How lousy is your business when you only have 84 dollars reported income from it?

/oversimplified, ignorant remark.

ABC results

41 Bush
44 Kerry
13 Tie

ABC says 41% think Bush won, and 44% think Kerry won.

I do think that Kerry came out slightly ahead on this one, but I wonder just how much the punditry afterwards affects people's perceptions of who won.

Ah but to be fair they just said that was from a couple of years ago. So they're both right.

I'm sticking with my first post.....I think I pretty much nailed it.

I think you did, too. Ever think of calling up the networks for a talking head position? :D

tremendously, Americans like to be with the winner. Bush did better but seemed confused and ill-prepared. Again.

What a mess. Did not like this debate one bit. The tone was hostile, overbearing, sarcastic, petty. What were they trying to prove by hollering and stomping around like enraged gorillas, the both of them? What a surreal television event. :crazy:

The hysterical spin-meisters are already out proclaiming their candidate's triumph. A mockery of common sense and integrity.

"I'm mad as hell and i'm not going to take it anymore"

To be honest....I only saw one of the candidates acting brash.....Kerry seemed quite composed, although he did call Bush on his....uh...exagerations this time.

I'm going on record to state that I think I could beat both of them in a debate of the same type that we have seen tonight and before. The trick is to not lie or exaggerate. If you stay truthful, your opponent's lies are more obvious. Both Bush and Kerry have been deceitful. I'm going to watch Enterprise now.

I'm already under contract with Halx....once he assumes power, any time now.

Bill Maher is on......this outa be good.

Instant debate commentary, too. It really is live.

What would you expect the climate to be in a campaign immediately following
an election where the "winner" of the presidency was appointed by a supreme
court weighted by appoints of a prevoius president, who happened to be the
"winning" candidate's father, in a court decision called the "Gore exception",
because it was a decision not based on constitutional law, and the court did
not want this decision to set a precedent, and the court majority said that to allow a Florida vote re-count would do irreparable harm to one candidate,
the "winner" it's ruling appointed, and that the Florida Supreme court had not
erred, but was being overruled by the U.S. supremes, anyway. Oh.....and
Florida voting amounted at that time to only a 537 vote plurality, with the
controversy that that state's election was overseen by a Florida secretary of
state who was also that state's campaign manager of the campaign of the
"winning" candidate, whose brother happened to be governor of Florida, and
who, with his secretary of state, developed and implemented a signifigantly
flawed "felon voter purge list", one of only six states to use such a list, to
prevent 65,000 registered voters from voting. Did I mention that the "winner"
also lost the national popular vote by 500,000, and at his inaugaration, paid
lip service to the fact that he was not elected with a popular mandate, and
promised to remedy that by being a uniter, and then immediately proceeded
to launch one of the most secretive, partisan, pro rich and large corporation,
presidential regimes in the history of the country ?

No.....no way to understand how the current bitterness in this election cycle
could be so severe.....wait....maybe it has something to do with starting a
war under completely false pretenses, making up false elerts to keep the country in a constant state of fear for three years, and then spinning the lies
and deception as an accurate and correct course while constantly changing
the justifications as each previous one is discredited with time and fact finding? The partisanship we are seeing does seem to be a bit too much....
thanks for pointing that out !

And now tens of thousands of innocent people are dead. Next time evaluate your assumptions a bit more before jumping into a baseless war.
The world was far less dangerous before you came into power, and Saddam was not a danger to the WORLD.
Saddam Hussein who has never attacked America was in the right interest of our security? What happened to Bin Laden, the man who DID attack America, he obviously is not in the "right interest of our security."
Thinking is a lot different than knowing.
We will if you get re-elected.
Take a look in the mirror.
Once again, Afghanastan, not Iraq.
Someone please explain this to me? Didn't he cut the troops' pay?
Apparently did liar.
Hopefully it will be in less than a month.

I thought Kerry was much clearer in message, Bush floundered on quite a few answers, relied too heavily on the same tired talking points.

One thing I didn't get:

When George Bush kept pointing out that Kerry (and Edwards) weren't on the Senate floor ;

1. Was he inplying that they are shirking their responsibility, or dodging work?

2. If so, why didn't Kerry hit back with George Bush's record vacation time. I belive Bush has taken the most time off.

Yes, I believe Bush did cut troops pay along with Veteran's benefits. It doesn't matter what party you're in, that's just not right.

Wow tonight's debate was comedy gold! Here some of my favorite quotes from tonight's debate.

"You can run but cannot hide. That's reality." phrase. Does Bush listen Wutang clan?

"I heard rumors on the internets"

"The air and environment has become cleaner since I became president."

Missurrah!

"You want some wood?!" :lol:

I can't believe Bush referred to Canada as a 3rd world country and canadian drugs kill Americans. :lol:

I think it was a very good discussion of the issues. I think we all benefitted from the experience.

transcript here in case you are too lazy to look it up
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html

i thought it was pretty close. guess kerry had a slight edge.

with respect to the conflict b/w 1.9 million and 1.6 million, Kerry's figures are based on the time period from when Bush took office until a few months ago. Bush claims creating 1.9 mil in the last 13 months. after the job numbers released today, bush still sees a net loss of about 600,000 jobs during his full tenure. you may want to check on this yourself, but this is my best recollection from various sources in the last week.

Edit....it's more like 817,000 after today's numbers (96000 new jobs in sept.)
From the real debate winner, factcheck.org:

I like how Bush totally didn't even answer the last question.. the one about "which mistakes have you made, and what did you do to acknowledge/correct them" (something along those lines)

Immediately got defensive, thought she meant "Iraq", and went off about Saddam! hahaha damn. I laughed my ass off at that.

Look. George, she didn't ask about Iraq. She asked what mistakes you made and what you did after you realized what mistakes you made... and that just shows his hard headedness and ignorance. Just admit you made a mistake in jumping to conclusions on the WMD reports. All these reports and officials are coming out now saying there never was credible evidence nor was Iraq ever a threat... these aren't made up, and I think both sides can agree on this. Why not see this mistake? I think that just about answered her question: GWB never makes mistakes, because he is a perfect robot.

Google is your friend.

http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/priorpay/

and

http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/pay/2004paytable.pdf

E5 over 8, went from $1855.80 in 2001 to $2250.90 in 2004. Nope, not a cut.

Housing has improved greatly. BONUS programs are everywhere.

I only WISH I had the chance to make the money that these people are now. Unfortunately, the demands of some of the jobs are greater now.

And he came to power before 911. Saddam was only a danger to his own people (so far as I can tell, his neighboring countries and other may disagree) and the integrity of the United Nations.

BL will be found if alive. Things take time. Our people are working on it. Can you not accept that he is either dead and gone or hiding in a hole smaller than SH's?

I have found that people that are critical of other peoples errors generally didn't have to make the decision before the outcome. Hindsight is.....

Anyone get the count on how many times GWB said Wrong war, wrong place wrong time? I think it was 3 which is a significant drop from last weeks debate.

Bush came out angry (or "energetic" as the media spun it). He knew he needed to win this debate convincingly to slow the Kerry momentum. He failed.
The thing that stuck out to me was the way he angrily interrupted Charles Gibson, not allowing him to ask his question. Angry may work with his base, but the leaners at home get turned off by stuff like that. In contrast, Kerry was cool and calm in the heat of battle, just like a commander in chief should be.
The post-debate polls show that Kerry was able to sway more people to his side. Kerry just keeps rolling along, before long I think he'll be in the White House.

Kerry wants to buy enriched uranium at a faster rate, buying up all of the Soviets' fuel in 4 years instead of 12.5. Bush hasn't adopted this because it's a terrible move. We buy enriched uranium from the former USSR at a certain rate because of the American economy. I don't want to go too into it, but there is currently only one plant in America that enriches uranium for use as fuel in nuclear plants. It costs more to produce the uranium than to buy it from the USSR, so if we buy the Soviet uranium too fast, it will flood the market, drive the price down, and our one and only American producer will go out of business. So we have to sacrifice this small danger (we know where this stuff is in Russia, but it's not as safe as if we had it) in order to preserve our economy. Honestly, I don't know why the Bush campaign hasn't consulted anyone on this (like the Department of Energy)...Kerry's way off here.

Overall, I think it was a very close debate (if we can actually call it a debate). Bush clearly did much better than the last meeting, but I do not think it was a victory. In general, if you are a supporter of either candidate you can easily claim they won. Most of the Network "undecided groups" called it a tie and said it did not settle the question and I think that is pretty accurate. Bush came off as resolute, but a bit fed up with Kerry. He had high points and low points. His personal convictions, confidence and tenacity came through clearly. Kerry had few high or low points, but maintained a strong overall performance. His poise and breadth of knowledge came through clearly. If I had to pick a winner, it would be Kerry, but that is most likely because I am a big supporter and have very similar views to the Senator.

IMO - If Bush did not have a good outing, he was going to lose. A stong win for Kerry would have tipped the scale for Kerry. A tie is a minor plus for Kerry, but puts the onus on next Wednesday in Tempe.

I think that's what he's implying. Bush is highlighting a major reason Senators don't get elected President anymore. Each day that they are in California, Iowa, Florida, etc, then they aren't in DC waiting to press the Yes or No button. For them to campaign, they have to miss votes. A President, Governor, or retired General can do everything he has to do anywhere he happens to be. It is a tremendous advantage over a member of Senate or House.

Another thing is that a Senator might vote no on a bill that would do what he wants to an issue he loves.. because of one line that he hates. Bush keeps bringing up Kerry's no vote on the 87 Billion. Kerry voted Yes on the original bill, because the original bill required that the US pay for it by repealing or letting lapse a tax cut on corporations and the wealthiest bracket. Kerry voted no after the bill was amended to borrow the 87 Billion.... from Asian national banks.

Kerry didn't want to borrow 87 billion from the chinese and japanese governments to pay for our gear. Why? The interest alone will likely raise the cost to 140 Billion.

So.......to protect the $900 million market cap and $10.64 share price of
"a former federal enterprise, now privatized corporation, USEC Inc.",
<a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=USU">http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=USU</a>
the U.S. administration has made the decision to deliberately slow the rate
of dismantling and recycling uranium from Russian missle warheads? Of course,
sounds perfectly reasonable to me.......NOT !

<quote>......USEC Inc. continues a 30-year tradition of reliability—no customer’s delivery requirement has been missed, either in timeliness or in quantity. USEC is also the U.S. government’s executive agent for a historic U.S.-Russian nonproliferation agreement. Under this 20-year Megatons to Megawatts agreement, USEC purchases low enriched uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads, and sells it as commercial nuclear fuel to utility customers for use in their electricity generating plants.
<a href="http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=USU&script=2100">http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=USU&script=2100</a></quote>

and it doesn't look like the prospects for democracy in Russia today are any
more promising than in January, when the report below was filed. I think that
Kerry's criticism of the Bush-Putin 2002 treaty, with it's 2012 warhead reduction deadline, absent a firm timetable/schedule to acomplish dismantling
and removal of uranium, is valid.

No offense to any Bush supporters ... but what the hell is wrong with the guy that when given time to respond to Kerry's statement that he voted No on the Partial Birth Abortion ban because it had no provision for patient safety, the guy responds with "You can run but you can't hide"?

This is the kind of thing that passes for debate?

You gotta be shittin' me.

I missed the debate live because I was at one of the Vote For Change concerts. DMB rocked btw. I'm watching/listening to a replay now. Almost over and I think Bush is ripping Kerry a new one. Unless he drops his pants during the next couple of questions I think Bush bagged it.

Edit bc i can't paste properly....


Question 16: President Bush, who would be your next choice for the Supreme Court?

GIBSON: Mr. President, the next question is for you, and it comes from Jonathan Michaelson, over here.

QUESTIONER: 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.

from http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...pt3/index.html

was that really necessary..."I want them all voting for me" from a guy who is in power bc the supreme court voted for him???????!?!?!?!?



at any rate, bush still played the fear card far too often, placed the "HE WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES" far too often, and generally had his ass handed to him...again. Although, in his defense, he did some MUUUUUCCCCHHHH more prepared and ready for this debate....

I think he handled that one perfectly. That's a question that's meant to be dodged. Horrible choice for a closer.

exactly. I wish bush would get out of it so I could buy the darn thing! :)

that depends on the standard. if one lowers the standard, then the air could be declared officially 'cleaner' even if it were objectively worse.

Small Danger? You do understand we're talking about a major component of nuclear terrorism here. Your concept of safety leaves me baffled. " We know where it is?" That's like suggesting I leave a hazardous toy with my child because I've already paid for it.

"What? I own a lumber company? News to me. Wanna buy some wood?" -GWB

As it turns out Mr. Bush...you just made the asshat statement of the campaign.

factcheck.org