Bush got OWNED!!! (Presidential Debate)

[toms]

yeah, i heard that last night as well. THe odd thing is that soon after the debate when i looked on google news the news was al indicating that, if anything, cheny won.

 

I'm not sure if that is because google ended up picking pro cheny sites, or because opinions changed over time....

[txa1265]

Originally posted by toms

yeah, i heard that last night as well. THe odd thing is that soon after the debate when i looked on google news the news was al indicating that, if anything, cheny won.

 

I'm not sure if that is because google ended up picking pro cheny sites, or because opinions changed over time....

No - it was a matter of a single poll with ~175 people that indicated Edwards had 'won'. I don't see how any intelligent person could come to that conclusion - any more than anyone could argue that Kerry won last week. Your position on the issues (most here are liberals) aside, Edwards was style, Cheney was substance. Factually, they were both ... um ... lax

 

Mike

[El Sitherino]

I actually think the VP debate was a draw. They both had ups and downs to their arguments.

[Spider AL]

No - it was a matter of a single poll with ~175 people that indicated Edwards had 'won'. I don't see how any intelligent person could come to that conclusion

Hardly very mature to imply that those who hold a different opinion to yourself are not intelligent people, is it now?

 

As for that poll, it's rare to get a detailed poll that quickly in excess of those numbers. And most of the news stories I see online still say Edwards won.

 

- any more than anyone could argue that Kerry won last week. Your position on the issues (most here are liberals) aside, Edwards was style, Cheney was substance. Factually, they were both ... um ... lax

Hmm, having read the transcript of the debate it seems very clear that Cheney was trying to defend an indefensable position, the lies about Saddam's links to Al-Qaida, the justifications for war and the amount of money the American public are having to pay for it now...

 

Frankly a teabag could have won against Cheney in such a position, and Edwards did indeed win logically, with Cheney throwing out bitchy insults more than valid rebuttals... But I could have done better in Edwards' place.

[txa1265]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Hardly very mature to imply that those who hold a different opinion to yourself are not intelligent people, is it now?

Poor phraseology on my part - I found the Veep debate much better and listenable than the Pres debate. Both men comported themselves better, and were much better spoken and informed than their leaders. What I was saying was not that Cheney won, but that it was a pretty even debate, and that the decision on who you thought 'won' was *likely* one of politics, not objective thought. Of course, thoughful people are always open to disagree

Originally posted by Spider AL

Frankly a teabag could have won against Cheney in such a position, and Edwards did indeed win logically, with Cheney throwing out bitchy insults more than valid rebuttals... But I could have done better in Edwards' place.

I agree with the indefensible position Bush/Cheney have on several issues. Likewise, a wet paper bag could take Edwards apart on their record. One thing I like about Cheney is the fact that he is like a walking encyclopedia - he (like Edwards ... and Bush and Kerry) spout a lot of pre-rehearsed lines, but when Edwards gave one of those practiced 'we have a plan, we can do better' lines, Cheney was ready with a litany of what each has done in reality ...

 

Mike

[El Sitherino]

uh oh, looks like someone got pwn'd

 

clickage.

 

At a town-hall style forum in the swing state of Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbour and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and a man who "provided safe harbour and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

 

click 2

 

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Iraq was harboring Abu Musab Zarqawi, a "collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," and he said Iraq's denials of ties to al Qaeda "are simply not credible."

 

In September, Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

 

click 3

 

 

If I recall, Dick Cheney said "I never claimed there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

 

yeah hear it is.

 

click here

 

Edwards accused Cheney of falsely suggesting a link between Iraq and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

 

Cheney denied doing so.

 

"The senator has got his facts wrong," Cheney said. "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."

[Spider AL]

What I was saying was not that Cheney won, but that it was a pretty even debate, and that the decision on who you thought 'won' was *likely* one of politics, not objective thought. Of course, thoughful people are always open to disagree

That's better... still implies that all the people on here who note that Edwards scored the most "points" during the debate are in some way not objective though. I personally consider myself hellishly objective, since I'm not from the US.

 

I agree with the indefensible position Bush/Cheney have on several issues. Likewise, a wet paper bag could take Edwards apart on their record.

It seems that Cheney doesn't have the acumen of that wet paper bag then. Here's another nice little article, listing the lies propounded during the foreign policy section of that debate. Cheney comes off worse, naturally, and most notably in the sections in which he attacks Kerry's "terrible record".

 

Cheney was ready with a litany of what each has done in reality ...

A lot of that was just inflated, oversimplified nonsense you know.

[txa1265]

Originally posted by Spider AL

I personally consider myself hellishly objective, since I'm not from the US.

You're not serious, are you?!? I'm sorry, but the tone and content of your posts indicate quite clearly that you are a very liberal individual, as are SkinWalker, ETWarrior, InsaneSith and others. I don't think you are a US Democrat apologist, as are some (and there are plenty of Republican apologists here as well), but I think that citing 'truthout' as a reputable source - when it is about as balanced as Rush Limbaugh (but not as maniacal ) - demonstrates that.

 

No offense intended - thinking people have strong views, and take sides. That doesn't tie them to political parties, but more to ideologies. I'm pretty obviously a conservative (I was a much taller and chubbier version of Alex P. Keaton in the early 80's ), but am no member (or friend) to the Republican party.

 

Mike

[txa1265]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Cheney comes off worse, naturally, and most notably in the sections in which he attacks Kerry's "terrible record".

I'm from Massachusetts and have been voting for over 20 years ... so don't pretend to tell me about the history of John Kerry. He cannot hide behind the 'doing it for the constituency' thing, when he has consistently touted the same socialist agenda. And Cheney comes off worse because the site you cite is about as fair ad objective as one of those screeching right-wing radio shows ...

Originally posted by Spider AL

A lot of that was just inflated, oversimplified nonsense you know.

That is true for both sides - which you would note if you were, in fact, objective. Did you notice the shot that Edwards took at Cheney's homosexual daughter ... and then the look on his face? You could see that he was doing a scripted line - probably from Carville or Begala - and that he didn't like having to do it.

 

It is a true shame that both sides are doing things that will further polarize the sides of this country - I hate seeing the Democrats actively promoting the class war and race war ... and the Republicans doing nothing through policy or rhetoric to help remove those problems.

 

Mike

[toms]

As far as i can tell spider isn't what i would call liberal... not even close.

------------------------------

Edwards was style, Cheney was substance. Factually, they were both ... um ... lax

 

If cheney was factually lax, then how was he "substance"?

 

What you seem to be implying is that BOTH were style over substance, but edwards had a more "polished young eager" style, and cheney had his "down to earth experienced veteran" style.

 

But both are still just acts. As far as i can tell cheney is great at bringing out this style for elections, but in truth he is an extreme right wing fanatic.... so this amiable trustable old guy style is no more true than anyone else's.

 

And the fact that cheney could come out with a lot of real sounding facts, but then they all turn out to be untrue just goes to show this.

[Spider AL]

You're not serious, are you?!? I'm sorry, but the tone and content of your posts indicate quite clearly that you are a very liberal individual,

nyeheh... shows what you know.

 

Listen to toms mate. I'm conservative enough to attract the ire of the trendy lefties on a regular basis. I'm hard-line enough to find it amusing that a fairly middle-of-the-road conservative like yourself would consider ME more liberal than you.

 

I think that citing 'truthout' as a reputable source - when it is about as balanced as Rush Limbaugh (but not as maniacal ) - demonstrates that.

I didn't cite the article because of the political orientation of the website, I cited the article because it analyses the points and backs up its analysis with references to specific facts.

 

Something you're forgetting friend, is that there IS such a thing as fact. In my opinion Edwards "won" the debate, because his arguments were based more in fact than Cheney's, whose arguments were based mostly on nebulous nonspecific insults.

 

I'm from Massachusetts and have been voting for over 20 years ... so don't pretend to tell me about the history of John Kerry.

I wouldn't presume to tell you about the history of John Kerry... what I CAN AND WILL presume to do is to tell you about the references to Kerry's record made by Cheney in the debate, most of which were petty, blanket statements based less in fact than Star Wars was. They were mostly pure propaganda.

 

Fine, you don't like Kerry, but that doesn't make the accusations of Cheney any more accurate. Since you have experience of Kerry you could probably have scripted some BETTER anti-Kerry rhetoric, based more in fact... but we're analysing the debate based on Cheney's ACTUAL, dismal performance. Not on the performance you or any more intelligent conservative might have given in his place.

[SkinWalker]

It appears that Bush lost the first, and now the second, debate even though he was wearing a wire. Undoubtedly, he was wearing body armor, but that doesn't explain the small, squar bulge between the shoulder blades.

 

This is the location used to mount a receiver known as a "body pack" by law enforcement personnel who put them on confidential informants.

 

Another example of Bush & co. doing whatever it takes to win, even being dishonorable thugs.

 

As a side, but related, note, there have also been numerous instances where people have been asked to leave public events where Bush was speaking because of John Kerry paraphenalia being spotted (T-shirts, buttons, even a small sticker on a wallet used to hold the ID that everyone showed upon entering). These people were told that if they didn't depart the premises, they would be arrested. Even though they had purchased their tickets.

 

John Kerry doesn't screen visitors to his events or have any barred/refused from entry. Even if they have big "W's" on their T-Shirts.

 

Misuse of Secret Service agents and cheating with an electronic receiver to a debate coach.

 

Do we really want someone so dishonorable and dishonest to be the President for four more years?

[iamtrip]

Originally posted by toms

As far as i can tell spider isn't what i would call liberal... not even close.

 

I think we all have our own names for what we call Spider.

 

 

Anyway, regarding the receiver, I don't think people were telling him what to do...

Its probably just Halliburton saying "breathe in...breathe out...breathe in..."

 

Ok, so both regimes have bad histories. Bush's regimes is perhaps the worse of the two.

 

But that aside, would you rather have a regime with a bad History, low intelligence and abysmal speaking skills, than a regime with a bad history, semi-intelligent leaders and an average ability in rhetoric.

[Breton]

Now, now, SkinWalker. Those are very serious accusations based on very thin evidence. There are hundreds of possible reasons for that small "bump", and jumping to conclusions like that doesn't suit you. Seems like you spend a little too much time on anti-Bush web sites.

Much like republicans yelling about what looked like Kerry took something out of his jacket pocket.

 

Besides, how would it matter in any case? A presidental election should be decided by who has the best arguments for why he should become president, not by who looks most "presidental", or who's the "most honest debater" or who's the best rethoric or whatever.

[Kain]

Originally posted by Breton

Besides, how would it matter in any case? A presidental election should be decided by who has the best arguments for why he should become president

 

Well, since we're voting for the best arguments, should't we elect that guy who was telling Bush what to say?

[Spider AL]

Iamtrip:

I think we all have our own names for what we call Spider.

Nice to know that one has an impact on people, even if the reverse is not true.

 

Breton:

A presidental election should be decided by who has the best arguments for why he should become president, not by who looks most "presidental", or who's the "most honest debater" or who's the best rethoric or whatever.

For a politician being a good orator is essential... furthermore, don't you want an "honest debater" as prez? I know I would, were I American.

[toms]

so who won the second one?

[Spider AL]

so who won the second one?

And so it begins again...

 

Well I think that Bush's arguments were still insubstantial. I think Kerry focussed on the fact that he hasn't changed position on the important issues a little too much... but that's hardy surprising considering the fact that that's ALL his opposition focusses on.

 

So,.. Kerry.

[El Sitherino]

well, tonights debate was interesting.

 

well check this out.

 

bush = owned

[SkinWalker]

Got a better link?

[El Sitherino]

Taken from www.whitehouse.gov

 

MODERATOR: Anything to add, Senator Kerry?

 

SENATOR KERRY: Yes. When the President had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of him, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped. Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught, dead or alive, this President was asked, where is Osama bin Laden? He said, I don't know, I don't really think about him very much, I'm not that concerned. We need a President who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

 

MODERATOR: Mr. President.

 

SENATOR KERRY: Gosh, I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. That's kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course, we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.

but as I posted before (apparently it doesn't work for everyone) we see the opposite of this statement.

 

try this

 

audio of it.

[toms]

I put this in the election thread, but i guess it applies here too: Youth Debate Q&A with main 3 candidates are available here:

http://youthdebate.newvotersproject.org/the_candidates_respond.html

Unasked questions important to young voters, plus the chace to rate the answers.

 

My fave bit so far...

 

question: "When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion? Both sides have been accused of flip-flopping on important issues - President Bush on establishing the Dept. of Homeland Security and steel tariffs, Senator Kerry on the Iraq war. But changing opinion due to thoughtful reconsideration ought not to be derided as flip-flopping. Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance."

 

answer: "President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor"

 

----------------------------------------------------------

Overall Ratings from young people (i guess):

 

Bush: Overall Rating: 2.58

Kerry: Overall Rating: 3.39

Nader: Overall Rating: 3.40

 

Ratings Key:

1. Disagree

2. Mostly Disagree

3. Neutral

4. Mostly Agree

5. Agree

----------------------------------------------------------

Turns out i like the views of candidate i have never heard of more than either of the two main ones... and so does everyone else. Shame the system won't allow that to be reflected in the votes.

Your Rating(Bush): 2.5000

Your Rating(Kerry): 3.3333

Your Rating(Nader): 4.5000