Alaska Darin Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I do, and they are. Many people are unhappy with the direction our country has taken, and they just need to know more about what Kerry will do to change that direction. I'm always happy to enlighten them. 52372[/snapback] If you're telling them John Kerry is going to change the direction that the government is going, you're not "enlightening" anyone. Unless "enlightening" is your way of saying "lie." If anyone wants to know what the Democrat's "vision" is, just look at NY State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 There was a credible threat string to the RNC. Security procedures were enacted based on the information at hand. There actually never was a credible threat string to the DNC, hence the differences in the level of security arrangements. NYC's inconvienience was minimized as much as was practically, and safely possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 If you're telling them John Kerry is going to change the direction that the government is going, you're not "enlightening" anyone. Regardless of who you agree with, in international relations, economic policies, Supreme Court, social policies, you really think Bush or Kerry would have no difference in direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Regardless of who you agree with, in international relations, economic policies, Supreme Court, social policies, you really think Bush or Kerry would have no difference in direction? 52576[/snapback] Nope. They can talk all the want. Their actions convey what they will do. Continue to sell America down the river to the highest bidder. John Kerry has been doing it for 19 years. He's not going to change because he finally gets to sit at the big desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 This election should clearly be decided on the status of the NY subway system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 2, 2004 Author Share Posted October 2, 2004 To me it looked like Bush WAS the one that "saw the big picture" Kerry presented himself a lot better......but Bush's subtance wins over Kerrys style in my opinion It is easy to sit there and criticize the man actually doing the job.....doing the job is another matter altogether..... Kerry was making promises he cant keep......... 51817[/snapback] The only "big picture" the president saw was the mess that he has painted, trying to tell us it was a Van Gogh. I give him credit for being focused, but all of his answers were given under the pretense that the picture he is painting of Iraq is accurate, and all evidence seems to the contrary. What "substance" are you admiring so much in the president? I am not seeing much. I don't think he is the evil monster that many try to paint him out to be, but I earnestly believe that this man is in way over his head. Like I said, the president will be "coached up" a bit more for the next debate, and I stilll think he will win this election, but purely from a debate standpoint, he was terrible. I know AD, and many of the conservative types on this board like to refer to anyone who is liberal as "lemmings" or "Kool-aid drinkers", but look at some of your posts over here. Who is really drinking the Kool-aid at two bills drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I guess perhaps they werent closed but when they don't stop there and you cannot get in or out, what would you call it? 52222[/snapback] Read closer. The entrances were closed, not the stops. The 7th & 8th Ave stops are 34th St. stops. Thus, the 34th-35th Street entrances were open. You just could not get off the train & get into Penn Station directly, without going streetside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogger Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 to me it seemed that Bush was ready to do a 30 minute debate...However it was 90 minutes, he wasn't ready for this debate, when in fact this should have been bush's strongest case, he tried so hard to enforce the label of a "flip Flop" but I feel not only did Kerry defend his believe, but he made Bush look like a fool. Bush did not win, even if you read it. Kerry was a stronger debater...almost a master debater-had to. Give one point to Kerry. Bush didn't look like a President, he looked like a college frat boy trying to debate a professer. Also, can't drink with Bush, he doesn't drink anymore after a few DUIs he had to stop. However if you have Coke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 2, 2004 Author Share Posted October 2, 2004 to me it seemed that Bush was ready to do a 30 minute debate...However it was 90 minutes, he wasn't ready for this debate,52810[/snapback] This statement could easily apply for his "plan" for invading Iraq! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Read closer. The entrances were closed, not the stops. The 7th & 8th Ave stops are 34th St. stops. Thus, the 34th-35th Street entrances were open. You just could not get off the train & get into Penn Station directly, without going streetside. 52802[/snapback] I read today in a fact checking article about the debate that there were, indeed, several stations that were closed. I, too, doubt that it was because of the reasons that Kerry suggested, but from what I know the stations were actually closed. It was factually correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I read today in a fact checking article about the debate that there were, indeed, several stations that were closed. I, too, doubt that it was because of the reasons that Kerry suggested, but from what I know the stations were actually closed. It was factually correct. 52945[/snapback] If there were subway stations closed, they were not at Penn St. Let's go to the source. The only thing that I think may be remotely close to the assertion of subway closings was a massive rally on 8th Ave that may have caused the trains to bypass the 23rd St. stop for an hour. Normal operating procedure whenever something like that or other police activity is happening. But that was it, AFAIK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I read today in a fact checking article about the debate that there were, indeed, several stations that were closed. I, too, doubt that it was because of the reasons that Kerry suggested, but from what I know the stations were actually closed. It was factually correct. 52945[/snapback] So I guess it was factually correct that 10,000,000 people in Afghanistan have registered to vote when, in fact, they have a terrible problem there with people registering multiple times? The point is simply that while it may, technically, be somewhat factually correct to say the subway was shut down, the implication as inferred by the audience is that the "entire" subway system was shut down. That's the way he came across because he knew the American Idol crowd wouldn't question what he said beyond what they picked up watching the debate. The same goes for Bush and his 10M registered voters bit. But to me it's just wrong to defend Kerry's comment as accurate when you know he was embellishing the truth for the Short Attention Span Audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 So I guess it was factually correct that 10,000,000 people in Afghanistan have registered to vote when, in fact, they have a terrible problem there with people registering multiple times? The point is simply that while it may, technically, be somewhat factually correct to say the subway was shut down, the implication as inferred by the audience is that the "entire" subway system was shut down. That's the way he came across because he knew the American Idol crowd wouldn't question what he said beyond what they picked up watching the debate. The same goes for Bush and his 10M registered voters bit. But to me it's just wrong to defend Kerry's comment as accurate when you know he was embellishing the truth for the Short Attention Span Audience. 53167[/snapback] Originally, if you will look back in the thread, I wasn't really sticking up for Kerry's veracity, my problem was your post. You strongly complained about Kerry's veracity and cited two examples, both of which were wrong, one of which wasn't even remotely true. You cited a quote of Kerry's about subways and tunnels and used it as an example about cops and firemen. Ultimately, what exactly these guys say in the debates is virtually useless. No candidate does what he promises in the campaigns when he gets into the White House because a) situations change over the years, b ) the job is a lot different once you get there than you think it is, and c ) there are people and groups pulling you in 1000 directions. What quintessentially matters in this debate is extremely simple: Can people in middle America imagine Kerry in the White House, imagine him being tough on the War on Terror, and imagine him not screwing up as much as they perceive Bush screwing up. That is it, in total. Kerry's job is to convince them the answer is yes to those three things, and the politicking and parsing of words and (mis)using of numbers and statistics is the way that ALL politicians of ALL parties for ALL time in ALL countries have done it. It's how Bush works, it's how Kerry works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 So, when Bush said 75% of Al Queda was killed or captured, that they AQ did not replace them with some other lunatic? How can Bush say the world is safer since 9/11 when N.K and Iran both either have or in the process of making (possibly selling) WMD? I am a registered Independent because I refuse to " Drink the Kool Aid" the party of your choice hands out. I am quite capable of making up my own mind who I think should run this country. Where the hell is Ross Perot when you need him? Could you imagine the one liners he would come up with if hr were running? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 How can Bush say the world is safer since 9/11 when N.K and Iran both either have or in the process of making (possibly selling) WMD? And who exactly is responsible for that quagmire? Looks like Bush got the job of cleaning up someone else's mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Originally, if you will look back in the thread, I wasn't really sticking up for Kerry's veracity, my problem was your post. You strongly complained about Kerry's veracity and cited two examples, both of which were wrong, one of which wasn't even remotely true. You cited a quote of Kerry's about subways and tunnels and used it as an example about cops and firemen. Ultimately, what exactly these guys say in the debates is virtually useless. No candidate does what he promises in the campaigns when he gets into the White House because a) situations change over the years, b ) the job is a lot different once you get there than you think it is, and c ) there are people and groups pulling you in 1000 directions. What quintessentially matters in this debate is extremely simple: Can people in middle America imagine Kerry in the White House, imagine him being tough on the War on Terror, and imagine him not screwing up as much as they perceive Bush screwing up. That is it, in total. Kerry's job is to convince them the answer is yes to those three things, and the politicking and parsing of words and (mis)using of numbers and statistics is the way that ALL politicians of ALL parties for ALL time in ALL countries have done it. It's how Bush works, it's how Kerry works. 53267[/snapback] How dare you make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Once again proof that the average voter who has made up their mind sees things exactly the way they want to. A real debate over issues didn't happen, regardless of what is said by both sides and the media was on the "post" shows. That idea has disappeared, and in its place we are now analyzing inconsequential intangibles like confidence, likeability, quick wit, and then spinning and more analysis of that for days following. From what I saw, no one won the "debate" and America lost a little more. 51823[/snapback] Why'd the League of Women Voters stop sponsoring the dabates? I think Mondale-Reagan was the last REAL debate and it was also the last one they sponsored. I liked seeing the candidates being forced to get "off message" and thinking on their feet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 3, 2004 Author Share Posted October 3, 2004 Why'd the League of Women Voters stop sponsoring the dabates? I think Mondale-Reagan was the last REAL debate and it was also the last one they sponsored. I liked seeing the candidates being forced to get "off message" and thinking on their feet... 53457[/snapback] That was Bushs' problem on Thursday, he couldn't think on his feet. He is a very strong speaker when he is preaching to the choir, and has everything scripted. When Kerry came out swinging, Bush couldn't handle it, plain and simple. Honestly, I thought Kerry showed great restraint, and maybe he did it out of respect for the president. When Bush repeated his mantra about "mixed messages" for the 423rd time, Kerry could have turned to the president and said, "with all due respect Mr president, you are arguing from the point of view of someone who thinks everything is going fine in (your) war. I am taking the stance that it is not, and that you and your blind stuborn pride is among the biggest obstacles we have to overcome." He had a couple of opportunities to make that point, but didn't. Incidently, as I type this, C-Span is re-running a the 92 debate between Bush Sr, Perot, and Clinton. It is the type where they are taking questions from the audience. Surprisingly (or not) Bush Sr comes off much more reasonable than I remember. Clinton is very sharp, and Perot makes a great lightening rod for all of the questions . It is much more informal than what we saw the other night. All three candidates are coming off well, even though they have very varying opinions. All three candidates appear at ease, and speaking honestly. If the debates ultimately make a difference this year, the president might be cursing god that he gave him his mothers' looks, and none of his fathers' eloqunece. But, I am not so sure they will matter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 That was Bushs' problem on Thursday, he couldn't think on his feet. He is a very strong speaker when he is preaching to the choir, and has everything scripted. When Kerry came out swinging, Bush couldn't handle it, plain and simple. Honestly, I thought Kerry showed great restraint, and maybe he did it out of respect for the president. When Bush repeated his mantra about "mixed messages" for the 423rd time, Kerry could have turned to the president and said, "with all due respect Mr president, you are arguing from the point of view of someone who thinks everything is going fine in (your) war. I am taking the stance that it is not, and that you and your blind stubornpride is among the biggest obstacles we have to overcome." He had a couple of opportunities to make that point, but didn't. Incidently, as I type this, C-Span is re-running a the 92 debate between Bush Sr, Perot, and Clinton. It is the type where they are taking questions from the audience. Surprisingly (or not) Bush Sr comes off much more reasonable than I remember. Clinton is very sharp, and Perot makes a great lightening rod for all of the questions . It is much more informal than what we saw the other night. All three candidates are coming off well, even though they have very varying opinions. All three candidates appear at ease, and speaking honestly. If the debates ultimately make a difference this year, the president might be cursing god that he gave him his mothers' looks, and none of his fathers' eloqunece. But, I am not so sure they will matter... 53539[/snapback] Perot was a hoot. "well let's just lift the hood and fix it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 3, 2004 Author Share Posted October 3, 2004 Perot was a hoot. "well let's just lift the hood and fix it!" 53553[/snapback] Actually, Perot comes off as the populist, tough love, down to earth guy that the current president seems to want to be. Only difference is, Perot was a very good communicator, and actually had a bit more credibilty with his detractors. He wasn't easy to dismiss. As the debate went on, it seemed like Bush Sr was senseig that the audience was responding favorably to Perot, so he kept deferring to him. It was kind of embassing. Clinton seemed intent on differentiating himself from the president, something Kerry may have learned a little too late... Anyone see tha Saturday Night Live parody of this past debate? It was pretty damn funny. It had plenty of Kerry flip flopping, and Bush just sounding like the desperate weasel he is prone to sound like. They were both dead on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts