The OAO 9/30 Presidential Debate Thread

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Football teams don't need stadiums that some colleges would be jealous of either. It's just not title IX, especially in Texas.

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

According to US Today/Gallup Bush's lead in the polls is all but gone after the debate.

 

I'm not the kind of guy to say "I told you so", but...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

pre-emptive reply to criticism of Gallup:

 

"Blaming Gallup because Bush is tanking is sad"

 

then again.. Gallup is probably in a conspiracy here.. they want to make it look like Bush is winning, because he is, then they stack it for Kerry, to try and discourage the massive landslide.

 

We'll see what the interals are.. but here's the swings in the last 2 weeks

 

LV-

Now: 49/49

Week ago: 52/44 Bush

2 weeks ago: 55/42 Bush

 

RV

Now: 49/47 Bush

Week ago: 54/41 Bush

2 weeks ago: 52/44 Bush

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, a 7 point swing in a week where Kerry, at best, barely won a debate?

 

Nothing questionable about THAT poll.

-=Mike

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

Yeah, a 7 point swing in a week where Kerry, at best, barely won a debate?

 

Nothing questionable about THAT poll.

-=Mike

Well, in YOUR eyes he barely won.

 

Most people I talked to thought Bush looked laughable.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Yeah, a 7 point swing in a week where Kerry, at best, barely won a debate?

 

Nothing questionable about THAT poll.

-=Mike

Blaming Gallup when Bush is tanking is sad.

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

 

"I'm a Jimmy Carter!"

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, a 7 point swing in a week where Kerry, at best, barely won a debate?

 

Nothing questionable about THAT poll.

                -=Mike

Blaming Gallup when Bush is tanking is sad.

Hold on to the dream. Kerry is still going down. Hard. Hell, Bush still leads in the states.

 

But, have fun holding on to all the faint glimmers of hope. Kerry simply gave the GOP worlds of ammo.

 

And it's kinda cute that 2 of his policies have already been shot down.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

 

"We butchered the Democrats present at the debate. We have taken a huge lead! Whenever we attack, they retreat. When we pound them with our substance, they retreat even deeper. But when we stopped pounding, they made up a poll for propaganda purposes! The Democrats are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Washington. Be assured, our lead is safe, protected"

 

"[Kerry]'s melting down. When he loses, you'll point to this also." - Mike, 8/21/04

 

"[Kerry]'s losing support quickly and it's only getting uglier. His campaign is progeressively looking less and less serious." - Mike, 9/9/04

 

"Somebody linked to intentionally planting stories to turn an election they're losing BADLY is worse than somebody covering up a 3rd rate burglary." - Mike, 9/21/04

 

"The Dems are simply working their ass off to explain why their guy tanked so royally in an election they mistakenly felt was in the bag." - Mike 9/21/04

 

"Blaming Gallup because Kerry is tanking is sad" - Mike, 9/29/04

 

"Kerry is STILL sucking eggs --- but a runaway election isn't fun for the news, so they want to make a competition where one does not exist." - Mike, 10/2/04

 

"Kerry is still going down. Hard. Hell, Bush still leads in the states." - Mike, 10/3/04

 

--

 

as for the policies. One would be Iran. The other would be..

 

I'd imagine that the Iranian denial doesn't mean that the talk of "He'd give them nukes" would stop"

 

as for the ammo.. yeah.. picking out one sentence and ignoring the rest of the statement is ammoriffic.

 

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.

 

I guess your countrymen means "I will cede all power to the UN and the French"

 

although it is interesting that Bush is concerned about how Kerry would be able to pay for stuff that would go to homeland security. Since it's more vital to keep a tax cut on the richest Americans than to help enhance the security of this nation

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

 

"I'm a Jimmy Carter!"

The highpoint for the CE Folder since I've been here.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

 

"I'm a Jimmy Carter!"

"It's Hard Work"

[Guest MikeSC]

The highpoint for the CE Folder since I've been here.

Praising your own lame-ass posts is just the saddest thing ever.

as for the policies. One would be Iran. The other would be..

Pursuing bilateral talks with N. Korea, which China has made more than abundantly clear that they do not like --- but, hey, as long as they're not French or German, ignoring them is peachy.

I guess your countrymen means "I will cede all power to the UN and the French"

Considering how prevalently summits and the UN were a part of his answers --- yup.

although it is interesting that Bush is concerned about how Kerry would be able to pay for stuff that would go to homeland security. Since it's more vital to keep a tax cut on the richest Americans than to help enhance the security of this nation

Even more ironic, since Bush actually pays more in taxes than the MARKEDLY wealthier Kerry.

-=Mike

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

The highpoint for the CE Folder since I've been here.

Praising your own lame-ass posts is just the saddest thing ever.

Nuh uh... THAT'S in your sig.

 

BTW, do you have sigs turned off?

[Guest MikeSC]

Man, who thought re-opening registration was a good idea?

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

as for the policies. One would be Iran. The other would be..

Pursuing bilateral talks with N. Korea, which China has made more than abundantly clear that they do not like --- but, hey, as long as they're not French or German, ignoring them is peachy.

via Time, http://www.time.com/time/election2004/arti...09071-2,00.html :

 

Actually, the Chinese would welcome direct U.S.-North Korea talks as a second forum for pressuring Pyongyang to drop its nuclear-weapons program. China offered to arrange such discussions during talks in Beijing in June among the so-called six parties: the U.S., North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. So why was Bush so adamant that bilateral talks would be a "big mistake"? He believes any unilateral concession, such as agreeing to Pyongyang's demand for bilaterals, weakens the U.S. position in nuclear-disarmament talks.

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6161107/site/newsweek/

 

And the president's response to Kerry's proposal for bilateral talks—Bush called it "a big mistake" and said China would drop out of the six-party talks—misstated Beijing's position. In fact, China has been urging Washington to sit down with the North Koreans.

 

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticl...47&section=news

 

Geoffrey Kemp of the Nixon Center, however, said Kerry "did a good job drawing attention to the flaws in American policy toward North Korea (and) pointing out that China and South Korea have no objections to U.S. bilateral meetings with the North."

 

I guess your countrymen means "I will cede all power to the UN and the French"

Considering how prevalently summits and the UN were a part of his answers --- yup.

 

"I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this president has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table. "

 

"I'm going to hold that summit. I will bring fresh credibility, a new start, and we will get the job done right."

 

"But this president hasn't even held the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those states. In fact, he's done the opposite. He pushed them away."

 

it's so obvious..

 

And the summit requirement is covered.. since the Arab Nations are having a summit, and there's a summit for people who want to donate stuff to something. Therefore, we don't need to have any new summits at all, because we're obviously having summits right now.

 

Even more ironic, since Bush actually pays more in taxes than the MARKEDLY wealthier Kerry.

 

The President gets $400K a year

Senators get $158,100 a year

 

When it comes to that income.. obviously Bush will pay more taxes.

 

And Kerry's wealth was manily though inheritence. Such as the trusts of his mother. That wouldn't be covered under the income tax. I'd imagine that it was taxed under the inheritence tax (which I'm pretty sure Kerry isn't in favor of reducing). I'd be interested to see if John Kerry is raking in the dough from anything else. Remember: Kerry did not combine his wealth with Teresa on their marriage.

 

Kerry, who would roll back the tax cut for those making over 200K (including himself, especially under the Presidential salary) is bad

 

Bush, who is doing the opposite, is good.

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

Man, who thought re-opening registration was a good idea?

-=Mike

John Kerry, because he is the Lord and Master of all that is evil.

[Guest MikeSC]

as for the policies. One would be Iran. The other would be..

Pursuing bilateral talks with N. Korea, which China has made more than abundantly clear that they do not like --- but, hey, as long as they're not French or German, ignoring them is peachy.

via Time, http://www.time.com/time/election2004/arti...09071-2,00.html :

 

Actually, the Chinese would welcome direct U.S.-North Korea talks as a second forum for pressuring Pyongyang to drop its nuclear-weapons program. China offered to arrange such discussions during talks in Beijing in June among the so-called six parties: the U.S., North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. So why was Bush so adamant that bilateral talks would be a "big mistake"? He believes any unilateral concession, such as agreeing to Pyongyang's demand for bilaterals, weakens the U.S. position in nuclear-disarmament talks.

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6161107/site/newsweek/

 

And the president's response to Kerry's proposal for bilateral talks—Bush called it "a big mistake" and said China would drop out of the six-party talks—misstated Beijing's position. In fact, China has been urging Washington to sit down with the North Koreans.

 

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticl...47§ion=news

That's, uh, NEWS to, well, CHINA. This is from an admittedly extremely biased source.

N Korea dogs Bush-Kerry debate

 

It was the first of three televised debates between the US candidates

US President George W Bush and presidential candidate John Kerry have clashed over how to handle the North Korean nuclear stand-off.

In a televised debate ahead of November elections, Mr Bush defended his six-nation talks approach while Mr Kerry backed bilateral talks with the North.

 

Both agreed the US' greatest security threat was nuclear proliferation.

 

Analysts believe Pyongyang is waiting to see who is the next US president before it makes its next move.

 

 

"I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table," said Mr Kerry.

 

Mr Bush responded: "I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is to have bilateral talks with North Korea. That's precisely what Kim Jong-il wants."

 

  He wants to unravel the six-party talks... that's sending (Kim Jong-il) a clear message

 

George Bush 

 

He argued that face to face talks between the US and North Korea would "unravel" the current framework, which brings pressure on Pyongyang from its traditional ally China, in addition to Japan, Russia, and South Korea, as well as the US.

 

"If Kim Jong-il decides not to honour an agreement, he's not only doing an injustice to America, he would be doing injustice to China as well. And I think this will work," said Mr Bush.

 

The current administration believes the bilateral approach taken by former President Bill Clinton gave too much to Pyongyang in exchange for too little.

 

But Mr Kerry argued that Mr Bush's approach was not working, and had given Pyongyang the time to build up its nuclear arsenal.

 

"Today there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea," he said.

 

Analysts believe Pyongyang may be waiting to see who will win the November elections before it makes its next move. It has refused to take part in a fourth round of six-nation talks which was planned for this month.

 

But US Secretary of State Colin Powell stressed on Thursday - after talks with his Chinese counterpart - that Washington was still committed to this mechanism.

 

"I'm quite confident that the six-part framework is a framework in which this matter will be dealt with for the foreseeable future, because it serves the interests of all parties," Mr Powell said.

 

He said that North Korea's neighbours in particular had "an even greater equity in seeing a denuclearised peninsula than does the United States".

 

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, standing at his side, said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem.

 

While acknowledging that there "were some complicating factors and new difficulties" that hampered the talks, Mr Li stressed that "nothing is more precious than peace".

 

He did not elaborate on what the "complicating factors" were.

 

Seoul's secret tests

 

The talks on the nuclear stand-off have been put on hold since Pyongyang made clear its dissatisfaction with Washington's stance.

 

Pyongyang has also been pressing for a full probe into South Korea's recent admission that its scientists had carried out secret nuclear experiments.

 

The nuclear stand-off intensified in 2002 when Washington accused Pyongyang of operating a nuclear weapons programme based on enriched uranium in violation of a 1994 agreement.

 

North Korea has denied running the uranium-based programme but its officials have recently said the country turned plutonium from 8,000 spent fuel rods into nuclear weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3705948.stm

Even more ironic, since Bush actually pays more in taxes than the MARKEDLY wealthier Kerry.

 

The President gets $400K a year

Senators get $158,100 a year

 

When it comes to that income.. obviously Bush will pay more taxes.

 

And Kerry's wealth was manily though inheritence. Such as the trusts of his mother. That wouldn't be covered under the income tax. I'd imagine that it was taxed under the inheritence tax (which I'm pretty sure Kerry isn't in favor of reducing). I'd be interested to see if John Kerry is raking in the dough from anything else. Remember: Kerry did not combine his wealth with Teresa on their marriage.

 

Kerry, who would roll back the tax cut for those making over 200K (including himself, especially under the Presidential salary) is bad

 

Bush, who is doing the opposite, is good.

According to Americans for Tax Relief, who actually have the ability to get these forms, in 2003, the Kerrys (COMBINED) --- you know, the ones running on the "soak the rich" mantra --- paid a whopping 12% in taxes. In fact, not ONCE have the Kerrys opted to pay the optional higher tax rate in MA. Not one single time.

 

Bush paid a shade over 28%.

-=Mike

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

So paying more taxes means Bush is a better choice for President... why?

[Guest MikeSC]

So paying more taxes means Bush is a better choice for President... why?

Well, it's good to see that your lack of substance in the debate discussion on Thursday wasn't a one-shot deal.

-=Mike

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

So paying more taxes means Bush is a better choice for President... why?

Well, it's good to see that your lack of substance in the debate discussion on Thursday wasn't a one-shot deal.

-=Mike

Hey, you're even better than Bush is at dodging questions.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

That's, uh, NEWS to, well, CHINA. This is from an admittedly extremely biased source.

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, standing at his side, said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem.

 

While acknowledging that there "were some complicating factors and new difficulties" that hampered the talks, Mr Li stressed that "nothing is more precious than peace".

So.. because they say the 6 nation talks are the best means that they won't do anything else.

 

That's convincing. Considering that the quotes I mentioned claimed the bilateral would be a second forum. But.. with proof like that.. damn..

 

in 2003, the Kerrys (COMBINED) --- you know, the ones running on the "soak the rich" mantra --- paid a whopping 12% in taxes.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4734048/

 

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry paid $90,575 in federal taxes on $395,338 in adjusted gross income last year, according to copies of his federal returns released Tuesday by his presidential campaign.

 

The federal tax bill amounted to about 23 percent of his income

 

(..)

 

The Massachusetts senator and presumed Democratic presidential nominee is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, heiress to the $500 million Heinz Co. food fortune. He files his income tax returns separately.

 

In fact, not ONCE have the Kerrys opted to pay the optional higher tax rate in MA. Not one single time.

 

Bush paid a shade over 28%.

 

Mike.. when you're taking stuff from the ATR site.. you could always mention it..

 

http://www.atr.org/pressreleases/2004/pr-k...axes-9-7-04.htm

 

"John Kerry wants other Americans to pay higher taxes while he and his wife manage to pay a rate lower than most of the middle class," said ATR President Grover Norquist. "Apparently, the Kerrys think everyone else should pay higher taxes but them."

 

hmm.. nothing tells me that Grover Norquist could be biased or possibly wrong. Nothing... at... all...

 

Why would Grover lie?

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I just realized onDemand has the whole debate on digital. I just turned it on, and Kery's first answer is right now. Kerry is just saying his usual stuff, but Bush seems unaware that the camera is on him. He looks really pissed. Unless it was strategy, which I doubt, b/c Republicans are usually pretty good at political strategy.

Bush's first response isn't too bad. It's also kind of the same thing, but his delivery wasn't too bad. He is saying the right things.

to also be fair, I mocked the "bush was tired from hurricane visit" excuse, but he does look kinda tired. Again no body's fault but his own, but yeah, he does seem tired.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You know, just because Warren Buffet says that the people on the low-end of the economic scale are getting screwed, doesn't mean that he doesn't take advantage of every perk and oppertunity offered to him, likely including ones he considers wrong.

[snuffbox 0]

So, with 'terruh/evildoersh' being Bush's main issue, and with the consensus aggreeing that this particular debate was either a draw or John Kerry victory...What are the predictions/thoughts on the upcoming domestic issues debate, the area where our President has struggled on?

 

I can see this being a huge victory for John Kerry, one that definitively sways the election...but Im not about to underestimate the debate skills of Bush(I do find at least a little merit in the Republicans' 'Hurricane victims causing emotional fatigue' reasoning).

 

And, of course, Mike and his pet goat GreatOne will probably agree that it will be 'another Bush win', or Kerry will cheat mightilly with heavy usage of smoke, mirrors, and grassy knolls...

[Guest MikeSC]

That's, uh, NEWS to, well, CHINA. This is from an admittedly extremely biased source.

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, standing at his side, said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem.

 

While acknowledging that there "were some complicating factors and new difficulties" that hampered the talks, Mr Li stressed that "nothing is more precious than peace".

So.. because they say the 6 nation talks are the best means that they won't do anything else.

 

That's convincing. Considering that the quotes I mentioned claimed the bilateral would be a second forum. But.. with proof like that.. damn..

 

in 2003, the Kerrys (COMBINED) --- you know, the ones running on the "soak the rich" mantra --- paid a whopping 12% in taxes.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4734048/

 

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry paid $90,575 in federal taxes on $395,338 in adjusted gross income last year, according to copies of his federal returns released Tuesday by his presidential campaign.

 

The federal tax bill amounted to about 23 percent of his income

 

(..)

 

The Massachusetts senator and presumed Democratic presidential nominee is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, heiress to the $500 million Heinz Co. food fortune. He files his income tax returns separately.

 

In fact, not ONCE have the Kerrys opted to pay the optional higher tax rate in MA. Not one single time.

 

Bush paid a shade over 28%.

 

Considering that multilateral talks would be the best option and bilateral talks ON TOP of that would only serve to override the multilateral talks (since N. Kores wants those more and have already proven themselves to be untrustworthy...)

 

But, hey, I'm sure they'll be honest THIS time.

Mike.. when you're taking stuff from the ATR site.. you could always mention it..

 

http://www.atr.org/pressreleases/2004/pr-k...axes-9-7-04.htm

 

"John Kerry wants other Americans to pay higher taxes while he and his wife manage to pay a rate lower than most of the middle class," said ATR President Grover Norquist. "Apparently, the Kerrys think everyone else should pay higher taxes but them."

 

hmm.. nothing tells me that Grover Norquist could be biased or possibly wrong. Nothing... at... all...

 

Why would Grover lie?

When you can't dispute the claim, attack the messenger.

 

More of the usual.

-=Mike

...Theresa COULD release her tax forms for this year -- but she doesn't want to. The Kerrys are big on not releasing all forms about issues involving them, aren't they?

[Guest MikeSC]

That's, uh, NEWS to, well, CHINA. This is from an admittedly extremely biased source.

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, standing at his side, said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem.

 

While acknowledging that there "were some complicating factors and new difficulties" that hampered the talks, Mr Li stressed that "nothing is more precious than peace".

So.. because they say the 6 nation talks are the best means that they won't do anything else.

 

That's convincing. Considering that the quotes I mentioned claimed the bilateral would be a second forum. But.. with proof like that.. damn..

 

in 2003, the Kerrys (COMBINED) --- you know, the ones running on the "soak the rich" mantra --- paid a whopping 12% in taxes.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4734048/

 

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry paid $90,575 in federal taxes on $395,338 in adjusted gross income last year, according to copies of his federal returns released Tuesday by his presidential campaign.

 

The federal tax bill amounted to about 23 percent of his income

 

(..)

 

The Massachusetts senator and presumed Democratic presidential nominee is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, heiress to the $500 million Heinz Co. food fortune. He files his income tax returns separately.

 

In fact, not ONCE have the Kerrys opted to pay the optional higher tax rate in MA. Not one single time.

 

Bush paid a shade over 28%.

 

Considering that multilateral talks would be the best option and bilateral talks ON TOP of that would only serve to override the multilateral talks (since N. Kores wants those more and have already proven themselves to be untrustworthy...)

 

But, hey, I'm sure they'll be honest THIS time.

Mike.. when you're taking stuff from the ATR site.. you could always mention it..

 

http://www.atr.org/pressreleases/2004/pr-k...axes-9-7-04.htm

 

"John Kerry wants other Americans to pay higher taxes while he and his wife manage to pay a rate lower than most of the middle class," said ATR President Grover Norquist. "Apparently, the Kerrys think everyone else should pay higher taxes but them."

 

hmm.. nothing tells me that Grover Norquist could be biased or possibly wrong. Nothing... at... all...

 

Why would Grover lie?

When you can't dispute the claim, attack the messenger.

 

More of the usual.

-=Mike

...Theresa COULD release her tax forms for this year -- but she doesn't want to. The Kerrys are big on not releasing all forms about issues involving them, aren't they?

[Guest GreatOne]

So, with 'terruh/evildoersh' being Bush's main issue, and with the consensus aggreeing that this particular debate was either a draw or John Kerry victory...What are the predictions/thoughts on the upcoming domestic issues debate, the area where our President has struggled on?

 

I can see this being a huge victory for John Kerry, one that definitively sways the election...but Im not about to underestimate the debate skills of Bush(I do find at least a little merit in the Republicans' 'Hurricane victims causing emotional fatigue' reasoning).

 

And, of course, Mike and his pet goat GreatOne will probably agree that it will be 'another Bush win', or Kerry will cheat mightilly with heavy usage of smoke, mirrors, and grassy knolls...

I'm not sure that a NASA scientist would be able to figure out where I actually said Bush won.

 

Then again I'm sure it's worse than the Kerry blowout bandwagon snuff, Jobber and co are on somehow......................

[Guest MikeSC]

That's, uh, NEWS to, well, CHINA. This is from an admittedly extremely biased source.

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, standing at his side, said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem.

 

While acknowledging that there "were some complicating factors and new difficulties" that hampered the talks, Mr Li stressed that "nothing is more precious than peace".

So.. because they say the 6 nation talks are the best means that they won't do anything else.

 

That's convincing. Considering that the quotes I mentioned claimed the bilateral would be a second forum. But.. with proof like that.. damn..

 

in 2003, the Kerrys (COMBINED) --- you know, the ones running on the "soak the rich" mantra --- paid a whopping 12% in taxes.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4734048/

 

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry paid $90,575 in federal taxes on $395,338 in adjusted gross income last year, according to copies of his federal returns released Tuesday by his presidential campaign.

 

The federal tax bill amounted to about 23 percent of his income

 

(..)

 

The Massachusetts senator and presumed Democratic presidential nominee is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, heiress to the $500 million Heinz Co. food fortune. He files his income tax returns separately.

 

In fact, not ONCE have the Kerrys opted to pay the optional higher tax rate in MA. Not one single time.

 

Bush paid a shade over 28%.

 

Considering that multilateral talks would be the best option and bilateral talks ON TOP of that would only serve to override the multilateral talks (since N. Kores wants those more and have already proven themselves to be untrustworthy...)

 

But, hey, I'm sure they'll be honest THIS time.

Mike.. when you're taking stuff from the ATR site.. you could always mention it..

 

http://www.atr.org/pressreleases/2004/pr-k...axes-9-7-04.htm

 

"John Kerry wants other Americans to pay higher taxes while he and his wife manage to pay a rate lower than most of the middle class," said ATR President Grover Norquist. "Apparently, the Kerrys think everyone else should pay higher taxes but them."

 

hmm.. nothing tells me that Grover Norquist could be biased or possibly wrong. Nothing... at... all...

 

Why would Grover lie?

When you can't dispute the claim, attack the messenger.

 

More of the usual.

-=Mike

...Theresa COULD release her tax forms for this year -- but she doesn't want to. The Kerrys are big on not releasing all forms about issues involving them, aren't they?

[Guest MikeSC]

So, with 'terruh/evildoersh' being Bush's main issue, and with the consensus aggreeing that this particular debate was either a draw or John Kerry victory...What are the predictions/thoughts on the upcoming domestic issues debate, the area where our President has struggled on?

A "draw"? Wow, listening to some people --- it was a floor-mopping of Bush the likes of which the world has never seen.

I can see this being a huge victory for John Kerry, one that definitively sways the election...but Im not about to underestimate the debate skills of Bush(I do find at least a little merit in the Republicans' 'Hurricane victims causing emotional fatigue' reasoning).

Because "draws" in debates OFTEN turn elections totally around.

And, of course, Mike and his pet goat GreatOne will probably agree that it will be 'another Bush win', or Kerry will cheat mightilly with heavy usage of smoke, mirrors, and grassy knolls...

Provided Kerry doesn't punch a child, there is no way you'll view it anything less than a draw, even if he is slaughtered.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Considering that multilateral talks would be the best option and bilateral talks ON TOP of that would only serve to override the multilateral talks (since N. Kores wants those more and have already proven themselves to be untrustworthy...)

 

But, hey, I'm sure they'll be honest THIS time.

"Multilateral is the best option" equals "China will end the talks if we do anything else" in your world.

 

When you can't dispute the claim, attack the messenger.

 

Does this messenger have anything more than a press release that they can use as proof of their claim?

 

Does his messenger have ties to Bush?

 

Would someone tied to Bush have any possible reason to bash Kerry?

 

I guess since every messenger has credibility, it's time to find as many crazy slimeballs as possible to claim stuff about Bush. And also, James Carville too. And then people will attack them, instead of their "true until proven otherwise" claims.

 

Theresa COULD release her tax forms for this year

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/teresa.kerry/

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/release...2004_0511b.html

 

she could..

 

then you'd find something else that you'd want released, and so on, and so on

 

somewhere in this timeframe, you might realize that John and Teresa file seperate returns. But, that's unlikely