Presidential Debate - Sept 30th

thechemgeek · Post by **thechemgeek** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:19 pm

Your thoughts? How'd you think your guy did? Did it change your mind or make you think? Etc.

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:22 pm

Bush got owned, end of story. Even my republican friends are saying it.

Mutch · Post by **Mutch** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:22 pm

After looking after your post all I can think about is that brent is sucking in his gut.

lonewolfz28 · Post by **lonewolfz28** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:23 pm

I couldn't sit through it. They're both so full of it, it's pathetic.

I ended up watching the weather channel instead.

ScottE · Post by **ScottE** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:26 pm

The whole thing was a joke.

Really I was kind of fired up about voting. Now I don't even think I want to.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:38 pm

There was a debate? I was on TeamSpeak.

ScottE · Post by **ScottE** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:40 pm

Burke wrote:There was a debate? I was on TeamSpeak.

Yeah there was more of a debate there than on TV.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:41 pm

Kyler1 wrote:Bush got owned, end of story. Even my republican friends are saying it.

President started out pretty good, but then stumbled. Generally speaking I would agree with you Kyler.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:42 pm

Don't forget about Poland

mountainman · Post by **mountainman** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:51 pm

I thought I was just watching the two repeating all of their commercials live.

Hmph. It was boring if you ask me. It helped me take a nap though.

Zilog B · Post by **Zilog B** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:53 pm

Bush lost this round, Kerry did a good job once he got warmed up

Meggie · Post by **Meggie** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:10 am

i think if nothing else, it proved who the better public speaker was.

Joel · Post by **Joel** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:37 am

^

I think Bush's continual breakes and pauses only make him sound human, and not so rehearsed. I do think, in the type of rating most would be using on an ordeal like this, Bush did get served. I do think, however, that Kerry got his fair share of it.

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:41 am

Joel wrote:^

I think Bush's continual breakes and pauses only make him sound human, and not so rehearsed.

Does his grammar do that also?

Joel · Post by **Joel** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:43 am

Kyler1 wrote:Does his grammar do that also?

I have to admit, I laughed a few times...

I feel his pain, though. Kerry is going to own him in anything within the 'debate' subject. He's meaner, that's what he does. That's all he does.

Bouncer · Post by **Bouncer** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:52 am

My view:

Kerry won. Or rather, he avoided losing. He did two things he had to do. One, he made himself look more Presidential. People, as opposed to just voting against Bush could now see themselves voting FOR Kerry. That was important. More importantly though, he survived intact in Bush's strongest arena, Foreign policy. Now we go to the domestic policy debates, and that is going to give Kerry a chance to open some huge cans o' whoopass on Bush.

Overall I give it a win to Kerry for being on offense more, scoring more hits while taking fewer, and adjusting faster on his feet. Bush gets some points for consitency of message, but having just watched Star Wars over the weekend it reminded me of one of the guys flying down the trench on the Death Star. "Stay on target! Stay on Target!" *BOOM*. It actually backfired a little bit I think, because he came across as almost a bit muleheaded at times. "Certain, but wrong." as Kerry put it. (paraphrasing is mine).

Another thing that hurt Bush was the split screen we frequently saw. It made him look smaller than Kerry (he is) and that hurt him a bit. People want a strong/tall leader. Maybe it's a lizard brain alpha male thing. Whatever, the point is that Bush looked smaller in stature, and that didn't help. The reason for that wasn't media manipulation, but rather the camera people trying to keep the eyes of the candidates at the same level 3/4's of the way up the screen and head size relatively close. This meant tilting slightly down towards Bush and up at Kerry. It made Kerry look taller by comparison, and more authoritative because of that. It's a mental trick we play on ourselves. Bush WAS beter at speaking to the camera and the audience at home though, so it might be a wash in that department.

I noticed that it took both candidates a while to get used to (but Bush I think took far longer) the quiet of the audience. They're used to hearing cheers and crowd reaction and approval. Bush more so as his rally's are VERY heavily vetted for only the purest of the pure. The dead silence of the audience clearly threw both of them off their stride for a bit, but Kerry adjusted faster, probably due to his speaking on the Senate floor for the Congressional record. The politicians speak in what is almost a dead empty chamber at night as a way of getting what they wanted to say "in the record" so they can't be challenged on incomplete statements made during daytime sessions (because of time limitations). You may have seen them on C-Span doing this at odd hours. Anyways, I think the audience silence was something he was more comfortable with than Bush, who likes to gauge his speaking by public reaction.

I also think that Bush made a strategic error by not attacking Kerry on character. This creates a problem for Bush by not rising to the moderators chance to do so (bait really, but that's neither here nor there). Because he didn't take the bait, and because he made such a show of being gracious to Kerry he's hamstrung his own campaign attack dogs to some extent. He can't now go and blast Kerry (Or allow Cheney to do so for him) because now he's on the record as saying Kerry is an honorable man (or the rough equivalent of that). The point is, it'll make Cheney and anyone of the attack dogs from his campaign look well, hypocritical as all hell the very next time they start trying to chew on Kerry's character. They will be called on it. And I bet Rove is VERY unhappy the question was asked, and Bush gave a real quotable answer to it. It's going to make his job quite a bit harder as he specializes in that sort of strategy.

Finally, referring to terrorist organizations as "folks", while a Texan colloqualism did not help Bush. At all. It made him at once seem unaware of how large the issue is and dismissive of it at the same time. Since it IS the central theme of his campaign, it didn't help him. I'd be willing to bet real dollars you will never, ever, hear him refer to them that way again. If it comes up again they will be described as Gangs, or Groups, or something. But not folks. That was a faux pas you can probably expect to see on a t-shirt or commercial tomorrow.

So, all in all, neither candidate fumbled that much, neither scored any kind of a clear win, but Kerry came off better overall and most importantly.. critically really in my view.. looked like a President of the United States of America.

And THAT, was the win for him.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

lonewolfz28 · Post by **lonewolfz28** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:00 am

Kyler1 wrote:Does his grammar do that also?

To those in the south, quite possibly. Not a slam on the south (been here for well over a decade), but a lot of the folks in the rural areas, i.e. not too busy to vote, see Bush as more down to earth and Kerry as a "yankee (BS'er)". That's a quote from my landlady with her father nodding in agreement.

It seems to be the general concensus around here.

Me personally, I think they're both full of it. I just think Bush is more of a known , even if it is a brain half full. Whereas Kerry comes off as more or an arrogant @ZZ who is more intent on gaining office through empty promises than what he's planning on doing when he gets there. Lots of broad plans, but nothing specific or within the realm of reality.

JMHO

jwiddy · Post by **jwiddy** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:16 am

i'm afraid not....blatant lie. and bush just didn't catch it

zooner · Post by **zooner** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:20 am

Joel wrote:^

I think Bush's continual breakes and pauses only make him sound human, and not so rehearsed. I do think, in the type of rating most would be using on an ordeal like this, Bush did get served. I do think, however, that Kerry got his fair share of it.

i think those breaks and pauses were an internal speaker.

no way could he be so well-spoken without a prompt.

sito · Post by **sito** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:50 am

Kyler1 wrote:Bush got owned, end of story. Even my republican friends are saying it.

Mad_Haggis · Post by **Mad_Haggis** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:12 am

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:49 am

Mad_Haggis wrote:In the end, it is YOU the American people that will decide...

France sides with N. Korea what against china?

New mod, yes please...

You are quite an interesting character Mad.

iKwak · Post by **iKwak** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:51 am

I've missed it due to a class. My colleague told me there will be 2 more. I'm gonna see those.

Mad_Haggis · Post by **Mad_Haggis** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:58 am

thepieman · Post by **thepieman** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:29 am

I wa impressed with Kerry's skills as a speaker. He faultered very very rarely and was very confident. He was not repetitive in saying the same things over and over as a defense.

I could not understand why Bush kept on reiterating over and over again "A Man that would think its the Wrong War at the wrong time, and the wrong place" ...Of course he wouldn't be saying that if he was President, why would he? If he made the decision, why would he say something like that about his own decision? Made no sense and was not proof that he wouldn't make a good leader. Over 25% (Maybe more but Im playing it safe) of the population feels the same way as Kerry.

Pie

horsemen_ · Post by **horsemen_** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:15 am

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/ ... index.html
has vid clips of the Debate "7 clips inall " for tho who missed it
i saw the last hafe and bush seem to be stuck on saying the same thing over and over kerry killed him in what i saw
or you can read it hear http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html
highlights http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... e_excerpts

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:48 am

Excellent points Bouncer. I pretty much agree with all you said, and also found the use of "Folks" a huge mistake for the President.

Another point I might add is in a debate where short one liners can be key for news purposes Kerry also clearly won. He really caught the President off guard by admitting he misspoke about the 87 billion, but then asked which is worse misspeaking about money or sending people to die in war.

Kerry had roughly 3 one liners that I thought would make the news and make him seem like the winner also.

Rainbow · Post by **Rainbow** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 7:19 am

Everyone here pretty much called it a Draw.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 7:42 am

I didn't see it, but my wife taped it on the DVR, so I'll watch it later, but if the theme is just that Kerry is a better talker, I really don't care. Talk is cheap and that goes for both of them. What in Kerry's record as a Senator makes me think he can be a good President? Nothing and that is what a lot of educated "folks" have to decide when they vote.

The real issue here is, do people hate Bush enough to vote for Kerry. There are so many other qualified people and if you would have asked me a couple years a go, I would have never guessed that John Kerry would be the Democratic nominee. I don't like politics and I don't believe half of what they say, but I more importantly don't like the voting record of John Kerry or the fact that my standard of living will go down if he is elected. Where do we think all this "fix-it" money will come from? Straight from my Caucasion, middle-class, hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying wallet!

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 7:45 am

I saw some of it..one of the most boring debates I think I ever witnessed. Watched maybe 30-40 minutes on and off..and just said...boring..and ended up watching Joey instead.

Overall i think it was a draw...while Bush stumbled a lot which is to be expected, he never was a great public speaker, we seen him stumble over words before..his message was consistent. Meanwhile Kerry, to me was saying the same thing that he has been saying..which has been he really has no plan for Iraq, and he keeps changing his position on the war. I mean if it is such a wrong war, how does he expect to get more allies to help? Bush was right on the money, Kerry is sending the wrong messages to our allies and troops.

All in all Bush while made some mistakes looked like he was human when speaking, while Kerry looked like the typical smooth politician.

Think · Post by **Think** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 7:52 am

Kerry seemed to have more substance to his responses and rebuttals where Bush seemed to slither through the same patriotic dogma. Personally, I would of like to of seen a WWF match between the two - Kerry wearing his old military pants and Bush with shorts depicting an oil well between his legs

Bouncer · Post by **Bouncer** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:20 am

Hmm.. I'm noting a distinct lack of "yee-haw" thumbs-up crowing from certain folks. That tells me quite a bit.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Bouncer · Post by **Bouncer** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:27 am

bigmo66 wrote: Where do we think all this "fix-it" money will come from? Straight from my Caucasion, middle-class, hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying wallet!

Umm.. it's already coming from you (or rather, us). Under four years of Bush, the amount of tax cuts the top 1 percent of the country have received is nearly 78 times that of the middle 20 percent of the country.

That's not from some partisan mouthpiece organization either. It's from the Congressional Budget Office. Both houses of Congress are Republican controlled so bias isn't an issue here. The numbers are, what they are.

And you ARE paying more under Bush than you should be.

"For the bottom 20 percent of households, the combined Bush tax cuts averaged $250 each.
The middle 20 percent received $1,090, while
the top 1 percent gained $78,460." -CBO
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=0

And for those of us earning between 51k and 75k.. guess what.. OUR tax burden went UP every year under Bush. Who do you think is paying for that tax break for the richy-rich kids and Paris Hilton and the like? YOU and ME, my friend. Good ol' whitey middle class law abider. That's who.

How ANYONE can think Bush is good for the middleclass is beyond me. He is TAKING YOUR MONEY AND GIVING IT TO THE WEALTHY, INCLUDING HIMSELF!!!

Kerry isn't proposing that, in fact he's proposing doing away with that. Seems like he has his priorities straight and they don't include using the White House to enrich himself on the back of the taxpayer.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:32 am

Bouncer wrote:Umm.. it's already coming from you (or rather, us). Under four years of Bush, the amount of tax cuts the top 1 percent of the country have received is nearly 78 times that of the middle 20 percent of the country.

That's not from some partisan moutpiece organization either. It's from the Congressional Budget Office. Both houses of Congress are Republican controlled so bias isn't an issue here. The numbers are, what they are.

And you ARE paying more under Bush than you should be.

"For the bottom 20 percent of households, the combined Bush tax cuts averaged $250 each. The middle 20 percent received $1,090, while the top 1 percent gained $78,460." -CBO
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=0

Who do you think is making up that shortfall? YOU, and ME, my friend. Good ol' whitey middle class law abider. That's who.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

I realize this, but it can and will get even worse under the Social.... I mean under Kerry. It's supposed to be the willing and able that carry the weak, but certainly not the willing and able carrying the slacker and that's what I see more and more.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:40 am

Bouncer wrote:Umm.. it's already coming from you (or rather, us). Under four years of Bush, the amount of tax cuts the top 1 percent of the country have received is nearly 78 times that of the middle 20 percent of the country.

That's not from some partisan mouthpiece organization either. It's from the Congressional Budget Office. Both houses of Congress are Republican controlled so bias isn't an issue here. The numbers are, what they are.

And you ARE paying more under Bush than you should be.

"For the bottom 20 percent of households, the combined Bush tax cuts averaged $250 each.
The middle 20 percent received $1,090, while
the top 1 percent gained $78,460." -CBO
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=0

And for those of us earning between 51k and 75k.. guess what.. OUR tax burden went UP every year under Bush. Who do you think is paying for that tax break for the richy-rich kids and Paris Hilton and the like? YOU and ME, my friend. Good ol' whitey middle class law abider. That's who.

How ANYONE can think Bush is good for the middleclass is beyond me. He is TAKING YOUR MONEY AND GIVING IT TO THE WEALTHY, INCLUDING HIMSELF!!!

Kerry isn't proposing that, in fact he's proposing doing away with that. Seems like he has his priorities straight and they don't include using the White House to enrich himself on the back of the taxpayer.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Kerry is a social liberal..in fact rated #1 most liberal in congress.. Now would be a very bad time for change.

Zilog B · Post by **Zilog B** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:43 am

bigmo66 wrote:I realize this, but it can and will get even worse under the Social.... I mean under Kerry. It's supposed to be the willing and able that carry the weak, but certainly not the willing and able carrying the slacker and that's what I see more and more.

I'd feel better if my money was spent on people that need it in THIS COUNTRY, rather than the middle east. 200 Billion spent on the Iraqis, while they have some of the largest reserves of oil in the world? Come'on, that doesn't make you just a little upset?

Bouncer · Post by **Bouncer** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:55 am

1) How CAN it get worse under Kerry? What, lesbians getting civil unions and a marriage deduction and co-insurance? Horrors! The end of the nation is upon us! The demon seed will rise from the ground and strike down the righteous!

No, none of that is going to happen. So lesbos get a civil union. So what. It's not going to make them any more or less accepted in society and it's not going to make them a larger part of the population. Same as with blacks and whites marrying. Big huge outcry back in the sixties, now, very few people care. Society didn't end, the world didn't implode. Same thing.

(Personally, I think Gov't ought to get out of the marriage business completely, as that is a vow made before God, and government has no place inserting itself into that. They ought to issue civil union permits to any two people who are of age and ask. End of discussion in my view. But that's neither here nor there for purposes of this discussion.

)

2) Slackers? The US? Since When? With respect, we're going to disagree strongly here. Despite media portrayals, America is NOT a nation of slackers and dope smoking kids wearing ski hats during summer. We as a nation work LONGER hours than the generations that came before us. We expect it of ourselves and our children, obviously. We work more hours than all of Europe and most of the rest of the world. we work more than our fathers and more than our grandfathers. The American work ethic is alive and well, thank you very much. Ask many people and they'll tell you it's a bit TOO alive and well actually. The family summer vacation, once a staple of American life, is rapidly dissapearing as work email and cell phone calls pursue us across the country and around the world.

the welfare rolls are decreasing and have been since the 90's under Clinton (yes, him, look it up). Why this is depends on who you ask, but the point is, the numbers are dropping. They are not staying ther same. They are not increasing. They are DECREASING. Have been for about 8 or 9 years now.
The Republicans say so. The Democrats say so. They are in total agreement on that point.

Slacking, is not really an issue.

BigMo66, I just gotta say that it feels to me like you've bought into a number of, well, lies or spin stories. Look, I'd urge you not to take my word for anything. But not to take Rush's either. Go look it up for yourself. You might be surprised at what you find out. Go read the CBO report I linked (as much as you can without falling asleep as it's rather dry.

) Don't let me or anyone tell you what the truth is. Fact check us. Always.

It's your vote. You can waste it by voting a party line or the way some spinmeister tells you, or you can not do so and make decisions for yourself based on what you read and learn directly. Don't you kinda owe it to yourself to do so?

Regards,
-Bouncer-
PS: Don't see any of the last part as condescending, okay? That's not my intent and if I gave that impression then I sincerely apologize. But ask yourself.. where do the figures I hear from Rush (or whoever) come from? Why do they so conveniently fit what they're trying to say? Isn't that a bit, well, suspicious? And go find out the truth for yourself. If you do that, then hell, we can disagree all day long, but at least we'll disagree knowledgeably!

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:58 am

LOCKHART: DEBATE CONSENSUS A 'DRAW'

Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.”

Now if Lockhart thinks it was a draw, and he's the one who would be most inclined to say Kerry wiped the floor with Bush, then I guess some people either saw a different debate or you saw right the debate but were really, really stoned.

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:00 am

I am rewatching it now on and I really have to laugh at Kerry bringing up Sudan and the genocide going on there. For 4 years under Clinton 4 million people died in Rowanda and Kerry said nothing. Now the African situation is a priority? 25k muslims die in Croatia and he supported sending troops there. Guess he likes white looking muslims better than black pagans.

Bouncer · Post by **Bouncer** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:07 am

Ghosthunter wrote:Kerry is a social liberal..in fact rated #1 most liberal in congress.. Now would be a very bad time for change.

Other famous "social liberals":
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln

Just to name three.

And now, is a critically important time for a change. Why do you ignore the deficit so? Do you think that bill isn't going to come due? It is. Stop ignoring it. Stop pretending we don't have to pay for making the wealthy wealthier and at the same time throwing HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars into the desert.

We do. We DO have to pay for it. Under Bush, it will only get worse. The hole will only get deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper. It's about time we sent someone to the white House who understands that you don't give ANYONE a tax cut while we're getting into debt. Not the rich. Not the middleclass. Not the poor.

You get rid of the debt FIRST, THEN you can give a LARGER tax cut because you owe NO INTEREST to anyone.

I mean, you wanna see a tax cut? If Kerry can get rid of the national debt (a long shot, but a MUCH better chance than we have under Bush) then we can give EVERY SINGLE TAXPAYER a 16% Tax Cut. Bam!

That's the payoff. Not a piddly one or two percent. SIXTEEN Percent. For the middle class at about 60k that's about 10000 dollars in tax refund. That'd be a sweet ass check to cash, no?

And we could STILL fund everything we do right now at the same level!

That's why we need someone who understands fiscal responsibility in office. Bush clearly doesn't. Math no workee for him, apparently.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

SG Broadband Community

Presidential Debate - Sept 30th

Presidential Debate - Sept 30th

kerry said nyc closed the subway during RNC???