Is it all over for Kerry?

[Existence]

Kerry "won" the first debate, but there's two more. Bush's performance was so pathetic, it had to be planned. And it's quite strange that Fox News's commentators are mostly saying Kerry won.

Here's my take:

This pathetic performance by Bush was planned. In the next two debates, he'll do much better. Heck, anything will be better than that performance we just saw. The media will hail it as a comeback after the "less stellar" performance of the first debate. By then, most americans would have forgotten the first debate anyway. If the trend lines point up for Bush after the second and third debates, Bush will be hailed the come back kid. Kerry will not be able to do anything.

Is it all over for Kerry?


www.votecobb.org

[Placebo]

If he's going to do well in the next two, why didn't he bother doing well in the first? To save energy? C'mon...

[Cake]

Originally posted by Existence
Here's my take:

This pathetic performance by Bush was planned....
I stopped right there because that's completely absurd.

[Ebby]

The real question is...
Why are you watching FOX News???:err:

I recorded it and am now watching, so I have no actual info/opinion to add.

EDIT: Hey Cake, I made it farther than you! :p

[faust9]

I'm sorry for being blunt but this idea is dumb. Nothing personal mind you; I just find the idea to be utterly lame. Oh, wait a minute, maybe your right. Maybe it's a tactic that's work in the past. Lest see--Bush I v. Dukakis? Nope, Maybe Nixon v Kennedy? Nope. A sound winning strategy doesn't include losing while looking like a broken record.

[Anders]

THis was supposed to be the debate where Bush had the upperhand so no it wasn´t planned.

[SeanM]

That is an interesting thought, but I suspect it wasn't planned in advance. As I understand it, the 1st debate typically has the largest number of people viewing it and paying attention. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) One would think that the President's campaign people wouldn't make such a move that could backfire so easily.

[Moogs]

Planned my ass. He was genuinely flustered throughout the whole thing. What's more, this was the debate where he had by far the best chance of winning popular support. But you know what? This isn't about perceptions the way polls are about perceptions.

He has to stand up there in front of the cameras and answer the fucking questions in an intelligent way... and he can't. He's completely lost up there and you can see it on his face, in his posture... everything.

I wouldn't be surprised, if Edwards does well Tuesday, if Bush & Co find themselves tied or behind inthe polls a week from now. And frankly, Bush has no chance of winning the next two debates if the moderators do their job and hold him to the rules / force him to answer actual questions being posed to him.

Bush has this habit of answering questions that are related, but which were not posed to him... and even Lehrer let him get away with it, which was disappointing (but what can he do, really)?

[Gilsch]

Ludicrous. Going by what voters had consistently said mattered most to them this election...war on terror, home security...this was the DEFINING ONE for either of them.

Do you think the continous nervous twitching on the part of Bush quite a few times after Kerry had finished hammering a point was intentional too??

Bush looked defeated and pissed a few times. Just check out the post debate pics of them shaking hands and look at Bush's face. Kerry HUGE smile, Bush like he had just seen a ghost.

[rageous]

Absolutely not. Had Bush been reserved and kept some serious issues close to his chest to spring later, yet still been effective in this debate, you may be onto something.

But he was completely inept, IMO. Things started off pretty well for him, but he just simply lost focus. OR had no focus, other than to reiterate how tough everything is and how Kerry tosses out messed mixages.

If Bush had done decent, I might have believed this. But nobody in their right mind would run with the strategy of "look like you are clueless now and they'll think you're really smart later."

[Towel]

Originally posted by SeanM
That is an interesting thought, but I suspect it wasn't planned in advance. As I understand it, the 1st debate typically has the largest number of people viewing it and paying attention. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) One would think that the President's campaign people wouldn't make such a move that could backfire so easily. Yeah, I thought that was the whole point of the Bush campaign wanting to do National/Homeland Security first - because they thought Bush would win, and the first debate has by far the largest audience. They only wanted two debates at first, and reluncantly agreed to a third debate on Domestic Policy, I thought, partly because they figured it would be too late, and have too small an audience, to give Kerry any advantage.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Existence
Bush's performance was so pathetic, it had to be planned.

Nah, he tried the old pathetic performance routine in Iraq and it didn't work.....

[pfflam]

Originally posted by segovius
Nah, he tried the old pathetic performance routine in Iraq and it didn't work..... :lol:

. . yeah, it was merely pathetic

except it is also tragic

[OBJRA10]

It's interesting how biased some of you are, and you only see what you want to see! You use words like "pathetic" which clearly show your pre-disposition towards Kerry.

How about when Kerry was given 2 minutes to describe exactly what he would do as president, and all he did is rip on Bush? He didn't give one specific idea... is that because he doesn't have any? or because he hasn't made up his mind yet?

EXAMPLE:

LEHRER: As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?


KERRY: Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do. And there are a long list of thing. First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you have $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America?

What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq, but we're shutting firehouses who are the first- responders here in America.

The president hasn't put one nickel, not one nickel into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems. That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there. We hadn't done the work that ought to be done.

The president -- 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected.

Civilians get onto aircraft, and their luggage is X- rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed.

Does that make you feel safer in America?

This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren't my values. I believe in protecting America first.

[Towel]

Originally posted by OBJRA10
How about when Kerry was given 2 minutes to describe exactly what he would do as president, and all he did is rip on Bush? He didn't give one specific idea... is that because he doesn't have any? or because he hasn't made up his mind yet? His whole reply was a long list of specific ideas. :???: I don't get it. The question specifically asked "what would you do that Bush hasn't?" Answering that requires that, well, that Bush hasn't done whatever is it Kerry thought should be done. Logically, I don't see how you answer that question without saying "I would do this, because the President hasn't", or, for variety, "The President hasn't done this, and I would."

Kerry wasn't "ripping" Bush, he was directly answering the question. Granted, between the first sentence and the last sentence, "I would" is implied rather than explicitly stated, but it seemed perfectly clear this was a list of things Kerry would address.

[Aurora]

Kerry is cool. he didnt get a silver star and others for nothing. vote out the chickenhawks.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Existence
Kerry "won" the first debate, but there's two more. Bush's performance was so pathetic, it had to be planned. And it's quite strange that Fox News's commentators are mostly saying Kerry won.

Here's my take:

This pathetic performance by Bush was planned. In the next two debates, he'll do much better. Heck, anything will be better than that performance we just saw. The media will hail it as a comeback after the "less stellar" performance of the first debate. By then, most americans would have forgotten the first debate anyway. If the trend lines point up for Bush after the second and third debates, Bush will be hailed the come back kid. Kerry will not be able to do anything.

Is it all over for Kerry?


www.votecobb.org


Please stop. You might as well be voting for Bush.:rolleyes:

[Existence]

Another point: Bush probably has an (late-)October suprise.

Kerry is doomed.

www.votecobb.org

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Existence
Another point: Bush probably has an (late-)October suprise.

Kerry is doomed.

www.votecobb.org You can count on there being an 'October surprise'

but maybe Kerry has one as well . . . .

either way . . . what explains the reason that you're giving your vote to Bush?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by pfflam
You can count on there being an 'October surprise'

but maybe Kerry has one as well . . . .

either way . . . what explains the reason that you're giving your vote to Bush?


Exactly! He's begining to sound like a troll.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Existence
Kerry "won" the first debate, but there's two more. Bush's performance was so pathetic, it had to be planned. And it's quite strange that Fox News's commentators are mostly saying Kerry won.

Here's my take:

This pathetic performance by Bush was planned. In the next two debates, he'll do much better. Heck, anything will be better than that performance we just saw. The media will hail it as a comeback after the "less stellar" performance of the first debate. By then, most americans would have forgotten the first debate anyway. If the trend lines point up for Bush after the second and third debates, Bush will be hailed the come back kid. Kerry will not be able to do anything.

Is it all over for Kerry?


www.votecobb.org


I was thinking about this too. I think this is not so much the doing of Bush, but more of the media itself. Any objective person would probably have to call the debate a draw. Even Lockhart said it was a draw. I don't feel the President was as bad as some here think he was. I noticed the things the media pointed out with regards to slumping, getting annoyed, etc. But I don't they would be such a big deal without the media playing them up. Bush actually had some good lines and really slammed Kerry on NK. Bilateral talks are absolutely a stupid idea and Bush just called him out on it.

I think the media is trying to recreate the Reagan second debate comeback of 1984. Reagan's first debate was REALLY bad. You think Bush was searching for words? Reagan was way worse. I'm thinking that the media is playing the expectations game now in Bush's favor. Everyone will wait to see if Bush gets killed in the next debate. This however has always worked in Bush's favor. So, in that sense, perhaps it WAS planned. Perhaps Bush did let Kerry win on some things to lower expectations, setting up a Bush slam dunk.

As for Kerry being done, I think he will lose, yes. But he's hanging in there. The other part of this is that I am starting to believe more and more every day that Clinton is out to sabotage Kerry. I never bought into this theory, but some of the things I see him doing at the behest of his advisors makes me wonder how anyone could be so stupid.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush actually had some good lines and really slammed Kerry on NK. Bilateral talks are absolutely a stupid idea and Bush just called him out on it. I saw a clear disagreement on that, but why are bilateral talks with NK so bad? I didn't hear a good explanation from Bush as to why that would be so horrible. From what I understand, it's what China wants, so Bush's statement that China would leave is clearly false.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by BRussell
I saw a clear disagreement on that, but why are bilateral talks with NK so bad? I didn't hear a good explanation from Bush as to why that would be so horrible. From what I understand, it's what China wants, so Bush's statement that China would leave is clearly false. Whay are bilateral talks so bad?

well, because 'that's just what Kim wants' . . .

to quote Bush, and apparently, you can't do that . . . .
it might make co-operation possible or something . . .

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I was thinking about this too. I think this is not so much the doing of Bush, but more of the media itself. Any objective person would probably have to call the debate a draw. Even Lockhart said it was a draw. I don't feel the President was as bad as some here think he was. I noticed the things the media pointed out with regards to slumping, getting annoyed, etc. But I don't they would be such a big deal without the media playing them up. Bush actually had some good lines and really slammed Kerry on NK. Bilateral talks are absolutely a stupid idea and Bush just called him out on it.

I think the media is trying to recreate the Reagan second debate comeback of 1984. Reagan's first debate was REALLY bad. You think Bush was searching for words? Reagan was way worse. I'm thinking that the media is playing the expectations game now in Bush's favor. Everyone will wait to see if Bush gets killed in the next debate. This however has always worked in Bush's favor. So, in that sense, perhaps it WAS planned. Perhaps Bush did let Kerry win on some things to lower expectations, setting up a Bush slam dunk.

As for Kerry being done, I think he will lose, yes. But he's hanging in there. The other part of this is that I am starting to believe more and more every day that Clinton is out to sabotage Kerry. I never bought into this theory, but some of the things I see him doing at the behest of his advisors makes me wonder how anyone could be so stupid.


Many people have a different take on this. The people I saw interviewed on NBC after the debate said that there wasn't a clear winner but Kerry seemed to do better. They were from a swing state and were leaning toward Kerry now.

[winwintoo]

I only watched the last few minutes of the debate, but it had to be rigged :lol: :lol: The last question asked of Kerry gave him the opportunity to say "nuclear proliferation" - knowing that Bush would be dumb-struck.

Those two little words left Bush stammering since he can't say *nuclear* and only 3 people in the world can say *proliferation* on the first try.

I enjoyed watching Bush lean on the podium and stammer his way through those last two minutes.

The only thing more pathetic than seeing Bush stammer was seeing Kerry gloat.

Do you people still have the write in vote? Can you spell *m-i-c-k-e-y-m-o-u-s-e*

Take care, M

[Randycat99]

The thought did occur to me, as well, that perhaps this was a "feign weakness, then ambush" strategy. Who knows, really? Anything is possible, and I really mean that considering that we have the world's most cunning strategists powering both election parties. ...and then the Clinton angle adds an interesting spin to the whole thing, as well. If anything, this is reality television, replete with all of the juicy alliances/scheming/doublecrosses that are found in the more canned examples of reality TV that we watch.

I would like to reiterate a remark made earlier that people will tend to see what they want to see. Nothing else speaks clearer than those words when it comes to describing this quagmire. This is all the more clear when we see the groups of spin, spin control, and every other person leaping into the limelight after the first debate to instantly characterize what must be "unmistakenly obvious" (or you are stupid) and other such folly. Just look closely at the type of people who make these sorts of comments, and you will pretty much know they are really not worth listening to- that's my 2 cts. Just skip past these people and devote your time towards those who seem to be speaking from a more level-headed, objective disposition.

[bunge]

Is it all over for Kerry? Not yet, but I just had a thought. Secretly move OBL to Iraq and have an 'amazing' find right before the election. Kill two birds with one stone. You get OBL and the terrorism tie-in to Iraq.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Randycat99
The thought did occur to me, as well, that perhaps this was a "feign weakness, then ambush" strategy.

You know, there is a degree to which this is entirely possible. Since Bush, as the incumbent, can't really play the lowered expectations game, he needed to come out weakly in the first debate in order to play his strong cards (which are, of course, his weaknesses) in the later debates.

[SDW2001]

Latest Newsweek poll shows Kerry up by two. It's almost as if the media is dead wrong....that the electorate is actually quite pliable. Seems like major events (conventions, debates, etc.) have a huge impact.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Latest Newsweek poll shows Kerry up by two. It's almost as if the media is dead wrong....that the electorate is actually quite pliable. Seems like major events (conventions, debates, etc.) have a huge impact.

It's kind of pathetic, isn't it? I mean, realistically, who could be confused about their vote right now unless they're seriously considering a thrid candidate? It's not as if the two are all that similar, but whatever.

[trumptman]

I've been looking at the first debate and I think Bush will do much better in the next two. I think it will become the sort of thing that often happens to Republicans and that is turning lemons into lemonade. I looked at all the questions from the first debate and it was clear that the moderator was at a minimum giving Kerry softballs to Bush's fastballs, or at a maximum proving clear bias.

First this debate was supposed to be about foreign policy. So it helps to have questions on that matter. Out of the 18 questions, I identified these questions as being legitimate.

Question 1 -- Who could best prevent another 9/11?
Question 4 -- Who's top target, bin Laden or Saddam?
Question 5 -- How would you improve homeland security?
Question 14 -- Are diplomacy, sanctions effective?
Question 15 -- Why not send troops to Sudan?
Question 17 -- What is the most serious threat to national security?

As you can see all these questions allow the candidate to address the issues and speak about policy. Some may question whether number 4 is a subtle Bush dig, but I consider it a fair question.

Then we have one question where Kerry is just asked to explain is his view on an issue.

Question 13 -- What is Kerry's position on pre-emptive war?

This question is of course where Kerry flubbed and came up with the "global test."

Then we move on to these questions which are Kerry attacks. However they are praised in a way that makes it veyr hard for Bush to use them.

Question 2 -- Would a Kerry win increase risk of terror?
Question 16 -- Does Bush see Kerry character flaws?

The only way Bush can use any of these questions is basically attack Kerry on a very personal level. Voters don't mind policy attacks all day, but as we saw, especially with Clinton, they consider personal attacks out of bounds. The result, Bush can't do much with them and even turns the second one into a nice accolade for Kerry as a parent.

Now these are the questions that attack Bush. Notice how much firmer they are in tone and also how many are sort of softball pitches to Kerry where he could just insert stump speech lines. They aren't personal. They are policy, and asked in a manner that presumes failure.

Question 3 -- What 'misjudgments' has Bush made?
Question 8 -- What was the 'miscalculation' in Iraq?
Question 9 -- When has Bush misled the public?
Question 12 -- Would Bush lead another pre-emptive war?
Question 18 -- Did Bush misjudge Putin?

Then we have what I call the rhetorical Iraq questions/digs.

Question 6 -- When should troops come home?
Question 7 -- Are U.S. soldiers dying for a mistake?
Question 10 -- Has the war been worth the loss of life?
Question 11 -- When will the war in Iraq end?

These questions are rhetorical. Is any candidate really going to say that soldiers are dying for a mistake, or that the loss of life isn't worth it. Can anyone really say when the war will end without getting zinged for it later?

These questions are all just there to make Bush look bad, which is often the case with rhetorical questioning since they get to state information, but really can't be answered.

When you combine the Bush attack questions with the rhetorical questions, you get two thirds of the debate where Bush is basically put on his heels for no other reason than the way the moderator asked the question. Bush was pretty effective in addressing Kerry. Now what he needs is help in dealing with the moderator.

Nick

[bunge]

Do you have a list of all the questions?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Latest Newsweek poll shows Kerry up by two. It's almost as if the media is dead wrong....that the electorate is actually quite pliable. Seems like major events (conventions, debates, etc.) have a huge impact.

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

" It's almost as if the media is dead wrong "

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



:lol:

[faust9]

Originally posted by trumptman
I've been looking at the first debate and I think Bush will do much better in the next two. I think it will become the sort of thing that often happens to Republicans and that is turning lemons into lemonade. I looked at all the questions from the first debate and it was clear that the moderator was at a minimum giving Kerry softballs to Bush's fastballs, or at a maximum proving clear bias.

First this debate was supposed to be about foreign policy. So it helps to have questions on that matter. Out of the 18 questions, I identified these questions as being legitimate.

Question 1 -- Who could best prevent another 9/11?
Question 4 -- Who's top target, bin Laden or Saddam?
Question 5 -- How would you improve homeland security?
Question 14 -- Are diplomacy, sanctions effective?
Question 15 -- Why not send troops to Sudan?
Question 17 -- What is the most serious threat to national security?

As you can see all these questions allow the candidate to address the issues and speak about policy. Some may question whether number 4 is a subtle Bush dig, but I consider it a fair question.

Then we have one question where Kerry is just asked to explain is his view on an issue.

Question 13 -- What is Kerry's position on pre-emptive war?

This question is of course where Kerry flubbed and came up with the "global test."

Then we move on to these questions which are Kerry attacks. However they are praised in a way that makes it veyr hard for Bush to use them.

Question 2 -- Would a Kerry win increase risk of terror?
Question 16 -- Does Bush see Kerry character flaws?

The only way Bush can use any of these questions is basically attack Kerry on a very personal level. Voters don't mind policy attacks all day, but as we saw, especially with Clinton, they consider personal attacks out of bounds. The result, Bush can't do much with them and even turns the second one into a nice accolade for Kerry as a parent.

Now these are the questions that attack Bush. Notice how much firmer they are in tone and also how many are sort of softball pitches to Kerry where he could just insert stump speech lines. They aren't personal. They are policy, and asked in a manner that presumes failure.

Question 3 -- What 'misjudgments' has Bush made?
Question 8 -- What was the 'miscalculation' in Iraq?
Question 9 -- When has Bush misled the public?
Question 12 -- Would Bush lead another pre-emptive war?
Question 18 -- Did Bush misjudge Putin?

Then we have what I call the rhetorical Iraq questions/digs.

Question 6 -- When should troops come home?
Question 7 -- Are U.S. soldiers dying for a mistake?
Question 10 -- Has the war been worth the loss of life?
Question 11 -- When will the war in Iraq end?

These questions are rhetorical. Is any candidate really going to say that soldiers are dying for a mistake, or that the loss of life isn't worth it. Can anyone really say when the war will end without getting zinged for it later?

These questions are all just there to make Bush look bad, which is often the case with rhetorical questioning since they get to state information, but really can't be answered.

When you combine the Bush attack questions with the rhetorical questions, you get two thirds of the debate where Bush is basically put on his heels for no other reason than the way the moderator asked the question. Bush was pretty effective in addressing Kerry. Now what he needs is help in dealing with the moderator.

Nick

Your ability to mask the truth is Bushonian to say the least. The first debate as characterized by the moderator was: The umbrella topic is foreign policy and homeland security

Note the inclusion of homeland secruity which essentially moves all of the questions posed into the realm of pertenate. Also, your summary of the questions masks their true intnent and meaning. Lets let everyone decide for themselves if these questions were weighted one way or the other--IMO they were not. In fact in the majority opinion they were not. Anyway, here's the transcript for those willing to enlighten themselves about the true events rather than blindly buying into Trumpts partisan sour-grapes complaining: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/campaign/01dtext.html

Will Bush do better in the upcoming debates? Not only not but emphatically no. The nextdebate covers domestic issues--expect to hear a lot about tax cuts from Bush and how Kerry want to raise taxs for everyone. Expect Kerry to point out he want a tax increase on the wealthiest of Americans only. Kerry will rip NCLB while Bush will struggle to defend it. Kerry will tear apart the current health system prices while Bush tries to defend his inaction. Kerry will chew on medicare reform for a little while and spit out Bush's failings in regards to this horrenduous bill--Bush will squirm to defend it. Notice here Kerry will have the upper hand because most Americans see these programs as being problematic and poorly executed by El-Busho. Kerry will be on the offensive while the stammering connecticuit cowboy will have to defend himself against Kerry's charges.

Bush will get a few digs in, but Kerry will only give the barest of needed responses and immediatly cut Bush's policies to shreds. I can almost gar-own-tee this. Bush is weak on domestic issues--the repubs are weak here. The dems are the party of domestic issues. Kerry will walk in with the upper hand and walk out with a 2% increase in his poll numbers.

Oh, Edwards will kick Cheney around a little bit as well. Dick is a lot better at debating and smarter then Bush, but Edwards has the look and is a great debater himself. Edwards also has the advantage of not having to defend a war, Haliburton, or any other Bush/Cheney missteps.

Believe what you want trumpt but I know I'm right here. Kerry/Edwards will out debate Bush/Cheney. The only thing Bush will have as a booster come Nov 2 will be an Oct surprise if there is one.

[Common Man]

The President is cleaning house in Iraq has we speak. That will shore up his support with the American people.

Bush 55%
Kerry 45%

[trumptman]

Originally posted by faust9
Your ability to mask the truth is Bushonian to say the least. The first debate as characterized by the moderator was:

Note the inclusion of homeland secruity which essentially moves all of the questions posed into the realm of pertenate. Also, your summary of the questions masks their true intnent and meaning. Lets let everyone decide for themselves if these questions were weighted one way or the other--IMO they were not. In fact in the majority opinion they were not. Anyway, here's the transcript for those willing to enlighten themselves about the true events rather than blindly buying into Trumpts partisan sour-grapes complaining: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/campaign/01dtext.html

Will Bush do better in the upcoming debates? Not only not but emphatically no. The nextdebate covers domestic issues--expect to hear a lot about tax cuts from Bush and how Kerry want to raise taxs for everyone. Expect Kerry to point out he want a tax increase on the wealthiest of Americans only. Kerry will rip NCLB while Bush will struggle to defend it. Kerry will tear apart the current health system prices while Bush tries to defend his inaction. Kerry will chew on medicare reform for a little while and spit out Bush's failings in regards to this horrenduous bill--Bush will squirm to defend it. Notice here Kerry will have the upper hand because most Americans see these programs as being problematic and poorly executed by El-Busho. Kerry will be on the offensive while the stammering connecticuit cowboy will have to defend himself against Kerry's charges.

Bush will get a few digs in, but Kerry will only give the barest of needed responses and immediatly cut Bush's policies to shreds. I can almost gar-own-tee this. Bush is weak on domestic issues--the repubs are weak here. The dems are the party of domestic issues. Kerry will walk in with the upper hand and walk out with a 2% increase in his poll numbers.

Oh, Edwards will kick Cheney around a little bit as well. Dick is a lot better at debating and smarter then Bush, but Edwards has the look and is a great debater himself. Edwards also has the advantage of not having to defend a war, Haliburton, or any other Bush/Cheney missteps.

Believe what you want trumpt but I know I'm right here. Kerry/Edwards will out debate Bush/Cheney. The only thing Bush will have as a booster come Nov 2 will be an Oct surprise if there is one.

How typical of you, attempt to use a gotcha to mask a lack of thinking.

Are you claiming that there are real answers for example to the questions I pointed out that are rhetorical? I didn't argue that any questions were illegitimate because they were about homeland security vs. foreign policy. Talk about the world's biggest strawman. I argued that they were rhetorical or that the moderator was essentually helping Kerry by giving Bush questions that forced Bush to personally attack Kerry or do nothing at all and additionally asking Kerry questions about Bush where the presumption was failure on the part of Bush.

If you can't read my posts, they you probably shouldn't reply to or about them. In the meantime stop attempting to distract others.

Nick

[Anders]

Bravo trumptman. Great theory (and I use the word "theory" in strict creationist sense)

Two huge weaknesses with your theory of course is that 1) Bush thinks the moderator was good and 2) the republicans think he won.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Anders
Bravo trumptman. Great theory (and I use the word "theory" in strict creationist sense)

Two huge weaknesses with your theory of course is that 1) Bush thinks the moderator was good and 2) the republicans think he won.

Two huge realities to deal with.

1) What else could Bush say about the moderator? Is he supposed to claim that he looked bad because of him? How would that come across?

2) The Republicans think he won for two reasons, one he one on policy over presentation, but anyone who cares about presentation thinks Kerry won. The second issue is that they believe Kerry's mistakes will be exploited between now and the election. Here is a couple.

1) Global test
2) Opposition to nuclear bunker busters

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Pathetic.

You really should have a point when you post.

Nick

[the cool gut]

Well, bases on the latest poll numbers, I think a moderator should change the topic of this thread to "Is it all over for Bush?"

Ahhh, what a difference a week can make.

[Anders]

Originally posted by trumptman
Two huge realities to deal with.

1) What else could Bush say about the moderator? Is he supposed to claim that he looked bad because of him? How would that come across?

Well how do you come across Nick?

Originally posted by trumptman
2) The Republicans think he won for two reasons, one he one on policy over presentation, but anyone who cares about presentation thinks Kerry won. The second issue is that they believe Kerry's mistakes will be exploited between now and the election. Here is a couple.

1) Global test
2) Opposition to nuclear bunker busters

Nick

On the general: Sometimes when people talk they manage to get their message across. Clinton is a master in that. It succeeded for Kerry the other day too to a much greater extent than I thought it would. For example the two famous Iraq "flip flops":

1) First for the war then against it: Bush tried to paint the picture that Kerry changed his mind about this when he in reality asked the president to try every means possible to avoid war and only use it as last resort. And when the president didn´t do that he voted against its funding. The nuances which is almost always lost on the voters came across while Bush with knowledge to the contrary tried to fog everything over

2) First the war a failure but soldiers not dying for a failure. Again Bush tried to paint the picture that those two statements are about the same thing. Its not. So far the war has been a failure but a true democratic Iraq as oppose to what we have now would be a good. So soldiers dying in Iraq doesn´t die without reason. To stabilize Iraq is a good thing but so far the attempt has been a failure. Again Bush with knowledge to the contrary tried to fog everything over and Kerry succeded in breaking the fog.

So in this debate good presentation made the policies clear to the voters despite Bush attempt to mispresent Kerrys positions

And with regards to your two examples

1) Global test: You know what it means, the republicans know what he meant. He gave the definition right after saying the two words. The only way they can use it is if they spin it into meaning something different. Andwhatdoyouknow, thats exactly what Bush did yesterday :rolleyes: More fog courtesy of the Reps.

2) There you have a clear disagreement in opinion between the two. Good for the debate

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by the cool gut
Well, bases on the latest poll numbers, I think a moderator should change the topic of this thread to "Is it all over for Bush?"

Ahhh, what a difference a week can make.

What poll numbers? The one that shows a statistical dead heat? Say the race is back in play if you want, but "all over for Bush?" Hardly.

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by SDW2001
What poll numbers? The one that shows a statistical dead heat? Say the race is back in play if you want, but "all over for Bush?" Hardly.

If you could call it "all over for Kerry" before the debate, (which you didn't seem to complain about) then it's fair to call it "all over for Bush" now.

Besides, the debate on Iraq was supposed to be Bush's strongest, it can only get worse for him from here on in.

[Anders]

Originally posted by the cool gut
If you could call it "all over for Kerry" before the debate, (which you didn't seem to complain about) then it's fair to call it "all over for Bush" now.

Besides, the debate on Iraq was supposed to be Bush's strongest, it can only get worse for him from here on in.

I actually think that the foreign policy debate was Kerrys best chance IF he managed to rid the ridicules picture of his as a flip-flopper (which he did).

The domestic issues are more complex. How do you explain difficult tax policies as elegant as Kerry did with his foreign policy? How do you convince people that late time abortion is aok if they are against it? What about the death penalty? Its difficult issues, people are very conservative with questions that regards values and Bush can go a lot further with "I just feel that way" than he could yesterday?

Besides the economy is showing some strength sign now, despite the presidents trickle down ideology. It can´t be denied. Thats one card lost by Kerry.

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
1) Global test

Are you implying that there is no global test?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Anders
Well how do you come across Nick?

I know how it comes across on these boards. People love killing the messenger. Anything that goes against their viewpoint = pretty much evil. We've seen attacks on Gallup, anyone questioning the memos, etc. I simply pointed to the questions and watched someone here already discredit it based off the fact that I didn't say homeland security was a topic. (I didn't discredit any questions for being about homeland security, but rather for being rhetorical for example or only inviting personal attacks, etc.)

1) First for the war then against it: Bush tried to paint the picture that Kerry changed his mind about this when he in reality asked the president to try every means possible to avoid war and only use it as last resort. And when the president didn´t do that he voted against its funding. The nuances which is almost always lost on the voters came across while Bush with knowledge to the contrary tried to fog everything over

The reality is that Kerry did change his mind and continues to bash from both sides of most issues. Kerry mentioned during the debate that the troops needed more equipment and how people were even buying items here and shipping them abroad. Yet Kerry himself wouldn't vote for the $87 billion. It is that sort of nonsense that might sound good in a debate, but the fact checking exposes the bullshit.

1) Global test: You know what it means, the republicans know what he meant. He gave the definition right after saying the two words. The only way they can use it is if they spin it into meaning something different. Andwhatdoyouknow, thats exactly what Bush did yesterday More fog courtesy of the Reps.

Kerry's point is that if we cannot prove to the entire world what we believe, then we should not take action. Kerry didn't say just our country, or our allies, he said the world.

It is you who try to fog and twist the meaning of the words.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Are you implying that there is no global test?

Sure, there is, the study guide for it was right next to the SAT and MSAT.

Nick

[faust9]

Originally posted by trumptman
How typical of you, attempt to use a gotcha to mask a lack of thinking.

Are you claiming that there are real answers for example to the questions I pointed out that are rhetorical? I didn't argue that any questions were illegitimate because they were about homeland security vs. foreign policy. Talk about the world's biggest strawman. I argued that they were rhetorical or that the moderator was essentually helping Kerry by giving Bush questions that forced Bush to personally attack Kerry or do nothing at all and additionally asking Kerry questions about Bush where the presumption was failure on the part of Bush.

If you can't read my posts, they you probably shouldn't reply to or about them. In the meantime stop attempting to distract others.

Nick

This is rich. You are accusing me of distracting others :lol:. Trumpt---that is your modus operandi in most threads!!!

I guess you and I are not on the same intellectual level as you put it in another thread now are we? You tried to mischaracterize the scope of the debate and many of the questions and I called you on it. I supplied a link to the transcript for you to read and the above is how you responded... I wonder now who is the intellectual inferior. You tried to strawman the debate--I present an explanation why you were wrong and linked you to the transcript... I wonder who is intellectually dishonest now trumpt... The questions where not rhetorical. Similar questions were asked of Bush regarding Kerry as were ask to Kerry in regards to Bush... Your team lost--move on. Kerry didn't cheat--Bush lost. No matter how hard you close your eyes and plug your ears while trying to spin this in your favor--Bush lost.

Bush lost this debate. Bush will lose the next and the one after that. Kerry will gain in the polls (I posted the newsweek poll because it was ironic BTW--more proof you and I are not at the same level of intellectualism I guess). Your horse lost this race. He'll lose the next two. Your horse will lose the derby come November also.

Your hypocrisy cracks me up some times.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by the cool gut
If you could call it "all over for Kerry" before the debate, (which you didn't seem to complain about) then it's fair to call it "all over for Bush" now.

Besides, the debate on Iraq was supposed to be Bush's strongest, it can only get worse for him from here on in.

Way to completely discredit yourself. I was saying it was approaching being over when Kerry was down 11 points and sinking. I even said I wasn't ready to call it yet. Now that the race is a statistical dead heat, you're saying Bush is done for? That's pretty hilarious. Electoral-vote.com has Bush at 296 electoral votes right now and is predicting a final outcome of Bush at 348. That might not mean Bush is going to win, but it sure doesn't mean he's finished. If you think that, you must be smoking crack.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Electoral-vote.com has Bush at 296 electoral votes right now and is predicting a final outcome of Bush at 348.

has E-V.com even got updated polling information?

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Electoral-vote.com has Bush at 296 electoral votes right now and is predicting a final outcome of Bush at 348.

That it everyone! We have a winner!

Looks like E-vote says Bush is gonna take it by 348! Do we even need to have an election now?

[Paul]

Originally posted by midwinter
has E-V.com even got updated polling information?

yes, why don't you take a look at their site (in my sig) they are very good about explaining the system. It is quite simple and I think does a very good job of showing how the "polls" are showing how the race is going.

you should especially take a look at the state by state graphs and the maps of each poll company

[trumptman]

Originally posted by faust9
This is rich. You are accusing me of distracting others :lol:. Trumpt---that is your modus operandi in most threads!!!

I guess you and I are not on the same intellectual level as you put it in another thread now are we? You tried to mischaracterize the scope of the debate and many of the questions and I called you on it.

I suppose I am distracting, but then the truth often is to people such as yourself.

You "called me on it." What exactly did you "call me on?" What I did is point out that you were setting up the one of the largest strawmen I've read in recent memory. In short you claimed I was discrediting the questions using a criteria I never mentioned. You find for me where I said anything about the questions not being relevent because they were addressing homeland security. You are being beyond intellectually dishonest.

Here are the questions I claimed show bias.

Question 3 -- What 'misjudgments' has Bush made?
Question 8 -- What was the 'miscalculation' in Iraq?
Question 9 -- When has Bush misled the public?
Question 12 -- Would Bush lead another pre-emptive war?
Question 18 -- Did Bush misjudge Putin?

Then we have what I call the rhetorical Iraq questions/digs.

Question 6 -- When should troops come home?
Question 7 -- Are U.S. soldiers dying for a mistake?
Question 10 -- Has the war been worth the loss of life?
Question 11 -- When will the war in Iraq end?

I stated two criteria.... they were about policy and presumed failure and the second batch were purely rhetorical questions that are really statements in the form of a question.

Here is what you said...

Note the inclusion of homeland secruity which essentially moves all of the questions posed into the realm of pertenate.

So your bullshit is fully exposed. The questions were declared to be invalid by me because they addressed homeland security or any other nonsense you care to amke up.

I supplied a link to the transcript for you to read and the above is how you responded... I wonder now who is the intellectual inferior. You tried to strawman the debate--I present an explanation why you were wrong and linked you to the transcript... I wonder who is intellectually dishonest now trumpt... The questions where not rhetorical. Similar questions were asked of Bush regarding Kerry as were ask to Kerry in regards to Bush... Your team lost--move on. Kerry didn't cheat--Bush lost. No matter how hard you close your eyes and plug your ears while trying to spin this in your favor--Bush lost.

I responded perfectly. You tried to claim the questions were dismissed on criteria that I DID NOT use. The only intellect you call into question with such nonsense is your own. You can wonder who is intellectually dishonest. I imagine you wonder about many things which confuse you. I however do not have to wonder, I easily KNOW that you are intellectually bankrupt and dishonest. You can't even see how the questions are rhetorical.

Answer for me how Bush or Kerry could get away with claiming the soldiers are dying for a mistake, or that the war hasn't been worth the loss of life. You name for me any national politician who could make such a claim. But you won't get it. You don't even see that they weren't meant to be answered, but were rhetorical for bashing Bush.

Do the people in your neighborhood know you are a registered child molester?

Make sure to answer that question honestly :rolleyes: especially since you don't seem bright enough to understand how you can damage someone with a question as well as a statement or how one really can be the other.

Nick

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Paul
yes, why don't you take a look at their site (in my sig) they are very good about explaining the system. It is quite simple and I think does a very good job of showing how the "polls" are showing how the race is going.

you should especially take a look at the state by state graphs and the maps of each poll company

I'm familiar with EV.com. I was asking, in a really poor manner, whether or not enough polls have been taken to see whether or not the first debate will affect the electoral map. To my knowledge, there are only about 3 polls so far, and those don't reflect the post-debate spin, really.

[Paul]

Originally posted by trumptman
Make sure to answer that question honestly :rolleyes: especially since you don't seem bright enough to understand how you can damage someone with a question as well as a statement or how one really can be the other.

Nick

yup, pollsters working for Bush did this against McCain in the 2000 primaries in South Carolina... insinuating that he had an "illegitimate 'black' baby" which is technically true: he adopted a baby from a country in Africa.

its called push polling... The Republican party knows this technique well, and I'm not surprised that faust may not have heard of it...

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Paul
yup, pollsters working for Bush did this against McCain in the 2000 primaries in South Carolina... insinuating that he had an "illegitimate 'black' baby" which is technically true: he adopted a baby from a country in Africa.

its called push polling... The Republican party knows this technique well, and I'm not surprised that faust may not have heard of it...

I believe she's from Bangladesh. And you're right, Rove et al destroyed McCain in 2000 in SC with a push poll.

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
Do the people in your neighborhood know you are a registered child molester?

There is no bias in the questions you posed. They are using the same words the candidates have used in speeches. The questions are being asked to make the candidate explain their reasoning.

[faust9]

Originally posted by trumptman
I suppose I am distracting, but then the truth often is to people such as yourself.

You "called me on it." What exactly did you "call me on?" What I did is point out that you were setting up the one of the largest strawmen I've read in recent memory. In short you claimed I was discrediting the questions using a criteria I never mentioned. You find for me where I said anything about the questions not being relevent because they were addressing homeland security. You are being beyond intellectually dishonest.

Here are the questions I claimed show bias.



I stated two criteria.... they were about policy and presumed failure and the second batch were purely rhetorical questions that are really statements in the form of a question.

Here is what you said...



So your bullshit is fully exposed. The questions were declared to be invalid by me because they addressed homeland security or any other nonsense you care to amke up.



I responded perfectly. You tried to claim the questions were dismissed on criteria that I DID NOT use. The only intellect you call into question with such nonsense is your own. You can wonder who is intellectually dishonest. I imagine you wonder about many things which confuse you. I however do not have to wonder, I easily KNOW that you are intellectually bankrupt and dishonest. You can't even see how the questions are rhetorical.

Answer for me how Bush or Kerry could get away with claiming the soldiers are dying for a mistake, or that the war hasn't been worth the loss of life. You name for me any national politician who could make such a claim. But you won't get it. You don't even see that they weren't meant to be answered, but were rhetorical for bashing Bush.

Do the people in your neighborhood know you are a registered child molester?

Make sure to answer that question honestly :rolleyes: especially since you don't seem bright enough to understand how you can damage someone with a question as well as a statement or how one really can be the other.

Nick

Dear sir.

Your douchbaggery knows no bounds. Go toot your little horn and play with the fifth graders while real men build shit and take cognitive looks at Bush and Co. What I'm about to say is a tough (intellectual if you will) concept: The questions asked related to statements made by the candidates and most were directly related to security or foreign policy. The questions not related to either afore mentioned subject challenged BOTH candidates to account for statements they had made concerning the other. I know it's tough to understand that Trump but I have faith in you.

Reading what you've said thus far makes me wonder if you watched the debate or if you simply decided it was too much of a hassle. Heck why watch the debate? Fox and Drudge have their summaries and both clearly support your position that Bush won. Why burst your bubble when the fantasy land Bush has built is so much more pleasing?

Now, ad homonym responses aside. Trumpt have you taken the time to read what you posted? You made the assertion that of 18 questions only a handful were in regards to the topic of the debate. I pointed out that you were wrong. You tried to tell us all that the questions were biased against Bush. Here too you were wrong. Your response to all this was? Well the record speaks for it self now doesn't it. You acted like a childish, childish little boy throwing a temper tantrum. "You big stupid head" you proclaimed though not in such eloquent words. But I digress dear sir. I yield to your intellectual prowess and unimaginable comprehension. I bow to your superior intellect in all things Bush or politico for that matter. You've bested me in your own mind and I'll let you keep that. You got me--and how-- with the molester question. Man alive how will I ever recover from that most probing of interrogatives? I guess my only response is to write a quip at your level and slash my wrists because of the disgrace you've shown me to be. Thank you kind sir.

Good night.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by trumptman
Do the people in your neighborhood know you are a registered child molester?[/B]

Yeah, but the classics are the best.

"Do you still beat your wife?"

[trumptman]

Originally posted by faust9
Dear sir.

The questions not related to either afore mentioned subject challenged BOTH candidates to account for statements they had made concerning the other. I know it's tough to understand that Trump but I have faith in you.


So what you are saying is that Bush or Kerry made statements claiming that the soldiers were dying for a mistake? That they think the war wasn't worth the loss of life or that they think the troops shouldn't come home as soon as is possible?

Me thinks, that though you may have a cheering section in the peanut gallery, that the bullshit is at high tide tonight. Shawn even went and pulled out the exact quotes. The Kerry quote was from 1971 concerning his question (Yes Jim, and I do get to tell people about my Vietnam service again, thank you) and the Bush question simply named the number of dead and asked if it was worth it, for example.

Reading what you've said thus far makes me wonder if you watched the debate or if you simply decided it was too much of a hassle. Heck why watch the debate? Fox and Drudge have their summaries and both clearly support your position that Bush won. Why burst your bubble when the fantasy land Bush has built is so much more pleasing?

I've not claimed Bush won on presentation. However it is interesting to note the reactions of Democrats and Republicans to see where each goes with it. The democrats (http://www.democrats.org/) have an ad that doesn't attack anything Bush says, but rather is all his reaction shots. Meanwhile Bush (http://www.georgebush.com/) has an ad up dealing with the Global Test for American defense mentioned by John Kerry. Obviously both attack what they consider to be the weakest point. For Bush it was his presentation and for Kerry it was his action position. Oh I should mention that I found a new ad on the Kerry site, one that attempts to deflect from what Kerry said which just proves my point more.

Now, ad homonym responses aside. Trumpt have you taken the time to read what you posted? You made the assertion that of 18 questions only a handful were in regards to the topic of the debate. I pointed out that you were wrong.

And from the post...

I looked at all the questions from the first debate and it was clear that the moderator was at a minimum giving Kerry softballs to Bush's fastballs, or at a maximum proving clear bias.

Then we move on to these questions which are Kerry attacks. However they are praised in a way that makes it very hard for Bush to use them. The only way Bush can use any of these questions is basically attack Kerry on a very personal level.

Now these are the questions that attack Bush. Notice how much firmer they are in tone and also how many are sort of softball pitches to Kerry where he could just insert stump speech lines. They aren't personal. They are policy, and asked in a manner that presumes failure.

Then we have what I call the rhetorical Iraq questions/digs.


BTW, you are welcome to show how asking Bush if he believes Kerry's personal character is bad relates to foreign policy or homeland security. I mean it is almost as good as asking Bush to ponder a Kerry presidency as he did when asking about another 9/11 strike if Kerry were elected. (A hint no candidate is going to make a statement endorsing the thought of their opponent being elected)

You tried to tell us all that the questions were biased against Bush. Here too you were wrong.

Actually no, you just claimed they were about foreign policy or homeland and then dismissed the assertion. I've repeatedly made reference to the fact that many of the questions about Iraq being rhetorical and also the personal character question inviting a personal attack from Bush (a harmful action) and you've simply never addressed the matter.

Your response to all this was? Well the record speaks for it self now doesn't it. You acted like a childish, childish little boy throwing a temper tantrum. "You big stupid head" you proclaimed though not in such eloquent words.

Enjoy your fantasy.

But I digress dear sir. I yield to your intellectual prowess and unimaginable comprehension. I bow to your superior intellect in all things Bush or politico for that matter. You've bested me in your own mind and I'll let you keep that. You got me--and how-- with the molester question. Man alive how will I ever recover from that most probing of interrogatives? I guess my only response is to write a quip at your level and slash my wrists because of the disgrace you've shown me to be. Thank you kind sir.

Or maybe you could simply admit that rhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered and instead are subtle statements that attack the person being asked them. Which is why my bringing up the rhetorical questions within the debate is valid.

Nick

[the cool gut]

I think my favourite part in the debate was when Kerry accused Bush of invading Iraq without a coalition. Then Bush responds, "What do you mean without a coalition - what does that say to Tony Blair of Britain ......... long pause .......... and Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland?"

That was it ... he named 2 fuckin' allies! Not only was he looking like and idiot, he was talking like one as well - that would have made a great Kerry commercial, the problem is that they're just not ruthless enough.

[faust9]

Originally posted by trumptman
So what you are saying is that Bush or Kerry made statements claiming that the soldiers were dying for a mistake? That they think the war wasn't worth the loss of life or that they think the troops shouldn't come home as soon as is possible?

You've further added to my view that you didn't bother to watch the debate nor have you taken the time to read the transcript:

LEHRER: All right, new question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

So, the answer to you stupid question is "Yes, Senator has used the words dying for a mistake in the past thus making this question valid and non-rhetorical."

Me thinks, that though you may have a cheering section in the peanut gallery, that the bullshit is at high tide tonight. Shawn even went and pulled out the exact quotes. The Kerry quote was from 1971 concerning his question (Yes Jim, and I do get to tell people about my Vietnam service again, thank you) and the Bush question simply named the number of dead and asked if it was worth it, for example.

Ahhh, senseless rambling. What are you getting at here? Would you rather have the moderator ask "Mr. President--since you found a way to avoid Viet Nam and have never come closer to death than the Texas Gas chamber, how does the death of 1052 soldiers affect you?" I don't think you want something like that now Trumpt. But again, I've yet to see you post a "rhetorical" question asked of the debaters. The transcript and a little help from Google show that all questions were fair and pertained to the subject at hand.

I've not claimed Bush won on presentation. However it is interesting to note the reactions of Democrats and Republicans to see where each goes with it. The democrats (http://www.democrats.org/) have an ad that doesn't attack anything Bush says, but rather is all his reaction shots. Meanwhile Bush (http://www.georgebush.com/) has an ad up dealing with the Global Test for American defense mentioned by John Kerry. Obviously both attack what they consider to be the weakest point. For Bush it was his presentation and for Kerry it was his action position. Oh I should mention that I found a new ad on the Kerry site, one that attempts to deflect from what Kerry said which just proves my point more.

The global test again... Bush faired so poorly that 89:55 seconds belonged to Kerry while two words taken out of context uttered over 5 seconds are all Bush has. Nice try. You've been proven wrong time and again on this subject. You should find another IMO.


BTW, you are welcome to show how asking Bush if he believes Kerry's personal character is bad relates to foreign policy or homeland security. I mean it is almost as good as asking Bush to ponder a Kerry presidency as he did when asking about another 9/11 strike if Kerry were elected. (A hint no candidate is going to make a statement endorsing the thought of their opponent being elected)

Gee, I don't know. Finding out the opinion of a challenger about his opponents character--which said opponent has been lambasting--sounds applicable to any debate. Character is a key to building alliances. Poor character--Bush's for instance--does not bode well for strong alliance building now does it?


Actually no, you just claimed they were about foreign policy or homeland and then dismissed the assertion. I've repeatedly made reference to the fact that many of the questions about Iraq being rhetorical and also the personal character question inviting a personal attack from Bush (a harmful action) and you've simply never addressed the matter.

You've made reference by rephrasing the questions and taking them out of context at which point you've presented them as proof. Way to go there killer. I OTOH gave the masses the transcript as my proof. If you watched the debate or read the transcript your fears of socratic rhetorical arguments would be assuaged.

Enjoy your fantasy.



Or maybe you could simply admit that rhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered and instead are subtle statements that attack the person being asked them. Which is why my bringing up the rhetorical questions within the debate is valid.

Nick

My fantasy is easier to defend than yours is. I can watch the debate and see. I can read the viewer polls that feel the questions--as I do in fact--were fair. These pollies were Donkeys and elephants mixed and both parties along a 40%ish line felt the debate was fairly moderated. I can read the transcript and pull out entire questions to show what bunk your summations are.

Good day.

[Existence]

Ok, I acquiesce defeat. This second debate has changed my mind--I have never seen such a pathetic performance. Bush was destroyed, more so than the first debate.

[BRussell]

Existence, after seeing that debate, I don't see how one can believe there's no difference between the Dems and Repubs.