The First Debate

Well, what did you think?

Watching Bush, I kept wondering "Where's the organ grinder"? Personally, I thought he seemed pathetic by the end, harping about "mixed messages" when Kerry's message was very clear.

just wondering what the "pre sept. 10th mentality" was about. i remember something that happened on the 11th but... the best i can come up with for the 10th was that i was studying for a communications test.

i tuned out when bush was going on and on about mixed messages.

Bush kept saying "it's challenging..." I'll bet it is.

Both camps said the same damn things. I agreed with Bush's stance on N. Korea and many other things. Kerry's points were still contradictoryand wishy washy, but he carried himself very well. He didn't look mean, overbearing, etc. Overall on points I go with Bush, but Kerry probably helped himself by appearing likeable. Overall it's a fucking wash. STUPID DEBATE RULES!

Bush: "Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden." Calling Dr. Freud, calling Dr. Freud.

Originally posted by Tristan Both camps said the same damn things. I agreed with Bush's stance on N. Korea and many other things. Kerry's points were still contradictoryand wishy washy, but he carried himself very well. He didn't look mean, overbearing, etc. Overall on points I go with Bush, but Kerry probably helped himself by appearing likeable. Overall it's a fucking wash. STUPID DEBATE RULES!

Stance on North Korea? Fuck off!!! Why should we think Kim Jong Il is more retard and belicaly dangerous than Bush?

Bush has stances in Korea, in China, in India, in Iraq, in Ira, in...

Originally posted by Server Error in "/" Application > Originally posted by Tristan> Both camps said the same damn things. I agreed with Bush's stance on N. Korea and many other things. Kerry's points were still contradictoryand wishy washy, but he carried himself very well. He didn't look mean, overbearing, etc. Overall on points I go with Bush, but Kerry probably helped himself by appearing likeable. Overall it's a fucking wash. STUPID DEBATE RULES!

Stance on North Korea? Fuck off!!! Why should we think Kim Jong Il is more retard and belicaly dangerous than Bush? Bush has stances in Korea, in China, in India, in Iraq, in Ira, in...

His stance on N Korea is to keep the 6 nations talks going...

When you've all finished your mass debating.....

Originally posted by oldmonkey When you've all finished your mass debating.....

There's still plenty of Bush to go around for the mass debating.

Well, as I've been saying for months...Kerry has basically proven yet once again how completely fucking retarded he is!! And these debates will continue to show that. I'm getting VERY tired of his double talk.

Hello!!! Senator Kerry...a straight answer. PLEASE!!!!!!! PS - What's your daughters doing tonight?

For the love of GOD I hope that bastard doesn't make it into the White House!!

We in the Military pretty much all agree that it would be a tragity if that were to happen.

Kerry won, hands down. He came off as classy while Bush was sneering and trying his whole "I'll smirk while the camera's on me, to reassure the American people that I'm the guy they wanna have a beer with." Kerry came back on every point Bush made, while every point he made that Bushy could've contradicted pretty much went by unchallenged except with the "mixed messages" crap. Who wrote that, by the way, some sixt-grade English class? Bush kept getting caught offguard, while Kerry seemed prepared for even the slightest question that could possibly go out.

But of course, none of this will matter to the average shithead voter, who'll be too busy to vote after Bush declares martial law on Halloween and starts a nuke war with the N. Koreans

Too bad Karl Rove wasn't up there to hold Bushy's hand....:p

Trev, Kerry looked classy and spewed nonsensical shite, while Bush looked like a dumbfounded chimp but made damn good points. Now it's time to wait until STL to see who's going to get the upper hand with the debates.

Originally posted by Tristan Trev, Kerry looked classy and spewed nonsensical shite, while Bush looked like a dumbfounded chimp but made damn good points. Now it's time to wait until STL to see who's going to get the upper hand with the debates.

Yes, like "I know Bin Laden attacked us" and "Here's my 'oh shit, this bastard is winning this thing' face"

I just wonder if there's any way to track down how many of the pundits who said "Bush won it" are actually on the Bush/Cheney payroll...

Gotta love the 200 billion figure the Dem.s use, especially when part of it is reserved for operations in Afghanistan.

I'm looking forward to Heart-Attack Cheney and Pretty-Boy Edwards myself...a real chance to see how insane the modern-day Republican Party truly is

(Tris will angrily respond in 5...4...3...2...)

Insane? Garnering generous tax cuts for yourself is quite rational.

Anyways, Cheney will get down and dirty with Edwards. He'll make much better points all 'round than Edwards will, but Edwards' appearance will probably "win" (a la last night) that debate.

Edwards is going to hand Cheney his ass.*

* No, I didn't mean the ass in the White House.

Taxes? Dontcha tok about taxes. Yo don't know what are taxes if you don't live in Brazil, paying 363,7% tax over cigars

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Edwards is going to hand Cheney his ass.** No, I didn't mean the ass in the White House.

I hope Cheney slips up and tells Edwards to fuck off for mentioning Halliburton.

Oh, and I listened on the radio and Kerry clearly won. All Bush could do was repeat the same stupid shit about "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." I hope someone bombs that fucker. Kerry should've gone for the jugular and called Bush a lying shit-sucker.

Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS For the love of GOD I hope that bastard doesn't make it into the White House!!We in the Military pretty much all agree that it would be a tragity if that were to happen.

That's not tragedy...

Sixteen consecutive weekends and no bLuE oRdEr/Olsen Twins sandwich...Now that's tragic.

I wonder what Kerry's daughter is doing this weekend?

Originally posted by His Holiness, The PopeOh, and I listened on the radio and Kerry clearly won. All Bush could do was repeat the same stupid shit about "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." I hope someone bombs that fucker. Kerry should've gone for the jugular and called Bush a lying shit-sucker.

You should have seen the lying shit-sucker on TV. :D

It bordered on animal abuse to have that poor, bewildered chimp up there on stage like that.

Bush was incoherent...the man is truly a mental child...he just spits out rambling pieces of sentences...its like he's one of those toys you pull the string on and it spits out a fragment of a sentence.

I really really do not understand how anyone in the military can like a guy who backs away from the primary targets (Osama/Al Qaida/Saudi Arabia) and goes for the photo op easy kill (Iraq's army was decimated)....btw Why aren't his daughters in the military if he understands how important our troops are...fat chance of that.

Worse than that...Iran and North Korea are now continuing proliferation and god only help us if Al Qaida succeeds in killing Musharref and gets ahold of nukes...The problem is that by being bogged down in Iraq there is now no way for us to move against Iran or North Korea (China wouldn't let us do that anyway). Putin also knows he can now move with impunity to kill Chechens at will and strip Russians of freedoms....All of this has/is happened on BUSH'S WATCH.

Tristan...answer me one two questions...who was/is the bigger threat to us Osama and team or Saddam and team?...Ok so why then did we end up spending 10-20 times the resources on getting Saddam that we spent on getting Osama. BTW that $200 billion figure will go way way up over the next 5-10 years that the CIA and State Dept. estimate we will be in Iraq...unless you seem to think that Rove/Bush/Rumsfeld are right and everyone else that works for the govt. is wrong

Originally posted by Hydrapelican All of this has/is happened on BUSH'S WATCH.

Let's not forget that September 11 happened on BUSH'S WATCH...

...which shows how ludicrous the Republican fear-mongering about Kerry truly is:

Septemmber 7, 2004:

DICK CHENEY: "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again."

September 30, 2004:

MR. LEHRER: New question. Mr. President, two minutes. Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead. I have -- I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions that I've made. And I've made some tough decisions.

Bush got reamed..he couldn't even answer questions, for the most part...it was mainly him repeating campaign slogans and getting frustrated.

Meanwhile, Kerry answered questions pretty clearly, and showed a real understanding of the issues of the discussion.

Dubya, at best, has no grounds to accuse anyone of waffling, he's done almost nothing but waffle on almost every issue, saying "I'm gonna stay my course and be strong" ..*after you've waffled*.. doesn't erase a flipflop...especially when it costs lives and aids terrorists...but apparently Dubya liked Saddam's Minister of Information(I forget his name..)'s schtick. But..."Birds of a feather", and all that..

Originally posted by Hydrapelican Bush was incoherent...the man is truly a mental child...he just spits out rambling pieces of sentences...its like he's one of those toys you pull the string on and it spits out a fragment of a sentence. I really really do not understand how anyone in the military can like a guy who backs away from the primary targets (Osama/Al Qaida/Saudi Arabia) and goes for the photo op easy kill (Iraq's army was decimated)....btw Why aren't his daughters in the military if he understands how important our troops are...fat chance of that. Worse than that...Iran and North Korea are now continuing proliferation and god only help us if Al Qaida succeeds in killing Musharref and gets ahold of nukes...The problem is that by being bogged down in Iraq there is now no way for us to move against Iran or North Korea (China wouldn't let us do that anyway). Putin also knows he can now move with impunity to kill Chechens at will and strip Russians of freedoms....All of this has/is happened on BUSH'S WATCH. Tristan...answer me one two questions...who was/is the bigger threat to us Osama and team or Saddam and team?...Ok so why then did we end up spending 10-20 times the resources on getting Saddam that we spent on getting Osama. BTW that $200 billion figure will go way way up over the next 5-10 years that the CIA and State Dept. estimate we will be in Iraq...unless you seem to think that Rove/Bush/Rumsfeld are right and everyone else that works for the govt. is wrong

Umm as far as I'm concerned we are still going after Osama. The only thing more money would do would allow us to build a bunch of MOABs and blow up the whole Hindu Kush and unearth every Al Qaeda parasite left. The key to get Osama is to remain patient and to rely on Pakistani intel, well because Osama is probably in Pakistan. Should we send troops to find Osama in Pakistan? Fuck no, we would stray away a key ally in Musharraf (sp?), and if Pakistan does get on our bad side, then that's another country with nuclear capabilities that will be against us. My prob with the 200 billion figure is in the fact that ppl think that's what has been already spent, and also some of the money is devoted to Afghan operations.

Now why I continue to support the war in Iraq... that's a helluva issue that would take me paragraphs to answer, and considering i just came back from a Jimmy Eat World concert (hey it was free!), I'll leave that for later.

Any smart person would be able to discern both sides of the argument and realize Bush's foreign policy is more stable and would be more beneficial to the US in the future. Now if you want to harp on Bush about gay rights, abortion rights, and other domestic crap, then be my guest because more often than not I'll probably agree with you.

Sheesh people, stop and try to remember what happened in the debate! There were a couple instances where Bush stumbled; nevertheless he ultimately mustered up good answers. Kerry unsuccessfully dabbled into N Korea, and he didn't do anything to present himself but a flip-flopper on the Iraq issue. Kerry's demeanor and speech delivery outdid Bush's, but Bush whooped Kerry on the issues for chrissakes.

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> Edwards is going to hand Cheney his ass.* * No, I didn't mean the ass in the White House.

I hope Cheney slips up and tells Edwards to fuck off for mentioning Halliburton. Oh, and I listened on the radio and Kerry clearly won. All Bush could do was repeat the same stupid shit about "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." I hope someone bombs that fucker. Kerry should've gone for the jugular and called Bush a lying shit-sucker.

Kerry really impressed me, he seemed calm and collected, "presidential" if you will. All of Bush's comments (with a 7 second delay so his advisors can radio in responds to his "brain") were overly simplistic, used circular logic and incomplete arguements.

I'm looking forward to the Cheney/Edwards debate. I wanna see that bald tosser get all flustered and curse Edwards out on live TV

my favorite bush moment:

pretty much his exact words, if i remember correctly: 'we weren't expecting such a swift victory. that the ba'athists would lay down their arms so quickly and flee the country. we're fighting them now, but we defeated them then.'

what! so...we achieved a 'swift victory' and drove the ba'athists out. if they've been driven out, how the hell can we be fighting them now?

Bush/Cheney '04!!!!

Kerry+Edwards=A REALLY F'ed up nation!! Botox and khaki dockers for everyone!!

Fuck that shit. Let me out of here!!!!

Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS khaki dockers for everyone!!

Well, I'm voting for Kerry, but khaki dockers? On me? Never. Never, never, never.*

*Unless I am forcibly dressed and undressed by eight score young blondes and brunettes, all between sixteen and nineteen- and- a- half, cut off in the castle Anthrax with no one to protect them, living a lonely life of bathing, dressing, undressing, making exciting underwear.

A few months ago (on this forum), someone said that the US needed some kind of "third party".

I actually think the whole world needs a third way. One world gov - one set of rules for everyone: no guns, bombs or famine at all.

I'm saying this on this thread because there is no third option on the [above] voting form for those who don't want a US president at all.

Bush is such a fucking moron...

Like nobody had a clue.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Bush is such a fucking moron... Like nobody had a clue.

Ooh salon.com, I might as well ignore it and post articles from heritage

http://www.heritage.org/press/dailybriefing/policyweblog.cfm?blogid=6FAC0F43-A0C9-D18A-0FEC5D14CE3391FE

How about another one!

http://www.heritage.org/press/dailybriefing/policyweblog.cfm?blogid=6FDC6856-A0C9-D18A-0FCA51571220C897

and another!

http://www.heritage.org/press/dailybriefing/policyweblog.cfm?blogid=78973B46-A0C9-D18A-0F86535D8674F245

I can't forget this one... http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm583.cfm

Interesting articles. I might even read them later.

Too bad they do absolutely nothing to refute the evidence that Bush is a fucking moron.

At least we can understand now why Bush had a seven-second delay on every rebuttal.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Interesting articles. I might even read them later. Too bad they do absolutely nothing to refute the evidence that Bush is a fucking moron. At least we can understand now why Bush had a seven-second delay on every rebuttal.

It's too bad that Bush can't channel Cheney for tonight's 'debate'.

I wish there was a more serious debate such as a team debate: Bush and his team versus Kerry and his team, and all this would take place in a joint session of Congress in which everyone would be hootin and hollerin like a House of Commons session. There would be an unbiased moderator controlling who gets to choose who speaks.

I wish there was a more serious debate such as a team debate: Bush and his team versus Kerry and his team, and all this would take place in a joint session of Congress in which everyone would be hootin and hollerin like a House of Commons session. There would be an unbiased moderator controlling who gets to choose who speaks.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > I wish there was a more serious debate such as a team debate: Bush and his team versus Kerry and his team, and all this would take place in a joint session of Congress in which everyone would be hootin and hollerin like a House of Commons session. There would be an unbiased moderator controlling who gets to choose who speaks.

Not my idea. It's an idea that the creator of 60 Minutes proposed in an interview. I would love watching Nancy Pelosi (the incompetent she-devil of the Democratic party) become crazy with each Republican point and assault Tom Delay.

COMMENTARY Resolved: That Was No Debate By John Sexton

October 8, 2004

The presidential debates — the second of which will be held tonight — are the result of extended negotiations, enormous preparation and a careful choreography driven by dozens of pages of rules in which no detail is too small for negotiation.

There's only one problem, one that thousands of competitive debaters and their coaches would recognize in an instant: Not one of these events deserves to be called a debate.

The organizers have appropriated the word — debate — and they have applied it to these performances in service of an illusion. The real purpose, of course, is clear: The candidates want to use these events to sell themselves to the public. A debate in the true sense of the word, by contrast, would have a starkly different purpose: to inform the public of the differences between the two candidates, and the implications of those differences.

From 1960 to 1975, my principal activity was coaching a team of girls in debate at St. Brendan's High School in Brooklyn. Five times we were national champions, and I assure you that they understood what a real debate was — an ongoing, focused, rigorous verbal battle.

By contrast, when George W. Bush and John F. Kerry met in Coral Gables, Fla., last week, they delivered serial stump speeches standing side by side. They offered paragraphs extracted from familiar monologues triggered by a key word tucked away in a question, pitched a few well-calculated "gotcha" lines, and tried to manage their body language and appearance.

We have lost the ability in our public discourse to speak to one another in a way that moves ideas forward, that can result in enlightenment — or at least reflection — and that ends in disagreement without rancor. The presidential debates exemplify the collapse of civil discourse, and perhaps they even accelerate its downward spiral.

Informed discussion of issues of importance is a basic premise of democracy; these days, when the issues are so complex and so consequential, its absence is keenly felt. It is puzzling to me that we have allowed this to happen. Candidates Bush and Kerry even shared the same debate teacher at Yale. But, somewhere between competitive debate and candidacy, some force reshaped and debased the mode of discourse.

In a real debate, the debaters take a position, offer a set of reasons, listen carefully to their opponent's critique of those reasons and then offer a defense, attempting to blunt the critique.

What we got last week — and what we can expect again tonight, I'm afraid — was something quite different. Several times in Florida the president asserted, mantra-like, that Kerry's criticisms of his handling of the war undermined our troops and the effort against terrorism; but the president was never pushed to explain how. Similarly, Kerry's assertion that his positions on the war were consistent and tied to evolving events was left unexplained and untested.

It is particularly regrettable that these events are taking place at universities. Universities are, because of their nature, among the last institutions in American society where a commitment to rigorous discourse is retained. They are modern sanctuaries for dialogue — free, unbridled and unconstrained discourse in which claims are examined, confirmed, deepened or replaced. Had last week's encounter been a real debate, a university would have been the ideal setting; as it is, it is ironic that a respected university like Miami is reduced (through no fault of its own, I might add) to providing auditorium space.

It is time for a change. We should make federal campaign funds available only if candidates participate in a true debate. The ground rules should be determined by a neutral commission, so that we don't end up with side-by-side news conferences. If a candidate refuses to debate, it should trigger additional funding for his or her opponent and free television airtime. Moreover, the rules of the debate must be changed to make it more competitive and less staged. There should be extended rounds of exploration for each question, and the candidates should have the right to cross-examine one another.

As viewers, and as citizens, we have a right to expect the debates to do more than provide a platform for simple, sound-bite-driven, focus-group-derived positions and a few lame jokes. We have a right to expect a format that illuminates each candidate's positions and offers an opportunity to examine the wisdom of those positions, that lets us see whether those positions can withstand the scrutiny of his opponent, and that demonstrates whether each presidential aspirant can extend a defense of his position with precision and depth.

John Sexton is president of New York University and a member of the debate Hall of Fame.

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times