VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: Who won the 2nd debate Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
10-11-2004 12:08 AM
GhostUser I didn't watch it..



But I'm just gonna go with Kerry would have bet Bush.

And I hope he did.



By the looks of things.. he did. Hahah. sucker.
10-10-2004 10:20 PM
AccidentalVeg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Do you really believe that a president at a "retreat" doesn't meet daily with his advisors? Hasn't BUsh met with numerous members of Congress and diplomats, not to mention foreign leaders, while on what you incorrectly call "vacations"?



Yep. He takes 'em down into the basement and he "looks" at 'em. Then he asks them if they "got everything they need."



Then he goes back to trimming that pesky brush.







d
10-10-2004 08:25 PM
Tame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gothic Sponge View Post

Congress doesn't have the authority to give to NORAD, the president does! Face it, Bush has had two major screw ups as president. He ignored the 8/6/01 PDB Entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Where was he for the month of august? on vacation! BTW Bush has spent more than 40% of his presidency at one of his three retreats. (I wish i could get that amount of time off) He led us into a unjust war with Iraq! Now our troops and thousands of Iraqis are dead, FOR NOTHING! All for Haliburton profits right!?!





Do you really believe that a president at a "retreat" doesn't meet daily with his advisors? Hasn't BUsh met with numerous members of Congress and diplomats, not to mention foreign leaders, while on what you incorrectly call "vacations"?
10-10-2004 07:12 PM
Gothic Sponge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie View Post

Read Kerry's book. He said he (and the rest of congress) sat there in bewilderment for "more than 30 minutes" before they were physically wisked away to a safer place. Seven doesn't seem so long to collect your thoughts, consider your options, weigh the outcome, gather strategy, and give an order. Bet YOU couldn't have done better.



Congress doesn't have the authority to give to NORAD, the president does! Face it, Bush has had two major screw ups as president. He ignored the 8/6/01 PDB Entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Where was he for the month of august? on vacation! BTW Bush has spent more than 40% of his presidency at one of his three retreats. (I wish i could get that amount of time off) He led us into a unjust war with Iraq! Now our troops and thousands of Iraqis are dead, FOR NOTHING! All for Haliburton profits right!?!



I suggest that you go enlist in the military. No excuses. No waiting. If you support Bush and war in general, you should enlist!
10-10-2004 04:31 PM
Dirty Martini Ahhhhhhhhhh it all makes sense now.



I was banging my head against the wall trying to figure out why on earth Bush would bring up Dred Scott. I thought perhaps his strategists were trying to have Bush appear smart by bringing up a point in American history. Or maybe just to show that personal opinion doesn't necessarily mean that something is right.



In fact, it goes beyond that and now it's obvious... here's a post from a Democrats Abroad AU forum I read:



Quote:
When asked in the second debate what kind of judges he'd appoint to the Supreme Court, George W. Bush first joked that he'd pick people who would appoint him President -- and then made a seemingly bizarre reference to the 1857 Dred Scott decision. From the transcript:



> Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges,

> years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of

> personal property rights.

>

> That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The

> Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it

> doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.



For 95 percent of us, Bush's remark was utterly baffling: What on earth does the Dred Scott case have to do with selecting modern judges? It's not as though you'd find many pro-slavery judges here in the 21st century.



But for the other 5 percent of the audience -- the hardcore fringe of the anti-abortion crusade -- Bush's answer spoke directly to them. In the language of the extreme right, Dred Scott decided that slaves were not citizens, had no Constitutional rights, and were the "property" of their owners... and Roe vs. Wade decided that *fetuses* were not citizens, had no Constitutional rights, and were the "property" of the women whose bodies they resided in.



To anti-abortion zealots, Roe vs. Wade is the modern-day Dred Scott decision: A judicial mistake that *must* be corrected, by Constitutional amendment if necessary. Anti-abortion web sites frequently cite Dred Scott as the frame of reference for thinking about Roe vs. Wade; you can see a list of citations at <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/9/16460/5820>.



In sum, Bush's remarks were a shout-out to his fans in the

anti-abortion seats. You may not have understood him -- you're not *meant* to have understood him -- but Bush's base got the message loud and clear. A vote for Bush is not a vote for judges who'll overturn Dred Scott: It's a vote for judges who'll overturn Roe vs. Wade.

10-10-2004 04:27 PM
Dirty Martini Not the 7 minute argument again. Can we put that in another thread? PLEASE?
10-10-2004 02:07 PM
Annie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gothic Sponge View Post

Yeah, he really jumped when he found out the WTC was attacked. He spent 7 minutes just sitting in that classroom, and another 20 minutes before he even left the school! Great leadership!

Read Kerry's book. He said he (and the rest of congress) sat there in bewilderment for "more than 30 minutes" before they were physically wisked away to a safer place. Seven doesn't seem so long to collect your thoughts, consider your options, weigh the outcome, gather strategy, and give an order. Bet YOU couldn't have done better.
10-10-2004 01:46 PM
otomik Bush is smart, he plays it american anti-intellectual though. listen, he gave a clear answer on the supreme court judge question mentioning he would be a "constructionist" after explaining what that means (a clear philosophical school of constitutional law), kerry dodged it and said he'd pick a "a good one" riiiigghhht. he also mentioned biodiesel, which makes him awesome in my book. Kerry has no ideas, he just claims to do everything better, now he's saying Iraq may be a Lebanon (is he hinting he'll just pull out? talk about vacillating). Screamin' Dean had ideas and integrity, Kerry is just an opportunist.
10-10-2004 05:39 AM
Gothic Sponge From pollingreport.com



http://pollingreport.com/wh04misc.htm



Bush 41%



Kerry 44%



Tie 13%
10-10-2004 12:31 AM
Dirty Martini
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

I've been on Vioxx for almost a year. When I first started it, I was warned about the things that are making headlines now. The relief from 24 hour pain made it worth the risk. It really isn't some big coverup.



OK. I guess it depends on your definition of coverup.



Quote:
The US Food and Drug Administration silenced one of its drug experts who raised safety concerns weeks before Merck & Co removed the blockbuster drug Vioxx due to increased risks for heart attack and strokes, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said.



Dr David J. Graham, associate director for science in the FDA Drug Centre's Office of Drug Safety, told Senate investigators he faced stiff resistance within the regulatory agency to his findings.



"Dr Graham described an environment where he was 'ostracized', 'subjected to veiled threats' and 'intimidation'," Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, of Iowa, said in a statement after Finance Committee investigators interviewed the researcher yesterday.



(emphasis mine)



http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...5E1702,00.html
10-09-2004 11:20 PM
Gothic Sponge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie View Post

I'm glad of it. I'd rather have someone jump up and do something when my family is threatened or at risk of danger, than have someone be too afraid of what everyone *might* think about them, to actually take action. I don't want a "leader" who's going to pander to the masses and make bad choices, only to increase his self esteem.





Yeah, he really jumped when he found out the WTC was attacked. He spent 7 minutes just sitting in that classroom, and another 20 minutes before he even left the school! Great leadership!
10-09-2004 10:02 PM
remilard Questions to ponder...



1. Did Bush lie about being an owner of a timber company or did he not know that he is? Which is more disturbing?



2. All of us with IQs above 32 know that a short list of names exist in the Bush administration in the event that a Supreme Court Justice resigns or is otherwise not able to continue their duties. Did Bush lie about not knowing who he would nominate or does he actually not know who is on that list? Which is more disturbing?



3. Bush gave an example of an elderly woman who's prescription drug bill for a month was $10 before the prescription benefits program under medicare and $1 after. Does Bush really think that these are realistic numbers or is he just bad at making stuff up? Which is more disturbing?



4. Bush will not nominate a Supreme Court Justice who would bring back the Dred Scott decision. Did Bush actually think taking a stance on the slavery issue would help get him voters or was he having a hard time avoiding the simple question posed to him for a full 90 seconds? Which is more disturbing?
10-09-2004 09:32 PM
eggplant Bush was particularly lame on the environmental question. It's ridiculous for him to say his administration has been environment-friendly. I thought Kerry came out much stronger, although he also bends the facts fairly often. I wonder how much of an effect these debates have on voters though. Many people seem to just hear want they want to hear.
10-09-2004 09:22 PM
Annie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegan View Post

...he obviously has a bad temper...

I'm glad of it. I'd rather have someone jump up and do something when my family is threatened or at risk of danger, than have someone be too afraid of what everyone *might* think about them, to actually take action. I don't want a "leader" who's going to pander to the masses and make bad choices, only to increase his self esteem.
10-09-2004 09:22 PM
GhostUser I got pretty frustrated while watching it. Bush just kept butting in and saying "I did that! I will do that!" I just kept saying "thats so unbelievably rude." and then, the classic...

"I own a timber company?"



hahah. He owns a company he didnt even know about.
10-09-2004 08:32 PM
Red
Quote:
...that reports are coming out that the FDA *knew* that Vioxx was harmful yet approved it anyway!



I've been on Vioxx for almost a year. When I first started it, I was warned about the things that are making headlines now. The relief from 24 hour pain made it worth the risk. It really isn't some big coverup.
10-09-2004 08:19 PM
delicious "The Bush campaign would do well to stop Kerry's momentum but after two successful debates, it's going to be tough."



Isn't Bush slightly ahead though?
10-09-2004 06:20 PM
Dirty Martini
Quote:
Originally Posted by MollyGoat View Post

Bush keeps starting sentences, and then starting other sentences before the first sentences are done.



I thought Kerry did REALLY well on a few questions, especially the abortion one. It was so bizarre when he said he voted against the partial-birth abortion bill because it didn't have an exception for the mother's life and health and then Bush got up and said "It's simple. Are you for partial-birth abortion or are you against it?" Uh, it's clearly not that simple, and Kerry just said why. Duh!



Yes, I thought Kerry handled that and the stem cell questions particularly well. He made it clear, without being over-intellectual, that they are complex issues that require a lot of thought and respect of emotion. It was pretty obvious that Bush was appealing to his base on those questions.



I also thought Bush bungled up the question about drugs form Canada, and that Kerry did well to point out Bush's commitment in 2000 to allow drugs from Canada and his association with drug companies. Bush stated he wanted drugs coming in to the statest to be safe & that's why he wasn't allowing Canadian drugs. All this in the same week that reports are coming out that the FDA *knew* that Vioxx was harmful yet approved it anyway!



AccidentalVeg, if Kerry had started attacking Bush on the statistics, he would have appeared petty & nitpicky rather than presidential. The media are doing the factchecking for both sides, so I assume that the Kerry campaign is relying on the media to reveal the mistakes so that he doesn't have to resort to nitpicking. Smart move, since the media are pointing out fact mistakes (again, on both sides).



The Bush campaign would do well to stop Kerry's momentum but after two successful debates, it's going to be tough.
10-09-2004 05:00 PM
Vegan Plus, Bush always tries to talk before he's allowed to, and he obviously has a bad temper, from what I see on television.



Not to mention the fact that he only talks about how Kerry "also thought Saddam was a threat", how he "flip flops" & "September 11th changed the wolrd..."



Jesus.

Get some new material.
10-09-2004 04:58 PM
Annie
Quote:
Originally Posted by LudwigB View Post


And how do you increase wetlands? Isn't that nature's job?



Actually, for every specified area of land that is used to build industrial parks or buildings...you have to build a wet land, too. That's why if you drive past new factories, you usually see a pond and/or marsh area. It's regulated by the E.P.A..



What he was referring to, was the fact that some have been introduced to areas that have nothing to do with industry (just to have them in place for habitation).
10-09-2004 04:57 PM
Vegan I don't like Kerry because he's a hunter.

So, I have to chose to lesser of two evils.



I hate Bush more, so I vote for Kerry.

He has GOT to be a better president than Buch.
10-09-2004 04:39 PM
delicious I listened to the 2nd debate on the radio. Kerry seemed to kick ass on the radio for some reason. Later, when I watched about half of the debate on television, Bush didn't seem to have done as poorly as I thought. It was like Bush sounded totally dumb and insecure, but surprisingly his face didn't show it.

I think the first debate was about 85 to 15 (Kerry winning) and the second one went 65 - 35. (Kerry winning again)

Bush didn't drool though, so he "won"
10-09-2004 04:19 PM
carried
Quote:
Originally Posted by shagginabit View Post

neither. they both sucked.

I thought so too
10-09-2004 04:09 PM
MollyGoat Bush keeps starting sentences, and then starting other sentences before the first sentences are done.



I thought Kerry did REALLY well on a few questions, especially the abortion one. It was so bizarre when he said he voted against the partial-birth abortion bill because it didn't have an exception for the mother's life and health and then Bush got up and said "It's simple. Are you for partial-birth abortion or are you against it?" Uh, it's clearly not that simple, and Kerry just said why. Duh!
10-09-2004 03:49 PM
Frost Interesting analysis of the debate, includes stated facts that were not true. Anyone wanna guess who had the most?



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210791/?GT1=5472
10-09-2004 02:58 PM
ebola Bush wins when it comes to double-entendres

"Want some wood?"



(yes, I'm in junior high.)
10-09-2004 01:39 PM
BadrashClothing I like how bush ignored the question "What 3 things have you done wrong" LOL He wouldn't name them.



I agree with someone else who was talking about how he ignored that host and just babbled on when the host was trying to speak. I wonder if he does that with foreign leaders?



He is a rude, aragant, war monger!



Join the Revolution, not the army!
10-09-2004 11:48 AM
AccidentalVeg Personally I think the red wall-to-wall carpeting won. My eyes are still burning.



d
10-09-2004 11:47 AM
AccidentalVeg
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder View Post

Foreign policy was not the focus of this debate.



Oh really? Could have fooled me.



10-09-2004 11:33 AM
kirkjobsluder Foreign policy was not the focus of this debate.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off