Town Hall Debate Thread

[JumpinJesus]

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

/oversimplified, ignorant remark.

[Rekna]

ABC results

41 Bush
44 Kerry
13 Tie

[Rdr4evr]

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

[JumpinJesus]

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.

[Moobie]

Originally Posted by Rekna

hahah kerry was right. Bush reported 84 dollars from his timber owning enterprise.

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

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I know....I know, I said I would refrain from coming into this forum.

Oh well....this could be the defining moment in this election. I would ask, before the debate starts, what our members consider to be the likely result. It would be interesting to see who calls it.

My guess: Bush comes out strong and attempts to make Kerry look the fool on his record. We hear the flip flop thing more than economic policy.
Kerry attempts to reveal his economic plan(if there is one) but is instead, kept on the defensive for the first half of the debate.
Towards the end of the 1 1/2 hours, Bush begins to lose the ability to form cohesive thought and Kerry goes into stump speech mode.

End result: Kerry takes the second debate.




Just my Guess, as I think they both Suck.

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

[JumpinJesus]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

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?

[maypo]

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.

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

[powerclown]

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.

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

[maypo]

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

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by powerclown

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.

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.

[Willravel]

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.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

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

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

[tecoyah]

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

[JumpinJesus]

Instant debate commentary, too. It really is live.

[host]

Originally Posted by powerclown

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.

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

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 !

[Rdr4evr]

"We all thought there was weapons there, Robin. My opponent thought there was weapons there. That's why he called him a grave threat.
I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why."

And now tens of thousands of innocent people are dead. Next time evaluate your assumptions a bit more before jumping into a baseless war.

"And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be more dangerous."

The world was far less dangerous before you came into power, and Saddam was not a danger to the WORLD.

"I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular. But I made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of our security."

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."

"And so, what I'm telling you is, is that sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think they're right."

Thinking is a lot different than knowing.

"We don't need mass armies anymore."

We will if you get re-elected.

"And the reason I'm worried is because there's a vicious enemy that has an ideology of hate."

Take a look in the mirror.

"This war is a long, long war, and it requires steadfast determination and it requires a complete understanding that we not only chase down Al Qaida but we disrupt terrorist safe havens as well as people who could provide the terrorists with support."

Once again, Afghanastan, not Iraq.

"And I'm going to spend what it takes to win the war, more than just $120 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. We've got to pay our troops more. We have. We've increased money for ammunition and weapons and pay and homeland security."

Someone please explain this to me? Didn't he cut the troops' pay?

"I own a timber company?"

Apparently did liar.

"Is my time up yet?"

Hopefully it will be in less than a month.

[Locobot]

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

[jorgelito]

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.

[jorgelito]

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.

[Jesus Pimp]

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?!"

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

[ARTelevision]

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

[trickyy]

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:

Jobs Figures

Both Edwards and Cheney quoted selective and misleading figures about jobs, and even Cheney got confused.

Edwards said 1.6 million private sector jobs and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs had been lost during the Bush administration. Both figures are accurate, but omit the growth in employment by federal, state and local governments. The net loss in total employment is actually 913,000 as of August, the most recent figures available.

Cheney claimed Edwards was using old data from 2003, which wasn't the case.

Cheney correctly noted that 1.7 million jobs have been added in the past year, since payroll employment bottomed out in August of last year. New employment figures are due on Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the last report before election day. It now appears certain that Bush and Cheney will end their term with payroll employment still below where it was when they took office, the first time that's happened since the Hoover administration.

[Stompy]

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.

[Boo]

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

Someone please explain this to me? Didn't he cut the troops' pay?

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.

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

The world was far less dangerous before you came into power, and Saddam was not a danger to the WORLD.

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.

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

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."

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?

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

Thinking is a lot different than knowing.

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.....

[whiplash13]

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.

[maximusveritas]

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.

[quicksteal]

Originally Posted by maypo

This nuclear material business is serious, why hasn't Bush quickly adopted it into his platform?

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.

[mml]

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.

[Randomly]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

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.

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.

[host]

Originally Posted by quicksteal

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.

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.

Powell Decries Putin's Policies
Critique in Russian Daily Cites Shortfalls in Political System

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 27, 2004; Page A14

MOSCOW, Jan. 26 -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell criticized Russia's democratic shortfalls and its aggressive approach to the former Soviet republics in unusually direct language Monday, the day he met with President Vladimir Putin.

In a front-page commentary in Izvestia, one of Moscow's most influential newspapers, Powell said the U.S.-Russia relationship would "not achieve its potential" unless the two countries shared "basic principles."

"Russia's democratic system seems not yet to have found the essential balance among the executive, legislative and judicial functions. Political power is not yet tethered to law," Powell wrote. He added that neither the news media nor political parties were free to operate as they chose.

Powell criticized Putin's policy toward Chechnya, where Russian troops have fought brutally to suppress the southern region's bid for independence. Powell also defended the "sovereign integrity" of the former Soviet states, many of which resent what they consider Russian meddling in their affairs.........
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A48581-2004Jan26&notFound=true">http://www.washingtonpost.com</a>

[OpieCunningham]

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?

BUSH: ... I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.

I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them. ...

KERRY: Well, again, the president just said, categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that. You know, it's just not that simple. No, I'm not.

I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.

Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16-or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.

GIBSON: And 30 seconds, Mr. President.

BUSH: Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no?

And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that's just the way it is. That's a vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said: You can run but you can't hide the reality.

You gotta be shittin' me.

[TheFu]

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.

[Paq]

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....

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by Stompy

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)

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

[smooth]

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

i get the feeling kerry is trying to sell me a dodgy used car.

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

[smooth]

Originally Posted by maypo

Bush gutted the clean air act, does he know what his own policies are?Air is cleaner?, better check factcheck.org

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

[maypo]

originaly posted by quicksteal
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.

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.

[Locobot]

"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.

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales."

factcheck.org

[Jesus Pimp]