H
huntsonora
Guest
I was at a dinner program and was unable to watch it. Who do you think did a better job and why?
Drummond
Drummond
C
cpsandman
Guest
Drum,
I work at nights but caught some of it between phone calls. I'll start by saying I'm BIASED. The so called experts gave Kerry the edge and he did come off as appearing more proffesional. Now having said that, Bush was far more personable (some one you would want sitting at your campfire sharing deer jerky). Bush paused a few times and the "experts" said he did not have an answer and was searching. Funny thing was I saw him trying to give a genuine answer and not some memorized text book answer. I thought that was BS they said that, especially because they are the "unbiased" media.... (sorry had to pause to wipe tears from eyes due to laughter) and are always fair and balanced....(sorry...happened again)...but in a nutshell: Bush=honest heartfelt answers, Kerry=memorex. I want a President not a tape recorder. That's how I saw it but I definately have Republican colored glasses on....GO W!!!!!!!!! :7
CPSANDMAN
"The Buck stops here...I hope!"
I work at nights but caught some of it between phone calls. I'll start by saying I'm BIASED. The so called experts gave Kerry the edge and he did come off as appearing more proffesional. Now having said that, Bush was far more personable (some one you would want sitting at your campfire sharing deer jerky). Bush paused a few times and the "experts" said he did not have an answer and was searching. Funny thing was I saw him trying to give a genuine answer and not some memorized text book answer. I thought that was BS they said that, especially because they are the "unbiased" media.... (sorry had to pause to wipe tears from eyes due to laughter) and are always fair and balanced....(sorry...happened again)...but in a nutshell: Bush=honest heartfelt answers, Kerry=memorex. I want a President not a tape recorder. That's how I saw it but I definately have Republican colored glasses on....GO W!!!!!!!!! :7
CPSANDMAN
"The Buck stops here...I hope!"
Draw!!. Bush did the usual. Kerry sounded very rehearsed. My problem with Kerry is he never said "HOW" he will do things better then the president?. Anybody can stand there and say "I'll do it better". To me all Kerry is doing is playing Monday morning quarterback. I got the impression that Kerry flat out lied at times lastnight....
B
Buckrub
Guest
I totally agree w/ Kingfish. I watched every minute and I thought George was honest and not overly defensive even though Kerry took "pot-shots" all night!! Kerry never really told us what he would do, just that he would do it. He kept pushing for "alliances", that's crap!! We constantly wipe the world's arce but NO ONE ever wipes for us!! George is not gonna let any despots' mess with America!!! Kerry is a waffling, two-faced, "Kennedy-clone" !!!!
I guess it's obvious who I'm gonna vote for, huh? }>
I guess it's obvious who I'm gonna vote for, huh? }>
caelkhnter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,526
I too am biased but in all honesty for those who may be truly undecided, and to my dismay I think Kerry probably gain some favor. I do not think, for those who already know who they are going to vote for,these "debates" will make any difference. However to those who are still undecided I think Kerry seemed to have more to say and did not appear to be the flip-flopper the republicans claim him to be. I think George could have done a better job calling Kerry on his purported plans and his poor attendance record, and voting record, but instead kept on repeating the same hot points over and over again. Because George did not challenge Kerry on his claims of a better plan Kerry was presented with the opportunity to make it sound like he might have a better plan but never really had to explain what it was or how he really expected it to work any better than what George has done. In ddition George did not respond with detailing his plan which gave Kerry opportunities to say time and again that George did not have a good plan. I was dissapointed because I was hopeful that George could gain more momentum but instead I think Kerry did okay and might have gained some important points with the undecided vote, especially in those key swing states. That is my 2 cents worth of the situation.
Let me begin by saying that I have never hunted elk before, but I will do a better job than you other losers out there hunting elk when I go elk hunting: I will bag a 420" Bull elk, mark my words!!! You trust me don't you!
This is about what John Kerry said last night. He will do better than George Bush -- even though he has never had executive position (lieutenant governor of Massachusetts? please, give me a break!) before.
Kerry may have scored debating points. Tough $@*%. That doesn't impress me.
I saw the debate as a draw. Remember, Kerry is behind and needs better than a draw. Kerry needs Bush to fumble big time in the debates, or Kerry needs to hit a homerun with some new exciting policy initiative in the debates to overcome the strong lead Bush has established, so the pundits comment.
Some differences that were clear. Kerry would conduct his foreign affairs strongly based on the opinion of the rest of the world. Bush would (and has) consulted the rest of the world, but Bush will not wait on the rest of the world to do what is right for the United States. Big difference, it was quite clear in the debate, and I'm with Bush big time on this one.
Kerry would start bi-lateral (US/N Korea only) talks with N Korea about N Korea's nukes. Bush strongly believes this is an error, as it would disincent N Korea to stay in talks with the US, China, Japan, and others, and Bush feels we need the help of China which can act as a strong lever in persuading N Korea to accommodate concerns of other nations.
Bush neglected several opportunities to score on Kerry -- such as to beat on Kerry for voting against many defense spending measures during his 20 years in the senate, the "what is he going to have them fight with, pea shooters?!" remark.
Kerry made a number of "factual" remarks that are being scrutinized and held against Kerry. For example, Kerry attacked Bush's poor implementation homeland security by stating the New York subway system was closed during the Republican convention. Unfortunately, the New York subway system was NOT closed during the Republican convention. Other factual misrepresentations maybe brought against Kerry.
Remember, it doesn't matter how Kerry or Bush appeared to their loyal fans: these voters are determined in their voting decisions. The question is how does it all play for the undecided voters. More bogus facts from Kerry won't help him much, and I think there may be some attention paid to other bogus facts that Kerry wheeled out during the debate.
This is about what John Kerry said last night. He will do better than George Bush -- even though he has never had executive position (lieutenant governor of Massachusetts? please, give me a break!) before.
Kerry may have scored debating points. Tough $@*%. That doesn't impress me.
I saw the debate as a draw. Remember, Kerry is behind and needs better than a draw. Kerry needs Bush to fumble big time in the debates, or Kerry needs to hit a homerun with some new exciting policy initiative in the debates to overcome the strong lead Bush has established, so the pundits comment.
Some differences that were clear. Kerry would conduct his foreign affairs strongly based on the opinion of the rest of the world. Bush would (and has) consulted the rest of the world, but Bush will not wait on the rest of the world to do what is right for the United States. Big difference, it was quite clear in the debate, and I'm with Bush big time on this one.
Kerry would start bi-lateral (US/N Korea only) talks with N Korea about N Korea's nukes. Bush strongly believes this is an error, as it would disincent N Korea to stay in talks with the US, China, Japan, and others, and Bush feels we need the help of China which can act as a strong lever in persuading N Korea to accommodate concerns of other nations.
Bush neglected several opportunities to score on Kerry -- such as to beat on Kerry for voting against many defense spending measures during his 20 years in the senate, the "what is he going to have them fight with, pea shooters?!" remark.
Kerry made a number of "factual" remarks that are being scrutinized and held against Kerry. For example, Kerry attacked Bush's poor implementation homeland security by stating the New York subway system was closed during the Republican convention. Unfortunately, the New York subway system was NOT closed during the Republican convention. Other factual misrepresentations maybe brought against Kerry.
Remember, it doesn't matter how Kerry or Bush appeared to their loyal fans: these voters are determined in their voting decisions. The question is how does it all play for the undecided voters. More bogus facts from Kerry won't help him much, and I think there may be some attention paid to other bogus facts that Kerry wheeled out during the debate.
D
DeerKing
Guest
It was obvious Kerry was a MASTER deBATER, his answers seemed rehearsed and thought out. Although Bush stammered and studdered a few times you actually got a sense he cared about the American people and spoke from the heart. Kerry gave a lot of lip service he'll never be able to back up if he becomes president.
3
30inchbuck
Guest
First go W !!!
One major point I heard was that Kerry was going to eliminate the development of Nuke bunker buster bombs and missle defense system development.
Bush is a strong supporter of both we need the weapon systems to continue to be the stongest nation! And to protect the people within.
God Bless America!
One major point I heard was that Kerry was going to eliminate the development of Nuke bunker buster bombs and missle defense system development.
Bush is a strong supporter of both we need the weapon systems to continue to be the stongest nation! And to protect the people within.
God Bless America!
G
GJM
Guest
Although i am a registered republican and proud of it! Kerry did a good job of presenting himself with prepackaged information, the war will go on no matter who gets, in more kids will die, more evasive action needs to be taken over there before it becomes another Nam , I am waiting to see in the other debate just what in the Hell is going to be done in our homeland, we kick out billions and trillions to take care of other countries yet people here suffer just trying to make ends meet. Economics, healthcare and other issues could be better adressed by Bush, and the price of gas? man that sucks! Bush will get my vote but it may be regretably done! Bush is running the race and he will get to the end of the race but it's like he's dragging a bad leg, things could be done better to benifit the people of this great nation!
RE: "Economics, healthcare, and other issues could be better addressed by Bush, and the price of gas?"
Of course, this was the foreign affairs debate. The domestic issues debate is yet to come.
I didn't know it was in the president's job description to set gas prices. We live in a free market system where supply and demand sets prices. I don't see what a president can do about this, unless you want price controls alla Jimmy Carter. I remember that, and I don't want it.
Economics? I refinanced my house in October 2003 and dropped my interest rate from 7.5% to 5.5%. I kept the house payment roughly the same and reduced my payoff date from 23 years (remaining on a 30 year mortgage) to 15 years. 7 years less payments without a bigger house payment. That makes me happy. My liberal sister in Illinois refinanced her condo with much the same loan-life shortening effect. Hey, this is not to be discounted. How many people have benefited big time from lower interest rates? Me. My sister. Who else?
Healthcare? Bush, I think, advocates tort reform and reducing outlandish damage lawsuits. This may reduce the price of healthcare or of prescription drugs. Otherwise, the only thing I have heard Kerry offer is more government paying for people's healthcare. Where does this money come from? Out of my pocket. Unless you substantially change the tax structure to take it out of corporations, the middle class will end up paying for it. And if you change the tax structure to take it out of corporations, I bet they can find a way around it -- like move operations off shore. Healthcare is a sticky wicket which no one really wants to address.
Without wanting to get into a healthcare policy debate, what strikes me as the logical direction to move in -- if the government should get more involved in healthcare at all -- is to move to assure some minimal health service. Innoculations. Care for common, readily treated illnesses like children's ear aches. Care for common, readily treated trauma such as cuts, simple broken bones. To avoid the system being overwhelmed by costs, things such as triple bypass operations, brain injury rehabilitation programs, major burn treatment would have to be excluded. HOw can you treat the one patient and tell the other patient "we won't pay for your expensive treatment, you must suffer without our help" and get reelected? This is probably the best reason just to keep government out of healthcare, to keep a lid on costs. There are more medical procedures than we can afford for all of our people. Or you have to somehow coerce or persuade doctors and hospitals to offer their services cheaper, and I don't see that happening. As I understand it, socialized, state funded healthcare is not exactly a success story in other countries such as Canada.
Of course, this was the foreign affairs debate. The domestic issues debate is yet to come.
I didn't know it was in the president's job description to set gas prices. We live in a free market system where supply and demand sets prices. I don't see what a president can do about this, unless you want price controls alla Jimmy Carter. I remember that, and I don't want it.
Economics? I refinanced my house in October 2003 and dropped my interest rate from 7.5% to 5.5%. I kept the house payment roughly the same and reduced my payoff date from 23 years (remaining on a 30 year mortgage) to 15 years. 7 years less payments without a bigger house payment. That makes me happy. My liberal sister in Illinois refinanced her condo with much the same loan-life shortening effect. Hey, this is not to be discounted. How many people have benefited big time from lower interest rates? Me. My sister. Who else?
Healthcare? Bush, I think, advocates tort reform and reducing outlandish damage lawsuits. This may reduce the price of healthcare or of prescription drugs. Otherwise, the only thing I have heard Kerry offer is more government paying for people's healthcare. Where does this money come from? Out of my pocket. Unless you substantially change the tax structure to take it out of corporations, the middle class will end up paying for it. And if you change the tax structure to take it out of corporations, I bet they can find a way around it -- like move operations off shore. Healthcare is a sticky wicket which no one really wants to address.
Without wanting to get into a healthcare policy debate, what strikes me as the logical direction to move in -- if the government should get more involved in healthcare at all -- is to move to assure some minimal health service. Innoculations. Care for common, readily treated illnesses like children's ear aches. Care for common, readily treated trauma such as cuts, simple broken bones. To avoid the system being overwhelmed by costs, things such as triple bypass operations, brain injury rehabilitation programs, major burn treatment would have to be excluded. HOw can you treat the one patient and tell the other patient "we won't pay for your expensive treatment, you must suffer without our help" and get reelected? This is probably the best reason just to keep government out of healthcare, to keep a lid on costs. There are more medical procedures than we can afford for all of our people. Or you have to somehow coerce or persuade doctors and hospitals to offer their services cheaper, and I don't see that happening. As I understand it, socialized, state funded healthcare is not exactly a success story in other countries such as Canada.
T
TCR1
Guest
Wow, good thread
I really like this thread. Certainly its biased given the audience, but people seem to be making well balanced decisions.
Perhaps the brightest mark is the lack of name calling. Thanks for the thread, I was interested in what was said last night, but was working.
I really like this thread. Certainly its biased given the audience, but people seem to be making well balanced decisions.
Perhaps the brightest mark is the lack of name calling. Thanks for the thread, I was interested in what was said last night, but was working.
G
GJM
Guest
Good points and well taken, how come you mentioned nothing about the war? Do you have an opinion? I have a neice on her way over there and maybe a nephew, airforce and the marines respectfully. Because of this war have you went over to your local hardware store and purchased any bulding supplies? I guarntee you the price has doubled just because of the war, gas prices have skyrocketed just because of the war, Heck we have just about whipped Iraq lets take the gas for payback, but no we just kiss their asses and then we will buy it back with the billions and trillions afore mentioned. End it now and spend the money here in the USA, my money and yours and everybody elses that work to pay taxes. Kerry is wishy washy and paints a good picture but I for one am not buying it, and even if Kerry does get in I don't think he will sell us out, but what he said about Korea scares the hell out of me, I live in NV and remember the fallout (200mi from ground zero, downwind) don't care to have any more of it, so I guess in short the money would be better spent in our homeland for domestic issues like it or not, just my opinion and my vote! Greg
D
D13er
Guest
Kerry won the debate. If Bush had fallen asleep and fallen to the floor, I still wouldn't vote for Kerry.
JB
JB
D
dakotakid
Guest
>Kerry won the debate. If Bush
>had fallen asleep and fallen
>to the floor, I still
>wouldn't vote for Kerry.
>
>JB
LMMFAO!!!
Mike
>had fallen asleep and fallen
>to the floor, I still
>wouldn't vote for Kerry.
>
>JB
LMMFAO!!!
Mike
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,483
Alsatian;
You are very right about socialized funded health care, as used in Canada, not being the right approach to help with medical problems concerning price.
I was in Canada recently and talked to several working Canadians about their health care. They told me that on some medical procedures, that are not life threating, they have to wait a month or so to have a simple operation. The big shocker was that their payroll check was taxed about 48% to fund the health care system.
Another way to cut costs in Canada, the nurses do not work a full 40 hour week and do not get alot of benifits that our nurses do, and have a hard time making a living wage. As a result our local hospital was able to hire 26 nurses from Canada to work here at far better living wages and retirement. Several of them told me that they will finish their working career here, then go back to Canada when they retire after a 20-30 year career here in the states.
I do not think most Americans will except a 48-50 percent tax on their payroll to fund socialized medical care. It scares me when Democrats start talking about socialized medicine to cure our problems about the high cost of medical care for our senior citizens, AND I AM RETIRED.
RELH
You are very right about socialized funded health care, as used in Canada, not being the right approach to help with medical problems concerning price.
I was in Canada recently and talked to several working Canadians about their health care. They told me that on some medical procedures, that are not life threating, they have to wait a month or so to have a simple operation. The big shocker was that their payroll check was taxed about 48% to fund the health care system.
Another way to cut costs in Canada, the nurses do not work a full 40 hour week and do not get alot of benifits that our nurses do, and have a hard time making a living wage. As a result our local hospital was able to hire 26 nurses from Canada to work here at far better living wages and retirement. Several of them told me that they will finish their working career here, then go back to Canada when they retire after a 20-30 year career here in the states.
I do not think most Americans will except a 48-50 percent tax on their payroll to fund socialized medical care. It scares me when Democrats start talking about socialized medicine to cure our problems about the high cost of medical care for our senior citizens, AND I AM RETIRED.
RELH
