... they were both so goddamn "on message" that they forgot they were answering questions.  They were soo deeply "media trained" that they were treating people like reporters:  "never answer the question that was asked, answer the question you wanted the reporter to ask".  Where is Bill Clinton when you really need him???

For Christ Sakes!  Clinton could have taken either side and finished the other guy off!  

For Kerry

President Bush is right.  I  change my mind when I get new information.  I was given bad information about the situation in Iraq.  It was the same information that everyone else in the US got.  We were told that we were under threat from Iraq's WMDs.  They weren't there.  Mr Bush started a war, killed more than 1000 American Servicemen, killed tens of thousands of Iraq civilains, spend $120B with more to come, and did not finish the job in Afganastan.  Additionally, he ignored all sorts of outside advice that the WMDs were not there and made us look like fools in the international community.  Since the truth of this has come out, he has flown from one reason to another trying to justify why he did not make a mistake.  He exemplifies the reason why the children's story about the emperor who had no clothes still is important today.  I think that more and more American's are ready to reject an administration and a policy that cannot see it's own errors and correct them.

For Mr Bush

Mr Kerry is right. Iraq did not have WMDs.  There were other reasons I had that made the invasion a good idea, but the WMDs were issues about American safety.  With 20/20 hindsight, I would not have committed American troops.  However, nobody has 20/20 hindsight.  I was working with the best information I had at the time.  Now, Amereica has to live with, work with, and deal with the situation as it is.    America has to fix it and help the people of Iraq make something better for themselves.  Whomever you vote for, you are going to get a flawed human being who has to figure out what to do and make the decisions. The job is going to be hard and messy.  I know what hard messy work is -- I'm from Texas and my home is on a ranch.  Who are you going to trust to do this hard messy work?  Me or a guy who who has no real ideas for solving the situation beyond calling an international conference?  

I'm sorry for the rant.   Harry

Kerry has no clue ON the economy or anything else.  

More money for no brat left behind, more money for more troops, more money for his socialist hair-brained medical care idea.

WERE IS ALL THIS BILLIONS GONNA COME FROM?  Raising taxes is gonna PUSH US INTO A RECESSION.

How are you gonna have more tax revenue to pay for all this crap when you're having a recssion?

Kerry don't know shit.  All he can say is better better better by spending more money. Yeah, right.  WE WOULD'VE BEEN IN UTOPIA 30 YEARS AGO IF HIS DUMBASS, IF THOSE SOCIALIST DUMBASS IDEAS WORKED.  If he's president, he'll just screw things up.

VOTE GEORGE W. BUSH.  MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT. VOTE REPUBLICAN PARTY UP AND DOWN THE LINE.
VOTE FOR FREEDOM
VOTE FOR PROSPERITY
VOTE FOR VICTORY
VOTE GEORGE W. BUSH

It was ok.  It appeared to touch on opportunities that both candidates missed to minimize any damage from positions (or change or them, or failure to modify them) that the other has attacked as a weak point.

...but at least I know my boy JK has a few plans!  

In spite of your valid criticisms (which make me wonder what you're smoking to hope to get simple truths uttered aloud by people seeking political power in 2004), I increasingly believe I have a better grasp of these two men as a result of these debates.  

I do think that the core, real & substantive differences are being clearly drawn, so that the average person who watches the 4 debates will have a reasonable basis on which to decide.

Not to be cynical, but my longstanding perception that GB can't string together an idea that has more than 1 or 2 data points in its logical construction is increasingly confirmed.  I also increasingly think JK is a guy who will not speak directly about issues and will take the politically expedient road.  

But, there are real differences in basic approaches and philosophies.  In the end, this election is a Rorschach test that measures who we are as a nation and how we look at some pretty fundamental issues like how to go about addressing WMD in the 21st century.

Kerry seems like a real "politician" to me, a guy who will say what he needs to say to get elected.  But Bush keeps trying to change the reasons for the war.  I'm thinking that my wallet can't afford to go after every dictator that the world would be better off without - there are too many of them.  The war is going to make my taxes go up at some point in the future.

I didn't like what Bush said about drugs from Canada - we should have those drugs now, not later.

Bush is a straight-ahead guy, but he makes too many mistakes.  Kerry is promising a lot of stuff he can't deliver on.

... is that you'll really think things through and give a perspective that reflects a careful analysis devoid of easy sloganeering.  No sir, no pure simplistic emotional exaggeration from you.

Geez, George Bush said (to paraphrase) he would not appoint any justices that would render a decision like in the Dred Scott case....Well, no shit, the Dred Scott case is the most infamous case in Supreme Court history where it was ruled that----"slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories".

I've harped on this before & I'll say it again, if you want government to control your life, ie: taking away a woman's right to choose, shoving religion down your throat, & taking away your First Amendment rights, then you go ahead & vote for Bush, because he will do EXACTLY that when he gets to appoint justice(s)to the high court......

Kerry was asked last night about possible appointments, & remember he responded saying, Bush prefers justices in mold of Scalia & Thomas, & Bush didn't have rebuttal for that, because it's 100% true!

Bush's distortions more frequent and more significant

prefer justices like Scalia and Thomas.  One question I wish Bush would have asked is; "Senator Kerry, as a senior and powerful Senator, why didn't you simply amend the Partial Birth Abortion Ban to exclude the requirement of an incestual rape victim notifying the alleged perpetrator, so then you could have supported this legislation?"  Or have I missed something, is the partial birth procedure only used in cases of rape or are there forces out there that believe this should be an automatic right for every woman who is pregnant?  

 If there is no line drawn, when will euthanasia become acceptable?  When will this attack on the unborn turn against the newborn?  or the infant that is judged to be undesirable in the first few months of his or her life?

... to DIE ? Which is MORE valued an un-born mass that has YET to "BE", or a human life that has already developed ?

And before you say this is a bullshit arguement Snafu, and that WAR is a sometimes needed EVIL, well then also extend it to Bush and his like for supporting capital punishment. Same thing.

Only reason I can find is Hypocrites want it BOTH ways.

-- Modified on 10/9/2004 7:28:28 PM

he's got his confidence back.

Look at Kerry's record.   BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD judgement.  He don't know shit.   He was against winning the Vietnam war, he was against Ronald Reagan every step of the way. To wit:  Kerry got snookered by Daniel ortega in Nicaragua (against funding the contras); against Reagans strategy that beat the Soviet Union*, against Reaganomics.  AND I'M NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT HIS BOGUS RECORD AS A NAVY OFFICER IN VIETNAM.

*  Don't you Democrats dare say Reagan did NOT beat the Soviet Union.  CAUSE REAGAN DID!!  Ronald Reagan whupped the Soviet Union!  He said NO to Gorby in Iceland, and no a bunch of other times.  The Soviet Union caved cause Reagan had principles and guts.  So does Bush.

Now, John Kerry is like Jimmie Carter.  You know, the President that let those dirty stinking (BO like Michael Moore's) rotten Iranian terrorists who held our people hostage for 444 days.  Jimmie has lots of cognative brain power but no balls.  Jimmie Carter's foreign policy was impotent.   JOHN KERRY'S FOREIGN POLICY WILL BE IMPOTENT.

p.s.  I just thought of something.  Kim Jong Il of North Korea gave Madeline Albright lots of champaigne to get her drunk and have his way with her- in more ways than one.  Wow, that's really gross.  Can you imagine those two n****d and having **x.  Wow, I'm grossing myself out.

Where's my almanac, OK Canada has 31 million people.  The gov. up there has socialist medicine.  They told the drug companies what they could sell drugs for.  End result, NO PROFIT for the drug companies that do sell drugs up there.  And companies have to make a profit to survive.  some drug companies just cut bait and don't sell drugs up there.  Kerry wouldn't know anything about that cause he's a BILLIONAIRE.  Why would you want to have a billionaire as president.

P.S.   SOCIALISM STINKS LIKE YOU KNOW WHO'S FEET

He should also have both his driver's license & voting privileges revoked.  His rapid deterioration caused by Vegetable Reagan disease has deemed him a danger to both himself and others.

Geezer, why aren't you supporting Nader?  It would make sense, because you're "Unsafe At Any Speed".

Full of distortions and revising history to make their point.

yet you find no hipocracy on the left?  How many millions of abortions have been performed while the left cradles convicted murderers?  How the left doesn't come out with facts that talking to kids about abstinense is ineffective, rather their position usually is that it's against their civil liberties to hear the concept explained to them?  I'll come back to this later, I was just passing through

The "John Kerry - At least he believes in evolution" bumper sticker summed the George W. administration up for me, which is why I have this sticker on my car.

The George W. administration is anathema for scientists - W.'s anti-evolution stance is just one reason as to why so many scientists are working hard to see him defeated.

For those interested, there is a web site setting out the positions of "Scientists and Engineers for Change" (see below URL)

All those nutso lefty judges that are doing social engineering are wrecking the country.  They are arrogant, condescending stuffed  black robes.

That partial birth abortion is nuts.  That procedure makes getting your head sawed off with a knife or I should say is  about equal in horror.  They pull the baby out feet first all the way to it's neck (all that's left is poping the head out and it's born), then they stab the baby in the back of the skull w/forcepts, then the abortionist jabs a giant hypodermic needle into the twitching dying baby's skull wound (created by the forcept stab) and pulls a vacuum with the plunger and sucks out the dieing babys brains and totally kills it.  Then the abortionist does pull the DEAD baby out and throws it in the bio garbage container.

IF YOU SAW ONE VIDEO OF A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, YOU WOULD BE AGAINST IT.

Plus, those arrogant lefty judges have no interest in legalizing our hobby, or legalizing marijuana for medical purposes.  They are arrogant.  Thomas and Scalia are not.  

And another thing, atheists are so fanatic that atheiism is their religion.  Haven't you noticed that?  They're fanatic crazy people.  How can you be a logical person when you're a fanatic crazy person?

another thing,  nearly every woman that is raped and goes to an emergency room gets that day after pill.  And if they didn't why would they wait till the end of the 3rd trimester to have an abortion.  It makes no sense.

thinking that straight ahead full blast is the right choice.

Like Bill Maher said recently on his HBO "Real Time" show, Bush needs to go back to drinking and doing drugs at least then Bush would MAYBE have an excause for doing the things he has.

the Bush family is, Poor ? good damn you've lost it sir, and forthermore get used to it coming down to choice's between millionaires/billionaires vs. millionaires/billionaires for president from now on, because those are the ONLY ones who can afford to run for president and have any chance at winning anymore.

Kerry said he was opposed to the ban because there was no exception for using it to save the life of the woman. Parental notification is a separate issue of the abortion debate and not tied to the partial birth ban.

The man who dictates what I can and cannot do with my body, DOES NOT GET MY VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Modified on 10/10/2004 8:37:15 PM

politics is no longer a part of everyday life, neither in newspapers, movies, in songs, and most influential of all, not in today’s schools. We need to start younger and teach young people that politics effect their lives more than they care to acknowledge. A start is things like WAR and a Draft, and the Death that can follow, funny how these things can bring young people to the table to listen.

He did have the right policy in the right time, but he was also very lucky.  In all fairness, Reagan's succes in this has made me cautious, because I do think his military escalation put Soviet Union at the brink financially.  And I was as outraged by his ideas then as I am now by Bush in Irag.  Thus, I am trying to think past my instincts.

OK, now a peronal and fundamental criticism of you, GOP Geezer, and I mean it.  You shout platitudes without any real thought behind your point of view, and it makes someone like me think you're full of shit and that you can't really see past your anger and emotion.

So all the value you really have to bring to the conversation gets lost on people like me.  

I frankly think you have something to say that I also agree with.  But the arrogance in your posts mainly just pisses me off.  


-- Modified on 10/10/2004 10:55:07 PM

See my post above for a long set of connections as to why politics isn't pertinent.  I'd be most interested in your ideas in response.  

I also see a lot of political movies being released in LA, by the way, like M Moore's movie, and a bunch of smaller movies.

Maybe you have kids and maybe you don't, but for this excersize, let's say that you have a 16 year old daughter that little Johnny just threw a shot into.  Although he was using a government sactioned and supplied condom, he doesn't realize that carrying it in his back wallet for 2 years might render it ineffective.  4 weeks later, her friends say, "You are to worried, worrying will cause your period to delay", 2-3 weeks later, she is really worried and goes to see the school nurse who provides her with a pregnancy test or administers a test on her and confirms that she is pregnant.  The school nurse now informs her of her right of privacy (excluding any parentel notification) and her obligation to do the right thing.  She is torn because she really loves kids, but wants to go to college, yet Ms. Hyphenated-Lastnames tells her that the sex with a boy is basically rape and mother earth can longer sustain the population growth.  She further tells her that she has already made an appt for counseling at PP for the next day, and if she chooses, the "procedure" can be done immediatly following the counseling period and she can return to school in a few days without anybody knowing the difference.  After all, its a free service that's included in your public education.

 Now, my question for you.  If you are this child's mommy, are you willing to allow your 15 or 16 yr old child to make a life decision?  One that may emotionally scar her forever?  

 Oh wow!  Not a single mention of G*D, the athiests will be pleased!

EOM

it up for adoption.

like the the sex (male or female) of the baby, you wouldn't have a problem with the baby being destroyed immediatly at that point?  As long as part of the baby is in the womb, it's still your choice, right???  Or maybe you wouldn't have a problem with someone having a baby just for the organ or stem cell harvesting to keep a 80 yr old rich guy alive for another 5-10 years?

I am not advocating for any woman out there, to run and get an abortion!!! Personally, I would most likely have my baby out of wedlock (IF, and that is a big IF), should I ever get into a situation. But, that is MY CHOICE to keep the baby. Just like it may be another woman's choice to abort. I am not here to judge any woman's decision, for it is HER BODY, HER CHOICE, to do what she needs to do for herself. But, until the day I lose breath in my body, I will fight tooth and nail to have my choices never taken away, by any man or woman out there. Pro choice to me, is more than an issue of abortion. Its about having and making choices in life! Some of our choices may not always reflect the majority, but ultimately, that is that is my own choice to make. Not anyone elses.

world.  He has new adventures and challenges. He's in a much better place. God's grace to Chris Reeves.

You know: Keep It Simple and Stupid.  But I prefer sincere for the last word.

I'm not shouting.  I'm trying to keep it interesting!  You know, so people will keep reading. I'm having fun!!!!!! In a sincere way.  To me, this board is very addictive--- and fun!!!!

There seem to be a lot of wanna be academics on this board along with a lot of wanna be authors.  What the hell, I'll be honest, I described myself.

Have a beer and toast freedom.