Did John Kerry cheat during the debate?????

[Quasimoto]

From what I heard, they were SUPPOSED to not use a split screen. Dunno whatever happened to that.

What record does Bush have to run on? The last 4 years. Kerry has his Senate record. If you want to look at what happened 30 years ago, then Kerry was meeting with the communist enemy during a time of war while Bush was getting preferential treatment in the National Guard.

When I look at candidates, I look at the job of the federal government. Quasi, what is the MAIN number one priority of the United States federal government? If you said National defense/security, then you are correct. It's the main reason we have a federal government, and it's the main reason why we're a representative republic rather than a democracy (democracies make for mess foreign policy).

So when I look at the candidates, the number one thing I look at is national defense and security. With all the recent terrorism, who do I think would do a better job with national defense? Bush has done a pretty good job for the most part, and he has shown that he won't be pushed around by other nations and will back up UN resolutions as well as take the war that was declared on us to THEM instead of let it happen on our soil. Kerry on the other hand wants to submit our defense to a "global test." So if France doesn't want us defending ourselves, then we can't. Kerry has moved with the political opinions of the moment on the war and spit on our allies in the process. When I look at what he did 30 years ago...I'm sorry, but I don't see him as having changed a whole lot. How can a traitor be elected to run our military?

So no, there are lots of things that I don't like about Bush. His spending at home is way too much, but you know what? The national defense issue trumps this.

the last 4 yrs and national defense is his High-point ? If thats it, hes a failure..and will be voted out in a month.

What country has tried to "push us around"..i feel more pushed around by my own country lately than by any other country bro. Kerry picked up some serious ground thursday night, and that was supposed to be where GWB would shine.

The politicians asked that they not use a split screen, but the networks declined.

 

[Quasimoto]

France...and the way Kerry wants to do things with his global test, France would have the power to push us around. They didn't want us ousting saddam because they were in on a good oil deal with him. So their little shady connections with Saddam should prevent us from backing UN resolutions and protecting this country?

France is our oldest allie bro, they have earned the right to have a problem with some of the shit we might pull.

I ask you again, What about the last 4 yrs of GWB's record do you think earns him another 4 yrs ?

 

[Quasimoto]

The last time France was cool was the late 1700s. They were idiots in WW2 and they are idiots now. So you think cause France is in Saddam's wallet that they can tell us not to defend ourselves??

btw, I already said what about Bush's record I think earns him another term.

Kerry is a traitor and is disqualified from being president in my book. Illegally meeting with the communist enemy twice during war, lying before the Senate using fake veterans, lying on Meet the Press about war crimes, giving speeches that the enemy used to torture POWs, taking part in anti-war/anti-American rallies with flag burnings and throwing away medals, having an extensive FBI file due to his anti-war activities, being credited by North Vietnamese generals for helping them drive out US forces. And now he's spitting on our allies, spitting on the Iraqi interum PM by saying he's a puppet then accusing Bush of lacking diplomacy, saying we should have to pass a "global test" before we defend ourselves....the guy is a joke.

ok.

 

[Mark Kerr]

Yeah, his "global test" is terrible, but if he is elected, he won't use such a test. He is just making it up now to illustrate how Bush didnt get the world's approval when Kerry thought he should have.

A "Global Test" would take power out of the hands of the American President, and if you think ANY president (of any party, Rep. or Dem.) would voluntarily take power out of his own hands, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn going for a great price...

I am not voting for Bush, but he is going to beat Kerry. No Presidental Candidate (that I can think of off the top of my head) that ran on the ticket of "I am NOT the other guy, so I must be good enough!" has never won.

Mondale tried it in 1984 and Dole tried it 1996. (However, I should point out that those guys were trailing by a lot more than Kerry at this point, though. But the theory still stands, and voting-booth nerves will lean towards the incumbent.)

Also, about the last 4 years question. I think Bush did well with the war in Iraq, which we won more quickly then we even predicted. The problem now is not the war against Iraq, but the peace-keeping mission. Peace-keeping missions are always a shit-storm. Look at post WW-II Japan, Germany, and more contemporarlily, Vietnam.

I actually think it is funny that people are so critical of how bad we are doing in Iraq. I mean, the same thing happened in Japan and Germany but people weren't impatient about those things back then. Also remember, that when you think about it, the peace-keeping mission in Germany went from the late 1940's up to the early 1990's. We still had troops there the entire time (still do) and they were a major part of the police force there. Yes, American troops were policing post-war Germany for decades! Now, we have a peace-keeping mission for 2 years and people should "failure!"

I guess I just try to keep a more historical perspective on things in order to have a standard by which to judge. But thats just my approach (and one might argue that we did a poor job in post-war Germany and Japan. and we might have, but thats just what I judge is against.)

Now, George's REASONS for going to Iraq can definitely be criticized, as that is really what got us into trouble both foreign (especially) and domestic. I think Kerry would be wise to focus on that, but he voted for it too, so not much there. I, personally, dont blame Bush for going to Iraq, because his intelligence was wrong, but I think he should have some accountibility (after all, the buck stops with him, as they say). I dont like it that he believes is 100% free of guilt (and even Tony Blair has apologized.) However, a reasonable person, given that intelligence could have deemed Iraq a threat, so I dont get on him too much.

If I were Kerry, I would focus on the crappy Patriot Act (as 3 of the 4 areas of it that have been taken to the Supreme Court have been ruled unconstitutional, and I believe Bush KNEW they were unconstitutional. That to me, is more treason-ous than what Kerry did with his medals, but I digress), I would focus on the economy, the environment, the President's apparent disregard for general diplomacy, and his supporting of the ban on Gay Marriage (I would use the "divider/not a uniter" angle, in general).

Basically, there is a lot for Kerry to criticize, but I would leave the Iraqi war alone. Bush is too strong on that issue, and there are a TON more issues to expose that could win the election for Kerry.

P.S. To any other politicians out there, my fee is $200/hr.

 

[Zeo]

Wtf is drudge? Bush took a huge blow from this debate and the republicans are reeling. Of course they would like to discredit this debate, bush got his ass handed to him. I actually felt bad for Bush during the debate, he had no substantial comebacks, and looked like a child arguing with his father. Those of you who feel this debate was a draw, clearly had your bush goggles on that night. As anyone with half a brain could see how one sided the debate was. Not to mention Bush got his ass whipped by a liberal on a debate that was supposed to be his strong points. Just imagine whats going to happen when they go head to head on domestic issues,, The tide has changed, in that debate the conservatives got dropped, now get up and take it like men instead of looking for exscuses.

bump to that db2!!!!!

 

[ratmonkey]

if kerry cheated by "maybe" pulling something out of his pocket, (which no one, even that assbag drudge can see) then bush cheated by having that earpiece in, which he was apparently talking to someone on it a couple of times.

i guess karl rove telling him what to say didn't help out much.

 

[black0ut]

Why do poeple argue that Kerry didn't dominate in this debate. I can't stand people who support a president NO MATTER what happens. The questions were just fine. You honestly think YOUR questions are more important than the Yale boards? Bush should have been able to handle ANY question that was asked, but he couldn't. He kept saying the same thing over and over... about Kerry flipflopping on his issues. Kerry made some great points, but Bush would just retort with Kerry flipflops on every issue. I have stated before I am NO supporter of Kerry, I dont really like him either. But, Bush truley looks like an f*ing moron. Not only do I think that Kerry dominated, all the polls seem to agree.

 

[black0ut]

Yeah, his "global test" is terrible, but if he is elected, he won't use such a test. He is just making it up now to illustrate how Bush didnt get the world's approval when Kerry thought he should have.

A "Global Test" would take power out of the hands of the American President, and if you think ANY president (of any party, Rep. or Dem.) would voluntarily take power out of his own hands, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn going for a great price...

I am not voting for Bush, but he is going to beat Kerry. No Presidental Candidate (that I can think of off the top of my head) that ran on the ticket of "I am NOT the other guy, so I must be good enough!" has never won.

Mondale tried it in 1984 and Dole tried it 1996. (However, I should point out that those guys were trailing by a lot more than Kerry at this point, though. But the theory still stands, and voting-booth nerves will lean towards the incumbent.)

Also, about the last 4 years question. I think Bush did well with the war in Iraq, which we won more quickly then we even predicted. The problem now is not the war against Iraq, but the peace-keeping mission. Peace-keeping missions are always a shit-storm. Look at post WW-II Japan, Germany, and more contemporarlily, Vietnam.

I actually think it is funny that people are so critical of how bad we are doing in Iraq. I mean, the same thing happened in Japan and Germany but people weren't impatient about those things back then. Also remember, that when you think about it, the peace-keeping mission in Germany went from the late 1940's up to the early 1990's. We still had troops there the entire time (still do) and they were a major part of the police force there. Yes, American troops were policing post-war Germany for decades! Now, we have a peace-keeping mission for 2 years and people should "failure!"

I guess I just try to keep a more historical perspective on things in order to have a standard by which to judge. But thats just my approach (and one might argue that we did a poor job in post-war Germany and Japan. and we might have, but thats just what I judge is against.)

Now, George's REASONS for going to Iraq can definitely be criticized, as that is really what got us into trouble both foreign (especially) and domestic. I think Kerry would be wise to focus on that, but he voted for it too, so not much there. I, personally, dont blame Bush for going to Iraq, because his intelligence was wrong, but I think he should have some accountibility (after all, the buck stops with him, as they say). I dont like it that he believes is 100% free of guilt (and even Tony Blair has apologized.) However, a reasonable person, given that intelligence could have deemed Iraq a threat, so I dont get on him too much.

If I were Kerry, I would focus on the crappy Patriot Act (as 3 of the 4 areas of it that have been taken to the Supreme Court have been ruled unconstitutional, and I believe Bush KNEW they were unconstitutional. That to me, is more treason-ous than what Kerry did with his medals, but I digress), I would focus on the economy, the environment, the President's apparent disregard for general diplomacy, and his supporting of the ban on Gay Marriage (I would use the "divider/not a uniter" angle, in general).

Basically, there is a lot for Kerry to criticize, but I would leave the Iraqi war alone. Bush is too strong on that issue, and there are a TON more issues to expose that could win the election for Kerry.

P.S. To any other politicians out there, my fee is $200/hr.

You know what you're talking about and that's great. The problem right now is, people either love Bush, or hate him. People have been deadset in their votes for awhile, these guys are just trying to target those small undecideds. Most of the people in this country are not educated enough (as we see sometimes around here) to pay close attention to the issues. They hear or read a thing or two and think they're experts on current events. Since most people don't really understand what's going on, they pay close attention to the speaking power of the presidents. I honestly can't remember word for word what was said, but I know that Kerry definately sounded 10 times more intelligent than Bush, and I'm sure you all would agree.

 

[db2]

LOL.....you don't know who Matt Drudge is?? Damn, what rock have you been living under for the past 10 years????

And yes Kerry won on points, the same way Al Gore did. Ironically though, Bush gained in all the internals like "who do you trust more?", "who is better to fight terrorism"?

You are so blind that you are unable to see the bigger picture here.

The bigger picture,,


Who do you think did the best job, or won, the debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry -- or do you think the debate was about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
15% 54% 30% 1%

"Who do you think seemed more knowledgeable: George W. Bush or John Kerry -- or do you think they were about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
29% 42% 28% 1%

"Who do you think displayed the strongest personality and character: George W. Bush or John Kerry -- or do you think they were about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
33% 40% 25% 2%

"Who do you think was better at getting across his message: George W. Bush or John Kerry -- or do you think they were about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
23% 49% 27% 1%

"Regardless of your personal preference for president, who do you think responded best under pressure: George W. Bush or John Kerry -- or do you think they were about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
16% 54% 27% 3%

"Who do you think seemed more 'presidential': George W. Bush or John Kerry -- or do you think they were about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
38% 40% 19% 3%

"Who appeared to be the most likable: George W. Bush or John Kerry -- or do you think they were about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
39% 38% 22% 1%

 

[jbiggs]

The bigger picture,,


Who do you think did the best job, or won, the debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry -- or do you think the debate was about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
15% 54% 30% 1%

"Who do you think seemed more knowledgeable: George W. Bush or John Kerry -- or do you think they were about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
29% 42% 28% 1%

"Who do you think displayed the strongest personality and character: George W. Bush or John Kerry -- or do you think they were about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
33% 40% 25% 2%

"Who do you think was better at getting across his message: George W. Bush or John Kerry -- or do you think they were about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
23% 49% 27% 1%

"Regardless of your personal preference for president, who do you think responded best under pressure: George W. Bush or John Kerry -- or do you think they were about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
16% 54% 27% 3%

"Who do you think seemed more 'presidential': George W. Bush or John Kerry -- or do you think they were about even?"
Bush Kerry Even Unsure
38% 40% 19% 3%

Link or did you just make it up.

Kerry is a better debater, so what? I still wouldn't trust him with running a Dairy Queen let alone my country.

 

[gixxerboy]

LOL.....you don't know who Matt Drudge is?? Damn, what rock have you been living under for the past 10 years????

And yes Kerry won on points, the same way Al Gore did. Ironically though, Bush gained in all the internals like "who do you trust more?", "who is better to fight terrorism"?

You are so blind that you are unable to see the bigger picture here.

Yes Bush is still up on those points but the polls show he lost ground. Like i said Bush still leads in alot of areas but not as much as before the debate. Even on his so called strong points.

 

[ratmonkey]

Link or did you just make it up.

Kerry is a better debater, so what? I still wouldn't trust him with running a Dairy Queen let alone my country.

i wouldn't trust bush with a corner lemonade stand, it'd go into bankruptcy in hours.

 

[jbiggs]

i wouldn't trust bush with a corner lemonade stand, it'd go into bankruptcy in hours.

Kerry would let the neighborhood bullies knock over the stand and then would spend all the money it had made on trying to set up a summit with them.

Doesn't solve a damn thing and the bullies just laugh at ya!

 

[Mark Kerr]

i wouldn't trust bush with a corner lemonade stand, it'd go into bankruptcy in hours.

LOL. Are you serious? Bush is a great businessman. I think the analogy would be better if you said that Bush would turn a great profit, but use slave labor doing it. (Not literally slave labor)

 

[black0ut]

Kerry would let the neighborhood bullies knock over the stand and then would spend all the money it had made on trying to set up a summit with them.

Doesn't solve a damn thing and the bullies just laugh at ya!

Bush would run and get his dads gun and shoot them, then try explaining to the cops that it was necessary

 

[Quasimoto]

Bush would run and get his dads gun and shoot them, then try explaining to the cops that it was necessary

Bush would shoot the wrong guys though and the real crooks would get away clean.

 

[db2]

Link or did you just make it up.

Kerry is a better debater, so what? I still wouldn't trust him with running a Dairy Queen let alone my country.

www.pollingreport.com

I am not a conservative republican I dont have time to make things up.

 

[LCSULLA]

France is our oldest allie bro, they have earned the right to have a problem with some of the shit we might pull.

France isn't ANYBODY'S ally. They have marriage's of convinance (sp?). They have always oppossed anyone who has more clout then they do. You can trace it back to they days of the European Coal and Steel Community. If the majority of countries want to go right, then France goes left. Even if that means shooting themselves in the foot.

As for the debate, Bush lost. I hate to say, but he did. And his eye rolling and grimicing ever time Kerry said anything was just dishearting. I think thats what most people focused on. It's a dejavu of his father all over again. Sigh

 

[Quasimoto]

Quasi, 75% of al quaida is either dead or captured. Saddam, one of the biggest terrorists and worst dictators of our time is captured.

You must have a hard-on for Bin Laden. You also don't seem to understand that even if he's alive, he can't plan shit because he's always on the run. If he were such a threat, he would have had other attacks since. But seeing as he's constantly on the run from people trying to capture/kill him, he can't do much of anything. That is, if he's still alive.

Frosty - 75% of Al Qaida is not captured or dead. Just cuz GWB said it, don't make it true. Please once again read this :

The President said twice that "75 percent" of al Qaeda leaders have been "brought to justice." But as The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden's network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who are running the terrorist organization today. The AP also reported that the CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data.

Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.

You must be stoned to think that we have arrested all but 25% of al qaeda, the only people making this claim is Bush's people. Wake up. Their army grows every day man...every day they have new members.

If we wanted to capture OBL, we could. But we dont...he is a 6'5 man riding a donkey along the border of pakistan/afghanistan, who requires kidney dialysis 2-3 times per week. How many places can there be for that kind of thing to happen ?

 

[Quasimoto]

Ok, you're right about the number.

However, we ARE killing al-quaida members...the ones you say are responsible for 9-11. So what's the problem? You act like just because we're in Iraq that we can't also be in Afghanistan as well. We're the most powerful nation in the world...you think we can't go into two little poorly defended countries at once?

And as for thinking things would be so easy...you obviously don't know what Afghanistan is like (terrain, weather, etc). I would have thought we learned a lesson from Vietnam about fighting primitive people that know their tricky land well. Oh well...I guess not everyone learns from history.

Yes we kil't a few al qaeda members. But Al Qaeda wasnt in Iraq, until we went there first. It'd be alot easier to catch the man who EVERYONE but you thinks is responsible for 9/11 if we had committed to full brunt of out troops there. He is the bounty, he is the prize . He is a fucking ICON to these people...bring him down, they will crumble. He is al qaeda man...without him they are a misguided group of wannabe soldiers that wouldnt have the resources to fight .

Frosty - I have been to afghanistan and pakistan bro, remember me ? i served my country in a time of war and peace. What a contradiction of explanations you give, " We're the most powerful nation in the world...you think we can't go into two little poorly defended countries at once?" and "you obviously don't know what Afghanistan is like (terrain, weather, etc) " ....do you think we should have 2 fronts , or just 1 because of the tough terrain and weather condition in afghanistan ? You dont make any sense....