AnimationNation Forum

AnimationNation


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» AnimationNation   » SideTopics   » Presidential debates. Part 2 (Page 2)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: Presidential debates. Part 2
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
 -

--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"

IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
Heard an interesting theory this weekend and I'll be damned if it doesn't hold some water. It may be a great thing for John Kerry if he looses. If he wins, he inhereits a fukcing mess in Iraq and one of the worst defecits in ages. He's screwed either way. Of course it would mean having a bunch of swaggering hawks in office for anouther four years... [help]
IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
True, Bush, after all, inhereited a depressed economy and a faulty CIA with faulty intellegence.

Plus, if Kerry wins, what'll Hillary do in 2008?

If Bush wins, what'll the Republicans do in 2008? Cheney isn't running. It'll be a no-encumbant race.

IP: Logged
Dolemite50
IE # 113
Member # 830

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dolemite50   Email Dolemite50         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If he wins, he inhereits a fukcing mess in Iraq and one of the worst defecits in ages. He's screwed either way.
Well he's been saying all along that he has a plan. Do you discount everything that he says?
IP: Logged
Fooksie
IE # 239
Member # 331

Icon 12 posted      Profile for Fooksie   Author's Homepage   Email Fooksie         Edit/Delete Post 
I have a plan, but I'm not telling. [funny]

--------------------
" Every move a picture! "
Buddy Love

IP: Logged
Steve G
IE # 12
Member # 169

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve G   Author's Homepage   Email Steve G         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
True, Bush, after all, inhereited a depressed economy...
*buzzer noise*!!! FactCheck.ORG

quote:
The ad by the pro-Bush group Progress for America Voter Fund claims the economy was already in a recession when Bush took office, but the National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the recession actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January.

The facts also get stretched when the ad claims "41 million seniors now have access to lower cost prescriptions (emphasis added)." Bush's new prescription drug benefit will cover seniors on Medicare for an extra premium of about $35 a month, but not until 2006. Even the currently available drug discount cards have been used much less than expected. Current enrollment is less than 5 million.


Analysis



There is a grain of truth to the two claims. But the ad misstates facts to puff up Bush's record both on the economy and Medicare
Already in Recession?

It's not quite true, as the ad claims, that Bush inherited "an economy already in recession (emphasis added)." It would have been accurate to say Bush inherited "an economy on the verge of recession."

The National Bureau of Economic Research, a non-partisan group of mostly academic economists, set the start date of the recession as March 2001, weeks after Bush took office on Jan 20. The NBER defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."

To be sure, the rate of economic growth had slowed significantly at the time Bush took office, as the longest boom in US history drew to a close. Real Gross Domestic Product, a general indicator of economic performance, grew an an unimpressive annual rate of 2.1 percent in the final quarter of 2000, after actually contracting by half a percentage point in the previous quarter. But employment was still growing when Bush was sworn in, and the economy actually added 113,000 payroll jobs between January and March 2001, before starting to decline in April.

In fact, the NBER did not even make a determination that a recession had begun until 10 months after Bush was sworn in, and said that the downturn might not even have qualified as a recession until the attacks of September 11, 2001 exacerbated the nation's economic troubles. The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee said, "Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession."




--------------------
http://stevenegordon.blogspot.com
http://stevenegordon.com

IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
I wanna jump on that quote of Kerry's that bush is smearing all over the place like it's a bad thing.. the "Wanting to take terrorism down to a level of nuisance" quote.

And then bush retorting that Kerry doesn't understand that you have to obliterate terrorism, like he plans of doing.

OH boy! where do I begin with that? This reminds me of how they told Kerry, and everyone else drafted into going to Vietnam that they were going to war in order to end communism. That worked wonders!

Kerry realizes that you cannot "OBLITERATE" or "END" things like terrorism, communism, alcoholics...

And he realizes that taking it down to the level of 'nuisance' is an achievable goal.

It's mind bogglin' that people are eating Bush's Bologna!

Turn off the pro wrestling you Bush supporters! and use your monster truck show money and buy some books! Yi-diggity!

IP: Logged
Corn Fed
Member
Member # 1085

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Corn Fed   Email Corn Fed         Edit/Delete Post 
It was Bush who, just a few months ago on "Meet the Press," told Tim Russert that you can't win a war on terror, but simply try to reduce them to the level of a nuisance. That was the gist, not a verbatim quote.
IP: Logged
EustaceScrubb
IE # 37
Member # 862

Icon 1 posted      Profile for EustaceScrubb           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This reminds me of how they told Kerry, and everyone else drafted into going to Vietnam that they were going to war in order to end communism. That worked wonders!
Damn that sneaky John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
How could they lie like that ? Republican bastards.

quote:
Kerry realizes that you cannot "OBLITERATE" or "END" things like terrorism, communism, alcoholics...

And he realizes that taking it down to the level of 'nuisance' is an achievable goal.

He has a Plan so I hear . Brethren an' Sistern let us put our Trust in the Plan and go back to sleep. [snore]


[funny]

Just when I think this election cycle couldn't get any drearier , SCRAPPLEFACE and JIB JAB come to the rescue !

The latest from JIB JAB :

Good to be in D.C.
http://www.jibjab.com/


Scrappleface is in fine form over the past few days , including these entries:

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001874.html

Kerry Says Do-Not-Terrorize List Would End "Nuisance"

(2004-10-11) -- Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry today announced the details of his plan to completely eliminate the nuisance of terrorism.


"I have a plan," said Mr. Kerry, "to create a do-not-terrorize list that Americans could sign up for on the internet. And if any terrorist would flout the law and attack someone whose name is on the list, he and his terror cell would be slammed with a $1,000 fine for each person killed and $500 for each injured survivor."


Mr. Kerry, who is also a U.S. senator, announced the plan after receiving international acclaim for telling The New York Times, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.''


The Democrat said his plan "hits Al Qaeda in the pocketbook where it hurts the most."


He said he's also considering a suggestion by running-mate John Edwards to double the fines for nuisance terror strikes during the dinner hour.


http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001875.html


Edwards Stem Cell Remarks Spur Mullah Omar's Surrender

(2004-10-12) -- Mullah Omar, the one-eyed Muslim cleric and top deputy of Usama bin Laden, announced today that he was inspired by John Edwards remarks about stem cell research and he will surrender to the United States during the Kerry administration so he can get a new eyeball.


"I'm tired of being described as 'the one-eyed' cleric," said Mr. Omar through a translator. "President Kerry will divert the billions now wasted in Iraq to fund stem cell research that will cure all diseases, make the lame to walk and the blind to see. And that's just during his first term."


------

John Kerry has a PLAN™ and he has magic beans stem cells. JK is going to save us all. Amen. [bow]

IP: Logged
Corn Fed
Member
Member # 1085

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Corn Fed   Email Corn Fed         Edit/Delete Post 
Coffee Cat, you are being highly misleading in your assessment of the relative histories of liberals vs. conservatives on the issue of social progression. I never said that all conservatives opposed civil rights, just that those who DID were conservatives. And I'm correct about that.

There is a reason why those who opposed equality for blacks throughout the 20th century were almost uniformly conservative. It was no accident that the pro-segregationist conservative Dixiecrats left the increasingly liberal Democratic Party en masse to join more conservative brethren during the Civil Rights era. While you can cite Charleton Heston and probably many other conservatives who supported Martin Luthor King and were against segregation, the fact remains that those who opposed MLK and the Civil Rights movement were part of America's conservative wing, uniquely NOT liberals.

Conservatives have historically absolutely NOT stood for equality for all, special rights or otherwise. Who opposed the women's suffrage movement, liberals or conservatives? The Jim Crow laws?

Historically, progress in civil rights only happens when bold moves are made. These acts of protest are virtually always met by opposition, anger, and fear from the obstructionist conservative factions. The rationales for opposing equal rights for women, minorities, and gays, have all been the same--a mixture of biblical rationale, outrage over the loss of "tradition," and dire predictions of the fall of society. Of course, none of these predictions have ever been realized, and future generations of conservatives are left to try to whitewash their forebears' embarassing positions.

You claim the Constitution is a "conservative" document?? What are you smoking? The Constitution created the most radical framework of government ever written, with many liberal components which continue to give conservatives heartburn to this day (freedom of speech, for example). There was nothing conservative about the activist, radical Constitution, which made a bold break from the past of all previous forms of government. Hence why we were called "The Great Experiment."

Source, please, on Ruth Bader Ginsberg's alleged support of lowering the age of consent to 12. I'm guessing this is either

1)some rhetorical hypothetical misconstrued by the typically hysterical FOX/talkradio rightwing commentariat

or

2)a fictional hoax created by said hysterical rightwing commentariat. Wouldn't be the first time.

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
I'll find you source. She was a key ACLUer before the Supreme Court. They support NAMBLA pro-bono - but you're convinced its a hoax?

Lol.

And conservatives don't oppose civil rights. They oppose too much governmental regulation and quick/sudden change. You're twisting the desire to keep the government out, and to have things change in a more stable way to be racist or sexist.

As for the constitution. It says within its own structure that the government can ONLY do what is written. It's entire purpose was to LIMIT government. That's pretty conservative.

"It was Bush who, just a few months ago on "Meet the Press," told Tim Russert that you can't win a war on terror, but simply try to reduce them to the level of a nuisance. That was the gist, not a verbatim quote."

And I think it was Kerry/Edwards who laughed at that point. Right? Saying they must win.

There is a key difference: Winning the war on terror, but never REALLY winning it fully, meaning, you have to constantly fight it - is totally different than saying you want it scaled back to an acceptable level of being a nuisance.

Either way, I think both parties latching onto those kinds of statements are a bit silly. You guys, of course, did not find it silly to attack Bush when he said it... but now, find it horrific and unethical for Bush to hit Kerry with it. You likewise didn't see Bush's wisdom in his words, they way you are suddenly understanding Kerrys. What gives? Whose partisan?

I'm willing to give you Kerry's line and say it's not such a bad quote. I have to fight with you guys slamming Bush though. Or is it different, in this case? Can you guys, now, in citing Kerry's wisdom please hand me an apology for your earlier mockery and cite Bush's wisdom? I doubt it.

IP: Logged
Steve G
IE # 12
Member # 169

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve G   Author's Homepage   Email Steve G         Edit/Delete Post 
Anyone willing to laydown odds on how many times W says "you can run, but you cannot hide"? or uses the label "Liberal" ?

--------------------
http://stevenegordon.blogspot.com
http://stevenegordon.com

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
Anyone wanna count how many times Kerry reprimands Bush for using labels like "liberal" and "conservative" and then notes something Bush is "conservative" on?

The run but can't hide was used twice. Big deal. I thought it was effective the first time. Less so the second. I think he'll try new, but similar lines, tonight. We'll see.

I plan on Kerry "winning" this one... especially on this board, since you all have no respect for him. Even Cheney and Bush's last debate you guys blasted - far from the average national reaction. I guess I underestimated the hate on this board when I gave Kerry his props after the first debate. I thought you guys would be able to do the same. Sorry I was wrong.

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
Granted, it is an slanted opinion peice - but it doesn't mean the opinions aren't interesting - and the items cited are founded:

From the Weekly Standard, on the many things John Kerry would be "first" in, if he were elected:

"The American people have never elected president someone who, while serving in the military, chose to testify (in uniform) against a war his country was then waging ... The American people have never elected president someone who, in his first successful bid for federal office, chose to make support for a unilateral nuclear freeze and for major cutbacks in America's defense programs the centerpiece of his campaign ... The American people have never elected president a senator who voted against an authorization for the use of military force, in this case in pursuance of a United Nations-approved policy to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait ... The American people have never elected president someone who voted against an appropriation to support troops fighting in a war he had approved."

IP: Logged
Shawn Toshikian
Member
Member # 796

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shawn Toshikian   Email Shawn Toshikian         Edit/Delete Post 
CC, I am looking forwrd to this debate tonight. And to see how it pans out.

Ignoring actually what they are saying (because I believe they are both just preaching to their choirs)...but more from a point of performance.

I believe Kerry won the first one, hands down. Bush looked put out and under prepared.

With the V.P. debate.. it was very close, but in the end I think Cheney took it. He seemed confident and secure in his positions. While Edwards seemed to be chasing after Cheney; which is never a position of power.

The second debate, I'd say was a flat tie. Bush appeared both strong and weak at times as did Kerry.

I wish both would stop repeating themselves, using catch phrases...and would have answered the questions asked instead of dodging them and answer the questions they wanted to answer.

There were some great/straight forward questions asked in the second debate; which both canidates at different times wiggled around.

Wouldn't it be cool, if the townhall idea was continued even after the elections were done. That every 6 months or annually the President was put in front of the citizens of this country and asked point blank questions. I would watch that...

As for tonight...I expect it to go the way the second one went...almost exactly, even down to the wording:(

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
"Source, please, on Ruth Bader Ginsberg's alleged support of lowering the age of consent to 12."

Ginsberg co-authored a report, while at the ACLU, titled “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code”:

“Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years’ and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense… A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person… [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.”

-Report for the US Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977, p.102 quoted in “Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Feminist World View,” The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 26, No. 12, Section 1, p.3

This will be my final post until after the election.

IP: Logged



This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Animation Nation

Animation Nation © 1999-2012

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0