presidential debate? or glorified stump speach?Follow

Let them laugh, we have special technology so we can see them in their undies, then we'll be the ones laughing! Hehe.

I suggest we start with spelling and capitalization.

Why is it that someone who is criticizing the platform for the Presidential debates can't spell 'loses' or capitalize the first word in a sentence?


Shouldn't you be spending a little more time hitting the books and prying the tinfoil of your mother's wrists so we can find her?

I think the President knows when to capitalize.

illeterate

In case there's a single soul who HASN'T already seen it:

http://www.frontsteps.com/details.php?id=107

I've always though these sorts of debates are a joke. Pre-submitting questions so the candidate can have a press release answer ready and won't be caught off guard by any real questions is hardly a measure of their knowledge and stance on an issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------

i agree.

the league of women voters used to run the debate fairly. there were no shouting matches, and the public actually learned a bit about the candidiates, especially some of the details for what they claim they will do.

the current debates are nothing more than pre packedged stump speaches mutually designed to deliver a vague party agenda in short sound bytes your average trailer park resident might actually retain for a few days till election time.

both candidates will be spitting out one liners, like tossing a plate of spegetti on the wall, and hope some of it sticks, without having to give any details of the packaged lies they claim they will do for us once elected.

it is a travasty to even call it a debate.

they found a way to CONTROLL the media we use to make our decisions. just like the "embeded jorunalist" during the gulf war. "here, sit on this tank and take al the pictures you want. sign this first, it is just a standard release of liability form with some small concessions.....like you cant report ANYTHING unless we ok it first.....and what not"

we, the people, have NO WAY to make an informed decision as to who will lead this country any more. you either vote a party line, or dont vote.

luckily, Bush has made the decision easy for alot of us. the majority of the free world and half of america all agree on one thing. another 4 years of Bush is the WORST choice reguardless of what we know or do not know about Kerry.

we really have no way to judge Kerry, but we have 4 years of lies, deciet, ignorance, and needless killing to judge Bush by.

Yes, I do know what Kerry is saying.

He's saying that we wouldn't have gone if we had all of the information, and that there were better ways to handle it than a war. Saddam could be neutralized in many ways, and war was the least cost effective and caused the most loss of human life. He's saying now that it's been started, we have to finish it.


As for you people ranting about how people are going to vote for Kerry because he's not Bush.... So what? They want to do it, so let them. I can tell you that your "Not being Bush isn't a reason to vote for him" rants aren't going to affect their opinion.


I see it as a perfectly valid reason to vote for Kerry, though I will be voting for him because of what I know about the man.

Well, of course Dianne is spinning. She's part of the Big Media and that's what they do. My point is not to rehash the debate over the war in Iraq. My point is, Kerry can't answer the initial question at all.

If you can answer the question so well and so quickly, why can't the man who wants to be president?



Then why didn't he just say that? See where I'm going here?

No, he did not answer it the way you did. He inferred that the president knew at the time that: 1. there was faulty intelligence, 2. there was no immenant threat, 3. there were and are no WMD's,(when the entire UN agreed that there were) and 4. that there were no Iraqi links to Al Queda. He says he would not have gone to war knowing these things, but at the time we went to war nobody knew these things and some of them are still unkown.

The president did not know these things at the time, so Kerry's whole statement is irrelevant. Kerry plainly says, "We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today." He says nothing about whether we should have gone to war knowing what we knew then.

He doesn't mention what he would have done, which is the important point. He only states he would not have done what Bush did, which is a cop out.

He's not giving real answers at all.



Like WHAT?? He doesn't know. He just knows what it's not. Yeah, thanks for the enlightenment, Mr. Kerry.

"was the war in Iraq worth it?"

That's the initial question. He led her to the other questions with his answers. The last question was one she shouldn't have asked, because it's misleading, but to be completely honest had he answered the first question even remotely reasonably, the questioning wouldn't have come to that.

His answer says absolutely nothing. You can infer from it whatever you want, which is the whole point of his ambiguous answer. That's why he's so vague. He doesn't want to take a side at all, yet wants to appear as if he is.

That's Kerry.

I, and I'm sure many other Americans, would like to know what kind of action he would have taken at the time, or at least what kind of action (if any) he plans on taking if he gets into office. I would have loved to listen to a 16 point plan for eliminating Saddam. That's the point of the interview, is it not?

He's still basically saying "I'm not Bush," and I'm saying that ain't enough. Tell me why not being Bush is such a great thing and I'll listen. I honestly would like to know.

But, Kerry doesn't even know why it's a good thing, he just knows it's what a potion of the voters wants to hear.