NationStates Jolt Archive

So who won tonight, Kerry or Bush?

I vote for Kerry, but by not as much as he won last time.

I agree. Bush did better, but Kerry still won, IMO.

Kerry by a little

Bush, not by a landslide, but handily. Pointing out Kerry's lies.

I think Kerry edged out at the top, since Bush played too much on the emotions, and not enough facts, but I was dissapointed with the both of them. They could've done much better.

msnbc has kerry at 79%

I think Bush was the clear winner.

Kerry, by the skin of his teeth. They both came across as immature little kids, at least to me.

I thought Kerry won by a lot, but only because Bush did so poorly, failed to answer so many questions and points, and generally pissed me off.

All it really proved is that we really need to get rid of the electoral college.

msnbc has kerry at 79%
Too early to use that as a definite amount.

msnbc has kerry at 79%

Those polls are self-selective; they're worthless.

I'm going to have to say Kerry. Bush did better but his statement is still generic. Kerry went into more detail, he cited facts and figure that you could've only found by alot of reaserch. Bush just did the same ol' song and dance AGAIN! Kerry voted for this, blah blah blah, Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. Blah blah blah. At least Kerry diverisified his answear.

msnbc has kerry at 79%

interesting, the online msnbc poll for the first debate only gave it to Kerry by 71%.

I agree with Unfree People. Bush did very poorly and did a bad job of hiding his anger. He did a little better this debate than the last one, but I think Kerry still won in a landslide.

Kerry by a landslide. As usual he totally defeated Bush.

CNN has kerry at 91% to 8%

Its kind of the vice-presidential debate. Just as Cheney gave Edwards a good whipping, Bush was almost successful in drowning Kerry. However, Edwards and Kerry still maintained their dignity instead of collapsing like some sissy liberal would usually do under the pressure of some right-wing despot.

Bush raised his level of performance from the last debate. He stopped the gaps in speech and was able to speak coherently more often than he has in the past. But one thing struck me over everything else in this debate. Around midway through, Bush stood up while Kerry was finishing a question and demanded to be able to speak. He refused to listen to the moderator, who was trying to say that there were more questions to address. Instead, Bush just went on the attack against Kerry and the moderator at that point. I thought that was an act of childishness.

Overall, I thought Kerry did a slightly better job than Kerry, especially considering that this debate was better suited for someone like Bush, who has made a career of appealing to crowds. Bush may struggle with the format of the last debate, which is much like the first was.

All that being said, I was much more impressed by Bush this evening than I have been for several years. Kerry still definitely has my vote, but I'm pleased that my president has finally been able to string together an adult sounding sentence.

I think Bush did better this time, but so did Kerry and Bush didn't do nearly enough. This was especially true on domestic issues, where Bush came up looking like he knew nothing about anything and never really answered any criticisms.

When asked if he was an environmentalist, Bush talked about cutting down old forest growth, which would destroy the ecosystem entirely. He also mentioned cutting down diesel fumes on ATVs - yeah Bush, those are a significant portion of air pollution, let me tell you. And then, the real kicker was when he said that coal was "clean energy".

When asked about stem cells, Bush even had to admit that there are now only (he says 22, which is not really true) lines out of the supposedly 70 he approved. He did not respond to the fact Kerry brought up, that all of them are contaminated with mouse feeder cells. Now, if Kerry had just known that nearly all of them have also been shown to have karyotype problems...

On abortion, it was clear that Bush was an idiot. Kerry specifically stated that he was against "partial-birth abortion" but that there needed to be an allowance for the life of the mother. Bush just whined about how that means he's wishy washy. Way to go Bush - kill all those mothers!

Kerry by a landslide. Why?

I just ask people, do you trust Bush, do you trust Kerry? Why dont you trust Kerry, because Bush tells you to.

The entire defense of Bush was Kerry flip-flops and you just gotta believe what I think.

I am just really pissed off at the president right now. :mad: 1. For saying he didnt make a mistake. 2. For saying the Kerry was the most liberal senator. For goodness sakes what about Kennedy!!!

Well, just saw it, altough I live in the free world and am by this so against the Bush regime, I must admit that he said a little bit less "Euh" and that the Senator lost this debate.

A pitty for the US people but good for the free world, another 4 years of this gangster politician will have result a better and larger EU policy and perhaps a larger EU army that will start from the Eurocorps. I don't mind for the nuclear umbrella since our French friends allready said that their capacity is there for all of us.
They have more nukes then the UK and China (not combined of course) and are so nice that they want to share a part with a EU army ( the US and Russia can each destroy the world about 85 times while France can only destroy our planet 7 times, Brittain about 5 times) Nice to now that our next enemy will be our old allie with this president. But ""Merci La France" et a bas les collabo's Polakes qui ne veulent que notre argent""

But we don't mind since the world is understanding now that the solution of todays problems won't be find with Bush but that he is a part of the problem, just a pitty that the US public is so dumb that they don't see that.

Its kind of the vice-presidential debate. Just as Cheney gave Edwards a good whipping, Bush was almost successful in drowning Kerry. However, Edwards and Kerry still maintained their dignity instead of collapsing like some sissy liberal would usually do under the pressure of some right-wing despot.
what eh hell is with all these puppets

you know what? i beleive the forum is majority liberal. the conservatives sit around making puppets all day so it only APPEARS to be mostly conservative

The unofficial online Fox News poll has Kerry at 70%. Seems Fox News does have a higher percentage of conservatives that hit it than, say CNN.

It was a tie. Bush did so much better than the first debate and Kerry didn't bring anything new to the table either.

what eh hell is with all these puppets

you know what? i beleive the forum is majority liberal. the conservatives sit around making puppets all day so it only APPEARS to be mostly conservative
Damn, you found us out.

Back to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's HQ, guys. We need a new plan.

It was a tie. Bush did so much better than the first debate and Kerry didn't bring anything new to the table either.
bushhas just been repeating the crap hes been saying for months. and i dont think he didnt any better. he almsot jumped the moderator, was considering spearing kerry and im pretty sure shouted at a guy asking a question he didnt like

I think the greatest mistake was that Bush again basically stated that he did not believe he had made any mistakes during his presidency (at least when considering Iraq). I think that was a major mistake.

Kerry by a landslide. As usual he totally defeated Bush.

Sorry, Giga, you know the low level of US voters, so for them, Bush won.

I also think that he performed the best "Joe Six Pack" show he could do..
Pitty that the public under the regime is not as informed in the free world.

All polls show Kerry up by quite a bit. The pundits are full of shit.

Kerry by a landslide. Why?

I just ask people, do you trust Bush, do you trust Kerry? Why dont you trust Kerry, because Bush tells you to.

The entire defense of Bush was Kerry flip-flops and you just gotta believe what I think.

I am just really pissed off at the president right now. :mad: 1. For saying he didnt make a mistake. 2. For saying the Kerry was the most liberal senator. For goodness sakes what about Kennedy!!!
He managed to call them both the most liberal senator....

Bush was off his feet in this debate, he was jumping on the moderator and jumping the format. Everytime Kerry explained something and the circumstances of any given situation, Bush would re-simplify it. "That's all there is to it." seemed to be his motto this time. I just don't think that Bush held on this time, and giving him a handicap for his poor performance last time doesn't change the outcome, really.

without ideology clouding judgement Bush won easily
with your ideology, I guess you could believe anything you wanted too

Anybody who votes for Kerry after this debate must have been educated in a government school.

For a Presidential Candidate to refer to abortion as a "Constitutional right" does not deserve to be President.

Kerry said that Hussein was not a threat to the U.S. This uttered by a 20 year Senator and a Presidential Candidate makes me wonder about the future of our Republic.

At least half a dozen times, Kerry would be asked a question and then would go off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the question being asked.

This is the man that almost half the country wants to be President? I give the U.S. another 10-20 years before it falls if this is best that we have to offer as far as leadership.

Bush isn't a whole lot better with his answer on the Patriot Act. But at least he will defend the country.

Who gave Kerry the title The Most Liberal senator? Rush Limbaugh?

Also, who in the world is Robert Rubin? Why cite someone that the general American public do not know?

I really enjoyed it when Bush attack the moderator. I guess that shows his mentaility. Do you really want someone in office that can be set off even by a debate????

Anybody who votes for Kerry after this debate must have been educated in a government school.

For a Presidential Candidate to refer to abortion as a "Constitutional right" does not deserve to be President.

Kerry said that Hussein was not a threat to the U.S. This uttered by a 20 year Senator and a Presidential Candidate makes me wonder about the future of our Republic.

At least half a dozen times, Kerry would be asked a question and then would go off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the question being asked.

This is the man that almost half the country wants to be President? I give the U.S. another 10-20 years before it falls if this is best that we have to offer as far as leadership.

Bush isn't a whole lot better with his answer on the Patriot Act. But at least he will defend the country.


And piss off the whole world at the same time. Jeez he might as well paint a big giant bullseye in the middle of the USA. Bush does not realize that you can't be a "cowboy" in the society of the world. Kerry does realize that.

Anybody who votes for Kerry after this debate must have been educated in a government school.

For a Presidential Candidate to refer to abortion as a "Constitutional right" does not deserve to be President.

Kerry said that Hussein was not a threat to the U.S. This uttered by a 20 year Senator and a Presidential Candidate makes me wonder about the future of our Republic.

At least half a dozen times, Kerry would be asked a question and then would go off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the question being asked.

This is the man that almost half the country wants to be President? I give the U.S. another 10-20 years before it falls if this is best that we have to offer as far as leadership.

Bush isn't a whole lot better with his answer on the Patriot Act. But at least he will defend the country.

Prove to me that Hussein was a threat to the US at that time (2001-2002). Right now.

Who gave Kerry the title The Most Liberal senator? Rush Limbaugh?

Also, who in the world is Robert Rubin? Why cite someone that the general American public do not know?

I really enjoyed it when Bush attack the moderator. I guess that shows his mentaility. Do you really want someone in office that can be set off even by a debate????

the congressional records own website said that. they have a rating system based on an equation of ideology that has been in force since the early 70's.
I want someone in office who stands up for what he believes in. Bush won thsi debate on his friendly nature and confident responses. if you cant see that.... I dont know waht else to say exept only vote once.

Prove to me that Hussein was a threat to the US at that time (2001-2002). Right now.

edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html
Sorry, there is no www.senate.gov web page matching your request. The address may have been typed incorrectly, the page may no longer exist, or the file may have been moved to a new location during our recent redesign.

Your request will be automatically redirected to the www.senate.gov Home page after 10 seconds.

If this problem persists, please contact the Office of the Secretary Webmaster at webmaster@sec.senate.gov.

In trying to determine the winner of a debate you must be non partisan. Is that too difficult to ask for one minute? Guess so. Thsi thread is about to fall into pieces as people give their talking points. I wish it didnt have to be that way.

http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

for the record though, since some fellow just said it did not exist...

the congressional records own website said that. they have a rating system based on an equation of ideology that has been in force since the early 70's.
I want someone in office who stands up for what he believes in. Bush won thsi debate on his friendly nature and confident responses. if you cant see that.... I dont know waht else to say exept only vote once.

Friendly nature? Dude he attacked the moderator! The person that does nothing more than moderate the debate! Jeez! I mean I would've understood it if he went after Kerry, but instead he went after the moderatior! Confident responses, Yea I guess his response is so confident that he had to once again think about them for half a minute. Then on top of all that, not admiting that he made a miskate. At the first and second debate Kerry admitted he made a miskate. When that one person asked Kerry to look into the camera and say "....". Kerry did it! Sure he may seem like a crowd pleaser, but so was Clinton and look how good his Administration is. Also, why does Bush bring up the Clinton administration? Dude, leave it alone, stop messing with the past. Also the statement about how Kerry wouldn't response to 9/11 if he was President is pure speculation at best. And Speculation can cause him the election.

Prove to me that Hussein was a threat to the US at that time (2001-2002). Right now.

Are you serious? Well, even Shrillary on NBC stated that Hussein was perceived as a threat in 2001.

Not to mention the fact that every single intelligence report in every single major country in the world said so.

Then there is the fact that at no time did he fulfill his requirements to PROVE that he destroyed his WMD.

Then of course there is the report issued yesterday that stated that although we have yet to find "stockpiles" of WMD we have found pieces of it. It also said that the ISG could not be sure that the WMD stockpiles were not shipped to Syria before we went in.

I could go on like this for awhile.

kerry dominated this one. but i agree that bush did alot better than the last time. of course this vote varies alot on who you were votnig for before the actual debate. i am for kerry so obviously i think kerry did a great job. :D

read what I wrote about talking points? classic examples above. debates are won by the percieved audience of independent minds. Not your personal ideology that clouds government. I also resent being called "dude".

Anybody who votes for Kerry after this debate must have been educated in a government school.

For a Presidential Candidate to refer to abortion as a "Constitutional right" does not deserve to be President.


Well, I guess there are two points of views, the Supreme Court decides what are Constitutional rights by deciphering the Constitution, or it doesn't. Unfortunately for you, the entire government has deferred this power to the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall sort of decided this two centuries ago) for a long time now. Following this logic, Roe v. Wade, in which the Supreme Court decided that abortion was legal, made it a "Constitutional Right." Of course you could argue against this logic, but that also means you believe the South will Rise Again (hint, it won't).


Kerry said that Hussein was not a threat to the U.S. This uttered by a 20 year Senator and a Presidential Candidate makes me wonder about the future of our Republic.



Have you read ANY government report (CIA, 9/11 Commission) from the last 2 years?


At least half a dozen times, Kerry would be asked a question and then would go off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the question being asked.



And Bush didn't? Hint: Name three mistakes you've done.

Anybody who votes for Kerry after this debate must have been educated in a government school.

For a Presidential Candidate to refer to abortion as a "Constitutional right" does not deserve to be President.

Kerry said that Hussein was not a threat to the U.S. This uttered by a 20 year Senator and a Presidential Candidate makes me wonder about the future of our Republic.

At least half a dozen times, Kerry would be asked a question and then would go off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the question being asked.

This is the man that almost half the country wants to be President? I give the U.S. another 10-20 years before it falls if this is best that we have to offer as far as leadership.

Bush isn't a whole lot better with his answer on the Patriot Act. But at least he will defend the country.

I went to private school from 1st grade through my senior year in high school...thank you very much.

Kerry referred to the legal right of abortion because its....legal. Not liking a law doesn't make it illegal...unless you're a conservative who doesn't understand the legal system.

Kerry did not say Hussein wasn't a threat. That was Bush saying that Kerry said that. Did you watch the debate? Kerry said that the intent of someone to develop something is not more of a priority to the security of our country than those who actually have attacked our country or have the capabilities to do so. Considering the "imminent threat" comment Bush has made several million times over the past several years, how does it feel to know that the report issued today flat out states that there was NO IMMINENT THREAT?

Half a dozen times? Then he did much better than Bush on the same thing huh? Bush chose instead to say a dozen times that the senator can't hide from his record. Does Rove sit Bush on his lap before each debate to tell him the catch phrase he needs to use over and over again? Last time, the presidency was hard work. This wasn't a stump speech Georgey boy, this was a debate.

Bush has done nothing to defend our country and make it safer. He pulled our troops from hunting down terrorists to fight in a country that has now become a hotbed of discontent and terrorism. He raised the danger to our country in a region of the world that already wasn't rife with American sympathy. That's the act of an idiot.

Wow, apparently most polls show 70% for Kerry, which i find very surprising.

I also resent being called "dude".

Get over it.

I'm non-partisan and I say that Kerry won, not by much but he still won.

Wow, apparently most polls show 70% for Kerry, which i find very surprising.

how can there be a "most polls" ? where'd you get the time machine?????/ I thought the debate ended an hour ago....

Kerry played just about the same as last time, while Bush clearly did a much better job. Bush had a stronger standing and had tell us his improvements in the last four years. Kerry, who laboriously worked to explain his four year plan, although nice, yet does not reflect reality. Remember, not every single bill can be passed.

how can there be a "most polls" ? where'd you get the time machine?????/ I thought the debate ended an hour ago....

Well you know, news team stand outside the debate arena, and they poll people. Then they report their findings back to HQ, and they put them on their website.

Are you serious? Well, even Shrillary on NBC stated that Hussein was perceived as a threat in 2001.

Not to mention the fact that every single intelligence report in every single major country in the world said so.

Then there is the fact that at no time did he fulfill his requirements to PROVE that he destroyed his WMD.

Then of course there is the report issued yesterday that stated that although we have yet to find "stockpiles" of WMD we have found pieces of it. It also said that the ISG could not be sure that the WMD stockpiles were not shipped to Syria before we went in.

I could go on like this for awhile.

Lets see...first off, bullshit, the report said no WMD, and second, most people were wrong. Try again.

Kerry played just about the same as last time, while Bush clearly did a much better job. Bush had a stronger standing and had tell us his improvements in the last four years. Kerry, who laboriously worked to explain his four year plan, although nice, yet does not reflect reality. Remember, not every single bill can be passed.

Well apparently Bush proved that they can by not vetoing any spending bill!

And also though I'm English I agree with Thunderland :D

the yahoo instant "poll" of the VP debate said that night that 62% thought Edwards won. The ABC news poll that was done scientificly over a few days of people who saw the debate.......gave Edwards 35%

DONT BELIEVE POLLS UNTIL THEY ARE VALIDATED BY SCIENTIFICLY GATHERED DATA. A bunch of spanners on random websites does not count for Jack...

Nor do "scientific" polls that use as their base a majority of Republicans.

I AM LEAVING NOW BUT MARK MY WORDS.....BUSH WON AND THE NETWORK POLLS WILL SHOW THIS. SEE YOU ALL AROUND......i WILL REMEMBER WRITING THIS.

In trying to determine the winner of a debate you must be non partisan. Is that too difficult to ask for one minute? Guess so. Thsi thread is about to fall into pieces as people give their talking points. I wish it didnt have to be that way.
I've gone through your posts on this thread and so far have gotten that your argument is that Bush won and if you don't think so you are niave or too partisan.

Is that you're argument? Bush won and if you don't think so you can't be helped? You don't want to point to things that Bush did particularly well, statements that he wasn't overly simplistic about, or control that Bush had that Kerry didn't? Anything, anything at all to support your argument that doesn't condecend to the people who are actually discussing the debate, anything that doesn't paint you as the idealist you keep deriding? It takes more than saying "I'm non-partisan. Phhhhhhhhbbbblllllllttttt."

the yahoo instant "poll" of the VP debate said that night that 62% thought Edwards won. The ABC news poll that was done scientificly over a few days of people who saw the debate.......gave Edwards 35%

DONT BELIEVE POLLS UNTIL THEY ARE VALIDATED BY SCIENTIFICLY GATHERED DATA. A bunch of spanners on random websites does not count for Jack...

So the American people shouldn't believe the American vote until we have a group of scientist prove their findings? uhhh huh.

I thought Kerry won by a lot, but only because Bush did so poorly, failed to answer so many questions and points, and generally pissed me off.

All it really proved is that we really need to get rid of the electoral college.
Agreed

Two things that need to change in the electorial system.
Electorial college needs to go. You do realize why it was made right? Founding fathers didn't trust the common people to be properly informed. Not true anymore, the only reason to not be informed now is just severe laziness. At the least, it needs to switch to a proportional electorial college. A state with 10 electoral votes 60% goes to one canadite (sp?) they get 6 out of the 10.

2nd thing (No chance in hell of it happening) No more political parties.

you cant name one poll that used a "majority" of Republicans. Dont waste my time.

you cant name one poll that used a "majority" of Republicans. Dont waste my time.

The Gallup Poll. They release the statistics you dolt.

Likely Voter Samples

Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

GOP: 40%
Dem: 33%
Ind: 28%

Poll of September 24-26
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

GOP: 43%
Dem: 31%
Ind: 25%

Poll of October 1-3
Reflected Dead Heat 49%-49%
772 Likely Voters

GOP: 35%
Dem: 39%
Ind: 26%

I AM LEAVING NOW BUT MARK MY WORDS.....BUSH WON AND THE NETWORK POLLS WILL SHOW THIS. SEE YOU ALL AROUND......i WILL REMEMBER WRITING THIS.

Uh oh, Hot head Bush is on NS.net!

the yahoo instant "poll" of the VP debate said that night that 62% thought Edwards won. The ABC news poll that was done scientificly over a few days of people who saw the debate.......gave Edwards 35%

DONT BELIEVE POLLS UNTIL THEY ARE VALIDATED BY SCIENTIFICLY GATHERED DATA. A bunch of spanners on random websites does not count for Jack...
MSNBC is currently full of jackbgsdg...anyone understand what Olbermann subtracted points on?

"Rounds: Kerry 12, Bush 4, Drawn 3.
Points: Bush—2 during rounds, 10 added supplementally, Total 12; Kerry—19 during rounds, five subtracted supplementally, one added for overall impact.
Score: Kerry 15, Bush 12— a statistical draw"


Err...right, Bush gets creamed during the debate, but somehow 'ties' because he shook hands?

Anybody who votes for Kerry after this debate must have been educated in a government school.Which would be funny, seeing as Bush underfunds them.

For a Presidential Candidate to refer to abortion as a "Constitutional right" does not deserve to be President.Kerry said that he wouldn't force his personal beliefs on people, this is part of that whole religious freedoms part.

Anyway, I think Kerry wins because while both candidates repeated themselves, Kerry repeated viable points rather than attacking Bush's character when he couldn't devise answers.

Does anyone have info on the lumber company thing Kerry said?

Which would be funny, seeing as Bush underfunds them.

Kerry said that he wouldn't force his personal beliefs on people, this is part of that whole religious freedoms part.

Anyway, I think Kerry wins because while both candidates repeated themselves, Kerry repeated viable points rather than attacking Bush's character when he couldn't devise answers.

Does anyone have info on the lumber company thing Kerry said?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/8/222258/237

Well, I guess there are two points of views, the Supreme Court decides what are Constitutional rights by deciphering the Constitution, or it doesn't. Unfortunately for you, the entire government has deferred this power to the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall sort of decided this two centuries ago) for a long time now. Following this logic, Roe v. Wade, in which the Supreme Court decided that abortion was legal, made it a "Constitutional Right." Of course you could argue against this logic, but that also means you believe the South will Rise Again (hint, it won't).

Wow...just damn.

First of all, even if the Supreme Court says that a law is Constitutional that does not make it a Constitutional right.

(I really can't believe I have to explain this)

A Constitutional Right is laid out in the Constitution. Search and seizure, freedom of the press, freedom of religion etc. These are Constitutional Rights. Abortion is constitutional but it is not a right afforded us in that document.



Have you read ANY government report (CIA, 9/11 Commission) from the last 2 years?

Sure have...I've also heard of the Sarin gas found there. I've also heard of the terrorist training camps that we have destroyed. I've also heard of all the terrorists that were there etc. Again, I could go on and on.

[/QUOTE]

Which would be funny, seeing as Bush underfunds them.
Which President increased education funding more than any other in history?

Wow...just damn.

First of all, even if the Supreme Court says that a law is Constitutional that does not make it a Constitutional right.

(I really can't believe I have to explain this)

A Constitutional Right is laid out in the Constitution. Search and seizure, freedom of the press, freedom of religion etc. These are Constitutional Rights. Abortion is constitutional but it is not a right afforded us in that document.


9th amendment. You know why it was ruled Constitutional?

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. "

Abortion is a right.


Sure have...I've also heard of the Sarin gas found there. I've also heard of the terrorist training camps that we have destroyed. I've also heard of all the terrorists that were there etc. Again, I could go on and on.



Sarin gas that was old and worthless, most likely a forgotten relic of the past, terrorist training camps in the non-saddam controlled areas or that moved in later. Again and again I could go on and on.

the congressional records own website said that. they have a rating system based on an equation of ideology that has been in force since the early 70's.
I want someone in office who stands up for what he believes in. Bush won thsi debate on his friendly nature and confident responses. if you cant see that.... I dont know waht else to say exept only vote once.
Yes, because we all know that Republicans get to vote twice, or at least if they're in the military and mailing ballots to florida (It acutally happened in 2000, only 19 times, but it still happened)

Wow...just damn.

First of all, even if the Supreme Court says that a law is Constitutional that does not make it a Constitutional right.

(I really can't believe I have to explain this)

A Constitutional Right is laid out in the Constitution. Search and seizure, freedom of the press, freedom of religion etc. These are Constitutional Rights. Abortion is constitutional but it is not a right afforded us in that document.


Again you dolt, if the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional, and what is not, it can decide what rights you are given (through the Constitution). This, ergo, makes it a Constitutional right.



Sure have...I've also heard of the Sarin gas found there. I've also heard of the terrorist training camps that we have destroyed. I've also heard of all the terrorists that were there etc. Again, I could go on and on.



Sarin gas was found where? Where exactly is "there"? Did you read where they said that there was no link between Iraq and the WMDs?

how can there be a "most polls" ? where'd you get the time machine?????/ I thought the debate ended an hour ago....
Well, we've already managed to talk about it ad nauseam. Now admitted, it would be a good idea to wait until tomorrow before we call anything final, but there are polls.

Wow Bush DOES own a timber company.

The debate was a draw based on the idea that both candidates held their own and stumbled about the same amount...it was all the same rhetoric, of course, and Bush rattled off how great his failures are while Kerry touts a plan he doesn't really describe. I checked johnkerry.com during the debate and didn't have any luck finding anything on tort reform. Kerry more argues that tort reform is not a big issue, while Bush accuses Kerry of threatening to raise taxes when he says he won't.

Also, I might add that Bush came off as a bit of a dweeb..."hey, need some wood?" Should have stopped with his original comment about owning a timber company being news to him.

9th amendment. You know why it was ruled Constitutional?

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. "

Abortion is a right.



Sarin gas that was old and worthless, most likely a forgotten relic of the past, terrorist training camps in the non-saddam controlled areas or that moved in later. Again and again I could go on and on.


Your proving my point for me. Abortion was determined legal based on what you have pasted here. No argument. It is a contitutionally sound law. But there is no amendment in the Constitution that says a woman has a right to abortion. Therefore, it is not a Constitutional Right. And a Presidential Candidate should know the difference.

Non Saddam controlled area? Are you kidding me? He was a dictator. He had control over the whole country. Then there is that whole thing of funding them. He was a terrorist. How hard is that to understand?

Wow Bush DOES own a timber company.

Thank the lord he's not running it though because then they wouldn't be able to find timber in the middle of Yellowstone National Forest.

Thank the lord he's not running it though because then they wouldn't be able to find timber in the middle of Yellowstone National Forest.

You know its amazing, he own alot of business, ran them all into the ground. And now, hes our President. Excuse me while I go pack my bag and board an aircraft to the Phillipines.

Your proving my point for me. Abortion was determined legal based on what you have pasted here. No argument. It is a contitutionally sound law. But there is no amendment in the Constitution that says a woman has a right to abortion. Therefore, it is not a Constitutional Right. And a Presidential Candidate should know the difference.


Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional. It defines the Constitution. Supreme Court that women have the right to abortions; ergo, it is a Constitutional right.


Non Saddam controlled area? Are you kidding me? He was a dictator. He had control over the whole country. Then there is that whole thing of funding them. He was a terrorist. How hard is that to understand?

How about the North part of Iraq, where the Kurds where independent of Saddam.

This just in:

Republicans think Bush won.

Democrats think Kerry won.

Thank you...

Your proving my point for me. Abortion was determined legal based on what you have pasted here. No argument. It is a contitutionally sound law. But there is no amendment in the Constitution that says a woman has a right to abortion. Therefore, it is not a Constitutional Right. And a Presidential Candidate should know the difference.

Non Saddam controlled area? Are you kidding me? He was a dictator. He had control over the whole country. Then there is that whole thing of funding them. He was a terrorist. How hard is that to understand?
Isn't there an amendment in the bill of rights that basically says (massive paraphrasing) "Even if it isn't listed here, doesn't mean that its not protected by the constitution" I think it was either the 9th or 10th.

Btw, Tahnk you ever so much Cheney for introducing me to the niceness that is http://www.Factcheck.com :p

Seriously though. www.factcheck.org is an awesome site.

Wow, apparently most polls show 70% for Kerry, which i find very surprising.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A snap poll taken just after the second US presidential election debate said Senator John Kerry (news - web sites) narrowly beat President George W. Bush (news - web sites) by 44 to 41 percent.

Thirteen percent of respondents to the ABC News instant poll said the two tied in their town-hall style debate at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri.

Kerry and Bush renewed hostilities over Iraq (news - web sites ) Friday with the Democrat accusing the president of turning his campaign into a "weapon of mass deception" while the Republican said Kerry was dangerously fickle on security.

In front of a television audience of tens of millions of Americans, the two contenders took questions from an audience of 140 voters who said they had not settled on a candidate with less than a month to go before the November 2 election.

Btw, Tahnk you ever so much Cheney for introducing me to the niceness that is http://www.Factcheck.com :p

Seriously though. www.factcheck.org is an awesome site.

LOL! Yea that was hailiarous. You know, if Kerry wins the election, we should at least keep Bush and Cheney as Jesters or Village Idiots. They seem to be doing a very good job at that.

Therefore, it is not a Constitutional Right. And a Presidential Candidate should know the difference.I'd like to take this opportunity to say Bush pisses all over the spirit of the Constitution by calling for a ban of gay marriage, in an amendment to a document the promotes equality and individual freedoms. Kerry= Lesser of two evils.

The debate was a draw based on the idea that both candidates held their own and stumbled about the same amount...it was all the same rhetoric, of course, and Bush rattled off how great his failures are while Kerry touts a plan he doesn't really describe. I checked johnkerry.com during the debate and didn't have any luck finding anything on tort reform. Kerry more argues that tort reform is not a big issue, while Bush accuses Kerry of threatening to raise taxes when he says he won't.

Merry Christmas.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0719a.html

LOL! Yea that was hailiarous. You know, if Kerry wins the election, we should at least keep Bush and Cheney as Jesters or Village Idiots. They seem to be doing a very good job at that.
Bush should get a weekly press conference just so we won't run out of bushisms.

Bush should get a weekly press conference just so we won't run out of bushisms.

Sure why not. It can be called "Laugh of the week" or "Laugh at the idiot" whatever.

without ideology clouding judgement Bush won easily
with your ideology, I guess you could believe anything you wanted too
It appears that you believe what you will, even though Kerry clearly won the debate on the substance of debate topics. The fact that Bush could not admit to ANY mistakes when asked to detail 3, clearly demonstrated that the man believes that he is perfect. Guess what? Wrong answer.

Does anyone have info on the lumber company thing Kerry said?

here's your lumber:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265.html

Sure why not. It can be called "Laugh of the week" or "Laugh at the idiot" whatever.
How Bush has helped the economy

Bushism calendars are selling like hotcakes (I work at a calendar kiosk, I would know)

Your proving my point for me. Abortion was determined legal based on what you have pasted here. No argument. It is a contitutionally sound law. But there is no amendment in the Constitution that says a woman has a right to abortion. Therefore, it is not a Constitutional Right. And a Presidential Candidate should know the difference.

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision

The.

Right.

Of.

Personal.

Privacy.

Includes.

Abortion.


QEFD.

Abortion.

Is.

A.

Right.

CNN.com, MSNBC.com, CBS.com, and even FOXNEWS.com gave Kerry a landslide victory. Unless you're going to tell me that Fox News viewers are far-leftists, the crowd has spoken. Here's my favorite sequence of the debate:
[paraphrasing]
Kerry: President Bush adjusted the requirements of a small business. He received $84 from a timber company and that certifies him as a small business.

Bush: I'm a small business owner? That's news to me...need some wood?

CNN.com, MSNBC.com, CBS.com, and even FOXNEWS.com gave Kerry a landslide victory. Unless you're going to tell me that Fox News viewers are far-leftists, the crowd has spoken. Here's my favorite sequence of the debate:
[paraphrasing]
Kerry: President Bush adjusted the requirements of a small business. He received $84 from a timber company and that certifies him as a small business.

Bush: I'm a small business owner? That's news to me...need some wood?
Well, honestly, I don't think Bush realized he was president until 9/11

CNN.com, MSNBC.com, CBS.com, and even FOXNEWS.com gave Kerry a landslide victory. Unless you're going to tell me that Fox News viewers are far-leftists, the crowd has spoken. Here's my favorite sequence of the debate:
[paraphrasing]
Kerry: President Bush adjusted the requirements of a small business. He received $84 from a timber company and that certifies him as a small business.

Bush: I'm a small business owner? That's news to me...need some wood?
It shouldn't be, because he is...

CNN.com, MSNBC.com, CBS.com, and even FOXNEWS.com gave Kerry a landslide victory. Unless you're going to tell me that Fox News viewers are far-leftists, the crowd has spoken. Here's my favorite sequence of the debate:
[paraphrasing]
Kerry: President Bush adjusted the requirements of a small business. He received $84 from a timber company and that certifies him as a small business.

Bush: I'm a small business owner? That's news to me...need some wood?

Man when Bush said "need some wood" I almost made a condom joke.

I find it interesting that the discussion is not about what was said, but already preconceived notions.

On domestic issues:

Kerry said: I do not support abortion but I know better than to legislate my own personal religion.
Bush said: SEE???!!! FLIP-FLOPPER!!

Kerry said: The embryonic stem cells we have are diminished from what Bush said he originally improved, they are not sufficient, they are contaminated by mouse feeder cells, and new lines would most likely come from frozen embryos slated to either be frozen forever or destroyed. [[All scientifically true]]
Bush said: I approved the lines and that is all that I will ever do because I am stubborn.

Bush said: Kerry doesn't support tort reform!
Kerry said: I suppot tort reform, just not your brand of it that helps the insurance companies more than anyone else.
Bush said: See??? He doesn't support tort reform!

Do you see a pattern here?

Oh, and by the way, Roe V. Wade overturned a law. Declared it unconstitutional. A law against abortion was unconstitutional. It violated the constitution.


Kiddies, what does this mean?

Man when Bush said "need some wood" I almost made a condom joke.
No, that would be clinton

What pisses me off about Clinton:
He does all this AWESOME shit, but all anyone's gonna remember is he got a blowjob from a fatchick that can't clean a dress for two years.

Man when Bush said "need some wood" I almost made a condom joke.
10:10 Did the President of the United States really just ask Charlie Gibson if he "needed wood"? Where's Bob Dole when you really need him. . .


The wonkette is my goddess.

No, that would be clinton

What pisses me off about Clinton:
He does all this AWESOME shit, but all anyone's gonna remember is he got a blowjob from a fatchick that can't clean a dress for two years.

Yea he was a really good president, and comon, lets be realistic. Do we really want to know if the President got a BJ from a fat chick? Hey I say as long as he runs the country as good as he did, he can get as many BJ as he wants.

Oh, and my favorite was:

Bush: Kerry's plan will close down small businesses.
Kerry: According to the Wall Street Journal, only 5% of small businesses will receive any tax increase.
Bush: BUT ALL THE SMALL BUSINESSES (that go by a term that I obviously don't even know the definition of) ARE GOING TO CLOSE DOWN!

wait... i'm not getting this... IS BUSH a small Business like Kerry said??



yes

or

no?

10:10 Did the President of the United States really just ask Charlie Gibson if he "needed wood"? Where's Bob Dole when you really need him. . .


The wonkette is my goddess.

LOL!

Bush: Need some wood?

Gibson: No

Dole: I got mine!

Oh God if that happened I would've pissed my pants laughing!

Yea he was a really good president, and comon, lets be realistic. Do we really want to know if the President got a BJ from a fat chick? Hey I say as long as he runs the country as good as he did, he can get as many BJ as he wants.
Exactly why he got reelected, no matter how hard the republicans tried.

Oh, and by the way, Roe V. Wade overturned a law. Declared it unconstitutional. A law against abortion was unconstitutional. It violated the constitution.


Kiddies, what does this mean?


its a constitutionally protect right!!

wait... i'm not getting this... IS BUSH a small Business like Kerry said??



yes

or

no?

Well I say yes, because this website does claissifed him as small business.

Bush Timber Company (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/8/222258/237)

its a constitutionally protect right!!
You get a lolly.

here's your lumber:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265.html
Sooooo George Bush does in fact deal in lumber!! LOL :eek:

Bush said that it was "news to him".

President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)

The Bush didn't know he was now into trees? Who wood (pun intended) believe it!!

You get a lolly.
Awwww ;-; Answering retorical questions gets you candy?

Awwww ;-; Answering retorical questions gets you candy?
I have much candy :)

Sooooo George Bush does in fact deal in lumber!! LOL :eek:

Bush said that it was "news to him".

President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)

The Bush didn't know he was now into trees? Who wood (pun intended) believe it!!Naw, he delegated filling out the tax forms to Cheney, just like he did the first year of his presidency.

Ok.. reguarding the report releast yesterday... how was Iraq more of a threat then... well, most any other country in the middle east, south west europe, and N. Korea?

Ok.. reguarding the report releast yesterday... how was Iraq more of a threat then... well, most any other country in the middle east, south west europe, and N. Korea?
You forgot america. We can destroy all life on the planet 27 times over, how are we not dangerous?

Ok.. reguarding the report releast yesterday... how was Iraq more of a threat then... well, most any other country in the middle east, south west europe, and N. Korea?

Because Bush said so and, by his own admission, he is never wrong about anything but some unnamed appointments (I'm going to assume they were the highly respected scientific advisors that he fired for daring to tell him the truth, instead of what he wanted to hear).

Kerry won, but not by the landslide that it was last time. Bush came off as downright rude at points.

Kerry won, but not by the landslide that it was last time. Bush came off as downright rude at points.

And downright idiotic at others. (Not that Kerry didn't have his moments, of course).

MSNBC has a poll running currently.

They give Kerry as the winner of tonights derbate at 69%.
Thats a landslide.

Bill O'Reilly, who appeared on the Daily Show, last night, says that If Bush did not win tonights debate.....Kerry will win the Presidency.

It looks as if even Bill O Reilly doesnt think that Bush will win.

Why did Bush lose?

He still continued to make the effort to slander Kerry, and make personal attacks, rather than adequately defend his policies in Iraq, Afganistan, the Economy, welfare, and education.

Kerry pointed this out to the american people.

I think that tonights debate cost Bush the election.

I couldnt be happier.

MSNBC has a poll running currently.

They give Kerry as the winner of tonights derbate at 69%.
Thats a landslide.

Bill O'Reilly, who appeared on the Daily Show, last night, says that If Bush did not win tonights debate.....Kerry will win the Presidency.

It looks as if even Bill O Reilly doesnt think that Bush will win.

Why did Bush lose?

He still continued to make the effort to slander Kerry, and make personal attacks, rather than adequately defend his policies in Iraq, Afganistan, the Economy, welfare, and education.

Kerry pointed this out to the american people.

I think that tonights debate cost Bush the election.

I couldnt be happier.


Don't forget that tonight we saw Bush attack the moderator! I guess hes not an easy going guy (first debate) after all.

Absolutely.

Bush cut his own throat right there.

Absolutely.

Bush cut his own throat right there.

I hope the Daily Show make jokes about that. I Love that show! Me and my dad watch it all the time.

Kerry won that debate easily. Bush just disregarded Kerry's statments on several issues. Like in the stem cell research question, Kerry clearly said that those stemm cells would be destroyed anyway, and then Bush said that he doesn't like that reaserch because he doesn't loke destroying life. Both candidates have their faults (who doesn't?), but I think Kerry will do a much better job of being president because he will actually do good things for the country.

If Kerry does become President, this debate will come back to haunt him in four years. That "I will not raise taxes" is going to be a very deadly sound byte for Kerry if he wins.

I think that you're definitely going to read into this debate exactly what you want to see. The Bush supporters will view Bush as the winner, and the Kerry supporters will view Kerry as the winner. Each side tends to only see the negative in the opposition and the positive in their particular choice.

As a moderate, I think Bush actually won this debate, but just barely. My main problem with Kerry was that he kept referring to this vague premise he called his "plan." He never once specified what measures were in this "plan." He specified what they would allegedly accomplish and through what general means (ie: reworking of programs and the like), but not once did he make a single commital statement regarding how he would actually implement his "plan." What got me the most was when he maintained that he would support full government sponsored health care and then immediately claimed that he wouldn't raise taxes for all but the top 2 tax brackets. ROFLMAO. Good luck with that one, Mr. Kerry. Would you like some company out there in La-la Land?

At least Bush gets specific with his policies (with the exception of cutting the deficit) and admits that there are no easy solutions. Kerry's motto seems to be: "I have a plan to fix all the problems, but I can't tell you what it is right now so don't ask!" As it stands right now, I'm leaning towards Bush.

what eh hell is with all these puppets

you know what? i beleive the forum is majority liberal. the conservatives sit around making puppets all day so it only APPEARS to be mostly conservative
Good call. Yer definitely onta something.

I think the greatest mistake was that Bush again basically stated that he did not believe he had made any mistakes during his presidency (at least when considering Iraq). I think that was a major mistake.
...and you know he'd never admit it! ;)
Remember, he's publicly stated (not misstated, for a change, "go figure") that his inability to speak clear english is a "strategy".

I think that you're definitely going to read into this debate exactly what you want to see. The Bush supporters will view Bush as the winner, and the Kerry supporters will view Kerry as the winner. Each side tends to only see the negative in the opposition and the positive in their particular choice.

As a moderate, I think Bush actually won this debate, but just barely. My main problem with Kerry was that he kept referring to this vague premise he called his "plan." He never once specified what measures were in this "plan." He specified what they would allegedly accomplish and through what general means (ie: reworking of programs and the like), but not once did he make a single commital statement regarding how he would actually implement his "plan." What got me the most was when he maintained that he would support full government sponsored health care and then immediately claimed that he wouldn't raise taxes for all but the top 2 tax brackets. ROFLMAO. Good luck with that one, Mr. Kerry. Would you like some company out there in La-la Land?

At least Bush gets specific with his policies (with the exception of cutting the deficit) and admits that there are no easy solutions. Kerry's motto seems to be: "I have a plan to fix all the problems, but I can't tell you what it is right now so don't ask!" As it stands right now, I'm leaning towards Bush.

Wich is why you think Bush won the debate.

Kerry laid out his plan.

Bush attacked Kerry.

Thats why Kerry won the debate.
Apparently, by your logic, 69% of Americans polled, will vote for Kerry.
While I do agree that Kerry will win, I highly doubt 69% percent of the country will vote for him.

the congressional records own website said that. they have a rating system based on an equation of ideology that has been in force since the early 70's.
I want someone in office who stands up for what he believes in. Bush won thsi debate on his friendly nature and confident responses. if you cant see that.... I dont know waht else to say exept only vote once.
Friendly nature? Ha, good one!
Good to have levity in this thread, since ALMOST noone would be such a buffoon as to be serious to that quote! ;)

read what I wrote about talking points? classic examples above. debates are won by the percieved audience of independent minds. Not your personal ideology that clouds government. I also resent being called "dude".
"...personal ideology that clouds government."
Wow. Freudian, or what? Isn't that really the nature of the outcome of the debates here? A current imposed ideology that clouds government?
You definitely make some bemusing statements, whether accidentally or purposefully. Get down wit' yo bad self!

No, that would be clinton

What pisses me off about Clinton:
He does all this AWESOME shit, but all anyone's gonna remember is he got a blowjob from a fatchick that can't clean a dress for two years.

On the contrary, Clinton was a good president because he spent more time getting his d*ck served than the alternative... screwing the country ;)

Well apparently Bush proved that they can by not vetoing any spending bill!
Kapow!

I AM LEAVING NOW BUT MARK MY WORDS.....BUSH WON AND THE NETWORK POLLS WILL SHOW THIS. SEE YOU ALL AROUND......i WILL REMEMBER WRITING THIS.
Yep, and we'll casually forget the significance of something you might've meant and summarily dismiss it. Kinda the reverence it deserves. I'm surprised i finished this sentence, really.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/8/222258/237
You rock!

Bush should get a weekly press conference just so we won't run out of bushisms.
Hahahaha!

Finally saw the debate from the rerun on CNN.

Wow the shrub did better but I had to double take some commnets.

On the environmental comments; where he was basically saying that logging will help lesson the effects of the forest fires! :eek: Forest fires are not necessarily bad you ass!

On the supreme court where he said he would not elect a judge that was driven by personal motives such as the under god debate.

Ahh well. I think off the two Kerry won this one. Not handily like the first one but he still won.

On the contrary, Clinton was a good president because he spent more time getting his d*ck served than the alternative... screwing the country ;)


Haha, omfg. You totally win "Quote of the day" with that one.

*Applauds*

Wow, Kerry is building the mommentum, whether that turns into votes or not.

MSNBC has a poll running currently.

They give Kerry as the winner of tonights derbate at 69%.
Thats a landslide.

Bill O'Reilly, who appeared on the Daily Show, last night, says that If Bush did not win tonights debate.....Kerry will win the Presidency.

It looks as if even Bill O Reilly doesnt think that Bush will win.

Why did Bush lose?

He still continued to make the effort to slander Kerry, and make personal attacks, rather than adequately defend his policies in Iraq, Afganistan, the Economy, welfare, and education.

Kerry pointed this out to the american people.

I think that tonights debate cost Bush the election.

I couldnt be happier.
Kudos to you Backwoods.

Haha, omfg. You totally win "Quote of the day" with that one.

*Applauds*

Thanks :) Now endorse my country dammit ;)

MSNBC has a poll running currently.

They give Kerry as the winner of tonights derbate at 69%.
Thats a landslide.

Bill O'Reilly, who appeared on the Daily Show, last night, says that If Bush did not win tonights debate.....Kerry will win the Presidency.

It looks as if even Bill O Reilly doesnt think that Bush will win.


While I don't support Right Wing Propaganda like Bill. I sure hope he is right!

Well so far, CNN (Gallup), MSNBC, and even Fox News has Kerry as winner. Not a landslide but winner neverless. I hope Bush is packing up!

As a moderate, I think Bush actually won this debate, but just barely. My main problem with Kerry was that he kept referring to this vague premise he called his "plan." He never once specified what measures were in this "plan." He specified what they would allegedly accomplish and through what general means (ie: reworking of programs and the like), but not once did he make a single commital statement regarding how he would actually implement his "plan." What got me the most was when he maintained that he would support full government sponsored health care and then immediately claimed that he wouldn't raise taxes for all but the top 2 tax brackets. ROFLMAO. Good luck with that one, Mr. Kerry. Would you like some company out there in La-la Land?

At least Bush gets specific with his policies (with the exception of cutting the deficit) and admits that there are no easy solutions. Kerry's motto seems to be: "I have a plan to fix all the problems, but I can't tell you what it is right now so don't ask!" As it stands right now, I'm leaning towards Bush.
I don't think it would have been possible for Kerry to have given more details for a number of reasons like the format, and the need to create soundbytes. You may be looking at the debates in the wrong light though, they are most definitely not intended to show details, they are to help people get an idea of the candidate's views.

As for raising the taxes on the top 2 tax brackets, you have no reason to laugh, those would give huge amounts of money if they were tapped. Kerry pointed out that most of Bush's tax cuts have been geared towards the wealthy, tax havens have remained open and functioning, and he is the only president to lower taxes during a war. Bush replies by *gasp* calling Kerry a flip-flopper and a hypocrite.

Bush really doesn't get too specific with his policies either, and while he does admit there are no easy solutions, he is painfully avoiding the consequences of his plan's problems. He is trying to build an image of a steady leader, but it turns out that every day it becomes more apparant that his plan isn't working. Does he change it? No. At the expense of intelligent decision making, he is preserving his image to avoid being called even more of a hypocrite. If he admits to mistakes he loses cred, and if he loses cred he loses the race. If he doesn't admit to mistakes, he loses cred, if he loses cred he loses the race. Brilliant catch-22 the GOP should have seen coming.

The GOP campaign made a glaring error in trying to portray Bush as stalwart and steady, because in the circumstances it just makes him look like an inflexible idiot. If they were smart they would have campaigned on his dynamic leadership skills, and found some other way of slandering Kerry. They've given the Democrats a big pile of ungaurded ammo to use on Bush and it is hurting them every day.

Also, thanks everyone for the lumber company proof, I predict that the media will do a few blurbs on that screw-up, and we'll get some funny p-shops of Bush as the lumberjack from Monty Python or as the Lumber King sign from the Simpsons.

Well so far, CNN (Gallup), MSNBC, and even Fox News has Kerry as winner. Not a landslide but winner neverless. I hope Bush is packing up!
Actually it seems more that Bush is getting packed. Did ya see the way he was hunched over the podium on the first debate?

I think what really hurt Bush is when he argued with the person running the debate.

All I can really say about the deabte is....

Need some wood?

wood as in...sexually? :fluffle:

...in that case, no. :D

Did anyone else catch it when Bush was talking about "rumors on the internets"? Didn't realize we had more than one. And if we do, you'd think it would free up some damn bandwidth.

wood as in...sexually? :fluffle:

...in that case, no. :D

LOL, same here.

I think what really hurt Bush is when he argued with the person running the debate.

I loved it, I'm tired of this politically correct world 24/7. We all need a little Howard Dean-esque rampage sometimes.

"And we're going to Michigan and North Carolina and New Hampshire...YAAAAAGGH!!!!!"

We need some john edwards thong action, that's what we need

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Kerry was better, although I don't want him as the next US president. Bush needs to be less vague about homeland security and foreign policy.

I think what really hurt Bush is when he argued with the person running the debate.
jumping down peoples throats and proving his instability wouldnt convinc me he should be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world

We need some john edwards thong action, that's what we need

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

You've seen the new JibJab toon too? God its hilarious!!!

"You twit!"
"Eat ****!"
"That's how we talk in DC!"

Kerry definitely had the right view in specific areas, although on broad they both looked like they were trying not to get into the details.

On Supreme Court Justices:
Bush: Well, I won't pick someone who disagrees with me on the pledge.
Kerry: Judges shouldn't be known as liberal or conservative - when reading their decision, you shouldn't be able to tell if they are man/woman/liberal/conservative/etc.

On Stem Cells:
Kerry: We need this research and the current lines are not enough, are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, and the numbers have already dropped. In addition, there are lots of frozen embryos slated for destruction each year.
Bush: I am right and therefore I don't care about science.

On Abortion:
Kerry: I do not believe in making policy based on a tenet of my religion, as all people in the country are not part of my religion. In addition, any bill banning a medical procedure must have a clause to support the life of the patient.
Bush: FLIP-FLOPPER!

Kerry definitely had the right view in specific areas, although on broad they both looked like they were trying not to get into the details.

On Supreme Court Justices:
Bush: Well, I won't pick someone who disagrees with me on the pledge.
Kerry: Judges shouldn't be known as liberal or conservative - when reading their decision, you shouldn't be able to tell if they are man/woman/liberal/conservative/etc.

On Stem Cells:
Kerry: We need this research and the current lines are not enough, are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, and the numbers have already dropped. In addition, there are lots of frozen embryos slated for destruction each year.
Bush: I am right and therefore I don't care about science.

On Abortion:
Kerry: I do not believe in making policy based on a tenet of my religion, as all people in the country are not part of my religion. In addition, any bill banning a medical procedure must have a clause to support the life of the patient.
Bush: FLIP-FLOPPER!
This is an example of how ideology blinds a person. Dempublicents is a Kerry supporter/Bush hater. In the above quotes Kerry is quoted fairly accurately. Bush's quotes on the other hand are very distorted and and designed to elicit an unfavorable reaction.

On Supreme Court Justices Bush said he would appoint someone who would interpret the law, not make law.
On Stem Cells Bush said he wanted to balance ethics with science. Kerry completely avoided the actual question on adult stem cell research (which has saved lives) vs. embryonic stem cell research (which hasn't).
On abortions Bush said he was against federal funding of abortions, against partial birth abortion, for parental notification, and for the unborn victim violence act.

Dempublicents if you are so convinced Kerry is the right person for the job, why don't you let the facts speak for themselves and try to prove you are correct, rather than lie and distort the facts about his opponent?

Umm, clue train, judges tend to make law whenever they make a decision...

Umm, clue train, judges tend to make law whenever they make a decision...

Yep.

This is an example of how ideology blinds a person. Dempublicents is a Kerry supporter/Bush hater. In the above quotes Kerry is quoted fairly accurately. Bush's quotes on the other hand are very distorted and and designed to elicit an unfavorable reaction.

Bush's quotes are summaries, as are Kerry's. Bush did not respond to any of the points that Kerry made, and that is what I was pointing out.

On Supreme Court Justices Bush said he would appoint someone who would interpret the law, not make law.

And said that he would absolutely not appoint any judge who might consider hearing a case about the pledge (thus someone who brings their own personal views into being a judge).

On Stem Cells Bush said he wanted to balance ethics with science.

And ignored the fact that, while Kerry said the same thing, Bush has put his own personal ethics>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>science.

Kerry completely avoided the actual question on adult stem cell research (which has saved lives) vs. embryonic stem cell research (which hasn't).

Neither of them addressed that, but Kerry at least discussed some of the areas in which adult stem cells cannot be used, but embryonic stem cells may be used. The study of embryonic stem cells is fairly new in research (as far as medical research goes). The fact that we are still a ways away from clinical uses has no bearing on the necessity for the research.

On abortions Bush said he was against federal funding of abortions, against partial birth abortion, for parental notification, and for the unborn victim violence act.

And on each of these he tried to make it look like a black and white issue. He also said that Kerry was a flip-flopper because he wanted to keep women who need D&X from dying and girls who were raped by their fathers from needing their permission for an abortion.

Dempublicents if you are so convinced Kerry is the right person for the job, why don't you let the facts speak for themselves and try to prove you are correct, rather than lie and distort the facts about his opponent?

I am. Bush ignored all of the points that Kerry made in those areas so that he could keep his "I am right no matter what I say" attitude.

Umm, clue train, judges tend to make law whenever they make a decision...
ummmm, no. Like the president said, there are enough lawmakers in Washington D.C. as it is.

Judges are to interpret laws and rule on the legality of cases. Supreme Court justices are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of cases. There is an important difference between that and "make law whenever they make a decision".

"The legislature makes laws that are binding on all of us, and each of us therefore has a stake in deciding who should sit in the legislature. We are entitled to monitor legislative debates, to have timely input and influence on legislative decisions, and to demand that legislators stand before us in elections to account for what they have done."
"The application of law is supposed to happen in courtrooms. The application of law may be controversial but is expected to be mostly a technical matter of finding the right principles under which the dispute can be settled."

(both quotes from http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/031/ferejohn.html)

I think Kerry won by a landslide...but to be fair, we were all a little drunk :)

Our tallies:

Valid Points:
Bush -1 (because he said "internets")
Kerry 54

Being an asshole:
Bush 64
Kerry 15

Of course, we're slightly biased ;)

Gallup Poll:

Kerry 47
Bush 45

Margin of error: 3%

ABC:

Kerry 44
Bush 41

Margin of Error: 4.5%

Kerry won but barely. It was not a landslide

A little better, but still blinded by ideology.
Bush's quotes are summaries, as are Kerry's. Bush did not respond to any of the points that Kerry made, and that is what I was pointing out.
No, you were grossly distorting Bush's responses to fit your own ideological bent. Not even close to accurate, except as clouded by your hatred of Bush. Understandable that you did this, as humans tend to be biased, but still disengenious.
And said that he would absolutely not appoint any judge who might consider hearing a case about the pledge (thus someone who brings their own personal views into being a judge).
Again you distort what he said. You place emphasis where Bush did not. Bush said he "wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution."
And ignored the fact that, while Kerry said the same thing, Bush has put his own personal ethics>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>science.
Not sure what fact you are saying they both ignored.. it doesn't make sense concidering the portion of post you quoted.
But as to your contention that Bush used his personal ethics.... again, you are distorting what he said. He said "And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing life. To destroy life to save life is -- it's one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face." You can not deny that what he said was true, that to destroy life to save life is a real ethical dilemma. You can argue when life begins, as has been argued millions of times before. What Bush said, he left the debate on the ethics open. If how you paint Bush were accurate, he wouldn't have allowed funding for embryonic stem cell research in the first place. Since he did allow it... I would suggest that he was open to debate on the ethics.
Neither of them addressed that, but Kerry at least discussed some of the areas in which adult stem cells cannot be used, but embryonic stem cells may be used. The study of embryonic stem cells is fairly new in research (as far as medical research goes). The fact that we are still a ways away from clinical uses has no bearing on the necessity for the research.
Actually, Kerry didn't address anything about areas where adult stem cells can not be used. He never stated that the issues he did address adult stem cell research would be unable to help. If he had made that assertion, it would have been a better answer.
But this doesn't address the point of you distorting Bush's remarks.
And on each of these he tried to make it look like a black and white issue. He also said that Kerry was a flip-flopper because he wanted to keep women who need D&X from dying and girls who were raped by their fathers from needing their permission for an abortion.
Again, you avoid the point of your distortion of Bush's remarks.
I am. Bush ignored all of the points that Kerry made in those areas so that he could keep his "I am right no matter what I say" attitude.
No, you are still distorting Bush's responses. Why do you keep doing that? Are you afraid to let them stand on their own merit? If Bush is so wrong, let his words stand as he said them, and let people judge them as they are, not as you spin them.

Gallup Poll:

Kerry 47
Bush 45

Margin of error: 3%

ABC:

Kerry 44
Bush 41

Margin of Error: 4.5%

Kerry won but barely. It was not a landslide
Well.. seeing as both are within the margin of error, I would say they tied :D

Well.. seeing as both are within the margin of error, I would say they tied :D

I would say that too TheOneRule, but people on here are saying that Kerry won by a landslide and he did not. I've watched the last thirty minutes of the debate and from that thirty minutes, I think they tied too.

This morning, I read the transcript and after that, I say that Kerry did win but barely. Judging by the polls, people agreed that Kerry won but barely.

ummmm, no. Like the president said, there are enough lawmakers in Washington D.C. as it is.

Judges are to interpret laws and rule on the legality of cases. Supreme Court justices are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of cases. There is an important difference between that and "make law whenever they make a decision".

"The legislature makes laws that are binding on all of us, and each of us therefore has a stake in deciding who should sit in the legislature. We are entitled to monitor legislative debates, to have timely input and influence on legislative decisions, and to demand that legislators stand before us in elections to account for what they have done."
"The application of law is supposed to happen in courtrooms. The application of law may be controversial but is expected to be mostly a technical matter of finding the right principles under which the dispute can be settled."

(both quotes from http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/031/ferejohn.html)


Sigh...you do realize that every decision is groundwork for the next, right? (Unless it is overturned) You do realize that is what Bush is referring to, right?

Well.. seeing as both are within the margin of error, I would say they tied :D
Seeing as how both show roughly the same lead, I don't think that the margin of error is a factor here

Well, I can't say as to the ABC poll, but Gallup was up to their old sampling tricks again in their instant poll about the debate. Steve Soto gets internals from Gallup and writes about themin his blog (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002976.html#more) and quotes Gallup.
The reason the overall figures show only a slight advantage for Kerry, despite his greater margin among his own party and winning the independent vote, is that the sample of viewers had more Republicans (38%) than Democrats (32%) or independents (30%). Also, the sample of viewers support Bush over Kerry in the presidential race by 50% to 46%.
Now the problem is that the Republican party is traditionally not 38% of the electorate--it's closer to 32%--and the Democratic party is closer to that 38% figure. Look at exit polls for the last few presidential elections and those numbers are pretty solid. So Gallup skewed its sample size toward the Republican party, and Kerry still came out on top. Is it possible that Kerry did substantially better? Hmmmm.

No I don't think he did substancibly better. I do think that Kerry won but barely. Bush did alot better than he did in that first debate and I am not at all surprised by the numbers.

Neither of them addressed that, but Kerry at least discussed some of the areas in which adult stem cells cannot be used, but embryonic stem cells may be used. The study of embryonic stem cells is fairly new in research (as far as medical research goes). The fact that we are still a ways away from clinical uses has no bearing on the necessity for the research..
the question was about stem cell research in general and where he stood, he explained about embryonic stem cells, more on topic than bushes "we be killin babies, kerry is a hater" stuff

the question was about stem cell research in general and where he stood, he explained about embryonic stem cells, more on topic than bushes "we be killin babies, kerry is a hater" stuff
Wrong on both counts.
"LONG: Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't it be wide(wise) to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?"

The question was about adult stem cell research vs. embryonic stem cell research, and "wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells" that have actually done good vs. those that have not?

Wrong on both counts.
"LONG: Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't it be wide(wise) to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?"

The question was about adult stem cell research vs. embryonic stem cell research, and "wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells" that have actually done good vs. those that have not?
and kerry addressed the question, he addressed the use of embryonic stem cells, which was the question. bush was the onew hining about you killin babies, you hater!

No, you were grossly distorting Bush's responses to fit your own ideological bent. Not even close to accurate, except as clouded by your hatred of Bush. Understandable that you did this, as humans tend to be biased, but still disengenious.

No, I am simply pointing out the only part of what Bush said that came anywhere near refuting what Kerry said. I never claimed to be repeating the entire minute and a half.

Again you distort what he said. You place emphasis where Bush did not. Bush said he "wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution."

Of course, by bringing up a specific issue like that, he demonstrated that he *does* want a judge who brings his/her own personal views into the courtroom. He specifically wants a judge who agrees with his particular view on the pledge issue, thus he *does* want a judge to allow personal opinion into the decision making process, the opinion just has to agree with his. Bush directly contradicted himself, and I listed the part he obviously actually agreed with.

Not sure what fact you are saying they both ignored.. it doesn't make sense concidering the portion of post you quoted.

They both ignored the idea of adult stem cells and debated on embryonic stem cells, which is what the issue is really all about in the first place.

But as to your contention that Bush used his personal ethics.... again, you are distorting what he said. He said "And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing life. To destroy life to save life is -- it's one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face." You can not deny that what he said was true, that to destroy life to save life is a real ethical dilemma. You can argue when life begins, as has been argued millions of times before. What Bush said, he left the debate on the ethics open. If how you paint Bush were accurate, he wouldn't have allowed funding for embryonic stem cell research in the first place. Since he did allow it... I would suggest that he was open to debate on the ethics.

In essence, he closed down most of the embryonic stem cell research. You can spin it however you like, but becuase Bush's personal religion states that any embryo is a separate human life (a very unscientific viewpoint based soley in religion), he shut down the creation of any new lines. The lines we have are clearly flawed, many are unavailable to scientists not in the private sector. The lines he approved are clearly insufficient for research to move forward at even a normal medical science pace, and that isn't fast enough for the public in the first place. However, Bush selectively chose to ignore all of the scientific facts and relied solely on "I was right when I said it before and so I still am, regardless of the new information that Kerry just put forward."

You also ignore that Kerry also said that we must proceed carefully and ethically, and pay attention to the ethical debate. However, he was not for placing restrictions so strict that it cripples the field.

Actually, Kerry didn't address anything about areas where adult stem cells can not be used. He never stated that the issues he did address adult stem cell research would be unable to help. If he had made that assertion, it would have been a better answer.

He only discussed areas in which adult stem cells cannot be used. I agree that he should have pointed out the fact that those areas could not be helped by adult stem cell technology, but he made the mistake of assuming people knew that because he did.

But this doesn't address the point of you distorting Bush's remarks.

As far as what answers he actually made to Kerry's remarks, they weren't distorted.

No, you are still distorting Bush's responses. Why do you keep doing that? Are you afraid to let them stand on their own merit? If Bush is so wrong, let his words stand as he said them, and let people judge them as they are, not as you spin them.

The only parts of them that have merit are the parts exactly repeating what Kerry said except with "except this is a black and white situation, I am right, and he is a flip-flopper" tagged on the end. Will you deny that when Kerry pointed out that he would not vote for any ban on D&X that did not have an adequate exception for the life of the mother, Bush's response was "We just had a bill about that, if you don't like partial birth abortions, you should have been in the Senate to vote for it." ((never mind that that particular bill *did not* have an adequate exception for the life of the mother)). When Kerry pointed out that there needs to be a possible judicial method for which underage girls in danger should be able to bypass parental consent, Bush said "We just had a bill about that, you should have voted on it." (Never mind that the bill he was talking about had *no* exception to the parental consent).

Do you see my point now? Bush refused to address any issue in these areas that Kerry brought up, instead saying "stop changing your mind and agree with me" or "you should have voted for that even though you just pointed out why you're against it." That is all I was pointing out.

Kerry was the clear winner. He made real points and backed them up with facts, unlike his opponent who simply made fake points like calling Kerry a liar, etc.

The question was about adult stem cell research vs. embryonic stem cell research, and "wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells" that have actually done good vs. those that have not?

It would be wise to use both.

This is like asking "Penicilin already has uses in helping cure people, so wouldn't it be better to use that than try and research other medicines?"

There are areas in which adult stem cells cannot be used. Why? Because adult stem cells are not totipotent, they are only pluripotent. There are cell types which we have not been able to obtain in significant numbers (or any) from adult stem cells, neurons (especially dopaminergic neurons) are particularly well-known. They also do not have the same proliferative capacity as embryonic stem cells. An adult stem cell will proliferate for quite some time, but they are not immortal. And finally, adult stem cells are much, much, much harder to grow without inducing differentiation (especially when you consider that many of them in fact undergo uneven mitosis - producing one differentiated cell and one stem cell, rather than simply producing more stem cells).

It would be wise to use both.

This is like asking "Penicilin already has uses in helping cure people, so wouldn't it be better to use that than try and research other medicines?"

There are areas in which adult stem cells cannot be used. Why? Because adult stem cells are not totipotent, they are only pluripotent. There are cell types which we have not been able to obtain in significant numbers (or any) from adult stem cells, neurons (especially dopaminergic neurons) are particularly well-known. They also do not have the same proliferative capacity as embryonic stem cells. An adult stem cell will proliferate for quite some time, but they are not immortal. And finally, adult stem cells are much, much, much harder to grow without inducing differentiation (especially when you consider that many of them in fact undergo uneven mitosis - producing one differentiated cell and one stem cell, rather than simply producing more stem cells).Not to mention that the premise for Bush's answer is logically flawed. He argued that it's bad policy to destroy one life to save another, but that doesn't apply here. The stem cells that would be created come from unrealized lives--fertilized but unimplanted embryos that will be destroyed, flushed away. They won't ever be implanted and will never mature. How is it wrong to use them for research when they'll be destroyed anyway?

Not to mention that the premise for Bush's answer is logically flawed. He argued that it's bad policy to destroy one life to save another, but that doesn't apply here. The stem cells that would be created come from unrealized lives--fertilized but unimplanted embryos that will be destroyed, flushed away. They won't ever be implanted and will never mature. How is it wrong to use them for research when they'll be destroyed anyway?

This is true, although I would argue for further research into therapeutic cloning, so that the whole issue is essentially moot. Of course, most people hear the word cloning and have a cow and never want to hear about what the therapeutic in front of it means. I mean, if we could create embryos through nuclear cell transfer (which in most higher order mammals never get past the stage at which you extract cells anyways), the worry about using aborted or IVF embryos would be alleviated. And we know it can be done, as a team in Korea was recently successful in obtaining a stem cell line from nuclear cell transfer (ie. therapeutic cloning).

Kerry by a landslide, but only because Bush sucked so phenomenally. It's like the difference between -1 and -9. I mean, several times Kerry "answered" a question with something that had little or nothing to do with the inquiry, and still he was way better! Sometimes I wonder if Bush is nothing more than a hybrid of a parrot and a monkey encased within a human robotic shell.

Im not making a point about whether either of the debaters were right or wrong. Im making the point that you distorted what Bush said.
On Supreme Court Justices:
Bush: Well, I won't pick someone who disagrees with me on the pledge.
On Stem Cells:Bush: I am right and therefore I don't care about science.
On Abortion:Bush: FLIP-FLOPPER!

But this doesn't address the point of you distorting Bush's remarks.
As far as what answers he actually made to Kerry's remarks, they weren't distorted.

Yes, they were distorted... particularly the last 2 points.

Argue the validity of the points all you want. Don't distort them to fit your preconcieved hatred of Bush.

Argue the validity of the points all you want. Don't distort them to fit your preconcieved hatred of Bush.

Bush did say that he wouldn't appoint a judge who disagreed with him on the validity of "under God" in the pledge.

Bush did say that Kerry was being wishy washy by asking that an exception for a woman's life or for an underage girl's specific circumstances be made.

Bush ignored the scientific problems with the lines he approved, thus demonstrating that his personal ethical decision is more important to him than the science.

All of those things *were* said.

Bush did say that he wouldn't appoint a judge who disagreed with him on the validity of "under God" in the pledge.
I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Nowhere does he mention "agreeing" with him. But this is a small point, I conceed it to you.
Bush did say that Kerry was being wishy washy by asking that an exception for a woman's life or for an underage girl's specific circumstances be made.
I'm trying to decipher that.

My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.

This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America.

I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.

I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them.

I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that.

These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life.

I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion.

And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done.

Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society.

Thank you.
He does not say Kerry is being wishy washy... he's saying that Kerry is wrong.

Bush ignored the scientific problems with the lines he approved, thus demonstrating that his personal ethical decision is more important to him than the science.
Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell. I'm the first president ever to allow funding -- federal funding -- for embryonic stem-cell research. I did to because I too hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells and from the research derived.

But I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the science.

And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing life. To destroy life to save life is -- it's one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face.

There is going to be hundreds of experiments off the 22 lines that now exist that are active, and hopefully we find a cure. But as well, we need to continue to pursue adult stem-cell research.

I helped double the NIH budget to $28 billion a year to find cures. And the approach I took is one that I think is a balanced and necessary approach, to balance science and the concerns for life.
He is not ignoring scientific problems, he is not saying that ethics are more important than science. He is saying you need to balance science with ethics.
All of those things *were* said.
Perhaps it's what you heard, but it's not what he said.

He does not say Kerry is being wishy washy... he's saying that Kerry is wrong.

You didn't quote the rest of it in which he brought up specific bills that obviously did not meet the requirements that Kerry pointed out and bitched that he did not vote for them and stated that Kerry was being inconsistent.

Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no?

And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that's just the way it is. That's a vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said: You can run but you can't hide the reality.

Notice how he brings up the ban again, even after Kerry points out that he is against the procedure, but there needs to be a true provision for the life of the mother. Notice how Bush suggests that Kerry is being wishy washy, when in fact, Bush is just being an idiot by suggesting that Kerry should have voted for a bill that did not have the provision Kerry requires. Notice how Bush makes it look like a black and white issue, when it is quite clearly not.

He is not ignoring scientific problems, he is not saying that ethics are more important than science. He is saying you need to balance science with ethics.

Which he does not do. He said "we need to balance science with ethics." Kerry pointed out that they are not currently balanced, as there are problems with the cell lines and Bush completely ignored that fact. Thus, to Bush, his "ethical" (read: religious) decision that he made several years ago outweighs any new evidence because it was balanced back then, and thus is obviously balanced today.

Perhaps it's what you heard, but it's not what he said.

It is a paraphrase of what he said. By completely ignoring the very real problems with the current lines, he ignored science so that he could believe he was keeping the ethics. That is not balancing science and ethics, it is placing personal religious views much much higher than actual science.

Here is the science that Bush ignored:
But let me tell you, point blank, the lines of stem cells that he's made available, every scientist in the country will tell you, "Not adequate," because they're contaminated by mouse cells, and because there aren't 60 or 70 -- they're are only about 11 to 20 now -- and there aren't enough to be able to do the research because they're contaminated.

On top of that, he has been informed that these cells are grown in bovine serum, and that they have karyotyping problems. He chooses to ignore these facts.

Of course, when you consider that Bush does this quite frequently, even going so far as to fire highly respected scientific advisors and replace them with people with no scientific standing just to obtain a yes-man, it certainly fits the pattern. Bush's stance is "If I ignore the science, it will go away. There will always be someone who will tell me what I want to hear."

You didn't quote the rest of it in which he brought up specific bills that obviously did not meet the requirements that Kerry pointed out and bitched that he did not vote for them and stated that Kerry was being inconsistent.

Which he does not do. He said "we need to balance science with ethics." Kerry pointed out that they are not currently balanced, as there are problems with the cell lines and Bush completely ignored that fact. Thus, to Bush, his "ethical" (read: religious) decision that he made several years ago outweighs any new evidence because it was balanced back then, and thus is obviously balanced today.

It is a paraphrase of what he said. By completely ignoring the very real problems with the current lines, he ignored science so that he could believe he was keeping the ethics. That is not balancing science and ethics, it is placing personal religious views much much higher than actual science.

Of course, when you consider that Bush does this quite frequently, even going so far as to fire highly respected scientific advisors and replace them with people with no scientific standing just to obtain a yes-man, it certainly fits the pattern. Bush's stance is "If I ignore the science, it will go away. There will always be someone who will tell me what I want to hear."

Like I said, argue the validity of his point. That's what debate's are for, like what happens on this forum.

However, you originally weren't doing that.. and in your last paragraph you still resort to distortion to skew the reader to your point of view. Bush never said he will ignore science. He said he was the first president to fund embryonic stem cell research, that is hardly ignoring.

You bring up valid points arguing against many of Bush's positions. Do that, don't resort to distortion to prove what isn't provable.

If Kerry does become President, this debate will come back to haunt him in four years. That "I will not raise taxes" is going to be a very deadly sound byte for Kerry if he wins.
Um... Daddy bush did the same thing, and he didn't have an adendum. Kerry said he wouldn't raise taxes for families under 200,000 a year. (much easier promise to keep)

All I can really say about the deabte is....

Need some wood?
:holds up a porno:

Got mine!

ummmm, no. Like the president said, there are enough lawmakers in Washington D.C. as it is.

Judges are to interpret laws and rule on the legality of cases. Supreme Court justices are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of cases. There is an important difference between that and "make law whenever they make a decision".

"The legislature makes laws that are binding on all of us, and each of us therefore has a stake in deciding who should sit in the legislature. We are entitled to monitor legislative debates, to have timely input and influence on legislative decisions, and to demand that legislators stand before us in elections to account for what they have done."
"The application of law is supposed to happen in courtrooms. The application of law may be controversial but is expected to be mostly a technical matter of finding the right principles under which the dispute can be settled."

(both quotes from http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/031/ferejohn.html)
Okay, the supreme court doesn't ACTUALLY make law each time they vote. But, here's the thing, write the law however you want, the way the law is interpreted is the important part. (hyperbole) While the supreme court doesn't actually write any new law, they do take old ones off the books, and dictate how new laws should be written, until a vote overturns an older one and the whole nice little cycle starts over again.

Like I said, argue the validity of his point. That's what debate's are for, like what happens on this forum.

Which is what I was doing with a subset of his point.

However, you originally weren't doing that.. and in your last paragraph you still resort to distortion to skew the reader to your point of view. Bush never said he will ignore science. He said he was the first president to fund embryonic stem cell research, that is hardly ignoring.

Now you are skewing my point. I never said that Bush said he would ignore science, I simply pointed out that he does. And during the debate, when Kerry brought up the scientific problems with the current lines, Bush did ignore it. Thus, there is proof that Bush does ignore science when it suits him.

There is also ample background throughout the past 4 years to demonstrate that Bush ignores all science that doesn't tell him what he wants to hear. He just fires all scientific advisors that might say something he doesn't like, and hires ill-qualified advisors who will be yes-men. Is that really who you want making funding decisions in the area of technological development?

You bring up valid points arguing against many of Bush's positions. Do that, don't resort to distortion to prove what isn't provable.

What you call distortion, I call summarizing his response to a very specific subset of the argument. *shrug*

Dempublicents, we are not arguing about the science of stem cell research here. Like I said earlier, you pointed out some good arguments against the position that Bush has taken.

What we are arguing about (at least I am) is that you do distort things to fit your own preconcieved idea of what Bush says or does. I don't understand how you can not see how your arguments have changed from the post I first quoted, to now. They have become much more succinct and concise. Your argument in that first post was "FLIP FLOPPER".. which is hardly what Bush said.

Argue that Bush is against embryonic stem cell research, but for adult stem cell and umbilical stem cell research while Kerry is for embryonic stem cell research. That way people can choose who best fit's their own beliefs. Don't say Bush ignores science because of his religious beliefs.

Oh, earlier you made the connection between ethics and religious beliefs. That's not true either. It's entirely possible to have ethics and yet be non-religious. It's entirely possible to have religious convictions and not have ethics. Your equating them to religion is another way to turn off athiests from the start.

Im just trying to get the level of the debate up away from the "Ann Coultier is the spawn of Satan/Bush is evil and eats babies/Kerry is the most anti-American treasonous bastard/Theresa Heinz Kerry is a dog-ugly maniac" level that it frequently stoops to.

Don't say Bush ignores science because of his religious beliefs


Bush is against embryonic stem cell research. True?
Scientists tell us that Embryonic stem cells are far more useful than any other type for medical research, and have the most potential to aid modern medicine.

Bush is against the use of Embryonic stem cell, becuase of his supposed Christian/Anti-Abortion views. True?

I fail to see how the two are any different.

Dempublicents, we are not arguing about the science of stem cell research here. Like I said earlier, you pointed out some good arguments against the position that Bush has taken.

How can we argue whether or not Bush ignores the science without talking about the science?

What we are arguing about (at least I am) is that you do distort things to fit your own preconcieved idea of what Bush says or does. I don't understand how you can not see how your arguments have changed from the post I first quoted, to now. They have become much more succinct and concise. Your argument in that first post was "FLIP FLOPPER".. which is hardly what Bush said.

My arguments have not changed, they have simply been clarified. Bush did refer to Kerry as being inconsistent (which is what the term flip flopper is used for) when Kerry stated his reasons for not supporting specific bans. All I did is clarify exactly what I meant by that comment.

Argue that Bush is against embryonic stem cell research, but for adult stem cell and umbilical stem cell research while Kerry is for embryonic stem cell research. That way people can choose who best fit's their own beliefs. Don't say Bush ignores science because of his religious beliefs.

Well, Kerry is also for adult and umbilical stem cell research - in addition to embryonic, just to be pedantic.

As for saying that Bush ignores science, that is proven fact. Bush only listens to science that agrees with his preconceived views. And one cannot point out the inherent flaw in Bush's position without bringing this fact up.

Oh, earlier you made the connection between ethics and religious beliefs. That's not true either. It's entirely possible to have ethics and yet be non-religious. It's entirely possible to have religious convictions and not have ethics. Your equating them to religion is another way to turn off athiests from the start.

With Bush, it is quite clear that we are talking about religious beliefs.

Im just trying to get the level of the debate up away from the "Ann Coultier is the spawn of Satan/Bush is evil and eats babies/Kerry is the most anti-American treasonous bastard/Theresa Heinz Kerry is a dog-ugly maniac" level that it frequently stoops to.

I don't claim that Bush is evil or that he eats babies. I'm sure he is very convicted in his beliefs. However, his views are very childish, and I feel the need to point that out. Life is not black and white, and I am sick of my president trying to make it out like it is.

Life is not black and white, and I am sick of my president trying to make it out like it is.

I think thats all his brain is capable of handling. Just simple, plain spoken views.

I think thats all his brain is capable of handling. Just simple, plain spoken views.
There's a large segment of his base that chooses to think in those terms--simple dichotomies, black and white with little if any nuance. I'm talking about the conservative evangelical christians, of course, for whom much of their beliefs are couched in moral absolutes. I'm not saying that these people are incapable of thinking in other ways--just that they're trained in those ways of thinking, and that makes it difficult for them to change. Trust me, I know from personal experience. I still occasionally find myself lapsing into dogmatic trains of thought, and I've been out of it for ten years now.

I'm never going to understand how Clinton almost get impeached for lying about a BJ, while Bush doesn't even get a slap on the wrist (shit he might even get re-elected) about lying to get the country into war and kill 1,000+ US soldiers and 15,000+ Iraqis, destroy the global credibility of the US and create more incentives for terrorist drafts... read the report on NO WMD's in Iraq for more information.

26 Aug 2002 Vice President Dick Cheney declares: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

18 Sep 2002 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells the House Armed Services Commitee: "[Saddam] has amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons... including anthrax and botulism toxin and possibly smallpox. His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas... [he] has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

24 Sep 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair declares: "His weapons of mass destruction program is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction program is not shut down. It is up and running... The intelligence picture (the intelligence services) paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability."

28 Oct 2002 During a speech at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver, President George W Bush declares: "It's a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them. See, he'll lie. He'll deceive us. And he'll use them."

4 Nov 2002 During a speech at Southern Methodist University, President George W Bush declares: "He has weapons of mass destruction. At one time we know for certain he was close to having a nuclear weapon. Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon. Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he's used chemical weapons."

7 Nov 2002 During a press conference, President George W Bush declares: "Some people say, 'Oh, we must leave Saddam alone, otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us.' Well, if we don't do something he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat... He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda... And we're going to deal with him."

13 Nov 2002 Condoleezza Rice declares: "He already has other weapons of mass destruction. But a nuclear weapon, two or three our four years from now -- I don't care where it is, when it is -- to have that happen in a volatile region like the Middle East is most certainly a future that we cannot tolerate."

2 Dec 2002 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares: "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."

9 Jan 2003 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares: "We know for a fact there are weapons there."

5 Feb 2003 During his U.N. presentation, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."

8 Feb 2003 During a radio address, President George W Bush declares: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

21 Mar 2003 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares: "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly."

23 Mar 2003 Kenneth Adelman of the Defense Policy Board declares: "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."

30 Mar 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells This Week with George Stephanopoulos: "the area... that coalition forces control... happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

4 Apr 2003 British Prime Minister Tony Blair declares: "I have no doubt that we will [find WMDs]. We have got absolutely no doubt that these weapons exist. But there has been a campaign of concealment by Saddam ever since he knew that UN inspectors were coming back into the country, and I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there."

3 May 2003 President George W Bush declares: "We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."

4 May 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."

30 May 2003 President George W Bush tells Polish TV: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories... we’ve so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

Except it later turned out that the equipment was actually used to generate hydrogen gas for artillery balloons. Not a WMD at all.

October 7 2004 Charles Duelfer states: "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them"... "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions,"

Game over.

Kerry by a landslide, but only because Bush sucked so phenomenally. It's like the difference between -1 and -9. I mean, several times Kerry "answered" a question with something that had little or nothing to do with the inquiry, and still he was way better! Sometimes I wonder if Bush is nothing more than a hybrid of a parrot and a monkey encased within a human robotic shell.

HAHA!! If only the people Agreed with you. LOL! I know most here do however, the polls are a different matter

Gallup has them within the margin of Error As does ABC News. The results are somewhere in this thread!

Um... Daddy bush did the same thing, and he didn't have an adendum. Kerry said he wouldn't raise taxes for families under 200,000 a year. (much easier promise to keep)

And if you believe this then I got a bridge for sale in San Fran.

In response about Clinton's Impeachment.

Lying under oath is a crime and an impeachable one at that! As is obstruction of justice.

That is what he was impeached on. Yes he was impeached but was not tossed out of office. Those are two different things.

Oh, earlier you made the connection between ethics and religious beliefs. That's not true either. It's entirely possible to have ethics and yet be non-religious. It's entirely possible to have religious convictions and not have ethics. Your equating them to religion is another way to turn off athiests from the start.
While this is true, Bush himself is continuously speaking about how religion forms his ethics.

And if you believe this then I got a bridge for sale in San Fran.
Well I guess you will have to call him on it, after he is elected, IF in fact he does raise taxes for those under $200 K. In the meantime you are only offering speculation. :eek:

In the meantime, Kerry has won 2 debates out of 2. It appears that Bush is having a hard time defending his horrendous blunders. :eek:

Well I guess you will have to call him on it, after he is elected, IF in fact he does raise taxes for those under $200 K. In the meantime you are only offering speculation. :eek:

CH! he will have too because that is about the only way he can afford all of his social spending plans.

As for elections, it is a close one but I am placing bets that Bush wins re-election.

And if you believe this then I got a bridge for sale in San Fran.
Um, with how much crap the California government is going through, they just really might be willing to sell it :p Also, I didn't say that he would keep the promise, I said it would be easier to keep. Also. People really underestimate (or misunderestimate :p) how much revenue the government can get just by tapping those top two tax brackets. For instance, if people who make over 840 thousand a year had to pay social security taxes. Half the yearly deficit in social security would just go poof, right then and there.