Wednesday Debate Thread(sorry couldn't think of a pithy title)

[giggleygirl25]

anyway this is the absolute last debate thread for this upcoming presidential election. post your thoughts,opinions,facts,"facts" etc.

[giggleygirl25]

well i thought this debate like the last one was kind of a draw...each man said things that got their "bases" excited.

the thing that i think alot of people might have noticed is that President Bush danced around alot of the questions that he was asked,but that is my opinion.

[Mitchell]

I thought Kerry won tonight's debate, and that Bush, who actually was more composed in the second debate, went back to his habit from the first debate of using his bad facial expressions and misleading rhetoric. Kerry was decisive, poised, and sure about what he intended to do about Iraq, Taxes, the economy, and such, while Bush made certain points that would make me as a voter very uncomfortable. He talked again about two themes in his presidency that I absolutely cant stand, "It's your money", and "His private investment plan for Social Security" Both are misleading political statements, and the private investment plan is a horrible idea. Under Bush's "private investment plan", people are placing great risk with the money they now pay in Social Security taxes by placing it in the stock market. While the market did well in the Clinton years, it has declined under Bush. Also, if one goes by Bush's "private investment plan", they are risking all of their retirement money in the market, an unstable place, and risking that it could be invested in a company like Enron. Federally funded Social Security has been funded by taxes since FDR, and was a great idea implemented by President Roosevelt as part of the New Deal. One cant just take that away as a right of hard working people who reach retirement age because Bush says so. Instead of the majority of Bush's tax cuts going to the wealthiest of Americans, and funding his out of control war in Iraq, Bush should have concerned himself with the deficit, and saving Social Security, both priorities of Bill Clinton that were foisted on him by the Republican Congress in 1995, and which he implemented, creating surplus that aided in paying down the deficit. Due to Bush's war and tax cuts, he has created the largest deficit in our history. His policies just dont work, and I felt Kerry did a strong job of presenting that tonight.
Bush further misled when he kept calling Kerry a liberal who will raise taxes, which is another false statement. Kerry has said over and over again in all three debates that he is only going to roll back the tax cuts on the top 2% of income earners, and give the middle class a tax cut, instead of having the majority of tax cuts go to the wealthy as Bush did. That plan makes sense, where as Bush's does not.
I also thought that the moderator, Mr Schaffer of CBS News did a fine job, and asked good and deatiled questions. To me, as I see it, Kerry won the first debate, and won the debate tonight, and the second debate last Friday was in my view a tie, that Bush did better in. It remains to be seen how the voters react, but tonight in my view could help Kerry's cause to be elected president. Time will tell.

Mitch

One final issue that I feel I must bring up which I know is a touchy one, but also an important one in my view that was talked about tonight. While I respect those forum members with the pro choice and pro life views on abortion, the moderator tonight poised a very important question in my view that Bush evaded, and Kerry answered. We know definitively that if Kerry is elected, he will not appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe V Wade. It is acknowledged that the next president, whether Kerry wins or Bush stays, may well have to appoint two to three justices through either retirement or death. Kerry directly said that he would not infringe on a woman's right to choose, or overturn Roe V Wade. Bush was very evasive and in my view didnt answer the question, stating that he would "choose the best justice for the job, and not base it on that issue" That is precisely the point, with the narrow majority of the Supreme Court, this is a serious issue that a president cannot just brush off or fail to be direct about as Bush did tonight. As I said, while I respect all views on this issue, it is imperative that all pro choice voters or undecided voters view this issue carefully when voting. Some disagree, but I say with no election to win, nothing would stop Bush from appointing justices to overturn a woman's right to choose. His answer tonight, or lack thereof, has me absolutely convinced of such, and I feel should concern any pro choice voter as well.

[Krokus]

I say kerry handily one this one. Bush dodged nearly all of the tough questions, changed the subject, and all he could talk about was an irrelevant record. Bottom line, he got nothing.

[giggleygirl25]

that is true, i think that my reason for believing it was a draw was that i got so overly excited by the debate...that i on some level expected there to be boxing gloves to be put on.

Bush was unclear on a ton of things, which in turn made kerry look better:) and i really hated how Bush dodged the question of minimum wage...too bad the debates aren't like press conferences where the press actually lives up to it's name and presses the president to answer the questions.

[Mimi]

My opinion: More or less a draw, with perhaps a thread of an advantage to Kerry who gave more direct answers on some questions. But by no means a major victory for either.

One thing I DID enjoy about this debate, however, was their use of humor this time. Gotta love that "Marrying Up" comment of Kerry's...especially when he admitted he was probably more guilty of that than anyone. The ability to laugh at themselves makes them more human and personable. Kudos for letting the american public see that side of them.

Mimi

[Mitchell]

One other point I wish to make that infuriates me about Bush. I completely disagree with his idea on "one man, one woman" in marriage. Where is it the government's business to legislate what rights a person has in regard to this issue? Iam straight, but I heard that under the current law, gay partners do not have any legal rights to visit their significant other in case of hospitalization and such. This in my view is wrong. Clearly Bush is yielding to his right wing Christian coalition buddies, and trying to impose his views on America. A president's job is to be commander in chief and to do his offical job as President of the United States, not to legislate moral authority on who should do what in regard to relationships if the people involved are law abiding citizens. Also, who the hell is Bush to say that being gay and wanting to marry is immoral if the people in the relationship are happy? It just isnt his damn business to tell others how to live their lives if they arent breaking any laws! I despise Bush's attitude in thinking he can control our country's citizens, other countries customs, and so forth. He oversteps his "place" so to say on so many issues that it is actually offensive. Bush, instead of trying to control moral authority, and fixing other countries, should be more concerned about the more than 1 million jobs lost in his term, the huge deficit he created due to his out of control war, and the fact that at last report, 53% of the people disapprove of how he handles his job as president. THAT should be his concern, and not moral authority, or the Iraqi citizens living conditions. Also, Bush seems unconcerned about the current $55 dollar a barrel price of oil that is rising every day, and is predicted to be headed to $75 a barrel or even higher. Analysts I've heard predict this will create $3-$4 Gas prices, and could well drive us back into a full blown deep recession. It is unlikely Bush would concern himself with the high oil prices, due to the fact that his oil buddies in Texas, who are undoubtedly big campaign contributors and such, are benefiting greatly from the record high oil prices. There is no call by Bush to convince OPEC to raise production to aid in driving oil prices lower, this is fine by him as long as his supporters arent touched.
All these reasons are why I feel we need a new president. Bush is inept, cant relate to average people, is the first president since Hoover to lose jobs during his term, and has presided over an out of control war and the greatest deficit in our history after Clinton left us with the largest surplus ever. All this should logically result in a Bush defeat come November, but it will be interesting to see how the undecided voters react, and just what mood the voting public is in when we go to the polls. The reasons I listed are why he can never, and will never, get my vote.

Mitch

[gibby59]

Mitch - you sound like a Kerry campaign worker.....Perhaps you've heard of the first ten amendments to the Constitution? It's called the "Bill of Rights"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it legislates what rights people have in regards to lots of things. Gay partners can have legal rights without screwing around with the definition of marriage. Bush never used the word immoral, and gay marriages do violate current laws in most of the 50 states.

Bush is concerned with whether or not the majority of the Iraqi citizens will actually get to live, not so much their living conditions. I haven't noticed the price of oil going up every day and I don't think predictions are worth much - I remember a prediction that oil prices would hit $60 a barrel in the 1990's.

The last poll had Bush with a 48% disapproval rating with a margin of error of + or - 3%, not sure where you got your numbers, but these came from CBS, certainly no fan of Bush.

You need to go have a couple of drinks and calm down Mitch. You're going to give yourself a stroke!


BTW - Bush wiped the floor with Kerry last night. Kerry even contradicted himself just trying to answer one of the questions. He doesn't know what he believes and it shows.

[Mimi]

Originally posted by gibby59
gay marriages do violate current laws in most of the 50 states.

What laws? The right to happiness and equal rights?? :eek: Those criminals!!

Mimi :rolleyes:

BTW - oral sex is also illegal in many states. Guess most of us should be in jail right now for illegal and immoral sexual acts.

[gibby59]

Originally posted by Mimi
What laws? The right to happiness and equal rights?? :eek: Those criminals!!

Mimi :rolleyes:

BTW - oral sex is also illegal in many states. Guess most of us should be in jail right now for illegal and immoral sexual acts.

Not making a judgement of laws, just stating what is. Check out this site - http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id=353058

BTW - spitting on the sidewalk is usually illegal too, just never enforced.

[Mitchell]

Iam very calm, gibby, and the personal attacks are not appreciated. Iam very passionate about this election, because, to put it simply, I despise Bush and his policies, and I hope for his defeat in November.
Iam NOT quoting inaccurate poll numbers, the CNN USA today Gallup poll that I last heard had Bush with a 46% approval rating. A real number, NOT one I made up in my head! The fact is that if you support Bush that is your right, Iam not calling you on that or judging you for it. Conversely, it is my right to feel that he is the worst president this country has ever had, and to hope for his defeat on November 2nd.
One final thing: I do not back down on my position of gay marriage. The fact that you agree with Bush is your peroggative, and I have no right to judge you on that. Conversely, it is my right to feel that Bush is absolutely wrong on this issue. If two people, gay or straight, who are law abiding citizens, love each other, who the hell is the government to tell them that they cant marry? Bush is trying to impose his values on the country, which is not the president's job. It is the president's job to be commander and chief, and to implement policy as well as he can, NOT to tell private citizens how to live their lives. His evasive answer about Roe V Wade infuriated me, and I still say that with no election to win, that is in danger if he is re elected.
To me, Bush presents us with far more serious issues to be "foaming at the mouth" about, so to speak, then did Clinton, whom everyone wanted to rake over the coals, and throw out of office because he lied about sex, which was NOT a breach of his official oath of office! I love how the Republicans can crucify Clinton and Kerry, and rake them over the coals, but their guys are teflon, no matter what the hell they do, they justify and accept it!
One final thing: Venting about this makes me feel better. It's watching Bush with his policies, his misleading statements, and his evasive answers that make me want to scream! He misleads about everything, jobs, Iraq, Roe V Wade, etc etc, and takes hard line positions about the things he does admit. Who the hell cares if the Iraqi citizens are free and safe, if it has come at the expense of our own soldiers lives and well being? Saddam was NOT an imminent threat, and instead of misleading the American people about Saddam and taking his focus off Bin Laden, the real criminal who caused 9-11, Bush had to sidetrack to avenge his father, drive oil prices higher, and get contracts for Halliburton. I listen to him talk and it goes from one misleading statement to another. I pray he is defeated for the good of this country, because I dont even want to comtemplate what we will look like by 2009 with four more years of him.
I respect your rights to vote as you choose, it would be nice if you respected mine. I have very strong anti Bush feelings for many reasons, and I will be very upset if he wins again, as I fear what four more years of him will do to our nation!

Mitch

[Shem the Penman]

Originally posted by gibby59
Mitch - you sound like a Kerry campaign worker.....Perhaps you've heard of the first ten amendments to the Constitution? It's called the "Bill of Rights"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it legislates what rights people have in regards to lots of things. Gay partners can have legal rights without screwing around with the definition of marriage. Bush never used the word immoral, and gay marriages do violate current laws in most of the 50 states.

Bush is concerned with whether or not the majority of the Iraqi citizens will actually get to live, not so much their living conditions. I haven't noticed the price of oil going up every day and I don't think predictions are worth much - I remember a prediction that oil prices would hit $60 a barrel in the 1990's.

The last poll had Bush with a 48% disapproval rating with a margin of error of + or - 3%, not sure where you got your numbers, but these came from CBS, certainly no fan of Bush.

You need to go have a couple of drinks and calm down Mitch. You're going to give yourself a stroke!


BTW - Bush wiped the floor with Kerry last night. Kerry even contradicted himself just trying to answer one of the questions. He doesn't know what he believes and it shows.

Which question?

Maybe you were thinking of Bush flat-out lying about never saying that he wasn't concerned about Bin Laden.

Or maybe you were just distracted by the way Bush turned every question about jobs into more blather about No Child Left Behind -- as if a program intended to improve elementary and secondary school performance is going to help an adult who's lost his job -now-.

Sorry, your guy got blown out. He's 0 for 3.

And you can guarantee gay partners the rights of married couples without changing the law? That's a lot more than just the right to live together without someone throwing a brick through your window, y'know. See http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/697DBAFE-20FF-467A-9E9395985EE7E825 .

[Candlewicke]

Originally posted by gibby59
I haven't noticed the price of oil going up every day and I don't think predictions are worth much...

Forbes/Associated Press
10/14/2004
Oil Prices Rise on Report of Supply Decline

A decline in the nation's inventory of heating oil catapulted crude futures prices toward $55 a barrel on Thursday, more than 70 percent higher than a year ago - This is about $22 a barrel (or 52 cents per gallon) MORE than a year ago.

[sushi854]

Shem raises an interesting question: on which issues did Kerry contradict himself and allow Bush to "wipe the floor?" Kerry's responses seemed to be more substantive than Bush's, although my view as a Kerry supporter may be more biased than a completely neutral objective observer such as yourself.

BTW - The Ninth Amendment (which is part of the Bill of Rights) states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Therefore, the Constituion does not set limits on what may be invoked as a "constitutional right," but rather leaves the responsibility of interpretation to the legislative and (yes, God forbid) judicial branches.

[gibby59]

I'm sorry Mitch if you felt that my post was in any way a personal attack on you. It was not meant to be and I'm not sure exactly where that happened. I appologize if I did. I do have a personal question for you though. You say that you pray for Bush's defeat. Exactly who do you pray to? I do respect your right to choose who to vote for and I understand that I will in no way change your mind. I was merely trying to point out that Mr. Kerry is not everything he claims to be.

The question about how his faith influences his political positions was the one that he contradicted himself on. He said:

"I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.", but later on in the his response to the question he said,

"My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, 'What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.'

"And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people." "That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth."

So as far as Kerry is concerned, it's not appropriate for his faith to influence his views on abortion and gay marriage, but it's OK to use it for his positions on poverty and the environment. I believe that to be a contradiction.

I see what you mean about the constitution not setting limits on what may be invoked as a right, but I'm not sure I agree that the constitution leaves the interpretation of "rights" to the legislative and judicial branches. Here's what I found:

"The idea of a Bill of Rights worried some of the founders greatly. They feared that, by listing rights not to be infringed by the government, rights that were not listed might be subject to government interference because such interference was not specifically prohibited. The Ninth Amendment was written in an attempt to preclude such abuse.

Originally, the Ninth Amendment was a negative statement. In other words, it prevented the Bill of Rights from increasing government powers by limiting those powers solely to what was listed. In more recent years, however, the amendment has been considered in some court cases to be positive, that it confirmed the existence of rights not otherwise listed but still protected. The right to privacy, for example, while not otherwise listed (although strongly implied in the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments) has enjoyed such decisions under the protections of the Ninth Amendment."

Seems like the founding fathers didn't want the government to try to restrict any of our rights.

[sushi854]

I can see how Kerry's responses may be interpreted as contradictory, but I really don't see that to be the case. Since we're being civil now:D , I of course respect your beliefs and understand your position. However, I agree with Kerry when he states that "and I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people." I think this holds especially true in privacy issues, where the government's interest in regulating behavior is arguably reduced.