| Author | Message | ||
     argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 249 Registered: 5-2001 |
Anyone who has been paying attention probably realizes that the so-called "debates" we're about to be subjected to are as overprocessed as a carton of Kraft singles. Does anyone believe in the integrity of the process by which these debates are set up any more? This is a very conscious effort at starting a nonpartisan thread. Please, answers which state that "(Kerry or Bush) has integrity, so at least half of the debate will have integrity (ha ha ha)" will miss the point. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2495 Registered: 8-2003 |
What are you referring to? The rules agreed to by the respective candidates? The selection of the moderator(s)? What part of the process do you think limits the 'integrity' here? | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 820 Registered: 6-2001  |
Perhaps that all questions and answers are prepared? Cheese indeed. Men who hold themselves out as qualified to be POTUS should possess enough intellectual agility to field questions on the fly. All questions for Thursday have long been pre-approved and no surprises are allowed. Bush's Barbie team will have plenty of time to groom their candidate. His mouth will be moving but he won't (can't) understand a word that comes out of it. And he'll be traveling back to Crawford directly. The debates are laughable. | ||
| DrFalomar Citizen Username: Drfalomar Post Number: 311 Registered: 7-2003 |
I agree: the debates are just opportunities for the candidates to throw out their soundbytes regardless of the actual questions because there will be no follow up questions from the moderators and no questions from one candidate to the other. How can you have a debate without, well, debate? Bush will simply swagger and wave his cock around and call himself the winner for doing so. And his idiot supporters will think that's just grand. | ||
| Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 1212 Registered: 6-2003 |
I don't know about waving Doc. Bush and his ilk, usually do all that macho swaggering because they're secretly insecure about a lot of things. | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 1536 Registered: 5-2001  |
In spite of the degradation of the debates, they could still serve a very useful purpose... if the press does their job afterwards properly. Rather than focusing on who had the nicer tie and who interrupted the other the most, the press should make fact-checking the foremost component of their analysis of the debates. This was suggested in the NYT yesterday, and I think it's an excellent point. America is far too concerned with trivialities like hairstyle and swagger! We should be voting for the candidate who is smarter, more honest, more effective, more ethical... so let's look for those important qualities during the debates and hope that the press gives us solid facts afterward to help us make the right choice. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 71 Registered: 8-2003 |
The debates are set up completely so that they actually have complete "integrity" as CJC rightly noted, but what i'm hoping for is some spontaneity which goes beyond the rules, breaks them to the extent that both candiates for the job (who btw know the questions well beforehand)are taken aback. I want to see some sighs, double takes, sweating, and invasions of private space so that that rare breed called undecided voters could find it possible to make up their minds about who is more suitable to become the commander in chief and make America safer and more importantly, remain in the mainstream. It's important that my guy remain within the mainstream. oh yeah, very important! | ||
| JMF Citizen Username: Jmf Post Number: 44 Registered: 9-2004 |
The debates may be laughable to people who follow politics. To the people that have not really been paying attention as of yet besides what they see on TV, the debates show you a little bit of the personality of each candidate, and who presents their arguement better. In my humble opinion, this debate will not be pretty. How each candidate handles the backhanded comments will be really valuable to them. | ||
| yabbadabbadoo Citizen Username: Yabbadabbadoo Post Number: 88 Registered: 11-2003  |
Here is the actual agreement signed by the two campaigns (in pdf format): Memorandum of Understanding Personally, I don't find the agreement to be nearly as onerous as it has been made out to be. Although the agreement does say that "the candidates may not ask each other direct questions" But it goes on to say that they "may ask rhetorical questions". Silly? Yes. But if one candidate asks a rhetorical question obviously directed at the other candidate and he chooses not to answer it I think that no response would be taken as negative by most people. Of note is that nowhere in the agreeement does it say that the questions are to be submitted to the candidates before the debates. I'd say that 90% of the 32 pages is devoted to "technical" issues; height of podiums, color of backdrops, number of aides allowed in the wings, on the premises, coin flips etc. Also, while references are made to rules for the camera operators (FOX) and the moderators, FOX has already stated that they will not agree to the terms of the agreement and none of the moderators have agreed to sign it yet (Charles Gibson has actually said that he will not be a party to the agreement.) I'm looking forward to these debates. I think that there will be every opportunity for the best man to show that he is and for the other to expose himself as the ........well, for what he is. FF | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 72 Registered: 8-2003 |
Can we all agree that all rhetoric is communication? Show me rhetoric that does not communicate. Or am i asking for too much? | ||
| DrFalomar Citizen Username: Drfalomar Post Number: 315 Registered: 7-2003 |
all i ask is that kerry just look at bush and say, where's bin laden, you lying kcuf? or, if he wants to be more moderate, wonder why bush didn't negotiate to have cheney at the podium with him like he insisted when he babbled before the 9/11 commission. the coward. | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 1537 Registered: 5-2001 |
I assume that Bush will have a two-way communication device implanted in his skull so that Cheney can tell him what to say. | ||
| JMF Citizen Username: Jmf Post Number: 45 Registered: 9-2004 |
notehead... It has been there for 4 years already! | ||
| Wendyn Citizen Username: Wendyn Post Number: 834 Registered: 9-2002 |
I'm hoping it won't be 1.5 hours of "GB did this wrong" and "JK will do this wrong". I don't give a flying f*$# what they think about their opponent. I want to know what THEY are going to do for the country. My husband is still, as far as I know, undecided. He may just be pretending to be undecided so as not to face my wrath. In any case I am hoping these "debates" might be useful in giving him some direction. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 122 Registered: 7-2004 |
The debates will most likely be ••••••••, and it has little to do with the candidates. They're politicians, they act how they act. If a frog had wings, and all that... No, the problem will be with the softball questions. Bush and Kerry both know exactly what they're going to be asked. It's an exercise in delivery. Sidney Zion wrote down some questions that need to be answered, but sadly won't even be asked... "If I were moderator Jim Lehrer tonight ... To President Bush: The worst intelligence failure in American history occurred on your watch. Yet you fired no one. Why not? To John Kerry: Should the President have cleaned house after 9/11? If so, whose heads would you have rolled? Bush: You put Iran in the Axis of Evil, together with Iraq and North Korea. But your deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, notices a "dramatic difference" in Iran: democracy. He views Iran as a democracy, and thus not a target for a regime change. Do you agree? If not, why is Armitage still working; why isn't he in Bellevue? Kerry: Iran is on the cusp of going nuclear. The CIA knows it, Israel's Mossad knows it, probably the entire United Nations knows it. The Israelis say it could happen around November. If elected, what will you do about it? Will you wait on a UN vote on an okay from France and Germany - or what? Bush: You won't let Iran get nuclear, you said this week. How will you back it up? You can't be a girlie-man and ask the UN, can you? The Saudis owe you for 9/11, but if you cash the marker to get the right to fly from Riyadh, it will be the 21st century's first miracle. The Israelis took out an Iraqi nuclear plant in '81. Will you give them the contract to do it in Iran? Kerry: When you accepted the Democratic nomination in Boston, you didn't mention Israel. This is a first, and not only for the Democrats. Harry Truman recognized Israel moments after David Ben Gurion declared it a state. Tom Dewey was all for it in the 1948 election. Why did you forget it in Boston while running against George Bush, the consensus choice as the best friend Israel ever had in the White House? Bush: You won't talk to Yasser Arafat, but you keep pouring millions into his corrupt Palestinian Authority. You surely know that the money won't get near the Palestinians who need it, but just add to the billions Arafat stores for himself and uses for terrorism. Why do you keep the killing going with our money? Kerry: The polls give you close to 70% of the Jewish vote. But in certain swing states - Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan - a few thousand Jews who think you're soft on the Palestinians could turn the election against you. They worry about the fact that you have surrounded yourself with advisers from the Clinton administration - the people who loved Arafat and tried to push Israel back to the 1967 borders. Will you do as Bill Clinton did and bring Arafat back to the White House? Bush: Your campaign lives mainly on Kerry's flip-flops. How about yours? You opposed the 9/11 commission and now accept its conclusions - which tell about the failure of your intelligence people. You promised the Iraq war would end in a trice, you declared victory on the spot. And you say now that 9/11 will never happen on your watch - without noting that it did happen on your watch. Answer, please, Mr. President. Kerry: You have indeed flip-flopped. But you have never explained in plain language, as did Truman, just what you mean, what you are about. Have you anything against straight talk?" | ||
| George W Bush Citizen Username: Mondale Post Number: 99 Registered: 9-2004 |
"My husband is still, as far as I know, undecided. He may just be pretending to be undecided so as not to face my wrath. In any case I am hoping these "debates" might be useful in giving him some direction." If he's unsure tell him to read MOL. These liberal knuckleheads should help convince him Bush is the man. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 3936 Registered: 1-2003  |
Bush is even better than Nader? | ||
| Guy Citizen Username: Vandalay Post Number: 185 Registered: 8-2004  |
Kerry is in trouble if Diane Sawyer can make him squirm. She wasn't even able to do this to Michael Jackson. DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it? JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today. DS: So it was not worth it. JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line. DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it? JK: No. DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]– JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein. DS: But no way to get rid of him. JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely. DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . . JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here. | ||
| George W Bush Citizen Username: Mondale Post Number: 100 Registered: 9-2004 |
he's a moron..  | ||
| Wendyn Citizen Username: Wendyn Post Number: 836 Registered: 9-2002 |
Actually Georgie it is the comparison of the "liberal knuckleheads" and the "right wing nut jobs" that have him even considering to vote non-republican for the first time in his life. If he can just get over his mother's voice in his head he will be able to vote his conscience. |
