Poll: Who won the 2nd Pres. Debate?

Both of them have spun the definition of the terms of engagement to their own brand of rhetoric.

The truth is the historical record of accomplishments and/or proposals as president or Senator.

IMO, The president favors business on the one hand and self-reliance of both the individual and the US government (in the world) on the other.

OTOH and IMO, the Senator is a social globalist and individuals are wanabee members of the cradle-to-grave UN run world government.

Strange that both are Skull and Crossbone brothers which was not even given honorable mention in or before or after the debates (or maybe I missed it).

The debates are showmanship for the most part.

IMO.

HankD

 

I agree Hank, according to FactCheck.org, both Bush and Kerry twisted the facts to try to smear the other candidate. Neither of them answered the questions, the debates were nothing more than scripted press conferences.

 

Does anyone remember what the democrats biggest criticism of how Bush senior handled the first Gulf war? They said that he didnt finish the job. Her left Hussein in power. Well along comes his son and finishes the job and the same ones are saying that he should have left him in power.

 

This was part of a blind trust set up while Bush was Governor of Texas.

 

From small businesses grow large businesses. Unless they're taxed out of business.

 

Bush's performance in the second debate was much better than his performance in the first debate. Kerry's performance in the second debate was not quite as good as his performance in the first debate.

However, Kerry's performance in both debates was very good. Bush's performance in the first debate made him look like a mentally deficient baboon; Bush's performance in the second debate made him look as though he might possibly be able to manage a small business as long as it did not deal in lumber . The United States of America, however, is NOT a small business .

 

Yes and too bad for us. Some of these legislations and bill proposals made by either of them require a degree in law to decipher.

Senator Kerry boasted that he was a lawyer.

Just what we need another lawyer as president (NOT).

Where are the statesmen and diplomats to stand in the gap for us and give us the raw truth and not orwellian legal gibberish?

HankD

 

Well, the claim is that Bush isn't good at the details, (like what companies he owns, or whether it was Saddam or Osama who attacked us), but he's good at the "big picture."

The Big Picture is that the economy is bad, we aren't going to be able to pay for Bush's lavish borrowing, and we're stuck in a quagmire in Iraq.

 

Isn't it about time that the America public not be subjected to these dog-and-pony shows called debates? Do they really change anyone's vote or help undecided voters make a decision? Election after election the candidates go after a good one-liner and the issues get ignored.

 

No we're not. That is a misrepresentation of what is actually going on Iraq. A few of the facts are apparently found here. You can also find the good news in other places, when you don't listen to Bush's enemies.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40844

 

This economy is outstanding. What are you smoking?! The recession is over! Look at what the experts say (http://www.techcentralstation.com/051304E.html)

And Iraq is definitely better than what the media says. My brother is stationed there now and I constantly hear he and other military people say that Iraq is not that big of a deal except in some small places.

Of course, Bush never said it would be easy. Kerry thought we should go and said Saddam was a threat...but he gets it both ways because of the partisan press.

Lee

 

But it may not stay that way. Any time there has been a sustained spike in the price of crude oil we have had a recession while the economy adjusts to the higher level. Unless the price of crude oil comes down soon, I see no way to avoid a major recession in 2005-2006. The result could very easily be a $1 trillion yearly federal budget deficit in 2006. And the result of this would be that whichever party is in control will get absolutely slaughtered at the polls in the midterm elections in 2006.

 

Ah, but there's a difference betwen "lumber" and "timber".

Just kidding, but Larry won't be.

 

Acutally, Factcheck.org has checked their own facts. Saying that Bush did not own a timber company.

See http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7232

 

That's the polite word for what we are really stuck in.

 

ONly you could come up with something so cynical and ridiculous. There is a difference between lumber and timber, as you should know. Timber is usually a reference to the trees or unprocessed wood. Lumber is what it is after it has been sawn to length and width.

But that would be a dumb distinction to make here. I can't imagine anyone would have thought of that. If you hadn't said it, I certianly wouldn't have. But then, I don't tend to think in those ways. I like to stick to facts and legitimate points.

 

I've forgotten more about lumber and timber than you'll ever know abou them.

It was a dumb distinction, but just for fun I figured I'd post it in jest before you posted it seriously.

Of course, you are superior in all ways.

 

You were certainly right about that!