So the debate's going to start here in a little while. Who's watching it? Any comments? Anybody not going to watch it? Either of them impress you? Anybody blow it?
'Sup?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think I am going to watch part of it at least. It starts at 9 EST, and I have plans for 10, but I would like to see at least some of it.
Kwea
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I believe coverage starts at 7 pm CST, so that would be 8 pm EST.
I'm going to wait to hear about it for the next week.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Serious Bob? I was kind of thinking this would be the first piece of serious election related stuff I'd actually pay attention to. Besides the jib jab video.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I'll watch some of it
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Heh. Bipartisan News Conference #1.... I kinda dislike the fact that they can't even talk to eachother.
--j_k
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'll watch it, even though it is almost inconceivable that I will see anything in it that will change my mind.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm with you, Kirk. I kind of hope they break format and start going at each other. I think Kerry would have to be the one to jump the tracks. The rule is very safe for Bush and it's his camp's idea. I hope if Kerry goes for it, though, Bush will follow.
I'm not too optimistic, though.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Hm, is "unmercifully" a word... --j_k
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Kerry missed a response. He should have said that "I authorized you to make the decision based on faulty and misleading information that you provided. I did not endorse your decision, I endorsed your authority to make it. Mr. President, we now know you made the wrong decision, and it is your responsibility. You cannot offload the responsibility onto me."
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I hate to say this, but judging on style alone I have to give the advantage to Kerry. The debate is 1/3 over. I hope Bush gets his stride soon. He needs to maybe make a joke here somewhere.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Bush is extremely flustered. Kerry isn't, he's strong, which is what people like about Bush. Right now, advantage Kerry. He did miss that response though, and my dad and I were talking about it before the debate. We said his response should have been, essentially, "If you had not intentionally misled the american people and congress, then you would not have been authorized to use force."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ooh, Bush just responded to a Kerry's response, then steamrolled past Lehrer's objection so Lehrer had to give in. Extensions are supposed to be solely at the discretion of the moderator. The moderators from now on aren't going to give him any slack if he's not respecting the authority he agreed to give him.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Are they going to talk about any foreign policy outside of Iraq and Afghanistan? What about N. Korea? What about illegal immigrants?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
wtf? two responses just disappeared, I think . . .
and now they're back. whatever.
[ September 30, 2004, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Kerry's dealt with his long-windedness, but it appears that Bush has the opposite problem. He's so good at the soundbite responses he gets 45 seconds into his responses and runs out of things to say. He keeps talking anyway. I wonder if he should just stop talking when he's done.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, that's great. Kerry said when we went in we only had GB and Australia, not much of a coalition. Bush said "You forgot Poland!" Made him look very small, insisting we actually had one more ally as if that meant a large coalition. Also, he's wrong. Poland was not with us when we went into Iraq (they came later), and they are pulling out now.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Okay, he finally had to resort to the flip-flop argument. He should have known that would be an easy lob to Kerry.
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
I loved the "Saddam - I mean, Osama bin Laden" slip.
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
I think that I have yet to hear him make a complete, articulate sentence tonight.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Holy cow, it sounds like Bush is re-enacting the finale to Farenheit 911.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Neither one is doing all that well I would say, but I think Bush is doing worse. He needs to quit saying the same few lines over and over again.
I mean, It's exactly what I expected, we aren't going to see anything new in these debates, but a boy can dream...
--ApostleRadio
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Nooooo! Not the prayer card!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
President Bush seems to be lost sometimes. Like he's trying to remember the answer he was supposed to use if this came up.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
I love just muting it and watching their hand gestures.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its interesting the President admits the war in Iraq is not yet won.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yes, we prayed and cried.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
We would rue the day!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Looking at this as a competition, which seems to be what we are doing, I would have to say that neither candidate is doing well. We certainly had better speakers in the 80s debates.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Something's extremely wrong in politics when you miss Ross Perot.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
/snark mode on
"...We would rue the day. _Believe_ me."
Pretty please.
/snark off
I think Bush looks okay at times, but his whole attempt to paint Kerry as a troop demoralizer don't seem effective to me. I think the looking at the camera at the end of my time shtick is both fake and brilliant; it does help create an aura of strength.
-Bok
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Icarus...
There you go again.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Why does nobody point out that inspections *did* work?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Bob: Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Apparently...since no WMD were found and we knew he DID have them because we sold them to him.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
rarely is that pointed out...
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I know Chris Bridges, Bob, and you, sir, are no Chris Bridges.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
OUch! Score one for Kerry -- When Kennedy offered to show photos of Cuba's missiles, DeGaulle waved him off and said the word of the President of the US was enough for him!!! Then -- can anyone imagine that happening today?
ha!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Icarus!
I know you know Chris Bridges, and Chris Bridges knows that I know that you know Chris Bridges, and you know that I know taht Chris Bridges is no um...
Weapons of Mass Destruction. Look!!!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I know I am supremely biased, but I think Kerry is actually impressing me; he is concisely clarifying his "flip-flops", in ways similar to what I thought he meant. I guess I had lower expectations about Kerry's performance; I really thought Kerry would be mediocre and muddled (more so than he seems to be now).
-Bok
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
NUKE-YOU-LER!!!
Okay, we all have to chug our drinks now.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Anybody like how the Iraqi insurgents fight "fociferoulsy"
[ September 30, 2004, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
You know, Bush's main advantage on Kerry in a debate is that he's got a much better sense of humor. Kerry's a more literate-sounding speaker, but it was said that Bush could win the debate with a bit of the funny. He's not cracked a smile the whole debate. It's really hurting him.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Kwerry has missed one or two chances to slam Bush...but he is looking like a bigger man for passing on the easy "You are no Kennedy" line because of it, I think.
Bush looks smaller on TV that I have ever seen him, and is not at his best.
And even at his best, he would be losing this one.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
HE FINALLY MADE A JOKE!!!! Hooray for the cracking of the stone face.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
I like the attempts to make them look equal height by putting the camera lower on Bush than on Kerry. I know it's not an uncommon practice or anything, but it's the sort of thing that always amuses me. In a "I can't believe you think I'm so dumb I won't notice that twice as much of Bush's podium is showing" kind of way.
I think I'd like Bush more (Okay, I still would dislike him intensely, but I'd have a teeeeeensy bit less dislike) if he was just like "Look at me! I'm short!"
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Kerry SO does not know what to do when Bush praises or teases him.
Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
"i won't hold it against him that he went to Yale"
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
"Mexed Missages!"
Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
quote:HE FINALLY MADE A JOKE!!!! Hooray for the cracking of the stone face.
Stone face? He's been smirking during at least half of the debate.
edit: added the quote. i should have known this would be several posts down from the one i was replying to.
[ September 30, 2004, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: RRR ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I was referring to the attitude. It's the first glimpse of the personable friendly everyman attitude that people like about him.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:"i won't hold it against him that he went to Yale"
I think Bush went to Harvard.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
That smirk bugs me!!!
He used to do it a lot more. I know he's been working on it to reduce it. But it comes out whenever he wants to say something sarcastic. You can just see it...
I have to ask. Does Jim Lehrer have black irises? He's got the darkest eyes I've ever seen.
That Yale joke fell flat. The crowd isn't allowed to make any noise. Well duh, a joke with no laughter from the audience is NOT a good idea. If Kerry had laughed it would've worked for Bush. But Kerry probably didn't get it. So nobody laughed but Bush.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
I wrote all of that before I read your post, Speed. Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
"Trans-shipment" of nuc-lee-yar material.
Geesh is proliferation the word of the day or something??
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
This is the strongest I've ever seen Bush on television. Ever.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Really? I think this is one of the weakest I've ever seen him.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Has Kerry looked into the camera at all ? Talk to the voters, not the moderator.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Are you serious? Why?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Zamphyr, maybe it's just me, but I hate it when people look straight at the camera. That's a technique everyone uses during an interview -- when you look straight at the camera, it comes off reallllly strange.
Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
quote:
quote: "i won't hold it against him that he went to Yale"
I think Bush went to Harvard.
Bush went to Yale.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
That was important, did everyone catch that, Lehr was tryin to get Bush to attack Kerry, but Bush said "I'm a pretty calm guy"
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I have to say that Bush has come off poorer than I expected.
-Bok
EDIT: Ryan, yeah, that was a smart move by Bush not to be baited.
[ September 30, 2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
When Kerry starts, he's immediately got something to say and he speaks without a single stammer for his exact time. Bush starts with 'um' and 'uh' and gets 30 seconds into his response and finishes, then talks aimlessly for the rest of the time limit. I think the most telling moment of the debate is when he asked for an additional 30 seconds to respond and spent the first 5 seconds shuffling his papers and staring into space. He rarely used his sense of humor (although he did get another good response in on that last rebuttal.) He's better than that. He's nervous and it shows.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
That bit from the wrapup where Bush said he "climbed the mountain and was looking down into the valley of piece" is going to be on The Daily Show tonight. Any bets?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've seen them both look better. Certainly, Bush has looked better in state of the union addresses.
Both of them got some good moments in at the end, particularly Bush.
I think it looked awkward how Kerry was always looking at the moderator rather than at the camera.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:I like the attempts to make them look equal height by putting the camera lower on Bush than on Kerry. I know it's not an uncommon practice or anything, but it's the sort of thing that always amuses me. In a "I can't believe you think I'm so dumb I won't notice that twice as much of Bush's podium is showing" kind of way.
Heh, it's a strategic move... probably agreed upon before the debate. My gov't teacher last year mentioned that the taller guy -usually- wins the election.
--j_k
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
They never talked about immigration policies in this debate. I'm kind of disappointed.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
I don't think it looks strange when they face the camera. They're appealing to us for votes, at least address us every once in a while.
The camera was the elephant in the room that Kerry ignored. The only time the President looked confident was looking into the camera. He's definitely looked better in State of the Union Addresses.
Pretty even "debate", Kerry slight edge....maybe half a podium's worth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lehrer first of all has a job to promote, well, debate. This is about disagreement, and about response.
Second, Bush's tendency to give himself extensions was probably ticking Lehrer off (as it would me, were I a moderator supposedly vested with that sole discretion as one of my few powers).
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
It was a foreign policy debate.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
What the hel iss a ...
transshipment?
Jenni will like that "word"...
Kwea
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm going to give that one to Senator Kerry, but it was hardly a crushing victory. Both candidates started out pretty badly and got better as time went on, but John Kerry spoke consistently throughout and had a more coherent message once he started hitting his stride (I don't think he made a lick of sense in about the first 15 minutes. He kept on going down garden paths.) With George Bush the message and delivery was much less consistent after the first 15 mintues that I was talking about. You could definitely tell the difference when he was on a talking point as opposed to when he wasn't. There was a total change in the style and speed of his speaking. When he was off them, there was far to much muddling of his message and hesitency in his speech. However, the difference between the two was not all that arresting. Senator Kerry comes out ahead, I think, but not all that far ahead.
John Kerry also scored two technical points to (from what I could see) George Bush's zero. He hit him once with the Cuban Missle Crisis line and once with the "What he just said as very telling. He said we were attacked by the enemy but Saddam Hussien didn't attack us. Osama Bin Laden did." Frankly, I would have preferred a stronger attack with that second one, but it still was a telling point and you could see that Senator Kerry was hoping that it would come up that way. They were both lower middle range hits, definitely not knock-outs or even staggering (I think the second, properly pursued could have been), but they were the only hits that I think landed. (edit: I don't think President Bush's repeated "I don't see how you could be the leader if..." comments worked. They didn't really bite, and Senator Kerry's faint counterattack dealt with them fine. they were as close as I saw to President Bush landing a hit, and they weren't that close.)
I did step away for about 10 minutes in the middle, so I may have missed some stuff, but that's my tale of the tape for this debate. John Kerry won by a small margin.
[ September 30, 2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
quote: I like the attempts to make them look equal height by putting the camera lower on Bush than on Kerry. I know it's not an uncommon practice or anything, but it's the sort of thing that always amuses me. In a "I can't believe you think I'm so dumb I won't notice that twice as much of Bush's podium is showing" kind of way.
You could also notice that Bush's Microphone had a much shorter stem than Kerry's.
It semed Kerry was a lot better prepared for this than Bush was. But then again, I've kind of become used to the ums and uhs.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The domestic policy debate will be at ASU. Apart from the "ums" I was suprised that Kerry wasn't more composed than Bush. Kerry didn't have the "ums" but the stiffness is painful to watch. All this time I secretly feared he was smarter, but they both kept tossing the same spam back and fort at each other. I couldn't believe it when Kerry repeated almost verbatim his description of the failure to capture Osama bin Laden. But I guess he really really didn't want to be caught changing tracks in the middle of the debate. The thing he doesn't understand is that whenever he highlights his Vietnam record he is doing a thematic flip flop.
What did Kerry mean when he complained that every day Weapons of Mass Destruction are crossing the border. In the context, it seemed he meant out of Iraq.
I'm not sure how Bush handled calling Saddam Hussein the enemy, which Kerry called him on. I imagine not very well, since it wouldn't be responsible for him to give fuel to the anti-Israel movement. I guess it was a code meant to be understood by right minded people, and that bugs me.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Kerry's best moment:
quote:But this issue of certainty. It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong.
It's another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right.
What I worry about with the president is that he's not acknowledging what's on the ground, he's not acknowledging the realities of North Korea, he's not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and other issues.
And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.
Finally finally FINALLY Kerry fought back against Bush's talk about his uncertainty and mixed messages. It's about time.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I thought of the immigration problem as an issue between us and Mexico. But I suppose it would fit just as well in the domestic debate too. So okay...
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I think Kerry's wrong but I agree that that is a good point. Steadfast does not mean right.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Kerry's number one job tonight was to rebut the accusations that he's a flip-flopper. I think he did that. I think this debate gave Kerry a chance to concisely explain why he said what he did, when he did, and show how he wasn't sending mixed messages.
I think Kerry gave more factual, substantive responses than Bush did to support his statements. We aren't winning the war on terror, here's why. Bush's responses were less factually based to support why we were winning the war on terror, for instance, and more geared towards painting Kerry with the flip-flop brush.
I think Bush came out the winner on delivery. Slightly. I thought it was interesting that Bush made constant use of 'the enemy' in his speech, as many Christians use that term when they speak of Satan. I thought his use of simile and metaphor was geared towards Christians. Clever.
I think Kerry took a huge risk in dismissing the nuclear bunker busters. This might be percieved by some people as weak.
All in all, nice debate. While there were certainly many rhetorical gaffs, both men showed character and a grasp of the issues. Both men made it clear where they stood. I think this will have much more positive effects for Kerry, than Bush. People knew where Bush stood. Now they know where Kerry stands.
[ September 30, 2004, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Regarding the certain doesn't mean right thing: there's a big point to be made there, but Bill Clinton did it so much better at the convention. The point is a very good point, but John Kerry didn't really make it that well. We know it's a shot that could do some damage, but I don't think he landed it.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Agreed.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
When Bush talked to the camera, I get the same feeling that I keep getting. Bush's supporters see it as firmness and boldness. To them, he appears as resolute... while his detractors (and some undecideds, here) feel like he's talking 'at' them, rather than 'to' them... as if he's saying "if I'm elected, this is how I'm going to do it, no matter what happens."
Basically, what I'm saying is that to those who like his policies, he seems firm; to those who dislike them, he seems stubborn. At times, he seems to act for the America made up of his supporters, rather than... 'everybody's America,' I guess.
Gah. I hope that made sense. I'm tired, and I have to get up to get to school in the morning... must goto bed...
--j_k
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, I agree Storm. Strategically, I think Senator Kerry gained some ground through this debate. However, I wonder how much. He's got the job of increasing turnout for the people who don't like President Bush. That's what I think is going to win him the election. I think he looks like a less bad choice after the debate, but I don't think he really lit a fire under anyone. Especially since he started out really weak. I think he lost a lot of people from the beginning and I don't know that they stuck around.
I'm still not voting for him.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, if Kerry didn't get 'warm' enough, I think there were several times when Bush appeared to get genuinely pissed that anyone would question his decisions.
Posted by Stark (Member # 6831) on :
Bush made several mistakes here. He repeatedly interrupted Kerry, he lost track of what he was saying and towards the end he actually had to be coached along by the moderator.
Kerry: 1 Bush: 0
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think Kerry made out huge on the Bunker Buster issue, and made Bush look inconsistant by mentioning it. Did you nothice that Bush tapered off on his canned speech obout filp-flops and inconsistancies for a while after that?
And it is true....Bush has fumbled that ball bad there.
Kwea
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote:You could also notice that Bush's Microphone had a much shorter stem than Kerry's.
You know, I was going to insert the obvious joke here, but I just can't.
Being a casual supporter of Bush with no other political motivations, I have to admit that Kerry seemed to have so many more experiences to rely upon to better answer question after question. This reminded me of two opponents who were hopelessly mismatched, in Kerry's favor. He simply out-debated our President. His wealth of information and experiences over the last two decades spent in the Senate really helped him speak unforcefully and succinctly. This reminded me of a college debate club whooping the collective arse of a high school equivalent.
This made Bush appear to stammer and hesitate. Too bad, IMO. I think that without a comparison to Kerry, Bush gave a good, solid performance (but not as good as Kerry)! Also, Bush was all over the radar, and kept chanting the same phrases like "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and "mixed messages" which tended to tire my over-active brain. Kerry seemed to more fluidly state his points, without having to repeat these safety phrases over and over.
The sad part is that many Americans will cast their vote for seemingly meaningless impressions they gathered from tonight's debate, ignoring the other information they might gleen elsewhere.
I have to admit this is a scary, fun, interesting, and scary again kind of thing to behold. I wonder if the rest of the world is as nervous as the US is.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Actually, my analysis was that the beginning was o.k., the middle was o.k., but things kind of got out of control towards the end until the last two minutes.
I think Kerry really needs to talk about the cost of the war and how we could make better use of that money here at home. His points about domestic security were spot on, but he needed to hammer those points more often.
It was a good debate, by and large. I think both men acquitted themselves well.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I made the prediction that Bush will win the first debate. I was wrong. Kerry had a slight edge in this debate. He was more composed, articulate, and charismatic. Bush looked agitated at times and had way too many pauses between his sentences.
The one good thing about Bush's performance is that he looked into the camera more often in the debate. It took Kerry a while before he realized that he should be making eye contact with the TV audience and not the moderator.
Bush also came across as more human, as when he praised Kerry and his daughters. Kerry's response to that praise seemed a bit forced.
Kerry took a lot of chances tonight and we will have to wait a few days to see the effects of his gamble.
Kerry shifted the focus away from Iraq to North Korea at the end of the debate. Kerry did not clearly explain why bilateral talks between American and North Korea is better than the six- country group discussions that Bush supports.
If I were an average person who is not well-informed regarding the North Korean crisis, I would be puzzled by Kerry's position. First Kerry stated that coalitions are important for Iraq. But then why are group talks not good for North Korea?
Kerry also admitted that he made mistakes in his characterization of his positions on military spending. In my opinion that was a good move. Hang a lantern on your problem and move on. It shows character in my opinion. But this is also dangerous for Kerry because Bush can easily turn this against him later in the campaign.
The one thing I liked about Bush tonight is his flat refusal to give a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq. I think any candidate who gives a firm deadline to the American people is way too optimistic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I disagree (edit: with Storm's characterization of it as a good debate). I think the level of debate was around average varsity high school debate. Neither performance would have won any prizes, even on a high school level.
[ September 30, 2004, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I thought that Bush had many opportunities to rebuke Kerry much more effectively. Situations like Libya could have been played much more effectively to support the war in Iraq as far as having global ramifications for other countries and WMDs, but it was mentioned in passing. I have to admit I was laying on the floor shouting "Mention Libya!, Mention Libya!" And he did. In a lackluster way.
I too agree that both men did well, but I was just frustrated that Bush could have done better. I believe that this is an indication that Bush relys heavily on his staff and VP for assistance in addressing matters. On his own, without a safety net it is quite the tightrope walk.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Bush's extensive stammering really surprised me though. I would expect that in a town hall format where candidates can get surprised. But all the questions tonight should be anticipated by Bush's staff.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I didn't feel like either really won. The both mixed up Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden at one point.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I'm sure that tonight's debate will do nothing to change the minds of the neo-conservatives in Bush's camp, but I think it'll go a long way towards reassuring Democrats and Undecideds that Kerry is a strong, capable leader worth their votes.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think the convention speech was more effective in that vein, at least for me.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Eh, how many people watched the convention speech? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Pooka -- I feel the slight mixing up of proper names (particularly when both fill very similar "idea spaces") is a small thing, really, and a very bad way of judging the winner or loser of a debate. I am confident neither would actually mess up the two (for instance, attack one when he meant to attack the other).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And I thought you weren't paying any attention to post-debate coverage or discussion, Dagonee .
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, I think in general Kerry pretty much dismantled Bush in the debate, both factually and (surprisingly) stylisticly. Bush seemed irritable and nervous.
However, there is still one big thing that stands in Bush's corner and that's the simplicity with which he continues to deliver his message. He (and his campaign in general) repeats the same phrases over and over, and I think that works well for a lot of voters.
Posted by HonoreDB (Member # 1214) on :
The President spent how much money, I wonder, preparing his answers, and then clearly forgot them. Pathetic performance. Kerry couldn't help looking good in comparison.
Bush fell for a cheap debating trick on the Poland thing. He answered exactly how Kerry wanted him to. I don't know for sure he was actually hurt by that, of course.
Kerry spent a lot of time defending himself on the flipflopper thing. Doubt he changed any minds, though. I came away thinking the way I came in, that he has one consistent position that he spins in different ways at different times.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And I thought you weren't paying any attention to post-debate coverage or discussion, Dagonee
Not the media's coverage. Here, I'm just not participating in substantive discussions on the election.
Dagonee
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:However, there is still one big thing that stands in Bush's corner and that's the simplicity with which he continues to deliver his message. He (and his campaign in general) repeats the same phrases over and over, and I think that works well for a lot of voters.
I agree.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Also, the debate was very good in that it was much more substantive than anything in the past with this election. Real issues were discussed and both candidates made it clear to viewers what they stood for and how they differed. If nothing else, that's good news for America.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
On Klein's blog on CNN.com:
quote:Now they're complimenting one another on how great a father the other one is. Um, guys? Get a room.
--j_k
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Bush fell for a cheap debating trick on the Poland thing. He answered exactly how Kerry wanted him to. I don't know for sure he was actually hurt by that, of course.
Oh yeah, totally, although I wouldn't call it cheap, just a trick. I missed this part; do people think Senator Kerry intentionally pulled a broken wing or did it just happen? Also, was it effective? - if so, I want to add it as a minor hit to my count.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I was mostly surprised to hear actual policy coming out of Kerry's mouth instead of "Bush screwed up." That made the debate much more interesting. I thought the last half was much more substantial than the first bit.
I have to admit Bush can really look like a doofus on TV. Especially when he stares at the camera for five seconds.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: He (and his campaign in general) repeats the same phrases over and over, and I think that works well for a lot of voters.
I dunno. It aggravates the hell out of Cor.
afr, did you read the Iraq letter to Kerry supporters that was shared in a Hatrack thread recently? Most of Kerry's talking points in the debate were straight off of that, including the Kennedy/Cuba line that was praised in this thread.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: I have to admit Bush can really look like a doofus on TV. Especially when he stares at the camera for five seconds.
The word "simian" comes to mind. Which is sad, because I wonder if Mr. Bush even believes in evolution...Still I can't help but like the guy.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I was at work so I only caught about 20% of the debate.
...my overall feeling was the same as it has been for about 2 weeks.
"either way, we're screwed."
We have a slate of serious problems facing our nation.
I will give one point to Bush though.
I agree with a six-party commitee working with the psychos in North Korea over bilateral talks.
Nukes scare me.
So North Korea is scary.
100% scarier than Iraq ever was.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Anybody see John McCain on Hardball? He said that he also expected to see immigration issues in tonight's debate. Vindication is mine.
But when Chris Matthews forced him to say that Bush won the debate, he looked a lot like Gwyneth Paltrow when she has to go on Jay Leno and say how excited she is to be in Bounce.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
WEll, he "used " it out of context then...and he couldn't even pronounce it....he didn't say a word, actually, he stumbled over transport and shipment....
I loved it, but it scares me.
This is the man with all the codes for the US's nukes...
Kwea
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Then you should be happy that he probably can't pronounce the codes right the first time. Assuming you don't want him to order a strike. He'd probably wind up with a steak, and that would give him some time to think.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So... Dubya'll mangle the launch authorization codes? And how would not having nuclear bombs going off be a bad thing?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Nice link, Kat. I love MadTV. Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
One thing that puzzled me when Bush said it "we are going to get rid of all weapons of mass destruction." or something to that exact effect, I was wondering if he meant get rid of our 10,000 nuclear weapons.
I'm not sure if George W. Bush understands the irony of us being the judge of who gets and doesn't get to own nuclear weapons.
Nukes to Nations are like Guns to Houses.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Did ANYONE catch the comment Bush made about trying to leash his daughters in????????????
I was on my way to "curriculum night" for Nathan's class when Bush made that comment . . .
I listened to the debate on NPR, and frankly, while Kerry was a much more polished speaker, I don't think either of them did a credible job. If you want to compare tonight to the last several months of mudslinging, okay, better . . . but still not real substantial. I managed to sneak a glimpse of their faces when I dropped Nathan off to the sitter, and I think there's something to be said for just listening to content.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What's really funny about the Poland thing is that Bush was wrong. Poland wasn't part of the alliance when we invaded, and is pulling out now. I'm going to assume he was just mistaken about what time frame Kerry was talking about, as the other possibility is he wasn't paying enough attention when we invaded to know who are allies were.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, then there's Bush's shtick about just knowing how the world works.
Claiming special knowledge pretty much always gets a negative with me.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Yeah, I'm surprised he didn't bring up Spain. Sure, they backed out. But they were with us all the way when we went in. And Kerry was the only one to bring up Australia. There were plenty of other countries, and you'd think he'd have them all on the tip of his tongue, in alphabetical order, by now. I was surprised when he choked after one. "We didn't go in alone. We had... Poland. Yeah, Poland. Take that, chump."
[ October 01, 2004, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
The only thing I really want to add is that I find all the "Ha ha, Bush made a slip of the tongue" stuff to be incredibly petty. We already knew he's no Demosthenes. What's that got to do with anything? He seemed unprepared when compared to Kerry, yes. He repeated himself a little too often, yes. Those are legitimate complaints. "He's such a buffoon, he mispronounced 'mixed messages'!" is not.
I wonder how many of those laughing at his slips could survive having all their posts combed through in a search for typos.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I support Bush, but I must admit that Kerry "won" the debate, if that really was a "debate".
Bush took too long to think to answer his questions.
He was also on the defensive too much.
He could have blasted Kerry's flip-flopping inside just this debate itself and he let it slip by.
"We need more troops in Iraq"
and
"If we follow my plan we can begin to lower the troops in Iraq in 6 months."
So do we need more troops or do we need less Mr. Kerry? Or do you plan on putting them in just to pull them out and then some (to get lower #'s than 6 months previous) 6 months later?
President Bush was way too "defensive".
I would have been much "meaner" Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think Bush hit on the alleged flip-flops plenty. It seemed to be the only real point he could make. And I didn't think Kerry did enough until the end to refute it, although he easily could have, as has been noted here.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Draw.
Bush's faithful likes it when he says things like, "I know how these people think." And they like staying the course. I get nervous anytime a someone says, "I know how these people think." and I think staying the course for the sake of staying the course is inappropriate. Those pauses in the middle of Bush's answers after his soundbytes were supposed to be for obvious common sense answers. The problem is that very little of it is obvious, and I pay attention. It wonder how many of these issues are a little too obvious to him.
It was a draw. I liked Kerry better, but that's because I like Kerry's approach to the issues better. The debates weren't targeted for me, though. And at this point, I haven't heard enough fence-sitters to know how they would gauge the debate.
[ October 01, 2004, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Kerry shifted the focus away from Iraq to North Korea at the end of the debate. Kerry did not clearly explain why bilateral talks between American and North Korea is better than the six- country group discussions that Bush supports.
If I were an average person who is not well-informed regarding the North Korean crisis, I would be puzzled by Kerry's position. First Kerry stated that coalitions are important for Iraq. But then why are group talks not good for North Korea?
Actually, my question, as an average person who is not well informed about the North Korea crisis was: "What's so bad about bilateral talks?" Since Kerry stated several times that he wanted both group talks and bilateral talks and all Bush said was, "China won't like it." Um, why exactly won't China like it?
I think that was my problem with a lot of things Bush said tonight, they were just statements of, "that won't work." without ever telling me why. So it turned eventually into Kerry saying, 'I want to do this, because of this.' and Bush saying, 'That's a bad idea, because I say it is, and I'm the president, so I know more than he does.'
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
That was his problem. He needed to diversify his attack. He attacked the same flip-flop over and over.
He needed to say this:
"Mr. Kerry, just a few minutes ago you claimed that we didn't have enough American Troops in Iraq. Now you are claiming that with your plan, 6 months after taking office you are going to begin to REMOVE American Troops.
How do you plan on accomplishing this? Do we have enough troops and therefore your point that we didn't have enough is false? Or do we need more and your plan to remove troops in 6 months is false?
I dunno. Kerry definately stayed on the attack. Bush stayed on the defensive and timidly took to the offense with the same play over and over.
Mix it up a bit.
Anyways. Advantage Kerry from this debate in my opinion.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Actually, my question, as an average person who is not well informed about the North Korea crisis was: "What's so bad about bilateral talks?" Since Kerry stated several times that he wanted both group talks and bilateral talks and all Bush said was, "China won't like it." Um, why exactly won't China like it?
My opinion? China borders N. Korea.
I think it's akin to Canada and the U.S. holding a North American trade summit and saying "Screw You Mexico!"
China has a very deep vested interest in whether N. Korea acquires Nuclear Weapons on a mass scale.
We most DEFINATELY took an interest in Cuba having nukes.
MULTI-LATERAL talks with ALL of those in the affected regions is the best option in my opinion.
China is a pretty big country to say, "We're going to decide which neighbors of yours have nukes or not and we don't care what you think."
Again, this is just my opinion.
Kerry wants to "give in" to N. Korea's demands.
That sets a DANGEROUS precedent I don't even want to contemplate the road that sets us on.
Dealing with Terrorists anyone?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
That's one thing I can't fault Bush on. The NK bilateral/multilateral issue is a little too complex to get into in a 120-second segment. Bush did mention that we need China's leverage at the table or North Korea won't have any reason to listen to us. I think in this format that was about the best he could do.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"Kerry wants to "give in" to N. Korea's demands."
That's interesting CStrongman. As I confessed earlier, I'm not very informed regarding the North Korea situation. Can you provide some proof of this assertion? Thanks.
Speed, my thoughts exactly. Leveraging China's influence on North Korea seems like the logical thing to do. Kerry did eventually say that bilateral talks does not necessarily preclude China from the equation. But by definition bilateral talks exclude China to a certain extent.
blacwolve, that's what Bush means by conviction of leadership: Never saying you were wrong. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: Kerry wants to "give in" to N. Korea's demands.
I got the impression he wanted to do the opposite.
I'm not getting why having both bilateral and group talks with N. Korea are mutually exclusive. I mean, isn't it logical that we would want to have personal as well as group diplomatic relations with all countries? Doesn't China have bilateral discussions with N. Korea? If not why don't they?
Pretty much all of my knowledge of any political issues come from the debate, so I'm asking these questions in all seriousness, not just to be argumentative.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
When we went in, afaik we only had troop commitments from two other countries -- GB and Aus.
CStroman -- nothing flip-flop about it. Kerry's position is that there need to be more troops overall in Iraq, and fewer US troops. He proposes to do this by actually working to pull in foreign troops, unlike Bush's plans, which have worked to cause nations to pull out their troops (spain and poland are the current big departures, I believe).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Kerry didn't say he wanted China out of the talks, he said he didn't think China would pull out of the talks if NK was part of them -- which is what Bush was insisting on. To extend your analogy, can you imagine Canada pulling out of talks on a north american trade treaty because the US got involved?
Also, NK fears China (as anyone who shares a border should just because of fairly recent memory). This does not mean they want to do what China wants.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I'm really hoping OSC tackles the murkier points of the debate, like the North Korea issue. I always find things a little clearer when he writes an essay on them.
Hint hint...
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Hmmm... perhaps clearer in a bad way.... Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Xap, is there a Tresopax as well? I am intrigued!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, Kerry didn't say he would withdraw troops in 6 months. If you are going to quote him, at least do your homework and make sure you get what he said right.
Bush isn't a good CIC, or a good speaker, or a good CEO, or a good student....
Hmmmm....anyone notice a pattern here?
I Like his gaffes because they are real, and are a simple reason not to mock him..
I misspell things all the time here..
But I am not President, and didn't "attend" Yale....not even the drinking scene he frequented back then.
I was too busy actually showing up for my duties in the millitary...no wonder I never ran into him.
IMO, if you can't pronounce the word Nuclear, you probably shouldn't be able to launch them either.
Kwea
[ October 01, 2004, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: IMO, if you can't pronounce the word Nuclear, you probably shouldn't be able to launch them either.
Don't worry bud. Anything longer than a zip code and GWB would mess it up royally...
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Saying that how one pronounces "nuclear" reflects one's intelligence is kinda silly. Eisenhower tended to say "nuke-you-ler," and he's generally regarded as having been one of our better presidents.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Did I understand correctly that Kerry wanted China to give up their nukes? Sure the world would be better with no nukes at all, but if this is what I understood I think he's out to lunch. Then again, I think Bush's vision of a truly free and democratic Iraq/Afghanistan is out for a smoke break. Delusional, but slightly less so.
Sure there are a lot of things we ourselves could have mentioned- such as that The United States itself took many years to establish a constitutional government after its war for independence ceased.
I don't think Muslims are inherently less deserving of democracy than us, since Muslims are obviously part of our democracy.
Kerry's tack of "if we did it to Iraq, why not North Korea" may sound good to college students, but it is not what I want to hear from a prospective president.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I just want to applaud all of you who watched the debate.
Whether Democrat or Republican, no matter what your stance on issues -- most important to voting is to have informed voters.
One of the greatest dangers to America is apathy.
I'm glad you watched the debate and listened to the men speak and present themselves, instead of just letting the media "interpret" it for you the following day.
Some say our nation is strongly divided over these two candidates at this time. I don't see that as a bad sign -- I see that as meaning suddenly perhaps the people care, and I'll take that over apathy anyday.
Farmgirl
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
And a to jatraqueros for interesting debate commentary... after the debate I read an AP article to try to get a sense of how the debate went over. Well, the article I read was incredibly bland, seeming like it was trying to avoid giving offense to anyone by actually having an opinion... so coming to Hatrack and reading the threads here was MUCH more enlightening. Thanks y'all!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Like he's trying to remember the answer he was supposed to use if this came up."
What makes this especially odd, to me, is that both candidates were provided all the questions asked last night well in advance, so that they were able to prepare not only for their own questions but for the questions asked their opponent -- a point, I might add, that was specifically demanded by the Bush camp. And yet there were moments when Bush seemed genuinely lost or surprised by a question or by Kerry's response to a question.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I think that part of the reason that Bush didn't do well in the debate is that he's just not used to arguing/debating in public. While he gives lots of speeches, that doesn't involve any give-and-take discussion, and he rarely holds any press conferences:
quote:In a nonparliamentary system such as ours, close questioning of the President is supposed to come from the press, usually in the form of press conferences. Yet Bush has held only eleven solo press conferences, fewer than almost any modern President. Over a comparable period, his father held seventy-one and Bill Clinton thirty-eight. The Bush White House claims that they have answered thousands of press questions, but the bulk of those answers come from the handful of questions allowed a couple of times a week after photo opportunities, and from joint press conferences, where the President gets only one-quarter the number of questions and few follow-up questions are permitted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've heard several conservatives suggest that Bush would have done better had he stuck to the Reaganesque "there you go again" approach that worked so well for him during the Gore debates: when your opponent says something you don't understand, or you can't challenge, just shake your head sorrowfully and appear disappointed that he'd attempt to deceive or bamboozle the public like that. It relies on people's perceptions that all politicians are in fact bamboozlers (which is especially effective if you've already been calling someone an inveterate braggart or a flip-flopper), and establishes the head-shaker as a defender of the public trust -- without actually having to practice more than one expression. Frankly, I was expecting this approach from Bush, and was really surprised that he DIDN'T do it. On one hand, I'm deeply, deeply glad that he -- against all my low expectations -- actually attempted to engage Kerry on the issues; on the other hand, I'm sorry that it didn't work so well for him, because I suspect it's only going to make the head-shaking trick more tempting for politicians in the future.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
He (Bush) did seemed irritated by Kerry mostly throughout, and his face showed it, unfortunately.
I think he had lots and lots of coaching going into this debate with people telling him "don't smirk - don't smirk - don't smirk" (that impish little smile he does while he talks, which I like). But all commentators said he MUST lose the smirk. Trouble was, he was trying so hard to not smirk at Kerry remarks, that he just looked irritated instead.
I agree with Tom that Bush would have been better off using a Reagan-ish approach; because optimism is infectious, and that was how Reagan won people over.
Farmgirl
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. I always wondered how Reagan won people over. Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
quote: The only thing consistent about my opponent, is that he's inconsistent.
Best description of Kerry that I've heard yet.
It drove me nuts how often he keeps changing his mind. I counted at lest three times, in the same segment, that he contradicted himself. I also made a bet that in his closing statement he would mention (a) being in Vietnam and (b) his "plan".
Bush isn't a great alternative, either. If I could vote, I would be voting for this guy. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Good thing you can't vote, then. *shudder*
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Did I understand correctly that Kerry wanted China to give up their nukes?
I missed this one. I doubt Kerry would says anything like this, as China is as likely to give up their nukes as we are to give up ours.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
*thwacks Tom*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, it's not MY fault if your preferred candidate is a raving nutjob endorsed by the Southerners for the Restoration of Dixie, who calls for the use of the U.S. military to defend our borders from "invasions" of illegal immigrants, has vowed to disband the Supreme Court and end abortion on his first day in office, and believes that the state has no compelling interest in mandatory education, as the Law of the Creator God clearly delegates that role to parents.
Posted by the master (Member # 6788) on :
it's posts like that, tom, that made me really want to see your response on my thread.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
It took me a minute to realize Tom was talking to Evure......
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Isn't that George, the maintenance guy from the Bob Newhart show?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: George Washington feared two threats to America above all others. First, the corrupting influence of political parties with their spirit of faction and selfishness; and second, the weakening of the influence of religious morality on public life.
Um, wasn't Washington a deist?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"What makes this especially odd, to me, is that both candidates were provided all the questions asked last night well in advance,"
I thought Lehrer said that they had not heard the specific questions before?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Jefferson was, I'm not so sure Washington was though.
Hobbes Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:What makes this especially odd, to me, is that both candidates were provided all the questions asked last night well in advance, so that they were able to prepare not only for their own questions but for the questions asked their opponent -- a point, I might add, that was specifically demanded by the Bush camp.
Are you sure about this, Tom? I seem to remember the guy moderating the debate (Lehrer, right?) saying in his introduction that he was the ONLY one knowing the questions beforehand. It was at 3AM for me, so I could be wrong, but, as you say, the debaters really didn't give the impression that they were prepared for the specific questions in advance.
Edit: Heh, redundancy!
[ October 01, 2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Michael Peroutka and the Constitution Party will fight to defend America against its foreign and domestic enemies in order to return to a Republic of Sovereign States based on Biblical principles.
Man, that makes me shudder.
Website on George Washington: warm deist .
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Perhaps they had a list of possible questions, but not the specific ones?
Some person with more time and interest could probably research that, but I'm not going to do it right now. Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:Perhaps they had a list of possible questions, but not the specific ones?
I'm quite sure their respective handlers did their very best to prepare them for what they thought was possible/probable questions. Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
None of the questions came as a surprise. I'm sure everyone on this thread could've articulated Bush and Kerry's position as well, if not better, than the candidates themselves.
Someone on Bush's team clearly dropped the ball on the debate preparations.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I hope Tom doesnt mind me pulling something off of ornery... Tom said this an hour ago over there, not sure when he will look at this thread again.
"It looks like I was wrong. The candidates required that they be told of the specific CATEGORIES of questions, but not the specific questions themselves. So they knew what type of question they'd be getting, but not exactly how it would be worded."
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"omeone on Bush's team clearly dropped the ball on the debate preparations."
I think its more likely that Bush simply can't speak unless teleprompted. Thats been the story of his whole presidency...
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
As I've seen someone else say, I had the impression that Bush often had a prepared statement that was 40-50 seconds long and which he delivered fairly well. Then he made a short pause and started to ramble. He would have been better served by cutting his answers a little short. He might even have made Kerry sound long-winded by comparison with that strategy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
From a couple segments on NPR, I've heard several commentators note that Bush is an excellent speaker, and could likely trounce Kerry, if he is prepared.
Sounds like he wasn't prepared last night-- I didn't watch, so I don't know. (Fable addiction + kids in bed + wife @ a primary meeting = me on the Xbox)
Meh. I'm not voting for either candidate.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"I think its more likely that Bush simply can't speak unless teleprompted."
That's a sad thought. Bush has been hammering the same message over and over again on his campaign trail. Surely his messages, famous for their simplicity, are easy to remember and regurgitate.
I think Bush was unprepared or took the debate too lightly.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Also, Kerry didn't say he would withdraw troops in 6 months. If you are going to quote him, at least do your homework and make sure you get what he said right.
quote: CStroman -- nothing flip-flop about it. Kerry's position is that there need to be more troops overall in Iraq, and fewer US troops. He proposes to do this by actually working to pull in foreign troops, unlike Bush's plans, which have worked to cause nations to pull out their troops (spain and poland are the current big departures, I believe).
In 6 months not even Superman could get countries with NO troops in Iraq INTO Iraq and fighting and have all the contract negotiations finished.
Also, what will happen the first time a French, German, or other wussy nation get's attacked by an insurgent? They'll throw up their hands and pull out. Then we'll be SHORTHANDED.
And actually BUSH's plan had nothing to do with Spain pulling out of Iraq. The terrorist attacks in Spain did.
My opinion is to do what Bush's plan does. Put the Soldiering and Policing of Iraq into IRAQI hands.
Bringing in MORE international troops while giving away the farm only means that the insurgents will have different color flags to put in their crosshairs.
Also, one thing I think the President should have gone after Kerry about is his "foreign policy".
When I vote for a president, I am voting for the President of the United States. Not France, Not Germany, Not Russia, and not the U.N.
First and foremost his obligation is to DO what the American People WANT, NOT what other countries say he should.
I think Bush could have done a better job at attacking him on that as well.
Again, these are just my opinions.
[ October 01, 2004, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I would say that a president's job is to do what is right for America, not necessarily right for the popular vote.
Like raising taxes. We need to, but it'd be wildly unpopular.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
A duel can't be won with no ammunition. It's not that Bush wasn't prepared. It's just that there are no answers that could justify his record. When you promise WMDs and no WMDs show up, what can you say? You can shift the debate to your opponent's leadership ability, which Bush attempted last night and at his convention, but you can't avoid having to explain when the question is asked directly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I thought Lehrer said that they had not heard the specific questions before?"
Yep. I did some double-checking, and it appears that while the candidates were provided with categories for the questions, they were not given the exact wording of questions in advance -- and nor will they be.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Doh! I used CAPS again. I'll have to make a more concerted effort to use quotations instead. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm more amused by the fact that you called Germany a wuss, Chad. But please tell me again how manly Poland is. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Well, let's look at all military/humanitarian efforts the country has been involved in since unification....
Oh wait, there aren't any.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, to clarify, a country has to go to war at least every ten years or be wussy?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No, I never claimed that. I claimed they are wussy and no one has been able to show in any way in which they are not.
Unless you happen to have any evidence of their military might from the last 10 to 20 years.
Or humanitarian also would be accepted.
I await the proof that they are NOT wussies and why.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, I'm trying to figure out your definition of "wussy." Does it involve not sending troops somewhere on a regular basis?
Is it possible for a country to be "humanitarian" without using their military? Can a country be "manly" without a military at all, or is some military required for non-wussiness?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I have been undecided on this race because I knew very little about Kerry. So I listened to/watched a large portion of the debate last night with the specific goal of learning something about him.
I was not impressed. Not at all. I don't know that a lack of stuttering is enough to make me pick him over Bush.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
A wussy is someone who can't defend themselves, has no military power, offers nothing to the world, makes threats but cowers when confronted, but feels like they have a right to dictate their wishes on those who do.
Basically a wuss is someone who promises "Do X or you will receive Y as your recompense". Then when X fails to be done, they just don't fulfill their Y.
Also, when help is called for on RISKY humanitarian needs, a wussy doesn't answer that call.
That is my definition as it applies to this thread.
I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how Germany is NOT a wussy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I know that if I don't go out and beat up some guy every month or so, I feel pretty girly.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
UofU law guy I think alot of people are with you on this. Many who were undecided saw nothing new out of either candidate.
Let's hope as we come closer to the elections, more is defined.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how Germany is NOT a wussy."
Hm. Is it your contention that, when calling someone something, it's automatically true unless someone refutes it?
I await your proof that Bush is not, in fact, into shoving gerbils into his nether orifices. Until then, I'm afraid I'm going to have to assume that he does.
*laugh*
------
BTW, UofU, I'm going to dispute that you were in fact undecided. Nothing I've ever seen you post on this board would suggest that you would, for a moment, consider voting for Kerry.
Indeed, I would say that the only group who doesn't think Kerry won that particular debate hands-down is the group who is pretending for its own inexplicable reasons to be undecided.
[ October 01, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think when you insult a sovereign nation the burden of proof is on you, not on the rest of the world.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I was not impressed. Not at all. I don't know that a lack of stuttering is enough to make me pick him over Bush.
Not impressed with what part?
I can agree that a lack of stuttering is no reason to pick a president. But Kerry offered a vision of the world in which America is leading the world against terror, rather than fighting against our allies over Iraq (and letting Al Qaeda advance in the meanwhile). Isn't THAT enough to make you pick him over Bush?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Are you stating that the vision Bush presented was one in which America fights against its allies?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Ok, Germany has done "nothing" in the international spectrum to give "aid" to the world. They have also not used their Military in "any" way either humanitarian wise or in defense of "anything", "anywhere".
Gulf War I? Missing. Yugoslavia? Missing. Anywhere in Africa? Missing. Anywhere in the world? Missing.
They DID however give the Black September terrorists their freedom (made a "deal" with the terrorists).
It basically boils down to "Well you killed alot of Jewish athletes during the Olympics, but we'll let you go as long as you don't attack us."
I've provided my proof. Their wussies, and John Kerry's future "war friends".
I shudder to think of that future.
EDIT: Removed caps and attempted to bring the thread back on topic with John Kerry.
[ October 01, 2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
CStroman, I don't know how many treaties and stuff still apply today, but after WWII, I don't think Germany was allowed to actually have much of a military. I can't believe you can call them wussy when it is arguable that they started both of the major world wars in the past hundred years.
Is their historical consciousness wary of war as a result. Yes. But Germany is far more of a sleeping giant than France. It isn't the French you don't want to tick off, it's the Germans. The Germans, if roused, go about destruction far more methodically and cold bloodledly, and still would today if pressed that far. They also have a history of producing pretty darn brilliant military minds, even if their brilliance has been squandered by incompetent leaders. (Rommel for example, if he hadn't been force to commit sucide his tactics would have made it very difficult for the Allies to get anywhere.)
As far as today. Germany still has huge technological expertise, in industrial and scientific realms. BASF anyone? (and I could list half a dozen other companies too!) The only reason Chemistry students aren't Very Strongly encouraged to take German anymore, is because they've consented to dual publish their scientific papers in English.
AJ
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Tom:"BTW, UofU, I'm going to dispute that you were in fact undecided. Nothing I've ever seen you post on this board would suggest that you would, for a moment, consider voting for Kerry."
Why? Is it because you think I wouldn't vote for a Democrat? I actually have voted for many more Democrats than Republicans over the past eight years or so. I voted for Clinton in 96. I voted for Gore in 2000. I really, really didn't like the idea back then that Bush was going to be President.
I would not hesitate to vote for a Democratic candidate now, either. I am not in love with Bush. I think that he and I have some very significant differences in values and priorities.
I just haven't known much about Kerry, except as filtered through rather biased sources on both sides. I haven't heard much of anything from his own mouth. Now that I have, I am not impressed.
"Indeed, I would say that the only group who doesn't think Kerry won that particular debate hands-down is the group who is pretending for its own inexplicable reasons to be undecided."
I don't think either man "won" the debate, either hands down or otherwise. Maybe it's because I never took debate in high school, but I find the very idea of "winning" a debate rather strange. It's not a boxing match. There's nobody scoring the thing, and raising one contender's hand in victory at the end. It is simply an opportunity for all of us to hear what each of them have to say, and specifically to hear how they each respond to the positions of the other.
As for the little aspersions cast by that last comment of yours, I don't appreciate the implications.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Germany has done 'nothing' in the international spectrum to give 'aid' to the world."
This can only be considered true if your definition of "aid" involves unilateral invasion, as Germany provides peacekeeping troops to the U.N. and is one of the top financial donors abroad. Are we defining "aid" as "invading a country to save it?" Because, if so, there are very few countries out there which aren't wussy.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And to bring this back on track.
What do we GAIN if John Kerry courts the Germans?
Will they give aid? In what forms?
Given their recent past history in the international spectrum you get:
zilch.
Well, maybe we get to be better "friends" with them, but I honestly can't see how adding a country who has done and will do nothing to our list of "coalition" members does anything but give them a foot in the door without doing anything in return.
John Kerry wants them in, but for no other reason than the "warm fuzzy feeling" we get from having someone we can call a friend.
That's just my opinion on Germany and what it brings to the table. They bring nothing but want to take away alot.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I honestly can't see how adding a country who has done and will do nothing to our list of coalition members does anything but give them a foot in the door without doing anything in return."
Have you seen our list of coalition members? I don't think our application requirements are really all that stringent.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: as Germany provides peacekeeping troops to the U.N. and is one of the top financial donors abroad.
How many German troops were in Yugoslavia? How about any other countries where the U.N. has troops deployed in the world? Where are those German U.N. troops stationed?
And to WHOM have they given financial aid?
What do they offer to Iraq?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Are you stating that the vision Bush presented was one in which America fights against its allies?
Yes. Bush has made it clear that his policy is to push allies away if they don't agree with us, and to take a course in the war on terror that is certain to leave very few agreeing with us.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: The Federal Foreign Office supported 307 projects for humanitarian aid, humanitarian mine clearance as well as disaster prevention, all over the world in 2003 to the tune of EUR 71.5 million.
Some 237 projects totaling EUR 52.5 million received support from the humanitarian aid budget. This funding was used to look after victims of natural disasters or armed conflicts and provide life-saving commodities such as clean drinking water, food and medication. The aid projects were implemented by German non-governmental organizations, United Nations subsidiary organizations and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
As in previous years, Africa received the most funding, EUR 16.6 million, which was used to support 97 projects focusing primarily on the Great Lakes region, West Africa, the Horn of Africa and southern Africa. In Iraq, 20 projects were supported with EUR 11.2 million, and in Afghanistan 22 projects with EUR 4.5 million. Further regional focal points included Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, with some EUR 8 million; the Palestinian territories with approximately EUR 3 million; and Chechnya with some EUR 1.2 million. In South America, various projects were granted support of EUR 2.3 million. Most recently, the Federal Foreign Office has granted emergency disaster relief of EUR 800,000 for the earthquake victims in Iran.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Xaposert:
quote: Not impressed with what part?
I can agree that a lack of stuttering is no reason to pick a president. But Kerry offered a vision of the world in which America is leading the world against terror, rather than fighting against our allies over Iraq (and letting Al Qaeda advance in the meanwhile). Isn't THAT enough to make you pick him over Bush?
I was not impressed, among other things, with Kerry's narrow view of the fight against terror. He kept protesting that it was all about Bin Laden. How many times did he repeat that? In my opinion, Bush didn't do a good enough job of refuting that claim. I don't see how a fight like this can be all about one man. He also kept saying, or strongly implying, that Afghanistan was the only country we could have any reason for going into to fight terrorists. I don't see the justification for that limitation.
Kerry said that he voted to support action in Iraq at first, but with the understanding that certain other actions would be taken by the administration first, e.g. more work with U.N. inspections and alliance building. That's fine, but the implication is that he would have approved of war if those things didn't work. How does that square with his repeated claims that Saddam Hussein and his regime were completely irrelevant to the war on terror?
I can understand his disapproval with the way things are being handled in Iraq, and I welcome ideas for better ways to handle our activities there right now. I didn't hear anything from him that convinces me he knows a better way. The only thing of substance was a promise to get other countries ("allies") more involved. I don't know 1) how he would talk them into it, 2) what role he would have them play, 3) who these "allies" are, or 4) why he thinks this would make things better in Iraq than they are now, except that having more people from different countries makes it likely that our troops would represent a smaller percentage of the casualties that would happen regardless of who is there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
(Note: this link is UN-only. Note that Germany is also committed to a sizable NATO peacekeeping force in Afghanistan.)
Germany is also one of the largest sovereign donors to the United Nations, the World Bank, and UNICEF, and its population is also near the top for personal giving to international charities.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I'm most interested in what the polls that focus on undecided voters show in the next couple of days. I expect we'll see a move - not necessarily a dramatic one - in Kerry's direction.
Pretty much by definition, the undecideds aren't real crazy about either candidate (OK - the same can be said for some of us "decideds" as well. )
I watched interviews with two small groups of undecided voters and in both cases the vote was unanimous - Kerry carried the debate. A minority of the groups said they were moving in his direction, with the rest on the fence.
It will be interesting to see how the next one plays out. The "town hall" format is supposed to be a stronger one for Bush. But the subject - domestic policy - is where he is weakest with undecided voters.
Some interesting commentary last night on MSNBC - Bush might have been a victim of two things. One is his own mastery of the soundbite - after giving a 30 second answer, he didn't quite know what to do with the rest of the time. The other thing is that Bush has been pretty cushioned from direct argument on his positions - dissenters were culled from his administation early on and the rest learned the lesson. His press conferences are limited. On the campaign trail, he plays to small, carefully screened audiences so there won't be any protest signs or awkward questions to deal with (and no - the Kerry campaign doesn't do this.).
By my count, it was Bush who initiated every request for extended conversation on a question (did someone else mention that?) - it added to the overall impression of someone who was not on top of the situation.
I was very surprised by Bush's performance - I know he is capable of doing better than this. Maybe he's lost some of his edge from interacting almost entirely with like-minded people.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
@ Tom Davidson
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I didn't hear anything from him that convinces me he knows a better way."
Honestly, I think Kerry as president will have some difficulty, mainly because Bush would have dealt him a bad hand; fixing a bad foreign policy decision made by your predecessor is considerably harder than not making a bad foreign policy decision in the first place.
That said, my PERSONAL motivation for booting Bush is to punish him for making bad decisions in the first place. Why should we think that he can fix what he already screwed up?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Ok, Germany has done "nothing" in the international spectrum to give "aid" to the world. They have also not used their Military in "any" way either humanitarian wise or in defense of "anything", "anywhere".
Chad, that is baldly incorrect.
Germany deployed troops in: - Somalia - Bosnia
Participated in (e.g., with support teams): - other UN missions - other OSCE missions (e.g., oversight of Afghan elections) - the Bosnia and Kosovo "Contact Group" (leading to the loss of diplomat Gerd Wagner and several soldiers)
Sent: - 3.1 million Euro to the UN for Sudan - 6 million Euro to the UN to aid Iraq reconstruction - more than 20 million Euro for Darfur aid - 100,000 Euro's worth of communications equipment to the UN for use in Sudan
And on and on and on.
[What Tom and AJ said.]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Looks like they're considered a staunch military ally in the war on terrorism, its the war on Iraq they refuse to participate in
Did you not even do a basic google search for "germany peacekeepers" ?
Furthermore, as Bush was certainly able to get countries without troops in Iraq into Iraq within 6 months after the invasion, I'm wondering what flight of partisan fancy makes you think Kerry couldn't get troops from countries without troops currently in Iraq into Iraq within 6 months? Not to mention that Bush is still doing a wonderful job of driving allied troops out of Iraq, so keeping those around alone would be an improvement.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Chad Stroman:
It is not okay to deliberately spread misinformation or to deliberately embrace one's ignorance of other countries (while claiming to know about them), not here. I don't know which route you have taken, but stop it.
Stop it.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
They did send at least $5 million US to the UN for Iraqi reconstruction efforts.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Chad your style has VASTLY IMPROVED
However, GOOGLE is your friend. Use it wisely and well and check your sources for bias before you post to hatrack.
AJ
@ Sara & fugu
[ October 01, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, looks like the commander of peacekeepers in Kosovo is German, too:
Looks like several other of your ignorant rantings have been dealt with as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, whoa! Don't pile on the guy.
For one thing, he might not have been aware of Germany's fairly extensive peacekeeping efforts; for another, he simply might not consider these efforts extensive by his standards.
While I'm persnickety enough to call him out on things like "wussy," I'd suggest that we NOT consider his expression of political opinions -- however well-informed or not -- to be an open invitation to insult him.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Back to the original purpose of the thread -- the debate discussion.
I know this one was focused only on the war.
What are the primary topics of the next two? The economy? What else?
Farmgirl
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:As in previous years, Africa received the most funding, EUR 16.6 million, which was used to support 97 projects focusing primarily on the Great Lakes region, West Africa, the Horn of Africa and southern Africa.
O_O
What kind of projects are they doing in the Great Lakes?!?! Why are Africa and Germany focusing there? Don't they have enough problems to take care of at home?!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hairstyle and fashion choice.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*grin* I don't think it was an intentional pile, we just all had the same idea at the same time. However the combined posts added up. I agree that the kindest explanation is ignorance.
AJ
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Well, when he admits that he was wrong JUST ONCE, then I think that the dogpiling on him will be unwarranted. Instead, he shoots off fact-less data and claims them as ultimate truth, then ignores or disregards factual data given as some 'liberal spin.'
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
(I will confess that the only reason that I already knew that was because I had a course in college on the history of modern Africa)
AJ
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I have little respect for those who base their arguments against candidates on the shapes of clouds they see in their mind's eye.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The trick, then, Russell, is to FAKE it.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Ok, thank you for posting those links. I do see their financial EU contributions, but I am not finding there (or at any of the links) where they have committed Peacekeeping troops on a large scale.
Maybe someone has the breakdown of how many troops they have committed in Afghanistan, Former Yugoslavia, etc.
Again, I was wrong about their financial contributions.
quote: It is not okay to deliberately spread misinformation or to deliberately embrace one's ignorance of other countries (while claiming to know about them), not here. I don't know which route you have taken, but stop it.
Stop it.
Sara, I'm going to have to ask you to stop personally insulting members of this board. Stop it.
Stop it now.
Keep your opinions to the thread and topics and NOT on members of the board.
That said, what does Germany want in order to commit troops to Iraq now?
Have they agreed to commit troops based on certain concessions that if given would have their troops deployed asap?
I don't know what they are asking (other than the rumored oil contracts they had under Sadaam.) and so I ask.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I am not finding there (or at any of the links) where they have committed Peacekeeping troops on a large scale."
Chad, the link I supplied answers that specific question.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Germany wants in on the reconstruction contracts, same as the UN.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
The UN link didn't have troop deployments for Germany.
Maybe I'm not finding it.
Could you please post the numbers here then on their troop deployment?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I found this link, but it only lists monetary donations:
Being in charge of UN peacekeeping in Kosovo wasn't a big thing? Also, I recall your statements were that Germany was "missing" everywhere:
quote: Gulf War I? Missing. Yugoslavia? Missing. Anywhere in Africa? Missing. Anywhere in the world? Missing.
Every single one of these statements has been completely refuted. You now edge around it and say they didn't have any substantial number of troops there. Stop being wishy washy. Stop changing your arguments because your facts keep getting smacked down. Come up with an argument that agrees with the facts, then stick to it. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Chad, Sara is one of the most loved members of this board. You really don't know what you are messing with here. And either a) you were deliberately spreading misinformation b)you were misinformed yourself by a reliable source or c) you're willfully ignorant blowhard and d) incapable of doing a simple google search.
I'm not arguing with the opinion part that Tom pointed out. None of the above options speaks well for you. I think you have done an admirable job in triying to tone down your posting style to fit this forum. But if your facts are wrong, they are wrong and that's what we object to.
AJ
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Chad, you did not merely claim that Germany did not commit "sufficient" troops or "on a large enough scale." You did not merely claim that Germany did not contribute "sufficient" humanitarian aid or "on a large enough scale."
This is what you said [bold added by me for emphasis]:
quote: Well, let's look at all military/humanitarian efforts the country has been involved in since unification....
Oh wait, there aren't any.
quote:No, I never claimed that. I claimed they are wussy and no one has been able to show in any way in which they are not.
Unless you happen to have any evidence of their military might from the last 10 to 20 years.
Or humanitarian also would be accepted.
I await the proof that they are NOT wussies and why.
quote:A wussy is someone who can't defend themselves, has no military power, offers nothing to the world, makes threats but cowers when confronted, but feels like they have a right to dictate their wishes on those who do.
quote:Ok, Germany has done "nothing" in the international spectrum to give "aid" to the world. They have also not used their Military in "any" way either humanitarian wise or in defense of "anything", "anywhere". ... I've provided my proof. Their wussies, and John Kerry's future "war friends".
I shudder to think of that future.
Either you deliberately lied, or you didn't care enough about matters of (eaily verifiable and important) fact to check with a simple Google search.
Take it back, and explain why you did it, please.
It was decisive, but it was wrong.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I admitted I was wrong on the financial aspect. If Germany is willing to donate BILLIONS to Iraq, then that is definately a large plus.
But what I am concerned about is that they match their monetary donation with the same in ground forces/military.
Could someone provide me with the numbers for their troop involvement from GWI to present in international UN business.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Why not *gasp* look them up yourself?
AJ
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Because it's easier to believe the lie.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chad, if you explore further on that site, you will find that Germany has currently committed 10,000 troops and 2,000 civilians to more than half of the U.N.'s ongoing peacekeeping missions, making it one of the larger contributors of manpower as well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And now I watch you not even admit that you were wrong as to whether or not they had committed troops. You repeatedly stated that they had not committed any troops anywhere, and named specific places they had not committed troops (according to you). Those places have all been refuted. They contributed troops in every one of those places. Yet you do not admit you are wrong. Why?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I'm not calling you a liar, but I am saying you were very categorical about proclamations that were clearly wrong.
It's about your actions, not you.
I do apologize for being abrupt and rude about it. I'd still like to hear your reasons for posting such things. Your actions here are things that you are held accountable for.
(If you'd like me to be held accountable for mine, you can use the whistle-blower icon. Or you can just ask me to delete those parts of my posts which you find offensive to you personally. I'd be happy with either, actually, although I won't be able to delete until after lunch. My husband awaits me for brunch.)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Brunch sounds delicious!
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I did find this about Germany but current only as of 1995.
quote: During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Germany received international criticism for its unwillingness to assume a role proportionate to its military power and political importance. The strong pacifist streak in German society again manifested itself in anti-United States and antiwar demonstrations that contributed to an impression in some quarters of German indifference to Iraq's aggression. Germany did make a contribution of US$10 billion to the UN operation against Iraq, but its military actions were confined to the NATO area. German naval units and mine countermeasure ships were shifted to the Mediterranean to cover for NATO vessels sent to the Persian Gulf. After hostilities ended, German ships took part in mine-clearing operations in the gulf. German Alpha Jets and air defense missiles were deployed to Turkey, largely as a political gesture to demonstrate solidarity with other NATO countries involved in the conflict with Iraq. Later, German troops and helicopters were sent to northern Iran and Iraq to aid Kurdish refugees.
In December 1992, the government pledged to provide some 1,600 troops to regions of Somalia where peace had been restored to assist in reconstruction and the distribution of relief goods. The contingent included specialized logistic and medical units plus a small protective detachment of infantry troops. Despite political opposition, the government said it was determined to deploy troops to areas of Somalia where there was no fighting. German troops subsequently participated successfully in the United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II).
German armed forces participated to a limited extent in several other UN-organized operations, generally ones with a humanitarian purpose that would evoke minimal criticism that the Basic Law was being flouted. In 1992 a group of some 150 Bundeswehr medical personnel went to Cambodia to provide health care to the 2,200 members of the UN mission in that nation. Amid objections from opposition parties, a destroyer and three reconnaissance aircraft were sent to join forces from seven other NATO countries in an attempt to monitor the UN embargo of Serbia. German troops were involved in delivery of food to the besieged city of Sarajevo but avoided airdrops that could result in conflict. Service by German crews on unarmed NATO reconnaissance aircraft to help enforce the "no-fly zone" was only narrowly approved by the Federal Constitutional Court.
quote: Germany is maxed out with 8,000 troops deployed abroad — primarily in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.
I also found this:
quote: But a German government official notes that his country also has peacekeepers active in the Balkans. While not ruling out German participation in Iraq, this official says that it would probably be minimal. "I don't see that we would be able to send troops on the order of thousands," says this official.
So they do have a smattering of forces deployed, but in my opinion couldn't be considered substantial.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Chad, Sara addressed behavior. She didn't call you a liar or a flip flopper. Though I was hoping you'd come up with some links that refute Tom's claim about gerbils and the president. at Tom.
If you ever feel you are coasting along marvelously on conservative rhetoric, it is because all the liberal posters are pulling links. I can't yet prove that they leave one guy to reply to you while they do it. After all, it is the Secret Liberal Cabal.
Summary: Don't ever coast on rhetoric. What kind of victory is "Germany is wussy"? Even if I'd been here I could have told you that I greatly admire them for having mandatory military service. I think it is only for men, but still, and admirable thing.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Back to the original purpose of the thread -- the debate discussion.
Farmgirl,
I'd kinda like to do that too, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest - this thread has moved on to something else. Rather than fighting it, I'm thinking of starting a separate thread looking at some of the (as I perceive it) weirdness in today's press coverage regarding the debate.
[ October 01, 2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Compared to the US its certainly small. Compared to everyone but the US, its pretty big, especially as (as noted) Germany has good reasons for not wanting to seem warlike. So unless someone has a comparable number of troop deployments as the US, they're wimpy? Putting 8000 citizens into harm's way in order to promote peace and deliver aid is wimpy?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
According to the 1999 link it had 370,000 active military personel in proportion to a population of 82 million inhabitants. I'm not sure how this compares to the US.
AJ
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Those places have all been refuted. They contributed troops in every one of those places. Yet you do not admit you are wrong. Why?
They did not commit troops to Gulf War I at all. It does appear they had "hundreds" in Yugoslavia, etc. and maybe a couple thousand in Afghanistan (which I didn't list.)
I admitted that I was wrong on their financial donations.
In my opinion (and I did list those posts as MY OPINIONS which means READ CLEARLY as my belief) what we may give up should be proportional to what we gain.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Did you not read the very quote you just posted? While Germany's contributions to Gulf War 1 were very small, they did send troops on missions in Iraq (primarily to aid refugees), and had troops on standby earlier in countries such as Turkey. Was their contribution large? No. Was it there? Yes.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Incidentally, if you don't mind me throwing a slightly different de-railing onto this thread, did anyone see the Daily Show coverage of the debates? They didn't use the clip I thought they would (well, I called a couple of them right silently to myself, but they didn't use the clip I claimed here on the forum that they would.)
But if any of you still doubt the bias of the interviewing (going back to the thread about Jon Stewart's interview of Kerry), did you notice the difference between how he handled his interviews, on the very same show, of Wesley Clark and Rudy Giuliani? He sucked up to Clark so hard it left a hickey. And every comment he made to Rudy sounded like he wanted to start a brawl. I was surprised that Rudy didn't challenge him to a duel.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We only have 18000 troops or so in Afghanistan. Considering Germany's expenditures on the military aren't even in the same order of magnitude as ours, having a few thousand there is a pretty big thing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dude, Be a man already. You made a stupid, ignorant statement that also, as it turns out, was completely wrong. Own up to it. Stop acting like a little child trying to wiggle out of the consequences of your action.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Putting 8000 citizens into harm's way in order to promote peace and deliver aid is wimpy?
In a world of 5 billion plus it's not a large amount. Don't more people than that die on unnatural circumstances in one day?
Also, the US has what 130 or 140,000 troops in Iraq? Let's say Germany puts in 2,000 (which appears to be WAY more than they plan to).
That percentage is very small. I think the reconstruction they should be afforded should be equally small.
In fact I think that is where the problems arise.
The US wants those who contribute more to be given more. France and Germany want who gets what to be controlled by the UN, which means the UN will give them to whoever regardless of the troop deployment.
That based on previous UN "missions" in foreign countries where the United States has put SUBSTANTIALLY more into the operations, financially and militarily, but when it comes time to divy up the rebuilding contracts, etc. the playing field is made equal.
Again, this is just my take on the former Yugoslavia mission, but does ANYONE know a single person who worked rebuilding that country after the war from this country?
We contributed the most significant portion to those conflicts, yet I feel we were sort of "short sticked" on the role post war.
I am for getting what you put in. You put in more, you get more, you put in less, you get less. You pull out your troops, you get "0" as in Spain.
Perhaps I am putting the interests longterm of the United States before diplomacy, but that is my opinion.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I would like to see that question brought up in a future debate (yes, this is an attempt to get the Chad bashers back to thread topic so we'll see if they have any self control) to Kerry about which countries he "says" he has promises from of joining the coalition if he wins.
I remember him claiming that he has spoken with the leaders of many countries who said that if he won, they would join the coalition.
I want to know who they are and how many troops they promised to send.
That would be a good debate question.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be honest, Chad, I'm a bit depressed by how important you seem to consider the reconstruction contracts.
(BTW, a simple "okay, so I was wrong" would probably go a long way with the crowd here, who seem upset that you're yet again refusing to acknowledge having been caught out in some substantial errors.)
[ October 01, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I am totally on board with making sure that the people who fought in the Iraq war should get the benefits that their sacrifices made possible. As such, I think any of the directors of Haliburton and other such companies that was down on the sand or driving a tank or flying a plane or heck, even working behind the lines as a medic should get special consideration in terms of awarding contracts. Other than that, what the heck did they do in this war that they should get special rewards out of it? If the money they were making was getting funneled into bonuses for the troops (or even getting proper gear for them), I'd be much more inclined to the idea of giving them consideration. Heck, Haliburton isn't even technically a U.S company. Their official corporate headquarters are in the Caiman Islands (or at least so I've been told).
As it was, our President flipped the rest of the world the bird when they didn't agree with his assessment of the situation and is now trying to punish them by exluding their companies from Iraq contracts. That's all well and good and maybe it makes us feel better in a "Hah! We showed them!" way, but it's still actively pissing them off. Whether this is a good idea depends on whether or not you wnat them to join in on helping out. Getting righteously indignant may or may not be justified, but it doesn't change the practical considerations the we need their help and that the course we're taking is almost designed to make sure that they don't want to give it to us.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Perhaps I am putting the interests longterm of the United States before diplomacy,
How in the world can diplomacy and getting along with other countries *not* be in the long term interests of the U.S?
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Chad, Seriously, you've metaphorically pissed your pants and are now stomping around like a petulant child saying that everyone else should be wearing diapers. Grow up already. Admit you made a big mistake. Stop trying to weasel out of it or put the blame on other people. Act like a man.
edit: I don't know about other people, but I tend not to take advice from someone with urine stained pants too seriously, which is pretty much the state you're in right now. Clean yourself up, because right now you stink.
[ October 01, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: To be honest, Chad, I'm a bit depressed by how important you seem to consider the reconstruction contracts.
So Kerry is wrong in saying that we should be concerned about the $200 Billion spent on the war? Where is the repayment of some of that going to come from? If Kerry gets elected, it's not going to come from Iraq because they money from Iraq is going to go to the Germans, French, etc.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I promise this will be my last post in the derailment subtopic of Hatrack ettiquette for Chad. This is what a personal attack looks like:
Chad, you are a stubborn bigot and you make me embarassed for conservatives. In fact, maybe you are an interference person planted by the left. Have you ever posted under the name StarGate?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
MrSquicky, you're out of line. Your comments are out of line.
Keep your comments attacking other posters to yourself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Where is the repayment of some of that going to come from?"
That is, indeed, an excellent question. Has Bush answered this question to your satisfaction?
Personally, I find it highly unlikely that the $200 billion will ever be repaid, but that's just me. My gut feeling is that the bulk of war profits are going to go to war profiteers, and most of those are talented enough to avoid paying many taxes in the first place.
[ October 01, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Chad, you are a stubborn bigot and you make me embarassed for conservatives. In fact, maybe you are an interference person planted by the left. Have you ever posted under the name StarGate?
Pooka, you're out of line. Your comments are out of line.
Keep your comments attacking other posters to yourself.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: That is, indeed, an excellent question. Has Bush answered this question to your satisfaction?
Personally, I find it highly unlikely that the $200 billion will ever be repaid, but that's just me.
Do you think there is MORE of a chance of it being repaid if only American contractors are used in Iraq, or do you think more of it will be repaid if Iraq is paying other countries besides the United States?
Under the Bush plan, Iraq's oil economy is to subsidize their rebuilding. This has been the plan all along. It was very clear when we invaded that other than Oil, they have no exports to make money with.
If you don't have contracts with Iraq for the repayment of that, but Iraq has them with France instead, or Germany, you get $0.
Again, just my opinion.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Come'on guys -- he's apologized several times. And I think you've all shown him evidence of your arguments -- can we get on with it now?
(and personally I read his mimicking of the "stop it now" phrase as a joke -- like said with a smile in a tease). I figure if we ever meet Chad in person, he has a great "straight-man" sense of humor.
Farmgirl
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm not sure it makes sense for them to pay us for taking over their country.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
By the way -- the $200 Billion figure is erroneous. They have pointed that out many times over and over on the news today. Nowhere near that much.
FG
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Farmgirl, I'm afraid we're hoping for too much.
And Iraq has been Autonomous since June 26th according to the UN and even Germany's website.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:By the way -- the $200 Billion figure is erroneous. They have pointed that out many times over and over on the news today. Nowhere near that much.
Over and over on FOX News? Think again. It's pretty close.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yeah -- 120 Billion, 200 billion --what's a few billion between friends?
Actually, I'm getting it from FactCheck.org which is attempting to look at it balanced and without bias -- just the facts.
Most of the errors cited were minor, or "stretched" in meaning -- I don't know if either man meant to mislead deliberately.
Farmgirl
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Farmgirl, I'm not primarily attacking Chad. I'm trying to give him advice. Right not, I don't have much respect for his maturity or his integrity. I doubt many other people do either. (I'd be suprised if even you did.) I'm offerring advice on how he could go about regaining people's respect. He can accept it or not, but, even if other people don't seem to follow my policy of more or less tuning out people they don't respect, the level of respect a person has earned seriously influences how people react to him here.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Yeah Factcheck is one of my favorite sites.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It'll be at least 200 billion by time the occupation is all said and done though. No?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
This thread isn't about me or giving advice. If I want your advice, I'll ask for it, in the meantime, keep your nasty poster attacking comments to yourself.
Talk about the issues, but keep to yourself your negative opinons of other posters.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: It'll be at least 200 billion by time the occupation is all said and done though. No?
We don't know that. It could be more it could be less.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: It'll be at least 200 billion by time the occupation is all said and done though. No?
Well, maybe.
The spending for next year (which is what he used to make the amount 200 billion) has not yet been requested by Administration, and Congress has not yet approved it.
FG
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Yeah -- 120 Billion, 200 billion --what's a few billion between friends?
A few billion and growing. The difference between Kerry's and Bush's approaches are one wants to cut some of the cost by having other nations bear more of the bill, while the other wants to handle it practically alone and pay all but the last 10% of the bill.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Chad, The thing that I'm trying to get across to you is that people's opinions of you are more important than whatever immeadiate issues are being discussed. You have a real opportunity to raise people's opinions of you here, to act like an adult, but you are not taking it. This is going to have longer lasting consequences than what you say on an issue, especially when that "issue" is as absurd as your "Germans are wussies." comment.
I, along with what appears to be many, many other people here, have a pretty negative view of you. That's not going to change unless you do something about it. While this impression remains, it's going to have serious effects on your interactions here. I honestly think it's important for you and probably for the community as a whole if you acted more maturely.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I agree Farmgirl, and if we use the same thinking post WWII Japan, we can regain some of that money in rebuilding the country.
Japan was pratically flatened by the war. Everything had to be rebuilt. Hiroshima was rebuilt from the ground up.
All the money spent doing that flowed through the United States.
No reason that can't happen again in Iraq.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
MrSquicky, can you "not" talk about me? Do you have some sort of "Must Post about Chad" thing going on?
How about your next post in this thread, (if you so choose to post) be about the "topic" of the thread.
Hey what a novel idea!
Let's quit derailing this thread shall we?
[ October 01, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all fairness, Chad, I'd like to make one request of you: will you concede that you were factually incorrect about Germany's peacekeeping roles?
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
I didn't really notice it last night, mostly because I was enjoying the fact that the candidates had finally gotten around to dealing with some actual issues, but was anyone suprised/disappointed by the questions ?
Foreign policy debate:
Little/no talk about Mexico - border relations could sneak into domestic policy
No attention paid to Pakistan or China except as the relate to North Korea and Afghanistan
No mention of policy with regards to Europe, excepting talkk of Europe and Iraq
NO MENTION of the Middle East ?? Hard to imagine international foreign policy being debated without Israel/Palestine being brought up.
I only noticed after reading some foreign perspectives on the debate. Sorry non-terror related countries, maybe we'll get around to you in 4 years Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I said I was about their financial givings. I was totally off. I said so. More than once. In fact this is the third time.
As to their troop deployments, I was wrong on some of the places where they had mininmal troop deployments (emphasis on minimal).
I was wrong in stating they had done nothing, because although they had done little comparatively (militarily speaking) they had done something.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I was wrong on some of the places where they had mininmal troop deployments (emphasis on minimal)."
You're more wrong than you think. Germany's foreign deployments are in fact rather LARGE, compared to all countries but the U.S. and Britain.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Zamphyr.
Only ONE mention of Israel by both candidates as well. Nothing about Palestine or the conflict over there.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Financially. Not militarily.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
AND militarily, Chad.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
You consider 8000 troops committed worldwide to be a major contribution. I'm sorry. I do not.
Also they are third financially behind Japan and the US and based on ONLY Militarily, I don't know where they fall.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Isn't Germany pretty wimpy when it comes to military forces to begin with? I mean -- they really don't have much of anything TO contribute? I didn't think they had enough trained me to even defend themselves, if something happened and they needed to.
FG
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Farmgirl, careful, I got called a bigot for saying Germany was "wussie" when it came to foreign aid.
I don't want you to receive the same hate speech I did.
I'll miss you during your vacation.
Maybe someone should start a new thread on good debate questions to be asked.
[ October 01, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I wasn't meaning it so much as an actual slam on Germany -- I just mean -- I don't think they would be much help.
And I don't have much in the way of facts to back up what I said -- this is just an offshoot of a converation I had with our German foreign exchange student last year, and what he told me about his country's military and his personal opinion of it, and of their readiness.
But then again, I don't know that world forces have allowed Germany to ever build up much of an army since WWII.
Farmgirl
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
AS I was going to say before the server crashed...
"You consider 8000 troops committed worldwide to be a major contribution. I'm sorry. I do not."
Can you name all the nations in the world, other then the US and Britain, with more then 8000 troops deployed worldwide? Is every nation not on that list "wussy?"
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Other countries had a vested interest in curbing German agreession after two world wars.
quote: Article 26 (Ban on preparing a war of aggression) Activities tending and undertaken with the intent to disturb peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional. They shall be made a punishable offense.
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/docs/german.htm The winners of WWII made the Germans renounce war of aggression, and it's in their Basic Law or Constituition. The Nipponese have similar restraints on their military.
[ October 01, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
There can be more than one conversation going on in any given thread. This is neither something new nor something expressly prohibited.
Regarding opinions which are statements of fact about the world:
It is a matter of acting in good faith. If you make a statement of fact about the world which you either know to be untrue, or (if it is a substantial claim) have no good reason to believe is true, then you are acting in bad faith.
I take lying and bearing false witness seriously, despite the fact that I do not have faith in supernatural powers. I do this because I take my responsibility to my community seriously, and I care about my friends and my own character enough to not make statements of fact about the world which are untrue.
This is, like, why we are all here -- to make a community. Acting in bad faith marks one as someone who is using the people and the community for some private reason, such as scoring points, to the detriment of others.
Using people is bad. Acting in bad faith is bad. It is a clarion call to others to view one as untrustworthy.
I have a sore edge regarding the current US administration's penchant for saying untrue things in a loud voice and repeatedly, as if it were just as good as those things being true. It isn't. It is manipulative and condescending.
That's all I'll say about it, but it isn't the sort of thing one forgets quickly, not if someone takes community and responsibility seriously. "Forgive and remember" is one of the better mottos.
I wish earlier I'd been more diplomatic. Chad, my offer to change anything I've said that you find personally offensive still holds. Just tell me what you would prefer it say instead. Otherwise, I'll leave it as is.
[ October 01, 2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We don't need Germany to have very strong military forces. In fact, its not so much the German military we need as German industry. You know, that of one of the strongest economies in the world?
Furthermore, as a good chunk of what we're putting into action consists of part time soldiers, while Germany's military, relatively small though it may be, has plenty of full time soldiers (due to mandatory military service), I think they'd do a pretty comparable job. We don't need conquering ability in Iraq just soldiers with basic skills.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
My major contribution to this thread: it's spelled "wussy" not "wussie."
That is all.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Chad, my offer to change anything I've said that you find personally offensive still holds. Just tell me what you would prefer it say instead. Otherwise, I'll leave it as is.
I'll let you decide what you say. It's not up to me. If you feel comfortable with your statements/sentiment, then so be it. If you believe something should be changed, then change it.
My opinion of whether it is appropriate or not is just my opinion.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Yeah, but your feelings count, too, and you shouldn't have to feel run over the rail just because you hit on a couple of my sore spots.
I want so much for you to stay. I want to hear you as a strong and authentic voice for a different perspective than mine. I want to rely on you to push me when I've been engaging in sloppy thinking, or blinded by bias, what have you.
More importantly, though, I want you to feel cool about coming here and welcome for all the great reasons.
Perhaps, instead, I should share some of my own less than stellar moments in the other thread ("Forgive and Remember")? I've been more than a jackass at times, having let down multiple people, broken solemn vows, and taken delight in harmless people's misery.
Uh, maybe you don't want to know. How depressed are you ready to be?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: How depressed are you ready to be?
I took my pills today, so I'm feeling good. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Good. I'll do this, then. Let me think about it for awhile and find something which really hurts. (No pain, no gain.)
I've spoken a lot here about bad things I've done in my outside life, but there are things about my behavior on Hatrack (apart from my shining moment of telling Kwea to "**** off") which I haven't faced up to yet.
I'll do it for you and for that sweet sting of coruscating fire that comes with baring the soul. So like having one's eyebrows waxed, I've found.
(I am missing a patch of skin under my right eyebrow, from the waxing. It is all puffy and makes me look quite rakish.)
[ October 01, 2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
they didn't put the soothing gell and cold iron on it after waxing to keep teh swelling down?
AJ
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
There was some sort of soothing cool gel so gently applied by the little blonde French miss. Probably would have been much worse without. (little strip looks like a first degree burn)
I put menthol and lidocaine on it last night. Then, after I retracted my fingernails out of the ceiling tiles, I climbed back down and swore like bloody blazes.
Who knew such soft, slim hands could deliver such fiery pain?
She offered to wax my bikini area, the sadistic minx.
I'm free tomorrow morning, but I'm not that strong of a woman. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The cold metal is really good too. Not every place does that though.
AJ
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Does Sara=CT? I am out of touch.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yup Morbo, Sara=CT and welcome back!
AJ
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
In response to fugu: my point about Germany's laws is that any attempt to deploy German troops [even in more straight-forward humanitarian cases] leads to endless hand-wringing in the German press, legal challenges, protests, etc.
A significent Iraq deployment by German troops is very unlikely no matter who is US pres next year.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was more referring to FG's post.
However, I disagree. If German companies get in on the rebuilding, German troops will follow, likely in similar numbers to what we see in Afghanistan.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Anybody like how the Iraqi insurgents fight "fociferoulsy"
vo·cif·er·ous adj. Making, given to, or marked by noisy and vehement outcry.
vo·cifer·ous·ly adv.
It's possible he used the word correctly, although it was weird to hear him use such a big word.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "i won't hold it against him that he went to Yale" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Bush went to Harvard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:Like his father, Bush was educated at Phillips Academy (Andover) (September 1961–June 1964) and Yale University (September 1964–May 1968). While at Yale he joined Delta Kappa Epsilon (where he was president from October 1965 until graduation), and the Skull and Bones society. He played baseball during his freshman year and rugby during his freshman and senior years. He received a bachelor's degree in history in 1968.
...
Bush entered Harvard Business School in 1973. He was awarded a Master of Business Administration (MBA) in 1975, making him the first U.S. president to hold an MBA degree.
So you're both right. He went to Yale AND Harvard. HA!
quote:The only thing I really want to add is that I find all the "Ha ha, Bush made a slip of the tongue" stuff to be incredibly petty. We already knew he's no Demosthenes. What's that got to do with anything? He seemed unprepared when compared to Kerry, yes. He repeated himself a little too often, yes. Those are legitimate complaints. "He's such a buffoon, he mispronounced 'mixed messages'!" is not.
These are legitimate complaints when you realize that he is our representative to other countries. I think what image our leading statesman presents is extremely important. Being such a "buffoon" should not be part of that image.
quote:On North Korea, Bush charged that Kerry’s proposal to have direct talks with that country would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions. Kerry has said he would continue the six-party talks as well. Bush said direct talks with North Korea would drive away China, a key player in the negotiations.
But each of the other four countries in the talks has held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process — and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea. Moreover, the Bush administration has talked directly with North Korean diplomats on the sidelines of the six-party talks, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met with his North Korean counterpart over the summer.
Look how large I can post to get the thread back on track... *struts*
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: These are legitimate complaints when you realize that he is our representative to other countries. I think what image our leading statesman presents is extremely important. Being such a "buffoon" should not be part of that image.
True, but the same could be said of Bill Clinton, etc.
No one is perfect. If a stutterer ran for President and was the best candidate. I would vote for him regardless of his stutter. Same if the person was an amputee or blind, or deaf.
We know he's not stupid by every score he's taken and where he was educated, etc.
He's not a very good speaker. And he's not a very good oral attacker.
Kerry won the debates on the "image" issue quite well.
I think one large definition I get from Bush and Kerry is that Bush will do what he thinks is best for America, world be damned. Kerry will do what he thinks is best for America, but tempered with what the world thinks is best for America and them as well.
For me, you are 1st President of the United States and that is your main priority is this country. 2nd is to represent your country to the world.
I hope the debates have more "debating" and less repetition.
It looks like the election is going to be super close again.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I find the idea that one can consider what is best for this country without considering the rest of the world suspect.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:I think one large definition I get from Bush and Kerry is that Bush will do what he thinks is best for America, world be damned. Kerry will do what he thinks is best for America, but tempered with what the world thinks is best for America and them as well.
And that is exactly why I support Kerry.
Welcome back Morbo!
-Beren
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:These are legitimate complaints when you realize that he is our representative to other countries. I think what image our leading statesman presents is extremely important. Being such a "buffoon" should not be part of that image.
I completely disagree. The only reason people think of Bush as a buffoon is because he stammers. First of all, it's irredeemably bigoted to judge a man's intelligence and ability to govern based on a speech impediment. What if Lincoln had stuttered? What if Roosevelt had had a lisp? Should they have been denied the presidency because they would be too buffoonish to be our "representative to other countries"?
Secondly, even if it isn't a true "speech impediment" in the technical sense of the term, I submit that even the most intelligent people in the world have slips of the tongue, some of them quite frequently. I defy anyone to name me one person in history with the power of speech who never slipped. You can question the man's ability to be president on many grounds, but I reject his stammering as one of them.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The only reason people think of Bush as a buffoon is because he stammers.
I stammer. Buffoon is a strange word, how about unfit to be president. Bush is unfit because of how he approaches problems, not what he says about them, though the two are tied, they aren't related to his stammering.
If you want to convince yourself that the only reason I believe that Bush is intellectually unfit is because he stammers, go ahead. But it won't make it true.
[ October 02, 2004, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:You can question the man's ability to be president on many grounds, but I reject his stammering as one of them.
You cannot dismiss anyone simply because they stammer. But to say that a man's ability to communicate his ideas is not an important criteria for leadership is sheer folly.
If speaking skills are completely unrelated to leadership, why do people hail Ronald Reagan as the Great Communicator and praise him for his ability to engender trust and optimism in the American people?
Although Bush is not a great technical debater, I think he is a very good speaker when he is well-prepared and knows what he is talking about (I thought his convention speech was excellent).
Bush's stammering is not really a result of being stupid. Rather, I see his inability to articulate an argument while under pressure as a sign of arrogance that he is absolutely right and that his opponents are absolute wrong.
Bush gets flustered a lot when asked tough questions by the press (which isn't often) and he tends to give this incredulous, "I can't believe you don't see it my way" look. That is not an act. He is truly surprised and shocked that people are stupid enough to disagree with him.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:Although Bush is not a great technical debater, I think he is a very good speaker when he is well-prepared and knows what he is talking about (I thought his convention speech was excellent).
Bush's stammering is not really a result of being stupid. Rather, I see his inability to articulate an argument while under pressure as a sign of arrogance that he is absolutely right and that his opponents are absolute wrong.
Bush gets flustered a lot when asked tough questions by the press (which isn't often) and he tends to give this incredulous, "I can't believe you don't see it my way" look. That is not an act. He is truly surprised and shocked that people are stupid enough to disagree with him.
"..when he is well prepared and he knows what he is talking about."
I'm not being overly snarky when I say this, but that above-mentioned condition is very rarely met. Bush himself acknoledges that he does not read. Not newspapers, not books. Maybe headlines. Not even his father's own book. He gets his support staff to give him quickie briefs of the current events. Remember four years ago when he didn't even know the names of most of the worlds' leaders? He is not an intelligent man. Not under most of the criteria we here are familiar with. He's not even a good business man, since all but one of the companies he has run were bankrupted by his leadership. Even this country is being bankrupted by his incompetent leadership.
We don't need to continue making excusess for this man. Arrogant or stupid or incompetent, he is unfit for the post of president, and if he's not impeached for lying to Congress about the deadly war in Iraq that he started without any threat or provocation, then hopefully he'll be voted out of office in November.
Clinton lied to the american people, and to a Congressional subcomittee, about having sex in the Oval Office. One blue party dress was ruined as a result.
Bush lied to Congress and the American people, and had Colin Powell lie to the UN about the Iraqi threat, and over 7000 Iraqis have died as a result of our indiscriminate bombing (including those cute little orange cluster bombs) and over 1000 US troops killed in action.
Kerry lied about...what? His Purple Hearts? He didn't lie about them; the SwiftVets claims have all pretty much been disproven. Kerry does discuss the medals to death, but that's hardly a crime.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: apart from my shining moment of telling Kwea to "**** off")
Sara, could you do me a favor?
Forget that happened.
I already have.
Kwea
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The only reason people think of Bush as a buffoon is because he stammers."
Does it make you feel better to know that I think of him as a buffoon for many, many reasons?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The reason most people think he is a buffoon is because he stammers, and is mocked for it.
Could you agree with that, Tom?
[ October 02, 2004, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The reason most people think he is a buffoon is because he stammers, and is mocked for it."
No, I disagree. Very few of Bush's linguistic problems are related to stammering; he instead seems unable to form coherent sentences using actual English words -- something that's not entirely unexpected from a man who, by his own admission, is barely literate.
I consider him a buffoon because he shows no sign of intelligence and often, when speaking in public, appears disconnected from what he is saying and what people around him are saying; he exists to produce soundbytes, and wanders into dangerous, incoherent territory when he attempts to do anything else.
He reminds me, in fact, of many CEOs I have known. I think the Dilbert Principle may well apply.
-----
To put this in perspective: when the Clinton library was being designed, the architects were so impressed by Clinton's understanding of architecture that, following an incident in which he suggested a modification which improved traffic flow and streamlined the outside of the main building, they invited him to sit in with them on their implementation sessions.
Now, I'm not saying that we should expect our presidents to be familiar with the principles of architecture -- but can anyone here even IMAGINE Bush, as his library is designed, taking such an interest in the subject that, like Clinton, he'd sit down and do enough research to impress professional architects?
The man lacks intellectual curiosity. He is, in fact, almost the definition of anti-intellectual -- and it shows in everything he does, which is why he appeals to people who are, themselves, biased against the educated.
[ October 02, 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote:[...]without any threat or provocation[...]
Steve, I hope you were joking. As it is, it wasn't very funny.
Iraq had been constantly firing at American aircraft since the first gulf war, as soon as they got close enough to take a shot. Nevermind whether or not they were in Iraqi air space. That alone would have been sufficient reason to go to war.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, I heard an interview with Molly Ivans, who had followed Bush's political career for years, and while she is one of his biggest critics (and makes no bones over it either!), she challanged a caller to find one instance in the last 10 yeas where she called W stupid.
He couldn't...because she never has called him that.
Dishonest, fake, phoney, calculating...she called him all of those...
But not stupid.
He isn't THAT dumb.....really, even though he bought his was into Yale and Harvard, he did fairly well there...not a Rhode Scholer like Clinton, but fairly well at two prestigious Universities.
Kwea
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Sadly, there are people who will vote against Bush because of his stammer, just as there were people who voted against Howard Dean because he couldn't yelp right. However, there are many far better reasons to vote against him, most of which our very dangerous policies he supports, but a few of which are character issues.
The worst of these, I think, is Bush's tendency to live in a somewhat simplistic fantasy rather than face the more complex realities facing him and the possibility that he has been mistaken. He does not seem to question his assumptions at any point after he decides upon them. He does this to such an extent that he even complains when Kerry does question things - insisting that Kerry should essentially lie rather than send "mixed messages" to the soldiers, people, and world at large. Bush wavers so little that it becomes a fault. He'd walk off a cliff before changing his course.
[ October 02, 2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Iraq had been constantly firing at American aircraft since the first gulf war, as soon as they got close enough to take a shot. Nevermind whether or not they were in Iraqi air space. That alone would have been sufficient reason to go to war.
Not really. For one thing, they had been doing that for years prior to 9/11 and Americans never ever thought it was a reason to invade Iraq.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Hmm... a self-professed illiterate and drunkard doing well at both Yale and Harvard. I wouldn't go so far to say its reason to believe the man is smart. I would say it's reason to believe his father bought his grades.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Basic impressions I got from the debate:
I really wish they had been allowed to directly engage each other.
If Kerry had been that straighforward with his responses from the beginning, this would be a walk.
Bush had the facial expressions and mannerisms of someone trying to explain a rainbow to a young child who persists in asking more questions that only display the child's ignorance. Bush obviously knows the truth, appears convinced that Kerry knows the truth too even though he is stubbornly arguing against it, and can't understand why anyone listens to anything Kerry says.
Kerry needs to have a sense of humor installed. I think that, somewhere offstage, there's a campaign worker with a remote control that he activates whenever Kerry needs to smile.
I'm glad Bush controlled his smirking. Whether he intends it or not, it makes him appear to be making light of whatever he's talking about and this was definitely not the time.
It's true. Anything past a sound byte and Bush just wanders.
Kerry is being too light in areas where he could easily have pressed an advantage. But then, Bush is missing areas where he could easily have picked up some points.
Bush is following the only pattern he's ever used -- staying the course. Of course, this only works if the course appears effective...
The debate was more entertaining and informative than I expected, but the only people it might affect are the undecideds. If you support Bush and his policies are obviously the Right Direction for America, even a poor showing will just make you feel sorry for the common sense guy getting badgered by the fast-talking politician. If you support Kerry then you were no doubt relieved to hear him finally state clear and thought-out opinions that are obviously the Right Direction for America and you'll be incredibly amazed that everyone else can't see it.
Sigh. I'm not looking forward to the next four years no matter which man wins.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Hmm... a self-professed illiterate and drunkard doing well at both Yale and Harvard. I wouldn't go so far to say its reason to believe the man is smart. I would say it's reason to believe his father bought his grades.
As a public-schooler I feel compelled to suggest an alternative possibility: That Yale and Harvard are just overrated. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Digging,
I'll admit my error, and apologize for it. Iraqi troops have been firing at our fighter jets, flying overhead to enforce the "No Fly Zone." The "No FLy Zone" has been in place since at least 1992, and was established to limit Husseins ability to retaliate against Shiite Muslims (and, I imagine, others), since the earlier Gulf War.
Also note that as of the writing of the above story, no jets had actually been shot down by Iraqi ground fire. And, we had been retalieating against their ground fore by firing back at them, and by destroying Iraqi command bunkers, communications stations and radar installations. I'm sure our retaliations have caused Iraqi loss of life (while their firing at us--at least up to that point--had not).
I cannot as of yet find any more recent reports. That may just be me, but I do not feel comfortable saying "see--the Iraqis have been firing at us and have never killed one of ours." Maybe they have (I can't recall). And I do not mean in any way to provide them with "justification" for firing at us. I don't like anyone firing at our planes, and I certainly don't/didn't like Hussein's military!
But let's compare. I'll concede: there was certainly "threats and provocation". But since 9/11/2001, what new threats and provocation? We were containing Saddam Hussein pretty handily (and for a lot less cost, in both money and in human lives!) with our strategy to-date. What did Husein threaten us with to warrant our attack on his country?
Nerve Gas? Atomic Weapons? Biological Weapons?
Now, don't get me wrong. WE KNOW HE HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! How do we know? BECAUSE WE SOLD THEM TO HIM! Bush 41's administration has the receipts (not just his administration, I'm sure, but they have the principal share).
But, as has since been stated over and over again--as of 9/11/2001, he had none. He also had no facilities with which to rebuild his WMD arsenal. Powell's statement to the UN was nothing but a bag of lies, as was Bush's State of the Union speech (the "Niger Yellow Cake" issue).
So we were handling the old provocation. What made us change our policy towards Iraq? What changed about Iraq that "we" (and, by "we," I mean "you." I opposed that idiocy from the start). Really--I'm asking. How did they all-of-a-sudden become so dangerous that we had to bomb the living daylights out of them?
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Agreed, Steve! Certainly there are other tyrants and warlords in the world more deserving of overthrow. Not to mention the sociopath in North Korea. Why is he still in power? Why is Robert Mugabe still in power? Why are we not pressuring Thabo Mbeki to stop supporting him?
What was so compelling about Sadam Hussein? I'll take a wager to answer that. He was the easier sell to the American people.
America can't... won't... go to war without popular support. It isn't (or wasn't, rather) in our blood to preemptively strike a nation. But Iraq? Hell, we already struck them, let's go finish the job, right? It even makes a movie-of-the-week kind of sense that the son should finish his father's job, Americans love drama.
I'm sorry to make light of this, I don't mean to. Dick and Bush did an excellent job of associating the word "terrorist" with Iraq, Sadam Hussein, and more disturbingly, the word, "them" to pander to the uneducated in our country who already made that association between terrorists and Arabs, Muslims, Islam, the "other", etc. It's the single-most disturbing characteristic of the Bush presidency. That he performed such an un-PC feat in our lifetime and nobody seems to care.
That's not to say Americans still don't care about morality. After all, we did try to impeach Clinton for amoral behavior.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Actually, the reason most people call George W Bush a buffoon is not because he stammers. And it's not because he's a buffoon. It's because he's a jackass, and they're just being polite.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Defenestrator (what are you, a Linux admin or something?); you're a bitter, cynical SOB. Maybe that's why I like you so much.
[ October 02, 2004, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Holy double-post, batman!
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
LMAO! How did that happen?
Linux? No, I like Windows. Defenestraitors is the name of my band.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
How'd I do that? I never make misteakes!
Now that I've acknowledged that error (so KWEA won't look foolish)...I'll remove the duplicate. --Steve
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
Farmgirl
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Brunch sounds delicious!
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
at Tom.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)