← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Kevin_O'Keeffe
Thread ID: 15175 | Posts: 25 | Started: 2004-10-01
2004-10-01 09:19 | User Profile
I listened to the first Bush/Kerry debate on the radio last night. I must concur with most of the media accounts that I've heared, i.e. while it was no landslide, Kerry pretty much kicked Bush's rhetorical ass. While I have no love for Kerry (and indeed, plan to vote for Nader, although I would grudgingly hold my nose and pull the lever for Kerry if I lived in a "swing state"), I am very pleased to say that for the first time in months, I really believe Bush is going to lose this election. Did anyone else subject themselves to this event?
2004-10-01 13:04 | User Profile
Mr O'Keefe, yes I watched the whole shebang last night. Where do I start?
I agree with you that Kerry clearly "won" the debate. He inspires more confidence in his thought process than George Bush, and obviously, he's worlds more coherent than Jorge. He made points on the disaster in Iraq that I agree with and he seemed to justify his vote for the war as only an authorization to use force if necessary and definitely not a vote to rush to war. I believe him in this nuance, which many yahoos simply see as flip-flopping.
Anyway, I know there's several 'worse is better' folks here and I sometimes feel that way. If you're in the 'worse is better' crowd then George W Bush should be your pick. W is....I can't even find the words to describe him anymore. He's a disgraceful figure and I had trouble watching him last night without laughing and/or wincing at the same old tired false sound bite lies delivered with a smirk.
2004-10-01 14:49 | User Profile
Kerry was the winner, Bush was chasing Kerry all over the place and could hardly wait for Kerry to finish in order to put his two cents in.
2004-10-01 17:20 | User Profile
I must be a closet masochist, because I also watched the entire, dreadful debate last night. Kerry clearly won, but not because he was particularly outstanding. No, he won, because, standing next to W on the same stage, he appeared to be a relative genius. If you are of the 'worse is better' opinion, then W should have absolutely locked up your vote last night. He was incoherent, idiotic, flustered, incapable of forming an argument, and incapable of understanding the points of his opponent or the moderator. He just kept repeating how rebuildling Iraq is 'hard work' and how everyone who disagrees with him hates 'freedom.' It was absolutely pathetic.
2004-10-01 18:23 | User Profile
It's not a challenge to beat Bush in a debate. And, I have always considered the vote to let Bush declare war to be a vote to boost Bush's negotiation position with Iraq rather than being a vote for war itself. Still, it was a reprehensible thing for Congress and Kerry to shirk their consitutional obligation to declare war and unconstitionally hand this authority to a warmonger, as if there were any doubt that Bush would attack Iraq regardless of anything Saddam could do.
As for who wins, Bush vs. Kerry, I don't think it matters. And, even if you live in a swing state, it's not like your one vote is going to decide the outcome.
If Iraq went well for Bush, Syria and Iran would be next, should Bush be re-elected. But, Bush has lost his credibility and America has its hands full Iraq. Israel may do some bombing, but neither Kerry nor Bush would have any objection.
2004-10-01 21:31 | User Profile
Kerry! My favorite Kerry quotes from the debate were:
[QUOTE]And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden.
Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The only building that was guarded when the troops went into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities.
We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn't guard the borders.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."
That's what we have here. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora (Afghanistan), 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best-trained troops in the world to go kill the world's No. 1 criminal and terrorist.
They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.[/QUOTE]
Though, suprising enough, the majority of whites are starting to say Bush won because he stayed firm with his beleifs.
2004-10-02 08:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kminta]Though, suprising enough, the majority of whites are starting to say Bush won because he stayed firm with his beleifs.[/QUOTE]
That reminds me of a great political cartoon I saw on the op/ed page of the San Francisco Chronicle: It showed Bush standing in the front of a rowboat, with a frightened-looking man and woman sitting in the back (clearly representing the American public). The small rowboat is about to go over what looks like Niagra Falls, while Bush is standing defiantly, shaking his fist in the air and shouting, "I'm staying the course!" The man whispers to the woman, "We could use a flip-flopper...."
2004-10-02 09:34 | User Profile
Happy Hacker,
All too true. [QUOTE]It's not a challenge to beat Bush in a debate. And, I have always considered the vote to let Bush declare war to be a vote to boost Bush's negotiation position with Iraq rather than being a vote for war itself. Still, it was a reprehensible thing for Congress and Kerry to shirk their consitutional obligation to declare war and unconstitionally hand this authority to a warmonger, as if there were any doubt that Bush would attack Iraq regardless of anything Saddam could do.
As for who wins, Bush vs. Kerry, I don't think it matters. And, even if you live in a swing state, it's not like your one vote is going to decide the outcome.
If Iraq went well for Bush, Syria and Iran would be next, should Bush be re-elected. But, Bush has lost his credibility and America has its hands full Iraq. Israel may do some bombing, but neither Kerry nor Bush would have any objection. [/QUOTE]
Bushie looks like a half-wit most of the time.
2004-10-02 14:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Happy Hacker,
All too true.
Bushie looks like a half-wit most of the time.[/QUOTE]
A half-wit most of the time? Did he ever looked smart?,,,,,,,like in the past four year?,,,,,I mean, ever??????
2004-10-02 14:27 | User Profile
I took in the debate on the radio. I was pleased that Kerry has now made the election a referendum on the war. It may now serve some purpose after all. I was also surprised that Lehrer devoted the entire first hour exclusively to the war. I think this will go down as the most significant event of the campaign.
Kerry has been brought back from the dead. Bush the dolt was on full display.
2004-10-02 16:01 | User Profile
According to a Steve Sailer article in the recent issue of PJB's TAC, Charles Murray (neo-con stooge and AEI fellow) calculated Bush's IQ to be in the top 95 percentile based on his SAT score. And this is average for U.S. Presidents. Now, given how stupid we know Bush is, this is a major indictment of statistics. If it wasn't embarrassing to watch Bush in the debates, it was hilarious to hear what stupid stuff would come out of his mouth. When Bush was speaking I thought to myself that I could do better debating an Harvard professor on a subject I know nothing about, while completely s***-faced drunk.
2004-10-02 17:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]I was pleased that Kerry has now made the election a referendum on the war. [/QUOTE]
Sorry, I don't have that impression. Kerry in the past said he would have attacked Iraq, even knowing Iraq had no WMDs or 9/11 connection. Even in the debate, Kerry said such things as "we don't have enough troops there [in Iraq]".
Kerry has been trying to play the role of warmonger himself. He's just quibbling over details with Bush, and that's not so much because Kerry thinks Bush did anything wrong but because Kerry wants the voters to think Bush did things wrong... mainly not concentrating more on Afghanistan and Osama bin Ladin.
If Kerry really did make this election a referendum on the Iraq war, he would be mercilessly pounded by the neocons for being unpatriotic and for stabing the American troops in the back.
2004-10-02 18:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]According to a Steve Sailer article in the recent issue of PJB's TAC, Charles Murray (neo-con stooge and AEI fellow) calculated Bush's IQ to be in the top 95 percentile based on his SAT score. And this is average for U.S. Presidents. Now, given how stupid we know Bush is, this is a major indictment of statistics. [/QUOTE]
Bush's SAT score is 1206. That indicates a 124 IQ (according to a chart provided by Murray of The Bell Curve). But, considering that Bush had every educational oppertunity and was raised in an environment of highly civilized people, I'd say Bush's IQ is probably under 115.
The 124 puts Bush between the 94th and 95th percentile. The 115 is the 85th percentile.
Even the average IQ of 100 is kinda dumb, as far as I'm concerned. But, Bush couldn't be too dumb and make it the office of president, even as a puppet with a highly connected family.
Bush is dishonest and dishonesty usually makes people sound dumber than they really are. What we saw in the debate was propaganda, not what he really thinks. Bush also appears to have a slight speech impairment which also makes him sound dumber than he really is.
2004-10-02 18:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Sorry, I don't have that impression. Kerry in the past said he would have attacked Iraq, even knowing Iraq had no WMDs or 9/11 connection. Even in the debate, Kerry said such things as "we don't have enough troops there [in Iraq]".
Kerry has been trying to play the role of warmonger himself. He's just quibbling over details with Bush, and that's not so much because Kerry thinks Bush did anything wrong but because Kerry wants the voters to think Bush did things wrong... mainly not concentrating more on Afghanistan and Osama bin Ladin.
If Kerry really did make this election a referendum on the Iraq war, he would be mercilessly pounded by the neocons for being unpatriotic and for stabing the American troops in the back.[/QUOTE]
I partially agree. It looks as if Kerry has bifurcated the terrorism issue into Osama and Iraq. He says he'll be "tough" on terrorists, but that is nothing specific. Tough talk is good on the campaign trail, but all it is is talk.
As for Iraq, he juxtaposed the words "Iraq" and "mistake" often enough to give the electorate an up or down vote on the war. If he wins, it will be hard to interpret it other than as the voters firing GW for incompetence, i.e., a vote against the war. There still is nothing to vote "for" associated with Kerry or his leftist platform.
His vote was to authorize Bush to go in, not to recommend that he do so at that moment. Granted it was cowardly, but politics is what it is. And his talk about not having enough troops can be interpreted as not enough given what Bush wants them to do. Give them less to accomplish and the troop strength will be sufficient. That's how Kerry will play it.
2004-10-02 22:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]I was also surprised that Lehrer devoted the entire first hour exclusively to the war.[/QUOTE]
The first debate was supposed to be about "national security issues," so it was kind of inevitable. Tuesday's will be about domestic issues, which ironically is the one area where many of us might prefer Bush's positions (if not his candidacy), but where the American people (or those counted among them, in any event) will tend to favor the positions taken by Kerry. I do think Kerry is going to win, for the first time in months.
Bush was expeted to do well in the "national security" debate. If that was "well," I'd hate (love, actually) to see poorly!
2004-10-02 22:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]According to a Steve Sailer article in the recent issue of PJB's TAC, Charles Murray (neo-con stooge and AEI fellow) calculated Bush's IQ to be in the top 95 percentile based on his SAT score. And this is average for U.S. Presidents. Now, given how stupid we know Bush is, this is a major indictment of statistics. If it wasn't embarrassing to watch Bush in the debates, it was hilarious to hear what stupid stuff would come out of his mouth. When Bush was speaking I thought to myself that I could do better debating an Harvard professor on a subject I know nothing about, while completely s***-faced drunk.[/QUOTE]
He may well have a high IQ, but he's very poorly educated (and intellectually lazy).
2004-10-03 00:29 | User Profile
" WE RECEIVED THE following letter from a woman in Yonkers, N.Y.: "Dear editor: This debate made it clear: John Kerry is a leader we can trust to tell us the truth when it comes to our nation's security. George Bush has had his chance; I'm ready for a new direction."
Cogent, succinct, personal -- everything we look for in a letter. So why are we writing about it here, instead of publishing it in the columns to the right? Unfortunately, the letter, perfect in every other way, arrived in our electronic in-box Thursday afternoon, four hours and 14 minutes before debate moderator Jim Lehrer posed his first question. "
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1791-2004Oct1?language=printer[/url]
Duh, I think Kerry won the debate, I weally do!
2004-10-03 18:10 | User Profile
Best freudian slip of the debate that I heard:
[QUOTE]KERRY: Well, let me just say quickly that I've had an extraordinary experience of watching up close and personal that transition in Russia, because I was there right after the transformation. And I was probably one of the first senators, along with Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, a former senator, go down into the KGB underneath Treblinka Square and see reams of files with names in them. [/QUOTE]
[url=http://debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html]http://debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html[/url]
I'm surprised that the Bush b.s. eaters haven't made a big deal about this. Kerry means Lubyanka Square.
2004-10-03 18:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Best freudian slip of the debate that I heard:
[url=http://debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html]http://debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html[/url]
I'm surprised that the Bush b.s. eaters haven't made a big deal about this. Kerry means Lubyanka Square.[/QUOTE]
More Bush bashing, and more Kerry protectingââ¬Â¦ the Jews must love you, white men.
:angry:
2004-10-03 18:31 | User Profile
Lehrer Stacks Deck Against Bush
"Presidential debate moderator Jim Lehrer showed once again Thursday night why top aides to President Clinton used to call him "our moderator" when presidential debate time rolled around in 1996.
The questions, which Lehrer announced at the outset had been authored exclusively by him, were supposed to help the American people determine which candidate would be a better steward of U.S. national security in a post-9/11 world.
But there were no queries to Sen. Kerry about his long Senate record of voting against defense appropriations, or his sponsorship of a bill to cut CIA funding by $6 billion a year after terrorists struck the World Trade Center in 1993, or Kerry's support of the nuclear freeze movement during the height of the Cold War.
Kerry wasn't asked why he teamed up with Jane Fonda to protest the Vietnam War while his band of brothers were still on the battlefield, or why he met with enemy leaders in Paris, or why he accused fellow soldiers of being "monsters" and "war criminals."
Read on... [url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/30/223850.shtml[/url]
2004-10-03 22:20 | User Profile
Gabrielle,
You obviously haven't read too many of my posts. If you had you would know that I have no use for either one of these men. Both are unfit for this office. As for "Bush bashing," I refer to the equally rabid Kerry supporters as "Kerry kool-aid drinkers." You see, whether it is the "liberal media" or neocon talk radio I know that I am being lied to.
[QUOTE]More Bush bashing, and more Kerry protectingââ¬Â¦ the Jews must love you, white men. [/QUOTE]
Gabrielle,
In case you haven't figured it out the Zionists can find something to love about both of them. In that debate both of them paid homage to our dearly beloved "ally" in the Middle East. What I mean here is that the Bush supporters go out of their way to try to prove that they support Israel more than the Democrats. I hear these idiots on talk radio all the time. Your statement above is quite funny when I consider just how many Jews and shabbos goys the Bush administration contains. There are lists of them on this board.
2004-10-04 00:19 | User Profile
The daily tracking polls I've seen, Bush is actually doing a little better after the first debate than before.
Kerry looked to be winning (the electorial college) up until the end of Augest, after that, it has been Bush's race.
2004-10-04 15:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]More Bush bashing, and more Kerry protectingââ¬Â¦ the Jews must love you, white men.[/QUOTE]
I rather doubt it, but they certainly adore Bush....
2004-10-04 15:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]The questions, which Lehrer announced at the outset had been authored exclusively by him, were supposed to help the American people determine which candidate would be a better steward of U.S. national security in a post-9/11 world.
But there were no queries to Sen. Kerry about his long Senate record of voting against defense appropriations, or his sponsorship of a bill to cut CIA funding by $6 billion a year after terrorists struck the World Trade Center in 1993, or Kerry's support of the nuclear freeze movement during the height of the Cold War.
Kerry wasn't asked why he teamed up with Jane Fonda to protest the Vietnam War while his band of brothers were still on the battlefield, or why he met with enemy leaders in Paris, or why he accused fellow soldiers of being "monsters" and "war criminals."[/QUOTE]
You're quite right, of course, THOSE are the things we should be discussing in the run-up to our Presidential election, rather than oh, say, our suicidally insane imperialist misadventure in Iraq, the occupation of Afghanistan, and the on-going struggle against Al-Qaeda and its allies (not to mention the vitally related issue of nuclear arms proliferation). Touche!
2004-10-04 15:59 | User Profile
Speaking of Freudian slips, I thought it very ironic that Bush chose to speak of his decision to exclude the United States from the ICC. He thinks Americans would be in jeopardy of being tried for war crimes.
It's ok for other countries and people to be under the ICC (endorsed by the USA), like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam, but not Americans, and especially, the WAR CRIMINAL BUSH.
Bush is a waste, and this Gabrielle is a troll.