First Live Presidential Debate

[CzarJunkie]

I watched the first live televised US Presidential debate this morning on News 24 and I knew George W Bush was a fukin moron but after watching this it makes me wonder how anyone with anything approaching intelligence can vote for this guy.

He could barely string a sentence together, his answers were poor, his use of language was embarrasing, his whole performance was one of someone who really couldn't cope under the stress of a live debate.

After watching that how any american citizen could even comtemplate voting for him beggers belief, on that performance you wouldn't trust him with serving the fries at McDonalds nevermind the most powerful job on the planet.

What made it even worse was after the debate News24 interviewed David Frum, an ex speech writer for Bush, and the fukin spin he put on it was unbelievable and thats where the problem really lies in the US. Only 50 miilion people watched the debate while the other 200 million will have to make their minds up from what the media tells them and the spin that they will no doubt put on the outcome of the debate will make it seem as though Bush not only held his own but was the stronger candidate.

It's so f**ked up.

[wizer]

pushing your own agenda again CJ? tut tut tut

[salvadorescobar]

I stayed up to watch this but fell asleep 1/2 hour before it started and woke shortly after it finished!!

[4me2]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>Analysis: No knockout blow


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416><!-- S BO --><!-- S IBYL --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=416 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom width=58>
</TD><TD> </TD><TD vAlign=bottom width=348>By Rob Watson
BBC correspondent in Miami
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- E IBYL --><!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD> Iraq dominated the debate

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA -->The stakes in this debate were always higher for John Kerry. He is after all the challenger.

What he needed to do was show that intangible quality - to come across as being presidential.

He also had to make a critique of President George W Bush's foreign policy.

Mr Kerry was able to strike some serious blows against the president in his handling of the war in Iraq.

He charged that the war was poorly planned, and that it had been a distraction in the war on terrorism.

In general, when it came to a critique, Mr Kerry's point was that he would fight a smarter war on terrorism, a war that would be less upsetting to America's allies.

That was his theme throughout.

Even some of President Bush's supporters are likely to say that they would have liked to have seen him make a more convincing defence of his policies.

And after four years of being president, it is probably true that Mr Bush is not used to facing the kind of close-up criticism that Mr Kerry levelled at him.

The president is surrounded by people who are always telling him that he is the leader of the free world. It must have come as a bit of a shock.

But despite the pressure from Mr Kerry, the president didn't make any serious gaffes that could have left a serious opening for the challenger.

Passing the test

President Bush, after looking a little uncomfortable to start with, hit back.

He repeatedly stated that what was really needed in this war on terror was decisiveness, steadfastness, leadership.

The president also made the point that Mr Kerry had changed his position on Iraq, and sent mixed signals.

And although Mr Bush has had more successful debates, he didn't really fail the test.

The president has always been seen as a debater who relentlessly stays on message, and Thursday night was no exception.

His handlers will have been pleased that anyone watching those debates cannot have been in any doubt of his view: The war in Iraq was right; it was part of the war on terrorism; and that the other guy is unreliable.

Surgical attacks

Both men played the game that you expected them to play.

Mr Kerry launched surgical attacks against the president's handling of foreign policy. He showed his senatorial skills.

And Mr Bush played to his strengths by looking like a conviction politician.

In the end, neither one played above their game, and neither landed a knockout blow.

This debate was Mr Kerry's chance to keep himself in this race and possibly close the gap with President Bush.

Mr Kerry is definitely still a contender after the debate, but Mr Bush didn't make any serious mistakes. This leaves things pretty much where they were. <!-- E BO -->


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3706174.stm

[ABCMan]

i didnt get chance to see it however on the bbc this morning the general consensus was that most people already know that bush is a moron wheras kerry didnt exactly shine.

what was strange was that the bush campaign didnt cancel or ask for the debate to be moved as kerry had taken some time off campaigning to prepare for the debate, bush was out in florida visiting communities affected by the recent storms, so i would guess that a degree of tiredness could also have come into play.

if you follow cj's line then surely kerry should have been like a beacon of intelligence in comparison to gw's post frontal lobotomy gone wrong intelligence, the problem is he wasnt.

i was reading a piece on a cnn co-founders report to his company this morning that was quite interesting.

CNN Co-Founder Says Cable News Ratings Presage a Bush Victory


Last week's cable ratings showing Fox News Channel with 57.5 percent of the cable news audience and CNN with only 24.3 percent during primetime may be a predictor of a landslide Republican victory in November, CNN co-founder Reese Schonfeld said on his website Wednesday. Fox News Channel strongly appeals to conservatives and Republicans. "These are the worst numbers I've seen for John Kerry and far and away the worst numbers I've seen, so far, for CNN," Schonfeld said.

source : http://us.imdb.com/news/sb/#7 (at present although the story will move no doubt as imdb adds new stories)

[CzarJunkie]

iif you follow cj's line then surely kerry should have been like a beacon of intelligence in comparison to gw's post frontal lobotomy gone wrong intelligence, the problem is he wasnt.

How the f**k can you make a statement like that if you didn't watch the damn debate? I did watch the debate and Kerry did shine like a beacon of hope at the side of that numpty neo conservative tosser.

As I have long suspected you just repeat what the neo-conservative media tells you to instead of thinking for yourself. :|

[ABCMan]

How the f**k can you make a statement like that if you didn't watch the damn debate? I did watch the debate and Kerry did shine like a beacon of hope at the side of that numpty neo conservative tosser.

As I have long suspected you just repeat what the neo-conservative media tells you to instead of thinking for yourself. :|

as i long suspected, you dont actualy think before you spout your pro left drivel.

i got the information that kerry didnt shine not only from the same source as you watched it from but also from web, tv and online press reports all of which said that the outcome was pretty lackluster from BOTH sides even though the original broadcasters broke with their own broadcast rules in order to break the picture away from kerry whilst he was speaking to get a 'dumbfu(k' look from bush, in fact i can only think of 2 sources that praised kerry's performance, you and the kerry campaign.

the fact remains that everyone already knows what bush is like so seeing him acting dumb is not a suprise, kerry they dont know what to expect. can you possibly imagine in your pro left mind how far ahead the right wing would be if the republicans had a decent candidate? i have a feeling that the electorate will demonstrate how good they think kerry was in november (assuming that there isnt some bombshell relevation against either side).

[CzarJunkie]

as i long suspected, you dont actualy think before you spout your pro left drivel.

i got the information that kerry didnt shine not only from the same source as you watched it from but also from web, tv and online press reports all of which said that the outcome was pretty lackluster from BOTH sides even though the original broadcasters broke with their own broadcast rules in order to break the picture away from kerry whilst he was speaking to get a 'dumbfu(k' look from bush, in fact i can only think of 2 sources that praised kerry's performance, you and the kerry campaign.

the fact remains that everyone already knows what bush is like so seeing him acting dumb is not a suprise, kerry they dont know what to expect. can you possibly imagine in your pro left mind how far ahead the right wing would be if the republicans had a decent candidate? i have a feeling that the electorate will demonstrate how good they think kerry was in november (assuming that there isnt some bombshell relevation against either side).

Again, I ask how can you possibly comment on something you never even witnessed?

I can only imagine the kind of websites you visit for your news and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you haven't got a clue what the US political system is about, if for one second that you think US democratic politics are anywhere left of centre then again you show your ignorance of the subject and it is clear you just grab snippets of information from your dubious sources and just make the rest up as you go.

It totally confuses me the way you think, your politics and attitude are totally at odds with your status in life.

[ABCMan]

well i tend to get my news from .....

bbc, itn, sky, msnbc, cnn, shortnews, al arabia, the times of india, ananova for international / national stuff and my 2 local newspapers sites for local stuff, i also check a few other local papers for oldham, manchester and a few other regions in the uk for stories that dont make the nationals but might nevertheless be of some interest, i also use imdb's media news section.

i hope that is of some help.

as for anyones status in life i cant see what that has to do with having an independent mind or developing a kind of mentality that questions rather than simply following an expected line.

[CzarJunkie]

You should read the Wolfowitz Doctrine, this is a document written by Paul Wolfowitz, who as you no doubt know is no.2 to Donald Rumsfeld at the US Defense Dept.

This 'Doctrine' basically outlines the US's future role in the world as a whole and how by seizing control of the dwindling natural resources of this planet the US will fend off any attempt by any other nation to become a superpower either militarily or economically.

They are in effect looking to build an empire, they are looking to control what they consider to be the major and strategic areas of the world in an attempt to have influence over every nation.

As Europeans we are directly in the US's line of fire, the neo conservatives such as Wolfowitz, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney see Europe as a major threat to their plans for controlling the resources of oil and natural Gas, how far do you think they would go once the supplies start to run out, everyone knows oil has around 25-50 years to go tops. If there is no alternative found in that time do you think the US would share that oil with Europe?

The Wolfowitz Doctrine sets out in no uncertain terms that the US Administration is thinking purely in unilateral terms, they don't care what toes they have to tread on or who's noses they put out of joint.

Paul Wolfowitz also wrote that this empire building and move to gain hold in strategic positions around the globe should be done very slowly so as not to upset or marginalise local populations etc, unless there was some catastrophe which gave them the excuse to do it sooner. Just a few short years after writing that of course we had 9/11.

Also, here are some truly startling figures that may give you some idea of how unsustanable the US economy has become .

US Defense Budget : $400 billion a year (nearest rival is Russia spending $50 Billion)
US National Debt: $7 Trillion
Percentage of US National Debt Owed to non US concerns: 33%
The US National debt owed to other countries is more than all of the 3rd world debt put together.
Cost to US of contining occupation of Iraq: $2 billion a month

Economists in the US and even senators from his own Party are now saying that the US is effectivly bankrupt.


If after reading those facts and yes they are facts, you can still consider the Bush Administration worthy of being re-elected then you need help, serious help. You should also consider moving to the US and trying to get citizenship because come the end of Oil anyone outside the US is gonna be f**ked if Bush and his mates get their way.

[4me2]

This is getting personal and under the risk of getting deleted if it carries on in that direction.