Presidential Debates

What a poor memory. Bush brought up the World Court.What height of arrogance it is, however, to say that everyone else should be subject to international law... but we shouldn't. I can't think of a more arrogant stance that we could take.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Did you actually watch the debates? Bush brought up the International Criminal Court, as a way of ducking out of Kerry's statement, which was about anti-proliferation. Here's a transcript. Read.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Kerry brought up the World Court in the debate when he talked about us being a part of the international clique, GWB responsed that Kerry is for the World Court, and Kerry never denied this, because Kerry is also for curbing industy by excessive emmissions, truly against american interests. If you want to be bound by Global World Law, then move to a country that is not free, here in America even you infidels have freedom from the government, the same separation protections as the church as Thomas Jefferson saying this separation from government protections even include the infidels, etc...Its really not in your best interest to lose this special protections you have in the Bill of Rights, etc...P.S. To make World law soverign over US law would take away your separation protection freedoms, so if your honest with your infidel lifestyles, you better vote for GWB, or chance losing whatever rights you think you have, etc...MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest VideosKerryYou don‘t help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.LEHRER: Ninety seconds.BUSH: Let meI‘m not exactly sure what you mean, passes the global test, you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn‘t sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinionthe difference of opinions.And that is, I wouldn‘t join the International Criminal Court. It‘s a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.And I wouldn‘t join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn‘t a popular move. But it‘s the right move not to join a foreign court that couldwhere our people could be prosecuted.My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it‘s not in our best interest makes no sense. I‘m interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I‘m not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.This message has been edited by whatever, 10-01-2004 03:19 PM

Unlike you, I actually took notes during the debate and remember something about it.Kerry criticized Bush for not cooperating with international efforts on polution and such. Bush dodged the issue completely and claimed that Kerry was criticizing him for the international court thing. I think Bush was hoping that people would have such a short memory enough to not notice how he dodged the point. I guessed it worked, as you've just demonstrated to us.

---

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

​

Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.

As a question, do you believe that this is true for all other nations as well, or are their freedoms not threatened by international law in an international court?And am I to take it then that you are firmly against the trial of Milosevic and previous trials against serbian military commanders accused of genocide?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Remember how you were going on about intellectual dishonesty earlier? Well, your post isn't the post where irony died... it's the post where irony's beheading was videotaped and sent to the networks.You had a transcript of the debate presented to you one post before you said this. Open it. Hit ctrl+f. Type in "court". Hit enter.Lo and behold. The first to bring it up was Bush.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 10-01-2004 03:13 PM

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Was anyone else baffled when Bush started rambling about not being able to "love" the wife of a soldier properly because he had sent her husband to his death?That almost sounded like a shakesperian plot or greek tragedy.Or what about when he said something like "I know how they think" when refering to the rest of the international leaders?That sounded like he forgot he was talking about our friends for a second. Very condescending for a guy saying how important it was to have allies and treat them nicely.This message has been edited by holmes, 10-01-2004 03:17 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sorry to bring this thread further off-topic, but what exactly is "World law" and how is it supposed to become sovereign over US law?

Here is part of the script from the debate. You can find it at CPD:

quote:

---

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

​

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war? KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

​

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

​

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

​

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

​

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

​

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.

​

Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet. But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.

​

You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.

​

You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.

​

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

​

BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.

​

My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

​

My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions. And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.

​

And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.

​

My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.

---

This message has been edited by Lam, 10-01-2004 03:19 PM

Yeah, that cracked my girlfriend up. She said something to the effect of, "what, you already killed the guy, now you're gonna nail his wife?"

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

I doubted he actually knew how to use the ctrl+f thing so I posted part of the script about it for him.

A little pressed for time, so I'll give my quick lowdown:1. No need to state the obvious, but darnit it just tickles my funnybone - Kerry was the clear overall winner. Sheesh, even the Conservative commentators and bloggers stated as such. From William Rivers Pitt today:

quote:

---

"They need to make Americans forget what happened tonight," said ultraconservative Joe Scarborough on MSNBC, speaking on what he believed the Bush campaign needed to do post-debate. Right out of the gate, Scarborough and the other talking heads gave the debate to Kerry, hands down, turn out the lights when you leave. "I think John Kerry," said Scarborough a bit later, "looked more Presidential."

​

A post-debate caller to C-SPAN announced herself as one who had voted for and supported Bush, and then described the Democratic candidate as "President Kerry." Freudian slip? We report, you decide.

​

At FreeRepublic.com, the bastion of far-right cheerleading, the faithful were fashioning nooses. "It's really painful listening to Bush," said one Godebert. "Kerry has had him on the defensive from the beginning. Kerry sounds confident while Bush has a pleading defensive tone. Not good so far."

​

"Kerry looked much more experienced," said one whadizit. "He appeared to be relaxed and in control. W looked weary and worn and sounded weary and worn."

​

"Unfortunately," saith The Sons of Liberty, "Kerry looked more prepared. He seemed to have more facts, however questionable, at his command and he delivered his message succinctly. Even when confronted on his flip-flops, he had plausible explanations. On the other hand, The President seemed to lose his train of thought at times. He continued to repeat the same things, and he looked tired and a little haggard. He needs to do much better next time."

​

The comments went on and drearily on in this vein, in conversation thread after conversation thread, until a forum participant named areafiftyone threw the distraught legions a lifeline: "I had that feeling that Kerry had the questions beforehand. He seemed to have his answers right on target. Bush seemed like he was surprised by the questions. I wish they could investigate to see if the DNC got a hold of the questions beforehand."

​

Yeah, that's it. Never mind that one participant had total command of the facts, an understanding of the foreign policy realm, a firm grasp on the situations in Iraq, North Korea and Afghanistan, while the other participant seemed shocked that faded platitudes and repeated campaign slogans weren't getting the job done. The shattering, humiliating, obvious defeat handed to George W. Bush before a massive television audience must have come because moderator Jim Lehrer somehow conspired with debate host Fox News to telegraph the questions to Kerry beforehand.

​

Or something.

​

Page not found - Truthout

---

As one blogger put it, the split screen might have saved the election for Kerry. There were times that it seemed that Bush would forget that the camera would be focused on him at all times. Kerry played the camera extremely well. Kerry also kept his messages much more succinct and clearer than anticipated. Bush was clearly rattled, and was seemingly unprepared at times as he seemed quite repetitive of his message, even when his message was often times not entirely related to the question asked.2. I completely agree with the post earlier regarding Kerry's opportunity to drive a dagger into Bush on his $87 billion funding. Kerry missed a major opportunity to turn the tables on Bush here. Nevertheless, I thought his rebuttal, though a bit weaker on substance, was good on display and tone.3. I believe, too, that the tables turned when Kerry corrected the President about who attacked us. At that point the momentum clearly shifted in favor of Kerry, and Bush was left on the defensive from that point forward. Both his repetitive message and posture was quite revealing of this shift.4. With all that said, I wonder just how good the conservative spinmeisters are going to be this time around. Are they going to successfully perform a shift on who won like they did with the Gore/Bush 1st debate in 2000, where it was clear Gore had won but in less than 2 days the conservative mouthpieces successfully convinced the media that Bush had won? I don't know, but I wouldn't count out that possibility, despite the clear winner in this situation. Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox, Novak, FreeRepublic, and the like are very powerful influencers, so I put nothing past them.5. It would be completely foolish for Kerry and the Dems. to stand tall on this for very long. I saw the footage of Bush debating for the TX governor position, and he was extremely sharp and on point. Though he may have been a little rattled last night, do not count him out by a long shot. I still firmly believe he is a skilled debator, and his "dumbing down the message" techniques play a crucial role to those voters who hate to pay attention to details.6. The next debate, the Town Hall venue, will play more to Bush's informal, "dumbing down the message" style of debate. I expect Bush to be more prepared and will probably do much better here. Another particular feature of the next debate will also favor Bush - the questions usually posed in these Town Hall venues are historically unprepared questions which create a more ad lib, quick on your feet type answer. That won't be the case for the next debate - all questions are known to both debators beforehand. I think this favors Bush because he's decidedly better at prepared Q&A sessions, plus it gives him the opportunity to repeat his ever-so-repetitive sound bites against Kerry.7. I also see a possible future advantage for Bush after losing this 1st debate and it is this: the only direction for Bush to go is up. Conversely, the 2 directions for Kerry to go really is keep relatively even or go down. This "future direction of momentum" favors Bush, because it could at least appear that he has become stronger throughout the debates, while Kerry can, at best, appear staying relatively the same, and at worse, have his debating performance move downward.Overall, it was a great start for Kerry. According to the polls, the public majority believes we are going in the wrong direction, but unfortunately still had some questions and reservations about Kerry. I think Kerry moved very well with the latter, but I also feel the momentum shift can easily go right back to Bush with this 2nd and 3rd debate, even though this 1st debate on foreign policy was Bush's bread 'n' butta.And just in case you have any doubt as to who the Conservatives believe won or lost the debate, check out this e-mail from Newsmax:

quote:

---

Lehrer on Defensive Over Biased Questioning

​

PBS host Jim Lehrer was challenged Friday morning on claims that he went easy on Sen. John Kerry during Thursday night's presidential debate, while tossing verbal hand grenades in President Bush's direction designed to keep him on the defensive.

​

"I don't know what in the world you're talking about," Lehrer told radio host Don Imus, in his only post-debate interview.

​

"I would argue that my questions were right down the middle. There were some hardball questions for each candidate. There were some softball questions for each candidate. But for the most part they were just terrific."

​

The bias complaint, said Lehrer, was more of a commentary on his critics than a valid criticism of his own debate performance.

​

Still, some observers noted that Lehrer's questions largely focused on negative aspects of Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq - while avoiding Sen. Kerry's waffling on the issue, not to mention the top Democrat's long record of opposing measures to strengthen U.S. intelligence and national security.

​

At one point Lehrer claimed that over ten thousand U.S. soldiers had been killed in Iraq, before quickly revising that number to 1,052.

​

At the end of the debate, the PBS anchorman shook Sen. Kerry's hand - with some debate watchers claiming he gave the top Democrat a knowing wink.

​

In 1999, the president of Lehrer's network had to resign after admitting that 53 PBS affiliates had been sharing their donor lists with the Democratic National Committee for years.

​

In 1997, then-White House aide George Stephanopoulos revealed that President Clinton's reelection team thought it was a major coup when Lehrer was chosen to host one of the presidential debates, boasting that "our moderator" had been picked.

---

As one blogger stated, "Honestly, I'd swear I saw Lehrer grab Kerry's ass and give it a BIG squeeze, and when they kissed, did you see tongue, I swear I saw tongue."Man, I am absolutely loving the sour grapes here!This message has been edited by MisterOpus1, 10-01-2004 03:25 PM

That might make a nice antiBush ad. He admits he sent men to die in battle, and then loved their wives.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

And who Rei ever told you that America is not arrogant?
Of course America is . America is arrogant, proud and powerful and anybody who does not like it T.F.B. All of you evolutionist must realize it is survival of the fittest. The big dog gets the bone. When it comes down to survival who would you rather be? a) the country with a weak military and no money or b.) The most powerful country on the planet? The US doesnt play fair, it plays to win, it takes what it wants and it changes the freaken rules to suit it's need.. But I for one am glad I live in this country and wouldnt live anywhere else. The funny thing is I do not see a mass exodus of Anti-American Americans fleeing our borders for some reason. For some reason we have a mass exodus of people wanting to be Americans. Wanting to live in this country. Why is that? I have lived abroad and have met many foreigners who hate America, but it is sour grapes. Screw them. We freed Europe during WWII and we Nuked Japan and ended the war. We halted the spread of Communism in Korea and stood against it in Vietnam. We won the cold war. We withstood a horrific act of terrorism and with all the might of our military destroyed the Taliban and freed Iraq. Whats next? Who wants some of this? All the blood spilled is nothing compared to what will be spilt if America ever becomes weak and complacent. You think those MF'ers are going to care about rules? I am obviously propagandized, I guess being military makes me see things differently. They criticize the president for seeing black and white, but sometimes it is us against them. Kerry criticized Bush for developing a new nuclear bunker buster,,, I say hell yeah develop one. You think those M.F'ers wouldnt develop one? I say If a ordinace is ineffective then make a bomb that will do the job. Thats how the commander in chief should think. NOT oh we shouldnt do that...thats not playing fair. In the immortal words of Larry the Cable guy..."Getter Done!!!!"

You forgot to end your post with "etc..."