Alpha Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I like how PBS NEVER works for me. It's just great.I posted the links to watch it online in the first page. They showed it on MSNBC, CNN, FOX, ABC, everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggs Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 (edited) Dude, I was talking about Klaw's links about the history of the debates. I don't care about the debate itself, as I found it to be generally boring. All I care about is what impact, if any, this will have on the numbers. I swear, I'm becoming a numbers fiend, instead of your run of the mill numbers junkie. Edited October 1, 2004 by Jiggs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryph Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 (edited) Dude, I was talking about Klaw's links about the history of the debates. I don't care about the debate itself, as I found it to be generally boring. All I care about is what impact, if any, this will have on the numbers. I swear, I'm becoming a numbers fiend, instead of your run of the mill numbers junkie.Since those links aren't working, I copy and pasted the entire text into a txt file if you want to read it. And it probably won't have any effect on the election results since most people already know who they are voting for. And not that many people actually watch the debates. In the early days of televised presidential debates, about 85% of the country watched. Now less than 30% do. Edited October 1, 2004 by GryphonKlaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggs Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Thanks. I'll start reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agozer Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I'm not voting for either one of them. I've seen extracts of this debate, but it didn't tip the scales at all IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.S.D Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Flock Bush. He and his foreign policy can go to Hell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturmvogel Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I think they both held their own...no one walked away a clear winner. The purpose of the debate was to reiterate they're positions and more importantly show a clear contrast in their style of leadership and decison making. In any case, Kerry needed to make up some ground and he do so a little last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryph Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 3 Polls Show Kerry Won the Debate Undecided voters (the only ones the candidates are going after) found that Kerry did better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skythe Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 (edited) Winning the debate doesn't mean you win the hearts of the American people. BTW, I chose Bush. Edited October 1, 2004 by Skythe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caramba Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 "The tyrant is always stirring up some war or another such that the people may required a leader" ...Plato I could really care less who "won" the debate, because their positions are almost mutually indeferentiable, since the political discourse has been shifted such that the "center" is now the Reactionary Right. This is not a new phenomenon. I would suggest reading Blinded by the Right (David Brock) which outlines the plan set in motion in the Nixon era to advance a radical right-wing agenda. Nor, contrary to Bush's statements, was the Iraq strike really a response to 9/11 LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action? BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that. However The Weekly Standard (a conservative publication circulated in the Beltway and edited by William Kristol) ran an op-ed on their cover in 1997 announcing "Saddam Must Go," obviously in support of a preemptive strike. see http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm for information regarding William Kristol -the editor of The Weekly Standard and head of Project for a New American Century- and his ties to Bush, the Bush campaign and various other Beltway figures. The point i'm making here is that it's should be relatively obvious that Iraq has been on the conservative agenda for years, and 9/11 merely provided a panacea for cynical exploitation...Bush lies outright and says: "when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that." and if Kerry can't go after his balls on that issue, and call him a flocking liar, then he's just Diet-Bush for all i'm concerned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryph Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now