Debate Pregame and Postgame Thread

[knowitall]

You don't agree that things are a mess? How do think he will fare regarding domestic issues?

When I said fear and doom, I was referring to the voters that believe their lives are in jeopardy. Bush has convinced many to feel this way. These people would never consider changing their vote. Bush will not lose on appearance alone.

[vinnieponte]

future of fear??? thats bush's whole re-election stance, thats the only foot he has to stand on. I'm so tired of terror alerts, and the bush administration trying to scare people into voting for him so he can proclaim we will be safe if he is president. Just to let you know, more than half of americans are tired of his same old shit, and ummmm the polls are know showing it. Now all you MODS, guru's or whatever can tear this statement down all you want, call me a troll, I don't care, but one thing is for sure, bush willn't win another year!

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: knowitall
Bush didn't stray far from his fear factor campaign. Many Americans still listen to his impending doom words.

Like: "9/11 changed the way we have to view the world"? I should hope that many Americans listened, rather than stick their head in the sand, put some flowers in their hair, and convince themselves that yes, things will be okay--if we just trust in the basic goodness of mankind, everything will be okay.

[Mavdog]

I feel that the comments posted by KG accurately tell the results of last night's "debate".

There were no real mistakes made by either man, they were able to effectively present their positions. They won't see any change of heart by any of the people who supported them before the "debate".

There was some benefit for Kerry IMO, as he was able to look like a leader, speak like a leader, and that should bolster his base a bit. Those who were lukewarm in supporting Kerry most likely feel better today and have a stronger faith in him as a candidate. That may assist Kerry in grabbing support from those who were undecided, we'll see in the polls next week.

Those that supported Bush didn't lose any of their enthusiasm either.

So, nobody really won or lost, although Kerry did get the most benefit.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: knowitall
You don't agree that things are a mess?

I don't agree that Bush was preaching fear and doom.

I personally believe we need to be more aggressive and root out the "insurgents" in Fallujah and elsewhere who remain so that the Iraqis can continue a transition to elections and complete self-government. I don't trust John Kerry to do that. I do trust Bush to get the job done.

How do think he will fare regarding domestic issues?

Good question. I think that Bush will do better than Democrats think; I think the result will probably be similar to last night's result.

If Bush is smart, he can negate any perceived advantage Kerry has on domestic issues by pointing out that John Kerry will inevitably raise taxes to fund his various domestic programs. One position that is definitely a loser is to be the guy that's going to raise taxes. Voters know that Bush won't do it; if Bush does his job during the domestic debate, voters will realize that Kerry will.

When I said fear and doom, I was referring to the voters that believe their lives are in jeopardy. Bush has convinced many to feel this way. These people would never consider changing their vote. Bush will not lose on appearance alone.

Amazing that you think that terrorism doesn't pose a real threat to Americans today. And you think that conservatives stick their head in the sand?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
I feel that the comments posted by KG accurately tell the results of last night's "debate".

There were no real mistakes made by either man, they were able to effectively present their positions. They won't see any change of heart by any of the people who supported them before the "debate".

There was some benefit for Kerry IMO, as he was able to look like a leader, speak like a leader, and that should bolster his base a bit. Those who were lukewarm in supporting Kerry most likely feel better today and have a stronger faith in him as a candidate. That may assist Kerry in grabbing support from those who were undecided, we'll see in the polls next week.

Those that supported Bush didn't lose any of their enthusiasm either.

So, nobody really won or lost, although Kerry did get the most benefit.

I think that's a fair assessment.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
future of fear??? thats bush's whole re-election stance, thats the only foot he has to stand on. I'm so tired of terror alerts, and the bush administration trying to scare people into voting for him so he can proclaim we will be safe if he is president. Just to let you know, more than half of americans are tired of his same old shit, and ummmm the polls are know showing it. Now all you MODS, guru's or whatever can tear this statement down all you want, call me a troll, I don't care, but one thing is for sure, bush willn't win another year!

You're not a troll, but I'm confused by your comments.

Do you honestly believe that Bush tells the Department of Homeland Security to issue terror alerts to scare people into voting for him?

As for your comment that it's for sure that Bush won't win, I'll be happy to wager with you on that.

[vinnieponte]

kg, I willn't wager on who is elected for the simple fact i will not turn our soliders death into a game. Our men & women, and not to mention the childer of Iraq are dying every day because bush wanted to finish what his father didn't. Now are we safer, maybe, maybe not, but we jumped way to quick for something that really had no plan and now were stuck. Bush has brought us to new lows and as the polls show, I'm not the only american whom thinks so. Indeed I believe it will be a tight race and I cross my fingers Jeb doesn't screw things up again. We all have our believes, good or bad, yet how can anyone say that the way bush has handled everything will be good for another 4 years, even a smart republican like yourself should see that it's better if he moves his ass back to austin.

[knowitall]

Americans should be scared. FBI agents taking explosives on planes without detection. Something is wrong with our current direction.

[reeds]

Even the republicans agree Kerry did well...although he wouldnt go as far as to say Kerry won the debate, you can read between the lines...


"Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), the Arizona Republican who informally advised Bush on how to debate his friend and Senate colleague, told reporters in Miami on Friday that the debate was probably Kerry's "brightest moment" in the last six weeks. "He presented himself well, John did," McCain said. "Kerry came out slugging." "

[chumdawg]

After watching the debate again last night and thinking it over some more, I think it's fair to say that Kerry gave an almost flawless performance. He skillfully addressed the criticisms against him, he proactively made the case that he is qualified to hold the office, and he managed to put forth a confident and composed image.

That's the good news for him. The bad news, in my opinion, is that even a flawless performance in last night's debate won't be good enough for him. He fired his best shot, and I don't think even that will get him over the hump.

The reason is that he was at too big a disadvantage coming into the debate. The line he has to hold (that Bush did the country a big disservice in taking us to war the way he did) is simply too tenuous. See, in the back of most people's mind they realize that they've been safe since 9/11. They realize that Sadam was very bad and that now he is very gone. They accept that if indeed Bush erred, he erred on the side of caution. And in the back of their minds, somewhere deep down where maybe they can't even consciously acknowledge it, they know that if Kerry errs it will be on the side of disaster. Like it or not, that's the situation Kerry finds himself again. He can't come out and side completely with Bush on the war, else he wouldn't have a plank to stand on in a wartime election.

So he has to try to convince us all that he wouldn't make any mistakes in the war on terrorism--oh, but he also would have all the same successes. And again, in the back of our minds we know that this isn't realisitic. We know that no one has a crystal ball, that no one can lay out a "plan for Iraq" and expect to follow it without exception. We know that the best we can do is be guided by our principles and give it our best American try. And on this point, I think that the great majority of Americans give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

It's a very difficult proposition that Kerry has to offer, which is why we've seen him go at it all year with a trial-and-error method. It's hard to make people believe they would be safer under him, when they've been plenty safe since 9/11. It's hard to make people believe no soldiers would die under his watch and convince them at the same time that he won't abandon Iraq. It requires terrific sleight of hand, and even Kerry's best performance in this regard will ultimately prove not good enough.

[jacktruth]

What we all need to realize is that it doesn't matter who wins the debate! Yes, more people believe that Kerry won, but 90% of Americans couldn't tell you what it means to win a debate.

Remember also that post-convention analysis is done primarily by media people who have a liberal bias. If you keep saying over and over that Kerry won, people who don't think for themselves will say that Kerry won. On Good Morning America, they had 6 people who watched the debate to comment. 4 of them were minorities. Of the two that were not a minority, one was a woman. Do minorities really make up 80% of our population? Do you all see that the mere selection of this panel has built-in bias?

Also, the same polls that say that Kerry won also say that BOTH candidates increased thier favorability rating, so where the rubber meets the road it is probably a draw.

I think who won this debate will play out in the next stretch of the campaign. Kerry left himself open to at least 3 new attacks that are already being used against him.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
kg, I willn't wager on who is elected for the simple fact i will not turn our soliders death into a game.

That's a cop out. If you're so confident that Bush will lose, you should have no problem taking my money. Bush is going to be in office until the election is over, one way or the other, so your comment about turning our soldiers' death into a game really makes no sense.

[knowitall]

The lack of concern over domestic issues is somewhat alarming. Need to bring them to the forefront. This is an area where Kerry can shine. Hopefully, he can present a clear plan, and expose the presidents lack of knowledge in regards to this. I would begin by focusing attention on Bush's past record in the private sector, and ask Americans how they could possibly think that Bush is the answer for a productive and successful future. There's a lot of ammunition in that weapon.

[kg_veteran]

Um, they haven't had the domestic debate yet.

[u2sarajevo]

I find it humorous how now, 4 years later, the liberal consensus is that Bush is stronger at Foreign issues than Domestic issues.

My how 4 years can change a man, huh?

[knowitall]

I know they haven't debated that yet. I was referring to people in this forum, the media, etc.... Iraq does tend to capture the focus, with good reason. But, isn't the right at least a little nervous about how this future debate will pan out?

Regarding health insurance, Bush is all about tax cuts. Why not suggest making premiums tax deductable? At least a portion. Or government mandated rebates. Something.

[jacktruth]

Interesting debate analysis:

http://www.mediatenor.com/debate0930.htm

[knowitall]

That is not a clear definition of what we saw last night.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
kg, I willn't wager on who is elected for the simple fact i will not turn our soliders death into a game. Our men & women, and not to mention the childer of Iraq are dying every day because bush wanted to finish what his father didn't. Now are we safer, maybe, maybe not, but we jumped way to quick for something that really had no plan and now were stuck. Bush has brought us to new lows and as the polls show, I'm not the only american whom thinks so. Indeed I believe it will be a tight race and I cross my fingers Jeb doesn't screw things up again. We all have our believes, good or bad, yet how can anyone say that the way bush has handled everything will be good for another 4 years, even a smart republican like yourself should see that it's better if he moves his ass back to austin.

Innocent Iraqi children dying? Come on. This is pushing it. Saddam is gone. This will, in the future, prevent possibly millions more innocent Iraqi children, women and men from being ripped in half for being different. The ends justify the means.

[dude1394]

I thought kerry did pretty good for himself. Dubya had to sit there and listen to kerry's flipping around without asking him a direct question and his irritation showed. It looked like the debate rules actually worked against querrying kerry further on his flip-flopping and allowed him to say whatever statement he wanted without getting a follow-up. Bush kept calling attention to it, but since kerry really doesn't have any accomplishement or a position that's not fluid it's tough to attack him on it. I expect kerry will get a bounce from this as it shows he's not a complete knucklehead.

However...there were some things that I wish bush had caught him on. He did some but didn't others.
Things bush caught him on:
- Even in the same debate kerry was both pro and anti iraq war. Bush called him on it, but it sounded redundent.
- Kerry's unwillingness to pre-empt unless the UN agrees and the US passes the "global test"
- His insistance on BOTH bi-lateral as well as multi-lateral discussions with n. korea. Pretty forcefully called that as nutty as it is.
- Kerry's continued insults towards our allies.


Things bush did NOT catch him on:
- Kerry showing his true colors when it comes to weapons programs. He would cancel our missile defense shield (EVEN thought NK is testing missiles with nukes on it). Also getting all rightous about how the US is not qualified to create bunker busters because it would look bad. Even though that's where it is supposed Irans nukes are being built.
- Nutty kyoto treaty crap. So he voted with the Senate 94-0 to NOT have Clinton sign the treaty but now bush stopping the hypocrisy is the reason "everybody hates us".
- Crazy Iran plan to do the same thing with iran's nuclear program that clinton did with n. korea.
- Kerry's insistance that everything is solvable by some sort of summit. How european of him. Like a summit of arab dictators wouldn't be a anti-israeli roasting. What a wanker. I certainly hope the jewish vote was paying attention.

[dude1394]

What was Kerry talking about here?

And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea. Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States (!) is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense. You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, “You can’t have nuclear weapons,” but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

Not this president. I’m going to shut that program down, and we’re going to make it clear to the world we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation.

Sounds just like he did when he was promoting a nuclear freeze when reagan was busy defeating the soviets.

[knowitall]

Dude likes nuclear weapons.

[dude1394]

[knowitall]

Yeah, it's sad. All those sleepless nights you must have spent crying about poor, oppressed Russian democrats.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
What was Kerry talking about here?

Sounds just like he did when he was promoting a nuclear freeze when reagan was busy defeating the soviets.

We are seeking an end to nuclear proliferation throughout the world. The US is presently sitting on a stockpile of thousands of nuclear weapons. The money spent on developing nuclear bunker bombs is wrong on multiple fronts: first, the money spent when we already have bunker bombs which can devastate the below ground bunkers, bunkers which can be destroyed by bombs withour being nuclear, second the money spent on a program which isn't needed, third if we are seeking the reduction of nuclear weaponry in the world why are we developing more nuclear weapons?

It wasn't the continued development of nuclear weapons by the US which brought down the Soviet Union....and we don't need additional nuclear bombs.

[dude1394]

Sure it wasn't ONLY the continued development of nuclear weapons it was many things. The military buildup, SDI(which knucklehead kerry wants to gut also) as well as missiles in europe. The unmistakeable knowledge that russia just couldn't continue to spend 30% of GDP keeping up with us.

I could debate whether bunker-busters had nukes on them or not, as long as they could provide the same amount of explosive capacity I could care less. But if it needs to be a nuke then so be it and I don't really care to cater to the UN and world sensibilities much.

I just don't think making our national security decisions based on a UN(or another summit) seems prudent. Maybe it is for you,knowitall and Kerry but not myself.

[knowitall]

Dude, where do you see the next use of a nuclear weapon? Who will it be used against?

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: knowitall
Yeah, it's sad. All those sleepless nights you must have spent crying about poor, oppressed Russian democrats.

Save your crocodile tears. If it had been up to you all of those people would still be under the boot. As would many more.

[dude1394]

How about an underground nuclear reactor in iran. Thought I'd bring in another more expert opinion.

As U.S. Navy Rear Admiral John T. Byrd, Director of Plans and Policy for the United States Strategic Command, testified on June 12, 2002, before the House Armed Services Committee's procurement subcommittee:

One of the most pressing threats posed by our potential adversaries in the international arena today is the proliferation of hard and deeply buried facilities capable of protecting nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; the means of delivering them; and the leaders who would threaten the United States. Our current arsenal, developed in the Cold War, was not designed to address this growing worldwide threat. There are facilities today which we either cannot defeat, even with existing nuclear weapons, or must hold at risk using a large number of weapons. As a result, both the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, through the Nuclear Weapons Council, have approved a study of how to effectively counter this threat. This study of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) will evaluate modifications to existing nuclear weapons that do not require nuclear testing.

The ideal outcome of an RNEP study would be a recommendation to proceed with selective modifications to existing weapons that would ultimately strengthen deterrence by improving the credibility of our strategic forces against hard and deeply buried facilities. As you are well aware, our efforts to strengthen deterrence involve denying sanctuary to our adversaries. This may mean making our nuclear weapons more tailored to the target type, which is not equivalent to making them more likely to be used. Tailored weapons strengthen deterrence, which in turn makes them less likely to be used. Also, a robust nuclear earth penetrator is only one piece of the overall solution for targets contained in these types of structures. Other capabilities such as advanced conventional, information operations, and special operations capabilities must be developed as well. A full spectrum of capabilities strengthens deterrence and maintains the nuclear threshold by developing a range of options for the President to counter the growing hard and deeply buried target set.

[knowitall]

A nuke? Come on Dude. Your not serious, right? You think Iran would use a nuke against another country? That would be suicide. I don't think Iran is interested in suicide. Why would Iran even consider giving a nuke to terrorist? That, too, would be suicide.

[dude1394]

Try to continue through more than one thought will you. What would stop them? If a nuke went off tommorrow in jeruseleum what would happen? If a nuke went off in baghdad what would happen? If a nuke went off in saudia arabia what would happen?

Since Iran WON'T use a nuke against another country, what the hell do they want with one? Just because they are pretty?

[knowitall]

Most of the world thinks the only way to protect yourself agains't America is with nuclear weapons. All nuclear weapons will leave a chemical trail. Countries can't hide from that fact. If we nuked someone, what do you think the worlds reaction would be?

[dude1394]

Try to continue through more than one thought will you. What would stop them? If a nuke went off tommorrow in jeruseleum what would happen? If a nuke went off in baghdad what would happen? If a nuke went off in saudia arabia what would happen?

Since Iran WON'T use a nuke against another country, what the hell do they want with one? Just because they are pretty?

[dude1394]

[knowitall]

Why would Iran commit suicide? Why do you think the UN would cheer such an act? Would France cheer the act? Would Germany? Would Iraq cheer? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Jordan? Kuwait?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Sure it wasn't ONLY the continued development of nuclear weapons it was many things. The military buildup, SDI(which knucklehead kerry wants to gut also) as well as missiles in europe. The unmistakeable knowledge that russia just couldn't continue to spend 30% of GDP keeping up with us.

What you are saying is that the inherent inefficiences of the soviet model was its own doom, and that was both economic as well as political. Lech Walesa was as important as anything you've listed.

That doesn't mean that we need more nuclear weapons tho. especially bunker busting nuclear weapons that Bush is pushing and Kerry says aren't needed.

I could debate whether bunker-busters had nukes on them or not, as long as they could provide the same amount of explosive capacity I could care less. But if it needs to be a nuke then so be it and I don't really care to cater to the UN and world sensibilities much.

no, it isn't "the UN and world sensibilities", it is praticallity as well as our <u>own</u> sensibilities about using a nuclear weapon. We've been in over 4 wars since we used nukes and there's a good reason we haven't used them since. we have thousands of nukes, and there's thousands of Russian nukes too, that need to be retired as it is.

A military spokesman expressing their desire for additional funding and their view of a weapon being needed is sooo surprising!

Here's an expert's opinion on why it is foolish:

[T]he use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout. (Robert W. Nelson, physicist, Princeton University,FAS Public Interest Report, The Journal of the Federation of American Scientists, January/February 2002)

I just don't think making our national security decisions based on a UN(or another summit) seems prudent. Maybe it is for you,knowitall and Kerry but not myself.

the "UN (or another summit) has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of an earth burrowing nuclear weapon. In the context of seeking non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, continuing with the development of additional nuclear weapons is saying "do as I say, not as I do". It also increases the types of weapons that need to be secured, not decreasing the number of nuclear weaponry which should be our goal.

Face it, Kerry's right on this one.

[dude1394]

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

What you are saying is that the inherent inefficiences of the soviet model was its own doom, and that was both economic as well as political. Lech Walesa was as important as anything you've listed.

No that's what YOU are saying. What Kerry was saying is that we should accept the soviet union and not press them, ergo the nuclear freeze and the anti posting of missiles in europe.

That doesn't mean that we need more nuclear weapons tho. especially bunker busting nuclear weapons that Bush is pushing and Kerry says aren't needed.[q/]
Nor does your fantasy that the soviet union would have (if left alone and unchallenged) would have imploded. It's a fantasy, it's a wonderful socialist fantasy.

no, it isn't "the UN and world sensibilities", it is praticallity as well as our <u>own</u> sensibilities about using a nuclear weapon. We've been in over 4 wars since we used nukes and there's a good reason we haven't used them since. we have thousands of nukes, and there's thousands of Russian nukes too, that need to be retired as it is.

A military spokesman expressing their desire for additional funding and their view of a weapon being needed is sooo surprising!

Here's an expert's opinion on why it is foolish:

[T]he use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout. (Robert W. Nelson, physicist, Princeton University,FAS Public Interest Report, The Journal of the Federation of American Scientists, January/February 2002)

Wow a scientist who is a member of an organizations stated goal is

FAS is the oldest organization dedicated to ending the worldwide arms race and avoiding the use of nuclear weapons for any purpose.

That is also sooooo surprising. I read the guys pitch and most of it had to do with the lack of containment of the nuclear blast as well as current technologies that have not been perfected yet. I've worked enough in the defense field to know that technologies 10 years ago ALSO were being said couldn't be done. Having one physicist from an anit-nuclear think tank say something can't be done is not the be-all, end-all of an arguement. That's why you do basic reasearch on this stuff and not get your panties in a wad about what the UN is going to say about it.

As usual the pacifists have lots of gripes but no solutions for hardened bunkers in this instance.

I just don't think making our national security decisions based on a UN(or another summit) seems prudent. Maybe it is for you,knowitall and Kerry but not myself.

the "UN (or another summit) has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of an earth burrowing nuclear weapon. In the context of seeking non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, continuing with the development of additional nuclear weapons is saying "do as I say, not as I do". It also increases the types of weapons that need to be secured, not decreasing the number of nuclear weaponry which should be our goal.

Face it, Kerry's right on this one.

Kerry actually MIGHT ultimately be right on this one, but not doing the research dovetails right into his weak on defense posture that he has promoted ever since his Cambodia experience was "seared, seared" into his memory.

[dude1394]

UN at work..

UN officials are investigating a video showing Palestinians loading suspicious, elongated objects into UN ambulances after Israel released the images and accused UN personnel of collaborating with the terrorists:

UN officials said Saturday they are investigating a claim by the Israeli military that Palestinian terrorists transported a rocket in a vehicle with UN markings, but accused Israel of having made false allegations in the past.

On Friday, the IDF released video footage taken from an unmanned aircraft, or drone, flying over the Jebalya refugee camp. The blurred black-and-white video showed three men walking toward the U.N. vehicle, including one who carried an elongated object. The army said the object was a rocket.