Who watched the debate?

1.yes
2. no
3. yes
4. banana

Even my republican roommate admitted that bush got f'ed up in the debate. I'm a kerry supporter, and I try not to hate on repubs excessively (since half my friends are R, bastids), but Bush looked like a damn deer in the headlights compared to Kerry.
Oh and TJ, seriously, if you don't like pol threads, don't read em. I post on another forum for other hobbies of mine, which is predominantly repub, and I rarely read the pol threads, as I know I'll end up taking it to 20 pages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJ.Brk

make it stop. Please make it stop. :(

Please somebody start a skiing thread w/pics

---

why don't you sack up and lead by examble. you could start a stoke thread, and post in it, and read it instead of complaining about this thread and begging someone else to do what you want. jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by str8line

What did you think?


You already know I despise Bush's policies, but I never miss a chance to hear what he or those who support him have to say. I guess I am a masochist(sp?). But I wonder who else follows both sides of the debate, and then forms an opinion.


1) Did you watch the debate?

2) Did it affect your opinion of the candidates in any way, shape or form?

3) Do you get your news from a variety of sources?

4) Would you rather have 24 inches of 4% density snow or 10% density snow?

---

1. Yes
2. No. I have been keeping a close eye on both their campaigns and therefore am a Kerry supporter.
3. Yes, from Major Networks to local networks and papers to internet news sites.
4. At this point any snow is good snow, but if God gave me a choice I would ask for 12 inches of 10% density for base and 12 inches of 4% density for fluff.

I agree with many here that Kerry really shined. He made several points, although nothing really new from his campaign speaches, and Bush seemed to stick the same point, which was calling Kerry a flip-flopper. After this debate I think the flip-flopper argument carries less weight because Kerry did do a good job of explaining his position on Iraq however I would have preferred Kerry go a little deeper into his reasons for voting against the $87 billion.

Bush however did score twice in the debate that I saw. Both had to do with talking about using assistance from the UN and other countries. The first time was when Kerry finished his point about reaching out to others for help. He didn't say during this particular question that he would not cede any authority to the UN (he said he wouldn't cede authority during another point in the debate). Bush jumped on that and said he would ask for permission before defending the US. He also hit the same point during his closing statement. In my opinion these are the only two points in the debate where Bush "won".

Overall Kerry looked solid and very Presidential and Bush looked angry which made me feel like he was sticking to his policies if for no other reason to snub his nose at the opposition. Bush answered the question like they were scripted and lost some credibility during the rebutles, which seemed to be a little more respsonsive than prepared. Kerry solidly won the debate.

Anyone notice how the questions constantly put Bush on the defensive?

I'm just curious why there wasn't a single question about Kerry's senate record.

A couple more questions.

Mr. Kerry, if Saddam did not have Nuclear capabilities why do you continue to assert that we should have secured the nuclear facilities quicker?

Why one month ago did you say you would have gone into Iraq and deposed Saddam? When five seconds ago you clearly stated you would not?

Nice ole' on the Sudan question. However, the current UN involvement there fits your strategy for foreign intervention to a T. There are 50,000 people of the same race dead. 2,700 more are dying per day. Take all the time you want.

You say the coalition is illegitimate, your advisors ridicule the Ayad Allawi. Your sister and current head of foreigners for Kerry has publicly told Australians that their support for the US has materially endangered their citizenry. This is an ally that has stood by us in every war we've fought in the last century. Please elaborate.


Kerry is going to lose and he is going to lose big. I hope you all have your hopes up, it will make November 3 all that more enjoyable on this board for me.

Speaking of politics and other boards...

A chick on another board I was reading last night said that she agreed that Bush seemed uninformed, unprepared, and not particularly intelligent, but that made her more sure she'd vote for him - because he seems like a normal guy and she doesn't like intellectuals like Kerry.

Jesus Christ. I wouldn't be shocked if mr_gyptian does end up happy after the elections, but the above will be why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

I'm just curious why there wasn't a single question about Kerry's senate record.
Um, because this debate was about foreign policy?

A couple more questions.

Mr. Kerry, if Saddam did not have Nuclear capabilities why do you continue to assert that we should have secured the nuclear facilities quicker?
One does not have anything to do with the other. Saddam having Nuclear capabilities relates to weapons development programs as a reason to go to war. Securing Nuclear facilities relates to securing radiological sources from looting after their security aparatus has been diposed by our army.

Why one month ago did you say you would have gone into Iraq and deposed Saddam? When five seconds ago you clearly stated you would not?
Kerry is going to lose and he is going to lose big. I hope you all have your hopes up, it will make November 3 all that more enjoyable on this board for me.

---

You know what. Yeah he flip flopped on that one and doing so will probably cost Kerry the election (although I think it will be close). He failed to have any balls early on in the campaign and framed his position on Iraq as "It was wrong and we shouldn't have done it" when he should have framed it "Bush is an inadequate commander in chief and exceuted the war poorly"(because he is and he did). If he had had half a sack he could have framed the debate around Bushes competency as a military leader. Instead he let the opposition frame the debate around his credibility. Sad to see just another case of Democrats not knowing the first thing about running a campaign when compared to the Republican appratus.

..............

Was I imagining things agin, or did Bush completely flub his answer to the last question by answering the wrong question and then quitting before his time was up? What, was all that hard thinking for 90 minutes taking it's toll and he was ready for a Bud Light and some pretzels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

Anyone notice how the questions constantly put Bush on the defensive?

---

Maybe because Bush is the president and he had the ultimate authority to go to war in Iraq. Elections are usually about the incumbent, but in such troubled times it would seem trivial to ask about how Kerry voted on the 1993 defense appropriations bill. That doesn't mean Bush can't hammer him for his quotes on Saddam in 1991/92 and 2002/2004, but just keeping it relevant means that Iraq will be the focus and Bush broke it, now we all own it. (Also 2 more Americans and a number of Iraqi schoolchildren were murdered by thug terrorists b/f the debate yesterday. I think the people that use those tactics are the scum of the earth, but we knew this scenario was possible going in, especially if we didn't have a clearly defined post-war plan and exit strategy (or even listen to the 800 page Army War College plan that was drafted over 18 months)).

Quote:

---

Mr. Kerry, if Saddam did not have Nuclear capabilities why do you continue to assert that we should have secured the nuclear facilities quicker?

---

I didn't get that either. Probably he just misspoke, but Bush should have picked up on it. That or Kerry was being ironic...

Quote:

---

Why one month ago did you say you would have gone into Iraq and deposed Saddam? When five seconds ago you clearly stated you would not?

---

He answered this. He would go, but not if he didn't have the support and troops necessary to win the peace. Look at PGW if you'd like to see what a real coalition looks like: $55b of $61b in costs was paid by foreign countries. Here are the countries that sent more than 1,000 troops (a level only Great Britain, Spain, Poland, and Australia have passed at any period):
Bahrain (3K)
Bangladesh (6K)
Egypt (40K)
France (18K)
Kuwait (11K)
Morocco (1.7K)
Oman (25K)
Pakistan (7K)
Saudi Arabia (118K)
UAE (40K)
UK (44K)
Since Islamic countries sent so many troops, these countries sent military equipment, like frigates, destroyers, transport planes, cutters, bombers, medical and surgical teams, etc:
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Denmark
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Japan
Holland
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania (360 docs, 180 chemical warfare experts)
South Korea
Spain
Sweeden
About 10 other countries also provided less than 1,000 troops, but more total (among these small countries) than all non-British or American troops currently in Iraq.
The US also deployed 3x as many troops as we did this time for a lesser mission. George Bush, Colin Powell and Norman Shwarzkopf (sp?) did this, knowing that we probably had more troops than necessary, but 100% concerned with keeping casualties as low as possible and achieving objectives.

Quote:

---

Nice ole' on the Sudan question. However, the current UN involvement there fits your strategy for foreign intervention to a T. There are 50,000 people of the same race dead. 2,700 more are dying per day. Take all the time you want.

---

And Bush is rushing to be preemptive there? Come on! They both have the same shitty strategy, but as Kerry mentioned our military is kind of tied down right now. Don't tell me that GWB isn't acting preemptively b/c he's let world opinion get to him?

Quote:

---

You say the coalition is illegitimate, your advisors ridicule the Ayad Allawi. Your sister and current head of foreigners for Kerry has publicly told Australians that their support for the US has materially endangered their citizenry. This is an ally that has stood by us in every war we've fought in the last century. Please elaborate.

---

Alawi is not legitimate, he was appointed. Every time he is on video looking like a Bush puppet it reduces his credibility. Put it this way, he's a lot less legitimate than Abbas was and he didn't do nearly as much pandering to be seen as an Israeli/American stooge. After elections we can point to a "legitimate" Iraqi leader, but until then Ayatollah Sistani seems to have the most power and popular support out of anyone. As for Australia, he told them the same thing he told the American people. George Bush has been reckless and your country is in greater danger because of him. We can do better.

Quote:

---

Kerry is going to lose and he is going to lose big. I hope you all have your hopes up, it will make November 3 all that more enjoyable on this board for me.

---

We shall see. Right now the only thing I'm confident of is that you won't respond to my individual points since I wasn't shouting like a crazed lunatic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altagirl

Speaking of politics and other boards...

A chick on another board I was reading last night said that she agreed that Bush seemed uninformed, unprepared, and not particularly intelligent, but that made her more sure she'd vote for him - because he seems like a normal guy and she doesn't like intellectuals like Kerry.

Jesus Christ. I wouldn't be shocked if mr_gyptian does end up happy after the elections, but the above will be why.

---

Which is why Bush uses such simplistic rhetoric. I honestly hope that people see through his strategy, which is to boil complex topics down to 10th grade comprehension level and repeat them over and over again. For example, this whole "flip-flop" issue. Bush just keeps on hammering this point in a feeble attempt to mesmerize the voters. Sadly enough, given the complete lack of critical thinking that seems to define the American voter, this actually works. The mental capabilities of the populace scare me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJ.Brk

Well I, like many others believed this board was about skiing. Not Democratic Party Politics.

We now return you to the TGR Democratic Political Party message board. Only Democratic Party members are allowed to post here. No skiing posts allowed. :rolleyes:

---

[flags all over the place]

If I could kick you out of the game, I would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mountain Junkie

Which is why Bush uses such simplistic rhetoric. I honestly hope that people see through his strategy, which is to boil complex topics down to 10th grade comprehension level and repeat them over and over again. For example, this whole "flip-flop" issue. Bush just keeps on hammering this point in a feeble attempt to mesmerize the voters. Sadly enough, given the complete lack of critical thinking that seems to define the American voter, this actually works. The mental capabilities of the populace scare me.

---

I'm in 10th grade and I could feel myself getting stupider watching Dubya talk. Not only is the man overly simplisitic, he is downright scary, and IMHO, on the verge of being dilusional. His views of the world and our standing with other nations is so skewed that it's appalling. He has no idea that he has destroyed any respect that nations around the world had for us. Because of him and his assinine foreign policy, we are now the most widely despised nation in the world.

Kerry kicked Bush's ass in the debate, plain and simple. Despite that oh-so-obvious fact, I believe that Bush will win simply because people in this country are generally stupid and they don't want a leader who is "too intellctual" as Altagirl said. That scares me. When I can vote, my guideline will be that if I think I'm smarter than the candidate, I won't vote for him. And I honestly think that I'm much smarter than Dubya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegoSkier

You know what. Yeah he flip flopped on that one and doing so will probably cost Kerry the election (although I think it will be close). He failed to have any balls early on in the campaign and framed his position on Iraq as "It was wrong and we shouldn't have done it" when he should have framed it "Bush is an inadequate commander in chief and exceuted the war poorly"(because he is and he did). If he had had half a sack he could have framed the debate around Bushes competency as a military leader. Instead he let the opposition frame the debate around his credibility. Sad to see just another case of Democrats not knowing the first thing about running a campaign when compared to the Republican appratus.

---

I'd love to be fighting over there and have the opposing presidential candidate continue to reduce the money spent to support me to a fucking accounting error.

Our treatment of the Sudan genocide sickens me. The UN's and Kofi's legitimacy continues to boggle my mind. How in the hell does the UN go in there and do anything when the Sudan is on the Human Rights Council?? This is like Pablo Escobar running the DARE program.

I can't believe no one sees this. We are currently playing nice with Sudan. Handling it as John Kerry and John Edwards would. We are giving the most money of any country. contributing a couple of peace keepers(being front row ticket holders to genocide must be fun). Colin Powell is admonishing Khartoum. Everything as you all would have it. As you all wanted Iraq to continue to be dealt with by the all knowing UN.

AGAIN, 50,000 ARE DEAD. 2,700 PER DAY CONTINUE TO DIE.

This is how you want foreign policy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glademaster

I'm in 10th grade and I could feel myself getting stupider watching Dubya talk. Not only is the man overly simplisitic, he is downright scary, and IMHO, on the verge of being dilusional. His views of the world and our standing with other nations is so skewed that it's appalling. He has no idea that he has destroyed any respect that nations around the world had for us. Because of him and his assinine foreign policy, we are now the most widely despised nation in the world.

Kerry kicked Bush's ass in the debate, plain and simple. Despite that oh-so-obvious fact, I believe that Bush will win simply because people in this country are generally stupid and they don't want a leader who is "too intellctual" as Altagirl said. That scares me. When I can vote, my guideline will be that if I think I'm smarter than the candidate, I won't vote for him. And I honestly think that I'm much smarter than Dubya.

---

Dude, you're in 10th grade? Wow. When I was in 10th grade there's no way I could form that coherent of a thought.

(HIJACK) Luckily, while the debate was being aired, I was in a far better setting. Went to an event I used to produce called the Brower Youth Awards, recognizing 6 kids (aged 17-21) out there kicking ass on environmental issues. In the middle of the program, Michael Franti came out and sang a couple of songs. Unreal - he is amazing. And these kids were amazing - so clear, so focused, so articulate and smart. They're getting real shit done while our president sends their generation into a misguided war to die. One girl, who started working on toxics issues when she was 7 (yup, 7 - I think I was still having tea parties with dolls), said about the environment "We're taking back what you have abused for so long."

Anyway, the point of this hijack was this: had I watched the debates without having gone to this event, I think I would have been depressed, bored by two candidates, one of whom I tolerate and somewhat admire, but don't adore, and one of whom makes me physically sick and disgusted. But instead, I was fired up. The power is not all in one person's hands - it only is if we give it up too freely. There are such cool things going on out there, and so many people fighting day and night for things to be better. Any one of those kids had more passion and conviction in his pinky that George Bush has in his entire being. It gave me a bit of hope, and stirred up some of that motivation that ebbs so quickly in this dismal race. (END HIJACK).

I did Tivo the debate and watch most of it. I thought Kerry had a distinct lead over Bush. Bush seems vapid and unprepared. He had his traditional tone of condescension, which drives me nuts. I'll look forward to the debate on domestic issues, and then, can't wait to see Cheney and Edwards go at it.

I don't think getting your news from abc, nbc, cbs, and mnbc counts as a variety of news sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

I can't believe no one sees this. We are currently playing nice with Sudan. Handling it as John Kerry and John Edwards would. We are giving the most money of any country. contributing a couple of peace keepers(being front row ticket holders to genocide must be fun). Colin Powell is admonishing Khartoum. Everything as you all would have it. As you all wanted Iraq to continue to be dealt with by the all knowing UN.

AGAIN, 50,000 ARE DEAD. 2,700 PER DAY CONTINUE TO DIE.

This is how you want foreign policy?

---

That's completely off base. Last I checked, 2700 people per day weren't dying in Iraq prior to our arrival. He wanted to work with the UN and give them more time on disarming Iraq, and in light of the current situation it looks like Iraq already was disarmed of it's WMDs.

Sure, I would like to see more being done in Sudan, but while you are criticizing Kerry for wanting to use the UN, why aren't you criticizing this administration for not doing more and for playing nice? It's happening now, why no finger pointing at Bush?

North Korea now has nuclear weapons, aka weapons of mass destruction, and we are powerless to do anything militarily if needed because our troops are committed to a country that had none. Tell me how being in Iraq has made us more secure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altagirl

Speaking of politics and other boards...

A chick on another board I was reading last night said that she agreed that Bush seemed uninformed, unprepared, and not particularly intelligent, but that made her more sure she'd vote for him - because he seems like a normal guy and she doesn't like intellectuals like Kerry.

Jesus Christ. I wouldn't be shocked if mr_gyptian does end up happy after the elections, but the above will be why.

---

You know, you're right. Bush is stupid, I mean the someone miss-speaking themselves is the litmus test for inteligence right? I'll admit it, when he said vociferously I lost a mouthful of Lowenbrau. Making fun of people for misprounouncing things made me feel intelectually superior when I was twelve. It has since worn off.

Let's not talk about a verbal mistake, let's talk about flatly getting some thing wrong. Like say, Kerry's trip to Treblinka Square the home of the KGB. Apparently in Moscow? Are you sure it isn't down the straussen from Bergen-Belsen commons? Or possibly up the straussen from Auschwitz Park?

You want ignorant, that is ignorant by a factor of 20.

The KGB was on Lubyankaya Square.

Don't reply to this, because there is nothing to dispute. Bush is supposedly dumb on a level that most of you can catch. Kerry is ignorant on a level that the majority of you cannot.

That is why Bush will win on November 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

miss-speaking

---

Heh.

After watching the debates, I'm left with just two questions:
-Are we working hard?
-Is it hard work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by optics

Heh.

After watching the debates, I'm left with just two questions:
-Are we working hard?
-Is it hard work?

---

It's a hard job, optics. He works hard every day. (geez, I didn't know if I was meant to feel sorry for him, or impressed, or what).

1) Politicians

2) Suck

3) Ass

4) Hole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

That is why Bush will win on November 2.

---

Apparently mr_gyptian believes in the Bush camp's strategy that if you say something enough, it will be true.

Mr. G,

You're over-inflated sense of self and knowledge leads me to ask the following question: "Have your balls dropped yet?"

Both candidates have been wrong about different locations and pronunciations, but young Glademaster summed it up quite well. Bush, quite simply, has limited mental faculties.

I, for one, was pleasantly surprised by the actual substance and usefulness of the debate. I was cynical as hell about this after reading about all the various rules and regulations the two camps agreed to prior to the debates. But after last night (Jim Lehrer is the mang. If you don't watch "Newshour" on PBS every night vs. that infomercial network crap - you should), I can honestly say I think the debate last night was the best in my life-time for actual substance. The two candidates presented opposing views on how they view the world, and most specifically, this war and the issue of “homeland security” (god I am sick of that marketing phrase).

These "undecided" or "swing" voters scare me. I mean, what the hell is there to be undecided about, people? These 2 candidates present two opposing view points on EVERYTHING: foreign policy and the war, the environment, taxes, a woman's right to chose......WHAT IS THERE TO BE UNDECIDED ABOUT? Pick a side, and go vote.

If you are not registered to vote - shame on you. AND, you have no right to comment on or complain about the political process.

DEADLINE for registering to vote is OCTOBER 18th

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ski Monkey

That's completely off base. Last I checked, 2700 people per day weren't dying in Iraq prior to our arrival. He wanted to work with the UN and give them more time on disarming Iraq, and in light of the current situation it looks like Iraq already was disarmed of it's WMDs.

Sure, I would like to see more being done in Sudan, but while you are criticizing Kerry for wanting to use the UN, why aren't you criticizing this administration for not doing more and for playing nice? It's happening now, why no finger pointing at Bush?

North Korea now has nuclear weapons, aka weapons of mass destruction, and we are powerless to do anything militarily if needed because our troops are committed to a country that had none. Tell me how being in Iraq has made us more secure?

---

you're right, it was 260,000 per year. This according to the World Health Organization.

when was the last time NK attacked another nation? Six nation talks are resuming, isn't that what you want?

A NK with no Chinese and SK support is a toothless tiger to say the least. They have absolutely no natural resources with which to fight a war if they wanted to. The accuracy of their nukes should ahve South America as worried as we are.

Let's see, taking out Saddam has removed a major cash cow(mind you not the only one, Iran and Saudi Arabia are next) for quite a few different terrorist organizations. It also stopped Iraq from being a safehaven for terrorists such as Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. Please don't come back with more terrorists being there now. there are, there are also more dying than we could have ever hoped to eliminate by a search and destroy.

I do not look at Iraq as an end in the war on terror. It is a battle in the war on terror. Just like the Korean war and the Vietnam war were wars fought for a larger cause to end communism. Please don't take the last sentence to mean that I undermine either of those wars, it was meant to underline their importance in every sense.