Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Another debate, another victory for John Kerry...

0 helpful
64 replies

by aldanatech

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

After the second presidential debate between George Bush and John Kerry, it becomes more clear to me that Kerry will be the next president of the United States. Bush had another chance to make his case to the American people but once again he failed. Again, he showed that he is out of touch with reality on Iraq. Again, he offered no plan for jobs and no plan for cutting the cost of health care. Again, he pretended that our problems don't exist. Again, he refused to level with the American people. Bush just doesn't get it, so he can't fix it.

John Kerry held George Bush accountable for the failures of the last four years. He demonstrated the strength and character we need in a president. He made it clear he could lead as commander in chief. John Kerry offered real solutions to real problems. He told America the truth, and offered a plan for a fresh start on the economy, Iraq, and the war on terror. In other words he was presidential. Ironically the president was not. What is your personal opinion of that debate? Who do you think won that debate and why?

64 replies

by aldanatech

This is what Senator Edward M. Kennedy had to say about the 2nd presidential debate:

"John Kerry impressed the nation with his knowledge of the issues and his command of the debate. He has shown once again the leadership, judgment, and deeply ingrained values that make him the best and only choice to move America forward and keep our country safe.

"President Bush is fundamentally incapable of admitting he has made serious, potentially, catastrophic mistakes. The course he has charted for our nation is dangerously flawed, and his only tactic is to distort John Kerry's record and his sensible positions on the critical challenges we face at home and in the wider world.

"John Kerry stands for a safer, stronger, and fairer nation for all our people. The last thing America needs is four more years of the same failed course we're careening down today."

by ippirate

same???

Boy oh boy, what would I do without Ted's endorsement. Anyone who is endorsed by Edward Kennedy has got my vote.

Whatever....

Ted Kennedy endorsing Kerry is as unexpected and as much a reason to back Kerry as Goring endorsing Hitler.

by aldanatech

These are Senator Edward M. Kennedy's statement on the third and final presidential debate:

"John Kerry demonstrated conclusively that he is ready to be President. His strength, character, and leadership were on full display for America to see. He?ll be an outstanding President for all Americans.

"He?ll do a more effective job than President Bush in keeping America strong and safe, and he?ll be the jobs, education, and health care President we haven?t had in the past four years.

"Sadly, President Bush's failure to defend his policies was on full display for Americans to see as well. He failed to set out a positive vision for our nation and our future, and his only recourse was to malign and misrepresent John Kerry's record and proposals.

"The debates were a clean sweep for John Kerry: three for three. This election can?t come too soon. I just hope the Red Sox can do that to the Yankees in the next three games."

by aldanatech

This is what Congressman John Lewis had to say about the 2nd presidential debate:

"I am relieved to hear that George Bush won't appoint judges who might reinstitute slavery. But unfortunately, we expect more than this from our judges and frankly, we need more than this from George Bush.

"George Bush's Dred Scott comments underscore the fact that when it comes to the African-American community, he is completely out of touch with the issues that concern us. The President's record is appalling ? his administration is the most anti-African American in a generation.

"On Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, he announced his opposition to the University of Michigan Affirmative Action program and called it a 'quota.' The day after he laid a wreath on Dr. King's grave, he appointed anti-civil rights judge Charles Pickering, who once described cross burning as a 'prank.' A new United States Commission on Civil Rights report finds that 'President Bush has neither exhibited leadership on pressing civil rights issues, nor taken actions that matched his words.' And his Vice-President has admitted that he was somehow 'not aware' of the AIDS epidemic plaguing African American women.

"African Americans can't afford four more years of George Bush. We need leaders who understand the concerns facing our families and our community. We need leaders who will fight for our rights in this century."

"We have the power to change our President and come November 2nd, African Americans are going to elect new leaders. We're going to vote and we're going to vote in record numbers."

by aldanatech

Here is an interesting question that was made to Bush during the 2nd Presidential Debate in St. Louis, Missouri:

MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

BUSH: I'm not telling.

(LAUGHTER)

I really don't have ? haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.

(LAUGHTER)

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

BUSH: Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all ? you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution. And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year ? the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

Thank you.

by westerntc

To date Our Hero has managed some major accomplishment:
1) Managed to serve only 4 months of a 12 month tour in Nam. Ever wonder what happened to the guy that served his other 8 months? Remember that none of his "wounds" (even if real) resulted in an excuse from duty.
2) Marry two ugly rich women.
3) Serve 20 years without any known accomplishment
4) Get nominated to save us all.
5)????

by maecuff

Was your point #2 just some sort of bizarre typo? Or did you really wish to invalidate ANY point you may have by writing something this shallow and juvenile?

by observer of the times

I'd interepret this more to mean that John Kerry will use anyone to get ahead regardless of what it means to that person. I suspect that he and his mentor have no qualms about using a woman and then discarding her when it suits them. Keep in mind that this is wife #2. How many more will he use and then discard?

The real question. If he does this to his spouse, how honorable will he be with the US population? We've already seen how he honors the oath he gave when he was in the military. It very clearly states that you support the US, the Constitution, and will follow the UCMJ and the Commander in chief. He has demonstrated that he intends to do neither over time.

In additon, he's made a big issue of meeting with the VC in Paris. If memory serves me correctly, he was not part of the negotiating team. Therefore, he violated and disobeyed orderes not to have contact. Also, to give aid is a violation of the UCMJ as well as the Constitution. Ergo, not a man to be trusted.

Keep in mind, throughout recorded history, a policy of appeasement has never resulted in peace. Recent examples, Neville Chamberlain and Vicy administration in France.

Vote thoughtfully. Your future is dependent on it. As the leadership (Country, corporate, and your household) goes, so goes all under it.

by infoaaa19

1.A surplus turned into the largest seficit.
2.Gave India part of the US economy.
3.Gave away the steel industry just so his brother can move those oranges in Florida.
4.Has not sealed the borders Ca is sending 16 Billion plus per year to Mexico, driving up rents, unemployment.
5 "Insourcing" and job creation: have you worked on a project for an Asian Business coming to the US? They bring their own people, clening personel bank tellers, all. I was the "token" on projects I was lucky enough to get.
6. Billions missing in IRAQ, mismanaged war, congress passed a taxbill giving incentives to outsource, health legislature etc...
You are right, Kerry really can not be trusted.

by aldanatech

I didn't notice that but chances are that may well be true. Bush is aware that Kerry is starting to gain an advantage over him, and it wouldn't surprise me if he did something like that to get back on track. Even then, I don't think it turned out as favorable as one might think.

by g.brown

Live video is sorta more difficult though!!

If you are suggesting that this picture has been tampered with, do you have any other links of the same picture?

I would be interested in looking at them as I did record the live transmission.

by tbragsda

.
When I started to see this story running around, I discounted it quickly. Not because I don't think Bush would cheat, but because I though if he had, it would be more... professional. Now, Im just not sure.

The other question is, if he did, is it important? I think that's easy. Hell yes. I think we should all expecting more out of our POTS than to be coached from the sidelines. Even Bush supports seem to shrug when someone calls their guy less than bright. As if, its not necessary to be smart to be president. I for one am worried about a president that's just of average intelligence. I would worry Republican or Democrat.

This administration is completely off the wall. Would we question if Bush Sr. were doing this? Not a chance. In this case, it almost seems plausible. Im just counting the days till I have a president that I feel some sort of pride in.

by tomsal

You are obvious largely in favor of Kerry, and that's your right...but you put comments to back up how "bad" Bush did on the debate by two people who hate him with a passion!

If we are going that route let's talk about quotes from gun manufaturer's regarding the anti-gun lobby...or how about pro-life advocates concerning pro-choice.....lol

Its like DUH! Of course they'll slam him. If Bush would magically make everything ok, everyone rich, everyone satisfied...Kennedy would still HATE him! lol.

For crying out loud at *least* look for generally neutral folks to critique the debate.

Then its interesting.

I think Bush will lose the election overall...but I think he didn't do half as bad in the 2nd debate as your post lets on.

by aldanatech

Well of course it's my personal opinion, but that is why I opened this discussion to let everyone say his or her point of view. Now my opinion is not only based on what Senator Kennedy or Congressman Lewis said, but also on the polls:

ABC News Instant Poll:

Kerry: 44%; Bush: 41%; Tie: 13%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup:

Kerry: 47%; Bush 45%

CBS (Uncommitted Voters):

Kerry: 43%; Bush: 28%; Tied: 29%

Democracy Corps:

Kerry: 45%; Bush: 37%

And I am looking forward to the outcome of tonight's debate.

by maxwell edison

.
Your opinion is based on what two partisan Democrats said and the published "results" of the skewed versions of a couple of polls.

Too bad, I always base my opinion on observation, experience, education, research, and principle.

by aldanatech

Lets compare the polls from the first debate with the second debate:

First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL

ABC News Instant:

Kerry: 45 percent; Bush: 36; Tie: 17 percent

Newsweek:

Kerry: 61 percent; Bush: 19 percent; Undecided: 16 percent

CNN/USA Today/Gallup:

Kerry: 53 percent; Bush; 37 percent

CBS (Uncommitted Voters):

Kerry: 44 percent; Bush: 26 percent; Tie: 30 percent

Democracy Corps:

Kerry 45 percent; Bush: 32 percent

L.A. Times:

Kerry: 54 percent; Bush: 14 percent

American Research Group:

Kerry: 51 percent; Bush: 41 percent

Second Presidential Debate, Saint Louis, MO

ABC News Instant Poll:

Kerry: 44 percent; Bush: 41 percent; Tie: 13 percent

CNN/USA Today/Gallup:

Kerry: 47 percent; Bush 45 percent

CBS (Uncommitted Voters):

Kerry: 43 percent; Bush: 28 percent; Tied: 29 percent

Democracy Corps:

Kerry: 45; Bush: 37

by ippirate

I can see a whole 3 that could even come close to being unbiased.

First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL

ABC News Instant: BS poll, scorned for being unscientific

Newsweek: BS poll, scorned for being unscientific

CNN/USA Today/Gallup: Pretty legitimate but biased to the left if anything

CBS (Uncommitted Voters): BS poll, scorned for being unscientific

Democracy Corps: Democrat backed and democrat owned you could only get more biased if you asked the DNC and Kerry to poll for themselves.

L.A. Times: Another BS poll

American Research Group: Okay, this one actually ranks somewhat legitimate.

Second Presidential Debate, Saint Louis, MO

ABC News Instant Poll: Do I have to say it again?

CNN/USA Today/Gallup: Same as previous

CBS (Uncommitted Voters): Uhh yeah

Democracy Corps: Look, its the lefties again

Okay, moving on. Maybe next time you could actually post more legitimate polls?

by tomsal

Actually my jest has more to do with the theory of "WHO CARES" than anything else.

Know one basic thing about "hot issues of the moment" -- be politics (like now) or religion or abortion, etc. any "HOT ISSUE".....

People will ultimately see or hear what THEY WANT TO.

The truth of that fact is only stronger the more adamant someone is on their side of the issue.

There's a bulge in the back of Bush's suit jacket you say, sure....AND?

A bullet proof vest was suggested -- would make sense to me if he did wear one.

An ear piece though -- consider the fact that you should know rules exist for the debate and I don't know if this is fact or not, but someone on another forum suggested that the candidates are supposedly searched before going on the debate "stage"....not because they think they are packing a gun...but for the very reason you are claiming....they aren't to have any "cheat sheets" on their person, heck the first debate didn't even allow them to bring their pens!

by g.brown

OK, I admit ... I did not read all of the pen/crib sheet Kerry thing (I just thought it was a pen ... my mistake). I've seen the vid from drudge and it does seem more like a sheet of some kind.

So please call me ignorant instead of hypocrite ;)

But do you not agree that there is a slight difference between that and being wired and prompted?

I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong.

by wilben

What tripe! Sounds like the reason Ed Sullivan didn?t want Elvis on his show. That bulge in Elvis?s pants leg?

by oz_media

Thus making you 'Un-republican' in every way. :D

Bush never admitted HIS mistake, BLair did, what Bush did was try to pin it on someone else, as always. People who can't/won't take the fall, EVEN if for someone else's mistake, are just plain poor leaders in every sense of the word.

I guess he did some good and mostly bad in four years in ofice.

I will give him a low C average? :)

by oz_media

A few angles. In the first shot I saw of him, it very well could be a crease in his jacket.

The second angle from the other side, shows the 'crease' is gone that showed in the first photo, but a box and wire running to his right shoulder is clearly outlined.

No ear piece though? Are we sending neurotrnsmissions now? Even the secret service has an EASILY indentifiable earpiece. Working with acts onstage that use click tracks (as MOST artists do now) they also use and earpiece ad it is also noticable in the ear.

I don't know nor would I think that he used a prompter, it would be found before he got on stage as I am 100% positive that even if they weren't searched, SOMEONE on Kerry's side would have noticed if he was cheating.

The blank stare that one article mentioned....have they never seen Bush try to speak before. That is just 'smell the fart' pause acting, he does it all the time to insinuate deep thought when his caned answer would seem tacky. I don't know if it's because he needs to compose a straight face before spewing BS or if he really goes ito a void for a few seconds when he thinks but it is apparent in ALL his public speeches, that's why he's laughed at by so may.

One MUST wonder though, when answering questions with such weak and redundant views and comments, am I to believe that this lack of brain power is the result of MORE THAN ONE REPUBLICAN BRAIN?!?

How many does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Geez, if that's the best he can do WITH a prompter, we are ALL in a LOT of trouble if he's reelected. :D

by olprof67

Whenever I am approached by the Democrats, I'm reminded of the story of the group of small boys who found a turtle.

They couldn't tell if it was male or female, so they voted it a male.

It didn't change the fact that the turtle was female.

The Democratic leadership's grasp of reality is a lot like that.

by oz_media

The first thing any Reubican will do when reading ANY commets abotu the governmet is qualify it as a Republican concept.

if it has ANY non-republican slant, dem, liberal or conservative slant, it is immdiately discounted.

Therefore if a Democrat said the turtle was a male, the Republicans would say it MUST be female because Dems say it is male and then will go to great lengths to prove Democrats are wrong about other issues, therefore wrong about this one, instead of finding out exactly what sex the turtle is.

It is just instant dismissal of anything non-republican, this in turn shows republicans to be forever correct, unwilling to accept difference of opinion and ignorant to altrnate views or theories.

What was the point you are trying to make?

Because you are republican, democrats must be wrong?

That republicans are ALWAYS right, even when PROVEN wrong?

Certainly no better than the Dems by any means.

by olprof67

My point is that the Democrats, much more than The Repblicans (but nowhere nearly as much as the Greens and Socialists) tend to ignore and work against the basic laws of economics.

By the way, I've been a Libertarian for over thirty years.

by oz_media

They haven't done anything to show you that any other party may be a better choice in over 30 Years? Even if for one term, I cannot see how ANY party can hold a vote for 30 years, they just aren't consistent enough, not just YOUR polititcians but ALL politicians.

Basic laws of economics, set out by.....?

by olprof67

Norman Thomas and Upton Sinclair never won an election, but they were more satisfied with the world they left than the one they came into.

Think of us Libertarians as moving in a similar, though opposite path.

And as an afterthought, I have, on rare occasions, supported Democrats, generally when the Republican is an arch-traditionalist such as Jesse Helms, Oliver North, or Bob Dornan.

by oz_media

My point was that you can't believe in every assertion of every party no mater what. People, parties and direction change so often that today's republican may be tomorrow's democrat based on the goals of the party.

Me, I'm neiher. Not even North American,

by av .

The 2nd debate clearly showed a calm, cool and prepared Kerry against an inarticulate, arrogant and unprepared Bush. After that debate, I realized that Bush had no clue that after his 1st debate, most of the American people wanted to hear something other than "its hard work" or "he's sending mixed messages".

Kerry was very clear and informative. I felt like I learned something from the debate. To me, he showed that he had a well thought out plan for handling the complex problems we face today. I didn't get that from Bush. There was no clear plan mentioned. He didn't know what to say next and at times had a hard time talking for 2 minutes about what he was going to do. It was just lots of the same old statements.

The best speech I ever heard from Bush was the first one after 9/11 in response to the terrorist attack. He was very inspirational and the nation needed to hear that at that time. But, he has never recaptured that moment. I haven't decided if that speech came from Bush or from Karen Hughes, his speechwriter. Bush should certainly try to recapture his approach in that speech if he wants to compete with Kerry.

My opinion of the debate is that as a whole, it sends a very clear message. Kerry was prepared and articulate, definitely more presidential. Bush was unprepared and had nothing to say that we haven't heard already.

Hands down, Kerry won that debate. I felt that Kerry was more able to lead our country than Bush after the debate. He actually thought about the problems we face.

by oz_media

BODY language!

While Bush DID come across as very childish in the first debate due to his facial expressions, and in the second he did a few little jigs and quick steps while smiling and goofing around, that's what helped him get elected over Gore.

Gore was very straight faced and inarticulate.

While 'goofing off' is actually Bush's weakness and shows his unprofessional approach to an EXTREMELY serious issue, it is also friendly and familiar.

Kerry has a VERY professional air about him, he is a LEADER in every aspect of the word, based on his debating skills. His ONE weakness though is all the deliberate gesturing. It looks somewhat canned and rehearsed when he speaks slowly and points on cue.

I think that GWB has the worst possible body language for public speaking I have ever witnessed, he would fail any public speaking course on day one. BUT, people seemed to favour his more relaxed approach when he was against Gore. I think Kerry has done a MUCh better job than Busg as far as explaining his objectives, beig fresh and new, while GWB just sews the same old same old we've heard for years now and has a terrible habit of hanging on to quotes that he takes out of context as if nobody notices he is hanging onto a loose tooth that just doesn't have any substance or proof.

If Kerry can relax his professional, cross examination techniques a little he will walk all over Bush, then right into Iraq.

by james schroer

Kerry is going to walk into Iraq? This is something I have to see. Maybe I'll vote for him. Anywho, I would agree with Kerry being better at public speaking. Bush flat out looks and sounds stupid but in time of war I believe Bush has a stronger hand. Kerry is just going to agree with anyone to make them happy. That's why I'm not a Kerry fan. He will say things just to make the people happy but doesn't really have anything to back it to make it come true. Like I said in my other post below. They are both worthless canidates it's just a matter of who is the least worthless. Maybe, Ralph?????

by j_squared

Id say it was really really close, it seemed Bush had done well in the beginning and was doing well, I think what got him was the question about what he thought he did wrong in the last 4 years and what he did to correct it. First Id like to say that this question was very very opinionated, or I got that impression from the way the person worded it and asked it. That person I think had already decided for themselves that they were for Kerry and just asked the question to get on Bush's case. Bush's response to this question had the potential to make or break Bush and Id say he did alright with it considering the circumstances. He definitly could've answered better and in a way that he would end up looking like a better selection. After that it was downhill from there for Bush. The thing that bothered me a ton was that with some if not more of the questions neither of them actually answered it. They strayed away from the subject at hand. But overall I think that Bush won, by very little but still think he did well overall.

by paymeister

I was quite puzzled at the question - it seemed a lot like, "Mr. President, please hand us a stick we can hit you with."

But even more puzzling were Kerry's words - instead of telling of HIS mistakes, he told the audience what Bush should have said. It seems that it would have been more reasonable for him to answer about his own mistakes. Not that he's made any, ever, of course...

(In case anyone's curious, I'm sour on both candidates, but I _would_ like them to play fair.)

by oz_media

[i]"instead of telling of HIS mistakes, he told the audience what Bush should have said."[/i]

Kinda like bush just repeating himself everytime an unfavorable question is asked: 'Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time' This man is sending the wrong message to our troops!

Is that the troops who are being paid $2,000-$3,000 to guard Haliburton emplyees in Iraq or the Haliburton shuttle bus drivers for the employees to get from the gate to the word area that get paid $8,000-$10,000.00 ?

GWB is a hypcrite with nothing new to say or do other than to downplay his opponent, great style, we see it here daily.

by james schroer

Both these two canadates are jokes. Bush is flat out blind to what's going on and Kerry will say anything to try and make Bush look bad even though it's contradicting what he said the week before. I can't belive the Democratic party would pick such an idiot and can't believe that Bush is that stupid. We should all vote for Ralph just to show the two parties they can't get away with such stupid canadites!!!

by ippirate

Hey there chuckle head. While you are busy looking at your polls maybe you would consider this one as well. The site is run by a die hard democrat but at least he has the courage to use actual scientific data and not "exit polls" based on 20 person pools LOL.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

by oz_media

I actually should have said he would have Iraq dumped on his lap.

That's another point I've been thinkig about. erhaps BUSH DOES desrve to be reelected, it's his mess maybe he should clean it up for once. Why should Kerry enter into presidency and begin with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana skin? I suppose he knows this is the case and has waited long enough that he is willing to take on the challenge, I'm sure he would rather walk into a more stable country though.

by gibbonian

Saw a bumper sticker this morning that read "Girly Men Vote Democrat"

What's up with that?

by james schroer

I really liked what Kerry said last night (10-13-04). There is nothing wronge with SS. We will work at reducing the national debt and in 2074 is when SS will need to be fixed. Um ok so you are going to leave it for you kids to fix because you are to lazy to fix it? The smartest finacial man (Alan Greenspan) even said if SS isn't reformed soon it's going to go belly up. Thanks Kerry for no SS when I retire!!! Guess I'll have to work till I'm 80. At least the goverment will be providing a low cost, no option health care. Great so now I can't even pick my Doc or medicine. So I guess I won't be living till I'm 80. Thanks again Kerry.

by oz_media

Every Canadian knew YEARS ago that Pension will be a thing of the past by the time many of us get there. I still pay into it though, buy over taxes smokes and booze, the government needs my money.

If you support your government, you will have no problem sending them all you have in an effort to help them out.

Why bank on something as minimal as SS when you can ceate your own nest egg? Who wants to work until they are 64 before getting a sliver back from the government anyway?

Look out for yourself, no point banking on old age or retirement to finally settle.

by james schroer

to a point. I do have a nest egg and No I am not counting on SS when I get there but it would be nice to have it if it's possible. And I would like to have a president that will try to keep SS up and running not just let it die off. Your right we do pay in to it so wouldn't you want some of it back even if it is only a fraction? If they are going to do a way with it stop taking it out of my check and I'll put it into my 401K plan. BUT I don't believe supporting my goverment by giving them any money or taxes they ask for. They have to much paperwork and un organized. I would like to see a SS plan that I would have personal control over my own money that is in the SS. I don't expect hand outs and I will not give hand outs.

by aldanatech

Wrong. Those sources only make up about 10% of my opinion. The other 90% is based on what I saw in the debate.

by aldanatech

Was that question for me? If it is then the answer is no and I don't consider myself to be either Democrat or Republican or anything else. I vote for whoever the best choice is, regardless of the party. I would also like to know how is this a dictatorship, please.

by maecuff

He 'discarded' his wives. How do you know this? I've been married more than once, and never, was it my intention to 'discard' anyone. Unless you are in his skin, you don't know what you're talking about. And as far as his point being invalid.. the moment he typed 'ugly' he invalidated his point.

by oz_media

It was actually just sarcasm.

There seems to be only ONE 'right' party, all others are grouped together as being dreadfully WRONG.

if it isn't Republican, it is whining, weenie, liberal, leftist, commie, socialist, yada yada, you know the drill by now I am sure.

Therefore implying there IS only ONE aceptable party and all others are shamefully wrong and unamerican. Acceptance of only one party would be a dictatorship. Democracy doesn't hold unless BOTH parties are afforded equal opinion, without TWO parties the whole election would not be neccessary to begin with. The difference of opinion is what makes America what it is today, not forced conformity to a single point of view.

I was just spitting some sarcasm based on what republicans have been spewing around here, no offense intended.

by jgardner4

It is obvious that we have another naive person that listened to John Kerry's smooth talk but truly did not listen to what he said. double talk- all of it. much of what he says is verbatim Bush policy in action and the rest he contradicts himself within his own speech.
Plus how can anyone believe him with all of the BS he has spewed over the last several months.
I personally feel attacked by his attempts to ridicule the sitting president during such trying times - he could have much more class.
And the Dems are crying conspiracy while all the time they are the conspirators- look at the news most every day! and most of it from lib broadcasters!

by oz_media

From the outside looking in, GWB is the most deceptive, misleading and unclear president I have ever had the displeasure of having a good hockey game preempted for. He is a politician, just like ALL others from ANY country and his job is to BS the people so he can still support goverment objectives but appear to be working for the people. Every country's leaders since the dawn of time have done this, just like a manager has to appease the employees but all in all, he must keep the company happy, mostly at the employees expense.

For someone to say ONE politician lies and another doesn't just shows complete misunderstanding of politics as a whole.

You don't need to be American, Canadian, British, Australian or Iraqi to know this. They HAVE to keep the people happy, especially nearing an election, but for the most part, they are simply looking out for thier own job and the interests of the governmet which they represent.

I have seen more BS spewed from these two guys over the last couple of weeks than I have ever seen from anyone in office before. It is AMAZING how caught up in politics some people really are, SOME people (not saying yourself) believe everything thier chosen leader says without questioning it, to question it seems unpatriotic to some. some people are also a BAD judge of character and buy in to certain gstures ad comments.

To others that is what democracy is all about, leaders are liars...all of them...get used to it. Be prepared to call thier bluff, they WILL lie about SOMETHING important to you during either a campaign or term in office. Your candidate will NOT always look out for your best interests, your candidate will not always be on YOUR side or even YOUR country's side, it's just reality.

So we are left to decide who DID or did not do the right job, not what they SAY they ARE GOING to do in the future.

In the eyes of the world, Bush did an AWFUL job as president, absolutely dreadful. He is hated globally, probably a nice guy for the most part, but not a good leader as his business track record also shows. He can invest and make money but not lead companies into success.

So, now that the time to be counted has come, lets see what he HAS done, ignored allies (I know some of you LOVE the idea but isolationism isn't going to help America progress or remain a superpower, face it). Waged a war through unjustified masures and while going against his OWN word of war as an absolute last resort (which it was not), split Americans as no other has done before (in my lifetime ayway), spent 200 BILLION dollars of YOUR money to support said war, that I am sure would go a lot further into helping your sick, poor or even improving the medical system.

Has BUSH ever formally apologized or explained that he aired misinformation regarding WMD? i know he has pointed at INTELELIGENCE being incorrect, but has HE accepted blame? no. This is poor management.

Blair did and it saved face for him.

One thing I see said here often is that people don't think the government should take money from those who earned it and give it to those that didn't. Explain justifying and standing behind a 200 BILLION dollar invasion without proper justification of how YOUR money was spent to begin with. It surely wasn't WMD, but that's what you were lead to believe. He is taking money that people earned and instead of giving it to the poor or downtrodden in your country he is giving it to a diifferent country's people and the US corporate giants who will rebuild it at immense profits.

Personally I'd rather support welfare. every bum removed form city streets is one more I don't have to deal with myself.

Some use the defense issue to justify this spending by saying 'if he is using it to protect me then that is fine' which i agre with.BUT... IS he protecting America from some imminent threat by invading Iraq? Or has al-Qaeda still rebuilt and has been plotting to continue it's terrorist ways as before?

He protected Iraqi's by removing Saddam, he allowed al-Qaeda to rebuild by losing focus on the real IMMINENT AND UNCONTESTED THREAT upon the world. al-Qaeda isn't a SUSPECTD threat, there's no issue of IF WMD are in thier possion or not. al-AQEDA attacked the world, they are an identified and WELL known IMMEDIATE threat upon th world that GWB has been sidetracked from. sure he has eyes ad eas all over the place JUST IN CASE, but could he no ha done that with Saddam ad actually workd to diminish al-Qaeda with his/YOUR 200 billion dollars? the rest of the worl seeks al-Qaeda and seeks to gain intelligence and thwart them, Bush is just getting Amerians to support him and claim the rest of the world should be there also. He has creatd such a sense of isolation between America and th rest of the world that it is NOT going to benefit you in the long run.

So lies or no lies, Bush made some pretty big and expensive mistakes, monetarily and alliance wise. I wonder how much more damage he could do in another four years? Scares m to even think about it really. I don't care WHO you elect when they keep ME out of it, when your business is MADE my business, I get pissed right off.

by av .

Some people have an unblinding loyalty to Bush regardless of what he does. He has ruined this country with his poor leadership. I agree with you on your assessment of Bush and his Administration. Another 4 more years of this is a scary thought indeed.

Sitting President or not, he did a lousy job. He lied about WMD. 9/11 happened under his watch. Our budget deficit, trade deficit, no jobs. This has been the worst four years of my life financially. My husband, a sys admin, has not had steady work for over 2 years. The jobs he did have did not pay as well as the job he lost.

I don't have a party affiliation, I vote for what I consider to be the best candidate. I vote with my wallet too. Last time, I voted for Bush, a poor choice in hindsight. This time I will vote for Kerry.

We only have 2 choices. I hope that people will look at the facts of where we are now as a country, as you have, and vote to make a change. Bush had his 4 years and he blew it.

by oz_media

canada's RRSP's hae prety much replced pople's hopes for pension. this doesn't mean the government doesn't take money from MY cheque to support what is SUPPOSD to be MY retirement that will most likely not be aroud when I retire.

I despise banks, RRSP's etc. If I don't have the CASH to retire, I won't. The idea is I WILL have th cash to retire and won't be hoping for any other governmet or financial institution suport. I can see this is your plan too (with the exception of 401K's) but you don't think the government should be collectig SS from you, I agree. Then again, I wasn't born in Canada (not am I a Canadian citizen), so if I don't like the system I will move instead of trying to fix someone else's system.

This is pretty much my theory for aLL immigrants who wish to retain thier original status, if you aren't Canadian you can't complain about Canadian government unless you want to become a citizen and vote acordingly. I think too many people expect the best of both worlds.

I see your point, the governmet will take your money, whether they have SS or not. Governments don't GIVE UP anything, never have nor will, they simply replace one collectable with another if the first is removed, they won't take a loss in revenue that's for sure.

As for paying my taxes, it's just a happy way of coping with the fact that we pay moe taxes than anywhere I hae eer lived before. It is THE most beautiful place I've ever lied but at a cost. Everytime I pay nearly $10 for smokes, I just think that I am helping my government and that they must REAlLY value my income to need so much of it. Kinda makes you feel wanted you know? :p

I see your point and agree fully but unfortunately, even without SS, I don't think you'll be saving a dime as they will just pad it by increasing something else, gotta love our needy governments, makes you feel important though. :D

OM

by ippirate

Now considering that there are only two candidates who seem to be getting discussed (that would mean only two parties represented) it would stand to reason that most input is for one or the other. There are those that seem to run the middle road but they are few and far between. Everyone else, including you Oz, supports or abhores one or the other. To say that just because I voice a conservative or republican point of view and am generally engaged in debate with those who are of opposition, is somehow generalizing is outright cheap.

As to your statement about liberals, etc., I suppose that I should dismiss all the comments about theocrat or religious zealot or hatemonger or blind idiot that gets pitched at the conservative side by those that don't agree?

No, I think you comment is a way of base and at best, with it, you are guilty of the exact same biased, generalization and hysteria that you accuse.

As far as aldantech goes, he's as biased as they come. For someone who is so interested in "voting for the best choice" he sure seems bent on supporting one in particular by:
1. Outright ignoring any comment or engagement on the fallacies, questions, doubts, inconsistancies or lies that are pointed out in his "best choice candidate"
and
2. Posting nothing more than purely distilled left wing propaganda in the form of links (which incidently leads me to wonder if it is his opinion or what Uncle Tom has told him his opinion is) with very little to no personal thought ever offered.

That's okay though, I understand that the word for today is groupthink and anyone not submitting to the hive will be persecuted and if this be the case.....

Bring it

by oz_media

I am not american, conservative, democrat or republican. I didn't have ANY political bias AT ALL (not a DROP) until I spoke out about how I disliked Bush. Then to see how the country was divided was truly stunning, never have I seen such importance placed on someone's political position before, only in America. Americans have shown me the ignorances behind thier own political affiliations, I had no personal pride or predjudice toward any party prior to reading what I have read here.

I HAD no political affiliation (nor do now) before being TOLD that I was a lefty, then centered, then a commie, then almost EVERY political stance you can take except that of who was opposing my thoughts. Do ALL republicans think alike and support the same ideas? Could one opposed to Bush not also be a republican? He is a man, a small man and that's that. He represents a party, if I stood behind ALL theories and objectives of that party and then saw Bush as a liar and an idiot, would I then be a democrat, even though I don't agree with most democrats?

This labelling segregates Americans.

I have NEVER in my life been asked whether I was a Conservative, Liberal, Socialist or Democrat, NEVER. Within a couple of minutes of posting in a US political discussion I was affiliated with EVERY party people could name in some stupid attempt to place me in an undesireable group.

Garion even swears to the fact that I am Anti-American and that I hate Americans because I don't support Bush and have PROVEN many of his supporters follow him blindly and without question as they have said it is thier DUTY to do so because they voted for him. I have NEVER said I hated Americans and WOULD never say it, it is just assumed because I despise bush and the Republican attitudes.

Therefore Republicans are the only right way to go and anyone else is purely just Anti-American. WHAT A MINDSET!! Way to reach a conclusion!

I see this from outside looking inward.

Republicans are right, everyone else is wrong.
Democrats don't have a voice because anything said is considered whining.
Centered? Yeah right, pick a side and stop straddling the fence 'flip-flopper'.

It just isn't this way ANYWHERE else in the free world.

Last night, I was visiting my sister who just moved down island from me, I remembered that the next round was about to start and the response from the four people in the room (friends and a neighbour) rolled eyes, sighs, and one "Great, every channel with that as*hole again!".

Australia's election goes off without a hitch nobody even notices, as does Canada's (many Canadians don't even know when we've HAD an election, yet alone when it is coming up) yet we have the greatest voter turnouts around.

It's just baffling to see what importance people place on such ridiculous issues, such as what someone said or did 30 years ago.

Are you the same man you were 30 years ago? Do you think EVEN SIMILARLY as you did 30 years ago?

Why aren't people focusing on what HAS happened recently. GWB mislead/lied/fed misinformation (or whatever PC term for LIE you use this week) to Americans. Can you AFFORD to have a president act on misinformation and risk your economy, world standing and unity as a nation?

Will Kerry? Who knows, nobody here does that's for sure. But nobody thought Bush would invade Iraq when he ran against Gore, just a happy family cowboy with a sh*t eating sideways grin.

The world KNOWS what didn't work, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making changes at this point in US history.

by oz_media

I appreciate your feelings toward Bush but you echo something I have heard quite a bit lately that even I don't think sits well.

You said 9/11 happened under his watch, well I am sure that you agree ANY president could have suffered the same under thier watch. I don't think it was a FAULT of Bush, even though many conspiracy stories have floated around. I think it's horrific and that it could have happened on anyone's watch but GWB's resolve was not exactly that of a focused and capable leader of America.

I am sure there are several hundred THOUSAND , if not more, Americans that would have handled the whole issue better. To be clear, I believe the action against the Taliban and al-Qaeda was commendable and I was in full support until the tides turned and the focus and intensity was lost on suspected WMD in Iraq. That needed to be done but not with such haste. It's ALMOST like he had conversed and decided to invade and he'd have been cleaned up in two years. Giving him time to have successfully won two wars in the middle east and clam status of a president who gets things done and would be relected.

He MUST have a four year plan when going into office, who's to say he hadn't planned Iraq BEFORE 9/11 happened and actually Afghanistan was the REAL segue in his plans to liberats Iraq? Oil, money, freedom, liberation everyone's happy and Bush gets a second term, THEN 9/11 happened and he had to put it all together to be completed in 4 years. ?!?

by av .

I never used to blame Bush for 9/11 until I watched some of the hearings from the 9/11 Commission. My overall thought after that was that the intelligence was there. It had been there for years. Clinton did not address it properly in the past either.

True, Bush clearly inherited years of Clinton not acting on acts of terrorism. Bush didn't cause it to happen. But to me the picture changes somewhat knowing that he had access to documents, for example, that were named something like "Osama Bin Ladin plans to launch major attack in the US using airplanes." He didn't pay attention or investigate the documents. That I can blame him for because that was his job.

I think he was doing a good job initially with the war on terror after 9/11, but he just got obsessed with Iraq. He couldn't control himself. Did he have a 4 year plan? Probably. One thing is for sure, it didn't work out quite like he thought.

by oz_media

GWB has taken great care to explain that HIS faith was very close to him and surely it did influence his self and therefore would help him find confidence in his decisions. This is his faith and it is very personal and I repsect any man's right to faith (the one thing nobody can take away from you).

He then went on say how he thought America is a country that allows you to practice whatever faith you choose without hinderance. Again quite a commendable viewpoint.

When speaking of gay marriage, he said he had no bias against someone's choice and a couple's choice is that of the couple no matter what his personal faith and values are. So far so good.

He then screwed the whole comment up and I'm wondering if anyone else caught it or got the same impression I did.

He said that MARRIAGE should be between a man and a woman, this is his faith and that's fine.

Ammendments, he supports an amendment defining marriage as a unity between a man and a woman, several times speaking about how that is how MARRIAGE is defined by his faith. Not very accepting as a nation I don't think.

He then dropped the bomb, he said that he thinks Marriage is a sacred union and they should be "rewarded" as such with whatever benefits a married couple is entitled to.

So in essence he is saying, marriage cannot be accepted OR recognized by the country as ANYTHING BUT a union between a man and a woman. Thus PROVING the country's inacceptance of gay marriage as he had previously tried to say should be thier choice.

Sure they can CHOOSE to be a couple (as they have since day one) but they cannot receive any benefits as a contributing couple to society or be recognized in the community as MARRIED so ABOSOLUTELY NOTHING WILL BE DONE OR CHANGED, except an ammendment to ensure that gay couples do not receive benefits today or in the future.

When he said it, his voice began to trail off again, in true Bush fashion. This is exactly what he did when he said he caught 75% (then mumbled) of al-Qaeda. "SPEAK UP!!" Did his mother and teachers let him mumble too?

What a hypocrite, all in one short comment.

by infoaaa19

So I just say it simly. Every time religious faith intervenes with national politics, there is war, genocide, and pestilence. The founding fathers of the US realized this, and wisely wrote the fundamental law of separating the church and state. Starting with the Romans, the Turks, the Jesuits, Huguenots, Ireland and now Sudan Iraq pakistan and India and Afganistan. Politics should be based on ethics without religious crutches. I pray for the wise folks who realize this.

by g.brown

I, like you, have never really been interested in American politics, until this recent War in Iraq, where Blair has basically become Bush's puppet.

I think many people feel the same way as you do OZ, and that is why they are so frustrated ... they know they're getting lied to, and the facts and half-truths are getting spun out of control.

I think most "free" thinkers would keep an open mind and see the reality for themselves ... not just follow the Party Political Line.

This discussion is closed to new replies.