Kerry wins the first

Originally posted by Raphael_UO


Considering Kerry wants to fix Bush's errors, the issue for me is: "Did he or did he not vote against the bill that would fix the error that he called Bush on tonight?"

That's like giving the keys to the car to your son and then having to defend him getting drunk and running over two kids in a crosswalk. He voted to give Bush the option to use force. This doesn't mean he can't disagree with the way he handled it, especially since Bush didn't do anything he promised he would concerning the U.N. and coalition building.

If that's flip flopping then count me as a flip flopper all the way.

Any predictions for the Edwards - Cheney debates?

Originally posted by Chuckster
Just a thought. If Kerry is so strong to win why did congress say that if there was a terrorist attack they would postpone elections? That tells me even our own congress and house knows Kerry can't handle a war.

Congress didn't say that, the State Department, Condi Rice, and Rumsfeld have all said it, however. *Puts on his Brit Hume mask* Some people say that these individuals making these comments are simply being war-mongerers! *Takes mask off*

Don't believe everything people tell you. Do the reaseach. Go to www.google.com and enter in the phrase "postpone elections Rice" and you'll find some fun stuff to read.

- Dom

Edited for horrendous spelling.

Oh, and Kerry was vociferous!! (If you need this explained to you, go lie down somewhere quiet)

[edit on 1-10-2004 by RockerDom]

As usual, Bush looks good to Republicans.

Bush could have stepped away from the podium, slapped Kerry, spit, swore, and he'd come out smelling like roses. Its the Republican way.

Originally posted by Rain King
I would prefer to have a President who is thoughtful about what he says.

I do too, that's why I want Bush out of office.

Originally posted by Rain King
He may have had pauses, but it's ABSURD to critisize him for "just thinking".

You are kidding, right? Those were not "just thinking" pauses. Those were deer-in-headlight pauses. And his poorly thought-out responses following those bewildered looks prove it.

Originally posted by Rain King
I also think that Bush prevailed on this one.

More about Vietnam, what a surprise. Go to JibJab.com and watch 'this land' it sums up Kerry and Bush pretty well. Hilarious.

Of course Kerry touts his Vietnam service. It's about all that he CAN tout. He has no plan for the war or the economy. He HAS NO POLICY. Nothing concrete ever escapes his mouth. All he can do is bash George, (which happens to be VERY easy to do) and brag about "three tours of duty". (how strange was it to see those two exchange pleasant sentiments in the middle of their bitter feud?)

All the excuses about "pork" in the bills doesn't explain away his flip-flops right there ON NATIONAL TELEVISION.

All he can do is cringe is half smile at the camera through his botox-numbed face and pumpkin-hued flesh and tout his purple hearts. I don't buy it.

Let's all vote for Nader and put this madness to an end.

I didn't watch the debate, because I was working on something, but I listend quite intently, so the visual impact has no meanng to me. I have heard all the pundits speak about what they saw and heard and I can't dispute that.

But, what I heard was far less damning for Bush than the impressions I have heard from those who watched. The only thing I can really fault Bush for is sounding like he was on the defensive, which he was. It is always harder to defend the truth than it is to attack it.

I might give Kerry a slight edge, but he's a wannabe. Bush is strong, capable and experienced Commander-in-Chief. I've said it elsewhere, Kerry sounds like a backseat-driving fourteen-year-old. They always know how better to drive until you put them behind the wheel.

POLL RESULTS

MSNBC:
Who won the debate? * 551420 responses
Pres. Bush 30%
Sen. Kerry 70%

CNN:
Who do you think won the first U.S. presidential debate?
President George W. Bush 18% 23146 votes
Sen. John Kerry 79% 103213 votes

boston.com:
Who did better during the debate Thursday night?
US Senator John Kerry 81.5%
President George W. Bush 18.5%

CBSNews.com:
Who won the presidential debate?

John Kerry: 91.46%
President Bush: 7.80%

I think fox news decided to lie and tell their viewers that bush won so i decided not to include them in my final results (thus far)

George Bush has given me a new favorite word

SOFERSIFICLY

I honestly had no clue what that word was intended to be

Originally posted by Chuckster
Just a thought. If Kerry is so strong to win why did congress say that if there was a terrorist attack they would postpone elections? That tells me even our own congress and house knows Kerry can't handle a war.

if there is a terrorist attack, then why blame Kerry when it would have happened in Bush's (as of now) final quarter of his term? I take it to man that republican's would happily use a "threat" of a terrorist attack, or an actual attack to extend under martial law your current president's term and powers. None of that would be a black mark on Kerry, however, it would be a glaring black mark on your president's failure to protect you, and further a move that should make you wonder why just prior to the elections such an uncommon act is being invoked.

Something tells me that when Bush was running for presidency you had no idea how he would handle war, and that your bias is overshadowing your rational thinking.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Bush could have stepped away from the podium, slapped Kerry, spit, swore, and he'd come out smelling like roses. Its the Republican way.

I don't think that's the Republican way, but if Bush had done that it would have raised my respect for him by a factor of 1000.

Originally posted by Wask
George Bush has given me a new favorite word

SOFERSIFICLY

I honestly had no clue what that word was intended to be

He actually said "vociferously" and I was quite shocked that he pronounced and used it correctly.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

I don't think that's the Republican way, but if Bush had done that it would have raised my respect for him by a factor of 1000.

I don't even know how to respond to that. You know I have respect for your service to our country, but that statement is so incredibly disrespectful, and hateful to be embarassing. I wonder what your response would be if Kerry were to do the same, or if someone were to say they would gain respect for Kerry for doing the same to Bush. I must admit to not being able to understand why someone would have more respect for a candidate who acts like they are a drunk in a bar fight over someone who communicates eloquently in a direct, confident manner. I understand your dislike for Kerry, and I have similar dislike for Bush, but if Kerry were to penly treat the President in such a disgusting, low-brow offensive manner, I would be absolutely sick to my stomach.

Originally posted by Bleys
He actually said "vociferously" and I was quite shocked that he pronounced and used it correctly.

That was very astute of you to make the connection. I didn't. Actually, Bush doesn't always scramble the English language. I found it refreshing that Kerry admitted that he was not always as articulate as he would like to be.

We should always remember that Bush really doesn't have to prove himself to anyone. That's Kerry's gig and in the long haul, the pressure is on him. Having only listened so the visual factor has no effect on my assessment and I thought Kerry only had a slight edge tonight and given the fact that "debatin' ain't presidentin'" some of that edge is lost.

Just out of curriosity ;-) Anyone have any guesses, as to what Bush was trying to draw durring the debate? He seemed pretty perturbed every time his attention was taken away from his art work, to answer a question. Or maybe that was because he didn't have any colored markers. He couldn't have been writting notes, on what to say in response. As he kept repeating the same things over and over again. I bet it would get a pretty penny on Ebay! :-)

Tom Sawyer

Originally posted by RockerDom
Ok, now I am not attempting to flame you, and if it comes off as that, I am truly sorry.

In the Senate bills sometimes include what is known as "pork". This is extra stuff in the bill that usually has nothing to do with it. The first time the 87 billion dollar bill came in front of Kerry, he voted for it. But here's one little tidbit that is never mentioned: it didn't pass. Why? Well, there were some other things that the Republicans wanted added to it that had little or nothing to do with the main part of the bill, 87 billion for defense spending. After those things were added, the bill again came in front of Kerry, who did not like the "pork". It was clearly going to pass, so in protest to the other parts of the bill, Kerry voted against it. Unfortunately, this is the nature of the Senate.

I didn't see any flames.

I am aware how the senate works. But what you are obfuscating is the "pork" that was in the orignal bill that was co-sponsored by Kerry. Like, the temporary reversal of the Bush tax cut.

After the second vote, Kerry's spokeman said, "John Kerry opposed a red inked, blank check on Bush�s failed Iraq policy."

So, enlighten me, what "pork" did Kerry find unkosher in the bill he voted against? Remember, things not in the bill is not "pork".

[edit on 1-10-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by RockerDom
I don't even know how to respond to that. You know I have respect for your service to our country, but that statement is so incredibly disrespectful, and hateful to be embarassing.

Lighten up, RockerDom. I might be highly educated and extraordinarily articulate and objective, but I am, after all, a Marine. I think you can forgive me a little indiscretion from time to time. A little butt kicking sometimes is worth a million words. Sometimes a little facetiousness is good for the soul.

[edit on 04/10/1 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

So, enlighten me, what "pork" did Kerry find unkosher in the bill he voted against? Remember, things not in the bill is not "pork".

[edit on 1-10-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Sorry it took me so long to respond, I was having trouble finding the article, but here is the link and the excerpt:

forum.therandirhodesshow.com...

FACT: John Kerry voted against the funding package because Bush didn't provide a way to pay for it. His concerns have been proven well founded. This year, the nation's deficit is expected be over $400 billion. The bill Kerry preferred would have simply passed the funding but offset it by rolling back tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year. If Kerry's position had prevailed, the troops would have still received full funding; the only difference is the nation would have done it in a fiscally responsible way. [Cox News, 4/11/04]

FACT: George Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion before he supported it. Bush said he would veto the bill if the money wasn't provided in exactly the way he requested. Bush did the exact same thing that he is criticizing Kerry for doing. Bush argued for a particular set of requirements for how the money would be appropriated and was willing to oppose the funding package if he didn't get his way. [CBS News, 11/30/03]

And there you go. Apparently, the "pork" in this case was the tax cuts prevented there being enough money to pay for the proposed bill, and Kerry felt this was a bit of a problem.

I thought that Kerry lost the debate. Not to say that Bush was a strong winner, but that Kerry lost a chance to earn more respect and gain some ground.

Instead, Kerry struck me as someone who is a career politcian that is more focused on being politically correct and less interested doing the right thing if it is unpopular.

Kerry does not impress me at all.

The Democrats have missed a chance to gain the Whitehouse by not putting up a strong candidate.

Originally posted by RockerDom

And there you go. Apparently, the "pork" in this case was the tax cuts prevented there being enough money to pay for the proposed bill, and Kerry felt this was a bit of a problem.

So, there was no "pork", just a lack of a method of paying for the bill. Therefore, he wasn't protesting "extra things in the bill" as you earlier suggested.

Protesting does not always involve opposition. A no vote is opposition even if it was expected to pass. Abstaining from the vote would have not been voting against the bill that fixed the error that he called Bush on tonight.

Edit: Then he could have simply said "I couldn't vote for the bill without a way to pay for it, and I couldn't vote against a bill that supported our troops."



[edit on 1-10-2004 by Raphael_UO]