack of abortions in third world countries and how we should make that better.

"I will not legislate morality"-- that to me is a repulsive thing to say. Is it moral or immoral to kill a grown human being? OK, well last I heard there was a law against it.

Bush is certainly not 0 or 1. Bush has said abortion when the mother/baby's health is at risk should be legal. What you have to remember though is that the percent of women doing it for that reason is less than 1% of all abortions.

Bush responded extremely well, and I loved his emphasis on Kerry's vote against the ban on partial birth abortions.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 02:53 pm: Edit

I agree with Simba. Things are not as simple as the President would like it to be. Abortion and stem cell research are two of the most difficult ethical issues the world faces. Both men are religious, but only one is willing to break down the barrier of Church and State to legislate certain beliefs...Bush. Just because Bush simply said "No" doesn't make it a better answer. The fact is that most of America (excluding those like us on this board who can debate coherently) is extremely naive when it comes to these issues. They only understand the type of logic Bush has...either a yes or no. That's not the right way to look at a problem. It is never as simple as Bush wants to believe.

A point that I bring up is that the founding fathers created the separation of Church and State because they were attempting to protect the State from encroachment by the Church, not the other way around. I think it is admirable of Kerry to realize that while religion may be important to some, it does not belong at any point in politics...simply put.

Now, to the matter of Bush/Kerry foreign policy differences. Even if countries such as Germany and France would never ever dream of participating with us in the war, at least Kerry will try and persuade them. For Bush to say that it is useless to try is not only arrogant, but it excludes us from the world. Also, Bush's reason for not joining a world court...he and his administration could be brought to trial for war crimes against the Iraqi people. With the amount of civilians killed, it is technically (although some may not view this differently) correct to call them war criminals. Kerry's plan for an true international coalition with world superpowers is a good thing...countries like Poland and Morocco and Palau don't exactly make up a great coalition..we all can agree on that.

I admit that last night Bush did give a better performance than in debate #1. The question still remains: who won the debate? The answer to the question is Kerry. While Bush did better, his answers on the Canadian prescription drugs and the environment were so horrible that I didn't realize the answers had anything to do with the question asked. On the environment, Bush has only given 50,000 acres of land to national parks in 4 years. Even his father, a staunch conservative gave over 2 million acres during his four years.

Babybird...at least Kerry has substance. I haven't heard one ounce of substance come out of George Bush's mouth ever. He doesn't respond to the question. He also holds no accountability. The answer to name three decisions you have chose incorrectly and tell me what you did to change them. The only thing he said he did wrong in the past 4 years was appoint some people...placing the blame on the appointees not the appointer.

Kerry won this debate about 65-75% and Bush got about 25-35%.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit

I thought Bush was better in this debate than the last--hard not to be--but that Kerry's responses were more detailed, more specific, and that his demeanor was calm and measured.

InterestedDad, with respect to the war on terror: I don't see Bush as being superior. First, with respect to Iraq, his words and actions have exactly aligned with OBL's propaganda about the West being engaged in a war on Islam. In so doing, Bush has guaranteed us a generation of Islamists terrorists in a conflict that we don't win by body counts.

Bush manipulated the data and misled the public and Congress about the threat from Iraq; if what was known *then* about the aluminum tubes and yellow cake had been made public, I doubt Congress would have authorized the use of force.

If you are really serious about nations with knowledge and technology to support terrorists, you would have had to have been far more concerned about Iran and Pakistan; indeed, my nightmare scenario is an Islamist coup in Pakistan that immediately delivers some of *their* nukes to Al Qaeda. With respect to the war on terror, Iraq was a red herring.

But, having been a wrong war at the wrong time, we can not *now* cut and run from Iraq because it *has* become a magnet for terrorists...and I think Kerry is pretty clear about that. Bush tries to mock the two positions but it's extremely consistent and Bush's inability to accept the two as consistent may be a wonderful campaign technique but is a staggering indictment of his intellect.

I'll run right at the "global test" phrase. Kerry made clear both in the first debate and again last night that no nation, entity, or institution would have a veto on America's actions. However, there is a global test in terms of *leading* the world. We met that test with Desert Shield/Desert Storm and with the invasion of Afghanistan. We failed miserably with Iraq.

If you compare DS/DS with Iraq, in the former we had eight allies contributing more than 8,000 troops; in Iraq there is one...Great Britain. 16 of the 30 current countries in the coalition have contributed fewer than 200 troops. Bush41 put together a coalition that included contributions from across the Islamic world; in Iraq, even those who hated Hussein see us as occupiers and want us out. In DS/DS, more than 90 percent of the financial cost was borne by other countries...in Iraq, 90 percent of the cost is borne by the US...follow the money, so they say. It would be incredibly stupid to suggest that the US doesn't have more support because other countries support terrorists. The truth is that Bush domestically has [often successfully] conflated Iraq with the war on terror.

There are two ways for doing a war on terror: single-handedly invading every country that has Al Qaeda cells or Islamist insurgents or working collaboratively to hit their communications, their finances, to kill or capture those individuals we identify as being terrorists, and to use surgical military force as necessary. (For example, if there *were* an Islamist coup in Pakistan, I think we would be bound to execute a massive Special Forces strike to retrieve those warheads, regardless of casualties or other repercussions.)
Bush is right that this is a long term problem but his narrow focus on the military solution is along the lines of everything looking like a nail if all you have is a hammer.

We are not in a position to invade Iran or North Korea. Aside from those two festering sores on the world body politic, Bush has made the world more dangerous, not safer, by fueling the Islamists.

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 04:47 pm: Edit

I find it laughable that you're holding that Kerry has substance yet Bush does not.

Not even liberals are exulting about how much Kerry will do for the world. They just want Bush out.

Name 3 things Kerry's going to do that you feel positively excited about, and I'll briefly reconsider him having an iota of substance.

By Bakk (Bakk) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Name 3 things Kerry's going to do that you feel positively excited about

1. Build on his impressive record in the Senate, and continue to work on drafts of legislation so profound that nobody will understand enough of the message to send a final text to Congress. Part of the problem might be that the each draft starts with "I was inclined to veto the legislation I hereby propose, but realized that I could only use the veto after its approval in the Congress. It is, however, part of my strategic plan and I am accordingly sending this piece of legislation for your approval, despite my overall opposition to it".

2. Change the name of Camp David to the Four Seasons at Le Camp David, invite all the friendly world leaders to champagne and caviar weekends to decide our international policy by consensus.

3. Make sure that the tax breaks for Heinz Corporation are grandfathered from his far-reaching tax plans. Oops, he has done that already.

By Calidan (Calidan) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 08:24 pm: Edit

Bakk- those are the most unfounded, irreverently slanderous and all together most moronic points ever.

None of those three points has hardly any basis on real fact, and if they were an attempt at being funny, they simply were not.

Next time, try thinking before you post.

Some things that Kerry is actually going to do that I feel positively excited about:

-lower healthcare premiums by creating a federal fund for outstanding costs
-help balance the budget
-repair shattered alliances
-increase educational funding (this one should help Bakk out)
-give incentives to companies to stop outsorcing our jobs and employ American citizens to lower the unemployment rate
-lower costs of prescription drugs by allowing people to purchase imported Canadian drugs

...just to name a few.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 09:30 pm: Edit

>> As enjoyingthis noted, Bush has squandered all the world goodwill towards us.

What goodwill? It is very clear from the Duelfer Report and other documents seized in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was using the Oil For Food Scam to bribe politically connected people in France, Germany, and Russia with an eye towards ending UN Sanctions. He had already extracted commitments from these three countries to veto any UN Resolution permitting military action in support of the sanctions.

In short, our efforts to remove Saddam from power through UN sanctions were destined to fail because our allies were NOT our allies. In this kind of situation, I think it is highly appropriate for the President to tell these non-allies to go pound sand. I certainly would not endorse including them in a "global test" for US security interests.

Despite the lack of hard evidence of a direct connection between Iraq and the actual 9/11 operations, there is ample evidence of Saddam's support for terrorist operations -- including contacts between Saddam's bomb-making experts and Osama Bin Laden dating back to Bin Laden's residence in the Sudan.

By Bakk (Bakk) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 09:34 pm: Edit

Calidan, I am astonished at the number of difficult words you used to complete that first sentence. The thesaurus is a great tool but quite dangerous in the hands of inept amateurs.

Before judging the contents of a post, you ought to try to enroll in a class of reading comprehension. In case you missed it, the question addressed what Kerry was going to do. It is rather hard to slander, even irreverently, a person for actions that have yet to happen.

I did, however, point out about one action that did happen: the grandafthering of foreign tax breaks for the Heinz Corporation. Since you seem to know so much about the record of Kerry in the Senate, you will not find it too difficult to track down the proposed legislation.

As far as your list, I do not doubt that it could excite you, and make the rest of us wonder about the century in which these accomplishments by JFK could happen.

As far as increasing the funding for education, would you like to elaborate on the reasons why Senator Kerry has waited 20 years to address the education budget, was happy to vote repeatedly against increases, and endorse the past democratic administrations cynical decreases in funding? I would have loved to enjoy the increases and use them for my benefit, according to your post.

I may need to think before posting, but you could find it most helpful to learn how to read critically.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Babybird said -"I find it laughable that you're holding that Kerry has substance yet Bush does not.

Not even liberals are exulting about how much Kerry will do for the world. They just want Bush out."

Bush has so messed up the world that "us liberals" do just want Bush out. I would take any candidate who has intelligence and knows how to use it as well as someone who doesn't lie. Bush has so lowered the bar on the American presidency that you can make that inane statement and speak the truth-partially. Kerry does not have the qualities of the perfect candidate (the one ID is looking for-the kind you only find on TV) but he has so much more to offer than Bush. This is not "liberals" against Bush. Democrats don't despise Bush because he is a Repub. We despise him because he is a manipulative liar who has not been held accountable. He lies about his own administration and when anyone holds him accountable they are booted out and vilified. If the press holds him accountable they are laughed at , shut out and called the "liberal media". And most people are too enamored with entertainment, their own taxes or their own small life to figure out that this guy and his f******* admin are raping this country blind.

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 10:57 pm: Edit

^ amen

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 10:58 pm: Edit

Ok. Interesteddad...I didn't know that we were going to go to war for what Saddam did 15 years ago...I want you to tell me the exact reason why we went to war with Iraq as the President stated since Fall of '02...

The answer: Saddam Hussein was currently holding weapons of mass destruction. That, as we all now know from the 9/11 Commission Report and the Duelfer Report, that was a blatent lie. I don't care whether you are Republican, Democrat, Green or Independent. When you lie to the American public straight up like that, you deserve to be fired. That's the deal.

I believe that the UN is a big squawk box. However, you do not simply defy it and lose all credibility in the world. I don't care how much you don't like the UN. The most disturbing part of this election has been that Americans actually think it is good that Bush defied the UN. That we as a nation defied the world. That is a truly scary thought.

The way in which Kerry plans to pay for his new ideas is fairly simple. Raise taxes on the rich. I belong to a family that makes over 200,000 a year, but I think it's great to pay our fair share. Save the middle class and lower classes by giving them a tax cut and raising it on the rich. The government therefore makes money and the budget (even by Bush's numbers of a +600 Billion a year) breaks about even (under by about 100 Billion...compared to about 2.5 Trillion).

Supply-side economics DOES NOT WORK!!! It didn't work under Reagan, it didn't work under Bush Sr. and it didnt work under Bush Jr. What did work? Oh yeah...tax increases in a time of debt...novel idea. Jobs got created (some because of the tech boom, but millions others in small businesses and manufacturing). It does work to raise taxes on the rich.

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 11:41 pm: Edit

"It does work to raise taxes on the rich". The CEOs and others have to work harder if they want to keep more money. They have to pay more attention to increase the profitability of the company to protect their bonuses.

Jauq1...I like your thinking.

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:22 am: Edit

Liz-- there's too many asterisks there for the word "f ucking"

I'm sure Kerry's interview in Rolling Stone can help you next time with that

By The_G_Wall (The_G_Wall) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

Just want to mention first that I'm a Republican. That way, if you're a liberal, you can just skip this message like you probably would anyways and continue reading the New York Times................................I think everyone has just done a great job of proving that the people of this country have been way too politically polarized. This is why I shy away from getting into political discussions. It's much less stressful to just contact a campaign office and volunteer for them. I want to know how many people are putting their money where their mouth is. On a different note, I definitely agree that both sides have strong arguments on why their candidate won, and why the other one lost. I'm a Bush supporter, so I think that Bush won this debate. But that's probably because I was viewing the debate through my mindset. If I was a Kerry supporter (God forbid), I'd likely be the same way.
The one interesting thing I've observed is that these debates are just polarizing me more. I'm against Kerry more than ever now, just as Democrats are probably more against Bush now than ever. I mean, what are we accomplishing in all of this?

PS: Did anyone notice Kerry's use of the term "OG-BYN"? Just thought I'd add that to the blooper list. That and calling Halliburton a lumber company (W tore him apart for that one)

By Justice (Justice) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:47 am: Edit

Why are people not more scared about Iran. HAMAS! These people bomb buses everyday for fun and don't even think twice. They'll bomb anything that moves. Give them a nuke...what do you think's gonna happen to Israel?

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:24 am: Edit

Israel's the sworn enemy of practically every nation surrounding it. Iran's threats are nothing new.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:37 am: Edit

Babybird...how can you say that? Iran has nuclear weapons now!!! They could use a nuke or give one to a terrorist organization to not only use in Israel, but also the US. That's a scary threat if I do say so.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 02:26 am: Edit

>> Ok. Interesteddad...I didn't know that we were going to go to war for what Saddam did 15 years ago...I want you to tell me the exact reason why we went to war with Iraq as the President stated since Fall of '02...

The exact doctrine behind removing Saddam Hussein from power is that states supporting terrorism are terrorist enemies and will be aggressively pursued.

We should have removed Hussein from power during the first Gulf War, but lacked the political will to take the steps necessary (an occupation) to prevent Iraq from becoming a fundamentalist Islam cleric regime.

We tried to remove him from power following his assassination plot on the President of the United States, but the CIA proved as inept at covert action as they have in intelligence gathering.

>> The answer: Saddam Hussein was currently holding weapons of mass destruction. That, as we all now know from the 9/11 Commission Report and the Duelfer Report, that was a blatent lie.

Actually, I have seen no evidence that any politicians, in either party, lied about that. The evidence points to a collossal failure by the CIA.

One of the few things that I give George Bush credit for is that heads have now rolled at the CIA (as they should have) and an excellent appointment has been made to rebuild the CIA -- a Yale grad with two decades of experience in CIA covert operation and eight years in Congess as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. A CIA director with first hand experience in both covert operations and politics is exactly what is needed for an agency in severe need of reform.

What I don't give Bush any credit for is effective leadership. I think he's done a poor job of explaining the Iraq invasion to the US people. IMO, he's never even revealed the real reason. I believe that it is a pure military objective, much like occupying the Pacific islands to provide a forward staging area against Japan. If you look at the map of the Middle East, we now have a permanent US military presence on both of Iran's borders.

Iran is the mother lode of terrorist support and the large military presence on its borders, combined with rudimentary first steps of democratic elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq, puts extreme pressure on the ruling clerics. If, for example, we need to take out a couple of nuclear facilities in Iran, we are now logistically staged to do so. Unlike the last time military action in Iran was necessary and we were incapable of accomplishing the mission (see helicopters in the desert).

The fact of the matter is that US resolve has resulted in Saudia Arabia and Pakistan curbing their support of terrorism and actually helping (a little bit) in the fight. Syria, another kingpin in support for terrorism, is MUCH more wary in its actions these days. I assure you that there were several leaders in neighboring countries who duly noted the speed with which US tank battalions moved from the Kuwaiti border to downtown Bagdhad.

By Aim78 (Aim78) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 03:14 am: Edit

I think both candidates have many flaws. But you have to be a numbnut to vote for Bush. I don't care if Kerry has flip-flopped (how many times? Once?) at least he's not responsible the total massacre that happened and is still happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not just US troops. I remember during the war coverage, you would hear about 12 kids getting blown to bits every single day. What a horribly executed war. And what did Bush think, that we would blow Iraq away and then everyone would become united and gather together with the Americans to build the country from scratch? When you DESTROY a country, the survivors are not going to embrace you with open arms. If some country came into the US, blew it to bits, and then decided to make it into a utopia, I'd still want to kill them.

Plus, Kerry is for stem cell research. It shows he's open-minded and doesn't let personal opinion get in the way. Sometimes, though, leaders should be a little close-minded. That's one of Kerry's flaws.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 09:58 am: Edit

babybird,
I was trying to be civil - I meant frigging. And by the way that's exactly the way Repubs argue-don't argue about an issue-CRITICIZE the person and make them look stupid. Well I hope it backfires on you and your president.
I forgot to mention that team Bush lies about Kerry too.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 10:03 am: Edit

gwall said,"That way, if you're a liberal, you can just skip this message like you probably would anyways and continue reading the New York Times"

And where do you get your news from?

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 10:31 am: Edit

Many conservatives get their news from FNC and talk radio. Recently, Fox had a poll and 55% of Fox visitors still thought SH had something to do with 9/11. Isn't that scary?

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:06 am: Edit

Yes it is scary - scary that they think it is news and balanced at that. We watch Fox once in a while and I look at Limbaughs site. Whenever I hear the same silly stories being repeated on here or in everday conversations, I go to Limbaugh and find the source.

Intead of worrying about the "liberal media", voters should be concerned about the "corporate media" that is so afraid of losing readers and viewers that they opt for so called "balanced" coverage with a talking head for the REpubs and one for the dems. This coverage leaves out the facts, assuming that there are no facts, just interpretation and opposing views. The truth is not always in the middle, especially when one side is hiding or manipulating the truth. Where is the outrage? Repubs are outraged over Clinton lying about Monica and yet they passively sit by as their President lies about Iraq.

On another note, I like the photo shop picture of the VP debate in which Mr. Burns of the Simpson's is greedily rubbing his hands together in a hunched over position opposite of John Edwards. That says it all for me.

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:19 am: Edit

Kerry doesn't have to say it. Bush does it for Kerry, "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"....Giving Bush another 4 years would be similar to giving the teenager a brand new car, who you know never stops at a stop sign or a traffic light.

I am really scared about what he might do with Iran and/or North Korea.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:27 am: Edit

And one more thing G Wall. Quit whining about how polarized the country is. Bush promised to be a uniter and has been anything but. The Dems for the first time are fighting back and speaking up-something the Repubs have them beat at. Whining about the polarization is just a tactic to suppress discussion. If you are tired of polarization then quit electing the self-righteous repubs. There are good repubs. Bush is not one of them. Nor Tom DeLay.or Dark Cheney. What happened to the good Repub. Hmmm he was destroyed by the Bush Smear Machine.

By Patient (Patient) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:35 am: Edit

Bush is really, really scary. I was listening to NPR on Friday and they had a report on the way the campaign rallies are conducted by each side. Bush rallies require each person buying a ticket to sign a loyalty oath and give permission to use the person's name as a Bush supporter. People with tickets have had their tickets torn up and been threatened with arrest if they balk at being escorted out, if the gatekeepers think there is anything about the person that might suggest the person is even undecided. No such tactics on the Kerry side and he even dialogues with hecklers. The Bush stuff sounds vaguely reminiscent of the scripted rallies in pre-war Germany. And he talks about spreading freedom? Is this his definition of freedom?

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit

You forgot few more things....If you sign up to be a volunteer for X hours, you get to sit in front. The audience is instructed to drown out a dissenter by chanting 4 more years. The Q/A session is scripted. The 'chosen' asks a very soft question for a scripted answer.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:53 am: Edit

If you noticed the town hall format at Wash U, there were NO students. Bush thought the student population wasn't representative of the country.( Hopefully they will be a part of the unpolled voters that vote to dump him.) There was a lottery held for student tickets and 100 tickets were given out for students to sit in a back room-unable to ask questions. Democracy in action!

I also saw a piece (don't remember where) in which a professor from Carleton(?) went to Bush rallies and Kerry rallies wearing T-shirts for the opposing candidate. He was escorted out of the Bush rally and never approached at the Kerry rally.

I like the Bush Cheney 1984 bumper sticker. That too says it all.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:59 am: Edit

Democratic Presidents have been tough talk, do nothing leaders when it comes to fighting threats to America. For example, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson got us into Vietnam but fought a defensive war that we lost. Jimmy Carter let America be humiliated for 444 days while Iranian terrorist held American hostages. Carter created the image of American impotence. Bill Clinton gave the North Koreans all of the nuclear technology that they are now using to threaten the world. What an idiot! Bill Clinton dropped 450 cruise missiles on Iraq because he said Saddam had WMD, but then did nothing about it. I am not afraid of what President Bush will do in North Korea and Iran, I am afraid of what Sen. Kerry will do there -- nothing. If Kerry is President, you can rest assured Iran will possess nuclear weapons and if their religious government begins to weaken, those weapons will be transferred into the hands of terrorists. President Bush will have a lot more credibility telling Iran "don't develop nuclear weapons or else" than will a flip-flopper like Sen. Kerry. Sen. Kerry criticizes Pres. Bush for not having enough allies in Iraq, but then suggests American should negotiate with North Korea one-on-one and ignore North Korea's neighbors of China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan. Sen. Kerry represents American sticking its head in the sand as we did prior to 9/11.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:08 pm: Edit

The scariest one of all is Karl Rove-he was on Hannity bragging about an October surprise. And everyone sits around saying, "oh those Republicans play a good game, they really know how to campaign". Republicans= Corporate ethics: the ends justify the meanies.

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Thinkingoutloud, but my wallet was fatter under Clinton, and nobody died because he lied about slut Monica.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:34 pm: Edit

"Democratic Presidents have been tough talk, do nothing leaders when it comes to fighting threats to America. For example, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson got us into Vietnam but fought a defensive war that we lost."


Everyone understands that we are fighting a new enemy after 9/11.Unfortunately Bush and many Republicans are confused as to who that enemy is. War and posing as a cowboy are not the only solutions to this problem and neither party has a lock on ensuring our safety. It is just Republican spin and lies to say that your party is more adept at fighting terrorism and nuclear threat.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:57 pm: Edit

As a non-partisan, I would only point out that the name-calling in this thread. Guess what? Voting for the candidate of the opposing party does not make someone an "idiot" or "numbnut".

That is precisely what is wrong with political discourse in this country and why voters operate with such superficial soundbyte knowledge of the issues.

Big picture: There isn't much difference at all in the two major parties. They both operate for the nearly exclusive purpose of catering to special interest groups for campaign funding. They both pander to their respective constituencies.

US Foreign policy cuts across party lines with very little difference whatsover.

So stop with the name calling already.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:27 pm: Edit

I agree Interesteddad completely. Yet, even then, it is the best option for the country to choose the lesser of 2 evils. That is non-arguable. I don't disagree with someone voting for Bush, that is there opinion. I disagree with someone voting for Bush when they have false information being force fed to them by corporate media such as FOX, CNN, MSNBC and the rest. All of them are trying to sell products to us...just like all other television. Anyone who says Fox is fair and balanced...then I can call you stupid.

Thinkingoutloud, so..because you can't really find a good reason to not vote for Kerry, you think its alright to bash every democratic president back to Kennedy. Even Bush Sr. said in his autobiography that invading Iraq would be stupid because there is no viable exit strategy and that if he had done it during Gulf War I, we would still be there today in a hostile country. Fast forward 12 years...what do we have? Sounds a lot like that situation...

If you are pro-life, anti-stem cell, pro-supply side economics and anti-environment, go ahead and vote for Bush. I have no problem with that. Just please..no one vote for him because they still believe Saddam Hussein had WMD's or was in some way connected with 9/11.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit

"Big picture: There isn't much difference at all in the two major parties."

This is true on some levels-how they get money from corporate interests but it is not true on almost all other policies. Six or eight years ago there was less of a difference between parties because the Democrats started to move to the center with balancing the budget, bringing down the deficit and welfare reform. If you think the parties are still the same under Bush then I think you are seriously misinformed.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 02:14 pm: Edit

ID, your "unbiased" opinion reminds me of a playground moderator who didn't see the whole fight. He only sees the two kids fighting and blames them both. What he doesn't see is that the fight was started by a bully and the kid he picked on is defending himself.


And just a little anecdotal evidence to add to the comments about Bush rallys. I live in a predominantly Republican area and Kerry signs have been routinely stolen, spray painted and destroyed. Maybe the opposite happens to Bush signs but I haven't seen it here. My son got honked at and gestured at this summer when he was driving my car with a Kerry bumper sticker on it.This is not an even fight. Bush fights dirty and like a bully. It's an indication of the man and an explanation for the lowered level of debate in this country.Look at Cheney swearing at Lehey in the Senate. All you need to do is look at the Swift Boat ads to see it.

By Nlkrueger (Nlkrueger) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 02:27 pm: Edit

"I live in a predominantly Republican area and Kerry signs have been routinely stolen, spray painted and destroyed."

Same here. Oh the joys of living in Texas.

By Legendofmax (Legendofmax) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Are the debates transcribed online anywhere?

This thread is closed, and so is Lizschup's bullying. We respect spirited dialogue but frown on posters who are trying to bludgeon the other posters into submission. I am sure you'll have no problem to find another forum. Goodbye!

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 04:07 pm: Edit

http://www.debates.org/pages/debtrans.html

also try NYTimes.com . They may have video.