Who watched the debate?

**Booger** · 10-01-2004, 01:16 PM

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. Watched about 20 mins until I realized there was nothing new to see or hear. Everything Time and the Economist has been telling readers what Kerry must do to win voters (hammer on Iraq) seemed to be what he was doing. Bush is seriously looking like a monkey more and more these days. Bush is sad. Kerry is just as sad- too opportunistic and is pretty far up there on the obnoxious and arrogant celebrity scale when it comes to how famous peeps carry themselves in small towns. Good athlete with good ideas though. If Kerry was in politics for the right reasons hed be among other things, driving an electic or hybrid car (following Chouinard's lead) being that he claims hes pro enviro. Not like the guy cant get his wife to pay for it.

2. No and its weak (but an American reality) that bumper stickers, debates, and sound bites actually influence American voting preferences, at the expense of other means (ask your average American if they can name their state assembly member, state senator, congressman, if they have ever met with their reps, or if they follow any legislation and chances are they may have only 1 answer for you). IMO, Kerry is not the answer to this country's problems and according to Cockie Roberts (NPR,CNN) about 3 weeks ago, 66% of peeps favored Kerry simply because he wasnt Bush. Not a good way to elect the most powerful man in the world. Bush's trade policy is digressive and for some reason this administration fails to understand globalization is here to stay. In terms of the environment, I dont think this administration is as bad as they are being painted out to be by some special interest enviro grps, and Im sure many will disagree with me here. California standards for water and air are some of (if not the highest) theyve been since CWA was implemented in 72... I subscribe to the Patrick Moore/ Alan Savory take on the environment versus the Chouinard/ Abbey take, even they are all important and are all heroes. Federal environmental laws are maintained and enforced big time in California, for better or worse. However, no administration is perfect and there are definitely issues that this administration brings up as in some cases wher the environment is being neglected (ie. national park services needs to be revamped, ANWR, etc).

3. Yes. The Guardian, the Economist, Time, National Geo, Christian Science Monitor (one of the best sources for Intl news there is despite its religious title), NPR, California Journal (covers state legislation and politics), Patagonia catalogs (lol). Not many sources though that would be considered to the right though. Traveled or lived in 28 different countries...which is/ was perhaps the best education and insight Ive received into just how destructive their foreign agenda is- not just Bush, but Evil Grampa Rumsfield and hardcore Cheney, who are the real culprits in this admin.

If Bush had done more travelling Im guessing his imperialistic tactics wouldnt be taking place and hed have more respect for other cultures and know the world is way bigger and more complicated than he ever fathomed (or anyone else in his admin besides Powell and Rice) .

I cant remember the exact percantage of incoming Congressmen that dont even have a passport but a credible source told me (group I was in) a few years back that it was astonishgly low...maybe 30%..probably can look it up.... something similar to the amount of MLB players that have a college degree (something like 20 -750 in MLB).

4. Not to sound like John Kerry (although I personally LIKE the fact that he is perceived as a "flip flopper" even though in reality, all he is doing is thoroughly thinking thru problems/ legislation that is far more complicated than what the average America perceives it to be), but Id be in favor of either....both are a plus.

I decided to write in for McCain 6 months ago...something Id thought Id never seen myself doing being that it can be irresponsible but I cant think of any presidential election in recent memory where 2 individuals were so ill equipeed to run for President. I wish Dianne Feinstein was running with bill Clinton as her bish.

*Disclaimer and personal backgrd*

Im a moderate and am registered as "declined to state" although if it came down to it I probably vote 55% repub issues and peeps (at least in California) and 45% dem peeps issues. If i was still living in Idaho however, I would be voting way more Democrat as some of the repubs in the state are little too far to the right (even though lol the legislature is only "open" for 90 days out of the year).

Congratulations if youve read this whole post as i didnt mean it to be this long.

**Dexter Rutecki** · 10-01-2004, 01:47 PM

Did anyone see Bush's 'notes' during a few of the shots last night? He had a bunch of circles and lines, almost like what my two year old daughter likes to draw, and at one point just began shuffling papers around his lectern. Hilarious.
Well, it would be hilarious, except that he's actually our president. Hopefully that'll only be true for another four months.

edit: Bush thinks some things aren't easy:

Bush: In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard....

BUSH: I work with Director Mueller of the FBI; comes in my office when I'm in Washington every morning, talking about how to protect us. There's a lot of really good people working hard to do so.

It's hard work. ...

BUSH: And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. ...
It is hard work. It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy. It's hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are free....

Bush: You know, my hardest -- the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way ...
[from the same response] You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way. ...

Bush: Yes, we're getting the job done. It's hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work, because there's a determined enemy that's trying to defeat us.

I bet there are more, but I didn't go on.
This was pretty funny, too.

Bush: I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently. They're not going to follow somebody who says, "This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time."

"I know how these people think." Impressive. It's a wonder we couldn't get UN or NATO support.

**The AD** · 10-01-2004, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Did anyone see Bush's 'notes' during a few of the shots last night? He had a bunch of circles and lines,

You're kidding. That's hilarious! During the debate my wife said Conan or someone should do a bit where they show Bush scribbling "notes" then showing a closeup and he's playing tic-tac-toe.

**Booger** · 10-01-2004, 02:09 PM

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.

School Boy,

I totally agree with you except untill you say "we are now the most wideley despised nation in the world".

Bush may be the most widely despised person in the world, except in the Bible Belt, but America is not the most widely despised nation in the world.

There are roughly 215 nations in the world. Most of these nations are developing and more concerned about their own local issues (starvation, clean water, medical treatment, etc.) to even know what the US is doing, generally speaking. I have travelled in 10 countires in the past 2 years pretty much on all sides of the globe, both in developing countries and first world countries, met peeps from all over the world and have come to these conclusions:

1. Germans love Michael Moore more so than any other nation, including the US. Saw German versions of Stupid White Men in S East Asia and Central America and hung out with some Germans that couldnt stop talking about him.

2. Europeans, S Americans, Japanese like American culture, again generally speaking, they just dont like Bush. Their supposed dislike or US leaders existed way before Iraq as the result of International Trade issues, historical conflicts, etc.

3. Although I wouldnt call myself a Michael Moore fan, he is dead on when he stated a while back during a Euro film festival that Americans were gravely uninformed about global issues...something along those lines. And yes Im an elitist.

I wonder how many Americans would dig it if all of a sudden Iran invaded the US and told us we couldnt have a democracy anymore and that the world was going to be safer if we installed a religious dictatorship her in the US? Exactly what Bush is trying to do (well besides the real threat of Saddam- that could have been handled differnetly). Imperialism. Ask your classmates that question.

Cheers,
Mary K Letourno

**Schmear** · 10-01-2004, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Booger

1. Germans love Michael Moore more so than any other nation, including the US.

Is David Hasselhoff jealous?

**board** · 10-01-2004, 02:39 PM

blah blah blah...bottom line is Bush was exposed last night ! oh yeah I know the joke has always been W is not the sharpest pencil in the box but last night was a frighteningly poignant example of just how ill informed and unintelligent this man really is. I almost felt sorry for him at one point. Like him or not Kerry knows his shit. Bush is a neocon puppet who is downright embarrassing when Rove and the rest of the gang is not around to pull the strings.

God save us from this man !

**1080Rider** · 10-01-2004, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by non grata

seriously... i don't know how people can tout bush being a 'good ol boy' as a reason for voting for him. i should think that an ideal president would be worldly, intelligent and an exemplary orator among other things, not just one of my fuck up friends. this is your goddamn president and the 'leader of the free world', not your drinking buddy.

But you were cool w/ a guy who fucks anything that moves... interesting.

I didn't watch the debate. I was out w/ friends. Seemed to be more productive than watching these two jackasses. Neither is the answer and I don't need to watch a debate to determine that. No matter how bad he does I think bush will win. You really can't base a presidential campaign on "vote for me, I'm not bush."

**board** · 10-01-2004, 03:47 PM

Uh Clinton was a Rhode scholar with a plus 160 IQ not to mention a world class orator. Give me Bubba and his skank poking tendencies over a monogamous moron like Bush any day.

**1080Rider** · 10-01-2004, 04:17 PM

I really don't think anyone who supported clinton can cast character stones at bush. As a lawyer the only thing you have is your word, and you know what it means to be put under oath. To lie in deposition shows a clear lack of morals. So if you think a president should be something more than the ordinary man on the street then you really can't defend clinton. But it doesn't really matter at this point. I just thought it funny that someone would assault bush's character when the last president we had was a slimy pile of shit.

**slippy** · 10-01-2004, 04:32 PM

Bush's lack of morals is causing people to die. Clinton's lack of morals got him a blowjob. They're both wrong, but which one is creating more damage?

**Blurred** · 10-01-2004, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by slippy

Bush's lack of morals is causing people to die. Clinton's lack of morals got him a blowjob. They're both wrong, but which one is creating more damage?

Well considering Clinton was offered Bin Laden, and could have had Osama for free, but was busy getting a blowjob, and then 9-11 happened, and now Afghanistan and Iraq.......Clintons morals created ALL the deaths.

**Blurred** · 10-01-2004, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by SLCFreshies

So why isn't Osama learning this same lesson? Is killing 3,000+ U.S. citizens on U.S. soil NOT enough for us to "set an example to the rest of the world that we're not going to fuck around"? What ELSE does Osama have to do to get 160,000 troops in his backyard?

And yeah, with how well the War on Iraq is going, I bet the rest of the world, including North Korea, is REALLY quaking in its boots now.

Mess with the U.S., and we will initiate a quagmire, the likes of which you will NEVER believe! LOOK OUT!

We've looked for Osama INCREDIBLY hard, ask any military personel. Also, you should think twice if you don't think the rest of the world including North Korea has taken note.

**1080Rider** · 10-01-2004, 04:44 PM

I knew that would be the comeback "bush's lies are killing people." How the fuck do you know? I was going to say something along the lines of what blurred came back w/ (though prolly not in such strong terms

) Things were set in motion years ago that lead to where we are today. I don't, personally beleive that we should have gone into Iraq but to say that bush's lies are killing people is a stretch. He relied on information and decided to invade Iraq, yeah the info might have been thin but where's the nexus? He only learned after the fact that the info. was skinny, unless you're claiming that before the invasion bush knew there were no WMD's. I haven't seen proof of that.

**Blurred** · 10-01-2004, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by 1080Rider

I knew that would be the comeback "bush's lies are killing people." How the fuck do you know? I was going to say something along the lines of what blurred came back w/ (though prolly not in such strong terms

) Things were set in motion years ago that lead to where we are today. I don't, personally beleive that we should have gone into Iraq but to say that bush's lies are killing people is a stretch. He relied on information and decided to invade Iraq, yeah the info might have been thin but where's the nexus? He only learned after the fact that the info. was skinny, unless you're claiming that before the invasion bush knew there were no WMD's. I haven't seen proof of that.

I WELCOME A VOICE OF REASON, THANK YOU!!! (be prepared to get flamed to hell though since youre not on the communist bus

)

**Blurred** · 10-01-2004, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by cololi

Actually, we built the damn place (torah-bora) during the Soviet Union invasion. I am sure changes were made, But we should have a decent base knowledge of whats there. If we don't, why the hell were we there in the first place. We should have done more homework on the area before going in. Didn't Bush also say, when we first initiated the war on terro, that there would be high American casualties. If we truely had Bin Laden cornered, we should have used whatever force was necessary to capture him "dead or alive" (Bush's words). It is a reflection of poor communication between agencies, and shows a failure on the policy's and procedures of the administration to do two things: communicate effectively; and develop and adhere here to sound policy; two things that every effective leader must have.

Like I've said before, capturing Osama would do more for Bush then anything in the world. I truly believe that Bush wants Osama more then anything, and he's working with his cabinet to find him...If they made a mistake, that sucks, but I know that they're only human and trying their hardest.

**slippy** · 10-01-2004, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Well considering Clinton was offered Bin Laden, and could have had Osama for free, but was busy getting a blowjob, and then 9-11 happened, and now Afghanistan and Iraq.......Clintons morals created ALL the deaths.

Well shit. I stand corrected.

**slippy** · 10-01-2004, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by 1080Rider

I knew that would be the comeback "bush's lies are killing people." How the fuck do you know?

I watch the CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. news and see the dead bodies right on camera. And I never said 'lies', I said morals which was a word you used.

**1080Rider** · 10-01-2004, 05:16 PM

Slippy, I don't follow you on that one. Bush's "morals" are killing people? Do you think he invaded iraq based on a moral decision? I don't get that one, not trying to be an asshole, I just don't get it. I would see invading iraq as a "moral" issue if you hated muslim's for their disbelief in christianity or something like that. I think he invaded due to the info he got relating to WMD's (whether invasion was the right step or not- I don't think is a moral issue) and chose a course of action he thought acceptable to saddam's failure to cooperate.

**SLCFreshies** · 10-01-2004, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

We've looked for Osama INCREDIBLY hard, ask any military personel. Also, you should think twice if you don't think the rest of the world including North Korea has taken note.

I don't doubt that the military personnel who are in Afghanistan have been looking hard. But don't you think the job for them would be easier if they had 145,000 MORE troops helping them out? I mean PLEASE...we have almost TEN TIMES more soldiers and infinately more resources in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Osama bin Laden is the leader of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is our NUMBER ONE enemy. Why divert the majority of our firepower, troops, and resources to go after Sideshow Saddam? I mean it doesn't take a genius to realize that you should go after the BIGGER threats FIRST.

And please, you really think NK is afraid of us now? If they are so afraid, why do they continue to violate the previous agreement so publicly? Why are have they thumbing their nose at us and developing nuclear weapons almost in plain sight? Because they are AFRAID of us? Hahahaha. That's a good one.

Maybe they know that we have the bulk of our military might stuck in Iraq with NO real way out for YEARS. And I don't know which war you've been watching, but the "results" on the ground in Iraq doesn't really inspire confidence in the our ability to wage (and especially PLAN) war effectively. Is that a harsh assessment? Yes. But when you start off with the BEST trained, BEST armed, BEST supported troops on the face of the earth, and you get the clusterfuck that we have in Iraq--SOMETHING is wrong. SOMEONE fucked up. And Iraq is a god-damned paper dragon compared to North Korea.

**Blurred** · 10-01-2004, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by SLCFreshies

I don't doubt that the military personnel who are in Afghanistan have been looking hard. But don't you think the job for them would be easier if they had 145,000 MORE troops helping them out? I mean PLEASE...we have almost TEN TIMES more soldiers and infinately more resources in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Osama bin Laden is the leader of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is our NUMBER ONE enemy. Why divert the majority of our firepower, troops, and resources to go after Sideshow Saddam? I mean it doesn't take a genius to realize that you should go after the BIGGER threats FIRST.

And please, you really think NK is afraid of us now? If they are so afraid, why do they continue to violate the previous agreement so publicly? Why are have they thumbing their nose at us and developing nuclear weapons almost in plain sight? Because they are AFRAID of us? Hahahaha. That's a good one.

Maybe they know that we have the bulk of our military might stuck in Iraq with NO real way out for YEARS. And I don't know which war you've been watching, but the "results" on the ground in Iraq doesn't really inspire confidence in the our ability to wage (and especially PLAN) war effectively. Is that a harsh assessment? Yes. But when you start off with the BEST trained, BEST armed, BEST supported troops on the face of the earth, and you get the clusterfuck that we have in Iraq--SOMETHING is wrong. SOMEONE fucked up. And Iraq is a god-damned paper dragon compared to North Korea.

Thats a great theory, but how are you going to smuggle 145,000 US Troops into Pakistan without creating WW3? That's where the douchebag is.

**SLCFreshies** · 10-01-2004, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Thats a great theory, but how are you going to smuggle 145,000 US Troops into Pakistan without creating WW3? That's where the douchebag is.

So it's too HARD a job in Afghanistan so we go to Iraq instead? And who said WW3 is the only outcome that would occur IF we sent everybody to go after Osama? Your douchebag crystal ball?

Talk about mixed messages. Yeah, we know you, Osama bin Laden, were responsible for 9/11. But you know what, it's too COMPLICATED to go after you in Afghanistan, so we'll go get Saddam instead. If you are a terrorist, we will go ALMOST anywhere to go after you! Just not the Pakistan border.

**Blurred** · 10-01-2004, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by SLCFreshies

So it's too HARD a job in Afghanistan so we go to Iraq instead? And who said WW3 is the only outcome that would occur IF we sent everybody to go after Osama? Your douchebag crystal ball?

Talk about mixed messages. Yeah, we know you, Osama bin Laden, were responsible for 9/11. But you know what, it's too COMPLICATED to go after you in Afghanistan, so we'll go get Saddam instead. If you are a terrorist, we will go ALMOST anywhere to go after you! Just not the Pakistan border.

It's the war on terrorism, not the war on Osama. Re-read this thread before asking questions I've already replied to here. Thanks

**SLCFreshies** · 10-01-2004, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

It's the war on terrorism, not the war on Osama. Re-read this thread before asking questions I've already replied to here. Thanks

Yeah, and Osama = MOST dangerous terrorist.

Al Qaeda = MOST dangerous terrorist organization.

Thus, the war on terror should concentrate on the MOST dangerous terrorist and the MOST dangerous terrorist organization FIRST no? Or is that too straightforward and too logical?

**Blurred** · 10-01-2004, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by SLCFreshies

Yeah, and Osama = MOST dangerous terrorist.

Al Qaeda = MOST dangerous terrorist organization.

Thus, the war on terror should concentrate on the MOST dangerous terrorist and the MOST dangerous terrorist organization FIRST no? Or is that too straightforward and too logical?

We've captured 75% of Al-Qaedas top officials. They were behind 9-11 just as much as Osama. Osama WILL be caught or killed. We are doing EVERYTHING we can to catch him.
Once again, I'd suggest you read this whole thread. Bush would be elected by a LANDSLIDE if he catches Osama before November......Don't you think they're doing everything they can? C'mon dude, common sense.