Any americans watch the debate last night?

Gilbert · Tue 12/10/2004 07:31:02

Maybe he got bankrupted so he doesn't need to support Bush anymore.

*BA DA DUM!1!*

* Gilbot V7000a actually has no interest in the topic and maybe read only 0.05% of stuffs in this thread.

poop743 · Wed 13/10/2004 02:08:57

John kerry is a weiner. He wouldnt take over the world. I am also poking fun at star wars. Also, i need the head drawn by you. That photo could only run on the super high resolution and color depth

Matt Brown · Wed 13/10/2004 02:12:01

I cant understand the "Im pro-life so Im off to vote for Bush" dealie. I consider myself pro-life. Most religous people are. But, its not like a vote for Bush can change anything

Roe V Wade was not an act of congress. It is not a law. Its a supreme court case. Bush can rant and bitch about how Abortion is evil, but he cant do a thing about it, unless the court wants to re-open the case, something that is *highly* unlikely.

Same with Kerry. Aint a thing he can do to change anything. its a misconception the GOP propagates with people who dont know how the US goverment works.

There are other reasons to vote for Bush, I guess. Taxes might be one. If you were a xenophobe, that might be another. If you liked No Child Left Behind, are against Gay Rights, or are terrified or terrorists, then you might vote for Bush too. I dont agree with this rational, but there a few reasons.

America wants a desisive leader. they dont care if he fucks up, as long as he fucks up with gusto. Weird place I live in.

juncmodule · Wed 13/10/2004 02:13:09

poop743 if you would like to discuss your game please find another thread to do it in. If you would like help with your game, please find the proper thread to ask for it in.

oh...and to make this post worthwhile...

The final debate is Wednesday, October 13 at 9:00 p.m. E.T.

later,
-junc

EDIT: Panda, I guess the thing is Bush is against it, Kerry isn't. People who stand on one side or another of such a hot topic tend to be very zealous in their opinions and standings on it. It's not a matter of either one being able to do something about it. Although I do imagine at some level bills could be passed, supreme court justices could be selected, or departments heads selected that could change some sort of legislation which would affect it. Some sort of, it is illegal to perform abortions without such and such medical certification or something. I don't know, I'm not a law expert but I'm sure there is a way for something like that to occur.

Matt Brown · Wed 13/10/2004 02:24:33

if it were possible to do anything about it...why hasnt he? Bush was all gung ho about swinging social policy to the GOP side. he's done squat for it. It really is a non-issue

DGMacphee · Wed 13/10/2004 04:48:55

I found this story on IMDB:

Democrats Seek To Block Sinclair's Anti-Kerry Telecast
Sinclair Broadcast Group's plans to preempt regular network programming on its 62 TV stations just before election day to air an anti-John Kerry documentary have been caught in a pincers movement by Democratic lawmakers and party officials. The Democratic National Committee said that it plans to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission over the company's plans to carry Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, in which Kerry is lambasted by fellow Vietnam War veterans. At the same time, Democratic senators have asked the FCC to investigate the planned telecast. Today's (Tuesday) Los Angeles Times indicated that they will find a sympathetic ear in FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, who called Sinclair's decision "an abuse of the public trust." Copps said that it represented "proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative.

Here's CNN's version:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/kerry.program/index.html

Here's the website for the doco:
http://www.stolenhonor.com/

Could this doco be the end for Kerry?

TerranRich · Wed 13/10/2004 05:16:08

If it airs and people believe the bullshit that will be broadcast, then I will be sorely disappointed in the average intelligence of the people in this country. It still baffles me, to no end, that people can bash Kerry for doing something that Bush ran away from. It boggles the mind.

MrColossal · Wed 13/10/2004 05:27:55

What boggles my mind is that people will be swayed by a 2 hour movie when Bush has fucked up for 4 years...

DragonRose, Unilin, clear off a couch, Eric and Jess are coming to Canada!

Barbarian · Wed 13/10/2004 09:23:39

Straight Talk from George W. Bush (well, at least at least Will Ferrel impersonating him):
http://www.crapville.com/videos/STRAIGHTTALKHI.asx Ã,Â Ã,Â

Anarcho · Thu 14/10/2004 03:40:33

Allright, the last debate is behind us, and soon we can forget about this awful thread.Ã,Â :'(

Did everybody see Bush lay the smack down on "ENGLAND"?Ã,Â On a question regarding the flu vaccine, he said something like, "Well first of all, the product was manufactured in ENGLAND"....see, and I always thought Bush liked England for, you know, helping out in his wars of compassion.

That was another great line, he talked about his "armies of compassion."Ã,Â Awesome.Ã,Â Next stop, Ministry of Love.

And more importantly, what was with the spittle on Bush's lips for half the debate.Ã,Â Very distracting.Ã,Â You can see I take these things seriously.

Moox · Thu 14/10/2004 03:43:56

Kerry just ruined his arguement.
In a interview with mtv kerry stated that drug abusers should not be clogging up the jails as they are non violent.

Anarcho · Thu 14/10/2004 03:50:56

What was the arguement that he ruined?

MrColossal · Thu 14/10/2004 04:11:52

I'm glad someone else saw the spittle, I was all like "Oh man! Bush is going into a Hulk Hogan type rage! He's gonna tear his shirt off and powerbomb Kerry into the audience!"

Sadly, he didn't. Cause Kerry can totally take him and he knows it "Frankenstein Vs The Monkey"

Anyways, was Bush not at the debate he had with Kerry when Kerry mentioned the Global Test?

Or does he just love taking things out of context and misleading people?*

It's just so angering to me so so much...

Eric

*This is rhetorical

Anarcho · Thu 14/10/2004 04:53:14

You know what gets me, is when Bush says this "Massachusetts liberal" bullshit...I don't know why Kerry doesn't develop a backbone and call him out on it.Ã,Â Why's "liberal" a bad word?Ã,Â Fuck that.Ã,Â I'm liberal, and proud of it.Ã,Â I'm from CONNECTICUT, another one of those eastern LIBERAL states, and I'm proud of it.Ã,Â Gosh darn it, I even believe in crazy things like people should have the right to organize unions, corporate executives and management shouldn't make so much more money than I do, queer couples should have the legal right to marry, women should have the right to choose...and I'm proud of all those things.Ã,Â It just gets me that so many of our democratic politicians shy away from the word "liberal", when it really stands for so many core values that most Americans believe in.

-Logan

MrColossal · Thu 14/10/2004 04:58:55

besides the gay marriage thing I can agree that those are core values most americans believe..

However, this administration has turned liberal into a dirty word... hmm maybe not even this administration but over the past 8 years maybe it's been slowly turned in those this thing that's horrible to be. I don't know how and I don't really know why. Well how is probably through repetition and why is to defame. But still, is it that hard to debate someone without name calling?

Spoiler

you fuckin' liberal...

[close]

Anarcho · Thu 14/10/2004 05:09:13

I wasn't saying those were all core values, just things I believe in.

shbaz · Thu 14/10/2004 05:44:13

I've noticed that too. The throwing around of "liberal" as a dirty word is just laughable. It's happening in my home state with two senator candidates as well. I'm thinking about writing the "dirty liberal" and telling him to put the definition in one of his campaign commercials, because that would really put things in perspective.

QuoteLiberal:
Noun
1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

Adjective:
1. Showing or characterized by broad-mindedness
2. Having political or social views favoring reform and progress
3. Tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
4. Given or giving freely
5. Not literal

Other than the laissez-faire markets, I'd consider it an insult to not be called a liberal.

Bush may as well be screaming, "I'm a close minded bastard and all of you intellectual weirdos who are for progress and broad-mindedness need to shut the hell up and go to church!" which sadly wouldn't actually anger many people here.

DGMacphee · Thu 14/10/2004 06:05:12

In Australia, our main political party (which won re-election over the weekend) is called 'Liberal', even though it's more conservative than liberal.

Also, haven't watched or listened to the debate yet. Finding a transcript of the debate right now.

shbaz · Thu 14/10/2004 07:53:03

C-span has all of them.

http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/debates.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=PresVP_04&Rot_Cat_CD=PresVP_04

DGMacphee · Thu 14/10/2004 07:56:26

Listened to it on net radio.

Although he made some good points now and then, I could really hear the desperation in Bush's voice.