Don't click or your IP will be banned

Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: DEBATE.....

Peach Master

Posts: 485
(503 all sites)
Registered: 8/20/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 05:16 AM
OK-I guess I get up earliest, so here goes: Who do you think "won" the presidential debate last night? I'm giving a slight edge to Kerry, I thought the Prez. was a little over-anxious, kept wanting an extension a little too often. But I didn't really see anything to dramatically sway undecided voters from either candidate. Let the games begin!

Ultimate Peach

Posts: 3073
(3168 all sites)
Registered: 12/1/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 07:29 AM
I know I'm in the minority here but, I thought Bush won. It seemed he controlled the debate better.

Also, my expectations are so low for him when he speaks. He actually did a great job compared to his other tv appearances.

One thing I did notice- after the first hour Bush's ritalin started wearing off. He was getting lost in his statements.

Kerry couldn't get an extension from the mediator because he seemed too complacent (sp?).


Put that coffee down. Coffee is for closers. I don't see any closers here.


Peach Pro

Posts: 255
(263 all sites)
Registered: 11/27/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 08:27 AM
Well, as far as the substance of their remarks, I pretty much already knew what they were going to say, as I keep up on a daily basis on both candidates--read the papers, visit their websites and so on. So there were really no surprises for me as far as the actual content of the debate.

As for who made a better impression, well, I'm biased, but I thought Kerry seemed a lot more confident and sure of what he was saying. Bush had way too many long pauses and stumbles, and he did seem to get quite agitated and frustrated at times, which is in debate terms is a sign that what the other guy is saying is hitting the mark. For a guy who promotes himself as the steady, self-assured leader, Bush often seemed quite distracted and even flustered.

It also looked like he ran out of things to say. After the first three or four times of saying that Kerry was sending "mixed messages" and "mixed signals," I wanted to say, "Yeah, I get it, George! What else have you got?"

I guess at the heart of the matter for me is that I just don't like Bush's leadership. You can steadily and unwaveringly lead a bunch of people off a cliff, but that doesn't mean it is good leadership. If the CEO of a company leads leads the company to bad strategic decisions and puts the company deeply into the red, he gets fired, regardless of whether or not he stayed the course. Staying the course if the course is a bad one just for the sake of staying the course makes no sense to me at all. When I watched the president talk last night, I saw a guy who refuses to admit any responsibility (maybe the recovering alcoholic in him?) for his own actions or admit that he has made any errors in judgement. I realize that in his eyes and in the eyes of a lot of people in this country that is a good thing, but not in mine. I don't need the president to dim things down for me and wrap up our country's troubles into cute little slogans and soundbites. I want to be leveled with by a man that is comfortable enough in his role to admit when a change in direction is necessary.

Anyway, all of this is a roundabout way of saying that I thought Kerry accomplished exactly what he needed to in the debate. I hope people were watching and listening.


"Everybody knows rock achieved perfection in's a scientific fact!"--Homer Simpson


Peach Head

Posts: 124
(124 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 09:36 AM
I agree with everything that GreatScott has said.

I too am a little biased, but I truly think that Kerry
made a more positive impression than Bush.

My personal feelings on the issues covered in the
debate were hit “right on the money” by Kerry.

Mr. Bush clearly showed his ineptitude and stubbornness.
Hay, if you make a mistake, that’s O.K.. We all do.
But for Bush to blindly continue in the current direction
is beyond my comprehension.

One thing that did strike me (and it has really not much
to do with the debate itself) was how ridiculous the
students at U of Miami appeared in the break shots.
I wonder if these kids really have a clue as to what
is going on. Most of them seemed more concerned
with being on TV with their cell phones than the subjects
at hand. It looked like halftime on some ESPN show.

Let Mr. Bush bring back the draft and see how many of
these kids wake up.


Tell me why when the phone rings baby
you're up and cross the floor ?


Zen Peach

Posts: 29948
(30044 all sites)
Registered: 1/26/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 10:21 AM
neither impressed me.

Bush never even answered the first question posed to him which
was "do you think we are more likely to be attacked if kerry is
president" (the cheney fear tactics). Dubya said he would
be reelected. Refused to distance himself from Cheney's fear tactics.

Kerry seemed better prepared. But seemed on the defensive against
Bush's message that Kerry is a flipper.

That seemed to be Bush's message. Elect Me, I'm not filpper. Kerry Is.
Offered no vision of his own. other than crying and laughing with War widows.

I should have read Mike's concise review in the set list thread in Anything Goes and
saved the time of watching the replay after the ABB show.



People Can you Feel It?


Ultimate Peach

Posts: 3238
(3242 all sites)
Registered: 9/3/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 11:23 AM
For Bush, the debate probably turned out as well as they could have hoped. He isn't a great speaker, but he did limit his 'turnovers' and didn't commit any grave mistakes. He did get flustered, had numerous blank pauses, and was fidgeting quite a bit - not really the picture of cool. The lights on the podium also seemed to distract him during his responses, which I just thought was funny.

I don't feel that Bush said much of substance, choosing instead to repeatedly hit on the 'mixed messages' critique of Kerry instead of stating his plans or goals. Lots of slogans and empty rhetoric. Sometimes that's all it takes. Kerry repeatedly hit on Bush's refusal to identify his plan while outlining his strategy.

Neither did a great job responding to these major attacks. Bush did get into the N. Korea plan a bit, and Kerry did address the flip-flop a few times towards the end. I felt that his "You can be certain, but you can also be wrong" was a good rebuttal which he might have stated a few more times to drive it home.

Kerry was very cool, and capable of answering all the questions in a coherent manner. Something I would expect from a leader who was given the questions in advance. As I've already pointed out, Bush didn't do nearly as well (nor did we expect him to).

In all, I think Bushco. was hoping to score a major victory here. That clearly was not the case IMO. Kerry did a great job, and for the 20% or so who are still undecided [edit: and hoping to use the debates as a deciding factor], I think that Kerry has started to stake a larger claim than Bush. There is still plenty of time left.

I think if all 3 debates go similarly to this one the Bush team will start sweating.

Overall a good debate. Advantage to Kerry after the 1st period.

[Edited on 10/1/2004 by slidemon]


"Down in the what?"


True Peach

Posts: 8222
(13176 all sites)
Registered: 6/10/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 11:43 AM
I wasn't impressed by either myself.

I see bush as a "follower". I think his intentions seem good, but his policies (I think) are being decided by others (Cheney and the like). A leader should be able to "put his advisors in their place" - if the situation calls for it. He doesn't seem to be able to do this. The pres. can't be an expert on everything, but most advisors have strong positions and will want their course of action to be dictated by these. That's what they are going to advise. I don't blame Bush for "all" the wrong decisions (backseat driver syndrome) or the faulty information (it seams most others thought the info was correct at the time). I haven't really seen him do much of anything except alienate people over his "religious right" issues (stem cell research/homosexual marriage). Also, his staunch approval of the "whole" patriot act. So as far as Bush goes, I think we need to have a stronger leader - someone who is more proactive inside their own administration.

Is that man Kerry? I don't know. I really want to vote for someone else, but Kerry comes across as the candidate who will tell people what they want to hear - regardless if it's achievable. His "war plan" sounds OK, but it relies heavily on what kind of cooperation we can get from outside sources. I don't think he can say with any kind of certainty that he will get it. His ideas on “spending” worry me as well. We continue to spend more then we have - going farther into debt. This has been a problem for the last couple of decades. Yea, tax breaks sound nice - I don't think that can actually happen with his plans. Let alone if he can get them passed through congress. I don't really "need" a tax break but I do need more responsible spending. How can we continually give money away that we don't have. We give millions too many different nations to help them out with their issues (their issues do have an impact on us, so it’s not unwarranted). Do we expect countries we provide aid to to spend money they don't have? Then why do we? It's like a college kid with a credit card and no job. It'll bite us in the ass sooner or later. I have yet to see a Kerry plan that considers the impact of the cost of implementation. Spend now, worry about the cost later?

The man we choose to run our country needs to be someone who can put us on a better course. Like a parent who makes decisions for their children (in the children’s best interest) but doesn't get the kind of recognition for those unpopular decisions. My kids tell me all the time I'm not being "Fair" when they have to finish their homework before they can watch TV or whatever. I'm not trying to make a direct example, just saying people don't always know (or admit to) what's ultimately best for them in the long run.

To conclude:
BUSH: I think bush has good intentions, but isn't bright enough to guide us to those goals. He wants to, but to see the big picture - he relies on his advisors too heavily (though they are there for a purpose)

KERRY: I think he's too idealistic. Let's not kid ourselves; this is not an ideal world. Things don't just work themselves out because we do things the way we're "supposed" to. If he could be a little more realistic, and not just recite what Bush opponents want to hear (their criticisms about his decisions) I would be more comfortable.

The DEBATE: Not everyone speaks well. Good communication is important. Kerry did sound like he had more readily available answers. Sometimes those answers came to quick. Bush stumbled a lot more through his answers - but I do the same when talking to an audience (that doesn't diminish how well I do my job though).

Debating skills will not decide this election for me. If someone seems to have plans which are (for the most part) achievable and inline with the end goals of the American people. That's what is important to me. I'll probably have to wait until election day... and look at the ballot... and go with my gut. Hopefully the one who gets my vote will be the most capable of guiding our country. If not, it's no different then previous elections when you vote and hope your candidate will do his best.

As of yet, still undecided......



There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without br


Zen Peach

Posts: 29948
(30044 all sites)
Registered: 1/26/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 11:54 AM
Where was Nader, Badnirik and Cobb

How can you have a democracy when Candidates are excluded?



People Can you Feel It?


Zen Peach

Posts: 16323
(16532 all sites)
Registered: 5/26/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 03:50 PM
Kerry looked like an **** , that's all I know. Well when I was in vietnam .... the war in which we lost, and had no mission whatsoever.. what a dumb ****



We're a winner and never let anybody say "boy, you can't make it!"


Super Moderator

Posts: 3870
(3929 all sites)
Registered: 6/17/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 09:00 PM

From: Stephen Dinan
To: Progressive 1
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:11 PM
Subject: It's Hard Work

Forward freely...

It's Hard Work
By Stephen Dinan

For all those who began tonight's debate with low expectations for President
Bush, the results were a surprise: he performed even worse than most could have
imagined. Beyond the repetition of a few key phrases that Karl Rove had
obviously made sure he was supposed to emphasize, Bush bumbled through most
questions, returning to the drum beat that threaded throughout his talk: "It's
hard work."

Hard work, indeed. It is hard work to be saddled with the complexities of
governing the most powerful nation in the world. It is hard work to deal with
the nuances of diplomacy and coalition building. It is hard work to admit
mistakes and change direction based on changes in the geopolitical landscape.

"It's hard work." In that phrase, Bush encapsulated for the American people
precisely the problem with his governance: he is in over his head. Way over his
head. He has never been a smart man, nor a particular talented one. He is
banking on one thing alone: a bulldog-like tenacity to cling to his opinion as
the truth, no matter what new information arrives. That, he believes, is what
it takes to be President. That is what can lead us to greatness as a country:
fixity of opinion.

Fixity of opinion may work for a football lineman. But it doesn't work for the
head of the most powerful nation on earth. Fixity of opinion may work in an
emergency situation but it doesn't allow one to move strategically in a more
complex world. That is why Bush needed, again and again in the debate, to
simplify foreign policy to "us" versus the "enemy" lumping Iraq and Osama bin
Laden together. That is why he said multiple times that we must always be on
the offense and never waver.

Fixity of opinion is a way for a man who is in over his head to make sense of a
complex world. It reduces shades of gray to black and white. Either you're with
us or you're with the enemy. Either you're an ally or you're an enemy. There
are moments, of course, when black or white is called for. At those moments,
Bush's capacities may allow him to do an adequate job. But in all those areas
where a more sophisticated understanding is called for, black and white will not

In a way I felt compassion for him. It IS challenging to be in over your heard
and out of your league. I don't blame him for clinging to the life preserver of
surety. I can almost see him pep-talking himself in the morning mirror: "you've
got to look strong and presidential. Never give an inch. Be firm. Always

In Bush's desire to be seen as resolute, he made it clear in the debate he was
not open to changing his ways or admitting errors. His paramount goal, as he
stated it, was to not send mixed messages to the troops, to terrorists, or to
the world. As Kerry countered, the main worry about the President is that you
can also be sure of yourself and be wrong.

The irony of Bush's repeated theme was that he was anything but resolute in his
presence. He stumbled over words, answered questions off topic, meandered, fell
into silence. During Kerry's answers, his eyes darted like a cornered animal
and he hunched over the podium, clearly uncomfortable. Because Bush is trapped
in black or white thinking to cope with a job that is over his head, he cannot
build bridges to other countries. Diplomacy takes a certain amount of grace,
collegiality, and tact. He is blunt, aggressive, and dismissive.

Kerry, by contrast, presented himself in a persuasive, commanding, and
presidential way, far better than I would have imagined. I have not been a huge
fan until this debate but Kerry convinced me with the clarity in his thoughts,
the power of his convictions and his command of facts, figures, and nuance, that
he has the capacity to lead in a powerful, resolute way that is open to change
when change is called for.

In the debate, Kerry was methodical and powerful. He took notes and spoke
unerringly, with an outstanding command of language, policy, and nuance. He
attacked the president's record while honoring him as a man. He made clear that
he would chart a different course. And he made brilliant tactical maneuvers,
like citing Bush's father about never entering Iraq without an exit strategy.

At the end of the debate, I felt one thing with great certainty. If this nation
does elect Kerry as our next president, we would not see him in four years
repeating over and over, "It's hard work." He would do the job with every ounce
of his capacity and I feel much more confident that he would meet those
challenges, with a resolute but open and intelligent stance towards the rest of
the world.

Kerry is what we need to redeem America's sullied reputation in the world.
George Bush has confessed to the American people the truth: he just doesn't have
what it takes to do the job.

"It's hard work," indeed.


"Don't Ask Why"

E-Mail User

Zen Peach

Posts: 67340
(67857 all sites)
Registered: 10/27/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 09:03 PM
Hey Hophead, good to see you are back up and posting.


Hittin' The Web::Hugh Duty Memorial Giveaway has begun!

RIP Hugh Duty


Peach Master

Posts: 554
(554 all sites)
Registered: 9/29/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 09:56 PM
Kerry won!

Bush cannot speak in public if it hasn't been written for him. He is so protected from people who don't agree with him, he can't control his facial expressions or comments when he is threatened!


Music is my healer


A Peach Supreme

Posts: 2536
(2558 all sites)
Registered: 9/28/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2004 at 11:52 PM
Notice how in all the other political threads the loudmouth Bush supporters are so loud,now that we've seen them together once and Bush was shown to be the fuzzy-thinking,stubborn,shortsighted man that he is none of the Bush people have much to say,Interesting..............

A Peach Supreme

Posts: 2778
(2780 all sites)
Registered: 1/20/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/2/2004 at 12:44 AM
I will go ahead and chime in at this point. I feel like I heard the same old stuff out of both of them. There was nothing new from either. All we heard was how well they could speak in public. We all know GW can't put two sentences together to make a concise statement. But after all, that's what it's all about, isn't it? How well one can speak?

Funny... most of us loudmouths were thinking the same thing about people like you.





Peach Master

Posts: 790
(790 all sites)
Registered: 12/20/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/2/2004 at 01:32 AM
I was holding my tongue to let ya'll bask in your "oh,look at Bush,he's so dumb" rhetoric.

I think it was a draw.

Kerry is the better speaker.No one has questioned that,including Bush-everyone knows that Kerry is a good talker and Bush isn't.Bush has to pause to think of the right words to express himself,like a lot of folks (like myself) do.Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't make you look good when you're in a debate with an expert speaker and debater like Kerry.But we have known that Bush isn't a good speaker for what,5 years now?So that's no news.And,boys and girls,just because you have to pause to get your words together doesn't mean you're "dumb" or can't run the country.Get real.

I don't think anyone learned anything new on the positions of either man.Kerry did step in it a few times-

#1)He wouldn't admit he's changed positions multiple times on Iraq.Even his supporters know he has flip-flopped on his stance several times,and that he didn't even become "the anti-war canidate" until January when he was being killed in the polls by Howard Dean.Before that he was running as the pro-war canidate.It didn't make him look good to say "I've had one stance and one stance only on Iraq" when we all know that isn't true.

#2)He makes a big point of trying to say he won't hesitate to take pre-emptive action to protect our country,but then turns around and says we must pass a "global test" before taking pre-emptive action.How can you not hesitate to protect the country when you must get a permission slip signed by France and Russia first??

#3)He was VERY convuluted in the majority of his responses and jumped from subject to subject in a few answers,which made it hard to comprehend what he was saying.

#4)Every time he was asked how he would make Iraq go better,everything was "well I'll have a summit" or "I'll convince our allies".He never said what would happen if having a summit or trying to convine our allies didn't work,which it won't (France and Russia have both already said they will not go into Iraq no matter who is president).Bringing up the UN resolutions wasn't bright either-most Americans don't trust the UN these days.Kerry appeared to trust the UN more than the USA,which really doesn't look good.

#5)All pessimism,no optimism.All negative,no positive.

Now,here's where I think Bush stepped in it-

#1)He wore out the "wrong war,wrong place,wrong time" Kerry quote.There are plenty of rabid anti-war quotes of Kerry's he could have mixed in for maximum effect.

#2)He wore out the "hard work" explanations.We all know it's hard.

#3)He didn't attack Kerry's horirble 20 year record in the senate on defense.He could have ripped Kerry a new butthole with that,but chose not to.I think this is because he was trying not to look "mean" in the debate,trying to give off a softer image.He could have attacked Kerry when he said "Iraq made the Osama Bin Laden's of the world hate us",which is the biggest load of bull crap I've ever heard,but he chose not to respond to that.

#4)He seemed very ill prepared,and didn't make some major points that he should have.It also seemed that after a half hour,he really was dis-interested in the debate.

Now,we're all hearing on TV that Kerry won on style,Bush won on substance,or that it was draw.Here is what I experienced today.

I go to a VERY liberal campus-it's in Northern California in hippie country,so you can imagine.In math class today,with about 30 people in the class,I started asking who watched the debate (teacher was running way late).The general response was this,"I was planning on voting for Kerry,but after last night,I have changed my mind."When I asked why,the answer was split about 50/50-half said they were turned off by his personality and couldn't relate to him at all,and the other half said they did not like that he felt that holding summits was the right way to fight the war on terror.This is true folks,and this is from hard core leftists!!You could have knocked me over with a feather.Overall feeling was that Bush didn't come across too well,but that they felt he was a better leader in so much as he see's the war as going in and fighting it and not by trying to talk someone else in to come fight it for us.It seemed like a lot of the people in the class didn't like that Kerry had bad mouthed the war but expects to then talk other countries into financing or fighting the war with us.

There were also several saying they were planning on voting for Kerry,but after seeing the debate,were voting for Nader.

I found all this VERY suprising-I assumed that most would be fawning over Kerry.

I think what is going to hurt Kerry in the end is the same thing that hurt Al Gore-he's just not a very personable guy.People have a hard time relating to him as a person,or liking him as a person.I know a lot of people who didn't vote for Al Gore simply because they didn't like his personality.

If you had asked me a month or two ago how this election is going to go,I would have said REALLY tight.Now I am thinking it is going to go further in Bush's direction,and here's why-about 50% of the country are Bush supporters,and Bush isn't going to loose many votes to Nader or a third party canidate.Kerry on the other hand has a large number of people who are Democrats or independents who won't vote for Bush,but also don't like Kerry and aren't going to vote for him either.

I'm thinking the election is going to look something like 50% for Bush,40% for Kerry and 10% for Nader and third party canidates.There is a big enough anti-Bush people who won't vote for Kerry to seriously hurt him.This looks something like the '92 election,exsept Bush isn't going to loose many votes to Nader like Bush Sr. did to Perot.



Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy

E-Mail User

Maximum Peach

Posts: 8261
(8261 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/2/2004 at 04:55 AM
I was surprised by how presidential and in control Kerry appeared. Bush surprised me by looking more like a whining privlidged bully then I have ever seen him before. Clearly this is a man who can only negotiate with people who agree with him.

#2)He makes a big point of trying to say he won't hesitate to take pre-emptive action to protect our country,but then turns around and says we must pass a "global test" before taking pre-emptive action.How can you not hesitate to protect the country when you must get a permission slip signed by France and Russia first??

I'm pretty sure every President since WWII has recognized the importance of the world community. Standing alone will certainly bankrupt this country just like it bankrupted the Soviet Union during the cold war. I was very disturbed to hear Bush proudly brag about not joining the International Criminal Union. How can we expect war criminals to be held accountable if we will not even join the governing body?

I do believe the reputation of the United States is very important. I also believe Mr. Bush has crippled that reputation.

October 1, 2004
America's Lost Respect

"As a result of the American military," President Bush declared last week, "the Taliban is no longer in existence."

It's unclear whether Mr. Bush misspoke, or whether he really is that clueless. But his claim was in keeping with his re-election strategy, demonstrated once again in last night's debate: a president who has done immense damage to America's position in the world hopes to brazen it out by claiming that failure is success.

Three years ago, the United States was both feared and respected: feared because of its military supremacy, respected because of its traditional commitment to democracy and the rule of law.

Since then, Iraq has demonstrated the limits of American military power, and has tied up much of that power in a grinding guerrilla war. This has emboldened regimes that pose a real threat. Three years ago, would North Korea have felt so free to trumpet its conversion of fuel rods into bombs?

But even more important is the loss of respect. After the official rationales for the Iraq war proved false, and after America failed to make good on its promise to foster democracy in either Afghanistan or Iraq - and, not least, after Abu Ghraib - the world no longer believes that we are the good guys.

Let's talk for a minute about Afghanistan, which administration officials tout as a success story. They rely on the public's ignorance: voters, they believe, don't know that even though the United States promised to provide Afghanistan with both security and aid during its transition to democracy, it broke those promises. It has allowed the country to slide back into warlordism - and allowed the Taliban to make a comeback.

These days, Mr. Bush and other administration officials often talk about the 10.5 million Afghans who have registered to vote in this month's election, citing the figure as proof that democracy is making strides after all. They count on the public not to know, and on reporters not to mention, that the number of people registered considerably exceeds all estimates of the eligible population. What they call evidence of democracy on the march is actually evidence of large-scale electoral fraud.

It's the same story in Iraq: the January election has become the rationale for everything we're doing, yet it's hard to find anyone not beholden to the administration who believes that the election, if it happens at all, will be anything more than a sham.

Yet Mr. Bush and his Congressional allies seem to have learned nothing from their failures. If Mr. Bush is returned to office, there's every reason to think that they will continue along the same disastrous path.

We can already see one example of this when we look at the question of torture. Abu Ghraib has largely vanished from U.S. political discussion, largely because the administration and its Congressional allies have been so effective at covering up high-level involvement. But both the revelations and the cover-up did terrible damage to America's moral authority. To much of the world, America looks like a place where top officials condone and possibly order the torture of innocent people, and suffer no consequences.

What we need is an effort to regain our good name. What we're getting instead is a provision, inserted by Congressional Republicans in the intelligence reform bill, to legalize "extraordinary rendition" - a euphemism for sending terrorism suspects to countries that use torture for interrogation. This would institutionalize a Kafkaesque system under which suspects can be sent, at the government's whim, to Egypt or Syria or Jordan - and to fight such a move, it's up to the suspect to prove that he'll be tortured on arrival. Just what we need to convince other countries of our commitment to the rule of law.

Most Americans aren't aware of all this. The sheer scale of Mr. Bush's foreign policy failures insulates him from its political consequences: voters aren't ready to believe how badly the war in Iraq is going, let alone how badly America's moral position in the world has deteriorated.

But the rest of the world has already lost faith in us. In fact, let me make a prediction: if Mr. Bush gets a second term, we will soon have no democracies left among our allies - no, not even Tony Blair's Britain. Mr. Bush will be left with the support of regimes that don't worry about the legalities - regimes like Vladimir Putin's Russia.

[Edited on 10/2/2004 by BillyBlastoff]


Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


World Class Peach

Posts: 5218
(5217 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/2/2004 at 09:02 AM
Bush won. Kerry kept lying all through the debate. His favorite phrase was "I would have done better." Of course in hindsight anybody can say he would have done better, since he would then know what the enemy had planned and would know how to defeat them, except for the fact that it had already happened. Friggin armchair monday morning quarterback.


All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.


A Peach Supreme

Posts: 2461
(2461 all sites)
Registered: 11/5/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/2/2004 at 09:32 AM
No question Flipper helped himself. He had evry thing to gain but losing might have done him in. the frustrating thing for me was Kerry tossed sevral hanging curves that GW didn't even swing at.

I will say this when the Bush team puts an ad together with debate clips it will have alot more substance than Kerrys clip of Bush Facial expressions. It will be more effective I suspect too because Kerry did say some things that will bite him a little later.

No question he was at his best though and likely helped himself.


"With the help of God and true friends I've come to realize,
I still have two strong legs and even wings to fly"


Peach Extraordinaire

Posts: 4269
(4273 all sites)
Registered: 12/4/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/2/2004 at 09:51 AM
I think they are both goofy as hell. Kerry's performance will appeal to the libs and pseudo intellectuals and Bush's performance will appeal to well, I don't who.

I can't believe this is the choice we are presented with at this juncture in out country's history. New Zealand is looking better all the time.




Peach Extraordinaire

Posts: 4269
(4273 all sites)
Registered: 12/4/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/2/2004 at 09:53 AM
Where was Nader, Badnirik and Cobb

How can you have a democracy when Candidates are excluded?





Zen Peach

Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/2/2004 at 11:35 AM

Kerry is the better speaker.No one has questioned that,including Bush-everyone knows that Kerry is a good talker and Bush isn't.Bush has to pause to think of the right words to express himself,like a lot of folks (like myself) do.


There's the problem, Bandit. After Georgie paused to "think of the right words," he couldn't think of any, so he kept repeating the same thing. George Bush not only is a poor public speaker, he showed us Thursday night he is a very poor thinker as well.




Zen Peach

Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/2/2004 at 01:24 PM
***The transcripts are full of them, but here's an example of Kerry making some pretty strong allegations toward the President concerning his judgment and fitness for office. Direct statements, not flowery rhetoric. He talks about the need for the troops to be better-equipped, and the fact that more and more American troops are dying every month.

KERRY: The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it.

The president made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq.

And he rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now, that is not the judgment that a president of the United States ought to make. You don't take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need.

I've met kids in Ohio, parents in Wisconsin places, Iowa, where they're going out on the Internet to get the state-of-the-art body gear to send to their kids. Some of them got them for a birthday present.

I think that's wrong. Humvees -- 10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren't armored. And you go visit some of those kids in the hospitals today who were maimed because they don't have the armament.

This president just -- I don't know if he sees what's really happened on there. But it's getting worse by the day. More soldiers killed in June than before. More in July than June. More in August than July. More in September than in August.

And now we see beheadings. And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up. And we don't have enough troops there.

***As I said, these are pretty serious allegations. One would expect that the President would want the opportunity to respond to these charges in an intelligent and informed manner. In fact, the President did ask to respond. Here's what he had to say:

BUSH: Thank you, sir. First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place.

I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?

No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined.

***Of course, he had not just outlined a plan, but why did he not respond to what Kerry had said, rather than repeating the same thing he'd been saying all night? Bandit, Derek, others, does this man really strike you as being intelligent and informed? I really want to know. Or does he strike you as someone of limited intelligence, who, when his handlers aren't present, can't even carry on a conversation without repeating over and over again some sensless mantra he's been told will sound good if he just keeps it up?




Zen Peach

Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/2/2004 at 01:29 PM
***Here's another good example. Direct allegation from Kerry, easily responded to, and Bush's response:

KERRY: The president just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes, unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time.

And the test is not whether you're spending more money. The test is, are you doing everything possible to make America safe?

We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe.

BUSH: Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America. I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America. That's my job.

I work with Director Mueller of the FBI; comes in my office when I'm in Washington every morning, talking about how to protect us. There's a lot of really good people working hard to do so.

It's hard work. But, again, I want to tell the American people, we're doing everything we can at home, but you better have a president who chases these terrorists down and bring them to justice before they hurt us again.




Zen Peach

Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/2/2004 at 01:35 PM
***Check this one out. Kerry mentions that the President's own father saw how disasterous it would be to try to occupy Iraq, and yet his son wasn't able to see the wisdom in that decision. One would expect the President to reply to that, and one would be right. The President asked for 30 seconds to reply. Check out his response.

KERRY: Now I believe there's a better way to do this. You know, the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said -- he wrote in his book -- because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today.

BUSH: My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a "great diversion."

As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.

Not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops.




Zen Peach

Posts: 19459
(19473 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/2/2004 at 02:41 PM
Bush blew many chances to point out what a flip flopper Kerry is, and he didn't do it. His communication skills are sadly lacking.

So, I will have to do it for him.

Kerry said in the debate;

“No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”

How the hell can you say, in the ame debate, “I’ll Never Give A Veto To Any Country Over Our Security,” and then say you will submit our own foreign policy interests to a "global test?" What the hell is this global test? No, our interest are our busniess. I know that many of you folks want to run things bu your buddy Chirac and the French, or give up soverignty to Koffi Annon. I don't.

Of course a year ago Kerry said, “I would have done what was necessary to know that you had exhausted the available remedies with the French and the Russians.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 10/20/03). Which is it?

Global test...unbelievable.

Kerry said in this debate, “Reason For Going To War Was Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Not The Removal Of Saddam Hussein.” Unfortunately, when we went to war he said this in 2002,
“I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that – that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/15/02)

Let's keep this Kerry joke going. In the debate Kerry said, “This President Has Made, I Regret To Say, A Colossal Error Of Judgment. And Judgment Is What We Look For In The President Of The United States Of America.”

OK, fine. One problem with that, as he said this 10 months ago;
“Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.” (CNN’s “Capital Gang,” 12/20/03

Which is it guys?

Kerry said in the debate, “We Are 90 Percent Of The Casualties And 90 Percent Of The Cost: $200 Billion – $200 Billion That Could Have Been Used For Health Care, For Schools, For Construction, For Prescription Drugs For Seniors, And It’s In Iraq.”

One problem, as he also said this on Meet The press,
NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.”

Here are some wonderful mixed messages from the debate, PBS’ Jim Lehrer asked, “Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?” Kerry answers, “No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that we put – that I’m offering.” One problem, as in the same debate Kerry says, “We can’t leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was,” and “But The President Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq.”

So, let me figure this out, I was once a liberal so it should be easy; the war was a mistake, but the troops are not dying for a mistake? Do I have that right?

And, of course, Kerry said in the debate, “What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words. Now, I would not.”

One problem, a month and a half ago he said on CNN's Inside Politics and on the stump that, knowing what he would now he would have still voted for the war resolution.

Kerry said in the debate, “The President Says That I’m Denigrating These Troops. I Have Nothing But Respect For The British, Tony Blair, And For What They’ve Been Willing To Do.” He said earlier this year on CNN's American Morning show, "Well, the fact is that those countries are really window dressing to the greatest degree. And they weren’t there in the beginning when we went in, and they’re not carrying the cost of this war.”

Kerry said in the debate, “I’ve Had One Position, One Consistent Position, That Saddam Hussein Was A Threat.” Kerry said earlier last month at New York University, “We Now Know That Iraq Had No Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Posed No Imminent Threat To Our Security.”

But here is the biggest example of what a pathetic leader Kerry would be from the debate, and Bush called him on it. How is it that you can say to the country and to the world that this war was a "Colossal mistake," and say that this was "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," and then turn around and say that you would bring in troops from other countries so our troops can go home. What the hell country is going to bring in troops for Kerry, to a war that he himself said was "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time?"????????????? Do any of you liberals out there have an answer to that?

And, all of this whining by the antiwar movement about "pre-emptive action." And what does Kerry say in the debate, if neccessary he would use pre-emptive action. Springsteen said in one of his latest interviews about why he wanted Kerry to be president that he was scared and against the concept of pre-emptive action...while backing a cadidate that believes in pre-emptive action.

Although I will give him credit, it isn't as stupid a statement made by a limosouine liberal as the one actress Cameron Diaz said on Oprah the other day when she proclaimed, "If you think rape should be legal, than don't vote."




[Edited on 10/2/2004 by DerekFromCincinnati]



<<  1    2    3    4  >>  

Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
site by Hittin' the Web Group with