How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Presidential Debates   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Presidential Debates

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


0 posted 10-01-2004 12:11 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Instead of seeing analysis of the Debates being hosted in a thread about the election process, I'm hereby opening this thread to contain those little nuggets of insight, evaluation, nuance, and camera angles.

Have fun, speak your mind, and be mindful of other peoples' minds.
Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 09-10-2001
Posts 10765
United States


1 posted 10-01-2004 12:43 AM       View Profile for Larry C   Email Larry C   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Larry C's Home Page   View IP for Larry C

Let the games begin. But my mind was already made up!

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


2 posted 10-01-2004 12:35 PM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

Oh, I thought Bush was just as cool as a cucumber, except I could hear his breathing.  I do think that Kerry came well prepared with his debate, and I didn't hear his breathing by the way   I thought Kerry had some great questions, that I didn't think got answered the way I wanted them too, but hey, it was a debate right?  My favorite was the one from Kerry to Bush about his making decisions, sticking to them, and his question about when does it become just plain stubborn and wrong after everyone wants you to change the decision made?  

Wish I could hear from a soldier what they think about this debate, I really do.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


3 posted 10-01-2004 01:07 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Senator Kerry was very prepared and very eloquent, and you could see him taking very fast notes while President Bush was speaking.  Seeing as how Senator Kerry is a rather verbose speaker, I know getting his responses down to 2 minutes must have been challenging.

President Bush was passionate and eloquent, at times, since he tends to speak more 'off the cuff' instead of from prepared, rehearsed notes.  Hence his verbal pauses which damaged his message a bit.

One thing I did take umbrage at was Senator Kerry using a timed portion of a question to answer the previous question, knowing full well that President Bush would not get a rebuttal.  Dirty and disrespectful tactic and outside the bounds of the moderation rules they both agreed to follow.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


4 posted 10-01-2004 04:38 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

I agree Alicat, it bothered me that Kerry snuck in as much as he did. That said, Bush picked up on and used the tactic quite effectively himself. Ultimately, the blame lies in the moderator, who should have stopped them both.

I think the cutaways were friendlier to Kerry. He was calm, collected, took notes, while Bush seemed surly and annoyed.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


5 posted 10-01-2004 05:48 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



Kerry wins Round One, and I'm not saying that just because I'm voting for him November 2nd, but because I really felt it.

Why Kerry Won

Going into this debate, Kerry was clearly an underdog to Bush. On the issue of the war on terror, Iraq and foreign policy, some polls have shown Bush has a 30-point lead over Kerry, Most polls even show Bush leading Kerry by a 2-to-1 margin on who they believe would be a better commander-in-chief.

Bush could have easily crushed Kerry using his "various positions on Iraq" strategy, relentlessly onslaughting Kerry on his so-called "flip-flopping". Bush possibly could have put this election away by arguing Kerry had no clear position on Iraq.

Instead, Kerry came out strong, particularly convincing, and revealed that there are two distinct arguments on the war in Iraq.

Judging by the video caps, you could tell Kerry was psyched, happy to be in Miami and to debate the issues, Bush, on the other hand, looked like he didn't want to be there, he acted impatient and peeved. When Bush looked flustered and angry on camera, Kerry managed to keep discipline by penning something down or giving the occasional grin.

Kerry clearly did his homework, regardless of how factual or non-factual his research was. He had flavor in his arguments, using data from the FBI/120,000 hours of unviewed al-Qaeda tape, to Bush's father and deciding not to invade Iraq, to his opinion on the Darfur region of Sudan. In addition, he was concise and open enough to understand. His arguments had meat, but he made sure they were arguments the audience could relate to. He wasn't overly wordy or grandiose, he got his message across.

Bush, on the other hand, was monotonous and underprepared. Eleven times during the evening he said "It's hard work!". That can certainly explain a lot. So can saying "mixed messages" on and on without re-inforcing the examples. Bush mentioned the $87 billion controversy once, which Kerry clearly found an isthmus through and at the same time used the controversy against Bush in argument, when saying misleading is worse than a mistake of phrasing like that.

Bush was inarticulate. He had long breaks between responses, sometimes as much as five seconds. Even on thirty second rebuttals, when it seemed he was determined to say something, he stumbled and showed he actually had nothing to say. He was like an impatient school boy who wanted to get attention.

Even Bush's general strengths worked against him Thursday night. he is known for being generally likeable, simple, and having a next-door-neighbor type of personality, one you can easily relate to. But the monotony of saying phrases like "I believe in freedom" or "I believe Iraq wants to be free" proved him all too stoppable. He talked in circles, his language was bland, and, essentially, a bore after the first thirty minutes especially.

On top of it all, the lighting system, which would seem to benefit Bush more than Kerry due to Kerry's tendency to speak for long intervals, actually benefitted Kerry more than Bush. Kerry was able to understand how to contain his message in a time limit, while Bush sometimes ran out of things to say when it was still a green or yellow light, sometimes he'd pause and keep talking when the red light was blinking.

Kerry's debate wasn't without its flaws, however. There remain some moth-holes on his stance on Iraq, which he will still have to cope with. With that said, Bush will likely remain on top in the polls going into the next debates. However, Kerry can close in the gap in this race and is clearly campaigning like a contender again.

Bush gets credit for having a small edge as far as likeability following the debate in a poll. Despite faltering, it wasn't a knockout punch on Bush last night, merely just a round he lost. However, Kerry may have gained likeability from this, another positive indicator for the Kerry campaign.

In the end, Kerry was unarguably the winner. Kerry was able to rise above the mass adversity he was facing entering the debate, while Bush seemed to be left debating himself.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


6 posted 10-01-2004 10:23 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Kerry was clearly the winner on style. Bush was clearly the winner on substance. Kerry is a gifted orator. Bush isn't. He's more of an off-the-cuff speaker. Kerry looked well rested and refreshed. Bush looked like he needed a vacation.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


7 posted 10-01-2004 10:57 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

I thought Kerry did a fine job on substance as well as style. And Bush does need a vacation.
As for the debate format, I'd still rather see less rules controlling the debate, more freedom for the opponents to ask/respond directly to one another on AT LEAST one of their own chosen Q's. The President has to be able to perform intelligently 24/7 on the hot seat, so why not allow us to watch them in the heat of debate? It is overly controlled. But this one still felt less 'canned' than the lame debates 4 years ago.
Eventually, we each have to vote for whichever one we trust to do the best job.
For style, substance, energy and believability, Kerry won round one in my opinion, and that's all it is in the end...my opinion.
Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


8 posted 10-02-2004 10:18 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

I have only seen small amounts of this debate, but to my mind this should come squarely down to ''do you want more of your troops to get killed in a war they should never have got into in the first place so that oil can make the president richer, and be alienated by the rest of the world, or do you want, troops back home, peace and respect from the international community''
If its the first vote for Bush..if its the second vote for Kerry.
How people look on tv isnt going to stop the killing and dying of innocent people, only in this mixed up image focused world do we get this type of media fishbowl. Vote kerry and get the troops back where they belong and should have been in the first place, HOME.

Peace to everyone.

Goldenrose.

The supreme happiness in life is the conviction that we are loved. Victor Hugo.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


9 posted 10-02-2004 01:16 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

'Peace at any cost' was Kerry's ideology during the Vietnam era. I tend to believe that it is still his ideology today. He believes Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place just as he believed Vietnam was. He influenced the politicians to turn their backs on those we pledged to help back then. Do we have any reason to believe that he wouldn't turn his back on those in Iraq that we have pledged to help now?

It's easy to be wowed by a smooth-talker. You have to dig a little to try to ascertain the message behind the words. You can't tout the 'wrong war' message and expect additional allies to come on board and help fight, putting their troops lives on the line for the 'wrong war', or continue to ask our troops to lay down their lives for the 'wrong war', or implant in our soldiers' minds "will I be the last to die for the 'wrong war'. Which seems to be what he is saying he will do. It doesn't make sense. I tend to believe he will do exactly what he had a hand in doing with Vietnam.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


10 posted 10-02-2004 03:52 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Kerry didn't turn his back on his comrades, but on a needless and misguided war. What Republicans are calling an early 'flip flop' is actually an example of wisdom and character. Kerry had the courage to serve in Vietnam, catching its horrors first-hand in it's swift boat campaign, which incidentely was one the US militaries biggest mistakes. (Something like a 90% failure/mortality rate.) He then had the courage upon returning home, to stand up against the war and for saving US soldiers.

Disgustingly, when Republicans aren't questioning his conviction they're questioning his service. But those who actually served with him know the truth. And on the Veterans United for Kerry site an article poignantly reads:

'John Kerry volunteered for Vietnam, and upon returning home, said the war was wrong; George Bush stayed at home, but insisted the war was right. Who has character?'

As for this Iraq, the proper war was abandoned, that against terror and Al-Queda. Bush has carelessly misused resources and more importantly lives for a fabricated war. I believe Kerry will utilize those troops the right way and for the right reasons. It will be an uphill battle, having to clean the Bush mess first and gaining support, but I believe Kerry will, at the very least, do better than Bush has.
littlewing
Member Rara Avis
since 03-02-2003
Posts 9998
New York


11 posted 10-02-2004 05:08 PM       View Profile for littlewing   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for littlewing

excellent explanation, I could not have stated it better myself Raph.  I liked how Kerry noted that we are far extending ourselves in the wrong places and with the wrong organizations.  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


12 posted 10-02-2004 07:56 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Here is an enlightening article that brings into focus Kerry's inconsistent positions.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larrykudlow/lk20041001.shtml


Raph, whether Kerry displayed character or not while in Vietnam, Kerry definitely did not display character when he returned from Vietnam (while he was technically still a Commissioned Officer, no less) when he and members of his group met with the enemy in Paris while we were still engaged in that war and returned home advocating the enemy's talking points, and methodically set about to demolish the morale of the troops and the resolve of the people to win the war through the lies and propaganda of the enemy. I think that suggests a person completely devoid of character. If the politicians weren't all running scared at the time because of the devisiveness that his group generated, he would probably have been tried for treason.  He's certainly not someone who should be entrusted with the highest office in the land.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


13 posted 10-02-2004 08:05 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

According to Conservative columnist Robert Novak, of Valere Plame fame (who has the inside administration connections to get leaky scoops) in a second Bush administration there will be a hasty withdrawal from Iraq:

quote:

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

This prospective policy is based on Iraq's national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction.

The reality of hard decisions ahead is obscured by blather on both sides in a presidential campaign. Six weeks before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal. Sen. John Kerry's political aides, still languishing in fantastic speculation about European troops to the rescue, do not even ponder a quick exit. But Kerry supporters with foreign policy experience speculate that if elected, their candidate would take the same escape route.

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html

Now.. onto the debate...

How much substance is there in saying 'Hard work' 17 or so times?   That's Bush's substance for cleaning up Iraq.  The rest of the time he spent mocking Kerry with 'Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.'  Give me a break already.

Distortions and Misstatements in the debate;

Bush;
'Kerry would withdraw troops from Iraq in six months'

What Kerry has actually said is that if his plan is implemented we could significantly reduce troops in six months

Bush;
'100,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained'

Only 8000 have actually been trained fully the rest only received a three-week 'shake and bake'  course and somewhere between 40 and 60 percent are going to be fired.

Bush;
'We're spending the money' (for Iraqi reconstruction)
This is a point of contention even between Republican members of Congress and Senate prompting sharp criticism from McCain, Lugar, and Hagel, they've only spent 1.2 billion of the 18 billion set aside -- meanwhile -- we all know what the problems are there.

Bush;
' 75 percent" of al Qaeda leaders have been "brought to justice'

Not factual -- the CIA has confirmed 2/3rds of al Qaeda leadership at the time of 9/11 have been killed or captured (for which President Bush deserves our unrestrained applause) but they have actually grown in size and reach to about 18,000 operatives in autonomous cells -- each with its own leader.  

Bush;
'10 million registered to vote in Afghanistan'

According to human rights watch they're voting Chicago style there with multiply registered voters.

Bush;
'My administration worked with the congress to create the Department of Homeland Security'

Not until it opposed it for 9 months it didn't

Bush;
'My administration increased spending by about 35% (on curbing nuclear proliferation)'

His administration has cut it by 13%


Now on to Kerry --

Kerry;
'200 billion dollars for the war in Iraq'

Come on senator -- it's only 120 and you know it -- isn't 120 a big enough number for you to criticize?

Kerry;
'This administration let Osama bin Laden go at Tora Bora because it outsourced it to' yadda yadda yadda...

There is no verification that OBL was ever at Tora Bora let alone surrounded -- but it is a fact that we began to rely heavily on Afghan warlords.

Kerry;
'They had to close the subway in New York during the Republican Convention)'

False:  The subway was running -- Penn Station was closed for a period.

Kerry;
'Bush administration is spending hundreds of millions on bunker busting nukes'

Wrong, $35 million spent -- Right -- $500 million set aside for future budgets if Congress approves the weapon.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


14 posted 10-02-2004 08:42 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Ah yes, speaking of lies and propaganda, more lies from the (SBVT)Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign. The treason you speak of forbids US citizens from negotiating treaties with foreign governments. But Kerry never negotiated or entered any of the talk sessions and therefor wasn't guilty of anyhing Denise. Kerry should be applauded, not lauded, for looking at things from both ends and making an evaluation for himself.

That accusation, one of many from the SBVT, is another example of disgusting Bush administration tactics. One that Rep. Senator McCain has spoken out against. And he would know, Bush's campaigners tried to sully his name by questioning his mental fitness(with regards to his years spent as a POW) during their battle for Republican leadership.

The SBVT deals with everything but truth, out of it's 254 members, only one served under Kerry. As Jim Rassman who served under Kerry stated: "..their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and my Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency....

How a man and administration who knowingly used false information, let their sites of the real war, has links to and has protected the Saudis(how's that for being in bed with the enemy), or whose military contracting shows clear bias to Bush family/Republican interests can be deemed more trustworthy and capable is beyond logic.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


15 posted 10-02-2004 09:01 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Raph, the treason I speak of is of a person who is still technically a Commissioned Officer, during a time of war, giving aid and comfort to the enemy by the active dissemination of the enemy's lies and propagandistic talking points for the demoralization of the troops and for the breaking of the will of the people to win. Kerry's actions while in the VVAW were instrumental in Hanoi's victory.  
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


16 posted 10-02-2004 09:49 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Thanks to others for making some of the same points I was going to make. Admittedly, on reading Denise's first accusations of treason, I thought, "Well, shoot the messenger, will ya?"

It's a little bit trickier than that. I'll try to go into this a bit later, but while I think nothing happened in Paris, I do think Kerry let himself be fooled into being used as a propaganda tool. I think the picture at the war crimes/remnants museum is still propaganda.

The problem, however, is not treason, it's that Kerry was a man of character and not a diplomat.

I think aenimal is right.

More later.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


17 posted 10-02-2004 10:00 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Much of the 'propaganda' and enemy 'lies' you speak of Denise, for example a true account of what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin, have proven true today. Kerry saw that truth and felt it neccessary to educate his fellow soldiers, pawns in the horror of Vietnam.

What you deem in the interests of the enemy(who incidentely had pledged their alliance before being wrongfully occupied), was in the interest of stopping a bloody and futile war that put his brothers lives at stake. You call it treason, many call it 'doing the right thing'. It may not have been the best way to go about it, but at least he had the courage,wisdom and heart to try.

And you're probably sitting there thinking this is a justification for treason, but i think that beats a justification for war anyday. Kerry wanted troops out of the fire and safe, Bush created a fire and threw them in.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


18 posted 10-03-2004 10:26 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

It doesn't matter if they served directly under Kerry or not. He certainly wasn't there long enough to have had too many people serving under him. So what? They were there serving alongside him when he was there, nonetheless. Their memories contradict most of his memories during that time frame. Dismiss them as liars if you wish.

"Shoot the messenger" ... a messenger of truth or a messenger of lies, distortions and propaganda? There's a difference.

He had a strange way of trying to help his fellow armed services members, accusing them of vicious atrocities, saying that the atrocities were wide spread and system wide and up and down the entire chain of command, instead of the isolated incidents that did occur as they do in any war, to the point that they were spit upon and reviled as nothing more than criminals when they returned home, the overwhelming majority of whom did not commit atrocities and were only there because they were drafted and had no choice but to be there. With a 'friend' like that, you certainly don't need enemies. Ask the veterans what they think of Kerry's "courage, wisdom and heart".

He now admits that he was in Paris at least on the occasion of one of the meetings between the representatives of the Viet Cong and the VVAW. Coincidence? I find it hard to believe that he would travel all the way to Paris at the same exact time of the meeting and not actually attend the meeting. He could have chosen any place in the world to have his honeymoon, but he chose that place at that time. But even if he were given the benefit of the doubt about actually attending the meeting, that doesn't excuse his participation in a group, of which he was a leading force, that set about to undermine troop morale and the will of the people to win against the enemy by the spreading of the enemies lies and propaganda.


quote:
And you're probably sitting there thinking this is a justification for treason, but i think that beats a justification for war anyday


I think that best sums up your value system, Raph. A justification for treason wins out hands down over a justification for war.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


19 posted 10-03-2004 01:34 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Ask the veterans what they think of Kerry's "courage, wisdom and heart".

Might not be a bad idea, Denise. I suspect you would, as in most things, get a wide range of answers, but speaking as one of those veterans, I can tell you without equivocation you won't like all the answers.

Personally, I can't speak to courage or wisdom or some nebulous quality called heart. But having lived through those years, I feel I can judge veracity. I certainly don't support all of Kerry's claims, which is hardly surprising when you consider that two people viewing the same scene will rarely agree on all the details. But I look at what he says, and I look at what you say, and it's clear to me who was there and who was not.

The irony is that even if you knew what you were talking about, even if you were right, you'd still be wrong.

The protestors shouldn't be blamed for the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam. Whether they told lies or truths isn't even relevant today. When the will of the people to win can be undermined by persuasion, when their conviction is so weak as to be swayed, there clearly should never have been a war for anyone to protest. If we're going to resort to killing people, we probably should be a little more sure it's the right thing to do.

Peaceful disagreement with government policy isn't an act of treason, but rather one of highest patriotism. Those who sit on their collective butts, wrapped in their apathy, are the real traitors to America. Those who blindly follow anyone waving a flag in their face are the real traitors, not just to America, but to all of humanity. We need dissention. We need people who can look at our side, and then look at the enemy's side, and find the courage to tell us when we might be wrong. You don't have to agree with the dissenter. But if you have any conviction in what you believe, you sure as hell shouldn't fear them, either. And when you lose to them, because their truth was ultimately more convincing than yours, you shouldn't call them dirty names thirty years down the road.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


20 posted 10-03-2004 02:20 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
So what? They were there serving alongside him when he was there, nonetheless. Their memories contradict most of his memories during that time frame.


So what??? 3,500 soldiers served on swift boats. Of them 254 refute what Kerry has said. Of the 254, ONE person served under Kerry. They were not serving 'alongside' him, and have no right to refute or call into question his service or medals. Those who DID serve under his command confirm and are appalled by the SBVT, republican sponsored vets many of whom spoke out against Kerry in 1971 at the behest Nixon.

And Ron is right, look and you'll find that there are as many vet groups for Kerry as you believe there are against. As for Paris he admits he met with people but never actively negotiated or attended talks.

quote:
I think that best sums up your value system, Raph. A justification for treason wins out hands down over a justification for war.


Well it wasn't treason but yes treason in order to educate soldiers of what they were a part of vs the their needless slaughter and exploitation does show my value system. I believe in truth and the preservation of life, silly me.

Your justifications for, or outright ignoring of information including Bush links to Saudis, profiteering, false information and the War on Iraq demonstrates yours.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


21 posted 10-03-2004 02:43 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

And btw speaking of treason, the Bush administration leaked the name of a CIA agent for refuting intelligence on Iraq. Releasing the name of an agent is against federal law and an official act of treason. I don't recall anyone being charged.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


22 posted 10-03-2004 03:12 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

As for the first Debate on image quality, Bush did indeed look tired, and Kerry rather rested.  I was reminded of another famous televised Presidential debate: the very first one between Kennedy and Nixon.  Granted, I wasn't even thought of then, but I have seen it aired many times over the years, and have read much about it, and there are some similarities.

Kennedy was in a dark suit to contrast against the bland background, rested, and nicely tanned from a beach vacation prior to the debate.  Nixon was just back from a foreign trade trip to China, sick and feverish, in a hastily donned crumpled suit which blended into the background, with his infamous 5 o'clock shadow.

Irregardless of what was said, Kennedy came off more presidential and confident, and many were turned off by Nixon's pallor, shadow, and fevered sweat, though they didn't know he was sick, but nervous.

Kerry well rested, tanned, and prepared.  Bush tired, pale, overprepared.  One from a vacation, one from work.

I'm not making apologetics.  Kerry clearly won the first debate on many fronts, including appearance.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


23 posted 10-03-2004 03:46 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

Perhaps, this observation is a good reason we should listen to these debates on the radio, or maybe read the candidates transcripts, and turn off the TV.
In any event, peevish tired looks or tanned smiling glows alone have nothing to do with my voting decision. I believe (and hope I'm right) that most voters go beyond the surface when making up their minds.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


24 posted 10-03-2004 07:19 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

What someone says is only a fraction of communication though Kacey -- that's why reaction shots ARE important.  Body language, tone, gestures, all are important cues to revealing the entire communication -- which is why television is great -- 90% of all information comes in through the eyes.  If you only have the audio or the text - you only have half of the story.

Re: Ali's last post -- the opposite is true -- Bush took a more casual approach to preparing for the debates according to his handlers -- they just sat around and lobbed questions at each other.  Bush isn't studious.  

Kerry, on the other hand, practiced in a total mock-up of the debates and prepared for days on end.  You can look at it as being rehearsed or as being prepared.  

Another factor that effects the President is the insulation he lives behind.  He's totally surrounded by sycophants -- the only people who can come to his rallies are loyal supporters, and the closest a protester can ever get is miles away in a 'free-speech' zone.  He isn't used to being challenged.  It clearly rattled him.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Presidential Debates   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors