The Debates

lumberpeg vegeplank · **Posted:** Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:55 pm

TheNintenGenius wrote:

The thing I always find intresting about the "demoralizing troops" thing is that, you know, that was the EXACT same argument people for the Vietnam war used to attack those who weren't: How DARE you criticize our actions in Vietnam? Don't you know it'll demoralize the troops and turn them into quivering piles of jelly for Charlie to tear into? You scum!

That's a good point. I get accused of demoralizing the troops a lot...I do a great deal of self reflection about that. That's the last thing I want to do.

I want a president who is willing to keep as many Americans alive and safe as he can. I feel that the military should not be so willing to kill off its soldiers. These soldiers are my friends.

While they are away, I want to get them back; I resent the military for taking them away. I resent politicians who, in oredr tto gain more power, kill Americans or force them to kill non-Americans. I believe war is evil. I believe we should promote understanding and communication over destruction.

How do we stop war? I feel so powerless most of the time.

Even Kerry in these debates said that he would keep the right to have pre-emptive war. What's wrong with us? Why must we bomb whole groups of people? Isn't killing off innocent people going to make things much, much worse?

I understand that September 11th has changed things -- taht America was attacked -- I understand that we have to appear strong -- We are failing so many people. We have reacted in anger and continue to do so. We are making rash, crazy choices and we will paying for them.

Support your local Food Not Bombs.

Didymus · **Posted:** Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:11 pm

If I were (still) a troop, I'd find much more comfort in the idea of GOING HOME and NOT BEING IN HARMS WAY and NOT HAVING THE PEOPLE I'M TRYING TO PROTECT TRY TO KILL ME, than in some vague notion that our sacrifices MIGHT help someone who doesn't give a rip whether I live or die.

You hear that, W, quit worrying about our troops FEELINGS and start worrying about their SAFETY!

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Sun Oct 03, 2004 10:19 pm

Didymus wrote:

You hear that, W, quit worrying about our troops FEELINGS and start worrying about their SAFETY!

Great point, Didymus.

I came across an interesting article about the language levels of the candidates at the debate. Kerry spoke at grade level 7.3 and Bush spoke slightly below at grade level 6.8. As the article points out, this is about right for a debate, since the average American reads at a 6 or 7th grade level.

And here's a funny bit of satire in the same vein that I heard on NPR the other day: Debate Tips for Kerry (ears required).

AgentSeethroo · **Posted:** Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:05 pm

Didymus wrote:

You hear that, W, quit worrying about our troops FEELINGS and start worrying about their SAFETY!

I second that sentiment. Every time we've deployed one of our troops from my squadron, it's been like pulling frickin' teeth to get them body armor and a kevlar helmet. We've actually sent people off WITHOUT this stuff because we were told it would be waiting for the troop when they reach the front...and then the armor isn't there.

This war shouldn't be like this. We are doing all the fighting for the president. Shouldn't he make sure we don't have to die for nothing? Is a life worth the money it costs to properly protect a troop?

God bless America.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:43 pm

How Bush Did is a great condensation of everything Bush said in the Debate. Not exactly a fair condensation, but what do you expect from me?

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:24 pm

We're 5 days into October and still no October Surprise. I'm a-waitin'.

But check this out: Bush is calling a do-over for the first debate. This time he's sure he'll win, 'cause Kerry isn't invited. He's decided to switch the topic of a stump speech tomorrow and instead make a "significant speech" in which he plans to rebut some of Kerry's remarks during Thusday's debate, because he forgot to do that during the debate itself.

thefreakyblueman · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:29 am

Questions? Comments?

Oy. I don't know who's right anymore about these facts after more than 5, "That's not true"'s or "You're just wrong"'s.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:38 am

The sad truth is, neither of them really knows the truth. It's engrained in their brains to automatically say "You're wrong", regardless of what their opponent says. Typical partisan political rhetoric... Same with the Presidential debate... Man, I sound cynical, don't i? LOL

thefreakyblueman · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:43 am

Aye, true. Then again, isn't all of America like this? Especially kids. I go to school where politics doesn't come up often, and my classmates will AUTOMATICALLY say what their parents say. I guess I'm victim to that too, but I actually research these things (well, google things and see what both sides say about them). It troubles me when people just say things like "Kerry is a flip-flopper" and "Bush is an idiot" without knowing any facts. I ask why, they don't know.

(sigh)

Stu · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:57 am

InterruptorJones wrote:

How Bush Did is a great condensation of everything Bush said in the Debate. Not exactly a fair condensation, but what do you expect from me?

As long as you admit that you are the most reliable source for unreliable and biased news...

Watching the vp debate. What a bunch of crap. I want to see them get in a fist fight. Cheney would destroy Edwards. A mean ol' oil tycoon vs pretty boy edwards.... no contest

StrongRad · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:59 am

well, sadly, those statements are both facts LOL

Actually, I love how people who claim to be free thinkers are usually the most closed-minded. I'm not sure how old you are, but regardless of your age, I suppose the advice I should give you is to come to your own opinions, politically speaking. Don't go with the majority, unless you just happen to agree with them. There are SOOOOOO many people who feel a certain way about issues just because others tell them to. These people fall into all groups, liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. The best thing you can do is to inform yourself the best you can, and make decisions based on your information...
With that said, I'm gonna bring it back to the debates... We're told that these debates are supposed to be informative, and that they will help us decide who to vote for. Unfortunately, they don't really seem to be doing that. So far, all I learned from the Bush/Kerry debate is that George Bush is doing everything wrong, that Kerry, who voted to do a lot things the way Bush did them, would have done them differently, that Kerry is a lot better at public speaking and doesn't stutter as much as Bush, and that Bush pronounces nuclear in a strange way... Personally, I found all of this to be useless... Kerry DID "win" the debate, I agree, but there was little substance behind what either candidate was saying... As for the VP debate, I'm taping it, and will watch it tomorrow morning...

thefreakyblueman · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:13 am

Aye, I'm TiVoing it. :mrgreen:

Each statement that Cheney and Edwards are saying is either full of lies, or the other candidate lies about the statement's validity. I'd like to quote IJ on this:

InterruptorJones wrote:

All in all, it looks like it's going to be pretty lame and spin-friggin-tastic

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:54 am

You guys must not have noticed that there was already a topic called "The Debates", plural.

Merged.

Anyway, this was a pretty lousy debate in a number of ways. Firstly, neither candidate did very well. I've never seen either man debate, so I wasn't sure what to expect, but it seemed like neither was at their top of their game. Edwards made some great points, but just wasn't anywhere near as polished as Kerry. Cheney was as slimey as ever. That guy gimme the jibblies.

I loved the "flip-flopping" section of the debate, because it finally gave the Kerry campaign a chance to point out that it's the Bushies who pretty much invented the flip-flop.

I wanted to punch them both in the face when it came to gay marriage. If this weren't an all-ages forum, I'd be tempted to use some strong language.

I found it interesting the number of times that Cheney declined to offer a 30-second response to Edwards. A number of times it seemed fine, like there really wasn't much he might add, but just as often I can imagine millions of freepers suddenly crying out in terror (and then suddenly being silenced -- at least that's how I'd like to imagine it).

But what really resonates with me is their closing statements. Edwards' closing statement focused on hope, security, and prosperity (and, yes, his daddy who worked in a mill). Cheney's closing statement was all about fear.

I'm really bad at analyzing these things, so I'll wait til tomorrow to read what the analysts are saying. Maybe I'll check the polls again and post them here.

lumberpeg vegeplank · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:34 am

I thought the VP debate had more intelligent conversation; the attack dogs were in full form.

Cheney is one slick rags-to-riches fellow. He never makes a mistake, man. Anyone who can start a war with his own company, make countless millions for himself and his friends at the expense of American and other lives and still seem noble has his cards in order.

Edwards was good, too. His closing statement was his only weak point; all else was tight and good arguements. He sidestepped all the attacks well.

The gay marriage debate was interesting -- Cheney thanking Edwards for "kind words about his daughter." Hmmmm... I just don't know what to think about that.

What was up with Gwen Ifill? Two mistakes? Comon, there's only two people in front of you, keep it straight. How embarrassing. I wouldn't expect to see her in 2008.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:00 pm

lumberjack vegetable wrote:

What was up with Gwen Ifill? Two mistakes? Comon, there's only two people in front of you, keep it straight. How embarrassing. I wouldn't expect to see her in 2008.

Yeah, this debate was way less polished than last week's. The camerawork was awful (they kept floating all over the place) and Gwen kept screwing up. Seriously, it can't be that hard.

One thing I noticed about Edwards was that for most of the time he was leaning toward Gwen instead of toward the camera, which is a mistake, but it wasn't that bad. Cheney was leaning all over the place (I wonder if maybe he has hemorrhoids), but kept his eyes to the camera.

Okay, here are the quick polls I've collected this morning:

Code:

CBSNews.com
Cheney  17.3 #########
Edwards 81.0 ########################################

MSNBC.com
Cheney    38 ###################
Edwards   62 ###############################

FoxNews.com
Cheney    49 #########################
Edwards   48 ########################
(Didn't watch: 2%; None of the above: 1%)

This is pretty interesting. It looks like in the online quick-polls, Edwards mopped up Cheney, even on FoxNews.com (where one assumes the GOP should be comfortably ahead by default). But all of the analysts are saying that it was Cheney who won this debate. Weird.

lumberpeg vegeplank · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:29 pm

I can't believe those polls. I am a completely biased source, and I thought it was even. It wasn't so much of a competition to me as it was a very pointed discussion. I think Cheney's slickness and sharp wit were matched by Edwards.

But who am I to argue? Cheney must have gotten his butt kicked. Hooray, down with fascism.

This VP debate was the best I have heard in years. Well, since I started paying attention (8 years ago) Al Gore was terrible at this sort of thing. And Lieberman still makes me want to hurl. Middle of the road, my foot.

racerx_is_alive · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:49 pm

Here's a pretty good article on the Veep Debate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2107823/

It pretty fairly points out what each one did poorly and well, and the last part about PBS bias is great.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:48 pm

Oh, this is hilarious.

Last night in the debate Cheney told people to go to factcheck.com, "an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania" to get the facts about Halliburton. The funny thing is, factcheck.com just redirects to GeorgeSoros.com, which has a big heading at the top that says "Why We Must Not Re-Elect President Bush".

Oops, Cheney meant to say factcheck.org, which is a nonpartisan site from the U of P.

But even if Cheney had gotten the URL right, why would he want to send undecided voters there? The site is nonpartisan, which means that it calls the GOP on its lies and misrepresentations just as often as it does the Kerry campaign. Look at the headlines that are on the front page right now (I've starred the ones that are damaging to the Bush campaign or both campaigns):

FactCheck.org wrote:

Cheney & Edwards Mangle Facts*
- Getting it wrong about combat pay, Halliburton, and FactCheck.org

Bush Mischaracterizes Kerry's Health Plan*
- Bush claims Kerry's plan puts "bureaucrats in control" of medical decisons, "not you, not your doctor." But experts don't agree with that.

Distortions and Misstatements At First Presidential Debate*
- Bush and Kerry both have problems with the facts at their meeting in Coral Gables

Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton - 09.30.2004
- Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.

The "Willie Horton" Ad Of 2004?*
- Republican group's ad shows Osama, Kerry. It appeals to fear, and twists Kerry's record on defense, intelligence, Iraq.

Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq*
- Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture.

Furthermore, read this article from Slate about this and other Cheney blunders.

Slate wrote:

But maybe Cheney was lucky to have misspoken, because there was a larger problem with his response: It isn't true. Well, it is true that factcheck.org provides "specific details with respect to Halliburton," but those details have nothing to do with the charges Edwards made. The Democratic running mate said that Halliburton, while Cheney was CEO, "did business with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, it's under investigation for bribing foreign officials." All factcheck.org rebuts is a different charge, that Cheney collected $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president." It turns out that Cheney collected a good chunk of that money as vice president-elect, including nearly $1.5 million on Jan. 18, 2001, two days before his inauguration.

Yow. Way to go, Dick.

Brunswick Stu · **Joined:** Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:28 am **Posts:** 46

ultimately, the VP debate doesn't matter very much. as long as neither candidate screws up majorly, that is. and neither of them did that. Edwards had a slight edge, I think, because Cheney presented all his answers in a dull, quiet monotone, and kept rattling off statistics.

the important thing about this debate was for Edwards to present himself as an intelligent, competent candidate. (i.e. not Quayle-esque) I think he did that very well.

the moderator was horrible, however.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:08 am

In today's MoveOne newsletter they had this tidbit (sorry for posting it in its entirety, I can't find a copy on the web):

Quote:

Vice President Cheney's remarks last night were riddled with inaccuracies -- more than we can describe here. But we've listed a few of the biggest whoppers below.

CHENEY'S MISLEAD: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11"

THE TRUTH: As the Washington Post reports today, Cheney has repeatedly insinuated and "strongly suggested" that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks on September 11th.[2] And in its fact check column today, the Boston Globe says "Cheney has consistently asserted strong prewar links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, even after the 9/11 Commission definitively concluded that there had not been a collaborative relationship between the two. In a radio interview in January 2004, Cheney said: 'I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.'"[3]

On December 9, 2001, Cheney went on "Meet the Press" to perpetuate the now entirely debunked theory that one of the 9/11 hijackers met with an Iraqi official.[4] He went back on a year ago to describe Iraq as part of ""the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."[5]

Most recently, Cheney has claimed that Iraq harbored the terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and said Zarqawi "is an al Qaeda associate who took refuge in Baghdad, found sanctuary and safe harbor there before we ever launched into Iraq."[6] But yesterday, a report Cheney himself requested found that there is no conclusive evidence to support that claim. An administration official said, "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."[7]

CHENEY'S MISLEAD: "900,000 small businesses will be hit" by the Kerry-Edwards plan to roll back tax cuts for people in the top income bracket.

THE TRUTH: As the Washington Post writes this morning: "This is misleading. Under Cheney's definition, a small business is any taxpayer who includes some income from a small business investment, partnership, limited liability corporation or trust. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business "S-corporations" earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets."[8]

CHENEY'S MISLEAD: "We have added 1.7 million jobs to the economy."

THE TRUTH: On November 2nd, George Bush will be the first president in 70 years to lose jobs. There will be about a million fewer jobs than there were when Bush took office -- and about 7 million fewer than Bush's own post-9/11 estimate. Cheney's using fuzzy math: 1.7 million jobs have been added, but millions more have been lost.[9]

CHENEY'S MISLEAD: "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

THE TRUTH: This one-liner was one of Cheney's best zingers of the night, but even it isn't true: Cheney and Edwards have met in public at least twice. They met when Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole to be sworn in by Cheney as Senator and at the National Prayer Breakfast. At the Breakfast, he even called Edwards out by name, starting his remarks with the words, "Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I are honored to be with you all this morning."[10] You can actually watch video of the two of them shaking hands at http://www.democrats.org.

I think Cheney is the type of person we refer to as "fact-challenged". The DNC is running a short video right now called "Cheney vs. Reality" to that effect.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Fri Oct 08, 2004 5:19 pm

More Bush highlights from the debate. Those guys are getting pretty desperate.

Brunswick Stu · **Joined:** Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:28 am **Posts:** 46

well, Bush did better than he did in the first debate, but really, a hermit crab could've done better. Kerry didn't wipe the floor with him this time, but I still think he did much better than Bush. Bush's complete inability (still) to admit a mistake -- just one mistake! -- is disturbing and very telling.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:25 pm

I don't have much time to comment (though the best moment was when Bush threw a little tantrum at the moderator), but here are the quick polls at the time of this posting.

Code:

CNN.com
Bush    33 #################
Kerry   64 ################################
Tie      3 ##

MSNBC.com
Bush    37 ###################
Kerry   63 ################################

CBSNews.com
Bush  11.9 ######
Kerry 87.4 ############################################

FoxNews.com
Bush    54 ###########################
Kerry   45 #######################
(Didn't watch: 1%; None of the above: 0%)

"One of these things is not like the other..."

thefreakyblueman · **Posted:** Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:31 pm

Code:

FoxNews.com 
Bush    54 ########################### 
Kerry   45 ####################### 

Surprise, surprise, eh? All but Fox thought that Kerry had won.

TURKEY · **Joined:** Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:40 pm **Posts:** 337

I think the best quote of the night was....

George W. Bush wrote:

I hear there's rumors on the Internets....

You know that's gonna be on the Daily Show for a year after this.

Bucky Katt · **Posted:** Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:55 pm

I'm gonna have to disagree on this. I think Bush did far better in this debate than in the first one, and I'd even say he won this one. He did the better job of connecting with the audience, and he did the better job of not sounding totally scripted and not using the same arguments over and over again.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:17 pm

Bush did do a much better job this time around. His handlers (it always cracks me up when the media refers to a candidate's "handlers" -- I always picture Sigfreid and Roy) clearly coached him to death on how not to make stupid faces while your opponent is speaking. In terms of composure and delivery I'd say they were pretty evenly matched. But as always, in terms of actual content, Bush was beat, because he's running on a record of failure. The only angle his campaign has is to attack Kerry, and every point they could possibly make in that department they made four months ago and have just been repeating over and over and over again since. It was refreshing that Bush only used the "wrong place, wrong time" line only about a half-dozen times last night (as compared to what, 20 times in the previous debate?) -- Rove has clearly finally discovered that repeating a catchphrase every ten seconds, though effective a few months back, isn't going to win over an undecided voter at this point.

P.S. I haven't had a chance to turn on NPR today, so I don't know if anybody's covering it, but Badnarik and Cobb got arrested at the debate last night.

TURKEY · **Joined:** Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:40 pm **Posts:** 337

Yeah, I thought it was a tie. However, The canidates still refused to make or prove their points for their respective campaigns. I think twice Charlie Gibson asked how they would cut the deficit in half & neither answered. So, I'm gonna have to go with the popular vote & go with Google /skeletor '04.

Kaffiene · **Posted:** Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:41 pm

thefreakyblueman wrote:

Code:

FoxNews.com 
Bush    54 ########################### 
Kerry   45 ####################### 

Surprise, surprise, eh? All but Fox thought that Kerry had won.

Fox, fox, fox. Tsk Tsk. Bias to teh max. Bush did far better in this second debate (didn't let Kerry whoop him..), but I still thought Kerry won overall. Although I am biased, Kerry seemed like he did do a better job proving his points.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:05 pm

TURKEY wrote:

I think twice Charlie Gibson asked how they would cut the deficit in half & neither answered.

This irked me, too. It's obvious that Bush didn't answer because the GOP hasn't a clue how to reduce a deficit (though they're sure good at creating it.. hooray for fiscal responsibility!), but what I want to know is whether the Kerry camp has an actual plan for this. I know that they could just sit on their thumbs for four years and it would probably have better results than what the Bushies are doing, but I hope that they'll take a cue from Clinton and make Congress accountable for their spending.

It made me so angry when Bush tried to claim that his administration was handed a recession (left over from the tech bubble bursting), and then later that 9/11 was the cause of the recession. Nobody will argue that 9/11 was good for the economy (well, it was sure good for Halliburton and and Lockheed, etc.), but to claim that the tar pit that our economy is in right now is entirely, or even mostly the result of 9/11 is pure fantasy.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

The Debates

Who is online