Pre Town Hall Debate/After Debate Thoughts.

Admiral Ackbar

Admiral Ackbar

CAGiversary!
Feedback
25 (100%)
I thought I''d start this early just tor remind those really interested to maybe check in with cspan about ten minutes before the debate starts. If It's like the previous two debates they'll go over the rules and other things that at times seem humorous.
 
If the president winks one more time at the audience the moderator should ask if he has something in his eye. I've counted five winks. He winks at the end of speaking, he'll wink when he hears certain things, it makes him look like he has a facial tick.

I'm sure his handlers toild him it would be a way to get in touch with the town hall. At first it didn't bother me, but he's done it so many times it's starting to get creepy.
 
You know, if I was drunning SNL... I'd have two physical ticks for the debate parody.


Bush has thiese blinks and winks and it's funny. Exaggerate that.

When Kerry gets out of his chair, he waddles for three or four steps, his shoulders swinging from side to side.

Bush started well but I find that Kerry is perfroming better so far and frankly on many issues that he's putting out as his strengths i disagree with. Such as with bilateral talks with North Korea.

ALso, they just had the Abortion exchange. At first I thought Kerry was getting thrattled by the president. The president had a much clearer and better respoonse. But Kerry's rebuttle was masterful, reasonable, logical, and it made the presidents second rebuttle look petty.

Finally, ABC News showed that Kerry's comment about President Bush being a part owner of a Timber Company is ture. It's in his filed taxes for 2001. They were shipted into royalties and made tax free in 2002-2003 tax forms.

I think a lot of people including myself were scratching our heads at that, and I thought the presiedent had a good response, but Kerry was right.
 
Can you give me a link to that article about the timber co.? My parents are all over that thinking that Kerry is wrong, and it'd be nice to give them that article.
 
Yeah but its not as in depth as it could be, its not addressing the Timber company specificly as its just using it as an example to make a different point.

It does show that its true though.
 
[quote name='David85']I can vote but I will not vote for either one of these fools.[/quote]

If you don't care, can you please vote for Kerry :)
 
For the the TV shows, they keep saying it was a draw. But if you look at the online polls, it looks like Kerry won again. But it did seem like Bush was better in this one though. But I did get annoyed at Bush, cause he kept saying "uh" throughout the tonight like he wasn't thinking.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Can you give me a link to that article about the timber co.? My parents are all over that thinking that Kerry is wrong, and it'd be nice to give them that article.[/quote]

I saw it on abcnews right after the debate.

Here's from factcheck.org.

"Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income."
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='David85']I can vote but I will not vote for either one of these fools.[/quote]

If you don't care, can you please vote for Kerry :)[/quote]


I live in Massachusetts so he's going to win the state anyways making my vote pointless.

Every vote counts, if you live in one of the 10 swing states.
 
From Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo:

I’ve already said that I believe President Bush gave the Democrats a big opening by telling the final questioner, in so many words, that he doesn’t think he’s made any mistakes. But there was another part of this answer that is equally revealing. And it came in an aside, which is often a vehicle of spontaneous or unintentional honesty.

In the course of his answer President Bush said: “Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.”

I don’t think anybody familiar with this president or this White House can have much doubt about the people he was talking about there.

Paul O’Neill seems almost certain to have been one of the people, probably the person, the president had in mind. Quite likely Richard Clarke, perhaps John DiIulio, and others in the same category. The president prizes loyalty over all else. And the folks who’ve gotten canned are in almost every case folks who’ve raised concerns about the president’s mistakes before he made them or before their consequences became fully evident.

Though the president didn’t appoint Eric Shinseki as Army Chief of Staff, his accelerated retirement for questioning whether the president was putting enough troops on the ground in Iraq is the telling sign for how the Bush White House works.

In the president’s world, accountability and punishment aren’t for the folks who make the mistakes. They’re for the people who recognize the mistakes or, God forbid, admit them. And when the president had a chance to come up with any mistakes he might have made in four years as president the one that instinctively popped into his mind were the times he’d appointed folks who turned out to be from the second category, rather than the first.

This is all of a piece. In the Bush world you never admit mistakes. The only mistakes the president can think of are the times he appointed people who do admitted mistakes --- who put reality above loyalty to the president.

No one likes admitting mistakes. And it’s often especially difficult for public officials to do so. But recognizing mistakes --- on the inside, if not for public consumption --- is how you prevent mistakes from metastasizing into disasters. Which all explains a great deal about how we got where we are now in Iraq.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003629.php
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I could not contain my laughter when the president said that air was cleaner today than it was before he was president.[/quote]

I had the same response. I don't know if he was lying or if he truly believes what he said. Either way, he is the worst environmental president in the history of the United States.
 
I'm watching the Nixon/Kennedy debate on Cspan and compared to any debate I have ever seen in my living memory, they pale in comparison. Both former presidents speak, explain, and give detail unlike any candidate I've ever seen. This should be required watching.
 
Agreed about that mistakes question. The question was "Please admit three mistakes you have made" and he didn't admin a single one!

this president can't admit he has ever made a mistake, which means he can't fix shit that is going wrong. What is his problem? Everyone makes mistakes.
 
I can think of three....

1. Not enough troops in Afghanistan
2. The reason for the Iraq war (Wait... What is this weeks Iraqi War reason?)
3. Not enough troops in Iraq.
4. No plan for Iraq.
5. Not admiting you have no clue what the Iraqi war plan is.
6. Not knowing the difference between religion and the Constitution.

Ohh... only three?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top