PDA

View Full Version : Frankenstein vs. The Monkey



Sebastien447
10-08-2004, 03:45 AM
Round two tonight. And this time Lehrer won't be around to browbeat Bush!

I have to say that I'm leaning toward Cheney and the monkey. As an Independent, I make up the 10 - 15 % of the population for whom these debates are focused! I feel so important! :D

My confession --- I try to keep informed, but I'm by no means a political "junky." I tire of hearing or reading about politics quite easily. I'm still a registered Democrat and if I know nothing about a candidate, I vote Demo. Ideologically speaking, I lean a bit towards the left. And I have a very visceral negative reaction to the "silk ponies." Kerry and Edwards are just too slick ... Kerry the "master debater" (my kids think that's funny) and Pretty boy Johnny. They are the quintessential politicians. I don't think Kerry would have know what he himself believed for the past twenty years if he hadn't been privy to the polls. Both Cheney and Bush seem more real to me, and more willing to do what needs to be done even if it's not necessarily the most popular thing to do.

That's me, and that's my take on these guys in a nutshell. If it's not high-brow enough for anyone, I'm sorry. There is more to my opinion than that, and there's just so much at stake ... I fear for the makeup of the Supreme Court ... and I'm afraid the right is making a grave mistake about fetal cell research. But I just wonder if Kerry, bit by bit throughout his political career, has lost track of who he really is.

Kirkus
10-08-2004, 04:22 AM
Apparently I didn't get my point across by deleting this topic earlier. >:(

Fine. Bring it on, baby!

Sebastien447
10-08-2004, 04:50 AM
Apparently I didn't get my point across by deleting this topic earlier. >:(

Fine. Bring it on, baby!

It's the Politics board for crying out loud! And this is a Pres elec year!

I would hope people would be bringing it!

Posters who can't stand the heat can get out of the thread!

Kirkus
10-08-2004, 12:43 PM
Now that was a good debate. Much to my chagrin President Bush was on his game tonight. If I was responsible for choosing a winner I'd have to give the nod to the President. His realization that he owns a timber company and then offering Charlie Gibson some wood was hilarious.

Don't misunderstand me, I think he's the wrong man for the job. But what an improvement over last week's debate for the President.

meadfish
10-08-2004, 01:13 PM
I have never watched a presidential debate in its entirety until tonight. My personal highlights were:

President Bush saying "supposebly". This is a personal pet peeve of mine... I know it is a convenience thing for some like saying "comftorble" instead of comfortable, but the word is SUPPOSEDLY (no b)

Senator Kerry saying "I was one of the first 3 democrats..." while holding up only 2 fingers :D

and the clincher... "need some wood?" rofl!

I did enjoy it though, and have decided to register and vote... for Charles Gibson ;D

leah_jewel
10-08-2004, 06:36 PM
I've become a political junkie in the past 6 months or so... to the point of asking my Dad to tape the debate for me since I was going out. Call it election fever. Call it influence from sources close to me. I've read some posts on other sites about how people like myself are "political posers" because we don't care about the subject unless it's close to an election.

I think it's a good thing, even if it does only last for a few months. As a young person, 21, I am saddened by the lack of political interest amongst my peers. Even if it is only for a few months, and I honestly have a deep desire to maintain my interest, atleast I am interested.

*steps off her soapbox*

*realizes what the thread is about and gets back on*

I was leaning towards one candidate prior to this debate and this debate sealed the deal for me. And not necessarily because of politics per se, but because of how each man conducted himself. More specifically, I was shocked when President Bush walked all over Charles Gibson during the beginning. Yes, I understand that he is the President, but a little courtesy will go a long way. For a man who seems to put out the persona that he is an apple pie eating good ole regular joe, I found this behavior arrogant and just plain rude.

To his credit, Bush's demeanor did change a great deal. He seemed to be on the ball this time--pumped up and ready to go.

The highlight for me, however, was when Kerry discussed the abortion issue which I'm hoping we'll hear more about during the final debate. He said in so many words that despite what his personal views are, that as President, it would be his job to represent all the people in the US and could not let personal feelings get in the way of that commitment. I found his answer admirable and eloquent.

3 guesses on who I'm voting for... and the first 2 don't count. ;D

Kirkus
10-08-2004, 08:05 PM
I agree with Leah. Senator Kerry's response to the abortion question, which, btw, the President didn't understand, gave me one more reason to cast a vote for him rather than a vote against Bush.

D.L. Hugley, on Newsnight with Aaron Brown (CNN), wrapped it up in easy to understand terms. Paraphrasing here: Only political pundits have a crystal ball to tell them what Kerry will do while in the Oval Office. No one knows. However, we all know what Bush has done while in office, and that's enough for me.

I'm looking forward to the debate in Tempe, AZ. Domestic issues. I'm sincerely hoping Senator Kerry continues his eloquent, statesman-like appearance that he's put forth in the prior two debates. I don't see how President Bush can defend his record on domestic issues.

shtexas
10-09-2004, 03:44 AM
I'd give Kerry a small edge in last night's debate. I thought Bush certainly improved from the first debate. He came out swinging. But, Kerry gave back just as much. Also, what is Bush's plan? Stay the course? That is not working. Kerry discussed specific plans.

I think Bush played very well to his base. But, does the rest of the country look around and really think our economy is better? Do they really see jobs being created? Do they really think things are going fine in Iraq? Do they really think the weapons report supports the decision to go into Iraq?

I think many are dissatisfied with the direction this country is going and are watching to see if Kerry is a viable alternative. Does he present himself as Presidential? Does he appear strong? They are looking for a reason to pull the lever for Kerry. I think he gave it to them.

Sebastien447
10-09-2004, 06:57 AM
For all of those here who are leaning toward Kerry ...

Do you actually believe you have an inkling of what John Kerry will do as President if elected? If you answered "yes" to that question, you're just fooling yourself. We'd do just as well to allow the Gallup Organization to run the country.

I certainly agree with much of what many posters have said about Supreme Court nominees, stem cell research, etc. ... believe me, I have problems with George Bush on many fronts. But, by far, the most important issue to consider as we choose our President this year is Iraq and the fight against terrorism. All of our interests are tied to it. If we lose in Iraq, it'll become a haven for terrorists. And our economy, our security ... our lives depend upon limiting terrorism.

Kerry claims that he has a better plan for succeeding in Iraq, then he proceeds to describe what we're already doing there. Regardless, it's a dangerous time to make a man like John Kerry the President. He's made it clear that he believes our activity in Iraq is a mistake. If he's elected, the psyche of our troops will take a hit. The pressure to get out of Iraq is tremendous and I just don't think Kerry has the backbone to hold up. As more troops die, the international community continues to criticize, and polls reflect the overly negative reporting about Iraq ... Kerry will cave and pull us out of there. I just don't believe the guy has the guts to make the tough decision.

Furthermore, terrorists in other hot spots will rejoice if Kerry is elected. I laughed out loud when Kerry said he'd "get tough with Iran" ... with what? empty threats and more sanctions? The guy actually believes that sanctions work with these despots! And he want's to go bilateral with North Korea, though he's stopped pushing that failed strategy. But again, you just cannot believe the guy. There's really no predicting what the guy would do if he becomes President.

Nope, the more I think about it, the more I believe that it'd be a huge mistake to elect Kerry.

Sebastien447
10-09-2004, 09:05 AM
So who do the sheeple think won the debate?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/GT1=5472

Kirkus
10-09-2004, 09:40 AM
Do you actually believe you have an inkling of what John Kerry will do as President if elected? If you answered "yes" to that question, you're just fooling yourself. We'd do just as well to allow the Gallup Organization to run the country.
As I stated above. Nobody knows what Kerry will do. But Bush has a record in the Oval Office. And it's not a distinguished one.


But, by far, the most important issue to consider as we choose our President this year is Iraq and the fight against terrorism. All of our interests are tied to it. If we lose in Iraq, it'll become a haven for terrorists. And our economy, our security ... our lives depend upon limiting terrorism.
I couldn't agree with you more. But if you believe the current administration, it already was a haven for terrorism... so how is it any better now?


Kerry claims that he has a better plan for succeeding in Iraq, then he proceeds to describe what we're already doing there. Regardless, it's a dangerous time to make a man like John Kerry the President. He's made it clear that he believes our activity in Iraq is a mistake.
Sounds to me like your just repeating what you've heard the President say instead of listening to what John Kerry has said. 40,000 more active troops, NATO assisted training of Iraqi forces, and a new face and attitude on the leadership of the United States plus a stake in the rebuilding of Iraq could very well bring larger allies back to the table. IT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING THERE... that's a bullshit argument!

And our being there is a mistake. A mistake made by a man who saw an opportunity to follow in daddy's footsteps and make himself a "War President". High level government officials in his own party and administration are saying it. Paul Bremmer, Sec'y of State, Rumsfeld, top weapons inspector.

The war in Iraq is "the war in Iraq" because of President Bush's non-informed, war-mongering leadership. And how anyone could vote for four more years of the same thing absolutely defies logic.

Sebastien447
10-09-2004, 10:01 AM
kirk, much as I like you, you get so worked up about politics that I don't think you're capable of rational thought.

I stated my take. You disagree. There's no reason to describe any person's opinion as "bullshit." That's where you got into trouble the last time with this thread ... remember?

Furthermore, describing Bush to be a "non-informed war monger" really does show your true colors. You are certainly far from and Independent. You're a left-hander all the way! Come on, just admit it!

Kirkus
10-09-2004, 10:34 AM
kirk, much as I like you, you get so worked up about politics that I don't think you're capable of rational thought. Thank you for the mental evaluation. Your right... I am worked up right now. Because this is, IMO, the most important election that has taken place in my lifetime. I believe this country is at a fork in the road whose paths lead to radically different outcomes. And my love and concern for this country doesn't allow me a passive voice.


There's no reason to describe any person's opinion as "bullshit." Except what you said is not an opinion... it's a mis-statement of the facts. A mis-statement that the right has used repeatedly to wash over Kerry's plan for Iraq.


That's where you got into trouble the last time with this thread ... remember? I got in trouble for wrongfully deleting 2 threads that I thought I had been too agressive in. If I'm to believe the responses following my deletions, agressive (even "heated") discussion is perfectly acceptable. And others who can't stand the fire should stay out of the kitchen.


You are certainly far from and Independent. You're a left-hander all the way! Come on, just admit it!
Your wrong. I fully supported the invasion of Iraq. I believed what I was told and had the presidential election been held during those early days my vote would have been cast for the incumbant... hands down!

Sebastien, just several days ago you stated the following:

It has been my pleasure to help you with this board kirk. But I don't see this place as some hiding spot where we all huddle round in some kind of love fest. I think deleting the topics was wrong because there was nothing to be censored. There is nothing wrong with heated debate. Just a "dash" of TOB (that other board) is good for any online community. I'd just hate to see people tip-toeing around here afraid to speak their mind because they're too afraid of ruffling feathers. I say that feathers NEED to be ruffled from time to time.

Either we can be emotional in our posts or we can't.

3mlm
10-09-2004, 11:03 AM
Seb, you say you are a 40 year old registered Democrat who intends to vote for Bush.

Did you vote for Dukakis in 1988? for Clinton in 1992 and 1996? For Gore in 2000?

Did you support the impeachment of Clinton?

Sebastien447
10-09-2004, 11:05 AM
My friend, there's certainly nothing wrong with being emotional. I am in full agreement with you about the importance of this election. It's unsurpassed.

I only take issue with the degrading and the incendiary language ... two reasons that otherwise intelligent people discover that they're unable to debate competently.

Did you notice GW or Franky using words like "bullshit," "non-informed," or "war-mongering" ?

Those words rile people ... and you don't want to rile anyone do you? You wish to make your point. I think you did that ... but politics make people crazy and you felt the need to add a couple incendiary jabs.

I don't think you need to do that. Your points are well made without it.

Sebastien447
10-09-2004, 11:09 AM
Seb, you say you are a 40 year old registered Democrat who intends to vote for Bush.

Did you vote for Dukakis in 1988? for Clinton in 1992 and 1996? For Gore in 2000?

Did you support the impeachment of Clinton?





No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Kirkus
10-09-2004, 11:32 AM
Did you notice GW or Franky using words like "bullshit," "non-informed," or "war-mongering" ?

I did not notice President Bush or Senator Kerry using words like "bullshit", "non-informed" (which I now realize should have been "uninformed") or "war-mongering". But then again, they were on broadcast and cable news channels that reach the entire world... and I'm not running for public office. With that being said, perhaps the word "bullshit" was a little strong. But I can't for life of me think of another word that communicates as closely the frustration I was trying to convey.

bullshit vulgar slang. n.
1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3. Insolent talk or behavior.

Senator Kerry has a different plan for the war in Iraq. It's not what's already being done. And the "right" repeatedly says it is. I believe in an attempt to deminish the differences in plans.

Do I want to rile people? Maybe I do. At this point in the campaign I question how voters can still be "undecided". Maybe incendiary jabs are the only things left that will snap them out of their non-committal attitudes.

I know my points are well made without them, but sometimes I have to excercise the lack of censorship that being a member of TAT allows me (shameful plug).


No

Yes

No

Yes

No

LOL... that was direct.

shtexas
10-09-2004, 12:25 PM
Boy, this thread did become heated... and there is nothing wrong with that.

I do find Seb's voting record quite interesting. If I'm reading it right, Seb voted for Clinton in '92, but not '96, and then Gore in '00 but leans with Bush now. That is all quite interesting.

Sebastien447
10-09-2004, 11:44 PM
Boy, this thread did become heated... and there is nothing wrong with that.

I do find Seb's voting record quite interesting. If I'm reading it right, Seb voted for Clinton in '92, but not '96, and then Gore in '00 but leans with Bush now. That is all quite interesting.

Yes, correct ... and interesting for sure! I have been an Independent for a long time. I was raised by a died-in-the-wool Democrat who believes that Bush and Cheney are Beelzebub incarnate. Ultimately it was my Father who allowed me to see the divisivness of our political system here in the states. Partisan politics forces people into ideological corners from which they cannot escape. I've also lived in France for a time, where there are many political parties, a much broader spectrum of ideas, and ultimately, more options for it's citizens. I choose to vote for who I believe to be the best guy for the time. I might have voted for a John Kerry ten years ago, but not today.

There's nothing we can do about our bipartisan political system ... the roots are too deep, all the way back to the Whigs and the Torries. During election years, the phrase that you hear most often is "the lesser of two evils." Whether you're Democrat or Republican or Independent, many people are forced to vote for candidates with whom they disagree. Or you could throw away your vote on some third party candidate.

At this point, I've fairly well admitted to myself that I'll be forced to vote Bush/Cheney. Iraq is the reason. I find it amazing that Kerry can actually mention sending more troops to Iraq with a straight face. If Kerry's elected I guarantee we'll see the opposite. He worries me. I believe he'll cave. He's caved to popular opinion his entire life, so I don't comprehend how anyone will believe he'll be changing at this point in his career.

We can argue about the invasion of Iraq until the cows come home but it's not going to change the fact that we're there right now. And now that we're over there, we better complete the job, or we'll be paying for it forever.

shtexas
10-10-2004, 12:37 AM
O.K., let's stick to the fact we are already in Iraq and what do we do now. My problems with the current administration:

1. $20 billion was set aside for reconstruction in Iraq. Bush declared "mission accomplished" eons ago, yet only $1.2 billion has been spent on reconstruction. What are they waiting for? Violence continues to increase daily while they do and spend nothing on reconstruction.

2. Tied to the first. Bush/Cheney (like Kerry/Edwards) say training troops in Iraq is of vital importance. Bush claims 100,000 troops have been trained. Actually, the number is more like 50,000. Of those, the great majority have only received a three week course in police procedures. Only 8,000 are police who have received a full 8 week training course. Meanwhile, violence continues to escalate.

Do we know for sure Kerry will do what he says he will do? No, we don't. But we do know what Bush will do, because he is doing it now. He will not train troops fast enough. He has not spent adequate money on reconstruction. The result is the increased violence in Iraq. That is why I have to vote for Kerry, because I see no reason why Bush and Company are going to do what they claim needs to be done to stabilize Iraq. They simply have not done it, are not doing it now, and I don't believe them at all that it will get done because it is not really underway now.

shtexas
10-10-2004, 02:57 AM
I'll add one more thing:

Why do I think Kerry will do what needs to be done in Iraq?

While it is true that when he returned from the Vietnam War, he questioned why we were there in the first place (angering some veterans), he still did what needed to be done while serving. This included, according to a CNN documentary, pointing his boat directly at the bank and charging the bank, jumping off the boat, into the woods, and killing an enemy soldier (something he doesn't like to talk about).

Therefore, applying that to the current situation: He says we shouldn't be in Iraq, but, like Vietnam, I have full faith he will do what needs to be done to stabilize Iraq and get us home because he actually did it before.

Sebastien447
10-10-2004, 03:22 AM
I'll add one more thing:

Why do I think Kerry will do what needs to be done in Iraq?

While it is true that when he returned from the Vietnam War, he questioned why we were there in the first place (angering some veterans), he still did what needed to be done while serving. This included, according to a CNN documentary, pointing his boat directly at the bank and charging the bank, jumping off the boat, into the woods, and killing an enemy soldier (something he doesn't like to talk about).



Well, his political career has been quite a bit less courageous, to put it mildly. But I hope you're right about him being able to get the job done in Iraq because this is going to be another close Pres election! And we may indeed end up having four years of ...

FRANKENSTEIN THE PRESIDENT!

>:( screaming noises >:(

shtexas
10-10-2004, 07:52 AM
A telling excerpt on Kerry from today's NY Times magazine:

"In 1988, Kerry successfully proposed an amendment that forced the Treasury Department to negotiate so-called Kerry Agreements with foreign countries. Under these agreements, foreign governments had to promise to keep a close watch on their banks for potential money laundering or they risked losing their access to U.S. markets. Other measures Kerry tried to pass throughout the 90's, virtually all of them blocked by Republican senators on the banking committee, would end up, in the wake of 9/11, in the USA Patriot Act; among other things, these measures subject banks to fines or loss of license if they don't take steps to verify the identities of their customers and to avoid being used for money laundering."

Shows Kerry understood the threat and had a plan as far back as the '80's to fight terrorism, but it was the Republicans that blocked his efforts.

Sebastien447
10-12-2004, 08:24 AM
This means nothing ...


http://overstated.net/04/10/09-presidential-debate-redux


Or maybe it means everything :P

Sebastien447
10-13-2004, 08:52 AM
It took 32 pages in a "memorandum of understanding" to delineate the rules for the debates.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/shared/news/politics/stories/09/26rules.html

Examples:

Candidates can take notes with the paper and pen or pencil of their choice, but the
implements have to be precleared by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which
will take custody of the devices and place them on the podiums.

Candidates cannot "use risers or any other device to create an impression of elevated
height."

The rules also specifically allow each side to unleash an unlimited number of spinners
into the media center after the debate.

Each candidate may use his own make-up person, and adequate facilities shall be
provided at the debate site for make-up.

Sebastien447
10-13-2004, 08:57 AM
If I didn't have PARENT TEACHER CONFERENCES tonight *grumbles*

I think it could be fun to create a drinking game for the debate.

Take a drink whenever George W mispronounces "nuclear."
Take a drink whenever George W says the word "safer."
Take three drinks if either candidate says "my worthy opponent."

more?